1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 24

[ Page 10523 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to ask the House to join me in welcoming Randy Pearson, who is a resident of the wonderful constituency of Saanich South. He is here today with his children David and Malina. I'd ask everyone to make them very welcome.

V. Anderson: We have today in the House two groups of grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, along with their teacher, Mr. D. Williams, and Rob Ferguson, a student teacher. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

E. Conroy: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome my wife, Katrine, to the Legislature this afternoon. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

M. de Jong: My question is for the Attorney General. The opposition is advised that Mr. Ace Henderson, the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, has now completed his report, which would include recommendations on the question of laying criminal charges. We understand that the report has been submitted to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Will the Attorney General commit today to the full and public disclosure of that report when it is made available to him?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't intend to make comments on that subject today.

M. de Jong: In the report prepared by Mr. Richard Peck, QC, concerning the recent investigation of the Attorney General, Mr. Peck stated that his report should be released because it is important that the public know the process that was engaged in, how the process works and how the conclusions were reached. My question to the Attorney General is: does he think similar principles are applicable here?

The Speaker: The member has a final question?

M. de Jong: Again to the Attorney General. Quite simply, is he in a position to advise this House when Mr. Henderson's report will be made available?

B.C. HYDRO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Marc Eliesen was paid the maximum performance bonus available, $58,500, in his contract last year?

Hon. G. Clark: I believe that's correct.

Interjections.

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

G. Farrell-Collins: The public now is very aware -- whether the minister wants to tell anybody or not -- that Mr. Eliesen is on his way out. In fact he's leaving B.C. Hydro. Whether it's going to be for cause or not is yet to be seen. Can the minister tell us why someone he is removing as the head of B.C. Hydro, for whatever reason, would have received $58,500 last year -- the maximum performance bonus -- when this year he's being fired?

Hon. G. Clark: No one is being fired, hon. Speaker, but I have no further comments at this time. I am indicating to the House that I will take these questions on notice. I'll be happy to answer them in a few days.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The hon. member has a different question?

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a new question for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Will he commit today to telling the public how much Mr. Eliesen has cost the taxpayers of B.C. because of this hiring by the former minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and because of the ludicrous pension and severance package made available to him in that contract? Will the minister commit to telling the public how much Mr. Eliesen's firing is going to cost the taxpayers of B.C.?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm at a loss, hon. Speaker. I've indicated that there was no firing, so....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The minister cannot respond until there is reasonable order. Will the minister please proceed.

Hon. G. Clark: I indicated that there was no firing, so I don't know why there would be any severance.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

D. Mitchell: My question is for the Attorney General. It deals with a matter that is no longer before a special prosecutor, Mr. Ace Henderson, nor is it, to my knowledge, before the courts. I listened carefully to the Attorney General's answer to a previous question, but I would ask him today whether or not he is aware that information is about to be laid recommending four charges against various bodies and organizations associated with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I'm wondering if the Attorney General is aware of how many charges the RCMP has recommended in this matter.

The Speaker: The Chair has some difficulty with the fact that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, to my knowledge, is not an agency of the government. However, the Attorney General may wish to respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask ministers questions with respect to their responsibilities. I'm sure all hon. members realize

[ Page 10524 ]

the difficulty the Chair has when the questions asked are outside the purview of the minister's direct responsibility.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi didn't hear my answer to the first question from the member for Matsqui. The answer stands.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member?

D. Mitchell: I then have a question relating to law enforcement in British Columbia. My information is that more than a dozen recommended charges came forward from the RCMP investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, yet I understand it is proposed that only four be proceeded with at this time. Will the Attorney General agree to lay before the House not the special prosecutor's recommendations but the full text of the RCMP investigation, which comprises more than 6,000 hours of investigative time and over a year of investigation?

Will he agree that -- in time, at least -- the full text of the RCMP report will be laid before this House, so that we can see how many charges were in fact recommended by the RCMP?

CLOSURE OF FAIRFIELD HEALTH CENTRE

L. Reid: This government promised stability in health care; instead they have created chaos. After the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital, the previous Minister of Health said: "No more closures without consultation." Yet today the Fairfield Health Centre is closing. Why did this Minister of Health ignore the recommendations of the Fairfield steering committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The services available to the citizens of Victoria through the Fairfield centre will continue to be made available through the Greater Victoria Hospital Society.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Plans are currently underway for a $50 million centre, but rebuilding on the Fairfield site is on permanent hold. Today, will the Minister of Health disclose the cost of the planning process for the $50 million centre, and will he state the cost of simply renovating the existing buildings to comply with current standards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take that question on notice, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

You have a final question, hon. member?

L. Reid: I do, hon. Speaker. The current Minister of Government Services once marched in protest to keep Fairfield Health Centre open. He has now turned his back on his constituency and betrayed the trust of his electorate. Would the minister make a commitment, as his colleague once did, to keep the health centre open? Because those services are currently "closer to home," this minister is in conflict with his own New Directions policy.

[2:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Changes in health care require that we look at how to amalgamate and make services more efficient. That has been going on in Victoria and around the province. For this member to assert that everything should remain exactly as it is ignores the recommendations of the royal commission, the reality in communities around the province, and the good work of physicians, hospital trustees and others in making sure we have the high-quality services we need close to where people live.

RESIDENTIAL WELL WATER TAX PROPOSAL

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. It has now been confirmed that the government is planning to require all new residential water wells to be licensed and all new wells to have a permit. How can the minister justify this infringement on private property rights? How can he charge rural British Columbians a fee for using their own residential drinking water?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday I endeavoured to be courteous to the hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry if that disappoints some members.

Let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. member that the Ministry of Environment has no intention of proceeding with a tax with regard to water in wells.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Being equally courteous to the minister, does the minister see any difference between a permit fee, a licence fee and a tax? It is indeed quite clear that he intends to impose at least the first two, and probably the third before he's finished with this. I would remind the minister that he would then be the first minister in Canada to apply a permit fee or tax to drinking water taken from residential water wells.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Will the minister confirm that he intends to apply a licence fee and a permit fee to water taken from residential water wells?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm being encouraged by some of my colleagues to tell you that you're all wet, but I won't do that, because I don't think it's that funny. I 'm being encouraged by most of my colleagues to tell you that taxes are frozen, jobs are up and the deficit is down.

The Ministry of Environment some time ago released a discussion paper on water stewardship and encouraged British Columbians to engage in a series of discussions around the province. Obviously, my officials have been involved in some of those discussions, and those discussions have generated some speculation. But I've tried to put an end to that speculation today, in terms of indicating that there will be no new tax. As part of the discussions....

The Speaker: Order, hon. minister. Please conclude your response.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I want to educate the hon. member on this matter before he leans on his.... His research is wrong. If the hon. member has another question, I'm sure I'd be happy to answer it.

[ Page 10525 ]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Well, come about January in the Peace, water taxes will be frozen there too, but I don't expect it will be before January.

In the minister's report on groundwater management, there is a statement that all water sources, including groundwater, are and always have been vested in the Crown and subject to fiduciary obligations to first nations. Could the minister tell us what fiduciary obligation on ground-water there might possibly be?

Hon. M. Sihota: Now I'm being encouraged by my colleagues to tell you that your questions are taking you to the well once too often. Okay, I've got to tell you that was advice from one of my colleagues. I knew I should have said that.

Let me tell you, we are having discussions, and....

An Hon. Member: And I'll second your Moe.

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't realize that member was awake over there.

Let me tell the hon. member we are having some discussions out there about water stewardship. The reasons are that we have problems with regard to the quality of drinking water in British Columbia and that contaminants find their way into groundwater in B.C. It's a legitimate environmental problem. We're consulting with British Columbians as to how we can resolve that problem, and that's why we are having some of the speculation. That's all there is to it, hon. member.

CAPITAL BUDGETS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS

L. Stephens: School boards across this province are outraged at the capital budgets announced two days ago. The $166 million cost....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member state her question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, I'm asking for order so that she may proceed, hon. member, and I should point out that your side is making as much noise as the other side.

L. Stephens: The $166 million it cost to impose the fixed-wage policy on school construction could have been used to build 37 elementary schools this year -- and every other year. My question is to the Premier. Did the government decide that it is more important to give a 60 percent wage increase than to build new schools? If so, why?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it astounding that this negative Liberal opposition can find anything negative about the greatest capital spending on schools in British Columbia's history -- $1.5 billion -- and then go to another dry well and read some of the information they have got from Philip Hochstein and others, who said that the Island Highway will cost an extra $300 million because of fair wages, when the whole labour cost of the Island Highway is $300 million. Not only are they negative but they are also inept, incompetent and confused about the information they're getting.

L. Stephens: The facts are that this year's Education budget for capital projects is 40 percent less than it was last year. Those are the ministry's own figures. Last year the previous Minister of Education committed to moving children out of portables and into permanent schools. Today in my district, and in many other districts across this province, construction has been halted due to these funding cuts. Will the Premier tell the parents of these children how much longer they are going to have to sit in these cold, damp portables?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition is the ultimate in hypocrisy. We have a government that has committed $1.5 billion to new school construction to catch up after ten years of underfinancing by the previous government. In the budgets of 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, $1.5 billion was provided for new school construction, and all of the Liberal opposition voted against every one of those schools.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. Premier. I would ask the hon. Premier to please conclude.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The flips and the flops and the whiplash that we're getting from their changes of positions are hard on our health.

Introduction of Bills

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill makes three changes to limitation laws in B.C. that will enhance access to justice for people who have faced barriers to the court system in the past.

The first amendment will allow victims of sexual assault to bring legal action at any time. This amendment recognizes the unique nature of sexual assault, which may prevent victims from bringing legal action within the limitation periods in the current act.

The second amendment extends the time limits for minors to file certain civil actions. Currently the act puts a six-year limit on initiating actions arising from negligence or malpractice against doctors, hospitals or hospital employees.

The third amendment delays the running of limitation periods for people who have suffered injuries from silicone gel implants and other related products. This amendment is intended to ensure that those individuals will benefit from class-action legislation that the government plans to introduce in 1995, following extensive consultation.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Upon resolution, I would ask the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to proceed. In the main House, I call committee stage of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

[ Page 10526 ]

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; J. Beattie in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 2, which is the purpose section, I'm a little concerned that we see a rather simplistic set of descriptions of the purpose of the act. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee specifically why there is no mention of the annual allowable harvest in British Columbia. With a $4 million to $5 million annual investment in forest renewal, why wasn't more of an effort made in the purposes

section to tie that to some commitment with respect to the annual allowable harvest?

Hon. A. Petter: I find it curious that a member from the Liberal opposition would stand up and ask a question like this. This is the opposition that voted against this bill in principle. It now wants to take issue with the purpose, which strikes me as somewhat counterproductive.

[2:30]

However, an answer to the question is that the

section is very clear as to the purposes of this act with respect to enhancing the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands. Through that enhancement and productive capacity, it is certainly the intention of this bill to increase the opportunities for harvest into the future.

The member is probably aware that we do have in this province a timber supply review, which is there to ensure a sustainable rate of harvest. This initiative will enable us to influence what that sustainable rate is by fulfilling the purpose outlined in

section 2 -- namely, to enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the advice from the minister on his definition of the purpose of the bill. I wonder if the minister would care to elaborate, though, since this bill does come under the Ministry of Forests' jurisdiction. Could he describe his view of what environmental values would mean in this case? Is he talking about a portion of the investment being in such areas as stream rehabilitation and wildlife studies? If he could just elaborate on what is meant in this purposes

section by environmental values, that would be helpful.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm disappointed that the member doesn't know what the environmental value of forest lands is and has to ask that question. Clearly the environmental value of forest lands represent a broad range of values, from biodiversity through to the wildlife, streams and other resources that exist within our forests. All of those are environmental values, and there are opportunities through this initiative to enhance those values at the same time as we enhance the productive capacity of forest lands.

W. Hurd: Further to that, the minister will be aware that under his ministry's existing licensing structure, there is a requirement for licensees to provide this type of initiative on the land base or with respect to their own individual licences. The reason for the question is to seek assurances from the minister that the types of investments undertaken under this purposes

section would be in addition to or subsequent to the kinds of studies, issues and plans that have to be filed by forest licensees in the province. I'd certainly welcome a more stringent definition, or at least an assurance from the minister that the purposes

section is describing projects in addition to those that would be undertaken by licensees falling under the jurisdiction of the ministry.

Hon. A. Petter: The purpose of a purpose

section in legislation is to state in broad and general terms what the objective of the legislation is. Given that the member and his party have stated that they disagree with the objective of this legislation, I have difficulty with the member continuing to niggle about the purpose.

However, putting that to one side, the fact is that in this purposes

section we are indicating the general directions of this initiative and the purposes to which the investments will be placed. It is clear that these investments are incremental; they involve new money. I can give the member the assurance that it is not the intention to use these moneys to do what is required of licensees under current management requirements; it is the intention to go well beyond that in enhancing the environmental values of forest lands.

The member is no doubt aware that historically there has been significant damage to many of the forest lands of this province due to the failure of previous governments to properly attend to and manage those lands. Through this initiative, we have the opportunity to undo some of that damage.

W. Hurd: I'm rather surprised by those comments from the minister, who suggests that such widespread environmental damage has occurred as a result of the licensing system in this province. As the minister well knows, every act on Crown land requires a signature on a licence agreement between the Crown and the individual or company. I hear the minister saying that under existing licensing agreements in the province, there exists the possibility to engage in environmental degradation. That will be dealt with, one assumes, by the BC Forest Renewal Act. I'd certainly welcome a comment on that.

At this time I would also ask the minister about the issue of protecting existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing. Why was a specific mention of the people who currently work in harvesting and manufacturing in the province not woven into the

definitions and purposes

section of this bill in some manner? Clearly, in the run-up to the presentation of this bill to the House, there was an indication on the part of the government that protecting jobs in the forest sector was in some way tied to this initiative. I wonder why there is not a more direct reference in the minister's words to protect the existing jobs in harvesting and manufacturing in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: Two points are raised by the member. First of all, no one is more surprised than I am that the member is surprised that there has been a problem with forest management in this province. Perhaps that explains why he hasn't been more enthusiastic about the Forest Practices Code that we'll be introducing. Hopefully, by the time that initiative comes forward, he will understand that there has been a problem in this province in that governments have not taken a leadership role in protecting and stewarding the resource. For that reason, we need a forest practices code.

For that member of the official opposition to stand up and essentially say that there has been no difficulty in the past with the management of our forests shows a serious abdication of responsibility and a lack of knowledge or history about the failure of previous governments to come to terms with this issue. I want to assure the member that we will be coming forward with

[ Page 10527 ]

tough, new legislation to deal with that. I hope that by that time he can familiarize himself with the need for that legislation, because certainly most British Columbians understand it.

With respect to the second issue of protecting jobs, I want to assure the member that the associations or linkages he may have drawn are his. This initiative will certainly have the effect of creating and, indeed, protecting jobs. This is a forward-thinking initiative about enhancing the future of our forests and our forest economy. It's not about looking back or about trying to simply deal with some very serious economic problems in the short term; it's about looking to the long term and to the future of our forests.

For this member to stand up and niggle about this word or that, when he and his party have said that they are opposed to that objective in principle, seems to me to be very inappropriate.

W. Hurd: I'm glad to see the minister getting excited about his bill; I would hardly expect it to be otherwise. I think it's important to recognize that the Ministry of Forests has total control over the types of licence agreements they sign and that they can require any manner of activity on the land base with respect to environmental protection. In the event that the licence agreement isn't sufficient to do that, then one assumes that the blame has to be laid where it belongs.

I certainly would have appreciated, under this section, in addition to the investment in environmental enhancement or environmental values, that the minister would make the commitment that he intends to review the licensing arrangements in British Columbia to determine why, for the last 30 years, under strict licensing arrangements with licensees, this type of thing has been allowed to happen on the land base of the province. But I didn't detect in the minister's remarks any commitment to look at the licensing system -- just the fact that the damage is there, and we're going to use this bill to fix it. But I don't want to belabour the point.

I do want at this time to express disappointment that we haven't seen in this purpose

section a clause or phrase that protects existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing. Therefore I move at this time an amendment to the bill that stands in my name on the order paper. I read into the record now that after the words "provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities," the following should be added: "to protect existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing."

This is a constructive and positive amendment to the bill. It would reassure those people who gathered on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly a month or so ago that their jobs are not being traded off for different jobs under Forest Renewal B.C., and that they, working now in productive capacities for private sector companies, are not going to find themselves working under contract to the government. I think it's an important addition to the purpose section, and I move the amendment now.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: We can go on with this debate. But for the member, who has indicated on behalf of his party and the opposition caucus that he and the opposition oppose this initiative, to come forward with amendments that purport to speak to interests he now says need to be incorporated in this bill strikes me as a very hollow and meaningless exercise.

The government has indicated that we have in this program a major commitment to job creation and to stabilizing the economy. That is clear. This initiative speaks to the aspirations of British Columbians, who understand there is a relationship between the land and their economic well-being. As a result of strengthening that relationship through these investments, we will certainly not only create many new jobs, but provide for those in the forest industry whose jobs might otherwise be threatened due to past overcutting and other neglect by previous governments. It seems to me that that is implicit in this whole initiative and is not necessary.

Nor do I accept the need to amend the purpose section. The purpose

section as it now reads speaks to the broad-ranging purposes of this bill, and I think for that reason the amendment does not merit our support.

W. Hurd: It's significant to read into the record the fact that the opposition has talked over this bill with members of the forest sector strategy group and has sought their input into ways the legislation could be improved. I can advise the minister, from talking with some of those individuals, that there is a clear expectation that this bill will protect existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing in British Columbia.

If the minister chooses to reject the amendment -- which is certainly the right of the government, by virtue of the numbers they have in the House -- I hope he will offer the forest sector community a better explanation as to why he rejects this amendment than the one he's offered in this House.

Clearly, whether the minister chooses to acknowledge it or not, there is a link in many people's minds with respect to protecting existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing. There is a belief that this investment will do that. I again express my disappointment that the minister appears not to recognize that people in British Columbia communities are making that linkup and that he doesn't feel this is a productive or reasoned amendment to the purpose

section of a bill that really defines the nature of the goals the government wants to attain.

I would urge the minister to rethink this amendment and to recognize that there's a great deal of concern out there about whether people have secure jobs. If people saw a sign that the government is engaging in this investment because it wants to protect the jobs people currently have in small communities in British Columbia, that would go a long way towards allaying some of the concerns that were so eloquently expressed on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly a month ago.

This amendment deserves the support of everyone in this House, and I would urge the minister to give it careful consideration.

Hon. A. Petter: This amendment is a smokescreen by a caucus that made the political blunder of its life by voting against this initiative in principle, and is now desperately trying to find some way to get back on board.

The purpose

section is very clear. It talks about the creation of jobs, providing training for forest workers and strengthening communities. The member indicated that that is the expectation of those who participated in developing this initiative. I am certainly not going to play along with attempts by him or his caucus to try to dig themselves out of the hole they dug when they told British Columbians that they do not agree that we need a strategy to speak to the future of forest industries and forest-dependent communities.

[ Page 10528 ]

W. Hurd: The minister has certainly left no doubt about where he stands on this reasoned amendment, which is his right as the minister sponsoring the bill.

But it's important to know what the opposition has to say as a result of the fact that this amendment will not pass. We can and undoubtedly will take the opportunity to say that one of the apparent purposes of this bill is not -- I repeat, not -- to protect existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing in the province. Those jobs could and may disappear in the future. If you want some sort of reciprocal opportunity with Forest Renewal B.C., there may be something there eventually.

In the meantime there will be layoffs, and people will not be able to work in the woods every day or go to the mill in the future. By virtue of the fact that we have eliminated any reference to it in the purpose of the bill, we are in no way committed to existing jobs in forest harvesting and manufacturing in B.C.

[2:45]

I accept the reasoning of the minister, but I think it's important that this amendment and the reason it was not passed go out to the broader public in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: In the interest of the fullness of an explanation when the member explains this issue to the public, I'm sure he will say that while he and those other members of his caucus oppose this bill, if they had supported it they would have supported it with this purpose. This is the same old flip-flop and same old doubletalk.

One of the purposes of this initiative is to provide jobs for those who are currently in the forest sector and who might otherwise be threatened because of the actions of previous governments that now threaten workers due to reductions in harvest levels. That is clearly the purpose of this bill, and it is clearly embraced within the existing language and the understanding around that.

For this member to stand up and try to dig himself out of the hole that he and others over there dug for themselves by saying they oppose a plan to deal with the economic future of our forests and forest economy is simply not acceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 20

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Gingell

Hanson

Serwa

Mitchell

Tyabji

Tanner

Jarvis

Anderson

Warnke

K. Jones

M. de Jong

Symons

Fox

Neufeld

NAYS -- 35

Petter

Sihota

Pement

Priddy

Cashore

Zirnhelt

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Cull

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Pullinger

Janssen

Evans

Farnworth

Conroy

Doyle

Simpson

Sawicki

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Hartley

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to

section 2, I want to say to all hon. members that I am amazed at the position the Liberal Party is taking on this section. It seems to me that the Liberals' opposition both to the purpose

section and indeed to the principles of this bill will go down in the history of this province as the biggest political blunder made by the opposition. This opposition is out of touch with the needs of ordinary British Columbians throughout the province. It's out of touch with those British Columbians who for years have said that we cannot take our forests for granted.

British Columbians gave this government a mandate in 1991. They said to this administration that the kinds of forest practices that had occurred in the past ought not to be tolerated in the future. As a consequence, this government made a commitment to change the way that we manage our forests and to be tough on enforcement. That is precisely what this legislation, as part of a package of initiatives that we are bringing forward, is beginning to do.

During the 1991 election campaign, British Columbians said to us that they wanted to see more jobs created in our forests. They said that government had an obligation to create more jobs in British Columbia out of our forest resource. It amazes me, as I sit through this debate, to see that the opposition, in what will clearly be its greatest political blunder, is now betraying the interests of those communities in British Columbia that require and rely on a working forest.

This program will place $2 billion into forest renewal in British Columbia, create 6,000 new jobs in forest activity and change the way we manage our forest resources. This political blunder by the opposition of opposing this

section and this legislation demonstrates the degree to which it's out of touch with those British Columbians who are demanding these kinds of changes. Let me emphasize what British Columbians are saying from one end of this province to the other, and let me put it clearly to the members of the opposition, who are so deaf that they have not heard what people are saying. British Columbians are saying that we have to move towards a regime of sustainability in our forests and that we have to clean up the environmental damage in our forests.

[3:00]

British Columbians listened, and they responded to the package of material before the House, through an envelope in the forest renewal plan which says that money will now be put aside to clean up the damage that has occurred in the forests that we have taken for granted for too long; and that there will now be funding placed to protect fish and wildlife stocks and to ensure research into environmentally sound forest practices in British Columbia. British Columbians know intuitively that there are environmental problems in our forest lands.

They know about areas where there has been unacceptable erosion, and they have been seeing that for too long. They know that roads have been built inadequately and that there has been damage to fish and habitat in streams throughout British Columbia.

Earlier on in this debate, I listened in total shock for a few minutes when I heard the Liberal Forests critic say that he was unaware of widespread environmental damage in our forests.

The Chair: The hon. member rises on a point of order?

J. Tyabji: Yes, hon. Chair, with regard to relevancy. I would remind the minister that we are in committee stage of the bill, not in second reading. As entertaining as his comments are, I don't know what they have to do with committee stage.

[ Page 10529 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like my colleagues to welcome 50 students in grades 8 through 12 from Cedars Christian School in Prince George, and their teacher Mr. Czechmeister. They came a long way to be with us in the Legislature today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I won't be much longer. I know it pains the members of the Liberal Party to know that they are in the midst of making the biggest political blunder of their time in this parliament. I want to remind hon. members that we're talking about the purpose

section of the bill, which says: "The purpose of this Act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities."

In light of the political blunder they're making, the Liberal Party would have us go back to the past and remain blind to the environmental damage. They would not have us harvest our forest in a sustainable way or sustain communities and provide jobs now and in the future for forest workers in British Columbia. They would support the kinds of practices that have blemished the reputation of this province in the past. In making this political blunder, the Liberal Party is demonstrating that it is a party of the past. They believe in the old values.

They don't see the wisdom of change to the way we manage our forests. They don't see the value in creating jobs. They don't see the value in sustaining communities and sustaining our forests for future generations.

I want it noted that today is the beginning of the end of the opposition in British Columbia. They will live to regret the fact that they voted against this legislation and did not support the purposes vested in this legislation through

section 2.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to comment on comments made by the minister. I don't think this is the beginning of the end of the opposition; I think it's the end of the beginning of this NDP mandate. If we want to talk about the biggest political blunders ever made in the history of this province, all we have to do is look at the minister who just spoke. He's the minister responsible for hiring Marc Eliesen away from Ontario and putting B.C. Hydro in the worst financial position it's been in in a long time. Do you want to talk about political blunders?

Hon. A. Petter: On a point of order, hon. Chair, the point of order that was previously made was an excellent one. It wasn't relevant to the previous speaker, because the minister tied his comments so closely to the purposes of the legislation. But this speaker is straying so far from the legislation as to violate the point of order made previously. I would ask you to call that member to order.

The Chair: The hon. minister makes a point that was previously made by the member for Okanagan East. I'd like to remind the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove that we are discussing the Forest Renewal Act, and it was not in the purview of the last speaker. I hope he would address his comments to the act.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm merely commenting on the very-much-in-order comments that the former speaker made. I intend to get to the act in a moment, but I think it's important to look at some of the political blunders that have been made by that minister. A fair-wage policy that he called a disaster....

The Chair: Hon. member, the comments of the previous speaker were indeed close to not being relevant. However, to address his comments is just a further step away from the issue at hand, which is the Forest Renewal Act. So I would ask you to address your remarks to the act in question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will move off the long litany of political blunders made by that minister in his former employ as Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, although I probably could speak at some length on them -- and I see the Minister of Forests agreeing with me.

What we see here is a Minister of Environment who stands up and talks about a mandate that he and this government have to change the way forestry is done in this province, and that's fine. But what he doesn't recall is that the electors of this province, the voters, despite what the feeling of the opposition is, gave this government a mandate for something else, too. That was a mandate to ensure that they didn't destroy the forest industry in this province by destroying their markets internationally.

That minister stood up within weeks of being appointed Minister of Environment and, in his speech to the Colwood Chamber of Commerce, did more damage to the forestry sector in this province on an international basis than any minister of the Crown in the history of this province. The mandate that the government was given was to protect jobs in this province and to deal with the boycotts that are happening across this country, and all that minister did was feed that even further -- so much so that the Premier had to leave his job as Premier and go to Europe to try to defend those actions. He was fighting an uphill battle all the time, given the comments of that minister.

If he's talking about people being out of touch, he should look at himself, because this government is the most out of touch we've ever seen. In fact, they are so low in the polls that their federal counterparts were wiped out.

The Chair: Hon. member....

G. Farrell-Collins: And if he thinks that we're out of touch, all he has to do...

The Chair: Hon. member....

G. Farrell-Collins: ...is drop the writ any day, and we'll be glad to go to the polls.

The Chair: Hon. member, I assume that having got that off your chest, you have completed your remarks. Do you wish to get back into the debate?

I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: Just before I get into my questions on the purpose section, I'd like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the 50 students from Prince George. As the Chair knows, Prince George is part of my riding, and I certainly welcome these students down here. I hope that they have just learned what we should not do in a debate. I'm concerned about the tenor of the debate, and I feel that more consideration is being paid to politics than to the issue that is before us. I don't know that that's going to serve any of us very well.

[ Page 10530 ]

I guess I'm looking for some guidance from the minister. There certainly are several concerns in my riding with respect to this initiative. It seems to me that this is the more appropriate spot to discuss those issues. There are a number of concerns about how these initiatives are going to affect the agricultural land leases, small business sales and the

section 16.1 stumpage rate and sales. As well, there are a number of concerns with respect to this initiative, given the minister's own comments that he has seen where these initiatives could be carried out on private land. How does the minister envision that all that will work? In fact, the minister made a statement, I believe -- well, it was certainly reported that way -- that there may be opportunities on agricultural land which is not agriculturally productive but may in fact be more productive in timber production. That's very relevant to my riding, so I'm interested to hear some of the minister's comments with respect to those issues that I just brought forward.

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the constructive tone of the member's questions. I do think we should deal with this bill substantively, and hopefully we can get past some of the defensiveness of the official opposition and do that. I appreciate the member's comments. The tenor is one that should address those issues.

I think the two issues that the member raised are important. The first one deals with the question of agricultural land and agricultural leases. One of the possibilities that we see this initiative helping us with is bringing some lands that have been viewed as marginal agricultural lands back into timber production. Some of those lands exist up in the north central and northern parts of the province. It is my understanding that for the most part they are Crown lands, but there may be opportunities to work in some cooperative arrangement with private owners to bring those lands back into timber production, where their value is greater for timber production than for agriculture.

Part of the partnership arrangement that we envisage through this initiative and the agency is that we will have to do some further work with local communities to identify how that takes place. Clearly there are some substantive opportunities to enhance timber values on lands that are really very marginal in terms of their agricultural potential.

The other question deals with the impact of the small business program, and perhaps this is the most appropriate time to deal with this. As the member is aware, there has been a stumpage increase that helps to fund this plan. It's independent of it, but clearly it's closely related, so this is probably the most appropriate time to discuss it. On the small business sales, that stumpage increase will certainly have no impact whatsoever in terms of the competitive sales, because as I'm sure the member is aware, very seldom do those timber sales go for the upset price.

The upset price is influenced, but because the current lumber market is such that small business is having to compete well above the upset price for bonus bids, they will not be adversely affected. In fact, this can be seen as a levelling of the playing field.

Some small increase may affect the 16.1 sales, where those do go for upset prices. But we believe those are well affordable, and we'll be working with the sector of the industry that utilizes those sales to make sure it doesn't have an adverse impact upon that sector. That sector was involved in the processes that led up to the announcement of this plan, and endorsed this plan following its announcement.

L. Fox: I want to follow up a bit on the upset price increase on small business sales. Will that be done on a dollar basis or will that be done by a percentage application? In other words, will that upset price be increased by a similar percentage to quota wood, or will you use a dollar value increase.

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: The stumpage increase is generally intended to be sensitive to both price fluctuations and the variability and value of various kinds of wood, depending on the location and species of that wood, etc. This applies to the small business sales and the upset price established by that, as it does to other stumpage. So it is not a fixed, across-the-board increase. It is sensitive to the variability in price of different kinds of wood and will also be sensitive to fluctuations in the market on a quarterly basis, through the stumpage system.

L. Fox: In terms of setting the upset price, and given that the formula and its assumptions are quite complex, I am sure that at times the ministry has as much of a problem agreeing with all the assumptions made in that formula as the industry does. I have a little difficulty trying to figure out just how the upset price increase is going to be affected by this program, given the complexity of the formula and its assumptions.

I am looking for some assurance, for my riding and for those individuals who rely on small business sales for their revenue, that by some trigger mechanism we're not going to drive ourselves beyond what's realistic. I understand, and I have seen the upset prices at $50 a cubic metre, when in actual fact the accepted bid was $80 or $90. In that situation I am assuming that everything is fine. In my region balsam will also be triggered by this same mechanism, but that wood does not derive the same kind of price up and beyond the upset bid.

I am concerned that we know how this is going to affect the upset bid process, rather than just assume that it's not going to hurt that part of the industry.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll certainly try to give the member as much comfort as I can, because I want to assure him that this issue has been examined very closely. We have also indicated that we want to make sure, through technical committees, that we haven't done anything that might produce an unforeseen consequence.

First of all, the price paid for the bulk of wood competitively bid through the small business program is well above the upset price, so any change in the upset price will not affect those who bid. In a sense, this might be seen as a levelling of the playing field. Many of those small business operators have been upset at the differential.

I want to mention one exception that I think should provide some assurance to the member of how careful we've been about this. The stumpage set on the small business wood is set on the same basis as quota wood. There's no difference; it's the same formula and the same basis. The variability that currently exists will continue to exist. It's just that there has been an increase. In addition, we considered very carefully what to do about those who had bid for value-added sales through the 16.1 program on the expectation that they would get it at a particular price.

We have grandparented that price for those who bid prior to May 1. They will not experience an increase, because we understand that the wood they received and the price they received were influential in the decisions that they may have made in securing capital, etc., for those operations. Some of those operations are very close to the margin of profitability and have made assumptions, so we have protected those.

[ Page 10531 ]

Beyond that, we have established or continued with a technical review process beyond the announcement date to make sure that there aren't any untoward consequences. Even though the basic pattern of variability will remain the same, and even though we're confident that we have taken account of the differentials that need to be taken account of, some particular kinds of wood or particular operators may be adversely affected in an unforeseen way when there is an increase of this kind.

There is an opportunity for the technical review process to review any claims that somehow the stumpage system, which applies to establish the upset price in the small business program, has an unintended consequence and has established too high a level for a particular variety of wood, for example, in light of the market conditions. That process is in place.

It's an additional safety net to ensure that, despite all the care and attention I've described and the comfort I hope I've given the member, we are still open to receive and review any submissions that come from those in the industry, based on the implications for their particular position, the species of wood or the area in which they operate.

The Chair: Before the hon. member continues, I'm following the debate and wondering whether some of these questions don't actually fall into

section 5, which deals with the makeup of the committees and some of the issues that you've raised. However, if you feel that it's correct and the minister continues to answer in this section, that's fine.

L. Fox: That's one of the problems with this type of legislation.

Section 5 actually deals with the committee's mandate, rather than the intent of the legislation and what the board will establish, as I understand it. I think what we're talking about here is the general purpose of the legislation and what it intends to do in terms of the realistic effect on the industry. I appreciate that the minister has some relationship with those things as being realistic concerns.

I want to follow up a little on one of the concerns that I outlined earlier, which the minister didn't make any comment on, and that is land presently held in the agricultural land leases. It is given out for the purposes of creating farmland, but there's timber on it which has a stumpage or royalty attached to it when it's logged. The revenue from that, of course, helps to develop the land into farmland. Is there going to be any increase in the stumpage paid by farmers developing farmland by this particular act?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm going to have to say that I'll look into that and get back to the member. Perhaps we can deal with it later on in the bill. If the payment is in the form of a regular stumpage payment, then obviously it would be affected in the ordinary way, but I'll have to find out more of the details around those leases and make sure the information is available. When we get to either

section 5 or the provisions later on in the bill that deal with the revenue -- for example, under

section 11 -- I'd be happy to provide the member with the answer to that particular element.

L. Fox: I will bring this back again under

section 11 and look forward to that clarification.

I have just one or two more questions. There's another peculiarity out there in my riding, and that's with respect to opportunity wood classifications. There are a couple of licences held in my riding that, when those licences were granted.... The one I'm most familiar with is a five-year renewable twice kind of ten-year tenure on the wood that used to not be in the AAC. The proposal that went forward to the minister of the day and the licence granted to that particular corporation contained initiatives beyond the logging they were doing on the land base -- silviculture initiatives on additional acreage beyond that which they logged.

Does this program alleviate some of that responsibility for them, now that there is newly funded money? Or are they going to have that additional responsibility by the added stumpage that already. ..? They're making, I guess, a value out of something which was considered not a value at the time of the licence. Subsequently, their stumpage rates have gone up from the two-bit stumpage rate that was accepted, and then the '87 legislation kicked in, and it's now at 16 something. Are they now going to be obligated further by this particular legislation?

Hon. A. Petter: This legislation is not going to place any additional obligations on licence holders; this legislation is going to provide further opportunities for licence holders.

Nor is this legislation designed to displace obligations that licence holders currently have. If licence holders have certain obligations pursuant to particular licences, the expectation is that those obligations -- and the responsibility of the licence holder to fund those obligations, if that's the terms of the licence -- would continue. This program would then allow for additional initiatives that may well be of assistance to those licence holders. The intention is not to add to, but certainly not to take away from, their responsibilities.

L. Fox: Perhaps a little later, under a similar section, I might be able to advance that a bit.

Another major issue in the northern part of the province is the assurance the Premier and the minister gave to that region that these funds would be collected and spent on a regional basis. I know that the Premier got a letter today from COFI, suggesting -- in COFI's mind at least -- there should be four regions. I'm sure many suggestions are out there as to how many regions there should be.

But there is no assurance in the act that gives us comfort that those dollars will be allocated and spent on a regional basis. In fact, the act suggests that that determination will be made by the board of this Crown corporation. I'll tell you, that gives me less than the amount of comfort I need in terms of those decisions.

Certainly, I think we in the northern part of the province want some assurance that these dollars are going to be spent in the region they're collected in. I've seen some figures lately that showed that 34 percent of the expected revenue from this new taxation will be derived from the northern part of the province. That's a significant number of dollars, and we're looking for some kind of assurance. Although this letter to the Premier suggests there should be an amendment, I'm not sure the minister will accommodate that. I'm sure we could debate at some time whether or not that's a need.

But I think we have to have some level of comfort within this legislation and over the course of the debate that specific regulations, if not legislation, are going to address that issue.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very aware of the sensitivity of regions of the province -- not only the north. In fact, if you go to most regions of the province, they all seem to be sensitive about regional equatability. Clearly that is the intention. In the legislation, committees are charged with the responsibility of deriving regional goals to ensure a regionally equitable return.

[ Page 10532 ]

Obviously, though, we also want to make sure that particular aspects of the program are targeted where they can best be used. Earlier we discussed the example of marginal agricultural lands that may be brought back into forest production. Well, those lands don't exist everywhere in the province; they exist in some parts of it. That component of the investment would be best directed to those parts -- in this case, the north. There certainly is every intention that the agency maintain regional equatability across the program, although individual elements may be targeted in ways that take the best advantage of local conditions.

I don't want to short-circuit debate on this, but I really believe this is an issue we may want to pursue a bit further under

section 4, which deals with the mandate of the agency, and subsequent sections that deal with the roles of the committees. I'd be happy to discuss that in further detail and have more to say about it during that component of the debate.

J. Tyabji: It's nice to be able to get into the debate. There have been some very interesting exchanges this afternoon. Further to those, I'd like to start more or less from the beginning. We've been looking at the purpose

section of the bill, where the minister has written: "The purpose of this Act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities." I think that's very well intentioned. No one is going to take exception to the intent of

section 2. What I think needs to be clarified is what the minister means by some of these statements.

[3:30]

The minister, as well, has made some comments in debate today, such as that

section 2 is to enhance environmental values of the forest lands because of past degradation, and that the work of the Crown corporation will go beyond the work of the licensees and the people who have been working on these lands before. The minister has also said that this Crown corporation is meant to stabilize the economy, and that there will be a lot of careful watching of the activities in the forest.

I guess the first question that comes out of that is: what does the minister mean by "renew the forest economy of British Columbia"? Second, why does the minister need to stabilize the economy, when his government is consistently bragging about us having the strongest economy in the country?

Hon. A. Petter: That, I may say, is an excellent question, hon. Chair, because it speaks directly to the issue at the heart of this initiative.

The reality is that when forestry policy was set many moons ago in this province, it was set with a set of underlying assumptions. Fifty years ago, as the legislative framework we have today was in its formative stages, the basic assumption of forest policy was that the resource was limitless -- that we would have an endless resource to exploit forevermore. Therefore a series of consequences flowed from that assumption. One consequence was that we didn't have to concern ourselves with the level of cut. Because the resource was limitless, sustainability wasn't a major concern.

A second was that we didn't have to concern ourselves about good forest management, because if the values we cared about weren't being protected here, there would be another forest over in the next valley in which they would be protected, and plenty of forest for everyone.

So there was no attention to land use planning and the need to develop coherent, rational land use plans. In addition, there was little concern about good forest practices and issues of waste and degradation to the land that not only would have an environmentally negative effect on the land but could, as I'm sure the member knows, result in the loss of forest land, as occurs when roads slope and cause slides, for example.

In addition, the economic assumption that flowed from this was that the way to prosper was simply to cut more and more. We shouldn't worry if the job loss per cubic metre fell off, because we could compensate for that by increasing the rate of harvest, thereby increasing the number of jobs. If the economy showed a downturn, we would just high-grade.

So we have built up a whole set of assumptions in this province that are based on a view that may have been understandable 50 years ago, and it may even have been understandable 30 or 40 years ago, but 20 years ago government should have understood that that was no longer a sustainable or coherent vision, either environmentally or economically.

Regrettably, instead of taking account of that, instead of realizing that the land base was finite and that we were starting to reach its limits, and instead of therefore starting to steward a renewable resource, plan for multiple values, increase the number of jobs per cubic metre and ensure that cut levels were harvestable, the same view continued, and governments put their head in the sand.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

We know that throughout the era of sympathetic administration, when there was a recession, the government's immediate response was: "Let's let companies high-grade; we'll turn a blind eye." That means that today, 20 years too late -- indeed, maybe more than 20 years too late -- we, collectively, are left to pick up the pieces of that policy.

We must make what is really, in many terms, a 180-degree turn in our direction and start to view the value of the resource in a very different way: not predicated upon the notion that there will always be more and more to cut, but on taking better care of what there is by investing back in the lands to ensure that the finite land base produces a more valuable return through the resource. We must ensure that we do protect environmental values and don't squander them, either because of the wildlife and other biodiverse values that they represent or because of the economic damage that they've caused.

In addition, because we've gone over the limits of what sustainability is in many cases and therefore the rates of cut are going to have to come down, at least temporarily, and because of other bad forestry practices that have placed us in a very difficult position, we need an economic strategy in which we increase the number of jobs per cubic metre of wood. We don't simply assume that we're going to get more jobs by cutting more. Indeed, we do the reverse: we assume that we're going to get more jobs for every tree we cut.

This is both an environmental and an economic plan, because it speaks to that future vision. It says that if we invest now, we can get major returns in the future. We can turn that corner from those old assumptions, which have led us into some very dangerous territory economically and environmentally, and start to move forward in a way which will create jobs and economic development now and will produce tremendous benefits in terms of the value and the volumes that are available from the resource in the future -- as well as the environmental values and stability for communities in the future.

[ Page 10533 ]

We have a window of opportunity, and that window of opportunity has been offered to us partly because we are not yet beyond the limits -- thankfully -- and we can make this turn, and partly because the value of the resource has increased markedly. That gives us some resources to take in order to invest in this future with some vision, which will both provide for short-term concerns -- provide jobs in the short term and get on with the job in the short term -- and, even more importantly, move forward in the long term.

Pardon my dissertation, but it's such a crucial question, and this plan represents such a fundamental shift in direction from what previous governments have done, that I felt that it did justify and require a full explanation from me, hon. Chair.

J. Tyabji: To the Chair this afternoon, welcome.

I'd like to recognize the significance of many of the minister's statements. I do appreciate the intent. A question that comes to mind after the minister's oratory -- and I appreciate the content -- is one that I don't want answered right now: why a Crown corporation? Obviously, that comes up in another

section of the bill. Although I agree with the minister's statements in the general sense of overcutting and underutilization, of the resource, I disagree with it being a Crown corporation.

But moving on from there, on the basis of the minister's assertion, both in the purpose

section and in his commentary, to enhance the environmental values of the forest lands, the question that comes up is: how can forest lands be more valuable than they are in their natural state? How can the Crown corporation enhance their value?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's question suggests that she's missing the point. In fact, much of the enhancement of environmental value is to bring forest lands back to their natural state and to understand what that natural state is. Much work needs to be done, for example, to gain inventory information around the environmental values in the forests. If we're going to have true integrated management, we need to know the full range of values that we're managing for, so that we don't damage the environment and so that we do protect it. That's one component that is made possible through this initiative.

In addition, there are many values that have, in fact, been compromised by past practices, as I'm sure the member is aware. Whether it be deactivating sloping roads and bringing them back into forest production so that they can both sustain an economic resource and provide a more satisfactory environmental value to the forest, or restocking fish streams that have been compromised by damage done to those streams, or ensuring that forest practices are done in a way that is more sensitive to critical wildlife areas, for example, we can in all those ways ensure that the environmental value of forest lands is enhanced through this initiative.

J. Tyabji: So that the minister doesn't misunderstand and so that perhaps we can get a common premise on the record, I made the comment that forest lands cannot be more valuable than they are in their natural state, with the recognition that when we do go in to extract value from the forest for the purposes of jobs and economic investment, we do that with a recognition that we are extracting something. So on that basis, as the minister has said, this is in reference to lands which have already been in the forest practices area or under licence or which have been cut before.

If we look at Clayoquot Sound as an example, I think we have to recognize that Clayoquot Sound is in its most valuable form when it is in its natural state. We have to balance the cost of the extraction with the benefits to our economy when we extract, and then with what the net loss is to us as a whole when we say that these are our common resources and this is our own common environment.

The argument is not, for example, to shut down the forest industry because trees are most valuable in standing form; the argument is to have a basic premise where we recognize that they are at their most valuable in their natural state and that we make a decision to remove things from the natural state -- interrupting, for example, spawning beds or putting roads into steep slopes -- and pay the resulting cost because there is a job benefit, an economic benefit, downstream benefits, secondary manufacturing benefits or whatever it is, recognizing that we have the intrinsic goal.

That's why I would take exception to trying to enhance an environmental value, because when the minister talks about a 180-degree turn in terms of some of the basic assumptions that we have about the forest sector, how they have changed and what their consequences are, I would be concerned if that 180-degree turn put us in the position where we still felt that the only way there is value in a forest is if we start to cut the trees or interrupt the natural state.

I think we have to recognize that the value is when it's in its natural form and, of course, that after it has been interrupted, we will invest in getting it back to its natural form and then extract and pay the price of extraction because of the jobs and other benefits to the community. That was the premise that I was trying to put forward. I think it's very important not to say we can enhance the environmental value of an old-growth forest. I don't know how you could do that.

What you have to do is ask whether the benefit we reap from logging that old-growth forest is greater than what we lose by leaving it in its natural state. I think the minister can follow that.

Could the minister expand on the question with regard to stabilizing the economy? In what way is the economy unstable?

Hon. A. Petter: The economy of forest-based communities is threatened, frankly, if we do not take action. The reality is that there is an indication through the timber supply review that if nothing is done and we continue on the path we've been on, we are going to see a reduction in the available timber. At the same time, we have seen a commensurate reduction in the workforce. If we do not make an investment in our forest lands and ensure both that the productive capacity of forest lands is increased and the value of the forests -- in the economic sense of the value, not the environmental sense -- is enhanced, there's a real danger that forest-based communities will be threatened.

On the other hand, we know that if we are prepared to make an investment, and through that investment increase the number of jobs and, by the application of that effort and employment, enhance the value of the forests for future generations, then we can stabilize and hopefully go beyond stabilizing forest-based communities and assist them in thriving. I would encourage the member, if she has not already done so, to go around this province and talk to people in forest-based communities, who are feeling very threatened.

They are feeling that they have taken incredible losses in jobs over the past two decades because of technological change, largely, and now they see the prospect of further job loss if nothing is done. If nothing is done, they are very afraid that their economic futures will be compromised or jeopardized because of historic overcutting,

[ Page 10534 ]

the falldown effect and other damage that has been done to forestry lands.

In that sense, this initiative not only stabilizes but speaks to a very bright future for forest communities -- because of the threat posed to them as a result of the way in which the resource has not been properly stewarded, either environmentally or economically, in the past.

J. Tyabji: As the minister made reference to travelling the province, I have been to a number of the resource communities. It's not just technology that has reduced jobs; it's also this government's decision to reduce the annual allowable cut that has reduced jobs significantly, and the fact that the government has not taken issue with the vertical integration of some of the larger forestry companies. In my own riding I've had a number of meetings with members of small businesses who are trying to take advantage of the government's small business forest enterprises program.

I'm sure this minister is aware of that, because there's been some correspondence on that issue. They're having a hard time accessing timber. When you talk about job creation, you can't get more job creation than a small or medium-sized business, and yet they're having a hard time getting a timber supply.

[3:45]

That's the other question. When the purpose

section says "enhance the productive capacity," I'm assuming that means of forest lands. That must be making reference to value-added as well. If it is, to what extent will the mandate of this new Crown corporation, through the purpose section, allow a greater timber supply for small and medium-sized businesses?

Hon. A. Petter: There are a number of components in the member's comment and question. I hope the member isn't suggesting that the timber supply review is the problem. The timber supply review is the effort of this government to come to terms with a problem that has been created for us by historic overcutting and a failure to take account of falldown. To blame the timber supply review is like blaming the doctor for the disease.

The reality is that prior to the last election, officials in the Ministry of Forests had to concede that they did not have the support of the government of the day to gain adequate inventory information to even establish what a sustainable level of cut was. When we became government, the previous minister initiated a timber supply review to provide the information to all British Columbians about what that inventory was, and as a result, to enable the chief forester in his independent capacity to determine a sustainable rate of cut.

There have been some reductions as a result of that, and some of the numbers suggest that there will be further reductions.

That is the problem that faces us. But if we don't face it and come to terms with it now, the economic future of forest communities will be much bleaker. We're getting further and further along where we will not be able to ensure a stable supply of timber unless we act now. That's why this initiative is so important.

That's why we need a strategy to enhance the productive capacity of forest lands, and in the process, create jobs in enhancing the productive capacity of forest land, because some of the jobs that have been there historically, simply in the extraction of the resource, are not there today and may not be in the future. They hopefully will come back as we restore the productive capacity of land.

How can we do that? We can do that in a number of ways. We know other countries have been quite successful in increasing the number of jobs in the forests, and by doing so gaining a much greater return from the forests. Techniques such as commercial thinning -- one-quarter of Sweden's forest resource is harvested through commercial thinnings -- can enhance timber supply opportunities in the short term and also enhance the value of the resource in the long term.

A much more intensive form of silviculture than is currently practised in this province, a form that would involve thinning, pruning and spacing on a regular basis, as is practised in some other countries and in Washington State on certain lands, can enhance growth and yield rates markedly. That will ensure we have a more valuable resource and more volume of resource in the future, so that the jobs will be there. In the meantime, while we're working on that, we'll be creating jobs in producing that effect.

In all these ways, this initiative produces economic stability by addressing the issue of productive capacity. That will produce jobs in the short term; it will produce even more jobs in the long term, because we will have a more valuable forest resource that can be utilized for a broader range of forest products. We will have a resource that is more plentiful, because we will have put the investment into the forest lands to produce the kind of return that other countries have achieved -- and that we in British Columbia can certainly achieve as well.

J. Tyabji: This is my last question before deferring to one of the other members. With regard to the comments about a reduction in the annual allowable cut, I understand that the government has an obligation to take inventory and make adjustments accordingly. The chief forester has to be responsible to make sure that there isn't overcutting. But the minister had pointed to technology as the reason for people being so upset about their job losses, and that wasn't the case. Perhaps if the government had been investing in forest renewal -- as the government would call it -- two years ago, then there would have been a transition.

But my comment was not with regard to taking exception to the reduction in the annual allowable cut. My comment was with regard to vertical integration of the forest industry, and the fact that what is available is being largely directed to the multinationals, even through the small business program that the government is administering. That's where there's a problem. It's in the supply. What is being cut is almost all going to the majors, and the small companies are being shut out. That's what I was getting at.

If we're talking about job creation, or if we're talking about where most of the jobs are, they are in small and medium-sized businesses. Certainly we should be taking care of our own businesses before.... Obviously, we recognize the importance of the majors in our forest economy, but some of these small companies are in danger of shutting down completely. That's a big danger and something the government should recognize.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll respond very briefly. Obviously, the tenure issue is an issue that needs to be addressed and will be addressed. It's not part of this initiative. But let me say that the objective of getting more wood supply to small and independent processors in business is clearly an objective of this government. In the current budget there is $30 million in incremental money towards the small business program. Through this initiative, we believe that some of this investment can assist in providing greater opportunities for woodlots and community forests, and for greater access of wood to the value-added and small business sectors.

But it's true that this initiative does not deal with the tenure issue. That is a different matter, and perhaps we'll have a chance to debate that one day soon as well.

[ Page 10535 ]

D. Mitchell: I'd like to compliment the minister for allowing broad-ranging discussion on this

section of the bill. It's an important

section of a very important bill. We're dealing with the purposes of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

I have a concern I'd like to raise about the purpose

section very specifically. My concern relates to the fact that the government issued a forest renewal plan a few weeks ago. The plan is excellent, in my view. If all the details of this plan could be implemented, I think British Columbians would be well served.

Bill 32 doesn't always coincide exactly with the plan. It speaks to the plan, but there are some discrepancies between the bill and the plan. I understand that, given the quality of legislative draftsmanship that we have available to ourselves today.... I don't want to slander the minister's profession, because I know he's a lawyer. But the quality of legal draftsmanship, in terms of the bills that come to the House from time to time, leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes the wording is general; sometimes it's ambiguous.

The purpose

section of the bill is very general and broad. Probably it's designed to be very broad because the forest renewal plan itself has some fairly broad and visionary goals in terms of where we're going with our forest industry. We're talking about renewing the forest resource of British Columbia.

In my view, if we're really wanting to get specific in the purpose

section of the bill and are speaking to the goal of the forest renewal plan, which the government has published and distributed, then the purpose

section should refer explicitly to maintaining and enhancing the timber supply of the province -- in particular the annual allowable cut, because there is great concern throughout the province in many forest districts where we've seen reductions in the AAC.

I guess my first question I'd like to ask the minister is: why would the purpose

section not explicitly refer to maintaining and enhancing the timber supply of the province? That's why the forest industry has offered support to the government for this plan.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer, quite simply, is that the purpose

section speaks to a number of different values. One of them, the one directly relevant to the member's question, is enhancing the productive capacity of forest lands. The reason you enhance the productive capacity of forest lands is to enhance those timber values, in order to produce the kind of result that I think the member and I both desire -- and that is a greater degree of opportunity to make use of a resource by making that resource both more valuable and more plentiful. I believe that the purpose

section -- while it can't accomplish the detail the member or other members might like on each and every component -- does adequately address that concern. That is why I think the industry feels very comfortable in saying that their particular concerns are well addressed through this legislation and this section.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that response, and I agree with him. The purpose

section could not address every individual member's concerns; it would be longer than the whole bill if that was the case. But that's why I raised this specific issue dealing with the annual allowable cut and the timber supply: it's important and central to the bill and to the forest industry's concerns that have been raised.

I wonder whether the purpose

section is just a bit too general and whether we need to provide more specific direction. I say that because the agency being created by this bill, Forest Renewal B.C., is going to require some very specific direction. There are going to be many times in the life of this new agency that's being created when the legislation is not going to be very specific in terms of giving the directors of Forest Renewal B.C. much direction. So what is going to substitute for that?

Well, I suppose what's going to substitute for that are the minister's comments on the record in committee stage on this bill. The minister's comments in this committee stage will be referred to by directors of Forest Renewal B.C. in the future, for specific direction in certain areas, because that's all we're going to have on the record. The minister's willingness and patience so far in this

section will be well served and will offer some direction to future directors of Forest Renewal B.C.

On the specific issue of timber supply, I recognize that the minister is saying that the purposes

section refers to the goal of enhancing the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands. That certainly is there, but what does enhancing the productive capacity mean? It's a rather broad statement. I certainly support it, and I support this purposes

section as it is written. I would simply like there to be a little more specific direction on the central need to enhance and maintain that timber supply. In that regard, I wonder if the minister might be willing to consider an amendment to this

section that would simply add those words so that the

section would read: "The purpose of this act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia by maintaining and enhancing the timber supply of the province through enhancement of the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, creating jobs, providing training for forest workers and strengthening communities."

I'm not saying that this a literary improvement to this section. It simply offers a little more guidance to the future directors of Forest Renewal B.C.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments and the sentiments that lie behind them, and I want to make it clear that I do not at all disagree that one of the purposes of this initiative is to assist in maintaining and enhancing the timber supply of the province through enhancing the productive capacity of forest lands. With any purposes section, when you speak to one element to a greater degree of specificity than you do to another, you open up a whole Pandora's box.

Regrettably, the reason I'm not prepared to accept this amendment on behalf of the government is that the way the amendment is drafted creates a purpose that is dominant and which I think alters the intention of the act. The act is designed to speak to a number of purposes which are complementary but which I don't think are subservient to each other. Those purposes are to enhance the environmental values of the forest, provide for value-added manufacturing, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities through things such as value-added manufacturing, etc.

As I read it, the amendment says that the purpose of this act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia by maintaining and enhancing the timber supply of the province through enhancement of the productive capacity and environmental value. It tends to create a hierarchy of values, which I don't think is desirable, particularly in light of the partnership that has been achieved around this initiative and the fact that people might place different priorities on different values.

[ Page 10536 ]

We are trying to achieve a happy harmony among the various values that complement each other. For that reason, while I agree that this goal of maintaining and enhancing timber supply is a legitimate one, I don't see the necessity of including it in the purposes section. It's already clear, and I think the particular wording proposed by the member could have the unforeseen and unfortunate consequence of appearing to create a hierarchy that would be detrimental.

D. Mitchell: I suppose in the final analysis that I am going to have to defer to the learned member who knows more about legal drafting than this member, who is a layperson. The title of this bill is the BC Forest Renewal Act. I'm not one to argue that there should necessarily be a hierarchy of values, but I think the minister's comments on the record in this committee are important. I appreciate the fact that he has said that preserving, maintaining and enhancing the forest values, timber supply and annual allowable cut is important, and it's an important part of this.

[4:00]

Because of the partnership the minister has referred to which has given rise to this bill -- and it's a significant accomplishment, one that I have applauded.... It is perhaps the most significant of this government, I would argue, since it's been elected. Because of that partnership among government, industry, environmental groups, first nations, municipalities and others, how will the board of directors of the new agency that's being created, Forest Renewal B.C., understand the purposes of their agency if the purposes

section doesn't have a hierarchy of values? If it refers to all of these goals -- they're all laudable, and we all support them -- how is that going to be mediated? I know we can get into this in later sections of the bill, but we're dealing with the purposes right now. Maybe the minister could just offer a little clarification on the specific idea that I'm proposing here, which is that because it's the BC Forest Renewal Act, forest renewal should take precedence.

Hon. A. Petter: Forest renewal does take precedence, but forest renewal means economic renewal, environmental renewal and renewal of communities that depend on the forests. It means many different things. The reason it would be inappropriate to create a hierarchy is that in addition to the 180-degree turn I referred to earlier in policy, this bill represents another 180-degree turn in the political culture of this province. The culture that this bill speaks to is the culture in which we recognize that environmental and economic values, far from conflicting with each other, complement each other.

Let me give the member an example. When we move to restore a sloping road that has resulted in a slide, and we do so by restoring the land and allowing trees to grow back, are we doing so because we want to restore the environmental value of that land? Or are we doing so because we want to bring that land back into forest production for economic values? I don't think we have to choose why we're doing it. The two complement each other. What's good for the environment is good for the economy.

In the past, governments that set up hierarchies or dichotomies between the environment and the economy -- or any other of these values -- created a problem. We are now living with the consequences of that problem.

Let me offer two brief examples that I think help illustrate this. A previous government in an economic downturn thought it was doing a favour to the industry by allowing high-grading of the resource through an era of sympathetic administration. Yet it's now evident that that government did no favour whatsoever.

It did no favour, and the consequence of that was twofold: firstly, it further compromised the timber supply, and for that reason we now have serious timber supply problems that are in turn having economic consequences for forest-based communities; and secondly, it undermined public confidence in the integrity of that government's stewardship of the forests and in subsequent governments' ability to steward the forests. That has led to many of the problems we have now in which the public doesn't have the confidence that they need to have in good forest management. That has been economically detrimental as well.

This bill is about making a change and saying that what's good for the environment is good for the economy -- and conversely. Let's not fight about hierarchies and dichotomies. Let's work together, because more often than not there is common ground and a common vision. That's why, with all deference to the member, I prefer this purpose

section to his.

T. Perry: I wonder if members would be kind enough to grant me leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Perry: We have with us students from the LINK program, a federally sponsored ESL education program, who are studying at the Jewish Community Centre in Vancouver. They are from a variety of different countries and are over here to observe the debate on the forest renewal bill. They've come at a good time, when they'll see a very interesting debate. I'd like to ask all members to join me in making them welcome here.

W. Hurd: I must say I'm shocked by the minister's comments. They belie a total lack of understanding of the licensing system within his ministry. As the minister well knows, there is a requirement every year to file a five-year development plan that calls for an annual allowable cut by that licensee every year. The licensee has to meet those obligations. He has to meet the cut requirements or face serious administrative penalties, perhaps even the loss of the licence.

When the minister talks about sympathetic administration, he talks about asking licensees to undercut their quota requirements if the need arises and face the administrative penalties from the ministry -- perhaps even the loss of their timber licence.

I can't understand why the minister would not accept the reasoned amendment from the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that seeks to include "enhancing the timber supply of the province" as one of the defining elements of the purpose section. I would remind the minister that Forest Renewal B.C. is being funded by stumpage increases, by timber that is cut and harvested by companies, individuals and small licensees. To suggest that enhancing the timber supply, as a corollary to that, is not at the top of the heap is shocking and absolutely appalling in the extreme.

I am speaking in favour of the amendment. I think it's a reasoned amendment. It's the second attempt -- a constructive attempt -- the opposition has made to produce an amendment that I think reflects the way this forest renewal plan is being funded. It's being funded by what amounts to an industrial activity, a harvesting activity, on the land base. The only time Forest Renewal B.C. receives its funding is when the trees that are cut are scaled and stumpages are assessed. To suggest that enhancing the timber supply should not be at the top of the list in the purpose

section is a shocking statement by the Minister of

[ Page 10537 ]

Forests. I would argue that he has a responsibility to enhance the timber supply by whatever means are at his disposal. The minister said earlier that tenure has nothing to do with it. That means if a licence holder were to come to Forest Renewal B.C. with a plan of their own to enhance the forest land base and do all the work that this act envisages, and they possibly wanted to have the tenure system changed to reflect that, that's not on the table.

Again, I speak in favour of the hon. member's amendment. I think it's a reasoned amendment. I know that he has spent many years in the forest sector and understands the importance of timber supply. The fact is that this government has compiled statistics based on job-loss scenarios for various reductions in the annual allowable harvest. It has those statistics, but it hasn't seen fit to share them with this House.

To suggest that they're now going to take the stumpage for Forest Renewal B.C. and, as the minister has so eloquently said, spend it on a whole range of values, without putting timber supply at the top of the list, is shocking in the extreme. I think that demonstrates the thin veneer of this bill. It's going to go into pet projects of the cabinet; it's not going to go into timber enhancement first. I would urge the minister to rethink this reasoned amendment and offer his unqualified support.

Hon. A. Petter: I've made it very clear that enhancing the timber supply is clearly a goal of this initiative, and that is already covered in the purpose section.

For that member to stand up and suggest that there has been no difficulty in the past in the way the forests of this province have been managed is further confirmation that he represents a party that is continuing to look fondly to the past and that doesn't have the courage to face the future. It's bad enough that the member and his party voted against this initiative in principle. But to stand up and deny that there was an era of sympathetic administration in this province....

I'd be happy to share with the member some of the directives that went out in that era, in which district and regional managers were told, through political direction, to allow high-grading and bad forest practices. To deny that that occurred and to act as an apologist for past governments is a disgrace to every British Columbian and certainly to his party. To suggest that the values that are going to be put through....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: It's hard to calm down, hon. member, when your opposition critic stands up and makes statements suggesting that the revenues that are going to fund this are somehow the revenues of a particular industry, when we all know the forest resource is a public resource shared by all British Columbians, and that all British Columbians are sharing in this initiative. It just shows how narrow the focus of that member and his party is. I know that that member has worked in the past for industry, and that's fair enough. Industry has an important role to play, but there is more than simply industry at stake here; there are the jobs and lives of all British Columbians.

I encourage that member to think more broadly than he does, to not deny the past and to come to the realization that we need to make changes, because if he's not prepared to make changes, the people of British Columbia will run all over him and his party. I can't let this pass; I want the people of British Columbia to take note of what this member said. It is, no doubt, what would guide him if he were, unfortunately, ever to fill the role of Forests minister.

He said that the role of a Forests minister is to enhance timber supply by whatever means is at his disposal -- translation: without regard to good forest practices, without regard to other values, and by whatever means is at his disposal. The fact that previous governments took exactly that view is what got us into this mess.

Forest renewal is about saying that we don't have to choose that vision of the past -- a good economy at the expense of environment. We can reject that vision. We can still take the good economy and do it in a way that will support environmental values, communities and jobs. I hope that the member reconsiders his ill-considered vision -- his lack of vision -- of forestry and what the people of British Columbia expect of their forests, because his comments suggest that he does not understand that he is not in step with what they are asking of us, of this government and of all responsible elected officials in terms of their role in renewing the forest and the forest economy.

W. Hurd: I am really amazed. Enhancing the timber supply of the province.... This government has launched a series of studies on the effects on employment in the province of a reduction in the annual allowable harvest -- from the approximate figure of 72 to 75 million cubic metres today to 60 million, 55 million and 50 million. That kind of work has been done. Clearly the government knows that there is going to be a huge reduction in employment in the province if we go to a lower annual allowable harvest. It understands that there is a serious ramification to that reduction.

To suggest, as the minister has suggested, that enhancing the timber supply as a means of forestalling those catastrophic losses in employment which would occur -- that the minister knows will occur -- should not be at the head of the list of Forest Renewal B.C. really underscores, I think, his government's commitment to protecting forest employment in British Columbia.

They were all here on the opening day of the Legislature because they are not convinced that their jobs are going to be protected. They're not convinced this government will not go to a 50-million-cubic-metre-a-year harvest in the province. There are all kinds of doomsday scenarios out there, as the minister well knows. The minister has talked about the timber supply review and the fact that overcutting is occurring.

Surely, given the crunch we're in, enhancing the timber supply -- which is a reasoned amendment by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who supported the bill on second reading -- is an honest and productive amendment to this particular purposes section. It would indicate to those people who are paying stumpage that we are going to spend the money on enhancing the available timber in the province and that we are not going to see a doomsday scenario. We are not going to see a 25 million-cubic-metre reduction in the annual allowable harvest. We are going to protect the existing employment first.

[4:15]

That's what the people in rural British Columbia want to hear, not some pie-in-the-sky purposes

section that talks about a whole range of values. I mean, they want the goods. They want an assurance from this government that this money is going to go first to protect their jobs and to an annual allowable harvest in the province.

That's the way this government billed this legislation. That's the way they sold it. They sold it as a means of protecting the existing jobs in British Columbia, and all I've heard so far is a complete retreat from that position in a vaguely worded bill that won't realize any of the initiatives that the government has talked about.

[ Page 10538 ]

I urge the minister to reflect on the fact that the mover of this amendment was a member who supported the bill in second reading and who has correctly identified that enhancing the timber supply to protect jobs is the very basis of job protection in B.C. It's a responsible amendment, and the opposition is pleased to support it. I urge the minister to do the same.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me simply say that I refuse to take seriously the hollow words from the member opposite. He voted in favour of a continued reduction in timber supply by voting in principle against this initiative, which speaks to enhancing timber supply. For that member and his party, having voted to see the timber supply in this province continue to decline by not taking this initiative, to now stand up and sanctimoniously embrace this goal is just a little much. The member knows very well that it is at the head of the list. The purpose of this act is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia.

Enhancing the productive capacity is next. What I am not prepared to do is agree to some false hierarchy of values or pander to the member in his desperate attempt to dig himself out of the fact that he and his party are against an initiative that will fundamentally alter the future of our forest economy for the better.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 17

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Stephens

Hanson

Mitchell

Tyabji

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

K. Jones

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 32

Petter

Sihota

Pement

Priddy

Cashore

Zirnhelt

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Cull

Gabelmann

Clark

Ramsey

Barlee

Pullinger

Janssen

Evans

Beattie

Conroy

Doyle

Simpson

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Hartley

The Chair: I will recognize the member for Peace River North on

section 2 in just one moment. If members could leave in a quiet and orderly fashion, please.

R. Neufeld: I have a couple of observations to start with. I thought we were back into second reading when I listened to the Minister of Environment, and I was waiting for the past Minister of Forests to do the same thing. Or maybe he's going to give the same verbal barrage later on.

One thing that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the continual harassment of past governments. I'm not trying to defend anyone, but what I want to say to the minister, and what I've said all along, is that it does no good to continue your verbal attacks on past practices and about how terribly the forest industry was handled in the past, whether it was or not. It does not help your cause at all when you, your Premier or whoever has to go to Europe and try to secure the markets we have historically had and the jobs we need here.

We should all be concerned about the jobs of those people who work in the forest sector. That should be one of our main concerns, not to continually blame it on someone else.

You say that about 20 years ago it really went bad. Well, if my arithmetic is correct, 20 years ago an NDP government was sitting here. If it was so simple, why didn't they bring forward something like this at that time? And today you know so much about it. Twenty years ago I wasn't here and you weren't here, but your party was in government at that time, and they should have brought something forward. And if they didn't at that time, your party was in opposition for the last 20 years. If it was so terrible, why didn't you bring forward a simple thing like this to set the record straight?

It's about time we dealt with the issues, the jobs, the people and the forests instead of trying to blame everyone else. That's all I'm trying to say, and I would rather we get to that.

I don't know whether I was listening carefully to the minister when one of the members asked about explaining enhancement of the environmental value of forest land. I didn't hear too much response from the minister on that. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on environmental value of the forest land.

[4:30]

I'd also like to ask why this whole bill couldn't have been part of the Forest Practices Code. Only one

part in the purpose

section might not fit there, and that's the "provide training for forest workers" part. The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour just announced a $200 million program in skills and training that could easily take care of that. Why in the world would we want to start a whole new Crown corporation, or whatever you want to call it, when we're bringing forward a Forest Practices Code, which we probably should have brought forward a long time ago? I agree with the Forest Practices Code, but why wouldn't it all be encompassed in one? Why do we have to have two separate identities?

You and your government have often talked about bringing together all things out of the legislation for the Ministry of Forests into one Forest Practices Code, and now we're breaking away from that. We're going to take a major thing away from the Forest Practices Code. When we do that we relieve those forest companies that are now responsible for silviculture....

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Yes, we do. Not the basic silviculture responsibilities they have right now, but in the Forest Practices Code you could have enhanced it, put it in the purpose

section and laid out to the forest companies that have tenure and that log in the forests what they have to do, what British Columbians expect of them -- all in the Forest Practices Code. And then 20 years from now, or 30, 40, 50 or 80, if this hasn't worked, the forest companies are, I guess, off the hook, because they'll just say: "Government knew better. They wanted to form a 15-member board, and they took the responsibility for that enhanced silviculture." I think the responsibility for enhanced silviculture and for retraining also -- for all those things -- should be laid squarely at the feet of those companies that are out there presently and that hold tenure.

I think that way would work a lot better than trying to set up committees and boards all over the province to deal with the issues. The member for Prince George-Omineca spoke about COFI having the issue about whether the money's

[ Page 10539 ]

going to go back to the different areas. We wouldn't have that, because if that company has tenure in the Prince George area, they're of course going to be responsible; they're going to do that work there. A team of 15 people in Victoria isn't going to decide where it's going to be spent.

So I would much rather have seen, and I thought we were going to see, the minister bring forward the Forest Practices Code that included enhancing silviculture -- pruning and thinning and all those types of things -- to make our forests more productive. Maybe the minister could briefly answer those two questions for me.

Hon. A. Petter: Very briefly. First, without protracting the debate, I will agree to disagree with the member about the impact of this government's initiatives and statements on European and other foreign markets. There's no doubt in my mind, and I think the Premier's trip confirmed this, that the most powerful message we have to send to protect our markets is the message that we are changing -- from the past to the present to the future. If you look at recent advertisements from MacMillan Bloedel, you'll find that same message reflected. So the message of change is the most powerful message.

The attempt to try to justify the past, whether we agree or disagree, is just not an effective message. So I want to make the strategic point that certainly, in everything we do, we want to make sure that we are communicating in a way that strengthens our markets and improves our competitive situation. I believe that the message of change does that.

In terms of environmental values, I'll repeat very briefly what I think I said earlier, by and large. There is much work to be done on the forest land base to restore damage that has occurred in the past. Sloping roads are perhaps the most obvious example, along with damage to streams. By investing in restoration, we can increase environmental values by bringing back land that can grow forests or streams that can bear fish.

But at the same time -- and this is why it's important to realize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand -- we can enhance the economic value of that land and of those streams as well -- in terms of the streams, from the recreation and tourism point of view; in terms of the land, from a forest point of view.

So we can enhance environmental values by cleaning up damage that has occurred in the past. We can enhance the environmental value of forest lands by ensuring that future cutting is done in a more responsible way that takes account of environmental values. For example, we can do that through getting better inventories of what's there on the land, so we make sure that we're protecting important values.

In terms of the code and this initiative, there's clearly a close relationship between the two. They complement each other, but they have different purposes. It's very often appropriate -- and I would argue in this case, necessary -- that there be different instruments to achieve those different but complementary purposes. The code is a regulatory regime that is designed to set standards whereby companies must adhere to responsible forest practices. This is an investment strategy to enhance the value of the land beyond, in many cases, what would be required under the code.

I simply disagree with the member when he says that using the code to achieve these purposes would be easier or more efficient; in fact, I think it would be less so. You'd still have to face the problem of where you would require intensive silviculture and restoration of some lands. That would still have to be done, but it would be done through regulation, which I think would be far less successful and effective than through an investment strategy.

That takes me to my final point: to remember that while the companies are major players and will work very closely in partnership with government and others, these are public resources. The public does have a responsibility, and government on behalf of the public has a responsibility, to make sure these lands are stewarded for future generations and for communities. It's important therefore that we work in a partnership to ensure that that takes place. This plan and this vehicle -- and I'm sure we'll talk more about this, around the question of the agency that's being established -- enables us to do that.

D. Mitchell: While we're still on

section 2, the purpose section, I'd like to ask for some direction from the minister. I referred earlier to the fact that Bill 32 doesn't cover everything referred to in the plan that was issued by the government -- when the forest renewal plan was announced just a few weeks ago. I wonder if the minister could tell us what guidance, authority or direction the plan represents to the agency. The bill obviously is the statute and is going to be the legal authority governing the forest renewal plan and giving direction to the board of directors of the new agency that's being created. But where the act is not specific or explicit, will the forest renewal plan serve as some direction or guidance?

Hon. A. Petter: That's a very helpful question. Clearly, the legislation provides a legislative framework for the plan, and the plan will have to operate within that framework over a long period of time, and over time there may be changes. The plan speaks to our current vision of how this framework will operate. It embraces the plan, both the framework and also more detail.

It talks about -- in response to some of the questions raised earlier -- the fact that half of the fund will be committed to investment back into the land, to increase the productive capacity of the land and hopefully result in increased rates of cut that are sustainable in the future. So the short answer is yes, the plan does provide direction. It provides direction to the public. And it will provide direction to the agency.

The agency will be a partnership. The plan has been a product of partnership, but it will be an evolving partnership. That's why, while the plan may be more specific than the legislation, it is not desirable that the legislation not allow for an evolving plan. I think there is clear guidance from the plan that will help to inform the agency, the government and indeed all those partners who participate as we move forward.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

The Chair: Hon. member, I wonder if before you begin I might ask leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Hon. members, in the gallery today are 56 students from O'Connell school in Penticton. They're accompanied by 11 parents and the principal, Mr. Bob Dunn, and two teachers, Roberto Kihn and Gary Robertson. I wonder if the members might make them welcome.

[ Page 10540 ]

W. Hurd:

Section 3 really is the nub of the issue with this particular bill. It describes the corporate entity that the government has chosen to undertake these investments. When the government sold this concept, they were selling it on the basis that some 15 to 18 forestry funds in British Columbia either had been set up and rated or had been set up on paper and the funds had not actually been transferred into them, implying that there was therefore no long-term commitment by a government which opted to set up a fund.

I wonder if the minister could explain to us exactly what additional security there is, in his own mind, in a corporate entity as opposed to setting up a fund, keeping in mind that the small business enterprise program in the Ministry of Forests operates on the basis of a fund. As the minister knows, there's a silvicultural obligation, which is listed under a vote in the ministry every year. I wonder if the minister could just advise us why the government has chosen a corporate entity as opposed to making a commitment to a fund in the manner that exists in the small business enterprise program.

Hon. A. Petter: There are two principal reasons, and the member alludes to one of them. One is the issue of permanence, and the other is the concept of partnership. Let me deal with the latter first and then come back to the former.

If this initiative is to succeed in the way that we know it can, it is essential that it not be just an initiative of government but an initiative in which all British Columbians can participate, particularly those who have an interest and a stake in the forests and in the forest economy. Through an agency of this kind, Forest Renewal B.C., we can create a partnership in which British Columbians who represent those various interests in the forests can participate directly in making the decisions and achieving consensus. That could not be readily achieved in any other form, in my view. For that reason this agency makes a lot of sense and, I think, finds a lot of support.

The second is the issue of permanence that the member alluded to, and that quite simply is this. The member is quite correct when he says that there have been many so-called permanent initiatives in the past that have not lasted long. I'm reminded of a quote, I think from W.C. Fields, who said: "Anyone can give up drinking; I've done it a thousand times." Apparently anyone can create a permanent silviculture fund, because governments in this province have done it in the past many times -- not a thousand -- and they have then evaporated.

The reason for that is quite simple. We have a problem. This was dealt with by the Forest Resources Commission; it has been talked about by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi; it has been discussed by many in the forest industry. The problem is that we have a political cycle that operates on three- or four- or sometimes five-year horizons, but we have a forest cycle that must look to 70-, 80-, 90- or perhaps 100-year horizons in terms of forest management. The trouble is that the priorities that are set for forest management, therefore, don't have the degree of permanence and stability that is required to engage in good forest management.

What has happened in the past is that funds have been allocated, but because they have not been provided for in legislation and have been done through a line ministry, which is not allowed to carry funds over from one year to another, when priorities changed -- as they invariably do, even within the term of a particular government, and certainly from one government to another -- there has been tremendous instability, and funds have evaporated.

Each year when the budget is debated, it's very tempting for governments to look to a source of funds to satisfy short-term interests or short-term political priorities which may be seen as providing some elective opportunities and political opportunities. I wish that politicians could rise above those temptations, but history demonstrates that they have not been able to do so in the past. The so-called long-term initiatives have not had that degree of permanence.

[4:45]

It's true that in a parliamentary system nothing can be guaranteed forever. But what you can do is do some things to add a measure of security so that there will be permanence -- and make a break with the past. What we've done in this legislation is to do it in two ways. One is to create an independent agency that will be a partnership agency, that will have legitimacy and independence, and because it's created under legislation, hopefully it will achieve a measure of public support that will make it difficult for politicians to displace because of short-term priorities. That's one thing. The other is to provide, through legislation -- as we will see in

section 11 -- a steady stream of revenue directly to that agency that can't be taken away each year through the budget. It would require a change in legislation and a high political price to compromise that.

For that reason, we believe that this is a unique step forward -- and I think most in the province who have looked at this agree -- in trying to achieve a measure of security and permanence that will allow this agency to plan those 80- to 100-year horizons that previous governments have not been able to plan. Many who have analyzed the situation say we have to plan if we are to make a major breakthrough.

I might say that I was told by one of the leading academics on forestry in the province that to his knowledge this is the first time that a government -- certainly one in Canada -- has made a direct relationship between the resource, its value and its future. The way we have done that is through the instrument of this agency, Forest Renewal B.C.

W. Hurd: I can appreciate the minister's commitment to the concept of a Crown corporation, but I recall that when the government took office, one of its first acts was to wind down a Crown corporation in British Columbia -- one that was looking after, I believe, hazardous waste in the province. The minister certainly hasn't convinced me. As the minister well knows, t