1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 14

[ Page 10221 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today are Todd Hickey and Charlene Euven. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

U. Dosanjh: In the gallery today is my friend and former legislative assistant, Patti Spooner, and her daughter Angela. Patti is presently constituency assistant to the Minister of Agriculture in the sunnier climes of Williams Lake.

N. Lortie: I have the pleasure today of having an entire

section of the visitors' gallery full with my friends and constituents from North Delta. They have come together as a group, and they are: Vince Trayers, Paul and Maria Skender, Bill Inglis, Lloyd MacDonald, Chuck Gauthier, Mike and Myrt Priddie, Dave Hales, Arne Knudsen, Ben Mullins, Guy and Shirley Gentner, Harold and Sally Funk, Don DeMille and Colin (Mac) Gaffney. They are just a few of my supporters from North Delta. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Perry: I'll do what the hon. member for Delta North couldn't do and second his welcome to one in particular: Mr. Don DeMille. For those members who have not yet had their tour of Burns Bog, I'd like to assure them that this is the chap to lead you. He will lead you into the deepest part of the swamps, the thickest mud and the softest and cushiest sponge beds -- for anyone who has a sore bottom from sitting on these benches all day long. He will find you wildlife, if it can be found, including sticklebacks. He's a very good guide for children as well. I'd like to welcome him personally also.

G. Wilson: I'd like the House to welcome Chris Brown from Powell River. Chris is a key member of the Powell River Sea Fair committee -- a hard worker -- and one of the growing number of members of the Alliance Party in Powell River.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Oral Questions

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

G. Farrell-Collins: It appears that the NDP federal leadership campaign is off to a fast start. The Minister of Employment and Investment has been recruiting his team and finding them government jobs in his ministry. The Liberal opposition has learned that Tim Gallagher, an NDP hack and former employee of MP John Rodriguez, has been hired as a communications officer with B.C. 21. Can the minister tell us if this job was advertised and who else applied?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to talk about my ministry. I have the former deputy minister to Bill Vander Zalm as deputy minister. I have a former researcher for the Social Credit Party in the communications department. I have former ministerial assistants to former Socred cabinet ministers. We in the Ministry of Employment and Investment are equal opportunity employers.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: We in B.C. have learned that some people are more equal than others.

It appears that yet another NDP hack has found her way into B.C. and into this minister's ministry. Maria Ciarniello, fresh out of the now decimated NDP headquarters in Ottawa, has been parachuted into the Island Highway project as a -- guess what -- communications officer. Can the minister tell us why his local-hire policy for the Island Highway didn't apply to this position?

Hon. G. Clark: The director of communications for the Ministry of Employment and Investment used to be the ministerial assistant to Jack Davis, a former Social Credit cabinet minister. I'm pleased to announce to the members of the House that Bill Vander Zalm's former personal secretary has recently been hired as a policy analyst for the B.C. 21 committee and is doing an excellent job. All the way through the ministry, we don't discriminate on the basis of politics. We have good public employees today who, at one point in their lives, were active for a previous government or political party. In fact, we might even have a Liberal working for the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The more Liberals he can get, the better his policy will get, so I would encourage him.

But there's more to this story. Can the minister tell us...

Some Hon. Members: More?

The Speaker: Order!

G. Farrell-Collins: ...how Maria Ciarniello, a professional civil servant, ended up organizing the NDP's convention last month? And was her contract being paid by the taxpayers while she did that job?

Hon. G. Clark: As I said, we have many people working for the government. Most of them are employed through a competition. I'm not sure about Ms. Ciarniello and some of the other people. Some of them are on contract. As I said before, we are prepared to hire people regardless of their politics. I understand that four people were fired by the Liberal caucus. Some of them may apply. One of them who is suing the Liberal caucus may apply. We are happy to look at any opportunity to improve the quality of our public employees in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT USE OF QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY EXECUTIVE PROGRAM

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. It appears that the litany of abuse of taxpayers' money continues in this province. Today we have learned that the NDP government paid over $65,000 to send five B.C. bureaucrats to attend the Queen's University executive program. Could the Premier tell us if he agrees with bureaucrats taking a $13,000 field trip at taxpayers' expense?

[ Page 10222 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will give a full and detailed answer to that question. I'm not aware of the details, so I'll take it on notice.

The Speaker: The member has a new question? The question was taken on notice.

W. Hurd: The brochure advertising this particular trip talks about recreational activities.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The question was taken on notice.

W. Hurd: We are told that the graduates of the program went on canoe trips and sailing trips, and went sport fishing and golfing. Can the Premier tell us whether he agrees that those are appropriate perks for members of the executive attending Queen's University?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If it's in the off-hours, for the employees of the government to be healthy and to jog -- as you do, hon. Speaker -- or to run in the 10-K Sun Run -- as I did on Sunday -- is good exercise. I think it makes for healthier employees.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us why his government isn't using the successful executive program at the University of British Columbia? What happened to the government's Buy B.C. program when it comes to these executive trips and executive perks?

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. In 1992, in his capacity as the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, this minister wrote to B.C. Ferries and asked if they could commission a study to look at the viability of B.C. Ferries running a Seattle-to-Victoria ferry. Will the minister confirm that that study was completed and that it could not be shown to be an economically viable operation?

Hon. G. Clark: No, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure if the minister is saying no, the study wasn't commissioned, or no, the study showed that it wasn't economically viable. Clearly this operation has been attempted by two separate free enterprise operators, who have both found that it has failed. This government has now embarked upon this sailing. Could the minister tell us what assurance the people have -- in light of the fact that B.C. Ferries has just put an across-the-board fare hike on those people dependent on ferries -- that this will not simply become an operation into which this government must pay endless amounts of money?

Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to share with the member, or any members, the marketing work that has been done for the Victoria-Seattle ferry service, which in fact showed that it was viable. But what made it particularly attractive to the government at this time was the commissioning of the second superferry, which is very popular in British Columbia and is providing excellent service. It freed up the Queen of Burnaby, a surplus vessel to the existing routes operated by B.C. Ferries.

As a result of that, and as a result of a very modest refit and a complete change in the Victoria-Seattle service that we're providing, we're very confident that this service can not only break even but add millions of dollars in tax revenue to the people of British Columbia by promoting tourism in this very attractive region of Victoria.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I would suggest that there is information to indicate that that is less than likely. I wonder if the minister might commit to this House today that he is prepared to table the full reports and findings of the B.C. Ferries service with respect to that run, and if he will confirm that, by order-in-council in December of last year, this minister was given an opportunity to borrow up to $10 million for this run -- and in fact, is going to be putting in greater amounts than the $10 million allotted, at a time when he is charging citizens of the province increased ferry rates on the existing B.C. Ferries service.

Hon. G. Clark: There are a lot of questions in that last question, but I'll answer as best I can recall. First of all, I will confirm that the responsibility for what was the Princess Marguerite and the Stena operations was transferred to my ministry for the purposes of the corporate vehicle to accelerate the Victoria Line. That had with it some cash assets in the bank. It may well have had some borrowing powers, but there's no intention of using those borrowing powers. The Queen of Burnaby was transferred to the new corporation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation was made whole by the purchase of that, so the Ferry Corporation is not subsidizing any service between Victoria and Seattle.

I want to assure members that the high-quality service and efficient standards of B.C. Ferries are not compromised at all. Our ferry fares are among the lowest in the world. We're improving service with the new superferries, and we intend over the next few years to have an exciting plan to improve service even further for the people of British Columbia.

SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE

V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. We're very aware that any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a child has been abused in this province is required by law to declare it and make family and child service aware of it. We had the recent incident of five-year-old Matthew Vaudreuil. We understand that that was reported, but it was not followed up adequately by the ministry. This incompetence has taken away what little trust there was in our Social Services ministry. Would the Premier tell us how public confidence can be maintained in the Ministry of Social Services when actions such as this are taking place and people like Matthew are not protected?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's my understanding that the minister has requested the superintendent of family and child service to review the ministry's role in this case, and I understand that that review will be completed by the middle of next month.

V. Anderson: It is not good enough to have the people who were involved in not delivering the service be the

[ Page 10223 ]

people who are looking into why the service was not delivered. I say to the Premier: will you undertake today to commit that there be an independent inquiry of why Matthew and his mother did not get the kind of service and support that was due them? Will you undertake for an independent inquiry into this very important matter?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The ministry is quite aware of this very sad and tragic circumstance for young Matthew Vaudreuil. I understand that it was working very closely with the police investigating this matter back in 1992. That investigation was completed. It led to charges, and of course, criminal proceedings have occurred. As a result of the information gained during that period and other information, the ministry, as I said, is conducting, and will conclude, an investigation. That will be available the middle of next month.

The Speaker: Your final supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: Once again we see that things are being done behind closed doors. Last year we asked that there be an independent review of the whole social services system, so that these things, which continue to happen again and again, will not be repeated. In light of this latest action, will the Premier now undertake to make sure that there is an independent review of the whole social services system in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government's track record in dealing with tragic circumstances, such as the one that has just been talked about, is very clear. We're prepared not only to acknowledge and review mistakes that have been made in the past but also to act on them.

I think that this government's handling of some of the circumstances around Jericho school and the very legitimate complaints regarding abuses that took place there, the role the government has taken in dealing with the victims and their families, the way that that has been investigated by people of the stature of Tom Berger, a retired Supreme Court judge, and the way that new facilities were made available for the deaf in Burnaby are the approach to deal with real people in a fair and just way. Our government's record is among the best in this province's history.

PEAT MARWICK REVIEW OF B.C. FERRY CORPORATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. I have in my hand a copy of the Peat Marwick review of B.C. Ferries that was completed two years ago but never, interestingly, released to taxpayers. We had to obtain copies of it through the Freedom of Information Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Weisgerber: Can the minister explain why he found it necessary to delete whole sections of that report before releasing it to us? What is the minister afraid of? Why is he afraid to reveal the cost drivers and lurking expenditures identified by...?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: I want to disabuse the member of any notion that I, personally, took a black felt pen through the report. I had no idea the member received it. I'm delighted that he took advantage of that excellent piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, to access this information.

I want to assure the member.... I think the Peat Marwick report that the member has is probably a draft report. It did document some concerns about the Ferry Corporation, which the government shares. The southern Gulf Islands route has a subsidy of $12 million per year; some of the northern Gulf Islands are subsidized. This is extremely problematic in the 1990s as we move to make the Ferry Corporation more efficient. That's why we moved to peak pricing and shoulder pricing: to try to make it on a more private sector basis to save taxpayers money and maintain a high quality of service for our citizens.

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

Hon. D. Miller tabled three annual reports: the 1992-93 annual report of the former Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services; the 1993 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board; and the 1993 annual report of the Labour Relations Board.

Hon. J. Cashore tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs for 1992-93.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and in the main House I call second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

The Speaker: If the minister would like to wait just a moment until.... If members are going to leave, we will give them a few seconds to do so.

J. Weisgerber: While we're waiting, could I have leave to table a document received under the Freedom of Information Act?

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: It is with a great deal of pride that I stand before you today with Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act, in my hand. This bill represents an unprecedented partnership among communities, business, environmentalists, first nations, workers and government to renew B.C.'s forests and to strengthen our commitment to forest workers and their communities. The forest renewal plan is a major departure, a fundamental change in the way we manage our forests. This government has developed the first genuinely long-term plan to sustain B.C.'s forests and the forest economy, not just for the next few years but for generations.

Bill 32 will enshrine in legislation a commitment to provide the resources we need to protect our forests, water and wildlife, so that future generations will have abundant forests that sustain them both environmentally and economically. This is a plan that we can all be proud of, that we can all commit to, and in which all of us can win.

For generations we've believed that B.C.'s forest lands have held the key to our prosperity. That belief has been a

[ Page 10224 ]

source of pride and optimism for all British Columbians. The promise of forest wealth includes good jobs, thriving communities, economic prosperity and a bountiful environment for all British Columbians.

Today forest resources remain at the heart of this great province. They continue to support key public services and a quality of life that I'm sure all members would agree is second to none. There are some 94,000 direct jobs in the forest sector economy. The livelihoods of another 140,000 British Columbians depend indirectly on the forest sector. That amounts to a contribution of about $10 billion to B.C.'s gross domestic product and more than half of all B.C. exports. Unfortunately, however, governments for too many years have taken our forests for granted.

They have neglected long-term stewardship; too much has been taken from the forests and too little has been put back. Decades of the shortsighted policies of those previous governments have left us with an unfortunate legacy of wasteful forest practices, damage to our environment and harvest levels which are not sustainable if we continue with current forest management practices.

[2:30]

The timber supply review now underway indicates that if we don't change the way we manage our forests, harvest levels could decline by 15 to 30 percent over the next 50 years, and thousands of jobs would be lost. We also face the challenge of adding more value to the wood we cut, because the truth of the matter is that over the last 30 years the number of jobs per thousand cubic metres of wood harvested has dropped by almost 50 percent. If we continue down this same path, we will continue to lose our forests, and thousands of British Columbians will lose their jobs.

This government has no intention of letting that happen. We know that a much brighter future is possible, but it's a future that requires change -- change in the way we manage our forests and change now to renew our forests by putting back into them more of what has been taken out. We need to create more jobs and to stabilize communities by doing more things with the wood we extract. We need to work to bring people together, rather than playing those same old games of setting people apart.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I know it's a foreign concept to members opposite that people might come together and work in partnership, but let me assure them that British Columbians are tired of those same old games. They're tired of people picking fights for their own sake and not putting the interest in the future of the forests ahead of partisan political considerations.

It is in this spirit of cooperative partnership -- one that I hope even the opposition might find itself able to join in -- that the Forest Renewal Act and the forest renewal plan is being established to take more of the wealth being created by the forest and to put it back into the forests to create the jobs, stabilize the communities and secure the future of our economy on which we all rely.

Bill 32 establishes Forest Renewal B.C. This will be a partnership agency, comprised of all groups with a stake in our forests, charged with the responsibility of managing and directing a major program of forest investments. Bill 32 sets out a framework for cooperative relationships that Forest Renewal B.C. will establish in undertaking its duties. These include the establishment of five working-level committees that will advise on new programs and initiatives in the following areas.

First is renewing our forest through long-term investments in improved silviculture, stewardship and other forest-tending activities -- activities that we've seen used in other jurisdictions with great success, but have not been extensively used in British Columbia -- such as thinning, pruning, spacing and fertilization. These new investments will be in addition to, not instead of, existing commitments to silviculture and replanting already underway. It will also increase the lands that are available for planting new trees, including conversion of some marginal agricultural and other lands into new forests.

There will be further research and development to achieve higher timber values, including getting better forest inventory information, evaluating improved silvicultural practices and better strategies to counteract disease, which is a serious threat to our forests.

Secondly, to promote activities that increase the value we receive from our wood, a committee will be charged with the responsibility to come up with an investment strategy to ensure that we get more value and more jobs from the wood that we produce in this province. Some of the programs that that committee will direct are programs aimed at providing start-up and expansion assistance for companies that can produce and sell value-added wood products and at having research and development on new technologies, products and markets for value-added wood product companies.

I should say that there are some incredible opportunities opening up around the world. In Japan, for example, there is a tremendous demand for new housing stock. If we can, through market research and technology, provide the products necessary for that Japanese market, we can do tremendous things for our economy in the process. In addition, the government will be pursuing better access to wood supply for companies so they can make greater contributions to our economy.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I hear a former member of the discredited Social Credit Party saying that we're eight years behind. Eight years ago was when these problems were being created -- the problems of overcutting and bad forest stewardship that we are now trying to correct. I would suggest the member just listen to what is necessary and what needs to be done in partnership, not in the way that the previous government....

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Once again, the members opposite unfortunately don't understand the concept of partnership and what working together can mean.

A third major area in which Forest Renewal B.C. will direct investments under the guidance of one of the committees to be established is investing in land resource rehabilitation to restore and enhance environmental values. There's much that can be done to restore our environmental values in forests, not only for environmental purposes but for economic purposes as well. For example, the rehabilitation of rivers, streams and watersheds and restoring hillsides by repairing and removing unnecessary roads can have tremendous benefits in terms of bringing lands back into production and enhancing the tourist and recreational values of those lands.

In addition, through making investments to protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats, we can achieve tremendous gains not only for the environment but for our economy as well. We envisage much more research into

[ Page 10225 ]

environmentally sound forestry practices to ensure that the devastation that has occurred in the past will not be repeated in the future.

Finally, working to provide good jobs in the forests to sustain current workers in their communities into the future is another major goal of Forest Renewal B.C. We expect to create a forests skills council, which will include government, forest company and worker representatives. It will coordinate and evaluate existing training and develop new training programs where needed. We know that investments in skills and training can produce tremendous dividends for workers and make us more competitive. Specific training programs will be developed for workers in the woods and in manufacturing.

Aboriginal people will be assured full access to training opportunities, as they will to all other aspects of the forest renewal plan.

Additional investments to strengthen communities throughout the province will include funding for community and regional economic development, coordination to ensure that communities receive the maximum benefit from all government economic development programs and assistance for those forest communities that wish to pursue economic diversification to strengthen their economic base. When we work together, when all forest interests come together to meet the challenges, we can indeed secure a better future for everyone.

Bill 32 ensures that a fair share of wealth from the forests will be invested back into forest lands and into the jobs and communities that depend upon those lands. This is a major departure from the past, when government made a lot of promises but did little in the way of action and there was no long-term commitment. Specifically, this legislation will do what has never been done before in this province: it will direct a dedicated and specific source of revenue to an agency that has a specific mandate to renew and enhance our forests and forest economy.

Specifically, this legislation will direct the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to pay to Forest Renewal B.C., on an ongoing basis, the increased revenue from the stumpage and royalty changes taking place after April 30. These higher stumpage rates will give us an average net amount of about $400 million a year -- that's about $2 billion over five years -- to invest back into the forests for future generations. These new funds...

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: ...will be dedicated to the forest renewal plan; they cannot be directed into general government revenues.

I think I heard a member asking what happens if the prices go up and down. Let me tell you that that's what's so unique and special about this program, because as prices go up and down the return to the agency will fluctuate, but the agency can maintain a consistent, actuarially sound program of investment that can look not just to the next two or three years but also to the next two or three generations. That's leadership and vision.

I regret that the members opposite seem unable to grasp the concept, because royal commissions and those in the forest industry have been crying for years for a relationship to be established between the wealth that's produced by the forest and the need to invest back into the forest for future generations. Those members who sit opposite who were part of previous governments and failed to make that commitment have no right to stand up now and criticize this government, which has moved forward in this progressive way.

In addition, Bill 32 ensures clear accountability to the public for the effective and wise use of all funds expended by Forest Renewal B.C. Forest Renewal B.C. will be a partnership agency of all groups with a stake in our forests. It will report, through me as Minister of Forests, to the Legislature. In addition, its business plan will be laid before the Legislature and referred to the standing committee for full debate, airing and scrutiny by members of the Legislature.

I'm very proud of what we're accomplishing by working in partnership to develop the forest renewal plan. Indeed, I'm proud of the partnership we have already developed through this plan. I know that members opposite find it difficult to deal with a plan that has such broad-based public support, but I would encourage them to get onside and get involved, because if we don't work together, if we work against each other, we will not be able to make the changes to remain competitive, to have a strong economy and to ensure a future for our workers.

On this issue, above all else, we need to set aside the differences of the past and move together in a new cooperative environment. We need to put aside those short-term partisan considerations that seem to preoccupy some members of the opposition and look to the long-term future of our province.

This government has a vision for a better future for British Columbia, a more certain future with a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. The forest renewal plan is a key part of an overall strategy to address all land use challenges we face as British Columbians. Other parts of that strategy are already in place, and together they form a solid basis for a sustainable future. The timber supply review will help us to understand and determine sustainable rates of harvest in the future. Because of past practices, the news coming out of that review isn't always good.

It's better that we face the truth now and deal with it, rather than continue to bury our heads in the sand as previous governments have done. We are not prepared to do that.

We need to move away from land use conflict and confrontation. In order to do that, we have established the Commission on Resources and Environment to bring groups together, a protected areas strategy to double our parks and wilderness area, as well as a Treaty Commission to deal with the long-outstanding issues of aboriginal land rights and to produce greater stability and certainty in respect of our land base for all British Columbians.

In addition, the challenge of forest practices and coming forward with positive forest harvesting guidelines is being met through a new Forest Practices Code, about which I am sure all of us will have more to say in the upcoming session. To meet the challenges of securing good jobs, stable forest communities and economic prosperity for British Columbia, the forest renewal plan takes a share of the wealth from our forests and invests it back into the forests where it all begins.

Together, these initiatives form a comprehensive vision for a healthy sustainable future for all the values of our lands and for all British Columbians. Bill 32 expresses commitment to the forests in this province, as well as commitment to a more certain future based on a healthy environment and a prosperous and sustainable forest economy for all British Columbians. I believe that the sense of partnership that has started to emerge with this initiative can help us to come together on all issues of forest management.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Will the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca please come to order.

[ Page 10226 ]

The hon. member has been interjecting ever since we started debate on second reading of the bill, and I would ask the hon. member to please show some respect for the member speaking.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I urge you not to be too hard on the member. I know the Premier was in Prince George, and the measure of support for this initiative in that community has no doubt unsettled the member during the course of this debate. The obvious solution for the member is to not fight a plan that speaks to the future and to the hopes and aspirations of all British Columbians, but rather to get onside and work with this government and with British Columbians in making this plan a reality. With that, I move the bill be read a second time now.

[2:45]

F. Gingell: I can assure you that I strongly believe it is critically important for British Columbia to work hard in 1994 towards restoring the environment, our forests and our economy. But if one stops to think about the best way of doing that to make sure that the greatest number and value of resources available to accomplish that are focused upon and used for the very good purposes and intent of this, the very last thing you do is set up another Crown corporation.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, there is more bureaucracy and opportunity for more questionable appointments to boards of directors, more opportunities for per diem rates and travel expenses, and opportunities to rent more office space or use the resources for the wrong purpose. I know -- at least, I am assured by those who have more knowledge than I -- that this minister's ministry is full of competent, capable people. Why don't we let them get on with the job?

In his opening remarks this minister said we were doing something unique: we were going to take these additional revenues and ensure that they're used for these purposes. Well, this isn't unique. There have been intentions to do this kind of thing time after time in the past.

The best example, I believe, is the municipal revenue-sharing fund. They didn't put new taxes on various consumer products; they took a share -- calculated a share of the provincial social services tax, the natural resource royalties and other revenues, and the personal income tax -- and government made a commitment that this money would be spent on municipal grants and municipal infrastructure. And what's happened? They've managed to accumulate $360 million in that fund. So in this year's budget this government decided to do away with it; the fund has been cancelled. What a pity.

All kinds of important things need to be done in this province. Certainly, as I've said, restoring the environment, our forests and our economy are an important part of that. But important, too, was the restoration of our municipal infrastructure. I certainly hope this government moves along, in cooperation with local and federal government, in that program, because they are all important to us.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm all in favour of restoring our forests and protecting them. I'm not in favour of another Crown corporation. Crown corporations are becoming a larger and larger part of our provincial government, and they are the most unaccountable organizations we have. They report late. There is no proper opportunity in the normal course of events to deal with their budgets. I must say I'm pleased that this bill requires this new corporation to table budgets and business plans. But if they'd thought it through, they would have decided that this particular organization perhaps would have a different year-end.

I know what happens in this House: the reports that get filed -- the reports that were filed today by the Minister of Labour -- are all one year late. In fact, he's doing better than most ministers. But all those reports are for the year ended March 31, 1993. We're always dealing with these things in the past. We need to have a reporting process that allows business plans and budgets to be done on a current basis.

When we come to the particular issues involved in the BC Forest Renewal Act, there are some other items that make one stop for a moment and worry about it. In January the Premier went on TV and made his famous statement of no new taxes. When in opposition, all these members of the government accepted, recognized and spoke ad nauseam on the issue that all forms of government revenue are forms of taxes. These additional royalties and stumpage fees that are being brought in for the purpose of funding the forest renewal plan are in fact additional taxes.

The important issue is to ensure that everything that is planned is funded and able to go forward. All of us who have bought a home or dealt in any way with these matters know that the values of all things -- prices in homes, gold, crude oil or lumber -- go up and come down. It concerns me that the whole of this funding process is to be based on the hope that currently high lumber prices stay high.

If they'd forgotten about a Crown corporation, decided to do those things which are important, done them within their own ministry, not rented any more office space, not employed any more people, not appointed their friends and supporters to the boards of directors so they could pay them per diems, they'd have been perfectly capable of doing those things that are right, things which they know and we know are important to ensure the sustainability of our forest industry.

From the various things that have been said, from the remarks made by the minister, from the items that have been in the paper, one even has the feeling that the whole silviculture industry is going to be changed. The funds for this program are partially going to be used to subsidize silviculture wages. We all know that being a good planter is a skill. It's a physically demanding job for younger people, people who need to be fit. It's important for us to ensure that it is done properly. I fail to understand why this government isn't able just to expand the programs it presently has without creating some aura of trying to change things.

In the end, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating. It will be measured by the state of our forest industry five, ten and 15 years from now. It's very important to us all.

I'd just like to close with the warning and the concern that I started with: we really don't need to have a new Crown corporation. I understand and I believe that the skills, knowledge, resources and personnel are in the Ministry of Forests. Why do we have to complicate our lives all the time by setting up these new organizations -- other than for the opportunities they present to a government bent on further patronage?

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to stand up and speak to what is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Legislature in many years with respect to the economy and the communities of the province.

[ Page 10227 ]

Let me say to begin with that this comes as no surprise to those who have been observing the industry, including those people who participated in establishing and perhaps providing submissions to the Royal Commission on Forest Resources and those who read the recommendations that came out of that commission. The industry, those who made submissions, and the royal commission's recommendations moved government toward this end product. In the movement toward establishing a Crown agency for forest management, recommendations were made as to how that Crown agency could better manage and direct revenues from the working forest back into forest renewal.

In starting this debate, I'd like to move directly to some of the comments made by the minister when he introduced this bill. Then I'd like to apportion my time to talk about the sections of the bill in principle, and speak in conclusion about what we feel some of the strengths of this bill are. I believe there are strengths in some areas of this bill as well as some fundamental weaknesses in terms of what this bill represents.

In his comments the minister suggested that it is important to try to add more value to the wood we cut in British Columbia. If I copied them correctly, I think his exact words were: "to add more value to the wood that we cut." Part of the problem with the economic models that we look at in terms of resource extraction in the province -- whether it's forestry, mining or any other resource -- is that our basic set of underlying assumptions and principles is the notion that we can add value to that resource through the extraction of the raw material. I think that assumption is fundamentally flawed.

We cannot add any greater value to that resource through its extraction; all we do is simply transfer that value from its form as a standing tree to some other kind of saleable product. That value is going to be determined in large measure by the vagaries of the market, much of which is external and over which we have very little control.

[3:00]

So we come down to the root issue with respect to financing: this is a Crown agency whose industry-driven financing is based on stumpage. We have to recognize that in a bullish market, at a time when log prices are extremely high, the values that may be set against stumpage may be equally high. Industry may be able to afford that and, by affording that money, may be able to put it into government coffers and therefore finance this agency. Let us not forget that the people of British Columbia, within 30 days of this bill coming into force, will be putting in $75 million out of central revenue.

It is intended by this bill that the industry will then, over the subsequent years, start to finance this agency. That should come as absolutely no surprise. Nobody should sit back in shock or horror when they look at that, because clearly that was the direction taken with respect to the royal commission's findings and industry submissions, and by many people on both the labour and industry sides of the forest sector.

We understand the concept of what you are trying to put in place. The difficulty that we in the Alliance party have with that concept is that if we become dependent upon that stumpage level, upon industry being able to finance to that degree, we're going to create a dependency within this new agency that may or may not be able to be sustained, with the vagaries of the international market and as we change or transfer the value of the standing timber into product for offshore sale.

The second problem we have, with respect to the minister's first comment about adding more value to the wood we cut, is that on a per capita basis the greatest value can be realized in the reman industries, where people will take a sawn product and make it into a finished product, therefore making several times greater the transfer of value from the standing timber to a finished piece of wood which can then be sold into the European or American markets -- or into Asian markets, where possible.

What we had hoped to see in the BC Forest Renewal Act was not just a movement toward a greater degree of control over the manner by which timber will be cut and come into market, but to a certain extent the breaking down of the vertical integration of major forest companies to allow a greater amount of supply to actually come into reman industries, which can in fact transfer a greater degree of value from the timber being cut. That's a critical component of the necessity for seeing a change in the structure under which tenure is going to be granted in the forest sector.

On the second aspect of the minister's remarks, when he said that Bill 32 will create jobs and stabilize our communities, let me say that the Alliance is certainly very keen to see rural communities in the province provided greater stability through some form of designation of a working forest and through the maintenance of timber supply and fibre supply from that working forest, so there can be some reasonable guarantees that that supply will be long-term and renewable.

We also believe that if we are going to actually see the creation of jobs and the stability of our communities, we're going to have to tackle the thorny and rather difficult issue of the vertical integration of major forest companies. This minister has been extremely generous in affording me time to meet with both him and members of his staff to talk about the reman industry and the changing nature of tenure within the forest sector. Therefore I know that this is a difficult issue for the government to tackle.

I was listening to the lead speaker from the official opposition to try to determine where they are coming from on this bill, as to whether they're really in favour or opposed. It strikes us as passing strange that at 5 o'clock in the evening this minister came in and tabled one of the most important bills this province has seen -- after the print deadlines with respect to the newspapers and literally minutes away from the television cameras going on to provide the 6 o'clock news.

In conjunction with the tabling of the legislation in this Legislature, he held a rather well orchestrated and constructed news conference here, where representatives of the forest industry, the major corporations and representatives from the IWA and other major unions were standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I see that we've got the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale pounding his desk, saying congratulations.

That is not the mandate of this government, to simply look to the stewardship of the forests through the major forest companies and the largest trade unions in the province. Let us recognize that the mandate of this government is to look after the interests of the people of British Columbia with respect to their resource, which is the forest resource. It is not, and should not be, the purview of major forest companies and major unions that operate within them.

Let's be very clear that with respect to those lands that are made available, there is a finite capacity for us to continue to harvest, no matter what kind of harvest technologies we have, and there is a finite capacity for us to be able to take that harvest, deliver it to market and maximize profit from the sales of the finished product.

[ Page 10228 ]

The Forest Renewal Act does not take tenure into account and how tenure is going to be assigned, although we have the setting up of some committees that will be done largely under the control of the Forests minister's office. It does not look at the question of the annual allowable cut, whether or not the annual allowable cut is going to be increased and what kind of long-term projection there's going to be. Further, this bill also does not do what is a most fundamental and rudimentary part of the management of any resource. That is to put in place a comprehensive land inventory for British Columbia so that we can recognize what those finite limits are.

I don't think that everything in this bill is bad, and I am not so terribly outraged at the fact that a Crown agency was set up to manage the forests. I don't think the critical problem is whether or not a Crown corporation is set up to manage the forests. What is important to note is the extent to which the government is intervening with respect to management and future harvest directions. On the day that this came forward, I said that this was essentially an unprecedented intervention into the free market system. I believe that is so.

Whether that is what we desire or not has to be borne out by the text of Bill 32. If we look at some of the aspects within Bill 32, we can recognize that this government has centralized an enormous amount of control in the Minister of Forests and those members of the various committees and subcommittees struck in this Crown corporation, which is going to be run out of the office of the Minister of Forests.

Again we have to ask ourselves the same question. If this Crown corporation, which is going to be enormously expensive in the long term.... I defy any member of the government to stand up and show me a Crown corporation that has not cost the people of British Columbia and/or Canada money over time. They run into the red; they cost people money; Crown corporations cost money. If we're going to embark upon that route, then we have to ask ourselves: what is the benefit that people will gain from going along that path?

Similarly, we have to ask ourselves if the major forest companies are going to see an enormous increase in stumpage. That is a cost to the major companies. Yet they have their agencies and representatives standing up in front of the television cameras saying what a great deal it is. You have to ask yourself why. What is in it for the major forest companies if they're prepared to back the government on a deal that's going to cost them enormous amounts of money through increased stumpage? Similarly, you see that the major unions are saying this is going to provide long-term job security.

You have to ask yourself how that is going to be accomplished by what is included in Bill 32.

I know that as we discuss in principle, we can only talk about the concepts that the government has introduced and the principles of those concepts, as to their viability. In committee stage, however, we will be able to get down to the very detailed, clause-by-clause analysis of this bill, and it deserves to be analyzed clause by clause. In principle, I do not support the creation of Crown corporations. In principle, I believe that it creates larger, more expensive government that will incur greater and greater debt to the taxpayer.

Yet if we look at the history of the forest industry in this province, we recognize that something had to be done. It is quite clear that we could not continue business as usual.

It's interesting to note that the minister tied aspects of this bill together with CORE and the aboriginal land decisions of this government. I think there is one other component the minister should have alluded to here, and that is the forest practices act and the extent to which it is going to become one of the four corners or pillars of this government's new approach to forestry. If we look at those four corners, we have to ask ourselves whether at the end of the day the overall manner in which our resource is managed is going to change.

Is it going to divert revenues that are coming out of this resource into the rural communities of this province? Is it going to provide not just a recognition of sustainability...? Indeed, I believe sustainable development is an oxymoron to the extent that you cannot have sustained growth and development within the industry under current practices or even under revised practices. What I think we needed to have in here is a statement of the finite limits to which we could have continued to expand and harvest before we needed to move to alternative sources.

With respect to our pulp industry, there are, and should be, alternative sources. I have discussed this with the minister directly. We, as legislators, are going to have to start taking seriously the movement toward alternative sources of fibre to assist our pulp industry in moving away from its demand upon our softwood forests. Clearly, industrial hemp comes to mind. I know there are people who would argue that we can't, politically, introduce that. I'm suggesting that we must start to look beyond our traditional blinkered limits to find those alternative sources.

Similarly, no matter how this Crown corporation is struck, if we build job dependency that is determined by the expenditures of this Crown corporation, when we have a decline through international markets in the amount of revenue that can be taken back through our forest industry, who is going to pick up the cost of maintaining those job programs under this Crown corporation? Clearly, the taxpayer will end up picking up the cost of greater expenditures within government.

The benefit is questionable, because we have not recognized finite limits -- the fact that there is going to be a diminished workforce in the traditional forest sector as we know it today. That is a reality, and it is dishonest of this government to take to people in rural communities anything but the truth. We need to build an economy that looks toward that reality and recognizes that alternatives must be found in terms of the supply of raw material and the size of workforce that will be actively involved in the working forest.

Thirdly, we have to recognize that within a defined working forest, supply is going to be determined only by our capacity to renew. It isn't just a question of spending money on renewal, but of how that renewal is going to best serve those communities that are dependent upon it. There is nothing in this bill telling us that this government is tackling those questions.

The fourth aspect of this bill that I think needs to be addressed is the whole question of the aboriginal component. At every opportunity I have had in this House, I have charged that this government is hiding from that issue. It has certainly not escaped my attention, and I think people ought to know, that at the time this most important bill comes forward, the Aboriginal Affairs estimates are moved into the other House. When the part of the bill involving the aboriginal first nations comes forward, as important as it is, why can't we devote our full attention to this debate?

[3:15]

These things don't happen by accident, and I believe this government is shirking its responsibility to come forward and have a full and open debate on that land use strategy. All through Bill 32 there is reference to powers, authorities and jurisdictions, and there is reference to providing. I believe the words the minister himself used were that full access would be assured to aboriginal first nations in terms of the forest resource. Given that most of the land in this province is under either private jurisdiction or land tenure already set,

[ Page 10229 ]

that tells us that the movement toward joint stewardship is a key component of the strategy of this government. We deserve to know how it's going to work, what its function is going to be, what jurisdiction is going to be provided, and how that's going to interface with the existing communities that currently depend upon that resource.

Under the CORE program that sets aside 12 percent or more, another issue needs to have full venue here for debate and requires every single MLA to stand up and state their position. Within that document, it is very clear that if any of that land should at some point become alienated by aboriginal jurisdiction, an additional set-aside will be put in place. You cannot look at this bill in isolation from what that CORE program is putting forward, yet this government is not introducing the totality of the debate. It's like trying to debate a jigsaw puzzle when they've only given you half the pieces.

You can't see the full picture, and the people of British Columbia deserve nothing less than the full picture in terms of the overall land strategy this government has with respect to the forests, the aboriginal strategy with respect to CORE and set-asides and park management, and how they're going to implement this new job strategy to keep people employed.

This bill is a brave and bold new attempt at a government-run Crown corporation moving to put the long arms of government over the forest industry. In this process we have to ask ourselves what is going to happen to the community input that was so desperately desired and demanded, and in fact was requested within the CORE process and the overall strategy set out by Stephen Owen. Where is the community input into this? Where is the notion of the community forest that this government ran on and promised?

Where is this government committing itself to the full and proper authority of local government in land use decisions? Where does interface take place between local government and this Crown corporation? It is not spelled out in the bill. Nowhere in here does it tell us how that is going to work, save that this corporation is going to be able to enter into agreements with individuals, first nations, business interests, institutions and local governments.

How is community input, developed through the local resource use planning system -- a process that is well underway in many communities around this province -- going to be interfaced with this rather centralized form of government control?

Although I have no evidence to support it, I suspect that there must have been a lot more discussed and negotiated in the back rooms than we see in this legislation. In order for the major forest companies to have bought into what has to be one of the greatest interventions in the private sector in the history of the province -- because of the magnitude of this resource, which is the primary resource in the B.C. economy -- there had to be something more on the table. The question is: what did this government commit to that is not in this bill and that the major forest companies have bought into?

What kinds of guarantees were provided to union workers through the union executives who sat in on this negotiation?

My suggestion that something more is on the table could be directed to two areas: first is a guarantee on tenure and supply, because that is clearly what the industry requires; and second is the question of the annual allowable cut and its potential expansion. The minister should tell us if this is not so; he should clarify absolutely that this is not so. And he should tell us how the set-aside lands that will be alienated with respect to the aboriginal land question are going to have no or a limited impact on the working forests of the province.

When I began, I said that Bill 32 was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we've seen since this government came to power, and I believe it is true. What would we have preferred to see in this bill, and what will we be speaking to in committee stage? Let me summarize the Alliance position in four general areas.

One, I believe that this could be done without the creation of a Crown corporation. It could be done through government legislation that would change the system by which the Ministry of Forests operates. The introduction of a land use secretariat would bring together Lands, Environment and Forests, and it would also provide protection for foreshore and estuary areas that are under threat because of current forest practices. That's the first thing we could have done.

Had we done that, we would have been able to move this same agenda forward, but that land use secretariat would have kept this government accountable to the Legislative Assembly. A Crown corporation has limited accountability, notwithstanding the provision for debate on their business plan.

Two, we would have liked to have seen a consistent position taken with respect to access to the resource in a defined working forest. This government simply must conduct a comprehensive land inventory so that we have an understanding of exactly what's in the bank account. If it doesn't, a subsequent government will have to. As we extract from our bank account and expend that money, no one can tell us what the balance actually is. Some theoretical material is provided. CORE is now attempting to do a land inventory, but that inventory is not available to any degree. That inventory must be provided.

The Alliance would have preferred that there be a commitment to that in this new forest legislation.

Three, we must have a recognition that there will be no special deals, special privileges or special jurisdictions; every British Columbian will be equal to every other in terms of access to the public resources of this province. This government must commit to that. It must commit that as we start to look toward the land use planning strategy, we do so recognizing limits to growth and equal access within those limits to those people who are empowered to see this delivered.

Four, members of the Alliance would have liked to have seen this government find the intestinal fortitude to come forward and break down the vertical integration of the forest majors so that we would have a guaranteed supply of more fibre for small operators, the reman industry and people in smaller communities. Those are the people who are attempting to get a larger percentage of timber supply to feed the smaller, decentralized sawmills that have made this province what it is today.

That's what this government should have accomplished in this bill. We believe that it has only gone partway to attempting two aspects of the four. But while we recommend that we give absolute scrutiny to every aspect of Bill 32 in committee stage, we must at least reserve some applause, although limited, to this government for attempting the effort. This government has done some good things with respect to the forest industry. This government has made a move with respect to CORE, the introduction of a forest practices act and an attempt at Bill 32. Clearly, this is not all bad or to be discarded.

We need to take the principles established here and fashion them around the four major areas the Alliance believes are missing from Bill 32. We have attempted to provide constructive and sensible debate on this bill. It's difficult to get into detail in second reading. At

[ Page 10230 ]

committee stage we will have much more time, and we hope that this minister will be forthcoming to hear our concerns.

The intent of this bill is to move government more and more into the private sector. In principle, that is wrong. The government should be regulating through legislation, not providing itself with a greater degree of control over what must and should be a private sector enterprise.

I appreciate having the time to speak to Bill 32. As we move to committee stage, the members of the Alliance will speak strongly in favour of reform and change to this package, and will be introducing amendments. We serve notice that this bill is not one that should be moving to Committee A, so that all members of this Legislative Assembly and the people of this province will have an opportunity to see exactly what this government has up its sleeve.

D. Schreck: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Schreck: In the gallery is Mr. Herb Weber, the instructor of a pre-employment program at the pre-employment centre in North Vancouver. With Mr. Weber are ten of his outstanding students. Would the House please join me in making Mr. Weber and his students welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Before I take my place in debate on Bill 32, I would ask leave of the House to allow the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology to sit at 3:30 for the purposes of organization.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: I feel very proud to stand and take my place in second reading debate on Bill 32. I have carefully listened to some of the statements made by members of the opposition, and I must say that I am left a little confused after hearing some of those comments. Perhaps that will be clarified as we hear succeeding speakers, but at this juncture it appears that the opposition doesn't quite know what they want to do or what position they want to take with respect to Bill 32 and what I consider to be breathtaking and significant announcements about how we intend to deal with an industry, workers and communities in transition.

It's important that we briefly reflect on some of the history that led us to this debate today. The member who just spoke accused the government of massive interference in the private sector. If I'm not mistaken, the thread running through his comments today was that we should intervene in the private sector and break up companies. I'm sure I heard him say that. So I'm a bit confused.

I'm also confused, because 96 percent of the timber in this province is owned by the people of this province. We are partners. We are players in the game. It seems that if there has been a failure of forest policy in the past, it's that governments in the past have refused to be partners and players in this game. They've taken this position: "Well, industry knows best; we won't interfere." Even though the timber is owned by the public and we gain a considerable amount of revenue by selling that timber through our stumpage and royalty charges, previous governments have said: "We're not prepared to take an active role. We have no role; we have no place." We're suffering now because of that.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Let us contrast that hands-off approach, which led us to the problems we have today, with the approach this government has taken in terms of how we got to Bill 32. Following the first Premier's summit on the economy, held here in Victoria at Pearson College, the Premier brought together business, labour and community leaders, and economists, and talked about the economy in British Columbia, and how we can make that economy stronger. What measures can we take together to make this economy strong and prosperous for all of the participants in the economy?

[3:30]

Out of that first Premier's summit came the notion that there should be sectoral agreements -- that we should take various sectors of industry in this province, gather people together who have common interests and try to come up with a plan that will serve all of their interests and thus all of the interests in the province. I was particularly pleased to have been the minister when we developed the Forest Sector Strategy Committee.

I hear members opposite talking about breaking up the tenures and saying that this only represents the interests of the majors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the people who make up the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, who, in partnership with government, developed this plan. The largest industry we have in this province was represented on that committee. Industry -- the medium-sized businesses, the medium-sized independent....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member for Prince George-Omineca should simply listen for a while. He might learn something.

The medium-sized businesses, very small value-added manufacturers, communities and the mayor of Prince George were represented on that committee. As part of our backup team, a staff person from the Union of B.C. Municipalities provided invaluable help to the work of that committee. Government was there at the table, in some sense pushing the process. The three main trade unions in the forest sector, aboriginal representatives and a representative of the environmental community were at the table.

Together we sat down and developed a plan in terms of how we're going to deal with this industry in transition -- I've got to say that this is an industry in transition. I'll speak just a touch about the history and why I think this plan is long overdue.

Finally, with respect to the makeup, for the first time in the history of this province, which has seen far too much of this phony polarization.... You know, a feature of my political life growing up in this province is this foolish polarization that's promoted for nothing more than cheap political gain. I got on a plane in 1992 and took a trip to Japan, and I took with me representatives of the forest industry -- again, in all its dimensions; I took representatives of labour and aboriginal groups.

As we got on the plane in Vancouver, I happened to talk to a fellow from the trade union movement and a couple of people from the forest industry. I said: "Look, do you honestly think the day might come when, rather than this phony polarization, we might be able to actually sit down together and try to plot out our future together -- put aside some of these artificial divisions and actually sit down and put our heads together?" It was a resounding yes. There was a willingness to do that kind of thing, and we've done it through the Forest Sector Strategy Committee.

Notwithstanding the very picayune criticisms of the members over there, the strength of this plan is that it was not conceived in the back room by government; it was forged through a partnership of all of the various players represented in the industry in this

[ Page 10231 ]

province. That's its underlying strength, and that's why it will succeed.

I want to talk about reforestation and the history of the industry. I hear people talking about how we can get more value. What has been our history? I suppose, like many people in other countries, in our developing phase we came to this land, and it was covered with that resource. We did nothing. There wasn't a penny put into that land to produce that valuable resource. But two things are evident. One is that it's renewable if it's managed properly; in other words, it's sustainable, inasmuch as that term has a definition.

If it's managed properly, we will always have a forest resource in this province, unlike the resources that are not renewable. When we take gas out of the ground, it has a limited, finite supply. Properly managed, trees and forest land will produce a supply that could be used by succeeding generations. The leader of the Alliance talked -- erroneously, in my view -- about its finite ability. Sweden has half the forest land base of British Columbia; their current harvest is about the same. What does that tell you?

W. Hurd: Private ownership.

Hon. D. Miller: The Liberal Forests critic says private ownership. If the Liberal Party policy is that we should sell off the Crown forest lands into private hands, we on this side of the House reject that categorically.

The reason is very clear and very simple: they invested in their land base. I talked about, when we first came....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: We'll get into that. I'll go through the history, and perhaps the Liberal members will support this bill as a result. In fact, I'll make the claim now that I would be mightily surprised if any member of any opposition party votes against this bill. They will be voting in favour of this legislation.

An Hon. Member: Don't stake your life on it.

Hon. D. Miller: I won't stake my life on it.

But let's go through the history. Our ancestors came across this bountiful land and started to harvest without much thought. Before the turn of the century, scientific foresters from Europe started to come over. That was the beginning of scientific forestry, and for its time, in my view, it was remarkably futuristic. The notion was brought in that if we managed the land properly, there would be that succeeding crop of trees to supply that industry. But it was premised on a fundamental principle that I don't think is well understood.

W. Hurd: A secure land base.

Hon. D. Miller: And it's not a secure land base at all.

W. Hurd: Sure it is.

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect to the Liberal Forests critic, he fails to appreciate that the true strength of the forest industry in this province is the forest land base.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: We'll get to that.

Scientific forestry. We started then to realize that after the first harvest, after we had harvested what nature had provided, we would be left with the land, and even through very careful management, that land would not produce a crop of trees that was equivalent in volume to the existing crop. Thus managed forest land.

If you have looked at the major report done in 1978 on the timber supply areas in this province, and if you have taken the time to be briefed on the timber supply review -- and I certainly hope that at least the Liberal Forests critic has done that -- you will see that there are a series of charts in those timber supply reviews that look exactly like a set of stairs.

They describe the current practice and the current harvest rate, and then they show these descending sets of stairs, if you like, which show that over as much as a hundred years, in some cases -- and it varies from timber supply area to timber supply area -- we will eventually get down to what foresters describe as the long-run sustained yield, which is what the land is capable of producing in a managed way. It is less than the current harvest rates. That was predicted. In fact, it was the foundation of our setting up scientific forestry. It's been misconstrued, misinterpreted and misunderstood ever since.

You talk about forestry being the most important industry in this province, and it is the most important. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, it is the most misunderstood. People simply don't take the time to look at the detail that is required to have that understanding.

On top of this bountiful supply, there is our approach to the market. By the way, the member should know that the marketplace in North America, at least, has never paid or established the proper price for wood. Wood has been a bargain for a hundred years, and even at today's prices -- though I know consumers find it difficult to accept -- it is a bargain. The reason is that we have never generated the kind of wealth from resource harvesting in the past that was required to be put back into the land to ensure that sustainability.

Let's look at the sad history of silviculture funds and why the Crown corporation makes so much sense. When I came into provincial politics in 1986, the Social Credit government of the day had just scrapped -- eliminated -- a forestry fund. It was probably the twelfth or thirteenth -- or twentieth, for that matter -- forestry fund that had been set up so that we would have a pot of money to draw on for silviculture.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: It was your colleague from Omineca who was the Minister of Forests briefly -- and thank God it was briefly.

It was called the steady state of forestry funding. You know, it was the sorry state of forestry funding. We had

section 88 credits. Do you remember

section 88, when the Crown had the obligation for reforestation? Do you remember the games that were played? Do the members recall those years when Social Credit was managing this province, when the taxpayers of this province subsidized the harvesting of trees and when we spent more out of general revenue than we generated from stumpage royalties? Do you recall those days, hon. member? Do you recall the terrible recession of 1981-83 that hit this province? Do you recall how ill-equipped the Social Credit government was at that time? Do you know what their solution at that time was? "We'll relax the rules.

We'll bring in sympathetic administration. We'll simply say it's okay to leave good wood lying in the bush. We'll say it's

[ Page 10232 ]

okay to increase our exports. We'll say it's okay to degrade the environment, because we're in this terrible fix; we have no money." Do you recall that that was the Social Credit approach to forest management in this province?

On the market side -- boy, we were geniuses on the market side. Whenever the market went down, when the price of wood went down, what did our producers do? They jacked up production. They increased their volume production, because they knew that if they added an extra shift.... "There's no end to the wood, boys. Let's just crank up another shift. We can take a lower price, because we can just up our volume so much and flood the market." That's exactly what they did. That's exactly what our brilliant free enterprise approach to the market was.

Do you know why wood is now up and averaging $350 and more?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, $240, but it will go back up. Do you know why that is, hon. member? Do you have any idea? Do you know that now there is a relationship between supply and price that didn't exist before? Our means of dealing with that marketplace was simply to flood the market and crank up the volume. Now, quite frankly, because of the measures taken in the Pacific Northwest and in British Columbia, there is a relationship between supply and price. That's what you free-marketeers -- the people you always bill yourselves as -- keep talking about. You know what? I don't think you understand it very well.

There actually is, in some cases, a relationship between supply and price. That's why we've now got a very high wood price and will have an even higher wood price. The simple fact is....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, could you protect me from that member for Prince George-Omineca? He just won't shut up. I'll make him a deal: I'll keep quiet when he's talking if he keeps quiet when I'm talking -- that is, if he's going to get up and talk on this bill. Maybe he's not.

L. Fox: I am.

Hon. D. Miller: He is. Okay. Well, we've got a deal then, hon. member. Thank you.

So for the first time we've got this relationship, and price will increase.

[3:45]

Of course, I also wonder at the wisdom of the United States administration that has just launched an extraordinary challenge on the 6.5 percent tariff on our lumber, when the end result of that is that they're just driving prices higher in the U.S. But I can't educate them and the members opposite at the same time.

We have a history of silviculture funds that were scrapped. Quite frankly, it wasn't until the countervail in 1986, when the responsibility for reforestation was transferred from the Crown to the forest companies....

L. Fox: Who did that?

Hon. D. Miller: The Social Credit government of the day. Right? Because the U.S. forced our hand, quite frankly, we finally established that the companies had the responsibility for reforestation -- which is why you now see a very large reforestation budget under the Ministry of Forests.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: My lesson was not listened to, I guess. The problem in the past was that those funds were subject to politics. To the degree that you can put those funds in a Crown corporation, with a board which hopefully has the same kind of representative mix as the group of people that forged this plan in the first place....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: You won't dare. There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or twenty years from now who will dare to put their hands into that pocket of money. It's taking the silviculture money -- at least that portion we can put into intensive silviculture -- away from the vagaries of politics. We're doing a favour to the forest communities by doing that.

An Hon. Member: Forest companies.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know what the members opposite have against forest companies. They keep talking about them as though they're something negative in this province. Quite frankly, forest industry export sales account for $10 billion-plus in the B.C. economy. I don't know why the Liberal members have such a negative attitude about forest companies.

This industry has been going through a very difficult and painful transition for at least a decade. Over the decade we've lost about 25,000 jobs in the forest sector. In the main, as we grapple with the difficult issues of land use, we can see that those jobs were lost primarily because of automation and technology. There was never an attempt to come to grips with that. It was the old status quo approach -- which the Liberals are preaching: things are changing, and there's nothing we can do.

This is the first time in the history of our province that we have brought government, industry, communities and labour together in partnership and said that it's not good enough to simply say the world is changing. How do all of us participate in that change? Should labour simply be a casualty of change? Should we not do anything in terms of trying to retrain and looking at the growth areas in forestry? What a lot of nonsense is being preached over there!

We now have an opportunity for money to go into intensive silviculture; we have an opportunity for money to go into reclaiming those roads that are ready to slide down the hills on Vancouver Island; we have an opportunity to do some reclamation work in our streams and provide jobs for the young people I see up in our gallery. Instead of the kind of future the Liberals envision, with 20 percent unemployment for young people and them sitting on their hands doing nothing, we have an opportunity to create new, meaningful jobs.

I was speaking the other day with Dean Binkley from UBC, who was talking about expanding the faculty of forestry into machine design, looking at the qualities of wood and markets and doing something to strengthen that growing sector of the forest industry -- the value-added sector.

All we get over there is some vague academic treatise on Crown corporations, which doesn't mean a thing. I was out in real British Columbia last week; I talked to real workers. I went into a group of about 50 or 60 woodworkers, who are concerned about their future. I sat down....

[ Page 10233 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, union people. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that there's nothing wrong with trade unionists in this province. There's nothing wrong with proud forest workers who belong to trade unions. If the member opposite doesn't like that, he should stand up and say what he feels about those people. Do you have a bias against unions, hon. member? Are you opposed to working people coming together and having trade unions to represent their interests? Are you opposed to woodworkers being represented on this forest sector group and forging this kind of plan? Are you opposed to workers standing up and saying that they think this is a good plan because it considers their future?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: This carping criticism about trade unions.... The member for Prince George-Omineca wants to have it both ways.

Finally, as I said, the Premier's summit on the economy said: "Let's get together as sectors; let's forge those kinds of partnerships." Lester Thurow, the noted U.S. economist, says that if North Americans don't wake up and start doing that, our competitors are going to beat our pants off -- and they're doing it. So let's look at those kinds of partnerships. Let's get away from this old polarization, which has been so destructive in this province, and get on with forging these partnerships and these kinds of deals that can put $400 million in a pot of money that can be used for retraining, intensive silviculture, research and development, and to develop the forest sector even more.

I tell you that I am convinced. We once had a Socred minister who described the forest sector as a sunset industry. Under this kind of arrangement and this kind of government, it is a sunrise industry. We'll see growth. Where we might see a decline in some of the traditional jobs, we're going to see growth in others. The partners have finally come together, and they've come up with a plan.

I would really appeal to the members opposite. I have two points. Number one, don't delay this bill, because every day you delay this bill we delay getting on with the job. As I said, I would be very surprised -- in fact, I would be shocked -- if any member opposite wanted to oppose this bill. I would have to go to their riding and start talking to their constituents about why they have been derelict in their duties.

W. Hurd: I listened carefully to the remarks of the previous Minister of Forests, who I believe knows more about the forest industry in this province than anyone on the other side of the House. I'm shocked and saddened that he would adopt and endorse a concept as convoluted and as labour-intensive as this particular concept of a Crown corporation. That's exactly what it is:government-labour-intensive.

I'm glad that the member for Nelson-Creston is here. He chaired a select standing committee of this assembly that travelled British Columbia and talked to small licensees in the small business enterprise sector. I can remember one conversation in Smithers very well, with a small licensee who had a six-year renewable small business licence. He had a small remanufacturing plant that was dependent on that small business timber sale. He came up to us after the meeting and said: "I've got a dream for this timber sale; I'd like to see it for 75 years in duration.

I'd like the opportunity for my small family business to manage that small business licence for long-term sustainability. I'd like to make the decisions about silviculture and harvesting plans, under the ministry's direction -- absolutely. I have a dream that I can manage this plot of ground and get the maximum yield off it."

This government doesn't believe in people in this province. They don't believe that that small entrepreneur in Smithers can manage that small plot of ground, because they've set up a Crown corporation with five committees to be stacked with more government employees. Let's talk about what these committees are going to be doing. The minister talks about wonderful projects, such as stream rehabilitation and the recovery of logging roads that need to be reclaimed. Those are laudable objectives.

But these committees are going to be promoting forest industry diversification, the further processing of wood supply, increased manufacturing of wood products, and community development and adjustment. This is a massive public sector investment in British Columbia, with all the inefficiencies, pork-barrelling and patronage that that term implies. We in this province are at a watershed, a turning point, in terms of forest management. Everyone else in the world is pursuing a form of security of tenure to manage the forest land base.

In this province we have a government that has decided that they can make those investments over the long term because they know best.

I'm appalled and disappointed that the minister doesn't understand the small, medium-sized and large players in this industry. Everybody opposite assumes that a stumpage increase of $500 million to $600 million will fall equally on everybody who currently has a forest licence in British Columbia and that they all have an equal ability to pay. Having travelled with that select standing committee.... That just isn't the case. There are companies out there that are going to struggle because of this kind of massive stumpage increase, and I'd like to point out some of those companies for the members opposite.

I can tell you who it will be: the small independent sawmills that have to buy 80 to 100 percent of their logs on the open market. It won't be the big multinational companies on the minister's forest sector strategy advisory group. They are integrated companies. They've got pulp and newsprint. They negotiate with a union. If they have to get that $500 million back, they can carve it out of the back of a union contract, and that's exactly what I think is going to happen.

This is an idea whose time was talked about but never should have come. We are at a point in this province where we need to secure a land base for forestry. We have a government that.... It's like telling the agriculture sector and a farmer: "We expect you to get the same amount of yield off your land every year, but you're going to have to do it with a reduced number of hectares."

This government has tied this bill to everything else that it wants to do. I can recall engaging in a debate with Mr. Jack Munro of the Forest Alliance, who told me that he wasn't sure in retrospect whether a Crown corporation was necessarily the answer or would work. The concerns are legitimate. What happens to the small silviculture industry in this province? It is entrepreneurially-driven, and it bids on contracts based on an ability to supply work. It's going to be replaced by IWA members in harvesting and manufacturing activities who will be expected, I assume, to become tree planters.

We should be moving to protect every single manufacturing job in this province, not finding reasons to lay people off.

[ Page 10234 ]

These stumpage increases will not fall equally in the industry. We know that. There are companies that will be able to withstand them better than others. It is predicated on the naive assumption that lumber markets are going to continue to increase in this province, and historically they have been highly cyclical -- they've gone up and down.

I hear it said over and over again that we're seeing the loss of jobs in the forest industry because of mechanization. We hear it everywhere. It occurs to me that this government does not even know where the jobs in the forest industry are being created. For every one direct job, there are two or three other, peripheral jobs. The minister talked about the history of the forest industry in this province. Well, 30 years ago all of the repairs and everything were done at the mill, and logging camps dotted the coast. It was a different industry.

As the industry changed and those jobs slowly disappeared, outside contract firms manufactured the chains and fixed the logging equipment -- small entrepreneurial companies that are dependent on this industry.

There are approximately 150 communities in this province that depend on this resource for more than half of their total income, and there are small companies in those towns -- hundreds of them, thousands of them -- that depend on the forest industry for 50 to 70 percent of their total business activity. They don't show up in the government's labour pool, but they're there, and they rely on this industry. I can assure the members opposite that they're there. Many of them were on the lawns of the B.C. Legislative Assembly.

They're not the direct employees of large firms but owners of small contracting companies and hotels and motels, people who are concerned and trying to survive the loss of the forest land base. That is the big issue.

The Premier of the province stood out there.... No, he didn't stand out there; he waited until his convention on Saturday -- I stand corrected. He said that not one forestry worker will lose their job in this province as a result of an environmental land use decision. What he meant was the creation of this monolithic Crown corporation to turn proud loggers and manufacturing personnel into Crown corporation workers. That's exactly what he meant.

[4:00]

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the forestry workers of the province are no safer now than they were before this bill was introduced -- no safer than they ever were. Regarding the comments of the member for Delta South, Crown corporations are simply a bad idea because of the way they are managed by this government. They are not accountable. When I look at the kinds of activities this Crown corporation will be involved in, it's not just tree planting and stream rehabilitation but also massive investment of public money in a whole variety of activities.

We're going to introduce a major economic player into the economy of British Columbia, as well as a forestry player in the forest industry. That's what this is all about.

I must say that I understand that the members opposite are going to trumpet the agreement that was forged with the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, much like they did with the labour bill. They talked about how consensus was forged with that committee. But I tell you that this industry is not monolithic. It's comprised of more than the IWA and large multinational forest companies. There are many small companies out there that are going to find it difficult to survive as a result of this strategy.

The Liberal opposition cannot support the establishment of a Crown corporation. For the former Minister of Forests to suggest that that was the only way we could secure investment in the forest land base really sells the people of the province short -- people who have dreams about managing this land base on their own. There are many people out there -- companies, individuals, small communities and regional districts -- who are managing the land base, based on a tenure arrangement.... This is a defining bill for the government.

They had an opportunity to secure a forest land base in British Columbia and to declare a percentage of the land base as the working forest, which is the real way you secure employment in British Columbia. They had an opportunity to look at the tenure system, which would have invited the kind of private sector investment which is entrepreneur-driven, not some Crown corporation with overhead and lack of accountability, which is the manner in which this government has managed its Crown corporations -- not that kind of investment. But they do not believe in the people of British Columbia.

They simply do not trust them to make the kinds of investments that need to be made, and that's why this bill is taking us in the wrong direction.

The former minister talked about why Scandinavian countries get the same yield, or almost the same yield, off their lands as we do in British Columbia. I'll tell you why: they have security. They know that if they plant a tree and tend it, they'll be around to harvest it. It's a simple concept, but this bill is taking us in the opposite direction.

Hon. A. Petter: Privatize the land base.

W. Hurd: The minister talks about privatizing land -- not so. There have been grazing licences in this province for a hundred years. The longest forest licence in British Columbia is 25 years, with a five-year renewable term. It takes 100 years to grow a merchantable, commercial tree in British Columbia. The government is saying with this bill that we are going to make that incremental investment. Never mind the proof from around the world; never mind the proof from a few miles south of the border, where the Weyerhaeuser company is managing lands and getting twice or three times the yields of the public lands in British Columbia.

There are companies and individuals in this province who would make that investment. They'd make it tomorrow if they had some sort of security, but there is none. There's no more incentive now in British Columbia than to meet the minimum level of the licence requirement, and that's what this bill is about. The government is now telling the people of the province: "Don't worry about those incremental investments, because we'll do it and we'll ding you the $500 million; we'll take it over." It's not much wonder that some of the larger companies in this province want to see the government take it over.

They can write stumpage off in a variety of ways. As long as the prices keep going up, and they've got pulp, newsprint and other products to rely on, what do they have to worry for? That's why I'm disappointed -- I can say it frankly -- with some of the people in the forest industry in British Columbia who have said for some time that they've felt the need and desire to manage this land base for long-term sustainability.

All the auditor general of the province ever asked for was better monitoring and auditing by the Forests ministry. We have a minister who is presiding over the dismemberment of his ministry. All of a sudden the Minister of Environment will have as much control as the Minister of Forests over what happens with the land base. We've got a Crown corporation now which will be making investments on behalf of the people of the province in forest industry diversification, whatever that means.

This minister has not even defended his own ministry. He has refused to do so. He said that what he is doing is

[ Page 10235 ]

changing 30 years of sympathetic administration. What an insult to the good people in his ministry who've done their job over the years! I have to say that I'm shocked and appalled that we have a minister of the Crown who won't even defend the good people in his own ministry who've done their best over the years.

As this minister well knows, the small business forest enterprise program has been a success story in British Columbia. The ministry, as the minister knows, would like to put more timber up for bid, but they don't have the resources within the ministry to do it -- to plan the roads, the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions and the cutblocks. Yet this minister and the previous minister can back a $400-500 million slush fund for a Crown corporation when his own ministry doesn't even have the resources.

I'm saddened, really, that the government of the day would push this idea, which has been around.... Of course, we know it was first proposed by the Forest Resources Commission in 1990. I must confess that I'm shocked that many of the people who opposed the idea then are prepared to capitulate to it now. I suspect the reason is that they see all these overlapping initiatives on the land base. They see that the government is intent on reducing the area available for harvest, and on pursuing another agenda.

With this bill, the government has claimed that 4,000 people are going to lose their jobs and that 6,000 more are going to be created by Forest Renewal B.C. They're pulling those figures out of thin air. This government doesn't have any idea about the number of people who rely on this industry. They obviously don't know. The Ministry of Finance purportedly has figures about the effects of the annual allowable harvest reduction in the province and how many jobs would be created.... But they're not factoring indirect jobs, just the direct ones.

They don't have a clue how many jobs are going to be lost as a result of the measures they're undertaking. They don't know, and yet somehow this forest renewal program, this massive public sector investment, is going to fill the vacuum in this province. How can you possibly say that not one forestry worker in the province is going to lose his or her job when you don't even know how many are going to be affected? That's the reality of the situation we find in British Columbia.

The former Minister of Forests has challenged the opposition to speak against this bill. I accept that challenge, because since this bill was introduced, the opposition has received hundreds of calls from small companies and small entrepreneurs in the silvicultural industry. I talked to somebody at a forest products company in Prince George that has shelved a $50 million capital improvement. They're putting it into stumpage. These members opposite have forgotten that.

Where do you get the money to invest in your plant and equipment when you're pouring it into Forest Renewal B.C.? They don't understand that when the price for product and lumber is up and earnings are high -- which they don't appear to believe corporations or individuals have the right to earn -- you put the money back into your plant and equipment. Profits get reinvested, and they create jobs too. Now that $500 million or $400 million is going into a Crown corporation, and those investments probably won't be made. You invest in plant and equipment based on security of timber.

That's the reality in this province. You go to the bank to borrow money for your plant. Whether you're a remanufacturing plant or a large multinational company, the first question they ask you is: "How much timber do you have, and how secure is it?" That's the economic reality. This government may think they can take $500 million -- and an additional $75 million, we read on the weekend -- out of the forest industry without any impact. The reality is that plans for capital improvements will be shelved; there's no doubt about that. This is not the most efficient way to promote long-term forest sustainability.

It's government inefficiency, bigger government, more government employees and more government planning.

The minister has suggested that his own ministry isn't up to the task. What makes him think that this organization will be any better? Since he was named a minister of the Crown, he's been saying that we've had a history of sympathetic administrations, and the ministry wasn't doing the job. All of a sudden we're going to set up this Crown corporation in British Columbia, and it's going to be able to do everything the ministry couldn't do: wonderful efficiencies; the long-term commitment that his ministry couldn't make. Shame!

This is a bad piece of legislation. It's a defining bill for the government. It's a bill we suspected was coming to the forest industry in British Columbia. It's an attempt by the government to intercede in a major way, when the rest of the forested nations on this planet are going in the opposite direction. They are trying to use a tenure system to induce the kind of private sector investment in the land base that licensee after licensee, during our travels in the province, told us they wanted the opportunity to do.

These are not the large multinational corporations that this government seems fond of picking on, but small licensees, people who wanted to secure their family operation with a long-term commitment from the government to manage a plot of ground. That's all: not ownership, just a change to the licensing system.

[4:15]

The minister challenges the opposition to speak against it. I have no problem with that, because this bill is taking us in the wrong direction. It is taking us down the road to more government control, not less. It is taking us down the road to a reduction or elimination of tenure. I issue this warning to those people in the province who, on sober reflection, will soon learn the truth: when you invite a $400-500 million government investment in the forest land base, it's only a matter of time before the licences and the tenure system are next.

J. Doyle: I'm very proud to stand here today in support of this bill. In the two years since we have been in government, nothing has made me more proud to be a member of this government than this bill. What did past governments do when trees were cut in this province? What did they do with the revenue they got from stumpage? They put it into general revenue. With this act, this government is saying that the increase in the dollars we are going to raise from stumpage fees is going to be put right back into the land. The opposition doesn't quite understand that.

I think that the only trip the opposition's Forests critic has made to the interior was with the value-added committee that he sat on -- or when he ran for leader.

The opposition, the government and the people in this province know that thousands of jobs have been lost in the forest industry in past years. In my riding alone, Columbia River-Revelstoke, hundreds of jobs have been lost. Past governments -- and that's who this is all about -- did nothing. They watched those jobs disappear and watched the problems with the land base get worse and worse, but they did nothing.

I'd just like to quote what a couple of people have said since this plan was announced. Peter Bentley, chief executive officer of Canadian Forest Products: "This legislation

[ Page 10236 ]

deserves the support of all British Columbians.

This is far too important to let it become a political football." Mike Apsey of COFI: "For the first time ever, a fund is going to be set up that administers reforestation and the protection of our environmental values." Ross Munro, chairman of Share Our Resources, Port Alberni: "We endorse this plan...." Jack Munro of the Forest Alliance: "It's a very positive step toward ensuring that the forest sector will provide economic and social benefits for generations of British Columbians." Vicky Husband, from the environmental movement: "This is a major...step in the right direction. I'm very pleased.

The plan recognizes a lot of the things we've been fighting for."

This past weekend I was in my riding, as I was last Wednesday with the ex-Minister of Forests, the member for Prince Rupert. People there are very excited about this plan. We travelled to Revelstoke and Canal Flats, and on the weekend I was at a trades fair in Golden. I handed out many copies of the forest renewal plan, and I had nothing but good reports back from people who had heard about it. They were anxiously looking forward to reading about this very exciting plan which will renew and sustain our communities that depend on the forests. They all know about the concerns that there have been.

What has the opposition critic been saying about this? I think the biggest forest that some of those members over there have seen is the one in Stanley Park. I want to let them know there are many forests east of Hope that they may have never seen. What did the Liberal critic say on the day of the announcement or the day after?

He was quoted in the Times-Colonist on April 15 as saying: "I applaud the commitment, under law, to put $400 million a year into the forest land base...." On the same day, that same individual said on CFAX Radio that he rates the plan at two or three on a scale of ten and that many things concern the opposition about the plan. Again on the same day, speaking out of the other side of his mouth....

An Hon. Member: There must be three sides.

J. Doyle: Yes, I'm not sure how many there are.

...the Liberal critic said that it's a good investment for the province. The opposition is not sure where they're at. I say that they don't really understand the interior of our province and the people there who depend on the forest to make a living.

I'd like to speak about a couple of things regarding what this announcement will do for the interior and for the economy of our province in general.

Silviculture. Over half of the investment of the forest renewal plan will be directed toward increasing the land available for planting new trees and toward silviculture research and development.

More jobs from each tree we cut. The plan will increase jobs by making investments to help value-added companies start up and expand. As was mentioned by the Minister of Forests some time ago, $30 million will be given to the value-added sector to increase jobs. So the real tomorrow of our forest base is in getting more jobs out of each tree we cut, as well as in the development of wood manufacturing technologies, products and markets for the forest industry.

Investment in forest worker training. Skills training will be provided through the creation of a forest sector skills council, comprised of workers, industry and government, to coordinate and evaluate existing training and create new training programs. In addition, there will be training in new silviculture and reforestation practices, ensuring aboriginal participation in all the training programs.

Another very important part of this plan is strengthening communities that rely on the forests. The forest renewal plan will maintain and enhance opportunities in communities that rely on the forests. Additional initiatives include funding for economic development, planning, maximizing benefits from government economic development programs and diversification assistance.

Policy changes -- working with large and small companies in the forest industry in future improvement and development of this plan. Our government was elected to change the way we manage our forests. The forest renewal plan is part of that change, and I'm very proud of it. Something mentioned by the opposition critic which I am very proud of in my riding is the community forest that has been set up in Revelstoke. It is the second one in the province, and I'm very proud of it. The community will now have a say over the land base in their back yard.

This act is great news for our province. I would say to the opposition that they must get out more and travel where the people who depend on this industry are located, and also realize that many jobs in the lower mainland depend on it, for this product is shipped all over the world. So I would like to say to our opposition, on behalf of my constituents: do travel out there; get out and see what is going on in the province. If they need any help, I will assist them with travel plans on how to find their way out there.

Most of all, I would dare the opposition to hold up this bill, because the people in the interior and the province in general are waiting for legislation like this. So let's get on, get this bill passed and get it into effect.

L. Fox: I am pleased to rise and talk on the philosophies and principles of Bill 32. With respect to the principles contained within the BC Forest Renewal Act, I find myself in a perplexing situation. I support new initiatives in silviculture and forest renewal, but I am looking at an extremely hollow bill. It puts all the power into cabinet and a Crown corporation, and in my view, is going to use a very important initiative for the purposes of political gain.

The minister said that all members of the House should join in this program and endorse it. What makes it extremely difficult is the tone of voice and what was contained in the statement the Premier used in announcing the program. We see similar rhetoric contained in the

preamble of the news release issued along with the introduction of the new forest code. In both of these introductions the Premier has consistently condemned all the initiatives over the last 20 years, initiatives in which many innovative ideas were brought forward in terms of reforestation and silviculture. We've seen scientific gains in terms of how we now regenerate our trees. We've seen a whole host of improvements in forest practices throughout the region.

Unfortunately, through the rhetoric in this government's announcement, we see all those initiatives, many of them extremely good ones, downplayed for purposes of political gain. That's rather unfortunate, because in my neck of the woods there have been tremendous gains in reforestation and silviculture.

Over the last ten years, we have virtually wiped out all the non-satisfactorily restocked areas that had been generated in the years prior to the 1980s. That has been done with a lot of innovative ideas that have come from industry. They have come from entrepreneurs who have done a very good job in the consulting business in terms of silviculture and reforestation initiatives. The private sector has responded to the challenge it was given in 1987 by the

[ Page 10237 ]

government of the day, that it had to come up with a realistic program. It's responded well to that 1987 legislation.

There's no question about it: we can do better, and there's more work to be done. For those reasons I support this type of initiative. But there are several concerns about this legislation. It seems to me that we have the infrastructure in place right now within the B.C. Forest Service. They've done a terrific job over the last nine years in auditing and in enforcing the laws of British Columbia. In my area we have seen some tremendous gains.

We must remember, however, that when we talk about silviculture and fertilization, we won't be able to do that for the working forests in our area, because we have a stand of trees that have virtually all matured, and we're chasing the bug from one stand to another. When I say chasing the bug, I'm talking about the pine beetle and the spruce bug -- primarily the pine beetle in my constituency. That is virtually wiping out the overmature stand that presently is being logged.

Evidence of that came from an announcement by the Forests minister about a month and a half ago, when he announced a new cut in the Chilcotin in the amount of 150,000 cubic metres. That again was bug-kill. If it's not looked after and logged as quickly as possible, we lose that resource and in fact it becomes an extreme hazard. That's one of the issues. If we can enhance silviculture in Prince George-Omineca, it will be primarily in areas that have been planted over the last 20 years. So we're not going to see the fruits of that for some time. However, we must start now, and I have no problem with that.

I do have some concern with the way we've virtually doubled the stumpage on quota wood. In the interior, it's not the integrated sawmills that are the innovators and that provide the jobs. By and large, the small independent mills have been the innovators in the interior. We hear lots of talk in this Legislature about the fact that automation has cost jobs in the logging industry and in the production of wood. That's true. But one of the main reasons for those jobs being lost was high stumpage rates in the late eighties.

High stumpage rates caused small independent sawmills to look at automation to cut their production costs so that they could meet the high stumpage rates and come out of it with a margin of profit at the end of the day.

[4:30]

I am concerned when we see an arbitrary figure of $10 a cubic metre being placed on fixed stumpage, because that equates to $50 a thousand, give or take a little. We have seen 2-by-4 studs that would have dropped by about $200 a thousand over the course of the last two months to the vicinity of about $240 a thousand now. Yet we see statements like the one I brought with me from the Prince George Citizen, where the member for Prince George-Mount Robson said that the current high lumber prices are virtually guaranteed. Well, they're not guaranteed. In fact, the market bears no resemblance at all to the cost of production. As we all know, it's a commodity sold on an open market.

What's going to happen? One of my fears is this: if you increase the stumpage rate, and if that increase is something like what I've been told would be $50 a thousand, you have now increased the stumpage rate to around $100 a thousand. Therefore the margin has dropped to $140 from stump to market, and the industry has to work with it.

What's going to happen? I'll tell you one thing. Once again those sawmills are going to look at their cost of production. This initiative could cost more jobs in production facilities around the province. That has to be a concern. History will bear me out. If any members want to look back, they will find that when industry costs went up in terms of stumpage and other fixed costs, they looked at automation to solve that. That cost jobs in the industry. That's one concern that I have.

The other concern I have with this initiative is that 34 percent of the 55 million cubic metres that will be harvested over the next five years will come from northern British Columbia. Under today's silviculture initiatives, which are administered and enforced by the B.C. Forest Service, every company has to put back into their region those dollars that it is obligated to put back.

We see with the Crown corporation that only $400 million of the projected $600 million is going to go back into reforestation and silviculture programs; $200 million is going to be used by government for other initiatives, including job training programs, as I understand it. That information has been very difficult to come by. It certainly isn't contained in the legislation.

What we have here is a situation where everybody pays into a central B.C. Crown corporation, and it's redistributed back to the regions. It seems to me that that's an unnecessary step. It seems to me that this could all have been done within the Ministry of Forests, using the same guidelines and legislation that are presently in place. If the intent of Bill 32 truly was silviculture enhancement so we could sustain an annual allowable cut that would help to sustain the jobs that we presently have in the industry, there would be no need for a Crown corporation to be part of the process.

It could have easily been handled in the Ministry of Forests through the mechanism that's presently before us.

That leads me to believe that there must be some political reasons to set up this Crown corporation, and it can only mean.... If we look at the recent B.C. 21, one has to wonder whether or not those dollars which have been contributed by people in my constituency -- collected from industry in Prince George-Omineca -- are going to offset and perhaps enhance the opportunities for the member in Nelson-Creston to become elected next term. If that wasn't going to be the case, why would we need a Crown corporation? Why could we not use the Ministry of Forests and the legislation that is presently there? Those are some of the concerns I have with respect to this initiative.

One other concern I have is the fact that I have some difficulty understanding how we can achieve a sustainable forest industry and sustainable production if we do not have a land base which has been dedicated for the purposes of extracting resources. It seems to me that as long as the land base is in question, as long as those kinds of goalposts keep moving, it's not going to be possible to sit down and assess what type of inventory or growth pattern we have in order to create a yield on a sustainable basis. I believe those kinds of concerns are legitimate; and in fact, they have been left unaddressed by this legislation.

The Minister of Forests and the previous Minister of Forests talked about the consultation process that went on through this and about the players who helped develop this renewal plan. I respect the fact that those people were involved in the process. But there was one obvious deletion from that list, and that deletion was anybody representing the silviculture industry which presently exists -- an industry that has been extremely cost-effective. They've done a great job in British Columbia. It's an industry that has created thousands of jobs for British Columbians in all regions of the province and has responded to the need in a very entrepreneurial way.

What do we have now? We're setting up a new structure. The minister suggests it can work alongside that existing industry. People within that industry work extremely hard. All of them work on a contract basis. They produce, and that production is good for the province, good for the woods

[ Page 10238 ]

industry and good for the people of British Columbia because it's extremely cost-effective. I cannot see how you could have that existing industry working on one side of the road under contract, where they work extremely hard, and on the other side of the road have a unionized initiative at union salaries paid at an hourly rate. It just won't work. Therefore I suspect -- and time will bear me out -- that this has one other motive in it, and that is to unionize that sector of workers in British Columbia. If that's the case, I'm extremely concerned.

I believe we're going to lose the cost-effectiveness that we've enjoyed over the course of the last ten years. We're going to see that we're going to spend more money but actually do less work.

As I said in the beginning, I support the idea of putting more money into silviculture and reforestation and the idea of job training. Unfortunately, I cannot support the idea of creating a Crown corporation -- a larger government structure -- just to filter the money through in order to meet the political bias of this government. That's the concern that I, the industry and those involved in the silviculture industry have with this particular legislation.

C. Evans: It gives me great pleasure -- I think it's an honour -- to work in this Legislative Assembly at a time when we are able to bring in Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I can't think of any initiative of this government that more perfectly reflects the desires of people in my region over the last two decades.

I've been sitting in this room listening to the comments of the Reform Party and Liberal Party Forests critics on the subject of this bill. I find their positions utterly out of touch with the longstanding political position of people from rural British Columbia all over this province and utterly out of touch with the objectives of this piece of legislation. It gives me terrific pleasure that the spokespeople for these two parties want to stand in this Legislature and oppose this piece of legislation, because it gives me a chance to articulate a bit of the difference between who the government is and represents and who these opposition parties are and might represent.

I'd like to start by suggesting that what happened in this building two weeks ago was a bit of a miracle. I don't think any of us of any political persuasion, or anyone watching or reporting on events here, can point to another eve