1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

10937 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

The Agricultural Land Commission and its function. Mr. De Jong –– 10937

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Savage

Preventing environmental damage. Mr. Cashore –– 10939

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

British Columbia and the national deficit. Mrs. McCarthy –– 10941

Mr. Clark

Tobacco abuse: time for action. Mr. Perry –– 10943

Hon. J. Jansen

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10946

Mr. Miller

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, the consul general of Belgium and Mrs. Michel Delfosse,

along with their family, are here today on a farewell visit to

Victoria. Mr. Delfosse, who was posted to Vancouver in 1988, will be

returning next month to a new assignment in Brussels. When I was

Speaker of the Legislature I had the distinct pleasure of meeting the

Delfosses as they accompanied their ambassador on his first official

visit to Victoria. Would my colleagues please join me in bidding a warm

au revoir to Michel and Annie Delfosse.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

AND ITS FUNCTION

MR. DE JONG :

It's a pleasure for me to rise on this beautiful summer morning, when

all the farmers are out busy in the fields, gathering in the crops and

cultivating the fields and whatever — else they may be doing. I want to

speak a bit about the Land Commission that administers the British

Columbia land reserve.

First of all, I would like to read

the mission statement of the Agricultural Land Commission from the

annual report we received not so long ago. It has three basic points:

"...to preserve for British Columbia the lands which are useful to its

agriculture industry, to assist with the development of agricultural

land use planning; and to encourage farming through proper land use

management, and to provide associated advisory services to British

Columbia's government, the public and the farming community."

The main point is that oftentimes commissions — particularly those of a long-term nature — become

a growing bureaucracy. The bureaucracy often tends to get tunnel

vision. And yes, from the city dweller's point of view, the land

reserve is an excellent idea. It provides for an assured and guaranteed

food supply; or perhaps it provides the city dweller with an enjoyable

Sunday afternoon drive through the countryside. The real question I

have, though, is this: is the Land Commission really fulfilling its

role, or is it there to satisfy the planners — and those who enjoy the produce at competitive prices —

and to further the bureaucracy of the commission? What is the function

and for whom is the function provided? Where is the farmer in all of

this? Is the farmer really considered in the framework of the

operations of the commission?

With its land base of about 11 million acres, the land reserve was instituted

some 18 years ago. Production has increased dramatically from that 11 million

acres, but that doesn't seem to be taken into account by the Land Commission

as such.

Does

the commission really provide a service when a fast-growing town in an

agricultural area has to wait eight months for an answer to an

application to expand the townsite and provide additional housing,

schools, and everything that belongs to a growing community?

The

farmer is quite comfortable, you might say, with the Land Commission

and the land reserve in many respects, but the farmer is equally

dependent on economic growth. Economic growth for the farming community

lies basically in the expansion of markets. The farmer is responding to

three types of markets, but the best market is the home-based

market — the British Columbia market. Further to that, we have the Canadian market and the foreign markets.

Government

has often been criticized, and particularly over the establishment of

the Environment and Land Use Committee, for having taken land out of

the reserve for townsite expansion. But surely to goodness, if we don't

allow towns to expand, who are we kidding, and who are we serving? All

we're really doing, if towns are not allowed to expand, is driving up

the land prices within those townsites so that it becomes impossible

for those who need a house and cannot afford it because of the high lot

prices. Secondly, we're not providing a service, in my opinion at

least, to the agricultural community, which is looking for growth in

produce and in markets.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the

farmers of British Columbia have proven many times over that they can

in fact provide a good product. The processing companies have proven

that out of that product, they can make some very.... In fact,

first-class prizes have often been achieved by the various processors

for products which have been grown in British Columbia.

my opinion, the way to have a good, functioning Land Commission is not

the present procedures they are following. We must allow towns to

expand, whether they are in an agricultural community or not. We have

to have a growing market, and we should allow for economic growth

wherever that may be in this province. I believe that applications for

expansion for towns or, for that matter, for exclusion from the ALR

should have more input by and recognition of local government in the

process of approval or disapproval.

MR. ROSE : I am

very interested, as I always am, in the comments of the hon. member

from the Fraser Valley as he plunges forward into the nineteenth

century. He asks for towns to have more influence on decisions of the

Agricultural Land Commission. The very reason we have an Agricultural

Land Commission is that the towns couldn't resist the blandishments of

developers.

Before 1972, we unfortunately had a whole

series of rare birds on councils called the round-heel pushovers, and

these round-heel pushovers would wilt any time a developer came around

in an attempt to

[ Page 10938 ]

expand

the town. 'We gotta get development, you know. We gotta go places with

this town. We gotta put this town on the map." The reason we have a

Land Commission is that only 4 percent of our province is really

agricultural land. It's vanishing at an alarming rate: we've lost

60,000 acres since we've had appeals to ELUC from communities. The

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) well knows what has happened

to the Land Commission over the years.

I know the situation

in the hon. member's case is quite different. He belongs to what

amounts to a farmers' union. He amounts to a marketing board. He has a

monopoly on production and sales and marketing— and he's doing fine,

thank you very much. As a matter of fact, his own commission He was

appointed by the Premier, who wanted to get rid of marketing boards

because he thought that they were not free-enterprising enough. He

wanted to get out of the national marketing plan so Quebec and Ontario

and all the other places that overproduce can dump all kinds of

products in here. But his own commission....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I think the response from the opposition should bear a

little more along the lines of the statement made by the member, rather

than digressing into what I find very interesting but terribly out of

order; that is, to discuss milk marketing. I think the member's

statement was about the Agricultural Land Commission and its function,

and not necessarily about the marketing of various agricultural

products.

MR. ROSE : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really

value that advice, and your very refined intervention here. Some

people, of course, have sequential thought processes; others, like me,

tend to be more scat-illogical....

AN HON. MEMBER : At random.

MR. ROSE : Or at random.

The

point I was trying to make is one that the member tried to make: if you

have established markets you can have a viable agricultural industry. I

was trying to explain why he was in that very favourable position of

having his own market guaranteed by the public. And he likes that

position.

far as the expansion is concerned, what we've

done now is make the Land Commission far too political, and the appeals

are far too political. We would like to see the Land Commission have

the independence it had in the beginning. If appeals are needed —

and, sure, there are examples where you have to have exclusions; nobody

doubts that one iota —

we shouldn't have it go through a political process in private, in

camera at the ELUC. That's the position that I would take for my party.

[10:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I wish to respond to the points made by the hon. member

from the Central Fraser Valley. The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission

and the commissioners is obviously based on the act; they have to live within

the constraints of the

definitions and of the regulations within the act. It

states very clearly that their mandate is to make decisions relative to soil

capabilities, etc.

Let

me assure the hon. member that they do work very closely with most of

the municipalities and regional districts throughout this province.

They do a good job of discussing community plans. They come forward

with the different communities, whether it's for agricultural land or

even for planning purposes, to look where future growth might take

place. The Land Commission has made itself available to meet with

municipalities. It doesn't matter where; they have travelled throughout

the province on occasion.

MR. DE JONG : I am pleased

to respond to some of the comments that have been made. First of all,

to the opposition House Leader, I would like to say that if I, as a

member of this House duly elected to represent my community, am not

allowed to speak on a subject matter that my family is involved

with — namely, dairy farming — then I think this House is in a pretty pathetic state.

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG : That's what you alluded to, hon. member.

the past week we've heard over national television the passionate plea

from our Prime Minister to return to reducing the world subsidies to

agriculture. Was it really a plea to reduce the world subsidies — to agriculture in particular —

or was it a justification for the cancellation of some of the essential

programs that were initially provided by our federal government to

agriculture so that it could be sustained and improved, such as all the

loans at low cost to provide those essential needs to agricultural land?

Another

one is the antiquated Farm Credit Corporation, where at the present

time a farmer has to pay higher interest rates than anywhere else.

what about a farmer within the agricultural land reserve: is he really

looked after? What about the efforts of the conference of first

ministers of the four western provinces, which is going to be held in

the next little while? I would hope that the first priority would not

be fed-bashing or to get a better level of service from the federal

government — although it's important — but to level the

playing-field within our four western provinces on agriculture policies.

Equally

important is a level playing-field in assistance programs to

agriculture-related industries, because this is one of the real

problems. The problem is that small agriculture-related industries are

going to be wiped out if the present trend continues by the big

multinationals, which seem to have a better way of getting started in

this country.

Who is eventually going to pay the price for this? The consumer, Mr. Speaker. And where is the farmer

[ Page

10939 ]

going be? He's going to be sitting on his land preserved by the general

public and the governments collectively.

But

it's not too late. As government, I believe we have faith in our land

and in our farmers. I believe that with a collective effort with the

financial institutions

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you very much, hon. member.

MR. ROSE : On a point of order, I don't believe — and neither does my party —

that farmers should be frozen into poverty. That's not the position

we're taking. But if I've personally offended the hon. member, because

I know he is sincere....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I must listen to one point of order at a time. I am

going to listen to the opposition House Leader, and then I'll listen to

the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

MR. ROSE :

I rose to my feet to say that if I've offended the hon. member in some

way by referring to his family business, I apologize for it.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my point of order was that the hon. House Leader for the

opposition is entering into more debate, which was really not a point

of order.

MR. SPEAKER : I believe the matter has been settled.

PREVENTING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, this morning the public, especially the environmental

community, had every reason for great expectations, given the long list

of dates promised on which the list of polluters in this province would

be released. These great expectations can only be met with a great

feeling of being underwhelmed by this non-event. This was a news

conference where the Minister of Environment (Hon Mr. Reynolds) did

nothing more than manipulate for public relations purposes. There is no

information there that can be useful to the environmental community, to

those who so need it: people like Prof. Murray Rankin and the people

from West Coast Environmental Law.

What the minister has released this morning is a controlled list —

and an incomplete one. It's willy-nilly. There's no rhyme or reason to

what is contained in that list. The minister decides at the political

level what is going to be released to the public. The public has

managed information coming out, and that is inappropriate.

There's a remedy for this, Mr. Speaker, and that is to have freedom-of-information

legislation in this province. It's a remedy which this province steadfastly

refuses, because they do not want to endure the embarrassment of having that

information get out. And when the minister says in response to questions from

reporters that he cannot release the complete list because some cases are before

the courts or under investigation, his reasons are hollow. With freedom of information,

there would be an independent adjudicator who would decide what information

could go out; and we would have the benefit of an arms-length process in which

the information that the public so needs would be made available in an appropriate

way. Then we would not necessarily be receiving a hodgepodge list that's

not in any order and that people find more confusing than helpful. There's

no indication of who will be charged and who will receive administrative penalties,

and it does not say by how much the polluters exceed their permits.

Also,

there's no new classification system — a system promised by Deputy

Minister Richard Dalon in Glen Bohn's May 14 article. Yet when we find

out that some of the polluters on the list are actually in compliance

with their permits, such as the Port Alberni mill, we have to wonder

what on earth is wrong with the system, when it is decided who is in

compliance and who isn't. The system and the standards are so out of

date that they have become meaningless. For instance, it states that

the MacMillan Bloedel mill at Port Alberni meets the current waste

management permit; however, there is an indication that lower discharge

limits are required to protect the inlet. It's a tacit admission, Mr.

Speaker, that the permit standards are inadequate, and that the

permitting process itself is therefore called into question by this

government's own admission, by having released the names of permits in

compliance, yet where the government recognizes that there are serious

environmental problems.

There is nothing in this

announcement dealing with the fact that there are only 130 conservation

officers to deal with all the wildlife and pollution concerns

throughout this vast province. That is simply inappropriate, Mr.

Speaker.

There are still no regulations covering spill

reporting, which are necessary to make the legislation effective. It's

not good enough to simply say in some permits that spills must be

reported; it must either be legislated or be in the regulations. Those

regulations are still not present, and therefore spills still happen

without any teeth in the laws to require reporting. Therefore that part

of the law is impotent.

We still have the problem of

self-monitoring, where the government leaves so much of the monitoring

to the polluters that we do not get the information with the test of

independence that is so necessary.

The fact is that this

minister has come into this ministry in the desperate hope of this

government that he will bring forward a new approach to protecting the

environment. But it's business as usual; nothing has really changed.

This

minister has perhaps learned that his invitation to the media to come

and eat crab in Howe Sound was a bit overstated. But the fact is that

he hasn't changed. There are a few more charges that

[ Page 10940 ]

have

been laid, and a few more fines have been levied, but 60 percent of

almost nothing is still almost nothing. It's not enough to result in

any type of deterrent, and it's the same old public relations game.

This

minister hasn't changed; this government hasn't changed. It's the same

old approach, and that approach is to protect the polluter and fail to

protect the environment. It's the approach of advocating for the

polluter instead of advocating for the environment.

We have

put forward methods and measures that can be taken which will begin to

deal with this serious problem. We know that when we look at some of

the things that have happened in this province — for instance, on December 1, 1988....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please, hon. members. Standing order 25A(5) deals with private

members' statements: "Private members' statements shall not be subject

to amendment, adjournment or vote." Then it says the following:

"Statements and discussions under this standing order shall be confined

to one matter — which your statement clearly has not been —

"shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in

the same session — which, again, your statement clearly has

already violated, because this matter has been discussed — and

"shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for

consideration by the House. .." In that case, your statement doesn't

matter.

The difficulty with private members' statements is

that the Chair has only the title of the statement to know what's being

discussed; but clearly your statement today is a condensed version of

the minister's estimates. Since the estimates of the Minister of

Environment have already been canvassed, I must say that I find your

statement out of order. Having said that, I'll ask the Minister of

Environment to try to respond, bearing in mind the standing orders

which this House has adopted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I

did have a prepared text from my staff, but I think I'll just put it

aside and talk about some of the issues the member talked about. He

talks about manipulating. I can't help but think that a party over

there which would release private telephone conversations to the public

and wants to talk about manipulating Over there is the party which

wants to have everybody's private phone listened to by the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and to release the tapes to the

public. There's no more privacy in this country. That's the party. Oh,

they're getting excited now.

MR. SPEAKER : As expected, I have a point of order.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, it clearly is a violation of the standing order, and even

more in violation than the one on which you made the previous ruling.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER :

Yes, I had anticipated that. Perhaps we could actually ask the members

to confine their remarks to those issues which we are currently charged

with discussing under the private member's statement. "Preventing

Environmental Damage" was the title of the statement. The statement

appeared to me to be a Reader's Digest condensation of the minister's

estimates. I'll ask the minister to respond in a reasonably concise

manner and not discuss the business of other estimates.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I was just leading up to a point. I certainly wouldn't

want to violate the member's topic, which is "Preventing Environmental

Damage." I can't help but think when I look at the party across the

hall and they talk about preventing environmental damage I'm reading

from one of their releases put out by the leader of the official

opposition on parliamentary stationery. It's regarding the environment,

and it's headlined: "Our Environment, Our Health and Our Children's

Future." It says: "Environment minister" — blank, blank —

"says that it's okay to eat crab from Howe Sound, an area now closed to

fishing because of toxic pulp mill pollution. What does it take to get

the Socred government to even admit they've got a serious pollution

problem?"

That Leader of the Opposition, who talks about

integrity in government and the integrity of his party, knows that

statement is not true. It's a false statement. Howe Sound is not closed

to fishing; it's closed to commercial crabbing. It's open to private

crabbing and commercial prawning. Yet that statement on government

stationery, possibly paid for at government expense — which I don't

mind; every party has a right to do that — sends out false information

for political reasons.

That member over there wants to talk

about manipulating. He talked about a controlled list. I can tell him

the list is not controlled and not political. It's done by my staff, a

staff of whom he publicly says, "Oh, they do a great job, " but

sideways he wants to knock them. I congratulated my staff this morning.

That is a complete list; there's nothing hidden.

says there's no indication of who will be charged. I told the press, I

told him — and I've told him many times before — that

this department and the Attorney-General's department do not work at

odds with each other. They do the job of charging and taking it through

the court system. That will be their job. Those lists are published

every day. When somebody is charged, a release goes out. When somebody

is convicted, a release goes out. It's not secret information. It's

available to the public and to that member every day.

talked about details on the list. As I explained to the press, if we

were to give them the full details on every charge, we'd have a stack

this high. We listed the polluters. I told the media and this member

that anytime they want to talk to my staff and get the details, they

are quite free to do so.

Mr. Speaker, talk about Howe Sound. Let me tell the member over there, as he knows, that because of

[ Page

10941 ]

the tough position we've taken, Howe Sound Pulp and

Paper is spending $1 billion, and $100 million out of that is on

pollution. They've just completed some tests on crabs. When the levels

were closed in those areas, they were 141.2 parts per trillion in the

muscle samples of crab; the latest tests are showing 4.4 parts per

trillion. That's a great reduction, because there are no more dioxins

going in that water. The tests also show that in the pancreas of the

crabs, where the levels were 1,442 parts per trillion, the levels are

now 123 parts per trillion. That's because of the tough action taken by

this government and the good cooperation by the corporations in this

province that are working to solve the pollution problems.

It's

unfortunate when I have to sit here and listen to that member on the

other side get up and espouse his party's position on the environment.

It's the same old story.

MR. CASHORE : The minister

chose to go off on a tangent instead of responding to the points that

were being made, and that's most unfortunate. If the minister was

responding to the issue, he would be going about it in a much different

way. He knows that he's going to have the point raised that it is not a

completely open and objective process. He knows that if there was an

independent adjudicator who was deciding on what information went out

and in what form, he would then not be in the bind that he's in. He

doth protest too much, Mr. Speaker.

He failed to comment on

the fact that there are only 130 conservation officers in the entire

province He didn't even mention that.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. member, I must interrupt you again. I chastised you at the end of

your first opening statement for being out of order, and that part of

your statement is out of order. You must confine yourself to one

matter. These other matters have already been canvassed during the

discussion of the estimates of the minister. So on that basis I would

ask you to confine your statement.

MR. CASHORE : In

response to some of the points that the minister was making with regard

to Howe Sound, just to set the record straight, it was on December 1,

1988 that portions of Howe Sound, Morse Basin and Prince Rupert were

closed to shellfishing — and that is fishing — after federal dioxin

testing. On December 6, 1989, the federal government released

preliminary testing of B.C. salmon, pointing out that juvenile salmon

near Quesnel showed high levels of toxins and that a number of other

salmon showed significant levels. So on June 15, 1989, the December

federal shellfish closures were extended to include crab, shrimp and

prawn in nearly all of Howe Sound and shellfish in Porpoise Harbour and

the coast island area surrounding Prince Rupert. The minister does say

that Howe Sound is being cleaned up. But how long does it take to clean

up the legacy of pollution that exists in all these areas?

On November 23, 1989, after more extensive testing, the federal

government closed large areas throughout the province to commercial

shellfish harvesting — prawns, shrimp, clams, crabs and

oysters — and issued health advisory warnings to recreational and

native fisherman. The areas that were affected were Kitimat estuary;

the Crofton pulp mill area; the Elk Falls-Campbell River area; the Gold

River mill area; the Powell River mill area; the Harmac mill area,

which is Nanaimo Harbour and south for several kilometres; Cowichan

Bay, even though there's no pulp mill nearby; and Prince Rupert.

Further closures include all of Morse and Wainwright basins and

extensive additional areas closed to shrimp fishing.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND

THE NATIONAL DEFICIT

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my subject today is about the economy and the future

prospects for the economy of British Columbia. Who would have thought

just three or four years ago that the gross domestic product for

British Columbia would have been up from $62.3 billion in '87 to $74.9

billion in '89? Who would have thought that the provincewide

unemployment rate under this government could have dropped to a 7.3

percent actual rate as of June 1990 and that the unemployment rate

figure for Vancouver metro for the month of May 1990 was 6 percent,

compared to an overall rate of just over 10 percent in Vancouver for

1986, when this government first took office? Who would have thought

that within the short period of this government's administration, the

total value of building permits for the city of Vancouver could have

grown from $468.8 million in '86 to the first billion-dollar year in

1989, with expectations that 1990 will also see that kind of

expenditure?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I love

to talk about Expo 86, that great tourism year for British Columbia.

That year was planned and accomplished by this Social Credit

administration — I might say, against the wishes of the then

Vancouver mayor. That year brought 18.9 million people into British

Columbia. The official tourism figures for 1988 exceeded that, and so

will the figures for 1989. That's a very good record by anybody's

standard. In fact, we have broken records in British Columbia in every

economic indicator one can mention.

However, there are some

recent suggestions that all is not well on the economic front in

Canada. We read of decreases of Canadian housing starts, which in turn

have had a disastrous effect on furniture sales, retail sales and

manufacturing. We've experienced a decrease in housing sales in British

Columbia, and we all look at the rising interest rates with a cautious

eye. This is happening at a time when a successful program of

diversification, concentration on Pacific Rim trade, recognition of

free trade and the opportunity that presents position British Columbia

in an enviable position in world trade, with probably

[ Page 10942 ]

more ability to provide jobs in a changing workplace than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

One

only has to look at the impact of the federal government's fiscal

policies to know that British Columbia — indeed, no province in

Canada —

is not master in its own house. Our nation's fiscal picture is dismally

poor; and what is worse, there appears to be no strategy or commitment

to save generations of Canadians from crushing indebtedness, inflation

and devalued currency. This massive debt saps our ability to sustain

the social programs which are a part of our lifestyle in British

Columbia and across this nation, and which Canadians are not only proud

of but that we have come to expect in this province and in this nation:

security for old age, health and assistance to those in need.

Ask

yourself how secure the seniors' security program is in the next five

years, given that our national debt is approximately $360 billion, with

costs in interest rates in this year alone well over $40 billion. Ask

yourself how secure our health services will be in the next five years

as more and more of the national income will be needed to pay for 'this

runaway debt, which will very likely double before the year 2000. What

a legacy for the next century!

For almost 40 years British

Columbia has always been able to deliver a standard of living to our

citizens that has been the envy of our nation and of many other

countries. That standard and that sense of security is now being

threatened by the monetary policies of the federal administration. It

is surely time for those of us in this Legislature to protest on behalf

of the future of those needed programs and of the very economic future

of our province.

I'm going to suggest that every provincial

legislature across this nation has to offer solutions. British Columbia

should be in the forefront of that initiative, for the sake of our

children and our grandchildren. British Columbia must demand a plan of

action from Ottawa. We need to declare war on the national debt. We in

British Columbia should offer, along with every provincial government,

a list of items that have been promised by the federal government....

Some were asked for by provincial administrations, and each

jurisdiction must now realize that we simply cannot afford them.

Capital

projects should be re-examined and even put on hold for five years, and

evaluated at the end of that time in relation to the debt position of

the country at that time. The provinces of Canada all have a stake in

the nation's economic health and should cooperate by offering savings

on promised capital projects and some services as well. The federal

government should cut its expenses and be an example to all public

bodies in the nation. We can take absolutely no comfort at all from the

comments made by our federal administration that they have cut the fat

out of the system, because many examples prove the opposite.

The people of Canada should be spared further inflationary policies that could

be halted, specifically the goods and services tax, which economists say will

increase inflation by nearly 3 percent in the first year of implementation.

All British Columbians have a stake in the future of our nation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired.

[10:45]

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should begin with British Columbia, as the member

for Vancouver-Little Mountain did. Yes, there has been a recovery In

British Columbia in the last few years. Unfortunately, what has

happened is that we are seeing very serious structural problems in the

B.C. economy which must be dealt with now. We had a recession in the

early eighties, made worse by the Bill Bennett administration, of which

that member was a minister; it drove the economy down even further. The

recovery has been uneven across British Columbia.

Yes,

Vancouver has a 6 percent unemployment rate, but the unemployment rate

in Nelson, Kamloops and Penticton is almost double that.

Single-industry towns in this province that are dependent on resources

have double the unemployment rate of Vancouver. If and when we move

into a recession again, those towns will be devastated by unemployment.

Right

now is the time to embark upon an aggressive program for

diversification to deal with the structural problems in the B.C.

economy. It's not good enough that just Vancouver and the lower

mainland are getting exactly the kind of dramatic growth we've seen. We

must now put our minds to building the rest of British Columbia, to

expanding trade with the Asia-Pacific, to looking for opportunities

around the world for diversification inside British Columbia, for

import substitution, for building the regional economies which have

been neglected by this administration.

I agree with the

member that we have a very serious problem at the national level and we

have a serious debt problem at the national level, and that's why, on

this side of the House, none of us went out and worked for this

Conservative administration. But where were all the Social Credit

members? How much money did you give, hon. member, to the Tory party?

How much money did those members give over there? Did they go out and

canvass for them? Did they endorse Conservative candidates? Yes, they

did, because they're kissing cousins with the Tories. They're one and

the same. They have the same ideology; they have the same beliefs; they

have the same party membership; they're the same people.

The

Tories have driven this country right into the ground in terms of the

debt. What has happened to the debt in six or seven years of

Conservative Party administration? Under the Tories, the national debt

has doubled — and we all know the Liberals were incompetent. Now they

want to bring in a GST to make the average people pay for their

mismanagement. That's what has happened.

They have cut

taxes to corporations, just like this administration, and raised them

on working people, just like this administration — exactly the same

ideology, exactly the same agenda provincially and nation-

[ Page

10943 ]

ally. The debt in British Columbia is still too high — $16 billion in total. The national debt is still too high.

Aside

from cutting taxes on corporations, the principal cause of the deficit

problem and debt problem at the national level is interest rates. And

where has this government been? Oh, yes, once in a while they stand up

and say interest rates are too high.

We know they supported

the free trade agreement. We know that the federal government is

concerned about the Canadian dollar, that there's some kind of

arrangement that worries about the Canadian dollar; that's partly why

interest rates are kept high. We know that interest rates are kept

artificially high. The spread between Canada and the United States has

never been as high as it is today under the Conservative administration.

need leadership, yes, and we need leadership from provincial

governments across Canada. I hope that the members opposite will join

with the Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the House

to condemn the Tories, to condemn high interest rates and to condemn

the national debt.

Bringing down interest rates would help

the B.C. economy. Let the Canadian dollar drop. In British Columbia,

help the forest industry. Help our international trade. We're not

afraid of the Canadian dollar dropping five or six cents. Let's bring

down interest rates and bring down the dollar. Let's get those regions

of British Columbia up off their feet. Let's reduce unemployment, and

let's deal with the debt. If we had leadership in the provincial

government, we could help accomplish that.

MRS. McCARTHY :

It's interesting that the critic for the New Democratic Party, the

opposition in this House, should be talking about the financing of the

national debt of this country in responding to my comments on the

national debt.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat

said in 1989 in regard to NDP policy: "It's not a priority at this

point. I think the priority is a balanced budget and money being spent

creatively and targeted to specific programs and not to pay off the

debt." That's the NDP policy — charge today, live beyond your

means, continue to live beyond your means, and leave that for your

children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Yet

another spokesman for the NDP, a very well known spokesman, is David

Schreck, who would dearly love to be Minister of Health in an NDP

socialist government. Mr. David Schreck said in June 1989:

"The

public debt is no monster. The monster the Conservatives have created

is made up of myths. Public debt is a loan within the family, like

advancing your children's allowance. Clearly there have to be some

limits to debt, but the available data shows that Canada's debt is not

out of line by historical standards. In 1989 the indicator of debt is

no reason to be alarmed."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that those two socialist spokesmen wouldn't

get alarmed if we were to put our great-great-great-great-great-grand children

into debt. It's time that we stopped listening to those kinds of platitudes.

We've got to get our house in order.

Mr.

Speaker, it's estimated that by 1992 every family of four in Canada

will owe $100,000 in national debt. The figure right now is $87,000 for

every four Canadians; a family of four today, $87,000, and two years

from now, $100,000. The people of Canada have to get their house in

order. Again I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I will not give platitudes; I

will give solutions. I believe that we could ask the people of Canada

to pay 2 percent on their annual income tax as a debt-reduction levy

and to eliminate the GST. I believe that we could handle....

The

GST is to be 7 percent at the beginning, and it makes no commitment at

all to reduce the national debt. It's a national crisis and a national

shame, and it is time we took care of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, the member's time has expired.

TOBACCO ABUSE: TIME FOR ACTION

MR. PERRY :

One year ago in this House, Mr. Speaker, I presented an eight-point

plan to reduce tobacco consumption in British Columbia. I did this

because the enormous toll in terms of death, disease and disability

from tobacco use requires a pressing, effective and comprehensive

response.

In the last year 3, 500 people died in British

Columbia because of smoking. We spent $710 million as the cost of that

epidemic and $290 million on health care costs alone.

the last year thousands of young British Columbians began smoking and

became addicted to a carcinogenic product. Lung cancer rates among

women continue to skyrocket out of control. We continue to fill our

cancer wards and cardiac units with the victims of the tobacco

industry. Meanwhile the multinational tobacco companies — all

three in Canada are based in the east — made record profits on

gross sales exceeding $4 billion. These are the same companies which

still deny — believe it or not, Mr. Speaker —

that anyone has ever died or succumbed to any disease because of

tobacco use. What have the Minister of Health and his government done

to address the leading public health problem faced in this province?

Finally

in January 1990, a British Columbia tobacco reduction strategy was

produced. This is an encouraging document, which is as interesting as

it is concise. In reviewing the strategies, I see some of the proposals

I raised last year and for which so many in the health community have

worked for so long. But I also see the excessively modest — shall I say timid or mouse-like —

proposal to reduce from 22 percent presently to 20 percent the number

of smokers in this province over the next ten years. I've seen much

timidity in this Legislature and in this government, but nothing as

timid as that.

The minister has not introduced any legislation. He does not, to my knowledge, have even one person

[ Page 10944 ]

his entire department who works full time on tobacco issues. That is a

disgrace. Education efforts by schools, by charitable voluntary

organizations or even by governments are not enough. Public health

epidemics require serious responses. We need to get the tobacco

industry — the pushers — under control. The government does

not seem to feel the urgency which I share with those who succour the

victims of the tobacco pushers.

This government had an

opportunity to protect workers and the public from the deleterious

effects of second-hand smoke. What has it done? Many provincial and

territorial governments have already eliminated workplace smoking in

the public sector; B.C. will follow suit this October. In Ontario,

following the lead of numerous U.S. states, a provincewide law was

passed last summer restricting smoking in the private sector. Manitoba

and Quebec now have statutes restricting smoking in public places. Some

B.C. municipalities have taken action, and recently Vancouver tightened

the provisions of its bylaw. The Victoria Capital Regional District

proposes similarly stringent protection for the public.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Surrey did it several years ago.

MR. PERRY : Surrey did it several years ago, I'm told.

The

federal Non-smokers' Health Act, which came into force January 1,

practically guarantees a smoke-free workplace to employees who work in

federally regulated sectors such as banking, communications and

broadcasting. The B.C. government has allowed the workplace health and

safety of British Columbians to be contingent on who their employer

happens to be, or where they happen to live.

The government

had an opportunity to pass laws to curb access to tobacco by young

people, but it took no action. Today we still see, every day, teenagers

and pre-teens smoking despite the fact that it is illegal to supply

cigarettes to them.

the past year the Manitoba

Legislature passed a new law. The Ontario Legislature increased the

fines under its provincial law to $25, 000. The federal minister —

even Mr. Perrin Beatty — announced that he wants to see new

legislation on this issue.

Even

the Republican administration of George Bush is making proposals. Its

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan, recently

appeared before a congressional committee and called for new laws to

curb the sale of tobacco to minors, including a ban on

cigarette-vending machines and the implementation of a strict licensing

system similar to that required for alcohol.

Our provincial strategy proposes to strengthen the Tobacco Product Act. But

where is the action, Mr. Speaker? The government had the opportunity to raise

tobacco taxes in its last budget, but it did not do so. Six other provinces

raised their taxation rate in 1990 budgets, but the Minister of Health in B.C.

either failed to influence the Minister of Finance — as he so often does — or

did not think of the idea.

of next January 1, B.C. will have the second lowest rate of tobacco

taxation among Canadian provinces, and as a consequence, cigarettes in

B.C. will be more affordable for children than almost anywhere else in

the country. I see the Minister of Health applauding the idea that they

will be more affordable for children.

The government also

had ample opportunities to take action under the existing Tobacco

Product Act, but it has not done so. With the stroke of a pen the

minister could have taken measures to curb tobacco industry marketing

to children. He could have restricted the location of vending machines.

He could have controlled the location of tobacco so it would not be

sold near schools. He could have prohibited the infamous "kiddie

packs": packages of only 15 cigarettes that appeal to low-income

individuals such as teenagers. He could have required cigarette

packages to appear in generic form to eliminate the sophisticated

techniques used to make cigarettes appear attractive and desirable. He

could have eliminated from the market the "slim" cigarettes, which prey

on the preoccupations and aspirations of young girls.

[11:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

government could have implemented an effective system of provincial

warnings on tobacco products. What did the government do instead?

Unbelievably, it weakened existing B.C. regulations under the Tobacco

Product Act. No longer will there be a separate B.C. health warning on

cigarettes in addition to the federal warning.

The repeal

of the requirement under B.C. law was done by the cabinet last October

on the recommendation of the Minister of Health. How could this have

happened? This move was certainly not being called for by health and

medical organizations. Did the then-minister submit to tobacco industry

lobbying? Did former Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett, now a director

of Imasco Ltd., Canada's largest tobacco conglomerate, exert influence

on...?

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

HON. J. JANSEN :

It's unfortunate that the hon. member didn't know his subject well

enough and he had to prepare a written speech and read it to the House

today. Given the importance of the subject, I would have expected that

he would be well enough informed that he wouldn't need a document to

read from today.

In any event, I want to say, Mr. Speaker,

that we on this side of the House and I as Minister of Health are very

concerned about the issue of tobacco use in the province of British

Columbia, because, as is indicated, tobacco is a leading cause of

preventable disease, disability and death. Last year, indeed, we saw

3,500 deaths attributed to cancer because of tobacco use. Tobacco use

has been declining, but

[ Page

10945 ]

there are target groups that are of concern to us, and I will be talking about those.

The

Ministry of Health has a three-component type of approach or strategy:

protecting non-smokers from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke;

trying to increase the number of individuals stopping smoking; and

helping non-smokers, particularly youth, to stay smoke-free. There are

three levels of approach to this.

The first is that it's

very important for us to focus on the individuals, the people who

smoke. Obviously they have to take the initiative to stop smoking; it

is their decision. The bottom line is whether or not they are prepared

to prevent further abuse of their health.

Secondly, we believe strongly — and this is contrary to the NDP philosophy and ideology —

that communities at the grass roots are the most effective way of

dealing with a lot of problems. Yes, in the province so far we have 43

communities and one regional district taking the initiative themselves,

in terms of dealing with a smoke-free environment. It is the grass

roots, Mr. Speaker. I don't know whether the members opposite have

concerns about the grass roots making decisions about their own

affairs, but it is ultimately the grass roots who know what is best for

their communities in terms of how effective those by-laws will be and

how applicable they will be.

Contrary to the comments of

the critic, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, we have taken a

very active approach in terms of dealing with the broader

responsibility that the province has. First of all, my colleague the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) recently

announced that our Ferry Corporation will be seeing a smoke free

environment. Other Crown corporations, I'm sure, will follow.

MR. G. JANSSEN : What about hospitals?

HON. J. JANSEN : The member for Alberni asks about hospitals. Let me talk about hospitals in a moment.

But

first our office buildings. The Health building, for example, has been

smoke-free now for two years; and before that, ten years ago, in our

building in the Ministry of Health we had restricted areas for smoking.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN :

The member for Vancouver-Point Grey says: "What about the rest of your

buildings?" Well, welcome to our smoke-free workplace, right here and

in the entire province. All of the provincial buildings will be

smoke-free on October 1 this year.

He says we do nothing. There's an

article that we just produced, "B.C. Girls: A Smoking Time Bomb" — a

tremendous article. Our polls tell us that 75 percent of those who

picked up this magazine read that article. Is that an impact? It has a

tremendous impact.

What about the hospitals? Vancouver General Hospital. I had an opportunity

to walk through the hospital, and as I was walking through the back door there

was a little shelter there. I said: "What's this?" They said:

"Our hospital is smoke-free, and this is the only place they can smoke."

It's outside in the parking lot, a little shelter that was constructed from

2-by-4s and a little plastic to keep the rain off. That's what we're

doing in our hospitals.

But

we understand, Mr. Speaker, that individual communities and boards are

autonomous. The Royal Inland Hospital is smoke-free. There are many

hospitals that are smoke-free. Again, we are different from that side

of the House. We believe in local autonomy. We don't believe in this

Big Brother, big-stick approach, where we impose our philosophy on

everyone. We think that individual boards, individual communities, have

some say, unlike that member for Vancouver....

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. PERRY : My question is: what about the pushers? Are they free to...?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. This isn't question period.

MR. PERRY :

In order to protect the health of our children and our citizens. I have

proposed in this House measures recommended by the World Health

Organization and by health organizations in Canada. I have specifically

proposed government action that would mandate effective provincial

warnings, generic packaging, restrictions on cigarette vending

machines, warnings placed at point of purchase, and licences for the

sale of tobacco, a carcinogenic product. I have suggested it be made

illegal to sell tobacco to someone under age 19. Moreover, I have

proposed that smoking in the workplace and in public places be

restricted to separately enclosed and ventilated rooms not normally

occupied by non-smokers.

I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, my

gratitude to you for the measures you've taken in this assembly, but

that what I propose extends to all British Columbians, not just those

of us privileged to serve in the Legislature.

The New

Democrats care about public health. If the minister and his government

shared our sense of urgency, they would have taken prompt action. But

instead they have left tobacco companies virtually free rein to

manipulate B.C. youth into a lifelong addiction.

emphasize the blatantly unethical marketing practices of the tobacco

companies, let me quote from a few formerly secret documents uncovered

recently in a Montreal court case: "Young smokers represent the major

opportunity group for the cigarette industry." That was from Imperial

Tobacco's 1971 Matinee marketing plans. I quote again: "If the last ten

years have taught us anything, it's that the industry is dominated by

the companies who respond most effectively to the needs of younger

smokers. Our efforts on these brands will remain on maintaining their

relevance to smokers in these younger groups This is from the Imperial

Tobacco docu-

[ Page 10946 ]

ment marked "Personal and Confidential" on every page and entitled "Overall Market Conditions, Fiscal 1988."

This

is the really sinister part: "The desire to quit seems to come earlier

now than before, even prior to the end of high school. In fact, it

often seems to take hold as soon as the recent starter admits to

himself that he is hooked on smoking. However, the desire to quit and

actually carrying it out are two different things, as the would-be

quitter soon learns." That was from a report prepared for Imperial

Tobacco by its marketing research agency. A number of our colleagues

can attest only too well to the truth of that statement.

Finally,

I quote again from the fiscal 1988 media plans of Imperial Tobacco. The

target groups for advertising for Player's filter were listed as men,

"12 to 17, 18 to 24 and 25 to 34."

Mr. Speaker, I will not

tolerate tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to B.C. kids; nor will

I tolerate government's inactivity on the number one preventable health

issue.

MR. SPEAKER : Time has expired, hon. member.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 30: minister's office, $336,735 (continued).

MR. MILLER :

First of all, I had asked on the first day of the forestry estimates

for some clarification on what appeared to be contradictory numbers in

the amount of forest land in the province, the annual allowable cut and

the amount of operable forest land in the province. There seemed to be

some discrepancies — as much as a million hectares of land that was

lost somehow. The minister said he would get that answer to me the

following day, and I have yet to receive it. I'm just asking the

minister if he's got the information. Perhaps he could get it to me

today.

Secondly, I sought clarification on the letters of

understanding. I quoted from a letter that his deputy had circulated in

September '89. There appeared to be outstanding contradictions, and I

wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to inform me about that

apparent contradiction.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On the

first question, I have the information, and it's on its way up. I had

it yesterday. I wanted to read it into the record, which I will do. On

the second matter, I can't answer that yet, but I think we have an

answer for you.

MR. MILLER : Yesterday I started to get into the whole question of inventory.

I pointed out that there is a great lack of confidence in the inventories in

this province regarding what are the available volumes of timber that we have

remaining in British Columbia, what is the appropriate amount of cut on an annual

basis in relation to those available volumes, and where we stand in terms of

issues such as falldown and overcapacity. I pointed out that there is apparently

no correlation between the amount of available timber and our industrial capacity.

It appears that there has never been a real attempt to achieve a balance or

perspective when we relate to those two.

Continuing

on the issue of inventory, I would first of all note that in the

background papers submitted by the ministry to the Forest Resources

Commission, they talked about the forest inventory of British Columbia

based on surveys conducted during the period between '61 and '81 —

I think the minister said 1963 yesterday, but give or take a year. But

it illustrates that in many people's opinion they are quite old and

unreliable.

They talk about a statistical accuracy of plus

or minus 10 percent, and I would draw that number particularly to the

attention of the minister in relation to an issue I will bring up

subsequently — and they also say that this has not been verified through testing.

strikes me that the most appropriate analogy to this particular

statement submitted by the ministry is that it bears a very strong

resemblance to those face pages you always get on audited financial

accounts, where the auditor is always left the absolute out by saying:

"Well, I've checked these, and providing everybody has given me the

right information, this may be right." It seems to me that when you

look at the information the ministry is putting out and what they

themselves are saying about it, they're leaving themselves that out.

canvassed during previous estimates debates the issue of incremental

silviculture and whether that provided an opportunity to offset this

falldown effect, this imbalance between available supply and industrial

capacity. I should also point out that there are many opinions on this

issue, and I'm reasonably satisfied that the range of opinion is not

isolated to a particular group or to particular individuals

representing narrow interests in the area of forestry, but seems to

pervade the whole spectrum of people.

I have talked, for

example, to major corporations, and I think they're on the record in

other areas — probably before the commission. People who have been in

this industry for years and years, who profess to be quite

knowledgeable about it, are also making the same kinds of predictions.

I've

had senior people in industry in this province say that in their

opinion we're over cutting by significant amounts. I've heard senior

people talk about an annual sustainable cut that perhaps should be 60

million cubic metres, or even 50 million cubic metres. I cite this to

illustrate the uncertainty that exists in this province with respect to

that question.

In their documents the ministry also

identified certain ways that they feel could be used to offset

falldowns. They talk about reforestation of some 2.6 million hectares

of currently unstocked productive timberland, and yet we see that there

really are no plans to deal with those 2.6 million hectares. There are

some plans to deal with 500,000 hectares, and those really are

questionable in light of the inability

[ Page

10947 ]

to conclude the new agreement with the federal government.

The

ministry document talks about the use of 12 million hectares of

productive but currently inoperable lands. I think we've gone beyond

the point where perhaps 50 years ago.... I've talked to some of the

old-timers who were around then who had a fair degree of confidence

that new technology and new ways of operating would allow areas to be

opened up, and that the timber was out there but we hadn't yet

developed the technology to access it. They felt that that was coming,

and they weren't particularly concerned about the level of cut —

although that's always been an issue or a debate in this province.

think we have got to the point where that is not going to be available.

I don't think technology is going to advance in any significant way in

terms of accessing these lands that are considered inoperable, and I

think the further constraint of environmental concerns will really

support my point.

[11:15]

talked about intensive or incremental silviculture. Again I would point

out that there really is no certain plan to move into that whole area.

The minister responded to many questions I put to him on that issue,

and it seems to me, on balance, that there is a lack of data. The

minister seemed to be saying there is a lack of data. He said there's a

lack of capital and a lack of real, hard information about what the

return is on investment. I think there is no comfort for anybody in

terms of looking at intensive silviculture as a way of offsetting the

falldown.

Further

on in their brief — and I am referring to the brief made by the

Ministry of Forests before the Forest Resources Commission —

they talk about the lack of correlation between the inventory and the

annual allowable cut in each unit. Specifically they say: "The

correlation between the inventory and the allowable annual cut, and

between the inventory and the actual cut in each administrative unit,

has not been established by the ministry."

Throughout the

documents provided by the ministry, these kinds of statements are made

that really call into question the accuracy and soundness of the

information upon which this ministry is making decisions — not on

a daily basis, but almost on a daily basis — in terms of what

level of cut is sustainable.

started to deal yesterday with the issue of the mills in the Hazelton

area, and I have three particular instances I want use to illustrate my

point. Certainly the Kispiox seems to represent.... If it's not

atypical, it at least illustrates the point very well that the timber

in that area has not been managed. There has been no attempt, or if

there have been attempts they have not been stuck to in terms of

managing the timberlands, and at the same time looking at the issue of

the productive capacity — what types of plants, what kind of

employment is generated, and what the sustainability of that employment

is....

The timber in the Kispiox timber supply area has not been harvested according

to the profile; in fact, there has been high-grading. I think the minister has

to answer for what has happened. In this timber supply area, where the harvest

profile says that there is 54 percent sawlogs, it's offset by the fact that

in the actual cut they've been harvesting 77 percent sawlogs. Why was that

allowed to happen? What failure of policy in the ministry allowed that kind

of thing to develop? It seems inconceivable that it should have been allowed.

People in that area are now saying and the information available seems to bear

this out — that given the current volume of accessible sawlogs, there is about

a seven-year supply of sawlogs left in that timber supply area.

Perhaps I'll just leave those two and see what response the minister has to this, and then continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On the specific example of the Kispiox area, I will probably have to

take that as notice and come back with an answer. I don't have all

those details at my fingertips. It might not be appropriate to try to

answer such a specific question off the cuff, with a scribbled note

from the staff — although they understand what has gone on. To

answer a specific question about any specific area in the province with

percentages of sawlogs and the supply.... It wouldn't do it justice for

me to stand up here and try to give you a detailed answer. So I'll get

you that information, whether we do it during these estimates or I get

it to you when the estimates are finished. I'll table it in the House

if he likes; in fact, I'd like to do that so it's on the record for all

British Columbians to look at.

MR. MILLER : I want to

quote a ministry document put out by the regional manager in that

timber supply area, because I think it's important. I suppose I run

some small risk of contradicting myself. I hope I don't do that,

because I've talked about the accuracy of ministry information and now

I'm going to quote some. Nonetheless, I'm prepared to run that risk.

The two points in this release — I don't have the date of it — are:

"Unless existing processing plants develop products and

manufacturing processes for the complete forest profile, future annual allowable

cuts must be constrained to reflect the operational demands for sawlog-quality

fibre only. By avoiding the lower quality stands today, the forest industry

of the Kispiox timber supply area will inevitably have to supply future operations

with predominantly lower quality fibre."

That's a pretty straightforward statement put out by your ministry. It

does seem, without quoting any numbers, to back up precisely the point I made

in my earlier remarks.

question is: how did we get to this point, where the ministry, which is

responsible, has allowed this situation to develop? The people in the

region would like answers to some very simple questions. I'm sure they

must have written the minister; they've written to me, and I've talked

to them quite a bit. They want to know how much viable timber is left,

how long it will last at the present rate of cut and what we do when

it's gone.

[ Page 10948 ]

we, as the ministry suggests in another document it put out...? I'll

quote again from their brief to the commission, page 16A-2:

"The consequences of not maintaining current levels of harvest

are that the provincial economy will have to shift its dependence from the forest

products to other sectors. In addition, there would be dislocations of people

and communities, especially where there was dependence on current employment

levels from the forest products industry."

That is so descriptive of the region I'm talking about, the Hazeltons.

think the minister should try, even without giving specific, precise

answers in terms of actual numbers, to advise how they intend to deal

with the situation they have allowed to develop.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I can tell the member that in the past there was high-grading in that

area; there's no question about that. But it's not taking place at

present. In the past a lot of the low-grade logs could not be utilized,

so there was a certain amount of high-grading. There is now a chipping

plant in the area. Westar has it. I can assure the member that we are

analyzing the TSA in that area to address the very concerns that he

speaks about. So yes, there is an analysis ongoing regarding the timber

supply area.

MR. MILLER : There have been many

analyses, Mr. Chairman. This relates to the questions I asked yesterday

with regard to the Takla-Sustut supply block. The people in the

Hazelton region felt— and it appears that the ministry officials supported how they felt —

that the timber supply block should have been allocated to their region

to deal with the very serious issues of the lack of supply,

notwithstanding the fact that the major licensee in the region had made

a commitment to the ministry. They had made a commitment. The minister

said that. They have not lived up to that commitment.

When they applied for volumes — and they got a pretty good break, quite frankly, through the tough times —

they undercut considerably, and they didn't lose the volume. It was

just tacked onto their future cut. But they said that they were going

to keep those plants operating, and they haven't done it. It appears

they never intended to do that.

Given what seems to me to

be very tight constraints in terms of time, I think there needs to be

more than just another study. I recall that when the issue of the

competition for the supply block came up, the previous minister

promised the people of that region to do another analysis: "We'll do a

quick little analysis of the TSA and see if we can find more timber."

There's a kind of a sop to the people in the region. I suppose he

didn't find any more timber.

Are there active plans for processing plants that can deal with the quality

of timber — the full profile in the area — that will provide employment levels

to match the loss of employment because of this lack of policy and lack of planning

on the part of your ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I explained to the member yesterday what we were doing with the plant

at Kitwanga that he speaks of. I have sent a letter to the president

and CEO of the company. I've told the member that I will send him a

copy of that letter, and I will. He'll probably have it on his desk by

Monday.

We are doing just what the member talks of:

encouraging this plant to make use of the profile that's available in

that area and to get value-added out of it and to maintain employment

in that mill at Kitwanga.

[11:30]

MR. MILLER : How do you encourage them?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Well, perhaps the member should wait until he sees my letter, and then he will know. I guess it's called moral suasion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Something that the member from Moodyville is not familiar with. We

shouldn't get off a serious subject and make light of the member from

Moodyville.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

That's right. It's a very serious subject, and one we take very

seriously. As I said yesterday, it involves the economy of a remote

area of the province. As the member and I both said yesterday, jobs are

scarce in that area, and you can't just walk down the road or across

the street and get another job. When we make a lot of the decisions in

this ministry, Mr. Member, I'm sure you are aware that more than

technical matters are taken into account. Socio-economic factors have

to come into play. We make many decisions in this ministry based on

socio-economic reasons, where the good of an area or community is at

stake. This is a perfect example of that at Kitwanga. I sincerely hope

that you will trust me when I say that the letter is in the mail, and

you will have it on Monday.

MR. MILLER : I can't say

to the minister that I don't trust him, but there really are broader

questions that need to be answered. It goes beyond the minister saying:

"Trust me." Actions speak louder than words, and we'll see what the

letter says and what ultimately happens in that district.

You

really haven't come back in terms of that question about industrial

strategy. I would note — I would be happy if the minister would

respond — that in front of the Peel commission a specific question

put by the commissioner about why — in terms of the industrial

strategy of the province, and he's referring to another area of British

Columbia now —

a certain type of plant was going to be proceeding when there was a

surplus of residuals in the region that clearly could allow a different

type of plant to be built. He talked about whether there was an

industrial strategy. The answer came back from an

[ Page

10949 ]

official in the ministry: "We in the Forest Service

think our responsibility is to provide information on the timber. We

don't deal with industrial strategies. I think that goes to the heart

of the issue that I had raised about this correlation between the

industrial capacity over the long term and the available timber

supplies in a region.

Certainly the ministry has far more

opportunity for moral suasion to address that issue, although I can't

help referring to the former minister; it has become a habit, not only

in this House but outside it. He said a couple of things about that.

One is in regard to Hazelton. He said: "The problem with the people

there is that they won't move." This was and still is taken as an

absolute insult by the people in that area.

I think you

have to deal with that question of a balance in terms of the industrial

capacity and the harvest profile. So far it appears that any policies

of your government have been completely ineffective. You have ignored

the issue.

I wanted to use, as another illustration, to

talk about the inventory.... The Minister was absolutely correct when

he said that the inventory on a smaller basis appears to be very bad.

It's almost useless. All these questions go to the issue of public

confidence in what your ministry is doing. Does the public have

confidence? Can they believe you?

I went into Bella Coola

for the Forest Resources Commission hearings in March. I'd gone in the

night before and met with quite a variety of people to try to

understand what the issues are in that community, particularly the

forestry issues. I was really struck the following day by the testimony

of an individual who owns a lodge in Tweedsmuir Park, which is in the

back end of the valley. This is a guy who lives there; he's been there

for a long time, and he's a really good guy. The issue had come up

several years ago about logging in a particular valley that was

adjacent to the area of his lodge. At the time, he wasn't too happy

about the plans to log. As a resident of the area, he said he had to

weigh these things in his own mind: the impact on his business and the

fact that he might not have liked it. But at the time, the information

that was given to the community was that the valley would provide 25

years' worth of logging. So he said to himself: "I'm prepared to accept

the fact that it's required. For the health of the community I live in,

I'm prepared to accept this." It now turns out that there may be seven

to ten years of logging. This person feels betrayed because he made a

decision based on information that you people supplied, and it proved

to be completely inaccurate. In further testimony to that commission,

the fact was confirmed that the inventories there.... One official

described the inventories that were done in 1965 as being accurate on a

plus or minus 50 percent basis. This particular valley seems to bear

that out.

In addition to that, they've been trying to do a re-inventory, an update,

for three or four years, and they haven't been able to accomplish it. They

hired a consultant; they had to hire somebody outside the ministry to do the

work. That consultant has never been able to finish that inventory, and it's

still not finished. So when you talk about people in a region and ask them to

have some kind of confidence.... Let's go back and talk about information.

It's more than just putting out information; it's putting out accurate

information. It's giving people facts that are borne out by reality.

don't know what you say to those people now. What do you say: "Oh, we

made a mistake in the past but we won't do it in the future"? People

are pretty cynical about politicians, with some justification,

particularly when it comes to making those statements. So how do you

respond? What do you tell those people? When is the inventory going to

be completed? What kind of confidence will they have as to whether or

not it will be accurate? This is very serious. It's as serious as the

issue we talked about yesterday in terms of people being fearful of

their future. I'd like the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

There's no question that the question of inventory is very serious;

we're treating it very seriously. We have a process in place where

we're re-inventorying the forest now. It will be another three or four

years before it's completed.

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

can't comment on the specific case that the member poses, because I'm

not intimately familiar with it. Believe me, I want the member and all

members of this House to know that I would never, ever use the words

"trust me" in the broad sense. I meant it only as it referred to the

letter I sent the member: it's on its way. Other than that, the last

person I ever trust is a politician who stands up and says: "Trust me."

We had ones who did that regularly in this House; I won't mention any

names.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

He's with us on this earth, Mr. Member, but he's not with us in this

House. I think he has aspirations of being a Senator. I'm not sure

about that.

MR. ROSE : So have I.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Probably a lot of us in this place have at the moment — not to make light of the issue.

don't have the information the member has about this particular

instance. I think, too, that it's very unfortunate if someone was

misled. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

If, in fact, what you say is true — and I have no reason at this

moment to doubt you — if he was misled on faulty information, then

that's very serious. If you will give me the

[ Page 10950 ]

information on that, I would gladly look into it and see if anything can be done.

I want to go back for a minute to the area you were talking about earlier —

the Kispiox. We have recently held public meetings in the area because

of requests by a company to increase the annual allowable cut. As a

result of that request, we have had public meetings. We are taking a

pretty close look at it, because we're concerned, too, as to whether we

should increase the cut. And we're concerned about high-grading and

about companies that do not cut the profile of the forest. So in the

Kispiox area we are taking that into account.

As for the

introduction of new primary processing facilities or encouraging

certain types of industrial complexes to be built, we got into that a

bit yesterday. It's pretty tough for us to dictate to the industry what

should and should not be built. It's pretty tough for us to say: "You

should build a waferboard plant as opposed to an OSB plant"; or, "You

should build a CTMP pulp mill as opposed to either of them." I think

the marketplace would have to dictate that. I'm sure that any company

would look to the marketplace and the fibre that was available, and

weigh what to do.

For example, we had a company recently —

I won't quote the exact area, because it wouldn't be fair to them —

that was considering building a waferboard plant in a certain area

because the fibre was there. Having researched the market and done

their homework, they've come back and said: "No, we're not going to

build it; we're going to build another type of plant. We have done our

homework." So who would we be, as the government and as a ministry, to

say, "Here's what we think you should build," etc. ?

When

we're awarding licences for the small business forest enterprise

program, or 16.1 wood, we specifically discourage, as much as possible,

the building of new sawmills or a primary breakdown facility. We have

enough sawmills in the province. Of the 44 licences that we have

awarded under this program, only two have included the construction of

a sawmill component as part of a new value-added complex. I think we're

being successful there in saying there's enough sawmilling

capacity — in fact, more than enough — in this province to do

the primary breakdown, but we're not going to tell you what kind of

wooden product to build; that's up you We certainly discourage the

building of a sawmill component, but beyond that, I don't think it's

incumbent upon government to start telling industry what they should

build.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I just have two or three points I want to raise with the minister.

The first has to do with Eagle Mountain, north of the communities of Anmore,

Belcarra, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. Some people from the councils in that

area, as well as I and a number of citizens, have met with people from the Forest

Service to discuss the five-year plan. We've appreciated the opportunity

to sit down with them. As a result of concerns that are being raised, plans

to log Eagle Mountain have been deferred for five years. I'm very pleased

about that, because there are some unique recreational and other values on Eagle

Mountain. That's something I'm pleased to report.

However,

there's an issue that I wish to raise with the minister. The fact is

that because of the urban area and the concerns of the local people,

including the four councils, it will probably never be logged. When the

chief forester makes his decision with regard to the AAC, the fact that

an area is included that will probably never be cut skews the figures

insofar as the issue of sustainability is concerned. Mr. Minister, we

have to find some way to recognize these areas that are not really

going to be deferred for just the time being but are going to be set

aside because it has been recognized that, for economic reasons, there

are more important values in the area.

There are other

examples throughout the province which I could go into, but I won't. I

would just like to ask the minister: given that this skews the figures

with regard to the sustainability of the entire area being reviewed,

are steps going to be taken, or has the minister considered taking

steps, to deal with that so it does not remain in the equation?

[11:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Whenever an area is taken out of the working forest, which is what the

member is speaking of in the case of Eagle Mountain.... The decision

hasn't been made yet. As you said, it may be logged or it may not be

harvested. I think "harvested" is a better term. As the member says, we

have to evaluate all the values in the forest, not just timber values.

If a decision is made to remove that from the working forest, then yes,

the annual allowable cut in the TSA will be adjusted accordingly. I

believe I'm correct in this: if it's a major exclusion — I'm not sure of the number of hectares involved here — it

will be done immediately; and if it's a minor exclusion, it may not be

done until we review the AAC every five years and do that as it comes

up. But if it's a major exclusion it would be done right away, because

we'd have to adjust the annual allowable cut in the area.

It's

a good point that the member brings up: whenever we make a

decision — whether it's through public consultation and the public

wants it removed from the working forest —

there's a price to pay. Maybe the price is worth it; we're not saying

it isn't. In many cases it is, such as the decision we made on the

Carmanah, which the member doesn't agree with. But when we created a

3,600 hectare park in the lower Carmanah, that had quite an impact on

the annual allowable cut in the area. So there is a price to pay. In

many cases the public, which is us, feel that the price is worth it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

have said yes, this is the cost, but we want this preserved, and we're

quite willing to pay the price — which is fine. That's what we're here

to respond to, as elected people. But there's no question, Mr. Member,

[ Page

10951 ]

that it will impact on the economy of the forest sector in that area,

MR. CASHORE :

Part of the thing is that if it's deferred for five years and then for

five more years, it's becoming pretty obvious that the values.... The

consensus is that it would be removed and that therefore it should not

be allowed to continue to skew those figures. Sustainability is the

bottom line. As the minister well knows, when appropriate methods of

forest planning are taking place — for instance, in this case — finding

ways of including representatives of those communities in the planning

process, especially where the urban area is so much a factor, would

also be very worthwhile.

I want to turn now to a situation

up at Surge Narrows, where again we have a community group doing a lot

of work on community forest and resource planning, and making a real

contribution. We find living in a lot of communities throughout the

province not people who are there to make a lot of noise and cause

problems, but people often who are retired from the civil service or

other occupations where they have a tremendous background, and they

have a lot to contribute. I know the minister has been impressed with

many of the briefs he has received from some of these people.

this particular situation that was drawn to my attention, there was a

blowdown on one of the islands in the Surge Narrows area — on

Maumelle Island, I believe. When the Forest Service was dealing with

this blowdown, in order to remove the trees so that they wouldn't be

wasted, they had to make it economic by adding to the blowdown

sufficient area to make an economic operation for the contractor who

was going in to cut down the trees. From an environmental point of view

— and we're dealing with a viewscape — when we're dealing with the

values of the public who go into that area for recreational and other

purposes, would the minister not agree that the "economic standard"

would at least have to be mitigated by the environmental standard? We

all know that environmental standards are really economic standards,

because they relate to other economic values. The question I'm putting

to the minister is: would it be appropriate in the case of a blowdown,

where the viewscape is affected, to add that additional timber into the

harvest simply to make it economically viable? There must be some other

way of going about it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Sure, we agree with what the member has just said.

There are landscape architects now in virtually every district of the province.

We're able to do a lot more now with landscaped forestry than we were before,

because we can generate computer images that were not possible just a few years

ago. In fact, we used that technique — and I think it's the best way I've

seen it used — in making the decision in the Tsitika Valley by the follow-up

committee, and the projections done by the company are excellent. We're

able to generate by computer what the harvesting will look like from water level,

as if you were on a whale-watching boat; from 1,000 metres up, as if you were

in a helicopter, and from every conceivable angle. We're using that to the

best of our advantage, and so are the companies now in every area in the province.

The viewscape is taken into account.

In Surge Narrows —

I'm not sure if it was in that area, and I'm not sure of the time-frame

the member talked about. Off the top of my head, I don't know when that

decision was made, whether it was two years ago, last year....

MR. CASHORE : Within the past year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

So if those values were not taken into account, I can't explain that,

and I'd have to do some research on it to see. But we are taking those

values into account now in every area we go into. We did it in the

Carmanah— computer projections on what it would look like. We did it in

the Tsitika Valley, and we're doing it elsewhere. The companies have

the capability now, and they have landscape architects on their staff,

or they hire them, because the viewscape is becoming extremely

important.

Having said that, I'm going to make another

statement which I have made before, and that is that I don't think that

we should try to hide every cut-block in the province from every

visitor or every resident. It's impossible. If we try to take out of

view any sign of harvesting in the forest, then we would have to remove

tremendous amounts of the working forest from the annual allowable

cuts. I think we should endeavour to do it with the least visibility

possible and take into account the viewscapes and the landscapes. But I

don't think that we should try to pretend to people or to visitors that

we don't harvest the forest for a living in British Columbia.

we've said, it generates up to half of our economic dollars, and we

should be proud of what we do for a living in British Columbia. We

should do it right, and I think that the public is telling us that.

We've been getting the message for a long time. We should do it the

very best we can. In fact, we should be the best in the world at what

we do, because we do more of it than anyone else in the world. But we

should never be ashamed of what we do for a living, and we should be

able to point to a cut-block that's done properly, that isn't too big

and that fits into the landscape. We should be able to point it out to

anyone and say: "That's what we do for a living; in five years the

trees will be this high, and in ten years they'll be this high."

I'm

not trying to be corny about it, but I think we should look at those

cut-blocks and see schools, universities, highways, ferry systems,

health care and social programs, etc., because that's largely what pays

the bills in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE : We will

be able to do a better job of paying the bills when we have better

processes to deal with resource planning. I think the examples that

I've given this morning and also the example of

[ Page 10952 ]

Cortes

Island are areas where local people have found themselves in some kind

of tension with the logging company with regard to some kinds of

logging plans.

Obviously we must have systems of enabling

the planning process to take place that is inclusive and creative so

it's a creative tension instead of a destructive tension. I think these

tensions are inevitable, but the way we go about dealing with them is

really what it's all about.

Cortes Island is a good

example. We had conflict there. We had people from the island saying

there will no longer be clear-cut logging on private lands. Then this

process started to take place of mutual decision-making between

MacMillan Bloedel and the people. They actually got together and called

the MLA for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in to mediate the dispute.

There's a creative process taking place there.

I would just

like to encourage the minister to encourage that kind of process by

perhaps taking a look at the ways in which some of these decisions are

made.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I just wanted

to quickly refer to slash-burning in the province. The minister has

recognized in a recent report that he participated in that the logging

industry is accountable for the major portion of CO 2 going

into our air. I believe the minister is aware that there's really

nowhere in the Waste Management Act that slash-burning can be dealt

with. I would like to ask the minister if he has discussed this with

the Minister of Environment with a view to providing some protection

through that avenue.

The information that has come out through the government report reveals that 20 million tonnes of CO 2

a year — more than all the cars, trucks, planes and other mobile

sources in the province — come from the forest industry. I know

the minister will point out the phasing-out of beehive burners —

which is good — but the fact is that slash-burning continues to be

a major problem.

Since

I have to go in a minute, I'll just make another point that has to do

with wood waste. I've had the opportunity to visit areas in the

province — for instance, behind Lake Cowichan — where, as I

mentioned the other day, roads are built in some instances before the

trees are cut down. Then in some instances the road-bed actually covers

the trunk of the tree to a depth of up to 30 feet. I'd like the

minister to comment on that, because that seems to me to be an

extremely wasteful practice.

I also mentioned last time that the blasting that takes place in that type

of road construction sometimes embeds rocks in the trees and creates a hazard.

But also it raises the issue of the argument about long-line methods of logging

and grapple-yard methods in areas such as that. I know that the workers have

been raising that point. It's an issue that one has to be concerned about.

Finally,

I just want to mention that we have a small place on Cortes Island, and

we just added an addition to our cabin. The person who is contracting

for us has one of those little Portland mills. He went to an area that

had been clear-cut and asked for permission to remove wood that was

left on the ground, just for his own use; I guess they assumed it was

for cutting into firewood. He ended up running it through his mill. So

all the dimension lumber that has gone into the addition to our cabin

is wood waste — and it's good quality lumber.

I think

that's an indication that there is wood being left on the ground that

could be very useful and that we really have to take a look at that

sort of thing. I know that I'm going to be getting a great deal of

enjoyment in years to come as a result of what might have been burnt to

become part of the C0 2 problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I do want to make a few comments about what the member has just spoken

of. Firstly, I am pleased that the member has a cabin made of wood

where he can get away from it all; I'm sure he enjoys it. One of these

days I hope to have a cabin somewhere too.

Cortes

Island is largely private land, as I think the member knows. Yes, there

have been some conflicts — especially in the Gulf Islands —

between residents and logging on private land. The member says that a

process has taken place between the residents and the company, and

they're working out their problems. That's what I think should happen.

It is largely happening on Saltspring Island, and I am sure it will

happen on others.

We encourage that type of process. If it

can work, that's the best way to work out these problems. I don't feel

that the government should have to interfere and make all the decisions

and solve everybody's problems. I think that many times people can get

together and work out their own problems if they've a mind to. If they

have a mind to get out of the confrontative mode and sit down at a

table, they can usually work out their own problems. Those solutions

are usually a lot better than ones imposed from on high by some

government authority.

[12:00]

The

member talked about slash-burning. Yes, there is slash-burning in this

industry, of necessity. By our new policies in the forest, we're doing

our best to decrease the amount of slash-burning. Our zero waste policy

forces the companies to take more wood out of the forest now —

that might address the other concern the member had about good wood

being left on the forest floor. There's a lot of argument over that.

The new forestry recommends leaving a lot of biomass, as they call it,

on the forest floor. All over the province we are forcing companies to

take more of the wood out of the forest now, or it will be charged to

them against their annual allowable cut. As a result of that, you will

see less and less usable timber left on the forest floor.

He spoke of air-quality concerns expressed in a report released by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

[ Page

10953 ]

Petroleum Resources. The original report was in

error. It is the ministry's understanding that the report has been

amended to reflect a much-reduced level of 11.5 million tonnes of C0 2 having been emitted into the air because of slash-burning. We are endeavouring to bring that number down.

We should also mention that the forest is responsible for reducing the amount of C0 2

in the air as well, so at least in the forest industry there is a

balance of what is put into the air and what is taken out.

Nevertheless, we are endeavouring to bring the smoke levels down, and

we have now an inter-ministry task force looking at exactly that

problem. We're working with the Ministries of Environment, Health and

Municipal Affairs to try to understand the extent of the smoke problem

and the necessary steps that are needed to reduce its impact. It's

something we are very much aware of and are working towards reducing.

The

member mentioned the use of grapple-yarders and certain forms of

logging. Yes, we are looking at that too. In many cases the terrain is

very sensitive, and certain methods of logging should not be used.

We're trying to deal with that. In some areas they have even outlawed

certain methods of logging. We haven't gone to that extent yet, but we

are looking at the issue of grapple-yarders and better methods that

could be used.

MS. EDWARDS : Considering the

significance of the forests in my riding, I perhaps could have been

here talking during the whole estimates. Mainly my concerns are the

same ones my colleague from Prince Rupert has been leading — forest management, inventory and public process.

was particularly pleased to hear you talking about inventory when I

came in. I want to ensure that the minister knows that at the annual

general meeting of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in

February of this year, they passed a resolution requesting the

provincial Forests minister "to commit funds for accelerating

re-inventories of timber supply areas to provide current and sound

information for the determination of annual allowable cuts." It's

crucial, and there is very broad recognition that this is a continuing

problem.

also put it to the minister that in our area we are working —

certainly the Ministry of Forests is doing many things —

on a defence against the mountain pine beetle. We could do far better

in dealing with it in its continuing phases, because in our area we are

certainly assured that the mountain pine beetle isn't going to go away.

It won't go away unless we do something different, and we can't do

anything different until we have better forest inventory. It's crucial

to the fight against the mountain pine beetle. It has been put to us a

number of times, from anybody who has had anything to do with the

recommendations on mountain pine beetle, that we need better inventory.

Before I leave the professional foresters, I'd like to also point out that

they too, as the minister may have noticed — in case he didn't, I bring

it to his attention — have a very strong resolution on dealing with forest practice

on private lands. Because we have the largest block of private land in my riding,

and there's been some concern about the forest practice on it, I bring it

to the minister's attention. I hope he is going to consider that even further.

The

annual allowable cut has been an issue of some considerable discussion.

You may know, Mr. Minister, that the annual allowable cut for the next

three years in the Cranbrook TSA has been increased 60 percent. I know

that your ministry people, particularly your regional director, are at

great pains to suggest that some part of that cut is going to be

borrowed from the West Kootenay. To use very general terms, it will be

borrowed from other areas and then brought back later. In other words,

we cut now, we don't cut later, and the mills will have to get their

supply from somewhere else.

It is not a very good argument

to suggest that everything is fine, because all they can say is that it

is not 60 percent; it's 36 percent. A 36 percent so-called

"uplift" — the word is very carefully chosen, I presume, Mr. Minister, to be a positive word — can be very negative.

There

are major concerns about this increase in the AAC. Even if we're

talking about a 36 percent increase, the public needs to know why we

are going to that increase. It's certainly clear at some points. When

you get in the air, it's much easier to see some spots and see that

there is mountain pine beetle there. Unfortunately, mountain pine

beetle has been used as an excuse to log almost anything that's going

past.

It has been used so often as an excuse to increase

what is going to be allowed to be taken out of an area that the public

does not trust anymore that that is the reason for it. I want to make

very clear to the minister that when we are talking about forestry and

the practice of harvesting the forest in our area, the whole business

has become a matter of some suspicion. In fact, increasing the annual

allowable cut in our area has yet to have a reasonable explanation as

to how we are going to survive well with our forest resource when,

three years later, we have increased our AAC by 60 percent. The figures

speak for themselves, Mr. Minister.

However, I want to go on — because I want to try to keep this as brief as I can — and

talk about the public process that has been instituted around the

harvesting prescriptions. I want to say that in some sense it is a

better situation than it was before. It will help prevent the kind of

meeting where we all went to the Ministry of Forests offices to make

our point a little more than six months ago, and there was no

opportunity for the public and other interested users of the forest

resource. They had such extreme concerns that they went to have a

meeting by picketing and then going into the forestry office.

would like to say that there are a number of groups. That group was

basically led by the East Kootenay Environmental Society. The East

Kootenay Environmental Society has moved into making some proposals

related to the public process, and I'd like to make sure these are on

the record. I'd like to be sure

[ Page 10954 ]

the

minister knows that the society believes, first of all, that a

five-year plan should be a five-year plan. They are concerned about the

continuous changes to it. They believe that when you have a five-year

plan for the future, there should be some certainty that that's the

direction you are going. Without removing all flexibility for

management, the public should have some better assurance that the plan

that's there will be the one that will be followed for the management

of the resource.

They

make some objections related to their

access to maps, plans and to the five-year plan. Those are fairly

diverse. In general they would like to be able to have access to some

reports — to either be able to have them copied so they can take

them away, or even to take them away and copy them themselves. But to

have some of these materials available only at one location for a short

period of time — a number of hours — is simply not adequate

in a rural area. Perhaps it is not in any area, but certainly not in

our rural area.

They

also suggest that there have been some major problems with the amount

of time that is allowed for them to respond to harvest prescriptions,

five-year plans and so on. They point out that it took five months to

draw up plans, and the public is given one week to respond. That's not

enough time, Mr. Minister. We are hoping that will be extended to at

least three weeks and perhaps more — maybe a month. But

recognizing the fact that you don't want plans.... You want them to be

as fresh as can be, but still, one week is not an adequate length of

time for the public to respond.

They have suggested in

advertising for PHSPs that there be some better local knowledge, if you

like, that the area that is going to be dealt with be identified by

such things as a localized landmark or a kilometre mark on an

appropriate road, or something like that.

They have the

concern that when they are dealing with the harvest prescription for

the lands that are included in the annual allowable cut, they are not

on the same map as the prescriptions or the plans for the non-renewable

forest licences. There is some difficulty in trying to put the two

together in a comprehensive way.

They have several areas of

concern. It won't take me long to go through these that they have put

forward. One is that there is no inventory of the old growth. There are

not adequate or complete heritage and recreation inventories, and

riparian zone protection is not mentioned in the plans. They would like

no clear-cut within 100 metres, as a minimum, of regularly flowing or

ponded water. They are concerned about the clearcuts that occur next to

another clearcut, adjacent clearcuts or simply serial clearcutting —

which is a major problem. Steep-slope logging should be off the ground

systems, and we need more than an 80-year rotation. There should be no

logging at all practised above the 6,000-foot level.

Mr. Minister, that may have been fed to you, but I am interested to know your

response to that. To again emphasize the comment that is coming from the public

on this.... I have groups throughout the riding who come to me. The group I

just spoke of encompasses all of those groups, and the statements include them

all. But just to clarify, I'll read you parts of the letter that recently

came from one of the smaller groups within the environmental society, who have

taken a considerable amount of time to put into the process of forest planning.

This is from the Moyle Environmental Group. First of all, they say:

"We

would like to express our genuine appreciation for the time and

consideration you have given" — this is to the ministry — "the application

and PHSP to log certain cut-blocks in CP 090."

I might also

say in passing, Mr. Minister, that some of your staff in our area have

been extremely helpful. In some areas they certainly deserve plaudits.

This letter goes on to say:

"The public

process has allowed considerable gains in mutual understanding and

education on the complexities of forest issues. We have specific

concerns, and we feel that the public involvement process has given us

a forum.

"However" — and you were waiting for the "however," were you not? —

"the community is hopeful that public consultation does not cease when

public opinion is heard but not heeded. We still feel that our values

are not being taken seriously. This valley is not just another

watershed filled with a timber crop. There are human values, animal

values, deciduous trees, birds, viewscapes, fishermen, campers,

mushrooms, etc. More allowance for these concerns must be made.

"Your continued communication and information is appreciated."

put it to you, Mr. Minister, that the start is made. I would like to

put this to you as a general feeling. This is representative of very

moderate community people who have made extreme and sincere efforts to

participate in the planning process, who are appreciative of the fact

that they do have more opportunity for input now, but who still worry

that their input could be ignored. I put that to you and hope you will

consider even more consideration being given to the interaction that

the public is very legitimately and very strongly seeking.

[12:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

just let me respond to a few of those remarks. I appreciate the

member's comments. They are taken very seriously. We want to involve

the public in decisions in the forest industry, and we will listen to

any reasonable ideas. I appreciate her comments about our staff being

helpful, because they feel the same way: they want to involve the

public.

You can assure your constituents — as I will everyone in the province —

that when we have public meetings and we listen to the public, we don't

just listen. We go away and try to assimilate that information as best

we can into the overall good of the industry and the economy of the

province. Just because every idea that comes forward from a local group

isn't implemented doesn't mean we're not listening. We can't do

everything that every group wants us to do, but we listen very

carefully. We'll try

[ Page

10955 ]

to implement, wherever possible, any reasoned arguments or reasonable ideas.

The

member mentioned five-year plans. They must have some flexibility. We

can't cast them in stone and say: "That's the way it is for the next

five years." But we try to follow it as a blueprint and as an outline.

For instance, the infestation of the pine beetle must be taken into

account. We have to have that kind of flexibility. Things change

rapidly in this world these days, as we've spoken of many times. So we

don't put a five-year plan in that's cast in stone; but neither do we

disregard it. There must be some flexibility for change. Major changes

to five-year plans are advertised so that the public knows of them — if it's a major change.

do agree with the member that information should be readily available

to everyone in the community. It's something we've been looking at.

We've been considering putting these plans, for instance, in local

libraries. The problem comes, then, of updating them. Every time you

make a change, you must run down and update the thing. Heaven help you

if you ever forget a change on a plan, and somebody goes and looks at

it and says: "This isn't on here." We're trying to look at the

mechanics and exactly how we can do that.

I'll take under advisement the time-frame extension you asked for. We'll take a look at that and see if it can be done.

Coming

back to beetle kill, it's one of those things that are with us. As the

member said herself, the mountain pine beetle is not going to go away.

The best we can do when we have a beetle infestation is to get in and

harvest the wood, because it will surely be lost if we don't, and then

it becomes a fire hazard. The beetle infestation just expands and

expands. If the beetle doesn't kill the trees, a fire will. A lightning

strike into some two-year-old beetle kill is pretty deadly.

What

we have done in your area is increase the annual allowable cut to allow

for some beetle infestation harvesting. We have to make a choice: do we

go in and get the wood out while it's usable and realize some revenues

from it, or do we leave it? Well, the choice is fairly obvious. We must

go in and get it. We're looking at new methods of doing that.

I do caution the people in your area, as we did those in the Quesnel area.

We had a pine beetle infestation there that increased the annual allowable cut

dramatically. But we said: "When the beetle harvest is over, the cut is

coming down. So prepare for it." Those words sometimes fall on deaf ears.

The cut goes up, we go in and harvest the beetle-kill, the mills are running

two shifts at full capacity, the beetle-kill harvest is over, and all of a sudden

people say: "Where's the wood going to come from to keep our mills

operating at this capacity?" I just caution everyone that when the beetle

harvest comes to an end, the annual allowable comes down. I say: "So make

allowances for it, and don't come back and paint us as the bad guys because

you've had to close down a stud mill or because you've had to reduce

a shift or the like." That is what is happening in your area right now;

you can look to what has just been concluded in the Quesnel area.

MR. MILLER :

I just wanted to complete the questioning I had started with respect to

the timber supply areas. Time doesn't permit a full range of issues to

be discussed right now. The question of the falldown.... Again there's

the susceptibility of the numbers, but clearly the QCI were identified

as a timber supply area, and there is an imminent falldown there. What

kind of work have you done in regard to that? It appears that in a very

short time the annual allowable cut will be reduced almost by half. Do

you know what the implications are for employment as a result of that?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Queen Charlotte timber supply area. It was specifically identified by

your officials as a timber supply area where imminent falldown in ten

years is going to take place. What are the implications for employment

for timber harvesting, and what alternative strategies has the ministry

developed to counteract those negatives?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member raises a very serious concern in the Queen Charlotte

Islands, and it's a large concern in other areas of the province too.

Some of it has to do with removing land from the working forest. As

more and more pressures come on to remove more and more land, there

will be falldown.

How the annual allowable cuts are set is

a specific concern. There's no question that in places like the Queen

Charlottes there is going to be a dramatic effect there. I don't know

whether we can institute programs to totally offset falldown. We can

work towards that on the value-added side — secondary manufacturing, whatever you want to call it —

to try to mitigate what will happen, but falldown is a serious question

that confronts the management of the ministry and the industry. It's a

very complex matter that requires thorough understanding of the forest

inventory and the processes used to analyze long-term harvest

schedules. Incremental silviculture can play a major

part in overcoming

the effects of falldown.

The

Forest Resources Commission

has been assigned the task of reviewing the whole issue of annual

allowable cuts, including the possible falldown of timber supply. It's

another item that we put on their plate. This falldown of available

timber is a most important question — I think possibly the most

important question — facing the industry over the next few years.

There's no question about it: it's one that we are doing our best to

address.

think there will be a falldown before there is an increase in the

annual allowable cut. There will be an increase in the AAC, but that is

a few years down the road. I think Les Reed from UBC has written a

pretty good paper on that. He feels that the AAC can be increased to

well over 100 million cubic metres a year

[ Page 10956 ]

in the next few years, but that doesn't take care of the immediate....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, it is. In a few years, who knows? In 20 or 30 years we can

probably increase the annual allowable cut to well over 100 million

cubic metres, as Mr. Reed says. But that doesn't solve our immediate

problem. It is one that we are working on that concerns us. We've asked

the Forest Resources Commission to work on it.

I come back

to the statements I have made twice in these estimates, that whenever

you remove large amounts of the working forest from the working forest,

there is going to be a cost to pay. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

says that South Moresby was the wrong decision to make. Whether it was

right or wrong is probably a moot point right now; it has been done.

The decision is made, and there will be a tremendous cost to pay for

that far beyond the cost of just the immediate jobs that were lost.

That's going to have an effect on the AAC and the forest industry for a

long time to come. Again I say, when we make these decisions to remove

large tracts of land, the public has to know there is a cost.

MR. MILLER :

I'm aware of the land withdrawal, but in terms of the overall question

that I posed, I don't believe that it represents a significant factor.

You're looking at a ten-year expected falldown. You're going to cut the

available timber in half in ten years. The impact on the long-range

sustained yield of the South Moresby may be as much as 50,000 cubic

metres, but it's not the significant factor in this particular case.

Clearly

where even your ministry, given the uncertainty of numbers, has

identified a falldown that is going to occur in ten years, it seems to

me you have a responsibility to move in that region and that district

much more quickly. I'd like the minister to agree with me that what is

required is for his ministry to develop.... The funds are available

through the South Moresby replacement fund. I'd like a commitment that

those funds will be committed to expenditures on that timber supply

area, not in other timber supply areas, and that an incremental

silviculture program be put together specifically to identify ways to

maintain the annual allowable cut, if that is possible.

would like a quick answer to that, if the minister is prepared to do

that. He said earlier it was a complex issue. In this case it's a

simple issue. The figure ten is very small. So if the minister could

answer that, my colleague from the Cariboo would like to pose a few

questions, and then I'll do a wrap.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I think I can answer it fairly quickly. The funds

that are earmarked for incremental silviculture in the South Moresby replacement

fund have been earmarked 100 percent for the Queen Charlottes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Perhaps in the past. But in the future, 100 percent of that fund will

be spent there. You probably have the same table where we have all the

falldown and the years until decline, etc. We're aware of it, and it's

a serious problem.

The

questions that you asked me on day

one about the millions of hectares and the apparent discrepancies....

We've got all the answers here, but they're about eight pages long. So

rather than read it all into the record, Mr. Chairman, if it's all

right with you, I would give the Chair the answers to those

questions — all eight pages — and assume that they will be

part of the record of these estimates — if that's permissible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I have to do it in the House. I'll do it when we rise and report progress, if that's all right with the member.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Leading on this issue of falldown, the minister is very familiar with

the situation In Quesnel. Recently there has been a report released

which indicates in rough terms that over the last ten years 46 percent

more wood is being harvested with 30 percent fewer jobs. The problem

this report points out is that the real threat to employment has come

from technological change.

For example, it suggests that if

a 10 percent reduction over the province suggested by the Science

Council was applied to the Quesnel area, we'd see only some 60 jobs

lost in the sawmilling and related businesses. So there's a rather

minor effect from land withdrawals, but a serious effect by tech change

and the changing capacity of the mills.

[12:30]

People in the Quesnel area have known for five years, as the

minister pointed out, that there was a problem coming. I guess it's

left for the community to do some planning. They've recently done a

report, because it became clear that the minister was going to hold

fast and not renew the beetle kill licences. I applaud that decision. I

know he found other wood temporarily to add, but the same problem will

be there two years from now.

So we've got five years to do

some planning, and it hasn't been done entirely. There have been some

value-added sales put up that replace anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of

the lost jobs. There are some very good ratios there at C&C Wood

Products, as you know, but I am wondering why we haven't done some

comprehensive planning. Who would be the lead agency here?

think your ministry affects the supply of wood, but it is not involved

on the demand side here, affecting demand or planning for a change in

demand on that wood supply. I am wondering if you would comment on that.

[ Page

10957 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Again, as to who should be the lead agency

in providing the jobs necessary, I think it's industry. Industry has to

be the leader. Industry provides jobs. Government can set the climate

and the overall blueprint or the rules. I think we've done a pretty

fair job on that.

As the member said, there are some good

examples right in Quesnel of replacing jobs lost because of technology.

Nobody likes to see jobs lost for any reason, but you can't fight

technology. It was tried in the last century in England by the

Luddites, and we don't have to go back and regurgitate all of that. It

didn't work. It's been tried in other jurisdictions where they tried to

fight technology. If the members are in doubt as to what I am speaking

of, go back and read about Mr. Ludd in the last century in England, and

you'll see what I mean. You can't stand in the way of this.

could quote other examples of where industry has tried to stand in the

way of automation. It happened in some countries in the automobile

business when they went to robotics. Some jurisdictions tried to fight

it and found that their entire industry nearly went down the chute

because of it. So we can't fight automation, and the member is right

when he said we're processing 40 percent more wood with 30 percent

fewer jobs. I've been in those mills, and they're push-button

operations. There are half a dozen people in the mill where there used

to be twice and three times that many.

So what we are doing

is endeavouring to offset that loss in jobs with our small business

forest enterprise program, and it's working quite well. I regurgitate

the numbers once again. Besides preserving several thousand jobs, we've

added over a thousand j