1992 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 3

[ Page 1465 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce two very special people in the gallery today: a good friend of mine from Prince George, Donna Sacuta; and with her is her husband, who probably writes to more people in British Columbia and in Canada than anybody else, the MP for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Brian Gardiner.

V. Anderson: Members and families of the Canadian Search Centre for Missing Children are visiting Victoria, and they're in the House with us today. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

L. Fox: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to this House a very fond member of our family -- in fact, two members of our family: my daughter Debbie and her husband, Ken Dickson. Would the House make them truly welcome.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to say that today there is a class of grade 5 students visiting in the gallery from Collingwood School in West Vancouver accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jamie Porpaczy. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, my guest today is Mr. George Clark, who is the president of the Canadian Liver Foundation. I'd like to ask the House to make him welcome.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is my wife Aileen Randall, and with her is her sister Audrey Clark from Portland, Oregon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to help make welcome some people who are in the precincts -- I think too busy to actually be in attendance, although I was checking -- Councillor Lorne Cahoose and Mike Holte from the Ylkatcho band, Cameron Beck from the tribal council that services that band and Dave Neads from the West Chilcotin Community Resource Association. I would like the House to welcome them to the precincts.

F. Garden: Also on the precincts but too busy to be here is a constituent from Cariboo North, Chief Roger Jimmie. I ask that you join me and make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE

COQUITLAM FOUNDATION

B. Copping presented a bill intituled

An Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation.

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, this act creates a perpetual body to receive donations in trust. The net annual income from the donations will be devoted perpetually to charitable purposes, principally within or near the district of Coquitlam. Such charities would include provision for needy people, educational advancement, scientific or medical research, betterment of underprivileged or delinquent persons, promotion of recreational activities, and conservation of human, natural and heritage resources.

This is a non-profit organization formed by a group representing people and organizations within the district of Coquitlam. It is virtually the same as foundations of Mission and Chilliwack, which were passed by this House.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ACT

M. Farnworth, seconded by the member for Vancouver-Langara, presented a bill intituled Vancouver School of Theology Act.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education. Students are having special difficulty this year finding summer jobs. Last week the government told students it would eliminate more than 1,600 career-related jobs on campuses. This decision was announced five weeks after the end of classes. Will the minister agree that his government's indecision has hurt the chances of students to find summer jobs?

Hon. T. Perry: No, I would not agree. Decisions were taken in the provincial budget announced on March 26. There was no indecision on our part. We made some difficult decisions, which we would prefer not to have been forced to do, but which lie in the context of a $1.79 billion deficit. That's despite $1 billion in savings to the taxpayers in the budget process, which lie in the context of many other difficulties in employment in the forest and coal-mining industries and the collapse of the town of Cassiar. Throughout the province people are having difficulties.

We used our resources in the best way we knew to preserve the most essential jobs for students in the tourism sector. I do not agree with the member that we did not deal fairly with students.

[2:15]

D. Mitchell: Supplementary, hon. Speaker. The minister's answer is simply not good enough. This government knew it had to make some tough choices. Can the minister inform the House why the government did not work with the private sector early on to help replace some of the students' summer jobs that he has cut this year?

[ Page 1466 ]

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, we share the opposition's concern, and we would have liked to have done more for students. I hasten to emphasize that we froze tuition fees, we raised the weekly allowances on the student loan program and we have worked very hard to get the federal Secretary of State to eliminate the 3 percent grab-back on student loans. We have allocated those funds which were preserved in our budget, despite taking our share of some of the pain that everyone else in the province is having to feel.

As for the funds we had available for student summer employment creation, we targeted those funds to where we thought they would have the maximum impact not only on student job creation but on the economy of the province, which is the tourism sector.

Although we agree with hon. members that we would have liked to have done more, the reality is that B.C. is facing some serious economic difficulties. Those are shared all across the province, and we have no compunction in saying that...

The Speaker: Could the minister wrap up his remarks, please.

Hon. T. Perry: ...everyone has to do their fair bit.

D. Mitchell: Final supplementary question to the minister. The minister refuses to answer my questions. This government claims that it is on the side of students, yet it has cut the Environment Youth Corps, student venture loans and now the Challenge '92 program. Is that what the government considers to be "on the side of students"? When is this government going to stand up for students in our post-secondary institutions?

The Speaker: The minister for a brief reply.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure if there was anything other than a rhetorical question there. There were problems, as the member well knows, with programs like the student venture capital loan. In one case, students had bought cows to fatten them up for slaughter and called that a business venture. We targeted the funds we had available as carefully as we could to real job creation for students. Yes, we would like to do more, but these are tough times, and we have to live within the closest we could come to a balanced budget.

KEMANO 2 PROJECT

L. Fox: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday the minister promised a public hearing on Kemano 2. Given that there's significant economic opportunity in the northwest, and substantial concern in the Nechako Valley, can the minister advise this House when we can expect that process to begin?

Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that the nature of the review will be the subject of an announcement in the very near future.

L. Fox: Given that you made the statement outside the House, the legal requirements now may fly in the face of a consultative approach, which you support. Can we be assured that the process the minister puts forward will be meaningful and not just a consultative charade?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: Can the minister also tell this House whether or not he has sought legal advice as to what his authority is to order this new review?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

COMPETITIVENESS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. With regard to the Price Waterhouse study on B.C.'s competitiveness, does the minister feel that the environmental regulations governing B.C. companies are tougher than the Americans', and does he think these regulations require capital investment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Do we have half an hour to answer the question?

The Speaker: A brief reply, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sorry, that was a rhetorical reply.

I'm not sure which Price Waterhouse study you're talking about. My ministry did a study on the competitive advantage of advanced manufacturing, and the calculations were verified by Price Waterhouse. I think you'll find that if Price Waterhouse wants to take that much credit in that alone, we stand by the calculations. If you have any other information on that industry, we'd be happy to take it.

With respect to whether or not environmental regulations are an impediment, let me say that environmental regulations protect the quality of life, and that attracts more people here than to other regions.

J. Tyabji: A supplemental. That wasn't an answer to my question. My question is again to the Minister of Economic Development. Does this minister agree that taxing capital which has been invested to increase the environmental standards of a company is not only a disincentive to be environmentally responsible but also puts B.C. at a competitive disadvantage?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, if you're not satisfied with the answer, I'm happy to take it on notice and give a complete and lengthy reply to your question. We have, in fact, a tax holiday for new investment, and that's really important to keeping industries competitive. They can get those tax credits -- the tax holiday -- by making appropriate investments.

[ Page 1467 ]

J. Tyabji: My final supplemental is again to the Minister of Economic Development. Will this minister admit that despite the findings of the Price Waterhouse study, there is no way that a company doing business in B.C. can possibly be competitive with the U.S. northwest and still adhere to the necessary environmental standards of the province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We generally don't ask accounting firms to verify environmental regulations. If you are referring to a special Price Waterhouse study, I'd be happy to look at it. But the study stands on its own. We are competitive with respect to adding up taxes, labour costs and those input costs. If you want to provide any evidence, we'll get the Minister of Environment to answer, but as far as I know, our environmental regulations in the advanced electronics manufacturing sector, which is the subject of that study.... It has nothing to do with environmental regulations.

CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

F. Gingell: While we're on the subject of the corporate capital tax, I have a question for my friend the Minister of Finance. This side of the House was really pleased to note that the Minister of Finance has finally admitted that he made a mistake in one

section of the corporate capital tax, as documented in his press release of April 22. Will the Finance minister now admit that the entire corporate capital tax is a mistake and remove this harmful legislation from the order paper before the last corporation turns out their lights and moves south across the border?

Hon. G. Clark: I look forward to the debate on the corporation capital tax, and I hope we have that when the bill is before the House. If the member wants to ask a question in question period on a subject that is before the House, I'm delighted to answer it in any event.

In the last election campaign we said to British Columbians that business would have to pay their fair share. As we went through and inherited this enormous financial mess, we looked at the sources of revenue available, and we said it is only fair that business pay their share. We campaigned in the election for minimum corporate taxes to raise $200 million. The corporation capital tax raises less than that. I'm not happy with any tax increases in this budget. No one on this side of the House was happy with that. But we're trying to protect the central health, education and social programs.

The members opposite want us to eliminate the capital tax, but they want us to increase spending, and they want us to balance the budget. The reality is you can't. These are tough choices the government has to make.

On this question of the capital tax, I'll be delighted to debate that at great length when it comes before the House.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL SYSTEM

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Premier is quoted today in the media as saying that B.C. is looking at setting up a separate French-language school system." An admirable goal; however I'd like to ask the minister if she can tell us where she and the Premier intend to find the funds to supplement this group.

Hon. A. Hagen: As all members of this House know, there is a task force on francophone education, which is before the public for their advice -- consistent with the constitution, which guarantees rights to people of francophone descent in our province. The government will consider the advice of the public, and will be making its announcement at some time in the future regarding this matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister still fails to answer the question, which is pertinent. I'm sure the teachers and the school boards of this province would like to know where the ministry -- and the Premier, for that matter -- plan to find the funds to pay for this system.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, as part of this study, working arrangements between the province and the federal government consistent with the constitutional requirements are being discussed. They will then be presented to the public as part of our recommendations on this matter, once the public policy has been reviewed, based on consultation with people in the province.

CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance on the corporation capital tax. Is the minister concerned that while losses mount in our resource sector, companies may be induced to defer expansions to their capital asset base in order to avoid shouldering an even heavier burden of corporation capital tax?

Hon. G. Clark: The best thing that we can do for business and the best message we can send for the investment climate in British Columbia is to get our deficit under control and to show British Columbia businesses that this government means business when it comes to managing the province's finances and cleaning up the mess we inherited from the Social Credit Party.

W. Hurd: This has got to be a first for British Columbia: corporations sliding toward oblivion, based on expanding their assets in this province.

A question again to the minister on the corporation capital tax. Is the minister receiving submissions from B.C. companies -- particularly resource companies that are in a serious loss position -- about how much tax they can expect to pay on their assets in the coming fiscal year?

[ Page 1468 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I haven't been inundated with letters supporting the capital tax, and that's not surprising, of course. Let me make it clear that four other provinces have a capital tax. We're the only province in the history of Canada to introduce a capital tax with an investment holiday for new investment for two years. We don't penalize business that wants to invest in British Columbia. That's innovative. It shows that this government is sensitive to the needs of business, and that it's the most progressive capital tax in Canada.

Ministerial Statement

CANADA HEALTH DAY

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the House today that May 12 is Canada Health Day. The theme of Canada Health Day this year is a timely one. It says: "Your health, your health care system -- protect both." This government is taking steps to do that.

Across Canada right now governments are facing difficult financial situations. The multibillion-dollar health care system is taking up an increasing amount of our resources, making for very tough choices. This government is prepared to make those tough choices. That means new directions, which are outlined by the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs.

Staying well no longer simply means a visit to the doctor or a trip to the hospital. We have to start paying more attention to social factors: having a job, a clean environment and a decent place to live. All of these are crucial for a healthy mind and body. We are moving to bring health care services closer to home -- into the community and into the hands of British Columbians. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on community and family health, health promotion and prevention.

[2:30]

Hon. Speaker, I mentioned prevention. Today I would like to outline a concrete step that this government is taking to improve the health of all British Columbians. As part of Canada Health Day, I'm pleased to announce that the Ministry of Health, through the B.C. Centre For Disease Control, is undertaking the first phase of a children's immunization program for yet another serious disease. This disease is hepatitis B. By the end of this fiscal year we will make the hepatitis B vaccine available to all grade 6 students in British Columbia.

In successive years we hope to be able to expand this program by extending it downward to progressively lower grades, so that eventually all children will be immunized as part of the regular infant immunization program. British Columbia is the first province in Canada to introduce this broad-based program for hepatitis B. Importantly, it's also in keeping with the recommendations of the royal commission, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, among others.

It also reflects our commitment to the expansion of our existing immunization program for adults at high risk. A pilot program was begun in May '91, and it has been providing immunizations for about 3,000 people per year who are considered to be in the highest degree of risk for this disease. Beginning this year, as part of our expanded program, we'll be providing immunizations to as many as 10,000 additional individuals who are also considered to be at risk from exposure to hepatitis B, particularly students in the health care profession area.

Our action today is needed because B.C. has the highest rate of increase in reported cases of hepatitis B of anywhere in Canada. In 1980 there were 16 cases reported; by 1990 the number of cases had risen to 887. It's a very significant increase. The cost of hospital care in connection with hepatitis B in 1990 is estimated to be at $1.5 million. We will be purchasing up to 1,000 doses of the vaccine through the Centre for Disease Control, and the immunization program will be expected to start in the next few months.

I want to take a moment here to pay tribute to Mrs. Bobbi Bower, whose daughter, Autumn Lisa Bower, died from hepatitis B in 1989. Mrs. Bower has been a tireless supporter of this vaccination program, and today we have to recognize her efforts over the last couple of years to bring this to the attention of government and the health care profession.

Polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus -- only a generation or two ago these terrible diseases took a real toll on our population, particularly our young people, but with the advent of new vaccinations we've witnessed the miracle of almost completely eradicating them. As it stands now, more than 95 percent of all children in British Columbia have been immunized against these diseases by the end of their first grade of school. Today we take the important first step of adding hepatitis B to the list of diseases that we hope to eradicate in this province, and I think this is a very appropriate way for us to celebrate Canada Health Day.

G. Wilson: It's my pleasure to rise in response to this ministerial statement and say that the Liberal opposition in this House -- and I believe all British Columbians -- welcome this statement from this minister today. This is indeed a very positive step with respect to immunization of British Columbia's youth, and Canada Health Day itself is a very important day for all British Columbians.

We are encouraged on this side of the House every time we hear this Minister of Health and any members of her government say that they are moving toward the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care in this province. We believe that we cannot move quickly enough to get consultation -- adequate and proper and effective consultation -- with health care providers in this province, so that we can in fact put in place the recommendations of this commission.

This statement today is indeed welcome. We welcome the extension of this immunization program so that all British Columbians can feel safe that this disease will in fact be eradicated from this province. The rise in number of reported cases that the minister has alluded to today is well-known; it has been well-reported in the media in this province.

[ Page 1469 ]

Let me say in closing that whenever we can take a positive step toward the maintenance and protection of the people of this province with respect to their health care, that is something that we on this side of the House will welcome. Whenever we take a positive step toward the implementation of the royal commission recommendations, we on this side of the House will support that.

Whenever we can as a community work together -- all of us, in cooperation and in full consultation -- toward the implementation of new and better ways of delivering health care to the people of this province, we in the Liberal opposition will support that proposition. It is my honour and my pleasure to rise today and congratulate this minister on this statement.

L. Fox: The Social Credit caucus would also like to recognize Canada Health Day and support the theme of protecting our health care system. We understand the importance of the initiatives and the statements made within the ministerial statement and certainly support those statements.

By way of history, I would like to briefly touch on some of the Social Credit's first actions when it formed government back in 1952. One was to introduce a new universal hospital insurance for British Columbians. A decade later the Social Credit government brought into the province the first ever medicare scheme for poor people. In 1968 we were one of the provinces that led the fight in pressuring the federal government to create the national medicare program that we enjoy today.

Our commitment to good medical care for all British Columbians continued as we expanded to the point where one-third of the budget for provincial expenditures went to health care. By 1991 the province of B.C. was spending more of its budget on health care than almost any other province in Canada. Throughout these negotiations, legislated wage restrictions and an innovative pension deal, we did our best to keep costs under control and to keep hospitals open for the benefit of all British Columbians.

That's why I'm sad to see the neglect that this government has shown to health care in its first six months. We have suffered an unnecessarily long hospital strike -- a situation that could again blow up almost daily. We have seen the doctors stripped of their rights and denied the basic elements of their negotiated contract.

The minister in her statement makes reference to the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. I too make reference to one specific issue within that commission: health care services in rural and remote areas of B.C. What the initiatives have done up to this point, in this government, is cause many of those rural and remote-area doctors to look for employment elsewhere -- other than B.C. I cite you an example in Prince George alone, where seven doctors are looking for employment in the U.S. because they no longer feel they're wanted in British Columbia.

We have seen patients shipped out of this province for treatment by the same people who told us not 12 months ago that their government would always treat British Columbians at home. The list goes on and on, but it adds up to one thing: stability in labour relations in the health care field is not on this government's agenda, and without labour stability there can be no protection for our health care system.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In

Section A will be the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and in

Section B will be the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 41: minister's office, $377,000 (continued).

L. Fox: It's really too bad that almost three hours has elapsed since the minister got into his huge barrage of political gibberish. Really, I took exception to some parts of it. I have to bring him back to those particular areas. If the minister wants to use the estimates for political harangue rather than to deal with what's in the best interests of the people of this province, I guess he's free to do so, given that he's in charge of the agenda.

However, I really believe that he should feel somewhat bad about the statement in which he downplayed a major initiative that involved hours and hours of volunteer work in the development region. You belittled the policy that was brought forth through the regions, identifying the fact that two ministries didn't communicate, and, by putting words in my mouth, you turned that into what you interpreted as a political failure. I submit to you that it was not a political failure, but indeed a lack of communication between the Forests ministry and the Highways ministry of the day.

Hours of work were put in by those locally elected individuals to bring forth a policy, which was given a great deal of respect by the previous administration. I think that it was belittling a process and belittling individuals, which really doesn't befit a Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Miller: I think I indicated some time ago that I liked this House and I liked the debate. Occasionally I do get overenthusiastic, but that's the nature of the place. Certainly, hon. member, if I have appeared to offend people in the community who have devoted work to programs and policies, it was not my wish to do that, but rather to engage in the kind of vigorous debate that, I think, produces the best results for all British Columbians.

L. Fox: I certainly accept the intent and the fun that we can have within these chambers, and I respect the fact that it is all part of the process. However, being one of those locally elected individuals who works so hard at somebody else's program, I can assume what those people would have felt if they read Hansard . Therefore, I am pleased that you've responded in the way that you have.

Let's get back to the business at hand and talk about the issues of forests. I'm only going to ask you one or

[ Page 1470 ]

two questions, and then I'll turn the opportunity back over to the Liberal critic.

Given your many concerns and statements, not only while you've been minister but beforehand, about the ministry's capability of carrying out the basic functions of monitoring and auditing our forests with respect to our silviculture practices and reforestation responsibilities, are you satisfied, now that you're the minister, that those concerns are being dealt with and that the ministry is able to monitor and audit, so that we can be sure the emphasis is on the correct area?

Hon. D. Miller: I did indicate in my opening remarks that for this fiscal year our estimate is that we intend to do 150 percent more inspections than were done in the previous year. We're aware of some of the previous reports from the auditor general with respect to the auditing and monitoring of activities on tenures. We take that responsibility seriously, and we hope to do more than has been done in the past.

L. Fox: Thank you, Mr. Minister. In preparing myself by going through Hansard of previous years, I ran into a very interesting area. In July 1990, when he was a critic, the minister noted that 20,000 jobs had been lost in the forest industry between 1986 and 1989, even though the allowable cut had been increased by 13 percent during those years. Can the minister tell us how many jobs will be lost by a 20 percent reduction in our forest lands due to the park policy that this government has brought forward?

[2:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I only wish that the government of the day had paid as much attention to what I said at that time as members of the opposition now appear to be. Bearing in mind that the proposed study areas are that, study areas, and given that we included areas that are fairly significant in terms of their forest values, we had estimated a 4 to 5 percent impact on harvest levels as a result of that plan being fully implemented, ultimately until the end of the decade.

I've also taken some pains to describe what I view as opportunities and to portray the rather complex nature of the forest industry. A good example, in terms of the actual increase in harvest but a decrease in jobs, was the result of the rigorous exercise that the industry went through in the early eighties induced by the severe recession at that time, where lots of fat was trimmed by companies at great expense to working men and women in B.C.

Generally, I've indicated that there is potential for growth despite the decline in the AAC, for a variety of reasons that I've talked about: more secondary manufacturing; remanufacturing potential in terms of some of our market opportunities in the three major markets -- the United States, Asia-Pacific and the European market -- and the value of our highly prized resource. There's lots of potential.

To some degree the employment levels and the level of economic activity in any particular industry are a combination of factors. The policies that we have to promote, for example

section 16.1 sales, and the degree to which capital and entrepreneurs are prepared to take advantage of those potentials that I've described.... There's some pretty good growth in the sector that we are promoting the most, which is valued-added or secondary manufacturing. As we progress in years, I'm confident that we'll see more of that, and we'll also see a changing economic face to this forest industry.

We talked about what the industry had been like 50 years ago and what it might be like 50 years from now. While nobody has a crystal ball, we've learned some lessons historically in terms of economic development. We have to maintain a very high degree of flexibility in our manufacturing capability; we have to keep as one of our guiding principles the need to satisfy the customer, if I can put it that way -- to know and anticipate what demands are. Some of our competitors are doing that in a far better manner than we are. For example, the Japanese are putting much more effort into determining what customers want.

We have to be aggressive; we have to be very flexible. I don't think we can develop the kind of monolithic structures that we've seen developed in the past.

I've always said that British Columbians have just as much talent, ingenuity and energy as anybody in any jurisdiction of the world. I've got a lot of confidence that we'll do extremely well. We'll see an increase over the years. We'll see an increasing number of jobs per unit of timber harvested, and that will grow progressively. I've got a lot of confidence that we can do that. I guess overshadowing my remarks is the sort of caution that you can't draw any absolute conclusions based on numbers of today or numbers from ten years ago. You have to look at all the factors I've talked about and at the potentials that exist in looking ahead.

L. Fox: I thank the minister once again for his response, but unless I missed something, it really didn't answer the question. I well recognize that the industry will have to change in terms of getting more value out of the existing forests. I understand that, but I also understand that that change will be over a period of time. It will not happen tomorrow. However, the parks policy that you've announced will be in effect far sooner than the change will be in effect. I know you mentioned 43 or 45 percent, but I couldn't get the words before and after it. What impact will the loss of this parkland on our forest productive land create in terms of lost jobs?

Hon. D. Miller: It's difficult. I did try to answer the question, and I said at the outset that I can't give you a statistical-based figure or number. It's a function of all the things I talked about in my last response. It's also a function of economics. I want to mention two aspects: one is that my sense is that the plan might accelerate the development of more value-added industry in B.C. That goes back to a theory I expressed yesterday: what induces economic efficiency? What causes entrepreneurs in any field to be entrepreneurial, to invest their time and energy in seeking new ways to do things? We don't live in a static situation. It's dynamic. It's ongoing and constantly changing.

My sense of what induces change is the need for change. Take another sector, automobiles, where the North American industry really had developed a good market, relatively good growth from the war years up

[ Page 1471 ]

until fairly recently, steady increases, full employment, unchallenged in the world. Then along came the Japanese. When they first penetrated the North American market, nobody was worrying about it too much: what are these funny little cars running around the road? But it slowly started to dawn on us that people actually liked these funny little cars. They're reliable; they're fuel-efficient; they're sporty, I guess. They appeal to all the things that North Americans like.

Next thing you know people started saying: "Look, this big boat I'm driving consumes ten gallons of gas every five miles" -- or whatever it might be. "It doesn't really appeal to me that much. I can buy one of these little things. It goes just as fast; it's fuel-efficient, and it's comfortable and safe, etc." We've heard a lot of complaining out of the North American auto industry, but ultimately what have we seen?

We've seen the North American automobile industry recognize this changing market, this other competition for the same market, and now we see those same kinds of cars being built by North American automakers. In fact, a lot of them are in economic partnership with Japan or other countries.

So what induces change in any society or in any given economic activity? If the status quo prevails, there will never be any change. We need to change. We have an industry that's evolved essentially on the basis of relatively cheap raw material, and perhaps that was appropriate in terms of opening up the vast regions in the north that required significant capital investment to open up and establish some industrial infrastructure. But we cannot simply rest on our laurels and say that this will provide for us forever, because we know it won't.

We look around the world at some of the competition. Look at the pulp industry, for example. We have to seriously look at the pulp industry in B.C., which has been a great provider -- it's been a source of significant capital investment -- and say what's our place going to be in the world ten years from now? We can see the development of much lower-cost pulp coming from some of the southern hemisphere countries: New Zealand, Chile, Argentina. Some people said they could never match our quality.

Well, next thing you know some pretty smart people on the technical side started working that pulp over; and by gosh, they're almost matching us on quality -- not quite. So when you look at the large gap in price and the small gap in quality, the buyers, whether they be Japanese or whatever, are saying: "Well, look, we can live with this." Next thing you know, if we just sit back and say we'll be okay forever, we won't be. We'll be priced out of the market, and we'll be scrambling. What will that do? It will force change in our industry. That's my sense, albeit a theoretical one, of how things work in an economy.

But I think it's quite a practical view.

What I'm suggesting is that if anything, the plan that's been laid before the public of B.C. is desirable, publicly supported and achievable. It will act as a spur to the kind of economic activity that I've described. I also think that it will provide a greater degree of confidence in political leaders -- that we're leading on an issue that's clearly important. It will provide us with a far better message in terms of our international marketplaces. There's some trouble in terms of some exaggerated claims that are made about activities in British Columbia, so we provide greater comfort in terms of our international -- particularly the European -- marketplaces. And it will induce change.

I think it's wrong-headed to simply say that in the past we lost this number of jobs tied strictly to the annual harvest levels and that we're going to lose so many jobs in the future. I think the Liberal critic quoted 39,000; that's wrong. My economic theory is right; we have to be competitive. We've got the brains, the energy and the entrepreneurs, so let's get at it.

[3:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: I would like leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the grade 5 and 6 class from Osoyoos Elementary -- deep in the heart of the desert country and my hometown -- and the parents who have accompanied them. You won't find Victoria quite as nice as Osoyoos, but it's a little bigger, so you may enjoy it nevertheless. Welcome here.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

L. Fox: I wasn't going to continue, but the automobile analogy that you put forward is one that I'm really familiar with, given that I'm in that field of endeavour. I only wanted to carry it one step further. While I don't disagree with some of your theory, the part that I am concerned about is that the present state of that industry is seeing horrendous unemployment and shutdowns, with plants shutting down all over. If that theory carries into the forest industry, then I assume we would see the same immediate kind of problem, where we have the shutdowns before we see the improvement.

How many jobs do we lose in the industry while this theory of yours is taking place perhaps many years down the road? I guess that's my immediate concern: the shrinkage of the annual allowable cut, because we've infringed upon it again with a park policy that takes.... And let's face it, they will not take the mountaintops where there's very little timber. The park policy and the people that are asking for that want the valleys and the meat of where some of the best timber in B.C. is.

Obviously that's a concern that I have, but I'll leave it at that and turn it over to the Liberal critic.

Hon. D. Miller: Very briefly, although I'm theorizing, I think I'm absolutely correct. I think any student of that would agree with me. I'll give this one back to you. I mean no disrespect; I didn't realize you were in the car business.

The North American automobile industry did not have to go through what they went through. It was not the government's responsibility to say to the automobile industry: "Get off your backsides and start dealing with these issues." It was up to the people in business.

[ Page 1472 ]

I've heard it said by members of your party -- and maybe you've said it occasionally too -- that it's not government's job to go out there and tell people what to do.

I've said we have opportunities in this province; I've described these opportunities. Surely there are British Columbians out there who are quite capable -- in your constituency and around the province -- of understanding that situation and of getting on with the job, because the opportunities are here. Let's get those people out there who have those ideas and get them to work. Government can't solve all the problems in this world or in this province. That's a maxim I've heard quite often from your side of the House.

L. Fox: Sorry, I didn't want to do this, but I find it rather challenging. I concur that government shouldn't be out there telling individuals what to do. It's government's job to create a positive climate which allows the corporations to achieve the necessary funding and banking and all those other increments it takes to put together an initiative.

I would guess that the reduction that will be caused by the park policy in the forest industry is causing a huge amount of fear in the financial institutions of this province. Those value-added initiatives that you talk about are having horrendous problems achieving financial dollars in order to make their dreams come true. It's all part and parcel of a climate to do business, and that climate has to be positive. Any steps at all by government that take away some of the known securities -- and therefore puts more doubt in the minds of the financial institutions -- is detrimental to the very initiatives that you're suggesting will be created.

Hon. D. Miller: Let me draw a distinction between the need for capital to have some certainty versus the need for capital to have absolute comfort. Absolute comfort produces nothing; certainty allows planning. What have we had at least for the past decade in terms of land use conflict and the central issue of parks and wilderness? We have had battleground after battleground after battleground -- most of them, I submit, where the government didn't even know they were going to erupt.

Now you tell me how a forest company can plan their activities on a land base when they don't know where the next battle is going to erupt? It's pretty difficult. They don't have certainty. Remember what I said: not comfort, certainty. This plan, as we have laid it out, provides certainty. It provides a list of areas and a timetable in which we intend to address those areas. It is clear and laid out for all to see and for capital to look at and say: "At last somebody is providing me with some basis upon which I can plan" -- at least over the time-horizon that we've laid out, which is to the end of the decade.

I'm sorry, I can't accept your notion, which I think is a gross oversimplification. I think that what I'm saying is absolutely correct. We need to provide certainty. What are the ground rules? Where can we conduct these kinds of activities? I submit that it's not just for the interests of forest companies, but it's for the interests of communities, working people in those communities and people in other businesses that are growing in this province. Tourism happens to be one of them.

It is a far better way to proceed than what we have had in the past. Surely, Mr. Member, you would not argue that we should continue with the kind of divisiveness and conflict that has plagued this province and that has robbed our citizens, companies and governments of their energy. Surely you would agree that we should go forward in a positive vein with some more planning.

An Hon. Member: Turn it all into parks.

Hon. D. Miller: We don't intend to turn it all into parks. If you're arguing that we shouldn't create any more parks, then stand up and say so. If that's your position, fair enough -- put it on the table. I don't have any trouble debating that. But I suspect that you'd be in a minority of one, even within your own caucus.

What we're doing is the right way to approach these issues. So far, in my discussions with people in the forest industry and people who represent significant environmental groups, they, and the public in general, are all saying to me: "We agree with you; we think you're on the right track."

W. Hurd: When the minister starts talking about funny little cars, it's time to rejoin the debate and try to focus our attention on forests.

I am particularly interested in the document "A Better Way for British Columbia," which was published during the election campaign. It's like my American Express card -- I never leave home without it. It always comes in handy for question period or estimates debate. It's very versatile.

In light of the debate on the estimates, we need to read into the record some of the commitments made by the current government when they were in opposition and when they were campaigning in this province, and try to orient those commitments to the kinds of numbers we see in the Forests ministry estimates. I note:

"B.C. needs a balanced forest policy to guarantee jobs in our forests for generations to come.

"The forest industry is cutting more and more wood in B.C. while we get fewer and fewer jobs. We will re-establish the link between access to wood and jobs that was secretly removed by the Social Credit government. A New Democrat government will ensure increased processing of forest products to get more jobs in B.C. A New Democrat government will provide fair access for small operators. We will work towards eliminating the export of raw logs. We will establish a broadly based Royal Commission on Forestry to make recommendations on the management, ownership and tenure of our forest lands."

Item 18:

"We will restore and protect our working forests.

"As the auditor general has pointed out, the public interest in protecting our forests has been virtually abandoned by the Social Credit government. The big companies have been left to police themselves in our forests."

[ Page 1473 ]

This is the one I love, Mr. Chairman:

"Social Credit cuts in the Forest Service have been a big mistake. The public's representatives must be sent back into our forests. A New Democrat government will take immediate steps to eliminate wasteful practices in the forest industry on both public and private lands. We will develop, with public consultation, a forest practices act as recommended by the Forest Resources Commission. Our goal is to replace every tree cut."

Item 19:

"We will end the neglect of our forests.

"Without leadership from government, conflicting interests have been left to slug it out...watershed by watershed, in the Carmanah and elsewhere. This has got to stop."

Hon. Chair, in looking at these lofty ideals, I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the reciprocation in the Forest ministry estimates. We note the reductions: management services, reduced; harvesting funds, reduced; research, reduced; inventory, reduced, if you don't consider the $10 million special fund, which the minister acknowledged yesterday he doesn't know whether he has access to or not, because four ministries are going to be sharing in the pie; and finally, fire suppression, reduced as well.

Just a question to the minister: in the light of the "Better Way," where is the commitment to the future of the forests in his estimates?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have a copy of that document, but it sounds to me like those were excellent policies for British Columbia. I can tell you that we are delivering on all of those promises.

W. Hurd: I have questions pertaining to vote 42. I don't know whether it's the wish of the chair that vote 41 pass, or should we continue?

Vote 41 approved.

On vote 42: ministry operations, $467,914,976.

W. Hurd: Continuing to address the issues on vote 42, I note that there's been about a $2 million reduction in management services in the current year's estimates over the past year's. Can the minister advise us which programs under management services in vote 42 he is cutting to realize the $2 million saving?

[3:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, there's been a net reduction of less than 1 percent. We had indicated to the people that we would try to run a more efficient government, a leaner government, and still accomplish our objectives. I think what you see before you is the result of that exercise.

W. Hurd: We're looking for specifics. There's a $2 million cut in the management services budget. Is he saying that the cuts are coming equally from salaries and benefits, operating costs, asset acquisitions, grants and contributions? I mean, we're dealing with a significant reduction in overall spending.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there has been a modest reduction; and I indicated the general nature of that reduction. But more specifically, the revenue systems project that had been undertaken by the ministry has come to an end. There had been a modest increase for building improvements and rents, an efficiency-saving reduction of $1.84 million, in terms of that particular item where we see a reduction of 1.82 percent that is the addition of the items that I have just talked about, essentially, efficiency being the main driver. Some increases and some decreases -- most of the decrease attributed to efficiency.

W. Hurd: Continuing further on the questioning in connection with vote 42, I'm just looking at the harvesting budget, which has similarly been reduced by approximately $1 million. I'm wondering if the minister can explain where the efficiencies or cost reductions have occurred under that particular

section of vote 42.

C. Serwa: Point of order. There was a wish on the part of the Liberal forestry critic to go from vote 41 to vote 42. Traditionally we debate all of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests on the minister's office vote, which is vote 41. Everything can be debated on that. I would suggest that, since there was not a quorum in the House at the time, we continue the debate on vote 41, which will allow the broad range of forestry issues.

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order. That's been the tradition in this House, and I'd be happy to continue to answer questions notwithstanding the adoption of one of the votes. If we could just agree to that, Mr. Chairman, that would be acceptable.

The Chair: Is that acceptable? Okay.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to call quorum.

The Chair: There is a quorum; there are ten members.

W. Hurd: I still haven't received an answer to where the cuts have occurred under the harvesting budget. We have a significant reduction in operating costs and asset acquisitions. Perhaps the minister can outline to the committee exactly what those two items cover, in view of the significant cost reductions in his overall budget.

Hon. D. Miller: We did campaign during the last election on achieving efficiencies in government -- to do more with less. British Columbians expect that of government. I don't think it's a sin to have a modest reduction in a line item in your budget. In fact, that's something that we should stand up and say that we've been successful at. British Columbians know what it's like to suffer reductions in their income for one reason or another. All of us must have experienced that. We know that despite that, we continue to make do; we become a little leaner -- McDonald's hamburgers instead of steaks.

Governments are no different: they should have to put up with the same kinds of conditions that average British Columbians have to put up

[ Page 1474 ]

with. In the case of the management services' 1.8 percent reduction in the budget because of efficiencies, I think that's something we can be proud of. It's something we campaigned on. If I can look at a modest 1.5 percent reduction in the harvesting, knowing that we're still achieving the full program and that people are working a little harder, that's something we're proud of; and go through the line items. We're delivering the programs. Like every ministry, we would like to have more, though more sometimes isn't the answer. Simply throwing more money at problems is not the answer. Providing government ministries with more money all the time sometimes doesn't solve those problems.

We've made some modest reductions in terms of efficiency. We'll deliver our programs to British Columbia. We'll do it in our usual professional manner, and we'll try to overcome any difficulties that the budget constraints have imposed on us.

W. Hurd: I'm very pleased to hear that there's a greater efficiency in the Forests ministry, but I'm having trouble reorienting that with the claim: "Social Credit cuts in the Forest Service have been a big mistake. The public's representatives must be sent back into the forests." I think it's important for me to read into the record some of the functions under the harvesting

section of vote 42. This subvote provides for advice, policies and procedures pertaining to valuation, processing, sale and invoicing of Crown provincial timber and wood resources, and the overall monitoring and functional direction of provincial wood supplies.

I find it absolutely amazing that the minister can find almost $1 million to cut out of that vital

section of his budget, and stand in the House today to defend those kinds of cuts as being part of a routine efficiency within his ministry. Perhaps I can remind the hon. minister of a statement he made when he was in opposition, when a similar observation was made by the Social Credit Forests minister of the day. The minister said: "Mr. Chairman, I think it's a pretty feeble excuse. We can't do everything for everybody all at once." You said there was a payback, referring to incremental silviculture, and the Forests minister was talking about not having a limitless pot of money.

I find it rather interesting, now that he is the minister, that he can talk about significant reductions in almost every area of his ministerial competence and suggest that it's a routine matter of efficiency within his ministry. Perhaps he could let the committee know about some of the discussions he had in Treasury Board when it came to establishing the figures for his ministry operations and how much of a battle he took in there on behalf of the forests of the province of British Columbia.

Where are the reductions in the harvesting budget, besides just general efficiencies? We're talking about a significant amount of money here, some $1 million.

Hon. D. Miller: Obviously I was a very effective critic; I find the new critic is now quoting me. Perhaps they're using my line of attack on the former government as a guide for their line of attack.

Let's deal with it. Let's go back. Send me over a copy of that list, because I'd like to respond to every one of those issues on the list and tell you what we've done. I'll repeat that you don't solve every problem in this world or every problem this government's got by throwing money at it.

I've indicated we're going to be doing 150 percent more inspections. We're going to be a more efficient operation, and we're still delivering the services -- in fact, better services. So don't talk to me about minor, modest decreases in the budget. You can't have it both ways in the Liberal caucus. You can't complain on the one hand that we're not spending enough money, and then complain on the other hand that the deficit's too high. You can't have it both ways. It's a lesson you should learn early if you're going to be an effective opposition.

So we're delivering the programs, and we'll do it with a little less because we're cognizant that at the end of the day it's the taxpayers who pay the bills. They pay your salary, my salary and the salaries of all the people who work for my ministry. We've got to respect the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Just let me get to some of these issues here, because I'd like to deal with some of these problems.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, you might learn something if you take notes. That's my advice to the Liberal Environment critic. She might learn that we should not stop logging in 90 percent of the forest in this province. We should maintain....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, you've said it. The opposition Environment critic has been strangely silent; I was expecting her to get up during these estimates and take the opportunity to deal with the issues she thinks are important. Maybe I left that letter somewhere else; I'll have to get a copy.

We have acted with respect to a lot of those policies. We have provided a plan for ending the valley-by-valley confrontation. We have -- and I have as Minister of Forests -- started to restore the link that was in fact secretly eliminated by the former government. You may have noticed, in the TFL licence transfers that I have approved, that we have restored the link. We have inserted a pertinence clause between the forest licence and the milling facility, which the former government had secretly started to undo. We will continue that program, because we think that's important in terms of providing some security for the people in the forest-dependent communities around this province.

We will end neglect of the forests. Does the member think that a forest practices code would be fully developed and brought before the House in six months? Is that the manner in which the Liberal caucus would develop policy? No public consultation, just whip something up in the back room and rush it into the House? We'll take our time, and we'll do the job right.

[ Page 1475 ]

We've already introduced a number of measures with respect to harvesting practices, and they will be dovetailed with forest practices -- fish-forestry interaction policies that now prevent progressive clearcutting and limit adjacent clearcutting until the original clearcuts have greened up, so a free-to-grow forest is established there.

We're meeting the challenge of getting on with the issue of land claims, and I can go through every one of the commitments that were made by this party -- whether it's in my ministry or other ministries -- and tell you how we're proceeding and delivering on our political promises. But overriding it all is the fact that we inherited a budget deficit that even the Liberal Party must have been shocked at. The people of British Columbia were certainly shocked to learn the size of that deficit.

If my ministry can contribute somewhat to reducing that deficit by making the modest increases that the opposition Liberal critic seems to think are bad and somehow seems to view in a negative light.... If we can have these modest increases -- 1.82 percent and 1.55 percent for a total cumulative net effect of 0.08 percent -- and still deliver the programs in a better and more efficient manner, then I would like the Liberal Forests critic to get up and applaud us for a job well done, instead of this nitpicking.

Maybe we can get on to talk about some substantive forest policy issues instead of this nitpicking over a few dollars.

W. Hurd: Hon. Chairman, it's certainly refreshing to note that the minister has launched some major cost-saving initiatives in almost every part of his ministry and is convinced that none of those cuts will have any impact on the kind of service he's able to deliver in protecting the forests of the province.

[3:30]

Perhaps I can move on to the issue of research, which has featured another significant budget cut. Perhaps he can explain where the efficiencies have occurred in that rather important area of his ministry, and how he's managed to save a total of $400,000 to $500,000 in that critical area. Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that we're talking about inflation as well; we can actually safely add 4 or 5 percent to the cuts being proposed in these various sections of the budget when we start to assess their cumulative effects during the coming fiscal year.

I'm a bit confused and concerned that these cuts have apparently been made with only minimal understanding or appreciation of the kind of activities going on in some of these subvote categories. I quote specifically on the important job of research in the Ministry of Forests: "This subvote provides for research and research extension activities to supply technology for the care and enhancement of forests in British Columbia, Including initiatives under the forest renewal plan. Research activities support forest renewal, integrated resources management and the development of decision tools.

Joint ventures and/or research contracts are carried out with other ministries...." We've heard a lengthy rejoinder from the minister about the value of integrated resource management. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of his ministerial estimates, that particular

section has suffered a significant cut. What gives?

Hon. D. Miller: I thought I had explained what gives. The member is absolutely right in terms of the importance of research. There's no question about it. We don't have any dispute whatsoever. There has been a modest decrease, and that's a fact of life. It's not significant. Under ideal circumstances it would be nice to see more money in research, not only from the government side but also a stronger commitment from the private sector as well. It's my view that research is fundamental in terms of making progress on the economic front.

Again, I would argue, given the total allocation to research, that that rather modest decrease of something less than $500,000 out of a total budget approaching $20 million is something that we simply have to accept. We can go through this exercise on every item. I can point out to you how in some areas we can have efficiency savings where we can still deliver programs.

I would be quite frank in admitting that I would like to have more money. Any minister in this government would like to have more money, but there are limits. A budget is a balance in terms of the requirements of the province in any given sector and the ability of taxpayers to pay. The Liberal caucus was up in question period challenging the government's establishment of the corporation capital tax. Somehow I can only draw the inference that it's a bad thing and shouldn't be there. If it wasn't there, I can tell you, the cuts in this ministry would be deeper. You can't have it both ways.

Fair enough: if you want to go through every line and have me stand up and give you the same answer, carry on.

W. Hurd: I'm certainly glad the minister has brought up the issue of taxation in the forest industry. After all, if there wasn't an industry, the party wouldn't be debating the Ministry of Forests estimates, because we'd have one massive parkland in the province of British Columbia. I note that the industry in this province has faced some major increases -- and not just the corporation capital tax. We've seen stumpage and forest management increases to offset the Canada-U.S. MOU in 1986. These costs rose from some $220 million in 1986 to close to $800 million annually.

We've seen the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, which has had an impact on this industry. Capital spending programs required to meet new environmental regulations in the pulp and paper sector currently exceed $1 billion, and the proposed regulations will require a further $600 billion in investment.

In addition to that, this industry is in a major cyclical downturn; industry loss has set records. At a time when the industry is reeling, you'd think that the ministry would be looking at the future of the resource in this province and would not allow or sustain these kinds of cuts in its daily operations, in favour of putting $10 million into an integrated resource fund which it may or may not have access to over the next five years. We haven't been able to determine what amount of money will be available to the ministry from that fund, and we have a significant amount of money going to the

[ Page 1476 ]

commission on resources and the economy. The nuts and bolts of this minister's ministry have all been cut. To me it makes no sense, and it makes little sense to professionals like the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters and other associations in this province.

What sense does it make to cut the budget in the Ministry of Forests and put it into funds or long-term studies which are not going to help us get on with the job of doing better inventory, better research and better silviculture in this province?

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly have not heard that from the registered professional foresters. If they have any major complaints, they'd better come and see me about then. If you have any documented evidence, then I'd like to see it, because unless somebody is prepared to talk to me directly, there's got to be something wrong with them.

I don't know how much longer I can belabour this point. I've attempted to answer in, I think, very open and candid terms about the budgeting process, the constraints that we face and the challenge to deliver the programs that are required within those constraints. I've identified some of the new programs that we have developed: the establishment of the Commission on Resources and Environment, which is absolutely fundamental, in my view, to making economic progress; and the parks plan.

I note that I'm not certain if the Liberal caucus are simply there complaining for the sake of complaining; I'm not sure that's what you're being paid for. I don't know that we fundamentally disagree. I note, in a letter to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee dated February 18, 1992, written by the Environment critic for the Liberal opposition, a line which says that the province should draw up a comprehensive long-term land use strategy for the province. That's exactly what we're doing, yet I find members of the Liberal caucus up complaining and nitpicking and nattering. So I'm a bit mystified here.

We've answered the questions. We keep getting the kind of repetition that makes this exercise seem somewhat strange to the audience -- I note the young children who are watching us today. I would love to talk about policy, because I think forest policy is a fundamental issue that needs to be debated in this province, and what better opportunity than here in this chamber today. I want to answer all the questions that are asked; I don't want to avoid questions. I like debate, so maybe we can shift gears or something.

I see the opposition Environment critic wants to get up, so I'd be pleased to answer any questions she might have.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to point out that I don't thing things are quite as simple as the Minister of Forests would have us believe. I think that my hon. colleague has been asking some very difficult questions, and perhaps the minister is trying to simplify it so that he doesn't have to answer them. But there's no question that although some of our objectives are the same, there are definitely a few problems with regard to his ministry and some of the priorities that he's set. I would also like it to be on record that we have never once asked for an increase in spending on behalf of the minister.

We're just questioning where the dollars are going. Of course we don't want to see an increase in the already absolutely mind-bogglingly big deficit.

I would like to ask the Minister of Forests a few questions with regard to his policy on the old-growth forests. There's a letter that he keeps alluding to. I might mention, for the sake of the record, that we have a land use committee within our caucus, of which I am one of five members. My position is stated very clearly in the letter, and I'd like to know where the minister is coming from. I don't really need the minister's comments as to what our caucus's position is.

The minister, I am sure, has been receiving the same stack of letters that I've been receiving from Germany. My understanding is that there's been a public education campaign undertaken by certain environmental groups in Germany, the result of which has been literally hundreds of letters being received by both me and, I know, the Minister of Environment. The letters I've received have said they've also been sent to the Minister of Forests. The public education campaign has been with regard to the clearcutting of the old-growth forest and the potential for ecosystem destruction as a result of the clearcutting.

As the Environment critic, I would like to have the Minister of Forests' very specific thoughts as to what the plans are with regard to old-growth forests. I don't want to hear what committee has been set up or what's in committee or which reviews. I want the Minister of Forests' plans. I think that's where we differ very much in the Liberals. Our land use committee is not made up of unelected people. We have a land use committee of elected representatives, and we want the Minister of Forests' decision with regard to old-growth forests.

Hon. D. Miller: Actually, I wouldn't mind. I know it's not my role to pose questions to the opposition, and I would never do that, since it's not within the rules. But I must say that I have more than a passing curiosity about the meaning of a statement that reads: "Obviously there is no point in allowing any kind of logging of ancient forests." If that's the collective wisdom of your little caucus group, then I'd suggest you might want to consult somebody from outside the Liberal Party and caucus, because if it is, pretty clearly you need some help.

The issue of old growth is an extremely important issue, and I alluded yesterday to a speech I gave in this House in 1987 on that topic. I would commend the member to actually read that, because it was a very good speech and it outlined a program that I thought made a lot of sense. If that appears to be rather immodest, I apologize. The member may be aware that shortly after I made that speech, the government listened and developed the old-growth strategy. That strategy has been working since its inception to try to come up with some plan.

Really, it boils right down to how much of the old growth -- and there's a very complex definition that goes with that term -- is required. How much should we put in reserves and not touch -- remove from harvesting and other activities as

[ Page 1477 ]

well, because it's my view that even human interaction in some cases is undesirable. So that question has really been at the centre of the old-growth strategy.

That strategy and the Provincial Parks and Wilderness for the '90s plan were rolled together in terms of the map that we outlined last Wednesday. So it's a compendium of that body of work that has taken place over the last couple of years. It's both a technical analysis and a public analysis, because the previous administration received input from the public about areas that they thought should be candidate areas. They were subjected to technical reviews, and in the final analysis we came out with that map. There is an extensive report on the old-growth strategy that I would be happy to send to the member, if the she doesn't already have one.

We obviously get into some disagreements in terms of debate -- that's the nature of the place -- but I don't disagree with the statement contained in your letter -- with one statement. I do disagree, however, with your statement that we should not allow logging of any kind in ancient forests. I think that is the height of foolishness.

Your statement that governments have an obligation to draw up a comprehensive long-term land use strategy for the province is exactly what we've done. One of the components of that comprehensive strategy is old growth. It's a fact in this province that many people, when they talk about old growth, automatically assume that we're talking about very, very large and very, very tall trees in valley bottoms. However, there are trees in the province that are hundreds of years old that are about that big in terms of their diameter -- very small -- and it's clearly a function of the climate, the geography, the soil, etc.

It's a real mistake to think that when we conceptually talk about old growth, we always think that they are simply those very large trees -- for example, the kind that are found in the lower Carmanah Valley. That's not the case, and in terms of a kind of preservation strategy or set-aside strategy, we have to be mindful of that.

We also -- and I keep going back to this because I think it is fundamentally serious.... You talked about letters from Germany. We do get letters from Germany, and if they're in German I can't read them, but my people translate them, and we make a very sincere and honest effort to respond to them. We think it's internationally important that people try to understand what we're doing here. We face odds, very difficult odds in some cases, in trying to get that message out, which is why I keep coming back to the need for accurate information.

Despite the kind of work that my ministry does in responding to those questions, it just takes one situation where there is misinformation to set us back, to set all the work we do back to the beginning.

[3:45]

The federal government recently released a report on the environment. As the opposition Environment critic, the member may be aware of it. That report on the environment made a totally false statement about forestry on the coast of British Columbia. It said that the old-growth forests on the coast of British Columbia would be gone by the year 2008 a totally false statement. I've discussed this issue with the federal Minister of Forestry. I've written letters to him and he agrees with me. I've written letters to the federal Minister of the Environment, demanding a retraction.

I've been advised by the Canadian Embassy in Germany, indirectly, that that single report has caused more damage -- in terms of us trying to explain what we're doing in the international arena -- than anything that's been done in the last five years, because it came from the federal government and therefore has some measure of credibility.

These are very difficult challenges. There is a plan to deal with the issue of old growth. We do think it's important that significant areas are set aside. We think it's important from many different points of view, not the least of which -- and perhaps, fundamentally, the most important -- is the whole issue of biological diversity. It's an area that we're starting to become more knowledgeable about. I think we will become more and more knowledgeable about it.

We need those areas that we can look at, that are relatively pristine in terms of the ongoing research that I think is required. We treat that absolutely seriously. It's part of the strategy that I've been defending here in this House this afternoon, about the map that we put out last week. Old growth is part of that strategy. I'm constantly defending that, and I'm happy to defend it, because I think it makes good sense from a planning point of view. The member may not have all the literature that we have produced with respect to that question of old growth. I would be happy to provide her with that and to hear her definition of ancient forests.

J. Tyabji: If we take the minister's word for the state of the forest, it sounds as though there are absolutely no problems at all that he hasn't already tackled. I don't think that's the case, particularly.... I must say this. I have seen old-growth trees. I do understand. You don't have to tell me that some of them come this big and some are bigger. I have been on tours of forests. I have actually walked through forests and seen them, so that

part I don't have a problem with.

What I'd like to go back to is these letters from Germany. No matter what, there is a problem in that a significant population overseas feels that there is a problem. That has to be addressed, because these people are saying they will not come here because of what they have seen in slide shows and what they have been told. I'm talking about hundreds of letters, and for every letter that's written there must be a few people who didn't get a chance to write but feel the same way. That's a very real problem, even if it's only a problem of perception. It still must be addressed. I'd like to know what the minister is going to do to address that problem overseas.

In addition to that, I'd like to know what he thinks in terms of the Commission on Resources and Environment. It is supposed to be an independent commission that is going away to study these issues and then report back, I assume, to the House. However, the fact that the government has chosen to pre-empt the report of that commission by giving us a map with parks on it seems

[ Page 1478 ]

to me a total violation of any independence of the commission. How could that commission then come out with recommendations significantly different from those put forward by the two ministers and the Premier? You can't have it both ways. You can't have an independent commission that's supposed to be coming up with something on behalf of the people, and the ministers coming up with a map that they've drawn up and that they think is just wonderful -- and isn't this great?

I commend the ministers for taking the initiative in making a decision on their own, but it seems to me that the easy decision is to say: "Here's where we're going to give parks away; here's where we're going to do something nice." They've put all the difficult decisions onto the commission and given them the impossible task of trying to come up with an independent finding, when they've already made some decisions on their own. They're basically pre-empting any kind of independence.

Hon. D. Miller: Dealing first of all with the international issue, I'll get the numbers. I've asked someone to bring the numbers back to me. I suspect, despite the rather gloomy forecast that you have, that tourism is growing in this province at a fairly remarkable rate. I would ask you not to promulgate the myth that there is no reason for tourists to come to British Columbia. There's every reason for them to come to British Columbia. We have, in my view, the best landscape. Mr. Owen described it as the best piece of real estate in the world, and he's absolutely right.

I don't like the term "real estate"; I'll use "landscape." We do have the best and most diverse landscape in the world. It is truly a magnificent province. Tourists from around the world recognize that and are coming here in ever-increasing numbers. We have the landscape that can accommodate them and provide them with the kinds of things they're looking for. I'll try to get some specific numbers with respect to that.

When it comes to inaccurate information.... My challenge is to provide accurate information, and I'm engaged full-time in it, and I'm quite happy to be engaged in it. We work overtime providing accurate answers to some of the inaccurate criticisms that are tossed out all too frequently. I want to be careful in saying that. I don't mean to suggest that everything is sweetness and light, and that we don't have problems. I've never said that. I've talked openly about some of the very difficult issues we face. We don't back away from problems. I don't know what the continuing cause of criticism is.

My challenge to everyone, including the Liberal caucus, is to undertake similar actions. Would the Liberal caucus write a letter to the Hon. Jean Charest, the federal Minister of the Environment, saying: "We want you to retract that

section of the environment report that is patently false, because we think that it's bad for British Columbia"? Are you prepared to go to that length? I understand the role of critic, and I understand the necessity of having good, tough critics. But I also understand the necessity of having a broader view when it comes to issues that affect the broader public interest. We all have a responsibility to do our best to understand that it is a partisan relationship in here, but also to understand that, as British Columbians, we have a lot in common. When we're threatened by inaccuracies in any way, we should all be prepared to assist in dispelling those inaccuracies.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

J. Tyabji: The minister didn't answer my question with regard to the map that he put out and how the Stephen Owen commission can possibly function independently when they've pre-empted the report.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue was thoroughly discussed with the commission. The commission is in agreement. They understand the process that led to the development of that map. They agree that the map is indispensable as we try to map out our future -- an unintended pun -- and that there needs to be a document that British Columbians can collectively look at in terms of resolving land use conflicts.

The primary mandate of the commission is process. I was very careful to issue a caution that it would be a mistake to assume that you could write terms of reference that absolutely portrayed every activity the commission should undertake; in other words, put the commission in a box and say: "Here are your limited terms of reference." The Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and other resource ministries that have some role in the planning process need to be sensitive to the commission and have open lines of communication with them so that we all know what we're doing.

This is a new road we have embarked on, and it would be a mistake to put any segment in a box and say that that's strictly all they can do. In terms of the broader issues of land use planning, it seems to me that it's a collective of disciplines. We've had some very good discussions with Mr. Owen about that relationship. We have confidence in each other. I believe we share the view I've expressed. I really don't know what more to say.

I think the document we unveiled is indispensable, and it falls right in line with the objective laid out in your letter as absolutely essential in terms of developing a long-term comprehensive strategy to deal with land use planning.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying that he doesn't want to have the commission boxed in. It seems to me that by producing a map with areas on it indicating that these are potential parks, that's exactly what he's doing -- boxing him in with regard to that one land use. How is it that by setting a precedent of showing a map with parks indicated on it...? Once you've set that precedent, what is to prevent the minister from releasing maps in the future with similar indications on them for other lands uses -- for example, forest licences and mining permits?

I don't understand why it would be just parks that it would be okay to do this with and not other land uses -- for example, agriculture or forestry. You could easily produce a map by setting this precedent. You could then follow it up by producing a similar map with phasing-in recommendations for forestry and agriculture.

[ Page 1479 ]

I would suggest that the minister has done the exact opposite of what he said. That is, he has gone ahead and boxed in the commission with regard to parks, which is, I think, contrary to the process that was outlined for the commission.

Hon. D. Miller: I entirely disagree. I would certainly recommend that the member talk to the commission, talk to Mr. Owen about his views.

I want to correct one of the things the member said. The document we outlined is not just parks. I thought I tried to make it clear that it's a compendium of the kind of work that's been done with respect to the old-growth strategy, wilderness and parks. Clearly some of those areas will be considered for a variety of categories. There is a difference between a wilderness area and a park. I think that some of those are candidate areas for ecological reserves. So there are a variety of land use designations that remove land from economic activity....

Not totally, because tourism certainly is an economic activity -- and wilderness and recreation. There are a variety of designations. We haven't just produced a plan with potential parks on it. We've produced a plan that has earmarked a variety of areas in this province that are significant in and of themselves, some for parks, one for wilderness.

We've also said that there will be a process. Clearly in some of the small parks, for example, where there's no dispute whatsoever, there's agreement. Government has a responsibility to advise and consult with Mr. Owen, but clearly to proceed. I suspect that most of those smaller areas are non-contentious and there's no.... Let's get on with doing it. Where we have larger areas, Mr. Owen will be a very prominent player in terms of assessing the areas. His primary function, in my view, and one that has eluded us in B.C. in terms of land use planning, is process. We've handed him a very difficult mandate.

We've frozen development in some areas, or developed log-around strategies in some areas, to bide some time, to allow Mr. Owen to look at, particularly, Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the interior.

I don't think that he should be put in a box. I don't think that what we've done has constrained him. That's his view. Given that, I don't really think the member's fears or concerns are well-founded.

[4:00]

J. Tyabji: I'd like to ask the minister about slash-burning. I understand that there are very commendable reductions. However, I'd like to know when he sees the eventual phasing out of slash-burning, what the alternatives are and what he plans to do with the waste wood. I'd also point out to him that I happen to live in an area with a serious inversion problem, similar to Cranbrook's, I understand. During this time of year we have very serious problems with air quality.

Hon. D. Miller: That's a good question. I talked about the fact that we interfere in a massive way with nature, or the environment, when we prevent forest fires. Before human activity, nature's way of replenishing the forests was to burn them. We put fires out.

As I've said, we're very good at preventing forest fires. One of the attendant problems that arises because we're so good is the accumulation of the fuel-loading on the floor of the forest. Unimpeded by humankind, that fuel-loading would contribute to fires; it would be burned up. In some cases, from a biological point of view, that contributed to the reproduction of a new forest. The heat was a necessary component in the opening up in terms of the seedlings and all the rest, which I'm not that good at explaining. Nonetheless, the member nods and seems to acknowledge what I'm saying.

Slash-burning has been a useful tool in removing, to a large extent, some of the accumulated debris that creates a higher fire hazard. As uncomfortable as it has been in some areas, it has been viewed as absolutely essential in terms of good planning. For example, not to slash-burn would simply increase the risk of forest fires, and where you have that urban-forest interface, it would present a devastating impact on the urbanized areas.

I think there is more potential -- and I'm not that familiar with it; you might wish to canvass the issue with the Minister of Energy -- in terms of the burning of wood waste to generate electricity or power. There is some potential there. But, again, I confess that it's not my field of expertise.

From a natural resources management point of view, though, I don't think that it would be desirable to eliminate all the debris that accumulates on the forest floor. Certainly some of it is absolutely fundamental to feeding nutrients back into that forest land base.

Slash-burning has not been generally well perceived. It has been necessary, when you look at it from the points of view that I have described. We're aware of the impact of smoke in certain communities. We can't help but be sensitive to that. But, again, I guess it presents a choice of doing something for the greater benefit. Is it more preferable to slash-burn rather than allowing the accumulation of debris on the forest floor near an urban area, which would ultimately present a far greater hazard to life and limb than would the inconvenience of smoke?

We do try to avoid the inversions that the member talked about. It's significant to note that we also put prohibitions in some areas. One of the things that happens in an area like Smithers, where there are lots of woodstoves as people live a more rural lifestyle and burn wood for fuel and heat, is at some times of the year you have inversions. It's not slash-burning -- although they do slash-burn in the area. It's because people in the area are firing up their woodstoves. I think we can do a lot there. Certainly there have been remarkable efficiencies attained in wood-burning stoves, so we can do a lot to cut down emissions from that level.

I hope that has not been too lengthy an answer. I don't think there is always an easy answer on slash-burning. I've tried to describe some of the constraints and what I think are some of the potential solutions to at least mitigate the deleterious effects of slash-burning, but I suspect that it might be very difficult to simply say we're not going to allow it at all.

[ Page 1480 ]

J. Tyabji: I have to disagree with the minister. When we have forestry practices, obviously we are managing the forests -- or managing a tree-farm, I think, is probably most accurate -- and therefore it's up to us how we choose to manage it. He talked about points of view. I have to say I have a very different point of view in terms of the issue of slash-burning, in that I see it as an air quality issue. With regard to air quality, I think we have very serious concerns, and it's a by-product of this minister's responsibilities.

With regard to the difference between forest fires and slash-burns, the minister is probably aware that they are very different in terms of components. For example, a forest fire tends to blow through very hot and fairly quickly, and it's a fairly shallow burn. A lot of slash-burns will, on the other hand, be very deep, and they take quite a long time; they're much slower than forest fires. There are very different side effects. Because of the depth of burns in some slash-burns, there have been some concerns that the regeneration is therefore hindered.

A lot of the pilot projects done for alternative ways to deal with on-site waste, and therefore the management for the regeneration, have been very successful. You will actually get machinery that can come in and deal with the waste. Therefore, as far as air quality goes, you have much improved air quality because you don't have the by-products of slash-burning.

If the objective is to have proper regeneration of the forests and proper management of the tree-farm, I would put to the minister that there are other ways of achieving that than slash-burning. I would encourage the minister to look at those ways and look at the pilot projects currently performing successfully in other parts of the world. I would urge him very strongly, because I think air quality is a critical issue, particularly in places like Kelowna. I agree with him that when you have an urban-forest interface, then you do have very serious concerns.

The minister may be aware of the forest fire we had in Kelowna last weekend. Concerns had been expressed by Fletcher Challenge that there was a potential for a forest fire in people's back yards, and that hadn't been addressed. Therefore, because of, I guess, a mischievous fire that had been set by some students, we had a very serious situation. However, I would urge the minister to look at the alternatives to slash-burning in existence. Some of them are very economically encouraging. They often produce a by-product that can then be sold, and it all ties into forestry management.

The last question I'd like to address to the minister is with regard to alternatives to pesticides in the forests. I know that the Ministry of Forests has made some very encouraging advances in terms of cutting down on aerial spraying of pesticides, although that's a very contentious issue right now, which we won't address. I'd like to ask the minister what he has in place for exploring the organic alternatives that would include, for example, herbaceous weeds being addressed by sheep, by some of the ungulates. I know that his party has been keen on seeing these policies brought forward.

I'm sure the minister is aware that they've had great success in the interior, where some of these solutions have been piloted in the past.

Hon. D. Miller: To conclude on the slash-burning issue, I accept the hon. member's comments. I think it may be difficult to totally eliminate or eradicate slash-burning. There is a variety of times and uses when it's undertaken. We have worked with other ministries to mitigate and reduce the impacts, such as by smoke management at certain times of the year when there won't be inversions. I think we made some strides with respect to that.

I don't want to give any absolute answers here, but I continue to say that there's probably an ongoing need at some level -- and we don't use this as the only tool -- to utilize it where it's absolutely necessary. That's going to continue, and I think that, in the main, it deals with the issue of fairly sound forest management. Like all issues, it's important to avoid drawing absolute conclusions. I think that has been one of the worst aspects of the debate around forestry issues.

People tend to draw absolute conclusions and to say that slash-burning or clearcutting or a variety of things are absolutely wrong and therefore should never be allowed. That generally leads to false conclusions in terms of forest management. The issues are far more complex than that; they really beg for an understanding of the complexity. That's not to say that you can't and shouldn't push for change. I think we've seen some remarkable change take place in this province, and we will continue to see that.

The member is right that we are looking at alternatives to chemical pesticides in areas where it's appropriate.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, Btk is not a pesticide; it's an organic compound.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Great. So the member supports the Btk spraying. I'm very pleased to hear that -- very pleased indeed. We didn't hear that when we decided to do it. It's rather disappointing to learn that now that it's all over, the Liberal caucus....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm flabbergasted. I think we should put out a news release: "The Liberal Caucus Has Just Admitted They Support the Btk Aerial Spray Program in Vancouver." I say: better late than never.

We're looking at a variety of alternatives such as sheep or mechanical techniques where they're appropriate.

I really can't give you much information today about some alternatives in terms of allowing some of those deciduous species to develop. There needs to be more done in terms of that natural process, particularly if we can develop the commercial opportunities on some of the deciduous species that currently are not in place.

[ Page 1481 ]

People are working on that. The government has funded some of that activity. I think we will continue to see some progress there.

Obviously we're sensitive to the need for change and to not simply -- I talked earlier about not maintaining the status quo -- sit here and say that everything we do is perfect and unchangeable. You don't make progress that way. We're continuing to look at new ways of doing things through research and through contact with the academic community. I'm pleased to say that I think we're making a good degree of progress.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I could not resist the urge to stand up again. I thought that was going to be the end of it. I have to set the record straight. The Liberal Party is not in favour of that particular aerial spraying.

Can I explain to the minister that there is a difference between an aerial spraying over a populated area and proper forestry management practices? Can I also explain to the minister that he has yet to produce one dead body? What is the body count? Zero. Where are the egg masses? Zero. How much money was spent on this by the B.C. government? Three point one million. Do the Liberals support that? No. Why? Because we are fiscally responsible. We don't believe in flushing money away like that. We do believe that you have to look at alternatives to chemical sprays.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Of course we must manage our forests. But what is the point of putting money to a threat that isn't even in existence? You're talking about a gypsy moth threat. Show us the gypsy moth, and we might be prepared to talk $3.1 million. I just have to say for the record that there's no point in putting out any kind of news release unless we put one out that says that $3.1 million was wasted by this government in these tough economic times when they keep saying they have no money. The money should have gone into the Environment Youth Corps.

It should have gone into some research and development in your ministry. You could eliminate slash-burning by purchasing some of the mechanical apparatus that I referred to earlier. You could have put the money into investing in the forests rather than spraying something that you haven't even proven is in existence in Vancouver. We could go on and on about this. I think it's a shame that the minister treats it so lightly that he's being glib about it and making a joke about: "Oh well, we support it."

[4:15]

We do support alternatives to pesticides, but we also support responsible spending of money. First you identify the threat; you prove there's a threat; and then you respond. In this case it seems as if there's some kind of scare tactic being used and an absolute waste of money. If this ministry wants to have any credibility with the people of B.C. in terms of fiscal responsibility, they should start off by spraying something that actually exists. I could suggest to the minister that with the amount of gypsy moths that he has produced so far, there are much cheaper ways of eliminating them.

Hon. D. Miller: We've discovered a remarkable degree of sensitivity from the Liberal Environment critic. What's the phrase? Me thinks thou doth protest too much?

During debate on that issue I distinctly recall the Liberal Party saying: "No aerial spray. Spray from the ground." So they're quite prepared to spend the money. I said: "Well, what about those bugs that may be in trees way up there that you can't reach from the ground?" Then one of the members from Vancouver in the Liberal caucus said: "Well, maybe you can get a helicopter and go up and spray them individually." Don't tell me about the Liberal Party not being prepared to spend money. Talk to me about the Liberal Party not being prepared to make a tough decision, because that's what it's really all about.

It's one thing to natter and criticize, hon. member; it's another to make decisions. We made the right decision when it came to Btk.

I would also like to inform the member, just before she leaves, that we spend money in my ministry on lots of things that are not, in a technical sense, the responsibility of my ministry. I'd like to advise the member that the fire she talked about....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We fought the fire -- that's right. We expended money from my ministry budget to fight that fire on municipal land. Fair enough. It's in British Columbia. We fight fires to protect wildlife habitat. We spend a lot of our time and effort dealing with the forest-urban interface in communities that you represent, and a lot of our money.

If we took a more hard-nosed approach, we could go back to some of those communities and say: "You pay it." We think it's important work, in cooperation with communities in this province, to manage the land in a proper manner, to be prepared to make tough decisions when tough decisions are required. Perhaps the hon. member may learn that over time.

J. Tyabji: I really resent the implication by the minister that it was his decision whether or not he should spend the money to save those people's homes. Those people are taxpayers to the province of B.C., and when they need protection, it is his responsibility to protect them. For him to suggest that he is being magnanimous by putting out fires that threaten their lives and homes is ludicrous and very irresponsible. The fact that the other fire protection agencies weren't available at the time is the reason the Ministry of Forests was called upon in the first place. For him to try to imply that there was some kind of choice involved is absolutely insane.

With regard to the Liberals not being able to make a tough decision, we won't make a bad decision. If that had come to us, we would have first looked at it to see if there was some justification.

C. Serwa: I rather enjoyed the admission by the Minister of Forests a while ago that government can't do everything. I took a great deal of pleasure in that, but that recognition evaded that minister for the past five years, when he was in opposition. At that time he

[ Page 1482 ]

felt very strongly that government could do everything. So he's certainly learned a lot since October 17. I'm very pleased that his learning is progressive.

I'd like to talk briefly on old-growth strategy. The minister is aware of the importance of mature timber not only to the industry, for harvest, but also, from their concerns, to the general public -- the other users of the Crown-owned resource. I think that we all recognize that old growth is part of the living, dynamic forest and that the climax forest is the end of a progressive tenure of various species of trees.

The fact of the matter is -- and it's clearly understood, I think, by everyone -- that if there isn't a harvesting process in old-growth forest, either fire or disease or blowdown or some other natural occurrence will take that timber, and it will be lost.

I think the real concern that the public has is not simply in striving to protect old-growth forest as representative of forest classification, and certainly as an environment for part of the biodiversity, but the demand and perhaps the lack of security of individuals is that we're not devising a strategy for the sustained opportunity to create old-growth forests.

We may be looking at a strategy in the interior that may be 200 or 300 years in a rotation for certain types of forest. On the coast you may be looking at a similar length of rotational period. At some point there has to be a decision made that if we value old growth -- and I believe that we all do -- there has to be a formula that determines a certain percentage of the living, working forest should be able to evolve so that it becomes a climax forest, rather than concentrating on, for example, monocultures or a rapid rotational period in that working forest.

Perhaps the minister has given some thought to that, and if he has, I would be pleased to hear his remarks.

Hon. D. Miller: I have had some discussions with people and.... I shouldn't be misleading. They have not been substantive, but in the normal course of events, as the former Forests critic and as the minister, I have talked to people who advance various theories with respect to that. Some simply argue an extension of the rotation age. Some argue, for example, the notion of rotating parks. I think all of those are fairly complex land management issues, and certainly should be thrown into the mix, in terms of the discussion we have about land use planning.

In terms of trying to develop a process and a procedure for land use planning, you have to look at where you are currently, what are the sorts of current issues you face and how you make progress. I think we've come through a very difficult period. There has been too much controversy, too much energy lost in some pretty fundamental debates, without having the ability to go beyond and into some of the complexities that the member is raising. So let's get some order.

Let's try to, as I said, lay out a plan that allows British Columbians to participate in the planning process, and restore a greater degree of public confidence. As we do that, we will find ourselves being able to discuss the issues you have raised much more openly, much more rationally and in a much less heated way.

C. Serwa: The area of public confidence is going to depend on some security in the general public that the rate of harvest, for example, is commensurate with the rate of growth in the natural forest. I know that we talk about what we can do with intensive silviculture, although it has never been confirmed to me that it is necessarily a wise investment in capital when you're looking at a long-term rotational period. I haven't seen any of the major licensees, major tenure-holders, really go into intensive silviculture, because it doesn't really make strong economic sense in any way, shape or form.

I guess the lack of public confidence is fundamentally tied to the rate of harvest that has gone on and is apparently not sustainable. The current cut from Crown lands is approximately 75 million cubic metres, and it appears, as you have indicated, that we will have to decrease that cut. And in decreasing that cut, we're obviously going to increase the costs for that fibre -- the Crown should recover more in the way of cost -- and there should definitely be an encouragement of the manufacturers to produce more value-added commodities from that higher-priced fibre. I think we're all agreed with the supposition that increased labour content is used to produce the higher-value-added products.

In order to buy time and get the confidence that you're talking about, we're obviously going to have to make a commitment to give the public comfort that the forests are being well managed and being well looked after and that over perhaps a ten-year period there will be a reduction in costs so that we can live with that, and then perhaps we can be more objective in striving to look at a variable rotational period so that we are in fact creating old-growth stands. We're not doing that with the present concept of rapid rotation, and we're liable to turn the forests of this province into a pulpwood type of economy rather than a sawlog type of economy.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the member raises many interesting points. I do think, though, that we need to recognize that it goes back to the rationale for government: what is the role of government? Certainly it is to plan and regulate in the public interest. It has always been my perception that when conclusions are drawn by the private sector, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the correct conclusions for the public in terms of making decisions based on managing for the public interest.

I'm also aware that the private sector will always resist the imposition of costs. It is a natural function of the private sector to resist the imposition of costs. It's government's job to know when it's appropriate and when it's not -- hence the debate we've had about the corporate capital tax. It's interesting that we have never said that the private sector should assume the financial responsibility for basic reforestation or for their own roadbuilding.

Your government, which was in power for 20-odd years -- for a three-and-a-half-year period in that larger period -- never turned around and said: "We're going to impose this obligation on you, because we think it's good policy. We think you should pay." The private sector would have howled, complained and said: "You are going to break the bank. You're going to

[ Page 1483 ]

drive us out of the province. We will all flee somewhere else."

Nonetheless, as a result of a separate action -- you know what I'm referring to -- that obligation was imposed. One could argue that in the normal course of events it's quite acceptable; it has been accepted. So that's the trick -- not the trick....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Is the hon. Liberal Forests critic suggesting that we not require long-term licence-holders to assume the cost of basic reforestation and roadbuilding? I'd love to hear from him, if he's suggesting that we should remove that obligation, because I certainly don't agree. I don't think the Socred caucus agrees with that.

W. Hurd: What are you offering for security?

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Please address your remarks through the Chair and do not speak from your seats.

Hon. D. Miller: I really would be curious if the Liberal Forests critic is going to stand in his place -- and I hope he wants to stand in his place -- to explain his position. He seems to be suggesting that we should say to forest companies: "No, you don't have to replant any more; we'll pay for it. No, you don't have to build your own roads any more; we'll pay for it. We should go back to the bad old days that we had before." Hon. member, if that's not your position, then I would expect you'd want to clarify it.

C. Serwa: The area that I was talking about was not reforestation, but intensive silviculture, which I perceive as being dramatically different from reforestation -- not only tending the trees until they're free-standing, but continuing with the spacing, thinning and all of those other areas.

In any event, it seems to me that because of the political sensitivity of old growth, it may be a question that sooner or later should be referred to an all-party standing committee of the Legislature to tussle with and to bring a recommendation to the Legislature. It's a very difficult question to answer. Governments are rather reluctant to stand firm on that, because it is very controversial from a number of elements. The minister knows that full well. It seems to me that in some cases, biparty or multiparty committees should have an opportunity to bring in recommendations. I know that it is complex.

But I still think that if we were all willing to think of the long term and accept responsibility for being part of the decision -- that is, a positive decision -- that would encourage government to think of the very long term. That's an obligation we all share here. I'm going to leave that. Perhaps the minister will respond to that at the present time, and then I'll carry on.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I should have kept going in the argument I was building about private sector versus public policy. Some might argue, for example, that it is appropriate public policy to require licence-holders to do more than basic silviculture. It seems reasonable that somebody could come forward to advance that argument. That's something we would have to debate.

In arriving at a public policy decision on that, of course, we would have to know what the potential impact would be on the private sector, whether those costs in terms of some judgment would be too onerous and whether there is a fundamentally good reason to adopt that kind of policy. I think that's a continuing exercise that every government should go through.

I was really trying to draw the distinction that public policy should not be developed by the private sector. They are but one element -- an important one -- in terms of the broader public interest. Capital has certain requirements; we all understand what they are. We intervene in a general sense. I think we've all collectively accepted the notion that the fight was fought long ago. We are prepared to intervene as government, regardless of the difference in political stripe that might exist in this chamber or other legislatures in the western world.

Regardless of our degree of difference, we have come to the conclusion and accepted a number of fundamentals. We're prepared to intervene socially, in terms of UIC, pensions and welfare. We accepted that. We argue sometimes about the degree, but we've accepted it as a fundamental notion. We have a responsibility on the economic side, and I think we haven't done enough work on the economic side in terms of that kind of planning. We've been more the regulators on the social side, and I think government has a larger role to play in terms of good economic planning.

Getting back to your....

C. Tanner: Tell that to the Tories in Ottawa.

Hon. D. Miller: If the Liberal member is complaining about the inability of the Tories in Ottawa to conduct economic planning, I'm sure he'd probably get a lot of support.

As for the old-growth strategy, the member is well aware that we travelled the province extensively. There has been a lot of research into the issue looking at ways to create old-growth characteristics, such as longer rotations and multiple species. There may be an alternative in some areas, where obviously preservation options have been lost because of historical development. There has been a variety of research into old-growth strategy. There are volumes of papers available around that. It's fascinating work, and I frequently find that I don't have the time to do the extensive reading that is appropriate. I think we're making some headway, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I'm comforted to know that we're making headway. I don't know if the other people out there are really comforted to that degree. I was hoping, rather than just headway, that we would make some decisions the people could count on that would be respected by this government and by the

[ Page 1484 ]

industry. Perhaps this would pave the way for all of the tomorrows, so that we develop a strategy at this time that we can live with for a very long time and that will provide good leadership.

One of the other areas I'd like to discuss with the minister is chip-pricing. I want to discuss that because of the effect of the independents producing a large percentage of the chips for the pulp and paper mills, and the type of pricing structure. It appears that, frankly, the obligation for reforestation and the heaviest cost with respect to stumpage are being borne by the solid-wood sector. It appears inappropriate that they should bear the full brunt of the load. I know there's a variability in the economics of the pulp and paper industry, as there is in the solid-wood sector.

It appears from the type of pricing for chips per bone-dry metric ton that it is approximately three times what the independents are getting here, if you look at the Sweden picture. They may have some advantages such as proximity to market, etc., but it seems that it's one of the difficult areas for the solid-wood sector and the independents to succeed in in the province of British Columbia.

Has the minister looked at devising some sort of formula on chip-pricing that's related perhaps to the retail price of pulp and paper and the tonnes of material ultimately produced, so that there is some support in the silviculture end, so that the independents don't have to bear that full burden as they do now?

Hon. D. Miller: No. The member and I have discussed this at length, when we were members of the previous Forests and Lands standing committee which travelled around the province and dealt with a number of issues -- and, I think, quite successfully. But I do confess that I'm aware of the issue, and I have not turned my mind to it since I've been in office. I consider it one of the issues that need addressing, perhaps in the broader context of our domestic arrangements. No doubt it will be considered.

C. Serwa: It certainly is a very important area, and now that the minister is Minister of Forests and in the government, I guess the ball is in his court. I know that he is well aware of some of the challenges in that particular area, and I'm very pleased that he will be addressing it. I know he's new in this ministry and, as he has stated, there are many challenges. There will always be many challenges, because there are so many groups that have vested interests in that particular Crown resource.

I have another question relating to

section 16.1, the small business wood. I believe a formula has been established by the ministry which is important in the final decision on who is successful in bidding for 16.1 wood, the small business wood, for added-value processes. It's not clear in my mind whether a major component is the highest-added-value aspect of the retail product, or whether it involves or relates to the highest amount of labour content in producing that product. Perhaps the minister could clear that up for me.

Hon. D. Miller: We look at a variety of issues, hon. member -- the numerical rating in terms of all of the factors you talked about and the impact in localities or regions -- and try to draw the best conclusion based on that. Achieving the best return is really our overall objective.

C. Serwa: In striving to provide fibre for remanufacturers -- and obviously that primary resource is critical to that added-value sector -- has the minister looked at encouraging primary breakdown plants to supply the necessary sizes for remanners at a cost that they can afford and remanufacture? My understanding is that now the remanners have to pay basically the open-market or world price. In fact, our log market enjoys some cost advantages that are not available in the world log market. Is there any possibility of our remanners having access to a more favourable cost for the cants that they require?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I would hesitate to want to intervene in the economy in that manner. Certainly we are arguing with every justification. We've provided all of the hard statistical evidence, pile upon pile upon pile, down before the Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C., in the countervail case, that our forest resources are appropriately priced. You realize the implications of suggesting that we would somehow interfere in the pricing of those resources. Certainly it's something that I have rejected. We have a system that allows the owners of the resources, the people in this province....

Some members have quoted the significant increases that have occurred in the revenue that comes to the Crown from the sale or disposal of those resources. It certainly gives me an opportunity to reinforce what we've been saying consistently: there is no subsidy. The implication of following the path that you're suggesting is very perilous.

C. Serwa: I certainly wouldn't suggest that there was any form of subsidy for the logs or the price of stumpage, but what I am saying is an absolute fact. There is a substantial difference in the price of logs in the domestic market and the world market. That's evidenced by the types of structures we require with respect to the export of logs. The world log price is substantially above the domestic price. That occurs in the United States as well, and the minister is well aware of log exports from Washington and Oregon.

I'm not saying that there is a question about a subsidy on raw logs; I'm saying that there is a difference between the domestic price and the world market price for the logs. That was the difference I was talking about.

Hon. D. Miller: It raises an important point. I've constantly talked about resisting the urge to draw simplistic conclusions about issues in forestry based on a couple of pieces of information. In this case we're dealing with the export price -- which you have suggested is the world price, and I disagree -- and the domestic price.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[ Page 1485 ]

There are a variety of issues that affect prices, or what the market will set a price at. Timber that's bought on th