Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JULY 4, 1997

Morning

Volume 6, Number 13

[ Page 5217 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's actually with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to recognize someone who works very hard on our behalf. You know, it's really hard being a woman in politics. It's an aging process. We spend a lot of money investing in keeping ourselves young, day after day after day in this horrible, horrible business we're in. [Laughter.]

But there's one young woman in this Legislature that is turning 31 today, and I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, you'd never know it. Justine Hunter, from the Vancouver Sun, is 31. I understand that she gets asked for ID in a bar -- something that hasn't occurred for decades in my life. I want to ask everybody in this chamber to say happy birthday to one of the longstanding, best members of the press gallery in this Legislature. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Rare unanimity.

P. Reitsma: The ravages of time!

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I didn't say anything.

I'm very pleased to introduce, in the gallery today, three people from the Red Cross. They're here as part of the private member's statement. In the back of the gallery are: William Ng, who is the treasurer of the coastal region council of the Canadian Red Cross Society; Bruce Andrew, who is the acting regional director of the Canadian Red Cross Society; and Suzanne Germain, who is the communications coordinator for British Columbia of the Canadian Red Cross Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

Petitions

G. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I'm presenting a petition signed by seven residents of the Nanaimo area, relating to federal Bill C-68 respecting firearms.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

WORKERS COMPENSATION IN

BRITISH COLUMBIA

L. Reid: It is my intention this morning to share with this Legislature the official opposition's submission to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. The following recommendations are not intended to cover every aspect of the operation of the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia. Rather, these recommendations highlight the opposition's commitment to ensuring that the board is openly accountable to workers, employers and the public.

The primary goal of the Workers Compensation Board must be the provision of fair compensation provided in a cost-effective and timely manner. To this end, claimants should receive the same level of compensation that they would normally receive when they are absent from work as a result of a short-term workplace accident or injury.

Injured workers and employers have an obligation to report claims accurately and promptly and to be diligent in terms of rehabilitation and retraining. This is a three-part insurance program comprised of reporting, rehabilitation and retraining. Claimants may indeed require that all three components be incorporated into their successful return to work. The organization needs to address shared responsibility between workers and employers for workplace training, education and conduct. Useful partnerships will determine the future success of this organization.

One of the key features of this report is the

section on accountability. Today it is unclear which mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia is fully accountable to workers and employers. The Workers Compensation Board is currently insulated from public scrutiny. This must change in order to ensure that the organization is responsive and accountable to employers, workers and the public. I would cite the Workers Compensation Review Board as a particular area of concern, and I would ask the royal commission to evaluate the accountability mechanisms in place for this agency.

We would recommend, under recommendation 1, that the WCB be required to hold public meetings with the right of media to attend in order to ensure that the decision-making process is open and accountable to the public.

We also have some serious concerns around the issue of governance. The board in the past has been administered by a board of governors comprised of workers' and employers' governors:

"The board of governors was suspended by the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour in July of 1995 due to widespread perceptions of counterproductive interest-group squabbling and ineffective decision-making. While there are various

interpretations of this action, it remains true that the stakeholder communities were deeply divided over certain legislative and policy issues and the governance of the WCB, and their differences could not be bridged, even by the most skilful leadership. At this point, the experiment that put representatives of workers and employers at the table to govern the WCB together must be regarded as a failure."

This quote is taken from the 1996 report entitled "The Workers Compensation System of British Columbia: Still In Transition."

The goal of any new governance structure must be representation from all sectors and from professionals who interact with the system on a daily basis. These individuals must be committed to the stewardship of the organization for the benefit of all. Since the compensation system is for all British Columbians, reasonable representation must include employers of small and large business, owner-operator enterprises, and both unionized and non-unionized workers. Sectors which have historically been unrepresented include agriculture and small business. These sectors and others should receive appointments to the board.

Under recommendation 2, we would recommend that the Workers Compensation Board be governed by a board of directors. This board should be comprised of one director, selected by their peers, in each of the following areas: rehabilitation, medicine, chiropractic, actuary, psychiatry, psychology and an accredited member of the accounting profession. This new structure should also include the appointment of a qualified farmer and small business person to represent their areas of interest and expertise.

[ Page 5218 ]

Another area of concern to the official opposition has been the appeal process surrounding the workers compensation system. There is no doubt that an appeal process is a vital part of the compensation system and must be preserved. The present process is costly and time-consuming, and must be improved. The amount of time that workers and employers must wait to receive a final decision on claims is unacceptable. The appeal process must be streamlined to speed up claims resolution, while preserving the right to a reasonable appeal. It is unacceptable that the WCB, created originally to replace the expensive, time-consuming litigation process is in itself a time-consuming, expensive labyrinth.

A commonsense approach would allow for fast-tracking of single-issue claims so that these issues can reach closure. More complex claims may indeed require the option to move immediately to a medical review panel so that decisions are reached by individuals who possess that level of expertise. Getting to the right answer the first time has to be the goal.

Under recommendation 3, we would recommend that the workers compensation system institute a definitive appeal process in which the claimant must indicate specifically what is being appealed, thereby eliminating the general appeal process in place today.

S. Orcherton: Many thanks to the member for Richmond East for her thoughtful comments on this very important issue. But I do want to take issue with some of the remarks that were made.

Firstly, around the issue of accountability at the board level, I'm not convinced that there's a necessity for an open public forum to be put in place, and I'm quite concerned about those kinds of suggestions. The WCB board deals with individual issues and matters of policy in addressing compensable injuries for people who find themselves injured at the workplace, and there are issues of privacy that the board deals with. I'm not convinced that opening that process up to the public is in the best interests of those workers who've been injured, nor is it in the best interests of the board in terms of the efficiencies it has to achieve to make a better system.

[10:15]

I should also say that about 80 percent of the people in British Columbia who find themselves injured at the workplace and have to come into contact with the Workers Compensation Board in fact have a fairly positive experience, move through that process and then enter back into the workforce. I am, however, very concerned about the 20 percent of workers who find themselves injured at the workplace, who don't have a positive experience and actually find themselves going through a myriad of hoops and regulations and appeal processes that cause them great difficulty and harm individually, and cause their families and their communities great difficulty and harm, as well.

In 1917

an act of this Legislature put in place the workers compensation system in British Columbia. Prior to that, individual workers had the opportunity to seek redress through the judicial system. The trade-off that occurred there was a process that restricted that right to the judicial system but put in place the Workers Compensation Act to deal with compensatory issues, and also put in place a responsibility to deal with prevention and inspection of unsafe workplaces in British Columbia.

The hon. member opposite said that the primary issue facing workers compensation is the provision of fair compensation for injured workers. I disagree with that. The primary objective of workers compensation is to provide an inspection process and a prevention process to ensure that injuries do not occur at the workplace in British Columbia. Too often we see employers and workers themselves, unfortunately, who are interested too much in the hurry of the job and the rush for a buck and who avoid dealing with issues around safety at the workplace.

The primary issue I believe the board has to deal with is the issue around prevention. It is my view that in a properly functioning WCB system, and I'm hopeful that we'll have some positive recommendations in this regard from the royal commission that we as the Legislature can act on . . . . In my view, the primary objective is in fact to deal with prevention issues at the workplace.

If we saw that occurring in British Columbia in terms of WCB, I think we'd see a system that has clearly high administrative costs and low benefit pay-out costs, because in a truly operating and functioning system for workers compensation in British Columbia, the administration end of the board should in fact be focusing on prevention and workplace inspections to ensure that workers work in a safe environment.

I appreciate the comments from the member opposite; they're interesting. In particular, I don't agree with the primary provision being one of fair compensation. Again, the primary objective of the Workers Compensation Board should be dealing with prevention of injuries at the workplace. That should be the focus of the board.

I'm hopeful that in the course of the deliberations of the royal commission, many of the issues that face those 20 percent of workers out there in the workforce who find themselves in extreme difficulty when they are injured at the workplace will be addressed, and positive recommendations will be coming forward. I thank the member for her comments once again, and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to respond.

L. Reid: I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the member opposite, Victoria-Hillside, for his remarks on the future of the workers compensation system, because frankly, it is something that all sides of the House must be prepared to address equally if indeed changes are going to be put forward.

Given the time constraints, I will summarize the remaining recommendations:

4. That the board ensure that adjudicators and medical personnel complete programs and achieve a standard of excellence around risk assessment, negotiation and conflict resolution.

5. That medical advisers employed by the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia be practitioners on the active list of the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, and that other health care providers employed by the board possess the appropriate current credentials and be active members of their recognized association and participate in continuing medical education associated with their area of excellence.

6. That the Workers Compensation Act be amended to state that all soft-tissue injury claims be supported by objective medical evidence.

[ Page 5219 ]

7. That the medical opinion of the claimants personal general practitioner(

s) and/or specialist(

s) be prominent in any medical determination and that these determinations be reached as a result of team meetings in which all correspondence is shared with those individuals responsible for the care of the injured worker.

8. That these team meetings include chiropractors and other care providers that the claimant has utilized, along with written diagnosis, evaluation and therapy.

9. That a task force for the treatment of low-back pain be established by the Workers Compensation Board and that this task force provide regular updates to industry, employers and the community.

10. That the board establish a benchmark, a public standard of excellence for all rehabilitation programs recommended by the board. Individuals employed in these programs should indicate their training and appropriate current credentials to both the worker and the employer.

11. That the board commit to injury-specific rehabilitation programs, and in every instance possible, implement these programs at the claimant's worksite in consultation with the employer.

12. That the workers compensation system in British Columbia be under the aegis of the Ministry of Attorney General.

UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE

ON TELEVISION NEWS

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the average North American child spends twice as much time watching television as is spent in school. Television has more impact on a child's thinking than a teacher does, and we often think it's the other way around. The average North American child will witness 200,000 acts of violence on television and will witness 16,000 murders on television by the time they are 18 years of age.

A study of population data for various countries most recently demonstrated that the homicide rate doubled within ten to 15 years after the introduction of television, even though television was introduced at different times in each site examined. They looked at different countries when they had television. They looked at the homicide rate and how it increased because of the quantum of violence on television.

A 1986 study found that television violence contributed to juvenile crime and -- listen to this -- that watching television was the single factor most associated with aggressive behaviour. More of a factor than poverty, race or parental behaviour was the watching of television.

Studies have shown that the harmful effects associated with violence on television are as follows: learning aggressive attitudes and behaviours, becoming desensitized to real-world violence and developing a fear of being victimized by violence.

The American Pediatric Society earlier this decade concluded that reducing violence on television is the single most remedial factor in affecting violent behaviour. It looked at: what can we do to reduce the causes of violent behaviour? They said: "Look, if we just simply reduced the amount of violence on television, that would be the single easiest thing that we as a society could do to reduce the amount of violence in our society." That was the beginning of this decade.

Despite all of that pressure, you would think that the television industry would change its approach. The commission that studied earlier last year . . . . They asked an independent organization to take a look at the progress that had been made in terms of reducing violence on television. The results were shocking. The study, done by Mediascope, found that perpetrators go unpunished in 73 percent of all violent scenes on television. In all, 47 percent of all violent interactions showed no harm to victims and 58 percent of the time, no pain. No harm through violence -- no harm; no pain.

A total of 25 percent of violent interactions on television involved handguns. Only 4 percent of violent programs emphasized an anti-violence theme. The industry norm for violence on television is 57 percent of programming, but there are some notable differences in where violence is presented across TV channels: 18 percent of that programming is on public broadcasting channels like the CBC and the Knowledge Network; 85 percent of it is on premium cable channels, stuff beyond the sort of one-to-12 items on your dial; and 44 percent is on the traditional one-to-12 items on your dial.

The study found that only 4 percent of violent programs have a strong anti-violence theme, and only 13 percent of reality programs that depict violence present any alternatives to violence or show how it can be avoided.

Clearly we have not made progress. In fact, what was even more shocking from the studies that came out was that the amount of violence on television news seen nightly at 6 o'clock has increased over the course of the last five years. We see it right here in British Columbia when we watch the nightly news. Most recently we had a situation, an unfortunate one, where children in schools were wrapping themselves up with dispenser towels and dying because they hung themselves. Within days of that being shown on television, another child imitated that behaviour and died.

You wonder about the responsibility of television news broadcasters when they show that kind of stuff -- sexual assault, unnecessary graphic detail -- night after night. You sit back and watch television at night, and it's amazing how much detail, almost soft porn, is built into sexual assault reporting on television.

Most recently we had a situation where kids were caught and shot at for joyriding in Coquitlam. Fair enough; we put that stuff on TV. But was it really necessary to then have a bunch of teenagers shown on TV talking about how thrilled they were over what had happened? There is a level of irresponsibility, in my view, in terms of what is shown on the television news. The results of these studies point out that it's the news hours, now, that are increasing the level of violence demonstrated on TV.

You have to ask yourself: what is it we're doing to our own children? We're increasing their fear of becoming victims of violence themselves and creating an increasing sense of vulnerability.

All of us in this room grew up in an era and an atmosphere that was free of vulnerability in terms of the way that we grew up as kids. We grew up in a relatively secure atmosphere, where there wasn't the kind of influences that children now get access to on television. So as a generation, we grew up in an atmosphere free of vulnerability and insecurity.

We're now raising our children in an atmosphere of insecurity and vulnerability, almost paranoia. You wonder what the effect of all this is on kids who watch, like mine do, the news and some of this stuff on TV every night. You wonder what kind of view they have of society, when they see it as being one where they are facing increased vulnerability.

The things we can do -- I'll pick up on that theme in a second.

[ Page 5220 ]

K. Krueger: I thank the member for his thoughtful presentation. It seems to me we're dealing with two different issues when we talk about TV programming and TV news. My understanding had been that the statement would focus on news; I'll try and touch on both.

I couldn't agree more with the member on programming itself and the effect that the programming has on young minds, on the attitudes that society has and that children grow up with, and on the things that children think are acceptable as a result of seeing them on television and in programs that their parents allow them to watch.

A senior policeman with 35 years' experience said to me recently that two major things that had changed over his policing career were the use by the public of seatbelts in motor vehicles and the public scorn that has grown against people who drive while they're impaired by alcohol. Both were because of society coming out very strongly in favour of what was right and what was good for the safety of its citizens.

Certainly I think society and governments need to project concern and an non-acceptance of violence in programming on television. I think, too, that it's a very serious concern that children are growing up in an attitude of fear and with a sense of great vulnerability. It's even more of a concern, of course, that they are vulnerable and that there is much for them to be fearful of. The aspect the member talked about with regard to people going unpunished for crime is a very serious concern, as well.

[10:30]

I think, however, that when we talk about news, news organizations have a responsibility to report reality, to let people know what's happening in our society. I'm very hesitant to be critical of them for reporting news, even though news sometimes contains violence. I don't think government should ever try to suppress news organizations' ability to do their job, and I'm hesitant to criticize them for it. I think it's incumbent upon us, as members of this Legislative Assembly, to attack violence rather than reproach those who report it.

There's tremendous violence in our society, far worse than what we ever see on television. As we all know, there's the terrible issue of spousal violence, of child abuse -- these things that go on every day in British Columbia that horrify all of us and that we really want to speak against. I'm far more concerned that we deal with those issues and what's causing them than criticize news organizations.

I was driving home from work one day, and I saw a pickup truck pulled over. The man in the truck had his wife's head tucked under his arm and was beating her in the face, like you see hockey players do to one another now and then. Of course, I jumped out and put a stop to it, but he was such a violent man that I was afraid of him myself. When he went to court -- I'd given a witness statement and so on -- he got a suspended sentence for a year. So did another man, the same day in court, who had beaten his wife and stepdaughter with a metal chair. But a guy who had broken into a credit office and stolen a bottle of whisky got a day in jail plus a year's suspended sentence.

When we see things like that happening -- disproportionate sentencing and the justice system not seeming to deal with these issues in the way that society would expect -- that's a more serious concern to me than how the violence is reported on the news. Those are the issues that we need to focus on -- making sure that violence is discouraged in every way by society and by our government.

I also think that violence in sports is entirely too accepted. These horrific images we saw last week of a boxing pro, a convicted rapist who's now out in society again, biting another man's ears during a fight -- they're horrific things for children or anybody else to see. Let's not criticize the news media for reporting what's happening around us. Let's, rather, do our job in ensuring that we not only work against violence but do nothing that encourages it.

I've spoken a number of times on gambling expansion in this House and how that will lead to family violence. That will lead to abuse of spouses and abuse of children and abandonment of children in situations where they are very vulnerable and have reason to fear. That's happened in jurisdictions all around North America. I don't understand why this government is allowing something like that to begin to occur in our society, when we already have the kind of problems that we've been talking about.

It's really important that we make sure we don't mishandle criminals, that people don't get out on parole when they shouldn't be, that people who have demonstrated a proclivity to hurt other people don't enjoy the same rights, ever, when they're still putting peaceful citizens at risk all around them. People shouldn't be afraid to go to sleep at night with their doors unlocked, but of course they are. Indeed, many people feel very vulnerable in their own homes. Certainly I support the member in his discussion of dislike of violence in television programming, but we have to be careful what we do with regard to news organizations.

M. Sihota: I don't agree. I don't think that it's acceptable to allow news organizations and television programming to cross the line into repetitive and unnecessary violence. That's what we're seeing; that's what the studies point to. What we're also seeing, from those industries, is that they take the same attitude that the tobacco industry took with regards to lung cancer: it's not their problem. It's the same attitude that we saw with the automobile industry with regard to respiratory problems: it's not their problem. Study after study shows that violence on television is imitated in behaviour that shows up in society.

It's time that this government, in my view, took the same kind of approach to television violence as is taken with regards to automobile emissions and with regards to the tobacco industry.

It's time, in my view, for the government here in British Columbia to set the tone in terms of its intolerance about this kind of stuff and appoint, for example, a television auditor whose job it would be to review current television and cable programs -- the nature and extent of violence depicted on each program -- to embarrass the industry, to prepare an assessment that describes and categorizes the nature and the extent of violence in each program, to guide parents better, make the assessment available to the public, and identify the sponsors of each television program covered under that assessment -- so that those that advertise on these unacceptable programs are pointed out, embarrassed and forced to take their advertising dollars somewhere else.

That's what should be done.

We need someone in this House to play that role as a television auditor, to do that and to do it every three to six months, much in the same way as we release the worst-polluters list here in British Columbia to embarrass industry to clean up its act. Enough is enough. There is an outrage in society -- and I'm simply reflecting it in this House today -- with regards to the amount of violence on television. There has been an unwillingness by public legislators -- be it here in British Columbia or at the national level in Canada or down in

[ Page 5221 ]

the United States -- to take appropriate leadership to deal with a fundamental problem which every parent who is watching today, either on television or up in this gallery, will agree with.

I'll tell you right now that if you walk down the streets of Victoria, 80 percent of the people will tell you that there's too much violence on television and that it ought not to be tolerated.

This Legislature, in my view, should lead the way in bringing forward legislation -- legislation that I would call sort of the child media protection act, which would begin to deal with the regulatory aspects of these matters, and perhaps, too, establish legislation that puts a prohibition on violent programming and prescribes a prohibition on the broadcasting commercial television industry with regard to both news and programming in the hours from six to ten. There are all sorts of other sort of legislative changes that we can bring forward. It's time we said that enough is enough.

We're not saying it, and it's time we started saying it.

FRIENDS FOR LIFE: A BRIEF

HISTORY OF THE RED CROSS

P. Reitsma: I have a few comments today on the history of the Red Cross. On June 24, 1859, the armies of imperial Austria and the Franco-Sardinian alliance fought a day-long battle near the northern Italian village of Solferino. The casualties were heavy, with some 40,000 dead, wounded or missing. Military medical services at the time were virtually non-existent. As a result, there was a great deal of suffering, and many of the wounded died for lack of care.

The injured were brought to the surrounding villages for whatever treatment they could get. In the church of Castelleone, a young Swiss called Henry Dunant, horrified by the agony of the soldiers, began to organize help with the aid of the local people. Returning home to Geneva still haunted by what he had seen, he wrote a book about his experience. A Memory of Solferino was published in 1862 and acclaimed throughout Europe.

In it, Dunant put forward an idea for supplementing army medical services in times of war. This would be done through national relief societies, which in peacetime would train their voluntary members for this work. Dunant also proposed that the wounded and all those attending them should be regarded as neutral, even on the battlefield.

To help promote the aims of the book, four citizens of Geneva joined Dunant in setting up the International Committee for the Relief of Military Wounded, which later became the International Committee of the Red Cross. In response to an invitation from the international committee, specialists from 16 countries met in Geneva in October 1863. They adopted ten resolutions that made up the founding charter of the Red Cross, defining the functions and working methods of the International Committee for the Relief of Military Wounded that Dunant had proposed. Thus the Red Cross was born.

For the international committee, the major task still lay ahead: persuading governments that the wounded and those caring for them should not be considered adversaries, since they were no longer taking

part in the fighting and therefore needed protection. This concept of neutrality would have to be embodied in an international treaty providing for a protective emblem to be used by all armies to identify medical personnel, hospitals and ambulances.

To this end, the Swiss government undertook to convene in Geneva a diplomatic conference, which was held in 1864. Delegates of 12 governments took part and adopted a draft treaty prepared for the international committee. The agreement was called the Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.

From then on, ambulances, military hospitals and medical staff were to be recognized as neutral and, as such, protected and respected by the belligerents. Wounded or sick combatants of whatever nation to which they belonged should be collected and cared for. At the same time, the red cross on the white ground, which is the Swiss flag reversed and which had been adopted in 1863 as the symbol of the embryonic Red Cross movement, was incorporated in the treaty as the protective emblem of the military medical services.

In 1864 the convention mentioned only the red cross. A second emblem made its appearance a few years later and is still in use: the red crescent. Hon. Speaker, I don't know if I'm allowed to do this, but this is new to me. I have never seen the red crescent. I suppose we learn something every day. The cross has been adopted as a tribute to Switzerland and has not been intended to have any religious significance. In 1876, however, during the Russo-Turkish war, for relief to the wounded, the Ottoman society replaced it with the red crescent.

This crescent has since been adopted by a number of countries in the Islamic world. It is recognized as having equal status with the red cross and, as such, is mentioned in the 1949 Geneva Convention and their additional protocols.

On October 16, 1896, a group of men met in Toronto to form the Canadian Red Cross. All that the Red Cross does today harks back to that group led by George Sterling Ryerson. From the day he first stitched together a makeshift Red Cross flag to protect those wounded on the battlefield at Batoche in 1885, Ryerson had a vision of the Red Cross in Canada. Today the 1996 centennial logo and slogan "Friends for Life" conveys that simple fact. The Red Cross is about saving lives. This is as true today as it was more than a century ago.

In everything about keeping Canadians safe in and around the water, through water safety programs or raising funds to help stave off the effects of famine in a faraway country, the Red Cross is about saving lives and helping the most vulnerable. Like true friends, the Canadian Red Cross volunteers and staff are always there to help people in need. The Red Cross centennial logo and slogan "Friends for Life" conveys the simple fact that in all that the Red Cross does, saving lives and the health and safety of Canadians are paramount.

[ Page 5222 ]

I will conclude in a couple of minutes.

E. Walsh: I'd like to thank the member opposite for reminding all of us of the important role that the Red Cross plays in all of our lives, not only for the province but the country and internationally, as a whole.

The member spoke of the Swiss founder of the Red Cross, Henry Dunant. Henry Dunant had a question. The question was put forward after witnessing much of the suffering on an Italian battleground in 1859. He wanted to know if it would not be possible in a time of peace and quiet to form relief societies for the purpose of having care given to the wounded in wartime by zealous, devoted and thoroughly qualified volunteers. Out of this vision, Dunant founded the Red Cross.

[10:45]

So what does the red cross really mean? The red cross was used to mark volunteer medical personnel and facilities of all countries to protect them from attack in times of armed conflict, but Red Cross workers were not armed. They didn't carry any kind of arms. Their only protection was a universally recognized Red Cross emblem. Today this emblem continues to be recognized as a symbol of neutrality and protection. However, we often see the Red Cross emblem in areas of decorative symbols. They can be on signs, in advertising and on first-aid stations. To some, this may not be viewed as much of a problem.

However, it dilutes the meaning and the true impact of the Red Cross. Not only is it wrong, but it is also against the law. The Red Cross mission is to help people to deal with situations, as the hon. member has stated, that threaten their survival, safety, security, well-being and human dignity in Canada and around the world. Humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, volunteer service, unity and universality are the seven fundamental principles that the Red Cross is guided by.

The Red Cross blood donor program celebrated its fiftieth anniversary on February 3 of this year. And though the Red Cross is known for their blood donor program, it's much more diverse than just the one program. It oversees the delivery of personal disaster relief funds and provides many services to victims of emergency situations. Most recently, they provided over $9 million in access to those people from Manitoba who were faced with flooding in their area of the province.

Those people lost income due to this flooding, and I believe the importance of replacing that income so that they can meet their basic needs is of utmost importance. They're also addressing the elimination of land mines which today still maim and kill over 2,000 people a month. These people include civilians, many of them women and children. International services, water safety services, first aid services, and community services and initiatives are among the many programs offered by the Red Cross.

I can speak on a personal note about the Red Cross and the programs they deliver. I taught first aid and CPR -- cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- classes to the people of the Kootenays and around the province for many years. I can say without a doubt that these people who were certified under the Red Cross have left those classrooms and programs knowing how to save a life or help save a life. I'm proud to be able to stand here and say that I have done this and that I have been a part of that contribution. If even one life can be saved through these programs and the delivery of these programs, then I do believe that the Red Cross has been a success.

P. Reitsma: I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful comments.

The Red Cross is about doing good, year in and year out, for more than a century in nations around the world. It is about deep-rooted caring, about an optimism that the world will keep seeing value in impartial friendship. The Red Cross has become part of our national fabric: Canadians reaching through the Red Cross to other citizens of Canada and nations around the world; Canadians helping Canadians saving lives.

The Red Cross does not pass judgment. It mobilizes those human forces that are not driven by desire for gain but only by a desire to help. From the boardroom to the sickroom, volunteers are an essential part of the Canadian Red Cross. Many Red Cross health, safety, emergency and community services in Canada are delivered by volunteers. They bring help, friendship and comfort to others.

In everything the Canadian Red Cross does through its blood services, water safety and first aid programs, international relief, emergency and other services, the Red Cross relies on the generous support of Canadians. It is only through the gift of volunteer blood donations, donated products, charitable financial support or service personnel involvement that the Red Cross is able to sustain life and help those in need in Canada and around the world.

They are friends for life. Those friends number over a quarter-billion throughout the world. Let us be thankful for everything the Red Cross has done, is doing and will continue to do for mankind.

COMMEMORATION WEEK

J. Kwan: It is with honour and pride that I rise today to give my private member's statement on Commemoration Week. Early on, the Attorney General of British Columbia proclaimed July 1 to July 7, 1997, as Commemoration Week. This proclamation is important, because it honours the early Chinese pioneers of our communities. It recognizes their many contributions and acknowledges their many hardships and challenges, and it celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the enfranchisement of the Chinese community.

Nobody will really know the hardships suffered by our early pioneers, and nobody will really know what those challenges were. But in reviewing the history books, we learn that as early as 1858 the first Chinese came to British Columbia. They left their homeland because of poverty and because of political upheaval. They came to a new foreign country in the hope that they would be able to bring opportunities, and perhaps wealth, back home. They came to the new land to strike it rich during the time of the gold rush. As the Chinese people called it, they had come to the "gold mountains." As we call it, they had come to [ gum san ].

They came because they did wish to bring opportunities and wealth back home, with the hope of going home to see their friends and families. According to the history books, between 1881 and 1885 approximately 17,000 Chinese arrived in Canada. Many of them came as peasants. They came to be labourers. They came to work, to earn some money. The conditions they found themselves in were not what they had imagined or predicted. Many of them worked for half the wages that were received by their western counterparts.

During those days, as the construction of the CPR was going on, they received $1 a day; their western counterparts received $1.50 or more. When they went to buy provisions for their daily living, they went to the company store -- and they had to go to the company store -- and instead of paying the price that everybody else paid, they had to pay a higher price.

The death rate in the Chinese community during those times was higher than that of their western counterparts,

[ Page 5223 ]

because it was believed that Chinese people could live with less and that they could work in lower safety standards. According to the history books, approximately 1,500 Chinese people died during that period. As conditions and the situation worsened, in history books we learn that racism was also heightened during those times. The history books tell us that in 1884 there was

an act in place to regulate the Chinese population. When I read the

preamble of the act, it is rather astounding to learn what it talks about:

"Whereas the incoming of the Chinese to British Columbia largely exceeds that of any class of immigrant, and the population so introduced are fast becoming superior in number to our own race; are not disposed to be governed by our laws; are dissimilar in habits and occupation from our people; evade the payment of taxes justly due to the Government; are governed by pestilential habits; are useless in instances of emergency; habitually desecrate grave yards by the removal of bodies therefrom; and generally the laws governing the whites are found to be inapplicable to Chinese, and such Chinese are inclined to habits subversive of the comfort and well-being of the community . . . . "

Such was the act that was in place in February 1884.

As time went on, more acts -- more legislation -- were introduced. In 1885 a head tax of $50 was introduced in hopes of preventing the coming onslaught of the Chinese immigrants. In 1890 the head tax was raised to $100, and that wasn't enough. In 1903 the head tax was raised to $500. During that time, many of the immigrant men who were here were left without any hope of bringing their families to this new land. Many of them died here, alone.

And that wasn't the end of the history of our past. July 1, 1923, saw the introduction of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese people call it Humiliation Day. That act was brought in, essentially, to prevent Chinese immigrants from coming to Canada.

As time went on, conditions worsened and, of course, in the 1930s we hit the Depression. At that time approximately 80 percent of the residents in Chinatown, or the Chinese community, were unemployed.

There was a different standard in terms of assistance, or relief, if you will, set for the Chinese community. It was genuinely believed that the Chinese community could survive on half the amount that their western counterparts could, and that was demonstrated by their wages when they worked for the CPR. Back then, when unemployment was high during the Depression and when the Chinese community and everybody else needed assistance, those with yellow skin were given 16 cents a day for their food. Those with white skin were given somewhere between 15 to 25 cents a day for their food. That was the discrepancy. Those were the challenges that many of the Chinese people suffered during that time.

That did not discourage the Chinese community from their loyalty to Canada. The war had broken out. During the Second World War members of the Chinese community were not drafted. They were not drafted not because they weren't worthy of fighting for Canada; they were not drafted because of the fear that they would want the right to vote if they fought for the country in which they lived. In the end they were drafted, because soldiers were needed on the war fronts. The Chinese community went to the war, and they fought for this country.

The war efforts were not just on the front lines but also back home, where the women raised money in Canadian victory bonds on behalf of this country. They fought for this country because they believed and wanted to make Canada their home.

I will continue, hon. Speaker, after the reply, to talk a little bit more about the contributions of the Chinese community.

I. Chong: Certainly it is my privilege today to respond to Commemoration Week. First I want to thank the government of British Columbia for proclaiming July 1, 1997, as Commemoration Week. I also thank the member opposite for offering her comments on this very significant issue.

As was said, few of us here, whether Canadian born or immigrants to Canada, can truly appreciate the struggles and the hardships that were endured by our forefathers, who helped build and shape this country and this province. I don't have to go back to the history books to recall the past and learn of the past, because fortunately -- or unfortunately, as it may be -- I have had those stories and those events told to me by family members and family friends.

For the many Chinese Canadians living in this province around the turn of the century, it really would be difficult for us to now imagine their pain, their anxiety and their suffering, but I'm certain that many of us do understand. We do understand what it was that inspired those Chinese Canadians to serve their country in the Second World War.

This past Monday, June 30, 1997, I laid to rest one of those Chinese Canadian war veterans that this proclamation is dedicated to. He was my godfather, Mr. John Yuen, born in Victoria in 1915. When he enlisted in 1944 to serve in what was then called the Canadian Army, he was posted and stationed in the South Pacific area, in Australia in particular. As a World War II veteran, he would often share stories with me about his time in the service.

[11:00]

What I recall most were not so much the details of his story but rather his way of reminiscing and his facial expressions. As he spoke, he would often smile. Sometimes he would shed a tear or two. When he concluded his story, he would always sigh a heavy sigh and say how grateful he was that he was allowed to participate and contribute to his country. Many of us here in Victoria will miss him; many of us remember him. The member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, in particular, knew him well. He was very much a part of the Chinese community in Victoria, and when she served as mayor, I know she had a good relationship with him.

My godfather was discharged from the Canadian Army on April 27, 1946. He was able to return home to Victoria safely, but he never forgot the ultimate sacrifices some of his comrades had made. Each year he made an effort to participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies, and he would always say to me that he noted there were a few less participants. Every year he would attend a reunion of war veterans -- whether here in Victoria or in Vancouver -- and again he noted the declining numbers. "One day," he said, "my friends will notice my absence." And unfortunately, that was this year.

When the right to vote was granted in 1947, he along with other Chinese Canadian war veterans were delighted, because they knew that they would now form a part of history -- a history that would forever acknowledge that the enfranchisement of Chinese Canadians was due in large part to their contribution to Canada.

About two weeks ago, at the Order of B.C. investiture ceremony at Government House, I had the pleasure and opportunity to meet one of the recipients of the Order of B.C., Mr. Douglas Jung. He is a Chinese Canadian World War II veteran, a distinguished lawyer and a former Member of Parliament -- in fact, the first Chinese Canadian Member of

[ Page 5224 ]

Parliament. Mr. Jung, incidentally, was a resident of Victoria. At that ceremony I saw Mr. Jung proudly wear his war medals on his jacket, which indicated and reaffirmed in my mind that the Chinese Canadians who joined the war effort did so firstly for their country and secondly for their families and the future generations that would follow. Hon. Speaker, their reward was a feeling of patriotism, and our reward is the right to be Canadian.

J. Kwan: I thank the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head for her comments. Indeed, some of us are very lucky to have stories told to us without having to reference the history books. But history books also do have their place, because oftentimes some of the facts and some of the data are missed. There's nothing like personal stories, and I've been privileged enough in my capacity to have met a lot of people -- a lot of the seniors, a lot of the veterans -- who told me their stories. I have not had direct family members who have told me their stories, because I did not have the opportunity to meet my great-grandfather before he passed away.

These stories tell us one significant thing -- that is, no matter what the hardships or the challenges are, we will forge on forward because we believe in one thing and one thing only, and that is the love of our country. The love of our country extends to the love of our families and that extension goes to the love of our children. That is what Commemoration Week is all about, I think, for all of us.

I think back to the contributions, and the pioneers of our country made significant contributions. That is not just restricted to the Chinese community. It applies to all communities, for they and we all have a role to play in ensuring that our history is in the books and that there is a future for tomorrow. Today I think about: who are some of those significant people who have also contributed to our communities, specifically to the Chinese community? The hon. member opposite mentioned the first Chinese Canadian elected to Parliament. I also like to think of Mr.

Bill Yee, who is the first Chinese Canadian elected to Vancouver city council. He is currently the president of the Chinese Benevolent Association.

I think about the hon. member herself and myself as the first Chinese to be elected MLAs in British Columbia. I think about all the people who have contributed not in public life but for the public in the community as a whole. Mr. King Wong is in my community. He's president of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association; we actually call him the unofficial mayor of Chinatown. Mr.

Yuet Tong, vice-president of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association; Derick Cheng, president of the Chinese Cultural Centre; Mason Loh of SUCCESS; Milton Wong, the founding chair of the Dragon Boat Festival, which we have just finished celebrating a couple of weeks ago -- he is also currently the chair of the fourth World Chinese Entrepreneur Convention . . . . I think about Dr. David Lam, who contributed as the first Chinese Lieutenant-Governor for British Columbia. In many, many ways they have contributed not just in this chamber but also outside, in the community.

Other community leaders such as Jonathan Lau of the Strathcona Community Centre in my riding, Doug Soo of the Britannia Community Services Centre -- the list will go on and on. It is with that celebration, the recognition of those contributions and many more, that we celebrate Commemoration Week.

Hon. D. Streifel: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In Committee B, we'll be examining the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 37: minister's office, $433,000 (continued).

T. Nebbeling: I believe that next week, when we come back to the House, we're going to start talking about the Forest Practices Code under the estimates. Before we do that, I would like to spend some time with the minister, and the people in the House that are assisting the minister, about the managed private forest lands and how the code has had an impact on the operations on managed private forest land -- or the lack of the code having been imposed on managed private forest land.

I would also like to know from the minister the differences between managed private forest land and private forest land without the label "managed." What does that do to the operation of these pieces of land, and why is there this difference between the managed private forest land? What lead to certain lands having that designation and other lands that are privately owned and which have forest production not having that particular label attached to them? Can the minister explain that to me?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, managed private forest land is that which has been put into the taxation class for which there has been, at least historically, a particular lower tax regime.

T. Nebbeling: To make sure that I understand the minister, there's lower tax paid by the people who harvest timber on private land with this managed label attached to it than by people who own private forest land and do not have the managed label attached. Can the minister, then, explain what the reason is for giving that tax break to these companies if indeed private land is a source of income for the government and certain people are exempt from paying the full taxation? Can the minister explain the reason behind that kind of approach?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The managed private forest lands are a special B.C. Assessment Authority classification. In exchange for committing to certain conditions -- that is, reforesting their lands and submitting a management plan -- landowners receive a preferential tax rate. I said in my first comment that historically it has been a preferential and lower tax rate.

T. Nebbeling: I'm really just asking these questions to get to issues related to managed private lands. But I was never very clear about why there was a difference in private land and its responsibilities to the government. So is the minister saying that these private managed forest land owners have actually agreed to work under certain conditions that do not apply to other private land owners?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.

T. Nebbeling: So one of the authorities that have some control over the managed private forest land -- if, again, I heard the minister correctly -- is the assessment of the land. Is it the land value? Or what happens when the land is done by the B.C. Assessment Authority?

[ Page 5225 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The B.C. Assessment Authority assesses the value of land for taxation purposes. Provided that a management plan is submitted, the Assessment Authority is prepared to then consider that land as managed forest land.

T. Nebbeling: The B.C. Assessment Authority is the same authority that does the assessment on all private property, then -- just to make sure that we're talking about the same assessment authority. Or is there a special branch within the B.C. Assessment Authority that actually exclusively works within the private forest lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I haven't got all the details on the internal organization of the assessment branch, but it is the same assessment branch, the B.C. Assessment Authority, that does all land classifications, including private managed forest land.

[11:15]

T. Nebbeling: Obviously what I'm trying to find out is if the assessment is done by this particular authority and if it is the same authority that, for example, assesses my home or commercial building. I think it is important for me to know if indeed there is a special branch within that authority that looks at the assessment of the value of private forest land.

I'm saying that because obviously, in this time where we see more and more regulations imposed on the forest industry in order to make sure that we not only achieve the objective of getting trees out of the forests but that it is done under conditions that are such that it will protect the environment, there is a value associated with all these often restrictive rules and regulations.

It is a reduction in value on land. That's why it is important to me to know if indeed the Assessment Authority which works with the private land owners says, on their properties, there is a special branch that is authorized and that has the knowledge to assess these lands with all these rules and regulations in mind, so that an assessment reflects the reality of the potential of that land -- and potential as far as how much can be taken off that land as a return on an investment that an owner makes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The B.C. Assessment Authority doesn't have anything to do with the Ministry of Forests. I'm not responsible for the Assessment Authority. But they do have qualified people who make the assessments, based on the market value of private managed forest lands.

T. Nebbeling: So there are people who are specialized. I take it these are, then, foresters who are not only very much aware of what happens on Crown land . . . . Somewhere there has to be a base for the Assessment Authority to evaluate a piece of private land. If the minister cannot give me that answer today, maybe he can provide me with an answer in the future, if the people who do assessment on managed private forest land indeed are foresters, and for that reason, I suspect, are fully aware of all the conditions that apply to Crown land but that don't necessarily apply to these forest lands.

There are rules and regulations that obviously will have an impact on how private forest land is being harvested.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to try to get that information on how assessments of private managed forest lands are done and to provide that to you.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate it, because I think it is important to get the feel for what's happening in that particular sector -- private managed forest lands. Before, when I asked the minister how the so-called non-managed private forest lands are assessed, how the taxation on these lands is imposed and how that process is working . . . .

Before I ask some questions on that, I should state clearly that I'm a strong supporter of the private forest land sector, because, as I mentioned yesterday, many of the companies that indeed do have decent numbers to show as a consequence of their work are operations that do have a vast amount of private forest land. Yesterday we mentioned Pacific as an operation that is actually working in the black, which is a rare occasion right now in this province when it comes to the forest industry. We mentioned TimberWest, which I believe was in the black in this year, as well, again an operation with a considerable amount of private land.

I've always been a strong supporter of what happens on these lands being maybe an example of how we should look at how we operate Crown land as well, because the rules and regulations that apply on Crown land often, I believe personally, restrict opportunities that should be there if we were only allowed to allow a little bit more incentive for companies to go into these lands and prove they can harvest in a responsible, environmentally sensitive manner -- and by doing that, to avoid a lot of unnecessary paperwork, bureaucracy.

The result ultimately will then dictate if the operation has been indeed an operation as we expected, to run its matters or not. Knowing that on the managed private forest lands there are less rules and regulations at this time, I truly hope that one day the government can see that as an example.

Coming from Europe, I say this because for years my European background led me into the Swedish and Finnish scenes. As the minister is well aware, much of the land that is harvested, especially in Sweden, is private land. It has led to tremendous yields, much higher per hectare than here in British Columbia. It has led to sustainability of the forest in a manner that we can almost be jealous of. It has led to a forest management strategy that truly puts much emphasis on the environment. They do leave seed trees on harvested land. They do clearcut, but it's done by a different method. There are plots of trees left on the land wherever they harvest.

That is the reason, indeed, that the Swedish example of forestry on private land is such a telling one. When I speak with Swedish friends who are in the forest industry, the one thing they're never afraid of is to invest in their land, because it's theirs. They have the pride of ownership, and they also have the certainty of return.

That is obviously more and more lacking in this province. Companies will do on Crown land what they are dictated to do by the government. Sometimes they think what has been dictated is necessary, and sometimes they really think it is overkill. But the government dictates, and they just comply. There is really no sense of, "We know this is the very best we can do; we know this is the maximum number of dollars we want to invest," because the uncertainty that we have experienced in the forest industry over the last eight or nine years has given a lot of companies food for thought about whether they really want to carry on. They tend to be sure that they can have that return.

Private managed forest land is, to me, a great tool to bring back the spirit of pride to the industry when it comes to land-based management -- be it silviculture programs or be it enhanced silviculture programs that do the follow-up work. We can learn some lessons from taking note of what happens on these managed forest lands. For that reason I am interested in what has led to the situation as it is here in British

Colum-

[ Page 5226 ]

bia, where there are some breaks for the owners of private land. That has given this small group of operators the sense of: "Yes, we can invest and we will invest and we will have a return." The government cannot change its mind down the road and say: "We thought we were going to allow you to harvest timber from that land one day, but changes, which are dictated for many different reasons, have now stopped us from fulfilling that commitment. Sorry about the investment, but obviously we cannot give you a return on your investment, and we cannot compensate you either for expenses on these lands that no longer will be available for harvest purposes."

What I would like to ask the minister, as I have already alluded to . . . . On private lands we do not have the rules and regulations that apply to Crown lands. That is the way it is today. In the past there were attempts made by the government to bring the managed forest lands into more compliance with what the forest code does for Crown land. Is there still any dialogue going on with the private land owners who have managed forest land about how the Forest Practices Code will be applied to this particular sector of the forest industry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to ask the minister, then: considering that obviously at the time the Forest Practices Code was introduced in 1994, there was a considerable outcry among the owners of these lands that the Forest Practices Code would violate their private ownership rights . . . ? I think that that was recognized at the time. If since that time dialogue has continued, could the minister, then, maybe explain what kind of version of the Forest Practices Code that is imposed on Crown land has been discussed with these private land owners?

What is the status today of all these discussions that are supposed to have been going on since 1994? Because in 1994, this sector was given some breathing space from Forest Practices Code implementation. As that just got confirmed from the minister, there is still obviously something going on that will eventually be applied to these private lands.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are looking at options for the application of aspects of the code with the Private Forest Landowners Association, but there have been no decisions taken.

T. Nebbeling: Would the minister . . . ? Well, if I ask the minister, "Could you give me a rundown of the options?" he most likely will say no. But after two years of discussions -- almost three years of discussions -- it's a surprise to me. I would have thought that this could have been done properly.

The only reason that there may be a need for this long time of coming to a decision on how in the future the managed private lands will be brought into a regulatory system is that that will give us the assurance that private managed land will continue to be a contributor to the provincial wealth through harvesting rights; that the managed private forest land will continue to work in such a manner that their activities, which, I suppose, at this stage -- I don't know for sure -- are more based on voluntary participation . . . that their participation and their self-imposed regulatory system is indeed a benefit to our long-term objective of a viable environment that will accommodate other values as well -- values such as wildlife, wildlife corridors, biodiversity, special species that need protection.

If these discussions have been going on for three years -- or I assume it has been three years, because it was in 1994 that that whole issue came to the forefront -- can the minister tell me who has been involved from the government side in working together with this managed private forest land sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Over the last two or three months the discussions, which have been intermittent . . . . But over the last two or three months, the lead-in discussion has been conducted by the deputy minister.

[11:30]

T. Nebbeling: Who was, then, speaking on behalf of the government on this particular issue prior to the last two or three months that have been . . . ? Or has there been any discussion prior to the discussions that started three months ago by the deputy minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Various officials have been conducting discussions: Ralph Archibald, one of our managers in the forest practices branch . . . . To provide information for you, the B.C. Assessment Authority has a small group of five people called valuation services. They provide expertise to the Assessment Authority relative to farms, forest land and major industrial components. On their staff, they have one forester, one agrologist, one timber appraiser and two support staff, and they use their own statutory-based appraisal methods.

T. Nebbeling: I will come back to the B.C. Assessment Authority in a minute. I would like to know, as to the debate, about what kinds of rules or regulations will be imposed on the managed private forest land. That debate really started in late 1994, I believe, because of the implementation of the Forest Practices Code. Somewhere, somehow, there must have been an ongoing dialogue with the owners, and I believe the minister stated that there was an organization that was made up of owners of these private managed forest lands.

Can the minister give me an idea if it was the private forest land management organization -- if that is the name -- that initiated this dialogue at the time this debate started to happen? We haven't heard anything from 1994 to 1997. That's a void. There must have been something happening during that period.

I would like to hear from the minister how that communication or dialogue between the Ministry of Forests and the representatives of the managed private forest lands was done, how it was held and who made the recommendations. I can go on like that, but I cannot believe that this government has not done anything since the problem was recognized in 1994. I cannot believe that this government didn't do anything until three months ago. I believe there must be more available than that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You shouldn't believe that we have done nothing since 1994, because the first round of consultations was chaired by Dr. Gordon Baskerville from UBC in December 1994 and January 1995. When his work was completed, the private forest land owners created an organization, and then the ministry invited them to develop content for a regulation under

section 217 for consideration by government. They presented an alternative proposal that has been under consideration ever since. The private land owners were actively consulting with their members during that time, and in the meantime, government was actively trying to get the Forest Practices Code up and running on the public forest lands.

T. Nebbeling: What was the name of the professor who had a committee that looked at recommendations? Whose recommendations were these?

[ Page 5227 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was Dr. Gordon Baskerville, and he conducted a series of workshops.

T. Nebbeling: At the end of that series of workshops, was there a report created that gave not only recommendations but that analyzed the situation related to the management of private forest lands? What was the conclusion of this series on private forest lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can send you a copy of the report. He generally found that the owners were strongly opposed to regulation, and that they felt their lands were managed responsibly and that other private land holdings -- agricultural and residential -- were the lands where most poor forest practices had taken place in the past. There were no conclusions to the report in the sense that they were agreed upon and acted upon.

T. Nebbeling: I hope the minister will bear with me, because as I stated before, I believe the minutes to the private forest lands scenario -- how they operate, and how they have some higher level of authority on how that land is managed -- are and always have been, for me, a way of looking at how in future we should maybe try to put more trust in companies, so we can see that Crown land -- in part or in whole; I don't know what percentage -- can also indeed be worked, harvested and managed with these kinds of principles more in mind.

As I said before, I do believe that the return of investment on managed private forest land is better than it is on Crown land. The management levels -- although they are in

part voluntary, if I understand the minister correctly -- are certainly in line with what we expect the environmental standards on Crown land to be, and it is the environmental standards that dictate much of the management.

I hope the minister can bear with me, because I'm truly . . . . I do not have much information on what has happened in the past in this province, except the fact that at the time the Forest Practices Code was introduced as a tool to get the management of our forest lands more focused on environmental values, this tool that was used was not imposed on the managed private forest lands. At the same time, I can't believe that the government would have allowed these private forest land owners just to go ballistic and do whatever they want. I believe they have proven to be very responsible and responsive to the needs of how we look at our forests.

On this committee with Prof. Baskerville . . . . I never heard the name before. What was the background of this professor? Was he a biologist? Was he a forester? What was he a professor of?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He is a member of the faculty of forestry at the University of British Columbia and has a broad generalist background in forestry. I don't know all his specialties, but I'd be happy to get them. In the judgment of the minister at the time, he could do the . . . . He was a former dean of forestry, so he has a general background, as most people have who get into those senior positions.

T. Nebbeling: I don't know who the former minister was, but I don't think that is really relevant. It's more relevant that the minister has the information now on the conclusions the professor came to at the end of his round of consultations. Did he consult exclusively with the owners of private forest land, or were other groups also invited to take

part in the discussion? Were there groups that he organized throughout the province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: His consultations were fairly broad, because there are interests out there that are not private land owners' interests, not the least of which is riparian management -- the management of fish. Those certainly aren't private resources, and they do travel through private land. There was a broad public as stakeholders, and this was a series of workshops. I don't have the details here of who was invited, but it was an open consultation process.

T. Nebbeling: I think that is important, as I believe that at the time this was all happening, in 1994, the CORE process was happening as well. Of course the CORE group represented a considerable number of stakeholder organizations that included the owners, the environmental side and the government. I do not believe that CORE got very involved in this discussion, primarily because the owners insisted that their voice had to be heard in a different manner. The CORE group were really involved with collecting data and coming up with conclusions based on that data, specifically because of their ownership rights.

What I'm trying to find out is: did this committee, headed by the dean of forestry at the time, have meetings with the industry exclusively so that the reporting he did would include a

section that was very much based on the opinion of these owners, rather than having discussions . . . ? We were taking much pride as a government and a province, especially in the mid-nineties, in the concept of round-table discussions. Groups with different interests would come in, sit around the table and discuss until everybody, through whatever mechanism, agreed to go in a certain direction. That system is no longer really used; the government no longer supports the round-table concept.

One thing that we found out is that at the end of the day, when everybody was supposed to have signed off, it didn't really mean that everybody had agreed with everything that was in whatever document was prepared.

If this study on how private forest lands were to be incorporated into a new forest practice code implementation system and a different forest practice code is what we see on Crown land . . . . If this group were working under that concept at the round table . . . . That was the modus operandi in the province everywhere when it came to the environment. Did the study indicate that there was a minority opinion that was maybe contradicting the opinion of the group as a whole?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It wasn't a committee. It wasn't a study. It wasn't a CORE round-table-type process. It was a series of workshops.

This is all very interesting history. But if we talk about here and now, if we talk about what we're doing now, over the last three months, there have been discussions and negotiations with the Private Forest Landowners Association as the only body that really represents this particular group.

[11:45]

T. Nebbeling: The reason that I am asking all these questions, which, quite frankly, I had no intention of doing when I started this, is based on the fact that when I asked the minister: "With all the discussion that has been going on -- and this is a three-year-old issue -- in what direction are we going . . . ? " In his answer to, "Have there been discussions

[ Page 5228 ]

going on?" the minister said, yes, and he sat down. When I asked if I could have some idea of the direction we're going, the minister said, "Well, we're discussing some options," and he sat down.

If I can't get an answer that way, I'm going to at least try to find out what has been done in the past, so I can use that as a reference when I make up my mind about what's going on between the government and these private forest land owners -- whether it is based on what has been discussed in the past, be it in a round-table environment, a CORE environment or in this special workshop environment.

I differ with the minister in opinion when he said that these are not committee meetings; these were not the only nature of this; these were not round-table discussions; these weren't workshops. From my political background -- ten years in municipal government in Whistler, six years as mayor and four years as councillor -- I can tell the minister that I've participated in maybe hundreds of workshops. Workshops, to me, are exactly what they are: they are meetings of different opinions and different stakeholders.

You sit around the table, you discuss the issue and you try to come up with a formula or a position at the end of the workshop that reflects something of what everybody would like to see happening. But never is the world perfect.

What I'm trying to ask . . . . Asking the questions I'm asking now is a long way around to the simple basic question that I asked the first time: what were the emotions? What were the groups that were involved in creating some of these guidelines, which most likely will still be part of the deliberation? What has created the number of options for the government to consider -- and were probably options for the private forest land owners to consider, as well?

I'm sorry if I take a lot of time doing that, but that is the discussion we had before. I ask a question. I don't get the answer that I expect -- and that doesn't mean that I have to have the minister tell me exactly every detail. But if I ask a question, if something is included in a deliberation on an issue, and I don't get the answer straight, as it is, then I will continue to find out through other ways. That's what I'm doing on this particular one, as well.

If the minister told me that these workshops had been between the owners of this private land who have different rights from somebody who occupies a piece of Crown land for timber harvest, if it had been between these two parties, okay, then I could have gone through these organizations and said, "Okay, what was your position then, and what is that position today?" and incorporate that in the discussions that are happening right now with the ministry. That is another way I could have gone.

As there were so many different opinions expressed at that time, to come up with a recommendation by the professor, the dean of forestry at UBC at that time . . . . It is important for me to know who these other so-called stakeholders were. It doesn't matter if it was a round-table discussion; it doesn't matter if it was a workshop. It was a method to get the information that would lead to a stack of recommendations. If the minister doesn't have the recommendations here, I can understand that. I hope to be able to get them, though, so that I can look at that.

Again, it's all based on my concern that we do not start looking at overregulating a private sector that has done very well in the forest industry.

Having said all that, can the minister tell me . . . ? This association that he deals with, the Private Forest Landowners Association, how many members are in that association?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To suggest to the member that . . . . I've tried to answer your questions. I've answered every question that you've asked me. You just didn't ask the right questions. You didn't ask me what options. I would have been happy to tell you, but you didn't ask me. I'm not going to go into long monologues, because every time I do that, the member picks up on very small items and makes a big deal out of it. I'm being straightforward. I'm trying to encourage the member to talk about the estimates: what are we doing in the Ministry of Forests right now?

I don't have all the details of who attended all the meetings. I'd be happy to get that for you. But I would suggest to you that some of these things . . . . If you're interested in canvassing that, Baskerville's report was available. It's not a secret report. It would have been available, and some of your research would have led you to that. I guess what I'm happy to do is answer direct questions, if you want to ask direct questions.

You asked about this association. It's our understanding that the private managed forest lands in total have about 120 owners, and it's my understanding that some 90 percent of the land is represented in that organization. I'd be happy to try to get for you the number of members.

T. Nebbeling: My very straightforward questions were in response to the minister telling me that the last three months' discussions have been held with this organization, where various options have been discussed. I asked what these options were, and the minister refused to answer. So I believe I have asked a very straightforward question. If the minister wants to answer that with a no, in order to avoid the debate on estimates . . . .

We are into estimates, Madam Chair. I believe that within the ministerial budget there is a cost allocated to solve this issue; I presume there is. So I am onto the financial plan here. I am trying to find out where the minister is spending money, how he's spending it and what the achievements will be of that expenditure.

I know the minister would like maybe to talk only about the multimillion-dollar exercises that the government is going through. But, having a background in business, I look at the little costs as well. If the minister wants to be evasive about it, then I will take the time, either through monologue or through questions on this issue, to come to the point where I feel comfortable that I will find in other ways the information that the minister is not willing to give me.

I've learned, this morning, a couple of things. There were some studies done in the past. I didn't know that. Don't blame me for not having done my research. I'm in opposition. We do not have the funding for that type of research. The minister says: "Read my press releases." Well, I don't have the time to read the press releases of the minister, to be my source of information on what has happened.

I have learned that there have been workshops in the past. If these workshops happened in 1995, it is surprising to me why it has taken so much time between when this report, the Baskerville report that the minister mentioned . . . . That's the second time I have learned there is a name for this report. I can find it easily in the library now, so it's not in vain, what I'm doing. But it does surprise me that this report was created in 1995 and that in 1997, only in the last few months, the deputy minister has been involved again with discussions with the private forest land owners.

What I would like to hear from the minister, then, if he can enlighten me, is: what happened when this report was produced? What happened with the contents of the report?

[ Page 5229 ]

Can the minister also tell me -- so he cannot just answer with yes or no -- if the participants from the Private Forest Landowners Association did concur with some of the findings by this dean of forests at

UBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to be sure, the member did not ask me what the options were. Therefore I did not tell him. But let me say that whatever happened was interesting history. The various reports of the workshops and a brief that was presented by the private forest land owners were under consideration. I did tell you very forthrightly that we got onto a major emphasis on the public forest land application of the Forest Practices Code. So we didn't actively pursue resolution of issues there.

We have since taken a fresh look at the issue of private forest land management. The deputy minister has been, over the last three months, engaging the private forest land association, which is the only association we can deal with, in discussions and negotiations about how we might proceed.

T. Nebbeling: I think the minister should check Hansard. I did ask about the options, and the minister responded that there were options. But that was all; he was not willing to give me the details.

So yes, this is indeed going into history. Considering that I am only here in my first term and do not have the background on what has happened in this House in past years . . . . The minister has been sitting in this House and therefore should have much more historical data in his head than I do. I'm trying to tap into that historical data, because this is an issue that is based on something that happened in 1994. It is based on the fact that the government at that time created a new set of regulations or brought together regulations from other ministries that were put all in one big binder, and said: "This is the code that's going to apply on all the lands that produce timber."

And then, of course, it was recognized that the people that had private land . . . . Well, they just couldn't be dictated into accepting this code. On Crown land, the government can do what it wants, so we do it. It is that code that is now going to be revisited. It is that code that has proven not to be workable to the extent it was supposed to be. It is that code that has killed jobs in the province in the forest industry.

So I'm concerned when, at this stage, we again have a dialogue going that could conclude by saying that the Forest Practices Code, as it is, maybe should be imposed on that industry. They clearly rejected it in 1994 when some suggestions were made that way. That is why the CORE process, in the Clayoquot in particular, really did not touch on how the private forest land owners were going to be pulled into this.

We have had studies done since that time, and we have just discussed one element of the studies -- that was the workshops by the dean of forestry at UBC. The minister can't give me much detail on the conclusions, but it could have been that the conclusions were, indeed, to impose the same Forest Practices Code -- it is timber, and for the sake of future generations, we just have to be tough, even if private rights are going to be undermined here.

I don't know -- I'm only guessing. So don't say that I said that that was the conclusion. I don't know. But I would like to know if consideration was even given for that. The minister said we are looking at several options. Well, is one of the options to impose the code on the lands as if they are Crown land? I don't know. That is the frustrating thing for me -- that I don't have that historical background. I don't have the dollars to do research to dig all that stuff up. All I have is knowledge of a situation.

There are people who own their land, they want to harvest the timber on that land, and they will do it under certain circumstances that still protect that environmental objective that we have. It will still recognize the need for riparian setbacks. It will still recognize the need for the possibility of biodiversity. It will still recognize that land has to have a corridor element so that wildlife can traverse from one part of an area to another.

[12:00]

So I am concerned here. I do not want to see undermined the principles that the private forest land owners have been able to work with up to now, and that's why I'm going to be persistent in trying to pursue what happened in the past. Can the minister at this point tell me: when the study was presented to the ministry, was the study also presented to the private land owners? What were the conclusions of that study?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It wasn't a study. The results of the workshops were presented and made public.

T. Nebbeling: That's the sad part of the whole thing. The minister keeps accusing me, when he speaks to an issue at length, of picking out certain elements of what he says and then taking them in the wrong context and pursuing these statements with some vigour. But at the same time, I've been told that workshops have been going on. He doesn't consider that that is, in the end, considered to be a study of what is, what should be and what could be.

Some higher authority, like the dean of forestry at UBC, has been asked to do a report and a conclusion on all the information that has been brought to the table in these workshops. If he doesn't call that a study, then that is his way, but to me, that very much reflects a study of a situation that has to be dealt with.

If it was a private document, can the minister tell me, once it was released, if the managed private forest land owners wrote a report of the findings? Did that report in any way, shape or form indicate support for the conclusions of these workshops? Did they write a report of dissent? I don't know. I'm asking the minister if he can maybe enlighten me on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: After the workshops, the ministry invited the Private Forest Landowners Association to develop suggested content for regulation. I mentioned that. The private land foresters submitted a report in October '95 outlining the framework for a regulation.

T. Nebbeling: October '95 to June '97. Count for me -- 18 or 19 months in between. Can the minister . . . ? No, before I get to that point, I would like to ask if the association did a report on the findings and came up with a counter-report or a dissenting report? What were the elements where the report did not concur with the study of the dean of forestry at UBC, and what were the recommendations that were made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would say in general that the report they submitted was their response to the Baskerville report. Their proposal was based on the following objectives: that the regulation should focus only on basic environmental values --

[ Page 5230 ]

protection of soils, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife and continued commitment to the growing of trees -- but not scenic, biological, cultural or other values.

T. Nebbeling: You see, we're getting somewhere. What I hear from the minister -- and I'm not saying that this is what he said, but it's what I hear -- is that the debate on the Forest Practices Code most likely is very much focused on higher values. It seems that here we have an opinion created by the dean of forestry at UBC supporting the concept of higher-value recognition on private land as well, which will in many cases prohibit the effective removal of the trees.

That has become the big problem in the forest industry today. It's the higher-value restriction that has caused the government to undertake a review of the Forest Practices Code to see where changes can be made to make sure we can continue to harvest our timber and continue, through that, to support the economy and the infrastructure needs of the province: hospitals, schools, courthouses, social welfare -- you name it. It's all funded to a great degree by funds from the forest industry.

The minister said that the regulations focused on basic principles such as soils, water quality and habitat. Can the minister give me some indication that he can support that kind of approach on private land? What it obviously will do, if indeed . . . . I'm thinking while I'm talking, because the environment is very important, and I don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm not trying to keep these elements in the code in place that will guarantee that other values still have recognition and may be handled differently under the Forest Practices Code.

When the minister talks about riparian areas, for example, I believe they're necessary. But every riparian area does not necessarily have to be 100 feet or 30 yards. I've seen examples of much less riparian setbacks and still very effective management of that water source.

When it comes to the protection of soils, can the minister tell me if indeed the suggestions made by the private land owners that . . . ? Could the minister give me an indication whether he could support something of the nature where the soil requirement on private land would be different than the . . . ?

J. Sawicki: Point of order. I think that instead of canvassing estimates, the member has now moved into debating the Forest Practices Code, which would be anticipating legislation that's already been tabled in the House. There will be plenty of time for that debate when we debate that legislation.

The Chair: The point is very well taken, and I'm sure the hon. member has heard the point . . .

T. Nebbeling: I heard the point . . . .

The Chair: . . . and will move on to another topic.

T. Nebbeling: Well, Madam Chair, I'm on the debate. I'm looking at income that the government expects from the forest industry. I look at the budget that has to be balanced this year so that the mistakes of the last budgets can be undone. I'm talking about income to the Ministry of Forests through stumpage and through other forms of taxation on the industry, and if I started to talk about the amendments to the acts . . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I was going to offer the observation that those are fine topics to talk about.

T. Nebbeling: It would be fine?

The Chair: For those.

T. Nebbeling: Well, that's what I'm talking about. Is the minister willing to change some of the soil-testing requirements and soil protection requirements that are imposed on Crown land used by the industry? Therefore from time to time they are restricted to derive stumpage from timber that cannot be taken out of an area because the soil value becomes the higher value. If that rule would apply to private land, there would be a consequence for the private land owner, and it would most likely turn into a reduction in income for the government.

So the consideration that the government has to give to these requests by private forest land owners does have financial implications on how the government reacts to it.

As we are looking at the budget that is based on a particular income and a particular expenditure, I would like to know if the minister is considering at this stage that kind of change in thinking on these lands so that we either have a status quo in the income of the government from private forest land by not changing the rules, or we have less income because less timber will come off these lands.

The Chair: I just remind the member, too, that if you're looking for a response on changing legislation or that affects changing legislation, that is not permitted in the discussion on estimates.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was a question back there about what we support. In principle, we support the regulations suggested by the Private Forest Landowners Association that would focus on the basic environmental values of protection of soils, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife and a continued commitment to the growing of trees. What we are under discussion with them about is how we achieve that protection.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not trying to buy the government. Somebody needs . . . .

[Interruption.]

T. Nebbeling: I apologize for this. There's a golf tournament this afternoon. I committed a $100 prize, so they came to collect, and I apologize that I had to do it during this process.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You should be golfing.

T. Nebbeling: We should be golfing. We were going to go to 2 o'clock, so I will not be golfing. I will be here doing the work that I was elected to do.

Would the minister mind repeating his last answer? I really didn't hear it because of that little incident.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This one time I'll report that I know that it was an important interruption you had.

I want to assure you that we support the Private Forest Landowners Association's objectives that they would see in the regulations. Those objectives focus on the basic environmental values of protection of soils, water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife and a continued commitment to the growing of trees. We support those values in principle. Where we disagree or what is under discussion with the association is how we achieve the protection of those values.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that answer. Now I can do some further work by getting more details on that through

[ Page 5231 ]

other sources. If there are going to be changes, would the minister consider that these changes would just apply to the managed forest land? As the minister said, not all forest land is managed. There is also forest land that is harvested without having the conditions set by this government. Would these conditions apply to all privately owned forest land or just to the managed privately owned forest land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The discussions that are currently underway only involve privately managed private forest lands. There is, however, a dialogue going on with the farming community and local government and environmental interests about the extension of the Fish Protection Act provisions to other private forest land around riparian protection issues.

T. Nebbeling: As the minister said before, the basic values or principles that should be considered or could be acceptable to the private forest land owners obviously include more than fish regulation and fish protection. So right now another dialogue is going on with owners of farmland and other private lands or managed land, and that is acceptable. But I am talking about private forest land where harvesting takes place, not farmland. The minister explained that there are two different ways of assessing the value of that forest.

The managed private forest land does have a different cost factor as far as taxation is concerned than the non-managed forest lands, and for that, the government gets a plan in return. I presume that the non-managed private forest land owners do not have to provide harvesting plans or seek approval.

[12:15]

The question I really have when it comes to forest land that is in the hands of the private sector -- some of it is managed; some of it is not under a managed type of relationship with the government . . . . How would these changes apply to the lands that are producing timber but have not been part of this managed type of relationship with the government? I am asking this so that the minister understands where I'm coming from.

If the managed lands are getting a different taxation form and better taxation on their lands, in return for which they have to do things that the non-managed land owners do not have to do, how would a change to the managed forest land apply to these other groups that have refused or have not been willing to be part of this? Where is the tool to get on an even playing field, or where is the tool to still have different forms of management on these privately owned forest lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The discussions we're having only affect managed private forest land on the assumption that they are in that classification because they have had a benefit. I'd like the member to clarify if he's saying that we should be applying standards to the private forest land that's not in the managed category.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to consider that request as an excuse for me to act like the minister, because normally it is me who is asking the questions. It's the only time in the year that I can ask questions and the minister has to answer or try to answer. So the minister asking me a question . . . . I am not the government.

An Hon. Member: Time for a change.

T. Nebbeling: I know it is time for a change, but we have to be patient. It will happen one day.

I'm not the government. I do not have all the details that the minister has -- and has not necessarily been willing to share with me. So to ask me if these new conditions that would apply to managed private forest land would have to be imposed on the so-called non-managed private forest land, my only answer is that I can't make that decision, because I haven't got all your background information.

But what I would do, if I were in government, is try to deregulate as much as possible and let this sector that has proven -- by not having to work with the stringent regulations that Crown land has -- to be financially much more healthy as an operation, more productive when it comes to the use of the land . . . .

I think it is the one area where we should really take note and use it as an example of how we can indeed manage our Crown land in such a manner that the operators are going to be working on the basis of trust, as they do on the managed private forest land, rather than being overly regulated and in a heavy cost position. That's a long answer to a simple question, but I wish the minister would take some more time explaining his answers when I ask the questions.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Chair, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery are Lakhy and Sukhjeet Takhar, with their three beautiful daughters, Jaspreet, Mandeep and Pavin. With them is their relative Gurjot Kaur, who is taking her master's at Harvard and is on holiday visiting with them. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My understanding is that the Private Forest Landowners Association wants to apply regulations -- of the nature that it would like to see -- to unmanaged private forest land as well as to managed private forest land. And I only asked my question to see if you were going in the same direction that they were. I'll make it very clear that our discussions are only on the managed private forest land. That's all we're talking to them about. They may want to talk to us about something else, but we do not have under consideration the application of aspects of the code to unmanaged private forest land -- only managed private forest land.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe it is the time for me to ask what regulates the so-called non-managed private forest lands.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't get it all. Could I ask you to repeat that, please?

T. Nebbeling: The potential changes or the potential implementation of the Forest Practices Code on managed private forest land is a tool that I believe the government can use, because companies in the past agreed to accept certain conditions that gave the government a little bit better control over what happened on the land, such as the provision of a management plan. In return, then, the government allowed the managed private forest land some financial consideration, some financial savings.

I think that was the basis on which the minister was explaining it earlier on -- what the difference was between the managed private forest land and the unmanaged land. We know there's a planned requirement that will be scrutinized, I assume, by the Ministry of Forests.

The assessment of the land is a different story. It is not the forest managers who go in to check if things are done in the right way. What I hear is that the value of the land and the

[ Page 5232 ]

assessment of the type of work done on these managed private forest lands is a function of the B.C. Assessment Authority, which then has this five-member team doing that type of work. That does include a professional forester. So there are some serious consequences to managed private forest land. There are some serious conditions attached that.

Today when we talk about the unmanaged private forest land, what kinds of rules, regulations and check-and-balance systems are in place to deal with these lands, then?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are no applications of the code to unmanaged private forest land. There are, however, some discussions under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment with the owners of private land -- all owners of private land, including local government -- to discuss elements of the Fish Protection Act. That's the only place where unmanaged forest lands could be affected by government action.

T. Nebbeling: Now I understand why the minister asked me the question of how I would deal with the request of the managed private forest land owners to apply any changes to all lands. If indeed more conditions are put on the managed private forest land owners in how they can harvest the timber . . . . More conditions dictated by the Forest Practices Code, as we have learned through the experience of the last two years, has had a dramatic impact on how and when people can go into the forest.

The disadvantage that the managed forest land owners would put themselves in would be considerably more stringent than it is today. Already managed forest land owners take on a lot more responsibility under the agreement with the government than the unmanaged forest land owners do, so any additional requirements and restrictions on what they can do on the land will just put them at a much bigger disadvantage than the unmanaged forest land owners. I can see why the association representing the managed forest land owners is really concerned.

So without passing judgment, I can understand why there is a rigorous battle -- debate -- going on to stop the government from, in a sense, creating even more diversions on the playing fields. I'm sure that the managed forest land owners would like to see a little bit more of an even playing field when it comes to competition or the way they handle the land compared to others.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Are you finished? I'm not talking about policy. I'm talking about the implementation of new rules which will have a financial consequence. That's what I'm talking about. If the financial consequence is stronger on the managed forest land owners, then I can understand why these owners are concerned.

The member opposite said it's policy. I remind the member that this little debate is because of a question asked by the minister. I only pay my respect to the minister to answer him and to explain the answer that I had given.

Can the minister explain to me, then, if there is a calculation done, if indeed the Forest Practices Code would apply to these managed forest lands? What could be the cost of this implementation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is part of the technical work that's being done.

But I take it from your comments that you support the Private Forest Landowners Association in their request and in their view that whatever is done to the managed private forest land should be done to the unmanaged, as well, to have an equal playing field. I'd like to comment that by their asking that something less than the full code apply to them, they're asking for an unlevel playing field vis-�-vis the public forest land. By having fewer restrictions on managed private forest land, they would then have an economic advantage over forestry on the public lands.

T. Nebbeling: Just for the record, the minister has accused me from time to time of putting words in his mouth, and he's trying now to do it to me.

An Hon. Member: No, he wouldn't do that.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe he didn't intend to do that. But I do not want Hansard to reflect that I agree with his statement that at this point, I am supporting the managed forest land owners to impose anything that this government deems fit to impose on these men. It's private forest land. To impose the same on non-managed private forest lands . . . . What I have said is that I can understand fully why these people, these managed private forest land owners, are concerned, because they will indeed have a disadvantage. They will indeed lose some of their economic viability.

The minister knows that at the time the Forest Practices Code was introduced, the commitment was made that whatever happened with the Forest Practices Code, it will never lead to a reduction of timber availability of more than 6 percent -- 6 percent was the maximum. We never had to worry that the consequences of the Forest Practices Code would exceed that reduction of timber available to operators. That was on Crown land, and that happened.

[12:30]

Two years later we know that the impact of the Forest Practices Code has been much more than 6 percent and has led to timber supply areas not being able to continue to accommodate the number of jobs that were traditionally in these timber supply areas. The best example is the Kingcome, where, on top of the Forest Practices Code . . . . It's not the Kingcome. The Soo TSA is the Squamish timber supply area. In that area alone, combined with the AAC reductions by the chief forester, they're looking at a reduction of about 17 or 18 percent, of which the Forest Practices Code is higher than 6 percent.

One of the reasons that the government is considering a review of the Forest Practices Code is precisely because of that point. The impact, the reduction of available timber, has been exceeding 6 percent considerably.

So the managed private forest land owners are now saying: "Hey, wait a second. We have ownership. We are not on Crown land. We have ownership of these lands. We have ownership of the production on these lands." Like a farmer when he harvests his land or she harvests her land, and it is carrots, radishes or lettuce, they can take whatever they feel fit to (

a) supply the market, and (

b) create a price that is needed to produce the product. The private forest land owners in principle have that same right, be it managed or not managed.

One group decided at one time, in order to get some breaks on that financial pressure that is imposed by the government through the collection of stumpage fees and other taxes, to make an arrangement with the government where they would work a little bit more with the guidelines set out

[ Page 5233 ]

by the government. So these became the managed private forest lands. I think that is what happened then. As a consequence of this one-and-a-half-hour debate, I have concluded that maybe that was the reason for that.

At the same time, there was a group of people who said: "The hell with this. I'm not going to make a deal with the government. I don't want that financial break. I want to have control over my land. I want to be able to say that this year I'm going to harvest four hectares, because I know that with that timber I can make a profit, and I'm not taking more than I need." It's a nice way of keeping your little private land mass sustainable, because you react to market prices. As a company or a family who owns that land, you can react to what you need.

So they rejected this idea of the government getting a foothold into that part of the industry. There is an advantage for these people still on private land, over the so-called managed private forest land.

Now what I begin to fear is that there are considerations -- the minister calls them options -- to add to the package of conditions under which these managed forest land owners can harvest the timber. That, I think, has put fear in the minds of these managed private forest land owners that there will be further restrictions on what they can take out of the forest. And that fear is driven by the impact the Forest Practices Code has had on Crown land. Nobody can deny that. The minister is not denying it either.

So they are saying: "Listen; if you put us at a disadvantage, and we still have to compete with other private land owners who also harvest but without all these rules and restrictions, these guys' advantages are becoming much bigger than was the intention when this whole managed private forest land scenario was created. If you make our life more miserable by imposing new rules, then you better start considering that these rules should apply to all private forest land."

And maybe, Mr. Minister, because of that kind of rationale, maybe trying to impose these additional restrictions on these managed private forest lands is not a good idea. Maybe we should leave it as it is, because what we have seen through experience is that it's already happening. I have visited operations that are under the managed private forest land conditions -- managed or harvested under the conditions. I've been there, and I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, that in one in particular where there was a beautiful stream going through the land, the riparian setback was very functional.

They had indeed made sure that there were trees along the creek, and they had made sure that the creek was protected. So they did indeed do their riparian preventive work without having been told by the government that they had to do it. I think we should leave it at that, because they're doing a good job. I've seen the examples, and I've seen the results of it.

To say, "Just for the sake of it, let's impose more regulations on this group," makes that group work in a much more disadvantaged position than they were in prior to this. It can only lead me to conclude that either you impose the same rules and regulations on the non-managed forest land -- which would be an imposition on and a violation of the owners' rights -- or you recognize that this particular sector is doing a great job in achieving the goals that this government has set out, but without having a stick behind them if they don't do it.

They do it on a voluntary basis, and they do it because they also believe, as operators and owners, that the environmental values have to be adhered to and that the environmental values have to be protected. But they don't need that stick. If I get you right, you are trying to create that stick.

So rather than the managed forest land owners saying, "If you make life more miserable for us, you have to do it for the other group as well," I would suggest that not changing the rules under which these private forest land owners are working is maybe the way to go. If we do that, then we are actually doing more of the type of structure and the type of management of these lands that is done in Sweden.

In Sweden they do have forest practices codes, but they don't necessarily apply to these private lands. We have recognized it and we have spoken about it. In Sweden they have a much higher yield per hectare on their land than we do. Their forests are magnificent. They have created their own code that they adhere to that allows seed trees to remain on clearcuts, so officially you do see some trees. At the same time, the trees will reseed the lands around them. So there are ways to achieve these goals without going heavy.

On Crown land you have the right to do what you want to do, because you, Mr. Minister, are the government, and you've said it time after time: "We are the government, and we can do anything we want." I don't like governments to think that way, but if that is the way you feel, that is your right, because indeed you are the government. You've been elected to do that.

But I would consider amongst your options -- and you haven't given me the options -- to leave it as it is, and let the private forest land owners continue to be responsible environmental operators. They are the only operators right now that bring in financial reports of their companies that are in the black -- not much, but they're at least in the black,

whereas most other companies come in in the red -- and these are the companies that work together with the government on Crown land.

So I think I've explained my feelings, and I hope that the minister will consider some of the things I've said. I would hate to see the last part of the forest industry that makes money and that has companies that are productive and contribute to the well-being of this province through taxation, be put in a position through more regulation, that they become like the companies that had to work with these regulations and that haven't done well.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't leave the impression that it is only the companies that have managed private forest land that are making money, because there are others that only operate on private timber that are making money. So this is not the only reason why they're making money.

I take it the member would like to see us get rid of cut control on public land so that people can cut more when the times are good, which is what they do on private land, and then have communities shut down when the economy isn't so good. That seems to be the assumption there.

Given what you said about leaving things alone and not regulating managed private forest land, I take it that you're satisfied that the riparian management adequately protects the public resource, namely fish, so that there should be no regulation to protect fish. That's all I could conclude from that.

T. Nebbeling: Like I said before, the minister should not assume or interpret my statements the way he would like to see them in Hansard , because no doubt he would use it later if I agreed with him.

I do not agree with the assumptions that the minister makes at all. The minister has no doubt also looked at the way things are done in Sweden. If he has not, then he hasn't done

[ Page 5234 ]

his job. Sweden can be held up as a country where a forest industry that used to be in trouble has flourished by allowing companies access on the basis of results, rather than what we do over here -- on the basis of conditions and directions and objectives.

The power of being in charge is a tremendous tool, and we don't dare use it here. The only area where we use it is in the managed private forest land and in the non-managed private forest land. The power of ownership is a powerful tool. Without fighting, it makes people do what we want them to do anyway. But that doesn't mean that if we work on that basis . . . . It doesn't mean that if we use Crown land and apply some new principles on these lands that whoever gets the right to harvest timber there would just go in and become devastators because there are no rules and regulations. Of course you have rules and regulations.

In Sweden they have a forest practices code, rules and regulations. But what they don't do in Sweden is look at a piece of land and say: "Okay, here's a piece of land. How many things could go wrong?" It's the number one question. We identify what could go wrong, and we want a study on everything that could go wrong, be it on soil, be it on wildlife, be it on the riparian areas, be it on fish habitat, be it on winter range, be it on the wild mushrooms, be it on cultural values, be it on heritage values -- everything that we can think of. We try to figure out how we can deal with potential problems.

That's why it takes so long to get a permit to go in and do a job that in the past took about four months to get a permit for and now takes 14, 16, 18 months.

Why not set the rules and say, "Okay, this is what we expect you to do when you go into that area; here's the booklet," and trust that the companies will adhere to these rules? If they don't, if at the end of that time, when that cutblock is taken care of, you look at it and you do your inspection and they haven't stuck to the rules, then you penalize them -- and you penalize them hard, much harder than the Forest Practices Code is doing now. Then you really hit them.

But at least you have created an environment where the companies once again will be able to go and do the work, provide the jobs by doing that work and thereby sustain families, give families security again, give families the sense of "Hey, I will be able to pay my mortgage next year," which most forest-dependent community members no longer have. Give them the security that three years from now they will able to put their kid into school; they know they're going to have the income. That is what we're talking about.

And when that happens, then the return to government, I believe, will be just as high as it is today. It may well create more jobs. It may well create new opportunities.

So I'm happy that the minister is getting advice from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who is a strong environmental advocate and believes that we should not do anything, anywhere, without the environment being the only value to be considered up front.

I think the well-being of people, the well-being of forest-dependent communities and the people living in these communities has to be at the forefront, as well. And I think by following some of the principles that the managed private forest lands have been working under very successfully, by using some of these principles and by daring to work with these principles, it would make a big difference in how we in the future can look at our land. To even consider at this point -- because there are options out there -- imposing some of these devastating rules that we have applied to Crown land onto these managed forest lands, I find a wrong move.

I hope the minister will not make that move but keep having faith in good operators providing opportunities and creating wealth for the province as a whole.