1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament 
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. 
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 5

[ Page 5365 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

N. Lortie: I'd like to introduce 60 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary School in my constituency of Delta North, led by their teacher, Mr. Stoddart. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's not that often that I have constituents come from my constituency. But today it's my pleasure to introduce to the House two very good friends of mine: Eric and Linda Tompkins. Would the House make them truly welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Cheryl Isaac-Clark, who is here gathering information for her master's thesis on education. Would the House make her most welcome, please.

Hon. T. Perry: I too would like to welcome the guest of the member for Chilliwack. I'm looking forward to meeting her later on in the day.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to welcome and have the House join me in acknowledging Andrea Eaton and 40 representatives from the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services LINK program.

The Speaker: One last introduction. Since the member who was going to do this on behalf of all Burnaby MLAs is absent, with the indulgence of the House, the Chair will do it. There are two people here who I'd like introduced: Michael Harding, executive director of the Burnaby Arts Centre campaign, accompanied by Allan Berezny from the UVic challenge campaign. They're both involved in the arts. Would the House make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I was just delivered a note. I was so busy this morning, I haven't had a chance to meet these people yet. They are constituents and very good friends of mine from Fort Nelson: Mr. and Mrs. Oran Monasmith. I can tell you that they are pioneers of Fort Nelson; they've been there for a lot of years. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MORATORIUM ACT

D. Symons presented a bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, the Uranium Moratorium Act, as the name suggests, is an act to protect the environment and the health of the citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that is released into the environment when uranium is mined. The moratorium would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited. The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. It is not intended to prohibit normal mining operations for other minerals.

Hon. Speaker, this act is not new. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations brought in by the Social Credit government, which were in effect from 1980 through 1987. When those regulations expired in 1987, the New Democrats strongly advocated the reinstatement of the moratorium. This act does precisely that. Because of past support for such an act, I would hope for all-party support in bringing forward and passing this bill tomorrow to coincide with the Walk for World Survival: Peace, Environment and Social Justice that will take place in Victoria this Saturday, and with Vancouver's annual Walk for Peace -- also considering that today is Earth Day.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CORE CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO GOVERNMENT MAC-BLO SHARES

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, this morning the commissioner on resources and environment called for a special inquiry by the conflict-of-interest commissioner into the trading of M-B shares by the provincial government pending its decision on Clayoquot Sound. Will the Attorney General agree to support the call by the resources and environment commissioner for a special inquiry into this transaction, which is causing such great concern in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't had a chance to see what Mr. Owen has proposed. But with respect to conflict issues, as alluded to by the member, I think that government is constantly in a potential conflict of interest in its decisions. A good example of that is whenever a government decision affects the allowable cut. If there's a decision to reduce it, there's a conflict, because at the same time we reduce our revenues as a government. So every day the government faces that kind of issue.

W. Hurd: A supplemental question, then, to the Minister of Forests. The indication is that the CORE process may collapse unless this particular motion brought forward in good faith by the Commission on Resources and Environment is endorsed by this government. Has the Forests minister contacted the Commission on Resources and Environment to determine what might happen if the government rejects a legitimate call for a public inquiry into the outrageous handling of M-B stock while a significant environmental decision was ongoing?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I think the member opposite exaggerates greatly.

Hon. Speaker, all of us in this province have a great sense of pride in the wonderful geography and, I hope, 

[ Page 5366 ]

support the goal as stated by this government to try to achieve that 12 percent set-aside by the year 2000. We all recognize that these are very difficult issues and that there will be disappointments. We all recognize as well that the CORE process depends on the collective will of the people who are participating in order to make it a success. It is certainly this government's fervent hope that all people will consider the greater good, stay at the process and achieve what all British Columbians really want -- something in which we can take pride.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Hon. Speaker, for four days now the minister has failed miserably to live up to his responsibilities to the public of this province. When is he finally going to admit that his ability to perform his duties as Minister of Consumer Services has been terribly compromised and do the honourable thing by stepping aside?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: This harkens back to the days when the minister himself was on this side of the House.

This issue deals with ethics and morality in government and the standard of conduct expected from ministers in government. Will he now follow his advice to the Minister of Consumer Services when he was in opposition and resign?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is no, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: The last question had the very words used by this minister on July 18, 1989, when he was sitting in opposition. Why the double standard for this minister? Why the double standard for this government? Why the moral blind spot? When is he finally going to do the honourable thing and resign? And if he won't do it, when will the Deputy Premier finally get a spine and ask him for his resignation?

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND GOVERNMENT'S MAC-BLO SHARES

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister advise the House when Stephen Owen was first apprised of the government's decision on Clayoquot Sound? Can he further tell us whether Mr. Owen expressed any concern at that time about the perceived conflict inherent in the decision with respect to the government's publicly reported share purchase?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Owen was apprised. I don't have the precise times or dates, but it was certainly ahead of the anouncement. As to any of the other details surrounding the member's question, I wasn't present, so I'm not qualified to respond.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF MAC-BLO SHARES

R. Neufeld: To the minister responsible for the MacMillan Bloedel share purchase. Has the minister personally sought the B.C. Securities Commission's advice as to whether or not the Mac-Blo share purchase he authorized constitutes insider trading?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, it may be useful if I draw members' attention to the Financial Administration Act, sections 36.2(11)(a) and 36.2(11)(b). The Financial Administration Act is really very clear about all of this, and I'll just summarize those two sections. The Minister of Finance's interest in these investments shall not: (a) invalidate any decision, order or other action by government that relates directly or indirectly to that investment; and (b) be taken into consideration by any public official. It's clear that the Financial Administration Act recognizes that the Minister of Finance has a variety of responsibilities and obligations, and it very much makes clear that the kind of issue being dealt with by members of the opposition was envisioned in the Financial Administration Act, that the Minister of Finance and his officials have acted entirely properly and that clearly no conflict exists.

FUNDING FOR FIREFIGHTERS' FIRST-RESPONSE TRAINING

K. Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. This government has spent $250,000 on budget advertising, and the Premier's visit to Japan is costing over $200,000. With these very outrageous expenses, how can you justify cutting the first-response first aid training needed by B.C.'s firefighters? Why is your government taking this senseless position?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me speak to the first part of the member's question around the responsibility of government to first of all inform the people of British Columbia about matters that are important to them. That is a part of our responsibility in letting people know about the budget that we are debating in this House -- the information about people who are gaining from this budget and about the resources that are being made available to the 28 percent of people who will see a reduction in their taxes as a result of this budget.

With respect to the Premier's visit, I know he will be reporting when he returns. But as the minister with responsibility for business immigration, I certainly am able to say unequivocally that the travels of our Premier and of people of government, as they contact people in all parts of the world about a good place for people to invest and for jobs that then come to the people of British Columbia, will be well justified -- as our business immigration work is well justified for our people.

K. Jones: A supplemental to the Deputy Premier. The people of British Columbia are really fed up with the wastage of taxpayers' money. Do you really believe that saving the lives of children and seniors is a lower 

[ Page 5367 ]

priority than protecting the administrative waste and political hacks of this government?

Hon. A. Hagen: As the member who inherited the seat of the Minister of Health who set in place one of the finest paramedic and support systems for saving the lives of people in this province, I find that kind of comment by the member clearly out of place. If he has questions to the minister responsible for those services about the reason for her decision, I'm sure she would be happy to answer them. I would be happy to take that question on notice on her behalf so that he can be fully informed about the policy decision.

The Speaker: Just for clarification of the House, while the term "on notice" has been used -- perhaps informally here -- because the minister has answered the question, it's not formally on notice.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN CHINA'S THREE GORGES PROJECT

D. Jarvis: When the Premier was questioned last week about Mr. Eliesen's trip to China with him, he said he was proud of Canada and of being a leader in this area and helping modernize countries like China.

To the Minister of Environment. The Three Gorges project will create a 600-kilometre reservoir behind it and submerge two urban centres and 104 towns, and force evacuation of up to 1.2 million people. On this Earth Day, have you been informed of these facts and does your ministry support this project?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would be glad to review the information the hon. member has, and to supply any assistance we can. At the present time, though, I think it would require quite a bit of research.

D. Jarvis: In addition to the one million people being kicked out of their homes, the Three Gorges project will flood thousands of hectares of cultivated land. It is predicted that this will bring an end to China's self-sufficiency for food. On this Earth Day, again I ask: was the Environment minister aware of these consequences when his government decided to support this project?

Hon. J. Cashore: We would be glad to take a look at any information that is available on this. We are not involved in this project as the Ministry of Environment. I think the hon. member is clearly aware of that. I would certainly be glad, as the Minister of Environment, to provide any technical assistance that is reasonable.

D. Jarvis: Then to the minister responsible for Hydro. As well as the human cost that I expressed before, there are several endangered species that are threatened by this project.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Very funny -- ha ha.

To the minister: is it not hypocritical of your government, when you put such stringent standards on our mining and forestry industries and on B.C. Hydro, to go on to plunder other countries?

WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT

V. Anderson: To the hon. Minister of Social Services. There is growing concern this week about this minister's management of her ministry with regard to welfare payments. Will the minister confirm that she has complied with the recommendations of the auditor general to make her ministry fully accountable?

Hon. J. Smallwood: While I will welcome the whole discussion around the auditor's recommendations in estimates, let me simply say that I'm very proud of the administration, accountability and management skills in our ministry.

V. Anderson: Inspector Gallagher of the Surrey RCMP is reported as saying that the RCMP has been asked to back off from investigating the loss of welfare money. Is this true?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The comment is absurd and irresponsible. It is absolutely incorrect.

Ministerial Statement

INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY

Hon. J. Cashore: I take great pleasure in asking all members of the House to join me and their fellow British Columbians in recognizing and celebrating international Earth Day. This special day gives all of us an opportunity to focus on taking personal responsibility for the stewardship of air, land, water, plants and animals in British Columbia and on this planet. The Lieutenant-Governor has issued a proclamation officially recognizing today as Earth Day, during which we owe a special measure of respect for the environment and for this very fragile planet we call our home.

Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 by a small group committed to raising awareness and taking action on disturbing environmental trends. The past decade has brought a new awareness of the environment. Clear signs of harm to the environment that may not have been obvious to everyone during the seventies are evident all around the world. By the early nineties Earth Day emerged as a major worldwide event. Organizations from around the globe initiate environmental activities to commemorate this day. Some of those activities last just one day, but others span the whole year.

Many British Columbians are involved in Earth Day activities in all corners of this province. These activities include: a students' environmental conference at Montgomery Elementary School in Coquitlam; the pilot launch of environmental documents on the Victoria Free-Net computer network on April 22; a visit from the Green Team and the Ecosaurus to lower mainland media on April 22 as a reminder of Earth Day; Earth Week displays in Sidney, Fort St. John and Kitimat on 

[ Page 5368 ]

April 23 and 24; and an Earthfest in Victoria's Inner Harbour on April 24.

It has indeed been a privilege for me, as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, to see daily examples of B.C. citizens taking personal responsibility for the environment. Each year the ministry presents environmental awards to committed individuals and groups that have made a significant contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment. This year I have received over 200 nominations from across the province, and I am overwhelmed by the dedication and commitment shown by British Columbians to protect our part of the planet. Last year, for example, environmental award winners ranged from Victoria environmentalist Derrick Mallard to the Save Howe Sound Society of West Vancouver. B.C. youth were represented last year, as an award was also presented to the environmental consciousness class of Williams Lake Junior Secondary School.

We all recognize the need to look carefully at the impact of our actions and lifestyles on the world in which we live. Changing how we travel to work and changes in the products we use in our homes and offices are two examples of personal commitments many of us have made, and there are many others.

[2:30]

In closing, I'd like to urge members of this House to take advantage of the many Earth Day activities going on around the province. I am sure all my colleagues would join me in saying that as far as our government is concerned, every day is Earth Day. As a very final comment, I would like to recognize the interconnectedness of issues relating to the environment, issues relating to poverty and also issues relating to peace.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, on Earth Day I think it's important for us to focus on disturbing environmental trends, as the Minister of Environment has stated. Unfortunately he hasn't paid attention to some of the disturbing environmental trends in our own back yard. As our own critic for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources pointed out, there are numerous disturbing trends around the world that this government has one hand in. But the ones in our own back yard that we must focus on are the control of our water resources and continuing to try to get some control of our waste management.

At a time when we're seeing a grass-roots movement around the province of people upset about things like the diversion of the North Thompson, it's unfortunate that there's a proposal to divert the North Thompson before this very government, this Minister of Environment and this Minister of Economic Development. We are continually flogging the idea of the North American Water and Power Alliance, not just at the federal level through the NAFTA but also on the steps of the Legislature by people still talking about the potential of sending B.C.'s water to the south in pipelines. Yet we don't hear anything about that on Earth Day.

When this minister took over as Minister of Environment, he expressed some concern with regard to our bulkwater resources. To that extent, he put a moratorium on bulkwater exports. That moratorium is going to be up shortly, and we have a proposal for a potential water diversion. If we look at the disturbing trends, we see that the trend is to look at our water resources as a commodity. We're not debating about China's proposed dam, and we're not debating about India's disaster in terms of the environment. I wonder how long it will be before we start to debate about how we've lost sovereignty over our water resources in British Columbia. With things like the NAFTA and the growing pressure in the United States, we've completely abdicated jurisdiction over our water resources. That's the kind of thing that we have to start talking about.

Earth Day is a day that we have to focus on our own back yard. The way that it's tied to this minister's portfolio with regard to waste management -- other than the structure of waste management -- is when we look at what's going to happen if we allow any diversion of water from our primary outlets, such as the Fraser or the North Thompson, because every community downstream is outletting into those streams. That is going to result in a lack of dilution, and we're going to have problems with water quality and quantity. It's unfortunate that this government -- which is supposed to be committed to Earth Day -- doesn't have the courtesy of listening to the opposition's perspective.

I understand the frustration of the people of the province who have been trying to get the ear of this government with regard to some of the pressing issues -- whether it's the fishermen with the fishermen's alliance, the environmentalists with regard to Clayoquot, or the people who are upset about their taxes increasing. But on Earth Day, I would hope the government would listen to the fact that there are some issues in the environment that need to be addressed beyond activities on Earth Day and beyond rhetoric and platitudes -- things that have to come before this House for debate today.

H. De Jong: I am pleased to rise in response to this ministerial statement. Earth Day is, of course, a very practical term. The minister ended up with his statement that every day is Earth Day. Certainly, if you are representing an agricultural community -- and I can speak for that -- the earth is very close to everyone in the community, because that's where the livelihood of the entire community stems from.

When I walk the streets of Victoria I see the nice ornamental cherry trees blooming. The minister has referred to the youth being involved. Some of these trees were planted 75 years ago with the greatest care in the hope that they would someday bloom along the streets of Victoria. The young people certainly have an important role in that long-term process, because they can enjoy it longer than we can.

At the same time, under the previous administration there was a worthwhile initiative called the Environment Youth Corps. At least 1,000 young people, university students and many others were involved in that particular program, providing a good return for their labours as well as getting hands-on experience as to what it's all about, what we're talking about here today -- and that's Earth Day. These people are involved with the cleaning of spawning creeks for fish habitat, 

[ Page 5369 ]

reforestation and many other worthwhile initiatives. I fail to see how the Minister of Environment could allow this program to be chopped for other things which, in my opinion, do not have that high a priority. What used to be a very good program has now deteriorated, from what I can read into the statement, into a conference only, and that's not sufficient. I believe what was done in the past was a good initiative, and it should have been continued. I see nothing more in this statement from the minister than sheer hypocrisy, I'm sorry to say.

G. Wilson: I rise to ask leave to table a document with over 5,000 names, directed to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour, from parents in Powell River who wish their schools to be opened.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I rise today to request leave under standing order 35 to adjourn the House on a matter of pressing and urgent public importance. Hon. Speaker, the opposition has today in a letter expressed concern about the apparent conflict of interest surrounding the decision of the government on Clayoquot Sound, in light of its ownership of shares in MacMillan Bloedel.

This morning the conflict-of-interest commissioner has been asked by the commissioner on resources and environment to conduct a special inquiry under sections 15.1 and 16(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Specifically, the commissioner wants to investigate whether any member of the executive council was in a position to influence the government's decision on the purchase of shares in MacMillan Bloedel and its subsequent decision on Clayoquot Sound. The commissioner has said that the special inquiry should also be under sections 16(1) and 15.1 of the act, and has called for the issue to be reviewed by the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

Hon. Speaker, this is clearly a matter of urgent and pressing public importance because of the international outrage generated by the decision of the government about Clayoquot Sound. Of higher urgency is the real possibility that the entire CORE process could collapse in this province, leaving British Columbians without a mechanism to mediate environment and land use disputes. Today the environmental participants in the CORE process have said that they will withdraw from this vital process if such an investigation by Mr. Hughes is not forthcoming. The opposition further understands that several U.S. judges have made representations to the conflict-of-interest commissioner on the legality of the government's actions and the need for an independent inquiry. These developments have undermined public confidence in the objectivity and integrity of the government's handling of environment and land use issues in B.C., and have moved the commissioner on resources and environment to demand this inquiry, which he feels is crucial to the public interest. Clearly, public and international concern about the actions of the government and its ownership of M-B shares prior to a decision on Clayoquot Sound constitutes a pressing and urgent matter of public importance, and must be debated in this House.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member now provide the Chair with a copy of the matter to be discussed and submissions on the application under standing order 35.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just a couple of points with regard to the issue. First of all, hon. Speaker, you should be aware, as all members are, that we are in Forests estimates in Committee A, and there's ample opportunity for the hon. member to raise the matter there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't expect the opposition to agree with my submissions, but I do expect them to be attentive so that I can make them clear to the Speaker.

Second, hon. Speaker, there are opportunities in question period and through other vehicles to raise the issue. Third, there is nothing in the statement put forward by the hon. member that would qualify it as being in the context of urgency of debate, as required in the motion.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The Chair will consider the matter, and get back to the House at a later time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour today to present several annual reports: the British Columbia Police Commission annual report for 1991-92; the seventy-first annual report of the Liquor Distribution Branch, fiscal year ended March 31, 1992; the Legal Services Society of B.C. annual report for 1991-92; the fifty-second annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission, covering the licence year ended February 29, 1992, pursuant to section 34 of the Motor Carrier Act; and the twenty-first annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Board of British Columbia from January 1 to December 31, 1992.

I beg leave to present the Office of the Public Trustee Year in Review, 1991-92.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

COST OF MILITARY ASSAULT HELICOPTERS TO CANADIAN TAXPAYER

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 59 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion 59 standing on the order paper, of which I've given the appropriate notice. It reads as follows:

"Be it resolved that this House urge the government of Canada to reconsider its decision to purchase 50 EH-101 military assault helicopters at a cost exceeding $5.8 billion, with a view to selecting alternative technology better suited to peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and coastal patrolling duties, and reducing costs to the Canadian taxpayer."

[ Page 5370 ]

Hon. Speaker, I rise in support of that motion. One year ago we passed a resolution declaring British Columbia a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Today on the eve of the peace walks throughout the province, which will be held on Saturday, is an appropriate time -- also today as Earth Day -- for us to discuss whether the government of Canada ought to be asked by this House to reconsider the waste of $5.8 billion of taxpayers' money.

Today we're asking the government of Canada to re-examine its decision. We're not instructing the government of Canada; we're simply asking that our senior government take a sober second look at the decision to commit at least $5.8 billion to the purchase of 50 EH-501 helicopters. These helicopters are ostensibly intended to serve three purposes. The search-and-rescue function is critical to a mountainous maritime and arctic country like ours. No one would challenge the appropriateness of equipping our Canadian forces with the best available modern, effective search-and-rescue equipment. However, there is a real question as to whether this purpose might be accomplished just as well at far lower expense.

[2:45]

Both Boeing corporation and Bell Helicopters have indicated that you don't need war-fighting capacity in order to provide an effective search-and-rescue strategy. The Boeing Corporation, for example, has proposed the modernization program for the current Labrador search-and-rescue helicopters, costing in the range of $150 million to $200 million, not $5.8 billion, extending their life by 15 to 20 years. That would be similar to a choice recently made by the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, who have chosen to refurbish 339 of their own helicopters.

The second purpose for the EH-101s is their ability to patrol fisheries and enforce maritime sanctions for Canada. A variety of options may be available to overhaul or replace the existing Sea Kings.

A third so-called purpose is the ability to hunt and destroy enemy submarines. This so-called requirement is a holdover of the cold war. Thirty-five of the 50 EH-101s are intended for this purpose, but we might well ask: where now are the enemy submarines we are urged to protect ourselves against? As one of Canada's two Nobel Prize-winning scientists, Dr. John Polanyi of the University of Toronto, put it, the only thing that's real about this defence is the cost. As Tariq Rauf, a senior research associate at the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, said, what this country needs is not to be protected from Russian submarines but from loss of faith in government. I believe the Canadian people have clearly given their verdict on the latter issue.

At a time of record federal deficits, when the federal government is cutting valuable programs and offloading costs onto the provinces, when many provinces face crippling deficits, when it is becoming increasingly difficult to serve not only the basic services that Canadians take for granted but our traditional, ethical and moral obligations to developing countries in Africa, and when our federal government proposes to gut development assistance to poor countries like Tanzania, Kenya and southern African countries, at that same time, 68.5 percent of Canadians oppose the waste of money on these useless machines. A Gallup poll in January showed that 79 percent of British Columbians oppose the waste.

We have many technical opportunities in British Columbia, in an area for which I share some responsibility as Minister for Technology, to build appropriate search-and-rescue technology in collaboration with companies which service helicopters, like Canadian Helicopters, in collaboration with the Coast Guard, which is now reviewing the real search-and-rescue needs of our coast, in coordination with companies which manufacture hovercraft, coast guard cutters and Zodiacs in B.C. We ought to be looking at those opportunities. Therefore I'm delighted to support this motion urging the government of Canada to take a sober second look.

I'm going to share my time with the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, who is going to make a few comments as well on this subject.

G. Brewin: It is a pleasure to join my colleague and others in this House to support the motion that has been put forward under his name, and by the government, as a recommendation to the federal government.

I'm very pleased to speak to this for a number of reasons -- first of all, on behalf of the many people in my constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill and elsewhere in lower Vancouver Island. The people of this area have been on record for many years as strong supporters of peace issues, and were among the earliest to organize a peace walk in British Columbia. Every year thousands of people march to the Legislature to discuss, to think and to acknowledge to the world, and to ourselves, again reminding us about the need to continue to work on peace issues. This is also the home of the original group of the Raging Grannies, a group of which I'm very proud. I'm not a member of them, but I have many friends who are. I suppose I could be there, being a granny myself.

There are also in part of Victoria-Beacon Hill many individuals and groups who have provided enormous leadership to the peace movement across this country. As a former mayor of Victoria, I am also particularly proud that our city was one of the first to declare itself a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That was very important to me personally and to our community. I'm personally very proud of the stand the British Columbia government has taken in the last 18 months, and I think the rest of the country should be as well.

The world has changed. The threats, real or perceived, have lessened significantly. While there are serious trouble spots around the world -- in the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, Central and South America, Somalia, Cambodia and other places -- nonetheless, the reason that so many of these weapons were purchased and put into use by our national government has changed enormously.

It is time for us to focus public policy in a way that responds to that changed world situation. What that says to me and many other people is that the decision to purchase EH-101 military helicopters is an absurd one. 

[ Page 5371 ]

It is not what we need; it is probably not even what our military needs. We have heard the technical information that if we have a need for a particular kind of vehicle to work in a particular kind of field, then we had better analyze the issue a whole lot better than we have. As I see it, the dollars that are being spent on this are needed much more importantly in a whole lot of other areas, and I would suggest three areas in particular.

The first instance is peacekeeping and search and rescue. As we're doing that, we must analyze what we, as Canadians, are particularly good at in our support for world movement and for keeping peace in the parts of the world where trouble still exists.

The second issue has been mentioned already, but let me mention it again. I think it is very important for us that that international economic support comes from Canada. We have seen some cuts at the federal level. We've seen some support diminish for places like Africa, and it's being shifted to eastern Europe. That may be a good use. In fact, what's happened is that the money that could have gone to eastern Europe has been switched from Africa, while at the same time we are buying unnecessary military helicopters.

Thirdly, I see major social policy areas within our own country that need a lot of financial support: the very important issues of the environment and issues of immigration. How are we going to settle the many immigrants in our communities? A major social policy area is needed there. I think another very important area we haven't spent as much time on is the current health scourge of AIDS. We've had lots of discussion about that in this House, and more will come.

If we had half the dollars that are going into this ridiculous purchase of military helicopters, we could go a long way toward helping our communities solve some of these other problems. So I urge support for the motion that is on the floor, and I urge all of us to attend the peace walks in our own communities.

J. Dalton: I just wish to advise the House -- given the nature and the importance of this topic -- that each of the members of the official opposition will be free to vote as he or she pleases on this important topic.

D. Symons: One of the problems of being later on the speaking list is that many of the things you would like to say have already been said.

I speak as one who has concerns about what has happened -- what's referred to as the peace dividend. For decades the western nations have been told that huge military expenditures were required to counter the Soviet threat. In reality, that threat is no longer there. Unfortunately, however, the world seems no closer to peace. If anything, it seems that the situation is worse, except that the threat of nuclear confrontation is much diminished. Canada continues to spend significant amounts of money on its military, and the peace dividend has not really accrued to either social issues or the taxpayer.

In my opinion, the federal government has not made sound decisions regarding Canada's defence budget. A few years ago they came out with a White Paper on defence -- a hawkish document premised on the Soviet threat, at a time when the Soviet alliances were disintegrating. They embarked on a program of building a nuclear submarine fleet that was, thankfully, scrapped. They are now proposing to purchase very expensive attack and multi-purpose helicopters. I do not profess to know very much about the technical aspects of the EH-101 helicopters. I do know that they would be the most sophisticated and expensive sub-hunting helicopters in the world. They will also be the most expensive search-and-rescue choppers.

Just before I go to my next statement, there was a Gallup poll done about three months ago in Canada. It turned out that we in B.C. came out first in Canada for being -- peaceniks, I suppose. Of those British Columbians polled, 79 percent were in favour of scrapping the helicopter purchase. The Canadian average was 68.5 percent. Surprisingly, Quebec was closest to us, with 76.6 percent. It's interesting: they've got it broken down into age, gender, education and household classifications, and the figures across all those various segments of society are fairly constant, which shows that there's a great cross-section of the population of both B.C. and of Canada that feels quite strongly on this issue and that this is basically a waste of money.

I do believe that our military and rescue operations should be supplied with the best and the safest craft needed to perform whatever tasks that may confront them. I am not convinced that the EH-101 helicopter fills the bill, and that is why I think that it is prudent to ask the federal government to reconsider its decision.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I have to stand and oppose this motion. There are a few things that need to be straightened out here. One, this helicopter doesn't happen to be an assault helicopter. The Canadian Armed Forces does not believe in offensive; as a matter of fact, its whole role is defensive. That's one of the things we have to realize: we do not start wars.

The second thing we need to realize is that we bought it for defence; we are buying it for fisheries' patrol; we are buying it for search and rescue, law enforcement and drug enforcement. That's a far cry from chasing submarines. By the way, if you don't think there are submarines out there, remember the news report of three weeks ago where a Russian submarine and an American submarine ran into each other. Fancy that.

Another thing I want to get straight here is that Boeing has a vested interest, so obviously they are going to have certain things to say about it if they can make $130 million or whatever in a rebuild program, and it's time for us to realize that.

Another point we want to make is that when we try to tie nuclear weapons to these helicopters.... There's no helicopter in the world that carries nuclear weapons, by the way.

I want to read an article to you that is in the Times-Colonist today. Hopefully, you will have read it. It gives you some of the specifics of this helicopter; it might open your eyes as to what this helicopter is. It says:

[ Page 5372 ]

"Regrettably, Canada's helicopter modernization program has become so politicized that informed debate may no longer be possible. Much of the problem can be traced to misinformation being spread by opponents of the EH-101. This has created a situation whereby we find a 'mythical-cum-political EH-101' displacing 'the factual EH-101' in the public's mind."

This writer, whose name is Nigel D. Brodeur, is from the Times-Colonist, and the points that he has rebuked start off.... It goes for ten points....

"The 'factual EH-101' is described in the 1992-93 edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft and other authoritative aerospace publications. It has the following qualifications:

"1. Its selection in 1987 was highly publicized. In November 1990, the all-party Commons standing committee on national defence called the EH-101 'the only contender for the Sea King replacement' and recommended the replacement be done as soon as possible to avoid costly stop-gap measures."

I might remind you that the Sea King is 25 to 30 years old and is falling out of the skies.

[3:00]

Second, it's a multi-role helicopter with three variants: naval, commercial heliliner and tactical/logistic transport. It says nothing about assault. It says nothing about being an attack helicopter.

The naval variant is designed for surveillance and control operations against ships, submarines and aircraft, and to provide early warning of anti-ship missiles or attacking aircraft. It also will enable its mother ship to conduct search and rescue operations, medical evacuation, relief airlifts, emergency team transfers and surveillance, interception and boarding of suspicious vessels.

The fourth reason is that the EH-101 has the range, endurance, survivability and all-weather capabilities essential to cope with Canada's extremes of weather and large ocean areas of responsibility and to handle United Nations commitments in foreign seas. In other words, it is operational within the boundaries of Canada, which is rather large and has rather a harsh climate.

Forty-six percent of the $4.4 billion cost will be spent on the helicopters, 35 percent on the 35 ship-borne EH-101s, and 11 percent on the 15 onshore-based search and rescue EH-101s. This translates into a cost of about $43 million and $32 million, respectively, per aircraft. The project remains at $4.4 billion in 1992-93 dollars. It's anticipated the cost will be $5.8 billion in future dollars. There's a big difference there.

Some 10 percent of every EH-101, all three variants, will be made in Canada, and worldwide sales of 800 are anticipated. Industrial benefits to Canada are forecast to be 113 percent, meaning that more money will flow into Canada over the life of the project than the cost of the EH-101 itself. Jane's notes that the naval variant of the EH-101 is designed for fully autonomous, all-weather operation from land bases, large and small vessels -- including merchant ships -- and oil rigs, and specifically from a 3,500-tonne frigate with dimensions tailored to our frigate program.

Minor adjustments to stow and maintain the EH-101 are expected to cost about $40 million to $60 million. The EH-101 has a longer range than the Labrador and can operate under icing conditions more severe that either the Labrador or the Sea King could handle. It could have reached the 1991 Hercules crash in our Arctic and the recent Gold Bond Conveyor disaster off Nova Scotia, which our present equipment cannot do.

Canadian Forces search and rescue experts have measured the EH-101's downwash and found it to be comparable to or less than the Labrador's. In other words, if you're in the water and drowning, the Labrador would drown you but the EH-101 wouldn't. A $160 million modernization of the Labrador would extend its life by five years -- and I emphasize the five years, because it was misquoted earlier. But it could still not operate in icing conditions. A $1.8 billion modernization of the Sea King would extend it to 2010, but it would still lack the range and endurance.

I ask this Legislature to think twice before backing this motion. We ask people to risk their lives to go to sea to save us, and it's high time that we give them the equipment they can do this with. We are not very supportive and not very imaginative if we back this motion. Unfortunately, if we do buy it, this equipment will have to last another 25 to 30 years. If we buy something cheap, it will not last.

H. De Jong: I rise today with mixed emotions on this issue. It's unfortunate that a well-intended peace march is so obliterated by a political manoeuvre by this government, and in particular by the Minister of Advanced Education. It just happens that this march is held each year when the Legislature is in session. The Terry Fox run, usually held on the Labour Day weekend in September in support of cancer research, a service which deserves and has received a lot of recognition from all British Columbians, and other marches for worthwhile causes, even though they are held at a different time of the year, do not get this same recognition, simply because of the timing of this event versus the others. I'm sure the government of the day would not call the Legislative Assembly together prior to the Terry Fox Run, and I wouldn't expect them to either.

The peace march that is to take place this weekend is a symbolic gesture toward world peace. Peace, of course, also reflects freedom: freedom of speech, of religion, of expression of opinion. It reflects labour peace, economic peace -- and we can go on and on. The march, as I see it, is a reminder to all politicians and world leaders how much peace and freedom are cherished by people of all walks of life and in all aspects of life. I recall that last year a good, well-intended march was blurred by a motion in this House to declare British Columbia a nuclear-free zone.

This year the Minister of Advanced Education has chosen to further obliterate this well-meant activity over the decision by the federal government to purchase helicopters for peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and coast-patrolling duties -- uses completely within the scope of peace and freedom. Who would argue against peacekeeping? Forces should be properly equipped for their own safety. What's wrong with search and rescue? No words can describe the peace of mind of families, parents and children when a loved 

[ Page 5373 ]

one is in danger and search and rescue is doing all they can, often putting their own lives in great danger. The same applies to those patrolling the rugged coastlines of our country. I'm sure the people participating in the march will also be extending tribute to those who have given their lives for the lives of others who are now enjoying peace and freedom.

Some ten years ago I had the opportunity to attend a Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention in Halifax. The day after the convention we were asked to go out on the destroyer Ottawa. There were about 100 of us -- mayors right across the continent -- who went on this trip. They took us out four or five miles, perhaps even further, into the ocean. They did all kinds of manoeuvres with the destroyer: mine-sweeping, responding to a supposed air attack and who knows what all. We were very impressed with what the Ottawa could do. At the conclusion of the trip, the captain wanted to speak to all of us before we left ship. He said: "You were probably very impressed with all you've seen and observed today." Then he started to outline how inadequate the vessel was in terms of technology currently used by other countries. At the conclusion of his speech he asked us the question: "Having told you the actual facts about the destroyer Ottawa, would you have your son or daughter go into warfare on the destroyer Ottawa?" The answer was obvious. The captain's plea to us was to lobby our federal representatives for better equipment so that we can send our people out on peacekeeping and other defence missions in as safe a manner as possible.

We're not here today to discuss the type of helicopters or their cost; the federal government is in charge of that. The only thing I can say in favor of the federal government on this issue is that they are at least aboveboard regarding the cost of the helicopters, in order that peace may be maintained. They are not hiding the cost in a Crown corporation, as this government would do.

I support the symbolic walk for peace in the broad sense. I do not support this exercise, and the consideration in the House of Commons, brought forth by the Minister of Advanced Education in the resolution that stands on the order paper. I trust that on this day we in this assembly will reflect on the many sacrifices that have been made by our fellow Canadians to secure peace and freedom in this country and also the sacrifices of those representing Canada in peacekeeping forces in Europe and elsewhere.

P. Dueck: Hon. Speaker, I must apologize for trying to correct you when you called on the member for Abbotsford. I heard this echo behind me, and I thought you were addressing me. So I am very sorry.

I will not be very long with my remarks. I feel saddened when issues are brought forward in this House more for political reasons rather than issues that this body should discuss. I sincerely believe that we are faced with many issues in this Legislature, but they are being passed up because we spend our time on issues that are really a concern of the federal government. I can accept the walk for peace, but the price of a helicopter and whether or not it is used for warfare has nothing whatsoever to with this body. Of course we're all against warfare. I would probably vote against buying those helicopters, but it is not my place or the right time to discuss that here in this Legislature. Therefore I will vote against it for that reason alone. I will not be sucked in to discussing something that's a federal purview and stand up for or against it as though we're for or against war -- putting us on the pin. I object to that, and I totally regret that the member has chosen to discuss issues of that kind in this House. I will be voting against it.

A. Cowie: I will be brief. While I agree with many of the peace connotations of this motion, I feel very strongly that this type of motion should not be put before this House. This is a federal responsibility, and I think it only confuses the issue when it is brought before this House. Accidents take place in the north and in other places. At the present time, the helicopters that our Armed Forces have simply cannot reach the accidents on time. There have been several of these accidents in the past while resulting in deaths because they could not get people out. Our role in this Legislature does simply not involve deciding on the technology of helicopters. I'd like to go on record as saying that while I believe there is a need for some review, especially at the federal level, the EH-101 appears to be the best helicopter at this time and will be primarily used for rescue, fisheries and other peaceful purposes.

[3:15]

L. Fox: It was my understanding that, by agreement, each caucus was allowed ten minutes to speak on this. There are about two and a half minutes left from the member for Abbotsford, and I'd like to make a couple of observations.

First of all, I have similar feelings to those put forward by the member for Matsqui. I'm extremely disappointed that a minister who could use this valuable time for so many crucial issues within his ministry should decide that we're going to make some inroads into federal political issues on behalf of his political party federally.

I'm absolutely amazed at the Advanced Education minister's suggestion that the federal government should pay attention to the polls in which 79 percent of Canadians were against this purchase. I wish this government would use the same logic on itself and pay attention to the polls provincially that say 86 percent of British Columbians are against this government's taxing policies. If those values are good enough for the federal government, why are they not good enough for his government? That's a very good question, and I hope at some point that minister will answer it.

I don't have any knowledge about whether it's the right decision to purchase those helicopters. I do not have the expertise available to me to make that determination. I certainly respect the contribution from the member for Chilliwack, who has had years of experience in that particular area. But the federal government has made the information available to the Canadian public. It has put it right out front in order for 

[ Page 5374 ]

Canadians to make themselves aware. I believe the democratic system will serve the Canadian public well, and I think this House and this minister should respect that system. We should utilize the time in this House to deal with the provincial matters we're charged with.

J. Tyabji: I can respect the opinion of the previous speakers that this is not the forum for this debate, and certainly I respect the opinion of people who feel there's a need for these helicopters. But I think that when we're getting letters, as I know I am, from many British Columbians about how unacceptable they find the purchase of helicopters at a time when tax revenue is down, I think there is some merit to at least expressing in this House how each of us as elected provincial members feels about it. For the record, I am not opposed per se to the purchase of military helicopters for peacekeeping, but I am opposed to this purchase because we don't have the money for it.

To give you an idea of one of the letters, one person says:

"It looks like this country is going to the dogs, and nobody is able to get up and do anything about it effectively. The latest thing nationally is that we now will be paying $5 billion for the defence helicopters, while at the very same time they're cutting back transfer payments to the poorest provinces in Canada. Who do they think is going to pay for it -- the six poorest provinces or the rest of us that are just barely hanging on? The logic of it all boggles the mind."

As provincial representatives, I think it's important for us to realize that people are feeling taxed to their limit, both provincially and federally. If we are to bring this debate forward in this House -- and I think that's debatable -- then for the record I'm also opposed to the helicopter purchase.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of this motion. I do so not wishing to take issue with my friend and colleague, the member for Chilliwack, who has an outstanding career record in the Canadian Armed Forces and, I'm sure, does know far more about the technical features of this helicopter than I do. But I do take issue with the comments from the member for Matsqui, who suggested that this is not a role for provincial politicians. In fact, I would argue it's a role for all politicians, everywhere in Canada, who are looking at the responsible use of Canadian tax dollars.

This week is provincial Emergency Preparedness Week. Down in our cafeteria we have a little notice about how we should be preparing our communities for a natural disaster. I know of many communities in this province that have applied for and have been unable to get funding for simple things such as making schools earthquake-proof and making disaster routes available to people who are likely to be in need if natural disaster occurs.

It's a question of prioritizing the $5.8 billion of expenditures that the federal government is about to make. It isn't a question of whether or not we should have search and rescue; of course we need it. It's a question of how one best commits those dollars in communities such as mine, which is a long, narrow coastal community that is absolutely dependent upon an active, proper and vital search-and-rescue team. Even they will argue -- those who are involved on voluntary and professional levels -- that what is needed is additional dollars going into the community for community first response and not a centralized system with helicopters that are likely to be posted outside the province and possibly overseas.

This is not a question of war or peace. I believe that all Canadians have in their hearts the desire for all people in this world to live in peace. This is a question of how we best commit Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars at a time when our deficit is rising to levels that are unacceptable to every taxpayer in this country. To spend $5.8 billion at this time is the wrong priority. We can be spending much more wisely the hard-earned dollars that the government taxes from the Canadian people in order to make sure that those dollars are committed in the communities in British Columbia, where those dollars can do some work for the people of British Columbia and not simply buy very expensive equipment and machines which may be needed by certain sectors of the peacekeeping force in the Canadian armed forces.

Hon. Speaker, I speak in favour of this. I believe that it is not only the right but the obligation of all elected members, whether they are in the Legislature in British Columbia or in Newfoundland, to stand up and speak out on matters of importance to all Canadians. I believe this to be of the greatest importance.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be allowed to close debate on this matter.

J. Tyabji: Aren't you a draft dodger?

C. Evans: I'm incredibly proud of everything I've done.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Hold it! It doesn't defame my character in the slightest, and she doesn't have to take it back. Every step I've taken in my life, in terms of militarism, I'm incredibly proud of.

I did have some procedural comments in mind. I don't agree with the hon. members who believe that it's inappropriate for us to discuss this issue in this House. The hon. members of the third party have motions on the order paper dealing with federal matters which they are waiting to raise in this House. They correctly understand that in order to represent their constituents, they have to raise matters of government here. This is the only forum we've got.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I will honour your motions when they get to the floor, and I think you should honour other people's, simply as a matter of courtesy.

Hon. Speaker, it's correct for this minister to bring this particular motion here. The federal government is asking us as Canadians to spend $5 billion on brand-new helicopters, while cutting this minister's ability to 

[ Page 5375 ]

deliver education to the children of all of us in this House. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a college graduate to understand that there's a connection. If you take money from the minister's ability to do his job and put it into guns, then there isn't the money. It is exactly correct.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm not going to argue with you, because this is not a partisan debate in which we're going to be seen to be different.

Lastly, it is correct for us to respond in a timely way. If thousands and thousands of people wish to walk down the street on an issue, it is correct for us not to pretend to be aloof to what's on those people's minds. If peace matters on the streets of Vancouver or in the hearts of some members here, it is correct for us to vote on that -- not to divide us but to show the people that to every one of us, no matter how we vote, democracy is still respected in this place. They get a right to a vote; they get a right to have someone stand here and speak, regardless, hon. member from the north Okanagan, of what we did with our life.

[3:30]

The Speaker: I call the House to order. For the information of the members, the Chair will read the motion before you:

"Be it resolved that this House urge the government of Canada to reconsider its decision to purchase 50 EH-101 military assault helicopters at a cost exceeding $5.8 billion, with a view to selecting alternative technology better suited to peacekeeping, search-and-rescue and coastal patrolling duties, and reducing costs to the Canadian taxpayer."

Motion approved on the following division:

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply. I should also advise members of the House that the Forests estimates are being dealt with in Committee A.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: We are pleased to have in the House today two people involved with the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group, who were here to listen to the debate we had earlier and who also are going to be organizing and participating in the Victoria peace march this Saturday coming up. I'd like the House to please make welcome Mr. Al Rycroft and Kealey Pringle, who are in the gallery at this time.

L. Fox: Before I start into the question that I really want to ask, I want to just make a brief comment about the minister's discussion this morning at about 11:20, when she talked about the lack of process in Bill 19, compared that to the process in Bill 84, and then went on to talk about how the process was working in the education system. I'll resist the opportunity -- or the challenge, I guess -- to talk about the lack of process in the fixed-wage policy or the lack of process when the Minister of Finance usurped the Minister of Health in making the settlement with the hospital unions.

But I did want to follow up on a couple of items. I was reading through Hansard, and I noticed that the minister suggested to the opposition Education critic, in response to a question about whether school boards should or should not have the ability to have local taxation powers, that further studies were being done on that particular issue. Would the minister like to identify for me the scope of those studies and, perhaps, how many studies there are and who is conducting them?

Hon. A. Hagen: May I just take a moment to introduce one of my officials, who has joined us at the table: Gordon Whitehead from the immigration policy branch.

I'm pleased to clarify the comments I've made so that there's no question about them. We were talking about the issue of the right of local school boards to levy taxes in their own right. I noted that the funding review had found no consensus in their broad-based discussions on this issue last spring through fall, and that as I reviewed those recommendations and reported on them after the review was tabled with the government in December, 

[ Page 5376 ]

the issue of taxation at a local level was one that we would be dealing with, with further study. So my intent was to refer back to the matter of local taxation, to indicate the lack of consensus and to note that it would therefore be a matter of further consideration.

I think I've said very clearly in a number of discussions we've had back and forth across the floor that this is a matter requiring careful preparation. It is also something in the purview of the Ministry of Finance in terms of taxation policy. But I don't make any bones about the fact that as Education minister, working with school boards, it's obviously a policy issue in which I'm very interested.

L. Fox: I just want to follow up on that and make sure I understand exactly what the minister said. It seems that as the Minister of Education you're not opposed to the idea of local school boards having taxation powers, but you feel it needs further study. Is that accurate?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just read from the letter that went out with the report of the funding review. I noted in the letter: "The report did not identify a consensus on issues regarding local taxation." It stated: "I will be undertaking further dialogue in 1993 prior to announcing any changes in future years to local taxing provisions in the School Act." I was speaking there as a minister interested in that issue, as I note the Minister of Finance is responsible for taxation.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the UBCM also participated as active members on the advisory committee and on the committee of elected officials, as we worked together on those matters. I have not said and I want to make clear that that discussion involving the Ministries of Education, Finance and Municipal Affairs, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the UBCM was a very important part of our look at all of these issues, because any decision taken in one area has implications in other areas, whether we are looking at provincial or local taxation. So those ongoing considerations will involve further consultations with the people I've just mentioned.

L. Fox: I think I'm going to have to get a listening piece, because the minister tends to trail off at the end of her presentation and I perhaps lose the conclusion of her statement.

Obviously the citizens of British Columbia are looking for some reforms in school taxation. I don't want to get into the Finance minister's area, but if the Education minister is considering lobbying the Finance minister on behalf of the BCSTA for the right to tax locally, then obviously there's an acceptance that homeowners' property taxes will continue to be the formula for collecting school taxes.

That's why I was trying to understand whether the minister was sincerely looking at this. You said there were further studies. To me, if you didn't support the idea, there wouldn't be a need for further studies. I'm trying to clarify what those studies are going to contain. Or if that is not yet designed, perhaps there are members like myself who might write the minister and suggest some things that should be considered within the study of taxation for school purposes.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. member, when we talk about taxation in any form, it has to be put -- and I think this is what you're suggesting -- in the context of overall tax policy, number one. Secondly, I want to make very clear that I don't intend to lobby for anyone. The BCSTA can lobby government very well for itself, as any organization may do. Thirdly, because we are dealing with overall tax policy, any future policy in this regard needs to involve, at a minimum, the parties that I've talked about. I want to emphasize that point. Taxation policy needs to be discussed by the parties who are affected by it. The UBCM is clearly interested. We involve them in the whole funding review, because local taxation comes into education revenue, which is distributed back to the province. That taxation level is set by the provincial government according to our current tax law.

[3:45]

A. Cowie: I have a couple of questions regarding the Vancouver School District -- particularly now because, as everyone knows, they've been bargaining for some 84 days. It's a very long bargaining period with the teachers and their local association, and there are some 53,500 students at stake here. I'm just wondering -- especially since they are $27 million apart -- what the minister can do to help out with this situation.

Hon. A. Hagen: As I often take the opportunity to do, I will just make sure that the member is aware of increases that have gone to Vancouver this year. The school district has received a $6.6 million increase. Over the past four years the funding to Vancouver has increased by 26 percent. Its enrolment has not increased very much; it's up by 6 percent over that period of time. I believe that Vancouver may have received some additional funding in this past year with the new program we introduced to assist it with new English-as-additional-language students that may have arrived in the school district. They received core funding in the block, but additional funding has been made available so that schools that have rapidly growing populations may be assisted in assessing and placing those students.

In addition, Vancouver continues to share in funding for a $2 million inner-city schools program. I believe that the Vancouver School Board will be applying, because it does run a number of very fine programs to help children from the inner-city core, and there will be resources available to it.

In the English-as-additional-language program, last year Vancouver received -- over and above the original block that was allocated in February 1992 -- just a smidgen under $1.5 million to assist it in the assessment of English-as-additional-language students and their placement into its classes. Let me give you some idea of the resources this government has made available and note that many of those resources are new resources that particularly assist Vancouver in providing services for its children. And we've looked at how we can assist boards right across the province.

[ Page 5377 ]

A. Cowie: I want to compliment the minister on some of the strategies she's been taking in stressing the reduction of some of the operating costs for management. I agree with that, and I believe that's a good strategy throughout the province. There have been some excesses in that area. As far as Vancouver goes, I think we have to recognize that the administration side has been reduced. In 1980 it represented 0.77 percent of the total budget. It's now down to 0.57 percent, so that's very respectable. I think that management has done a really good job in cutting costs in Vancouver, and they have very special problems there.

We have a situation at the present time -- as I said, the 84 days of negotiations -- and counter-offers have finally been put on the table to the teachers' association. They've come back, and they are $27 million apart. So it looks very much like there could be a strike, which would be a very unfortunate situation. The teachers' association has voted 51 percent in favour of a strike, which is not very high. Usually one would expect about a 70 percent vote before the teachers would go on strike. So that might be a bit hedgy. However, as they are $27 million apart, it looks like there is not going to be a resolution of that matter.

The board has said that there are bound to be at least 100 people laid off unless the teachers realize that there simply isn't any more money. They don't seem to be realistic about that factor. I'm just wondering what the minister can do to inform the teachers' union in Vancouver that they are not going to get any more money, and there's simply no other place to cut.

Hon. A. Hagen: Sometimes I just tell the parties involved to get real. Almost $316 million goes into the schools in Vancouver, and I've noted to the member additional funding that is available. I have no comment about some variation of the $27 million. I sometimes get letters that say: "You've cut the funding to the Vancouver School District by $27 million" -- or $21 million. What I've shared with you is the fact that Vancouver's funding has increased by almost 27 percent over the last four years, while its enrolment has gone up by 6 percent. There is additional funding already allocated, and there are resources available to Vancouver throughout the year. Like all boards, though, it's facing a challenge in providing for its students. I want to say that about every board. You commented about the need for boards to look carefully at where they're spending their money. I want to acknowledge that doing that is difficult.

I won't repeat the comments I've made. Last year Vancouver received an increase in its funding; this year it has received an increase throughout the year. There have been additional resources made available. Vancouver has been treated fairly and equitably, like other districts, and 45 of those districts have come to a resolution of their collective agreements. I'm hopeful that Vancouver will do so too. It's obvious that a lot of teachers are concerned. The bargaining will continue, and I hope that they will arrive at an agreement -- as I hope all districts will -- and that they will achieve success.

A. Cowie: I'll just ask one more question. The deficit was some $7 million this year in Vancouver. So the extra amount of money, the $6.6 million, doesn't even cover that, apart from the extra programs that some of the provincial money went into. The real problem appears to be that somebody has to get real, as the minister stated. It would appear that the administration has tried to get real, although there may still be some room for movement there. There always is, it appears. At least we should always be looking at that. I complimented the minister for taking that approach, because I think the flattening of organizations is especially important today in administering. So I agree with that aspect.

I'm not against teachers at all. But in Vancouver they appear to be not real enough. It's my understanding that the average senior teacher there is making $60,000 a year. They get three months' holidays. We should be so lucky in that aspect. I think that being real is very important, so I would hope that the minister could help with that. I realize that the BCTF is very close to the NDP, although I also recognize that not all teachers belong to any particular party. I think it would be very helpful if the minister would have some very close discussions with them to make sure that they are real in this situation so the students won't suffer with the strike.

Hon. A. Hagen: I respect the collective bargaining process. Vancouver teachers and the Vancouver board are in the midst of that process. We've shared some information about my responsibility to provide to the board, in a fair and equitable way, resources for the children in Vancouver. I'm sure that the teachers and the trustees, both of whom have the well-being of children very much at the fore, will continue with their efforts. There are difficulties at times, I know, but I'm confident that those two parties -- like the boards that have successfully reached agreement -- will eventually get to that agreement, and I wish them well in that work.

A. Cowie: The comments from the minister remind me of one further question that perhaps I could get some clarification on. When you're $27 million apart -- and they've been bargaining in Vancouver for 84 days -- it is a clear case for some overall provincial bargaining, rather than leaving it up to individual school boards. I happen to be in favour of giving as much local autonomy as possible to communities or even neighborhood groups. I believe that it's very important. But there's a certain responsibility that goes along with that. This is a case where perhaps the minister should be looking at some overall provincial bargaining in order to avoid these sorts of situations. Perhaps the minister would just comment briefly on that as it affects Vancouver.

Hon. A. Hagen: Two comments. First, our Labour Relations Code and Labour Relations Board stand ready to assist the parties in any way that they believe would be helpful. I know that the parties are well aware of those resources and that often they do assist when 

[ Page 5378 ]

there seems to be an impasse. I would certainly commend the work of mediators to the board.

Second -- and I won't repeat this, because as many people in the chamber know, we have exhaustively discussed the issue of the Korbin commission's work on public sector bargaining -- I've made it very clear that I don't believe there are instant solutions, but rather, there is a need for a careful look as we make changes in policy. That's the reason that the Minister of Finance asked Ms. Korbin to conduct an inquiry on the part of government to examine bargaining in the public sector. We have certainly committed ourselves to act in a timely way as soon as her recommendations are received. We will be studying them and moving forward. We know that the report is coming very soon. We can anticipate some further discussion then of the issue, the positions and what's best for the children -- what in fact is going to be best to create the climate and the processes, supported by our excellent Labour Relations Code, to assist bargaining in the public sector.

K. Jones: I'd like to explore a different area with the minister, the area of funding to independent schools. First of all, I'd like to ask the minister to explain her justification for the elimination of the very, very small amount -- 10 percent of funding -- that was previously provided to level 3 independent schools, where the parents paid 90 percent of the operating costs and 100 percent of the capital cost to operate those schools for the students. There was no other cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Could the minister explain her justification for removing that very inadequate 10 percent of funding for these people who have over the years been double-taxed? How can she explain taking even the last little bit of contribution that the province makes to these pupils' and their parents' welfare?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: We have several classifications of independent schools, some of them funded and some of them unfunded. Originally the schools that were funded at 10 percent were a part of just three classifications, when we didn't have a process to ensure that all schools in fact met some basic standards in terms of educational facilities and meeting municipal codes. The group 3 schools, as they are called in the act, the ones that are funded at 10 percent, are not required to meet any of the standards set by the province regarding certification or curriculum accountability through examinations. So they fall into a category which doesn't make them eligible, in fact, for the other two areas of funding, the 50 percent and the 35 percent. Those schools are funded by the province because they operate under certain criteria that are based on them following provincial curriculums, meeting provincial standards and meeting certain standards of certification. And as a province, if we are in fact to provide funding for schools, there is an expectation that they will fit within the criteria for funding.

So what we have done is discontinue funding starting in September of 1993. We will in fact be reducing the number of classifications to four. The group 5 schools in the past, which were not funded at all, had exactly the same kinds of qualifications for being in that category. They met some fundamental health and safety standards, and they do not foment dissension or in any way operate outside the laws and fundamental values of our society. So we will be dealing with the group 3 schools and the group 5 schools as one group from now on. There will be legislation introduced within this session to make those changes.

I should let you know that, in that consideration, if any of those schools should choose to qualify under the group 1 or group 2 categories, then funding will be made available to them. That means that they offer programs consistent with the goals of the British Columbia curriculum; they participate in our assessment and grade 12 exams; they employ certified teachers; they maintain adequate educational facilities; they meet municipal codes; they are evaluated by our independent schools branch; and their fee levels, related to the cost of educating a child in a school in their district, are no more than the cost of educating such a child -- or if they are more, then they receive 35 percent funding rather than 50 percent funding. So if any of those schools that are presently in the group 3 category should meet those qualifications, those standards, then they would be eligible for funding under probably the group 1 category, or group 2, after operating for a year before applying for a certificate. So there is that opportunity or that option for them to fit within our standards of accountability and programs offered.

K. Jones: The minister has opened up an awful lot of avenues to be explored as a result of this requirement. She talks about making sure that they don't foment dissension. It seems odd to be judging our school systems on whether they will foment dissension or not. I would think all of our schools should encourage free thinking and thoughtful analysis of process. Is that what the minister describes as fomenting dissension? I agree that to get funding equivalent to the funding for the public schools they would have to meet certain curriculum requirements and standards. Judging the certification of teachers versus the success of the pupil seems questionable.

Demanding curriculum standards for minimal funding certainly doesn't seem valid. If, as she described it, we're talking about the group 3 schools, often referred to as the level 3 independent schools, that 10 percent contribution allowed those schools to operate without having the provincial standard curriculum. But this didn't mean that they didn't have good curriculum. It meant that they had a different curriculum, such as the California curriculum or some other suitable curriculum. Sometimes it was much better than the B.C. curriculum, but it was different and therefore didn't meet the requirements of the ministry.

I think the ministry is being too dogmatic in setting down criteria. This seems to be totally contrary to the Year 2000 principle of educating students with more flexibility. When it comes to funding for independent schools, we completely lack the flexibility that we're talking about. We appear to be more in line with the concept of regimentation or discrimination against independent schools for some dogmatic or ideological 

[ Page 5379 ]

reason. People are choosing to have their children taught in an independent school, for whatever reason, be it religious or a desire to have a higher standard, and are willing to pay for those higher standards. Maybe it's a lack of confidence in the public school system, which I think is prevalent among a lot of people in the community today. It's certainly not the fault of people in the public school system. I think a lot of them are trying very hard to provide outstanding education, but they're frustrated in their attempts to provide that type of education. A lot of that frustration comes from the bureaucratic processes required of them through the Ministry of Education. The minister needs to seriously address the problems that are causing people to move away from the public schools to the independent schools. I don't think those problems are really being addressed today.

Getting back to the original question, could the minister explain to us why she made the decision to cut the 10 percent funding to the group 3 independent school?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to read a couple of sections from the Independent School Act. I think it's important to know that any funding that goes to schools or the regulation of schools comes within principles that we all support. For all of the schools, whether they are group 1, 3 or 5, there is a fundamental requirement that the inspector of schools must be satisfied that no program is in existence or is proposed at the independent school that would -- in theory or in practice -- promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, or social change through violent action or sedition. When we talk about those fundamental values, all the schools have that as a requirement under our Independent School Act.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Interjections.

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, those are characteristics of our public schools, and those are clearly values and characteristics within our public schools as well.

With respect to schools that have alternative programs, I want to just observe that there are many alternative programs within the public and independent school systems. You will find a whole range of models, as the member well knows.

The funding criteria for all our schools -- and certainly for the independent schools that are funded at 50 and 35 percent -- is that the programs offered are consistent with the goals of the British Columbia curriculum. That's spelled out very clearly in section 3 of the act, as it applies to both group 1 and 2 schools. They have a curriculum and educational programs that comply with the instructional time and program requirements determined by the minister; there is an evaluation program that demonstrates student progress in achieving intellectual development, human and social development and career development; and there is participation in provincial assessment and examination programs. Those are stipulated by the act and are fundamental characteristics within that variety, or those alternatives, if you like, where there is funding that flows to those schools.

Group 3 schools do not meet some or all of those particular criteria. Because there is not that adherence to the fundamental goals of British Columbia schools, I have made the decision that funding will not be continued. We are dealing here with the criteria and accountability from which that funding flows. We believe that if public funds are to be made available, then those public funds must flow to schools where those criteria are clearly set out and met by group 1 and 2 schools.

I might comment that we work very closely with the Federation of Independent School Associations. They are very supportive of the criteria that are the basis for the funding for their schools, and they have worked diligently to ensure that their schools meet or exceed the criteria. Virtually all of the teachers in the group 1 and 2 schools are certified and are members of the broad educators community through the College of Teachers. That requirement is not there for any of the other schools. They have every right to continue to teach. They are regulated, but in a very basic way -- not according to the consistent goals that I've indicated are the requirement for group 1 and 2 schools.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether she believes that independent schools have a place in the school system, per se. Could she also give us an indication of the percentage increase in students attending independent schools versus public schools over the last three years.

Hon. A. Hagen: Clearly we believe that all schools that provide for children should have some regulation by government. As a member in opposition, I supported the new Independent School Act, because there were a number of schools that had no regulation at all, even in terms of health and safety for children. But where public funds are used, we believe there should be accountability consistent with our broad goals for education. We make a very significant contribution to the support of independent schools, and we have continued that contribution. We have made some very constructive changes this year in terms of supporting special-needs children in the independent schools.

[4:15]

The population in independent schools is 7 percent of the total population. If I could track that for you as a percentage of the children in the public school system, it has remained fairly constant. As a percentage of the number of children who are attending the public schools, it has risen about 11/2 percent over the last five years.

K. Jones: The decision to eliminate the group 3 funding has created a great deal of fear in the community among those who wish to have their children attend independent schools -- fear that the next step will be eliminating the 35 and 50 percent funding that goes to the other levels of independent schools. Can 

[ Page 5380 ]

you give us an assurance that that funding will not be touched?

Hon. A. Hagen: Since we became government, we have continued our funding for independent schools. As I noted, we work very carefully with the Federation of Independent School Associations, which represents the vast majority of the funded independent schools in the province. That working relation is there, and the independent schools continue to have support for their efforts. As I say, we've looked this year at ways in which we can improve that funding, particularly for the special-needs children in the system. I am pleased with our ongoing commitment to the children who attend those schools and our working relationship with the FISA.

K. Jones: I just want to get a further clarification. I didn't hear a positive response to my question as to whether you are going to assure these parents of continuing funding this year and in the following year.

Hon. A. Hagen: The estimates before us are this year's estimates. I want to assure the member, because he is asking about future policy, that the role of the independent schools is a part of our work in the field of education, and it's been fully supported by this government since it became government. We have continued our funding without changes, except, in consultation with the FISA, to find improved ways of supporting the education of children in the independent schools. I want to note again that these schools play a role in our school system and in our councils. As part of the overall services to children, we are pleased to support that role with the accountability and consistency of goals that are reflected in the group 1 and 2 schools.

K. Jones: In the election campaign the Premier promised that there would be no cuts to independent schools, and yet already this year you have broken that promise to these people by cutting the 10 percent to level 3 schooling. Does that really give assurances to other people who have children at independent schools that they are going to get a fair break from this government?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe I've answered the question in respect to public funds going to schools where there is public accountability for goals that are consistent with the goals in public education. Those goals are very clearly spelled out. We believe that that's a responsible decision for us to make in the use of public dollars.

K. Jones: In view of the fact that the students who go to independent schools are not costing any more than half the operating cost and are no capital cost to the school districts, and that the parents are picking up the remaining costs to educate their children, is the minister prepared to stop this concept of double taxation for the education of their children and allow a quota system or a special allocation of the taxpayers' money to allow the parents to choose which school they would like to have their funding go to?

Hon. A. Hagen: Every parent has a right to free education for their children. This government provides support for those parents who make different choices.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if and when -- if she hasn't already -- she would be replying to the letter of March 17 that I addressed to her with regard to the cancellation of funding to independent schools. It has been more than a month now. Is there some problem with replying to a simple letter from a fellow member of this Legislature on behalf of their constituents?

Hon. A. Hagen: Point taken. If you wrote on March 17, that is too long a time, and I apologize for any delay. I'll ensure that you have that response by tomorrow, hon. member, if that's possible, or by the first of the week. I am sorry if there has been some delay in our responding. We usually try to get back to our colleagues very rapidly. I know that I'm signing letters now that have come to me most recently. I will look into that and ensure that you have a response in a timely way.

K. Jones: Thank you. I did take the liberty of following up on this today to find out its status, and I was told that the letter was dated April 15 but that the minister hadn't had time to sign it off. Perhaps that would help. I wouldn't have had to ask these questions if I had gotten an appropriate response. It's particularly of concern to my constituents, whom you also were expected to reply to, since each one of their letters was attached with the letter of concern to the minister. I would like to ask the minister to expeditiously respond to my constituents. A large number of them expressed concern, and I would really like to get those responses back in a timely manner.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to enter into discussion with the hon. Minister of Education in the areas of human rights, immigration and multiculturalism. I'm aware of the introductory comments she made at the beginning of the introduction of the estimates in this regard. First of all, as we enter into this section, I would ask if there is any particular comment you would like to make, or would you prefer that I simply go ahead with the questioning?

Hon. A. Hagen: I must say, I do appreciate the way in which the members opposite have facilitated the debate. I gave an overview of all aspects of the ministry in my opening comments last Friday, and I just encourage you to ask whatever questions you want during this portion of the debate.

V. Anderson: I would deal first of all with the section on human rights and then come back later to the immigration and multicultural programs.

When we look at the increase in budget in the area of human rights over the past two years, taking into 

[ Page 5381 ]

account the budget last year and the budget this year, the total budget has increased by approximately $600,000 -- projecting from '91 to '92, and then from '92 to '93 and '93 to '94. Although there has not been a significant increase in this current year -- almost $79,000 in the total budget -- it does take into account that there was a much larger increase in the year before of nearly $500,000. So there's been some overall undertakings within the ministry over that period of time, and hopefully we might find out where they are. Might she first of all indicate the kind of staffing available in this ministry and where that staffing is located -- here in Victoria or in other offices -- so we get a feel for where the staffing work of this program is underway.

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you for the questions. Let me frame them this way. Our human rights operation is based in Victoria. In the past year we have indeed expanded our Vancouver office. That is very convenient for people who may want to get information about their rights under the human rights code to lay complaints. Also there is a small room in the Vancouver office which allows us a place to have hearings, so that's actually been a cost-efficiency, and we've used that. Two of the human rights council of five are based in Vancouver, and the other three are based here. Our total staffing for our human rights branch is 25. It has remained fairly constant; there have been some increases there.

Let me put this in a context, because sometimes we get into numbers rather than purposes. Our purpose has been to ensure that when people call the human rights office, we're able to assist them through the process of whether there should be a complaint lodged, give them information about what their rights are and then carry them through that process. As you know, we work with the human rights advisory council as a quasi-judicial body, so I deal with it not directly in terms of its complaints, its caseload, but administratively, to support it in dealing with the human rights issues that come before it. We have worked diligently to ensure that there are processes that allow for information, the processing of complaints, mediation at any level so that we can assist a complainant to a resolution whenever that is appropriate and useful, and then finally through to hearings if there is not a resolution.

We've also done a good deal of work, especially with the appointment of our new council on education, in relation to human rights. They are working closely with our multicultural programs and our language and multicultural work in the ministry around education, racism and other aspects of human rights education. As we have looked at the work of the council, we've looked at ways in which it can deal with an expanded mandate. You'll remember that last year we made some important improvements -- amendments -- to the human rights code that extended the protection against discrimination. We have worked, too, to find ways by which people can have complaints dealt with in an expeditious way. Our caseloads are up, but we are managing them well.

[4:30]

V. Anderson: Since you have mentioned the changes that were made to the Human Rights Act last year, and you indicated that the caseloads are up because of that, could you give some indication of how much the caseloads have increased and in what particular areas, and whether there were particular amendments made last year which have affected the increase of those caseloads? Are there some crucial areas that have been touched by it because of that, and other areas that are not so significant?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's an interesting question, because we might have thought that the one came as a result of the other. But I think that some of the increases are related very much to the parts of the Human Rights Act that have always been there. I know that I have some of those figures here; we'll just be able to deal with them. The amendments last year were the addition of family status and sexual orientation as a basis for protection, class action complaints, employment equity initiatives and removal of the cap of $2,000 for injury to feelings and self-esteem. The majority of the investigations are within the scope of what have currently been the issues under the Human Rights Act. I believe that there have been no complaints, for instance, under the employment equity provision, and I know that the branch is dealing with setting up some guidelines for that at this time. There have been 68 complaints on family status, most of them relating to housing; ten complaints on the basis of sexual orientation, mostly relating to employment and some to spousal benefits; and four class-action complaints of various categories.

I can give you that general information. I can't give you any more information about the process with those because, as I noted earlier, they may be settled very quickly with an inquiry and preliminary investigation, or they may go further through to mediation or to the possibility of a hearing. Within the branch we try to ensure that where the complainant and the respondent can be assisted in coming to a resolution of the complaint, one of our approaches is to try to provide that kind of assistance.

V. Anderson: There are two questions that come from what you raised. One that I don't think you mentioned was the change in age limit to between 19 and 64 inclusive; the limitation before was 45 to 64. I remember that there was quite a bit of discussion on that at the time, and I wonder if there has been any significant awareness that this has made a difference, or if it has just faded into the picture. There was also discussion about the increase in compensation beyond $2,000. Is there any indication as to what that change has demonstrated? Also, the board of inquiry was established to be able to take steps to respond to complaints, to the employers particularly. I wonder whether there is anything to report in those three areas in particular.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm going to ask the member to explain the board of inquiry reference, because I'm not clear what the question is.

[ Page 5382 ]

There have been no complaints on the age issue. In the long run, I'm not sure whether that might almost be a technical amendment in terms of its impact, hon. member. With respect to the change in the compensation level, there has been one ruling by the council for an award greater than $2,000.

V. Anderson: Just a summary of the board of inquiry: established by the council to enable the council to order an offending employer to take specific ameliorative steps or to adapt employment equity or a similar program. That is the one I was referring to in that particular question.

Hon. A. Hagen: I did address -- perhaps not strongly enough -- the issue of employment equity. To date there has been no employment equity program brought before the council for its advice around the implementation of such a program for any employer or organization. The council is preparing some guidelines for how they would advise on that. Fundamentally, they're putting some flesh on the bones of the approach that now makes it possible for them, upon request, to advise an employer or organization about the implementation of an employment equity plan.

V. Anderson: You mentioned that there are offices in Vancouver and Victoria. I wonder about access to the council from across the province and what kind of demand there is outside the two cities. How easy is it for people from other parts of the province to get access to deal with inquiries or to have hearings? How is that process being handled?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a good question and a good observation. Because the industrial relations officers of the employment standards offices are involved with assisting in the investigation of complaints, any employment standards office in British Columbia is a place where a person may go. Government agents' offices are also a broad source of information on any program of government. The council does travel to the hearing if a complainant and respondent live in another place. Fundamentally, the council goes to them if there isn't a resolution through the investigation and mediation process.

V. Anderson: You mentioned the fact that industrial relations officers and government agencies are involved in the process across the province, and therefore that makes it available to people. Are the costs of using these facilities or offices contained within your budget, or are they strictly in the budget of the agencies that hire them? Or is there a fee for service?

Hon. A. Hagen: They're not contained within the budget that we're debating.

V. Anderson: So if I understand you correctly, the services that they provide in this particular area of human rights are simply included within their jurisdiction, and there isn't any extra cost to this ministry. I think that's a bonus for this particular program. Some of these bonuses need to be noted and commended when they are there, because it makes it that much more available to everyone.

When you mentioned the education process around the whole area of human rights, I understand that in the long run the education program would hopefully be useful in preventing the number of cases that come to the council. I would be curious to know about the extent of those programs in the community and the knowledge that gets out to people in that particular area.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm really very pleased to respond to this question, and I'd like to do it in the context of the additional responsibilities of the ministry, for which I know you're the critic, hon. member.

We've tried to see our human rights work, our work in multiculturalism and race relations, or the work that our immigrant policy and immigrant settlement people do not as atoms -- in whatever atoms make up our ministry -- but as part of our work in education. I must say that Harinder Mahil, the new chair, and all the other council members are strongly supportive of the education work that they can do on behalf of human rights.

Let me just note one new initiative. The Human Rights Council is working in active partnership with other branches within our ministry and the broader community to develop a curriculum and resource packages for students and teachers that deal with anti-racism. That's just the start of bringing the human rights council and their education role into our work in curriculum development resource material. I just need to say that when we do that, we are automatically involved with the teaching profession, because they are very much a part of our curriculum development. In all areas that we're working in, that kind of working relationship partners we sometimes call leverage, because what we get is just what you were talking about -- using offices around the province. We get a lot more out of that kind of effort than if the Human Rights Council was working by itself with its very small staff and very concentrated workload.

I'm very pleased with the initiatives the council members have taken in this regard. They share your view very strongly that one of the ways in which we deal with human rights is to have people understand its principles and learn that these values are part of the valued and democratic society in which we all live.

V. Anderson: One of the things that I consistently hear from the community more and more with regard to the concern about human rights is whether the human rights stand by themselves or whether they're in a context. I hear people raising the question of whether at this point we need to do a shift in thinking about that, and stress the responsibilities we have out of which the rights come, rather than that the rights are there without any responsibility.

It's that balance that I hear people saying, because those who are jealous of the rights that some people seem to have, or the efforts they put into maintaining their rights, are continually asking where their responsibility is. I know that works both ways, but I think this 

[ Page 5383 ]

discussion is becoming more prevalent. The more we stress the rights -- which has its own validity -- the more I'm hearing the question about responsibility. When we're entering into the educational process of children within the school -- and their parents and families within the community -- then that whole concern of the relationship with responsibilities and rights almost seems to come to: do responsibilities come from rights, or do rights come from responsibilities?

I know it's a 51-40 percent undertaking, but that's the kind of discussion I'm hearing raised now.

Hon. A. Hagen: We're getting into some philosophy here. Fundamentally, the reason we have human rights legislation is because we have not learned to take our responsibilities as carefully as we might. So I think that the very fact that we are dealing with human rights... If we look at what I see at the end of a working day in countries other than ours, around the abuse of rights and the absolute abandonment of any responsibility for fellow human beings, it makes us realize how precious those rights are to us. But I don't see it as a dichotomy at all. I don't see that we don't have as a fundamental principle and value in Canada a recognition of our responsibility for our fellow human beings. It's there in our social programs. Our medicare program is a profound statement that we all share a responsibility to assist those who have a right to medical care if they are sick or in need of that care.

[4:45]

But to come more specifically to your question, because I don't want to leave it that broadly, we can look at our education system and the exciting things happening with our multicultural and immigrant-serving agencies, which are more and more a part of the integral fabric of our Education ministry and education institutions. I don't want to paint an overly optimistic picture here, but we have to start, and we have to build on that as a part of building a respect for the rights of others and a knowledge and understanding of their diversity and -- to pay credit to some of our students -- a zero tolerance for abridging such rights.

I want to speak again, as I often do, of a group of students in North Surrey, who happen to be at a high school where I last taught and left in 1962, and who have established a student policy of zero tolerance around racism. And with that policy, they have exercised their responsibility to ensure the right of every student in that school to be respected and to be given the opportunity to learn. It's something that they all take a responsibility for; it's not one or the other, but something where, as students exercise that responsibility, they fundamentally protect and acknowledge human rights. But our legislation, of course, is there to ensure that there are vehicles where we can deal with the abridgment of people's rights. And we still need that, although I suppose we might hope that at some time, through education, the need for mechanisms for people to get some kind of fair hearing will diminish.

V. Anderson: A few minutes ago, the minister raised the topic of racism in this context of human rights. I think we're all aware of the concern about racism -- in the negative sense of that term -- developing in the province, the hate telephone lines and the groups which have grown up in a number of places within our province to foster hate, disagreement and misunderstanding between different racial groups. I know this has been a factor in some of the high schools here in the lower mainland. There have been a number of conferences sponsored by the anti-racist groups. I wonder if the minister sees and has experienced an increase in this concern. Has the minister been able to undertake a larger focus to deal with this concern within the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's difficult to measure these activities, hon. member. I think any manifestation that we see of the overt racial hatred that is expressed with hate lines or particular groups that espouse the philosophy of a single race and power relationships is absolute anathema to all of us.

We are working diligently to deal with those issues. We are looking at legislation that will allow us to more effectively deal with complaints of racism and racial hatred events and activities. We are involved with a large number of programs under our multicultural program, and there's an increase in our budget this year for that. We will be looking at ways to deal with race relations and racism by working very actively in the community. This is not a top-down thing; this is something that needs to pervade our organizations, where we can all deal with it. I noted the secondary school a moment ago as a microcosm of what a group of people have chosen to do in a community where they have influence and where programs can occur.

The focus in our multicultural programs is on building better cross-racial understanding. We're working not only with multicultural organizations but very strongly with municipalities. I've met with a number of municipal multiculturalism organizations that have the goal of positive relationships with the diverse communities living there. We have funded a number of conferences dealing with that.

We're dealing also with access to culturally sensitive programs. The United Way, for example, with support from our ministry, is currently working with many organizations around culturally sensitive services. We're looking at institutional change within our own government. There's a very active committee dealing with these matters and with conflict resolution where impasses occur.

I want to note here that -- because sometimes there's discussion about how we come to our understandings -- that education is broadly based. As people come to live in Canada by choice or because they come from desperate situations as refugees, we need to provide them with an opportunity to understand citizenship responsibilities and rights within our country. There is a learning that occurs as we move to another country, and people have come to this country because it is free.

Again, there are small manifestations of that. When I ride in a taxi with a person who may be an immigrant to Canada, and he asks what I do, I tell him what I do. A comment that I've heard several times is: "Imagine. I can sit with an elected person with a responsibility in 

[ Page 5384 ]

government and talk about things that are important to me in the country I came from. I never would have thought that that kind of freedom and openness would be available to me."

I'd be happy to provide you with information. We probably don't have a lot of time, but as we complete our work this year on the focus of our grants and the increases that will be there, you may want to receive a briefing. I know you are an active person in the community, and you're part of the education process. It would be good for you to know a good deal about the work we're doing with our immigrant settlement grants and with our race relations and multicultural grants.

V. Anderson: I'll be coming back to some of those in a moment. I had thought I would put that into the other part of our discussion but it is all interrelated, so I have no problem with this.

I would pick up on two things, though, out of the current discussion. One of the things I'm discovering -- and I wonder how the ministry is dealing with it -- is the lack of clarity in definitions of terms such as culture, ethnic, nationality and racial. These terms are used in many different ways. I wonder, in the education program and also for our purposes of working together in clarity in the community, if there is some kind of dictionary definition -- a working definition -- of those terms so that people in the community could begin to deal with them in a consistent way. I'm finding that those terms are used interchangeably, and because of their interchangeable nature, we're often talking at cross-purposes with each other.

Hon. A. Hagen: Rather than trying to deal directly with your comment, let me just note that with our multicultural programs, we are dealing with community and race relations between the host community -- that's those of us who have been here and are, if you like, members, through whatever process -- and people who are new to the country and are probably from visible or national minority groups. Our multicultural programs work on the relationships between the host society, if you like, and the newcomers to our society. The funding goes to multicultural groups, so we don't fund individual unicultural or uni-ethnic groups under our multicultural programs.

If you turn to the immigrant settlement part of the programs, which was a new program we brought in as government in January 1992, the funding there is very much targeted to direct services -- a list of areas where we believe we can target dollars through various organizations to assist people in their settlement. I could certainly provide you with the main areas where we are focusing our funding. It's direct-service funding that's going to assist people coming into those programs with their settlement needs.

V. Anderson: The minister raises a very significant point about the host community and the incoming newcomers to the country, because one of the concerns that I'm having raised in the multicultural or race relations advisory committee that I meet with regularly comes particularly from a Japanese-Canadian woman -- that is, a Canadian woman of Japanese heritage who was born and brought up in Canada, incarcerated in the camps in the forties in British Columbia, and is from a visible "minority." Although she has spent the whole of her life here, she has a very frustrating time because she is a host, and increasingly the hosts are the visible persons. The language used in discussion, even as we're doing it here, implies that the visible minorities are the newcomers, when many of our visible minorities, including our own daughter, are Canadians by birth, and in many cases their grandparents and their parents before them were all Canadians over a lot of generations.

Somehow, in allowing the agenda to be adopted by the newcomers and the focus to be on the newcomers, we have displaced and overlooked and put into a vacuum those people who have been here for a whole generation or many generations. So it seems to me that in our present circumstance, we're being forced to reconsider the reality that we started out with ten or 15 years ago in multiculturalism -- since we're over into that area at the moment -- is not the reality in which we now live. We're through a stage, and it's another stage we need to be focusing on -- not the one we were at but the one that we're coming into.

[5:00]

Just one more comment on that. We have always had waves of different groups coming into the country from one part of the world or another. And as each wave comes, we have focused on the needs of that particular group. Once they have become a part of the mainstream, then we go on to the next one, but we leave behind that the mainstream is a multiplicity. It's not the newcomers that are bringing the variety, but it's the very fact that others have been here. And the mainstream is not a mainstream; it's a multiple stream. It seems to me we have a new shift here that needs to take place, if you'd like to comment.

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is very astute in commenting about language and perception and how they affect our perspectives. I think all of us know of people who are third-, fourth- and fifth-generation Canadians born here who are members of an ethnic or a national group that came as immigrants a long time ago. We probably have to cast ourselves as an ongoing immigrant society. And you're very right in saying there is at this stage of the game a multiple stream of people involved, and I've had some of the same kinds of discussions that you have had.

I think, for our purposes, this is a part of education. When someone sees a person of colour, for example, the automatic expectation is that this person has just arrived in Canada, because there's a totally false perception that a person of colour is an immigrant -- and that's very wrong. I have a set of statistics for the census of 1871, where by far the largest number of people counted were our first nations people, the aboriginal people. But then you look at the other classifications that were made on the basis of race or colour, there were a very large number of people of Chinese origin -- this even before the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, when many, many more people 

[ Page 5385 ]

came here as workers on that railroad -- and many people who were black, many of them from, at that time, the West Indies rather than from Africa, or people who had come on the railway out of the Civil War from the United States. It's a surprising balance there, which really tells us something about the multi-stream that exists.

I think it is a matter of ongoing education and a recognition that we are a society of immigrants. The thing that holds us together in this unique country is our respect for human rights, our welcoming of people from every culture and corner of the world and, although we all know that there are challenges within that living together, the fact that we are, by and large, continuing to learn to live together as a productive society. We have work to do in that regard, and that's why some of these programs continue to be important for government and all legislators to support.

V. Anderson: I wouldn't want to be suggesting that I would correct a teacher in language or in expression, but it seems to me that when I was in school white was a colour, and that when we speak of people of colour we've implied unconsciously that white is not also a colour. Because if we go to many other countries of the world, we would be picked out of their community and street because we are a different colour than them. The colour that we have is white. It reminded me of a very hostile discussion that I had with a member of the so-called black community within the United States during the time of Martin Luther King. The argument of his was that it was either black or white. We were sitting at coffee one day, and I was saying: "No, it's not black or white." In the midst of this discussion, he said: "Yes, it is." I very quietly said: "No. I beg to differ; I have a daughter who's yellow." He almost threw me out of the restaurant. We have so much emotion, and that's just an illustration of how we are misleading even in our very discussion of colour.

To take it a step further, the ethnic origins in greater Vancouver -- an article on which appeared not too long ago in the Vancouver Sun -- also bring a new perspective that we need to think about very clearly. It listed the largest single ethnic origin as being British, including Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English and other British, Although they might not wish to be, they were included together. That came to 23.1 percent, a relatively small percentage overall. That was the single largest ethnic origin group. But even more important was that they listed the ethnic origin of peoples who had a multiple response, which refers to people from more than one ethnic background in their own person. That group was 35.4 percent. A much larger number were mixed ethnic origin.

As I visit with young people and talk to them in the schools, and as I have counselled many of them in marriage preparation, it's my projection that very soon that 35.4 percent is going to go to 50 percent and beyond, and that therefore we're in a whole new discussion. It's that the majority of our people are mixed ethnic, mixed cultural, mixed nationality -- whatever terms we're beginning to use. So those terms are no longer adequate.

The minister also commented about citizenship a little while ago. I refer to that briefly because one of the strongest comments of this culture and in other groups I've been to -- and not too long ago when I went to the Taiwanese cultural dinner -- was their expression of their Canadian identity, allegiance and commitment. That's not true of all of the groups I go to, but it was in this particular case. It seems to me that we need to look at a redefining of citizenship within a national, universal....

Canadian citizenship at one point as I was growing up was that thing that put a boundary around Canada and separated us from the rest of the world. The citizenship in our multicultural, multinational, multiethnic community, I would suggest, is a citizenship that has taken on a completely different meaning. It's not taken on the meaning of birth necessarily, but more on the meaning of allegiance and commitment.

Because I'm not sure, I would ask how much citizenship education is being done within our school system and in our community at large as a fundamental base point from which all other ethnic, multicultural understanding comes. It seems to me that the citizenship understanding, and what's involved in that, is fundamental to being able to put all the others in context. You mentioned earlier that people value freedom and the meaning of citizenship. I have attended citizenship court and seen the tears of joy and relief in others as they have come into the Canadian scene and made that commitment. It's very important. For those who have grown up here, it's a commitment that some of us have never consciously made. I would ask the minister about this aspect of citizenship in relation to the other aspects. It seems to me that citizenship is the context in which all of these other aspects exist, and without it, whatever else we try to do will be self-defeating.

Hon. A. Hagen: I enjoyed listening to the member's comments. I want to express my admiration for the thoughtful approach and your active role in this regard, hon. member.

I'd like to just briefly respond by suggesting that there are two ways in which citizenship lessons are taught. One of them, I believe, is by modelling -- by how we do things as much as what we formally teach. For instance, if we look at some of the work we do in this ministry.... I meant to bring a copy of the Newcomers' Guide, which has just recently been republished. It's full of pictures. It's written in a way that I hope will be much more accessible to citizens, and it's about what citizenship is all about, how they find out about how governments work and how they get access to helpers in our society. That Newcomers' Guide is available in five languages, so it will be accessible. Those guides are going out at the rate of about 1,000 a month, so they are obviously meeting a need.

Yesterday I mentioned to your critic that we have published a booklet, in cooperation with the lower mainland school boards -- in, I think, five languages also. It introduces parents to the schools. A free education for every child through to grade 12 is a 

[ Page 5386 ]

fundamental right of citizenship, and that is unparalleled in the world.

It's hard for me to document for you the elements of citizenship in our curriculum, because some of those are modelled around a more extensive approach to cooperative learning: dealing with conflict resolution and the excellent programs we're developing or are being developed by school districts on race relations and understanding. It's worth noting that our social studies curriculum is under revision this year. We are particularly looking at that part of our curriculum, because that's where citizenship is perhaps focused. We're looking at how it meets some of our needs around people knowing about not only our own citizenship but also the broader global citizenship.

When the next draft of our graduation program comes out for discussion, I think if you look at that carefully, there are areas around the responsibilities and empowerment of students and their outreach into the community that are very clearly related to citizenship. Again, that goes back to your rights-and-responsibilities concept: what the responsibilities, rights and opportunities are. If you have some ideas, particularly around the social studies review, I'd certainly encourage you to be in touch with our curriculum development people. I'm sure they would be interested in keeping you well informed about the review of that curriculum that will be proceeding this year.

V. Anderson: I'm very much aware of the Newcomers' Guide. I'm delighted to know about the new one; I knew it was coming out. What I'm looking for is the old-timer's guide -- a guide for those who have grown up in Canada; a guide for those who have never thought about what citizenship means; a guide for those who need to be as up-to-date in citizenship as the new citizens and who have come to citizenship in a very difficult way and at a great price. So that's just a comment in that regard.

Coming to the more mundane budget items for some clarification, I wouldn't want to bypass them altogether because of the other discussions. If we look at the Council of Human Rights column, as I indicated earlier, this year it went up some $79,000 overall. Perhaps a couple of areas indicate some of the focuses of your program. One would be STOB 30, which is office and business expenses: an increase of some 8.8 percent. You may have already answered that when you said that you've opened a Victoria office and the Vancouver office.... I'm not sure if that's what is being reflected in that.

[5:15]

Under STOB 65, the building account, there's an increase of 13 percent. Then when you get over to STOB 69, office expense, there's an increase of 49 percent. So there are three areas that have to do with office and office expense. What is the focus of those?

Hon. A. Hagen: The member has virtually answered his own question. We had a very small office in Vancouver, so we've added space; we've added staff. That's reflected in our budget. I really believe that that was overdue, because we are in the major metropolitan area and people were often needing to make long distance phone calls to Victoria in order to get basic information. I indicated to you, for instance, that we're saving costs there by virtue of not having to rent hearing space if the council is dealing with a hearing. It can take place in that office. It's a very small hearing room; it's also a room that's used for the council to meet. We use if for education and so on. It's what is known in the school system as a multipurpose room.

V. Anderson: I agree with multipurpose uses. I should be fair and ask about the decreases, and try to understand why there is a decrease. I noticed in travel, even though you say that we're covering the whole province, there's a $40,000 decrease, from $140,000 to $100,000. With the extension of work throughout the province, that seems strange, so I'd be interested in that. Also, at the same time as asking that, STOB 20 has a decrease of 13 to 14 percent in professional services. I was wondering what those professional services covered and why there's a decrease in that. It still leaves $250,000, which is a fairly significant number, so I presume those are professional services outside of normal staff. I'd be interested to know what is covered in that area as well as about the reduction in travel costs.

Hon. A. Hagen: On travel, with two of the council members based in Vancouver, they don't have to go to Vancouver; they're there. Fundamentally, the ministry is looking to make sure that what we're doing is servicing people. We're not travelling when we don't need to. I think all of us are watching that very carefully, and I appreciate the efforts of people in dealing with that.

On the other issue, we use legal services outside of the council for complainants. Those figures that you were speaking about will primarily relate to those legal services. They come from the Legal Services Society to assist complainants.

V. Anderson: Under the grant program, STOB 80, that's an increase.... Well, that grant program wasn't there last year. It's $2,400, and I'm just curious to know what that is about. It's a new item that wasn't there last year. The one next to it, STOB 82, is the contributions, which have gone up from $107,000 to $127,800. That is a 20 percent increase, and I'm concerned not just about the increase but about the purpose.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm going to attempt to give you an answer. A $2,400 item in a $3.6 billion budget.... I believe that may be related to some of the ongoing education work. Hon. member, it's difficult to have that kind of comprehensiveness in the briefcase of my expert assistant deputy minister in financing administration. We'll note the question in the Blues and make sure that you get all the information you'd ever want.

Let me emphasize that we are doing some more work in education. We're working with young people, for example. Last year the focus for Human Rights Day was on aboriginal issues, and there was a significant event in the Mungo Martin House building adjacent to 

[ Page 5387 ]

the museum. Children who were the Victoria winners of awards in a contest that the Human Rights Council sponsors each year displayed the collaborative work they had done in respect to human rights. We had a multiethnic or multicultural group of children who were the participants and recipients of those awards.

V. Anderson: I presume you are going to come back to the $127,000 one when you find it -- the contributions. I was curious to know....

Hon. A. Hagen: The $127,000 is for legal services in the human rights branch. We contract and provide funding to the Legal Services Society for the provision of legal counsel for human rights complaints. That has been an ongoing service available to complainants.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I have a series of questions. In the interests of going through it systematically, the first set deals primarily with immigration and multicultural programs, and the second set deals more directly with human rights.

My first question is with respect to the program of entrepreneurial immigration into the province of British Columbia. I'd like to know to what extent your ministry supports the proposition of entrepreneurial immigration and to what extent you believe it is a cost benefit to your ministry with respect to the dollars that are a prerequisite to that program being advanced.

Question two is in terms of the entrepreneurial program. Could you tell me the net number of dollars that come into the province through that program? To what extent is there a chargeback against the costs of operation in your ministry as a result of those dollars?

Hon. A. Hagen: Those are very good questions, hon. member. When I made my initial comments last Friday, I outlined some of the jobs and investments that had occurred over a number of years. They produce very significant returns for us with the entrepreneurial program: about six new jobs for each of the entrepreneurs for an investment of $150,000. As I noted last Friday -- if we look at it globally -- $270 million has come in over the last seven years through the various business immigration programs, with 4,300 jobs created.

In respect to the cost of such initiatives, I can give you some cost-benefit results of some of the overseas missions which are conducted by the branch. In the last 12 months there were eight marketing missions. Two of them were associated with Expo '92 in Seville and were not actually costed back to the ministry, but our ministry worked on them. Over 600 business immigration prospects were contacted. Experience shows that about 150 of those contacts will eventually immigrate. The missions are very carefully planned. For instance, in a typical mission about ten days away, there are approximately 80 potential contacts in that time. The cost of a typical mission is approximately $15,000 for travel, advertising and business expenses. There is a cost-benefit analysis: an average of $190 for each contact and about $125 for each job created. If one looks at the relationship between just those missions -- which, as I say, are very carefully planned -- we can see that the results in investment in British Columbia are significant.

In 1992 there was a total of just over 1,800 business landed immigrants, 870 entrepreneurs and 9,048 investors.

G. Wilson: Once these immigrants -- or the dollars that are attached to them -- are attracted, is there some means of measuring the extent of subsequent investment in the province? Secondly, is there an associated cost with respect to immigration as a result of family immigration that may follow?

Where I'm leading with these questions is to try and get a handle on whether or not there is a retention of the dollars through the initial investment and whether that acts as a net benefit -- which, one might argue, is true, looking at the figures you've got now -- or whether there's a net cost to government as a result of subsequent immigration that may be permitted through family immigration or relatives being brought into the province.

Hon. A. Hagen: Family immigration involves the family taking responsibility for the members who come here. I have no doubt at all that the benefits of this immigration are significant to British Columbia. The business immigration people are people who come with investments to make in British Columbia, and as I just noted to you, those investments are significant and they continue to grow.

The program in British Columbia is a model program in respect to the criteria for immigration. We very thoroughly inform and brief immigrants about what the expectations are under the two classes in which they may immigrate. They are monitored very carefully to ensure that they make those criteria. The criteria is clearly related to improving or sustaining jobs in British Columbia through those investments. We encourage the investors to look at opportunities not only in the lower mainland where they might traditionally look for them but also in other regions of the province. And the business immigration branch is having increasing success in having the business immigrant recognize that there are other areas in British Columbia where there are excellent opportunities. I believe that overall what we have here are people who are entrepreneurial and who have made a decision that they would like to invest in Canada, which means they are bringing a cost benefit to us.

The Laurier Institute, I'm advised, estimates that up to 10 percent of all the foreign capital that came into B.C. in a four-year period, from '85 to '89 -- a period that they've studied -- had its origin through the business immigration program. As I say, those programs are ones where the conditions, monitoring and follow-through is the best in the country. I believe the federal government, which is now regulating this whole area much more extensively, has looked to British Columbia as the model for how we should do it in the interests of expanding our economy.

[5:30]

[ Page 5388 ]

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister has the complete bibliography of that Laurier Institute report available. I'm not familiar with it; it would be useful.

Hon. A. Hagen: As is often the case, I think our best response to that is to say that we'll make a copy of that available to you.

G. Wilson: I wonder to what extent we can divide out the entrepreneurial immigrants, the 870 in particular, through the provincial component of this immigration. I recognize that there is, obviously, a very large federal jurisdiction in place here. To what extent is the eligibility for that entrepreneurial program reviewed overseas with respect to where the initial investment is coming from? What kind of past practice or business has been engaged in to generate that money? To what extent are there background checks abroad of the origins of the dollars that we're bringing in through the entrepreneurial section? I'm dividing that out from the business immigrants, who often file business plans and so on.

Hon. A. Hagen: We use our Canadian offices abroad, and there are very specific criteria for investment through the business immigration program. When visas are issued, there are terms and conditions that are attached to that visa. I mentioned earlier that there is a monitoring process to ensure that the business immigrant follows through and meets those terms and conditions -- through our embassies or consulates abroad and orientation training and expectation-setting procedures that are offered in our business immigration offices in Vancouver, and then, once the visas are there, through ongoing, supervision and monitoring of the investment. We have, I believe, a very comprehensive approach to the investors coming in. It is interesting to note that about 50 percent of the business immigrants coming into Canada choose to settle here, even though our procedures for them to come into Canada as entrepreneurs or investors are, I believe, the most stringent in Canada.

G. Wilson: I'd like to come down to those procedures. There are two points I'd like to just have a little bit of discussion on. One is with respect to the philosophical position that this minister may be taking with respect to the fairness of immigration, recognizing that there are many families abroad who would be very fine, contributing citizens to this country, but who don't have the prerequisite number of dollars to get in here as entrepreneurial immigrants. There are many others who, some might argue, can jump the line because they happen to have a pocketful of money that they can spend to get their way into the country. I wonder if the minister might want to comment somewhat on the philosophical approach to that.

Second, to what extent does the province actually have jurisdiction with respect to the regulation on the entrepreneurial immigrants being recruited? I know that there have been missions abroad, on which the minister has outlined some costs, where we've actually recruited entrepreneurial immigrants from the federal agencies with, I'm told, very limited or no provincial input at all. I wonder if the minister might clarify it if that's not the case.

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, on the issue of business immigration in relation to other immigration, as the member knows, the federal government sets the various classes of immigrants and sets some kind of expectation about numbers of immigrants who are going to come in in each of those classes. Those particular decisions have been taken through Bill C-86, and they cover considerable emphasis on family reunification as the major one. A very small number of immigrants actually are in this class -- something in the order of 6 or 7 percent -- so the vast number of immigrants come either through family reunification or through the independent immigration classes. We in British Columbia set the level of investment that is required; that level is set high. It is set, in fact, to ensure that a significant investment is going to be made.

As I noted earlier, we have taken the lead in setting up a program that is regulated and monitored. Only with the passage of Bill C-86 have we had the federal government really beginning to regulate that program. Those regulations, I understand, are going into effect in the summer of this year. They have used, I'm told, the procedures which we have established, because we are determined that those people who come in under this class will come in with significant levels of investment -- with the investor class, a minimum of $350,000 -- and that there will be a track record for those investors which we can then anticipate is going to translate into jobs in British Columbia. I noted earlier the job levels that over the last number of years are directly related to this particular group of business immigrants.

There's a huge area, too, where people come in as immigrants and in all kinds of entrepreneurial ways are contributing in an enormous way to the economy of the province. I think it's important for us to note that we're talking about a very small number of immigrants -- 6 to 7 percent of our total immigration into the province.

G. Wilson: Just so that I understand, we're saying that roughly 6 to 7 percent of immigrants into British Columbia generated roughly $270 million, created 42,000 jobs and essentially accounted for roughly 10 percent of the foreign capital investment in the province from 1984 to 1989. Is that, in summary, what we're talking about here?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just correct one figure: it's the percentage of business immigration in the total number of immigrants who come into Canada. That percentage relates to all of Canada rather than just to the province. I was incorrect in focusing it on B.C. alone.

G. Wilson: Nevertheless, of the 6 to 7 percent nationally, on a provincial basis most of the majority would prefer to come to British Columbia. We get more than the other provinces, which is understandable when you consider what we have in British Columbia.

[ Page 5389 ]

Having said that, I wonder if we can move just a little bit to the $270 million revenue generated, which is a substantial sum of money indeed. Given that this immigrant class -- and I don't like to use that word; "category" is maybe is a better word.... To what extent is that $270 million dedicated or earmarked into programs that will assist in new immigrant programs? In particular, to what extent will we find things like ESL programs, programs with respect to definition of the laws of the province, and understanding of some of the issues my colleague for Vancouver-Langara has been referring to so eloquently leading up to my questions? I just wonder what happens to that $270 million. Where does it go? Where does it fit into this particular budget, or does it just find its way into general revenue?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's all revenue to the province. Fundamentally we're looking at approved industrial-commercial investment. It's not an investment that's focused into the immigrant community. We're talking about people who are investing and creating jobs in British Columbia. It's not tied back into creating jobs for immigrants, but jobs for British Columbians.

G. Wilson: I understand the clarification the minister's making. Nevertheless it's my understanding -- and perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- that in order to qualify for this particular category, there needs to be an initial capital investment coming into the province in the form of capital. We're not talking about buying an apartment building; we're talking about capital invested. Is that not true?

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps it would help if I took a moment to go through the qualifications for people. For the entrepreneur, the person must have owned, operated and controlled a successful business; have the ability and intention to establish and purchase or invest in a new or existing business in Canada; their investment will result in new or continued employment of one or more Canadian citizens or permanent residents other than themselves or their dependents; and have the ability, experience and intention to provide day-to-day management of the business. Those are the requirements and we monitor it.

To qualify as an investor immigrant, an individual must have a net worth -- that is, assets minus liabilities -- of at least $500,000, which has accumulated through their own business endeavours; must have successfully operated, directed or controlled a business; and must be prepared to invest at least $350,000 for a minimum of five years in an eligible business. In addition, there are the standard health and security requirements for any immigrant that must be met by those two classes of business immigrant.

G. Wilson: Fundamentally then, what we're arguing here is the fact that you've got somebody whose net worth is a half million or better and somebody who, in terms of eligibility requirement, has the $350,000 plus. That's a bonus to the province of British Columbia, and therefore through that investment we benefit because of job creation. I understand that concept.

In terms of the total number of immigrant people coming in, will the minister address the question with respect to how she feels about others who may find it more difficult to get into the province because they don't have $350,000 to invest or their net worth is not a half million dollars, and who may see the entrepreneurial immigrant scheme as essentially a means to be able to jump to the head of the line -- giving preferential treatment in terms of Canadian immigrants to wealthy immigrants?

There's a fundamental philosophical question here that I alluded to a little earlier on, and I'd like to get the minister's thinking on this philosophical question as to whether or not we should really be going out attracting those people with that net worth, given that people who have that kind of capital also tend to be highly mobile and able to invest their capital worldwide. Certainly it's attractive to get them here. We'd like to have them here. The more we can get here, perhaps the better we are in terms of our overall economy.

Nevertheless, there are many people who are on long waiting lists to get in here, who already have family or relatives in this country and who would very much like to get their relations here. I wonder if the minister would talk about how one might impact on the other.

Hon. A. Hagen: I guess it's a matter of balance. About 40 percent of the people who come to British Columbia come under the family reunification class, and there are no requirements for them in respect to their right to immigrate if they fit within that family class.

If we want to talk about difficulties, hon. member, I think one of the ones we're going to face is the crazy system that the federal government is introducing of moving all the immigration processing to Vegreville in Alberta, instead of maintaining our offices in Vancouver. I can't imagine a more silly, stupid, ill-founded initiative than that, or a worse example of porkbarrelling in the riding of the Minister of Finance. The largest number of people coming into British Columbia come under family reunification, under the independent classification, or through designated skills -- and we have a small list of those, a list that I would like to see smaller, because I'd like to be training all the people we need to train in British Columbia, but where there are skill shortages and where people can come in to British Columbia or in to Canada because they meet the skill requirements in those areas of skill shortages. It's a complex area. But if we look at the business immigration class, they have significantly contributed to jobs and investment in British Columbia. We're talking about the start. I'm told that in some instances the investment that started at the levels that I spoke of has grown to as much as $20 million -- and those are ongoing investments that provide for the changing economy that British Columbia is building.

[5:45]

G. Wilson: I appreciate the clarification. I don't think there is any doubt, certainly notwithstanding some statistics that are produced from time to time. 

[ Page 5390 ]

Most people who have studied immigration would recognize that there is always a net benefit to immigration, not a net loss, and that immigration is something that is desirable in Canada, and is not something that should be feared, given that there are programs adequately and properly funded to be able to look after the interests of people who arrive in Canada, especially those people who arrive without the benefit of the kind of money that the entrepreneurial immigrant is fortunate enough to have. With respect to that, I wonder if the minister might talk a little about the refugee question with respect to immigration, and the new regulations with respect to UI that the federal government initiated and what kind of impact that is likely to have on the immigration programs in the province of British Columbia, given that the federal government is now moving to significantly alter, it would appear, both classification and financing funding of people who are under refugee status in the province of B.C.

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can speak to the matters under my jurisdiction and provide the House with some information about our settlement grants program, which has received increased funding this year over last year, and some new priorities that we've set, based on the work that we do with immigrant settlement agencies. I want to commend the work of the immigrant policy branch, which does an outstanding job of working with immigrant settlement agencies in leveraging the resources that we have available with federal funding or funding from other sources. Again, the federal government has tended to be very laissez faire about a lot of these matters. It has taken a hands-off attitude and is fundamentally learning from us.

The focus this year continues to provide support for the core work of the immigrant settlement agencies. Let me quickly run through the programs: immigrant family counselling, the enhancement of existing programs and services, programs for immigrant women and youth, English-as-an-additional-language and, for the first time this year, a small program we are developing that is targeted to immigrant seniors and men.

With respect to some of the changes regarding refugee claimants, we have made representations to the federal government around our concerns about people not being able to work until they've gone through the refugee claimant process. We're monitoring that very closely to make sure that it doesn't have any impact on the needs of those people and their possible requirement for welfare while they're waiting for their refugee status to be accepted so that they are then able to be in Canada as landed immigrants.

G. Wilson: I was having a bit of difficulty hearing the minister with respect to monitoring. I understand that the government's glee club is meeting in the House at the moment, and it was a bit difficult over the hum. I wonder if the minister could just elaborate a bit more on what kind of monitoring there is of the refugee question, with respect to eligibility for federal dollars. What do we do? Do we take a proactive role with respect to that? Do we actually become an advocate in that case? Are there advocacy programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a good question. When the refugees first arrive, they are supported by the federal government. The process is a faster one, and mathematically there's less chance of people not being able to be full-fledged citizens. It's very new at this stage; we have not seen its impact to date. But because it is a change in government policy, it's one that we're tracking very carefully, hon. member, and we will be happy to keep you advised if there are issues of concern that arise there.

We have been struggling for three or four years -- certainly since I became minister, struggling harder -- to get a formal immigration agreement with the federal government. Six provinces have such an agreement. Constitutionally, as you well know, we share responsibility with the federal government for immigration. Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario are the three provinces that have no formal agreement. It would serve us and the federal government very well to formalize our working relationships with respect to newcomers, settlement issues, English-as-additional-language issues, immediate support through longer-term settlement, regulation and all of those kinds of things. I just want to assure you that our branch is determined, highly skilled and very effective in representing B.C. in the discussions with the federal government even without such an agreement, and they will continue to act with that in mind.

But the federal government has literally been dragging its feet, as it has been on all kinds of other areas in this. I think it's a characteristic of the federal government, but it's made worse in this election year, and with other things that we might say have caused them to be preoccupied. We're having to do a lot more work. I'm fortunate to have a very excellent branch that does that work. And as I say, the federal government, if they came to us, would be the better off because of the way in which we manage many of these programs and because of some of the initiatives that we're taking to use our dollars in our programs in a way that really has done an enormous amount of good and adds to the immigrant settlement work that goes on in B.C.

G. Wilson: I would agree that they're having some preoccupations with a number of things: helicopters come to mind. Clearly there has been a real need for such an agreement, and it would be nice if there could be some national standard that could be entered into so immigrants could feel confident as they enter this country that there is a consistent national standard across the country.

I notice that the adjournment time is close, so I'll try to be brief. I have questions with respect to multicultural issues and human rights. I know this will be canvassed much more thoroughly by my friend and colleague from Vancouver-Langara. With respect to multicultural programs, I wonder if the minister would tell us to what extent work is being done to assist communities outside the lower mainland, particularly in relation to continuing education programs. As many 

[ Page 5391 ]

more immigrants move outside the urban centres, it is often difficult for immigrant people who find themselves in a new country in relatively small numbers to access some of the services they require in the smaller communities. I wonder if outreach programs are underway.

Hon. A. Hagen: We are doing work, in addition to the obvious work we do in the greater Vancouver area, in the Thompson-Okanagan area, in the Cariboo and on lower Vancouver Island, as far as immigrant settlement is concerned. With multiculturalism it's much more broadly based, and I don't have.... It's everywhere -- let me put it that way -- or virtually everywhere, in terms of grants and support. As you may know, member, I have a multicultural advisory committee that is geographically and culturally representative. It consists of about 24 people.

I can go down the list of community and race relations grants last year: Cowichan, Harrison Hot Springs, Victoria, Kamloops, Kelowna, Matsqui, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Penticton, Prince George and Quesnel. That's from a quick look down the list, and I will not be able to identify all of these by area. So the outreach of our multicultural programs in immigrant settlement is broad. It's broader in the multicultural area, and every region of the province receives some support for their multicultural activities.

In addition to that, we have a heritage language program in 133 schools all over the province. They are modest grants. They are not in any way sustaining grants, but they provide for the Saturday schools or the after-school programs that so many people operate.

I think it's worth noting again that the children who come into our schools speak 100 different languages in their homes, ranging from the languages of our aboriginal people to main languages to many that are probably new to our ears. We are supporting those cultural initiatives that communities are taking so that young children are maintaining their birth language and all of the things that go with being able not only to speak that language but to read and write it as well. I think that's a tremendous asset for us as a society, as we become more globally oriented in our economy.

Hon. Chair, I believe that it's probably an appropriate time for me to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The Committee met at 3:43 p.m.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, I'll offer a caution to the committee. As we remember from last year and last session, the microphones in this room are extremely sensitive, and side chatter is sometimes picked up by Hansard. Sometimes, more often than not inadvertently, it is broadcast through the buildings on channel 59. So I would caution all the members, and all present, to guard the side chatter very, very carefully.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 40: minister's office, $404,722 (continued).

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I think when we left the discussion this morning, it was on a note of some philosophical concern about the direction of the ministry when it came to increasing the wood supply during a time of declining forest land bases, and at a time when the inventory being conducted was resulting in a loss of annual allowable cut and a reduction in the amount of the harvest. I think the minister was prepared at that time to engage in some observations about what his ministry foresees as the solution to this fundamental problem of how to extract more fibre from a declining land base. We had arrived at a point where the opposition eagerly anticipated the remarks of the minister. Perhaps he would now be willing to give us the benefit of his vision for how we're going to sustain a perhaps even higher annual allowable cut in the years ahead, given that, as we look at the ministry and the votes, we don't see a major financial commitment to the type of planning process and financial commitment that will be required to grow more wood. I think, at that time, the minister was commenting that the value of the resource itself wasn't sufficient for the ministry to recover the costs, and perhaps he would like to comment a little further on that observation he made.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to get too philosophical.

First of all, just to correct the member, he referred to the new inventories resulting in reduced annual allowable cuts, and I thought I took some time to try to explain that we're talking about the application of 

[ Page 5392 ]

practices and standards to the land base -- really the overriding issue, which has resulted, in some cases, in reduced harvest rates. I think that's a distinction that is important to try to understand. In fact, one of the difficulties when you're talking about forestry issues -- and I think that's really been brought to the fore in the last few days or the last week or so -- is that people are looking for very simple explanations as to these kinds of issues, and they can't really be provided; they're fairly complex.

But let's deal with the issue. I did lay out very briefly what I thought was a sort of sense of direction. I don't think that when it comes to the budget we should necessarily look for change. In fact I would disagree that change, either in the way people think or in the direction the ministry's going, is something government should support with huge budgets. It seems to me that's something that people on the other side of the room might agree with.

But let's look at the broad issues and try to put it in some kind of context. We've got the land base that we clearly know can grow more trees, given the appropriate investment. I've talked about some of the reasons why we've not had that. One of them is that we in North America have not been prepared to pay the real price required to cover those costs, unlike some people in other parts of the world -- notably the Japanese, who pay extremely high prices for wood products, or the Europeans, who do as well. I think it's fair to say that the Scandinavians' experience is one that we need to look at, not to emulate necessarily, but to look at. It's interesting when you look at the economics there: the cost of the raw material is extremely high relative to ours. That's because they realize a higher return on what they do with the wood, and therefore can take some of that revenue and put it back into the land base.

We have not done that, and I suspect the reason is pretty simple. Essentially, the forest industry in this province developed having a competitive advantage of a very large -- and at some point what appeared to be an almost endless -- resource. There really wasn't much thought given to putting investment into the resource. The investment primarily went into the milling and transportation infrastructure to allow us to exploit that resource.

Really, we didn't charge that much for wood. Quite frankly, if you go back 20 years we weren't charging that much for the forest resource we allowed companies to harvest. That important competitive advantage allowed British Columbia to build the forest industry we have today.

We are going through a profound change. We are seeing, really for the first time, the limits on the resource, although that issue had been talked about. If you go back and read submissions made to Sloan and even before Sloan, people talked about limits to the resource being a fact we would have to deal with. But we really haven't had to deal with it, by and large, up to now. We have been in kind of an expansion phase, as I said, exploiting a resource that there has not been a significant investment in other than to exploit it. But we've reached the limit of that resource in terms of expanding the amount that we can harvest.

At the same time, we're looking at the transition -- or we're actually into the transition -- to managed forests, from a reliance on these seemingly limitless natural resources. Managed forests clearly require much more investment into the forest itself, and that has not been the pattern in British Columbia. We've not really, in any significant way -- even in a basic way -- really done that much in silviculture. I can't recall the statistics, but I was reading an article in Vernon the other day about the number of seedlings that had been planted in this province. I will be participating some time this year in the planting of the three-billionth seedling. But if you look at the period of time over which those seedlings have been planted, you will find there was a very long period of time when there really wasn't very much. The acceleration of reforestation has really taken place over the last decade. Prior to the last decade it wasn't that much.

So we're really okay, I think, in terms of that basic level of reforestation. But we really have not developed the mechanisms, and we really don't have much of a history, of intensive -- or what we refer to as incremental -- silviculture. This is what we're going to have to rely on in the future if we are going to sustain British Columbia -- and I think it's quite possible we can do that; I have no hesitation in saying that will happen -- as a forest-products-producing province. So we've got to come to grips with this, and this is clearly one of the topics the forest sector advisory committee is going to be dealing with.

So that's investment in the land. Simultaneously, we cannot rely, in a competitive sense, on an industry being sustained by an endless supply of a very cheap natural resource. The resource itself is now going to start to cost us more money. We're seeing that in terms of the application of the standards, which I talked about this morning, on the land base. As we develop these new forest practices, as we take more care in dealing with wildlife and visual-quality issues, as we take more care in all of these kinds of areas, it adds to the cost of harvesting that resource.

So we have to ensure that our industry, in their conversion of the natural resource to finished products, obtains the best value they can -- the maximum value. In that regard, I refer to the 16.1 program, the value-added sales, which I think, by and large, has been remarkably successful in inducing the development of that value-added sector in this province. Indeed, there are many plants in this province that rank with any that you will find anywhere in the world. I certainly have a sense of pride as a British Columbian about that.

A plant in Vernon, for example, that I was visiting and I've talked about before, Milestone Wood Products, is taking some of our very best, quality timber, and is manufacturing not completely finished products -- in fact, it's window and door stock -- that are being sold in the German market. That product is ranked number one in Germany. It's produced right here in British Columbia, and that's something we should all have some sense of pride about. We have the labour skills, the intelligence and the know-how to convert that resource into very high-value end products.

[ Page 5393 ]

There are some real questions. If anybody thinks that we can take all of the resource -- 100 percent of it -- and put it in that field, they're wrong. We can't. But clearly we can target some of it. We're currently putting about 10 percent of our wood into that area. I talked earlier about that 10 percent producing about 28 percent of the value of finished wood products and about 36 percent of the employment. Don't hold me to these numbers, but presumably, if we doubled the amount of wood and 20 percent went into that end of the business, then in theory at least, we could roughly double the value of finished products from the value-added sector -- from the 28 percent that it is now up to 50 percent. We could also increase the employment from its present 36 percent of solid wood up to 70 percent. Those are theoretical things, and I would ask the members to appreciate that I'm talking about them not in philosophical but in theoretical terms.

Certainly that sense of direction is one that we are pursuing in the Ministry of Forests and in other branches of government. Again, as much as one can theorize about what might ideally be the way to go, there are impediments in practice. When you deal with the variety of manufacturers that we have in this province -- the very large and the very small -- you'll typically find that their interest lies in maintaining their sectors. I don't think there has been the kind of scope that perhaps is required to look at the larger picture. I'm very, very pleased that at the initial meeting of the forest sector advisory group, there was a commitment made by all parties at the table that, indeed, all of us are British Columbians, all of us want the best for this province, and we want to get the best out of our forest resource, and sustain this industry that is so valuable to our economy and our people. So there's a commitment to deal with those kinds of issues at that table. I think progress is something that's always hard to measure. I don't think you're going to see a conversion overnight into this area that I talked about. We are moving in that direction -- I'm satisfied we're moving that way. I'm always impatient: I'd like to move faster; I'd like to see the development of that side of the industry accelerate some more. But I'm satisfied that we are moving in the right direction.

I think that's a pretty comprehensive view of a vision, if you like, for the industrial side of the forest sector. I think that directly relates back to the clear need to do a better job on the land base itself. I should say as well that, in terms of basic forestry, I'm not ashamed as a Minister of Forests for British Columbia to stand up in any forum anywhere in the world, with any minister of forests or minister of natural resources anywhere, and compare what we do here in British Columbia with anywhere else, because I think we do, by and large, a superb job. That's not to say we don't make mistakes. We do. But by and large, we do a superb job.

That's fairly lengthy, Mr. Chairman -- I apologize for taking so long. I think that kind of sums up my view, and the sense that we have in the Ministry of Forests, and as government, about the direction we should be heading in, and some of the difficulties of moving in that direction. I hope that satisfies the member's question.

W. Hurd: Certainly I respect the view that there are opportunities on the manufacturing supply side to increase value and to secure employment. But I don't really think that was the issue the opposition was attempting to raise here. I think back to the testimony before the Forest Resources Commission in this province, which is really the last serious attempt to address the forest policy concerns that British Columbians have. Clearly, in that report -- as we debate these estimates -- there was a desire for a strong shift in basic policy in this province. Some of the recommendations are interesting in light of what we see in the minister's estimates. For example, the commission noted that a means to increase and ensure stable, secure financing for forest management is simply not in place in this province, and identified that as a critical issue, and one that is simply not being addressed. It's multifaceted, and it will take courage to implement. Historically, neither the government nor industry has adequately managed to replenish the forests; and they are not doing so now. As a result, the annual allowable cut has been steadily reduced in this province. The commission also noted that British Columbia collects less economic rent per cubic metre of wood than virtually any other jurisdiction in the world.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, the concern that the opposition is expressing in connection with these estimates is that there seems to be no commitment to identify and to deal with this fundamental issue that was raised by the Forest Resources Commission. They pointed out that government should make a commitment to get funding for forest responsibilities out of the budget cycle, perhaps even to the point of appointing a Crown corporation, which would create some difficulties but would secure an adequate level of funding. What I guess we're looking for from the minister is some sort of indication that he's prepared to embrace a bold new vision of forest management in this province, rather than just relying on the steady-as-she-goes reduction of the annual allowable cuts and reduction in employment levels, and hoping that the manufacturing side of the industry will be able to cope and respond, and that somehow that will force added value out of the basic resource.

[4:00]

Is there going to be from this minister any commitment to looking at how we can dramatically increase the investment in the land base in this province through either a reform of the tenure system or other changes? Perhaps he can tell us, for example, whether he expects that, under the Crown corporation of the Build B.C. program, more long-term financing will be somehow available. I know we've debated this bill in principle in the House and are still debating it. But clearly, Mr. Chairman, there needs to be some sort of revolution out there with regard to this province spending money on the land base and encouraging the kinds of benefits that can be realized from intensive forest management. Obviously, annual allowable cuts are not only the result of how many trees you have in inventory, but they're also a function of how many trees you're willing to grow. The Forest Resources Commission identified clearly that the funding doesn't exist to adequately 

[ Page 5394 ]

meet that second responsibility. I'm sure the people of the province would be happy to hear the minister admit that yes, we have to spend more money on the land base and that yes, we have some sort of long-term strategy or plan, other than a forest-sector strategy group, to realize that fundamental change in philosophy. I would certainly welcome any other input from the minister. Has he reviewed, for example, the tenure system or the licence system to determine whether there are possibilities or incentives for inducing a greater capital investment in the resource base, or has he considered some of the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission, particularly as they relate to funding and secure financing for long-term forest management?

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member repeating many of the things I just said. I'm a bit perplexed, I must admit. The member seems to be calling for higher stumpage rates even though the return.... I certainly reject the statement he made that we get the lowest return. It's simply not true. In terms of revenue generated in this province, we are approaching $1 billion. Is the member in favour of an increase in the stumpage rate? I'd like to know that.

He talks about a Crown corporation. It wasn't that long ago -- was it last week? -- that the same member was attacking this government for establishing a financing authority to capitalize highway construction. That very same member stands up and says we should have a Crown corporation, presumably to capitalize silviculture investments. Wonder of wonders! I don't know what he thinks a Crown corporation.... How would that play out with respect to the ability of members of this Legislature to debate public policy issues on forestry? Do you want that to be removed from the Legislature? I don't.

Finally, I reject the Liberal opposition Forests critic's call to increase the public debt. We're simply not prepared to increase the public debt. We're trying to manage the public debt. Again I'm perplexed. There is this strident, virulent attack on the budget for not reducing expenditures, and I'm faced with calls by the Liberal Forests critic to -- apparently -- massively increase expenditures. I'm having difficulty trying to reconcile those two contradictory positions.

W. Hurd: I think we've really hit the nub of the problem. In these estimates the government has not invested any money to determine what value there would be in increasing the annual allowable cut by a potential 50 percent over the next 30 years, if it were willing to change some of its longstanding policies in this province. Since those types of economic projections have not been made.... The fact is, the investment in the land base could be recouped many times over in the form of actually increasing the cut and increasing the levels of employment. I think that's the kind of frustration that British Columbians are expressing to this government. The total orientation is in reducing the annual allowable cut in every timber supply area in this province. That's the mandate, to reduce it by an average of 20 to 30 percent, which, as the minister has acknowledged this morning, will clearly impact on the rate of employment in the province -- and we've tried to talk about how much revenue loss to the Crown that will be. When the opposition threw out figures that were provided by the Forest Resources Commission and others, they were rejected as being doomsday scenarios. But while we're concentrating on downsizing, investments that could be made in the forest land base and that would realize much higher returns to the province are apparently not being considered, by whatever means.

When the opposition was talking about some of the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission, it's important to note that they were clearly a cry for help for this industry and for this resource -- a clear indication that we had to rethink the very fundamental principles and the fundamental assumptions that we've operated under in this province with the Ministry of Forests for some time. Clearly, this set of estimates is a business-as-usual approach, a statement to the province that our methodology, our plan for the future, is in reducing the annual allowable cuts to a point -- an imaginary point, I might add -- where they are in balance with the manufacturing capacity.

So perhaps this might be the opportunity to explore with the minister the role of the forest sector industrial strategy group, and exactly what type of direction they will be providing to the minister, and whether, indeed, they will have the ability to recommend some of the dramatic changes and the need for dramatic change identified by the Forest Resources Commission. Will they have impact with this minister when it comes to the ongoing timber supply review? Will they be able to come to the minister and say, for example, we have a plan in the Sunshine Coast that will enable you to increase the cut by 24 percent, not reduce it? Will they have that kind of ability to influence policy in the Ministry of Forests, or is it really just a caretaker committee that will simply be called upon to endorse some of the tired old strategies that are seeing a reduction in jobs and cuts in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, anybody who describes forestry in this province as business as usual must have their head buried somewhere. It's not what's happening in the province. That's clearly wrong. The member is dead wrong when he refers to a target on the annual allowable harvest rate. I have had this out with the member before. He fails to appreciate the complexity. He obviously didn't listen to what I said with respect to the application of standards to the land base as being the determining factor in allowable cuts. There is no target. He can continue to refer to the Forest Resources Commission document. He appears to be the only one in this province who is these days, but that's his right.

It is not business as usual. I have described a rather complex situation. I do implore the member to try to understand the complexities of this business and to not look at issues too simply. I think I've described them accurately. We've gone through a phase in this province that has led us to where we are today.

There is, in my view, a very strong will on the part of the representatives to the forest sector advisory com-

[ Page 5395 ]

mittee. The member may be aware that that group and the people on it were strongly endorsed -- overwhelmingly endorsed, I might add -- by industry, by labour and by academia. Certainly the will is there. We have some very bright, intelligent people who are knowledgeable about the complex issues of forestry in this province.

We are going to set to the task at hand. I hope we're going to do many of the things that the member has broadly talked about and that I talked about this morning and this afternoon, in terms of how we can get that increased investment in the land base, and how we can look at continuing to try to convert our industry to obtain the maximum value for the very good quality of resource that exists in this province. We're doing that on many fronts.

The member may wish to characterize things as business as usual. I suppose that's his right, but I don't think there's anybody else in this province who thinks that it's business as usual in forestry.

W. Hurd: Perhaps to be more specific, what the opposition could do is dwell on the cut reductions that were announced for the Sunshine Coast, which were part of an overall strategy, I guess, of cut reductions in the timber supply areas of the province. I'm sure the minister was in receipt of an IWA presentation on the Sunshine Coast about an alternative plan for cut reductions, which would have had the impact of producing more revenue for the Crown and preserving higher levels of employment. On southern Vancouver Island a company -- in this case MacMillan Bloedel, in which the government has a fondness for investing -- clearly produced a different strategy for cut reductions in some of its tree farm licence areas. So the minister would concur that there appears to be a difference of opinion out there about the types of cut reductions that are occurring and the inventory process that's in place. So perhaps we can deal with the Sunshine Coast first, Mr. Chairman. Can I ask the minister whether he has any comments on the IWA proposal for the Sunshine Coast, and whether he accepts that there are elements to the plan which could save jobs on the Sunshine Coast and perhaps even increase the revenues of his ministry and the government?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I am aware of that proposal, and it is being considered. There is the possibility of acceptance on a private basis. I should say beyond that, in previous discussions across the room here, I specifically have said that those are the kinds of things we are looking at doing. We're trying to find ways to get that kind of investment.

I'd be happy to debate the member on some of the annual allowable cut reductions. In fact, they haven't all been massive reductions; we've seen some modest ones. I'd be happy to debate that. There are some very good reasons why those things took place. I again remind members, it's not a decision made by the Minister of Forests; it's a decision made by the chief forester. I have offered endless technical briefings to members opposite. We are continuing to offer those kinds of public forums in which people from my ministry explain the process -- it's a very complex process.

At the end of the day, what we are trying to do is what British Columbians want us to do. That's to establish a harvest rate that we can agree -- to the degree the word "sustainable" is even definable -- will be sustainable over time. If people are looking for security in the forest sector, it seems to me that's one of the things that will provide the best kind of security. Although Clayoquot Sound was a very controversial decision, one of the things that I heard loud and clear from the industrial side and workers, even though they paid a fairly heavy price, was: "Now we know the land base we're operating on. That doubt has been removed."

So there are many reasons why harvest rates are adjusted. It's a process that was taking place in this province long before my party became government and long before I was appointed the Minister of Forests. It happened under the previous administration. I suspect it happened under the one before that. By and large, historically we have been in an expansion phase where the operability lines have been expanding. We're finding now that there are some problems with respect to some of those lines, where companies said they would indeed go and harvest in poor-quality sites with high operating costs.... They said: "Include that timber in this area as part of your cut calculations. Put it in because we're going to harvest in those stands." They came to us and asked us to put it in. They made that commitment and said: "We're going to harvest in those stands, so include that timber in that area as part of the calculation of what an annual allowable cut will be." Then, lo and behold, a decade later did they go into those stands? No. Instead, they concentrated the cut in the easy, most accessible wood. Faced with that, would the member suggest that we continue to include those stands in the operable land base?

[4:15]

These are not frivolous matters, hon. member. We're not here to fool around and arbitrarily reduce cuts for the sake of it. This is a very, very difficult and complex exercise conducted by people with the best technical expertise that you'll find in any forest jurisdiction anywhere in the world. I would ask the member to really consider that; to take the time to take advantage of the opportunities that I've afforded for those kinds of briefings; to familiarize himself with these issues, which indeed are not as simple as he appears to want to portray them; and having done that, we could have some pretty good discussions here.

W. Hurd: Well, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't the intention of the opposition to suggest that the chief forester is making cut decisions based on a whim, or pulling figures out of the air. But the minister, when we had this discussion in the House previously, did mention that the chief forester was in fact mandated to consider the manufacturing and social impacts of these cut reductions, and indeed, those were part of his considerations when he set an annual allowable cut. I guess what I'm hearing now, in the case of the Sunshine Coast.... He's now telling the committee that when an alternative 

[ Page 5396 ]

presentation is made to the Minister of Forests about a change in the decision of the chief forester, he is prepared to accept that type of presentation, and on the basis of his determinations, consider allowing a change in the projections of the chief forester. So perhaps the minister could just advise us how this process unfolds within his ministry. In a situation where the chief forester makes his decision on annual allowable cuts, and there is a presentation by the company -- or by the IWA, in this case -- does he send that type of input back to the chief forester for his review?

I realize that under the act there is a clear delineation between the chief forester and the ministry which is, I suppose, much like the delineation between the Attorney General and some aspects of his ministry. But when there is a submission made on a critical issue like the cut reductions on the Sunshine Coast, does the minister then go back to the chief forester with a submission from the IWA and say: "Here's an alternative proposal that might not have been considered in your initial assessment of the cut and, in fact, should be considered?"

Hon. D. Miller: Let me try and describe the relationship. If indeed there's a proposal -- and I've already indicated that we're looking at that -- it's up to me and people in my ministry to deal with the proposal, to see whether or not it is acceptable in a variety of ways. Is the funding there? Can it truly be implemented? And all the rest. Having done that, if that, in turn, in the opinion of the chief forester, would make a contribution to the annual allowable cut, then that's a consideration that the chief forester makes. If the member understands the distinction or the separation....

Maybe the best example is Weyerhaeuser in Kamloops, TFL 35, where the company has instituted on a voluntary basis a pilot project that they claim, and I think with some justification, can increase the amount of wood that's available for harvest. That's generally how it would work: someone comes forward with a proposal.... And I'm quite open to the IWA and others who can come forward. Interfor, for example, has recently contacted me about a proposal. I'm interested in all and any proposals in that regard. We'll look at them, we'll evaluate them, we'll see if they make sense, and see if they can be implemented. It's then a decision of the chief forester to determine whether or not the implementation of that program is a material change that would cause him to want to revisit the annual allowable harvest rate.

There are some complexities with respect to some of these. It's simply not good enough, for example, to say that we'll now go into areas that we haven't been in before and that that should automatically be added onto the cut -- that doesn't follow automatically. It depends on whether that volume or those areas of land have been included in the determination of what the allowable cut should be. So it's not a simple matter. But generally speaking, let me put it this way: where there are proposals, we'll look at them seriously; if they can be implemented, I'll do my best to make sure they are; if that does happen, the chief forester will look at that to see if it can contribute to a revisit of the harvest rate.

W. Hurd: Well, Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister has provided for a public consultation process in connection with licence transfers in the province, which are obviously of critical importance to forest-dependent communities that want companies to honour commitments made to them under the licence. I know that in the past couple of years, members of the assembly have been involved in those hearings and have made recommendations, some of which the minister has accepted and some pof which he hasn't.

Perhaps I could ask the minister whether he envisages any public consultation process in connection with the cut reductions, given the fact that the IWA, on the Sunshine Coast and the companies disagreed with the announcement that was made. I note from the media yesterday morning that the mayors of certain north Island communities have disagreed with the impacts that might occur on their communities. Is there any thought to making an announcement on cut reductions that will occur, in the event that no other information comes forward or no other public presentation is made? Does he feel that perhaps one of the problems with the resistance to accepting the cut reductions is that the ministry doesn't appear to have made provision to invite the necessary kind of public participation in the form of public hearings or the kind of work MLAs do when it comes to licence transfers?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the issue really is one of trying to explain the complexities of the process. It seems to me that's the challenge. I spoke earlier about the forum we held recently in Vancouver with people from the Ministry of Forests and academia -- I think Dr. Binkley from UBC was there -- in which we went in some detail through the process we use to determine those harvest rates. The feedback I got was that it was very well received. A lot of people said: "Oh, now I'm starting to understand what's happening."

Following that, I had some discussion with my officials about how we might, so to speak, take that presentation on the road: get it out in the regional centres -- Prince George, Kamloops, Williams Lake, Smithers, those kinds of areas -- and invite the public, representatives of business, communities, councils, working people, trade unions, forest companies.... If we could bring them in, and take some time to run through the technical aspects of the timber supply review, I think it would go a long way. I don't disagree with the member that there needs to be a better explanation to the public.

I also have to watch the issue of cost. I don't have an unlimited budget to send people travelling around the province. We are, like other ministries, under some constraints with respect to cost. But to the extent that I can improve people's knowledge and understanding of the process.... I should also say that occasionally I give a speech, some parts of which get through to people and are understood -- not always in this House, I might add.

[ Page 5397 ]

We certainly will keep endeavouring to get that kind of information out. It is not, in a strict sense, the same kind of process that you're talking about with respect to licence transfers. It's really a different issue. I think there are different forms of public consultation appropriate to different issues. I don't see this as necessarily the classic public consultation where you get public input and then make a decision. Rather, I see that we have an obligation to try, to the best of our ability, to inform people. What is the process? Why are we doing this? How do we do it? What are the ramifications?

Beyond that, of course, we want to involve people in the planning process at an earlier stage. Again, I've talked to people right around the province, and there's a variety of mechanisms. I think there may be some recommendations coming from CORE on public participation. Clearly that was one of the issues we referred to CORE. I think it strengthens the process when you have public involvement at an early stage and the broadest possible public understanding of these issues. We are endeavouring to do a better job in terms of informing the public, but I don't see it as a classic consultation issue.

W. Hurd: I was referring more specifically to the impact of the reductions as much as to the process by which they were arrived at. I note with interest that the minister was quoted as saying that in every cut reduction there's a price to be paid. He mentioned the figure of 200 jobs, I believe, in the case of the reductions in the north Island. If the ministry had that type of information about the "price to be paid" and was cognizant of that information, the public would certainly welcome the opportunity to provide input into those types of social decisions which occur as a result of the chief forester's decision.

I know that the minister, when we had this debate in the House over Bill 2, I believe, assured the members that the chief forester was mandated to consider those types of cause-and-effect situations. If he's mandated to do that, what recommendations will the minister make to people who want to approach his ministry prior to the chief forester announcing his decision? Should they do what the IWA did on the Sunshine Coast and submit their presentations in advance in the hope that somehow they'll impact on the chief forester's decision? How do we deal with that type of transfer of salient information when the chief forester is mandated to be somewhat at arm's length from the minister? I think the concern I'm hearing expressed about the whole inventory process and the cut reductions is that the chief forester, by virtue of the Forest Act, is an independent person -- and so he should be -- but there's a feeling out there.... While the minister assures us that these types of human costs and the socioeconomic impacts of cut reductions are a part of the chief forester's decision, there seems to be no direct flow of information to assure people that community concerns are an important consideration in the ongoing process of reducing cuts in each timber supply area in the province.

Hon. D. Miller: We do, in fact, deal with the socioeconomic side. I've just asked my officials if we can get the work that we've done on the Kalum -- if not today, then perhaps we can get it before we reconvene -- to illustrate for the member the kind of work that we do with respect to socioeconomic analysis. We do that work, hon. member, and we make it available to the public. I don't know what more the member might want.

As I said earlier, the fact is that we're dealing with a lot of forestry issues that have been, in my view, neglected. In some cases in the province it's true to say, I think, that companies and ministry people are having difficulty identifying timber for five-year operating plans. In other words, they simply can't, given the landscape, identify where those supplies are going to come from. The question, I think, is this: do we deal with it now? Do we take what sometimes appear to be very strong measures to get the balance we need, or do we not deal with it and simply let calamity hit when it will? I prefer, even at the risk of being criticized -- and sometimes severely -- to deal with it now, rather than simply let the problem go, and keep on letting it go until some communities completely run out of the resource and have no options or alternatives available at all.

[4:30]

It's a complex process. As I said, it's not strictly a question of consulting the public and then, because the decision might appear to be a difficult one, not being prepared to take the right action. It's a balance between the impacts and what needs to be done to establish the appropriate harvest rate. One prominent member of the forest community, Mr. Kerr, described it as witchcraft. He didn't mean that unkindly, by the way, although I think he could have chosen a different word. He used it to illustrate the complexity of the process.

So we do look at the socioeconomic impacts, and I will endeavour to get the Kalum report as a good example of the kind of work we do in this regard.

W. Hurd: Certainly the opposition wasn't suggesting that the ministry should duck its responsibilities when it comes to conducting a proper inventory. The point we were making is that there's a great deal of trepidation on the part of forest-dependent communities. I'm thinking, for example, of the Fraser timber supply area and the Williams Lake area: when these cut reductions are coming; how bad they're going to be; which operations may not be able to make it; which businesses might be affected. Having been on the firing line, so to speak, those communities obviously may have other ideas about what can be done.

I understand that the minister will be appearing in Chilliwack this weekend to talk to concerned people about the impacts of cut reductions in the Fraser timber supply area. I hope the minister, when he speaks to those groups, will tell them that before the chief forester makes a decision on the Fraser timber supply area, they will be able to draft the same sort of report as was done by the IWA on the Sunshine Coast, and that the report will bear on the chief forester's decision. I'm sure the people there will welcome that kind of commitment from the minister, if indeed that is the commitment he's making.

[ Page 5398 ]

I hope there is some sort of vote under this ministry, or some funding is found by reallocating the resource within the ministry, to deal with the very real concerns of people who appreciate that the minister has a responsibility to ensure that timber supply and manufacturing are in balance. I think we understand that, but as the minister can certainly appreciate, there's a disparity of opinion about the best way to get there. I would certainly appreciate a commitment from him that in timber supply areas like Williams Lake and the Fraser TSA, where decisions might be imminent, people should be putting their views and ideas forward now so that they will have some impact on the decision that's eventually made by the chief forester.

Hon. D. Miller: I've tried to outline the process we go through: the discussion papers, technical papers and socioeconomic papers that we produce; our opportunities or our attempts to include the public in that.

I want to say a couple of things. First of all, I've never been reluctant to go anywhere and talk about forestry in this province, regardless of how hot the issue may be. I've been in front of some pretty large meetings with some angry people talking about these issues, and I'll continue to do it. I have no objection, no hesitation, in doing it. That's my job and I like doing it, as a matter of fact. I'll be going to Chilliwack on Saturday. People tell me there might be 1,000 or 1,500 people and they're worried about a lot of things: the timber supply, the protected areas and all those kinds of issues. It's my job, and I'll be there explaining it to the best of my ability. So we don't shy away at all. I want to make that clear: I've never shied away and never will shy away from meeting the issues in a very public way -- anytime, anywhere, in any forum in this province. I'm quite prepared to continue that.

What I would ask the member -- and to me it's important.... I would like a commitment from the member that, in trying to explain these issues, he will resist the temptation to be too political and to grossly oversimplify; that he will admit there are technical problems and offer some level of support -- not political support, but technical support -- in terms of the exercise we're going through; and that he will resist making statements that give the appearance that somehow he is better able than the chief forester to judge, for example, when beetle-kill overcuts should come to an end. I think if all of us made that kind of commitment to resist the temptation to be political and to oversimplify, that the public debate -- which is an important one in this province -- might be better served. So I'd like to hear the member make that kind of commitment. I've made my commitment: I'll go anywhere and talk anytime about forestry with anybody.

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

W. Hurd: I appreciate those remarks from the minister. Never has it been suggested that the minister shied away from discussing the issues in each timber supply area in the province. I guess the only concern I would raise is whether or not the public comes away from those meetings with any sense that their community issues have been addressed. I'm not hearing from the minister any indication that when it comes to these annual allowable cut reductions, he has a direct handle on how many jobs might be affected or the effect on the Crown of the loss in revenue -- those very real issues that people raise.

For misinformation to flourish, there only has to be a vacuum of real information. I think that's what's happening in some of these timber supply areas in the province. The rumours run rife of cut reductions that might range anywhere from 10 to 30 to 35 percent. You can get a different story wherever you travel in some of these resource-dependent communities. So if the minister is doing a wonderful job of communicating to people throughout the province, as he's pointed out, there seems to be a dearth of hard information out there about the direct impact on communities.

So I would hope that when he goes to Chilliwack on the weekend, he will have information for the people in that timber supply area about how many jobs are going to be lost and, within parameters, what the annual allowable cuts will probably have to be -- hard information that would enable the people in that area to get on with their lives, to be able to plan for the future. Unfortunately, that type of information has clearly not been present in this province. If it was, they wouldn't be calling the opposition, expressing real concerns about what move the Forests minister is going to make next. I can assure the minister that those types of calls have been coming through on many different occasions -- and from knowledgeable people, I might add: people who are out in the woods every day and have an opinion that does diverge from some of the known experts in the Ministry of Forests, whom the minister has acknowledged have been underfunded in the past and have not possessed the resources they need. Naturally, when they read the auditor general's report and other reports on the level of monitoring going on, it does not inspire confidence that cut reductions are based on accurate information.

So in light of that, I think there's always going to be a divergence of opinion on forest management between the opposition and the minister, and I think that type of divergence contributes to better debate and better forest management in the province.

Perhaps I can just shift the focus of discussion here to the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions that are required before logging can take place in the province. I understand that in the past two fiscal years -- and perhaps even into the next one -- there has been an ongoing review of all the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions in some 43 districts. Can the minister advise the committee what progress has been made in that type of review? Obviously, scrutinizing the logging plans of major companies is of considerable interest to the people of the province. They want assurances that the ministry staff is fully up to date, and it was a commitment that was made by the deputy minister to the Public Accounts Committee.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm happy to shift. But I want to say before we shift that I'm not satisfied with the 

[ Page 5399 ]

response I got from that member opposite -- not satisfied at all. Even though he's leaving the room, I'll challenge the member. He talks about getting out and giving accurate information. He talks about the fact that when we do go out, sometimes people are still dissatisfied. That may be the case, because these are not simple matters to explain. But when I give technical briefings to that member and make my staff available to describe in detail the process around the timber supply review and make the effort to fully inform the Liberal Forests critic about all of the issues, and then he ignores all of that briefing and slips into his temptation to be political -- which I don't blame him for; he's a politician -- and makes a stupid statement like he did about Williams Lake, then it's pretty tough.

A. Warnke: I always like to hear the minister, of course, and I was very hesitant to get up a little bit earlier when he made reference to the member being in the House to begin with. That is clearly in violation and a point of order. I would remind all members -- considering the fact that we are having two Committees of Supply -- that to make such a reference is highly inappropriate. That's one thing.

And for the minister to make the comment he has just made is, I think, also highly inappropriate, and I would encourage him to tone it down, if not withdraw that particular remark.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly apologize. I got a bit carried away, but these are very difficult issues.

Having offered that kind of information and then having to get back a statement that suggests that we're somehow doing something in Williams Lake...that the chief forester really doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to looking at the issue of beetle kill and what the appropriate harvest rate should be to contain that.... It's a bit much. So these are difficult issues, and to the extent that people can occasionally put aside the temptation to be overly political and try to deal with some of the difficult issues in a straightforward way, I think it would assist all British Columbians in reaching a better understanding.

A question was asked about preharvest silviculture prescriptions. We conduct field audits as part of our regular monitoring program to ensure that companies are in compliance with the prescriptions. In 1992, over 2,400 field audits were conducted on preharvest silviculture prescriptions. With respect to Arrow Lakes and the interest that that has generated, the ministry has initiated a complete review of all areas harvested or approved for harvest in the five-year period between October 1, 1987, and October 1, 1992. The review will assess some 40,000 harvested areas. The results will be independently audited for accuracy and completeness, and I expect to have that information about mid-June for public release. I hope that answers the question on preharvest silviculture prescriptions.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister familiar with the Tin-Wis coalition report that came out a little while ago and the committee that put that together?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm aware of it, but I can't honestly say that.... "Familiar" is an interesting word, but no, I can't profess to be completely familiar with it. But carry on.

J. Tyabji: Will the minister comment on the restructuring of the Ministry of Forests and the peculiar similarity that that restructuring has to the recommendations of the report of the Tin-Wis coalition with regard to regional committees, the new secretariat for the Ministry of Forests, and the structure that's been put together?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I am really unable to respond. I have clearly indicated what my view is with respect to that public consultation issue. The government has established CORE. One of the mandates of CORE is to look at the whole notion of public participation in forest or land use planning. It's a critical issue, in my view. There have been a variety of suggestions made; indeed, you are referring to one made by the Tin-Wis coalition on that subject. Early in the life of the government I had meetings with a variety of interests who had been going through those types of processes. My response to the specific suggestions they were making on those subjects of public participation and consultation was that they should get to the CORE table, because that's ultimately where the broader issue will be determined.

J. Tyabji: I am sure the minister is aware of the news release that came out from his ministry about ten days ago which talked about the new secretariat and the different divisions of the ministry. I'm assuming he's aware of that, because that's the basis for the line of questioning right now. I don't have it with me; I just assumed the minister would be familiar with it because it did come out of the Ministry of Forests with an outline of the new structure within that ministry.

In fact, it was such an interesting restructuring that I've sent copies of it to the small forestry companies in the south slopes, because the similarity that it bore to the recommendations of the Tin-Wis coalition was startling. I came to the conclusion that the staff within the Ministry of Forests must have accepted the recommendations for the structural changes, because that was quite evident in the news release.

The minister doesn't seem to know what I'm talking about, but what the follow-up questions were going to be was how much that restructuring is costing, because in the recommendations of the Tin-Wis coalition, the secretariat had 13 people -- seven appointed and six elected -- and each region had a 13-member board, of which seven were appointed and six elected. It was very detailed.

Hon. D. Miller: You can obviously tell by the looks of puzzlement around the table, not just from me but from my staff, that I'm not familiar with the release you're talking about. I'm not in a position to recall any release put out by the ministry, and there has been no restructuring within my ministry. If it's been restruc-

[ Page 5400 ]

tured, I can assure you that I'm not aware of it, and neither are most of my senior staff who are with me here today.

Perhaps if the hon. member could produce some documentation I could refer to.... I'm certainly happy to deal with the issues, but I'm afraid that's the case.

J. Tyabji: I'm more than happy to produce the release, because I not only have a copy in my Victoria office but I also faxed a copy to my Kelowna constituency office so it could be distributed among the small forestry companies, as I mentioned. It came out about ten days ago. Maybe restructuring is the wrong word. Maybe the addition of some of the....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I won't continue that line of questioning, obviously, but I'll get not only a copy of the release but also, for the minister's sake, a copy of the report from the private sector, which had a coalition of interests that included environmental groups, aboriginal people and many of the people from the environmental law society.

The other questions that I'd like to ask are with regard to the budget for pesticide application this year. Could the minister let us know what the rough budget is for aerial pesticide application?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't identify a separate budget for that category. So although money is spent in various districts with regard to pest management, I can't give you an absolute breakdown of the total dollars spent on that.

J. Tyabji: Would I then have to ask about specific pesticide applications? For example, the one that comes to mind is this year's budget for the gypsy moth -- although this year it's the European gypsy moth.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I know the hon. member is returning.

We're unable to give an absolute dollar amount with respect to the Asian gypsy moth specifically. My staff will start to look for that kind of detail, and we will certainly attempt.... If we can't get it back today, we'll certainly get it back at some point in the estimates. It's not typically broken out in that kind of detail in the budget estimates.

W. Hurd: I regret and apologize for having to leave the room -- another media interview about another decision by the Ministry of Forests.

I had asked a question about the preharvest silviculture reviews going on across the province. While I will have the opportunity to read Hansard later, I asked the question specifically because there had been public concern about this process and about the level of compliance and enforcement that existed with the preharvest silviculture prescriptions. At the risk of asking the minister to repeat his previous remarks, I'd appreciate the status of that review.

Hon. D. Miller: Just very briefly, for the benefit of the hon. member, we do conduct field audits as part of our regular monitoring program to ensure compliance with PHSPs. We did over 2,400 of those in 1992.

With respect to the issue that was raised in the Arrow, provincewide we have initiated a complete review of all areas harvested or approved for harvest in the five-year period between October 1987 and October 1992, to determine how widespread the issue or problem may be. That review, which is assessing some 40,000 harvested areas, will be independently audited for accuracy and completeness, and will be publicly released. I hope to have those audit results sometime in mid-June of this year. We will release them at that time.

W. Hurd: I'm quoting a release from the Deputy Minister to the Public Accounts Committee about the progress of the provincial review of the preharvest silviculture prescriptions. There was some indication that a review is required on approximately 35,000 preharvest silviculture prescriptions, across 43 forest districts. I think the minister talked about 2,400 or something in that vicinity. According to my calculations, that would require approximately 15 years to complete. Is the audit process going to be ongoing, as each one is completed? Is that what he is advising us?

Hon. D. Miller: I did combine two answers there. Perhaps the member didn't hear. The review we're conducting as a result of what happened in the Arrow, where it was discovered that some PHSPs were not.... We talked earlier about the fact that it was a paper problem. The review we are currently conducting is on 40,000 harvested blocks, to determine whether or not those PHSPs were complied with and to ensure that the PHSPs where there for those blocks. That review is very thorough. It's broader than the 35,000 that the member talked about; it is 40,000.

In addition to that, as part of our regular monitoring program, we conducted 2,400 field audits in 1992 -- and they will continue in 1993, 1994 and on into the future -- to ensure that there was compliance with the preharvest silviculture prescriptions.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could briefly explain the nature of the field audit that occurs. Is the opposition led to understand that there are going to be additional field audits in conjunction with that many reviews of the preharvest silviculture prescriptions? Or is this whole review merely a squirrelling through the district offices to determine whether the appropriate paperwork is on file? It just seems to us that this would require an immense amount of field work. The minister has indicated that that certainly doesn't appear to be in any vote under the estimates. What type of field work will be done to ensure compliance with the preharvest silviculture prescriptions?

[ Page 5401 ]

Hon. D. Miller: The normal operation in the ministry is that we conduct field audits to ensure that preharvest silviculture prescriptions are complied with. That is a regular feature of the ministry; we do it every year. In 1992 we conducted over 2,400 field audits to ensure that the plan on paper -- whatever it was -- was complied with in the field. We talked at length about the whole issue of monitoring and auditing. We did over 2,400 in 1992.

The Arrow issue of the lack of documentation on preharvest silviculture prescriptions, as I described earlier, was a paper problem. The fact is that during the transition period from the pre-1987 regime to the new regime that was brought in in late '87 -- I can't remember the exact date, but it was during that period -- there was least one district where the paper wasn't accurate. We discovered that the preharvest silviculture prescriptions on paper were not available for some of those cutblocks. The first thing we did was look at those cutblocks to determine whether or not there had been adequate reforestation and all the rest. There was.

In addition to that, we are doing the audit on these 40,000 areas to determine if the paper is in fact there and if the preharvest silviculture prescription documents were put in place. We're not going to do a field audit on 40,000 cutblocks in the province. It seems to me that we'd be committing an enormous amount of resources to do that. I'm sure the opposition would be quite critical if we tried to do that.

We monitor year by year -- obviously in the range of 2,400 field audits, about 8,500 cutblocks a year. So that's a pretty good frequency. I think that ensures that there is compliance.

W. Hurd: I have just one further question regarding the Arrow Lakes issue. The opposition understands that an investigation, in connection with that case has been requested on the part of the association of professional foresters. Can the minister advise the committee what steps he has taken to monitor that investigation? Can he describe to us what the association might be concerned about and what it is looking at as it relates to the district staff?

[5:00]

Hon. D. Miller: No, I'm not aware of it. I'd suggest that the member contact the association.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask a question again about the level of monitoring that might be occurring under this particular vote in the ministry. Of the 2,400 site inspections that are done, can the minister give us an idea of how many might be done in connection with preharvest silvicultural prescriptions? What kind of voted expenditure is there? How many would actually be examined in the course of a fiscal year under the ministry? Would it be 100? Would it be 500? Is there a round figure available of the nature of the on-site audits, and does he recognize that there might be a need for additional audits? Or is he satisfied that the level of enforcement in the field audits is sufficient to assure the people of the province that the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions are accurate and are being complied with by the companies involved?

Hon. D. Miller: Twenty-four hundred.

W. Hurd: So there are on-site inspections of 2,400 preharvest silvicultural prescriptions -- actual field-work being done. That's impressive, and obviously indicates that perhaps some of the concerns being expressed by the public about whether companies are actually doing what they say they are going to do are indeed groundless. There will be a great deal of reassurance on the part of some of the more strident members of the environmental community who have expressed concern that those levels of audits and field work aren't being complied with.

Perhaps I could return, then, to a discussion about the monitoring of logging roads in the province. This was another area that was dealt with at length by the auditor general. As the minister well knows, one of the most serious soil erosion problems in the province occurs as a result of logging roads that were perhaps incorrectly engineered, designed and constructed. It gets us back into a discussion of the monitoring of activities in the woods, which is such a great concern to British Columbians. I note that as I review the auditor general's report.... I'm just quoting here: "We concluded that" -- overall -- "the ministry's monitoring practices do not give it adequate assurance that forest companies...." -- meet ministry requirements to manage, protect and conserve Crown forest resources. They're referring to a deficiency in the monitoring of roadbuilding in addition to maintenance, harvesting and silviculture, which we'll get into later. Can the minister identify in this budget, which follows so closely the votes of previous years, what exactly he's doing in the current fiscal year to improve the level of monitoring of forest roads? I'm thinking in particular of the serious slide that occurred in the Mackenzie timber supply area, which took out a great deal of standing timber and ended with a major mud slide into the lake.

Given that the auditor general has flagged this as a major concern, can the minister assure the opposition and the committee that we are seeing some movement in this fiscal year on more successful monitoring of logging road construction?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I extend an invitation to the member. I can certainly arrange for him to go out on a field audit of a cutblock to see for himself what kind of work is done. If the member wishes to take me up on that, please contact my office any time. In fact, if any member of the House has some interest in this, I would be most pleased to make staff available to take them out in the field.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In my view, roads -- harvesting roads or forest roads -- are the sleeping giant of problems. With the standards that we apply now through our monitoring and auditing, I'm satisfied that we're not compounding 

[ Page 5402 ]

or adding to the problem. I think the problem is essentially the roads that were built in the past. How do we approach the issue of rehabilitation? Where there have been incidents like the one in the Mackenzie area, we have taken very strong action. I'm not quite certain if any charges have been laid with respect to that incident, but certainly my ministry was very aggressive with Fletcher Challenge in insisting that the area be rehabilitated. That work is either ongoing or completed at this time. There is a report on that situation which the member may or may not be aware of. I would be happy to get that report for the member so that he can get the level of detail it provides.

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

Although it's not under my office vote -- I suppose we can be pretty loose in this estimates debate -- there is a modest amount for rehabilitation of roads. In addition, we're discussing with the forest companies their responsibility and obligation to address some of the forest roads in this province that clearly, in my view, represent an environmental hazard. Some companies have been quite good. They've gone in and done some pretty good rehabilitation work. In fact, I looked at some of it as we flew over Clayoquot Sound in the last short while.

Some very good rehabilitation work has been done to reclaim those roads to make sure that we don't lose that good forest land, but there's a lot more to be done. We could be looking at $100 million to do some proper rehabilitation on old forest roads. We've made some beginnings. We're doing some ourselves. We're discussing with companies to have them do rehabilitation work. It's a large job and an important one, and we will continue to dedicate all the resources we can to try to catch up with some of those old forest roads.

W. Hurd: My question wasn't specifically related to the rehabilitation of old roads as much as it was to seek assurances from the minister about what type of monitoring might be going on with new road construction. I'm just reviewing the auditor general's concern that ministry staff appear to monitor road activities infrequently and to document the conditions they find poorly. The auditor general points out that the ministry does not have the information it needs to adequately judge its monitoring performance and to report on this to the Legislative Assembly.

I guess the question to the minister is: does the ministry now have the information that was requested by the auditor general? Is it his intention to meet the recommendation of the auditor general and to report this kind of information to the B.C. Legislature?

Hon. D. Miller: I think that we are meeting our obligation to ensure that forest roads that are constructed in this province meet the standards that we have laid out. The member should be aware of that. Clearly, one of the issues that arose from the Tripp audit last year was the failure, in some instances -- only in some instances -- to comply with the roadbuilding standards that are laid out under the fisheries-forestry guidelines. They are very detailed standards. They ensure, as the Tripp report reported, that where they are followed, they result in good, sound roads being built, with no undue environmental disturbance. Along with those other areas that the member wants to talk about that were reported on by the auditor general, we are doing, I think, a reasonably good job within the range of resources that we have available to audit, to monitor, to ensure that those standards are enforced.

W. Hurd: Maybe I could ask the minister if he has reviewed the auditor general's recommendations with respect to road monitoring, and is satisfied in his own mind that the very real concerns that were raised before Public Accounts are being addressed in this current fiscal year. As I look down the list of observations by the auditor general, it appears to the opposition that the situation needed dramatic improvement. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on those observations by the auditor general, and whether or not those real concerns that he raised are moving at a swift enough pace. Would he be confident now if such an audit were to be conducted by the auditor general again? These are rather extreme statements -- I'm just looking at some of the statements that were made: "The ministry has not developed a coordinated strategy for monitoring roads." As far as roadbuilding objectives, they should all meet a minimum standard, or should be averaged by valley, district, licence or on a provincewide basis.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Is the main objective of the ministry detection or prevention, or is it a focus on process or results? What is the acceptable level of risk or error? These were points that were raised by the auditor general, and seem to the opposition to require a major commitment to bring them up to date. Has the minister reviewed the testimony from Public Accounts, and is he satisfied that the ministry is able, with the funding available under these votes, to move in a rather swift way to meet these concerns, and to assure the public or the province that the new roads being built are meeting higher standards than the old roads, which we understand might not have received the monitoring they should have?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're responding to the auditor general's report of '90-91. Just to run through that very briefly, the auditor made a number of suggestions for the establishment of monitoring objectives, the assignment of resources to monitoring activity based on risk assessment, clarification of policies, standards of specifications and training of staff. We feel that we have taken action on essentially all of the auditor's suggestions in terms of clarification of those policies, establishment of uniform standards for monitoring not only road construction but timber harvesting, and clarification of road construction standards and specifications. So yes, we are trying to meet that. We treat the issue of proper forest roads as 

[ Page 5403 ]

being of fundamental importance. If we can build sound roads today, they won't be tomorrow's problems. That's our objective.

J. Tyabji: I have the news release here. Yes, I brought you a copy, but I'd like to speak to it first before giving it to you. It's from April 2. To me it definitely represents a fundamental restructuring of the way the Forests ministry is directed. The reason the minister's staff might not be aware of it is that it came out of the office of the Premier, but it's a joint release of Premier Mike Harcourt and Forests minister Dan Miller, and quotes repeatedly -- I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to mention their names in the House -- from the minister and talks about the forest sector strategy process. I was referring to the secretariat. It's diagrammed here: the secretariat, the forest sector strategy steering committee, the advisory committee and working groups. This is what I was referring to when I said it's identical to the Tin-Wis coalition paper that was put out by this group in addition, not only in terms of structure but in terms of the target audiences, the makeup of the groups, the organizational purpose and the goals. I'm sure the Minister of Forests was probably a key player in this.

[5:15]

So my question was: how much is this going to cost? The numbers aren't brought up here, as far as the number of people on the forest sector strategy steering committee and the working groups. The working groups, as defined in the Tin-Wis coalition, were regional groups, with 13 members per board. The steering committee has 13 members: seven appointed by government, six elected. At the regional level, it was seven elected, six appointed. This is identical. That's why, it seems to me, coming from the office of the Premier, with many quotes from the Premier.... Knowing that this government does have extensive communications with the environmental law society, who were instrumental in the drafting of the Tin-Wis coalition document, with the environmental groups and the aboriginal representatives, who were also sitting on the Tin-Wis coalition, it seemed to me, given this government's penchant for dealing with that group, given that the Tin-Wis coalition report was out some time ago and in opposition this government liked it, and given that it's identical in structure and objective, that it would be very useful if this minister would confirm that that's the basis for this restructuring, which is how I define it. Also, could you give us some idea as to what the cost is? It seems to me that this is not only a redundancy of CORE, but also a redundancy to a large extent of the people in the ministry, who can hold public meetings and appoint people already.

Hon. D. Miller: Now I know what the hon. member is talking about. And I understand now why I was confused when the issue was raised before. The member is referring -- the record needs to know this -- to a joint press release from myself and the Premier -- I wasn't sure if any others were on that or not. It announced the forest sector advisory committee that we've spent considerable time talking about in this chamber today. It is not a restructuring....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chairman, if you could keep her at bay for a while here. It is not a restructuring of my ministry at all. It's got nothing to do with restructuring the ministry, and how the member might interpret that is of some mystery to me. This is the formation of the forest sector strategy committee that I talked about. It includes representatives from industry, labour, municipalities, Forestry Canada, academia, and it will contain a member representing the first nations' forest industry side. It is a vital committee in terms of the issues that the Liberal Forests critic and I were debating earlier today, in trying to come to grips with some of these fundamental policy issues. The structural diagram that accompanies the press release simply tries to indicate how the group relates to existing processes in the province.

In a way this is sort of the last piece in the puzzle, if I can put it that way -- broadly stated, of course. Certainly the establishment of CORE was intended to deal with those essential land use issues that really have dominated the political agenda of this province. In addition to that, we have established the First Nations Forestry Council, which is a direct recommendation out of the first nations forestry task force that reported to government last year. We had a number of specific recommendations about how there can be greater aboriginal participation in the forest industry, and we accepted those recommendations. We have established the First Nations Forestry Council, which is comprised of representatives from the aboriginal communities geographically in the province and also has some good representation from industry and the trade union movement.

In fact, I had dinner last night with Chief John Smith, who is one of the co-chairs of that First Nations Forestry Council. He informs me that there is a pretty good sense of optimism among the people there about finally having a vehicle to get down to deal with some of these fundamental issues with regard to how aboriginal people in this province can take and play a greater role economically in the forest sector. Clearly they have a strong interest in doing this.

The fact that industry is there as well is a very positive sign. It indicates to me that industry is interested in advancing this notion, in assisting. I'm expecting some good and very positive work out of the First Nations Forestry Council.

So we've dealt with the land use in broad terms -- in terms of CORE; we've looked at the aboriginal side; and finally we've recognized a need to develop an industrial strategy for the forest sector. One would assume that that topic would have been dealt with more comprehensively in the past, but it simply has not been. There really is, in my view, a lack of cohesive vision about where we should be going and how we're going to get there.

It's one thing -- as I talked this morning with the honourable Forests critic of the Liberal Party -- to talk about my view; generally, I think it's not a bad view of where we should be going. But how do you achieve it? How do you get the various players -- the large 

[ Page 5404 ]

companies and small companies and unions -- to be participants in that process, to look at the kind of investment strategy we need? What is the future of the forest sector industry in this province? Should we continue to make dimension lumber? Should we move into the value-added side? Should we continue just to produce pulp? Should we look instead at the market opportunities that might exist in paper and fine paper? Having determined that, how do we look at trying to bring capital to bear to develop the new industrial structure that might be required? In issues such as training, what kind of work is there for us? What are the training skills that they lack? These are really very serious questions.

I'm quite pleased that for the first time in this province we have a forum that brings together industry, labour and academia and makes a real commitment to address these fundamental issues and hopefully to develop an industrial policy that will allow the development of a very dynamic forest industry that will serve this province and its economy and its people long into the future. It's a daunting task.

That's really what the member has raised. It's not anything to do with the restructuring of my ministry whatsoever; it's simply the forest sector advisory group. I've tried to outline what its task is.

J. Tyabji: We can argue over semantics, but to me, when you have a new structure whose mandate is to develop an industrial strategy.... Perhaps the minister would provide us with a diagram of how this group is going to exist vis-�-vis the ministry. Where does it fit in? The fundamental questions are these: How much is it going to cost? How many members are there per board? Where are the regions defined? It's a nice little outline, but it doesn't have any specifics to it -- and we've got a whole year's budget ahead. The minister is saying on the one hand that it's an advisory group. If you read the background, it's supposed to be an advisory group; when you read the organizational purpose, you'll see that the stakeholders -- the government, the people on these various boards.... I mean, it's in layers and layers of bureaucracy here outside of the ministry. I would call it a bureaucracy. The minister might say that it's not a bureaucracy because it brings in members of the public and the stakeholders. If there are any tax dollars involved, I'd say that it is an incredible addition to the tax burden.

How much did that cost? How is it going to be structured? Is it related to the recommendation of the Tin-Wis coalition? It certainly is identical in terms of structure and objectives. What would be the diagrammatical scheme with regard to the ministry? Here we don't even have the ministry represented on a piece of paper, and my understanding is that the decision-making process basically leaves out the senior staff of the Ministry of Forests. If it doesn't, where are they? If they're in here, I don't see them on here. That to me represents a fundamental restructuring. Perhaps it's just poor communications, but I think that needs to be known.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, we formed a forest sector advisory committee. It contains representatives from a cross-section of industry -- labour, aboriginal and academic members. That's the advisory committee that the member is referring to. It's in the shaded box; it's called "advisory committee." Obviously, when you form an advisory committee you have to say: who do they report to? Well, we've provided some assistance. We're not creating any new bodies. We've said: "...a secretariat, when required, of deputy ministers of the relevant ministries...." When we talk about investment strategy and about training, clearly we need to involve people from ministries who are at a fairly senior level to provide their expertise in these kinds of areas. There will be a deputy ministers' committee of the relevant ministries that will receive input from the sector advisory committee, and will also bring that advice back to that committee. I will be involved with that deputies' committee. I've said I would chair it, but that may not always be possible. Nonetheless, I will play a key role in terms of that deputies' committee.

If you like, I could describe it this way. I'm trying to transmit the ideas of government -- because government is not devoid of ideas -- into the advisory committee, and at the same time take the kinds of issues that are being discussed, and possibly the decisions that are being arrived at by the advisory committee, back to government. It's a kind of two-way flow, really, of ensuring that when you set up this kind of group of senior people in the province -- from the labour movement, industry groups, academic institutions and, I should add Forestry Canada as being involved in that as well -- they do discuss these issues and arrive at broad consensus on some issues, and that then needs to be transmitted to government. That's my role, using the vehicle of the deputy ministers' steering committee.

In addition to that, this group will be working on some very fundamental issues that really have been around for some time but no conclusion has been reached one way or the other on them. The Liberal Forests critic talked earlier about the issue of tenure. Surely that's an issue that has been discussed for a long time in this province. There is no consensus, in my view, about what kind of change needs to take place with respect to the tenure system -- or, indeed, if there is a change required, how that change would be structured, how we would handle it.

This group, in looking at those kinds of things, clearly will need to do some analytical work around various policy issues. It's not a group that's going to sit and have endless discussions and do the work themselves; it's a group that will get that kind of analytical work done. That's why you see in the bottom part of the diagram working groups. In my view, we'd be looking at people with the kind of technical or economic expertise in various subjects who would be formed into small groups to provide advice -- the kind of analytical work that I think needs to be provided to the main forest sector advisory group so that they can, through discussion, reach an informed opinion.

I would ask the member to read the document in its entirety to try to understand it. We're not talking at all about any restructuring; this has absolutely no restruc-

[ Page 5405 ]

turing implications for my ministry. It is simply an advisory committee that we've struck. I think it's been supported very strongly in the province by those people who are on it. There will be a cost. It may be as much as $100,000 to run this group, but certainly if we can come up with some answers to some of these outstanding policy issues, if we can develop that framework and that groundwork for a good basis for a dynamic forest industry in this province that will continue to provide jobs, be of benefit to communities in the province and contribute in a substantive way to the economy of this province, then that's a very small price indeed to pay.

R. Neufeld: I'd just like to welcome Bronwen here. I'm glad to see she's here, and I am sure she'll really add to the ministry. Coming from Fort Nelson and knowing Bronwen some before, she's got lots to add to forestry issues.

I'd just like to ask a few more questions about logging roads, Mr. Minister. You talk about $100 million to rehab the logging roads from previous years. Can you give me an idea where most of that money would have to be spent? Is this $100 million that the staff has identified for you? Do you know that there are certain areas where things have to be done, because logging road practices or building practices years ago were different than they are today?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I certainly appreciate the statements you have made with respect to my staff members. I always appreciate it.

[5:30]

The $100 million was really a broad number. The information I got is it's $50 million to $100 million. It's really in a variety of locations around the province. Some of the more difficult problems are on the coast, on some of the steeper slopes I've flown over. In addition to the area in Clayoquot I was talking about, I was flying up in Phillips Arm on the mainland, opposite Campbell River, last year, actually looking at some very innovative balloon logging that was taking place up there at the time. We looked at some of the roads on some of those side hills, and you can see the tension cracks developing, and you realize that if left untouched, it's only a matter of time before some of those roads fail. So you've got the prospect of roads sliding down the hillside. You've got the prospect of losing forestland, land that could be -- in some cases is already -- replanted with new-growing trees, which will be lost if that happens. So I suspect that if we wanted to break it out in terms of where it's more of a problem, it tends to be in the mountainous areas where there are steeper slopes, and clearly on the coast -- not exclusively, because there are many areas in the interior that also fit that category.

The rehabilitation work.... I've forgotten the cost we were looking at. I think about $20,000 a kilometre, if I'm not mistaken, is generally a kind of ballpark in terms of what's required to rehabilitate. Essentially what you have to do is simply claw back the edge, just drag it back -- you need a backhoe generally. You just drag those edges back onto the hillside. You deactivate the road. If it's required, you can then stabilize it through a variety of means. You have to look and see if the correct culverts are there; water bars, for example, can be added to ensure that there's not a buildup of runoff that would contribute to the failure. So it's not a difficult process to implement, but it's difficult, as you can appreciate, in trying to get the dollars together, considering the very tight fiscal situation we find ourselves in in this province. It's very difficult in terms of the competition for those very scarce dollars. Even though it's a major problem, we're going to attack it. We've got some very limited money ourselves. We are strongly encouraging industry, in fact, doing a little wrist-twisting on industry so they understand that they share the problem -- it's not exclusively the problem of the Ministry of Forests -- and should get out there and make those repairs. Because if we have road failures, we not only lose the land and have that environmental impact, but it doesn't do the forest sector or the Forests ministry or the government any good to have those things happen. Every time that happens people point to those things and say: "See, it's another example of poor management." So we're serious about trying to address the problem. As I said, it's not an easy issue, but we're not going to avoid it. We're trying to tackle it.

R. Neufeld: I was interested in your comment about the companies, whether it was their fault or the ministry's fault. Would you say it's because there wasn't enough work by the Forestry in past years in monitoring roadbuilding and instructing how they should be built? Can you tie it to specific companies, in different areas, that have not been diligent in the way they built their roads on the hillsides? I've been in the construction industry most of my life, so I know quite a bit about those things that can happen. Or is it just the culmination of a change in the way we build roads now compared to how we used to, and what we expected?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there are. I certainly would never do this in a public way; I'm not going to single out companies and say this one's good and that one's bad. But I guess you can judge the performance of companies, and some clearly have been better than others. There's no question about it.

I suspect it's less a question of not having the right standards, although clearly we've advanced in that area. We now have standards, which I think are very good, under the fisheries-forestry guidelines I talked about. In fact, the Mackenzie road failure was interesting, because the investigation revealed that our standards weren't followed. Had they been -- had the required number of culverts, etc., been followed -- it's unlikely that would have happened.

A lot of it, quite frankly, came out of a sympathetic administration. It's true to say that that approach during that economic downturn, to try to resolve the economic issues -- let's just lighten up, let's allow companies not to meet standards, let's not monitor or audit -- resulted in some pretty cheap roads being built. If you build a cheap road today, ten or 15 years 

[ Page 5406 ]

from now you pay the price. It really does cost you more in the long run.

So I think some of those things -- a sympathetic administration, relaxing standards in downturns -- resulted in some of that poor road construction. I'm not approaching the issue with the companies by saying: "It's your fault." I'm saying: "You have as much of an obligation as we do to try to solve the problem."

I had a meeting in Prince George not long ago with some of the members of NILS on the issue, and there was some grumbling all right. But we occasionally get together and grumble at each other, and we have an amazing ability to resolve our problems to my satisfaction. So I think we're making some progress.

R. Neufeld: I see the time is past 5:30. Should we be adjourning this now? Should I continue or wait until tomorrow?

The Chair: Hon. member, we covered that discussion earlier. I think it would be worth carrying on and repeating that as we go on through this committee. We have quite a bit of flex in that rule. The committee this morning had determined to be its own judge, and so I would invite you to carry on with your remarks through the Chair.

R. Neufeld: I'm interested in the sympathetic approach that you talked about in the administration, Mr. Minister, towards roadbuilding in the past. We can go to, in some of those areas, if they are on the coast -- most of them are on the coast, some are in the interior.... With the majority of them, as you say, we know basically what kind of terrain they are going through. It's fairly mountainous and fairly hard to build roads, and we know that even with the best engineering under the Department of Highways that we've had for quite a number of years -- unless you don't think that was very good engineering....

You can go to Whistler almost anytime, and if the weather isn't cooperating with you.... Or even on the Trans-Canada, which was built quite a few years ago by a lot of federal administration, they do have slides and roads do deteriorate -- especially logging roads left on mountainsides for a number of years. They are going to deteriorate just the same as if you walked away from the road from here to Whistler and didn't do any more work on it at all. You're going to have all kinds of slides and problems there. It's a continual thing that's looked after.

But it's there, and how much money does the ministry think that they're going to spend on trying to rehabilitate this? Can the minister stand up here and assure everyone, and British Columbians as a whole, that with the new regulations and the new rules that your administration is taking on in roadbuilding there will not be, ten or 15 years from now, one road failure in any part of B.C. where logging is taking place? If the new rules that your administration is bringing in are so good, can you guarantee unequivocally that in ten or 15 years from now -- because you said that's when most of the damage was done -- it will be totally intact with nothing wrong with it?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I hate to equivocate, but I can't stand here and guarantee that in every road that's built according to the best standards there won't be some failures in ten or 15 years. Nobody can do that. Clearly that's not the purpose of the exercise.

If you want to refer to the Sea to Sky Highway, I recall that the former Minister of Transportation and Highways in the Socred government -- or one of them; there were quite a few -- at one point admitted: "This ground is unstable. We're going to end up spending a fortune on this road because, quite frankly, we're on ground that's constantly moving." If I'm not mistaken, I think he had some notion of running a ferry. He said: "To heck with the road. Let's leave the road alone and run a ferry up there." His own colleagues beat him up rather badly, disabused him of that notion and said: "No, we'll continue to pour money into the Whistler highway." And I suppose we will for some time.

The problem with roads and what causes road failures is poor management of water. Let me say first that if there's an issue of unstable slopes or unstable ground, my ministry won't let you build a road. But if on the balance the ground is considered stable and if, by the application of standards, we think we can build a road that's going to last and has the proper culverts and ditching.... We don't allow sidecasting, or throwing material over the side, which contributes so much to failure. We think the standards we've got are good, and we think we're going to end up with some good forest roads. It's important to note that they're not just to serve the immediate harvesting needs. But if we're going to do forestry in this province for a long time, those roads are going to be used to go back and do silviculture and thinning work. Hopefully we'll get to the day when we can do commercial thinning, some preliminary harvesting and final rotation harvesting as well. So good, solid roads should not be looked at as a high upfront cost that we want to avoid; they should be looked at as an investment that will serve this province over time.

Mr. Chairman, I see the hour is close, and I just want to.... I've got some documentation. I'm going to offer to the Liberal Forests critic the Kispiox timber supply area timber supply analysis report, the Kispiox resource management plan and socioeconomic impact assessment. We do those kinds of things. We have an August 1992 document entitled "The Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Forest Land Management Options in British Columbia: Interim Evaluation Guidelines."

Finally, to illustrate some of the other planning processes -- and one that I think is going to be increasingly important, the land and resource management process, I would like to offer the member the Kamloops LRMP, the environmental, economic and social profile of February of this year that was prepared for my ministry.

So just to illustrate the kind of detailed economic analysis and assessment that we do within the ministry to assist us and the public in arriving at the very best decisions about land use in the province, Mr. Chairman, 

[ Page 5407 ]

I'll offer these to my hon. colleague. I hope you have them all read and studied tonight. Well, we're not doing it tomorrow.

An Hon. Member: We are doing this tomorrow.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, we are doing estimates tomorrow.

The Chair: The Chair is at pleasure of the House.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada