1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 20, Number 18

[ Page 14905 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Prayers.

N. Lortie: In my continuing effort to set a record for the most schools introduced in one session, I have another group of fine young people from my constituency of Delta North. There are 40 or more grade 10 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in North Delta, accompanied by several adults and led by their teacher Mr. Westlake. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young man. Anyone here may know him, because he has worked in many small cities across the province. He has also worked as a coalminer, which gave him all the appropriate experience to become my executive assistant. Neil Cook is in the gallery today with another person of great experience, Chris Rawsin, who is my ministerial assistant. Please make them both feel very welcome today.

G. Campbell: It's my privilege today to introduce Mr. Fred Beruschi and his son Adrian, who are visiting us from Revelstoke. Fred is president of the B.C. Hotels Association. I would like the Legislature to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: Bill 33 proposes amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. Some of these amendments are housekeeping or administrative in nature, and they are designed to clarify and strengthen the legislative basis for existing tax applications and to maintain the existing tax base. More substantive amendments are also proposed to the Tobacco Tax Act to support the various operational and legislative initiatives introduced over the past year, which are directed at curtailing revenue losses from tobacco smuggling activities.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

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.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this bill makes amendments to the Cooperative Association Act to close a loophole in the current wording of the act, to ensure that housing cooperatives that received public subsidies continue to operate as non-profit housing cooperatives and are prevented during their existence or on dissolution from distributing their assets to their members. The amendments, which will be retroactive to June 1988, apply to any housing cooperative that has a non-profit provision in any of its constitutional documents that prohibits the distribution of its assets to its members upon dissolution, except those that have already dissolved or commenced dissolving under

section 293 or 297 of the Company Act prior to today's date. The amendments specifically apply to housing cooperatives that have not yet dissolved but have altered their constitutional documents to remove the non-profit provision that prevents the cooperative from distributing its assets to its members upon dissolution. The amendments restore this provision.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 46 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

DROPPING OF CHARGES AGAINST UPPER NICOLA INDIAN BAND MEMBERS

prosecutor in Merritt has dropped charges that were laid against members of the Upper Nicola band at Douglas Lake. British Columbians have a right to know that there is one law that applies to all of us in this province. Can the Attorney General tell this House why the charges were dropped?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

Deputy Speaker: A supplementary, Leader of the Opposition. I'm sorry -- a new question.

PRIVATE PROPERTY AND ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

G. Campbell: I think this is an example of the pathetic performance by this Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be aware of this, but all over British Columbia people are asking themselves whether there is one law that's applicable to everyone.

Consistently, we have been told by this government that private property was not on the negotiating table. My question to the Attorney General is: does he intend to maintain that position of this government -- that private property will not be on the negotiating table and that private property rights of British Columbians will be protected, regardless of illegal actions which may be taken by any British Columbian anywhere in the province?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The government, in many ways, including many public statements by the Premier, has made it very clear that private land is not on the table.

[ Page 14906 ]

PROVINCIAL FUNDING OF UPPER NICOLA INDIAN BAND

M. de Jong: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Over the past weekend, the federal NDP member for Kamloops, Nelson Riis, recommended that all government funding be withheld from any aboriginal band engaged in illegal activities. My question to the minister is: does he agree with Mr. Riis? Does he intend to recommend to his federal counterpart that all funding to the Upper Nicola band be cut off until such time as the illegal blockade has been removed?

[2:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: The member knows that's a federal issue. That's an issue with regard to the administration of the federal Indian Act.

We diligently are working in the area of securing modern treaties that bring certainty. The fact is that the vast majority of the aboriginal people of British Columbia have entered into the treaty-making process because they want negotiated settlements. With regard to this area, where sovereigntist nations are taking a type of action that cannot be condoned, we are going to diligently seek where we can to assist in resolving these issues. But clearly, the federal government has the responsibility in the area the member is asking about.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, let's deal with a provincial issue, then, if the minister wants to characterize it that way. The most recent set of public accounts for the province shows that the Upper Nicola band also receive funding directly from the provincial government. Not only is the band showing contempt for the laws of British Columbia, it appears to be engaging in that illegal activity on the backs of British Columbia taxpayers. While the Attorney General sits paralyzed, can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs confirm that he, at least, has taken action to stop the flow of provincial funds to the Upper Nicola band while this illegal activity proceeds?

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, there is no flow of provincial government funds to the Upper Nicola band -- no flow of funds whatsoever. The hon. member may have been referring to some project-specific funding; I will undertake to find that out. But I would caution, as I have before, members of opposition parties against taking the approach of seeking to inflame, when that is simply not in the interest of the people of British Columbia or of the resolution of these disputes.

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. The Douglas Lake standoff is a demonstration and sorry indictment of this government's policy of reverse racism, with special rights for native people at the expense of equality for all British Columbians. Indeed, this government has led militant bands to believe they are above the law, while denying non-natives the protection they are legally entitled to. Will the government admit that their policy of appeasement has been a sorry, sorry failure -- as demonstrated at Apex and as demonstrated again at Douglas Lake? Will the minister admit today that their policy has been a failure in both of those cases?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's important to not answer the nonsense contained in the question, and to make it clear that police forces in British Columbia, both RCMP and municipal, deal with all civil disobedience in precisely the same way, with the same approach and under the same policy. In every single case of civil disobedience, the police make every effort to achieve obedience to the law by way of discussion and negotiation between the police and the people who are in violation of the law. That has been their consistent pattern in all the time we have been government, and it was their pattern when that member was in government. That policy has not changed whatsoever in this case.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The events of the last ten days give lie to the minister's statement. Indeed, there has not been equality; there has not been equal application of the law. Will the minister not recognize that British Columbians want land claims resolved, but not at the threat of violence, not at the risk of dual standards for British Columbians? Why doesn't the minister go down to Douglas Lake and tell the people at the blockades that he's going to apply those laws equally and fairly? Indeed, why doesn't the minister go to all native people...

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

J. Weisgerber: ...make a personal appeal to them, and explain exactly what he said today: one set of standards across this province...?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Upper Nicola band is interested in joining the treaty negotiations process, the Treaty Commission is available to them, as it is to all other bands in this province.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH TRAINING VIDEO

J. Dalton: A question for the Attorney General. We've obtained a copy of a video starring John Nieuwenburg, the general manager of the liquor distribution branch. This video is part of a customer-service training program, and it has been distributed to hundreds of liquor stores in the province. The video stars Nieuwenburg and shows him driving to work in a red BMW, drinking coffee and fumbling through a stack of ties, deciding which one to wear that day, all to the sound track of "Mission Impossible." Why did the LDB spend $45,000 on this acting debut of the general manager?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unlike the member, I haven't had an opportunity to see the....

An Hon. Member: What do you do?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, could we allow the Attorney to answer the question.

[ Page 14907 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd advise the member from Fort Langley to accompany me on one of my days, if he's interested.

I don't know what's in the video. I've heard reports of it. What I do know is that the LDB is embarked on a program to improve the management skills of their managers so they can provide more effective public relations to consumers. As far as the video goes, I can't give any specific response to it. If it's appropriate or inappropriate, I don't know at this point.

Deputy Speaker: Do you have another question, member for West Vancouver-Capilano?

J. Dalton: I guess it's fair to say that the Attorney General doesn't know where Douglas Lake is, either.

This video, among other things, shows shots of Nieuwenburg chanting to himself: "Every day, in every way, I will be a better general manager." Maybe we can get a better Attorney General, too.

Can the Attorney General tell the House when the NDP decided that implementing New Age practices would result in more efficient management of the LDB?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it might be more useful for all members if I were to come back to the House following an opportunity to have a discussion with the general manager.

OFFICE SPACE FOR CHRIS CHILTON

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that Chris Chilton is not working out of Health ministry offices? More specifically, can he advise us where Chris Chilton's new office is located?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Mr. Chilton has office space at cabinet planning secretariat.

Deputy Speaker: The member continues.

R. Neufeld: A question to the Minister of Government Services. Can the Minister of Government Services confirm that, in fact, extensive renovations are presently underway to accommodate Mr. Chilton within the present cabinet secretariat offices, and can he tell us how much it's costing B.C. taxpayers for Mr. Chilton's new digs in the Premier's office?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, Mr. Chilton is occupying space within the Ministry of Government Services, but that space is being charged back to the Ministry of Health. Secondly, there is no new construction that took place to accommodate Mr. Chilton. Some renovations took place to remove a couple of walls to make space available for Mr. Chilton to work in. I understand that the total cost of those renovations is to the tune of about $2,500, but I can get back to you on that.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH TRAINING VIDEO

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General, and it is regarding the video which he has yet to see but which am I'm sure he will see shortly. As the minister might be aware, there are many companies out there that supply standard customer-service training videos and programs for a variety of companies, many of which, I'm sure, are produced in British Columbia. Yet Mr. Nieuwenburg chose to spend $45,000 for an original production, of which more than half is purely a comedy sketch starring himself. Does the minister think that this ego trip for Mr. Nieuwenburg was worth $45,000 of taxpayers' money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wasn't listening when I answered the question from his colleague, indicating that I would get back to members of the House as soon as I can.

LAW SOCIETY SUSPENSION OF FORMER ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. As a member of the bar himself, does the Premier accept the principle that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin should remain out of cabinet for the duration of his suspension by the Law Society of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Once again the Liberal research lives down to our expectations. I can tell you that I have raised my reputation considerably; I am no longer a member of the bar.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Supplemental, hon. member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members. It's extremely difficult to hear the questions, because both sides are making too much noise.

W. Hurd: The Law Society has more sense than I thought.

The oath of office sworn by each member of the executive council says: "I will, to the best of my abilities, fulfil the responsibilities and the trust granted to me." Since responsibility and trust are at the heart of the disciplinary decision of the Law Society, will the Premier agree that the member should stay out of cabinet for the duration of his 18-month suspension by the Law Society of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a very serious matter. The member realized that it was. He accepted the decision of the Law Society's disciplinary committee and offered his resignation. I have accepted his resignation, and that's where the matter stands.

NEW CEO OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING AUTHORITY

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority. Pursuant to order-in-council No. 637, dated June 1, the Minister of Employment and Investment appointed Mr. Blair Redlin as chief executive officer of B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Would the minister tell this House what qualifications pertaining to transportation Mr. Redlin holds that would elevate him to this position?

[ Page 14908 ]

Hon. G. Clark: More qualifications than the opposition critic on the question of transportation. We're delighted to have Mr. Redlin as the CEO of the TFA. I can say that I know that Mr. Redlin supports the commuter rail project, unlike the Liberals across the way. I know he supports more investment in rapid transit, unlike the Liberals across the way. I know he supports the Island Highway and has worked on that, unlike the members across the way. And I know that he believes, as we in government do, that transportation is a critical ingredient to the government's jobs and investment strategy.

Over the next few weeks, we'll have more announcements which I know the Liberals will oppose but the people of B.C. support.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House today I call second reading of Bill 18.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

[2:30]

F. Randall: I would like leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 42 grade 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School. They're accompanied by Ms. Taylor, their teacher. Of course, the school is located in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's a great pleasure for me to rise for second reading of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995. As members will recall, last year this government introduced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, which was passed by this House.

The Forest Practices Code is a key component of this government's plan to invest in our future by renewing our forest resources and sustaining them for future generations, and along with them the quality jobs and vibrant communities they support. The code embodies a commitment to better environmental stewardship that will secure our forest economy and our international markets for the long term.

In April of this year, after extensive consultation and review, we proclaimed the regulations required to complete the code's legal structure. This month the code will become law.

The code is a major piece of legislation that I think this assembly can be proud of. It is the cornerstone for a new forest management framework for this province and a cornerstone for an investment strategy in the health of our forest resources. I hope members of this House will agree with me that investing in the future, particularly in respect of forest resources, is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that our forests remain the vibrant centre of our economy as well as an ecologically sustainable resource.

The code has several benefits for British Columbians which go beyond the obvious ones, however. For industry, for example, the code will level the playing field by providing all forest operators with a clear and coherent set of rules to work by. This means that many forest operators who have been practising responsible forestry -- indeed, as the majority have -- will no longer be placed in the position of being at a competitive disadvantage to the few who have not.

For all those managing provincial forests, both in and outside government, it means greater certainty through the replacement of a confusing system of legislation, contractual arrangements, policies and guidelines with a workable and legally enforceable code of conduct. For forest workers, renewing and protecting our forests will ensure jobs today and, more importantly, will ensure that there is a resource to provide jobs tomorrow. For the general public, the code means a restoration of confidence in forest management.

Confidence is absolutely essential to ensure that this resource continues to thrive and prosper.

I think some of the actions of the past that were taken in the name of trying to improve short-term economic situations for the forest industry caused tremendous long-term damage, because they undermined public confidence. Initiatives such as sympathetic administration undermined long-term public confidence, which has made it difficult in recent years for the forest industry to gain the support it needs to continue to make the investments and to have the jobs that we all rely upon in the forest sector.

In addition, that lack of confidence has enabled those who may not have our best interests at heart to launch campaigns against the forest industry abroad, and has made it more difficult for the forest industry to maintain and broaden its markets overseas.

So the code is a crucial part not only of an investment strategy, but of a strategy to ensure that public confidence at home and abroad is restored in our forest sector. I can tell you, from my own visits with international customers in other jurisdictions, as well as from the experience of the Premier and others, that the code is absolutely crucial in this initiative.

The code is starting to regain -- indeed, is making significant inroads in regaining -- public confidence both at home and abroad, which in turn, I think, produces the kind of environment in which the forest industry can thrive and grow, in which our markets are made secure and in which we can gain additional customers internationally.

The bill we are dealing with today proposes minor changes and improvements to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, based on some of the consultation and review that has taken place since the passage of the code last summer. When we reach committee stage, I'll be introducing a few further floor amendments to reflect additional comments that have been received from the industry and other stakeholders since the bill was introduced.

There are essentially four categories of changes introduced by this legislation. First, Bill 18 introduces changes to clarify the application of certain code requirements. The bill makes changes to the definition of community watershed under

section 41 of the act, for example. These changes will streamline and clarify the intention of the

section and ensure that areas which do not require the special protection inferred

[ Page 14909 ]

by this designation are excluded while, at the same time, also permitting community watersheds that have an area of more than 500 square kilometres and require special protection to be included within that designation.

The bill establishes necessary powers to ensure that tree farm licence holders compile and submit inventory information that is needed for the code, such as wildlife and cultural heritage inventory information. That kind of information is absolutely essential to ensure that we manage our forests to protect all the values that are represented by the forest resource; and that information is, of course, as essential with respect to tree farm licence holdings as it is with respect to other forms of forest tenure.

The bill ensures that the holders of pulpwood agreements, similar to other major licensees, are required to prepare and obtain approval of forest development plans before commencing timber harvesting. The bill also includes amendments to clarify the legal status and operational plans approved before the code came into force.

That's the first category of changes. The second category of changes is intended to protect the financial interest of government with regard to reforestation responsibilities on non-replaceable forest tenures. Reforestation responsibilities on non-replaceable forest tenures often extend well beyond the life of those tenures and of the licences, and they represent a substantial long-term financial liability for small and medium-sized firms. What the proposed amendments will do is increase government security with regard to these obligations.

They allow government, in certain circumstances, to assume responsibility for the obligations and to carry out the necessary silvicultural work that is so essential to ensuring that we will have a future forest resource in the decades and, hopefully, the centuries ahead. In exchange, the licensee will be required to pay a levy to government to cover silvicultural costs where the government does assume those obligations.

The third category of changes attempts to reduce the administrative burden of the code on stakeholders. Some of these changes include amendments to clarify code requirements on private lands regulated through range tenures and woodlot licences. This is not the category of the privately managed forest lands that are the subject of one particular

section of the code, but rather private lands that are already included within the ambit of the code by virtue of their association with woodlot licences or tree farm licences.

The fourth and final category is a category of housekeeping amendments to correct some minor oversights and to improve the drafting of the legislation.

The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia was a major step toward correcting many of the problems of the past in our forests and setting a framework in which our forest industry can continue to grow and thrive, and the public can be assured that that growth is not at the expense of environmental values. The amendments that are proposed in Bill 18 will help to clarify and refine that legislation. I therefore move that the bill be read for a second time now.

W. Hurd: It's always a privilege to rise in the assembly to speak to any bill, particularly one as important as Bill 18, the Forest Practices Code Amendment Act. As the minister has indicated, we are coming up to an anniversary of the application of the code in B.C.'s forests, and when the code was introduced, it was fully supported by all parties in the House, despite some statements from government members to the contrary.

The notion that we should simplify the 800 or so regulations that existed previously and reduce them to a series of Forest Practices Code principles that everyone could understand and apply was a generally accepted wisdom in the forest industry. Everyone from the professional foresters to the major licensees, from the communities to people in government, has argued for some time in favour of a Forest Practices Code that provides a clear set of guidelines and a clear and level playing field, as the minister has indicated.

I guess the question then becomes how we have performed during the last year with the application of the Forest Practices Code. It's interesting to recall that when the bill was introduced in the assembly a year ago, the minister introduced 83 consequential amendments to the bill in second reading and committee stage, which, in the parliamentary practice of this assembly, is almost without precedent -- that number of amendments that the House had to plow through in committee.

We also know that during the last year there's been a considerable delay in proclaiming a number of the regulations and standards of this particular act. Clearly, the Forest Practices Code proved to be far more complex in the field than perhaps the government had anticipated. Certainly the volume of paperwork in the ministry offices has mushroomed. You know, that comes from many district managers who are struggling to cope with the changes that have been thrust upon them.

One of the key errors made from the very beginning was that there was no overriding training module for the Forest Practices Code. That, I think, should have applied across the board to not only the registered professional foresters in the ministry but also those in the private sector. From the very outset of the application of the code, those two jurisdictions went their separate ways. I know there were those in the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters who felt strongly that we needed one master module.

That would ensure that ministry personnel and those professional foresters and woodlands managers in the private sector who have to submit their plans to the ministry were indeed operating off the same common level of understanding. This is something we'll be able to get into in committee stage on this bill, but my perception is that we still have a gap in knowledge between some individuals in the private sector. Indeed, in some cases the major licensees have been able to catch up and pass the ministry, I think, in terms of their knowledge and application of the code.

As we know, the code has resulted in a major adjustment upward of the amount of paper that flows into the ministry offices. Most plans that were currently on the books will have to be, or are in the process of being, reworked and resubmitted to the ministry. I note, with respect to this Bill 18, that again there's a requirement that more information be forwarded from licensees. We have to remember that when more information is required, it's not just the licensees that have to produce it and incur the time and expense. It's also the ministry, which has to struggle to deal with those forest development plans and harvesting plans.

As we know, under the code there are considerable administrative penalties -- fines -- for plans that are submitted that may not meet the requirements of the code. So I have some empathy with the ministry regional offices, which have a tremendous new responsibility on their hands to receive this

[ Page 14910 ]

information, turn it over in a timely manner and sign off on it, recognizing that a mistake or error in any way can result in major administrative penalties for the licensee.

[2:45]

It's also significant, you know, to note at this time -- since we are talking about the Forest Practices Code in general principle -- that the Ministry of Forests itself is the largest holder of cutting rights in the province. As one of its forest sector strategies, the ministry has elected to increase the volume of timber harvested under the small business enterprise program. As we know, the ministry itself is responsible for all the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, the harvest plans, the wildlife management studies -- the whole gamut of studies now required under the Forest Practices Code.

I can honestly say I think that requirement has been a tremendous burden for the ministry's professional foresters. One of the issues I'm sure we'll be canvassing with the minister in his estimates is the level of harvest in the small business enterprise program. The reports that it has been undercut this year, because of the difficulty the ministry has in dealing with the provisions of the code for those areas of harvest, is an issue we will want to explore with the minister during his estimates.

So I think the ride over the last year has been a bumpy one. I suppose it was not entirely unexpected, given the major changes that have been applied to the land base. We know that the ministry has not gone through any major increase in staffing levels to deal with the code. It leads those of us on this side of the House to suspect that what indeed is happening is that there has been a reallocation of manpower and resources to pursue these provisions in the code.

Some of the work done previously, including on-site audits or inspections -- the kinds of things the ministry perhaps had more time to do in the past -- may have been sacrificed in some of the district offices in recognition of the fact that the plans and studies in connection with the Forest Practices Code have to be turned over in a timely fashion.

There are a number of issues with respect to Bill 18 that we will definitely want to pursue with the ministry in committee. Improving the chief forester's authority to request inventory information from tree farm licence holders is a requirement we think would normally have come under revisions to the actual Forest Act. This is an area we want to question the minister on: why has another obligation been placed on the chief forester within the Forest Practices Code Amendment Act.

Another area we'll be wanting some answers on will be the government assuming silviculture responsibilities for non-replaceable forest licences. That seems to us to imply some new level of commitment under the small business program, and that's another area that we'll be wanting to clarify in committee.

I think, in general, the opposition supported the Forest Practices Code in principle. Any bill which seeks to bring in some reasoned revisions and amendments after a period of a year of application in the field is to be welcomed. We'll be attempting to discern from the minister in committee exactly what the nature of the improvements will be, and whether there have been specific problems in the field that some of these amendments are designed to alleviate. So with those brief remarks, the opposition supports the revision to the Forest Practices Code in principle, and welcomes the opportunity to explore with the minister in committee some of the more specific aspects of this legislation.

R. Neufeld: To speak briefly on the principles of the bill, the Reform caucus generally supports most of the changes that are in the bill. There are many of them, and we know that they're going to be specifically discussed during the committee stage -- each one of them to their total extent, I should say. Basically, we'll be keeping most of our remarks till that time.

As the critic for the Liberal Party did, I want to confirm that Reformers supported the Forest Practices Code when it was passed last year. We had some reservations about the Forest Practices Code and we still do. I think it's indicative of what has been said so far that industry and government, the people who are trying to apply the code, are having some real difficulties in some areas. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. That should be expected in a code that was brought together from many different statutes that were in place before. Hopefully, it will lead to better stewardship of our forest resource in the province.

Basically, what we've seen is a clear movement within government to increase by a dramatic amount the number of people to enforce the code. We're seeing private industry having to do the same thing. There's no doubt that some poor forestry practices were carried out in some areas, and that would require more people to look at what the goals really are.

But rather than being specific on what would happen with each action, site-specific to different places, the Reform Party would rather have seen a document that outlined a set of goals and objectives that industry could meet; instead of trying to document in one Forest Practices Code that this is the way it will happen all over the province, so that industry, with its own way of doing things.... There are all kinds of equipment and procedures the forestry industry has developed over the years to enhance the forest, and the environment within the forest.

I think that is something all British Columbians actually support in a big way. We would rather have seen a document that listed some goals and objectives, and let the industry figure out just exactly how they are going to meet them.

When I talk about administration and the number of people it is going to take to enforce the code, I know that in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for instance, 14 new positions are in place to enforce the Forest Practices Code within that ministry. During all the years I spent in the energy field, specifically in the north, I don't recall a large problem with the oil and gas industry and forest practices, or with the kinds of issues that would require that many people to look after them. Mining is almost extinct in of British Columbia.

In fact, it has occupied site-specific areas for many years, so there's not really a lot of work being done all over the province in mining.

I can't imagine where all these people are being used, but obviously there is a tremendous amount of paper being generated by the Forest Practices Code. And in the field, when there are all kinds of reports and paper being generated, when it reaches the office someone has to take it, look at it and decide what they should do with it and where they should file it. I think that's part of the problem with the Forest Practices Code, and if there is some way we can alleviate this problem for industry and government, and therefore for the people of British Columbia, we would all be better served.

It's interesting to note that some of the changes in Bill 18 are changes and amendments proposed by the opposition parties when we were discussing the Forest Practices Code

[ Page 14911 ]

last year. In fact, if I remember correctly, we were in this chamber until 4 o'clock in the morning, trying to get through some of those amendments, which the minister just absolutely refused to even listen to. And now, this year, where are we? We're back into 64 sections, most of them dealing with changes to the Forest Practices Code. I think the minister would have been well served to listen a year ago to some of the amendments put forward by all members in the House, other than government members, on the Forest Practices Code, and maybe we wouldn't be where we're at today -- back in the Legislature discussing Bill 18, which is a rewrite of many sections of the Forest Practices Code.

But in principle we support Bill 18, and we look forward to committee stage, where we can deal with it

section by section, deal with them individually and bring forward amendments if we feel they are needed.

G. Wilson: Bill 18 is an interesting bill, because it actually seeks to implement in some instances what we tried to get the government to implement when it initially brought the bill in. They refused, but now, having had the opportunity for sober second thought, they obviously see the wisdom of some of the words that have come from these quarters. But it tends to amend the bill in a manner which, I think, we would have a difficult time supporting, and we look forward to the minister's defence in a number of these areas.

This is by no means a minor amendment or housekeeping; there have been some substantial changes to the Forest Practices Code, and I think the minister is going to have to stand the test of some considerable and gruelling debate, hopefully, on this matter when we get into committee stage. People are going to want to know why, for example, there have been amendments to the five-year plan proposal, and what the minister sees as the reason for that.

Similarly, I think that the minister is going to have deal with an area that is very near and dear to my heart -- and I know to the members of the Alliance -- and that is the amendments which have been brought in with respect to the community watershed provisions. These are matters that are critical -- absolutely critical -- to the livelihood of many communities.

They are areas, quite clearly, where there are going to be considerable conflicts as communities expand, as residential demands increase, and as we start to look at the notion of a watershed under the Water Act in more ways than perhaps the broader definition under the Water Act may provide, with respect to the

definitions of water purposes and waterworks purposes.

To bring it home, I know that that's something very clear and near and dear to the hearts of the people on the Sunshine Coast, who have just seen a protected-area strategy put in place for the Tetrahedron area. But it's ambiguous as to whether or not that really is going to protect watershed, or whether or not we're looking at park status, and whether or not we're looking at -- with respect to the 100 percent protection -- protection for the purpose of recreation development and use, or whether or not we're actually looking at a working and viable operational watershed in that area.

With the amendments to this act, keeping in mind that that is an area currently under some review -- and Mount Elphinstone as a plan is also under active review -- these clearly are going to be questions that I know the minister is going to want to address.

In principle, we have to ask ourselves some of the hard questions about why the government has moved in this direction at this time, what precipitated this move, and why there wasn't an opportunity for the government -- in this initial tabling of the code and in the discussions previously -- to have seen that this might have been the direction to take.

More specifically, I think we need to ask very hard questions about why we're dealing with matters in terms of a downstream definition, as opposed to that of the upstream or broader watershed basin or catchment area. I think that when we get into the details of this particular

section of the act, the people of British Columbia are going to want to know why the government, in particular, started to look at the

definitions as they have provided them with respect to the provisions of the Water Act and the way they are interpreted in this one -- particularly on the language, in terms of commencement of action on the points of diversion, that deals with an area that is "all or part of the drainage area above the most downstream point of diversion," which, of course, is in

section 14(10)(b). I think that's an area which we're going to want to address in some detail with the minister.

I'd point out also that there is a significant controversy over the whole question of roads and road closures and the process by which we deactivate roads. This is something that's very important for us to get a handle on, and I'm surprised that.... In fact, maybe they have and just opted not to address it. But clearly, as one opposition member and as the leader of the Alliance, I can tell you that this is one of the areas that we hear most frequently about, in terms of making sure there is some consistent plan put in place with respect to those roads that will be deactivated -- those roads that will be closed.

There has to be local input, and there has to be a consistent program put forward in which people at the local level will be able to have some determination with respect to road closure.

It's also important -- as we determine which roads should and which should not be deactivated -- that the contracting and the provision for such deactivation be done in a manner that is consistent with an established set of rules and guidelines, and that the local forest service be provided an opportunity to make sure that adequate inspection is done and that the work is carried out in a proper way. Because, as the minister knows, in those areas.... And we have had a number of examples where, in fact, this has not been done effectively.

If that work is not done to an established standard, there can be more damage, more harm, more erosion to that area than if the road was left in its original state.

[3:00]

We might also talk about the

section with respect to silviculture prescriptions for non-replacement licences. This is an area that philosophically, obviously, we're most committed to, because we do want to provide the maximum opportunity for the silviculture prescription in order to provide from as broad a base as possible the opportunity within local areas for local employment to get that work done -- and to get it done effectively and efficiently as soon as practicable after harvest has taken place.

So we have to ask the minister -- with respect to the notice provisions that are being put in here and the movement for authorization of the district manager in terms of the assuming of these responsibilities -- how, in fact, that improves the nature of this particular act. I understand that there are two sides to that debate. I've heard both sides of it, and I understand, by virtue of what he has written in his bill, that clearly the minister has opted to go in this direction.

[ Page 14912 ]

However, I would say that as the people of British Columbia start to look at this matter of silviculture, we have to understand that the whole question of notice and the provision of notice and the responsibility in terms of carrying out the silviculture prescription is something that we are going to want to look at, especially as we now start to examine the types of non-replacement licences that this bill affords. So as we get into committee stage, that's an area, again, that we're going to push this minister on in some detail.

The whole notion, if we deal with it in terms of philosophy.... I think it's hard to deal with the philosophical question of a bill such as this, because it really is an amendment to a much broader act and deals with a whole series of very specific and very detailed kinds of amendments. Clearly, I think that what we have to measure with respect to the Forest Practices Code is the extent to which the implementation of this code has improved logging practice in the province of British Columbia.

When we first addressed this question -- when this bill first came before the House -- we expressed some serious concerns about some areas with respect to the procedure and whether or not, in fact, this was going to be a practical approach that companies actively involved in logging in British Columbia would be able to accommodate within the somewhat narrow profit margins they may have from time to time as the cyclical nature of this economy tends to go from a rather buoyant economy, as it has been, to the inevitable downturn, which we are likely to see.

When we start to look at the latter provisions of this bill and get into the whole question of division 5, which is on timber-sale licences, licences to cut, free-use permits and that notion, one of the things we like about this bill is the fact that it tends to create a greater degree of flexibility.

We do find that there is an opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of some flexibility with respect to those provisions that have been removed from the existing act and the substitutions that have come in in terms of management's own objectives and, in particular, the sensitive-area objectives that are provided for within the act. As we get into that detail, I think that the minister will have our support in that

section of this bill, because it has provided us an opportunity to address some of those local concerns.

I guess the only thing we would want to take a look at, then, with respect to this bill is the omissions, those things we would have liked to have seen with respect to this bill. Clearly, when we deal with it as a matter of principle, we want to not only include a fairly thorough discussion as to what is included in the bill but also ask questions as to what is not included in the bill.

Clearly, one of the areas that we would have liked to have seen included and far more detail provided for is the whole question of salvage and the matters around salvage, which this ministry has done a great deal of research and work on with respect to the provisions of new standards and new procedures. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the minister for availing his staff to me and to others within the Alliance Party and, of course, my companion MLA, to enable us to understand what was proposed there.

This is going to be, I think the minister would agree, as we start to look at the transition period from the old forest practice to the new forest practice, a source of substantial revenue for local mill operators, for local foresters and for people who are looking to maintain local employment.

So I guess one of the things we would have liked to have seen within Bill 18 is an inclusion of that whole procedure as a part of the Forest Practices Code, so that we could in fact have much firmer guidelines with respect to what is and what is not permitted, so that we could have provided, particularly within certain licence areas, a greater degree of security of tenure for those salvage operators who are going in behind the larger logging companies to pick up material that is dead and down or perhaps diseased, or into areas where clearly the marketability of the timber is seen to be marginal, and that timber is left.

That's a huge area we'd like to hear from the minister on, because notwithstanding the new regulations that have come down and notwithstanding the procedures toward that end, I think the code has to have something more to say about this. There has to be a question of procedure that can provide maximum flexibility with respect to salvage operations.

Having said that, we are able to outline in broad terms -- and certainly that's been my role, and I will yield later on in this debate to my colleague from Okanagan East, who will deal in specifics with some of the more particular areas in which there is some concern.... But generally speaking, the Forest Practices Code was overdue in this province. I think that all members, both those in the forest industry and those within communities that are affected by the forest industry, would have agreed that we needed a new code -- never mind a new code, we needed a code -- that everybody could buy into.

I have already said that I congratulate this government for having the foresight to see that and to put it in place. Whether we now have a workable code or not is another matter entirely. And whether or not that code is going to be subject to further amendment is something that we will know only after a thorough discussion in the committee stage of this bill.

As I said at the outset, many of the inclusions in this bill are something that I and others called for initially. We have serious concerns with some of what is included here, which we will not be able to support unless the minister, in his usual articulate and informed way, can somehow change our minds -- which we would look forward to, if that's possible. Always having an open mind, of course, anything is possible. But we do have some serious concerns, especially with respect to the community watershed provisions. I think there are some errors there.

The minister said that there will be some amendments from the floor, and I'm hoping that those might be areas where those amendments will be forthcoming.

Having said that, we can approve of the code in principle. We approve of some of what is in here, but I can tell you that we will be voting against some of the sections of this bill unless there are substantive amendments in committee stage.

A. Warnke: Some of the main points have been covered by the previous speakers, and I do not want to repeat or belabour them. I want to focus on two aspects. The first one -- and I do not think it can be emphasized enough, despite the fact that some members have made reference to it -- of trying to put to rest once and for all that the....

Several times, I believe, I have heard the Minister of Forests and certainly the Minister of Employment and Investment say, and I've heard other members saying over and over again, how the Liberal opposition and, in fact, all of the opposition -- and it implies all parties -- oppose the Forest Practices Code. "Well, here goes the Minister of Employment and Investment saying the same thing. It must be true."

The fact is that it's not. The fact is that if those ministers and those members across the way take a look at the record

[ Page 14913 ]

they will find that the opposition -- especially the Liberal opposition and the Reform opposition, and the PDA and the independent opposition -- supported the Forest Practices Code. So it's extremely important to put it on the record once again, considering that those government members over and over again repeat this position that the opposition is against the Forest Practices Code. It is worthwhile to point out that in fact that's not correct. For the record, those government ministers have simply got it all wrong.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Well, here's point two that I really wanted to raise, because the Minister of Forests said: "I wasn't here." I think the Minister of Forests ought to check the record. One thing that really.... I suppose I can use the word "gall," because I well recall in the

summary remarks of the Minister of Forests that he was galled by one particular member, and I know who he was referring to: he was referring to me. He was particularly galled by the one member -- namely me -- who would even bring up issues involving inventories. The fact is that I did raise the problem with regard to inventories. The Minister of Forests at the time was galled that there was even some problem here -- "What's going on?" and all the rest of it. Now all of a sudden, guess what, hon. Speaker. What do we see?

Section 2 reads: "Section 9 is repealed and the following substituted." Indeed, in the opening remarks of the Minister of Forests, guess what he talked about. "We need to take a look at assessing inventory information, which is essential to protecting the forest industry in general and tree farm licensing." The fact is that that is exactly the point that I remember making in the original debate involving the Forest Practices Code. Here's the Forests minister coming down a year later and saying: "Well, maybe this is a problem that has to be readdressed." So I'm really looking forward to hearing what galls him this year.

Those are two points that I think it is extremely important to raise for the record. Firstly, contrary to what has often been said in this House and in public, the opposition supported the Forest Practices Code in principle; we supported it in terms of voting for it. Secondly, today we hear a number of opposition members once again stating their reservations about certain areas; but in the last analysis, we acknowledge the need for a Forest Practices Code. We pointed out a year ago that there were going to be problems. I'll bet you that we'll be right back where we started.

The Forests minister comes in here today and says, "We're going ahead, and we're presenting some corrections and changes," as though it were a logical extension, some sort of planned idea about the future. "We're going to bring in an amendment code somewhere in the future." The fact is that that wasn't planned. I really want to put it to rest once and for all: as members here have pointed out today, we have supported and will support the Forest Practices Code; we support it in principle. There are problems that are now acknowledged by the Minister of Forests.

There were problems a year ago that have to be corrected. There are probably problems, as I see it, that still exist, but at least we're moving in the right direction.

I remember that I raised this point about inventories and what not, and then I was surprised to hear the Forests minister, over the winter and earlier this year, actually saying in public -- it didn't gall him then, I suppose -- that this is an area to be re-examined, and that he would be doing something about inventories. I'm glad that the Forests minister has recognized that. He's moving in the right direction. I just wanted to make those two points.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to say a few words on Bill 18, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995. Following my friend the member for Richmond-Steveston, I can only say that thank goodness he seems to be vindicated for something or other. What it is, none of us can be sure; but if he feels good about it, then I think we can move on.

[3:15]

Any observer of the debates in this House can be excused for being confused about the position of the Liberal opposition on forestry matters. In the last session of the Legislature we dealt with the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- what I have kindly referred to as the revolution in forestry that's been going on in our province. It comes to my mind that the Liberal opposition seemed to be opposed to virtually every initiative brought forward by the government in this area. They didn't always vote against every initiative brought forward, but they certainly spoke against them.

Whether you speak against it or vote against it, it's hard to tell sometimes what the correlation is with members of the Liberal opposition. The member for Richmond-Steveston tried to clarify some of the confusion about the voting record and the speaking record of the Liberal opposition in the House. I'll leave it to others to review Hansard to determine whether or not he really has set the record straight.

The Forest Practices Code is important. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced by this government in the life of this parliament, and the fact that the Minister of Forests is bringing forward amendments to that act in the first session following its introduction is not a surprise. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the Forest Practices Code -- a very complex piece of legislation -- will likely need continual refining over the years ahead. That will result, hopefully, from continuing consultation with the various stakeholders in the industry and in the province who are affected by a new Forest Practices Code. It is rather all-encompassing.

The Minister of Forests needs to be really firm in ensuring that the Forest Practices Code takes precedence over every other form of regulation or legislation dealing with the forest industry. The reason he needs to do so -- and I'm not sure that Bill 18 really addresses this issue -- is that just last week we had an example where the Forest Practices Code was brought into question when the Clayoquot Sound scientific panel issued its report on a number of issues relating to forestry practices in the Clayoquot region.

There has been some controversy based on media reports as to whether clearcuts, or what are referred to as clearcuts, are going to be continuing as a standard forestry practice in the province.

We all know that according to the Forest Practices Code, small clearcuts up to a maximum of 40 hectares in size are allowed. After the Clayoquot Sound scientific panel came out last week, there were some groups saying that this signalled the end to clearcuts in British Columbia. This might have signalled an end to terminological certainty over what a clearcut actually is, but the minister really needs to reiterate that the Forest Practices Code takes precedence over all aspects of

[ Page 14914 ]

the regulatory regime affecting the forest industry in the province. Bill 18 doesn't seek to do that, but Bill 18 does bring in some important amendments.

It seems to me that the Minister of Forests has probably been listening to a number of groups by bringing in Bill 18. It seems obvious he's been listening to ranchers, to environmental groups and to participants in the small business enterprise program, but he hasn't been listening to everyone. It would seem to me that he probably hasn't been listening to major licensees in the forest industry, who are clearly affected by the Forest Practices Code, but whether any concerns they have about the implementation of this new law have been heard is not evident in Bill 18.

I know it's pretty easy for this government to beat up on large companies and large operators, and I suppose that includes forest licensees, but I think it's most unwise to ignore deliberately the major employers in our forest industry, the people who are providing jobs. We want them to be able to sustain that employment base on a perpetual basis. Yet, have the concerns of the major licensees been taken into account in this first run of amendments to the Forest Practices Code? I hope the minister is going to be able to address that when he closes debate on second reading.

When we get to committee stage we will certainly have a chance to ask him some specific questions about who he has been listening to and whose lobbying efforts have been successful with this bill, as a first start on refinements to the Forest Practices Code.

I would like to make a couple of notes about the Forest Practices Code, because I note that the minister made some comments about the timber supply review process being extended to the end of 1996.

An Hon. Member: The next bill.

D. Mitchell: In the next bill, we're going to be dealing with that, in fact.

An Hon. Member: Bad research.

D. Mitchell: We will be addressing that in the next bill, but it relates as well to this bill, and that's why I'm flagging it now. Thank you very much for that. It relates to this bill as well, because we have a number of AACs in the timber supply process that have not yet been reviewed. Which version of the Forest Practices Code is going to apply?

An Hon. Member: Two-thirds.

D. Mitchell: Two-thirds of the annual allowable cuts in the timber supply review have yet to be determined. We have a Forest Practices Code that's in place. The first version of the Forest Practices Code has applied to 18 AACs, which have now been determined. Now, with the refinements and amendments to the Forest Practices Code, is that going to have any impact? Are we going to have to go back retroactively and look at those AACs? Is there any correlation there?

The minister is shaking his head, negative. I hope he's right, but there is a question in the industry as to whether there is going to be any impact on those. I don't want to wait until the next bill to address this.

An Hon. Member: Neither do British Columbians.

D. Mitchell: British Columbians don't want to have to wait, either. That's right. Who knows when we'll get to the next bill? Who knows if we'll get to the next bill? When the minister introduced Bill 18 in the House, he said that for the first time ever, sustainable forestry practices were made legally enforceable, backed up by tough penalties for non-compliance and ensuring that public confidence would continue to build in the forest industry. Yet with Bill 18 he's changing the penalties that apply to one particular set of circumstances under the forest practices bill.

I'll just refer to this now. In committee stage I'll be able to ask the minister more. I'm wondering why this change to

section 38, which removes

section 102(1) of the original bill to a different section. The original fine and penalty that was being proposed was $100,000 -- this is for people who are engaged in roadbuilding or trail-building activities; now we're reducing the scale or scope of the penalty to $5,000 maximum.

It seems that someone has been very successful in lobbying the minister. But some people have been more successful than others. I wonder if the minister will be able to explain why this group -- trail-builders -- has been successful in ensuring that any penalties they incur won't be $100,000 -- they'll be only $5,000. Has he been listening to major licensees about some of their roadbuilding concerns and some of their concerns as well? Are the fines that were initially proposed under the Forest Practices Code continuing to be reviewed by the minister and by his ministry, as they should be?

There are a number of issues that this bill really seeks to address; there's no one simple, underlying philosophy. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about concerns under

section 14 dealing with community watersheds. I would just note that I too have a question about the definition of a community watershed as is proposed under Bill 18. I think that

section 2 -- management plans -- which the member for Richmond-Steveston highlighted, is a very important change. The minister should not be modest about these amendments to the Forest Practices Code; I think they're very significant indeed.

One of the things I would note is that when the minister brought in the original act one year ago -- the new Forest Practices Code -- his ministry offered briefings to members of the Legislature in advance of the bill coming forward. They were very useful briefings. They didn't answer all of our questions, but they were extremely useful to members of this House. I wonder why, with Bill 18 -- a very significant package of amendments to the bill -- similar briefings were not made available to members of this House.

Before we get to committee stage -- I hope there's no hurry on this -- I think such an offer from the minister would be helpful indeed: to go through some of the technical amendments to the code that are being proposed here.

With those few suggestions, I look forward to seeing what the minister is going to say when he closes debate.

J. Tyabji: When the government came out with the Forest Practices Code and some of the amendments to the Forest Act last year, we followed it with great interest and certainly commended the government when they were taking a step in the right direction. I think it's important to recognize that one year later, many of these amendments are a step in the wrong direction and that some of the amendments we see coming forward are going to curtail the ability to hold people

account-

[ Page 14915 ]

able -- not the responsible people who are making use of the common forest resources, the resources owned by the people of the province, but those who have chosen to step over the line and create difficulties in the forest sector.

I think one of the biggest problems we're going to have as we get into debate is the changes with respect to road permits and the reconstruction of the natural environment that was originally provided for in the Forest Practices Code. It's interesting that last year, the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance called for community-based input in the decision about whether or not roads which were put in place to access forest resources would be reconstructed, rehabilitated or left for the use of the community. What we see is that we have neither option available here.

In fact, what we're doing here is removing the accountability in legislation. We're not putting in place a provision for local government to have some input about what will or will not stay, and we're putting the decision-making power in the hands of either the regional manager or the representative of the Crown.

I think that as we get into this, we will probably talk at some length about the community watershed provisions and whether or not they will be adequate. Obviously we recognize that some changes need to be made for the purposes of grazing on Crown land, but we do have some concerns that the changes that have been made here are going to leave people open to the same problems that have been occurring in the past.

I would think, for example, that Naramata is one excellent example of why we need to have some accountability in the Forest Practices Code; even though there may be a grazing schedule, where there is undue disturbance of the natural environment, particularly the water systems, the community has an avenue to pursue that under the Forest Practices Code.

If there is one comment that was repeatedly coming out of small communities like that, which had their own domestic water use interfered with by range cattle and by disturbance of the streambed, it is that they appreciate that the Forest Practices Code provided them some protection, and that there would not be the same kind of siltation or pollution of their water system because of an inability to plan for the movement of cattle.

We noticed that with the changes made in this act to the Forest Practices Code, range use plans are exempted, in fact, from being forced to cease and desist an operational plan if they disturb the natural environment or a water system, and that's a big concern.

We're also concerned because there seems to be a movement away from a rigid silviculture schedule. If there was one progressive move the government made in the Forest Practices Code, it was that we would finally have a prescription for five-year specific silviculture plans, a prescription for each area, and that if the prescription was not adhered to by the people who were using that logging plan, then there would be a very specific measure that it would be held up against.

We could say: "Here is a prescription for that area; this is the way in which that prescription has been violated, and here are the methods of accountability or redress for the people who would like to make sure that it's followed."

In this act, we've taken out the five-year silviculture plans; we've taken out the provision for protecting the disturbed portion of the area, specifically other than in accordance with regulations and standards; we've taken out the provision for rehabilitation of an area if there has been a disturbed portion. I would say that it appears the government has found the Forest Practices Code's progressive steps to be too much for some people -- the squeaky wheels -- to bear, and that because those people are very active and effective at lobbying the government, the government has taken a big step backwards by taking out of the public arena the protections that have been put in place.

I do think it's ironic that at a time when we talk about ending the war in the woods, we may in fact be stirring the pot again by removing some of the protections that were a limited first step in the right direction.

Although we should say that the Forest Practices Code was a good step forward and there are many positive aspects, I think we'll find out, especially in committee stage, that these are not the amendments that should be made, and that in fact, as we move away from road permits, rehabilitation steps or plans, the people of the province will not think it is a direction they should be going in, especially as we see erosion problems occurring. We see communities wanting greater control of their watersheds and greater input into siltation levels or disturbance of streambeds.

I would hope the minister will take constructive input in committee stage about some of the amendments that have come forward, or at least reveal to us some of the specific plans he has in place to pick up the slack that he's taking out of the legislation, and put into regulation some prescriptions for silviculture plans specific to each particular area, so that we will not be so concerned.

[3:30]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Forests, whose remarks will close second reading debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the comments of members opposite, and I'm certainly gratified to know that there is general support, even from the official opposition, for this bill. I do feel a need, based on the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston and the member for Surrey-White Rock, to clarify my understanding, at least, of the opposition's position. It is sometimes difficult, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggested, to keep straight which initiative the official opposition are opposing, because they've opposed so many changes to forest practices over the past two years.

My recollection, just to go through the list, is that the official opposition has opposed the forest renewal plan to reinvest in our forest. They have opposed the forest land reserve to provide a stable forest land base. They've certainly opposed the land use planning process and the Vancouver Island land use plan, including the protection of 13 percent of Vancouver Island. I know that they have opposed an awful lot, but let me assure the members opposite: I've never said that they opposed the Forest Practices Code in total.

What they did was oppose and vote against the enforcement provisions of the Forest Practices Code and try to deny the public access to the Forest Practices Board. I suppose that's a little -- this being bike-to-work day, I'll use a bicycle example -- like saying that you support bicycles but you're against spokes. You know: "Yes, we certainly support the Forest Practices Code, provided there's no effective enforcement provision." If members opposite take some comfort and wish to characterize that position as support of the code, well, more power to them.

I will continue to inform the public that in virtually every change that this government has instituted to bring about a

[ Page 14916 ]

more stable and sustainable base for forestry, the official opposition in particular -- in some cases supported by other opposition members -- has tried to stand in the way of those changes. Perhaps they've now come to some repentance as they start to see that, in fact, these changes are having a positive effect. I hope that's the case.

I do want to say that it preys on my conscience that the member for Richmond-Steveston has been harbouring this resentment for the past year that, as he saw it, his concerns around inventory weren't adequately heard. Let me assure him that I've always been concerned about having adequate inventory. If it does provide him some comfort that there are further changes with respect to inventory, well, I'm pleased that he can take that comfort. Particularly given his party's position on forest reform, he needs whatever comfort he can get, wherever he can get it.

A. Warnke: I feel better already.

Hon. A. Petter: There you go.

With respect to other comments made, these changes are part of a living process. This is a major new undertaking. I think it is, frankly, unfortunate that this province didn't have a Forest Practices Code many years ago. It is really unforgivable, for a province whose primary resource is forestry, that we didn't have a code. Any major new initiative of this kind will necessarily require thinking and rethinking. We shouldn't be afraid to take.... I think it was W.A.C. Bennett who used to talk about taking that sober second look and not being afraid to look.

We're going to have to, with this legislation, do that not just in this session but in future sessions. We're going to have to be prepared to consider and reconsider, because this is a living document that, if it is going to succeed, is going to have to build upon the input and experience that we gain. These changes are very much a reflection of the input from all sectors that we have received over the past year -- as, indeed, are the regulations that have been announced.

Let me just hit a few specifics, and I'm sure we can deal with the others in committee stage. The member for Surrey-White Rock referred to training modules. The Ministry of Forests has been pioneering training modules in conjunction with industry and other forest users. They have become the basis for Forest Practices Code training.

In terms of staffing, I was somewhat confused because the member for Surrey-White Rock indicated that there was no additional staffing for the Forest Practices Code, and then the next member to stand up, the member for Peace River North, got up and lamented the fact that there was too much additional staffing. I guess those parties aren't coordinating their efforts as much as I had assumed they were. Perhaps they could sit down and mediate their differences, and then I would be happy to respond.

The reality is that, yes, there are additional staff targeted at Forest Practices Code enforcement. About 200 of them, however, are due to the fact that we've done a major reorganization within the Ministry of Forests to make our operations more efficient and to lessen our administrative component in order to provide more resources in the field. There have been additional resources provided and additional staff beyond that, but the reality is that much of the new resources being targeted at the code have been achieved within existing financial resources because of a very successful, albeit a difficult, reorganization for a major ministry to undertake.

The member for Peace River North referred to the need to have flexibility and not one single set of rules, and I agree with him. If he looks at the regulations, he will find that the regulations recognize the need for regional variation, flexibility and judgment on the ground. Good forestry must be sensitive to the site; it must be sensitive to local conditions. This code is certainly there to support the judgment of professionals in the field to make those key calls not to get in the way. So I hope he will look at the code and regulations again in that light, because I think, in fact, they very much reflect his concerns on the need for flexibility.

I've already dealt with some of the concerns of the member for Richmond-Steveston. Some of the concerns of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.... We can talk in some detail about road deactivation. Suffice it to say that the code's provisions for road access development plans are going to very much increase accountability. They require licence holders to put forward an entire road development plan, including deactivation plans, ahead of time, in which the public can get -- through a single window -- the kind of information they haven't been able to get.

So the input of the guide-outfitter or others who want to see roads maintained for recreation use, or of a company that wants to see roads maintained for silvicultural use, can be factored in at a far earlier stage.

I appreciated, among many of his excellent comments, the member's comments on salvage policy. Members should be aware, if they're not, that the ministry has been undertaking a major initiative to review salvage policy. That is being circulated now for public input. There are some recommendations for changes in legislation.

But I say to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the more likely forum for those legislative changes is not the code, which can accommodate salvage quite easily, but the Forest Act itself, to give incentives to ensure that salvage timber is taken and that it's taken in a way that increases jobs. It's more likely to come in the Forest Act, but following a period of some public consideration of these changes, because we are very much committed to ensuring that the public is fully involved in all of these changes. So the paper, I believe, is now being circulated for input.

He has my commitment that we will move as quickly as possible on all aspects of encouraging better and greater utilization of the forest resource through salvage, once we have the public input from that paper. That may necessitate some changes in the next legislative session.

I won't go into any more of the specific detail, but let me say generally to the member for Okanagan East that the changes here are based upon consideration of input from communities about their watersheds. The changes in terms of size of watersheds reflect particular concerns of communities that felt their watersheds would not be well protected if those changes weren't made. I'd be happy to provide more details later on when we get to that stage of debate.

With respect to the comments from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, of course the Forest Practices Code must take precedence, but of course the code must also be a document that is flexible and that accommodates different needs on different parts of the land base. For that reason the code has in it a provision for higher-level plans, to ensure that the management on the ground corresponds with the

objec-

[ Page 14917 ]

tives set for the particular land, whether it's special management, highly intensive forestry or whatever it may be. So it's a matter of ensuring that whatever we do is within the code but that the code is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the particular component of the land.

Have we listened to major licensees? Absolutely. We've listened to all forest stakeholders in making these changes and the regulatory changes that were made. I sometimes worry that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and other members perhaps listen too much to major licensees, to the exclusion of others. Maybe that's why he doesn't think we've listened enough. In fact, we've listened to all the input we've received. In particular, the input from major licensees has been very helpful and useful not only in these changes but in the regulations that have been brought about.

I'd be happy to address any specific concerns he might have on their behalf that he may raise at a later stage, when we get to that part of the debate.

With that, I once again move that Bill 18 be read for a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 18, Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 42.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 42 introduces amendments to the Forest Act that reflect this government's commitment, again, to improve forest management, to diversify our forest economy and to protect the economic base of forest-dependent communities. In that way, these changes -- along with those we just debated -- reflect our plan to increase investment in the forest sector by strengthening our forest base and ensuring that there are jobs for today and jobs for the future.

These amendments will affect forest management in four areas. First, Bill 42 includes two amendments that relate to the chief forester's ability to determine annual allowable cuts. And I will say that in both cases they're amendments the chief forester has requested to enable him to carry out his responsibilities. Members, if they look to the Forest Act, will see that

section 7 of the Forest Act requires the chief forester to determine the annual allowable cut for every timber supply area and tree farm licence area before December 31, 1995, and at least once every five years after the area's last determination.

One of the amendments that is in this act will relieve the chief forester of the obligation to set an annual allowable cut for a tree farm licence if the licence holder fails to provide the information needed to make that determination. Last year we dealt with changes that would affect those licence holders who did not comply and provide adequate information, and allowed the chief forester to take action in respect of those licence holders.

Clearly, however, while awaiting that information, the chief forester is not in a position to go ahead and make a cut determination, and therefore this further change has been requested by the chief forester to accompany the earlier changes that were made to ensure that it is only upon receiving that adequate information that a final cut determination is made.

The other amendment extends the deadline for the annual allowable cut determinations under

section 7 from December 31, 1995, to December 31, 1996. This original deadline was a very ambitious one. Certainly it reflected the urgent need to get on with the job of getting the adequate inventory information needed under the timber supply analysis, and that ambitious

schedule has been the road map that the chief forester has tried to use to proceed with his reviews.

However, the fact is that he has determined he cannot complete the job within that time frame. He needs some additional time -- happily, not a lot -- and he therefore has indicated to me, and through me to the Legislature, that he would request an amendment be made to facilitate the additional time necessary in order for him to make the kinds of decisions that I think the public expects of him -- decisions that will involve public input and take adequate account of the forest resource.

So the amendment provided will give the additional time requested by the chief forester to consider the results of the timber supply review and make well-informed AAC determinations. It will ensure that we continue to provide communities with the information and that the chief forester has time to consider that information before making any final cut determinations.

The second area addressed by Bill 42 facilitates the expansion of the woodlot licence program. Legislation passed in 1993 allowed the government to expand the size of woodlot licences or to make minor boundary changes when licences come up for replacement. This legislation was not brought into force until October 1994, however, for administrative reasons, and the amendment is intended to allow several woodlot licences which have come up for replacement since 1993 to take advantage of this new provision.

I might say that this also complements the government's initiative to double woodlot licences and provide greater opportunity for small operators to gain access to the public forest resource through woodlot licences, an initiative that I think is extremely positive and has found a large measure of public support.

The third area included in Bill 42 is amendments to help implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates conducted by Dr. Brian Scarfe. Members may recall that when the forest renewal plan was introduced a year ago, along with stumpage rate increases, there were increases announced in respect of royalty rates. Those caused some controversy, and as a result of that controversy, we agreed to undertake an independent review of royalty rates under the auspices of Dr. Brian Scarfe.

Dr. Scarfe was commissioned to undertake that review in October 1994. He concluded that review recently, and his report was released in late February. It contained ten main recommendations, and the government at that time announced it would implement those recommendations. The main recommendation of Dr. Scarfe's report was that royalty rates be adjusted over time so that the differences between royalty rates and stumpage rates are eliminated over a period of years. These amendments help to implement this recommendation, as well as other recommendations relating to appraisal methodologies and timber pricing.

[ Page 14918 ]

[3:45]

The government will continue to consult with industry on the phase-in period for royalty rates, although in this legislation we have committed.... I should correct that; the government has consulted with industry on the phase-in period for royalty rates. Based on that consultation, under this legislation the phase-in period that's provided is one of six years, which was the period recommended by Dr. Scarfe as the appropriate period to eliminate the discrepancy between royalty and stumpage rates.

The final area included in Bill 42 proposes a one-time amendment to facilitate an exchange of harvesting rights needed to implement the Vancouver Island land use plan, ensuring that that land use plan provides not only for the long-term sustainability of the forest resource in an environmental sense but also its long-term sustainability in an economic sense. Considerable consultations were undertaken with affected communities, particularly in the Strathcona timber supply area. As a result, some changes were contemplated, and this amendment will enable us to bring about those changes.

In particular, the amendment will help to ensure community stability in Tahsis, Gold River and Zeballos through an exchange of harvesting rights between Doman Forest Products Ltd. and the government. Doman Forest Products Ltd. has agreed to exchange harvesting rights associated with their existing forest licence in the Strathcona timber supply area and to forgo those harvesting rights in exchange for harvesting rights within tree farm licence No. 6, which is held by Western Forest Products Ltd., which in turn is wholly owned by Doman Forest Products Ltd.

This has produced a happy outcome for the communities in the Strathcona timber supply area, because it provides additional harvesting-right opportunities that can now be reallocated to ensure the stability of those communities. During my recent visit to those communities this announcement was greeted with considerable support, and I think has gone a long way towards alleviating some of the concerns those communities would have otherwise had as a result of the land use plan.

In these ways, these amendments will help to improve forest management to implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates and ensure community stability. As such, it is part of this government's overall commitment to invest in our land and resource base to ensure that that base continues to provide a stable future for us -- a future which we can count on in both environmental and economic terms. For that reason I would be happy to move that Bill 42 be read for a second time now.

W. Hurd: It's a feast or a famine in forest legislation in this assembly. We get two important pieces of legislation on the same day, and I don't believe for a minute that they are companion pieces. Bill 42 contains some important changes to the Forest Act, and I think it deserves a great deal of debate in this assembly.

Specifically, the first section, -- which deals with the extension of the time frame for the chief forester to complete his review of the 38 timber supply areas in the province, has been a development of considerable controversy in the province. There are those that suspect the time frame of December 31, 1996, has a lot more to do with an election date in British Columbia than with a genuine effort to complete a commitment that the government made to develop a proper inventory of all 38 timber supply areas in the province. As we know, this has been a controversial issue, one of great concern to the communities.

I know that the minister will claim that the time allowance was requested by the chief forester, but there are those who continue to be suspicious as to the timing. The fact of the matter is that some of the most contentious and controversial timber supply reviews in the province will be held in abeyance as a result of this adjustment until after the next election, and the timing is remarkable in its coincidence. I am sure that the minister will get up and re-emphasize the independent nature of the chief forester in the province and how he alone dictates how these timber supply reviews should progress.

But we note on this side of the House that when the government was elected, in their first year they stood up in the assembly and committed to the people of the province that the 38 timber supply areas in the province would be thoroughly reviewed, an inventory analysis would be completed, and the communities would know how far down the annual allowable cut would have to be ratcheted in order for the timber supply management area to be sustainable.

Well, we've seen so many overlapping initiatives from the government in land use planning: the effects of the Forest Practices Code, for example, on the annual allowable harvest -- again, an area of considerable disagreement within the ministry. The minister has said publicly that it could be 4 to 6 percent. There are others with licences who suggest that the reduction in the harvest level will be much higher.

So I think that this is another development under Bill 42 that increases the level of uncertainty for those forest-dependent communities. They will now see some major decisions on inventory -- which would normally guide them and the government in an annual allowable harvest for that region -- held in abeyance until after the next election, when damage control will not be affected by the results of a campaign. I think it's troubling that that kind of controversy exists. Certainly we'll receive assurances from the minister when he closes debate that in fact this isn't the case. But, again, the timing is a concern.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Some of the other aspects of this bill.... The conversion of royalties to stumpage is an issue that affects some of the longstanding tenure holders in the province. I really think that that gets us into a discussion about the whole tenure reform issue and why it was that these original licences were set up with a royalty system in place. I have no problem with the decision of the government to convert royalties to stumpage.

Stumpage, after all, is a market-sensitive device that goes up and down based on the price of the produce, and it's understandable that the Crown would seek to recover as much revenue as possible during a time when the markets are up. But you know, hon. Speaker, the original royalties set on those tenures recognize the fact that there was a sizeable incremental investment that could, or should, be made on those tenures, which was recognized by the lower rate of royalty as opposed to stumpage.

Clearly the government, over the years it's been in power, has made no effort to deal with the tenure reform issue. The minister indicated that it is his intention to increase the number of woodlots in the province, which does, I suppose, equate in some way to tenure reform, to the extent that more forest land will theoretically be in an enhanced management regime.

[ Page 14919 ]

But clearly the tree farm licences in the province continue to be underutilized as a potential for increasing the annual allowable harvest. I only hope, when we look at the application of some forest renewal dollars, that in fact there will be an effort made to identify some of the opportunities in those tree farm licences now that the stumpage rate on them will probably more approximately equate with other forms of forest licences in British Columbia. I think it's important to get that into the record.

With respect to the other major portion of this bill, which is the exchange of forest licences to allow for the implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan, I think it can be honestly said on this side of the House that the government's handling of that issue was abysmal in the extreme. As the minister well knows, there was a well-documented leak that indicated that cabinet was considering a draconian measure on the north Island that would have rendered those communities almost insolvent.

The minister is shaking his head, but I know that he spent a lot of time up there at meetings with the residents to assure them that option B, as it was called, was not the one that the government was actively considering.

The other issue that was addressed in that confidential cabinet discussion document was the entire issue of compensation, which continues to be an unknown factor with respect to the implementation of not only the Vancouver Island land use plan but also other land use plans in the province. The minister at that time indicated that the compensation bill might be as high as $500 million. That was the amount that was contained in the government's own internal memo -- cabinet submission -- and, of course, the minister subsequently denied that it would in fact be that high. The issue continues to languish.

What kind of resources, what kinds of money, is the province going to have to pay to implement these land use plans? I think it's an issue that really hasn't been addressed in connection with the implementation of the plan, and although it doesn't specifically relate, necessarily, to the exchange of timber in Bill 42 which will allow the communities of Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos to survive, it is still an issue that either this government or a future government will have to address.

The costs, again, are unknown; it may well be one of those issues that is decided by the courts to the disadvantage of the Crown.

I would hope that during the course of the debates about land use in the province and the implementation of the land use plans in the Kootenays, the Cariboo and the north Island, some honesty will be forthcoming from the government on exactly what kind of compensation bill is anticipated. I'm glad to see that the Minister of Employment and Investment is here, because he had a lot to say about the compensation figure to Doman Industries Ltd. for the loss of a forest licence on South Moresby, I believe. I think he called it, and other issues brought forth at the time, shocking and appalling. I think the compensation figure at that time was in the range of $40 million to $50 million....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: It's $60 million; I stand corrected.

As I recall, the minister vowed that never again in the province would we see that kind of compensation figure available.

Again, we still have no idea of exactly what kinds of costs the Crown will accrue for these land use plans, and of the alienation of forest licences and reduction in harvest that will inevitably occur. It continues to be an unknown variable out there, and it's one that all members of this assembly -- and certainly the province -- should be concerned about.

This is not a bill of what I would call inconsequential amendments. Certainly in committee stage, the opposition will be closely questioning the minister with respect to the decision to not meet stated targets on the timber supply reviews in the province. Clearly that's a major issue.

It doesn't specifically come up for mention in the bill, but during second reading debate, when we're dealing with philosophy and principles, it really is important to again emphasize the importance of arriving at a sustainable level of harvest in the province. I know that as the chief forester has undertaken these timber supply reviews throughout the province, the entire initiative has been designed to produce a sustainable level of harvest off public lands in the province. Currently, the rate fluctuates between 71 million and 75 million cubic metres off public lands.

I've had the opportunity to listen to two submissions by the chief forester, who is projecting that we may in fact see a reduction in the harvest levels to around 61 million cubic metres, which in the opinion of the chief forester would be a sustainable level of harvest in British Columbia. That translates into thousands of lost jobs in the province. A reduction of 10 million cubic metres of harvest, with an incremental reduction of around 1,000 jobs, I believe, for every 1 percent reduction, means we're talking about significant dislocation in the province.

It's interesting to note that with respect to the annual allowable harvest in British Columbia, the International Woodworkers of America -- the IWA, of all people -- have come out with a suggestion that there be a target rate of 71 million cubic metres in the province. It is a dramatic change in position for the union, which, I think, really speaks well of their concern about where we're heading in British Columbia.

[4:00]

I know that the government is fond of listening to unions to a greater degree than some other stakeholders -- at least, that has been my impression. I would hope that the minister would give careful consideration to the position being taken by the IWA with respect to setting a target rate of 71 million cubic metres off public lands, which will sustain, in turn, a level of employment and investment in the industry. With the delay of the chief forester's inventory review until after the next election, it may not be possible to address that fundamental issue.

As I travel the province, I am often asked where we are headed in terms of an annual allowable harvest in the province. What is it going to be? The chief forester has cautiously suggested that it might be 61 to 63 million cubic metres. Others will tell the minister -- and I'm sure they have -- that if we were prepared to initiate serious tenure reform, we wouldn't have to deal with that kind of major reduction in harvest levels.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of information that the inventory analysis might have been able to provide us. It's regrettable that the delay has occurred and that those answers will not be available, not only to the opposition but also to the people who live in forest-dependent communities. They have

[ Page 14920 ]

been living under a cloud for the last three years. I can tell the minister that the people who live in Zeballos, Gold River and Tahsis are but a small example of the kind of uncertainty that continues to exist out there.

One of the issues that is starting to gather steam in the province is a real desire on the part of communities to have a greater say in the allocation of their resource. The minister received a submission from a group of major stakeholders in the Queen Charlottes -- village governments, first nations and major licensees -- who pointed out to him that there's only one remaining family sawmill in the entire Queen Charlottes, and it has been an on-again, off-again operation. So the collective resource, the harvest, leaves the Queen Charlottes every year. They see it going by their doors on barges, yet the community has no input into how the resource is allocated.

I was up in Fort St. John the weekend before last, and the same kind of issue is up there. Communities see the resource leaving their community; there appears to be no input and no ability on their part to control or have any say over how the resource is being allocated. That's a building trend in the province as communities are no longer willing to stand aside and allow the forces of major licensees and, to a greater extent, the government and big unions to dictate where the resource goes and how it's allocated.

I have some difficulty with this bill. I understand the fact that since we are dealing with a delay in the inventory review, some form of legislation is required to deal with it. We'll certainly be questioning the government closely in committee stage on the nature of the delay and the consequences. We'll be exploring at length the transfer of timber on the North Island, particularly the Strathcona TSA, and how it will have an impact on those communities, which have expressed their concern to the opposition on many occasions. We will welcome that debate in committee stage.

Based on the information we receive then, we will undoubtedly make a decision as to what segments of this bill we can support.

With those few remarks, I look forward to listening to other members of the assembly speak on their assessment of Bill 42, and I look forward to the minister's remarks upon closing debate.

N. Lortie: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to introduce a group of students and their teacher from Westside Christian School in Yakima, Washington. Our neighbours to the south are led by their teacher Mr. Braun. Would the members of this House please make them very welcome.

G. Wilson: I don't know if it's just me or if it's a product of our breakdown with Bonneville Power that the heat in this facility is so lacking today. If anybody within the sound of my voice can do something about it, it would be useful. Mind you, it might speed up debate. Who knows? If we keep us in a refrigerated state, it might manage to get this thing through a little faster.

With respect to Bill 42, I reflect back to 1985 as somebody who lectured in resource economics and was actively involved in watching a former administration stumble along in trying to manage the forest resource. I was strongly advocating, at that time, from a non-partisan -- indeed, non-political, because it was prior to throwing my hat into the political ring at this level.... What the province absolutely desperately needed was a comprehensive land inventory of resources.

I found it difficult to understand how the chief forester could make a rational assessment of annual allowable cut if he did not have at his disposal -- in this case a he -- an opportunity to review an accurate and adequate inventory of what our resources were. At that time, as an economist and a resource economist, I was standing there saying -- actually, an economic geographer, to be more specific -- that what we had to do was put in place this comprehensive land inventory.

One of things we wanted to do was to more than simply count trees and species of trees and talk about densities of particular vegetation growth; we wanted to put in place an inventory that would provide a proper assessment of soils, of watersheds -- of all of those kinds of things that were needed to understand how we were going to maintain a viable, workable forest. That was the second thing we needed to do. Having set in place an inventory, we needed to set aside a designated working forest within which licence to cut would be provided.

We argued strongly that we needed to somehow bring together royalty and stumpage rates. Somehow we had to bring those into sync, because it made no sense whatsoever for us not to do so.

On the one hand, I can say that I am pleased that at least one of the two things we argued for has been accomplished here in 1995, some ten years later. But the other is still woefully lacking. We still do not have a comprehensive working inventory of our resource base. It's no wonder that the chief forester finds it difficult to make these difficult decisions. Although I concur, quite frankly, with the member for Surrey-White Rock when he suggests that it is so coincidentally timed to the next provincial election that one at least has to be careful not to allow the cynicism that's within one to sort of percolate over here.

An Hon. Member: Not too careful.

G. Wilson: But not too careful, as the member says.

Quite clearly, there are a number of very critical issues that have to be addressed with respect to this provision. First of all, I think it's important to understand that there are some legitimate reasons why an adequate assessment cannot be made and why the hands of the chief forester are somewhat tied. I understand that, and I've been arguing for an amendment to this for at least ten years. I still think that we have not come to grips with it, even though we may be moving in that direction.

The other thing I find interesting with respect to the provisions is that whenever you have an amendment to

an act which essentially amends obligations that were put in place by this regime, one has to argue: What went wrong? If it was okay for us to look at it in terms of a commitment for 1995, why do we now have to wait the additional year? We need to ask the minister that, and we will be asking the minister that when we come to committee stage.

But recognize also, I think, that there are a number of other very critical issues that are going to come into play. We are steaming ahead, like it or not, with a whole series of commitments that are being made in terms of joint

steward-

[ Page 14921 ]

ship agreements with first nations people. We're talking about.... Certainly, as we see in the Nisga'a agreement, there has been a commitment for an annual allowable cut outside the general area in which the Nisga'a have a comprehensive claim, and that's within that tenure. That's obviously going to have implications. Clearly, members of the IWA who I talk to on a reasonably frequent basis are concerned that there has to be some long-term plan for security for their employees, for people working in the forests, and they want to have some kind of guaranteed fibre supply.

They want to know what those allowable cuts are. In the more general sense of the term, the comprehensive nature of the land claim in British Columbia right now is going to demand, I think, that this government come forward and put in place the parameters with respect to timber available to those conventional licence holders and timber which is going to be set aside or somehow otherwise alienated as a result of land negotiations with the first nations people.

So this is a very important issue, and the fact that it is delayed through to December 1996 tells us that that's going to be a problem for whoever forms government after the next election -- because one thing that we do know is that there will be a new government. It may be of the same political stripe, or it may not be -- it may be of a different political stripe -- but it will be a new body of government in place by that date, and it's going to make it difficult, if we're going to somehow substantively change the manner by which we govern our forests, if that restriction is in place.

So I think it's unfortunate that we have this amendment in front of us right now. I would have liked to have thought that we could have proceeded without that amendment in place, and I would have hoped that by now, certainly through the introduction of the CORE process, that process would have provided at least the opportunity to be able to come out with the general guidelines and figures, whatever they may have been, in terms of the amount of annual allowable cut to be announced by the chief forester. So the annual cut review being postponed is of serious concern, and I think it's something that we can't take lightly.

The second area is something I've mentioned before, and that is the bringing together of the royalty and stumpage rates. I think this makes some sense, but clearly we have to be very careful as we do that to recognize that this government has embarked upon a rather ambitious forest renewal strategy that is a job creation strategy. It is a strategy that in very large measure is dependent upon long-term revenue coming in off the forest industry for reinvestment in forestry, and I think that is something that everybody is looking towards in terms of maintenance of jobs in the woods, especially in this period of transition as we move from the old system of forestry into the new.

We have to be very careful, as we start to make the amendments with respect to these rates, that we don't have government driving those rates for agendas that are beyond those driven by the market. I would be cautious, because I think that the people in this business have to be very, very aware that it is in the government's financial interests at this point to make sure that those rates are maintained at a high level. As I mentioned earlier on, there is a notion of the cyclical nature of this particular industry that requires that there be some provision with respect to the flexibility of the setting of those rates.

So the minister has to be aware that while I support in principle what is being proposed here, because I think it makes some sense, I think that there are some very real concerns with respect to the actual numbers that will be assigned to those rates as we look to the provision of the rates in certain areas of the province, also recognizing the provision of the different rates which are provided for in the amendments included in this particular bill.

Let me say also that I find it interesting to look at the transitional

section --

section 18 -- in this bill, because I think that as we start to look at this section, what we recognize here, or what we start to see, is that the government is effectively now giving us a date, April 1, 1995, with respect to amended royalty rate regulation, and it gives us a proposition for how we're going to proceed beyond that. I think that as we get into committee stage there are some obvious questions that the minister is going to be asked about that in terms of how this transitional period is going to affect certain operations that are currently underway.

There are some concerns out there in industry, which I'm sure the minister has heard of -- I have, and I'm sure that if I have, the minister has also -- that those dates established there and the procedure from those dates are going to have to be explained, particularly in the light of some variable applications that have come forward and are currently in the approval process.

[4:15]

Having said that, the last area that I wanted to comment on with respect to

section 19 of this bill is with respect to the Strathcona timber supply area. The minister has indicated that this is something that has had considerable community input and discussion, and I don't think anybody would deny that there has been a lot of discussion. What we have to know is that the minister has heard what has been said in those resource-dependent communities: that there has to be a proposition for some kind of long-term security in terms of timber supply in those areas.

It is not enough for us to look in isolation at the Commission on Resources and Environment and its processes, at the establishment of the protected-areas strategy -- for all its value and worth -- in terms of how that's going to function and at the notion of the Strathcona timber supply area as it has been affected by those two processes without also understanding that there is another component, and that is the settlement of first nations' demands with respect to the resource.

The minister not only has to address that concern with respect to the Strathcona timber supply area, but he's going to have to address that in the broader question, which is with respect to the availability of the resource within British Columbia.

The minister should know -- notwithstanding my cynicism about the dates with respect to the soon-to-be-amended time lines for the chief forester -- that the public, the average British Columbia citizen, is very, very concerned about the delays that will take place with respect to securing that timber. There are many, many communities that are absolutely dependent on it.

Furthermore, our livelihood as British Columbians is dependent on the long-term security provided by the establishment of a working forest, by the long-term tenure implications that that working forest is going to provide and by some knowledge that the rates that are set are sustainable. In order for us to be able to be sure that that's the case, there must be a comprehensive inventory that we can go

[ Page 14922 ]

to and do a check on; there must be some baseline that we can work from so that we know exactly how we're affecting our resource.

With those comments made, I look forward to committee stage, and I especially look forward to discussions around the delay and what the implications of that delay may be.

R. Neufeld: We would like to put some remarks on the record on Bill 42. The extension of time for the chief forester to conduct and complete the timber supply review to one year from now -- instead of December 1995 it will be December, 1996.... Going along with what the other two members spoke about earlier, it almost seems to coincide with what has been said about an election and those issues. Getting back to what I think it really is, it's very difficult to put together all those projections; in fact, it's a monumental task.

Possibly the minister was correct when he stated that it's a goal that is tough to get to. Obviously they're not going to be able to get to it. I hope we will be working that way when it comes to timber supply: taking the time that is necessary to conduct a good review and come up with a supply that industry and the government and ultimately the people of British Columbia can live with.

For as long as my colleague for Prince George-Omineca and I have been in the House, we've asked that an area be set aside for forestry purposes, much the same as the agricultural land reserve, and that that area be left for forestry purposes and infringed on only in extreme conditions, so industry and government can plan. Collectively, whether we like it or not, industry and government have to plan what revenues we're going to receive in the future, and what's sustainable and what isn't sustainable.

Those are large issues that British Columbia is trying to deal with. I hope they will be completed by the fall of 1996. Obviously, it's very difficult for those communities that are still in a process of land use planning -- a process of trying to decide what areas are going to be used for what and what's going to happen with the environment.

There is an awful lot of uncertainty in the province about jobs, and that's something that affects each and every one of us. Maybe it affects people in the north, the interior and the Kootenays much more than it does people in Vancouver, although the people in Vancouver should know that one in every five jobs in Vancouver depends heavily on the forest industry in one way or another. If we continue to lose jobs within the forest industry -- and they are very well-paying jobs.... They're the kinds of jobs that we need in British Columbia if we're going to continue to enjoy what we enjoy today.

So I can understand that some areas in the province are really concerned and would like to see the previous date of 1995 met. But if we cannot put together a proper inventory and the proper information that is needed to do that, then obviously we will have to wait until 1996.

Secondly, the Scarfe review that was completed in January of this year to do with the change of royalty to stumpage rates on privately held lands.... I believe the largest portion of those lands are on Vancouver Island. I can't remember, but I think there are some around Vancouver, most of it in the lower mainland. I want to read into the record a few paragraphs of the Scarfe report that deal with the time period. The government has elected to go to a six-year time period, and for their own political reasons or whatever, that's their prerogative.

"The 12-year phase-in period also has the beauty of removing the royalty concession just within a 100-year time span for the last of the old temporary tenures that were issued in 1907. In fact, the 12-year phase-in period, which is no better or worse on average for timber licence holders than the provincial government's 80 percent fallback benchmark, finally removes the two-price system for B.C. timber on April 1, 2007. In my view, this is the longest phase-in period which should be allowed for establishment of royalty rates to stumpage price equivalency."

We know that there has to be some amalgamation of those processes. I don't think the Reform Party has any problem with that. I think we do have a bit of a problem with the time frame.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Exactly.

"The alternative six-year phase-in period, whose present value implications are given in column 4 of appendix table C5, is clearly more draconian for timber licence holders and more revenue-enhancing for the provincial government than the 12-year phase-in period."

That's very interesting, and I read that into the record.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I know that the minister is saying, "Read the recommendation," and that's correct. The Scarfe report recommends the six years. What I'm saying is that this government doesn't always take every report it gets and say: "Yes, we're going to live up to that report." We are saying that they should possibly have extended the time to 12 years, because they will normally be finished in that period of time, and most of them will be finished about 2004 to 2005.

I have a few more paragraphs I'll read into the record.

"Legal issues may possibly be of some concern in this regard. It should be noted that a very substantial portion of outstanding timber licences have expiry dates which fall within the six- to 12-year time frame. Indeed, virtually all timber licences that are contained within the tree farm licence area expire between 2001 and 2007, with heavy concentration near 2004 to 2005."

So we wonder why the hurry for the government and the recommendation to go to six years, knowing that it's going to leave some issues on the table. There's no doubt that it's going to leave some tenure on the table -- something that's going to have to be dealt with at a later time.

The final issue that we think Bill 42 deals with is the Tahsis-Gold River issue, which the minister spoke of in his opening remarks -- the exchange of cutting rights and the cost of possible compensation for those land use claims. I guess it dovetails with my earlier