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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 17

[ Page 10325 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Lovick: I note in the gallery today two visitors from the Harbour City, Nanaimo: Mr. Cliff Shoop and Ms. Beatrice Spooner. I would ask my colleagues in the chamber to please join me in extending a warm welcome to both of them.

V. Anderson: In the gallery today we have as guests Alexis Pavlich, a forestry student at UBC, and Rebecca Johnson, a political science student at UBC. Also in the gallery we have some 90 students from Churchill secondary school in my riding, with their teacher, Mr. S. McLaughlin. Also in the precincts today were students from Lord Kitchener school, with Miss M. Adamovich as their leader. Would the House make them all welcome.

J. Doyle: Today I'm very honoured to have in the galleries my best friend and a constituent, Paul Peacock. Paul is the chair of the hospital board in Golden. Please make Paul welcome.

T. Perry: In the precincts in a broad sense today are a large number of distinguished scientists participating in a conference at the University of Victoria on depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. I'd like to invite members to join me in making them welcome to our province. I hope some of them will visit us here, if they're not here right at this moment. I hope members will take the chance to participate in their sessions at the University of Victoria.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like members of the Legislature to give a very warm welcome to the consul general for Spain, Mr. Jose Zorilla, who is stationed in Toronto and is responsible for all points west. I'm sure he's going to be out west many more times. We're looking right now at a high-speed Spanish-designed and -built train for the Eugene to Seattle to Vancouver corridor. I'm sure we're going to have many more business opportunities for you, sir, when you come this way. You may have a full-time office here shortly. Welcome.

J. Sawicki: As all members know, in addition to our partners and other close friends, the most important people in our lives are our constituency assistants. I would like to introduce my constituency assistant, Barry Bristman. I'm asked also to bring greetings from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I'm sure all the government caucus would like to welcome their respective constituency assistants who may be in the galleries right now.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today is Vancouver East Day for kids wanting to get an education. I am delighted to welcome 60 students from Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary in East Vancouver, with their teacher Ms. K. Read. Later on today there will be 30 more grade 11 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary, with their teacher Mr. A. Evanson. Will everyone please make them welcome throughout the day.

Ministerial Statement

INQUIRY INTO PERRAULT CASE

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I rise today to make an announcement on a matter concerning our province's corrections system. British Columbians deserve to have full confidence in their corrections system. I stated inside and outside this House that I would take the necessary steps to ensure that the Danny Perrault case receives a thorough and independent review. Therefore today I am announcing the appointment of Madam Justice Jo-Ann E. Prowse, of the Court of Appeal of B.C., to immediately begin an independent, public commission of inquiry into the corrections branch's decision to transfer Perrault to the New Haven Correctional Centre.

Because of the urgency of this matter, I have asked Madam Justice Prowse to inquire into this matter and any public safety issues relating to it, and to report back to me by June 15 of this year. Her report will be made public, subject to any legal restrictions affecting cases such as these. Madam Justice Prowse will have the authority, under the terms of her appointment, to engage private lawyers to provide her with advice about publishing or disclosing information.

It is imperative that the process for investigating serious cases, such as this one, in our corrections system be rigorous, fair and impartial -- and be seen to be so. That is why I have appointed Madam Justice Prowse to conduct this commission of inquiry. But more than that, we need to ensure that the investigations of any incidents of concern to the public, corrections staff or offenders are conducted independently in the future, and are seen to be conducted independently.

I would like to announce today my intention to create an independent investigation, inspection and standards office in the Ministry of Attorney General. The new office will investigate corrections-related incidents and complaints. It will report directly to me and be completely independent of the corrections branch. I will be introducing an amendment to the Correction Act for the new office in a few minutes.

J. Dalton: Firstly, I thank the hon. Attorney General for giving me his statement in advance, so that we were aware of what the minister was happily announcing -- or at least half-happily, I would say. The minister has at least acceded to part of the official opposition's request for a full and independent inquiry into the corrections system in general, and not just the Danny Perrault case in particular.

[2:15]

The hon. Attorney General talks of public confidence. We all know that public confidence in the corrections system, among other things dealing with justice, has been shaken in recent days. I won't belabour that point right now. But I would impress upon the hon. Attorney General that we would like this taken the next step. The Attorney General has gone halfway on this. Admittedly, the Danny Perrault case is of importance. We've canvassed that at some length in the estimates, and perhaps we'll do so again when we reconvene those estimates.

But the official opposition stands on record -- and I would submit that the Attorney General, as well, has made it clear, both in this House and outside -- that the next step should be taken, and that's a full inquiry. This is a half-measure. It's better than nothing, and until this moment nothing is what we had. But the official opposition will continue to press for a full inquiry.

We certainly do welcome the appointment of Madam Justice Prowse. We know that she will do her job objectively, speedily and with credibility; and for that, at least, we thank the hon. Attorney General.

The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what matter?

[ Page 10326 ]

D. Mitchell: I too would like to thank the minister for providing a copy of this notice, and I would like to ask for leave to respond.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member knows the rules. His party is not recognized. The hon. member rises on another matter?

D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask for leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. member, we went through this on previous occasions, and we established that unless the member had status to respond to ministerial statements, we would not put it forward as a request, because it's contrary to the rules.

Are the members saying that they want to...?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Okay, leave is granted, hon. member.

An Hon. Member: Nay.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat. I heard a nay. Permission is not granted.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1994. The Correction Act is amended to establish a director and office of investigation, inspection and standards for correctional matters that is separate from and independent of the corrections branch and the commissioner of corrections. The director of investigation, inspection and standards shall report directly and solely to the minister, rather than to the commissioner of corrections.

Secondly, the Election Act is amended to cancel the general enumeration of voters scheduled for this year and authorizes the chief electoral officer to conduct enumerations as necessary. The chief electoral officer has requested this amendment, as significant changes have been implemented over the last five years which make a provincewide enumeration redundant and a waste of taxpayers' money. A full enumeration costs in the neighbourhood of $8 million.

The chief electoral officer advises that British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop a fully electronic, continuous voters list, which is being continually updated. By this means we can achieve much greater accuracy than with a door-to-door provincewide enumeration, at a fraction of the cost. Special enumerations will be conducted by the chief electoral officer as required, to target high-mobility areas, young people and other groups that are traditionally under-registered.

Thirdly, amendments to the Motion Picture Act will improve enforcement of the act by allowing the director of film classification to attach conditions to a licence and by clarifying the

section which provides for the inspection and seizure of adult films in contravention of the act.

There are also minor amendments to the Scholarship Act, Social Workers Act and Supreme Court Act. I shall elaborate further on these amendments in second reading of this bill.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF AGRICULTURE MINISTER BY CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Agriculture was in an apparent breach of

section 3 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Today it is clear from comments of the minister that he is also in breach of sections 2(1) and 2(2) of that act. I have therefore written to the conflict-of-interest commissioner asking that he expand his investigation into the minister's actions. Can the Premier tell this House how many sections of the act have to be breached before he will show some leadership and demand accountability of his ministers?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition seems to misunderstand the whole purpose of the toughest conflict laws in this country. He is prepared to be the judge, jury and hangman and to let due process go all to heck. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make a decision that there is a breach when all we have from him is an allegation that has been referred to the commissioner to investigate. He is investigating. The Leader of the Opposition should let the commissioner of conflicts investigate the allegation he has put before him.

G. Campbell: I am appalled at this Premier's lack of ethical standards. We have now learned from this Premier that it's all right for a minister to make the address of a sexual assault victim available to her attacker. We've learned from this Premier that it's all right for the Attorney General to file a false affidavit. Last night we learned from this Premier -- and my question is to him -- that there are no extraordinary circumstances when a minister of the Crown uses his public office for personal benefit. What are the extraordinary circumstances that this Premier would recognize in order to demand accountability and ask for the resignation of a member of his cabinet?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the Leader of the Opposition is again coming very close to breaching the privileges of a member of this Legislature, and other MLAs, by making allegations that he turns into findings of fact -- findings under the toughest conflict laws in the country -- which are automatically investigated by the conflict commissioner. As the Leader of the Opposition and his pitiful members have found out, making allegations become fact when due process takes place is a heck of a lot tougher to do than what they've done so far. They found out that an honest mistake was made by the Attorney General. The special prosecutor found just that: an honest mistake.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

[ Page 10327 ]

G. Campbell: On March 21, 1991, this member -- now Premier -- said in the House that a minister of the Crown who was under investigation by the conflict-of-interest commissioner has an obligation to step aside. That public obligation remains, Mr. Premier. That public obligation does not change because you happen to be in government. Now the Premier says: "As long as you're a member of the NDP, do what you want to do. That's fine with me."

My question to the Premier is: when is he going to set aside his double standard? When is he going to re-establish the ethical standards of this House and demand the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture while he is under investigation by the conflict-of-interest commissioner?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who was on the phone yesterday with a Liberal constituency president concerning this allegation, I was out dealing with real people. I was in the Okanagan dealing with tree fruit growers who are suffering unfair trade practices. I was in the Okanagan dealing with workers in value-added forestry plants who want access to logs.

This government established the conflict-of-interest act. There wasn't a conflict-of-interest act that had any teeth at all. We have established a new, higher standard with a conflict-of-interest act that deals with real and apparent conflicts. When a letter is received by the commissioner, the commissioner investigates. Under the Crown Counsel Act, when the special Crown counsel receives information, he investigates. Those high standards are now in place because of this government.

GENDER BIAS IN CABINET

L. Stephens: The Premier axed the former Minister of Education -- a woman. He fired the former Minister of Government Services -- a woman. He demoted the former Minister of Social Services -- a woman. And he led the pack in getting rid of the former Speaker -- also a woman.

Interjections.

L. Stephens: To the Minister of Women's Equality. Does the minister support...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

L. Stephens: ...this shocking...?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Will the hon. members please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Hon. members, obviously there is something humorous that is escaping the Speaker. I must advise all hon. members that we have only a 15-minute question period, and these interruptions are taking up the members' time. Would you please allow the hon. member for Langley to proceed. The question, please.

L. Stephens: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Does the minister support this shocking gender bias that the Premier has displayed?

Hon. P. Priddy: I am delighted to respond to the member's question. In point of fact, I would say that I am very proud, as are all members of this caucus, of the initiatives that this government has taken around...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Priddy: ...equal representation for women in the province of British Columbia. I would reference three points. I would reference the fact that in the two and a half years since this government was elected, the number of women in management positions has increased in every single management category in this government, and this government is proud of that. In agencies, boards and commissions throughout the province -- where women have never before had a voice, except in very, very small numbers -- over 50 percent of those board and commission appointments are women.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. P. Priddy: Under the Premier's....

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. minister to please conclude her remarks.

Hon. P. Priddy: Under the Premier's leadership, this government has taken the lead in admitting gender bias in the justice system. This government stands firmly behind the initiatives that bring women's voices to the table.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

L. Stephens: Well, the Premier has repeatedly stood by his man: the former Minister of Forests, the Minister of Health, the Attorney General and now the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Premier acknowledge the obvious gender discrimination in his decision-making, which protects the men and sacrifices the women?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I look around me here, and I don't see too many women members from my caucus being sacrificed. I see a record number of women. Seven members of the cabinet are women. I see that for the first time, seven deputy ministers are women. I see a change in British Columbia, and I see that women are gaining the equality that they should have. This government is leading the way in that equality.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Stephens: The Premier's reactions to inappropriate cabinet behaviour show that the Premier has an agenda and a personal interest in protecting his male colleagues in his cabinet and firing the women. Will the Premier admit that when it comes to disciplining his cabinet...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

L. Stephens: ...he will administer harsh public justice and discipline only to the women in his cabinet?

[ Page 10328 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think that you as a Liberal caucus should look in the mirror and at the four women whom you fired so savagely.

G. Wilson: Having listened to this part of question period, I'm tempted to utter a phrase that got me, certainly, and most of the members in the Liberal caucus in here: "This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that nothing gets done in the province of British Columbia, and you saw it here."

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

TEACHERS' RIGHT TO STRIKE

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for education. Today the talks between PSEC and the B.C. Teachers' Federation have broken down and are at a serious impasse, because this government has gone back on its commitment to those teachers that there would be a grandfather clause in existing contracts, negotiated and agreed to in any new provincewide bargaining system, and that there would be a guarantee provided by this government for a local right to strike on non-monetary issues. Will the Minister of Education tell us why his government has gone back on those commitments and why he would allow the BCTF and PSEC to be in such a dangerous breach in terms of agreement today?

Hon. E. Cull: As the minister responsible for the Public Sector Employers' Council, which is conducting consultation right now about the new provincewide bargaining, I will inform you that these comments are entirely premature. We are in the process of discussing the proposed legislation with not only the B.C. Teachers' Federation, but also the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, and other bodies interested in how this legislation is shaped. No decision has been made. No draft legislation exists at this time.

G. Wilson: To the Minister of Finance and minister responsible for PSEC, I understand that Linda Baker, the representative of PSEC.... Meetings with the BCTF have come to an impasse, and the BCTF's commitment to assist in the drafting of appropriate legislation with respect to the two-tiered provincewide teacher bargaining system is now in severe jeopardy as a result of this government going back on its commitment. Is this government committed to a grandfathering of existing negotiated contract clauses with respect to local school districts, and will this minister respect the local right to strike on non-monetary issues?

Hon. E. Cull: When we announced the decision to go to provincewide bargaining, we said that there would not be any local right to strike; that the right to strike and the right to lock out would be only at the provincial level. That is necessary to provide stability to students and their families, which is the number one reason for bringing in this legislation. At this point, the BCTF may not feel that they're getting all the guarantees they want in the discussions, and I urge them to return to discussing this with the PSEC secretariat. The B.C. Teachers' Federation has a lot of internal divisions.

I urge them to work to overcome those and ensure that we're able to bring forward legislation to meet the needs of students in this province.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

G. Wilson: It's amazing that a government with a commitment to the legal right to strike for organized union members in this province is now prepared to remove the right to strike from the teaching sector. I suggest that perhaps they're moving toward an essential service classification, which is news to the people of British Columbia. The press release dealt strictly with those matters regarding monetary issues. When did the government change its position with respect to a local right to strike on non-monetary issues to include all issues, regardless of whether they have monetary impact?

Hon. E. Cull: Unlike some members in this House, this government supports teachers' rights to free collective bargaining, and that's what this legislation is about. But moving to a system that says there will be provincewide bargaining does not remove the right to strike. In fact, many other parts of the labour system -- the pulp employees, the B.C. government employees themselves -- have a similar system of provincewide bargaining, where the right to strike rests at that level.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to answer a question taken on notice on April 6. The question by the member for Richmond East was: "Would the Minister of Health indicate how many other requests have been made by convicted offenders to access their files?"

Every year, up to 500 patients at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute are able to review their files, with a clinician present, after their files are severed of third-party information. The patient mentioned in the media allegations early in April, and referred to by the member for Richmond East, was the only one to receive a copy of a file without it being put through a formal freedom-of-information procedure. The request for this file had been reviewed informally by FOI officers.

As I have noted for the House, new policy in the Ministry of Health requires that no third-party information will be released except by referring patient records to the formal freedom-of-information procedure.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, hon. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House for the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to sit today at 2:45 p.m. in the Birch Room.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. In the main House, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before recognizing the hon. member on second reading of Bill 32, I will permit members to leave who are intending to do so.

[ Page 10329 ]

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to continue my conversation with regard to the Forest Renewal Act. Yesterday I talked a bit about an area of Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- the Lakes District -- and the evolution of the forest industry within that community. I also spoke about past government policies that were detrimental to our forest industry, with regard to overcapacity mills and other scenarios that the past government seemed not to recognize as ever-increasing concerns for our industry.

The past government looked at forestry as a status quo situation. This government has not agreed to that scenario. We have looked at land use and other values in the forests, and looked towards working with the industry and investment in the land itself through the Forest Renewal Act. We've looked towards the sustainability of the forest base and the forest industry itself, which we recognize is the most important industry in our province. We've looked at the sustainability of the economics of our communities, particularly our smaller resource communities.

In this bill, we've also looked at the stability of jobs within the forest industry and the fact that we need to look at jobs slightly differently than we used to. We have to not only focus on the harvesting side of the industry but also on the jobs in the silviculture and reforestation side of the industry. We need to raise those jobs, through certification and skills training, to the point where we understand that these jobs are imperative to raising our land base and ensuring that the industry will sustain itself.

This act speaks to partnerships with industry, workers, environmentalists and community leaders -- all looking toward bringing their expertise together so that we can have a better industry, so that we can encourage the enhancement of the forest base, and so that we can assure communities that there is some stability, particularly on the resource industry side.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

We are looking at renewing the forests through enhancing reforestation and silviculture. We're also looking at protecting and restoring the environment by repairing damage that was done in the past. We've had watershed damage, and we've had resource roads decommissioned; we can bring those back into forest production as well. There is a lot of work to be done out there, and we need to create some valuable jobs to ensure that that work is done. Those jobs require skills training. The people who do those jobs must also understand the ecological balance of the forest in terms of future harvesting and renewal.

We are looking, through this and other bills, to building and improving on today's forestry practices. We have improved in the recent past, but we have to continue to work toward better methods of silviculture and extraction from the forests. When the Forest Practices Code comes forward in the Legislature, it will go hand in hand with this act. I feel that we are building a strong foundation for the future of the industry. We are investing in people, we're investing in jobs and future jobs for our children, and we're investing in our communities.

We're looking at value-added options, so that we're not looking at the status quo, where we send cants out; we're looking at having a supply for the value-added side as well. We're looking at the forest sector skills council, so that there is a focus on bringing up those skills for the workers.

[2:45]

Within this act, we're also talking about economic development and diversification of communities. I have been out in some of the communities in my constituency since this act has been introduced in the Legislature, and there is endorsement for this act by the communities. They recognize that they are communities in transition -- not transition out of an industry, but a change in the industry and in the way we approach this industry. Therefore the leaders and members of the communities are saying that we must do something. We must look at the economic side of it, and we must look at diversification within the industry as well. By doing so, our communities will be strengthened.

The interesting part of this Forest Renewal Act is the fact that the resourcing of the act, of jobs and of investing in the forest base will come from the forest industry itself. Through the increase in stumpage, we will direct money back into renewal of our forests. Where we have concerns within specific communities and specific sectors of the industry -- in different mills and different mixes of the industry -- we have the option of a technical review.

If a particular part of the industry is going to be adversely affected by the stumpage, we have the opportunity to review, analyze and take a closer look at that particular area. The other side of this finance scenario is the equitable distribution among the regions. By mentioning the regions within the act, we are saying that each region is contributing to the financing of this act, and also to the industry itself, and that we are going to renew the forests in those regions from which we are extracting timber and the fibre supply.

I find this act very exciting, because it touches on a very large scope of what the industry and the forest are about. It encompasses communities, workers and industry itself, and brings them back in in terms of discussion, dialogue and setting up new approaches to deal with concerns that we have been facing in the last few years. Also exciting is the fact that the business plan of the new Crown corporation is going to be debated in the Legislature. That is something that has not happened before. That is the democratic process for all of us -- all MLAs, all British Columbians: to have a

part in developing that business plan. Our communities are going to really rejoice in the fact that if they have a concern with regard to how that investment will happen within the province, region and community itself, the concern will come directly to this Legislature.

I really look forward to seeing this act being brought in with regard for the community, for the industry and for the forest itself.

The Forest Renewal Act was developed through cooperation and partnership at a table where the dialogue was between people who worked directly in the industry. Because it was that type of forum, I expect the corporation that will be set up will reflect that partnership. That's also a very exciting thing to happen. You know, some opposition members have said that this is big government. Well, I disagree. This is good government. This is the way that we want to see our bills brought forward: with the cooperation of the community, the industry, workers, MLAs and the whole of the province in discussing and debating what's right for our industry in British Columbia.

I'm not going to take much more time today, because I did spend about 15 minutes or more yesterday with regard to this issue. But I have to say that the people in our communities are going to benefit. I expect conversation and dialogue from those communities. I expect they'll be looking for involvement and participation. I expect that we'll have a better forest industry in our communities, one that reflects the needs of the communities and of the forest.

[ Page 10330 ]

A. Warnke: I would like to make some comments on Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act, because I believe that a number of aspects to this bill need further examination. I think we all know that the forest industry is in a very, very difficult situation. As a result, there need to be some initiatives, some alternatives to ensure....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Oh my, the natives are restless today. My goodness! Amazing! It's really interesting that every time I get up, I no sooner.... I didn't even get into the controversial part. Here it's one minute, and already I've stimulated such a reaction. I would find it very interesting if just for a time certain members, instead of babbling away, would open up their ears a little and see that there are different ways to view the same legislation. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure that the member has spoken yet -- the one who is prattling on in the corner there somewhere.

At any rate, to try to get a point across to the member and other members as well, the forest industry is facing a very serious problem. As a matter of fact, I know of one headline of a column in the Vancouver Province recently that said: "Face It: Forest Industry's Day Is Over." You know what? If we fail to pay attention to where not only the forest industry is headed but the fishing industry, the mining industry and other primary and secondary industries, we're really headed for the very serious problem, by the end of this decade going into the twenty-first century, of how we develop the economy in this province.

Just because some legislation has been proposed here, we cannot assume that it is the great panacea that's going to solve all our problems. Certainly in this particular bill that's placed before us, the problems have not been thoroughly addressed. As a matter of fact, there are so many loopholes in this bill that it allows the government to go in different directions. The BC Forest Renewal Act creates a new Crown corporation that has so much flexibility, so much grey area in terms of planning for the future, that it reflects the problem of the way in which government is addressing the forest industry.

It is symptomatic of a government that's having some real difficulty coming to terms with many aspects of the primary sectors of our economy.

[Interruption.]

A. Warnke: This is the first time I've been heckled by the Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me. Can the member take his seat. We don't have a quorum here, and I'm going to ring the bells.

Hon. member, what's your point of order?

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, under standing order 6, I believe the Speaker took the initiative to call for a quorum, when in fact....

An Hon. Member: A member has.

A. Warnke: Which member asked for a quorum?

Deputy Speaker: I assumed that we were short of a quorum, and I called for a quorum. I appreciate your point of order. There will be a quorum here shortly.

What's your point of order, member?

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, under the same standing order 6, I'm wondering how long we intend to stay here until there is a quorum. Otherwise, I would move....

Deputy Speaker: I believe we have a quorum at this time. Carry on with your address.

A. Warnke: Well, if there is no more of a turnout than this, then under standing order 7(2), I recommend that we adjourn the House.

Deputy Speaker: I have announced that there is a quorum here. The member does not have the right to move adjournment of the House. If he doesn't want to lose his place in the speaking order, I suggest he rise and continue with his address at this time.

A. Warnke: I'm glad to see that the Speaker is so alert. You're one of the most alert Speakers I've ever run across.

I tried to point out that the economy of British Columbia faces several challenges in the primary sector. As a result, there are some warning signals that suggest the forest industry's day might be over; I quoted one headline. I hope that's not the case, but it is not impossible for that to happen. In another area of Canada, on the east coast, we've seen how a particular industry -- the fishing industry -- has not only faced a crisis but is at a very serious crunch point in time and history, all within a matter of a few years.

The same signals were sent out by those acquainted with the fishing industry on the east coast. They said that something had to be done, because it was a matter of a very short period of time, just a few years, before that industry would be jeopardized -- not jeopardized for a short term but for a century, perhaps. Who knows? Indeed, we have seen how the east coast fishing industry has now faced that problem. It's here and it's now. That is also a warning to everyone throughout the continent that we do face a very serious problem in our primary sectors.

It means that we have to be very sensitive and sensible about how we manage our primary resources.

[3:00]

We need better stewardship in the forest industry in this province. We need more intensive forestry, but we need a strategy that meets our future as well. We need to establish a firm basis not just for the rest of this decade but also for the twenty-first century. We have seen how the mining industry in this province has gone down; we have seen how the fisheries in this province have gone down. I'm afraid that unless we begin to approach forestry sensibly and manage those resources properly, we will be faced with a problem.

I say this because I think that for too long in this province -- and maybe this is where I would half agree with members on the government side -- we have essentially gone through the forest assuming that there were all kinds of trees out there. We cut them at will, and we assumed that we did not have to worry about replanting, reforestation or anything like that. Those kinds of practices have to go. I think it is interesting that the people of British Columbia respond to that. They know that that agenda is not on.

But that agenda was also driven by interests and ideology. What scares me is that this bill, too, is driven by interests and ideology. This bill assumes that all we have to do is increase the state's involvement in the forest industry and all our problems will be solved. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised...

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Especially by the NDP.

[ Page 10331 ]

...by a number of government members trotting out a statement by Peter Bentley, let's say. The irony of all this is that the small businesses and firms that need a chance in British Columbia industry to create jobs, and that might even have a better idea than large corporations of how our industry has to be stewarded, are being shot down by Bill 32. Increasing the stumpage rates -- the rate proposed in this particular bill is over $10 more per cubic metre -- places a tremendous burden on those businesses that are really trying to make an honest buck in our society.

It's rather ironic, but it also fits the ideology that there are the big businesses and then there is the state and the people who work for it, and this is the great contest of our time. Well, I have news for all members: that kind of thinking is gone; it's outmoded, and it belongs in the past...

An Hon. Member: With the dinosaurs.

A. Warnke: ...with the dinosaurs. We won't get into the specifics, but it clearly belongs in the past.

As a matter of fact, it's very interesting that the member for Mission-Kent was talking about people who work with their hands, bodies and minds. I would add that that member should also remember recent history: people also elect with their feet.

It is time that this government came to grips with the fact that what is needed -- in forestry, mining, agriculture, fisheries and tourism; in a whole variety of primary, secondary and tertiary industries -- as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands so aptly pointed out, is new thinking regarding how we approach our problems in the economy.

Bill 32 is still rooted in the past. We see some particular problems in the environment and feel that we need to create a Crown corporation. But look at what the bill retains: more bureaucracy.

Section 9 of this bill says that all people employed by this new Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C., will automatically be members of the public service union. That bothers me, because again that thinking is rooted in the past.

As a matter of fact, you don't have to go very far into this bill to have some objections to it. Right at the outset the explanatory note, which is one sentence, says: "This Bill sets out a government initiative for investment in the forest sector." Break it apart. First of all: "This Bill sets out a government initiative...." That really indicates to me that this is the first of many government initiatives. But "for investment"? How can anyone create a Crown corporation and talk about investment? A Crown corporation needs money, and it will be funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: From stumpage.

A. Warnke: Oh, that's very interesting.

An Hon. Member: Now you know.

A. Warnke: Now we know. The member opposite says "through stumpage." That's right -- knocking the consumer and small businesses. I just finished saying awhile ago that the increase in stumpage fees is going to have a negative impact on small businesses and firms that need a break in our economy. That part of the economy will drive the economy of British Columbia. The Minister of Forests ought to be the first one to get that through his thick head. Such a despicable reaction!

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Carry on.

A. Warnke: The hon. Minister of Forests doesn't even know the basic principles and facts of how the British Columbia economy works. Shame on that minister, and shame on that side!

Interjection.

A. Warnke: The minister laughs. When this bill has an impact on the middle sectors of the economy and when businesses go under, will that minister laugh? Oh no. That minister will say: "Gee whiz, I guess I goofed as the Minister of Forests; it's time to be something else." Maybe he wants to become Attorney General. Maybe he wants to become the Minister of Transportation and Highways and wreck that too. It's quite obvious that this minister just doesn't understand the British Columbia economy.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: My goodness! Obviously I've had some effect, because I've chased him away. But that's the way it is. When you point out the truth to the government side, what do we have? They don't want to face the truth. They do not want to face the impact of the policies and the bills that they have put forward. That was just a reference to an explanatory note -- one sentence -- and look at the reaction I got.

How do they invest in the forest sector? They raise the stumpage rates, as one member opposite said. In other words, they fleece the public and small industry. Fleecing the economy will not work. That's not how you create jobs and investment, that's not how you generate economic growth, and that's not how to build prosperity in our economy. It's about time that the members across began to really understand that.

It's shameful when they cannot appreciate even the basic principles of investment. Where does investment come from? I will tell you where investment comes from, hon. Speaker. It comes from savings. It comes from people who want to contribute to the economy, not from state farm.... I thought we'd done away with the kolkhozes and state farms and what not. As a matter of fact, it has proven itself in this century: those kinds of approaches do not work.

D. Streifel: We should just give the trees away?

A. Warnke: Well, there we go. There's the member for Mission-Kent over there -- the very same one who talks about working with the hands and the mind and the body. It's just too darned bad that he doesn't have a mind to start with.

It was interesting when I came to the debate yesterday. There was a member across the way -- I believe it was the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- talking about Bill 32 and about the supposedly rookie member for Matsqui giving a boring speech. Hon. Speaker, when I came in here and listened to that member talk about Bill 32, I thought he was so exciting that he was going to fall asleep during his own speech for sure. He made a reference to the Speaker nodding away. At any rate, it's amazing.

The fact is that while these members opposite want to play around with the economy, and while they are still committed to the idea that you build an economy through some state initiative, they miss the fundamental fact of how you build an economy. It's surprising, because socialists from

[ Page 10332 ]

other parts of the world have certainly come to terms with that. It is just pathetic how certain individuals who claim to be socialists still haven't learned the basic lesson of the twentieth century.

Some of these concepts of nationalizing the industry by building a state forest industry are going to wreck the economy of British Columbia. They are going to impose, through this kind of initiative, something that will undermine the northern economies. As a matter of fact, despite the fact that some members over there are from northern ridings, they never once explained how money is going to go into the northern economies. Despite the fact that in the public a number of people have raised the issue, they have not responded as to how the northern communities really benefit from this.

That makes me very suspicious. It makes me sad as well, because of the 55 million cubic metres harvested in British Columbia, 34 percent of it -- over a third -- comes from the northern part of this province, those northern ridings. Yet I didn't hear those ministers and members get up and explain exactly how those northern communities are going to benefit. Oh, they talk about a long-term commitment; one talked about something for five years. We've got to think beyond five years. That's short-term in my books, not long-term.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: I'll tell you what. I'll throw a challenge to the hon. members on that side. They claim that as a result of this bill establishing the Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C., they're going to create 6,000 jobs. Is that 6,000 meaningful or full-time jobs that really contribute to the economy?

[3:15]

Oh, suddenly they've become quiet. I'll tell you why: their future is on the line. If they really came to terms with that, they would say: "Either we see 6,000 jobs out of this bill" -- and that is 6,000 meaningful, full-time jobs -- "or, by cracky, we're going to resign." That's what those guys should do.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, I have no problem going to Boston Bar or Revelstoke....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, address the Chair, please. Don't get into cross-discussions with other members.

A. Warnke: That's very wise counsel indeed.

As a matter of fact, I have no problem taking some of these up in Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Cache Creek, Terrace, Smithers, Houston, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Dawson Creek or Fort St. John. I don't have any problem with talking about it in Powell River, Bella Bella, Port Hardy, Tahsis, Nanaimo or wherever. In Nanaimo -- well, that's interesting. Some of the comments from the member for Nanaimo and from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith are something else.

But the fact is that it's easy to say the way we buy into it is that we just convince the business community, environmentalist groups, loggers and truckers -- on and on it goes -- and that we just have to sell it to them, and they in turn sell it to us, to the public. The fact is that it's easy to come up with a figure of 6,000 -- which is suspicious right off the bat. It's easy to say: "Oh, we're going to generate 6,000 jobs." How do we know that? I tell you, there's absolutely nothing in this bill that says 6,000 jobs will be created as a result of this bill. It's all hope, it's all aspiration and it's all cosmetic.

I really think what needs to be done is for this government to go back and look at the forest industry very carefully; to start weeding out some of the premises it's held in the past; to do a full, good job; and to start taking note of what's happening in our forest inventory. I'll bet you that the Forests minister himself -- I can say this because I know it -- has not got a thorough clue of what the inventory is in the province. That I know, because even the Americans have a better idea of what's happening in the province than the Minister of Forests. Do you know that? That's absolutely pathetic.

We need a strategy whereby we renew our forests and enhance our land base, and we need to address environmental concerns. Those are some of the basic aspirations in Bill 32, but you have to do it in a context whereby you understand that we are in transition to a whole new economy in the twenty-first century. And some of the observers are quite wise in saying: "You've got to get off this lumber kick. Recognize that there is a new non-lumber economy and that we have to adapt." That, I'm afraid, is thoroughly missing from the presentations of the other side.

So what do we have? Instead of better forest stewardship, we've created another bureaucracy. We've created another Crown corporation -- another state industry. And we know what's going to happen in the bureaucracy. That minister may not realize it, but the bureaucracy will grow and more funds will be allocated to it. I won't be surprised when certain individuals benefit from the bureaucracy in the next two years.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: No? Well I hate to disappoint you, because there will be certain kinds of appointments. We will see certain kinds of individuals head those bureaucracies, and I'm afraid they're going to be kissing cousins of the federal NDP.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Oh, I wouldn't doubt it, because they've got to go someplace.

In this bill it is crystal-clear that the bureaucracy and the public service as a whole -- but especially the bureaucracy and the management within the bureaucracy -- have a loosely defined mandate. With a loosely defined mandate you get waste, patronage and hidden debts. That's basic. That's based on experience. That's what happens when you create a bureaucracy that has a loosely defined mandate, and that is certainly the case with this proposal. It is very ill conceived indeed.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I know that the Minister of Forests can do better. I know that this Minister of Forests brought in a premature bill. I would encourage that Minister of Forests to pull it back, improve upon it and tighten it up. We know that minister is capable of tightening up the problems. We have faith in that minister. We have to have faith; we have no other option for the next 18 months. We're stuck with him. I think it's time, before the session ends, to tighten up the loosely defined mandate of this bill, then bring it back. As it stands right now, we're headed towards a serious problem in this province.

[ Page 10333 ]

J. Tyabji: I'm delighted to be able to take my place so early in the day. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to speak now, and it works out very well.

I'm afraid that government members will not be happy with my comments on this bill, but I hope we can provoke enough debate so that when we get to committee stage we can introduce some constructive amendments to some of these sections. For the minister's sake, I hope that we have an extensive debate both in the principle section, as we are in now, and in committee stage.

When I first heard about the BC Forest Renewal Act, it sounded wonderful. I thought it was something that was long overdue. The title -- the Forest Renewal Act -- and the fact that there was silviculture and that there was going to be job creation and investment in the forest all sounded very good. When Peter Bentley, who is well respected in the forest industry, stood up in support of it, and we saw all the other people standing up in support of it, I certainly was prepared to take a very close look at it and hopefully come to a sense of accord with the government's direction.

I have to say that when I read this act -- when I sat down with it and looked at it, keeping in mind that I have a very different philosophical perspective than the government -- I was shocked at the contents and implications of this bill. I look forward to the minister's rebuttal of these comments.

What do we have here? Do we have a freeing up of the forest industry or a dismantling of the vertical integration so that small and medium-sized businesses can flourish? Do we have increased timber supply to the value-added manufacturers and small businesses in the interior so that they have an easier time meeting the market demands growing in their sector? The answer is no. We don't have more timber supply going to those businesses; we don't have this government going after vertical integration. Do we have the government developing an even playing field? We don't know.

The minister is nodding yes. I would put to this minister that if this bill had been tabled in this House by the former government when this government was in opposition, it would be in an absolute panic and rage. What this does, in effect, is take the most valuable public resource that we have -- our forests, which is the greatest asset we as British Columbians have -- and put it into a Crown corporation. One might ask how that is any different from it being under the jurisdiction of the current Minister of Environment. That would be a legitimate question. Right now the provincial government has full jurisdiction over those lands.

The point is that the mandates of the BC Forest Renewal Act, which are to renew the forest economy, enhance productive capacity and create jobs, etc., are usually reserved for the private sector. Those mandates are generally reserved for the businesses of B.C. -- businesses that would be able to flourish with those objectives if they had the burden of taxation and some of the unfair competition that we have from the majors.... When I say unfair competition, it's in terms of timber supply and access to timber, and some of the problems that exist with tenure as it is provided today.

If that had happened, if the mandate of the act was something that the private sector was free to pursue, rather than having all the regulations and obstacles that they have, one could really support the government's initiative. But what the government is doing is taking the most valuable public resource we have, putting it into a Crown corporation and putting itself in direct competition with the private sector. That doesn't make any sense to me.

One might say: all right -- maybe they're putting together a Crown corporation, and there's going to be a broad cross-section of people at the table to decide what to do with the public resource; perhaps we're taking this valuable resource and putting it somewhere where it can create jobs and enhance productivity, but we're letting everybody have a say in the direction of the Crown corporation. Once you pass the mandate and find out who appoints the board.... The government appoints the board. This government, which does not exactly have a good track record in terms of the objective appointment of people in positions of government....

Hon. A. Petter: Shame!

J. Tyabji: I challenge the minister to release the list of non-patronage appointments that they've had with some of these positions.

This government is going to be appointing to the board of this Forest Renewal B.C. the people who will be deciding what the Crown corporation does with the greatest public resource we have. We have a board appointed by the government. But made up of whom? One might say: all right, maybe we're willing to trust the government to appoint these people. But who is going to be appointed? Will it be teachers? Will it be members of the public? Will it be consumers? Will it be people from the private sector or small business?

What we have is a board made up of industry and union representatives, with a chair from the committee. We have representation on that board that doesn't in any way resemble the cross-section of society that should have some say in the direction of what we do with our public resources.

So we're taking our public resources and putting them under a Crown corporation that is less accountable to the public than the current Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. We're taking all our lands and putting them where we have less ability to understand what's going on. We're giving them over to a Crown corporation with a board appointed by the government, and this board is like the fox watching the chicken coop. We've got industry and union people, who have a direct vested interest.

Hon. A. Petter: Environmentalists, first nations....

J. Tyabji: And the minister.... I will get to that a little bit later.

An Hon. Member: Communities, governments....

J. Tyabji: I see the government back-pedalling furiously on some of these statements, and I look forward to the minister's rebuttal.

We have representatives who have a direct vested interest in the outcome -- people who will not, in any way, shape or form, be neutral in terms of decision-making on the public's greatest resource. The minister has called out "environmentalists, first nations," and I think what we found in the CORE process....

Let's look at the CORE process as an initiative of this government. They came forward and said: "Here we have a very good idea. This is what we're going to do." I would actually refer the minister to my speech and to the speeches of some of the other members of this House either against or cautioning the Attorney General about CORE, saying that the mandate of CORE did not have enough teeth in it. Yet it had so many people at the table with a vested interest in the outcome deciding what was going to be done with the land base. The inevitable problem was that recommendations coming out would not be acceptable to the general public.

[ Page 10334 ]

Sure enough, what have we found with CORE? With all the people at the table, a consensus-building agreement and all the various niceties that the government put in place for CORE, we had the largest demonstration in the history of this government on the front lawns of the Legislature, spurred on by the report from CORE.

In Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act, what do we find in terms of forest renewal in B.C.? Who will they be able to make agreements with? It says: "enter into contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local governments, groups and other organizations...." This is where the government would say: "You see, we've clearly covered anyone who has an interest in getting into a contract."

Then it talks about "grant, loan or guarantee." But who is going to make the decisions? The people making the decisions about whom they enter into contracts with will be the board appointed by the government. So how is that accountable? How is that a case where we could say: "All right, that's hands-off by the government." On the contrary, the Minister of Forests is going to be able to influence what we do with the largest public resource we have.

[3:30]

I find it interesting that when we talk about the committees the board may establish, there's no limit to the number of people on these committees. Of course, it's going to be representative of all the different groups that the government feels should be at the table, so they'll probably be fairly large committees. They must establish five committees, and those five have a mandate: for example, "increasing investment in the forest resources and in the forest land base." It doesn't say whether that's private or public investment -- just investment, a nebulous term.

We could have B.C. 21 investing in another Crown corporation, we could have this Crown corporation investing its own resources to fulfil its own mandate, or we could have private investment. What I don't understand is why a Crown corporation is necessary to increase investment in our forest sector. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, the minister says he'll explain it, so I'll leave that for now. Maybe we'll go after it in committee stage, depending on the minister's comments to close the debate.

With regard to the second committee "promoting activities that assist...forest industry diversification," I would assume that includes silviculture. "Forest industry diversification" is a bit nebulous, but I'm guessing that some of this also falls within the mandate of B.C. 21, the Crown corporation formed last year. We also see that we've got "increased manufacturing" and "further processing of wood supply." These are the things we'll have to talk about in committee stage.

But in the initial stages of looking at it -- and I'm sure the minister will explain this -- why do we need this through this Crown corporation? Do we not have adequate representation in the private sector that could do this equally well -- whether it be deregulation, lightening the tax burden or a change in the tenure system -- and therefore allow the private sector to fulfil these objectives without the Crown corporation, especially if we go after vertical integration?

Then we've got "investing in the environmental values of the forest." I don't understand what that means, and I don't understand why that needs to be in this Crown corporation when we have that as part of the mandate of both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests -- not the investment, but certainly the protection of the environmental values of the forest. If that's part of their mandate, why could the government not ensure that that is done by regulating and monitoring the private sector that is already in this field?

If we're talking about silviculture, we know that we've already got some provisions for silviculture in B.C. 21, and we know that the private sector will be adequate in meeting our demand and meeting the government's requirements for silviculture.

Then we've got "fostering forest employment opportunities and job training and other related initiatives to assist forest workers and to expand the forest work force." This is almost identical to what we saw in B.C. 21. A lot of jobs are coming out of the Crown corporations of this government, and the money for them has to come from somewhere. When you create a Crown corporation to help bring those jobs about, you have to finance the administration of the creation of those jobs. Those jobs could be created in the private sector if the money were available. Where's that money coming from?

Then we've got "supporting community development and adjustment." That sounds like the job of Doug Kerley, the job protection commissioner. If not, I'd be curious to hear from the minister where there's a big difference. If there's going to be some overlap, how is that going to occur? How is this Crown corporation going to tie into the work already being done by the job protection commissioner?

Then it says: "In the course of carrying out its duties, each committee must take into account the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy." That's already going on right now in terms of joint venture arrangements between aboriginal peoples and the forest industry, whether it be through the ministries of Aboriginal Affairs, Forests or Environment. Those projects are happening now, and they have been for some time, so I'm not sure why this has to be done through a Crown corporation.

I don't take issue with all of these things. The objectives are good; they're commendable. It's a commendable objective to see jobs protected. We have to recognize the changing paradigm of the forest sector. We have to recognize sustainable forestry and sustainable forestry practices -- absolutely. There's no question that we've made some terrible mistakes in the past in B.C. It's nice to see that the forest industry is willing to cooperate with government. My question is why? What is the bottom line? We know the forest industry is a profit-generating industry.

Given that this is a Crown corporation, given that the government has complete control, given that cabinet will be appointing a board taking accountability out of the hands of the public and of the Ministry of Crown Lands and putting it into a new institution where there's very little accountability, why is the forest industry behind this? These things will be canvassed more in committee stage.

I find it interesting that the board could manage or supervise the affairs of Forest Renewal B.C., or it may be a CEO. That's "may." An executive director, a CEO, may or may not be appointed. When implemented, these kinds of things will be very interesting to watch. Who decides that? Who drives it? Whose agenda is this, and to what extent will this be influenced by cabinet direction? So far we have seen that the Crown corporations of this government very much follow the agenda of the government. We can understand that those Crown corporations are able to follow that agenda.

The question that comes up is: five years from now which agenda will these Crown corporations be following in the event that this government is not sitting as government?

[ Page 10335 ]

Who is going to decide? Would this government feel comfortable with a Social Credit, Reform, Liberal or Alliance government -- or whichever government comes in next -- appointing a board having no accountability and basically having full control of the forest industry and forest resources? I don't think so.

F. Garden: It's accountable to the House.

J. Tyabji: The member for Cariboo North, which covers Quesnel, Williams Lake, Horsefly and all those wonderful communities -- communities that we hear too little about in this House, I might add -- is saying that it is accountable to the House. Actually, we find in this act that it's not really fully accountable to the House, because even though an annual audit will be put to the Minister of Forests, what will be presented to the House under

section 10(10) is a report and financial statement, referred to in subsection (7), that gives a general accounting but is not a proper audit.

Hon. A. Petter: And a business plan.

J. Tyabji: And a business plan, the minister is saying. It's true that there is a business plan: the business plan as directed by the government, but how on earth...?

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: All right. I'll wait for committee stage on that. The minister is saying that there will be the select standing committee of the House, which there has been a lot of debate on in terms of representation. "The business plan...must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Forests, as soon as practicable," -- which is not really defined, but we'll leave it for now -- "and then stands referred to a Select Standing Committee with responsibility for forests." But it will not be coming for debate before the House.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying that it will come back for debate. I'm putting that on the record for the Minister of Forests. I will say to the minister that under

section 10(6), I actually made a note that says: "Very good." It's good that there is some accountability to an animal of the House, anyway, and I look forward...

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: And in this House there are many animals.

...to a debate in this House on the business plan, after going through the select standing committee, as committed to by the minister.

I believe that this undertaking is a mistake. I believe that what we are seeing from this government -- and I'm taking issue with their philosophical direction here -- is a movement away from accountability in the Legislature and toward government by Crown corporation. We see that happening now. We have some initiatives with regard to the Transportation Financing Authority, and we see the Minister of Transportation and Highways overseeing them in conjunction with the Minister of Employment and Investment. We see B.C. 21.

We see the existing Crown corporations for ferries and hydro, ICBC, etc., and you could go on and on. We have all of these Crown corporations taking on roles where they have very little accountability to this House. Where I have a problem is that I believe we should be moving toward greater accountability.

When people say: "This is what I'd like to see...." If this government believes, for example, that the people of this province want to see adequate silviculture, the regulation of harvesting on steep slopes so that we don't have massive clearcuts, monitoring of erosion and siltation in the stream beds during runoff, perfect. That's great. Many of us have been calling for those things for a long time.

But they should be done through an accountable minister of this House, so that we don't have the kinds of questions that have been coming forward in question period, where the names of people who are running Crown corporations are brought up in this House and the ministers -- they are at arm's length, at best, from the operation of the Crown corporations -- are trying to be held accountable. That's unfortunate. It's regrettable in many aspects.

In many cases it's a personal issue with the individual running the Crown corporation -- who doesn't even have a voice in this House -- and we can't have proper debate on running the people's business. Whether it be utilities, insurance or whatever, it has become less a function of the members of the House, and therefore there is less accountability.

In addition to that, this Crown corporation will be very expensive. It has to be: by nature it will be. The minister shakes his head -- vigorously; I'll put it on the record. I have yet to see a Crown corporation that doesn't have to develop its own infrastructure. Unless there will be some kind of parallel dismantling of the Ministry of Forests....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: And the minister says no. So there we go. We're starting with a brand-new structure of government, a brand-new Crown corporation. Obviously there will be costs associated with this. Nothing will be done by this Crown corporation that could not be done through the accountable ministries of cabinet.

I believe this is a big mistake. When you have resources of this magnitude, you must have some kind of public debate before you make a decision like this. What's inevitably going to happen is that people are going to realize the magnitude of the decision being made here and wonder why there was no indication ahead of time. Very few people understand the forest industry enough, and very few people have read this bill adequately, because it has only just come out. They see the newspaper clippings, and they hear people who are tied to the industry or tied to unions and government saying that this is a very good idea.

I'm not taking issue with the intent of the bill or with the mandate of the Crown corporation, except that I don't believe that mandate belongs in a Crown corporation. We don't need a Crown corporation for this. It's going to end up being a big mistake, because people will want more accountability. When they come to the minister for accountability, the minister will then say: "Go see Forest Renewal B.C.; go see someone else." It will be another way to pass the buck.

Since the last election and for years prior to that, the leader of the Alliance has been putting out a model for downsizing government, in which there is an integration of ministries and a movement away from Crown corporations. The ministries that would be integrated would be the ones that deal directly with land use in this province: Environment; Forests; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Transportation and Highways; and Agriculture. If you bring those ministries together, there would be no

[ Page 10336 ]

passing of the buck. As I've said, the mandate of this Crown corporation is identical to what we find in Environment and in Forests and, to a large extent, in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Why would we not go to a more effective and efficient model, with more accountability and less government infrastructure and administration? If we want to bring everyone to the table, we can do that. Any minister can set up a committee at any time. They can set up a steering committee; they can set up a committee with or without MLAs. They can hire people to do whatever they like within their ministry.

In this session of this House we're going to have the Environmental Assessment Act and more acts under the Ministry of Forests coming back to us, and we'll have a new water act coming to us. Each of those acts is from a different ministry, and all of them have some relevance to this Crown corporation. How on earth is anybody going to understand what the rules are and where the goalposts are? Who should they ask for direction? That in itself is a problem today. People are so confused. Who's the first person they can talk to? A lawyer. How much does that cost?

It will cost $500 just for them to give you an opinion about who you should see. Or maybe you can talk to the MLAs. But with the legislation that comes before this House, they will be scrambling to keep up with exactly who they'd direct you to. After this session, it's going to be increasingly difficult.

We know that the accompanying legislation to this new forestry act is going to very much parallel the Environmental Assessment Act. Yet, as I understand it, legislation is going to be coming out under the Mines ministry that will also parallel these other acts. It's confusing, unnecessary and inefficient; and unfortunately it's not very accountable, and it will be more expensive. I don't know how the minister will reconcile that by saying it won't be.

[3:45]

One other note of alarm that I'd like to address in these remarks is that in the last part of the bill they talk about revenue. The minister has assured us that the business plan will come before the House for debate after it goes to the select standing committee. After that business plan has been approved by the House -- recognizing that the government has a majority of members, so we'll have a debate, but it will no doubt be passed -- revenue generated through the Crown corporation will be directed to the business plan, as required by the business plan. But where does the surplus revenue go? General revenue.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister says no. I'll have to look at the consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: All right, I will defer to the minister on this, and I'll ask him further in committee stage. As I understood it, it was going to general revenue.

Hon. A. Petter: No.

J. Tyabji: Okay. It's going back into the Crown corporation. So we'll be able to ask questions at committee stage about what happens when it goes back into the Crown corporation.

When we have a bill like this, where we have no definition of what revenues will be coming from the private sector and to what extent this Crown corporation will be in direct competition with the private sector, I am very curious to see to what extent the private sector starts to scream once some of the implications of direct competition start to hit. Some of that has been happening already. We'll have to wait and see just how cozy the government is with some of the majors six months from now.

I will close my remarks in second reading by saying that I'm in very strong opposition to the particulars of this bill but not to the intent of it. I can't say it more strongly. I'm in a good mood, so I'm not even angry about it. I've given up on anger, because it just passes anyway, so let's do this as civilly as possible. I'm in very strong opposition. It is a huge mistake; it is the wrong direction. I look forward to the evolution of this. If they can successfully pull this off, I will be the first person to tell this government that I was wrong, but I don't think I will be doing that. I very much look forward to committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for her comments and would remind her that just as anger passes, so too does legislation. Having said that, I recognize the member for Cariboo North.

F. Garden: It's always a pleasure to follow such an eloquent speaker as has just been on her feet. I was listening carefully to what she had to say.

We've heard lots of opposition to this bill over the last two or three days. The arguments that have been raised by the opposition have ranged from, "It's only a few big business people that are getting looked after in this thing," to: "It's only a few trade unionists that you're looking after." It goes the whole gamut. Fortunately, all these comments about anti-unionism and cuddling up to big business are on the record. All the members in the opposition will be faced with this record when they come around to having to eat their words after they see how good this bill is.

I for one have every intention of going to the players I've talked to in the last little while -- which includes big business, small business, environmentalists, union members, city councils and chambers of commerce -- and I'll be saying to them that this is what the opposition is saying about the bill that they're so happy about. We'll keep that in mind, and we'll use it at the proper time.

There are very few times in a person's lifetime when they get the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time. You get lucky sometimes, if you deal with lotteries and games of chance, and can be in the right spot at the right time, but it's very seldom that an individual gets to be where history is being made. As the MLA for Cariboo North, I feel, with the introduction of this legislation, that I personally am present at a time when history is being made.

This legislation will go down in history with things like the Canada Pension Plan and the ALR, which we brought in when we were previously in government -- things like the great legislation that has gone through both the federal Parliament and this parliament.

This goes beyond partisan politics. I would urge the members on the other side to join us in constructively seeing that this legislation gets passed swiftly with their total support. Let's get on with the job. I'm a little concerned about that, because based on the speeches that I've heard from the opposition, especially the Liberal opposition, they're all going to vote against it. Just about everything about this bill has been trashed, so I for one will be very surprised if any Liberal opposition member stands up and votes for this bill. But then again, we've seen that...

[ Page 10337 ]

An Hon. Member: They're Liberals.

F. Garden: Yes, they're Liberals.

...when they've talked against a bill they've trashed every aspect of it, and when it came to a vote they didn't have the courage of their convictions; they would vote in favour of it. There's no doubt in my mind, regardless of all the rhetoric we've heard in opposition to that bill from the Liberal opposition, that as a group, as a whole, they'll stand up and support it. To me that's just a wee bit hypocritical, but I expect it.

This bill was necessary and has been sought for many years. There are many of us who've worked in the forestry industry all our lives who have seen a real need for it. For over 30 years, governments haven't paid attention to the kind of legislation that we are bringing forward. They've allowed certain things to happen. They've set the rules, so the companies and workers work to the rules set by previous governments. I don't blame the companies or the industry for what has happened. I blame the previous governments for allowing it to happen.

Why would industry, labour and environmentalists come together in this kind of situation? As far as business people are concerned, for far too long they've seen the stumpage that has been taken out of the woods going into general revenue. And it disappears into whatever a government chooses to use it for. The previous government used it for costly overruns on the Coquihalla and for $200 million in bad debts that we had to write off. Any businessman worth his salt, seeing that kind of thing happening with stumpage money, is bound to be frustrated on the basis that not enough was getting put back into the industry.

So I can understand why they were pleased when this government asked them to sit down with them and said: "The stumpage that we take from your industry will go into a special fund and will be turned back into the land for forest renewal." Historic stuff! And I was here when that happened.

For years the environmentalists have been screaming for this type of legislation. They've seen the damage to the streams, watersheds and wildlife habitat. They've been crying out for legislation that would allow us to do something to repair some of the damage done in the past. Certainly governments have come up with improvements, and some of the industries have smartened up, and the work from a certain period has been better than it was. But there's a lot of damage out there that wasn't anybody's responsibility anymore. It was done in the past, so it was left. It is there. That needs to be cleaned up.

We've said with this bill that we will put some of this money into cleaning up past damage, renewing some of these streams and replanting some of these roads that are eroding. That's why the environmentalists are in favour of this bill.

Then we come to the union members. For years they've been voices crying in the wilderness -- especially forest industry union workers. I can recall going to B.C. Federation of Labour conventions 25 years ago as a pulp worker and hearing IWA members saying: "We've got to pass resolutions to say to government that they've got to stop taking all the money out of the forest and start putting it back in." It was frustrating.... Before the word "environmentalist" was really kosher, they were on their feet in these conventions pleading for money and help to clean up some of the damage that was being caused in the woods.

Here they are now, getting legislation that sees some of their dreams fulfilled.

What about the ordinary citizens, businessmen and resource communities who for years have watched the resources coming out of places like Wells, Likely, Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House? It was going right past their door. At one time they could get jobs in that industry, but because technological change came along and it got so highly automated, a lot of the little jobs that they were able to get they couldn't get anymore. All that wealth was going past their door, and the stumpage was going into the general coffers and disappearing.

For years the cry from small forest communities all over this province has been: "It's about time you put some money back into the regions." This bill does that. It will put people to work in these communities. I've heard it said by the opposition that this is going to kill these poor silviculturists who are out there planting trees, that they won't get any more jobs in the summer. This money is in addition to that. These people will still be employed, based on the present silviculture plans, to be out there planting trees. We have no intention of taking loggers and making them tree-planters.

But what we will do is use these people in the small communities to hone their skills, so it won't just be cutting trees. They'll be used to thin and prune trees, and prepare land for the planting of the trees. If you're operating a feller-buncher, it makes no difference if you jump off a feller-buncher onto another type of machine that will prepare the land for planting. Then these people will come along in the summer and plant the trees. We'll have a highly skilled workforce in a growing, sustainable industry. This is why this is such a blessing to these small communities.

I've heard it said that it's just big business that's in favour of this plan, and a few union members. I'd like to quote the mayor of Quesnel: "This is a very giant step forward. When we made our Farming the Forest proposal, we only asked for $15 million for four years. This plan has about three times that amount." This man, by any stretch of the imagination, couldn't be considered a New Democrat supporter; he just isn't. He's a very good friend, and I respect him a lot. Here's an individual, a mayor of a small community, who has recognized what we're trying to do here.

I've heard it said that we're going to create job losses because of the introduction of this legislation. It just boggles my mind to think that any government spending $400 million on anything could create fewer jobs. If you're going to spend $400 million, it has an immediate effect of creating jobs in communities. I'm looking forward to the Cariboo share of this new money for skills training and the long-term commitment to the renewing of our forests in the Cariboo area.

I was talking to some council members from Williams Lake on this very basis. They were concerned, just as I've heard from the previous speaker, about some of the semantics of the program, but that will develop as we get into the next reading. They were kind of questioning, but I put it bluntly to them. Assuming a figure of $60 million will be spent in the Cariboo on this kind of intensive silviculture and training for workers, it has to provide jobs. If any business came into our community and said, "We're going to spend $40 million," they would be creating work, and we'd be welcoming them with open arms.

So when this government says it's going to put this kind of money into communities, it has to have an effect. It will create jobs. But not only will it create the jobs, it's starting something that we should have done 30 years ago. But it's better late than never. From now on, we can say to young people: yes, there's a future for you in working in the forests of this province.

[4:00]

I've heard it said that we should not have a Crown corporation handling this situation but should leave it to the ministry. I talked to one forestry technician in Quesnel about this new bill. He tells me that at the moment, they are

[ Page 10338 ]

stretched to the very limit of their resources just doing the work that we give them through the ministry. They've heard about programs before, and they're a little cynical about being asked to do some more work with limited resources. He got so excited when I told him that some of the ideas he had as a young forestry technician could now come to fruition because we were setting up this separate fund totally dedicated to the renewal of our forests. At least half the money in the fund will be spent on silviculture and going out there and looking at problem forest types. You have to come up to the Cariboo to see what we're talking about.

About five years ago the council in Quesnel suggested a Farming the Forest proposal, and it was a good one. The mayor said it was only going to cost around $15 million. It was along the same lines as what this legislation is proposing. It was to go into the problem forest areas, thin them all out, create work by doing this, and allow some of the trees to grow -- and if they weren't the right species, then replant them. But it was turned down. The reason it was turned down was that there was not enough funding for it. Why was there no funding for it?

It was because the previous government was taking all the stumpage and trying to pay for the cost overrun of the Coquihalla. So that good proposal was turned down. These weren't radical left-wingers wanting to snap up government money. As far as I can recall, there was a lawyer, a forest manager, a school principal, a farmer, a housewife and a small businessman on the council. Five years ago they had the vision that we needed to get started doing this before it was too late.

This legislation allows that type of thing to take place. Like I asked earlier in the debate, where were you when the legislation was passed? I'm glad I'm here, because if I do nothing else as a politician in the next four years -- if the electorate in their wisdom choose not to send me back here -- I will be proud to be able to state that I was part of a government that turned the clock on the forest industry from the downward, backward direction in which it was heading into a forward-looking thing.

If we had done nothing, 10,000 jobs would have been lost in the next 15 to 20 years, based on the way we're cutting and treating our forests. But because of this foresight, that will be reversed and we can look forward to an increase in jobs in all these communities.

As I said when I went back to Quesnel with the first news about this, as far as I'm concerned -- and I'd like to state this unequivocally -- I believe that this far-reaching legislation is the salvation of the forest-based communities that I've been talking about, whether it be Powell River, Campbell River, Williams Lake or Nelson. This is their salvation. Where once they saw people and kids leaving their communities because there was no work, they can now say: "Hey, stick around, kids. We're going to need you here. There's going to be a future for you protecting our forests.

There's going to be a future for you working in the value-added parts of this industry, and there's going to be a future for you with the spinoffs from the wealth that will be generated in these communities."

Once again I have no hesitation in supporting this bill. I really hope that the opposition, contrary to their badmouthing all through this debate, will change their mind and vote with the government on this bill.

E. Conroy: I'm glad I was here on time in order to take this prestigious position in favour of our new forestry bill.

For too many years governments have taken the forests in this province for granted. Too much has been cut; too little has been put back. We now face the prospect of a future with fewer trees and fewer jobs. To reclaim the promise of the forests' wealth we must change the way we manage our forests. We must renew our forests, create jobs and replant the trees we're harvesting. By achieving these goals, we can ensure a sustainable future for B.C.'s forests, workers and communities.

I recall that about 30 years ago, a very prestigious member of the forest community on the company side came and lived in my constituency for a few years. At the time I was quite an idealistic young man. I can remember engaging him in quite heated conversation -- I had the opportunity to do this because his son and I were friends -- about the state of the forest industry. It was my concern at that time that we were cutting more trees than we were replanting, and I pushed that argument quite forcefully.

He was a few inches taller than I was, and looked down at me and said: "Young man, have you ever been around this province? Don't you realize that everything you're saying is absolutely wrong?" Everything I said was absolutely right. It was an argument made with emotion but based on common sense.

Another thing happened to me recently. I got a call from one of my local logging contractors, again a person who has been in the business for 30 years or more. Initially he called me because he was concerned about the reduction in the allowable annual cut and what that may mean to his work. I had the good fortune of saying that I'd get back to him within a few days, and within the few days the forest renewal plan was released. He said to me: "You know, 30 years I've been in this business. For 30 years I've seen what's gone on in the forests of this province. I'm very proud and appreciative of what your government has done. Now I can make a good living with a clear conscience,

whereas before, to be competitive in the industry I love, I simply had to do things that were so against my better judgment that they were very difficult for me to do."

I think we've opened the doors to a number of people who can now approach this industry. The registered professional foresters, the people we turn out of university, are going to be turned loose on the forest industry. They are not to be the slaves of the Ministry of Forests or of the forest giants, but are going to be able to go into the forest and do the things they were actually trained to do. What a relief that must be for some of these people. They no longer have to sign off on permits they don't agree with.

They no longer have to go and look at sites that virtually make them sick, when they see what the companies they have to work for have done -- knowing full well that if they raise their voice, their job is gone.

The member for Richmond-Steveston spoke about our Minister of Forests, saying that he understood absolutely nothing about economics. While listening to his speech, it became increasingly clear to me, as someone who's spent 20 years in the forest industry, that our Minister of Forests has forgotten more about forestry and economics in the last five minutes than that hon. member will ever know. I don't understand how he can make that statement.

As a matter of fact, it kind of reminded me of the approach that was taken in question period with regard to conflict. It should be in conflict of B.C. interests to have a political scientist trying to impersonate an economist. It should be a conflict to have a city slicker, whose main exposure to trees has been a walk in Stanley Park, trying to pass himself off as someone who understands the wants and needs of the forest industry in this province. It's just more and more Liberal rhetoric. There ought to be a law. Who on the opposition benches from the lower mainland, where the opposition party has its stronghold, has ever been in the bush and seen a logging show? Who has ever been in a

[ Page 10339 ]

sawmill? And if they have, has it just been one of those promotional tours where they don't understand what's going on? Have they ever been in a pulp mill? Have they ever been in a community that lost the industry that had sustained it for decades and seen the pain and anguish that those people have gone through? There ought to be a law against people making those kinds of statements.

We have goals that we want to work toward. We want to renew the land, and we want to keep the forests healthy. Can the opposition members understand that? We want to invest in forest land, which generates most of the wealth in B.C. -- our number one export and the main driver of our economy. Can they argue against that? We want to ensure sustainable use and employment in our forests. Can they argue against that? We want to ensure the long-term stability of forestry communities. Can they argue against that? I could go on, but I don't quite understand what they're arguing against.

The hon. member for Okanagan East stated that if the previous government had put this bill forward, the present government would be outraged. I'm here to tell you that the previous government never, ever would have put this bill forward. I'm here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Liberal Party were government, they would never put this bill forward. Why wouldn't they put it forward? Firstly, they have no initiative; secondly, they don't have any political will, since they've already been bought and paid for; and thirdly, they have absolutely no insight into creating a future for the forests of this province.

So to say that we would react that way to a bill like this from the previous government has no foundation in truth, because the previous government -- and the present opposition -- simply never would have put anything like this into place at all. It would have been rape and pillage as usual, until everything was gone.

We hear talk about the forest industry in Sweden and about what a glowing light it is in the world economy and in the world of forestry. One of the things that a lot of people here in British Columbia don't realize is that the Swedish forest industry bottomed out. They have no old-growth forests. They have no salmon streams; they dammed all the rivers. They have no wolves or any other real wildlife in Sweden. I'd like to remind the hon. opposition members that the number one product in the Swedish forest industry now is B.C. jack pine.

They only have to manage their forests for spruce and moose, because for all intents and purposes, all the biodiversity and ecosensitivity and stuff has been taken away. We have protected that here, and we're going to continue to protect that. I'm very proud that the BC Forest Renewal Act is going to help us do that.

The forest renewal plan is creating an industry, government, union, worker and first nations partnership. Even if there are failings in the forest renewal plan, the fact that we have gotten to the point where we have this kind of partnership in place is, I believe, truly a dynamic point in history. This is the launching pad for many of the things that will affect the future of this province. How are we going to deal with getting the forest back? We're going to have some advanced approaches to reforestation and tending our forests.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston and I had the opportunity to travel around with our local Forest Service one day and look at some regeneration sites in probably one of the most highly productive timber areas in the province: the interior wetbelt that we represent. We have seen the results of poor practice in the past, and it's going to be very costly to repatriate some of these forest lands that have not been sufficiently restocked.

[4:15]

One of the approaches of the past, for example, was to leave some of our best growing sites to regenerate naturally, but one of the things we didn't take into consideration was that although these were some of the best natural regeneration sites that we have for growing trees, they also grow bushes and weed species very well, which choke out the trees and do not allow for regeneration. So we have lots and lots of land that has to be dealt with, and it will be dealt with under the terms of the new forest renewal plan; it can be brought back into production. Indeed, many of these lands are our best forest lands in this province.

I know it has been said before, but we are going to finance this through changes to stumpage and royalties. This is money that should be flowing back into the forest ecosystems of British Columbia. I'm proud to say that spending $400 million a year is really going to enhance the communities that I represent. We have a lot of work that needs to be done, given the nature of our terrain, the amount of rainfall we get and our soil types. This is very welcome money, and it's going to pay major dividends to the people of this province in years to come.

I'd like to give a bit of an overview as to how this whole thing is going to work and where the forest renewal plan fits in. We have the timber supply review, which will gather information on our timber resources and recommend harvest levels in order to achieve sustainability. That in itself is a marvellous step. This is the first time in the history of the province that that has been undertaken. With the forest renewal plan, which is going to be the glue that holds all this together, we'll reinvest in the forests, increase the value of the forests and strengthen the forest sector not only for today but also for tomorrow.

The next thing we're going to do is come forward with the new Forest Practices Code, which will make better forest practices and laws with tough penalties to enforce them. Again, new legislation has been needed in this province for decades. Virtually everybody I know who has been a responsible advocate for this industry has talked about a new forest practices code, so we can get to the point where we finally have due respect for the forests, and we can get on with the proper management of the forests and can ensure sustainability.

The Commission on Resources and Environment is going to lay out for the people of this province where the working forest is. That's important for industry investment; they will know where the parameters of the working forest actually lie. When they go to make investments, they will know full well exactly what's within and what's outside of the forests in British Columbia.

The forest renewal plan will build partnerships with British Columbians to benefit from the potential of land identification and commercial forestry. Our protected areas strategy will ensure that the rich diversity of our province is protected by doubling parks and protected wilderness areas to 12 percent of the provincial land base. That is something that should have been done years ago. We are going to live up to that election promise. We're doing it.

The B.C. Treaty Commission, interim measures and first nations policy forums. We can't move forward with a sustainable forest industry in this province unless the first nations people are involved. They want to be part of the industry. They want their claims settled. We're moving forward. I sat in the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and listened to how we're moving forward in dealing with aboriginal land claims and aboriginal concerns. I would suggest that we've moved more in the last two and a half

[ Page 10340 ]

years than previous governments have moved in the last 20. So I'm very proud of that.

With regard to our forests, for the first time in the history of British Columbia we've got a government that has the fortitude to think beyond its own mandate to the future of my children and my grandchildren. This is a bold step. I talked once before about initiative, political will and insight, and that's what we have here. This is a long-term goal that's going to benefit all the people of British Columbia. And when we're long gone and in our graves, hon. Speaker, people are going to be saying: "What a brilliant piece of legislation that was. That was the saving grace of British Columbia."

Because of the way the forest renewal plan is to be funded, we can prepare for both today and tomorrow. Funds can be set aside from better years, as we know, and used in leaner times so that the ongoing investment in the public forests can be maintained evenly over the years. Because this is a long-term plan, the amount of funding spent on different areas will change over time, which is important, because the needs are going to change over time. For example, some forest communities will need to deal with change now, so more money will go into those communities.

As well, environmental rehabilitation can start immediately. Long-term training for the next generation of forest workers will expand as technology moves in, thereby displacing more of the workers in the industry.

I'm proud of this legislation. When the announcement was made, I told one of my colleagues that one of the reasons I ran for office was to get this kind of legislation. I think British Columbians are going to proclaim a national holiday -- a provincial holiday, rather...

Interjections.

E. Conroy: We might as well go for the works, yes.

...when this act is proclaimed law. We are truly at the crossroads in British Columbia. As a New Democrat government, we have dealt with the situation, and we've chosen the right path. I know that when the official opposition gets to a V in the road, they take it. So we're taking the right path.

It has been a pleasure to stand here and speak to this bill today.

R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to introduce Ms. Ann Muehlebach, an instructor from Chilliwack Multicultural Services. She has 45 visitors with her today, Canadian newcomers. I wish the House would make them most welcome.

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: I notice two constituents of mine sitting up in the galleries, one of whom is Wendy Eeckhout, who is my constituency assistant. The other person is Susan Holmberg, who formerly owned the Merritt News in the community of Merritt. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a great pleasure to rise in the assembly today to talk about Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act, and what it means to the people of this province and of my community, Prince George. Perhaps here in Victoria we recognize intellectually the importance of the forest industry to our province, but maybe we don't feel it enough.

Maybe we don't recognize that over 94,000 British Columbians are directly employed in harvesting the wood from our forests; replanting the trees for the next round of harvesting; processing wood through the mills; and marketing it in the United States, Europe and Asia, bringing and creating wealth for the people of British Columbia, for the forest firms they work for and for the programs we enact as the government of British Columbia. There are 94,000 direct jobs and over 140,000 indirect jobs. That's a very central and important part of our province's economy.

Someone said that the forest industry has been the heart of British Columbia; it's surely the heart of my community. In Prince George close to 60 percent of all paycheques come from the forest industry. Now, like many other interior cities, we're diversifying. We're building a new university for British Columbia; we're becoming not just a forestry centre but a knowledge centre for the interior of the province. But I think forestry will continue to be central to the industrial activity and wealth creation in Prince George for many years.

I have to tell the assembly that there's been concern about the future of the forest industry in Prince George. Even in the spruce capital of the world, as we've called ourselves for years, there was concern about whether this vital industry would have a future -- whether policies of government would make it a sunset industry rather than what it deserves to be: a sunrise industry for this and future generations of British Columbians. I think those concerns were legitimate, and they came from several sources.

First, for the last decade or more there's been concern about whether the amount of wood we're actually using is going to be sustainable. Perhaps in past generations -- in the forties, fifties and even part of the sixties, when the forest industry was just coming to the central interior -- the forests and resources seemed endless. It seemed that there was always another valley to build a road into and another stand of high-quality spruce to harvest. It seemed that there were always more opportunities down the road or up the valley. But now we increasingly recognize that we work with a finite land base and a finite resource. Though it is very large, it has its limits.

For years, though, we took more from the land than we gave back. We did not treat it with the respect that it deserved as an ecosystem, or as a sustainer of our communities and industries and the jobs that our families and communities depended on. There were legitimate concerns -- and now we're hearing them increasingly -- about the level of annual allowable cut. Can it stay up? Or how much must it go down?

I don't think people realize that this concern has been around since the very first royal commission on forestry, the Sloan commission, back in the 1950s, which recognized that as we moved from a first-growth forest to a secondary forest, there would be a necessary falldown in annual allowable cut, and we would have to make provisions to keep that cut up. But for years, for decades, we did nothing. We ignored the reality that was coming at us. We pretended that there was always one more valley, but there isn't.

There are also concerns in my part of the province about forest land that was alienated from the productive forest. It was harvested and not replanted. The amount of what was called insufficiently restocked land grew by hundreds and thousands of hectares year after year as we took the resource and did not replenish it. We also took that resource and

[ Page 10341 ]

alienated it permanently from growing trees. We put it into agricultural leases that, quite frankly, grew no good crops; we put it into agricultural leases that were harvested, cleared and left -- too many of them in my part of the province. In some areas of the province, agricultural leases worked well, but I can tell you that around Prince George, I can point to many that were agricultural in name only -- for the purpose of getting the lease -- and rapidly became timber extraction and then barren land.

So this whole concern about whether we can keep the cut up and whether this resource, which our industries, jobs and communities depend on, would be there has been very real, I think. Then in the mid-1980s we had the process of sympathetic management, which exacerbated all these concerns. It said: "We don't care whether the AAC is sustainable; let's cut. We don't care about restocking insufficiently restocked land. Silviculture is a secondary matter; let's cut the silviculture budget." Those were the realities in the 1980s, and it has taken us time to come around.

[4:30]

But here, with the Forest Renewal Act, we have the solution to preserve, and indeed increase, the products from our forests. We are going to put in $2 billion over the next five years. We are going to put it into measures that will not only maintain but also increase the amount of wood that we can harvest on a sustainable level from our forests. We're investing in the land. We're putting back; the time of taking has ended. We work in synergy with our land, we respect it, and we are going to rebuild it.

Intensive silviculture is an integral part of the Forest Renewal Act. Putting money and jobs into spacing, thinning and pruning trees will grow more wood on the same amount of land. Wood means more products, more products mean more jobs, and more jobs mean more wealth for the communities that depend on them and for the province. This forest renewal plan will also address the problem of insufficiently restocked lands in other areas of the province where we have not done a good job of harvesting and replanting.

It will put trees back where no trees were; it will repair the past damage and neglect that, quite frankly, those who care about the forests have known and can identify, logging road by logging road, valley by valley, throughout the Prince George forest region.

Finally, not only are we going to grow more wood on the land that is already forest and restocked forest land that has been neglected, we're going to add to the area of land that's already there. Some of those agricultural leases that really were not agricultural, where the land is not really appropriate for agriculture, will be repatriated to their best and highest use as forest land to benefit the industry and the people of the province.

So that big concern that people from Prince George have had about whether the wood that the industry depends on would be there in the future is being addressed by this forest renewal plan, by Bill 32. It's being addressed in a way that's not a one-shot deal.

I heard a lot of talk from the Liberal opposition yesterday about their concerns about establishing Forest Renewal B.C., this new agent of the Crown which is to look after and renew our forests. I heard them talk about how concerned they were that it was independent and that it had some sort of permanence. I'm more concerned about the reverse of that. We've had too many one-shot deals in forest renewal. FRDA was an excellent program, and it finally seemed to kick-start the previous administration into attending to silviculture. But FRDA ended.

There have been too many one-shot and one-budget deals to renew our forest land. This is a program that says: "We are committed in the long term. Forests don't grow and renew in the term of a government of four years, or even in the life of a member of government; forests grow over decades, over 100 years." We need a program that is going to be in place over the lifetime of forest cycles, not the lifetime of governments.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Forest Renewal B.C. will provide the stability of programs that we require when we're dealing with forestry issues. I was amazed to hear members of the Liberal opposition say that they would prefer a program that was subject to the swings of political fortune and to every call of an election, a program that didn't have a dedicated source of funds or a dedicated mandate but simply could come and go at the whim of an individual government. We think the forests of the province deserve more than that. They deserve a legislated mandate to build forest renewal in as part of what we do for our forests and our communities.

I was also amazed to hear members of the Liberal opposition criticize the composition of the people who are going to serve this province, the forest industry and forest workers by agreeing to sit on the board of Forest Renewal B.C. I heard one of the members of the Liberal opposition call them political hacks. It's absolutely incredible. These are people from industry, unions and communities around the province who have worked with government to put this forest sector strategy forward.

I would ask the Liberal opposition -- scarce though they be at this time of day -- whether they really want to consider people of the quality of Peter Bentley, Gerry Stoney and Jack Munro as political hacks? Do they want to call the mayor of Prince George, who served on that committee, a political hack? I say shame on that denigration of the people who have served their province and their communities well, by putting together a forest renewal plan that will serve the forest industry and forest communities of this province.

The BC Forest Renewal Act will address the concerns of people in Prince George concerning whether the forest that we depend on will be sustainable. But it's only part of our strategy; it's only part of what we need to do to ensure a sustainable and prosperous forest industry. The second large concern that people in Prince George have had over the last decade is whether there are going to be sustained markets for forest products. That, too, has been no sure thing. We have had vexatious and unfounded countervail processes from the United States.

That has put fear into the hearts of many forest and mill workers in Prince George and other communities. This, of course, arose first under the previous administration. I would say that their response was to cave in to the pressure and not to fight it. Did the Americans say: "Thank you very much; now you're playing fair, so we'll accept you"? No. They came back for the second bite.

When we took over as government in 1991, we found the American government yet again threatening the markets for our forest products. I am proud to say that this government did not deal with this threat by appeasement. It dealt with that by taking it on vigorously in every forum it could find, and eventually it prevailed and the countervail went into the oblivion it deserved. That was one threat to our markets. We've worked hard to make sure that is no longer a threat. We have the movement of forest products into the markets of our neighbour to the south.

There has been another threat, and that, quite frankly, has been our own mismanagement of the forests. When we hear people in Europe and in other markets say, "We're concerned

[ Page 10342 ]

about how you're managing your forests," we've said very clearly: "You're right to have been concerned. We didn't do as well as we should have. We didn't attend to the full diversity of the values in our forests, nor did we replant in the past as we ought to have." But we now have in place in this province -- soon to be introduced in this Legislature -- a Forest Practices Code that's going to establish standards of forest management second to none in the world.

That is important, not just because of the forest ecosystems, and the recreation, wildlife and various other values that British Columbians place on them, but also because it sends a clear message to the customers of our forest products that we care about the health of our forests; that we're in the forest business not for the short term and not to the detriment of other forest values, but as part of a sensitive twenty-first century approach to the management of forests.

Concerns about markets are there, but we as government are taking steps, through the Forest Practices Code and through the vigorous leadership of the Premier in defending B.C.'s forest practices in Europe, to make sure that those concerns do not become a reality.

Perhaps the biggest concern that I've heard in Prince George over the last decade about the forest industry is whether it is going to be a source of an increasing or shrinking number of jobs. During the last decade we saw the number of jobs per volume of wood harvested decline by close to 50 percent. Instead of having, say, one job for every tree cut, we now had half a job. That meant fewer workers, fewer incomes, less wealth and less revenue for the governments that depend on a healthy forest industry. That decline was not caused by creating 12 percent as parks, nor was it caused by proper harvesting.

It was caused by advancing technology and, in some cases, by an industry that looked to the past for its products, rather than to the future.

I remember that during the election in 1991, I stood in a forum on forestry in Prince George. Perhaps with a bit of overstatement, I waved a 2-by-4 around and said that this was a proud symbol of what the Prince George forest industry had produced -- and indeed it was. I said that the production of dimension lumber had been a staple of the forest industry in Prince George and would continue to be an important part, but it couldn't be the only part anymore.

Though boxcars and flatcars full of 2-by-4s, 2-by-6s and 2-by-12s would continue to go south to the port of Vancouver and to the markets of the United States, we needed to diversify; we needed to have boxcars full of windows, furniture and even chopsticks moving down those tracks also. This BC Forest Renewal Act is taking the steps to move our industry in that diversified direction. We're doing what needs to be done, what I and other members of this Legislature heard as we went around the province last year, touring the value-added industry.

I'm pleased to see that some members of that committee who were with me on the tour have now entered the chamber, because I think they remember, as I do, the concerns we heard from those who wanted to see a renewed and enhanced value-added industry.

They were concerned that their workers have proper training. This bill speaks to the importance of training forest workers not just in silviculture or in work on the land, but in work in the plants that manufacture forest products. We heard them say very clearly that they needed assistance in identifying and penetrating markets. We heard them say that they needed better research on forest products that we could produce. We heard them say that we had to find ways to bring sectors together and make sure that the lumber needed for value-added manufacturing was there when the plants required it.

This Forest Renewal Act is laying the framework to make that happen, to make sure that we will have jobs in the traditional sectors of the forest industry and in producing the traditional products, but also that we will have those new products.

Recently I toured a value-added plant in Prince George. It was remarkable to see the diversity of products there: everything from window blanks to laminated panels to pieces of wood the size of arrow shafts. They didn't need a beehive burner for their waste; they just put it, once a week, into one of those industrial dumpsters. They were using every part of the wood, except the smell. That's the future of the forest industry in this province -- looking for diversification of products.

The board that will administer the funds of Forest Renewal BC will look in that direction too: bringing sectors of industry together, looking at markets around the world, and helping build more products, more jobs and healthier forest communities.

[4:45]

That is what I see when I look at this act, and that's what the people in my own community see, too. When the Minister of Forests announced the forest renewal plan, I was curious to see what people in Prince George would say -- whether they would say, "Ah, a one-shot deal; we've heard it before," or whether they'd see what was actually there. They saw the value of this plan. To quote from the