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)

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 1

[ Page 10577 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Farrell-Collins: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I'd like the House to welcome 27 grade 11 students from Point Grey Secondary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Bailey. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is Jim McNeal, president of the British Columbia Real Estate Association, along with some other delegates from the Real Estate Association who have been in town for the last couple of days meeting with members of the Legislature about issues of concern to their members. I would like to ask all members to make them welcome.

C. Serwa: I'd like to welcome Ted Allen of Surrey to the precinct, and to thank him for the brief tour on his motorcycle on such a glorious British Columbia day. It was interesting to note that the Premier, who has been taking the taxpayers of British Columbia for a ride for the past two and a half years, had the tables reversed and was himself taken for a ride by the people of British Columbia. Would the House please join me in thanking our in-house cyclists and also the members of AIM and the B.C. motorcycle association for the positive opportunity extended to us today.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to introduce to the House two groups from my riding. One is a group of 40 grade 10 students from Earl Merriott Secondary School and their tour coordinator, Miss Marielle Haack. Also in the gallery today are three representatives of the legislative and public affairs committee of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board: Marcia McGaw, Richard Dolman and Ron Wall. Would the House make them most welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery today Bill Moore and Gerry Burch of the Junior Forest Wardens' Association of B.C. Mr. Moore is the president of that organization and Mr. Burch is the vice-president. The Junior Forest Wardens' Association is dedicated to teaching young British Columbians about the wise use of forests, and both these gentlemen have contributed countless hours of their time to this worthwhile cause. I'm sure members are also aware that Mr. Burch is the former chief forester of B.C. Forests Products and president of the Association of B.C.

Professional Foresters. Mr. Moore is a resident of Winter Harbour, B.C., with a long association with logging in that area. He's well known in the B.C. forest industry for his interest in logging sports and logging safety and for his talent as a poet. For all those reasons, I'd ask the House to make both gentlemen very welcome.

K. Jones: I'd also like to extend a welcome to Bill Moore. It has been a long time since we've had the pleasure of his jazz concerts in the North Island.

I'd also like the House to recognize Jim Gammer, my fine representative from the real estate board in the Fraser Valley.

Also visiting with us today is a group of approximately 51 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in my riding of

Surrey-Cloverdale. Their teachers, Mrs. Sharon Douglas, Mrs. Diane Hamm and Mr. David Buzza, are escorting them on their Victoria adventure. Several parents have also joined this group. I would ask the House to extend them a warm welcome to these precincts and wish them a very eventful day in Victoria.

M. de Jong: Joining us in the precincts today are 45 grade 5 and 6 students from Terry Fox Elementary School in Matsqui and their teacher, Ms. Siefert. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Symons: Visiting us today is a group of students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in the riding of Richmond Centre. Approximately 45 grade 11 and 12 ESL students and their teacher, Miss Clare Winstanley, as well as parents, are in the precincts. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to us and wish them a beautiful day in Victoria.

K. Jones: I'd like to thank the minister of motorcycling and the member for Alberni for hosting a very fine ride around the precincts today. Best wishes to all of those who enjoy motorcycling and who bring an opportunity for a safer life for all motorcyclists.

Ministerial Statement

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have a statement on a matter that has just been before the Supreme Court of Canada. I think all members are aware of today's Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. It is a disappointment to all British Columbians. The decision is contrary to our province's view that a constitutional obligation exists on the part of Via Rail and the federal government to maintain and provide rail service on Vancouver Island.

In light of today's decision, I am calling on the federal government to utilize its regulatory powers to direct Via Rail to maintain the E&N service on Vancouver Island, notwithstanding this court decision. The previous Conservative government failed to stand up for British Columbia, and approved a Via Rail request to discontinue service. I expect the new federal government to indicate to regulators that it believes passenger service should continue and be available to residents of Vancouver Island.

I note that during the last federal election campaign, federal Liberal candidates favoured the retention and upgrading of passenger service on the E&N Railway. I would expect them to now honour their election commitment. It is our view, given the growth and development on Vancouver Island, that passenger rail service is even more essential today than was the case in 1883. All residents of Vancouver Island are intuitively aware of the fact that passenger rail service is vital to meet our future transportation needs on Vancouver Island.

[2:15]

In recent months we have been witness to the federal government's lack of commitment to British Columbia. They have shut down TRIUMF-KAON. They are shutting down Royal Roads Military College. They have disbanded the Naden military band. They have closed the military base in Masset. They have denied this province its rightful share of seats in the House of Commons. They have refused to provide service and assistance to this province's ship-building industry. We in British Columbia say that enough is enough.

There is no doubt in my mind that the E&N issue is another test of the Liberal federal government's commitment to British Columbia, and I trust that the Prime Minister and Revenue Minister David Anderson will defend British

[ Page 10578 ]

Columbia's interests and ensure future rail service on Vancouver Island.

I am sure that all members of the House will agree that we expect this commitment to British Columbia from the federal Liberal government in Ottawa.

D. Symons: In responding to the Premier's statement, I would tend to agree and say that the opposition will go along with the statement asking the federal government to continue the service on Vancouver Island. But I was somewhat interested in and almost amused by the way in which the Premier managed to change what was a federal court decision -- not a political decision -- into lambasting the federal government for all the other things they've done.

Now we may indeed find, as the Premier said, that it's this province's view that there's a constitutional obligation, but apparently the federal Supreme Court has said that's not the case. So I think what has to happen at this stage is that, instead of wishful thinking that some other government is going to take care of it....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Symons: Instead of the government trying to off-load this issue as a federal issue, they're now going to have to begin taking seriously their sincerity in believing there should be a rail service on Vancouver Island and to look into the alternatives if the federal government cares not to carry through with this obligation.

We may be in the state where the provincial government has to decide whether it will carry on and ask to purchase the rail right-of-way from the federal government or Canadian Pacific Railways and operate the passenger system as it has been. If British Columbia were to take on this task, I believe that we could do a much better marketing job than Via Rail has done on the Island railway. Indeed we could turn what has been a liability, as operated by Via, into an asset for this province. It just takes a government with a bit of vision to look into that way of dealing with this problem, rather than bashing Ottawa.

C. Serwa: May I have leave to respond to the ministerial statement?

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: The issue is ongoing and certainly very significant to the people on Vancouver Island. The precedent is certainly very important here and for all British Columbians. Before I get into the crux of the matter, I want to say that the message of the Premier is veneer-thin: "We are ready for an election. We're trying to lower the level of the Liberals in the polls, and then we'll spring the election." So that's clear.

Getting back to the matter in the ministerial statement, our government initiated the first battle with Via Rail, and we were successful in that particular battle. It was really important. It's clear that the service has to continue to be provided to the residents of Vancouver Island for environmental reasons -- certainly for energy conservation, public convenience and necessity. A lot of people are unable to afford cars yet have to travel up and down.

We know that the transportation system on Vancouver Island needs upgrading -- that's the Vancouver Island system. Via Rail and the E&N Railway can provide a continued link in that particular area. The service levels and the quality and standard of those service levels have to be improved. I'm most regretful, as well as the hon. Premier, of the fact that the federal Liberals have let us down once again.

G. Wilson: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

M. Farnworth: Point of order. I would like to know if the Chair could tell me if there are two classes of member in this House: independents who are allowed to speak and independents who are not allowed to speak.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The standing orders are clear with respect to responding to ministerial statements. Members of recognized parties have that privilege. Those who do not, have to seek leave. Leave was granted in one instance and denied in the other.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just for the advice of the House, hon. Speaker, an agreement was made between the government Whip and the opposition that one member of the government, one member of the official opposition and one of the nine independents would be able to speak on ministerial statements.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has no knowledge of agreements between Whips.

G. Janssen: Other than use a term that is not allowed in this House.... No such agreement was reached.

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

D. Mitchell: I rise on a point of order. We've witnessed something here today which emphasizes the rights of all members of the House. We have a standing order in our rule books that I'd like to refer to now. Under standing order 37, I would like to move that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast be now heard.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. members.

Regrettably, hon. member, standing order 37 is for a different purpose, not for when leave is being sought to make a statement.

The member rises on a further point of order.

D. Mitchell: In that case, I would like to ask leave to put the motion that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast be now heard.

The Speaker: That is an inappropriate motion, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I'd just like to ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Leave was sought by the member and has been denied.

D. Mitchell: I believe a mistake may have been made on that. I'd just like to request leave.

[ Page 10579 ]

The Speaker: The Chair has ruled that the member does not have this privilege at this time, and your point of order is not well taken.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

F. Gingell: On April 22, 1994, when special prosecutor Richard Peck reported his findings with respect to the actions of the Attorney General, we received a press release from the ministry and the entire report of the special prosecutor. When charges were laid in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal yesterday, we received only the press release. Could the Attorney General please tell us why his ministry is not releasing the special prosecutor's report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I had assumed that all members knew this matter was before the courts, and that no further comments should be made by anybody.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?

F. Gingell: I'm not certain that I was asking a question about a subject that is before the courts. I thought I was asking a question about something that is not before the courts. The Attorney General's office released the Peck report due to the publicity and debate that the case received. The Nanaimo Commonwealth scandal has received the same publicity and debate, if not more. Why has the Attorney General chosen to hide the Henderson report from public scrutiny? It is not in front of the courts.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

F. Gingell: In his report, Richard Peck states: "It is important that the public know the process that was engaged in, how the process works, and how the conclusions were reached." This is also true here. The public has a right to know what took two years to discover, and two years to decide. Can the Attorney General please tell us what is more important, in his opinion, than public confidence in the justice system?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That justice be done.

W. Hurd: Yesterday we learned that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has been charged under the Criminal Code. My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier feel that since present and past NDP members served as directors of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, they deserve the opportunity to have the cloud over them as a result of these recent revelations lifted? Will the Premier commit today to refer the conduct of any and all members involved in this affair to the select standing committee on ethical conduct in this House?

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: In May of '91, the member for Nanaimo, who has been investigated in the wrongdoings of the NCHS, stated in this House that previous Socred governments "had cast a bad light on all politicians, and we needed to clear the air." Why today does the Premier deny his colleagues the opportunity to remove themselves from the shadow of this controversy involving an NDP organization in Nanaimo?

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: This government continually claims to have the highest moral and ethical standards. Why won't the Premier commit today to refer this matter to the select standing committee on ethical conduct in this House? What is he afraid of?

C. Serwa: My question today, too, is to the Premier. Thousands of volunteers give of themselves in charities each year to help the needy and the children in our province. Will the Premier now disclose how many of their dollars were lent or otherwise misappropriated by the party of social conscience, which he heads?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm not sure if the question is in or out of order, because you are asking about an entity outside the jurisdiction of the government, to my understanding. Perhaps you could repeat your question -- or proceed with your supplementary question.

C. Serwa: Again to the Premier. In view of this scandal and the diversion of federal tax credits to NDP municipal candidates in Surrey, will the Premier launch an inquiry, under the terms of the Inquiry Act, into NDP campaign funding in British Columbia?

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Can the Premier assure this House that none of his campaign funds or those of his cabinet colleagues came from charities?

M. de Jong: If the Premier is relying upon his own legal advice, I'd suggest he's got a fool for a client.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member has been cautioned in the past about coming close to unparliamentary expressions. If he's imputing any improper motives to any hon. member, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his remark.

M. de Jong: I will withdraw the remark.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

M. de Jong: The search warrant documentation that was sworn in May 1993 includes allegations by Claire Van Dusen, a former member of the audit committee of the society in question, that she suspected charity funds had been used to pay NDP campaign debts. The Attorney General's refusal to release the special prosecutor's report, including the report to Crown counsel, casts a pall over the entire NDP government. Will the Premier, in the name of open and honest government, direct the AG to release that report?

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to say two things. One, I want to remind members of the House that the matter members are asking about is before the courts, and no comments should be made by anyone in this House about a matter that is before the courts.

The second thing I want to say is with respect to the question asked by the member. The report referred to is not in the hands of the government. Even the Attorney General does not have that report, nor will I ever get that report, because of the procedures established as a result of the Owen report, which led to legislation in 1991. I urge members, as I

[ Page 10580 ]

have done many times in the past, to understand how this process works; if they don't, I urge them to take the time -- as I know two members of this House have done today -- to meet with senior officials of my ministry so that they can begin to understand how this process works.

M. de Jong: I can assure the Attorney General that at least one other member has looked into the matter. I would draw to his attention

section 5 and 7 of the Crown Counsel Act and alert him to the fact that those lines of communication between himself and the author of the report certainly do exist.

Let's go to the Minister of Government Services. The search warrant I alluded to earlier also contains allegations by the RCMP concerning an officer's belief that the NDP Nanaimo centre association filed false documents with the public gaming branch. Will the Minister of Government Services commit to this House today to make public all of the gaming branch documents with respect to that NDP Nanaimo centre association?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The matter has been canvassed, and the Attorney General has indicated to the House that the issue is before the courts.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. On April 25, I asked the minister if there had been an internal study commissioned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation into the running of the Victoria-Seattle ferry. At that time he said: "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." In the study, which has now been provided to me, there is not a single sign of any financial documentation. All of it has been deleted.

Can the minister tell us, in the sharing of this report, to what extent we're supposed to make some decision on the financial viability of this if we can't see the relevant figures?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly look into the question. Obviously the freedom-of-information officer for the Ferry Corporation interprets the act. Any appeals with respect to information that's not provided are appropriately provided to Mr. Flaherty, who's an officer of the Legislature and not an employee of the government. Any appeals regarding the

interpretation of the act really should go to that independent officer of the Legislature; and in this case I might, frankly, support an appeal.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: To the same minister, in support of the appeal, would the minister tell us whether in the decision to set up an independent corporation to run this ferry service -- given that the subsidy to B.C. Ferries has been reduced, which has resulted in fare increases to people who are dependent on the ferry -- it was in fact the findings of this report that determined that a Crown corporation should run this new Victoria-Seattle run, rather than the already established B.C. Ferry Corporation?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure of the question, but let me try to do it. There was a separate corporation that was running the Princess Marguerite. That corporation, B.C. Steamship Company Ltd., still exists; we have now renamed it the Victoria Line corporation. It did have some assets, including a lease on property. The corporation's run.... The reason for a separate entity is really twofold. We want to make sure that there is no cross-subsidy from domestic passengers and the Ferry Corporation to this venture, which is largely to support tourism and economic development initiatives.

And because of Canada Labour Code and Labour Code of B.C. problems with respect to an international route and infecting, if you will, the entire corporation by coming under federal jurisdiction...

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. G. Clark: ...if we ran this under the B.C. Ferry Corporation....

The Speaker: The member's final supplemental.

G. Wilson: This minister originally commissioned this report about the viability of B.C. Ferries. At a recent meeting in Powell River where matters around B.C. Ferry fare increases were raised, comments came from directors on the board of B.C. Ferries that tourism was not a relevant factor with respect to fare increases.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?

G. Wilson: Is the minister telling us that documents within this report determined that B.C. Ferries was not the viable entity, notwithstanding the tourism question? Or is the minister saying that, in fact, the reduced subsidy to B.C. Ferries is a product of their movement towards this ferry service?

Hon. G. Clark: In fact, the report demonstrates that B.C. Ferries could well have run the operation and that it was indeed viable, and that in some ways there is some attraction to having the expertise of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. But because of the concerns I mentioned a minute ago, we moved it to the existing corporation, B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. It will draw on and benefit from the B.C. Ferry Corporation's expertise, but it will not have any cross-subsidy; it will stand alone with respect to pursuing that alternative.

And it will not have the Canada Labour Code, as it applies to the entire operations of B.C. Ferries.... It will be kept as a separate and discrete entity that we can test.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: Some interesting comments have been made by the government with regard to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in the last few days. In a search warrant issued by Corporal Forrester of the RCMP, the counts listed against the four societies that have been charged were also listed against former MP David Stupich. Those societies did not act on their own. They were acted upon at the direction of the directors of those corporations, of which Mr. Stupich was one. In keeping with Mr. Peck's recommendations, will the Attorney General release the report so that we can know why charges were not laid against Dave Stupich?

[ Page 10581 ]

The Speaker: A Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The search warrant contains numerous allegations by former members of the NCHS with respect to the role played by Mr. Stupich in the alleged misappropriation of funds. Why Dave Stupich has not been charged remains unclear, due to the stonewalling by both members opposite. Will the Attorney General instruct his Assistant Deputy Attorney General to discuss the release of this report and make it public so that the public knows why he was not charged?

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a little ratty in here today, hon. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and in the House, I call continued committee debate on Bill 32.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 4 (continued).

L. Fox: Just prior to the lunch break, I asked the minister a fairly lengthy question. Do I need to go through it all again?

Hon. A. Petter: I answered.

L. Fox: If you did, I didn't hear the answer. Perhaps the minister might answer it again.

Hon. A. Petter: That requires me to recall the lengthy question. In my recollection, the question had to do with what was intended by the inclusion of the words "to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures." As I indicated at the time, this government is intending through this initiative to ensure that the value generated from the forests and forest communities is returned and reinvested in the forests and forest communities, and that that be done in a way that respects the regions of the province and ensures there is equitability among those regions.

I think the member asked: was there a preconceived notion about particular forms of regions? The answer is no. From the Forest Service's point of view there are six regions in the province. But I think this notion of regional equitability is broader than that and embraces many of the notions the member himself referred to, in terms of equitability. As I recall, that was his question and that was my answer, but Hansard could provide a more direct and authentic rendition of our exchange prior to the break.

L. Fox: Perhaps I should have restated the question, because the minister answered the question of the speaker previous to me rather than the issue I was trying to deal with. The question was twofold.

One was the equitability question -- just what that was. I pointed out that presently there is some concern that there may not be equity in the charge presently being put forward for this initiative, and that the effects on the industry in the interior are going to be about $15 a cubic metre. The impact on coastal logging is going to be about $11 a cubic metre. In my view and certainly in the view of people in the interior, that's not total equity. There's that concern.

[2:45]

The other was around the number of regions. As I stated earlier this morning, I think I support this amendment. But I and the people of my constituency have to know that the regions are going to be something different than what we have in the two basic stumpage regions that exist in the province -- that we're going to have something that's more workable -- and that we can feel more comfortable in the fact that those moneys collected from the smaller regions in the province are going to be spent back in those same regions.

That's the kind of assurance I'm looking for and I know the people within my constituency are looking for. I'm looking for the minister to give me those kinds of assurances and perhaps outline what he envisions in his mind to be a region, because I think that's germane to understanding what regionally equitable programs are.

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for reminding me of some of the further details of his question. I'm not sure my answer is going to change all that much.

Prior to the break, I did say yes, there is a difference in the charges that flow from the stumpage system. But that difference is equitable, because it corresponds to the price and the value of the resource. If the price in the interior is higher than the price on the coast, the stumpage is higher; and if that changes through markets, then it will be lower. In that sense there is equitability. If you want to explore that further, member, perhaps I should say that under

section 11 we could get into some more detail on the issues of valuation and stumpage formulas, etc.

On the question of equitability in the investments, I can tell you some sense of my notion. But it will be all of us who interpret this provision, through the various instruments of accountability provided in the legislation. I can certainly say that the way the ministry keeps statistics and references this -- the six basic forest regions -- provides a starting point for understanding regional equitability, from my point of view as Minister of Forests. I don't want to suggest that's all there is to it. I want to make it clear that this is my

interpretation; others may have different

interpretations. But my

interpretation of regional equitability is that it's a rich concept and susceptible to testing and exploration in a number of ways. To me, it means much more than the coast and the interior; it means equitability of regions. We define regions differently, but from the Forest Service's point of view we would think of six regions. For me, that would be a starting point in assessing the equitability. Others might say that we should look even more closely at regions, and that there are more than six regions in the province.

L. Fox: That answer clarifies it somewhat in my mind. I have one follow-up question on the amendment. Is it intended that this amendment not only apply to the physical program of reforestation -- more intense silviculture, and so on -- but also apply the same kind of equitability to the training side of this legislation -- the retraining of workers, and so on -- so that the dollars that came out of, let's say, the Prince George region, for the sake of identifying an area,

[ Page 10582 ]

would go back into that region in training as well as in work carried out within intensive silviculture?

Hon. A. Petter: By referring to implementing a regionally equitable program of expenditures in order to carry out the purpose of the act, and remembering that the purpose of the act embraces all of the purposes that have been referred to in a previous

section we've debated, and do include training, the answer is that the equitability would embrace all elements of the program.

I do want to remind the member about what I said earlier. The agency will no doubt want to make sure that the investment is expended in a way that makes the most sense in terms of return on investment, and therefore some components of the program may be directed to certain parts of the province and others may be directed elsewhere to maximize the benefit. But because of this amendment, we can be assured that the overall expenditures under the program must be carried out in a way that can be justified as being regionally equitable across the piece.

C. Serwa: Continuing with this "regionally equitable" amendment to

section 4, it's certainly of very major concern. I am listening to the minister trying to define the regions in the province. I'm not very satisfied with the definition. It's entirely too loose and too ambiguous. We don't know if there are two major regions, although the minister indicated that in his view there are not. But he hasn't confirmed anything else, whether it's coastal or interior.

I think the minister is fully aware that what is really important to resource communities throughout the province is the assurance that the moneys extracted -- whether from the regional district or from a specific forest district -- are returned in time, so that the money extracted for reforestation and silviculture purposes is returned to that area, and goes to the small resource communities; not so that it's simply available to some larger, more populated base, but that it has to go back into the hinterland from which it was extracted.

When we talk about regional equitability and do not define regions, we leave the whole thing up in the air. It's very difficult for me -- and the people in all of those resource-based communities, I think -- to have confidence in the introduction of the intent without spelling out what opportunity they will have. For example, if you have large regions, then you can get a tremendous movement of funds from one area to another, and that's what you've said you're opposed to.

But you haven't defined or constrained, nor even identified some means whereby confidence would be exhibited in the resource-based communities in all of the interior, and certainly along the coast.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think we're going to resolve the issue of regionalism in this debate. What is significant here is that the government has indicated in word and in deed that it is committed to regional equity. That principle is proposed to be included in the bill. If people don't want it included in the bill, they can vote against it. But certainly we believe that it does provide some measure of clear direction and support to those who wish to ensure that the funding that is going to be invested through this program will be returned to communities on an equitable basis. I think that's an important principle. I regret if members opposite do not.

C. Serwa: I'll take the response, and we'll leave the question up in the air. I think it's a desirable goal. It sounds altruistic, but in actual fact there's no substance to the definition of the term.

But on establishing this, how will the public measure it? How will the public measure the revenue extracted from the forestry base in a given area? How will they be able to ascertain and define it? What financial method will be available so that those in the region know that the dollars extracted for reforestation and silviculture are being returned to that region in reforestation and silviculture?

Hon. A. Petter: There's only so many times I can answer essentially the same question -- albeit this question was not asked by this member previously; it was asked by another member this morning.

There are a number of ways in which that can and will be assessed. Let me just give the most obvious one, so as not to retread all the ground. A business plan will be prepared by the agency. That business plan will come before a legislative committee for scrutiny. I was asked this morning whether I would undertake that that information be provided to the legislative committee to assess the regional breakdown of those funds. I said that, to the extent that such numbers can be provided and I was able to influence their provision, I would do so, and I would provide that undertaking.

That's just one of a number of ways in which this Legislature and the public will be able to assess the equitability of the expenditure program on a regional basis.

C. Serwa: Just a final question on that. In his willingness, would the minister be prepared to ask the newly created entity, the Crown corporation, to release stats or financial accounting to members of the public? Because not only is a standing legislative committee perhaps going to be involved -- that's subject to some question -- but surely the public has to be assured that figures will be compiled in a readily assimilable and understandable fashion so that they can have confidence that what the minister is proposing will in fact happen.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't need to provide that assurance, because the legislation does. If a requirement of the agency is to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures, then by law the agency, in order to justify that it has carried out its mandate, must be able to produce evidence of that. That evidence will be made available publicly through the business plan and through the scrutiny that will be shown by the legislative committee. So the answer is: sure, I can provide that assurance. But you have a better assurance than mine, hon. member, in that the legislation specifies, if you accept this amendment, that this is now a component of the mandate that the agency operates under.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to speak in favour of this and ask a question of the minister. This question came up in our region, the Cariboo, immediately after the tabling of the legislation. In meetings with the industry, there was concern about this. When I returned, I made the point known to the minister. Of course, I had assumed there would be regional equity. In fact, people had already pencilled out how much stumpage had been taken out of one region, expecting to see an appropriate measure of that going back. I'm glad to see that you've seen fit to bring in this amendment.

It's important, and it will give assurance to people in the regions. But you know, in order to determine how we can do this best, I think we have to call upon the regions themselves, in some way, to offer advice on what the best proportion of the different envelopes is.

[ Page 10583 ]

A month and a half ago, the MLA for Cariboo North and myself put the challenge to people to organize around regional economic planning in order to do that. The region in our case could define itself quite well. It defines itself around the forest region. I think in some areas we'll see the forest region being the appropriate boundary; in other cases it might be amalgamations of them. I think we should listen to the people in the regions in terms of defining the boundaries.

I guess my question is really one of finding out whether or not there is a commitment on your part to listen to regions that have some organization. I know the Kootenays has one and the Cariboo has one, and they fully intend to advise you. Are you going to be prepared to listen?

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the hon. minister for his question. Absolutely -- this whole initiative, as I've tried to make clear, is a partnership. It will only work if we work in cooperation with local communities and regions. That means we must be respectful of those communities' aspirations and, indeed, of how they define themselves. I would point out that when we get to

section 6(

b) of the act, it is stipulated that each committee that will be advising the board on specific expenditures must advise the board on the regional targets as well, in order to achieve the maximum benefit and also to achieve equitability.

For that reason, not only I but I expect those committees will be listening to and interacting with the regions as to what their goals for expenditure are, and where they believe this initiative can best achieve the goals they have as regions. I believe that not only is there a commitment from the government, as evidenced by this amendment and by everything we've said, but the commitment runs through the legislation as well.

A. Warnke: Actually, I'd like to follow up on a bit of the reasoning of the member for Okanagan West. As a matter of fact, I think he puts forward a very reasonable set of concerns, from his vantage point, that the public must be reassured that the concept of regionally equitable boundaries is somehow being adhered to. I'd like to flip-side that.

Perhaps those who are responsible for the administration of Forest Renewal B.C. -- we'll probably end up with an acronym like FRBC -- also have to have some guidance. Usually it's in the form of some sort of established, set criteria so that a group knows whether it's embarking on the right direction to realize the concept of a regionally equitable program of expenditures. In order to realize that and in order to assess whether they've been successful at it, they have to have some sort of reassurance for themselves. They have to have some sort of measurement.

In this context, not only has the question put forward by the member for Okanagan West been appropriate, but perhaps the other side is as well. How will those who administer the program know they are embarking on the right direction? The only way I see that they will know is if they have some very clear, set, measurable way of making an assessment about whether they're on the right track in terms of the program of expenditures.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I would harken back to the previous question, which I think indicates the best way in which the agency will know -- not the only way but the best way. That is by relating directly to those in the forest communities and in the regions and responding to them, not having some top-down, preconceived, centrist version of regional equity, but have a notion of regional equity that flows from the regions themselves, through interactions with the regions and through the partnerships that will evolve as a result of this agency. That is the best measure of regional equity, and that is exactly what is envisaged for this agency.

[3:00]

A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, that is another problem that's just evolved now in the debate we've had in the last few minutes. The Minister of Agriculture got up and made this kind of suggestion, reinforced by the Minister of Forests, that perhaps those people who are involved in the regions can define the criterion, or whatever. I will tell you what will happen. The

so-called regions themselves, the people in the various regions, will be competing against one another. If anything, that will undermine what the amendment is presumably trying to achieve, and that is some form of equitability among the various regions. There will be that competition among the regions -- if not also all kinds of third-party interests, from environmentalists or whomever, providing that kind of input.

What I'm asking is very simple. In terms of trying to measure the direction and successful working of the program, there has to be some standard of program evaluation. That's essentially what's been put forward by at least a couple of members on this side. I'm not assured at all by their now being sort of loosey-goosey in terms of answering that the ultimate answer for what is a regionally equitable concept will lie in the various communities and regions. They'll listen to them, and from there on an articulation of this concept will be sort of bubbling up. I have no faith in that whatsoever.

It's not a question of top-down; it's a question of articulating essentially what is meant by the phrase that's being proposed here for this amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I'll try to make my final run at this. I know that the members of the official opposition have difficulty with principles. They voted against the legislation in principle, and I guess when you articulate a principle of regional equity, they have difficulty. If that's the case, I invite you to vote against the principle of regional equity, as you voted against the principle of this legislation. I think it's a good principle, and I think the people of British Columbia will see it as a good principle. I think it's important to articulate principles and then work from those principles to put them into practice.

I know the old game: when you articulate a principle, they attack it because it isn't specific; when you articulate the specifics, they attack it because it doesn't articulate the principle. We can go around in this nice circle as the members try to figure out how to dig themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves by voting against this bill in principle. But the principle of regional equity is a good principle. If the Liberal Party, through the official opposition, wishes to oppose that principle as well, I guess I just won't be surprised.

A. Warnke: It's obvious that the minister hasn't listened to a thing that is being asserted on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, I made it very clear in second reading what the principle should be in terms of its aspiration. When I first heard this amendment being put forward -- that we need some idea of reasonable equitability among the various regions -- at first, prima facie, it looked pretty good, because that's exactly what I said in this chamber on second reading.

However, aside from the principle, there is the other side: how do you evaluate it in a program? This is a reasonably equitable program of expenditures. It's very clear; it

[ Page 10584 ]

has nothing to do with philosophy or principles. It has everything to do with administration. Therefore I'm just asking a very simple question, following up on the member for Okanagan West. In order to give a very clear direction and to make a proper assessment and evaluation, there must be some sort of measurable means. I'm afraid that the minister's answer just leaves everything up in the air more than it was before.

W. Hurd: I've just been trying my best to follow the conversation involving all hon. members on this amendment from the government. We assume that $500 million to $600 million a year will be collected in stumpage, itself an inherently disparate system in the province. I'm sure the minister has gone to every corner of British Columbia and heard a complaint about the stumpage system and how it affects the individual regions involved.

He's going to take an inherently unfair system and plug it into a Crown corporation which has as its mandate the ability not just to invest in silviculture but also to invest in community development, whatever that might be, and job retraining, whatever that might be -- it might be tree-planting or another manufacturing plant; we have no idea. He's plugging all these different variables into a system of stumpage which itself is inequitable, and he has introduced an amendment that guarantees regional equity. I mean, if that isn't window dressing, I don't know what is.

But obviously the minister knows exactly of what he speaks. I'm glad he does, because I'm sure the board will have to come to him at every opportunity to ask exactly what he means by regional equity, given the fact that different programs will be occurring in different regions. The stumpage that might be collected from each region will obviously vary, so I guess a decision will have to be made to allocate equal dollars to six regions.

Obviously the amendment was introduced at the last minute by the government, perhaps in response to some of the amendments moved by the official opposition with respect to regional disparity. I have no idea.

It's important to summarize this debate by suggesting that we have not been able to define that elusive regional equity during the course of this debate. I have no illusions that as we move through this bill, we'll have any more success in defining it in upcoming clauses.

R. Neufeld: I'm not going to take a lot of time. I just want to relay to the minister that over the years my constituents have had a bad feeling about regional equitability -- especially in the natural gas industry, for instance. I'm just going to quote some numbers from the last budget. I think the minister knows that that industry is really booming in that part of the world, which is good to see. It's giving all kinds of money to the province; in fact, it gave $169 million more than was estimated last year.

Last year, when that region asked for a bit of that money back to put in the infrastructure, to keep the infrastructure up -- much the same as we're talking about here, although it's the gas industry as opposed to the forest industry -- they were turned down flat.

I appreciate the fact that it's very difficult to lay out exactly what should happen in each region and what you're going to spend; it's almost impossible. I remember the eight regions that the previous government brought in, and every city and town was at one another's throats over that. So having six regions....

The minister is saying that we're going to try to spread the money as equitably as we can. I hope he takes that into account when the cabinet picks the members of the 15-member board. If they're all going to be from the lower mainland, I can see the northern region -- and especially my constituency -- feeling very nervous again that we're not going to get anything out of it. All we get to do is contribute to the pot constantly and just get dribs and drabs back. I wanted to get on the record my constituency's concerns about regional equitability and getting things back into the area when it contributes a lot to the revenue of the province.

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 4(2), which talks about entering into contracts with individuals and first nations, I wonder if the minister could advise the committee how this particular provision might affect quota holders in the province who may come to Forest Renewal B.C. and seek to access funds in order to undertake their own intensive silvicultural projects and increase the long-term growth and yield on the land base. Would this particular

section apply to quota holders, or would they be prohibited from applying for funding?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is absolutely not. This

section provides, and is intended to provide, a vehicle to contract and come into arrangements with quota holders to engage in silvicultural activities and other activities, provided it's understood that those activities would go beyond their current obligations under licences and legislation. The intention of this initiative is not to displace existing obligations in any way; rather, it is to provide incentives through this investment strategy for quota holders and others, through the program that's developed by the agency, to improve upon the rates of growth and the return from the forest in any number of ways.

Therefore I envisage that contracts with quota holders are a very likely possibility in order to achieve some of those advanced silvicultural initiatives.

W. Hurd: As the minister well knows, in the past, quota holders in the province have expressed an interest to the Ministry of Forests about the possibility of making those kinds of intensive silvicultural investments over a longer time frame in the recognition of some potential adjustment to tenure arrangements as far as the licence is concerned. Would the minister ever envisage a situation where the quota holder would be applying to Forest Renewal B.C. for funding for such a project at the same time as it might be presenting a report or proposal to the ministry to adjust the tenure system? Or is that something Forest Renewal B.C. would make recommendations on or deal with in its entirety?

Obviously the advantage to a quota holder of investing funds in an intensive silvicultural project is in the potential return beyond, say, the term of the licence. Without that assurance, it would appear to be a bit difficult to justify even applying for funds in the first place. Would there be any recognition of the ministry's role in looking at a quota holder's application with respect to adjusting tenure at the same time as funds from Forest Renewal B.C. were being used to undertake this intensive investment on the land base?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure quota holders will always make submissions regarding tenure. I think I have indicated that

[ Page 10585 ]

that issue is not dealt with in this initiative, but it's one that the government continues to have an interest in, and clearly many British Columbians have an interest in the need for tenure reform. That issue will not be addressed through Forest Renewal B.C. It is an issue that the government -- and I think any government -- must attend to and consider. I guess my final point would simply be that the fact that a quota holder is seeking tenure reform certainly doesn't preclude the quota holder from seeking investments under this initiative.

I suspect that no quota holders would be eligible, because I don't think there is a quota holder or an individual in the province who doesn't have some ideas about tenure reform.

W. Hurd: I think the minister misses the point. He will be aware, through the operations of his ministry, that quota holders will approach the ministry with an offer to undertake those investments themselves in exchange for a recognition that that investment should be there to realize at some point in the future. I wonder why they would, on the one hand, apply to the ministry for that type of investment and, on the other hand, deal with Forest Renewal B.C. It seems to me that there's an opportunity. The minister has acknowledged that quota holders do have the right under this

section to apply for funds to invest in those incremental silviculture projects that can increase growth and yield on a long-term basis. If they're willing to make that investment of private money in exchange for some sort of security as licence holders, would that not be a better option than having a short-term investment of public money by Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that the Ministry of Forests -- through the licence agreements that it reaches and the activities that it undertakes -- will continue to try to ensure, when quotas or licences are granted, that we receive in return the maximum amount of investment. Those kinds of obligations will continue to run and will be sought.

[3:15]

This initiative allows for investments beyond those that might otherwise be sought as a condition of a licence. It allows those further investments to take place in a way that will further enhance the value of the forest even beyond those that are now obtainable through the negotiation of licence agreements.

D. Mitchell:

Section 4 deals with the mandate of the new Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C. I know that yesterday we had a very wide-ranging discussion on

section 2, the purpose of this bill. We really did touch on a number of issues in the purpose

section that also relate to mandate. I don't want to revisit all of the issues that we reviewed yesterday, but I have one specific question about the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C.

The minister, through his amendment, has addressed one of the issues, which is the need for regional equity. I think that goes a little bit of the way towards trying to focus the mandate of the agency. Even though we haven't specified the boundaries of those regions, I think it helps to enshrine that principle in the mandate of the corporation.

One of the other issues that Forest Renewal B.C. is dealing with is renewing the timber supply. Yesterday we talked about some of the discrepancies between the act and the forest plan. On the bottom of page 7 of "British Columbia's Forest Renewal Plan," it says: "Nearly half the forest renewal plan investments will go towards...." -- and it lists three areas dealing with the timber supply of the province. One of them is improved reforestation and tending of forests, another is increasing the lands available for planting new trees and the third is silviculture research and development.

The plan says very clearly that nearly half of the investments in this new agency will go towards those objectives.

Nowhere in the bill is there any indication that nearly half, or 50 percent, of the funds spent by Forest Renewal B.C. will go towards those objectives -- essentially, renewing the timber supply. I'd like to believe that that, of course, is the whole thrust of this agency. Should that not be listed in the mandate section? The minister's amendment has helped to clarify one aspect, the regional equity provision. Would it not be an improvement to the bill to give specific direction here in the mandate

section to also talk about mandating that 50 percent, let's say, of the investments made by Forest Renewal B.C. will go towards the spending provisions in those specific envelopes?

Hon. A. Petter: The mandate obviously does, as I think the member indicated, relate back to the purpose, and the purpose of the bill is to enhance the productive capacity of forest lands as well as to renew the forest economy. But there was also a feeling on the part of those who participated in the process that led up to this plan that there had to be flexibility. Clearly there is a sense that the land is the major envelope, the major preoccupation, at this time. I would anticipate that that will remain the case.

But there is likely to be some change in the relative weightings of investments over time. For example, to the extent that some of the environmental cleanup work deals with past damage, once that past damage has been cleared up, that component of the envelope will either have to be redirected into other environmental initiatives, or it may influence the size of the envelope. Similarly, in the worker skills and training component, we have a major task to provide skills and training to workers in order to move into a new form of silviculture activity, which also relates to the land, incidentally.

It isn't just the land envelope but the skills and training, and that may change over time. Similarly, value-added is also a very important component of this initiative, not only to enhance the productive capacity of the land, and through it the timber supply, but also to enhance our capacity to make more valuable products out of the timber on that land and to create more employment from it. We have a notion of the component that will initially flow from the fund towards that, but that, too, may change over time.

So the idea was to provide some indication as to the weightings of investments for the time being but also to understand that this agency, through the committees, is going to have to review that over time to maximize the benefit, through investment in the land, through value-added, through skills and training and through the other initiatives here. I suppose one could always say that it looks like we could tie this down in this way. But the feeling was to provide that flexibility and some indication, at least for now, of how we see the relative weightings being committed through this initiative.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister appreciates that it's our responsibility as legislators in this committee to remove any ambiguity that might exist in the legislation in order to make sure that the directors of this agency and future generations will not be tested in trying to interpret

an act that is less than as specific as possible. At the same time, we don't wish to tie their hands behind their backs in their ability to manage the goals of the forest renewal plan.

[ Page 10586 ]

But let's look at the mandate

section -- a very important

section of the bill. The member for Surrey-White Rock referred to section (2)(a), which allows for the agency to enter into contracts with a variety of groups, and it states: "...within the purpose of this Act." That's an important phrase, because it prevents possible abuse. It prevents entering into contracts for purposes other than those within the purpose of this act.

Subsection (3) of the mandate clause causes me some concern, because it is not very specific. Subsection (3) says: "Forest Renewal BC must comply with any general or special direction, with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions, that is made by the order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." It strikes me that that's a very broad provision. It allows cabinet tremendous discretionary power to direct Forest Renewal B.C. to do things that perhaps are not within the purpose of this act.

I wonder if the minister might agree to just tack onto the end of subsection (3) the words "within the purpose of this act," to make sure the cabinet -- not only this cabinet but any future executive council of British Columbia -- will also not seek to go beyond the purposes of this act.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion and his concern. I think he is aware that when a regulatory or directive power is being interpreted by the courts, it's always interpreted that that power must be exercised within the ambit of the overall purposes of the act. I suggest to the member that if we included that language with respect to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's directive-making power, some creative lawyer might get up in court on another

section of another bill that didn't have that and try to make something of the difference. So I think it's better to go with the general principle that when you provide the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to provide some specific direction to an agency of this kind, the courts will always infer that that direction must fall within the general ambit and purpose of the act. It has ever been thus, and if we don't tamper with this section, it will, hopefully, remain ever so.

L. Fox: We explored a bit of the issue that I'm going to address in the purposes section, but the minister advised me that

section 4 would be the more appropriate area to discuss it, so I bring it back to his attention now. That is the issue of private lands and reforestation on private lands. The mandate in section (2)(

a) suggests to me that virtually any group or individual within the province can enter into a contract with this new Crown corporation.

The minister in his statements, at least the way I read them, used the words "private lands," not "vacant Crown lands" or "reassumed Crown lands." The words that he used in his statements in the press were "private lands -- at least that's the way they were printed. I would like some clarification. Is the opportunity for individuals who own property to get involved in a long-term contract of growing trees part of the mandate?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be fascinated to see the quote the member refers to, because I'm not sure what the context is.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, look for it. It may have been in the context of the Forest Practices Code. There have been a lot of questions about the application of the Forest Practices Code to private lands, and it's possible that that's where it arose.

This is a fund, an investment strategy, that will be created out of the revenues derived from a public resource: the public forests of the province. That investment strategy must be in accordance with enhancing the value of that public resource. That doesn't mean there are no potential linkages that this agency may want to pursue with those who hold private property. For example, there may be marginal agricultural lands that could be purchased in order to bring them back into forest production.

Through some contractual relationship, some creative arrangement, some incentives may be provided to private owners to enhance the value of private land for growing trees for commercial use in exchange for some payback to the agency or to the Crown for that investment. I don't want to preclude that, but by and large we are talking about enhancing the value of the public resource from which the value comes.

We are taking a value represented by the value of that public resource and returning it to that public resource, the public forests of the province, in order to ensure that the resource will be there for future generations and to ensure that it stabilizes and provides for the future economy of the province.

[L. Krog in the chair.]

I don't want to rule out the fact that applications or arrangements of some kind or another can be made with private property owners, but it certainly isn't the major preoccupation or focus of this initiative.

L. Fox: As I understand it, there may be an opportunity for individuals to enter into long-term arrangements -- anything is possible in terms of that. Given that in this same clause we're talking about first nations, would first nations lands be included? Is the same kind of initiative possible on first nations lands that we just spoke about on private property?

Hon. A. Petter: That's an interesting question. I think the agency would want to assure itself that any investment that was pursued resulted in some return. That would be a matter of consideration and negotiation. The greatest benefits in terms of first nations will come from the opportunities afforded for employment and participation in the forest sector in the form of joint ventures and employment on public lands. I have not personally turned my mind to the question of first nations lands.

I would say generally that that is a federal responsibility, and we would not want to use this agency to relieve the federal government of its responsibility for the stewardship of those lands. I don't want to preclude the possibility if there were some way of making relations with first nations that would also be beneficial to the public at large with respect to lands that are not provincial, but clearly we wouldn't want to do it in a way that relieved the federal government of its primary responsibility, or indeed first nations governments of theirs.

K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Jones: It is with pleasure that I'd like to introduce, in the gallery right at this moment, a group of 51 grade 5 students from the Pacific Academy, along with their teachers and escort parents. I wish the House to give them a warm welcome.

[ Page 10587 ]

L. Fox: I just wanted to do a little more follow-up on that line of questioning. One of the largest land use struggles over the course of the last number of years has been between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests on what should be dedicated forest land and what should be kept within Crown land management to be used for other purposes. It would seem to me that one of the issues here in terms of protecting the additional fibre that we might be enhancing through intensive forest practices would be to set aside or better clarify or delineate the land base on which we're working. But I don't see a lot within the mandate

section -- or, for that matter, within the purposes

section -- that deals with the land base issue. Perhaps the minister might want to expand on that part of it.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, this is one of those issues on which I agree that we need to better define and clarify and stabilize the land base in order to give a sense of security and promote this kind of investment. But you're right: that is not the function of this agency.

Certainly, through the land use planning initiatives of this government -- LRMP, CORE and other initiatives -- it's essential that the land use plans that come out of that not only provide for long-term security with respect to components of the land base that might be set aside for protection, for example, but also provide long-term security and stability with respect to the component of the land base that is set aside for harvesting, for its timber values and for extraction. So I agree with the member on that point. It just doesn't happen to be within the mandate of this agency.

[3:30]

I would further agree that for this agency to succeed, it's important that we do achieve as great a measure of stability on our land base as we possibly can, so we know the investments we make today will produce returns tomorrow that can be realized because the land base in which we're investing will be there tomorrow, for example, for forestry activity. So that's important and related, but it doesn't happen to fall within the mandate of this agency.

L. Fox: I just have one follow-up question to that. If you have these agencies all over the place, all with different mandates and with no mechanism for working together in terms of some of these issues that are key and germane to the success of this program over the long term, is the minister not concerned that we're going to have a real mix-mash and clashing of these different groups, similar to what we've seen in some of the CORE processes, where it's almost impossible to come to a consensus? This particular initiative will see one area's interests; the LRMP process sees something different.

In the meantime, we've got to do some planning so that we can get these initiatives up and running and underway to look after those opportunities that are there today. How does he envision all this coming together, where we can have some realistic forward movement with some measure of certainty that we are going to reap the benefits, as a province and as a workforce, in the future?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that I am not concerned that there are different initiatives addressing different problems, provided the mandates are clearly delineated and they are complementary. I believe that's the case here. Certainly I'm sure that this government -- I'm speaking personally, as the minister -- would have been very happy if some of these issues had been resolved prior to our term of office. Unfortunately, there are serious conflicts around land use that need to be addressed, and there is also the need for a major change in our approach to the forests from an investment point of view.

I agree they're complementary, but I don't see the fact that there are different agencies with different mandates getting in the way. In fact, I think that's the way it must be. I certainly hope we can achieve a greater measure of securing the land base, because that will help this initiative. But I'm relieved, if anything, that that is not the mandate of this agency. This agency can get on with its work while those engaged in the land use planning get on with theirs. Through the two, we can produce a greater benefit than we could through either by themselves.

L. Fox: This is the last question. I would assume from reading section (2)(

a) of the mandate

section that this corporation is not going to have many direct employees, and certainly that the delivery of different services is going to be contracted out or put out to tender -- including, I guess, the educational and training services that are available under it. That begs a question: are there going to be any strings attached in terms of the salaries that will have to be paid or of the range of those salaries? Is it going to be a case where the person who meets the requirements in terms of the delivery of services, and who has the lowest contract, the best proposal, and so on, gets it? Are there going to be controls on the salaries paid for the services provided?

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the prefatory remarks made by the member in leading up to his question, because I think it is an important point that this agency is not designed to deliver the programs that it designs. It is intended to link up with existing institutions and agencies -- community colleges, for example, and current licence holders and others -- in order to ensure that the programs are delivered with a minimum of bureaucracy and a maximum of benefit and effect.

W. Hurd: With respect to the mandate

section of this bill, I want to address the issue of some of the other initiatives in the document which accompanied this bill and that the government refers to. I refer specifically to the ongoing timber supply reviews in the province. As the minister knows, the annual allowable harvest is being reduced in a number of timber supply areas in British Columbia as a result of those reviews. I wonder if the minister could advise whether there is a short-term provision under the mandate

section of this bill to deal with the structural unemployment that is likely to occur. Is there any link between the direct loss of employment that we know will occur with the reduction in the annual allowable harvest, and the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C.?

I think it's a relevant question, because as we know, there is going to be a reduction in employment and perhaps the closure of some manufacturing facilities as a result of the harvest coming down -- immediately, in some cases. Is it the anticipation of the minister that this social and economic issue is likely to receive a higher priority over the initial years of this Crown corporation than the longer-term initiatives on the land base?

[ Page 10588 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me start off by saying that as a result of this initiative, it's anticipated that there will not be as great a reduction in timber supply over the course of time as would have occurred without this initiative. Indeed, as some of the material referred to by the member indicates, if we were not to make these investments, then the best projections are that the current available timber supply in excess of 70 million cubic metres would fall to just over 50 million cubic metres over the next 20 to 30 years.

Through this initiative, we believe that we can do much in order to ensure that that does not occur -- and therefore stabilize employment and the future of communities. However, the member is correct in noting that in the short term there will likely have to be some reduction in timber supplies. The timber supply review has indicated that that is the case, at least according to the status quo. If the member is asking if the intention is that those who would otherwise be dislocated would find opportunities for employment here, that is absolutely the intention. Particularly when we get to

section 5, we will see that one of the committees is charged with coming up with objectives and proposals related to fostering forest employment opportunities and job training. Absolutely, we see this initiative as assisting in providing employment opportunities to those who might otherwise be denied those opportunities -- not in make-work projects per se, but in projects that represent real investments that will ensure that the jobs being displaced will come back through increased harvesting and other opportunities as a result of their efforts and this initiative.

W. Hurd: We continue to run into this difficulty, however, of examining the accompanying forest renewal plan document and the bill itself and reconciling some of the statements in the accompanying plan with what we see in the forest renewal bill. I look at a definition of the immediate strategy of the forest renewal plan. It indicates: "...because this is a long-term plan, the amount of funding spent on different areas will change over time. For example, forest communities will need to deal with change now, so more money will go to communities in the near future."

In light of the fact that this commitment to communities shows up as a commitment in the forest renewal plan explanatory document, and obviously not in the mandate section, perhaps the minister could then tell us exactly what he means by "more money will go to communities in the near future." Is that in alternative economic plans? Is it in new business formations? Is it necessarily tailored to the forest industry, for example? What do you mean by direct investments in communities?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess this is the game the opposition feels bent on playing. That is the old game of saying that because you put out an accompanying document that gives a fuller explanation of your immediate intent, then every element of that document should be in the legislation, or vice versa. However, that's fine.

Let me just point out to the member that if he were to go back to the purpose section, which I thought we had debated at some length, one of the purposes of this act is very explicitly indicated -- that being to "provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities." When we get to

section 5, as I indicated, we'll see that one of the committees is charged with making recommendations that are relevant to "fostering forest employment opportunities and job training." All of that feeds in to the mandate of the agency, and therefore the legislation. Far from having any discrepancy with the accompanying documentation, it is entirely consistent.

W. Hurd: The accompanying document clearly indicates that there is going to be a higher level of investment in communities over the short term. The committee would certainly welcome a definition of what that means. Does it mean silvicultural projects and intensive forestry projects? What exactly does investing in communities mean? Clearly -- and this was alluded to earlier by members of the committee -- that invites the possibility of investing in communities that not only are affected by a timber supply review but might be politically sensitive areas for the government.

It seems to be a wide-open investment that is really hard to pin down. If there was an assurance, for example, that the investments in the purpose

section -- in silviculture, environmental values and training -- were going to be done in some sort of orderly manner, a percentage manner, that would be understandable. But clearly, the example used in the document is that forest communities will need to deal with change now. That indicates to me that they will have to deal with unemployment. What else would it mean? So more money will go to communities in the near future. Maybe we need to back up and ask the minister what he means by "change now" in

forest-dependent communities in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: As I indicated earlier in the debate, I think we are going through a major transformation. Hopefully, through this agency and this initiative and through the vision of this government and the partners who are going to be involved, it will be a transition that will strengthen us, not a transition that will lead to the decline that might otherwise occur in forest communities. It does mean that we're going to have to reorient ourselves. It means that if changes are not made in forest communities, there will be employment concerns, due to overcutting in the past. But if we make the investments now and change our orientation, we can get on a new track.

[3:45]

In this period of change, we're going to have to focus on those communities and provide the skills and training, for example, and the infrastructure necessary to make those changes. That is the commitment spoken about here.

Communities that in many cases have been traumatized because of reductions in employment due to technological change over the last 20 years, and that are now doubly concerned because of timber supply shortages emerging due to policies of the past, are going to need special care and attention -- and that's not a regional matter; I think it's true across the province -- in order to ensure that they maintain their stability and employment.

We can do that through this plan, because there will be opportunities for new employment in investing in the land, in restoring the environment, in value-added production and in skills and training. We're going to have to work with those communities to make sure that they can take full advantage of this program and assist in that change. That's what is referenced here.

W. Hurd: I have no wish to belabour the point as to what "change now" means, but it clearly implies that forest communities are going to have to deal with something over the very short term. The implication is that money will have to go from this plan to deal with those changes. There were certainly a lot of people gathered on the lawns of the Legislature at the opening of the session to express concerns about the fact that things were going to change now. The document that accompanies the bill makes reference to

[ Page 10589 ]

investing in communities rather than in silviculture or long-term intensive forest management -- thinning and spacing, and those kinds of activities that can only address the timber supply over time. The minister well knows that investments made today are not necessarily going to result in the creation of enough jobs to compensate for what is lost in

short-term economics such as harvesting. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere, because it isn't in the bill. I can appreciate that the mandate

section is perhaps unclear in that area.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I want to address one additional question with respect to the contracts entered into, which is something we may get into in

section 10 -- the financing of Forest Renewal B.C. I want to ask the minister whether we're talking here about contracts that will extend beyond the five-year funding mandate of this Crown corporation. Are we dealing with long-term contracts here? The reason I ask is that silviculture is, by definition, almost something that stretches over a 15-year period. From the point of planting to fertilization and thinning, it's a long-term commitment to the land base that would go far beyond a five-year term. If the minister is more comfortable in dealing with this question under

section 10, I'd defer until then. But I wonder if he can tell us what we're dealing with in the length of some of these contracts.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I despair that the member would say there's a five-year mandate. There is no five-year mandate. The mandate for this agency is, as I've indicated numerous times, to look into the future well beyond five years. The five-year term has been used to illustrate the extent of the investment and what might be accomplished in that time frame.

But certainly the agency is going to have to look to the long term. It's going to have to act prudently, because as we indicated earlier, the agency does not have the power to incur debt. It therefore does have to ensure that it can maintain a steady investment pattern without incurring debt, and that means it will have to be prudent. Certainly that may include some longer-term contractual

relationships; it may include some shorter ones. It's going to be up to the agency to determine what will produce the greatest benefit and return and won't compromise the mechanisms of funding, which -- I think the member is right -- we should discuss later on in the bill.

W. Hurd: So when the minister talks about the nature of the contracts that are entered into with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions and local governments, he's talking about contracts that may be re-awarded on an annual basis, that might be the result of.... I'm thinking of community forests, for example, where they may want to access funds over a long period of time for a variety of forest renewal purposes. Would it then be a requirement for them to apply on a project-by-project basis?

Or are we dealing with a situation here where they could present to Forest Renewal B.C. a long-term sustainable plan for a community forest and have the project funded incrementally into the future?

Hon. A. Petter: As I think I indicated, the length of the contract will be what's appropriate to the circumstances, provided it's consistent with prudent management on the part of the agency. That will have to be determined in light of the circumstances. In some circumstances short-term contracts may achieve the desired purpose and be more effective. In other circumstances a longer-term contract may be justified and could be entered into, provided such a contract was done prudently.

R. Neufeld: Concerning section (2)(b), "subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee," to be perfectly honest, I have some great difficulties with that

section in providing any type of grant, loan or guarantee.

I see it further explained in the plan that it's to assist value-added companies to start up and expand. The minister is certainly aware that right now many companies produce all kinds of value-added products and have expended a great amount of money in their research and marketing. I was on the committee that went around British Columbia, and I saw many of the small companies that had spent a lot of money in their start-up to build such things as doors, windows, spindles or whatever. We also have a major industry in the Canfors, MacMillan Bloedels and Weyerhaeusers that produce an awful lot of value-added products that people don't really know about.

I see this as kind of helping someone start from scratch to be in competition with somebody else who's already producing some of these items and has expended an awful lot of money. How is the minister going to offset that so we don't all of a sudden get three or four companies producing spindles? In the end, supply and demand will determine whether those companies continue operating or whether they all go down the tube. When we start giving grants and loans to private industry, that's the inherent danger -- along with not getting the investment back to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm tempted to say "To be or not to be," hon. Chair, but I won't do that.

With respect to (2)(b), I understand the member's concerns. I think the agency is clearly going to want to be prudent with the use of this power, and that is of course why there's the additional check with respect to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, I think there are some occasions that the agency -- remember, working in partnership with the business community, large and small -- will want to contemplate some grants and potentially some loans or loan guarantees.

One of the major complaints of the value-added sector is that since in many cases they don't have direct access to timber through licences, there's difficulty raising capital. It is possible -- through some cooperative relationship with financial institutions, for example -- that this agency could provide incentives to enable value-added opportunities to go ahead that otherwise would not. The member signals that he wants to make sure -- and I know those in the value-added sector will, through this initiative, want to make sure -- that that is not done in a way that creates a competitive advantage but rather creates new opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Grants can also promote particular areas of research and development that may be very useful to the industry as a whole -- for example, opportunities to develop more advanced disease control. If we can better control disease in our forests, we can substantially increase the volumes that are available in the future. So if some useful research could be done, a grant to an appropriate agency to undertake that research on behalf of the industry and the public as a whole would be altogether appropriate.

[ Page 10590 ]

This provision is enabling, and it does have some checks in it. I think the member's concerns will be shared by members of the agency and the partners. But this kind of opportunity is important to assist in overcoming some natural barriers the value-added sector might otherwise potentially have and to provide for the possibility of research and development and other initiatives that could assist the industry as a whole.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the research and development. That was going to lead to my second question, along with developing new markets. As I recall, some businesses that our committee visited were having difficulty accessing money because they didn't have direct access to timber. That certainly was there; I'm not going to deny that. But the biggest thing I came away with from that committee was about developing the markets. It's fine, you can make all the widgets in the world, but you have to sell them to somebody. It's certainly not a market where you're going to be selling everything within Canada; most of it is going to be overseas.

So research and development for disease, or whatever it happens to be in forestry, is actually a good move. But it would probably be better to put money into developing new markets than to try to borrow or give grants or guarantees to companies to compete with existing companies in those different areas.

Hon. A. Petter: I certainly agree with the member, and I think the documents released with the plan reinforce that market development and research around products to take advantage of those markets has to be a primary focus of our strategy to enhance our value-added sector.

As the member may be aware, there are some incredible opportunities opening up in Japan because of the fact that the housing stock in Japan is ready to be renewed, and there isn't the skilled workforce in Japan to undertake that renewal. That's an incredible market opportunity, but there are also some barriers in terms of the way in which housing in Japan is traditionally constructed, and in terms of the knowledge and technology of British Columbia companies to meet that market demand.

So certainly assistance to do market research and engage in market and product development will be a primary focus, we believe, of the value-added component of this initiative. I think that is borne out in the material that was released, and therefore I certainly have no disagreement with the member's observations.

R. Neufeld: I have one more question with regard to this that the minister may not want to answer. One of the other issues around the small business starting up without funding is the high cost of labour. I think that is an issue with the value-added industry, and it's something that we have to look at, because we are competing with small industries that certainly cannot afford to pay the wages that the IWA does in some of the larger mills like MacMillan Bloedel or Weyerhaeuser.

[4:00]

I wonder how the minister is going to deal with those issues when they go about lending money to new companies. If they get money from the government to start a new industry, in competition with someone down the street, are they going to be compelled to pay union wages? That seems to be a trend with your government. We have seen that you have dictated that in other areas, especially in the health care field. I wonder if that will come through here, or are you going to let the marketplace declare what the wages and benefits are going to be?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's clear that the agency, in providing its funding, is going to want to make sure that the value-added sector and other industry remains competitive. I've indicated that there is no preconception about the nature of this work or the way it is carried out. That is something that the agency is going to have to work out in partnership with the various actors.

I would just say that from the value-added sector's point of view, the one element the member didn't mention is the high cost of the material -- of the wood. That's a major barrier, perhaps even greater than labour costs, it seems to me, in discussion with the industry. One of the policy initiatives that the government will be pursuing, parallel to this legislation, is to ensure that there is greater access to that wood supply to bring down costs. So in all of these initiatives we and the agency are going to have to be sensitive to the question of maintaining a competitive industry in both value-added and other components of the industry.

L. Fox:

Section 4(1)(

a) says: "Forest Renewal BC must plan and implement a program of expenditures...."

Interjection.

L. Fox: Right, as amended. Okay.

When I read that and when I look at the next section,

section 5(1), where it says that the board may establish committees, and so on, I start to wonder how long a process we are entering into here before they can actually start carrying out the mandate of delivering training and improvement in enhanced silviculture. Do we have to wait until all this structure is in place before the training for individuals who are currently unemployed can take place? If and when we're up and running, we could have some trained individuals to actually get out there and start doing the work.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the hon. member makes an excellent point. I must say that as I've travelled around the province in the last two weeks -- and I've seen a fair bit of the province in the last two weeks -- I'm impressed by just how much is already out there in terms of ideas and initiatives: people who have training programs they've been trying to expand for years; companies that have plans for commercial thinning or advanced silviculture that they have been trying to pursue and are ready to pursue.

While it is true that it will take some time for the agency to become fully able to speak to all of the elements here and to look to the future in the way that we hope, I think that once the agency is established it will be able to act fairly quickly to ensure that some initial investments are made so there is some discernable and demonstrable sign of progress early on.

Frankly, I think that will be possible, because there is a pent-up desire by many to get on with proven programs and initiatives that simply have not had the support that this agency will be able to provide. I anticipate that there is going to be an opportunity for the agency to provide some pilot projects in the early stages and then build up or ramp up over time to provide a much fuller set of initiatives and programs consistent with the longer-term goals that are established in the legislation.

L. Fox: Just to follow up a bit, I saw, and I think many members saw, that when FRDA money first became available, we didn't have a number of trained individuals out there to spend and appropriate that money in a very effective way in the first year or so. We saw some wastes.

[ Page 10591 ]

Certainly the program was not extremely cost-productive or effective, at least in the initial year of that program. Is there a mechanism in place that would see us use existing silviculture programs being carried out under the Ministry of Forests that might start a training division or a training course? So when this Crown corporation does get on board and rolling, there would be some trained individuals there -- beyond what the needs are to deliver the regular program -- in order to carry out a cost-effective initial program within this particular act.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is yes. The ministry is already contemplating a major training program, in partnership with industry and workers, around the Forest Practices Code. There already is a capacity to provide training within the existing silviculture programs. There is the opportunity to hit the ground running.

I want to make a point, because the member has given me an opportunity to make a point in a way that perhaps I couldn't have made quite as convincingly before. The problem with the FRDA program when it was introduced was that the money had to be spent in that year. That's why money was badly spent. The advantage of having this agency with this mandate is that it can limit its expenditures to only those that do make sense and not worry that it won't be able to carry those funds over into the next year. It's a good illustration of the difficulty with the more traditional structures as opposed to this structure.

It's important that we have this structure not only so the agency can plan for the long term but so we don't have these unfortunate incentives that are placed upon some other programs or agencies to spend money unwisely. We don't want that to happen. We want to make sure the flow of funds is going to support programs that will be successful and workers who will be adequately trained. This agency will be able to calibrate its flow of expenditures without worrying that it will lose the opportunity to spend those funds in the future. That's a major assurance, I think, that we haven't seen in other programs in other agencies.

Hon. A. Petter: The federal government does maintain a forestry presence. Unless and until it's prepared to compensate the provinces for taking that over, I certainly anticipate that they should continue to do so. It's my expectation that this will not be yet another area in which the federal Liberal government starts to withdraw support and funding for British Columbia's number one resource. If that's what the member is suggesting is going to happen, I want the member to know that this government will fight very hard to resist it happening. And I hope the member, despite his associations with the Liberal Party, will join with us in that effort.

However, let me give an example. The federal government maintains a responsibility not only through its existing forest programs but for research and development generally. One of the participants on the Forest Sector Strategy Committee was a representative from the federal government, who contributed much in the way of advice on research and development the federal government has been pursuing. I could envisage some agreements with the federal government to pursue research and development on such issues as disease control, enhancing growth rates and improving forestry practices, because the federal government does have a considerable degree of expertise and investment in that area.

Hon. A. Petter: Discussions with the federal government about those lands are certainly one thing the agency might pursue.

I just want to reinforce what I said earlier, though. The intent of this initiative is not to displace existing initiatives or obligations of this government, and certainly not of the federal government. We're all aware in this House that the federal government -- particularly this federal government -- is seeking every opportunity possible to pull back on its commitment to British Columbia. We are not going to allow this initiative to be used by the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities, be it on reserve land or any other aspect of their responsibility.

I want to make that crystal-clear, lest the member think this may be an opportunity for his friends in Ottawa to divert funds for provincial coffers into federal responsibilities. We won't let that happen, even if he desires it so.

W. Hurd: Better to divert funds from Ottawa than from charities in Nanaimo.

I have one additional question with respect to subsection (3), and I think it was referred to earlier. Subsection (3) talks about the powers and functions being subject to a review by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet. Can the minister describe what ongoing cabinet approvals might be required under this

section for contracts entered into under subsection (2)(a)? The minister has alluded to the fact that the contracts may be for longer periods of duration than the funding mechanism set up. What role will the cabinet have in looking at these contracts? Or will it just be done on an annual basis through the normal reporting mentioned in a later

section of the bill?

[ Page 10592 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I fully understand the member's question. To the extent that I do, it seems to me that it relates to an earlier section, not to this section. It's quite clear under

section 4(2): "...Forest Renewal BC may (

a) enter into contracts with individuals, first nations...for the delivery of programs within the purpose of this Act." There's no reference in that paragraph to a direction from the government.

W. Hurd: Subsection (2)(

b) specifically mentions the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for financial assistance by way of loans, grants or guarantees. It isn't specifically mentioned in connection with contracts. My question is: to what extent would cabinet be involved in reviewing contracts on an ongoing basis? Or would they be subject to a review by cabinet at the end of the fiscal year and then duly reported to the Legislature through the Select Standing Committee on Forests? Obviously the government has seen fit to subject a control mechanism to the approval of grants, loans or guarantees but not to contracts -- at least, it doesn't appear to be to contracts. That's the basis of my question.

Hon. A. Petter: I made it clear -- at least I thought I had -- in my response to earlier questions that it was felt necessary in (b), because of a sensitivity around financial assistance by way of grants, loans and guarantees, that there be an additional check upon the provision of such financial assistance by ensuring that there has to be prior approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, the agency will operate its programs through contracting generally; therefore there's not the necessity for the same specific provision.

[4:15]

J. Tyabji: I'm a little concerned about the language in

section 4. The reason is that

section 4(1) says: "Forest Renewal BC must...(

b) do other things, consistent with this Act, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize." Then

section 4(2) details other actions that Forest Renewal B.C. can take

part in or initiate. The first question is: why do you need subsection (2) when you've already got authorization under subsection (1)(

b) to do other things consistent with the act? Then you outline certain acts. By implication, then, because of the way the language is and because subsection (2) follows that, could the activities in subsection (2) be inconsistent with the act?

Hon. A. Petter: No. We talked about statutory

interpretation earlier, and I don't want to revert to an earlier role. Let me assure the member that when the courts come to interpret this act -- if they ever do -- they will interpret the powers in subsection (2) as being implicitly limited to the purposes of the act. Subsection (2) really sets out a list of mechanisms that can be used by the agency in order to achieve the purposes, and that's why it's there. It provides for a very specific outline of the kinds of instruments that the agency will have at its disposal.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if I heard the minister correctly. Why do we need subsection (2) when we've got subsection (1)(b)? Is that just so that other members of the House have an understanding of what the government is planning to do to fulfil subsection (1)(b)?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll say it again. Subsection (2) is setting out the mechanisms that the agency can use to achieve the purposes that it seeks to achieve. Subsection (2) is doing something different from simply setting out the goals of the agency or its mandate in a general sense. It's more specifically identifying the instruments that the agency can use to fulfil that mandate, i.e., entering into contracts, providing financial assistance or entering into agreements.

J. Tyabji: What I understand is that subsection (2) outlines subsection (1)(

b) more specifically. The minister has said that that will be the mechanism by which it will be implemented.

With that clarification in mind, I have a very serious problem with the act in that we have government appointees who "enter into contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local governments, groups and other organizations." Although it says "and," I'm assuming it means "or." It's not all of them together; it's any one of them individually.

We're saying that it could be individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions or local governments. I'm sure this minister will concede that if another government comes along -- even if he won't concede that his government will do it, although I'm not that confident.... The problem I have with this is that you would have government appointees to a Crown corporation entering directly into contracts with individuals for land. That land is there for the public's interest on things that.... Although they're within the purposes of this act, the purposes are very general and are subject to

interpretation. It's really the person interpreting the purposes of the act and appointing the board of the Crown corporation who will be determining who is going to be making money off the forests of the province. Maybe the minister could say something to allay those fears. But if subsection (2) becomes the machinery by which the purpose of the act, which is very general and open to

interpretation, is implemented, then how can we feel secure that the public's interest will be met in the event -- even if the minister won't concede that his government would fall vulnerable to this -- that the next government puts people in place who only have a financial interest in using up the forest resources?

Hon. A. Petter: One has to look at the full range of protections that are provided in the act -- first of all, in the purpose clause. As we get further into the act, we will see there are various mechanisms that provide for scrutiny and accountability around these decisions. Any agency of government, be it a ministry or an agency of this kind, will have instruments at its disposal to carry out its mandate. Government ministries contract on a regular basis, and this agency will have powers to contract as well.

The member should take some comfort from the fact that those instruments are specified in

section 4(2). She should take further assurance in that there are some extraordinary mechanisms, which I'm sure we'll get to sooner or later, that provide a full opportunity for scrutiny of how those instruments are then deployed to carry out the purposes of the act and the mandate of the agency, all of which are limiting and defining components of the act.

J. Tyabji: Actually, I don't take any comfort in the specifics of

section 4(2), because the specifics include individuals, groups or other organizations. I'm saying "or" even though it says "and." That's totally non-specific. We've got a government-appointed board directing the public's land through non-specific groups or individuals. That's not very comforting.

The minister has said that there is accountability built into the bill, but he recognizes that the accountability that

[ Page 10593 ]

comes with debate in this House is still subject to the vote of a majority government -- if there is a majority government, which is generally the case in B.C. So there might be accountability in terms of debate, but there's very little accountability in terms of how it operates.

Putting that aside, in the minister's amendment to

section 4(1)(

a) where he says, "plan and implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures...." how does that tie in with the government's 12 percent option for a protected areas strategy with respect to the forest lands of B.C.? When you're talking about regionally equitable within the Crown corporation, are you talking about all the lands or just the lands subject to cutting? Or are you talking about the land that doesn't include the protected areas strategy? I don't understand what regionally equitable means. Knowing that the protected areas strategy is not equitably distributed by region in the province, how does the Crown corporation address that?

Hon. A. Petter: We had a very full debate about regional equitability. While I appreciate the member's creative attempt to generate some debate on the protected areas strategy, it's really not germane. This refers to the program of expenditures in order to carry out the purposes of this act, and I think I'll just leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: I think the minister will recognize that the protected areas strategy happens to be part of the land base of the province. The reason I brought that up is that the protected areas strategy is not regionally equitable. In some areas of the province a disproportionate amount is not populated. Maybe this minister is not aware of that, because it's not in his portfolio. But if the Crown corporation is going to be regionally equitable in terms of the distribution of the purposes of it, which is enhancing the forests of the province....

In an area where the protected areas strategy has put aside, let's say, 20 percent of the land base for that region, will the minister automatically assume -- in governing the lands within this Crown corporation -- that the Crown corporation does not have to account for that because it's been taken care of in another portfolio?

Inherent in this bill is the problem that several ministries divide up the same pie. I don't think the minister can say: "Well, just because I'm responsible for the forestry pie...." It's the same pie; it's the same piece of land. In the north we've got 20 to 25 percent of a region set aside, depending on where you draw the boundaries. How is it accounted for in terms of

section 4(1)? It's a fairly basic question, and it's separate from the debate that took place earlier.

Hon. A. Petter: I would suggest that it's only separate from the debate that took place earlier insofar as it is extraneous to that debate. The principle of regional equitability has to do with the fact that certain regions of the province will generate certain of the funds that are contributed to this initiative. In the disbursement of those funds, there will be equitable investment into the land and the other initiatives to ensure some correspondence between the value generated from a region and the reinvestment back into that region.

That protected areas strategy is a very significant issue, and I'd love to debate it some other time. But it really doesn't get in the way of that basic relationship spoken about here, which has to do with the flow of dollars both into and out of this agency.

J. Tyabji: The minister might not be understanding what I'm asking, but I'll leave that aside. The only comment I'll add is that in terms of the dollars going into an area, surely the minister can recognize that in a region.... I don't know how he is going to draw the regions, or how he's going to draw them as opposed to the way other ministers have drawn the regions of the province, because every minister has a different allocation of regions. When you're trying to have an equitable distribution of money, you're going to be doing that on the basis of activities taking place in the forest sector, obviously.

So the land base is going to be affected by the percentage of protected areas. In some regions it will be zero percent; in some regions it will be as high as 20 percent. I was wondering how the minister was factoring it in, but he's saying it's not relevant. I happen to think it is, because on the one hand you've got the dollars, and on the other hand you've got the land base. You can't separate the two, in my opinion.

But leaving that aside, with regard to the program of expenditures that Forest Renewal B.C. is going to have -- and this may have been canvassed earlier -- to what extent is that part of the business plan that will come before the House? Is that an intrinsic part, or is that under the minister's purview?

Hon. A. Petter: No -- and I think it points to another potential misunderstanding the member has. This

section deals with the mandate not of me as minister or the government but of the agency. Forest Renewal B.C. must plan and implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures in order to carry out the purpose of this act. It will be for the agency to make those determinations. If you ask about the program of expenditures, hon. member, that will indeed be the subject and, I suspect, very much the essence of the business plan. That, in turn, will be subject to scrutiny in ways that we are all looking forward to discussing, hopefully in the very near future.

C. Serwa: On

section 4(2)(a). I was watching this on the monitor, but I may have missed some of the debate. If I ask questions that are redundant, would the minister just indicate. I'll pick it up in Hansard, and that's quite fine.

I wanted to ask a question with respect to contracting out. It means different things to different people. Am I safe in assuming that the contracting will be a tender-bid process with equal opportunity for all British Columbians to bid on the contract, or will there be some pre-qualifications with respect to that?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it will depend on the circumstances. For example, if a contract is to deliver a specific program to a specific local community to live up to the regional equitability goals, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to have a bidding process. Similarly, there may be some programs that are better delivered through existing licence holders, because they are already on the land and have the management capacity there. In other cases, where the agency can deliver a program without regard to the particular position of a community or a licence holder, for example, then a bid system would likely be the most advantageous and efficient.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the response. I think that obviously there are a diverse range of perspectives and opportunities, and the minister has elaborated on that. The basic reason for asking the question is that both the minister and the Premier have assured members of the IWA who will be displaced

[ Page 10594 ]

with the reduction in the annual allowable cut that there will be jobs in the forestry sector with respect to silviculture and

tree-planting. These individuals, though, are well trained. They are generally equipment operators; hardly anyone is on the ground, either in the interior or on the coast, at the present time. So you've got truck drivers, skidder operators, cat operators, portable spar operators -- people that are well trained and well skilled in the industry, who have very high-paying jobs but who all of a sudden will not have jobs.

[4:30]

So the question in my mind is: how in this process of contracting out to individuals with respect to intensive silviculture as well as tree-planting work...? What sort of formula will the minister suggest would be appropriate to give an equal opportunity for high-priced IWA members to bid against, perhaps, university students working in a summer job?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is going to lie in the nature of the work. For the most part, I suspect the jobs that will be created will not be in tree-planting. Those are already, for the most part, pursued through existing initiatives. There may be some, and we talked earlier about marginal agricultural lands being brought into forest production, etc.

There's going to have to be some close cooperation with industry and with workers to ensure, as much as possible, a good match between those who have skills and the kinds of jobs that may be created. There must also be some sensitivity to the fact that older workers may not be able to make some of the transitions that are necessary. But in terms of road reclamation and some of the environmental cleanup, people with skills in operating cats, for example, may be well suited to that.

I also think that what we're going to see -- and this may take some time -- is a reorientation of work in the forests of a kind that is more common in other countries where this kind of forestry has been practised. We'll have a forestry worker who'll be more versatile and who can maintain continuous employment because of their versatility.

That worker will be able, perhaps, to do traditional felling and harvesting for part of the year, do some reclamation work and environmental enhancement part of the year, do some of the advanced silviculture work of thinning and pruning part of the year, do commercial thinning and other kinds of silviculture and perhaps do some forest inventory work part of the year.

The one thing that I have said publicly, and I'm quite happy to restate it, is that as much as possible, it's our desire as a government and it's in the interests of communities that the jobs be permanent, full-time and community-based jobs that will enrich those communities and create greater stability. I think the way that is most likely to happen, therefore, is by providing

full-time work, but work that may vary. That will require a shift in orientation of forest work over time.

Now, that will have to take place sensitively, because some workers may or may not be able to make that transition. We'll have to make sure, through this agency and in partnership with communities, that as much as possible we are matching the work to the skills that those in the industry now have or could obtain as well as providing opportunities for new workers. So it's going to be a complex, challenging process but one that I sense the partners who have come together around this initiative are prepared to undertake.

C. Serwa: This is just a final question on this particular area. Again, while I've listened to the minister, it seems to lead to more questions than answers.

Putting roads to bed, for example, can occur in some areas, in some types of terrain. But a lot of our coastal forests are on really vertical country, not like the interior plateau, and you're not going to put those roads to bed. A tremendous amount of rock has been blasted, and there are side-hill cuts. You're not going to be able to put them to bed, and that's the reality. There isn't enough money in the world to be able to put them to bed. On some of the flatter ground, where the terrain is....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, the minister indicates that it's not true and that anything can be done. But I can assure the minister that if you have the experience and you're on the ground, the

cost-ineffectiveness of doing what you're saying can be done makes it impossible. I can assure you of that.

In any event, I again -- not to go into a debate mode -- have difficulty understanding that the wage structure of the IWA can be utilized in intensive silviculture. For example, in the mechanical thinning of trees and mechanical removal of weed species, be they aspen, alder or poplar, I just don't see that you can afford to pay the current wage rates to individuals who are going to do work like that, because you simply cannot be cost-effective at doing it at all.

In recognizing this and the different dimensions of the job, I'm confident that the people in the industry who are working in the milling operation or in actual forest harvesting, operating major pieces of equipment and having a great deal of responsibility, will consider that hack-and-squirt jobs are really Mickey Mouse-type jobs for themselves. I just don't see the excitement in it. Is the minister considering implementing the fair wage policy, and is he implying that there is a basic wage that everyone must conform to as far as the payroll requirements go?

Hon. A. Petter: I regret that the member doesn't find this exciting. I want him to know that many of these activities are not only exciting but also the kinds of activities that will ensure we have healthier, more productive and more valuable forests in the future. That is a lot more exciting than the picture we face today without these initiatives.

I believe that because there is an understanding on the part of industry and workers alike that the alternative to this investment and the employment it will generate is a reduction in employment, there is a preparedness and willingness to confront some of the challenges in partnership. Obviously unions and employers will have to negotiate around these jobs and this kind of work, as they do now. I hope those negotiations go well. I'm confident that they can.

Sure, there are some unanswered questions here, but this work is not unimportant. This is very valuable work in other jurisdictions. I have used Sweden as an example. One-quarter of the wood that is harvested in Sweden comes as a result of commercial thinning, and therefore that's a very significant component of the wood supply in that country. It may be that in British Columbia people do not view -- obviously the member doesn't -- advanced silviculture and restoration of roads, which....

I'd love to take him and show him some pretty steep slopes that are being restored right now and some more that desperately need restoration. I think that the people of British Columbia see this as very exciting. I think the workers of British

[ Page 10595 ]

Columbia will view this work enthusiastically and see that it can make a major contribution not only to today but al