1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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)

MONDAY, JULY 9, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 60).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 10785

Tabling Documents –– 10785

Presenting Petitions –– 10785

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

Introduction and first reading –– 10785

Oral Questions

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

Island Hall liquor licence. Mr. Sihota –– 10786

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

Vancouver Charter amendments. Mr. Perry –– 10787

Nurses' strike. Mr. Rose –– 10787

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

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

Mr. Harcourt –– 10788

Mr. Kempf –– 10791

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10793

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10797

Mr. Miller –– 10797

Mr. G. Janssen –– 10798

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10798

Mr. Cashore –– 10799

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10799

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

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10800

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Today is a very special day in Victoria. It's the day that all of the

constituency assistants of the Social Credit caucus from all over

British Columbia are here to learn, to teach us, to share fellowship

and to lead us. All of my colleagues are saying: "Say especially mine."

They're all important — each and every one of them. I would like the

House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker,

I have several introductions today. I'd like the House to welcome

visitors from New Orleans: Derrick Williams, who is attending Malaspina

College in Nanaimo on a basketball scholarship, his mom Evelyn Falls

and his sister Alzina Myles. Would the House please make them welcome.

Visiting

from Terrace today is a good friend of mine, Mr. Mo Takhar, an alderman

and a member of the Timber Export Advisory Committee. Would the House

please make him welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I

would also like to quickly welcome Alderman Takhar to the legislative

precincts today. It's a pleasure to see him here from Terrace. Would

all members please join me in giving him a warm welcome.

MR. REID :

After the dynamic speech I gave on Friday about the PNE, I was looking

around the audience, and I thought all the Miss PNE contestants were

here to offer congratulations. But as I look closer, I see someone I

recognize. So I was mistaken, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the gallery today we have a very distinguished visitor

from Victoria, Australia. Mr. John McGrath is a Member of Parliament in

Australia, and I would ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Financial Administration

Act for two purposes: first, to facilitate more flexible and cost-effective

financing when the government borrows money for the purpose of making loans

to government bodies; and second, to clarify the types of financial agreements

into which the government may enter. I move the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Bill

60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Presenting Petitions

MR. DAVIDSON :

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of

British Columbia in Legislature assembled, the petition of the

undersigned 4,126 people of the new constituency of Delta North states

that in view of the tremendous population growth within the North

Delta–West Newton area and the resulting need for a local hospital

facility, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House do

review such need and determine the appropriateness of establishing a

separate North Delta–West Newton hospital specifically for those

residents.

Mr. Speaker, to simplify the recording process,

I have attached only one letter to the said petition. However, there

are some 4,126 letters included in this mailbag, which, for the sake of

appropriateness within the House, I will have returned to my office

rather than tabled in the House.

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

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT

ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Forest Act to enable better

management of our forests, to promote fair treatment of subcontractors

in the forest industry and to improve safety in the face of wildfires.

The

bill clarifies that pulpwood agreements can be issued within tree-farm

licence areas, enables the subdivision and consolidation of pulpwood

agreements, enables secure funding arrangements to ensure reforestation

of areas harvested under non-replaceable forest licences, and provides

a consistent basis for calculating the bonus bid for purposes of

establishing rates to be charged for the unauthorized cutting or damage

of Crown timber. It requires timber-harvesting subcontracts to be in

writing and to provide a means for resolving disputes — the same as for

contracts. It provides powers of immediate evacuation in areas

threatened by wildfire and au-

[ Page 10786 ]

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

Bill

48 Introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL SERVICES ACCOMMODATION

FOR CHILDREN IN CRISIS

MR. CLARK :

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. At

least 30 children in the last two months have been placed by your

ministry into "sleazy, flea-bag hotels," to quote your own official.

Now that the ministry has been caught, the minister says: "We won't do

it again." I wonder where the minister's been the last couple of

months. Can the minister inform the House how many children have been

placed in motels or hotels since he became the minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can't give a number of how many children

have been placed in hotels or motels since I became a minister. There

are a few.... There may be times in the future when it's necessary in

an emergency situation — always in an unfortunate situation, I might

add — to have children protected immediately. So they need to be placed

in some accommodations to satisfy those needs they have at that moment.

can tell the member, though, that I was very concerned about the

article he refers to. I immediately asked the ministry to review the

situation. We are going to do a detailed review and see exactly how

that process is working. The children in question were immediately

removed from those particular facilities. I can assure the people of

British Columbia that no child in British Columbia will be placed in

any kind of accommodation that is not safe and appropriate for a child

to be in.

MR. CLARK : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm

sure that's cold comfort for the 30 or 40 children who have had to live

in flea-bag hotels. The minister says that only in emergency situations

would they be placed in hotels. His own ministry social workers said

that if these were private citizens they would be apprehended ... the

treatment doled out by his ministry. The minister says now that no

children will go without being properly cared for, but his own ministry

manager in Vancouver states: "...won't rule out hotels being used this

summer." What new measures has the minister taken since your official

statement last week to guarantee that Vancouver children in crisis do

not end up in hotels this summer or in the future?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the member wishes to know what assurance I can give that

children will not end up in hotels n the future and what I have

done. Well, what I have done is notify the ministry of my concern.

Every regional director in Social Services in the province of British

Columbia is aware of those concerns. It is my intention to go and visit

the particular establishments referred to in the

article to see

personally what type of accommodation those children were placed in.

Beyond

that, we are doing the best we can. We have recently opened a five-bed

facility in Vancouver. We are looking forward to opening another 12-bed

facility in the very near future. It may be, though, that children

under an emergency situation will have to be provided for in a hotel or

a similar facility, but if that is the case, they will be in a hotel

that is safe and appropriate and comfortable for children to be in.

[2:15]

ISLAND HALL LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

Circular 498 that governs beer and wine stores — a very lucrative

industry — states: "A licensee retail store must be part of or located

adjacent to the prime licensed establishment and have the appearance of

being part and parcel of that establishment." Could the minister

explain why, in the case of the Island Hall Beach Resort in Parksville,

clearance was given to allow them to build a beer and wine store on the

Island Highway that is not attached to the liquor establishment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I understand that the particular licence the member speaks of happened

some time ago. I want to tell him that it's a rather big job trying to

keep up with all the new developments and legislation that we are

bringing forward, and trying to keep things running well and improve

wherever we can, as we have been doing. So if he has a question on

something that has happened in the past and wants information on that,

I'd be happy to take the question on notice and bring him back the

information.

MR. SPEAKER : When a question is taken

on notice, normally the member would just say "take the question as

notice" and not give an answer, and then take it on notice.

MR. SIHOTA :

A new question. The clearance with respect to Island Hall was provided

at the very time when similar applications were being turned down. One

of the shareholders, with respect to that facility at Island Hall, is

legal counsel to the liquor branch. Was the branch made aware of this

fact when the application was being reviewed?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's a different question to the minister. Could the minister advise

the House whether, in the case of the Island Hall application, the

branch was made aware of the fact that one of the

[ Page

10787 ]

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

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The question was taken on notice, and I thank the member for his

additional information and concerns. If he has more, perhaps he should

make me aware of them, and I'll bring forth the whole package. Please,

if you have more, Mr. Member, let us hear it.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Provincial Secretary. There is a process in place,

either under the Financial Disclosure Act or, secondly, by way of

notification to superiors, whereby employees of government advise their

superiors of the fact that they have a beneficial interest with respect

to a matter that they may be passing judgment on. Can the Provincial

Secretary advise the House whether or not the individual involved in

this case advised his superiors or indicated through the provisions of

the Financial Disclosure Act of his interest in Island Hall?

MR. SPEAKER :

A question such as this is reasonably technical and would probably be

best on the order paper. It would be difficult for the Chair to believe

that a member of the executive council would know all the details. But

I'll ask the minister if he wishes to respond.

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

ARSENIC AND LEAD LEVELS

IN WELLS AREA RESIDENTS

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The people in the Wells

area have been told that mine waste has contaminated the area with

arsenic and up to nine times the acceptable level of lead. Can the

minister tell the House when a clinic will go into the area to test the

arsenic and lead levels in the residents of the area?

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

schedule for the member as soon as possible.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS

MR. PERRY : I have a question for the Premier. The government has twice

derailed the city of Vancouver's attempt to control the cutting of heritage

trees, and the people of Vancouver are increasingly frustrated by their inability

to prevent the defoliation of their neighbourhoods. On June 12, when I asked

the Premier a question, he responded that he was very concerned about the preservation

of older trees. In view of events in the Private Bills Committee last week,

has the Premier now decided to give all municipalities the right to control

the destruction of heritage trees?

MR. SPEAKER :

A matter that is before a committee, when the committee has not

reported to the House, is not to be discussed here. But on the matter

you brought up, I must caution the member about the fine line you're on.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that as well, and I'll certainly not offend

the House by giving information that might be more appropriately

discussed later. But I know the route the member takes by Helijet to

his home, and he is probably thinking of phytophthora, which is

affecting many of the cypress, particularly along Granville and Oak

Streets, but generally throughout Vancouver.

NURSES' STRIKE

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns

the failure of the government to resolve the strike by community and

psychiatric nurses, which is now having a serious impact on health

care. Psychiatric patients have been forced to remain on the street

because admissions are cut back, and babies are not being immunized

against disease. There are some other matters, such as diabetics and

others who are affected here. The question is: is the government now

prepared to heed the call of the mediator, Vince Ready, and return to

the bargaining table this week?

HON. J. JANSEN : In

fact, the government requested that the parties come back to the table

to deal with some of these issues. We are very concerned as well with

the patients and with the concerns that the nurses have. On Friday I

met with both the nursing union and the board of directors of

Riverview. We're very concerned with and very aware of the issues, and

we are looking forward to the resumption of discussions later on this

week.

MR. ROSE : I think the minister will know

— certainly the public does — that we've seen a growing number of

confrontations in the health field over the year: hospital

waiting-lists, the nurses' strike, foot-dragging talks with doctors and

the hijacking of air service ambulances.

Interjection.

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

We've

had a lot of confrontation and conflict in the health field, and it's

hurting our public health system. There is no question about that. I'd

like to know whether the minister has decided to act now to resolve

this latest dispute. Or is this going to be another blow against our

public health system for British Columbians?

HON. J. JANSEN :

The question is a bit inappropriate, given that the answer is obviously

yes. We're very interested in resolving the concerns of many of the

stakeholders in the health care system. And no,

[ Page 10788 ]

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

on this side of the House, as government, are concerned about the

health care system, are working together with every single group that

gives care to our province — patients, doctors, and nurses — and are

interested in resolving some of these difficulties.

NO-SMOKING POLICY ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'll

preface it by saying that I am not a smoker. However, recently the

minister initiated a no-smoking policy on all the ferries, and as a

result of some inquiries and requests that we've all had.... Now that

the nice weather is here, it's okay, but we're going to be approaching

inclement weather. Has the minister taken any decision on providing a

small location for the smokers who travel the ferries regularly?

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

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The answer is no.

Orders of the Day

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

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT :

After surviving the Anahim Lake Stampede on the weekend, it is good to

be back to deal with Bill 28, Carmanah Pacific Park Act. We have looked

at this bill, and quite frankly, after reading through the bill and

looking at the principle behind it — to establish the Carmanah Pacific

Park by taking it out of tree-farm licence 44, and to establish a

forest management area and an advisory committee — we see that the bill

is fundamentally flawed, because it carries on the valley-by-valley

watershed battles taking place in this province.

essence, it is a shortsighted bill based on political expediency, not

on a commitment to parks, not on a commitment to dealing with the

underlying tensions that take place all over the province. It is not

only short-sighted and politically expedient; it is also contemptuous

of the people in the area, because it lacked any meaningful public

participation. The Forests ministry officials state that a tremendous

amount of work had to be done that hasn't been done at all. Quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, nobody is satisfied — except the 43 Socreds, or

however many are in your caucus now; it keeps shrinking. Nobody else is

satisfied with the principle behind this bill. People are getting weary

of doing battle, and this bill is going to promote that. People in

British Columbia are getting weary.

The Forests officials

have commented on the political expediency behind this bill and the

lack of meaningful public participation. If you read the Forests

ministry's evaluation that was released at the time the decision was

made, it reveals.... I'll read from the minister's own report.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

If he doesn't know the names of his own officials, that very clearly

shows the kind of thought that went into this bill, Mr. Speaker.

His

own officials have said that the detailed ecological classification has

not been done for the forests and the valley that is outside the

proposed reserve; that the strategy for preventing wind throw damage in

the lower mid-valley has not been shown to be effective; that

hydrological work does not incorporate floodplain mapping or take

proper account of erosion hazards; that data on wildlife habitat are 13

years old and have not been updated; that a comprehensive recreation

plan has not yet been prepared for the area; and an accurate

cost-benefit analysis is not currently possible due to the absence of

data. The minister's own officials have made those remarks. It shows

quite clearly that this government is clearly out of touch. It has not

done the homework that's necessary, even to deal with this park. As I

said, it continues the battles, valley by valley and

watershed by watershed, in this province.

[2:30]

Quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, the principles behind this bill are flawed. It is

a flawed bill. It is a bill that is not going to receive the support of

this side of the House. We are not going to support this bill. It is

fundamentally flawed. It is not going to bring about the changes that

are required in British Columbia. As I said at the start, nobody is

satisfied. All you have to do is to listen to the people who are going

to be affected, and this government didn't do that. They didn't listen

to MacMillan Bloedel, who stated on April 10 in their press release

dealing with this, and in subsequent comments: "This decision is based

on politics, not on good forest management or sustainable development,

and certainly not on economics. It escalates the uncertainty over fibre

supply for the Alberni region and security for the people who depend on

it." The company's land use manager, Stan Coleman, the fellow who has

to live with these shortsighted, politically expedient decisions, has

stated: "If these kinds of things continue — land use decisions from a

political rather than a forestry perspective — I wonder what's going to

happen to the rural communities on Vancouver Island." Well, they're

going to lose more jobs, Mr. Speaker.

IWA, Local 1-85, has

stated that if this type of knee-jerk reaction continues throughout

Vancouver Island, B.C., a lot of people will be out of work. What

they're calling for is what New Democrats are calling for: a proper

process to be put in place for this province. They say that

valley by valley decisions will destroy our forest-based economy, not

to mention the livelihoods of many of our people. Again, the

[ Page

10789 ]

government talks about compensating the industry for lost revenue

but makes no mention of compensation to workers, who always end up

paying the price with lost jobs. Those are the workers, Mr. Speaker.

have the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club

calling the bill and the decision a non-decision and saying it is

unacceptable.

George Watts, chairman of the Nuu'chah'nulth

Tribal Council, responded by saying that the first citizens in that

area are so outraged that if the government proceeds, they will seek a

court injunction to address this government's failure to address

aboriginal rights. Chief George Watts has stated that "the government

didn't even have the courtesy to talk to us about this, which is just

another example of the government's insensitivity to the aboriginal

interest."

So we have all the people in the Port Alberni

area who are going to be affected by this not wanting the bill. They

don't want the bill because they see that it is as fundamentally flawed

as I see it to be.

The government has shown not only that

it is run by short-term political expediency and that it has refused to

involve the people who are going to be directly affected, but that it

is seriously out of touch with the people of British Columbia — and not

just the people in the Alberni valley and on the west coast who are

going to be affected by this.

The reason why they don't

have the work that I talked about earlier done is that staffing and

funding cutbacks have taken place in the Forest Service because of the

government's neglect. This has led to wasteful and environmentally

damaging logging practices that have shown up not just in the Alberni

Valley in British Columbia but internationally. We have articles from

Outside magazine, the New Yorker — and soon National Geographic — that

show the shameful practices that this government has allowed to take

place in this province.

This bill is the consequence of 40

years of neglect, not just on Vancouver Island but throughout this

province. Around where this park is being contemplated, this government

has allowed Vancouver Island to be overcut by 40 percent a year for ten

years — 25 million cubic metres instead of 15 million cubic metres.

That's why Canadian Forest Products is laying off people in Gold River,

that's why Fletcher Challenge laid off 470 workers at three different

operations on southern Vancouver Island and that's why hundreds and

hundreds of jobs in Port Alberni have been lost over the last little

while.

That neglect is based on continuing what's so flawed

in the principle of this bill — British Columbians doing battle with

each other in every major watershed, whether it be the Stein, whether

it be in the Cariboo or the Chilcotin, Clayoquot Sound or Sulphur

Passage, Meares Island, the Khutzeymateen or the Slocan Valley. It's

all over this province. And that's why this government is going to be

history pretty soon.

MR. REID : Don't hold your breath.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm not, because you haven't got the guts to call an election. Go ahead

and call it. You haven't got the guts because you're afraid of facing

the people of this province. You're afraid because you know that the

people of this province are aware of a better way. There is a better

way, and it's the New Democrat way.

There is a better way.

The people of this province are looking for the new leadership that New

Democrats can offer. They're looking for a consensus that can be

brought about among British Columbians instead of the bitter

controversy and the battles that this bill is going to promote, not

just here in the Carmanah but throughout this province.

The

alternative to this bill is very clear. It is an environment and jobs

accord that takes place throughout this province with three goals in

mind. The first is to bring stability to forest workers and their

communities so that the workers don't suffer as they have under Social

Credit, who compensate the companies but not the workers. You have only

to look at South Moresby to see that. With the bountiful forests that

we have in British Columbia, we believe that there are many more stable

jobs that could be created to create stable communities and stable

families for our forest workers. That is the first goal.

The

second goal is to increase the park and wilderness areas in this

province from 6 to 12 percent. That is going to be essential, because

you and I are aware that the population in this province is going to

double from three million to six million people in the next little

while and that one of the fastest-growing areas of tourism is

wilderness tourism — people coming to the God-given areas of the globe

where people had the vision to preserve unique ecological areas. We

believe that this government will show their less than superficial

support to the Brundtland report, which calls for this measure. I'm

sure they'll back us when we bring forward a bill to do just that,

rather than attack it.

The third goal of the environment

and jobs accord, which we would put in place of this fundamentally

flawed bill, is to sit down and negotiate and arrive at an honourable

settlement with the aboriginal people — the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal

Council — as a start, instead of having a Premier who takes advantage

of a photo opportunity three weeks before the last election and then

straight-arms the aboriginal people from there on in on self-government

and on negotiating a fair settlement. I advise the Premier to sit down

and read the Sparrow decision, if he wants to understand — he said at

the 1987 constitutional conference that he didn't understand — because

it will show the direction he should be going instead of using this

flawed bill.

Those are the three goals that New Democrats

would offer in the environment and jobs accord as an alternative to

this short-term, expedient bill.

The environment and jobs

accord would be carried out by undertaking a number of initiatives, all

of which can be done. The first initiative would be to do what this

government should have done a long time ago: take an inventory of the

province's forests. They

[ Page 10790 ]

have

not done that. For a so-called business party — in which most of the

members are not; they haven't shown that they understand free

enterprise and good business practices.... I don't know what business

wouldn't do an inventory of what's in its warehouse for 20 years or

more. What an atrocious way to run the business of our forests. We are

calling for an immediate, provincewide inventory of our province's

resources.

Secondly, New Democrats would implement a

reasonably based land use planning framework within which conflicts

would be addressed throughout this province on a region-by-region

basis. The conflicts would still be there, Mr. Minister, but they

wouldn't be as damaging and bitter as the ones your government was

promoting — a conscious policy to divide British Columbians for your

own short-term political survival. British Columbians are ready for it,

and I trust British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT :

They've trusted us through six by-elections, hon. members, I'll tell

you. I don't hear you mentioning your successes in those by-elections

when I talk to the sane principles that we would put in as an

alternative to this flawed bill before us — Bill 28.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I think there are a couple of things we would like

to.... I would ask the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) to

return to his seat if he wishes to applaud. It's inappropriate to pound

someone else's desk in applause.

Secondly, I would remind

the Leader of the Opposition that we're on the principle of the bill.

We've strayed somewhat. I realize that you have been prompted to stray,

but in view of the fact that we're trying to proceed with this thing in

an orderly fashion, I'd like you to return to the principle of the

Carmanah Pacific Park Act.

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT :

As I have said from the beginning, the principle is flawed. I have

pointed out — as British Columbians and even some members of the

government have been asking — what the alternative would be. I think

British Columbians want to see positive alternatives, and that's

exactly what I am offering to this very flawed bill, Mr. Speaker. Part

of the alternative would be time-related negotiations that would take

place in each region. I'm sure that in most instances consensus could

be reached, and if it couldn't at the end of that time, the provincial

government would make a decision. We would also make sure, as part of

that negotiating process, that areas would be sorted out into working

forests and those to be put into conservation, park and wilderness

areas.

Rather than this desperate bill and the principle

behind it, we think far more could be done with the existing forests in

terms of creating jobs. I've only to point out to the minister that

Sweden, with two thirds of the forests of British Columbia — and their

forests are above the 60th parallel — has 250,000 jobs in its forests.

Here in British Columbia, with this marvelous God-given resource, we

produce only 85,000 jobs. To say that there isn't more potential in

our forests is just wrong, wrong, wrong. You have only to look across

the border at similar forests. Washington State has twice as many jobs

per cubic metre as we have here in British Columbia. So it's just not

legitimate to say that we couldn't do far better with the forests than

we're doing now.

Another initiative we would take is to make sure that workers are protected.

Unlike under the Social Credit government, workers would not bear the full brunt

of these kinds of decisions, which is what we have now: the Social Credit government

is prepared to compensate the companies, but not the workers and their families.

We're prepared to introduce a community stabilization fund that would take

into account the sorts of decisions that have been made, such as the so-called

Solomon-like decision of cutting the baby in half, which has happened here —

the Socreds are the first ones I know of to actually go and do it, rather than

just threaten to do it; and that's why this bill is being received with

the huge raspberry that it deserves and the anger that most British Columbians

feel.

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

MR. HARCOURT :

Well, first of all, we wouldn't lose $150 million on the Expo lands, so

we'd have some funds to be able to do that. We wouldn't lose $150

million in the middle of a real estate boom, as they have done. You

want to know where there's some money? There is where there is some

money. And this so-called business government wonders where the money

would come from.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT :

The Premier's wondering what the amount would be. Well, it would be

more than his amount, which is zero. That's what the Social Credit has

for workers.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that

this bill is flawed in principle. I am going to vote against it. This

side of the House is going to vote against it because we know that

there is a better way. We know that the vast majority of British

Columbians are looking forward, whenever this government has the

courage to call an election, to making a choice; and the choice will be

between a New Democrat environment-and-jobs accord and a Social Credit

battle valley by valley that is destabilizing and embittering British

Columbians. It will be the choice between New Democrat stability and

Social Credit instability. It will be a choice between renewing the

forests with

[ Page

10791 ]

New Democrats or mismanaging and diminishing the forests even more

under Social Credit. It will be about bringing lasting economic

benefits to the regions of this province, to the hinterland areas which

need to have lasting economic benefits, rather than diminishing ones

under Social Credit — and disruptions and court battles. Over $100

million is being spent in court battles throughout this province right

now, and that is unacceptable. There's another source of funding for

workers, for renewal of the forests, for settling with the aboriginal

people and for putting aside the park and wilderness areas that are

required.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a choice between a

New Democrat government that listens, that is open, that works with

people, and a Social Credit Party that is imposing its own narrow

decisions, its own narrowly based, politically expedient approach on

the people of this province. We are prepared to vote very clearly

against this bill, very clearly saying no to this bill and yes to

British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, it's with

a heavy heart that I get up to debate this bill in this Legislature. I

think I just heard — in listening to the words of the Leader of the

Opposition — what has always happened in this Legislature, which has

brought us to the position that we are in with our forest resource in

British Columbia today.

I heard it once again used as a

pawn, as a plum, as a plank in a platform for an election to come down

the road. That, in this chamber, is what has brought us to the

destruction of our forest resource in British Columbia, and that's what

will continue until such time as all sides of this House begin to

realize that we are here for the benefit of that resource and the

people who depend on it, and not to kick it around as some political

football.

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

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

MR. KEMPF :

I would ask all members to listen. I think there's a message to be told

here when debating Bill 28, because we as politicians do things simply

in an attempt to garner votes. That doesn't always mean that we do what

is best for that which we are passing legislation on.

have worked for 20 years directly in the forest industry. For a number

of decades I've watched the destruction of that industry in our

province. Unless we as politicians begin to work together and to listen

— not just pay lip-service to listening — to those people out there who

really matter....

I hear a lot — and I wasn't here on Friday last, but I read every word

in Hansard that was said since the introduction of second reading of this bill.

I have yet to hear one word from either side of this House that tells the real

story of what is being done in Carmanah. That's unfortunate, because if

we all pulled in the same direction here and were serious about doing with that

valley — and not just that valley.... I believe we're setting a precedent

in Carmanah that is a very dangerous precedent indeed, because there aren't

very many Carmanahs left.

Some

would say that we should set aside more of our wilderness area for

parks, and I disagree with that as well. I believe that with the finite

resource that's left in British Columbia, we had better be looking at

ways to have the best of both worlds. That can be done in Carmanah.

When

for a short time I was the minister responsible for forests in this

province, I tried desperately. I saw changes necessary then that are

now being demanded by the public of British Columbia. That wasn't the

case four or five years ago; it is now. I think we as politicians have

to rise to that occasion. We as politicians have to take a long look at

what we do with what is left of our forest industry.

need a new blueprint for the harvesting or for leaving as parks of what

is left of our forest resource in British Columbia. We have reached —

and it has not been easy, and it won't be easy — a new age. We have —

and I'm speaking of the public — grown up, if you like, with respect to

our views of what has to be done with what remains of our forest

resource. We can no longer get away with simply doing as we please with

the resource that belongs to all British Columbians: those who enjoy

wilderness, those who make their living cutting trees and those who

would come to our province and spend their dollars to take pictures of

that wilderness. We've got to take a look at all of that when making

decisions.

I think we can have the best of all worlds in

the Carmanah. I don't think we can have the best of those worlds by

setting it all aside as a park. I don't think we can have the best of

those worlds by clearcutting it all. I don't agree that we can have the

best of those worlds by cutting half of it and leaving the other half.

What I do believe is that we, as politicians from both sides of this

floor, have got to enter that new age together with the citizens of

this province. We have not only got to pay lip service about

including....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Does it really matter, Mr. Member? You can ask "How come you went

back?" as many times as you like. Does it really matter where we sit in

this House? Does that dictate how we should speak for the people we

represent? I don't for one moment think so. I don't think any

differently than when I moved from that seat to this. But I want to

tell you....

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

MR. KEMPF :

Well, where you'd rather have me is immaterial, Mr. Member, because I'm

here by the popular demand of my constituents. I would ask how many of

you sitting on either side of this floor can go through the same

exercise I did and still sit here.

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

[ Page 10792 ]

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

[3:00]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.)

heard it mentioned a few moments ago that the situation in the state of

Washington is different. Yes, it's different. I have a report in my

hand, many copies of which I've sent to supporters in this province. We

don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are other jurisdictions as near

as the state of Washington which have done it very successfully. We

must also do it. We must also make decisions on valleys like the

Carmanah on the basis of equal input from all of the public — true

community participation. Then we wouldn't have to have

an act before us

about which people on either side of the floor can say, "Yes, it's

wrong," and "Yes, we're going to vote against it," and not give a

reason why.

I don't agree with Bill 28, but not for the

reasons given by the opposition or the government. We could have had

the best of both worlds in the Carmanah. We can have the best of both

worlds in any watershed. I'd give South Moresby as an example. South

Moresby was one of the biggest mistakes we have ever made in British

Columbia.

We have set aside in a national park a resource

that should be enjoyed and should be harvested. But because of what

we've done with it, it will not be either. That mature timber, that

bug-infested timber, will fall down and rot. Those 70 jobs that were

provided by a harvest on South Moresby are gone forever. I think that

it's very valid to talk about that when discussing the bill before us.

We can make the same mistake.

The only way we can change

that is for all of us in this chamber to cooperate, to get together, to

put our good ideas together — and there are good ideas on both sides of

this floor — for the betterment, for a change, of the people of British

Columbia. We're on the threshold of a new era of community forestry. We

must give our communities a say in what's going on in the resource

around them before it's all gone. In many cases that's almost the

situation now — and I single out Hazelton. It's almost too late. If we

don't do it now, we're not going to get that opportunity. And we're not

going to do it by setting aside the Carmanah as a park. We're not going

to do it by clearcutting the Carmanah. Yes, there is a grove of spruce

trees that should be maintained in the Carmanah, but who's to say that

you should log only half of it? Who's to say that you shouldn't log

two-thirds of it? Who's to say that you should leave only half of it?

Who's to say that you should log all of it, or two-thirds of it, or

leave all of it or two-thirds of it? I don't think we've put our heads

together to really ascertain that.

The question is, Mr.

Speaker, why can't we have the best of all worlds? Why can't we set it

aside and log it both? Some might say it's an impossibility. I don't

think so. Not if we start practising intelligent forestry in British

Columbia.

I just want to read, and put in the record of

this House, a bit of a story about a gentleman in Ladysmith who has,

over the years, practised intelligent forestry on a 55.5 hectare

tree-farm, a piece of land which, since 1936, he and his....

AN HON. MEMBER : A good New Democrat.

MR. KEMPF :

I don't care whether he's a New Democrat, a Rhinoceros, a Social

Crediter or even a Tory. That's what I'm trying to point out here

today, Mr. Speaker. That's just what I'm saying. That's just the

blinkered attitude of so many members of this House, regardless of

which side they sit on.

Let me go on with the story, Mr.

Speaker. Those 55.5 hectares of forested land have been logged,

border-to-border, nine times since 1936. And there's more and better

timber standing on that 55.5 hectares today than there was in 1936.

Now

just for a moment let your mind wander to a situation where we had done

that with all of British Columbia. How fortunate a people we would be

today had we done that!

Why can't we do it with the

Carmanah? Why can't we have true community input in the Carmanah? Why

can't we designate the harvesting methods so that we can assure... ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Ask the government.

AN HON. MEMBER : Wrong government.

MR. KEMPF :

No, not wrong government at all, Madam Member. I read all that was said

on Friday, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition today. Did I hear

that we can have the best of both worlds in the Carmanah? No, I didn't.

"I'm going to vote against the bill. I'm not sure why, but I don't like

it, " Now tell me, will one of you...? I'll sit down. You tell me how

we can have the best of both worlds in the Carmanah.

All

we've got to do is use our heads. You know, I heard in the prayer at 2

o'clock that we're here to tend with care our heritage. Well, we

haven't done it in the forest industry for a hundred years in British

Columbia. We won't do it with this bill, and we certainly won't do it

with anything that I've heard emanating from the other side of the

floor, Mr. Speaker. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The

timber-fish-wildlife agreement in the state of Washington shows us

that. We in this chamber need only to have an open mind, to let loose a

little in this province, and to let the public — and I say all of the

public; bring them to the negotiating table as equals — have a bit of a

say. Why should it be the politicians who always make those decisions,

and on the basis of pure, raw politics? It's wrong. Our citizens have

to have equal status. It's the only way it's going to work. If we don't

give them that, and if we don't change our ways....

Interjection.

[ Page

10793 ]

MR. KEMPF : We talk about New Democrats — I wonder what Jack

Munro is. I wonder where the hell he's been for the last five decades

when all of the jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia have

disappeared, 50 percent of them in the last decade alone. Isn't that a

clear indication that we'd better get back to basics? That's what

automation has done, and I haven't ever seen Jack Munro stand up and

speak against automation in the forest industry. I wrote him a letter

with respect to what was going on in South Moresby and said: "Where are

you on behalf of your brothers and sisters, 70 of whom have jobs on the

Queen Charlotte Islands?" I never even got a response. That's what

politics does. It's no different with Jack Munro than in this chamber,

and therein lies the problem.

Community forestry, true

integrated resource management.... To set aside a whole valley as a

park allowing the mature trees to fall and rot is not true management.

To clear-cut a whole valley, letting fall everything in sight, is not

true management. There has to be a happy medium.

There can

be a happy medium, but not until we in this chamber, who are sent here

to protect the resource which belongs to the people we represent, grow

up and virtually put politics aside, and don't continually think of

re-election the next time around and use everything in our path to

ensure that that happens, regardless of what it does to the resource.

Sure, as for our re-election it doesn't matter to us what's left of the

forest industry 20 years hence. We don't have to worry about that,

because even though I'll be here after the next election, I won't be

here 20 years hence; I know that. So it doesn't really matter to us.

But whichever side of this floor we sit on, we're here as the stewards

of that resource.

[3:15]

To either set aside all of the

Carmanah as a park or cut all of the Carmanah and make logs out of it

is not the way to go. We can, through communication and cooperation,

have the best of both worlds. I am saying that we have an opportunity

here to make that start in British Columbia, to change some of those

rules, to put some teeth back in the B.C. Forest Service and to allow

those people in the field to do their job, not to direct them from this

chamber on the basis of politics. We have that opportunity in the

Carmanah. If we throw it away, we may be throwing it away forever.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I do wish to respond to some of the remarks made on Friday and again

today regarding the Carmanah Pacific Park Act. I think that the

Carmanah Pacific Park Act is a good bill, and if any member of this

House reads it through from one end to the other, they will realize

that it's a good bill.

No, contrary to what some of the people on the other side said, we didn't

expect to please everyone with this bill. That was not the intent. We had many

editorialists write that the Socreds expected to please everyone and they pleased

no one. Not true. We didn't expect to please the fringe groups who don't

want to ever cut anything more. We didn't expect to please those on the

other side who want to clearcut everything.

know that most British Columbians are pretty rational, reasonable human

beings, and when they read the bill and see what we've done in the

Carmanah, they will realize that we have made a balanced decision

that's in the best interest of most British Columbians.

does protect some 3,600 hectares of beautiful, old-growth Sitka

spruce. I think we'll turn it into one of the finest provincial parks

anywhere — the Carmanah Pacific Park. It will be a park that all

British Columbians can be proud of. We sincerely hope that this very

special stand of old-growth spruce survives for many generations of

British Columbians to see.

Yes, I've been to the Carmanah.

Fortunately I was able to go there by helicopter, as many others have,

but most people will never go there in a helicopter. They will drive to

the Carmanah Pacific Park on a logging road that was put there to open

up the resources of this province for the people of the province. It's

a park that should be protected.

The second part of the

bill allows the harvesting of timber in the upper half of the Carmanah.

After careful studies and careful community input, we have — if people

will read the bill, and I guess we can get into this in committee —

structured a committee of vested interests in the Carmanah to oversee

the harvesting of timber in the upper Carmanah to see that it's done

properly and that it doesn't adversely affect the beautiful stands of

spruce in the lower valley on the alluvial floodplain.

We've

heard the typical arguments put forward by the opposition — especially

the Leader of the Opposition. They love to talk about the

valley-by-valley conflict. Yes, there is valley-by-valley — or if you

like, watershed-by-watershed — conflict. I don't foresee that we will

get rid of that conflict, no matter what kind of a plan or, as the

former speaker said, blueprint that you put in place. If you put in

place a blueprint that tries to deal with all the watersheds in the

province, you will not do justice to any of them, because every valley

is totally different from the next one.

The Carmanah Valley

is quite different from the Stein, which is quite different from the

Tsitika, which is different from the Khutzeymateen, the Walbran and so

on. Some of them have mineral values; some do not. Some have historical

and archaeological values; some do not. Each valley, although they are

all beautiful in their own way, has its own set of values.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

to say, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that if we had a

blueprint in place for dealing with these valleys we would end

conflict.... We would not end the conflict. What we would have is a new

base from whence to start the arguments. That's

[ Page 10794 ]

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

When

I said to him: "Oh, you would end the conflict." He quickly backtracked

and said: "No, the conflicts would still be there, but they would be

different." The only thing different is that they would be starting

from a different base. They would be starting from whatever base you

set aside. It would then become the baseline where the preservationists

would start from or from where those who would like to clearcut

everything would start from.

The Leader of the Opposition

read some quotations from the Forests ministry staff, but I submit to

you that he read them totally out of context. He was reading comments

they made about the land which would not be in the Carmanah Pacific

Park, not that which would be in the Carmanah Pacific Park. I think he

owes the staff of the ministry an apology for that. He took their words

totally out of context.

He quoted MacMillan Bloedel on the

Carmanah when it suited him, but he didn't say he agreed with them. He

just quoted them. Who does he agree with? He says he agreed with

Catherine Caufield and the

article she wrote in the New Yorker , which

was reprinted in the Vancouver Sun . Yes, it is a marvelous article, but

it's full of untruths and half-truths; yet he stands in this House and

says that he agrees.

I wonder if he would send to Mr. Munro

a copy of that speech in which he agrees with Catherine Caufteld. If he

doesn't, I will. Jack Munro and the members of the IWA should hear what

the Leader of the Opposition says in here. He should hear what many

members of the opposition say in here. He will stand in here and

condemn us for the decision made in the Carmanah. Then he stands at his

own convention and says: "Watch my lips. There will be no logging in

the Carmanah." Yet the member for Alberni will stand in here and

condemn us for the job loss because of removing some of the working

forest in the Carmanah. He'll say it's going to cost jobs in Port

Alberni. Of course it is. Any time you remove some land from the

working forest, it's going to cost some jobs, and the people should

know that. Every time you set aside some land and remove it from the

working forest, there's a price tag. That's not always wrong. Some land

should be set aside and taken out of the working forest, but the people

should know there's a price to pay, not only in dollars and cents but

in jobs.

The member for Port Alberni says it's going to

cost some jobs in his riding. Of course it is. How many would it have

cost, though, if they had made the decision? It would have cost a lot

more jobs, because the Leader of the Opposition said: "Watch my lips. No

logging in the Carmanah." So who's going to cost them more jobs?

You're

on the horns of a dilemma over there, Mr. Member from Victoria and Mr.

Second Member from the Cariboo and Mr. Member from Prince Rupert. You're

trying to please two masters. You're trying to keep those happy who

berate this government for doing any logging in any watershed, yet

you're trying to keep your labour constituency happy. You cannot serve

two masters — and they should both know that.

I want to

talk just for minute in the context of the Carmanah bill and jobs and

the IWA, and all the ancillary jobs that go with forestry. I hope that

members of the IWA will listen and read the Carmanah Pacific Park Act,

and realize that the correct decision was made. But I hope they will

read the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for

Prince Rupert, the member for Alberni and the others who spoke on it,

and I hope they will examine what's being said there, vis--vis their

livelihood. When they stand up and just say, holus-bolus, "We will

double the size of parks in British Columbia, "there will be an

incredible cost to pay. If you're going to do that, it must be done

very carefully and in the knowledge that there's going to be a

tremendous price to pay. But they never talk about how many jobs it

will cost; or they talk about it very fleetingly, very quickly, as they

did at Simon Fraser University and in the Valhalla recommendation,

which said to double the size of parks in the province. They said it

will only cost 2,400 or so direct jobs. COFI said it would cost more,

and the spinoff jobs are at least three to one.

I want to

reiterate for members of the IWA and others who rely on forestry for

their living. It's easy to sit in a comfortable home in Oak Bay, Point

Grey, Ottawa, New York or Toronto, and these are just numbers on a

piece of paper. But when you get into Port Alberni, as I did, or

Cowichan, Port McNeill, Prince George, Terrace and other places, these

are real people. These are people with dreams and mortgages and

children to educate, and they have real hopes for the future.

MR. MILLER : They're losing their jobs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member for Prince Rupert says they're losing their jobs. Yes, they

are. But not at as fast a rate as if you had been making the decisions

on the Carmanah Pacific Park.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, they are. We'll get into that in my estimates, Mr. Speaker, when

we talk about jobs lost and jobs created in the forest industry over

the last couple of years. I have some interesting statistics, if the

member would care to see them — and he will. There have been jobs lost

in one sector of the forest industry and jobs created in others. We all

know the reasons; you know them as well as I do. The previous speaker

touched on them. Automation is one of the reasons; mechanization is

one. A lot of those are being replaced, but the jobs that are lost

because of taking land out of the working forest can never be replaced.

Yet here's a party that would double the size of parks tomorrow. They

said that should they ever become government, they would double the

size of parks. That's exactly what they would do, should they ever

become government, which I doubt.

[ Page

10795 ]

They talk about compensating the workers, but they don't say how

much or for how long. Yes, I too would like to compensate every forest

worker who loses his or her job, but how do you do that if you're

getting rid of jobs and taking land out of the working forests, as they

would do, and reducing your income to government, and yet you're still

going to spend more money compensating workers?

The Premier

asked the Leader of the Opposition how much he would put into a fund to

compensate workers. He doesn't have an answer for that. They don't have

an answer when it comes down to putting their money where their mouth

is. They make these big promises: we will do this; we will do that. But

how much? And who's going to pay? How much, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition?

When you talk about settling aboriginal claims,

how much? I think you owe it to the people to say what your starting

position is. If you're going to negotiate aboriginal claims, then tell

the people of British Columbia where your starting position is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) says: "Justice and

fairness." Well, how much is justice and fairness? Is it 100 percent of

the land base, or 110 percent, as they're asking? Is it 20 percent, 30

percent, 50 percent? Give us an answer, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Level with the people of British Columbia and tell them what you

propose. Level with them. I think you owe them that.

says that if we have a comprehensive land use plan, there will be no

more conflicts. There will be a panacea in the province if we just have

a plan — a marvellous plan. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition, there is more planning going into the forest industry in

this province at the moment than there ever has been in history. And

there's more public involvement in the forest industry than there ever

has been in history. I sometimes wonder if the Leader of the Opposition

and some of his members realize just how important the forest industry

is to British Columbia. Do they really realize how much of our economy

is generated in the forest industry? I doubt that very much.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, the member for Prince Rupert left because he doesn't want to hear

this. He doesn't want to hear what's really happening in the forests.

We'll get to that in my estimates when we talk about jobs.

But the Leader of the Opposition, when he's debating the Carmanah Pacific

Park Act, points to Sweden and what they do in forestry. Yes, in Sweden they

do some marvellous things in forestry. There are some things we're learning

from them, and there are some things that they're learning from us. I had

dinner with a group of Swedish businessmen last night in Prince George. They've

come over here to learn some of the things that we're doing, because we

do some things very well in the forest industry.

But

he also fails to mention that Sweden has a socialist government —

social democrats, they profess to be — and has a GST of 23 percent. So

if they're such marvellous managers of their forest industry, what are

they doing with the money that they need a GST of 23 percent to make

things run, and income tax rates as high as 65 percent for the average

worker? I just verified those figures last night, because I talked with

some people from Sweden. So that's what a social democratic government,

as they profess to be, would do for you — a GST of 23 percent and

income tax rates that you can't afford.

MR. ZIRNHELT : But more jobs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Oh, yes, more jobs. I've got a life-size picture of more jobs, as you

keep taking land out of the working forest and taxing people so that

they can't afford to live. I've got a real life-size picture of more

jobs, Mr. Speaker. That's why the Carmanah Pacific Park Act is such a

good act, because it does provide the people with a magnificent park

and preserves jobs in the working forest.

[3:30]

The

member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Bruce) made an impassioned speech on

Friday, and I wonder if some of the members over there were listening,

because not only did he come out and defend the Carmanah Pacific Park

Act, but when the debate over the Carmanah was going on, he got

involved in his community. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen)

didn't, and the first member (Mr. Lovick) and the second member for

Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER : Or Victoria.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Or Victoria. But the member for Cowichan–Malahat got involved, and he

got his community involved. They came to me with a plan that they would

like to see implemented, and there were some good things in that plan.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Listen. The member that came back recently just spoke and said there

should be public involvement. The member for Cowichan–Malahat didn't

just pay lip service to it. He went out and got his community involved,

and they came up with a very sound plan. Many of the recommendations he

came up with for the Carmanah have been incorporated into the act — not

everything, but many of the things he recommended.

They

talk about a knee-jerk reaction, Mr. Speaker — or political expediency,

as the Leader of the Opposition said over and over. Nothing could be

further from the truth. There was nothing knee-jerk about the Carmanah.

It was debated and studied for months before any decision was made.

[ Page 10796 ]

I was sitting there listening, I thought that the NDP are always great.

They want more studies, and they said that we should have studied this

and studied that — studies and studies and studies. After they had

studied it, I'm sure they probably would have come to the same

conclusion that we did: where we drew the line and said, "Save this and

harvest that," they would have agreed that it would have been right

on. But they would have done it in the year 2011. That's when they

would have come back with their conclusion.

MR. BLENCOE : High ground stuff.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I think it's high ground to Port Alberni. By the time you people had

gotten around to making a decision, you wouldn't have had to worry

about Port Alberni anymore, because there wouldn't have been any jobs

there.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I wonder if the member has ever asked his leader about "Watch my lips.

No logging in the Carmanah" and the figures you did for us on the cost

of the jobs. Have you done the same projection for your leader's stand

that says: "No logging in the Carmanah"? Have you done a projection on

that, Mr. Member from Port Alberni?

Once again, Mr.

Speaker, we see that it's very easy to be a critic, such as we see over

there, when you don't have to make a decision. You're not accountable.

We can do this; we can do anything. They run around the convention

floor saying: "Don't say this. It might hurt our re-election chances."

Their

philosophy, Mr. Speaker, on the Carmanah was — and one of their members

said it the other day, the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore), if I'm not mistaken — that there should be a moratorium until

all of this is decided. Not just a moratorium on the Carmanah, but a

moratorium on the industry. That's his solution. Put a moratorium on

the whole industry until we make these decisions. Then how many jobs

are we creating, Mr. Member from Port Alberni?

I want to

correct one thing the member for Alberni said in this debate. It's

important, and I'm glad to see Les Leyne, the only journalist in the

place up there working. Pay attention, Les, this is important. When the

member for Alberni.... Les has disappeared now.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. It's inappropriate during second reading or at any other

time to refer to the second estate. Would the minister please...?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER :

It is not the fourth estate. There are only two estates in this

province — if you know what the other four are, which members may be

tested on someday — and I would ask the minister not to refer to

members of the second one. Please continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I do want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, because the member

for Prince Rupert, when speaking on this bill, said that the Minister

of Forests would rather fight it out valley by valley. That is not

true. Those words were uttered by Mr. Paul George of the Western Canada

Wilderness Committee, and they are not true. I've never said that. What

I said was that we will end up doing battle, if you like, valley by

valley, because that's the way it's going to go. It isn't the way I

would like it; it isn't the way any of us would like it. But I can tell

you that there is no other way. If you try to bring in a plan to deal

with every valley, such as the Carmanah, it is not going to work. You

will just end up with a new baseline. Every watershed is different, so

we're going to end up making a decision on every watershed on its own

merits. But they will be intelligent, well-thought-out decisions backed

up by technical data, as was the Carmanah decision.

The

member for Prince Rupert says we can increase the annual allowable cut

through intensive silviculture. We know that, Mr. Speaker, and that is

exactly what we're working towards in this ministry and this industry.

In the next few years we will be increasing the annual allowable cut,

and we will not be increasing the percentage of land in the province

that is working forest. We'll be able to save large tracts of land

which should be saved, like the Carmanah, but we'll still be able to

increase the annual allowable cut through incremental silviculture.

says we have not considered the full range of options. That is not

true. I don't think there was an option that wasn't considered and put

on the table for discussion during the Carmanah debate in the ministry

or the caucus.

In conclusion, I just want to mention a

couple more things. For those in this House who will stand up and say

that we do not consider all the values in the forest — and they've said

that about Carmanah — it is just not true. I would refer them to a

recent publication in my ministry called "All Things Considered." It

has been out only about three weeks or a month. It will clearly show

that we do take our responsibilities as stewards of the land base very

seriously. We do consider all the values in the forest. The industry

doesn't even feel comfortable sometimes, when I say in speeches to

people in the industry that there are many values in the forest other

than timber; but there are.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It's not just lip-service. Read the book, Mr. Member for Victoria. I

know you don't have any forests in your constituency, but get a copy of

our publication, "All Things Considered."

We take the

Brundtland commission report very seriously, where Ms. Brundtland says

very clearly that you cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy

environment; and vice versa: you cannot have a healthy environment

without a healthy economy.

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

[ Page

10797 ]

everything is to write a cheque. "If jobs are displaced in the

forest industry, we'll compensate them; we'll just write a cheque."

With what? As you keep removing land from the working forest, it will

become more and more difficult to write that cheque. He won't say how

much the cheque is for. It's a blank cheque, I suppose. It's typical

NDP philosophy: a blank cheque. "Whatever the problem is, we'll just

write a cheque for it. We'll solve the problems of anyone losing their

job in the forest industry or any other industry."

The

young people in this province have a tremendous stake in the forests,

and we intend, through bills like this and others, to make sure that

they have a future and someplace to work when they are ready to enter

the workforce.

In conclusion, talking about public input

into this bill, I wish some of the members of this House could have

been with me one day in Port McNeill when we had a public hearing. The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was there; he was the only one.

He was very impressed. He sat there all day and listened as one young

person after another got up and said how they value the forest and all

the values in it, and how they wanted us to get on with making

decisions like the Carmanah and like the Tsitika Valley. These are real

people in Port McNeill whose livelihood depends on the forests, and

they are very concerned about it, as we are.

Mr. Speaker, I

commend Bill 28, the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, to this House and to

the people of British Columbia. I now move second reading.

[3:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Brummet

Savage

Strachan

Gran

Reynolds

Jacobsen

Parker

Weisgerber

Messmer

Ree

Reid

Vant

Huberts

DeJong

Dirks

Veitch

S. Hagen

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Smith

Couvelier

Fraser

J. Jansen

Johnston

Pelton

Loenen

McCarthy

Peterson

Serwa

Rabbitt

Crandall

Davidson

NAYS — 17

Rose

Harcourt

Boone

D'Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Pullinger

Guno

Sihota

A. Hagen

Miller

Cull

Perry

Zirnhelt

G. Janssen

Bill 28, Carmanah Pacific Park Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

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

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Bill 35 amends the Forest Act to make spiking of timber an offence. It

addresses the concerns of many workers in our forest industry that

their health and even their lives are endangered by the actions of a

few irresponsible individuals who hope to save a few trees with such

actions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The bill

makes it an offence to spike timber, including all trees, whether

living or dead, standing or fallen. This is because this action creates

dangerous situations for loggers whose chainsaws may break and for

sawyers working in the mills. In either case, serious personal injury

can result.

It also makes it an offence to aid, abet or

counsel another person to spike timber, to carry spikes or other

potentially hazardous objects with the intention of spiking timber, and

to solicit funds for the intention of spiking timber.

For

these offences there are fines up to $2,000 and imprisonment for six

months, and where an offence results in physical injury or property

damage such as a broken saw, there are fines up to $10,000 and three

years in prison.

I move the bill be read for the second time.

MR. MILLER :

We are rising on this side, of course, to support the bill. We find

tree-spiking to be one of the most abhorrent acts that could possibly

be undertaken in British Columbia.

I want to read a

paragraph from a letter I wrote last September to a woman in Port

McNeill, who had written to me regarding the matter. In response, I

wrote to her: "There can be no question that tree spiking is a violent

act, threatening the well-being of forest workers and mill workers.

Therefore I agree it should be regarded as a criminal offence, whether

under a specific amendment to or under current, more general provisions

of the Criminal Code." That is just to illustrate that I as the Forests

critic, and the individual members of this caucus, have long been on

record as opposing the use of tree-spiking.

Just briefly, I

will relate — I suppose in a personal vein — that I used to work in a

woodroom. At that particular time we had something you probably don't

see much — the old bandsaw and a no-man carriage. But it was and still

is quite common for metal to be embedded in logs. Anybody who has

worked in the forest industry knows that pieces of boomchain are left

in swifter logs and boom logs; that dogs — which are metal devices used

by people on booms to secure individual logs — are sometimes left in

logs. It's not uncommon for rocks to be embedded in logs with soft

centres. I've seen the results when a log goes through a bandsaw, and

it happens to hit a piece of metal. I've seen co-workers injured, and

in some cases quite severely cut up, when a bandsaw gets

[ Page 10798 ]

derailed

off the carriage or shatters. It's not pretty. I've also worked in

areas where we had cutoff saws, and similarly have seen the results of

high-speed equipment coming in contact with metal objects. The same

holds true as well, and continues to this day, in chippers.

There

have been lots of safety devices installed in woodrooms, in sawmills,

to collect metal and to try to alert workers to the fact that metal is

embedded in logs. You can't always get it. There's no question that

anyone who knowingly spikes trees, for whatever reason — there is no

reason, in my view, that would justify the spiking of trees — should be

subject to the full penalty of the law laid out in this bill.

don't know whether the minister, in wrapping up, would care to comment

on the difficulty of trying to prove charges under this kind of

legislation. Certainly that may be a problem. But there's no question

that people who have this intent should be deterred by the full letter

of the law, so we'll be supporting the bill.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I would also like to welcome this bill. It is 11 months since I first

notified the Attorney-General ministry that tree-spiking was taking

place in the riding of Alberni. I brought forth information — addresses

and names — and I hoped that charges would be laid. No action was taken.

It wasn't until two trees showed up in the Somas sawmill and had the

potential of injuring workers.... Fortunately that didn't happen,

although we know, as the member for Prince Rupert has pointed out, the

devastation that can result when it happens. The teeth from the saw,

pieces from the bandsaw itself or the spikes in the trees can travel at

the velocity of bullets and injure either the sawyer or the tail-sawyer.

believe that charges could have been laid under the public mischief

section of the Criminal Code. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

indicated to the House that the federal government was unwilling to put

tree-spiking in the Criminal Code. I hope that this government

continues to pursue bringing this tree-spiking law — which I'm sure will

pass in the House — into the Criminal Code, because with the wanton

spiking of trees, there is surely a planned intent to injure workers.

However strongly you feel about an issue, to use a malicious act such

as tree-spiking to bring about injury to those who are doing their

job.... I think it should be included in the Criminal Code.

Again,

we support this act. It has been a long time coming. Hopefully it will

have some effect and stop the spiking of trees. Perhaps it is

appropriate that this bill comes right after the Carmanah bill. I'm

sure that there's a relationship between tree-spiking and land use

conflicts in this province. Perhaps the ultimate answer would be to

resolve those land use conflicts, and people wouldn't be driven to the

extremes they find themselves driven to.

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

HON. MR. SMITH :

I want to speak on this issue ever so briefly. The member for Alberni

sounded suspiciously like someone who was, by way of even the slightest

bit of sympathy, condoning the actions of people who do this. It is not

a question of land use issues in which they may or may not decide to

take the issue one step further and become, after all, eco-terrorists,

purely and simply. These people are reprehensible individuals, however

you characterize them. The fact that they may have a dispute on a land

use issue is irrelevant, Mr. Member for Alberni; that they may have a

dispute on a land use issue is not the point. They are putting people's

lives at risk — period. Accordingly, they should be brought to justice.

a couple of occasions the member has intimated that it is known who

these people are and that charges should flow; and I agree charges

should flow. But in our system, criminal charges require the names of

the people to charge as well as the evidence to prove the charge. I

would invite anyone in this House, including the member who intimates

that those people are known: if he has information about them or the

incidents, then for goodness' sake put it before the police so they can

deal with it appropriately — and I can assure you they will.

The

member has also intimated on more than one occasion that there is

reluctance on the part of the Crown or the police to pursue these

people and charge them. That is a false assumption and position to

take. There is no reluctance whatsoever either by the police or by the

Crown with respect to this matter. I've said it before in this House,

and I want to say it again for the record, because I don't want it to

be left on the record that the police or anyone else in the justice

system condone, in any way, the work of these terrorists; and that is

what they are, purely and simply. The wanton disregard for life that

they show by simply driving these missiles into any tree which will

show up in any mill, goodness knows where, is completely despicable. It

should not be couched or reduced or somehow condoned even in attitude

by suggesting that it has anything to do with land use conflicts; it

does not. It has only to do with the mentality of a human being who

would drive a missile into a log knowing it is going to go through a

bandsaw, and reckless of the fact that the nail may come out of the

bandsaw into the body of the worker — period. That's all that it's

about. It has nothing to do with land use, Mr. Member, and don't give

them that cop-out, because that's all it is.

[4:00]

In the past the member has invited the province to amend the

Criminal Code. I want to again put on the record that the province

cannot amend the Criminal Code, because the Criminal Code is federal

legislation. We have requested and we will continue to pursue the

notion that into the Criminal Code should go the specific charge of

tree-spiking. We think it should happen simply because it is a matter

of such concern and prominence that a particular offence dealing with

it should be in the Criminal Code.

[ Page

10799 ]

That does not preclude the use of the Criminal Code, and — I want to

say for the record again — it won't. Where names are provided and

evidence is sufficient for the Crown to move on the substantial

likelihood of conviction, there will be absolutely no hesitancy to so

move. That can be done under the public mischief sections of the

Criminal Code, among others.

This legislation buttresses

the Criminal Code provisions, and it makes certain that there are

specific charges dealing with this horrible, despicable, reckless and

wanton act on the part of people who should not be given, at any time,

the slightest benefit that their actions in some way can be justified

by their beliefs about land use in the province of British Columbia.

They don't deserve that credit, because this act deserves no credit

from anyone, anytime, anywhere, least of all by the member for Alberni

in the Legislature of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General's propensity to create an adversary

in this House where one doesn't exist, by his attack on the member for

Alberni, accomplishes nothing in promoting the intent of this bill.

rise to speak in favour of the bill. I want to say a bit from the

perspective of environmentalism. I think all of us share a desire to

see the day when we don't see a line of difference in our definition of

an environmentalist, a working person, a homemaker or a business

person. All of us in this province have a responsibility to uphold the

highest environmental practices. Therefore anything that we can do that

recognizes that working people, who are people we're concerned about in

this particular circumstance.... It's very important to see that they

are themselves people who have a very strong tradition and a strong

value with regard to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, anyone

who would call himself or herself an environmentalist and would indulge

in tree-spiking is, by that very fact, a contradiction in terms. Anyone

who would claim to uphold the concept of a holistic approach to the

environment while doing that which could result in personal harm to any

living human being.... That would belie any worthwhile goal that they

might have in mind. Clearly, when one takes the risk with another

person's life, this is a case of the end being used to justify the

means, and it simply does not work.

There is just one point I'd like to make, based on a visit that I had into

the Cowichan Valley with some members of the IWA. At that time they were showing

me some evidence of forest practices that they found to be inappropriate. In

one of those situations, the company was causing the roadbed to be blasted prior

to the trees being cut down. On that occasion, I observed many Douglas fir,

hemlock and cedar trees that had large boulders and some smaller rocks embedded

within the bark of those trees as a result of the blasting that took place during

that road building. I think it's fundamentally inappropriate to build a roadbed

over the trunk of a fir tree four feet in diameter. That tree, if it's going

to be harvested, should be harvested for all the wood-fibre that can be gleaned

from the tree. But when that process is used and the roadbed is actually built

around the tree, and where the blasting that takes place results in rocks being

embedded in the tree, the danger to the worker could be almost tantamount to

the danger of a spike being placed in a tree.

just put that on the record in the hope that the minister will consider

that there is potential danger to a person working in the forest or

working in a mill that could result from inappropriate forest practices — and not necessarily tree-spiking.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I just have a couple of comments before we call for the vote. To answer

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), I think that the fines and

sentences that we are imposing in this bill are the maximum allowed

under provincial law. When it results in physical injury, the $10,000

and three years in prison is the maximum that we can allow.

Once

again, just to address two members. To the member for Port Alberni (Mr.

G. Janssen), who talked about civil disobedience and conflicts, I

think, with the greatest of respect, that you are naive in the extreme

if you think that you or anyone else is going to bring in a policy that

is going to end land use conflict once and for all. To hide behind that

as an excuse for driving a spike in a tree I find just totally

unacceptable.

There are many times when many of us don't

agree with government actions at the federal, municipal, regional or

provincial levels, and that's understood. It doesn't matter who's in

power, there are going to be disagreements with governments. But I

don't think anyone in this House could or should condone civil

disobedience and acts of eco-terrorism — as they're called — such as

driving spikes into a tree, and should not even allude to the fact that

it might be justified from time to time, because it is not.

It's

quite different from the situation the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam mentioned when he says that he sincerely hopes

there's a day when everyone working in the bush is an environmentalist.

I think they are, Mr. Member. I've been out there talking with them in

the Cariboo, in Port Alberni, in Port McNeill, in Kamloops and

everywhere else, and I think every one of them is an environmentalist.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

You had your turn to speak, Mr. Member. If we want to talk about

twisting the meaning of other members' words, you people are experts at

it; you do it time after time in this House. You said, as nearly as I

can remember, that it will be nice to see the day when everyone is in

the same lineup, when everyone is an environmentalist and we do not

have these conflicts over the environ-

[ Page 10800 ]

ment.

I think we are all environmentalists. I know I am. I think most of the

people I know in this place are environmentalists, and most of the

people I talk to in the sawmills and in the bush are environmentalists.

But they don't condone acts of civil disobedience to make their point,

and they're not extremists. I think we must categorize people where

they belong.

I don't think you can talk about bad forestry

practices in the same breath as eco-terrorism. I don't think the two

are related at all. I'm the first one to agree that there shouldn't be

bad forestry practices, and I've talked to several IWA members, who are

the first to report bad forestry practices by their company or any

other company. There have been numerous instances where they've

reported bad forestry practices to me, and I commend them for it. They

don't want to see things like you're talking about, where rocks are

being driven into a log or where logs are being dragged through a creek

where they shouldn't be dragged through a creek. I've had that and

other bad forestry practices reported to me, and I commend IWA members

and everyone else for reporting that. But that really has nothing to do

with the content of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm certain

there won't be a member in this House who would vote against this bill.

It is possibly overdue, as the member for Alberni has said. But I

brought it in as quickly as possible since assuming this portfolio, and

I think that every working man and woman in the forest industry will

stand up and applaud the day that it's passed in this House. I now move

second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill

35, Forest Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

[4:15]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of committee members, I just want to make

a few introductory remarks to summarize the 1990-91 estimates of the

Ministry of Forests.

The estimates of the ministry comprise

four votes: vote 30, for the operation of my office; vote 31, for the

administration and delivery of ministry programs; vote 32, for fire

suppression in our forests; and vote 33, which funds our forest renewal

activities. The total expenditure request for the ministry in votes 30

through 33 is $512.8 million.

As we enter the nineties it

is increasingly clear that the days of seemingly unlimited resources

are over. This is perhaps particularly true in relation to our forests.

Population growth, new demands and expectations for all products of the

forest are requiring us to harmonize those demands. Consider, Mr.

Chairman, that our forests not only produce timber but are our

watersheds and the habitats for fish and wildlife. They sustain

recreation and tourism industries in providing a scenic backdrop for

residents and tourists alike, and they provide forage for our ranching

industry and for wildlife. We need to balance these various uses of our

substantial but nonetheless limited forests, and we must also balance

today's needs with consideration of the needs of future generations.

are not alone in that challenge. The Brundtland commission told the

world that economic development and environmental management are

linked. Both are essential. Economic development requires an

environment that can sustain it. Environmental management requires

wealth with which to manage. Decisions on the use of our forests must

be balanced. These decisions mean considering the economic benefits and

the environmental requirements together. Balanced decisions demand

judgment. Finding the right balance means protecting the environment

and providing for development. Clearly my ministry is dedicated to

finding the optimum balance implicit in the concept of sustainable

development.

We agree with the conclusion of the Brundtland

commission that environmental responsibility is best placed on agencies

like our Ministry of Forests in making resource allocation and

management decisions. We accept that approach. For example, obligations

and accountability for forest renewal are now placed directly on those

responsible for harvesting. We require the forest industry to have

plans for limiting environmental impacts and fully regenerating harvest

sites before they begin to log. Failure to follow these plans leads to

penalties.

Our new zero waste tolerance policy ensures full

utilization and penalizes those who waste timber resources. Mr.

Chairman, we are committed to improving forest practices. These

estimates provide for more field staff to monitor and enforce the

forest practice standards we require of industry. I have also asked the

Forest Resources Commission to review and recommend ways to improve

forest harvesting practices, focusing on clearcutting and associated

impacts.

To practice sustainable development one must know,

acknowledge and take into account all the values that British

Columbians place on our forests. We have therefore directed that the

Forest Resources Commission find out what our forests represent to

British Columbians. This includes assessing the full range of forest

values, how our forests might be managed to protect and enhance those

values, and their social and economic significance to the province.

[ Page

10801 ]

Paralleling the work of the Forest Resources Commission, my ministry

is also directly responding to what the public says. We have recently

issued our wilderness policy, after consulting on its contents, and we

are embarking on an action plan to identify and designate areas with

prime wilderness values. In conjunction with other ministries we have

initiated a consultative process to define and develop an old-growth

forest strategy.

Mr. Chairman, these are examples of our

constructive approach to resource management. We listen to all sides.

We assess all the demands and seek to reach solutions, which can

integrate and balance these competing needs. We are also ensuring a

bright future with our successful reforestation program. We now

reforest every area being harvested, and we are catching up on old

areas. Over 320,000 hectares will be reforested this year, compared to

200,000 hectares harvested. Much of this has been possible because the

obligation to reforest has been placed on industry since 1987. A large

portion in previous years has been done under FRDA — the forest

resource development agreement, a cost-shared program between British

Columbia and the federal government for reforesting older, not

satisfactorily restocked areas.

The work done under this

agreement, which expired on March 31 of this year, is being continued

by the province. The province will fund the most essential

reforestation activities, but, clearly, reduced federal funding will

adversely affect our reforestation, research and stand management

efforts, as well as have a negative impact on our future wood supply.

Accordingly we are seriously negotiating with the federal government

for renewal of this important program.

Besides making sure

that we leave a sustained forest for our children, as Minister of

Forests I also have the mandate of ensuring current jobs and economic

health. In British Columbia, forestry remains the heart of the

provincial economy, even with the economic diversification we encourage

and welcome. Half the value of this province's manufactured shipments

comes from our forests. Over a quarter of a million jobs are dependent

on this $13 billion sector. Indeed this harvest represents a domestic

product of approximately $10,000 for every British Columbia household.

Thus our future cannot be bright if we do not sustain the heart of our

fragile economy.

Last year direct employment in the forest

sector increased over 12 percent while only harvesting 1.6 percent more

timber. Over 11,000 new direct jobs were created last year, primarily

from fuller utilization of timber.

The small business forest enterprise program was one initiative contributing

to this increased process, which created both value and employment opportunities.

For example, the bid proposals under this initiative resulted in $56 million

of capital investment and over 900 new jobs. As well, British Columbia's established

forest companies created new products and worked at developing worldwide markets

for them.

Besides

creating new opportunities, we must also ensure that British Columbians

have confidence and trust in the management of their provincial

forests. Thus, besides asking the Forest Resources Commission to review

forest practices and the values British Columbians place on their

forests, I have also asked the commission to recommend ways to improve

public participation in forest planning and management. As well, the

commission is to advise me on the effectiveness of tree-farm licenses

as a form of tenure.

Indeed, the Forest Resources

Commission is a permanent advisory body, currently holding initial

meetings across B.C. on these assignments. I look forward to receiving

recommendations from the commission. It is my intention to meet the

needs of all British Columbians regarding the use of their forests. My

task is to provide leadership in providing a proper balance of forest

uses based on consideration of the diverse demands of today, but

respectful of the needs of tomorrow.

We are committed to

ensuring a healthy forest which contributes to a healthy environment

and supports a healthy economy, capable of producing the revenue

necessary to help pay for the social needs of British Columbians now

and in the future.

MR. MILLER : I intend to go

through some of the ministry documents, but the question really is:

what have we done in the past, and what are we doing now with respect

to the forest resource?

There were some interesting points

raised during the previous discussion about jobs. While I can

appreciate the minister saying that there is an appreciation that the

resource is not unlimited, that there are new demands, and referring to

the Brundtland commission, I think we have yet to really come to grips

with some of the central issues. I don't think there is a political

party on the federal or provincial level that hasn't paid lip-service

to the Brundtland commission. What is far more difficult is

interpreting what the Brundtland commission means and putting in place

appropriate measures in British Columbia.

The question is:

has the performance of this administration in the past and currently

led to the optimum use of the resource in terms of industrial activity

in jobs? I would note — very briefly, because I intend to canvass these

issues separately throughout the estimates — that over the last decade

we have seen some 20,000 jobs lost in the forest industry in British

Columbia.

I would further note that although the annual

allowable cut has increased since 1986 by some 13 percent, in terms of

total direct employment we again have suffered a loss. If we look at

overall direct employment between 1986 and 1989 in the forest industry,

we've fallen by about 2 percent — about 1.5 percent in the lumber

sector, 2 percent in the plywood veneer sector, 5 percent in logging

and 1.5 percent in the lumber sector. At the same time as we have seen

the amount of resource harvested increased by 13 percent, we have

continued to see it decline in industrial activity in a decline in the

number of people employed in the industry. It hardly

[ Page 10802 ]

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

we have management regimes in place that allow the public participation

that has been identified as necessary by a range of recommendations or

studies and impartial observers? I'm thinking particularly of the

ombudsman, who made some major recommendations last year in terms of a

process allowing public participation. The kind of conflict that we are

facing in the province suggests that we haven't addressed that issue

adequately.

History, as I read it, says that as a result of

policies of this government, there has been not only a timber bias, but

a bias in favour of the large companies in this province. Have there

been policies in place that encourage the best potential for our forest

land base? In other words, have we put in place over time policies and

programs that have allowed the best use of that land and have allowed

the kind of production off those lands that is possible from good

growing sites?

The fact that we have concluded a

significant tax-based reforestation program and the minister — and myself

as well — has made lots of comments about the unfortunate position we're

in of not being able to renew that program suggests that we're making

up for lost time. We're trying to make up for lost time, and that seems

to suggest a failure of past policy.

[4:30]

When

we look at some other issues in our forest industry, for example, the

issue of research and development.... I've canvassed that every year

that it has been my job as the forest critic, not only with the

Minister of Forests, but with other ministers. There's general

agreement that we haven't put the kind of investment into research and

development in the forest industry and the forest sector that has

allowed us to realize the potential that I think is possible. I think

there are particular reasons for that.

Some of that relates

to the amount of concentration, or the branch-plant economy. Quite

frankly, when you have to lay blame for those things, you have to lay

it at the door of the people who have been responsible, which is this

administration.

I think that we missed the boat. We are a

little late in starting to evaluate some of these so-called modern issues — the issues of the environment. I think there were

opportunities — had there been a follow-up to the royal commission

recommendations in 1976 — for us to be slightly ahead of the game. I

agree that events have changed very quickly in the last decade,

particularly in the last half of the decade. People's perceptions about

environmental issues have changed significantly.

I think

there's a need to address those and also to educate and to inform

people about environmental issues and the choices we face. Given our

current state in this province, I don't think that this government or

its predecessors have done the kind of job that really should have been

done, considering that the resource is a public resource. The

responsibility for management of that resource and all that flows from

it lies squarely with the government. Perhaps it has been the

government's reluctance to grasp that responsibility, or perhaps it has

been their adherence to a different philosophy that suggests they're

not capable of doing that kind of management that has led us to some of

these problems.

I don't know if the minister wants to

respond to that. I'll just get into some of the questions I have. First

of all, just to clear up some of the numbers that come from some of the

reports — the annual reports, some of the productions put out by the

ministry, the forest and range reports.... It's really to clarify the

amount of land we have as productive forest land — the amount of land

considered operable — and questions about the annual allowable cut as

established by the Crown.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the

1985-86 annual report, the report states that the amount of productive

forestland in British Columbia is 46,807,000 hectares. When I look at

the 1987-88 annual report, it says that the productive forest land is

45,959,000 hectares. That is a difference of some 848,000 hectares.

In that period, if ministry documents are to be accepted, the amount of

land that was considered to be NSR was netted down. This is just in one

particular category, but nonetheless it was netted down from

approximately 750,000 hectares to the 500,000 range. So we're talking

about an additional 200,000 hectares of land that you would assume

would have been reclassified as operable forest land.

The

difference is about a million hectares, which is not an insignificant

amount of land, and I am wondering if the minister can account for that

apparent discrepancy.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Chairman, no, I can't. It's a question that I will take as notice and

see if I can bring back an answer. But just off the top of my head I

don't have that answer.

MR. MILLER : Does the

minister not think that given this apparent difference...? These are

actual numbers; your officials can probably verify them. It's a bit

confusing for people who rely on these documents to draw conclusions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm not inferring anything by it. I think it's a significant number,

and I'm not trying to downplay its importance. I just don't have an

answer to that question at this particular moment, but I will have one

by tomorrow.

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

the same vein, the "Forest Management Review — British Columbia"

brochure that was put out this year — I believe that's its title —

quotes a number of figures as well. They identify the productive Crown

provincial forest lands as being 43.3 million hectares. So there's

another figure that's different from the figures in the '87-88 and

'85-86 reports.

[ Page

10803 ]

Similarly, the amount of land that's considered operable has not

changed. If we go to the '85-86 report, we're looking at 26,849,000

hectares of operable land. Given that there was a netdown, it's hard to

understand why in '87-88 that was described as 26,693,000 hectares — a

decline — and in the brochure that I just referenced the productive Crown

provincial forest land is described as 22.6 million hectares. Again, I

would appreciate it if the minister could get those figures as soon as

he can, or at least an explanation of why there's a difference.

wanted to canvass the issue of the Forest Resources Commission for a

while. I want to relate a bit of history, because I think it's

important. There are some questions around as to whether or not the

commission.... Without prejudging it — and I think I've said publicly

that I don't intend to prejudge what the commission might come up with

in the final analysis — I do have some concern that their mandate might

not be all that clear, and that we won't see the kind of clear,

definitive report that I think is important in terms of establishing

future directions for forest policy in this province.

First

of all, I suppose what sparked much of this was the announcement back

in 1987 that this government wanted to expand the tree-farm licence

system. By the way, that came out of a 1983 letter from the Council of

Forest Industries to the Premier, which said something to the effect

of: "Thank you for asking us what should be done. Here's what we think

should be done." That was one of their paramount recommendations — that

essentially the forest be privatized.

That met with very

stiff resistance around the province. It also met with a gradually

accumulating call for a royal commission. Many people pointed to

Pearse's '76 commission, citing it as the basis for having another one.

Pearse had recommended it; Sloan had recommended it. We had gone past

the time — a decade — that had been recommended. All of that was met at

that time by the current minister saying to the public that he didn't

want to call a royal commission, because the calls were really only

coming from environmental coalitions, the opposition and natives. He

kind of denigrated the concern that people had by saying, "Really, it's

only the opposition, environmentalists and natives," when in fact, as

of March '89, some 31 groups had made that request.

I think the commission has several advantages, in that the terms of reference

are more clearly defined. The report, therefore, should reflect that clarity.

However, the government chose to establish a forestry commission, and on June

29 it announced its establishment. In response to some criticisms at the time,

they said that they intended to get right on with the job. In fact, the person

who was appointed to be the chairman of the commission — this is a quote from

the Sun of June 30 — said: "This committee is comprised of people who are

not accustomed to wasting their time, and I'm not accustomed to wasting

my time. We're going to work hard, and we're going to make darned good

recommendations." On August 28 he said that he didn't have the time;

he had to step down. Therefore we wasted a couple of months — actually more

than that — until the government finally appointed Mr. Peel in October.

We've

gone since June, when the commission was originally established, to the

present day with a commission having conducted public hearings by

splitting up into separate panels around the province. We've gone a

year without the substantive work having been done. I wonder if the

minister has any concern about the length of time it's taking for the

commission to produce a report.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, most of the events that the member chronicles happened before I

assumed the portfolio. I can assure him and everyone else that from the

time I assumed this portfolio on the first of last November, we have

urged the commission to move with all haste, and they have done so. It

would be easy to comment on things that happened before that time, and

it's unfortunate that the commission got off to a slow start. I guess

these things happen. People make decisions and then have to change

their minds; like I say, that was last summer. That's unfortunate,

because we had hoped that they would have gone on with their work

before that time.

But I can assure the member and everyone

in British Columbia that now the Forest Resources Commission is working

with all haste to do a very comprehensive and complete review of the

things we've asked them do. As the member has stated, they've held

numerous public hearings around the province. I've spoken candidly to

several members of the commission, who said it went very well. They

have reams and reams of material and are looking forward to presenting

me and this government with a report as soon as possible — hopefully a

preliminary report before the end of this year.

MR. MILLER :

In speaking of the difference between setting up a commission — I believe

it has been described as a permanent commission — and a royal commission,

which is really the method that was most commonly used in British

Columbia, or the only method, the former minister described the royal

commission as being too narrow. Is that the minister's view?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Again, I don't like to comment on something that former ministers or

other people have said. I have never referred to a royal commission as

being too narrow. No. I haven't.

I could talk at length as

to why I prefer the Forest Resources Commission to a royal commission.

I was in cabinet when the decision was taken to have a permanent Forest

Resources Commission in place rather than a royal commission, because

we have many millions — in fact hundreds of millions — of dollars to be

potentially invested in the forest industry in British Columbia.

When

we made this decision, as near as we could estimate, the amount was in

the order of $6 billion that could be potentially invested in our

industry in British Columbia. That's foreign investment; that's

[ Page 10804 ]

domestic

investment; that's all investment. It might be an optimistic figure,

although I was assured that it wasn't pie in the sky; it was very real.

one of the reasons we chose not to go with the royal commission was

because a royal commission is like a snapshot in time. It truly is.

Even though it might take a year to accomplish, it's like taking a

still-frame rather than a moving picture of what's going on in the

industry.

As the member said in his opening remarks, this

industry is changing very rapidly — probably more rapidly in the last

three years than at any time in its history. There are more pressures

now on the forest industry than at any time in its history.

with change taking place that rapidly for many reasons — because of

technology, because of trading patterns around the world, GATT rulings

and all the rest of it and because of the environmental concerns — we

didn't feel it was wise to take a snapshot of what was happening in the

industry. That would do two things: it would give you a picture that

was out of date the minute you got it developed; and it's not like

doing a royal commission on health or education, which are not

dependent on the private sector to the extent that the forest industry

is.

[4:45]

We didn't want to say to people that until we have this royal

commission and all their findings are evaluated, you have to go away

and keep your money on hold until we tell you that it's all right to

invest in this industry. I think that's what would have happened. I

think a lot of investors would have said: "Until this royal commission

is finished, the findings are in and the decisions are made, I don't

think we want to put $100 million into here or $200 million there or

$20 million into this." We didn't want to take that chance at a time

when the forest industry needs all the investment it can get. So we

decided to put in place a permanent commission to give us a moving and

continual picture of what's happening in the industry. It is changing

rapidly, and we want to give that feeling of security to those who will

invest in this industry. That's where the jobs come from, Mr. Member.

I'm sure you're very much aware that without that investment in new

technology and in value-added, we wouldn't have what we want out of the

forest industry in this province.

I think that a Forest

Resources Commission can do everything that a royal commission can do.

I really believe that. I don't think that by not having a royal

commission we're in any way denigrating or diminishing the task at

hand. It is a big task. It's one that needs to be done, but it will

need to be done next year, the year after and the year after as well.

think if you look back in history at royal commissions that have

been.... And they have done some great work. I'm not saying that

Pearse, Sloan and the others didn't do some good work, but by the time

their reports were in and the recommendations and the changes made,

their report was almost becoming out of date — and things weren't

changing as rapidly then as they are today. With the changes happening

today, any royal commission that took that snapshot would have an

out-of-date picture — to continue with the analogy — by the time we had

developed it. So I think it was a decision well taken. It was debated

at length around the cabinet table, and I think we've made the right

decision to put in place a permanent resources commission.

MR. MILLER :

I am just rereading Pearse, and I note some of the recommendations from

'76 from his royal commission. First of all, he talked about the need

to have a very clear mandate: the government should define very clearly

what they want the commission to do. He also noted that his task was

made easier because that was done in 1975. And I would point out that

Pearse took about 15 months from inception to report — June 1975 to

September 1976. So in 15 months he had dealt with the issues referred

to him and produced a very clear, comprehensive report.

did at the outset mention that the major furor, in terms of forest

policy, came as a result of the COFI-inspired "let's expand the

tree-farm licence system." That's really what gave rise — the political

heat flowing from those public information sessions — to the

government's decision to strike a commission.

Interestingly

enough, Pearse also rejected the idea of a permanent forest commission.

I don't know if the government took the opportunity to discuss the

issue with various people in the forest community prior to striking it,

but certainly it appears from my fairly casual reading of history that

it certainly wasn't done in the way that was recommended — for the

reasons that I've illustrated in terms of the clarity of the mandate,

the time, etc.

When the commission was originally struck,

it was given — and not surprisingly — three original mandates, one of

which was to advise the minister on the effectiveness of the TFL as a

form of tenure. I say not surprisingly because that essentially gave

rise to the formation of the commission. In the meantime, the proposed

conversion policy — the rollover policy,

section 27(

l) of the Forest

Act — has been put on hold.

So again, since the

announcement of the policy in September of 1987, nothing has happened.

I would argue, if you want to talk about that policy or at least some

eventual conclusion in British Columbia about that policy, that that

seems to be an inhibitor — or at least that's what industry said when

they were making their submissions. Nonetheless, there's one mandate:

to advise on the form of tenure.

The second mandate was to

advise on improvements to public participation in forest planning — and

that's admirable. The third mandate was to look at the whole range of

forest harvest practices that was obviously of concern to people —

clearcutting, etc. I think that tenure alone would have been

sufficient for the commission to deal with — and probably fairly

quickly. I think we could have had a report by this time.

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

[ Page

10805 ]

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

"Since

becoming Minister of Forests, I have been reflecting on forestry

issues, and I have concluded that I need an assessment of the values of

our forests to serve as a useful background for the policy issues and

to assist me in making policy decisions. Accordingly, I have asked the

commission, which will be meeting this week, to provide me with a

comprehensive view of what our province's forests represent. This view

should consider the full range of forest values, how our forests might

be managed to protect and enhance these values and the total economic

impact of the forests to the province."

This is the point I

really want to get to here. After creating this commission with three

definable goals, have you now added this further mandate that

essentially covers such a wide range of ground that the commission

could be in danger of not making that kind of clear report on the

individual facets that make up components of forest policy? It's so

wide-ranging that in fact we might just.... It's kind of fuzzy, if you

like. I can appreciate the minister wanting to have this kind of

assessment, but given that kind of really broad mandate, perhaps the

commission itself might not prove as useful as originally conceived.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I guess to answer the last part first; I think it's quite the contrary.

It's very important that we, as the stewards of the resource, try to

understand all the values in the forests — not just the timber values,

but all the values. That is what I was asking the commission to do.

Granted, we wanted them to address those three specific items and to

give them priority. But at the same time we also gave them a mandate to

listen to other concerns of people about all the values in the forests

and about the stewardship of the land. So I think it's quite the

contrary.

fact, when you listen to the speeches in this

House from either side, you hear time and time again: "All the values

in the forests, not just the timber values." So I think that in order

for us to get our minds around that, we have to have as close a

definition, as close a value, as we can on the entire land base —

especially the working forest. The wilderness values that come up all

the time, just to mention one, are becoming increasingly important to

people. Everybody mentions wilderness values everywhere you go.

Wilderness tourism is becoming very important — just the aesthetic

value

of places like Carmanah Pacific Park. I think it's very important to

get an idea of what people think out there and what value they put on

our forests.

"The clarity of their mandate," to quote the member.... It is very

clear. We didn't want to limit the commission, because it's a permanent

commission. It's not one that's going to be there for a year and then

gone; we intend it to be there for all time. So we didn't want to handcuff

them and say: "These are the only things you can look at." Those have

been given priority. The member has mentioned them, so I won't run through

them again. I disagree with him that if we had only given them one task to look

at, we would have had a report by this time. I don't think that would have

happened.

The

other thing I am told — I wasn't in Forests at the time — is that Dr.

Peter Pearse spent some two years doing background on his royal

commission before he actually started the commission, so it took him

longer than 15 months. I think it can take years sometimes to get

recommendations and reports from royal commissions. I'll let it go at

that; I hope I've answe