[ Page 10937 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

The Agricultural Land Commission and its function. Mr. De Jong –– 10937

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Savage

Preventing environmental damage. Mr. Cashore –– 10939

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

British Columbia and the national deficit. Mrs. McCarthy –– 10941

Mr. Clark

Tobacco abuse: time for action. Mr. Perry –– 10943

Hon. J. Jansen

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10946

Mr. Miller

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the consul general of Belgium and Mrs. Michel Delfosse, along with their family, are here today on a farewell visit to Victoria. Mr. Delfosse, who was posted to Vancouver in 1988, will be returning next month to a new assignment in Brussels. When I was Speaker of the Legislature I had the distinct pleasure of meeting the Delfosses as they accompanied their ambassador on his first official visit to Victoria. Would my colleagues please join me in bidding a warm au revoir to Michel and Annie Delfosse.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
AND ITS FUNCTION

MR. DE JONG: It's a pleasure for me to rise on this beautiful summer morning, when all the farmers are out busy in the fields, gathering in the crops and cultivating the fields and whatever — else they may be doing. I want to speak a bit about the Land Commission that administers the British Columbia land reserve.

First of all, I would like to read the mission statement of the Agricultural Land Commission from the annual report we received not so long ago. It has three basic points: "...to preserve for British Columbia the lands which are useful to its agriculture industry, to assist with the development of agricultural land use planning; and to encourage farming through proper land use management, and to provide associated advisory services to British Columbia's government, the public and the farming community."

The main point is that oftentimes commissions — particularly those of a long-term nature — become a growing bureaucracy. The bureaucracy often tends to get tunnel vision. And yes, from the city dweller's point of view, the land reserve is an excellent idea. It provides for an assured and guaranteed food supply; or perhaps it provides the city dweller with an enjoyable Sunday afternoon drive through the countryside. The real question I have, though, is this: is the Land Commission really fulfilling its role, or is it there to satisfy the planners — and those who enjoy the produce at competitive prices — and to further the bureaucracy of the commission? What is the function and for whom is the function provided? Where is the farmer in all of this? Is the farmer really considered in the framework of the operations of the commission?

With its land base of about 11 million acres, the land reserve was instituted some 18 years ago. Production has increased dramatically from that 11 million acres, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by the Land Commission as such.

Does the commission really provide a service when a fast-growing town in an agricultural area has to wait eight months for an answer to an application to expand the townsite and provide additional housing, schools, and everything that belongs to a growing community?

The farmer is quite comfortable, you might say, with the Land Commission and the land reserve in many respects, but the farmer is equally dependent on economic growth. Economic growth for the farming community lies basically in the expansion of markets. The farmer is responding to three types of markets, but the best market is the home-based market — the British Columbia market. Further to that, we have the Canadian market and the foreign markets.

Government has often been criticized, and particularly over the establishment of the Environment and Land Use Committee, for having taken land out of the reserve for townsite expansion. But surely to goodness, if we don't allow towns to expand, who are we kidding, and who are we serving? All we're really doing, if towns are not allowed to expand, is driving up the land prices within those townsites so that it becomes impossible for those who need a house and cannot afford it because of the high lot prices. Secondly, we're not providing a service, in my opinion at least, to the agricultural community, which is looking for growth in produce and in markets.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of British Columbia have proven many times over that they can in fact provide a good product. The processing companies have proven that out of that product, they can make some very.... In fact, first-class prizes have often been achieved by the various processors for products which have been grown in British Columbia.

In my opinion, the way to have a good, functioning Land Commission is not the present procedures they are following. We must allow towns to expand, whether they are in an agricultural community or not. We have to have a growing market, and we should allow for economic growth wherever that may be in this province. I believe that applications for expansion for towns or, for that matter, for exclusion from the ALR should have more input by and recognition of local government in the process of approval or disapproval.

MR. ROSE: I am very interested, as I always am, in the comments of the hon. member from the Fraser Valley as he plunges forward into the nineteenth century. He asks for towns to have more influence on decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission. The very reason we have an Agricultural Land Commission is that the towns couldn't resist the blandishments of developers.

Before 1972, we unfortunately had a whole series of rare birds on councils called the round-heel pushovers, and these round-heel pushovers would wilt any time a developer came around in an attempt to

[ Page 10938 ]

expand the town. 'We gotta get development, you know. We gotta go places with this town. We gotta put this town on the map." The reason we have a Land Commission is that only 4 percent of our province is really agricultural land. It's vanishing at an alarming rate: we've lost 60,000 acres since we've had appeals to ELUC from communities. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) well knows what has happened to the Land Commission over the years.

I know the situation in the hon. member's case is quite different. He belongs to what amounts to a farmers' union. He amounts to a marketing board. He has a monopoly on production and sales and marketing— and he's doing fine, thank you very much. As a matter of fact, his own commission He was appointed by the Premier, who wanted to get rid of marketing boards because he thought that they were not free-enterprising enough. He wanted to get out of the national marketing plan so Quebec and Ontario and all the other places that overproduce can dump all kinds of products in here. But his own commission....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the response from the opposition should bear a little more along the lines of the statement made by the member, rather than digressing into what I find very interesting but terribly out of order; that is, to discuss milk marketing. I think the member's statement was about the Agricultural Land Commission and its function, and not necessarily about the marketing of various agricultural products.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really value that advice, and your very refined intervention here. Some people, of course, have sequential thought processes; others, like me, tend to be more scat-illogical....

AN HON. MEMBER: At random.

MR. ROSE: Or at random.

The point I was trying to make is one that the member tried to make: if you have established markets you can have a viable agricultural industry. I was trying to explain why he was in that very favourable position of having his own market guaranteed by the public. And he likes that position.

As far as the expansion is concerned, what we've done now is make the Land Commission far too political, and the appeals are far too political. We would like to see the Land Commission have the independence it had in the beginning. If appeals are needed — and, sure, there are examples where you have to have exclusions; nobody doubts that one iota — we shouldn't have it go through a political process in private, in camera at the ELUC. That's the position that I would take for my party.

[10:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I wish to respond to the points made by the hon. member from the Central Fraser Valley. The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission and the commissioners is obviously based on the act; they have to live within the constraints of the definitions and of the regulations within the act. It states very clearly that their mandate is to make decisions relative to soil capabilities, etc.

Let me assure the hon. member that they do work very closely with most of the municipalities and regional districts throughout this province. They do a good job of discussing community plans. They come forward with the different communities, whether it's for agricultural land or even for planning purposes, to look where future growth might take place. The Land Commission has made itself available to meet with municipalities. It doesn't matter where; they have travelled throughout the province on occasion.

MR. DE JONG: I am pleased to respond to some of the comments that have been made. First of all, to the opposition House Leader, I would like to say that if I, as a member of this House duly elected to represent my community, am not allowed to speak on a subject matter that my family is involved with — namely, dairy farming — then I think this House is in a pretty pathetic state.

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG: That's what you alluded to, hon. member.

In the past week we've heard over national television the passionate plea from our Prime Minister to return to reducing the world subsidies to agriculture. Was it really a plea to reduce the world subsidies — to agriculture in particular — or was it a justification for the cancellation of some of the essential programs that were initially provided by our federal government to agriculture so that it could be sustained and improved, such as all the loans at low cost to provide those essential needs to agricultural land?

Another one is the antiquated Farm Credit Corporation, where at the present time a farmer has to pay higher interest rates than anywhere else.

So what about a farmer within the agricultural land reserve: is he really looked after? What about the efforts of the conference of first ministers of the four western provinces, which is going to be held in the next little while? I would hope that the first priority would not be fed-bashing or to get a better level of service from the federal government — although it's important — but to level the playing-field within our four western provinces on agriculture policies.

Equally important is a level playing-field in assistance programs to agriculture-related industries, because this is one of the real problems. The problem is that small agriculture-related industries are going to be wiped out if the present trend continues by the big multinationals, which seem to have a better way of getting started in this country.

Who is eventually going to pay the price for this? The consumer, Mr. Speaker. And where is the farmer

[ Page 10939 ]

going be? He's going to be sitting on his land preserved by the general public and the governments collectively.

But it's not too late. As government, I believe we have faith in our land and in our farmers. I believe that with a collective effort with the financial institutions

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I don't believe — and neither does my party — that farmers should be frozen into poverty. That's not the position we're taking. But if I've personally offended the hon. member, because I know he is sincere....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must listen to one point of order at a time. I am going to listen to the opposition House Leader, and then I'll listen to the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

MR. ROSE: I rose to my feet to say that if I've offended the hon. member in some way by referring to his family business, I apologize for it.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was that the hon. House Leader for the opposition is entering into more debate, which was really not a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the matter has been settled.

PREVENTING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this morning the public, especially the environmental community, had every reason for great expectations, given the long list of dates promised on which the list of polluters in this province would be released. These great expectations can only be met with a great feeling of being underwhelmed by this non-event. This was a news conference where the Minister of Environment (Hon Mr. Reynolds) did nothing more than manipulate for public relations purposes. There is no information there that can be useful to the environmental community, to those who so need it: people like Prof. Murray Rankin and the people from West Coast Environmental Law.

What the minister has released this morning is a controlled list — and an incomplete one. It's willy-nilly. There's no rhyme or reason to what is contained in that list. The minister decides at the political level what is going to be released to the public. The public has managed information coming out, and that is inappropriate.

There's a remedy for this, Mr. Speaker, and that is to have freedom-of-information legislation in this province. It's a remedy which this province steadfastly refuses, because they do not want to endure the embarrassment of having that information get out. And when the minister says in response to questions from reporters that he cannot release the complete list because some cases are before the courts or under investigation, his reasons are hollow. With freedom of information, there would be an independent adjudicator who would decide what information could go out; and we would have the benefit of an arms-length process in which the information that the public so needs would be made available in an appropriate way. Then we would not necessarily be receiving a hodgepodge list that's not in any order and that people find more confusing than helpful. There's no indication of who will be charged and who will receive administrative penalties, and it does not say by how much the polluters exceed their permits.

Also, there's no new classification system — a system promised by Deputy Minister Richard Dalon in Glen Bohn's May 14 article. Yet when we find out that some of the polluters on the list are actually in compliance with their permits, such as the Port Alberni mill, we have to wonder what on earth is wrong with the system, when it is decided who is in compliance and who isn't. The system and the standards are so out of date that they have become meaningless. For instance, it states that the MacMillan Bloedel mill at Port Alberni meets the current waste management permit; however, there is an indication that lower discharge limits are required to protect the inlet. It's a tacit admission, Mr. Speaker, that the permit standards are inadequate, and that the permitting process itself is therefore called into question by this government's own admission, by having released the names of permits in compliance, yet where the government recognizes that there are serious environmental problems.

There is nothing in this announcement dealing with the fact that there are only 130 conservation officers to deal with all the wildlife and pollution concerns throughout this vast province. That is simply inappropriate, Mr. Speaker.

There are still no regulations covering spill reporting, which are necessary to make the legislation effective. It's not good enough to simply say in some permits that spills must be reported; it must either be legislated or be in the regulations. Those regulations are still not present, and therefore spills still happen without any teeth in the laws to require reporting. Therefore that part of the law is impotent.

We still have the problem of self-monitoring, where the government leaves so much of the monitoring to the polluters that we do not get the information with the test of independence that is so necessary.

The fact is that this minister has come into this ministry in the desperate hope of this government that he will bring forward a new approach to protecting the environment. But it's business as usual; nothing has really changed.

This minister has perhaps learned that his invitation to the media to come and eat crab in Howe Sound was a bit overstated. But the fact is that he hasn't changed. There are a few more charges that

[ Page 10940 ]

have been laid, and a few more fines have been levied, but 60 percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing. It's not enough to result in any type of deterrent, and it's the same old public relations game.

This minister hasn't changed; this government hasn't changed. It's the same old approach, and that approach is to protect the polluter and fail to protect the environment. It's the approach of advocating for the polluter instead of advocating for the environment.

We have put forward methods and measures that can be taken which will begin to deal with this serious problem. We know that when we look at some of the things that have happened in this province — for instance, on December 1, 1988....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Standing order 25A(5) deals with private members' statements: "Private members' statements shall not be subject to amendment, adjournment or vote." Then it says the following: "Statements and discussions under this standing order shall be confined to one matter — which your statement clearly has not been — "shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session — which, again, your statement clearly has already violated, because this matter has been discussed — and "shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House. .." In that case, your statement doesn't matter.

The difficulty with private members' statements is that the Chair has only the title of the statement to know what's being discussed; but clearly your statement today is a condensed version of the minister's estimates. Since the estimates of the Minister of Environment have already been canvassed, I must say that I find your statement out of order. Having said that, I'll ask the Minister of Environment to try to respond, bearing in mind the standing orders which this House has adopted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I did have a prepared text from my staff, but I think I'll just put it aside and talk about some of the issues the member talked about. He talks about manipulating. I can't help but think that a party over there which would release private telephone conversations to the public and wants to talk about manipulating Over there is the party which wants to have everybody's private phone listened to by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and to release the tapes to the public. There's no more privacy in this country. That's the party. Oh, they're getting excited now.

MR. SPEAKER: As expected, I have a point of order.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it clearly is a violation of the standing order, and even more in violation than the one on which you made the previous ruling.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I had anticipated that. Perhaps we could actually ask the members to confine their remarks to those issues which we are currently charged with discussing under the private member's statement. "Preventing Environmental Damage" was the title of the statement. The statement appeared to me to be a Reader's Digest condensation of the minister's estimates. I'll ask the minister to respond in a reasonably concise manner and not discuss the business of other estimates.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I was just leading up to a point. I certainly wouldn't want to violate the member's topic, which is "Preventing Environmental Damage." I can't help but think when I look at the party across the hall and they talk about preventing environmental damage I'm reading from one of their releases put out by the leader of the official opposition on parliamentary stationery. It's regarding the environment, and it's headlined: "Our Environment, Our Health and Our Children's Future." It says: "Environment minister" — blank, blank — "says that it's okay to eat crab from Howe Sound, an area now closed to fishing because of toxic pulp mill pollution. What does it take to get the Socred government to even admit they've got a serious pollution problem?"

That Leader of the Opposition, who talks about integrity in government and the integrity of his party, knows that statement is not true. It's a false statement. Howe Sound is not closed to fishing; it's closed to commercial crabbing. It's open to private crabbing and commercial prawning. Yet that statement on government stationery, possibly paid for at government expense — which I don't mind; every party has a right to do that — sends out false information for political reasons.

That member over there wants to talk about manipulating. He talked about a controlled list. I can tell him the list is not controlled and not political. It's done by my staff, a staff of whom he publicly says, "Oh, they do a great job, " but sideways he wants to knock them. I congratulated my staff this morning. That is a complete list; there's nothing hidden.

He says there's no indication of who will be charged. I told the press, I told him — and I've told him many times before — that this department and the Attorney-General's department do not work at odds with each other. They do the job of charging and taking it through the court system. That will be their job. Those lists are published every day. When somebody is charged, a release goes out. When somebody is convicted, a release goes out. It's not secret information. It's available to the public and to that member every day.

He talked about details on the list. As I explained to the press, if we were to give them the full details on every charge, we'd have a stack this high. We listed the polluters. I told the media and this member that anytime they want to talk to my staff and get the details, they are quite free to do so.

Mr. Speaker, talk about Howe Sound. Let me tell the member over there, as he knows, that because of

[ Page 10941 ]

the tough position we've taken, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper is spending $1 billion, and $100 million out of that is on pollution. They've just completed some tests on crabs. When the levels were closed in those areas, they were 141.2 parts per trillion in the muscle samples of crab; the latest tests are showing 4.4 parts per trillion. That's a great reduction, because there are no more dioxins going in that water. The tests also show that in the pancreas of the crabs, where the levels were 1,442 parts per trillion, the levels are now 123 parts per trillion. That's because of the tough action taken by this government and the good cooperation by the corporations in this province that are working to solve the pollution problems.

It's unfortunate when I have to sit here and listen to that member on the other side get up and espouse his party's position on the environment. It's the same old story.

MR. CASHORE: The minister chose to go off on a tangent instead of responding to the points that were being made, and that's most unfortunate. If the minister was responding to the issue, he would be going about it in a much different way. He knows that he's going to have the point raised that it is not a completely open and objective process. He knows that if there was an independent adjudicator who was deciding on what information went out and in what form, he would then not be in the bind that he's in. He doth protest too much, Mr. Speaker.

He failed to comment on the fact that there are only 130 conservation officers in the entire province He didn't even mention that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must interrupt you again. I chastised you at the end of your first opening statement for being out of order, and that part of your statement is out of order. You must confine yourself to one matter. These other matters have already been canvassed during the discussion of the estimates of the minister. So on that basis I would ask you to confine your statement.

MR. CASHORE: In response to some of the points that the minister was making with regard to Howe Sound, just to set the record straight, it was on December 1, 1988 that portions of Howe Sound, Morse Basin and Prince Rupert were closed to shellfishing — and that is fishing — after federal dioxin testing. On December 6, 1989, the federal government released preliminary testing of B.C. salmon, pointing out that juvenile salmon near Quesnel showed high levels of toxins and that a number of other salmon showed significant levels. So on June 15, 1989, the December federal shellfish closures were extended to include crab, shrimp and prawn in nearly all of Howe Sound and shellfish in Porpoise Harbour and the coast island area surrounding Prince Rupert. The minister does say that Howe Sound is being cleaned up. But how long does it take to clean up the legacy of pollution that exists in all these areas?

On November 23, 1989, after more extensive testing, the federal government closed large areas throughout the province to commercial shellfish harvesting — prawns, shrimp, clams, crabs and oysters — and issued health advisory warnings to recreational and native fisherman. The areas that were affected were Kitimat estuary; the Crofton pulp mill area; the Elk Falls-Campbell River area; the Gold River mill area; the Powell River mill area; the Harmac mill area, which is Nanaimo Harbour and south for several kilometres; Cowichan Bay, even though there's no pulp mill nearby; and Prince Rupert. Further closures include all of Morse and Wainwright basins and extensive additional areas closed to shrimp fishing.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND
THE NATIONAL DEFICIT

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my subject today is about the economy and the future prospects for the economy of British Columbia. Who would have thought just three or four years ago that the gross domestic product for British Columbia would have been up from $62.3 billion in '87 to $74.9 billion in '89? Who would have thought that the provincewide unemployment rate under this government could have dropped to a 7.3 percent actual rate as of June 1990 and that the unemployment rate figure for Vancouver metro for the month of May 1990 was 6 percent, compared to an overall rate of just over 10 percent in Vancouver for 1986, when this government first took office? Who would have thought that within the short period of this government's administration, the total value of building permits for the city of Vancouver could have grown from $468.8 million in '86 to the first billion-dollar year in 1989, with expectations that 1990 will also see that kind of expenditure?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I love to talk about Expo 86, that great tourism year for British Columbia. That year was planned and accomplished by this Social Credit administration — I might say, against the wishes of the then Vancouver mayor. That year brought 18.9 million people into British Columbia. The official tourism figures for 1988 exceeded that, and so will the figures for 1989. That's a very good record by anybody's standard. In fact, we have broken records in British Columbia in every economic indicator one can mention.

However, there are some recent suggestions that all is not well on the economic front in Canada. We read of decreases of Canadian housing starts, which in turn have had a disastrous effect on furniture sales, retail sales and manufacturing. We've experienced a decrease in housing sales in British Columbia, and we all look at the rising interest rates with a cautious eye. This is happening at a time when a successful program of diversification, concentration on Pacific Rim trade, recognition of free trade and the opportunity that presents position British Columbia in an enviable position in world trade, with probably

[ Page 10942 ]

more ability to provide jobs in a changing workplace than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

One only has to look at the impact of the federal government's fiscal policies to know that British Columbia — indeed, no province in Canada — is not master in its own house. Our nation's fiscal picture is dismally poor; and what is worse, there appears to be no strategy or commitment to save generations of Canadians from crushing indebtedness, inflation and devalued currency. This massive debt saps our ability to sustain the social programs which are a part of our lifestyle in British Columbia and across this nation, and which Canadians are not only proud of but that we have come to expect in this province and in this nation: security for old age, health and assistance to those in need.

Ask yourself how secure the seniors' security program is in the next five years, given that our national debt is approximately $360 billion, with costs in interest rates in this year alone well over $40 billion. Ask yourself how secure our health services will be in the next five years as more and more of the national income will be needed to pay for 'this runaway debt, which will very likely double before the year 2000. What a legacy for the next century!

For almost 40 years British Columbia has always been able to deliver a standard of living to our citizens that has been the envy of our nation and of many other countries. That standard and that sense of security is now being threatened by the monetary policies of the federal administration. It is surely time for those of us in this Legislature to protest on behalf of the future of those needed programs and of the very economic future of our province.

I'm going to suggest that every provincial legislature across this nation has to offer solutions. British Columbia should be in the forefront of that initiative, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. British Columbia must demand a plan of action from Ottawa. We need to declare war on the national debt. We in British Columbia should offer, along with every provincial government, a list of items that have been promised by the federal government.... Some were asked for by provincial administrations, and each jurisdiction must now realize that we simply cannot afford them.

Capital projects should be re-examined and even put on hold for five years, and evaluated at the end of that time in relation to the debt position of the country at that time. The provinces of Canada all have a stake in the nation's economic health and should cooperate by offering savings on promised capital projects and some services as well. The federal government should cut its expenses and be an example to all public bodies in the nation. We can take absolutely no comfort at all from the comments made by our federal administration that they have cut the fat out of the system, because many examples prove the opposite.

The people of Canada should be spared further inflationary policies that could be halted, specifically the goods and services tax, which economists say will increase inflation by nearly 3 percent in the first year of implementation. All British Columbians have a stake in the future of our nation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired.

[10:45]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should begin with British Columbia, as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain did. Yes, there has been a recovery In British Columbia in the last few years. Unfortunately, what has happened is that we are seeing very serious structural problems in the B.C. economy which must be dealt with now. We had a recession in the early eighties, made worse by the Bill Bennett administration, of which that member was a minister; it drove the economy down even further. The recovery has been uneven across British Columbia.

Yes, Vancouver has a 6 percent unemployment rate, but the unemployment rate in Nelson, Kamloops and Penticton is almost double that. Single-industry towns in this province that are dependent on resources have double the unemployment rate of Vancouver. If and when we move into a recession again, those towns will be devastated by unemployment.

Right now is the time to embark upon an aggressive program for diversification to deal with the structural problems in the B.C. economy. It's not good enough that just Vancouver and the lower mainland are getting exactly the kind of dramatic growth we've seen. We must now put our minds to building the rest of British Columbia, to expanding trade with the Asia-Pacific, to looking for opportunities around the world for diversification inside British Columbia, for import substitution, for building the regional economies which have been neglected by this administration.

I agree with the member that we have a very serious problem at the national level and we have a serious debt problem at the national level, and that's why, on this side of the House, none of us went out and worked for this Conservative administration. But where were all the Social Credit members? How much money did you give, hon. member, to the Tory party? How much money did those members give over there? Did they go out and canvass for them? Did they endorse Conservative candidates? Yes, they did, because they're kissing cousins with the Tories. They're one and the same. They have the same ideology; they have the same beliefs; they have the same party membership; they're the same people.

The Tories have driven this country right into the ground in terms of the debt. What has happened to the debt in six or seven years of Conservative Party administration? Under the Tories, the national debt has doubled — and we all know the Liberals were incompetent. Now they want to bring in a GST to make the average people pay for their mismanagement. That's what has happened.

They have cut taxes to corporations, just like this administration, and raised them on working people, just like this administration — exactly the same ideology, exactly the same agenda provincially and nation-

[ Page 10943 ]

ally. The debt in British Columbia is still too high — $16 billion in total. The national debt is still too high.

Aside from cutting taxes on corporations, the principal cause of the deficit problem and debt problem at the national level is interest rates. And where has this government been? Oh, yes, once in a while they stand up and say interest rates are too high.

We know they supported the free trade agreement. We know that the federal government is concerned about the Canadian dollar, that there's some kind of arrangement that worries about the Canadian dollar; that's partly why interest rates are kept high. We know that interest rates are kept artificially high. The spread between Canada and the United States has never been as high as it is today under the Conservative administration.

We need leadership, yes, and we need leadership from provincial governments across Canada. I hope that the members opposite will join with the Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the House to condemn the Tories, to condemn high interest rates and to condemn the national debt.

Bringing down interest rates would help the B.C. economy. Let the Canadian dollar drop. In British Columbia, help the forest industry. Help our international trade. We're not afraid of the Canadian dollar dropping five or six cents. Let's bring down interest rates and bring down the dollar. Let's get those regions of British Columbia up off their feet. Let's reduce unemployment, and let's deal with the debt. If we had leadership in the provincial government, we could help accomplish that.

MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting that the critic for the New Democratic Party, the opposition in this House, should be talking about the financing of the national debt of this country in responding to my comments on the national debt.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat said in 1989 in regard to NDP policy: "It's not a priority at this point. I think the priority is a balanced budget and money being spent creatively and targeted to specific programs and not to pay off the debt." That's the NDP policy — charge today, live beyond your means, continue to live beyond your means, and leave that for your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Yet another spokesman for the NDP, a very well known spokesman, is David Schreck, who would dearly love to be Minister of Health in an NDP socialist government. Mr. David Schreck said in June 1989:

"The public debt is no monster. The monster the Conservatives have created is made up of myths. Public debt is a loan within the family, like advancing your children's allowance. Clearly there have to be some limits to debt, but the available data shows that Canada's debt is not out of line by historical standards. In 1989 the indicator of debt is no reason to be alarmed."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that those two socialist spokesmen wouldn't get alarmed if we were to put our great-great-great-great-great-grand children into debt. It's time that we stopped listening to those kinds of platitudes. We've got to get our house in order.

Mr. Speaker, it's estimated that by 1992 every family of four in Canada will owe $100,000 in national debt. The figure right now is $87,000 for every four Canadians; a family of four today, $87,000, and two years from now, $100,000. The people of Canada have to get their house in order. Again I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I will not give platitudes; I will give solutions. I believe that we could ask the people of Canada to pay 2 percent on their annual income tax as a debt-reduction levy and to eliminate the GST. I believe that we could handle....

The GST is to be 7 percent at the beginning, and it makes no commitment at all to reduce the national debt. It's a national crisis and a national shame, and it is time we took care of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the member's time has expired.

TOBACCO ABUSE: TIME FOR ACTION

MR. PERRY: One year ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, I presented an eight-point plan to reduce tobacco consumption in British Columbia. I did this because the enormous toll in terms of death, disease and disability from tobacco use requires a pressing, effective and comprehensive response.

In the last year 3, 500 people died in British Columbia because of smoking. We spent $710 million as the cost of that epidemic and $290 million on health care costs alone.

In the last year thousands of young British Columbians began smoking and became addicted to a carcinogenic product. Lung cancer rates among women continue to skyrocket out of control. We continue to fill our cancer wards and cardiac units with the victims of the tobacco industry. Meanwhile the multinational tobacco companies — all three in Canada are based in the east — made record profits on gross sales exceeding $4 billion. These are the same companies which still deny — believe it or not, Mr. Speaker — that anyone has ever died or succumbed to any disease because of tobacco use. What have the Minister of Health and his government done to address the leading public health problem faced in this province?

Finally in January 1990, a British Columbia tobacco reduction strategy was produced. This is an encouraging document, which is as interesting as it is concise. In reviewing the strategies, I see some of the proposals I raised last year and for which so many in the health community have worked for so long. But I also see the excessively modest — shall I say timid or mouse-like — proposal to reduce from 22 percent presently to 20 percent the number of smokers in this province over the next ten years. I've seen much timidity in this Legislature and in this government, but nothing as timid as that.

The minister has not introduced any legislation. He does not, to my knowledge, have even one person

[ Page 10944 ]

in his entire department who works full time on tobacco issues. That is a disgrace. Education efforts by schools, by charitable voluntary organizations or even by governments are not enough. Public health epidemics require serious responses. We need to get the tobacco industry — the pushers — under control. The government does not seem to feel the urgency which I share with those who succour the victims of the tobacco pushers.

This government had an opportunity to protect workers and the public from the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke. What has it done? Many provincial and territorial governments have already eliminated workplace smoking in the public sector; B.C. will follow suit this October. In Ontario, following the lead of numerous U.S. states, a provincewide law was passed last summer restricting smoking in the private sector. Manitoba and Quebec now have statutes restricting smoking in public places. Some B.C. municipalities have taken action, and recently Vancouver tightened the provisions of its bylaw. The Victoria Capital Regional District proposes similarly stringent protection for the public.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Surrey did it several years ago.

MR. PERRY: Surrey did it several years ago, I'm told.

The federal Non-smokers' Health Act, which came into force January 1, practically guarantees a smoke-free workplace to employees who work in federally regulated sectors such as banking, communications and broadcasting. The B.C. government has allowed the workplace health and safety of British Columbians to be contingent on who their employer happens to be, or where they happen to live.

The government had an opportunity to pass laws to curb access to tobacco by young people, but it took no action. Today we still see, every day, teenagers and pre-teens smoking despite the fact that it is illegal to supply cigarettes to them.

In the past year the Manitoba Legislature passed a new law. The Ontario Legislature increased the fines under its provincial law to $25, 000. The federal minister — even Mr. Perrin Beatty — announced that he wants to see new legislation on this issue.

Even the Republican administration of George Bush is making proposals. Its Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan, recently appeared before a congressional committee and called for new laws to curb the sale of tobacco to minors, including a ban on cigarette-vending machines and the implementation of a strict licensing system similar to that required for alcohol.

Our provincial strategy proposes to strengthen the Tobacco Product Act. But where is the action, Mr. Speaker? The government had the opportunity to raise tobacco taxes in its last budget, but it did not do so. Six other provinces raised their taxation rate in 1990 budgets, but the Minister of Health in B.C. either failed to influence the Minister of Finance — as he so often does — or did not think of the idea.

As of next January 1, B.C. will have the second lowest rate of tobacco taxation among Canadian provinces, and as a consequence, cigarettes in B.C. will be more affordable for children than almost anywhere else in the country. I see the Minister of Health applauding the idea that they will be more affordable for children.

The government also had ample opportunities to take action under the existing Tobacco Product Act, but it has not done so. With the stroke of a pen the minister could have taken measures to curb tobacco industry marketing to children. He could have restricted the location of vending machines. He could have controlled the location of tobacco so it would not be sold near schools. He could have prohibited the infamous "kiddie packs": packages of only 15 cigarettes that appeal to low-income individuals such as teenagers. He could have required cigarette packages to appear in generic form to eliminate the sophisticated techniques used to make cigarettes appear attractive and desirable. He could have eliminated from the market the "slim" cigarettes, which prey on the preoccupations and aspirations of young girls.

[11:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The government could have implemented an effective system of provincial warnings on tobacco products. What did the government do instead? Unbelievably, it weakened existing B.C. regulations under the Tobacco Product Act. No longer will there be a separate B.C. health warning on cigarettes in addition to the federal warning.

The repeal of the requirement under B.C. law was done by the cabinet last October on the recommendation of the Minister of Health. How could this have happened? This move was certainly not being called for by health and medical organizations. Did the then-minister submit to tobacco industry lobbying? Did former Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett, now a director of Imasco Ltd., Canada's largest tobacco conglomerate, exert influence on...?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's unfortunate that the hon. member didn't know his subject well enough and he had to prepare a written speech and read it to the House today. Given the importance of the subject, I would have expected that he would be well enough informed that he wouldn't need a document to read from today.

In any event, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House and I as Minister of Health are very concerned about the issue of tobacco use in the province of British Columbia, because, as is indicated, tobacco is a leading cause of preventable disease, disability and death. Last year, indeed, we saw 3,500 deaths attributed to cancer because of tobacco use. Tobacco use has been declining, but

[ Page 10945 ]

there are target groups that are of concern to us, and I will be talking about those.

The Ministry of Health has a three-component type of approach or strategy: protecting non-smokers from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; trying to increase the number of individuals stopping smoking; and helping non-smokers, particularly youth, to stay smoke-free. There are three levels of approach to this.

The first is that it's very important for us to focus on the individuals, the people who smoke. Obviously they have to take the initiative to stop smoking; it is their decision. The bottom line is whether or not they are prepared to prevent further abuse of their health.

Secondly, we believe strongly — and this is contrary to the NDP philosophy and ideology — that communities at the grass roots are the most effective way of dealing with a lot of problems. Yes, in the province so far we have 43 communities and one regional district taking the initiative themselves, in terms of dealing with a smoke-free environment. It is the grass roots, Mr. Speaker. I don't know whether the members opposite have concerns about the grass roots making decisions about their own affairs, but it is ultimately the grass roots who know what is best for their communities in terms of how effective those by-laws will be and how applicable they will be.

Contrary to the comments of the critic, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, we have taken a very active approach in terms of dealing with the broader responsibility that the province has. First of all, my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) recently announced that our Ferry Corporation will be seeing a smoke free environment. Other Crown corporations, I'm sure, will follow.

MR. G. JANSSEN: What about hospitals?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Alberni asks about hospitals. Let me talk about hospitals in a moment.

But first our office buildings. The Health building, for example, has been smoke-free now for two years; and before that, ten years ago, in our building in the Ministry of Health we had restricted areas for smoking.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Vancouver-Point Grey says: "What about the rest of your buildings?" Well, welcome to our smoke-free workplace, right here and in the entire province. All of the provincial buildings will be smoke-free on October 1 this year.

He says we do nothing. There's an article that we just produced, "B.C. Girls: A Smoking Time Bomb" — a tremendous article. Our polls tell us that 75 percent of those who picked up this magazine read that article. Is that an impact? It has a tremendous impact.

What about the hospitals? Vancouver General Hospital. I had an opportunity to walk through the hospital, and as I was walking through the back door there was a little shelter there. I said: "What's this?" They said: "Our hospital is smoke-free, and this is the only place they can smoke." It's outside in the parking lot, a little shelter that was constructed from 2-by-4s and a little plastic to keep the rain off. That's what we're doing in our hospitals.

But we understand, Mr. Speaker, that individual communities and boards are autonomous. The Royal Inland Hospital is smoke-free. There are many hospitals that are smoke-free. Again, we are different from that side of the House. We believe in local autonomy. We don't believe in this Big Brother, big-stick approach, where we impose our philosophy on everyone. We think that individual boards, individual communities, have some say, unlike that member for Vancouver....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. PERRY: My question is: what about the pushers? Are they free to...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This isn't question period.

MR. PERRY: In order to protect the health of our children and our citizens. I have proposed in this House measures recommended by the World Health Organization and by health organizations in Canada. I have specifically proposed government action that would mandate effective provincial warnings, generic packaging, restrictions on cigarette vending machines, warnings placed at point of purchase, and licences for the sale of tobacco, a carcinogenic product. I have suggested it be made illegal to sell tobacco to someone under age 19. Moreover, I have proposed that smoking in the workplace and in public places be restricted to separately enclosed and ventilated rooms not normally occupied by non-smokers.

I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, my gratitude to you for the measures you've taken in this assembly, but that what I propose extends to all British Columbians, not just those of us privileged to serve in the Legislature.

The New Democrats care about public health. If the minister and his government shared our sense of urgency, they would have taken prompt action. But instead they have left tobacco companies virtually free rein to manipulate B.C. youth into a lifelong addiction.

To emphasize the blatantly unethical marketing practices of the tobacco companies, let me quote from a few formerly secret documents uncovered recently in a Montreal court case: "Young smokers represent the major opportunity group for the cigarette industry." That was from Imperial Tobacco's 1971 Matinee marketing plans. I quote again: "If the last ten years have taught us anything, it's that the industry is dominated by the companies who respond most effectively to the needs of younger smokers. Our efforts on these brands will remain on maintaining their relevance to smokers in these younger groups This is from the Imperial Tobacco docu-

[ Page 10946 ]

ment marked "Personal and Confidential" on every page and entitled "Overall Market Conditions, Fiscal 1988."

This is the really sinister part: "The desire to quit seems to come earlier now than before, even prior to the end of high school. In fact, it often seems to take hold as soon as the recent starter admits to himself that he is hooked on smoking. However, the desire to quit and actually carrying it out are two different things, as the would-be quitter soon learns." That was from a report prepared for Imperial Tobacco by its marketing research agency. A number of our colleagues can attest only too well to the truth of that statement.

Finally, I quote again from the fiscal 1988 media plans of Imperial Tobacco. The target groups for advertising for Player's filter were listed as men, "12 to 17, 18 to 24 and 25 to 34."

Mr. Speaker, I will not tolerate tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to B.C. kids; nor will I tolerate government's inactivity on the number one preventable health issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Time has expired, hon. member.

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: First of all, I had asked on the first day of the forestry estimates for some clarification on what appeared to be contradictory numbers in the amount of forest land in the province, the annual allowable cut and the amount of operable forest land in the province. There seemed to be some discrepancies — as much as a million hectares of land that was lost somehow. The minister said he would get that answer to me the following day, and I have yet to receive it. I'm just asking the minister if he's got the information. Perhaps he could get it to me today.

Secondly, I sought clarification on the letters of understanding. I quoted from a letter that his deputy had circulated in September '89. There appeared to be outstanding contradictions, and I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to inform me about that apparent contradiction.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the first question, I have the information, and it's on its way up. I had it yesterday. I wanted to read it into the record, which I will do. On the second matter, I can't answer that yet, but I think we have an answer for you.

MR. MILLER: Yesterday I started to get into the whole question of inventory. I pointed out that there is a great lack of confidence in the inventories in this province regarding what are the available volumes of timber that we have remaining in British Columbia, what is the appropriate amount of cut on an annual basis in relation to those available volumes, and where we stand in terms of issues such as falldown and overcapacity. I pointed out that there is apparently no correlation between the amount of available timber and our industrial capacity. It appears that there has never been a real attempt to achieve a balance or perspective when we relate to those two.

Continuing on the issue of inventory, I would first of all note that in the background papers submitted by the ministry to the Forest Resources Commission, they talked about the forest inventory of British Columbia based on surveys conducted during the period between '61 and '81 — I think the minister said 1963 yesterday, but give or take a year. But it illustrates that in many people's opinion they are quite old and unreliable.

They talk about a statistical accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent, and I would draw that number particularly to the attention of the minister in relation to an issue I will bring up subsequently — and they also say that this has not been verified through testing.

It strikes me that the most appropriate analogy to this particular statement submitted by the ministry is that it bears a very strong resemblance to those face pages you always get on audited financial accounts, where the auditor is always left the absolute out by saying: "Well, I've checked these, and providing everybody has given me the right information, this may be right." It seems to me that when you look at the information the ministry is putting out and what they themselves are saying about it, they're leaving themselves that out.

We canvassed during previous estimates debates the issue of incremental silviculture and whether that provided an opportunity to offset this falldown effect, this imbalance between available supply and industrial capacity. I should also point out that there are many opinions on this issue, and I'm reasonably satisfied that the range of opinion is not isolated to a particular group or to particular individuals representing narrow interests in the area of forestry, but seems to pervade the whole spectrum of people.

I have talked, for example, to major corporations, and I think they're on the record in other areas — probably before the commission. People who have been in this industry for years and years, who profess to be quite knowledgeable about it, are also making the same kinds of predictions.

I've had senior people in industry in this province say that in their opinion we're over cutting by significant amounts. I've heard senior people talk about an annual sustainable cut that perhaps should be 60 million cubic metres, or even 50 million cubic metres. I cite this to illustrate the uncertainty that exists in this province with respect to that question.

In their documents the ministry also identified certain ways that they feel could be used to offset falldowns. They talk about reforestation of some 2.6 million hectares of currently unstocked productive timberland, and yet we see that there really are no plans to deal with those 2.6 million hectares. There are some plans to deal with 500,000 hectares, and those really are questionable in light of the inability

[ Page 10947 ]

to conclude the new agreement with the federal government.

The ministry document talks about the use of 12 million hectares of productive but currently inoperable lands. I think we've gone beyond the point where perhaps 50 years ago.... I've talked to some of the old-timers who were around then who had a fair degree of confidence that new technology and new ways of operating would allow areas to be opened up, and that the timber was out there but we hadn't yet developed the technology to access it. They felt that that was coming, and they weren't particularly concerned about the level of cut — although that's always been an issue or a debate in this province.

I think we have got to the point where that is not going to be available. I don't think technology is going to advance in any significant way in terms of accessing these lands that are considered inoperable, and I think the further constraint of environmental concerns will really support my point.

[11:15]

We talked about intensive or incremental silviculture. Again I would point out that there really is no certain plan to move into that whole area. The minister responded to many questions I put to him on that issue, and it seems to me, on balance, that there is a lack of data. The minister seemed to be saying there is a lack of data. He said there's a lack of capital and a lack of real, hard information about what the return is on investment. I think there is no comfort for anybody in terms of looking at intensive silviculture as a way of offsetting the falldown.

Further on in their brief — and I am referring to the brief made by the Ministry of Forests before the Forest Resources Commission — they talk about the lack of correlation between the inventory and the annual allowable cut in each unit. Specifically they say: "The correlation between the inventory and the allowable annual cut, and between the inventory and the actual cut in each administrative unit, has not been established by the ministry."

Throughout the documents provided by the ministry, these kinds of statements are made that really call into question the accuracy and soundness of the information upon which this ministry is making decisions — not on a daily basis, but almost on a daily basis — in terms of what level of cut is sustainable.

I started to deal yesterday with the issue of the mills in the Hazelton area, and I have three particular instances I want use to illustrate my point. Certainly the Kispiox seems to represent.... If it's not atypical, it at least illustrates the point very well that the timber in that area has not been managed. There has been no attempt, or if there have been attempts they have not been stuck to in terms of managing the timberlands, and at the same time looking at the issue of the productive capacity — what types of plants, what kind of employment is generated, and what the sustainability of that employment is....

The timber in the Kispiox timber supply area has not been harvested according to the profile; in fact, there has been high-grading. I think the minister has to answer for what has happened. In this timber supply area, where the harvest profile says that there is 54 percent sawlogs, it's offset by the fact that in the actual cut they've been harvesting 77 percent sawlogs. Why was that allowed to happen? What failure of policy in the ministry allowed that kind of thing to develop? It seems inconceivable that it should have been allowed. People in that area are now saying and the information available seems to bear this out — that given the current volume of accessible sawlogs, there is about a seven-year supply of sawlogs left in that timber supply area.

Perhaps I'll just leave those two and see what response the minister has to this, and then continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the specific example of the Kispiox area, I will probably have to take that as notice and come back with an answer. I don't have all those details at my fingertips. It might not be appropriate to try to answer such a specific question off the cuff, with a scribbled note from the staff — although they understand what has gone on. To answer a specific question about any specific area in the province with percentages of sawlogs and the supply.... It wouldn't do it justice for me to stand up here and try to give you a detailed answer. So I'll get you that information, whether we do it during these estimates or I get it to you when the estimates are finished. I'll table it in the House if he likes; in fact, I'd like to do that so it's on the record for all British Columbians to look at.

MR. MILLER: I want to quote a ministry document put out by the regional manager in that timber supply area, because I think it's important. I suppose I run some small risk of contradicting myself. I hope I don't do that, because I've talked about the accuracy of ministry information and now I'm going to quote some. Nonetheless, I'm prepared to run that risk.

The two points in this release — I don't have the date of it — are:

"Unless existing processing plants develop products and manufacturing processes for the complete forest profile, future annual allowable cuts must be constrained to reflect the operational demands for sawlog-quality fibre only. By avoiding the lower quality stands today, the forest industry of the Kispiox timber supply area will inevitably have to supply future operations with predominantly lower quality fibre."

That's a pretty straightforward statement put out by your ministry. It does seem, without quoting any numbers, to back up precisely the point I made in my earlier remarks.

My question is: how did we get to this point, where the ministry, which is responsible, has allowed this situation to develop? The people in the region would like answers to some very simple questions. I'm sure they must have written the minister; they've written to me, and I've talked to them quite a bit. They want to know how much viable timber is left, how long it will last at the present rate of cut and what we do when it's gone.

[ Page 10948 ]

Do we, as the ministry suggests in another document it put out...? I'll quote again from their brief to the commission, page 16A-2:

"The consequences of not maintaining current levels of harvest are that the provincial economy will have to shift its dependence from the forest products to other sectors. In addition, there would be dislocations of people and communities, especially where there was dependence on current employment levels from the forest products industry."

That is so descriptive of the region I'm talking about, the Hazeltons.

I think the minister should try, even without giving specific, precise answers in terms of actual numbers, to advise how they intend to deal with the situation they have allowed to develop.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can tell the member that in the past there was high-grading in that area; there's no question about that. But it's not taking place at present. In the past a lot of the low-grade logs could not be utilized, so there was a certain amount of high-grading. There is now a chipping plant in the area. Westar has it. I can assure the member that we are analyzing the TSA in that area to address the very concerns that he speaks about. So yes, there is an analysis ongoing regarding the timber supply area.

MR. MILLER: There have been many analyses, Mr. Chairman. This relates to the questions I asked yesterday with regard to the Takla-Sustut supply block. The people in the Hazelton region felt— and it appears that the ministry officials supported how they felt — that the timber supply block should have been allocated to their region to deal with the very serious issues of the lack of supply, notwithstanding the fact that the major licensee in the region had made a commitment to the ministry. They had made a commitment. The minister said that. They have not lived up to that commitment.

When they applied for volumes — and they got a pretty good break, quite frankly, through the tough times — they undercut considerably, and they didn't lose the volume. It was just tacked onto their future cut. But they said that they were going to keep those plants operating, and they haven't done it. It appears they never intended to do that.

Given what seems to me to be very tight constraints in terms of time, I think there needs to be more than just another study. I recall that when the issue of the competition for the supply block came up, the previous minister promised the people of that region to do another analysis: "We'll do a quick little analysis of the TSA and see if we can find more timber." There's a kind of a sop to the people in the region. I suppose he didn't find any more timber.

Are there active plans for processing plants that can deal with the quality of timber — the full profile in the area — that will provide employment levels to match the loss of employment because of this lack of policy and lack of planning on the part of your ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I explained to the member yesterday what we were doing with the plant at Kitwanga that he speaks of. I have sent a letter to the president and CEO of the company. I've told the member that I will send him a copy of that letter, and I will. He'll probably have it on his desk by Monday.

We are doing just what the member talks of: encouraging this plant to make use of the profile that's available in that area and to get value-added out of it and to maintain employment in that mill at Kitwanga.

[11:30]

MR. MILLER: How do you encourage them?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, perhaps the member should wait until he sees my letter, and then he will know. I guess it's called moral suasion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Something that the member from Moodyville is not familiar with. We shouldn't get off a serious subject and make light of the member from Moodyville.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's right. It's a very serious subject, and one we take very seriously. As I said yesterday, it involves the economy of a remote area of the province. As the member and I both said yesterday, jobs are scarce in that area, and you can't just walk down the road or across the street and get another job. When we make a lot of the decisions in this ministry, Mr. Member, I'm sure you are aware that more than technical matters are taken into account. Socio-economic factors have to come into play. We make many decisions in this ministry based on socio-economic reasons, where the good of an area or community is at stake. This is a perfect example of that at Kitwanga. I sincerely hope that you will trust me when I say that the letter is in the mail, and you will have it on Monday.

MR. MILLER: I can't say to the minister that I don't trust him, but there really are broader questions that need to be answered. It goes beyond the minister saying: "Trust me." Actions speak louder than words, and we'll see what the letter says and what ultimately happens in that district.

You really haven't come back in terms of that question about industrial strategy. I would note — I would be happy if the minister would respond — that in front of the Peel commission a specific question put by the commissioner about why — in terms of the industrial strategy of the province, and he's referring to another area of British Columbia now — a certain type of plant was going to be proceeding when there was a surplus of residuals in the region that clearly could allow a different type of plant to be built. He talked about whether there was an industrial strategy. The answer came back from an

[ Page 10949 ]

official in the ministry: "We in the Forest Service think our responsibility is to provide information on the timber. We don't deal with industrial strategies. I think that goes to the heart of the issue that I had raised about this correlation between the industrial capacity over the long term and the available timber supplies in a region.

Certainly the ministry has far more opportunity for moral suasion to address that issue, although I can't help referring to the former minister; it has become a habit, not only in this House but outside it. He said a couple of things about that. One is in regard to Hazelton. He said: "The problem with the people there is that they won't move." This was and still is taken as an absolute insult by the people in that area.

I think you have to deal with that question of a balance in terms of the industrial capacity and the harvest profile. So far it appears that any policies of your government have been completely ineffective. You have ignored the issue.

I wanted to use, as another illustration, to talk about the inventory.... The Minister was absolutely correct when he said that the inventory on a smaller basis appears to be very bad. It's almost useless. All these questions go to the issue of public confidence in what your ministry is doing. Does the public have confidence? Can they believe you?

I went into Bella Coola for the Forest Resources Commission hearings in March. I'd gone in the night before and met with quite a variety of people to try to understand what the issues are in that community, particularly the forestry issues. I was really struck the following day by the testimony of an individual who owns a lodge in Tweedsmuir Park, which is in the back end of the valley. This is a guy who lives there; he's been there for a long time, and he's a really good guy. The issue had come up several years ago about logging in a particular valley that was adjacent to the area of his lodge. At the time, he wasn't too happy about the plans to log. As a resident of the area, he said he had to weigh these things in his own mind: the impact on his business and the fact that he might not have liked it. But at the time, the information that was given to the community was that the valley would provide 25 years' worth of logging. So he said to himself: "I'm prepared to accept the fact that it's required. For the health of the community I live in, I'm prepared to accept this." It now turns out that there may be seven to ten years of logging. This person feels betrayed because he made a decision based on information that you people supplied, and it proved to be completely inaccurate. In further testimony to that commission, the fact was confirmed that the inventories there.... One official described the inventories that were done in 1965 as being accurate on a plus or minus 50 percent basis. This particular valley seems to bear that out.

In addition to that, they've been trying to do a re-inventory, an update, for three or four years, and they haven't been able to accomplish it. They hired a consultant; they had to hire somebody outside the ministry to do the work. That consultant has never been able to finish that inventory, and it's still not finished. So when you talk about people in a region and ask them to have some kind of confidence.... Let's go back and talk about information. It's more than just putting out information; it's putting out accurate information. It's giving people facts that are borne out by reality.

I don't know what you say to those people now. What do you say: "Oh, we made a mistake in the past but we won't do it in the future"? People are pretty cynical about politicians, with some justification, particularly when it comes to making those statements. So how do you respond? What do you tell those people? When is the inventory going to be completed? What kind of confidence will they have as to whether or not it will be accurate? This is very serious. It's as serious as the issue we talked about yesterday in terms of people being fearful of their future. I'd like the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There's no question that the question of inventory is very serious; we're treating it very seriously. We have a process in place where we're re-inventorying the forest now. It will be another three or four years before it's completed.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

I can't comment on the specific case that the member poses, because I'm not intimately familiar with it. Believe me, I want the member and all members of this House to know that I would never, ever use the words "trust me" in the broad sense. I meant it only as it referred to the letter I sent the member: it's on its way. Other than that, the last person I ever trust is a politician who stands up and says: "Trust me." We had ones who did that regularly in this House; I won't mention any names.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He's with us on this earth, Mr. Member, but he's not with us in this House. I think he has aspirations of being a Senator. I'm not sure about that.

MR. ROSE: So have I.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Probably a lot of us in this place have at the moment — not to make light of the issue.

I don't have the information the member has about this particular instance. I think, too, that it's very unfortunate if someone was misled. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If, in fact, what you say is true — and I have no reason at this moment to doubt you — if he was misled on faulty information, then that's very serious. If you will give me the

[ Page 10950 ]

information on that, I would gladly look into it and see if anything can be done.

I want to go back for a minute to the area you were talking about earlier — the Kispiox. We have recently held public meetings in the area because of requests by a company to increase the annual allowable cut. As a result of that request, we have had public meetings. We are taking a pretty close look at it, because we're concerned, too, as to whether we should increase the cut. And we're concerned about high-grading and about companies that do not cut the profile of the forest. So in the Kispiox area we are taking that into account.

As for the introduction of new primary processing facilities or encouraging certain types of industrial complexes to be built, we got into that a bit yesterday. It's pretty tough for us to dictate to the industry what should and should not be built. It's pretty tough for us to say: "You should build a waferboard plant as opposed to an OSB plant"; or, "You should build a CTMP pulp mill as opposed to either of them." I think the marketplace would have to dictate that. I'm sure that any company would look to the marketplace and the fibre that was available, and weigh what to do.

For example, we had a company recently — I won't quote the exact area, because it wouldn't be fair to them — that was considering building a waferboard plant in a certain area because the fibre was there. Having researched the market and done their homework, they've come back and said: "No, we're not going to build it; we're going to build another type of plant. We have done our homework." So who would we be, as the government and as a ministry, to say, "Here's what we think you should build," etc. ?

When we're awarding licences for the small business forest enterprise program, or 16.1 wood, we specifically discourage, as much as possible, the building of new sawmills or a primary breakdown facility. We have enough sawmills in the province. Of the 44 licences that we have awarded under this program, only two have included the construction of a sawmill component as part of a new value-added complex. I think we're being successful there in saying there's enough sawmilling capacity — in fact, more than enough — in this province to do the primary breakdown, but we're not going to tell you what kind of wooden product to build; that's up you We certainly discourage the building of a sawmill component, but beyond that, I don't think it's incumbent upon government to start telling industry what they should build.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I just have two or three points I want to raise with the minister.

The first has to do with Eagle Mountain, north of the communities of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. Some people from the councils in that area, as well as I and a number of citizens, have met with people from the Forest Service to discuss the five-year plan. We've appreciated the opportunity to sit down with them. As a result of concerns that are being raised, plans to log Eagle Mountain have been deferred for five years. I'm very pleased about that, because there are some unique recreational and other values on Eagle Mountain. That's something I'm pleased to report.

However, there's an issue that I wish to raise with the minister. The fact is that because of the urban area and the concerns of the local people, including the four councils, it will probably never be logged. When the chief forester makes his decision with regard to the AAC, the fact that an area is included that will probably never be cut skews the figures insofar as the issue of sustainability is concerned. Mr. Minister, we have to find some way to recognize these areas that are not really going to be deferred for just the time being but are going to be set aside because it has been recognized that, for economic reasons, there are more important values in the area.

There are other examples throughout the province which I could go into, but I won't. I would just like to ask the minister: given that this skews the figures with regard to the sustainability of the entire area being reviewed, are steps going to be taken, or has the minister considered taking steps, to deal with that so it does not remain in the equation?

[11:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Whenever an area is taken out of the working forest, which is what the member is speaking of in the case of Eagle Mountain.... The decision hasn't been made yet. As you said, it may be logged or it may not be harvested. I think "harvested" is a better term. As the member says, we have to evaluate all the values in the forest, not just timber values. If a decision is made to remove that from the working forest, then yes, the annual allowable cut in the TSA will be adjusted accordingly. I believe I'm correct in this: if it's a major exclusion — I'm not sure of the number of hectares involved here — it will be done immediately; and if it's a minor exclusion, it may not be done until we review the AAC every five years and do that as it comes up. But if it's a major exclusion it would be done right away, because we'd have to adjust the annual allowable cut in the area.

It's a good point that the member brings up: whenever we make a decision — whether it's through public consultation and the public wants it removed from the working forest — there's a price to pay. Maybe the price is worth it; we're not saying it isn't. In many cases it is, such as the decision we made on the Carmanah, which the member doesn't agree with. But when we created a 3,600 hectare park in the lower Carmanah, that had quite an impact on the annual allowable cut in the area. So there is a price to pay. In many cases the public, which is us, feel that the price is worth it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have said yes, this is the cost, but we want this preserved, and we're quite willing to pay the price — which is fine. That's what we're here to respond to, as elected people. But there's no question, Mr. Member,

[ Page 10951 ]

that it will impact on the economy of the forest sector in that area,

MR. CASHORE: Part of the thing is that if it's deferred for five years and then for five more years, it's becoming pretty obvious that the values.... The consensus is that it would be removed and that therefore it should not be allowed to continue to skew those figures. Sustainability is the bottom line. As the minister well knows, when appropriate methods of forest planning are taking place — for instance, in this case — finding ways of including representatives of those communities in the planning process, especially where the urban area is so much a factor, would also be very worthwhile.

I want to turn now to a situation up at Surge Narrows, where again we have a community group doing a lot of work on community forest and resource planning, and making a real contribution. We find living in a lot of communities throughout the province not people who are there to make a lot of noise and cause problems, but people often who are retired from the civil service or other occupations where they have a tremendous background, and they have a lot to contribute. I know the minister has been impressed with many of the briefs he has received from some of these people.

In this particular situation that was drawn to my attention, there was a blowdown on one of the islands in the Surge Narrows area — on Maumelle Island, I believe. When the Forest Service was dealing with this blowdown, in order to remove the trees so that they wouldn't be wasted, they had to make it economic by adding to the blowdown sufficient area to make an economic operation for the contractor who was going in to cut down the trees. From an environmental point of view — and we're dealing with a viewscape — when we're dealing with the values of the public who go into that area for recreational and other purposes, would the minister not agree that the "economic standard" would at least have to be mitigated by the environmental standard? We all know that environmental standards are really economic standards, because they relate to other economic values. The question I'm putting to the minister is: would it be appropriate in the case of a blowdown, where the viewscape is affected, to add that additional timber into the harvest simply to make it economically viable? There must be some other way of going about it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Sure, we agree with what the member has just said. There are landscape architects now in virtually every district of the province. We're able to do a lot more now with landscaped forestry than we were before, because we can generate computer images that were not possible just a few years ago. In fact, we used that technique — and I think it's the best way I've seen it used — in making the decision in the Tsitika Valley by the follow-up committee, and the projections done by the company are excellent. We're able to generate by computer what the harvesting will look like from water level, as if you were on a whale-watching boat; from 1,000 metres up, as if you were in a helicopter, and from every conceivable angle. We're using that to the best of our advantage, and so are the companies now in every area in the province. The viewscape is taken into account.

In Surge Narrows — I'm not sure if it was in that area, and I'm not sure of the time-frame the member talked about. Off the top of my head, I don't know when that decision was made, whether it was two years ago, last year....

MR. CASHORE: Within the past year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: So if those values were not taken into account, I can't explain that, and I'd have to do some research on it to see. But we are taking those values into account now in every area we go into. We did it in the Carmanah— computer projections on what it would look like. We did it in the Tsitika Valley, and we're doing it elsewhere. The companies have the capability now, and they have landscape architects on their staff, or they hire them, because the viewscape is becoming extremely important.

Having said that, I'm going to make another statement which I have made before, and that is that I don't think that we should try to hide every cut-block in the province from every visitor or every resident. It's impossible. If we try to take out of view any sign of harvesting in the forest, then we would have to remove tremendous amounts of the working forest from the annual allowable cuts. I think we should endeavour to do it with the least visibility possible and take into account the viewscapes and the landscapes. But I don't think that we should try to pretend to people or to visitors that we don't harvest the forest for a living in British Columbia.

As we've said, it generates up to half of our economic dollars, and we should be proud of what we do for a living in British Columbia. We should do it right, and I think that the public is telling us that. We've been getting the message for a long time. We should do it the very best we can. In fact, we should be the best in the world at what we do, because we do more of it than anyone else in the world. But we should never be ashamed of what we do for a living, and we should be able to point to a cut-block that's done properly, that isn't too big and that fits into the landscape. We should be able to point it out to anyone and say: "That's what we do for a living; in five years the trees will be this high, and in ten years they'll be this high."

I'm not trying to be corny about it, but I think we should look at those cut-blocks and see schools, universities, highways, ferry systems, health care and social programs, etc., because that's largely what pays the bills in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: We will be able to do a better job of paying the bills when we have better processes to deal with resource planning. I think the examples that I've given this morning and also the example of

[ Page 10952 ]

Cortes Island are areas where local people have found themselves in some kind of tension with the logging company with regard to some kinds of logging plans.

Obviously we must have systems of enabling the planning process to take place that is inclusive and creative so it's a creative tension instead of a destructive tension. I think these tensions are inevitable, but the way we go about dealing with them is really what it's all about.

Cortes Island is a good example. We had conflict there. We had people from the island saying there will no longer be clear-cut logging on private lands. Then this process started to take place of mutual decision-making between MacMillan Bloedel and the people. They actually got together and called the MLA for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in to mediate the dispute. There's a creative process taking place there.

I would just like to encourage the minister to encourage that kind of process by perhaps taking a look at the ways in which some of these decisions are made.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I just wanted to quickly refer to slash-burning in the province. The minister has recognized in a recent report that he participated in that the logging industry is accountable for the major portion of CO₂ going into our air. I believe the minister is aware that there's really nowhere in the Waste Management Act that slash-burning can be dealt with. I would like to ask the minister if he has discussed this with the Minister of Environment with a view to providing some protection through that avenue.

The information that has come out through the government report reveals that 20 million tonnes of CO₂ a year — more than all the cars, trucks, planes and other mobile sources in the province — come from the forest industry. I know the minister will point out the phasing-out of beehive burners — which is good — but the fact is that slash-burning continues to be a major problem.

Since I have to go in a minute, I'll just make another point that has to do with wood waste. I've had the opportunity to visit areas in the province — for instance, behind Lake Cowichan — where, as I mentioned the other day, roads are built in some instances before the trees are cut down. Then in some instances the road-bed actually covers the trunk of the tree to a depth of up to 30 feet. I'd like the minister to comment on that, because that seems to me to be an extremely wasteful practice.

I also mentioned last time that the blasting that takes place in that type of road construction sometimes embeds rocks in the trees and creates a hazard. But also it raises the issue of the argument about long-line methods of logging and grapple-yard methods in areas such as that. I know that the workers have been raising that point. It's an issue that one has to be concerned about.

Finally, I just want to mention that we have a small place on Cortes Island, and we just added an addition to our cabin. The person who is contracting for us has one of those little Portland mills. He went to an area that had been clear-cut and asked for permission to remove wood that was left on the ground, just for his own use; I guess they assumed it was for cutting into firewood. He ended up running it through his mill. So all the dimension lumber that has gone into the addition to our cabin is wood waste — and it's good quality lumber.

I think that's an indication that there is wood being left on the ground that could be very useful and that we really have to take a look at that sort of thing. I know that I'm going to be getting a great deal of enjoyment in years to come as a result of what might have been burnt to become part of the C0₂ problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I do want to make a few comments about what the member has just spoken of. Firstly, I am pleased that the member has a cabin made of wood where he can get away from it all; I'm sure he enjoys it. One of these days I hope to have a cabin somewhere too.

Cortes Island is largely private land, as I think the member knows. Yes, there have been some conflicts — especially in the Gulf Islands — between residents and logging on private land. The member says that a process has taken place between the residents and the company, and they're working out their problems. That's what I think should happen. It is largely happening on Saltspring Island, and I am sure it will happen on others.

We encourage that type of process. If it can work, that's the best way to work out these problems. I don't feel that the government should have to interfere and make all the decisions and solve everybody's problems. I think that many times people can get together and work out their own problems if they've a mind to. If they have a mind to get out of the confrontative mode and sit down at a table, they can usually work out their own problems. Those solutions are usually a lot better than ones imposed from on high by some government authority.

[12:00]

The member talked about slash-burning. Yes, there is slash-burning in this industry, of necessity. By our new policies in the forest, we're doing our best to decrease the amount of slash-burning. Our zero waste policy forces the companies to take more wood out of the forest now — that might address the other concern the member had about good wood being left on the forest floor. There's a lot of argument over that. The new forestry recommends leaving a lot of biomass, as they call it, on the forest floor. All over the province we are forcing companies to take more of the wood out of the forest now, or it will be charged to them against their annual allowable cut. As a result of that, you will see less and less usable timber left on the forest floor.

He spoke of air-quality concerns expressed in a report released by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

[ Page 10953 ]

Petroleum Resources. The original report was in error. It is the ministry's understanding that the report has been amended to reflect a much-reduced level of 11.5 million tonnes of C0₂ having been emitted into the air because of slash-burning. We are endeavouring to bring that number down.

We should also mention that the forest is responsible for reducing the amount of C0₂ in the air as well, so at least in the forest industry there is a balance of what is put into the air and what is taken out. Nevertheless, we are endeavouring to bring the smoke levels down, and we have now an inter-ministry task force looking at exactly that problem. We're working with the Ministries of Environment, Health and Municipal Affairs to try to understand the extent of the smoke problem and the necessary steps that are needed to reduce its impact. It's something we are very much aware of and are working towards reducing.

The member mentioned the use of grapple-yarders and certain forms of logging. Yes, we are looking at that too. In many cases the terrain is very sensitive, and certain methods of logging should not be used. We're trying to deal with that. In some areas they have even outlawed certain methods of logging. We haven't gone to that extent yet, but we are looking at the issue of grapple-yarders and better methods that could be used.

MS. EDWARDS: Considering the significance of the forests in my riding, I perhaps could have been here talking during the whole estimates. Mainly my concerns are the same ones my colleague from Prince Rupert has been leading — forest management, inventory and public process.

I was particularly pleased to hear you talking about inventory when I came in. I want to ensure that the minister knows that at the annual general meeting of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in February of this year, they passed a resolution requesting the provincial Forests minister "to commit funds for accelerating re-inventories of timber supply areas to provide current and sound information for the determination of annual allowable cuts." It's crucial, and there is very broad recognition that this is a continuing problem.

I also put it to the minister that in our area we are working — certainly the Ministry of Forests is doing many things — on a defence against the mountain pine beetle. We could do far better in dealing with it in its continuing phases, because in our area we are certainly assured that the mountain pine beetle isn't going to go away. It won't go away unless we do something different, and we can't do anything different until we have better forest inventory. It's crucial to the fight against the mountain pine beetle. It has been put to us a number of times, from anybody who has had anything to do with the recommendations on mountain pine beetle, that we need better inventory.

Before I leave the professional foresters, I'd like to also point out that they too, as the minister may have noticed — in case he didn't, I bring it to his attention — have a very strong resolution on dealing with forest practice on private lands. Because we have the largest block of private land in my riding, and there's been some concern about the forest practice on it, I bring it to the minister's attention. I hope he is going to consider that even further.

The annual allowable cut has been an issue of some considerable discussion. You may know, Mr. Minister, that the annual allowable cut for the next three years in the Cranbrook TSA has been increased 60 percent. I know that your ministry people, particularly your regional director, are at great pains to suggest that some part of that cut is going to be borrowed from the West Kootenay. To use very general terms, it will be borrowed from other areas and then brought back later. In other words, we cut now, we don't cut later, and the mills will have to get their supply from somewhere else.

It is not a very good argument to suggest that everything is fine, because all they can say is that it is not 60 percent; it's 36 percent. A 36 percent so-called "uplift" — the word is very carefully chosen, I presume, Mr. Minister, to be a positive word — can be very negative.

There are major concerns about this increase in the AAC. Even if we're talking about a 36 percent increase, the public needs to know why we are going to that increase. It's certainly clear at some points. When you get in the air, it's much easier to see some spots and see that there is mountain pine beetle there. Unfortunately, mountain pine beetle has been used as an excuse to log almost anything that's going past.

It has been used so often as an excuse to increase what is going to be allowed to be taken out of an area that the public does not trust anymore that that is the reason for it. I want to make very clear to the minister that when we are talking about forestry and the practice of harvesting the forest in our area, the whole business has become a matter of some suspicion. In fact, increasing the annual allowable cut in our area has yet to have a reasonable explanation as to how we are going to survive well with our forest resource when, three years later, we have increased our AAC by 60 percent. The figures speak for themselves, Mr. Minister.

However, I want to go on — because I want to try to keep this as brief as I can — and talk about the public process that has been instituted around the harvesting prescriptions. I want to say that in some sense it is a better situation than it was before. It will help prevent the kind of meeting where we all went to the Ministry of Forests offices to make our point a little more than six months ago, and there was no opportunity for the public and other interested users of the forest resource. They had such extreme concerns that they went to have a meeting by picketing and then going into the forestry office.

I would like to say that there are a number of groups. That group was basically led by the East Kootenay Environmental Society. The East Kootenay Environmental Society has moved into making some proposals related to the public process, and I'd like to make sure these are on the record. I'd like to be sure

[ Page 10954 ]

the minister knows that the society believes, first of all, that a five-year plan should be a five-year plan. They are concerned about the continuous changes to it. They believe that when you have a five-year plan for the future, there should be some certainty that that's the direction you are going. Without removing all flexibility for management, the public should have some better assurance that the plan that's there will be the one that will be followed for the management of the resource.

They make some objections related to their access to maps, plans and to the five-year plan. Those are fairly diverse. In general they would like to be able to have access to some reports — to either be able to have them copied so they can take them away, or even to take them away and copy them themselves. But to have some of these materials available only at one location for a short period of time — a number of hours — is simply not adequate in a rural area. Perhaps it is not in any area, but certainly not in our rural area.

They also suggest that there have been some major problems with the amount of time that is allowed for them to respond to harvest prescriptions, five-year plans and so on. They point out that it took five months to draw up plans, and the public is given one week to respond. That's not enough time, Mr. Minister. We are hoping that will be extended to at least three weeks and perhaps more — maybe a month. But recognizing the fact that you don't want plans.... You want them to be as fresh as can be, but still, one week is not an adequate length of time for the public to respond.

They have suggested in advertising for PHSPs that there be some better local knowledge, if you like, that the area that is going to be dealt with be identified by such things as a localized landmark or a kilometre mark on an appropriate road, or something like that.

They have the concern that when they are dealing with the harvest prescription for the lands that are included in the annual allowable cut, they are not on the same map as the prescriptions or the plans for the non-renewable forest licences. There is some difficulty in trying to put the two together in a comprehensive way.

They have several areas of concern. It won't take me long to go through these that they have put forward. One is that there is no inventory of the old growth. There are not adequate or complete heritage and recreation inventories, and riparian zone protection is not mentioned in the plans. They would like no clear-cut within 100 metres, as a minimum, of regularly flowing or ponded water. They are concerned about the clearcuts that occur next to another clearcut, adjacent clearcuts or simply serial clearcutting — which is a major problem. Steep-slope logging should be off the ground systems, and we need more than an 80-year rotation. There should be no logging at all practised above the 6,000-foot level.

Mr. Minister, that may have been fed to you, but I am interested to know your response to that. To again emphasize the comment that is coming from the public on this.... I have groups throughout the riding who come to me. The group I just spoke of encompasses all of those groups, and the statements include them all. But just to clarify, I'll read you parts of the letter that recently came from one of the smaller groups within the environmental society, who have taken a considerable amount of time to put into the process of forest planning. This is from the Moyle Environmental Group. First of all, they say:

"We would like to express our genuine appreciation for the time and consideration you have given" — this is to the ministry — "the application and PHSP to log certain cut-blocks in CP 090."

I might also say in passing, Mr. Minister, that some of your staff in our area have been extremely helpful. In some areas they certainly deserve plaudits. This letter goes on to say:

"The public process has allowed considerable gains in mutual understanding and education on the complexities of forest issues. We have specific concerns, and we feel that the public involvement process has given us a forum.

"However" — and you were waiting for the "however," were you not? — "the community is hopeful that public consultation does not cease when public opinion is heard but not heeded. We still feel that our values are not being taken seriously. This valley is not just another watershed filled with a timber crop. There are human values, animal values, deciduous trees, birds, viewscapes, fishermen, campers, mushrooms, etc. More allowance for these concerns must be made.

"Your continued communication and information is appreciated."

I put it to you, Mr. Minister, that the start is made. I would like to put this to you as a general feeling. This is representative of very moderate community people who have made extreme and sincere efforts to participate in the planning process, who are appreciative of the fact that they do have more opportunity for input now, but who still worry that their input could be ignored. I put that to you and hope you will consider even more consideration being given to the interaction that the public is very legitimately and very strongly seeking.

[12:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: just let me respond to a few of those remarks. I appreciate the member's comments. They are taken very seriously. We want to involve the public in decisions in the forest industry, and we will listen to any reasonable ideas. I appreciate her comments about our staff being helpful, because they feel the same way: they want to involve the public.

You can assure your constituents — as I will everyone in the province — that when we have public meetings and we listen to the public, we don't just listen. We go away and try to assimilate that information as best we can into the overall good of the industry and the economy of the province. Just because every idea that comes forward from a local group isn't implemented doesn't mean we're not listening. We can't do everything that every group wants us to do, but we listen very carefully. We'll try

[ Page 10955 ]

to implement, wherever possible, any reasoned arguments or reasonable ideas.

The member mentioned five-year plans. They must have some flexibility. We can't cast them in stone and say: "That's the way it is for the next five years." But we try to follow it as a blueprint and as an outline. For instance, the infestation of the pine beetle must be taken into account. We have to have that kind of flexibility. Things change rapidly in this world these days, as we've spoken of many times. So we don't put a five-year plan in that's cast in stone; but neither do we disregard it. There must be some flexibility for change. Major changes to five-year plans are advertised so that the public knows of them — if it's a major change.

I do agree with the member that information should be readily available to everyone in the community. It's something we've been looking at. We've been considering putting these plans, for instance, in local libraries. The problem comes, then, of updating them. Every time you make a change, you must run down and update the thing. Heaven help you if you ever forget a change on a plan, and somebody goes and looks at it and says: "This isn't on here." We're trying to look at the mechanics and exactly how we can do that.

I'll take under advisement the time-frame extension you asked for. We'll take a look at that and see if it can be done.

Coming back to beetle kill, it's one of those things that are with us. As the member said herself, the mountain pine beetle is not going to go away. The best we can do when we have a beetle infestation is to get in and harvest the wood, because it will surely be lost if we don't, and then it becomes a fire hazard. The beetle infestation just expands and expands. If the beetle doesn't kill the trees, a fire will. A lightning strike into some two-year-old beetle kill is pretty deadly.

What we have done in your area is increase the annual allowable cut to allow for some beetle infestation harvesting. We have to make a choice: do we go in and get the wood out while it's usable and realize some revenues from it, or do we leave it? Well, the choice is fairly obvious. We must go in and get it. We're looking at new methods of doing that.

I do caution the people in your area, as we did those in the Quesnel area. We had a pine beetle infestation there that increased the annual allowable cut dramatically. But we said: "When the beetle harvest is over, the cut is coming down. So prepare for it." Those words sometimes fall on deaf ears. The cut goes up, we go in and harvest the beetle-kill, the mills are running two shifts at full capacity, the beetle-kill harvest is over, and all of a sudden people say: "Where's the wood going to come from to keep our mills operating at this capacity?" I just caution everyone that when the beetle harvest comes to an end, the annual allowable comes down. I say: "So make allowances for it, and don't come back and paint us as the bad guys because you've had to close down a stud mill or because you've had to reduce a shift or the like." That is what is happening in your area right now; you can look to what has just been concluded in the Quesnel area.

MR. MILLER: I just wanted to complete the questioning I had started with respect to the timber supply areas. Time doesn't permit a full range of issues to be discussed right now. The question of the falldown.... Again there's the susceptibility of the numbers, but clearly the QCI were identified as a timber supply area, and there is an imminent falldown there. What kind of work have you done in regard to that? It appears that in a very short time the annual allowable cut will be reduced almost by half. Do you know what the implications are for employment as a result of that?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Queen Charlotte timber supply area. It was specifically identified by your officials as a timber supply area where imminent falldown in ten years is going to take place. What are the implications for employment for timber harvesting, and what alternative strategies has the ministry developed to counteract those negatives?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member raises a very serious concern in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and it's a large concern in other areas of the province too. Some of it has to do with removing land from the working forest. As more and more pressures come on to remove more and more land, there will be falldown.

How the annual allowable cuts are set is a specific concern. There's no question that in places like the Queen Charlottes there is going to be a dramatic effect there. I don't know whether we can institute programs to totally offset falldown. We can work towards that on the value-added side — secondary manufacturing, whatever you want to call it — to try to mitigate what will happen, but falldown is a serious question that confronts the management of the ministry and the industry. It's a very complex matter that requires thorough understanding of the forest inventory and the processes used to analyze long-term harvest schedules. Incremental silviculture can play a major part in overcoming the effects of falldown.

The Forest Resources Commission has been assigned the task of reviewing the whole issue of annual allowable cuts, including the possible falldown of timber supply. It's another item that we put on their plate. This falldown of available timber is a most important question — I think possibly the most important question — facing the industry over the next few years. There's no question about it: it's one that we are doing our best to address.

I think there will be a falldown before there is an increase in the annual allowable cut. There will be an increase in the AAC, but that is a few years down the road. I think Les Reed from UBC has written a pretty good paper on that. He feels that the AAC can be increased to well over 100 million cubic metres a year

[ Page 10956 ]

in the next few years, but that doesn't take care of the immediate....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, it is. In a few years, who knows? In 20 or 30 years we can probably increase the annual allowable cut to well over 100 million cubic metres, as Mr. Reed says. But that doesn't solve our immediate problem. It is one that we are working on that concerns us. We've asked the Forest Resources Commission to work on it.

I come back to the statements I have made twice in these estimates, that whenever you remove large amounts of the working forest from the working forest, there is going to be a cost to pay. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says that South Moresby was the wrong decision to make. Whether it was right or wrong is probably a moot point right now; it has been done. The decision is made, and there will be a tremendous cost to pay for that far beyond the cost of just the immediate jobs that were lost. That's going to have an effect on the AAC and the forest industry for a long time to come. Again I say, when we make these decisions to remove large tracts of land, the public has to know there is a cost.

MR. MILLER: I'm aware of the land withdrawal, but in terms of the overall question that I posed, I don't believe that it represents a significant factor. You're looking at a ten-year expected falldown. You're going to cut the available timber in half in ten years. The impact on the long-range sustained yield of the South Moresby may be as much as 50,000 cubic metres, but it's not the significant factor in this particular case.

Clearly where even your ministry, given the uncertainty of numbers, has identified a falldown that is going to occur in ten years, it seems to me you have a responsibility to move in that region and that district much more quickly. I'd like the minister to agree with me that what is required is for his ministry to develop.... The funds are available through the South Moresby replacement fund. I'd like a commitment that those funds will be committed to expenditures on that timber supply area, not in other timber supply areas, and that an incremental silviculture program be put together specifically to identify ways to maintain the annual allowable cut, if that is possible.

I would like a quick answer to that, if the minister is prepared to do that. He said earlier it was a complex issue. In this case it's a simple issue. The figure ten is very small. So if the minister could answer that, my colleague from the Cariboo would like to pose a few questions, and then I'll do a wrap.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think I can answer it fairly quickly. The funds that are earmarked for incremental silviculture in the South Moresby replacement fund have been earmarked 100 percent for the Queen Charlottes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps in the past. But in the future, 100 percent of that fund will be spent there. You probably have the same table where we have all the falldown and the years until decline, etc. We're aware of it, and it's a serious problem.

The questions that you asked me on day one about the millions of hectares and the apparent discrepancies.... We've got all the answers here, but they're about eight pages long. So rather than read it all into the record, Mr. Chairman, if it's all right with you, I would give the Chair the answers to those questions — all eight pages — and assume that they will be part of the record of these estimates — if that's permissible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have to do it in the House. I'll do it when we rise and report progress, if that's all right with the member.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Leading on this issue of falldown, the minister is very familiar with the situation In Quesnel. Recently there has been a report released which indicates in rough terms that over the last ten years 46 percent more wood is being harvested with 30 percent fewer jobs. The problem this report points out is that the real threat to employment has come from technological change.

For example, it suggests that if a 10 percent reduction over the province suggested by the Science Council was applied to the Quesnel area, we'd see only some 60 jobs lost in the sawmilling and related businesses. So there's a rather minor effect from land withdrawals, but a serious effect by tech change and the changing capacity of the mills.

[12:30]

People in the Quesnel area have known for five years, as the minister pointed out, that there was a problem coming. I guess it's left for the community to do some planning. They've recently done a report, because it became clear that the minister was going to hold fast and not renew the beetle kill licences. I applaud that decision. I know he found other wood temporarily to add, but the same problem will be there two years from now.

So we've got five years to do some planning, and it hasn't been done entirely. There have been some value-added sales put up that replace anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the lost jobs. There are some very good ratios there at C&C Wood Products, as you know, but I am wondering why we haven't done some comprehensive planning. Who would be the lead agency here?

I think your ministry affects the supply of wood, but it is not involved on the demand side here, affecting demand or planning for a change in demand on that wood supply. I am wondering if you would comment on that.

[ Page 10957 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, as to who should be the lead agency in providing the jobs necessary, I think it's industry. Industry has to be the leader. Industry provides jobs. Government can set the climate and the overall blueprint or the rules. I think we've done a pretty fair job on that.

As the member said, there are some good examples right in Quesnel of replacing jobs lost because of technology. Nobody likes to see jobs lost for any reason, but you can't fight technology. It was tried in the last century in England by the Luddites, and we don't have to go back and regurgitate all of that. It didn't work. It's been tried in other jurisdictions where they tried to fight technology. If the members are in doubt as to what I am speaking of, go back and read about Mr. Ludd in the last century in England, and you'll see what I mean. You can't stand in the way of this.

I could quote other examples of where industry has tried to stand in the way of automation. It happened in some countries in the automobile business when they went to robotics. Some jurisdictions tried to fight it and found that their entire industry nearly went down the chute because of it. So we can't fight automation, and the member is right when he said we're processing 40 percent more wood with 30 percent fewer jobs. I've been in those mills, and they're push-button operations. There are half a dozen people in the mill where there used to be twice and three times that many.

So what we are doing is endeavouring to offset that loss in jobs with our small business forest enterprise program, and it's working quite well. I regurgitate the numbers once again. Besides preserving several thousand jobs, we've added over a thousand jobs in the forest industry. They may not be the same jobs, but they're jobs in the industry. Yes, in some cases they pay a little less money — there's no question about that. I've been through some of the plants where their average wage, instead of being $18 dollars an hour, is between $12 and $14. But there are still productive, worthwhile jobs in the forest industry; and we're adding more and more of them every week as we award these sales. While we in the Forests ministry have to be one of the lead agencies, industry has to take the lead, as do other ministries, such as my colleagues who sit here in Regional and Economic Development and International Business and Immigration. I think we're all responsible. And communities are responsible for trying to overcome this falldown in jobs.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'll just reiterate that if and when the lead isn't taken, then I think it falls upon the government to encourage it, through regional and economic development, and do a little bit more in terms of the regional-based economic planning. We have a report that shows the impact but no plan. I think that in the case of Williams Lake, we have two years. I've been trying to encourage a comprehensive strategy to allow this adjustment to take place — to make known to your ministry that where industry isn't taking the lead to replace the jobs, that in fact you can encourage that, because the government owns the resource, the people of British Columbia own the resource, and need to use that resource to create employment. It's not just giving the tenures to the companies and allowing them to go about business by their own definition of what is efficient, because it's creating problems. I think considerably more can be done there, where we have lead time to encourage planning between the different agencies, all of whom have a different lead role.

I'd like to move to this issue of creating employment out of maybe a more finely tuned responsiveness by the ministry. There are a lot of places under tenured lands where you have salvage operations that could be operating, but because the timber is owned by the companies, they don't care to respond. I use the example of shake operators that can move in before an area is burned and salvage something. But there's no planning for that salvage. The companies are paying minimum stumpage on it. It's not worth the hassle to them to remove it. So I think much more finely-tuned management response by district offices.... You have to lean on the companies to do that.

The other area is salvaging blowdown. There is real reluctance because you have to go through the bid process. It takes months and months and months. In the meantime, a lot of people are waiting with equipment to go to work. You could use the direct sale method — setting a fair stumpage — to allow people to salvage.

By way of suggestion, a number of people have, I believe, written to you concerning this matter of maybe considering area-based salvage operations, where someone could make a bid on the area for the salvage rights and then deal with half a load or a quarter of a load. Most of it doesn't interest the big companies, and they don't have the response capability. But there are a lot of small people who can do it. I think that would generate a lot more employment. Your comments on that, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll answer as quickly as I can, and I'll take the last item first. On the salvage wood, I couldn't agree more with the member that some of the large companies are being very short-sighted and hard-nosed about salvage wood. We've taken a look at that and have asked our district managers — as recently as the last couple of months — to go out and put pressure on the big companies to either do it themselves or allow salvagers to go in there and get it out. There's a lot of wood — shake blocks are a good example — that can be taken out of the forests. So I agree with you on that one, and we're putting more pressure on the big companies to do it.

On the matter of blowdown, yes, it's a complex question. We're trying to streamline the process to get the bidding process to work faster. I'd be interested in the member's views on a 700-hectare blowdown in the Bowron Lake chain, which is going to be a contentious issue — whether we should go in and harvest it or not. I'd be interested in hearing your views, if not right now, then at some other time.

[ Page 10958 ]

That's a big one. I've seen it from the air, and it is huge. It's one that I think should be gone into and salvaged.

I just want to touch briefly again on Williams Lake. It's a good example of where we have worked very closely with the industry to utilize all the fibre that's available. He's well aware of the plant there that hopefully will be announced in the very near future.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd be happy to offer comments, if your ministry is prepared to provide me with the briefing materials on location and volumes and access planning, and so on, in the Bowron — how much is inside the park and how much is outside the park.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: All inside the park.

A final comment with respect to the woodlot program. I'd like to know if, in fact, you are honouring the commitment to double the supply of wood to the woodlot program, and whether you would tell me what seems to be holding back some of the regions from moving quickly. Have they received the allocation, as part of the cut — whatever technically has to be done — so the district offices can offer these woodlots for competition?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is simply that woodlot allocation and management is very labour-intensive. At the moment we just do not have the budget to do it. We're doing as best we can with the staff that we have. We'll be increasing the number of woodlots, but we cannot double the number of woodlots in the next year, simply because of budgetary considerations. We don't have the dollars in our budget.

MR. MILLER: There are a number of issues that were not canvassed, because of the time. There are lots of very interesting areas of forestry that it would be important for us to have that kind of dialogue on. I know from my travels around the province and in discussing the forestry issues that exist that there are lots of good ideas out there. One thing I have found is that regardless of who you talk to — whether it's people in large companies, small companies or from the environmental community — there are a lot of ideas about what should or could be done.

What impresses me most is what could be done. I particularly appreciate it when I get an opportunity to talk to people who have worked in the industry for many years. Some of the old hands are fascinating people, and they carry this storehouse of knowledge within them. You don't find it on paper or in the machines. I talked about that in the context of having that kind of body of expertise developed in the continuity that is required within the Forest Service.

I see an appalling situation where we have essentially moved to contract that work. We've lost the ability to have that expertise. I've talked to some of the old hands, for example, who hand-logged, guys who hand-logged in Rivers Inlet, who tell me that they are the only ones that can tell you where they logged. Anybody else going in there couldn't say where the logging was, because it did not have a significant visual impact. I wonder about talking to some of these old people about using those methods in the Inside Passage, where there are current disputes about whether or not we should log — conflicts between the aesthetic values of tourism, cruise ships, and the impact that logging might have. That's something we could talk about.

As for automation, as a guy who spent most of his life working with his hands in Industrial plants, I've always favoured automation, because I thought it freed working people from a lot of the drudge jobs. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with putting in a machine that can save somebody from a pretty lousy job. But we really haven't come to grips in society with what we do with the workers we displace. That's a really big issue.

Some of the other issues that we've not had an opportunity... For example, the memorandum of understanding. Over the years I have really castigated this government for their activity and their naivety in terms of that dispute when it was pressing in British Columbia, and the fact that they basically put their hands up and said: "We're guilty." I think they not only undermined the considerable amount of money that was spent in fighting that case but essentially allowed the case to be won by the Americans. I understand that we're under orders from the Americans. I don't think anybody is happy about that.

I'm really dismayed, as were people in the silvicultural community, about what I think is a string of broken promises — both by this administration and by the federal government — with respect to FRDA. My colleague and good friend the federal forestry critic from Prince George has described it as a circus. I think that's pretty apt. A lot of statements have been made by publicly elected officials and cabinet members of this administration that, quite frankly, have been grossly misleading.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Me?

MR. MILLER: I hesitate to put the current minister in that, although I do have a criticism of him. I think the grossly misleading statements have been made by the former minister, who along with his federal counterpart blithely promised a billion-dollar program and blithely promised that there would be a program in place before the deadline. In hindsight, you'll have to take that rhetoric for what it was. It might be capable of being used on a farmer's field, but it didn't do anything to advance the cause of getting this agreement.

[12:45]

I'm dismayed that you, Mr. Minister, and your federal counterpart seem to have a complete inability to come to any agreement on whether you are discussing the issue, whether it's been before cabinet, or precisely where it is. You might wish to lay the

[ Page 10959 ]

blame with him, and that's fine if you want to do that. But it seems to me that the public is getting quite tired of this circus and would like to have some confirmation that there will be a program. We are also disappointed that the provincial government has drastically cut back the amount of money that they seem to be prepared to commit to such a program.

The issue of corporate concentration was not addressed. I've done that previously with no satisfaction, and in that regard I would note that the ministry seems to have no policy whatsoever, although they do have some legislative ability to deal with the Issue. It seems to me that that's fundamental when we're talking about the economics of this industry and the operation of a functional marketplace.

I think generally any discussion of forestry seems to have more questions than answers, and I think that is a reflection of the work — or the lack of work — that has gone on before. I pointed out that Pearse recommended.... I don't know why more people didn't pay attention — not that Pearse's recommendations should be used as a bible. But clearly, in hindsight, he made specific recommendations which, if they had been followed, I think would have allowed us to be a little ahead of the game — or at least perhaps even — rather than where we are right now.

That lack of previous work — whether it's in inventory or industrial strategy, looking at the issues of corporate concentration, incremental silviculture, issues of environment — now has caught up with us. It has made the job that much tougher. Mr. Chairman, I think a price is going to be paid for that, and it is going to be paid by this administration when they finally go to the polls.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take about two minutes to wrap up a few of the comments the member has made. I'll be as quick as I can.

FRDA II: yes, I'm as frustrated as you are about it. I don't blame the federal minister; I think his hands are tied. That's why we have elevated the matter to the Prime Minister's office. The Premier has written to the Prime Minister with an alternative, and I sincerely hope we get a response.

In regard to where we are in forestry today and where we could have been, the member is probably correct, but again he is using 20-20 hindsight, which we all have. Yes, if we had done some of the things ten or 15 years ago that we should have, Mr. Member, there's no question that we'd be in better shape today.

The MOU: let me sum it up this way. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. If I had been the minister then and know what I know now, things would have been done differently; I think the same as you. I find the MOU offensive, and I've said that to the Americans. They're our biggest trading partner and all the rest of it, and they're good partners to have, but I find this memorandum of understanding offensive, and we're working to get rid of it.

Two more items. The member said that there are ideas out there — yes, there are, and we're listening. Old people have a lot of good ideas. I'm getting close to being an old person myself. I may not be looking forward to it, but it's better than the alternative. There are a lot of ideas out there, and we are listening.

Mr. Chairman, let me sum up by saying that this has been a good debate with the member and his colleagues. I've enjoyed it. We don't agree on everything, and we probably never will; that's what this place is all about. But I do want to commend the member and his colleagues for the level of debate. We've had a good exchange of ideas. As I say, we haven't always agreed, but the debate has been at the proper level. I thank him for that.

Vote 30 approved.

Vote 31: ministry operations, $221,292,622 — approved.

Vote 32: fire suppression program, $49,800,000 — approved.

Vote 33: forest renewal, $241,375,036 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I request permission to table a document, as promised during the committee debates.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend and move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.