1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 30, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 21

[ Page 11167 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise this afternoon. Last Saturday, Tom Goode died -- a relatively young man. We met in 1964 when we were both elected to the Delta School Board. Tom went on to become the Member of Parliament for our community. He served as mayor of Delta and on many community organizations. Tom will be sadly missed. His daughter, Caroline Welling, is a legislative intern with us this session. I ask that the House join me in sending our sincere condolences to his family.

F. Randall: I would like to announce the passing of a former mayor of Burnaby, Tom Constable, also on the weekend, due to cancer. Tom had served as mayor of Burnaby for about six and a half years and also as a councillor for about three and a half years. I spent about four and a half of those years working with him on Burnaby council. Of course, as most mayors do, he served on numerous committees. Certainly I want to recognize his contribution as an elected person. We all know it's not an easy task.

The Speaker: The Chair will undertake to send condolences to these respective families on behalf of the hon. members.

J. Beattie: In the gallery today are three constituents of mine, Joan and Ron Mason and their daughter, Diane. They've been in Victoria this past weekend to get their volunteer training for the Commonwealth Games. These three people are avid and active volunteers in my community. I've had the pleasure of working with all three of them. They're certainly a great example of British Columbians who involve themselves in the community. I ask the House to make them welcome today.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege today to introduce to the House the Hon. Rosemary Varty, secretary to the cabinet in the state of Victoria, Australia. I ask all members to make her welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce Ms. Simmonds, a teacher, and grade 7 students from K.B. Woodward Elementary School and their parents. They are a French immersion class whose tour this afternoon is being conducted in French. I'm making this introduction on behalf of the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I received clear instructions this morning from my parents that I wasn't supposed to introduce them in the House, so I won't. But I will introduce some good friends of the family, Don and Donna Parr, visiting from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan -- a great city -- and my sister, in from Hong Kong, Joanne Politis.

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 49. This bill contains amendments to 12 statutes. They are the Builders Lien Act, the Creditor Assistance Act, the Evidence Act, the Income Tax Act, the Land Title Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Municipal Act, the Provincial Court Act, the Sheriff Act, the Tugboat Worker Lien Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Woodworker Lien Act.

Given the two-minute time limit, I will elaborate on these bills during introduction of second reading.

Bill 49 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.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This statement is with regard to the current state of the Pacific salmon treaty negotiations with the United States. Between Wednesday and Friday of last week, federal Fisheries minister Brian Tobin and I took the initiative to meet with key members of the U.S. administration, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and with the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, in Washington, D.C.

[2:15]

I offer my personal thanks at this point to the Hon. Brian Tobin for including me in the Canadian delegation. We were determined to make sure that the interests of Canada and British Columbia were clearly understood by the American decision-makers. We made it clear that what's badly needed is a treaty settlement that addresses the principal issues of conservation and ensures that catches resulting from interceptions are brought to an even balance over time.

At each meeting the Canadian delegation sought assistance in addressing this issue and expressed deep concern about the lack of a 1994 international fishing plan and the potential harm this may cause to all Pacific salmon stocks -- ours and theirs. We were hoping to find the same will on their part to reach a cooperative resolution to the current impasse. Unfortunately, we found little, if any, such willingness. It has become clear that this issue is becoming a significant irritant to Canadian-U.S. relations.

As members of this assembly are aware, the major obstacle to resolving this dispute is the regional division between salmon negotiators from Alaska, Washington and Oregon. What's agreed to by one state can be vetoed by another. As a result, the American chief negotiator is unable to present positions that address both conservation and interception concerns.

At each meeting this week, we stressed that Canada and British Columbia have worked hard to meet the treaty conservation goals and that we are ready to cooperate with the United States to protect weak stocks. We also made it clear that we want an agreement which begins to address the existing imbalance between the amount of Canadian fish taken by Americans and vice versa. The scale is currently tipped $65 million in favour of the United States. If the

[ Page 11168 ]

American negotiators had their way, it would be tipped even further this year.

Where do we go from here? With little hope of reaching a bilateral agreement, I'm undertaking the following steps. First, all lines of communication with the U.S. will remain open; the Canadian Embassy in Washington is prepared to facilitate any discussions that may help us get through this difficult situation. Second, I will continue to work closely with my federal counterpart as a made-in-Canada fishing plan is finalized. Third, consultations with the fishing industry are vital, and dialogue between my office and industry stakeholders will continue.

Fourth, I will continue consultations with directly affected cabinet colleagues to ensure that all stakeholder needs are examined and considered as the 1994 fishing plan is finalized. Fifth, I will examine methods to raise the profile of this issue in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and to upgrade the knowledge base of the influential northwest U.S. media.

Terms such as fish war and aggressive fishing conjure up emotional, frightening images, but these are the realities that we now face. What I find personally upsetting is the lack of U.S. cooperation to manage Pacific salmon at a time when it is most urgently needed. We need to show that we have learned from recent history: we have witnessed the decimation of the east coast fishery and the impact of resource mismanagement upon maritime communities.

To the south, we have watched American dam building, timber harvesting and water diversion eliminate over 100 salmon stocks; the result is a complete shutdown of salmon fishing in the U.S. Pacific Northwest in 1994. What is particularly sad is that the U.S. has its own conservation crisis. A valuable resource in California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington has been ruined primarily by habitat destruction and water diversion. It is blatantly unfair that the U.S. now looks to catch our salmon and tries to justify its right to do so.

To the north we see our Alaskan neighbours harvesting coho and steelhead from the Skeena and Nass Rivers without regard to conservation.

British Columbians have a large investment to protect, not to mention the cultural significance tied to salmon. We have forgone hydroelectric projects in order to preserve our salmon habitat. All along the B.C. coast, from Sooke to Prince Rupert, community groups and school children have devoted countless hours to creek restoration and salmon enhancement projects. These contributions may be put at risk by unregulated fishing.

I returned from Washington late Friday, discouraged but no less determined to ensure the protection of B.C. salmon from American overfishing. I intend to maintain a close working relationship and arrangement with the federal Fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, and to support his efforts to resolve this issue. Our work will continue. As I have said before, at the end of the day it may be up to the highest levels of government to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to this dispute.

I would again urge the Prime Minister, as the Premier has done before me, to quickly approach the President of the United States of America in order to prevent what could prove to be a devastating summer for Pacific salmon stocks and the British Columbia fishing industry.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for the attention this House has given to this matter, and I thank the House for the strength it has given me by providing an all-party resolution to take with me. It was often referred to by the federal Fisheries minister. I hope the federal House itself shows the same unanimity that British Columbians are showing toward this issue.

R. Chisholm: I must thank the minister for his timely ministerial statement. Representatives of the Pacific Salmon Treaty cancelled an early March negotiating session and now refuse to discuss it in Washington with the provincial and federal ministers. This is evidence that the U.S. is not prepared to deal with equity negotiations with a pragmatic and realistic approach.

On average, U.S. fishers have been taking close to nine million Canadian-origin salmon annually, compared to the Canadian interception of less than four million annually. As the minister said, that figure represents some $65 million per year. By refusing to deal with the issue, the U.S. is in violation of the primary

article of the agreement. That

article reads clearly that each party shall receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters. The treaty also states that if it is determined that one country or the other is deriving substantially greater benefits than those provided from its rivers, it would be expected that the parties would develop a phased program to eliminate the inequity within a specified time period.

Since the treaty was signed, Canada has been very successful in increasing the production of salmon stocks in the Fraser as well as in some of the northern rivers. Over the same time period, the U.S. production of coho and chinook has been going down steadily. They now have a zero quota in Oregon and Washington. The balance of interception which existed at the time the treaty was signed has become significantly altered. This is indisputable.

Canada is saying that the U.S. made a commitment that there would be an equitable balance of interception, and the U.S. wishes to ignore that. They want significantly more of our resource. The U.S. is trying to get more Fraser River sockeye. They also want fishermen to take less U.S.-origin coho and chinook, for U.S. conservation reasons. We are saying that conservation is part of this treaty, too. The U.S. wants it both ways: they want Canada to cut back for conservation, and they want to get more of our Fraser River fish. It just doesn't make any sense.

One of the key problems with the U.S. negotiators is that various U.S. interests cannot agree among themselves about who's going to reduce interceptions. The U.S. does not have the will to try to deal with Canada as a single negotiating partner, so we end up negotiating with Alaska and turning around to deal with Washington, Oregon and treaty tribes.

B.C. and Canada have made a very firm statement and put their positions forward very clearly to the U.S. British Columbia has advanced its position at a number of different levels, both at the Salmon Commission and at senior diplomatic levels of government, and we will continue to do that. It is fundamentally in the best interests of both parties -- and of the fish.

I met this February with federal Fisheries minister Brian Tobin to discuss this subject. B.C. Liberals have informed him that we are very firm on protecting the fishing resources of British Columbia and that he should remain very firm in his negotiations with the Americans on this point. I met with him again in May in Vancouver on this very subject and impressed upon him the critical nature of the situation. We will continue to support and urge the provincial government and the Fisheries minister to continue the discussions, if possible, and to implement the Canadian plan to protect our fisheries and the Pacific salmon stock.

I strongly urge the Premier to get involved and approach the appropriate state governors, and I urge the Prime Minister to approach the President of the United States, to quickly prevent a disaster with the Pacific salmon stock. A

[ Page 11169 ]

$700 million commercial industry and a $500 million sports industry are in jeopardy.

Fish have been managing themselves quite adequately for millions of years; unfortunately, in his greed, man hasn't learned to manage the resource in the meantime.

L. Hanson: We in the Reform Party strongly support the province's efforts to protect B.C. salmon stocks. It's a shame that both levels of government were not able to better communicate British Columbia's and Canada's concerns to the United States.

We reject any suggestion that a fish war should happen. We reject it because it would ensure that no salmon make it through our coastal waters to U.S. waters, with the eventual result that our own industry would fail. Overfishing, in the name of a fish war, must not be allowed to threaten our own fish stocks for the sake of retaliating against U.S. fishers.

The problems we are experiencing point out the need for British Columbia to gain constitutional control over our own fisheries. We believe we can work better with Washington State, Oregon and Alaska -- in fact, better than Ottawa can -- to protect the mutual interests of Canada and British Columbia. We support the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and hope that he will continue to fight the battle to preserve our fishing industry on behalf of British Columbia.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the infamous prebudget $42,000 poll. It's clearly inappropriate to gauge yourself before gouging the taxpayers. I quote the minister: "...I think it is important in terms of building our budget to find out whether people are satisfied with the job I'm doing as Finance minister." Could the minister please tell us: how is undertaking a big money popularity poll at all relevant to building a provincial budget?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm glad that the member asked that question. I thought I had explained that at some length last week. As part of one of the most comprehensive prebudget consultations in the history of this province, we went out and talked to people in the province about what it was they wanted to see in the budget. We talked to business, labour and community groups; we held public meetings. We did surveys as well, and that survey was part of the overall process of finding out what people wanted to see in the budget.

They told us they wanted to see more emphasis on jobs, they wanted to see the deficit down and they wanted to see taxes frozen or indeed cut. Based on that information, that's the budget we delivered.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I guess the member finds it strange to suggest that anything like politics would actually take place in this particular building. Perhaps he's confused about the difference between political and partisan. Politics is definitely the nature of government, and I don't make any apologies for that. What he's talking about is partisanship, and there's nothing partisan in that poll.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

F. Gingell: We have now learned that at this moment Viewpoints Research is doing another poll for the government on its performance. Could the Minister of Government Services please tell us whether this wasteful poll went to tender and how much the taxpayers will be paying for this pre-election poll by the NDP?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice and get the information for the member.

ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF OPPOSITION LEADER

M. de Jong: Last month it was the head of B.C. Hydro who threatened the Leader of the Opposition with legal action for exposing his grand pension payoff. This week it's the Minister of Employment's former employer, the Iron Workers' Union, that threatened the Leader of the Opposition with legal action for raising the issue of potential abuse of Island Highway funds. It's a blatant attempt to browbeat the opposition. It's anti-democratic, it's a blow to freedom of speech, and quite frankly, it's reprehensible.

My question to the Minister of Employment is: when did he learn of this union's -- his former employer's -- decision to threaten the Leader of the Opposition, and what advice has he proffered them on that point?

The Speaker: The member has a question within the minister's responsibility? Please proceed.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I thought it was the fertilizer outside that smelled bad, but it's obviously much closer to home.

A member of this government's back bench introduced a bill to stop this kind of intimidation -- the Public Participation Act -- and protect individuals from powerful and wealthy interests who seek civil damages for criticisms expressed in a public forum. Will the Minister of Employment confirm whether or not he supports that act? If so, how does he distinguish the tactics of his former employer from the actions prohibited in the bill presented by the government backbencher?

Hon. G. Clark: Private members' bills, as members should know, are brought into the House by private members; they're not government bills. The government has taken no position on those bills. As House Leader, I would like to say on behalf of the government that we fully intend

[ Page 11170 ]

to bring forward private members' bills for debate in this session of the House.

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Well, let's cut to the chase then. The Leader of the Opposition is being bullied and threatened by this minister's former employer. This minister was in opposition previously; he's undoubtedly going to be there again. Does the minister not see this type of bullying as being, quite frankly and simply, undemocratic and reprehensible?

Hon. G. Clark: Just to correct the record, I have never at any time worked for Local 97 of the Iron Workers' Union, and I don't know the details the member is referring to.

REGISTRY OF SEX OFFENDERS

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. The federal government is apparently looking at establishing a national registry of sex offenders. Can the minister tell us whether his government is participating in that process and, more importantly, whether or not his government is committed to establishing a British Columbia registry, regardless of what Ottawa decides to do?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we are working with the federal government in the establishment of a national registry, which would be more effective than having ten separate registries across the country, given the ease with which people move in this country. We are also embarking on a number of other initiatives in respect of known abusers, and I hope to be able to make an announcement about that in the very near future.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Some time ago the government established a task force, chaired by Richard Isaac, to make recommendations to the government on this particular subject. I understand that cabinet rejected the recommendations made by Mr. Isaac. I wonder if the minister could tell us the status of that task force, and whether or not Mr. Isaac recommended the establishment of a provincial registry for known and convicted sexual offenders?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decisions of cabinet will be made very clear in a very few days when the announcement is made.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The state of Washington has adopted a three-tier process for providing information to constituents and residents on known and convicted sexual offenders. That process provides a system where the greater the threat to the public, the greater exposure given to the identity of the offender. Conversely, the more a person responds to rehabilitation, the less exposure and greater protection of privacy there is. Can the minister tell us whether he has examined that model, and whether or not he supports the concept of that model?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Without getting into the details of the announcement, which we will do in the very near future, I can say that we have looked at what has been done in Washington State. We have looked at what has been done in a number of other jurisdictions as well, and we have taken the discussion much beyond that. I'm sure the member will be looking forward to hearing what we have to say about it.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION EXPENSES

C. Tanner: I have a question for the Premier this afternoon. During the budget debate the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that while she was extending by one month the time to submit election expenses for the recent municipal elections, she would not forgo the $500 fine for late filing. Has the cabinet, on reflection, changed its decision?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is on notice.

A different question, hon. member?

C. Tanner: Yes, a different question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier understand that many municipal councils elected by acclamation were advised by their senior bureaucrats that no return was necessary?

The Speaker: The member has a further question? Final question, hon. member.

C. Tanner: To the Premier again: tomorrow many municipal politicians elected by acclamation are faced with a $500 fine brought down by brand-new legislation and poor local administrative advice. Many are not prepared to pay the fine. Is the Premier prepared to have these representatives who were elected by acclamation face new, costly elections?

GAMING POLICY REVIEW

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister responsible for gambling. Yesterday in the North Shore News in my constituency, a two-page ad was taken out by the proponents of the casino gambling megaproject at Seaport Centre. The ad refers to Seaport Centre as if it is a fait accompli, as if we are going to have legalized gambling in Vancouver.

The question for the minister is: what do the proponents of the Seaport Centre casino megaproject know that we don't, in spite of the fact that the minister has told us there is a gaming review ongoing right now and for-profit gambling is not legal in our province?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I haven't seen the ad, but I give the assurance of the House that no decisions are made. There is an objective, fair review underway and no specific proposals are under consideration. A policy review is underway.

D. Mitchell: Supplemental to the minister. The previous commission of inquiry into gaming in our province, the Lord and Streifel report, did not receive one presentation of any kind from a proponent of for-profit gambling in our province -- not a single one. Could the minister tell us about the current ongoing gaming review that he is responsible for. Is he aware of the Seaport Centre making any representation to this commission of inquiry?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm very aware of the representation that was made to my colleagues and of their report. I'm very aware of the number of issues that are in front of the public, the concerns that are being expressed and the views that are there. That is all being taken into consideration in our fair and objective review of gaming in British Columbia.

[ Page 11171 ]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: The minister says it's a fair and open review, but I can tell you it's a selective review. The ongoing inquiry that this minister is responsible for is selective; it's not a full and public inquiry. There are many people coming forward who cannot make representation. Can the minister tell us why citizens who are very concerned about for-profit gambling in our province are not being allowed to come forward to the inquiries that he is responsible for?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member should be careful in terms of the issue that is before the public. If he is insinuating that a decision has been made, I think that's most unfair; indeed, it's inflammatory. The people in British Columbia know that no expansions are permitted. There is full review, and the citizens will have every opportunity -- and we've made that commitment -- to make their voice heard on every issue regarding gambling.

TENDERING PROCESS FOR OGDEN POINT PROJECT

G. Farrell-Collins: Last Thursday in this House the Minister of Employment and Investment, in answer to ongoing questions with regard to the Victoria Line fendering project, stated that the project was cancelled, that the contracting was done in-house and that all those people who had bid were eligible -- and, in fact, were contacted with regard to it -- for the one subcontract that was issued. Today I have a letter from one of the contractors, West Shore Constructors Ltd., where they state quite clearly that no attempt whatsoever was made to contact them.

In fact, calls were not returned when they put them through to Victoria Line; indeed, when they showed up to ask for a meeting they were refused.

Can the minister tell us who is telling the truth? Is it him? Is it the Victoria Line? Is it the contractors out there who are being given the runaround by this government and being disadvantaged?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm puzzled by this line of questioning. When the management of the Victoria Line ferry corporation manages a contract in-house and saves the taxpayers $300,000 -- more than 50 percent of the contract price -- I fail to see where there is any kind of problem. I said in the House what I know to be true: the Victoria Line management attempted to contact the three or four bidders, including the low bidder. One of those contractors received a subcontract, if you will, for a small part of the work. As a result of that and of the management of Victoria Line doing the work in-house, they saved the taxpayers $300,000.

Hon. E. Cull tabled a set of statements regarding borrowings from and loans to government bodies for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years, in accordance with

section 41.5 of the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to call third reading of Bill 14.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1994

Bill 14, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 32.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates. In the chamber, I call second reading of Bill 40.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. A. Petter: When this government took office nearly three years ago, it promised to significantly change the way we manage our forests, to improve stewardship of our most vital resource and to restore public confidence in the way that resource is managed. Years of neglect by previous governments meant that our forests were being taken for granted, creating a legacy of problems that compromise both their economic and environmental sustainability.

These problems include overharvesting -- which in some regions has led to supply shortages and instability in forest communities -- and land use uncertainty driven by conflicting demands on the resource and changing public expectations. They include the failure to develop a long-term economic strategy to secure the future of the forest economy and forest communities, and a poor record of forest management, which undermines public confidence in forestry and the forest industry.

[2:45]

Since coming to office, this government has responded to these problems with a number of new initiatives. Firstly, the timber supply review is addressing the need for long-term sustainability of annual allowable cuts. Secondly, the Commission on Resources and Environment and the protected areas strategy are tackling issues of land use certainty. Thirdly, the forest renewal plan will ensure that more of the wealth generated by our forests goes back into the land and the forest community it supports.

A further challenge we face -- one of grave concern to most British Columbians -- is to transform the way we manage our forests, to improve forest practices by instituting higher standards and tougher enforcement measures. The world has changed dramatically since our seemingly limitless forests first began providing jobs and opportunities to British Columbians. Today it is clear beyond doubt that forest management has not kept pace with those changes.

Forest management under previous governments has not adequately taken account of the growing intensity of forest use, the expanding range of forest values or the finite nature of the forest resource. As a result, both at home and abroad, government and industry are saddled with a reputation as poor stewards of our resources, and that in turn is hurting our economic prospects both at home and abroad.

I recognize that many in industry have taken significant steps to correct that impression, but more needs to be done. In particular, government needs to demonstrate that it is prepared to act as a steward of the resource on behalf of the public interest. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act is this government's response to the challenge of ensuring sustainable forest practices.

The

preamble to this act speaks to the desire of British Columbians to seek a more balanced use of forest resources -- one that responds to the entire spectrum of current needs without compromising the needs of future generations. The

preamble also identifies sustainable use with the

conserva-

[ Page 11172 ]

tion of resources, including biodiversity, and expressly links forest stewardship to an ethic of respect for the land.

This act provides the foundation for British Columbia's first Forest Practices Code, an entirely new framework for provincial forest management. The Forest Practices Code will replace a mishmash of statues, regulations and guidelines, many of which were overlapping, contradictory or unenforceable, and which created costs and confusion for those who tried to live by them.

Up until now the lack of a clear legal foundation and appropriate penalties for non-compliance have made effective forest management virtually impossible in this province. That will change with this legislation and with the draft regulations and proposed standards that were released today. These regulations and standards are being circulated for public comment in the coming months and will be finalized later this year as part of the code structure. This in turn will continue this government's commitment to greater public involvement in the development of the code and in the stewardship of our precious natural resources.

Bill 40 embodies essentially five major principles. The first principle is that of legal certainty. As I said earlier, the act will replace the existing hodgepodge of statutes, regulations and guidelines with a clear, comprehensive, legally enforceable framework to regulate forest practices. It will eliminate many of the contradictions and gaps that exist within the current regime of enforcement. It is a framework that recognizes the importance of biological diversity, of preserving forest soils, wildlife habitat and riparian zones, and of respecting cultural heritage resources as key values.

It's a framework that facilitates the protection of special and sensitive resource features and that ensures that operational planning is consistent with higher-level land use plans, thereby providing an opportunity for greater public review and accountability. It's also a framework which will greatly facilitate those in industry who, frankly, haven't known what rules they must live by because of the chaotic nature of the current regulatory regime.

The second principle on which the act is based is that of responsibility and enforcement, including tougher penalties for those who don't live up to forest practice standards. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act will make those who use our forests responsible for carrying out proper forest practices. It will establish a single enforceable code of conduct for our forests and rangelands, in which the obligations of both forest companies and government agencies are clearly demarked and set out.

Forest operators will be responsible for the prevention of environmental damage -- such as landslides and excessive soil disturbance -- and for damage to previously unidentified resource values such as wildlife habitat, community watersheds and cultural heritage resources, as well as recreational features. To ensure compliance with standards, the act also establishes a much more credible set of enforcement powers to deal with infractions, including a wide range of administrative and court remedies to deal with non-compliance.

Among administrative remedies is the power of field staff to issue stop-work orders where damage is occurring or cleanup orders where damage has occurred.

There will be a significant increase in offence fines under the act, to ensure that the penalties provide real deterrence and that we have a substantial movement in the direction of better forest practices. A person or company guilty of a serious offence under the code can be liable to a fine of up to $1 million, with a provision to double this amount for second and subsequent offences. That's quite a change from the current regime that provides maximum court-ordered fines of just $2,000, which really cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is concerned about protecting the future of our forest resources. That certainly has not provided any deterrent to bad forest practices.

The expanded monitoring of forest practices will ensure compliance with the final regulations and standards. In addition to the compliance and enforcement teams my ministry has already established in 43 forest districts, a further 200 staff will be reassigned for field enforcement and a further 80 or 90 staff will be provided through this year's additional budget allocation to ensure that the Forest Practices Code is meaningful in the way it's enforced, as well as in its terms.

In addition, fieldworkers in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are being given expanded powers to work with Forest Service staff on monitoring and enforcement.

The act also establishes a system of performance-based timber harvesting, which provides that access to future cutting permits will depend upon demonstrated performance on existing cutblocks. Quite simply, that means companies will have to demonstrate that they are able and willing to live up to code requirements before securing cutting rights. It's going to be that simple. If companies are not able to demonstrate that they are able or willing to live up to code requirements, they will not obtain those future cutting rights.

The third principle underlying the act is accountability. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act increases accountability to the public on the part of both government and industry. It will establish a system of independent forest practice audits to gauge the performance of those operating in the provincial forests and the performance of government in ensuring that those operations are consistent with the code.

In addition, it creates a Forest Practices Board with broad powers to investigate public complaints, to oversee the audit process and to report to the public on the administration of the code -- a true watchdog agency that can assure the public that the forest practices being practised in this province are consistent with the requirements of the code. Beyond the powers that might normally be accorded to a watchdog agency, the board will have additional powers to actually bring appeals of forest management decisions through the appeal process on behalf of the public, where circumstances warrant such appeals.

These powers, in combination with increased monitoring and enforcement in the field, will ensure performance to higher standards, with improved public knowledge and accountability.

It is our belief that the combination of tougher penalties, along with the auditing process and training initiatives currently underway, will move substantially in the direction of better forest management in the coming months and years. Indeed, I think that we can see the code as an instrument that will not only dissuade those who want to engage in bad forest practices but will validate those who have made, or are now prepared to make, the changes to better forest practices.

The fourth principle underlying the act is that of responsiveness to change. Forest practices must evolve to reflect advances in scientific knowledge as well as changes in social values. This act is structured to accommodate such changes. It will allow standards to evolve as the level of knowledge about forests grow. Additionally, the act enables the creation of a Forest Practices Advisory Council to periodically review the code and recommend changes that

[ Page 11173 ]

will facilitate its evolution in light of experience and to involve stakeholders in that ongoing process of review.

The fifth principle underlying the act is that proper forest management should not be limited to Crown lands or to traditional resource values. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provides enabling powers to regulate certain private forest lands, specifically those in the privately managed forest land assessment classification. This provision responds to widespread public concern that forest practices on private lands should be subject to some form of regulation. Accordingly, this act empowers government to regulate forest practice on these lands.

However, I must say that before we proceed to implement such a regulation, we are committed to a process of consultation with the owners of privately managed forest lands to ensure that the form of regulation is suitable to the requirements of those lands.

The act also establishes limited powers to regulate the harvesting of botanical forest products, such as pine mushrooms. Some of the conflicts and concerns around botanical forest products have prompted many in the public to ask for such regulations to be incorporated within the code. I'm pleased to say that those provisions are included. The intent here is to ensure that the increasing demand for these products does not lead to a diminishment of the resource or to a degradation of other forest values.

The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act will lead to British Columbia's first forest practices code, which will regulate forest practices through standards that are clearly defined, mandatory and enforceable. It will, in fact, contract the number of regulations and standards from the bulk of unenforceable, confusing and contradictory standards and regulations that currently exist to a much leaner but more effective body of regulations and standards that will be enforceable and mandatory.

It will set new benchmarks for performance, thereby creating a renewed basis for public trust and confidence in industry and government. The certainty and increased public confidence that that will produce in both government and industry will be beneficial for all British Columbians. For those in the forest industry, it will mean that they will be able to demonstrate to the public that they are living up to these standards. That in turn will, I think, increase public confidence for future harvesting activity and enable industry to better secure markets abroad.

For those in the public who are concerned about the future of the resource, they can look to this code with the assurance that government is playing its role as a strong and effective steward of the public interest in the future of the forest resource, to ensure that that resource will be there, providing both economic and environmental values for future generations.

[3:00]

Clearly there will be challenges during the code's phase-in period as all parties adapt to new ways of doing business. But I am confident that with time and experience, the code will inspire a new order of stewardship and serve as a guarantee at home and abroad of our commitment to manage our forests sustainably. As Minister of Forests, I am honoured and proud to place this act before the House for debate and consideration, and I therefore am proud to move that Bill 40 be read for a second time now.

W. Hurd: I would agree that this is an important day in the history of forest management in our province. I think it's important to acknowledge at the outset that the desire for a strong forest practices code goes back much further in this province than the term of the current administration. I know that for decades, foresters and those involved in the wood products and harvesting industries have been calling for a tough, simplified code that would take the 750 different regulations and codify them into something that could better sustain the harvesting and silvicultural activities on the land base.

We have a long history in this province of wanting to see this type of legislation come forward.

It's important for us to reflect on the events of the last two years and how this code arrived today in the Legislative Assembly. Certainly the minister could have mentioned the widespread discussion that went into the creation of a discussion paper and the public meetings held throughout the province, where advice was solicited.

The minister has acknowledged that it will be difficult, from looking at this bill before us in the House, to determine what impact or effect we will see down the road. So

whereas in principle we can look back in the history of the province and all support the need for an enhanced code of stewardship for the province's forests, there are several aspects to this particular bill that will really have to be watched closely over the next 18 months, as the minister has acknowledged.

As we know, one of the issues that has not been clearly identified is the cost of implementing a code of forest practices in the province. The minister will know that the consultant studies have ranged from a low of $100 million all the way up to estimates of $1.2 billion from certain sectors of the forest industry. So clearly a lot of work has to be done to identify the administrative costs of implementing a forest practices code. I applaud the fact that the government has elected to phase in these regulations and standards over a period of 18 months. I really don't believe there was much choice, however, given the complexity of that question alone.

The other issue that we have to carefully consider, of course, is what impact the regulations will have on the annual allowable harvest. Given the downward pressure on the AAC from other land use and environment initiatives, there's a great deal of concern out there that the code will have an impact on the annual allowable harvest. I think it's important over the next 18 months to identify what that percentage might be. During his initial press conference, the minister indicated the AAC might be reduced in the range of 5 percent as a result of the implementation of the code.

But again, we don't have any exact idea of what the reduction percentage will be. Those two issues are critical to people who make their living in forest-dependent communities in the province.

I really believe that this bill is obviously supportable at this point. It's a bill that has been called for in the province for decades. But at this point there are more questions than

[ Page 11174 ]

answers. There are questions about cost and about the impact on the annual allowable harvest.

We can't isolate this particular initiative from some of the other initiatives the government is involved in. We've seen the addition of a $600 million stumpage imposition as a result of Forest Renewal B.C. and the revised stumpage fees. We've seen increases in the amount of royalties. Now, of course, we're going to be imposing an additional cost burden with the implementation of the code. I wonder at what point it becomes uneconomic or undesirable to have a forest licence in British Columbia. I wonder if we've thought through that aspect of managing a long-term tenure arrangement with the Crown.

The reason I mention it is that it isn't just forest companies that have tenures in British Columbia anymore. The city of Revelstoke, for example, manages a tree farm licence that they acquired when the Westar TFL was basically forfeited to the Crown. There are a number of other woodlot owners, municipalities and regional districts that manage small tenures over a long period of time.

The minister would do well to look closely at what's happened in the forest sector over the past 30 years in this province. One of the things we've seen consistently is a cyclical style of market. There have been times in coastal British Columbia when managing a tree farm and harvesting according to a five-year cut control provision actually has resulted in substantial losses. There have been times in the past 30 years in this province when just meeting the annual cut control provisions of a tree farm licence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, as the minister well knows, there's a requirement on a five-year basis to harvest annually regardless of whether the price of the finished product is up, down or even.

So I again say that there is a fine line we have to tread here. It's important that the regulations and the amount of paperwork required can be sustainable over a long period of time, given the wild fluctuations that occur in this particular industry.

I wonder, if the ministry found itself planning 20 percent or perhaps 25 percent of the annual allowable harvest in this province, whether with the resources available they would be able to deal with some of the complexities of the Forest Practices Code and certainly some of the difficulties that will be inherent in other requirements of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. We're walking a fine line here. We're assuming that the wood products industry will continue to enjoy good health over the next ten years. I hope that's the case, but historically that hasn't been the case.

Over the next 18 months there are a great many questions to be answered with respect of this particular act. Again, the costs need to identified. We need to look at the impact on harvest levels, in combination with the other initiatives out there. I certainly hope the ministry itself will prove to be a catalyst within its own ranks for quickly reviewing its own management and working plans for the lands it has under its control, in order to determine what costs the public will be facing through the ministry.

As well, the minister has talked about the Forest Practices Board, which I think is a responsible measure that provides public input into the management of our forests and gives them an avenue to launch grievances and complaints, which is an important innovation. I hope that we don't get into a situation where the Forest Practices Board is buried under an avalanche of paper, and that when the public of the province is out on the land base and view something that they feel is not sustainable, they will at least take the precaution of checking with the Ministry of Forests, so that they can do some research before bringing a complaint before the Forest Practices Board.

I am comforted that under this act the board does have some unilateral jurisdiction to decide whether or not a matter is of a serious enough nature to be investigated. But if the board functions in the model of the Labour Relations Board, for example -- where grievances are put forward and there is a mechanism in place that forces a rather time-consuming audit or investigative process -- the Forest Practices Board could find itself either overwhelmed or forced to hire additional inspectors, because ultimately the board itself will have an auditing responsibility.

While the minister has acknowledged that there will continue to be a responsibility for the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests to do the kind of fieldwork that's necessary -- a proper, independent audit, which is something that forest licensees and the public have been calling for in this province for generations -- that audit will continue to reside, under this legislation anyway, with the newly created Forest Practices Board.

We will be interested to see how the act unfolds over the next 18 months. The standards introduced by the minister today will not have the force of law for another 18 months; they will be subject to monitoring and review. That is responsible public policy, given the complexity of compliance and the fact that the ministry itself will have to review its processes and procedures.

The phase-in period is important public policy and certainly supportable, but I hope that the administrative costs and the effects on the harvest levels can be deduced quickly, because in this province we already see widespread uncertainty in the forest sector. We see concerns about where the annual allowable harvest is heading, where employment levels are headed in the industry, and what the impact is going to be from the timber supply review and analysis, which is going on in 38 timber supply areas of British Columbia.

There are the effects of the protected areas strategy, the Commission on Resources and Environment, spotted owl recovery areas and special wildlife study areas. When we consider all these initiatives in league, I hope that we can find a way to separate the need and desirability of a forest practices code from all those other initiatives, which are viewed with such concern by the people who must earn their livelihood from our forest resource and who reside in forest-dependent communities.

Upon briefly reviewing the regulations -- which were finally released today, two weeks after the bill was brought forward -- there are some things that we can applaud. The need to immediately reclaim abandoned roads in the province was identified by the auditor general as a critical environmental difficulty in British Columbia: the fact that we had thousands of kilometres of roads which have been effectively abandoned but which have not been properly reclaimed. Of course, abandoned logging roads are subject to slippage and erosion -- and there are thousands of kilometres of them which need critical attention.

There are initiatives that are supportable. I think the concept and philosophy of a code is supportable. I'd like to believe the words of the minister when he tells us assuredly how things are going to turn out over the next 18 months, but a lot more questions have to be answered. While the opposition wholeheartedly supports the Forest Practices Code and joined British Columbians in calling for such a code during the last decade in British Columbia, there continue to be these questions. We'll be exploring some of them in committee.

[ Page 11175 ]

This is one of the longest and most complex bills that has been presented to this assembly -- some 356 clauses of amendments and changes and, one assumes, the standards which will ultimately be introduced by order-in-council -- so we have a lot of material to deal with in committee. There are a lot of questions we will be raising about how the minister and his staff envisage the various aspects of this bill unfolding on the land base -- which is really where it counts. While we support this bill and this code in principle, there will be a number of issues that we will want more answers on in committee. Without answers, we may wish to express our concern or opposition to those.

[3:15]

With those few words, I look forward to committee stage of the bill. I think it's important that we have a code. It's important that there is going to be an 18-month window of input from the public, from the stakeholders and, I assume, from the Ministry of Forests itself to advise the minister as to where they are in terms of their compliance with this code. I look forward to committee stage debate on this important bill.

F. Garden: It's with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I rise to support this bill, which brings in the Forest Practices Code. I'd like to congratulate the minister and the government for this initiative.

This was one of the major planks in our platform while we were running against our opposition counterparts for election. We made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that we would take action as far as forest practices were concerned in this province. As I said, it is with a great deal of pride that we are able to stand here today and discuss this kind of bill, this far-reaching code.

I've been in the forest resource industry for almost 33 years. During these 33 years there has been a real outcry for a comprehensive forest practices code. As was stated earlier by the minister, there has been a mishmash of regulations: over 3,000 guidelines, 700 regulations, 20 provincial statutes and another six federal statutes dealing with regulations in the forest.

The proof of the pudding has been in the eating. We now have arrived at a point in our province where the international community is crying out that the regulations and laws governing our forests over the last 50 years have not been working, to the point where large corporations and the Forest Alliance are having to spend large sums of money to refute some of the charges that have been made by environmental organizations in Europe -- in some cases very irresponsibly.

What has happened is that some of these charges have been listened to by our European customers, and it is starting to have an effect on our province's economic well-being through the threat of cancellation of orders. So this kind of legislation is long overdue. We've seen rallies at the Legislature because of forest workers being a little concerned about the future of their jobs, because the government has had to move on controlling annual allowable cuts and that sort of thing. It's only because of the lack of a proper code over the past 50 years that we've come to this impasse in our forests.

If something wasn't done now, as we're doing with this code, I would fear for the future of that industry altogether.

But by the introduction of this code and of the forest renewal plan, where some of the resources taken out of the forest will be going back in, I see a bright future for the forest industry in British Columbia and these resource communities. Not only will we see money going back into these resource communities from the forest renewal plan, but we'll have a set of proper guidelines on how some of these moneys need to be spent and how companies, in partnership with us, can work on a set of guidelines through the Forest Practices Code that will ensure a sustainable, stable future for our province.

Not only that, but the protection of the wildlife habitat -- the biological diversity of our province -- and of watersheds and streams that has been espoused through this code just means that the international community can look at this province in the future and say: "Yes, they do have a plan. Yes, there is a sustainable development plan in process. And yes, we could buy British Columbia products with confidence."

I heard the previous speaker say he's a little concerned about the cost. I'd like to repeat myself a little by saying the cost of not doing anything in this regard would have been tremendous. He also mentioned that he hoped he wouldn't see this disappear in a blizzard of paperwork. That's what's happening right now. As I mentioned earlier, there are thousands and thousands of regulations that are just.... There's paper getting shovelled around every day, and it's been ineffective. We now have this comprehensive code, and I'm sure the cost will not be as much as what we're now paying in an ineffective way.

I'm very proud as a government member, and especially as an MLA for a resource community, to stand up and support this code today. I've heard nothing but positive remarks in my community from industry, from those who work in the forests and from the people in the community who don't work in the forests but who do derive benefit and spinoffs from the kind of wages and economic activity that flows from forest activity. Sure, there are some concerns that we're getting into a whole new set of regulations. Sure, there's concern that they might be faced with overregulation in certain areas.

But once we've done this public review and been out there for the next 18 months assuring people that it's in the best interest of all of us and of the future of the forest industry to make this code work, I'm sure these fears will be allayed to a great degree.

Each of us who are MLAs in this House will probably be able to jot this date down in the annals of our history books. We'll be able to say to our kids: "I was an MLA in the B.C. parliament when historic legislation was brought down." They'll be saying as they stand and support this bill....

Interjection.

F. Garden: I hear one opposition member laughing over here, but I'm sure -- as he stands with us in support of this bill and as we pass it through this Legislature -- that a few years from now he's going to be standing up just like I will be, sticking out his chest with pride and saying: "I was an MLA when the historic legislation came down." So I won't say any more than that I'm proud to be a part of the government and of the initiative on this new Forest Practices Code.

R. Neufeld: I stand to respond to Bill 40, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, which the government has introduced. I can say, going back a way, to early and mid-1991, before the NDP were elected, that the previous administration had started a process of gathering information and amalgamating statutes and rules and regulations, to come up with a forest practices code. I believe the minister responsible at that time was Claude Richmond. There was a need, and had been a need for a long time, to get into one document, if possible, all the regulations and rules that were needed to govern and look after our most

[ Page 11176 ]

important industry in British Columbia, which is the forest industry.

Since that time, we've obviously had a change of government. The NDP were elected in the fall of 1991, and along with that came a bit of a philosophical change in the direction that had started the process of getting a forest practices code in place. Today, some two and a half years later, we have Bill 40, some 164 pages with approximately 325 sections, dealing with almost everything from mushroom picking to landscapes, roads and forest practices -- hopefully, the government feels, everything that is needed to look after our forest industry.

But unfortunately, there are some questions that come from the Forest Practices Code that all of us should be very concerned about. To be fair, these are probably initiatives from the green side, as I call it, of their caucus, or possibly from the supporters of this government in the radical environmental movement.

The minister talked earlier about what has happened in British Columbia under past forest practices. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as I've said in the House many times, that if we want to continue to harm our forest industry's overseas markets, all we have to do is continually stand up, as the Minister of Forests did just recently, and talk about the terrible forestry practices in British Columbia.

Many things change over time, and forest practices are one of them. We could make the comparison between the forest practices that were in place some ten years ago, when the price of lumber was maybe a third of what it is today and the ability to do all the things that we're talking about doing today was not there. We can talk about automobiles that were produced in Canada and the U.S. that were high in pollution compared to what we have today. That doesn't mean that everything was so terrible then.

It means that the public is demanding change and that our environment is demanding some change that we have to adhere to. I certainly support the initiative that we have to adhere to the environment on this planet and to maintain a sustainable forest.

Obviously, the rate of harvest was not sustainable, and some changes have to be made; I agree with that. But taking a big stick.... When the Forest Practices Code was released, the minister's release said: "Tough Enforcement the Key to the New Forest Practices Code." That doesn't go far toward saying that we're moving along in the world, that we're moving along in technology and that there are changes in public demand on our forest sector within the province. All we're talking about here is tough enforcement.

That may mean something to the minister and the government, but it certainly is not something that the people in British Columbia are all that keen about. Of course, they realize that there has to be a different type of enforcement, but to continually talk about how tough this is going to be on the forest industry is not the way to go.

In fact, if you go to the "Summary of Public Input" from the tour that government did across the province -- where they went to different communities with the Forest Practices Code so people could look through it -- one of the questions was about incentives that could be used to encourage good forest practices. I want to read some of them. One of the responses from the public at large was to increase and maintain the annual allowable cut. Others included reducing stumpage fees, offering tax incentives and reducing planning or licensing requirements.

That came right out of the study, the "Summary of Public Input." They don't say that government should take the big stick and increase the fines from $2,000 -- which is minimal, I agree -- to $1 million, or talk about $2 million or $3 million. The public didn't say that at all, and that's where this government is missing the boat. We shouldn't be talking that way continually if that's not what the public is saying.

[3:30]

What we are afraid of -- and I think what will be coming when we listen to the Minister of Environment and when we also go through estimates with the Minister of Forests shortly -- is a bigger bureaucracy with more people and more costs. The last member talked about a flood of paper in permits and regulations that industry won't be able to keep up with -- and neither will the public or the government. That's what people want to get away from. They don't want increased bureaucracy, where a tremendous flow of paper just seems to keep everyone busy. People over here and over there want to see some action.

That is a fear, and it should be a fear of the government also -- unless the member for Cariboo North just wants to see an increase in employment within government. I don't think that's the idea. If there needs to be an increase in employment within government, fine, there's no problem. But if there doesn't have to be, then we shouldn't be forcing the issues through so many regulations that we have to increase the bureaucracy and the numbers of people working within it.

There are many concerns across the province with the Forest Practices Code. I understand and our caucus understands that it's needed so that government and industry can work hand-in-hand and in more of a partnership for the good stewardship of our forests and our main industry -- one that provides most of the money for all the things that we enjoy in British Columbia. It is very important to all of us, but there is a tremendous financial cost to it that the government and industry have to deal with.

In fact, if I go back to the 1994 budget manual, I see where it states that some $70 million is set aside for implementation of the Forest Practices Code in this year alone. That's within government, and we're hardly starting on it. How much is that going to be next year? That's what we have to be concerned about. Industry talks about $200 million to $300 million to implement the Forest Practices Code.

When you take $200 million or $300 million from industry, another $600 million or $700 million from industry for the renewal of B.C.'s forests and another $50 million to $100 million in government expenditures, it's a lot of money. And they are laudable goals. We should try to do the best that we can with our forests in British Columbia; no doubt about it. But what happens when the price of lumber goes down, if that comes? We're talking about more than a billion dollars in costs to that industry. That industry is and always will be very important to British Columbians.

Coming from a constituency where there are a number of one-industry towns, I can tell you that it's very hard on those communities when those industries die or go away. It's hard on those people, and in the end it's hard on all British Columbians. People in the lower mainland and in the cities may think that forestry does not impact on them. If you take forestry out of the province, it's going to impact on each and every one of us.

Another large concern of industry is the land base. They don't seem to know from day to day -- and haven't for the last three years under this government -- what land base they have to work from. They need to know what they can harvest, where they can harvest, what is theirs to grow trees on and what is not -- something similar to the agricultural land reserve -- so that they know what they can do. When you talk about reductions in the annual allowable cut, timber supply reviews, protected areas strategies and CORE, it's just piled on top and on top. Then we have the Forest

[ Page 11177 ]

Practices Code, with all the regulations that go along with that. No wonder industry is a little bit nervous about what they are going to do in the future and how they are going to do it, because the forestry industry is much different than a lot of the other smaller industries. It takes 80 to 100 years to grow a tree before it can be harvested. They have to have some land base and tenure to work from so they can make the investments needed to rejuvenate our forests.

There are many concerns about the Forest Practices Code, not just from the opposition but from the professional foresters, because the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment both have a fair amount of control over the size of cutblocks, where they can cut, how they can build their roads and all those associated things. The Association of B.C. Professional Foresters is very concerned.

I read from one of its news releases, which says that provision for professional judgment and allowances for differences in professional opinion are needed versus the highly detailed recipe approach and the tough enforcement stance proposed. So there are some difficulties to overcome in melding together the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment.

That's not just peculiar to the harvest of forests. I come from a constituency where the oil and gas industries have tremendous difficulty dealing with the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of Highways. It's a mishmash of everything. In a smaller, less populated area, you don't see it so much. You see a well being drilled. It doesn't take place on thousands of acres of land, so it's not out there so much for people to see. I think there's going to be some difficulty here with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, and we have to be cognizant of that.

As I stated earlier, our caucus agrees with the Forest Practices Code. We agree that we need one, but we also agree that it has to be a workable document. It has to make sense so that both industry and government understand it, and it should not be a code that two different government ministries are going to try to enforce. With that, I would like to say that we as a caucus are going to look very closely at it during third reading, when we go through all the sections. We will bring out areas that are of the greatest concern to us and that we think will be of concern in our different areas.

One concern we are cognizant of -- and I am, specifically, because of where I live and where my constituency is -- is that things are not done in the same way on the Island as in northern British Columbia. We have to take those types of things into account. You don't harvest the same way in the interior or the north as you do on the Island.

The Minister of Employment and Investment talks about voting in favour of it. We are in favour of a forest practices code. But, as I said, we're in favour of a code that is workable, that makes good common sense and that will be affordable for all. With that, I will wait for third reading.

G. Wilson: It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak in favour of this bill. The member for Cariboo North said that this is a historic day in British Columbia. When we look back on this debate, many of those who participated in it will review this as a historic day, because it is for future British Columbians, who have to depend on those of us in positions of authority and power today to make correct and appropriate decisions so that they can enjoy the bounty of this province that we take for granted.

When you're in second reading, on a question of principle, of

an act of the magnitude of Bill 40, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, it's interesting because the regulations, the standards, are perhaps more pertinent and critical to those involved in the industry, and to those who wish to continue to watchdog the industry, than the actual wording of the act itself.

I would like to congratulate this minister for bringing forward the proposed forest practices standards today and for recognizing that there has to be some time for review and adjustment. Quite clearly, the guiding principles of the standards that have been put forward, when read in conjunction with the Forest Practices Code and analyzed within the broader picture with respect to two other major initiatives this government has undertaken.... One is the BC Forest Renewal Act, and the other one is CORE, the Commission on Resources and Environment.

We have to recognize that this government has embarked upon one of the most extensive reviews and one of the most extensive development projects in the history of the forest industry of this province. Whether that will be good or bad is going to be determined in large measure by the extent to which there is flexibility and understanding for those people whose livelihood is dependent upon the industry -- if indeed we start to recognize that in the field and in the actual application of what appears to be reasonably good in principle, changes need to be made.

Let me say that in principle we can support what is proposed here, because for the first time we are recognizing that notwithstanding the fact that the forests are a renewable resource -- and they are renewable -- that does not mean they are there for us to harvest without limits, without proper and adequate stewardship. It does not mean that those resources are not confined with respect to other legitimate economic activities that people in this province may wish to engage in.

Furthermore, it also recognizes -- for the first time, I think -- that there is a need to heed the very real, very clear environmental warning signs that are out there now, which suggest that we have to place a greater value on that resource than simply its dollar value as timber or fibre. Rather, it's the overall value that a properly managed ecosystem provides us in terms of our air, our water, our land and all of the species that are dependent on them.

If there is an objection that I and the members of the Alliance have, it is simply that the principle of this bill does not clearly identify a limits-to-growth strategy. It does not clearly identify that we must look toward the definition of a working forest and, in the provision of that working forest, understand that there is a limit to our ability to grow.

I suggest that is a critical point. When you look at the guiding principles of the practices standards released today, the wording of the documentation in front of us is somewhat ambiguous. It talks about the need for the provision of responsible stewardship, for the sustainable use of the forests, for the inherent productivity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. It talks about economically viable and sustainable forest industries without providing us with a definition of what that means in light of an expanding population.

[3:45]

British Columbia's population is expanding, not only by virtue of the fact that we are reproducing within the province, but clearly in-migration is happening as people across Canada recognize the value of the lifestyles and resources that we have here. The next major global migration will certainly provide increased populations in British Columbia. So there is going to be an increased demand not just on the wood to build our homes and the fibre to make our paper but on the very land that currently supports the vegetation. We are going to have an increased demand to take greater and greater amounts of land out of the working

[ Page 11178 ]

forest in order to accommodate greater and greater numbers of people.

You see that expansion taking place in the rural parts of British Columbia. You see people moving into what they see now as rural and rather peaceful environments. When they recognize within five or ten years the harvesting plans of those companies that have a legitimate right to access that timber, we start to get conflicts. We start to get community conflict, from the demand to protect watersheds -- which is absolutely critical if we're to establish viable communities -- through to the management of viewscapes.

People have often built homes because they wish to look at a view and have the ensuing ambience of that view, and they are going to demand that no logging occur or that a cessation of logging occur if a proposed clearcut may happen to impact their viewscape.

These are the kinds of things we can already see now. We can hear people talking about them now. Within the standards and principles of this Forest Practices Code there is an opportunity for a chief forester, a district manager or a district manager's delegate to make very critical decisions on the protection and provision of those services. Those powers are transferred into the hands of a very few individuals. It suggests that if it is the personal opinion of a district manager or designate, or an environmental official, they can essentially enact regulation that prohibits legitimate harvesting of timber in communities.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Those are pretty scary propositions for people in the forest industry. While we recognize that we need limits-to-growth strategy, we must also recognize that we must have a defined working forest. There must be a designated working forest, and we must educate the people of British Columbia as to what that means in terms of silviculture needed to initiate growth where harvesting has already occurred in the set-aside -- if set-aside is required for the protection of old growth, water management or conservation of soils.

But most importantly, when timber becomes available in those areas designated harvestable, that harvesting must be permitted. There has to be some guarantee that that fibre will be made available, and there has to be some proposition for the stewardship put in place through this Forest Practices Code to increase the amount of timber over the long term that will be available through the harvesting practices, as we start to become more adept at doing so.

What is really critical in this proposition is that we don't create such an enormous bureaucracy or web of regulations or restrictions that we lose sight of the objective of this plan. That plan is to make sure that we have a viable industry, not only for this generation of British Columbians but for future generations, and that not only do we have that industry intact but we also have the ecosystem that supports all of us and the lifestyles that we enjoy, whether we are engaged in the forest industry or not.

There are three areas of serious concerns. The first area was alluded to already, and it has to do with costs. In this enormous initiative that this government has undertaken with respect to the forest sector, we have seen the creation of a new Crown corporation with ensuing regulations, staff and cost requirements. We have seen the implementation of CORE, with the ensuing costs, regulations, staff and so on.

In the creation of this act we see additional entities created for the proposition of looking at and maintaining some kind of forest practice through the creation of a Forest Practices Board: a new board with new authority, new opportunity to regulate, and through an appeal process, with again a board that talks about independent review and independent appeal.

In the legitimate attempt to manage this industry in a better, sounder and more appropriate way, I have a serious concern that we are, in fact, creating a huge bureaucracy that is going to have to be supported in its management. It is the cost of that bureaucracy that drives up government debt. It drives up our annual deficit, and it creates long-term costs to the taxpayer. When I talk about limits-to-growth strategy, it must include a limit to the ability of government to increase its size and regulatory authority and thereby increase its tax demand on the people of this province.

When we see what is taking place in these initiatives, the first of my three concerns is that we are creating an enormous bureaucracy, and we cannot afford that. It should be the rule of thumb -- and those in the Alliance believe this to be so -- that it is the role of government to regulate, not administrate. We regulate, not administrate, because through the provision of regulation we can enforce regulation at a cheaper cost than attempting to administrate over a particular economic activity. The administrative cost is what's driving our debt ratio higher and higher.

That can be said of the forest, health care and education industries. When government insists on administrating rather than undertaking its proper role, which is to regulate, it is those costs that create the problem. That's our first concern. We're going to address it in committee stage, because we can see many areas where simple regulation could have taken the place of what we believe to be a new and very expensive bureaucratic administration.

The second concern we have has to do with the aspect of community involvement and initiative. We had hoped that we in this province would start to recognize a need for us to move away from the vertical integration of the industry. I've had opportunities to speak on this question with the Minister of Forests on a couple of occasions. We've agreed to disagree with respect to changing licensing within the small business program to make more fibre affordable to small business, to the reman industry.

The Alliance is absolutely committed to making more fibre available to the reman and small sawmill industry in this province, because we believe that is the lifeblood of many small communities. The minister disagrees, and that's fair enough. We understand his position. But when we look at the Forest Practices Code we recognize that when they had an opportunity to move toward greater decentralization of this industry into the communities, and therefore enhance the opportunity for operators in small communities to benefit, they missed the mark.

This Forest Practices Code is going to favour the large integrated industry over those that are smaller. It does so in a number of ways, such as through the provision of fines -- notwithstanding the minister wanting to make the fines higher in order to look after the interests of the forests. We don't necessarily take issue with that.

But in the provision of those higher fines, consider that if small operators find themselves in breach of this code, they will not have as equal an opportunity to meet those fines as the large major corporations, which have an army of lawyers who can go through appeal and fight the cost of those fines -- long, protracted legal and litigation costs that are very expensive and simply out of the reach of small operators.

So this code favours the major forest companies; let there be no doubt about that. It also favours the provision of a greater supply of timber through the majors into the

[ Page 11179 ]

traditional vertically integrated industry, which we in the Alliance believe needs to be addressed in British Columbia. That's our second concern with this particular code: it doesn't look after the interests of the small operator.

The third proposition we have some serious concerns with is with respect to the actual enforcement teeth this code will have, particularly the enforcement of soil, water and range management in B.C. I congratulate this government to some extent, in that they have attempted to address all of those questions in the forest practices standards.

We certainly give full marks to the riparian management area concept. The riparian management section, where they're talking about wanting to set aside areas along and adjacent to streams, and stream management, is a sensible idea. And to remove harvesting in permitted reserve zones around riparian management areas on lakes and community watersheds is a sensible proposition, where those water bodies are deemed to be larger than five hectares. We wonder in some instances how they're going to make distinctions about the five-hectare size of water, but we'll get to that in committee stage.

We heard a passionate speech in a ministerial statement today by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who's concerned that the salmon on the coast of British Columbia are going to be depleted because we can't make an agreement with the Americans. That's probably true in part, but what's really true is that we in British Columbia have not looked after that resource over the years -- and it continues even today. Even today, there are many midcoast areas in which salmon streams are being totally eliminated as a result of forest activity, because enough consideration has not been given to the maintenance, management and protection of salmon habitat.

If there's a crusade that every British Columbian should be on right now, today, that should be to protect the viability of the Pacific salmon. If we don't look after the salmon, the herring and the fishery in general -- in particular, the non-pelagic species, the halibut and cod -- we will have lost a major aspect of coastal communities that extends well beyond the bounty covered in this proposed forest practices and standards act.

Yet this government has attempted -- and one needs to give credit where credit is due.... One needs to say that we have taken a major step forward in the protection and maintenance of habitat, particularly with respect to the salmon. And if we do not move swiftly in those areas, we are going to find ourselves in trouble. So we think that the riparian management area is a good concept, which I think British Columbians generally will support.

But what about the enforcement provisions, given the kind of authority that is now going to rest within the Ministry of Forests? We've created this new Crown corporation under the BC Forest Renewal Act -- a very expensive administrative entity, which we did not support, because we don't believe we need that new Crown corporation and its massive costs. The authority is given to district managers, who have woefully inadequate staff levels already, with respect to the fieldwork that needs to be done, both in advance of harvesting and, most particularly, to ensure an adequate and proper assessment and review of the harvesting once it's completed.

We're concerned from the public's point of view because, after all, we deem that the forest is indeed a public resource; therefore we're concerned that the public is not going to have its interests looked after. We're also concerned that the industry is going to find itself in a rather hazardous situation if there is not a consistent, independent and appealable process of enforcement, regulation, control and review. When I talk about independent, I mean independent. I don't mean a review process that can be done arbitrarily through the offices of the Minister of Forests or a district manager.

If there is going to be a proper review of forest practices standards -- as put out in the regulation package, which is a companion piece of documentation with the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia -- then there must be arbitration that is truly independent, conducted by people who have sound scientific training and understand what they're attempting to regulate.

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, you may wonder why my comments address this issue so harshly. If one looks at past practices in my own area, we have seen that the above has not been the case. Sadly, in the past we have found that regulations have been in place and authorities have gone into the field -- but not from the staff of the Ministry of Forests, who I believe to be well-trained and dedicated civil servants. People have been brought in on a consulting basis who clearly have not had the sound training in science to be able to make assessments that are going to have any foundation in science whatsoever.

So as we look at the implementation of the proposed forest practices standards, we recognize that they must be based on sound science. For example, it talks about the setting aside of sensitive areas in a number of categories. "Visually sensitive," it says. What does visually sensitive mean? We need to get at that in committee stage. What does it mean to have visually sensitive areas, or areas containing significant recreational resource values? Who determines that? Who determines the value? Who determines to what extent recreation may in fact be a component part?

Does it mean just those people who wish to backpack? Does it mean canoeists? Does it mean people who recreate by way of camping? Does it mean we are going to give provision with respect to park dedication and allocation? Does it mean we are going to review and change the past joint-use proposals that worked so well in some areas?

It says that if "in the opinion of the district manager or designated B.C. environmental official" it is "important for the management of biological diversity," that provides that district manager or their designate with the ability to make determination with respect to treating that land differently. That has to be based on sound science. It can't be based purely on the political whims or wills of any individuals if we are to give any long-term commitment for this industry to be able to grow.

If we're to have the support that this Forest Practices Code will require of the communities throughout the province, then we are going to have to make sure that sound science prevails, to protect both the public interest and the interests of those companies that invest in the forest industry.

I have given three areas of concern. I have suggested that this government is to be congratulated in large measure for attempting to implement these measures. I wish to conclude my remarks in second reading by simply speaking to two principles that I alluded to earlier. We in this province must look toward a new economic paradigm. In doing so, we must recognize the wealth of this province. For future generations of British Columbians, that wealth is going to be determined largely by the decisions taken today to protect our primary resources. We have seen that, sadly, we have not done a very good job in the past.

We have to recognize that today is the first day of the future of this province. Therefore the decisions that we make today must reflect a sound and sensible commitment to an economic strategy that calls for limits to growth.

[ Page 11180 ]

Sadly, this government has yet to move to that initiative. It has gone a number of steps toward it, but it has not embraced the concept or understood that it is the only one that will provide for long-term stability, both from our ecosystem point of view and, more importantly, from our societal point of view.

The second and last remark I want to make on the Forest Practices Code has to do with the issues that were alluded to by the member for Cariboo North and by the minister himself. It has to do with the perception that people in Europe have of the products coming out of British Columbia, and of the role this Forest Practices Code will play in allowing them to know that those products are safe for their purchase from an environmental point of view.

It will take more than a forest practices code. It will take a real commitment to a new land use strategy. It will take a renewed commitment to recognize that this province must start to make decisions for British Columbians that are sensible in their long-term projection but also sensitive to the economic need to protect the fundamental basis of our economy: our forest, fish, agriculture and mining industries. If we do not make that commitment today, and if we allow, through the provision of these practices and standards that we are placing in a review of these....

If we do not recognize that we must, above all, make sure that the wealth of future British Columbians is protected, all we will have done is cater to those people who will forever wish to get access to our resources for the benefit of those abroad. It is high time we had people stand up and fight for British Columbians.

It is high time British Columbians moved to make sure that they protect the interests of future generations who will reside in this province, and who will come to reside in this province and, in the provision of that, make sure that we start to truly decentralize the wealth of this great province into the communities that are its backbone.

It's all very well to sit in the cities and determine how we're going to let the rural parts of British Columbia grow, expand and prosper. It takes much more for us to go to the rural regions of the province and listen to the people, to understand their concerns and fears when they see us moving to this new economic paradigm and to recognize that they wish to maintain a lifestyle that is honourable and long-term and that has a history of having built this province -- and, I would argue, this nation -- into what it is today.

It is an arrogant government, indeed, that sits in the halls of the large urban centres and dictates to the rural parts of this province about what they can and cannot do with the land they have managed to date.

It is an honourable government that goes to the people and listens to them and, upon hearing their concerns, places back into their hands the public trust we are elected to protect -- to trust people to make decisions for their communities; and to trust that in making those decisions, the people are not only looking after the long-term viability of their communities but are also protecting future generations of British Columbians.

We cannot rely on external forces -- corporations registered outside our borders -- and we cannot put our faith and commitment into a global economic community unless we're prepared to put faith and trust in the people of British Columbia.

I hope that this Forest Practices Code is the first step toward that proposition, because it's high time people in British Columbia recognize that we are here to serve them. We are the servants of those people, and they are telling us that they wish to have greater control over their lives and wish to have a future for their children. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. The members of the Alliance are in support of the Forest Practices Code. In committee stage we will be taking issue with what we believe to be a serious breach in some of the language, which we think needs to be cleaned up and clarified.

N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: On behalf of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I would like to introduce 28 grades 5 and 6 students and several adults from Glenayre Elementary School in Port Moody. They are led by their teacher, Mr. Dawodharry. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: Visiting the precincts today are 39 students from North West Community Technical College in the state of Connecticut, and their teacher Ms. Riggio. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I would like to preface my remarks on Bill 40, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, by first saying that I will be voting for it. However, I can't let it go by without saying a few things about this government, because they don't do everything perfectly. There are considerable features of this bill that I just cannot comply with or feel are proper. As you're aware, there are 324 sections in this bill plus over 100 regulations, and I believe that some of these features are offensive to the people of British Columbia and this province as a whole.

An old statesman out of England years ago said that this type of legislation is a classic case of socialism, and that socialists promise a workers' paradise but always deliver a bureaucratic nightmare. This bill is a classic case in that sense. Certain sections of this bill, as I said, could also be considered a little draconian to the industry -- a kind of persecution of community and community people through-out this province -- when you consider aspects such as the deactivation of roads under

section 64(4). As I said, it's certainly a bureaucratic nightmare when you have to know and consider all those sections.

In any event, the premise of this

section -- as you probably are aware, and as I have been informed -- is to return the roads to their original state and topography in order to avoid future possible slides, etc. There is also the hope in this legislation that roads could be replanted and the harvest added to the allowable cut. That's all very well. Some of these aspects are very good and could even be considered admirable. However, I'm suspicious that a true benefit will in fact come from this aspect of the bill.

I can see, for example, room for deactivation of small skidroads or spurs in temporary areas. But for the main roads I find it incredible, and I would have to say that this is not the answer. Main roads must be considered as belonging to the people of this province. They are assets of the Crown. They were paid for through stumpage fees. To destroy these assets is a ludicrous prospect. The value of these roads to this province is really unknown.

It's hard to calculate both what they were worth in the past and will be worth in the future -- not just for commercial purposes, such as mining, etc., but for use in hunting, fishing and tourism by average citizens in campers. They will see ditches across these roads, which

[ Page 11181 ]

were paid for by the Crown, for years to come, because it will be a long time before they're back to their original topography.

I disagree with the fact that these roads will be cut off and ditches put across them to prevent the people of this province from exploring their own province. Local tourists, citizens of this province and people who explore and develop B.C. will now be denied access to anywhere that they want to go through the system of old logging roads and all the rest of it.

[4:15]

This government is intending to put in quite draconian road regulations, when it could put in simple regulations for hunters and people walking in the bush. We can all see deactivation on a mountainside with steep crevasses below or steep sides where there are creeks formed by melting snow that could cause potential damage, but they could be attended to on their own. But in an average area in this province, which is not subject to slides and where most of it is in forest, what is wrong with the people who have used this for years walking through the bush and going out hunting or fishing? Now they no longer have access to these areas. This is where the bill becomes somewhat offensive to me.

One wonders if this is not a concise and deliberate plan for some other reason. I don't know. The minister's assistant has already said that this bill will change the accounting of free enterprise in this province. Also, this bill spends a good deal of time on penalties, fines, monitoring and enforcement. When the minister lauds these aspects of the bill, he appears to be telling us about the hundreds of new law enforcement officers -- I believe he said 100 to 200 -- who will be put out into the forests of this province to enforce all the sections of this bill.

To me, that is not what you'd call a watchdog forestry police, which is what he pretends to have. My feeling is that as good as this bill could be, and as good as it is, again there is a draconian approach with this forestry watchdog. Instead of providing a shield to protect the province, he is sending out 100 or 200 forestry officials with their swords, looking for people to penalize.

Before I close, I would like to say that this bill leads me to consider the old statement of Dr. Thomas Gunton, a seer of this socialist NDP, about his resource policy. He said that all resources should be controlled by this government and taken out of the hands of private enterprise, and that the quickest, cheapest and easiest way is through overregulation. Well, this is a prime example of overregulation in this province.

I worry that instead of supporting and enhancing the industry, this bill will cause irreparable harm. These are just a few of my concerns. We will go into further detail when we get into committee stage. There will be more questions than answers, I'm afraid, but the big question is tenure. Will there be any tenure left in British Columbia when this government is through? I wonder, and the industries wonder. A workers' paradise is what we should be working for in a free enterprise and free business environment, not the bureaucratic nightmare that this bill could possibly lead us to.

I conclude by saying that I am a fourth-generation British Columbian. I was born in this province. Not only that, I'm concerned for the future generations. My family has been here for six generations, and I'm concerned for their children and their children's children.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to stand up and debate the philosophy and principles of the Forest Practices Code, Bill 40. As I listened to the minister speak in second reading on this, he was fairly hard on the former government. However, I have to advise the minister -- and the minister knows this full well, although he's probably reluctant to admit his knowledge for public redistribution -- that work on the Forest Practices Code was initiated by former Minister of Forests Claude Richmond. Certainly there is a valid reason for the code. As I talk, I too will support the philosophy and principles of the code.

The former government initiated this practice, along with the old-growth strategy and a number of other components that were moving in this direction.

Why is the code necessary? There has certainly been lack of public confidence in forestry. Part of that was fuelled by reality over a long period of time; part of it is fuelled by radical environmentalist groups with confusing information and misrepresenting situations. Part of it is from the lack of absolute familiarity with forestry and forestry practices on the part of individuals who live in the greater Vancouver area or on the southern part of Vancouver Island. A number of other challenges have created a situation where we've had to develop the Forest Practices Code.

The shape of this is perhaps substantially different than it would have been with our government, and we will get into that when we go through section-by-section debate in Committee of the Whole.

I've heard a great many concerns expressed in this Legislature, saying that we've done a lot of things wrong. Perhaps we have, and perhaps we haven't. We look at some of the critics in Great Britain or Germany and recognize that they've done a great deal more wrong than we will ever do in British Columbia. Great Britain was forested. Even in Scotland there were mighty oak forests. But all that has vanished. It has vanished for a number of reasons. One reason, of course, was to build the mighty fleet of Britain that ruled the seas some 300 years ago.

The reality is that it also vanished because of the need to support a growing population. They had to clear more land for farming and for agriculture. They have not replanted the forests, and a lot of the land is not used or developed really effectively at all. In Germany a similar situation exists. Perhaps it's a balm for the conscience of those people in Great Britain and Europe to criticize British Columbia for forestry practices.

Perhaps it's a very favourable type of an exercise to partake in, because you're not pointing the finger at yourself; you're pointing the finger at someone distant, somewhere distant, and you're quite immune to any type of controversy. The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize.

But there was a tremendous increase in forestry development in British Columbia, starting in the early 1950s. That started out with the vision of W.A.C. Bennet to give British Columbians equal opportunities for economic development no matter where they lived in the province. I see the member for Nelson-Creston smiling, and I'll be talking about that particular area in a little while. In any event, a great deal of the province was opened up for economic development, and forestry at that time provided the mainstay of development. It was good. It fuelled the expansion of B.C. Rail and of our highway systems.

It provided the base support and the revenues for very impressive and much-needed structures such as dams and power distribution systems. We continued to build on that format, and on that format we built this mighty province, with opportunities for all people, residing wherever they might in the province, for good medical facilities, health care, educational facilities and certainly a good social service system. As well, we fuelled many other areas, even advanced education. And forestry plays a significant

part in this.

Some of the pressures on the industry have come about simply by the need by government for the revenue to fund a

[ Page 11182 ]

number of the ministries I have mentioned. Another pressure has come from the fact that we now have, I believe, the highest-paid woodworkers of any jurisdiction in the world. Some might smile and say that's a very good thing. I might question how good a thing that actually is, because we have lost so many of these forestry workers over the years. This has put a great deal of pressure on not only the volume of timber harvested but the manner in which that timber has been harvested. Because of higher wages, we had to use more equipment. Now it's unusual to find people on the ground.

In the interior everything is done with feller-bunchers and grapple-skidders. Even the bucking at the landing is done by a man in a machine, and the logs are handled and processed that way.

I worked in the bush one year when I was 15. We put out in a month what most small operations would probably put out in a day, and that's what the large equipment has done. Large equipment has been virtually impossible to work with in selective logging. Even in stands with a number of different species at the lower elevations, short-log logging and selective logging has been virtually impossible. It is driven by the cost-effectiveness of the whole thing; and it must be cost-effective. Those are some of the challenges.

There is a cost component, which we can't ignore. We might say that we are altruistic, perhaps put a moratorium on logging and do all sorts of things, but in reality we can't. As government, we can't continue to provide the services that we have grown to expect and that the public demands. Yet these expectations and demands continue to fall on the shoulders of government. So we need the revenue that forestry puts forward. We also need that revenue to continue to expand and develop British Columbia. It's the stepping stone to the next element of our development, which is to expand our manufacturing capability, and we need to move more rapidly in that direction.

I am confident that the forest industry supports the concept, and that's why I can so readily support the philosophy and principles behind this. The forest industry supports the concept because they have to have a one-stop shopping centre. It was not unusual for one ministry of government to demand one thing of a forestry operation and for another government ministry to demand something quite different, saying that if you do that we will refuse you permission.

So you would get two or three different ministries with conflicting regulations, all on the same turf, which was very expensive and frustrating and virtually unworkable for the forest industry. The concept to bring all of the regulations into one-stop shopping is great. We have to have certainty as well as fair and equal treatment of all competing interests so that they can be assured that it's a level playing field.

I have talked about the concern with the foreign markets -- including fibre in the way of pulp -- and some of the hypocrisy that prevails in those foreign markets. The fact is that British Columbia has had a very extensive program in forestry matters as more and more people became more interested in that particular area. The forest is a resource that contains the habitat for the consumptive animal harvest, certainly -- whether it's moose, deer or other ungulates -- but it's also the complete and total ecosystem.

We've had the beauty of the forest and the opportunity to use the forest in far more ways as our population increased. So we have a higher standard of expectations by the public. And that's what the Forest Practices Code is going to try to do: satisfy the public and reinstil confidence in the Ministry of Forests and the industry that is harvesting.

[4:30]

But there are a number of questions with the development of this act. The minister has said there has been extensive consultation. But apparently the consultation with the ranchers, for example, has not been very extensive. My understanding is that the ranchers are furious. Much of the area they depend on relates to ranching, and the park policy impacts on areas they have to utilize for Crown range. There hasn't been a great deal of consultation with that particular section.

The concern I have is again a cost component -- and that is not only with the $600 million in additional revenue that is going to be demanded of the forests. Right now it's not a difficult pill to swallow for the forest industry. With the market and the price of lumber so strong, if they don't put it back into the forestry, then it's going to have to go back to the federal government. So part of this plan -- the Forest Practices Code and certainly the forest renewal plan -- is funded by the federal government and other taxpayers in Canada; probably $300 million of that is certainly deferred income taxes. That's where some of the money goes.

But there will be a red-tape cost in this whole thing; the potential here for bureaucracy is incredible. The Forest Practices Code has to work, but it has to be practical. It can't be designed simply to satisfy the people in the urban centres.

I was referring earlier to Nelson. I was with the legislative Select Standing Committee on Forests, and we were looking at one small clearcut in the Nelson area. A couple of environmentalists were with us. Way off in the distance were two small, postage stamp clearcuts. And that literally destroyed their day, because it destroyed the view they had of this vast expanse of green -- and it is beautiful to look at. These people were relative newcomers to that particular area. They did not know or understand that the miners who went through that area had burnt the area clean because it facilitated prospecting.

So in the late 1800s, at the turn of the century, all of this beautiful belt of green didn't exist. It was just blackened, fire-killed trees. That's a reality. This was not the way it always was, you see. There are some things here that are reality.

The Forest Practices Code also has to ensure that the rules are made up in concert with those involved in the industry. If only a small number of industry representatives but a lot of the other representatives are gathered at the table, there is no way the industry can continue to survive economically in British Columbia. The pressure and the demands of, let's say, theenviro-industry are such that they are inventing reasons we cannot continue to log and harvest trees in British Columbia.

It is in their best interest, because they're catering to a group of constituents who are bound and determined to stop forestry altogether. I know that's not the goal or the ambition of government. But when I look at some of the sections, there's no question in my mind that this particular Forest Practices Code is meant to appease the environmentalists, who have felt very disenchanted with the environmental activities of the current government.

It is important that the elements in the code be based on scientific principles, not simply on academic whim, biases, rumours or hearsay. There is a great deal of concern, because a solid foundation based on facts is required so that they can accept this new cost burden. But looking at this cost burden and recognizing that the lumber market is cyclical, we have to understand that if the forest industry goes into a severe downturn, the taxpayer will have to continue to pick up the bill for this immense bureaucracy that is being created by this forest practices act and the immense cost of the bureaucracy with the forest renewal plan.

[ Page 11183 ]

Well over two billion trees have been planted; I think the two-billionth tree was planted in the province sometime around 1991. So there has been a great deal of work done on that, and we're concerned about the cost. We're also concerned with the extensiveness of the program and its very heavy use of the stick rather than the carrot.

An Hon. Member: Are you voting against it?

C. Serwa: The member asks: will I vote against it? No, I support the philosophy and the principles, but I don't support a lot of the elements. I really believe, when we talk about the carrot and the stick as principles, that we would be far wiser and we would utilize personnel far more efficiently if we used the carrot principle more often than the stick.

There seems to be some immense delight to come up with large fines, as if the reason that people are honest or do a good job is the harsh penalties. Why doesn't government see that there should be encouragement to those who are doing the right job? It should be financially more attractive to do the right job than the wrong job. Just because some of the bad operators create a problem, why should we draft harsher and harsher regulations and legislation to control those bad eggs in any industry? Why shouldn't we, on the other hand, reward those who are good practitioners of solid, sound forestry in the province?

We could do this by reducing stumpage fees. We could encourage the right.... It wouldn't take very long for the accountants to see that it's much more cost-effective to do the right thing, rather than do the wrong thing and get away with it. It's a different tack.

I can assure you and the government, hon. Speaker, that if positive utilization of the carrot principle were instituted, we would require far fewer personnel to audit and be involved in forestry than the 200 FTEs the minister was referring to, who are simply to inspect the practices, virtually as enforcement officers, throughout the province. I think that we would have a far healthier situation.

Yes, the code does simplify a complex and diverse array of rules -- there were some 4,000. But they're setting new standards, and they're also setting an incredible number of separate field guides, so it's not going to be all that simple. There has to be the right system for developing the rules. You have to wind up with the right rules. You have to have the right system for administering the rules. You have to have a strategic direction that includes timber supply.

One of the realities is that we harvest, I think, approximately 75 million cubic metres on Crown land annually, and probably with present forest practices we could harvest about 60 million cubic metres annually. But the higher figure was based on intensive silvicultural practices, and they never came forward. There's some question in my mind whether we can actually engage in and utilize the intensive silvicultural practices that are referred to in the forest renewal plan.

When we talk about a vision of sustainable forestry, we have to understand that sustainable development has become a buzzword, and sustainable forestry is potentially the same thing. There are probably 200 to 250

definitions of sustainable development. What is the vision of sustainable forestry? Again, that is very ambiguous and very subjective. It's the subjective nature of a lot of the elements in the sections that we'll be talking about in Committee of the Whole.

There's a great deal of uncertainty. I'm confident that the concerns that I've expressed are valid. We will have a growth in bureaucracy. Some people will be comforted by the fact that there's a Forest Practices Code. This government operates that way. They draft legislation, and they assume the problem is rectified. It will not be rectified unless there are sincere and devout efforts made on the practical considerations. Forestry has to be economical. There are other materials that are now becoming more and more competitive.

We're using metal studs in more and more of our buildings, not only in Canada and the United States but throughout the rest of the world. There are a number of other jurisdictions that are growing forests: southern pine plantations in the United States and eucalyptus forests in tropical countries. They substitute their fibre for softwood fibre in paper. So we have to be mindful of the market system and the fact that we have to be competitive.

With all of the other cost increases and with the cost increases from the Forest Practices Code, I'm not confident that this is sustainable. As I say, with a downturn in the market, the taxpayer will once again be faced with a huge bill for a giant bureaucracy with a great proposal and a plan that is not going to be well funded.

The concern I have about the Minister of Forests is simply this. Not too long ago the Minister of Forests, after much thought, deliberation and consultation with the coastal forest industry, indicated that a six fold increase in royalties was fair and reasonable. They had been getting away with too much for too long. He came out in a very strong manner, as he did when he introduced this bill in second reading.

All it took was the head of Canfor, Peter Bentley, to indicate in a press release that there had to have been some grave misunderstandings between the government and the forest industry, and that same Minister of Forests back-pedalled. Now he's talking about perhaps a small fraction, perhaps one-sixth, of the increase. I don't have a great deal of confidence in the consultation process that the minister said he has gone through. The reality is that if you lose that much revenue, who is going to pick it up? The evidence is clear that once again it will be the taxpayer.

While I will support the principles and the philosophy of the Forest Practices Code, I will have a great deal of difficulty supporting a lot of the sections in this code.

R. Chisholm: I stand and support this bill in principle. I do have some problems, especially when it comes to the grazing aspects of this act and trespassing livestock. I believe this code is a good way to go, but this is not necessarily the final bill that we need to cover all the bases.

Unfortunately, in this bill we have some areas, such as grazing rights.... For instance, if cattle happen to break out of a cattleman's pastures and go onto Crown land, the rancher is liable for some horrendous costs. I have to agree with the other member. I just wonder if we're going a little too far with the carrot and the stick -- far too much stick. For example, DFO's answer to everything right now is to take the person to court. All we have managed to do there is spend multimillions of dollars and tie up the courts, and we're not accomplishing a heck of a lot.

Yet if self-policing were put into place by the Cattlemen's Association and then the Forests ministry stepped in if somebody wouldn't comply, that would make more sense than arbitrarily stating in the bill that you're going to hammer this person. In the end, they can end up losing their stock or their equity in their ranch. This bothers me, so it has to be debated in committee stage.

Another problem is in the areas of liability and privilege. Unfortunately, it seems that an individual is liable to the government and liable for costs, whatever the case may be. But when it goes the other way around -- the government being liable to the individual -- that has been stricken out of the bill. That seems to be rather unfair, because governments

[ Page 11184 ]

have been known to be heavy-handed. I'm afraid that in itself is a bit undemocratic.

The last thing I have to say about this is that we have a bureaucracy which is far too large. We are now