1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Provide Collective Bargaining Rights for Independent Truckers.

(Bill M228). Mr. Clark

Introduction and first reading –– 10857

Oral Questions

Health risk from mine tailings. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10857

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 10858

Columbia River Treaty. Mr. Davidson –– 10858

Ms. Edwards

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 10858

Effect on tourism of highway closure announcement. Mr. Crandall –– 10859

Commercial vehicle inspection. Mr. Miller –– 10859

Non-recyclable liquor containers. Mr. Cashore –– 10859

Tabling Documents –– 10860

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 10860

Forest Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 10863

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill 48). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10863

Mr. Miller –– 10864

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10864

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10865

Mr. Miller

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. A. Hagen

Presenting Reports –– 10889

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have four special guests. I would

like to introduce them to the House at this time: Stuart Lang, who is

the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Leslie Abramson, past

president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Doug Vincent, executive

director of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; and Brian Small, executive

director of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please

assist me in bidding them welcome.

MR. CASHORE : Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today we have five members of the Environmental

Youth Alliance. These young people are meeting with people from both

sides of the House today. Some of us met with them at lunchtime, and

most assuredly, these people will be taking a role in the development

of public policy in this province and elsewhere. Their names are Daniel

Ng, Debra MacKillop, Rina MacKillop, Matt Brook and Kerry Irish. Will

the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS :

In my office I have a beautiful painting of a Pacific Northwest scene.

My uncle painted that painting, and I'm very proud of it and of him. I

would like the House to welcome my uncle and aunt from Lynden,

Washington: Carroll and Vivian Forseth.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I introduce

three people who are visiting in your gallery: Mr. Ed Palmateer from

Nanaimo, who recently moved to the area with his wife; his brother

Larry Palmateer, who has recently moved to Ladysmith; and Marg McGeachy

from Duncan. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, there are two special guests in your gallery who are

visitors from California: John and Elaine Hyatt. John has a position at

the University of California at Irvine school of medicine. I would ask

the House to make them feel at home and to welcome them.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Rumour has it that it's the birthday of the first

member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), and I'd like to extend non-partisan greetings.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

FOR INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

Mr. Clark presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide Collective Bargaining Rights for Independent Truckers.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, in the last three years we've had major labour disputes

involving independent truckers. Three years ago there was a dispute on

a highway contract in Richmond. A couple of years ago there was a

problem with log-haulers in the Prince George area. Six months ago

there was a dispute in Revelstoke, and recently there was a virtual

provincewide shutdown by independent truckers.

While the

problems in the trucking industry are many and deregulation has been a

contributing factor, one of the primary concerns expressed has been the

inability of independent truckers to legally organize to have some

voice in their wages and working conditions. This bill rectifies that

problem. It provides collective bargaining rights for independent

truckers. This has the potential not only to improve the working

conditions for truckers, but to improve the stability of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, no other province denies dependent contractors the right

to unionize, nor does the Canada Labour Code. This bill brings British

Columbia in line with the rest of Canada.

Finally, Mr.

Speaker, while the primary purpose of this legislation is to provide

collective bargaining rights to independent truckers, it also extends

those rights to other dependent contractors. For example, this is a

growing problem in the entertainment industry in British Columbia.

Bill

M228 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Oral Questions

HEALTH RISK FROM MINE TAILINGS

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. The health risk posed to

local residents by mine tailings in the Wells area seems to be well on

its way to being abated, but to my knowledge, a number of tours in the

Wells-Barkerville area were recently cancelled because of concerns

tourists had for their health. Is the Minister of Tourism willing to

assist this area by publicly assuring tourists that they can still

enjoy a good and safe holiday in the Wells-Barkerville area?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I'll take it on notice.

[ Page 10858 ]

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism, which deals with the PNE

and the board. This afternoon the board will be discussing a report

prepared by Peat Marwick that deals with the handling of labour

relations and the amalgamation of the chief executive officer's

position with the position of president. Could the minister advise the

House whether or not that report was secured in compliance with the

tendering guidelines of the PNE board?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I thank the member for his question. Obviously the report wasn't very

well guarded, because at some time in the last few days it was leaked

to the press.

MR. SIHOTA : In his report to the

board, Mr. Thomas indicated that the report would cost somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $35,000. All matters over $20,000 are to go to tender,

and the ultimate cost of that report was approximately $53,000. Could

the minister advise the House why the report was procured in a fashion

inconsistent with the tendering process established for the PNE?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : The Minister of Tourism will take that question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA :

A new question to the Minister of Tourism. There is to be a meeting of

the board today, where the matter of Mr. Thomas's handling of the

labour negotiations just concluded is to be discussed, together with

Mr. Smith's — who I believe is the general manager of the PNE. The

handling of labour negotiations by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Smith's

performance to date are to be discussed. Board members were advised of

this meeting just recently. My question to the minister is this: could

he explain why his ministerial assistant, Mr. Van, was phoning board

members in advance of today's meeting, suggesting to them how they

should vote on the matter of Mr. Smith's future?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : The member still has the floor.

MR. SIHOTA : If the member wishes to rise, Mr. Speaker...

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. In view of the recent $100 million Bonneville power

agreement and the other benefits which will accrue to the province from

the Columbia River Treaty, has the minister recommended that these

benefits be earmarked for retirement of the province's deadweight debt?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Essentially, the recent announcement by the chairman of B.C. Hydro is

good news. When the Columbia River Treaty projects were built, they

were to some extent overbuilt. They are capable of more regulation of

floodwater flows than was envisaged in the Columbia River Treaty. There

is now an agreement between Hydro and the downstream utilities in the

U.S. to recognize these additional benefits and to share them on a

50-50 basis. These benefits are worth roughly $100 million over the

next ten years, so they're in addition to the Columbia River downstream

benefits as negotiated in the treaty.

As to any commitment

for the use of these moneys, the moneys that will flow to the province

as a result of repatriating or patriating the downstream benefits will

flow to the treasury of B.C. and not to B.C. Hydro. It will be a matter

of future government policy, but certainly they would go a long way

toward wiping out the deadweight debt of the province.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'd like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

vis--vis the same agreement that you've been talking about and also in

relation to the extensive damage and the reduction of the recreational

value of the dams downstream from the reservoirs which will be emptied,

has the minister made plans to have public hearings on the agreement

that he has announced?

HON. MR. DAVIS : The answer

really is no. However, the environmental impact studies relating to

this additional regulation have all been done and they're all published

and available to the public, and if there is continuing concern there

may well be an occasion to hold some hearings. However, I'm told by

Hydro that the environmental impacts are negligible: zero, certainly,

on the Arrow Lakes; zero on the Libby reservoir; and minimal, if they

exist, upstream of Revelstoke.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. Just putting aside the

matter of whether or not Mr. Van discussed this matter with board

members and encouraged them to vote on a particular matter, does the

minister think it proper that his assistant should be contacting

members of the board of the PNE and telling them which way they should

be voting with respect to the crucial personnel matter that they're to

discuss today?

[2:15]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Obviously the opposition must be in some difficulty today with running

short of questions, in view of the tremendous job this government is

doing in all regions of the province. It's obvious that they're looking

for a little time on the clock, because they don't seem to have a very

well prepared agenda today. But I will advise the

[ Page

10859 ]

member that I will gladly discuss that with my assistant.

MR. SIHOTA :

Supplementary question to the Minister of Tourism. Did you direct Mr.

Van to discuss this matter in any way with members of the board?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I thank the member for his question, and once again it's quite obvious

to me that 15 minutes is quite an expanded time for question period

today. They seem to be very short on meat and questions, but I can

assure the member that the answer to the question is no.

EFFECT ON TOURISM OF

HIGHWAY CLOSURE ANNOUNCEMENT

MR. CRANDALL :

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Last

week there was a mud slide across the Trans-Canada Highway just west of

Revelstoke and it brought about an announcement on the wire services

that the TransCanada Highway was closed. That started a flood of

cancellations to the tourism operators in the Trans-Canada corridor. In

fact, the highway was not closed, and I would like to ask if you would

investigate that and be sure that your staff doesn't put out any

bulletins to this effect, because it has a tremendous effect on the

tourism operators.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I am not aware of that incident, and I would be pleased to bring back a report.

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER :

To the Solicitor-General. I am not quite sure how to interpret his

statements regarding faulty equipment not being responsible for

accidents, when 40 percent of trucks in an emergency inspection program

couldn't pass. But specifically with respect to the coroner's report of

May 24 on the Kamloops accident, which said it wasn't adequate and

recommended the hiring of more inspectors — this was buttressed by the

safety committee in Kamloops — will you tell the House how many new

inspectors will be hired and when they will be in place and doing their

work?

HON. MR. FRASER : A comment on the report of the coroner's investigation will be made jointly by the Minister of Highways and myself.

MR. MILLER :

To the same minister. The coroner's jury made specific recommendations

with respect to the commercial vehicle inspection program rulebook

being amended to require the removal of backing plates. Could the

minister advise if that change has been made? If not, when it will be

made?

HON. MR. FRASER : As I said, a joint comment will be made by the Minister

of Transportation and Highways and me on that particular incident.

MR. MILLER I think the travelling public is waiting for more than just

meetings. Specifically, the coroner's jury recommended — and I think this

goes to the heart of the matter — that a training program, involving at least

two months of winter driving, be put in place, When will that be in place so

that the travelling public can be assured that the people driving commercial

vehicles are trained to do so?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specifics of that coroner's report, as

I've already said twice, the Minister of Transportation and Highways

and I will be making a joint statement. With respect to trucking and

traffic safety in general, there is no government in Canada more

committed to safety than this one, and there is no minister in Canada

more interested in safety than me.

MR. MILLER :

I would remind the minister that it was his government that abolished

mandatory vehicle testing in British Columbia — abolished; privatized.

Does the minister now, in hindsight, not regret that decision having

been taken?

HON. MR. FRASER :

This comes as a heaven-sent opportunity. It is true that there were

three inspection stations in the province not too many years ago; now

there are 1,637 inspection stations. Every commercial vehicle in the

province is required to be inspected twice a year; not only that, but

we have the toughest standards in North America. The province of

Manitoba is adopting our standards; the province of Alberta is looking

at adopting our standards. The private vehicle inspection program is

the best in Canada. We have the best record for safety inspections

anywhere.

NON-RECYCLABLE LIQUOR CONTAINERS

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Services. All British Columbians agree that we're in favour of reducing

waste and that we require more environmentally appropriate packaging.

But while the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) appears on

television to tell us we can turn garbage into gold, the liquor board

is helping clog the waste stream with garbage we can't do anything with

at all. Has the minister decided to help out his colleague and do his

part for a cleaner environment by directing the liquor board to stop

ordering products in containers that can only be recycled in North

Carolina?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The question concerning

the liquor distribution branch doing their part for the environment is

interesting. My information is that the liquor distribution branch in

British Columbia has a very enviable record of reclaiming their used

cartons — or the used product, the bottles and the cans. They have, in

fact, led the way, I believe, and continue to do that. I have sat in on

discussions with people from the liquor distribution branch, and they

talk about ways of recycling the small plastic strip

[ Page 10860 ]

that

holds a half-dozen cans together. I don't know how people could be more

dedicated to doing that than those people. We recently had a special

day at the liquor distribution branch in Vancouver to officially launch

renewed activity in recirculating and reclaiming all of this waste

product.

Very often there is criticism of people who work

for government or do jobs for government. I want to stand here today

and say that I'm proud of the people at the liquor distribution branch

and the job they are doing, and so should all the rest of us in this

House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I notice in our gallery the president of the Cariboo Tourist

Association visiting us this afternoon. Would the House please welcome

Pat Corbett.

HON. L. HANSON : I would like the

members of the House to join with me in welcoming to British Columbia

over 1,000 athletes from all provinces in Canada who are participating

in the Canadian Special Olympic Summer Games, which kick off tonight at

B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver.

The Canadian Special

Olympics are held every four years, and this is the first time that

British Columbia has hosted these games. There are nearly 200 athletes

from British Columbia who have qualified for the many events, including

swimming, track and field, rhythmic gymnastics, power-lifting, soccer

and bowling.

I am certain that all members of the House

will join me in wishing good luck to the 1,000 athletes of the Canadian

Special Olympics.

MR. BLENCOE : On behalf of our side

of the House, I would like to join with the minister in welcoming the

1,000 athletes from all over the country to these very special events.

It is, I think, a great privilege for British Columbians In the next

few days to witness the activities of the Special Olympics, which once

again show to all of us that everybody has the ability to participate

and that we are learning so much as the years go ahead in so many

events.

All sides of the House, I am sure, welcome this event and wish them all great success.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the audited financial statements for the Provincial Capital Commission for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled the report of guarantees and indemnities for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, in accordance with

section 56 of the

Financial Administration Act.

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA : I wish to rise on a matter of privilege, or more accurately a matter of contempt of parliament.

Mr.

Speaker, before I proceed I would just like to table with you the text

of the comments that I intend to put forward, together with evidence

that I will be referring to during the course of my comments, so that

they form part of the official record.

That being done, let

me say this. The material that I have placed before you raises the

issue of whether the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has violated the

independence of his office by discussing with a person that he knew to

be in contact with defence counsel matters and strategies relating to

the prosecution of the former Minister of Tourism, and whether by so

doing the Attorney-General is in contempt of parliament.

Fundamental

to our parliamentary tradition is the principle that an

attorney-general should be independent and impartial with respect to

any prosecution before the courts. He must be scrupulous not to involve

himself in a prosecution. Professor Edwards, in a quotation that I

provided you with, in a work entitled The Law Officers of the Crown , expresses the principle in some detail.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please, hon. members. It's very important that the Chair be able

to listen to the matter being stated, because the Chair will have to

determine whether or not in fact a prima facie case exists. So I would

ask all members to restrain themselves so that the Chair can listen to

the matter. There is a sequence of events which have to take place any

time a member wishes to rise on a matter of privilege, and the sequence

is being followed.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I should

say that I have served notice to the Attorney-General of this matter,

together with the text of the comments that I'm reading into the record

now.

The Attorney-General, of course, has an obligation to

be impartial and independent. The Attorney-General himself best

expressed that requirement on May 2, 1989, when he described his

responsibilities in this House as follows: "I want to say — through you, Mr. Chairman — that

I will continue to do what I believe to be correct in the service of

this office; I will apply to the best of my ability the law in an even

way; and I will do so without having the imprimatur of my personal

biases and my political biases placed upon it. That is what I was sworn

to do, and that's what I will do."

I wish now to set out

the material which speaks to the issue at hand. I should at the outset,

however, advise Mr. Speaker that it is not my intention to raise the

merits of the case against the former minister, but

[ Page

10861 ]

rather to put forward information as it relates to the responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

You

will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the RCMP did recommend on two occasions

that charges be laid against the member. The Attorney-General did not

follow the recommendations. Subsequently, a justice of the peace issued

a process on May 28, 1990, and compelled the member to attend in court

on June 12, 1990, to answer the charge. Due to the Attorney-General's

decision not to proceed with a public prosecution, the private

prosecution was commenced by me. The first date for hearing of that

prosecution was June 12, 1990.

On June 12, 1990, the

Attorney-General engaged in a conversation with one that he knew to be

in direct contact with defence counsel. I wish now to read to you a

transcript of the main portions of an actual discussion which took

place between this individual and the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, I

will not be reading the entire transcript — I have tabled it for you as information — only

the pertinent parts. The conversation which occurred on June 12 went as

follows. This conversation is between the Attorney General and an

unidentified individual whom I shall be referring to as X the reasons

for this, Mr. Speaker, will become apparent during the course of....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. On a point of order, the government House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that on charges as serious as this,

as this member alleges, the very least he could do is name names and

verify the accuracy of the information he is putting forward. At the

very least, Mr. Speaker, I would caution you to take into account the

fact that he has not verified this information nor has he named names.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER , I still have to hear the basis of what the member has to

say before I can make a decision. The Attorney-General is not present today,

but I would advise all members that prior to the Chair making a decision, there

will be an opportunity for the Attorney-General to stand in this House and make

a statement on the matter as well. In the meantime, I must hear the matter before

I can begin to deal with it. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. SIHOTA : X says as follows: "And he's hired a dimwit as a lawyer."

The Attorney-General: "That was my next thing, who is this guy?"

X: "A nobody. He's a guy that...."

The Attorney-General: "He says you guys used to use him, and he's a friend of Murray's."

"He is, but Murray fired him off the case because he wasn't any good.

That was the Frisbee case. That was the murder on a cruise ship."

The Attorney-General: "Yes."

X: "And he couldn't handle

the pressure and didn't do any work, so Dennis fired him and put Ernie

on the case. The guy almost had a nervous breakdown."

The Attorney-General: "How can we get that out?"

Mr.

Speaker, the comment, "How can we get that out?" indicates — and it

will be important in terms of what I will put forward to the House in a

minute in terms of other evidence — that

the Attorney-General took more than a passing interest in the

information that was forwarded to him. You must determine, Mr. Speaker,

whether the foregoing establishes a prima facie case as to the

violation of the independence and impartiality on this count. There are

others. The House, of course, Mr. Speaker, must decide on the question

of contempt.

The conversation continues.

X: "Oh well" — then there's laughter — "I'll tell you who it is."

The Attorney-General: "We could do anything we want now."

"Yes, he's well known in the legal community as not being much of a

heavyweight, and I'll tell you something else he's doing. He has

bragged over the last few months that when..." — Mr. Speaker, I have to

refer to my own name here, or I'll just say that reference is made to

my own name — "...is the A-G, that he'll be the new ADM, criminal

justice."

The Attorney-General: "Oh, is that right?"

X: "Yes."

The Attorney-General: "Oh, I love it."

X: "Yes."

The Attorney-General: "Really?"

X: "Yup."

The Attorney-General: "Who in the hell has he said that to, I wonder?"

"Well, apparently he has boasted around, because Ernie mentioned it to

me over the last week because we were trying to.... We were speculating

in terms of who..." — again, they mention my name — "... would get, and

he was one of the names. We thought, well, Vickers and Orris. But then

it came down to Firestone because of this brag that he's been making."

Attorney-General: "Jeez, is that true?"

X: "Yeah, he's got no.... I shouldn't say no respect. I mean, he's a likable enough guy...."

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. member, in a situation like this, what is required is for the

member to state his case briefly, table his material and for the Chair

then to determine whether or not a prima facie case exists. If the

Chair determines that such a prima facie case exists, then all of the

details that you may have or wish to bring forward would be brought

forward at the committee at that time, As you have tabled a full copy

of your statement for the Chair, the Chair will have ample opportunity

to read all of the material which you have now read. So I would ask you

to briefly state your case and then advise me about the next motion you

have to make.

[ Page 10862 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I seek some guidance from the Chair on this. I'll cease

reading from the transcript, except to draw your attention to the

salient portions of it. Is that...?

MR. SPEAKER : If you've tabled a total copy of the transcript, you can rest assured that the Chair will read the entire transcript.

MR. SIHOTA : Fine. That being the case, let me continue, given that the documents now form part of the public record.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters that I wish to bring to your attention.

First, as I have already mentioned, is the comment of the Attorney General: "How

can we get this out?"

the same conversation there is then another discussion between the

Attorney-General and this individual. During the course of that

conversation, the Attorney-General suggests to this individual that the

informant — who is me — could be called before the courts. You will see

that in the information, He then suggests to that individual

information upon which I can be cross-examined. He then talks in the

transcript about how that information would benefit the defence. He

then talks to the individual in question about the details of various

strategies for cross-examination.

Then it becomes apparent that the individual he is talking to is a conduit between him — the Attorney General — and

the defence counsel, Mr. Butler and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Speaker, I wish

specifically to draw that to your attention again. I won't quote from

it, but on page 3, fourth item from the bottom, a conversation appears

with respect to X, where X makes it very clear that he was discussing

the various strategies the day before with the former minister's lawyer.

What

emerges, then, in totality with respect to this first conversation is

that the Attorney-General did as follows: he discussed with a person,

whom he knew to be in direct contact with defence counsel, ways in

which to embarrass the private prosecutor in the proceeding against the

former minister. He then went on to wonder how he can make public the

information which relates to the prosecutor. The Attorney General

expressed opinions to this person who was in contact with defence

counsel as to how the informant may be called as a witness and

strategies to cross-examine the informant — myself.

In a second conversation that I have also attached — which I will not read — he

engages in a conversation with a reporter. The conversation with the

reporter is designed to further the comment that I have brought to your

attention. In other words: "How can we get that out?"

The

conversation is between a reporter and the Attorney-General, and the

Attorney-General suggests to the reporter that they would have the

story of the year if they could get out information with respect to the

nervous condition of the private prosecutor and to the brag that he was

purported to have made. Again, the comments in that regard are clear.

Mr.

Speaker, I have provided you with transcripts and evidence of

conversations that took place between the Attorney-General and others.

For verification, should you require it, I would be more than pleased

to provide you with the actual tape recording of the conversation.

is my submission, together with a legal opinion to the effect that

there is nothing improper or illegal with the material as it was

recorded and provided to me by a third party....

It is my

submission that the totality of the material that I have forwarded to

you demonstrates on a prima facie basis that the Attorney-General

violated the standard of independence and impartiality expected of him

with respect to this prosecution involving a colleague of his. In so

doing, the Attorney-General not only offended the integrity of his

office, but also brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

Accordingly,

it is my view that the Attorney-General should resign. However, in the

context of this privilege motion, I wish now to serve the notice of

motion that I intend to present, and that motion reads....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA : Sorry, I....

MR. SPEAKER : No, don't file it either. just advise the Chair that you are prepared to table the motion if a matter of privilege is found.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I intend to table the motion if a prima facie case is found.

MR. SPEAKER : It is possible and desirable to have you tender the motion with the material that you table with us, but not to read it.

MR. SIHOTA : Yes.

MR. SPEAKER :

I would remind the House that the Attorney-General is not present, and

that prior to the Speaker making a decision on this matter, the

Attorney-General will have an opportunity to rise in his place and

state his case.

I'd also advise the member and all other

members that, of course, you would normally expect that the Chair take

some time to deliberate over a serious matter such as this. Therefore I

will hold the matter in abeyance until such time as I am prepared to

bring forward my case.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On a point of order regarding the member's point

of privilege — I mean this with the greatest of respect to the Chair, and I have

no intent of lecturing the Chair — I just urge you, Mr. Speaker, because of

the seriousness of these charges, to consider the source and how this information

was obtained, whether it was obtained in a legal fashion. Prima facie, it doesn't

seem to this member

[ Page

10863 ]

that it was. Also I urge you to identify who Mr. X

is. In charges that are as serious as this, I urge you to consider all

of these factors.

MR. SPEAKER : I think all members

are well aware this is indeed the most serious challenge the Chair has

had to date. Next order of business.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 35, the Forest

Amendment Act, 1990.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Forest Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 48, Forest Amendment

Act (No. 2), 1990.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Bill 48, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, introduces several

amendments to the Forest Act that will permit more effective management

of British Columbia's forest resources in terms of timber

administration and protection from forest fires. So in moving second

reading, I just wish to make a few comments on the various aspects of

this bill.

First, in terms of timber administration, Bill

48 will authorize the disposition of pulp-quality timber on tree-farm

licences to holders of pulpwood agreements. Currently the Forest Act

authorizes the disposition of timber on tree-farm licences to licensees

under the small business forest enterprise program and to woodlot

licences. These licences are primarily for sawlog-quality lumber.

A number of tree-farm licences, however, contain timber that is below current

sawlog standards and is not currently being used by the tree-farm licence-holder.

It is in the interest of British Columbians to make this timber that is not

being used by tree-farm licence-holders available to other parties, specifically

to holders of pulpwood agreements. Without Bill 48, our ability to dispose of

currently unused pulp-quality timber stands within new and existing tree-farm

licences to holders of pulpwood agreements will be severely hampered, and perhaps

precluded.

Bill

48 will also enable the Minister of Forests, with the consent of the

holder of a pulpwood agreement, to consolidate, subdivide or otherwise

amend a pulpwood agreement. Currently there is no clear authority for

changing the geographic boundaries of a pulpwood agreement once it is

issued. However, consolidation or other types of amendments are

sometimes in the public interest, as these changes will often allow

more effective and efficient administration by the Ministry of Forests,

and more effective and efficient management and use of the timber

resource by the pulpwood agreement-holder.

In addition,

Bill 48 clarifies the wording of the Forest Act regarding overlapping

pulpwood agreements. It is desirable to be able to enter into more than

one pulpwood agreement over the same land area, because different

pulpwood processors sometimes have different raw material requirements.

For example, two pulping processes might use different tree species.

Overlapping pulpwood agreements ensure that the highest level of wood

utilization can be achieved.

Bill 48 will also ensure that the costs of basic silviculture — reforestation — following

timber-harvesting on non-replaceable licences will be borne by the

licence-holder. By law, the holders of all major licences must, at

their own expense, carry out basic silviculture following harvesting.

In the case of a replaceable major licence, there is little chance that

the licence-holder would try to avoid this requirement because of the

risk of not getting a replacement licence.

[2:45]

However, the Ministry of Forests has issued — and continues to issue — non-replaceable

major licences to create or maintain economic opportunities. These

licences are issued for timber that does not contribute to the annual

allowable cut of a timber supply area because of its quality, size,

species or location. Because these licences are not going to be

replaced, there is less incentive to carry out basic silviculture,

particularly towards the end of the term of the licence. An

unscrupulous company could harvest the timber in the latter years of

the licence and then move on, leaving the cost of basic silviculture to

be borne by the people of British Columbia. Bill 48 prevents this

potential problem by requiring a non-replaceable licence-holder to

provide financial security in the form of a lump-sum deposit or levy

per cubic metre to cover the cost of basic silviculture as a condition

of the licence.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 48 provides a more

consistent method for calculating trespass charges for unauthorized

cutting of Crown timber. These trespass charges are based on the price

of the timber, including an average of bonus bids paid for timber sold

under the small business forest enterprise program. This program was

expanded into tree-farm licences in 1988, but the average of bonus bids

used for trespass charges does not currently include these timber sales.

[ Page 10864 ]

addition, Bill 48 provides for the establishment of regulations that

will require contracts between contractors working on tree-farm

licences and forest licences and their subcontractors to be in writing

and contain a provision for arbitration. In the past it was common

practice for the holders of tree-farm licences to make verbal

agreements with independent logging contractors to harvest timber on

their licences. Needless to say, this kind of agreement provides little

security for contractors — who, by the way, usually have a significant

investment in logging equipment. Regulations were recently put in place

to require agreements between tree-farm licence-holders and forest

licence-holders and their logging contractors to be in writing and have

provision for arbitration.

Bill 48 makes provision for

extending the requirements of written contracts and arbitration to

contracts between the contractors referred to above and their

subcontractors, who also have significant investments in equipment.

Thus, if a contractor has an agreement with a tree-farm licence-holder

or forest licence-holder to conduct all phases of a harvesting

operation and chooses to subcontract out one or more phases, the

contract between the contractor and the subcontractor must be in

writing and have provision for arbitration. This will ensure fairness

to all parties and will provide needed job security to the

subcontracting community.

Bill 48 also provides the

necessary authority to allow the Ministry of Forests to increase public

safety as it relates to forest fires. By way of background, the

province of British Columbia experiences over 2,800 forest fires

annually. Increasingly, many of these fires are occurring in areas

known as the "urban-wild land interface" — areas where home development and forested wild land come together.

This

bill addresses two aspects of fire hazards in this interface zone.

First, it provides for the mandatory immediate evacuation. The

occurrence of forest fire in British Columbia can come at any time

during the hot summer months and anywhere in this province. Homes,

buildings and lives can be threatened with alarming speed. It is the

erratic behaviour of forest fires that compels the government to

request the authority to allow a peace officer or a forest officer to

order a person to evacuate a residence, a building, or any inhabited

area. Without evacuation, firefighting with water bombers could not

proceed due to possible injury, and the losses of timber and private

property could be substantially greater. That is why refusal to

evacuate will be an offence.

Second, this bill also

addresses the significant public hazard that exists on private

property. In recent years the extent of private-land logging has

increased. Many of these privately logged parcels are owned by absentee

landowners or are sold once they are logged. What remains behind can be

a significant fire hazard, threatening neighbouring homes and

communities.

Throughout British Columbia, on Crown lands

and those parcels of private land under a forest harvesting agreement,

the ministry may enter these lands to determine whether or not slash is

present or a fire hazard exists. The tenure-holders or owners are then

instructed to abate or remove the fire hazard. On other private lands

the ministry does not have this authority to enter to inspect slash

hazards. This bill will provide forest officers with the right to enter

onto private land, but not into dwellings, to conduct a proper and

thorough inspection of fire hazards.

Bill 48 also protects

a peace officer exercising his or her authority under the Forest Act

from liability. This is the same protection as is already provided to

staff of the Ministry of Forests.

The sections of the bill

dealing with forest fires show the government's commitment to public

safety by ensuring that where slash or fire hazards exist, forest

officers will have the right to ensure that the hazards are dealt with

quickly and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments

contained in Bill 48 demonstrate the government's commitment to full

utilization of the timber resources in British Columbia and to

efficient and effective management and administration of those

resources, ensuring fairness in contractual relationships between

logging contractors and logging subcontractors, and to public safety.

I now move the bill be read a second time.

MR. MILLER : Gee, I thought it was a relatively simple bill, but after that fairly lengthy speech by the minister, I'm not so sure anymore.

the face of it, I've not been able to discover anything nefarious in

the bill, but who knows what might happen. We will be supporting it.

would only note in general terms the issue of PAs, which I think needs

to be canvassed. I intend to do that with the minister during the

estimates debate. The only comment I could make on the inspection on

private lands is that I know this has been an issue within the ministry

for some time. I believe a White Paper was issued in 1987. The bill is

silent on any action the ministry may be able to take. If conditions

are discovered after inspection which, in the ministry's opinion, could

further the danger of fire hazard, the bill does not speak to what

remedies may be available to the ministry.

Trespass

billing

was another issue identified by the auditor-general. We support

provisions to tighten the penalties and the collection of penalties on

that. We're also pleased — including myself, as a member of the select

standing committee dealing with the contractor clause — to see that the

issue of arbitration is addressed in the bill.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. The bill really demands a clause-by-clause approach in committee, and we will do that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

48, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[ Page

10865 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

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

MR. MILLER :

I had intended to cover some of the budget issues when we started, and

I overlooked one in particular. I note that there has been a

significant increase of 79 percent in the advertising budget, and I

would like the minister to advise the House what is contemplated. There

was some rumour of an advertising campaign which would be modeled on or

would parallel the "Forests Forever" campaign of the forest industry.

Perhaps the minister could outline what is in store for us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I determined early on, after taking over this portfolio, that if we

could be faulted at all as a government, one thing was in not informing

the public well enough about what we do in the Ministry of Forests,

That's through no fault of anyone's. It's just that times change very

rapidly, and there's a lot of information being put out by people which

is incorrect about the forest industry. Information is being put out by

special interest groups which contains misinformation — to be kind — and

not complete information. I feel very strongly that it's necessary that

this ministry tell the story of what it's doing in the forests of

British Columbia.

There is no rumour about what we're going

to do I've stated it very publicly that we intend to launch a public

information campaign. It's not an advertising campaign, and it's not

going to be modelled on the industry's campaign. However good or bad

that may be is probably a matter of opinion. The intent and the message

are good; how well it is received is maybe another question. But we

intend to vigorously pursue a public information program.

again urge the members in this House and anywhere in this province to

take a look at our most recent publication, which has been off the

press now for about a month, called "All Things Considered." That is

one of the means by which we intend to inform the public. It's an

excellent book. It tells what we do in the forests, and that we are

good stewards of the forest resource. So if there's an increase in

an advertising budget," that would account for it. But I want to

assure the member, this House and all the people in British Columbia

that it's not an advertising campaign; it's an information campaign.

The publication I just spoke of is probably one of the first

manifestations of that campaign. I sincerely hope you've had a look at

it. We intend to do more of that type of thing.

I should speak for a minute, too, on what the companies are doing, because

they also realize that they have to get their message out to the public. Because

if the public is informed, they will not buy some of the information coming

out of groups such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Sierra

Club, however well-meaning those people may be. Paul George himself has said

that they will use any method to achieve their ends. I think the one defence

we have against that is an informed public. The companies recognize this, and

some are spending large amounts of money to show the public what they do in

the forests. One company, Fletcher Challenge, chartered buses and took hundreds

of people into the Walbran area to show them what they are doing in the forest,

a clear-cut, newly planted land, thinned and pruned second-growth and how they're

tending the stand. I think a lot of people came away with a different impression

than they might have had before they went on that tour.

Other companies, not just to single out one — MacMillan Bloedel, Canfor and Western Forest Products — are

all doing the same thing. They're starting with their own employees;

they are taking them into the woods to show them what they do. They're

taking schoolchildren, and they're going into school classes and giving

lectures and slide-shows on what they do. They're opening information

offices in urban centres so that many people who live in places like

Victoria and Vancouver, who never get out to see what's happening in

the bush, can at least go into an office in an urban centre, get

brochures and see what the forest companies are doing.

[3:00]

just wanted to get it on the record that because of the changing times

we're in and the tremendous pressures on this industry, I think it is

necessary for both the industry and the ministry to see that the public

is informed.

MR. MILLER : I agree in many respects

that part of the difficulty in dealing rationally with forestry issues,

land resource issues or land use conflicts is that there often appears

to be two sides that are immovable. Yet I find, even in reading some of

the statements made by the minister, that there's a recognition of a

changing set of values because of events worldwide. Rather than the

kind of mentality that says, "We're being beat up by the press, which

accepts statements from any source without verifying them, or from

particular groups who put out information that is not verifiable or is

inaccurate, so we somehow must have a campaign to counteract," is there

not a better emphasis?

For example, lots of people have talked — including Zimmerman — of

trying to come to a common set of agreements in terms of some base

numbers for forestry or some basic information that we can get various

quarters to agree with. That would remove some of the more inflammatory

elements of this kind of cross-advertising campaign.

Additionally,

before the Forest Resources Commission, your deputy talked about the

need to develop an analytical approach to allow people to really make

up their own minds. In other words, the ministry should be neutral, but

it should be able to put out information that would allow people to

draw conclusions from that information.

As well, I thought one of the more useful publications in prior years was the ForesTalk magazine. It

[ Page 10866 ]

was

informative and easily readable by lay people, and it dealt with the

whole cross-section of forestry issues and with the cross-section of

geography that we have in this province. I wasn't here at the time, but

I think that publication was scrapped by your administration. Have you

considered reviving that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To address one of the first points, the member talks about numbers and

putting out numbers. We will endeavour — and always have endeavoured —

make sure that any numbers we put out are as factual as we can be. So I

guess if that's being neutral, then we're neutral. We're not in a

position to exaggerate one way or the other, as special interest groups

are, nor do we intend to. So to answer to the neutrality: yes, we

intend to be as factual as the information we have will allow us to be.

ForesTalk .

I remember the publication because I was in the Legislature when it was

being printed there was nothing wrong with it; it was a good vehicle to

get information out. The only problem with it was that it was read

mostly by people who were directly concerned with the forest industry.

But there's nothing wrong with that, and we have talked about

reinstating an internal organ to do something like that. But our

immediate goal was to get far beyond just those with an immediate or a

vested interest in the forest industry and to get to the general

public, because that's where the pressures are coming from. We don't

mind that. We canvassed this the other day, and we can canvass it again

today.

Of course there's a changing set of values. The

whole world is changing its set of values. There's no argument with

that. When you look back at the way the world was thinking just five

years ago and the way the world is thinking today, values and many

things have changed, especially in the environment. Environmental

issues have changed incredibly in the last five years, so if the member

is thinking that we've changed our values he's absolutely right. But I

think so has he, and so have most of the people I come in contact with.

Any surveys or polling results will tell you that. If you look at

results from even three years ago and look at them today, you will see

that people's priorities have changed.

We don't intend to be dinosaurs. We intend to change with those values and to at least stay current with public thinking — if

not ahead of it. Again I'll just come back to information; that's what

the public is after. I think facts are what we need to disseminate. I

could get into a lot of specific instances where incorrect information

being perpetrated by others is costing the province of British Columbia

considerably in jobs and in dollars. We might get time in these

estimates to canvass some of those specific instances. But we are

fighting — a rear-guard action in some cases — for the hearts and minds

of the public. I think the public is hungry for the facts. "Do I

believe this side? Do I believe that side?" I guess the member is

right. We want to come up the middle and be seen as those who are

putting out the facts. It's pretty hard to argue with facts.

MR. MILLER :

Not to belabour the point, because there are other issues I want to

canvass, but the issue came up. I attended the commission hearing in

Sandspit and the question was posed: "How do we inform the public?"

There was a bit of a debate in terms of whether we can get into the

school system and whether it's possible to provide that kind of

information, I suppose, right across the spectrum or across the grades

in the public school system. I think in an indirect way there is really

something wrong in a province like ours when we see declining

enrolments at the faculty of forestry.

Surely the minister would agree that one of the most effective ways to deal with — and this is open to definition, clearly — the

lack of accurate information the public might have is to involve them,

particularly in the small communities. It seems to me, and my

experience has been, that where there has been that kind of

involvement, it spreads throughout the community naturally, because you

have informed people in the community, who can talk with authority

about what the real situation is, versus having to glean your

information from watching either Council of Forest Industries ads or

other sources. Everything is suspect now; there is clearly a lack of

confidence.

I remember, not that long ago, when the forest

industry said that they couldn't afford to have stumpage increased;

there would be dire consequences; mills would shut down. Yet they

absorbed a pretty hefty slug, and that didn't come to pass. It tends to

remove any effectiveness. So you have to be accurate. You can't spread

false messages and then expect that people are going to believe you

later on.

So I am interested in the form. I know you've put

out some booklets, but I am really interested in the form of what you

intend to do, across the spectrum of what you might do, involving the

schools, involving.... As I have said, I would like your comments, and

we will probably talk about this a little bit more in terms of public

involvement as being one of the ways in which the public can be better

informed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I won't belabour it,

but I did mention in my remarks a few minutes ago that we have to get

into the schools and into the communities. We intend to do just that.

We are working with industry to develop a program where we can have

people — MLAs, city councilors, elected people, leaders in the community — go

into schools with a prepared package: a slide presentation with a

prepared text, with books such as I have mentioned, "All Things

Considered," and other brochures to show what we are doing in the

forests.

Yes. I saw, immediately upon taking over this

ministry, that we had to get in and do a better job at the local level,

in the school system, in service clubs; we had to get into the

communities. Through our process of awarding licences and reviewing

cutting plans, etc., we are doing our utmost to involve the local

community in local resource-use plans and to get community input.

In fact, I should stop here. I was remiss the other day in not introducing the two fine gentlemen who

[ Page

10867 ]

are supporting me in these estimates. I should put

on the record that to my immediate right is the Deputy Minister of

Forests, Mr. Philip Halkett, and to my immediate left is the Assistant

Deputy Minister of Forests in charge of operations, Mr. Wes Cheston.

think Mr. Cheston would be the first to tell you that he has chaired

many public hearings throughout the province on many things. The member

for Prince Rupert says he has seen him at a few. Wes has even been beat

up pretty good from time to time — he's got the scars to show it — but

that goes with the territory. Right, Wes? Every interest group in the

community can put their case forward at a public forum and express

their thoughts.

I agree that we have to have the

information flow the other way. So to come back to your original

question about why we are spending more money on doing these things,

it's for the exact reasons that you just mentioned and that I mentioned

earlier. An informed public is the kind of public we want, a public

that will not buy incorrect statements out of hand from either side,

from industry or from special interest groups or from anyone. If they

are well-informed, I think we will all be much better off.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'd like to ask the minister about the important contribution that no

one will doubt the forest industry makes and will continue to make to

the economy of the province. You appeared, I think, before the Sea to

Sky conference, as did a lot of other people. Mr. Bryan, from the

Council of Forest Industries, indicated that contrary to myths, the

contribution to the provincial economy is about 25 percent; the

contribution to the manufacturing portion of the provincial economy is

50 percent.

I noticed in the statement you made the other

day that you did allude to the 50 percent of manufacturing. Can you

confirm the position your ministry is taking on this now? This is

something I've been aware of for some time. In fact, I've been

criticized by some of the share groups for using Mr. Bryant's figures;

and they come back and use the figures that you used at that

conference. This is an example of let's get the facts on the table. To

me, 25 percent, 20 percent or 10 percent is very significant. I'd like

to know your position on it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In

my opening remarks I referred to the manufacturing sector, where now I

believe it's over 50 percent. I think about 53 percent of all

manufactured goods are from the forest sector.

As to how much of the economy is directly or indirectly related to the forest

industry, I suppose that's a figure that we could bandy back and forth for

a long time. There are conflicting opinions. Some claim, as you say, that it's

as low as 25 percent; I haven't heard that figure before. Others say it's

somewhere between 35 and 50 percent. I guess it's one that we could argue

indefinitely, because it depends on how far you spin off the jobs into the community.

As you know from where you're from, Mr. Member, and where I'm from — not

necessarily the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller).... For many people in

the northern parts of the province and in the northern parts of Vancouver Island,

it's close to 100 percent. In some communities it is the whole community.

was in Port McNeill at a public hearing that we held on the Tsitika

Valley. I can tell you, if the forest industry ever folds, that

community is gone. Williams Lake is another one; I believe your home is

in Williams Lake. I think the figure there would be considerably higher

than 50 percent. I imagine it depends on where you're from and what

your perspective is, and it probably depends on how far you spin the

jobs off. Does one direct job in the forest industry spin off into two

indirect jobs, or two and a half, or three, or what? I think that

depends, again, on where you live.

I never hesitate to say,

when I'm speaking, that the wealth of this province is not generated on

Howe Street, as a lot of people might tend to think. The wealth of this

province is generated out there somewhere. The head office may be in

Vancouver, but that isn't where the wealth is generated.

[3:15]

guess we don't need to get into a debate on exactly what percentage the

forest industry contributes to the B.C. economy, but I think we all

agree on its importance. It's far and away the number one industry — and

I'm not denigrating any others. There's always an argument now over

who's in second place. Is it mining? Is it tourism? Is it agriculture?

It really doesn't matter. They're all very important industries to the

province, but they're only about a quarter or one-fifth the size of

forestry. When we say forestry is number one and these others are in

second, third and fourth place, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact

that forestry is number one by a wide margin.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

So I'd just confirm that we don't have anything like an official

position. But I would trust that when you are putting this forth, the

different multipliers will be told about; the different points of view

or the different analytic bases for the numbers will be presented as

well. I find the public are using these figures, and it's important to

know what they're based on.

In your comments a few minutes

ago you said that you would be working with industry to put programs

into the schools. I've had experience where an environmental group

wanted to put a program into the school, and it caused problems. Some

balance had to be set there. Are you working also with some of the

"environmental" groups at the same time to develop a balanced view? I

would expect industry will present its viewpoint, and that may not

reflect other points of view.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We

work very closely with the B.C. Forestry Association, who are very

concerned about putting both sides of the argument across. I guess what

we're trying to do, again, is to let industry know what we're doing, so

that wherever possible we can harmonize our programs. What we're

[ Page 10868 ]

trying

to put forward is as factual a view as we can. We're trying not to bias

what we say. In our publication, the latest one I've referred to, we

are not trying to report with a bias.

I don't have any problems — and I've said it many times publicly — admitting

that mistakes have been made in the past. We're trying not to make

those mistakes now, and for the most part, I don't think we are. But

there is no question that industry, the Forest Service and people in

general have made mistakes in the past with the way we've harvested the

timber resource. We've learned from our mistakes and, like we've said,

a lot of things have changed very rapidly in the last few years. But to

try to pretend that we haven't made mistakes would be foolish in the

extreme. If we do make them even now, we're quite willing and man

enough, if you like, to admit we've made a mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER : Human.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Yes, I guess human. I feel that way most of the time, except sometimes when I'm in here. But most of the time I do.

don't want to put forward a biased view at all. If we can stick to the

facts in what we're doing and, yes, brag a little bit about our

successes and admit when we've made mistakes, then I think the public

will perceive us as the type of stewards they want over this resource.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I know that the Forests critic has an infinite number of issues that he

wants to explore with the Forests minister. I want to just ask one

question around what would be a very good initiative on the part of the

Ministry of Forests to make material available to the schools. However,

there is always a concern when one hears that we are going to make

material available to the schools that another ministry, the Ministry

of Education, another institution — the school boards — and the

professionals who teach in schools are going to have the material

imposed and some expectations around what will be done with that.

Perhaps

the minister can just assure us that it would be his intent to provide

the schools with useful resource materials for our students to examine

our forest industry — a very important industry in our province in many regions — and

to examine those materials along with many others from national and

international bodies within our province so that our students may be in

' formed in a broad and enlightened way about these issues. In this

way, when they grow up, they will not make the same mistakes the

minister has acknowledged we've sometimes made and will be better able

from a knowledge base to make good policy decisions for the

environment, industry and the community with respect to this very

important part of our economy.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, that is exactly the intent of what we want to do. We don't want

to impose any information on anyone. We'll say: "Here it is for your

use. Please use it and digest it." We don't have any problem with other

groups putting material into schools either. I'm just saying that we

have done it in the past. It isn't as if we haven't done anything. I

don't think we've pursued it aggressively enough, and consequently

others may have outstripped us in getting information into the schools.

It's not the intent to force anything on anyone. If the material is

made available, as the member says, our young people — and I've been

into many schoolrooms and classes and spoken to them, and they are

pretty bright — will absorb the information and use it to the best of their ability.

think we should make sure that we don't think they're not going to make

mistakes as well when they get out there. We just hope that we can help

them to avoid making unnecessary mistakes.

MR. MILLER :

I was going to note that the minister and I may disagree on things in

terms of what is accurate, so you'll never get to the bottom line in

terms of everybody agreeing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We each have our own set of facts.

MR. MILLER :

That's right. I dare say we might have different values. I wanted to

review the issue of the relationship between the ministry and native

Indian bands or tribal councils when it comes to cutting plans. It

falls broadly under the heading of integrated resource management. They

are different around the province. Every band and tribal council has a

different perspective, and they operate in a different area and have

different approaches.

I noted that in the submission to the

Forest Resources Commission that the deputy was quoted as saying, first

of all, that no distinction is made between the needs or concerns of

native and non-native people in planning how forests will be logged.

I'll leave aside the question of land claims. I pressed that yesterday

and will continue to press it in every appropriate forum because it's

something that the government should do. But having said that no

distinction was made, he went on to talk about allowances made for

archaeological sites — and I'm quoting from a newspaper article:

"Allowances are made for archaeological sites, or Indians themselves

can point to special areas including places where berries, small plants

and mushrooms are gathered, which should be left alone." When asked

directly if he thought Indians should be involved in the planning of

B.C. forests, the deputy answered yes. That's kind of setting the

stage, if you like.

Further to that, I note the memorandum

of March 16, which was sent to all regional district managers. Again

the topic was integrated resource management, and in the letter

constant references were made to stress that this process had to work.

It was a key component in forest planning — the statement that all

decisions must be environmentally acceptable, that: "We must seek out

and respond to broad public desires in our planning and management and

give

[ Page

10869 ]

full weight to all interests. We need to

demonstrate at every opportunity our commitment to provide equal

consideration to all resource values."

The letter went on

to state that the Forest Service image and communications ability

needed upgrading. The ministry was going to work towards a

broader-based TSA planning process which involved maintaining and

enhancing public involvement in all user groups.

think

it's fair to say that relationships are not always the best out there

with band councils. I'm wondering, in relation to the issue I raised

with the minister some time ago — the issue of culturally modified

trees — whether

the minister could outline what specific policies are followed. What

happens at the district level in that TSA planning and those specific

sales to take into account the interests which, in this case, the

Indians have in the culturally modified trees or areas containing

culturally modified trees, but which, I suppose, in other areas of the

province could encompass a variety of issues — those referred to in the

article that I quoted initially? Perhaps you could outline what is

followed.

I'm

interested in this particularly to see whether or not it's working, and

whether or not the process really does take into account these other

values.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On the specific issue of

the culturally modified trees, these are the ones on the Queen

Charlotte Islands, I believe, that the member spoke to me of a few days

ago. We have a process in place. We're dealing with exactly that type

of thing, and those specifically where the companies must hire experts

in the field — whether you would call them archaeologists,

anthropologists or whatever — to identify and map those specific trees

and inform the natives exactly what is taking place, where they are,

etc.

The

system has been in place now for maybe a little better than two years

and appears to be working reasonably well. I know there have been a

couple of conflicts in the Queen Charlottes over this exact issue. In

one case, I think it is being worked out well between the logger and

the native Indians, and in the other case I don't think it is. I think

there's going to be a court case over one of them.

It's not

foolproof, but we're doing our best to take into consideration all of

the values in the forest, including historical and spiritual values,

and values that may not sometimes be important to all of us but are

important to certain people and especially to a lot of the native

Indian bands.

As the member said, they canvassed land claims yesterday during the estimates

of the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). It's something

I don't think we want to get into here, because we could argue for a long

time over the right approach to aboriginal title and land claims, whether we

should recognize it exists or not and just how we should handle it. I imagine

there's a difference of philosophy between the member and his party and

the government and me.

Having

said that, I think we'll probably leave that alone, or we could be here

all night talking about it. Suffice it to say that we agree to

disagree. However, I want to assure the member, this House and all

British Columbians that I am doing my very best to involve native

Indian bands wherever possible in the economic side of forestry.

Leaving

the aboriginal claims aside, I feel it's my responsibility to, if at

all possible, get them involved in the economics of forestry so they

can become independent and self-sufficient. I have had several meetings

now with several of the bands. To name a few, they are the Takla band,

the Kluskus, the Ulkatcho, the Oweekeno, the Nuxalt, who are side by

side with them, and a few others. I can't remember all the names.

[3:30]

have some very active negotiations going on at the moment to try to get

these people involved in some form of tenure in the forests. It's not

going to be all that easy, because in some cases there's a wide gap

when we sit down at the table. But we're closing that gap, and we're

working hard at it. We've got the district managers sitting down now on

the first round of negotiations. For the most part, we agree on many

things, but as in all negotiations, you will always find a few places

where you agree to disagree.

That doesn't mean we can't

work it out. I think that in some of these instances we're getting

very close to signing an agreement. In the Cariboo, in the north

country, and on the mid-coast especially, we are working very hard to

come to some agreement.

It's difficult to deal with them

all at one time. We have limited resources, and as happens when you

start negotiating some of these, more and more people want to get

involved. Letters are coming in weekly now from other bands and tribal

councils that hear what we're doing. They want to get involved, which

is a good thing, and I just ask them to be a little bit patient,

because we have to work these out one at a time.

We want

them involved when we strike committees to deal with specific areas,

such as the Chilcotin. We invite them to be involved in the committee

that we formed up there recently, because there are some very serious

problems in the Chilcotin plateau. To pretend otherwise would be less

than honest. We have some very serious problems up there that are of

concern to everyone, not just the forest industry but those in the

ranching community, wilderness guides and outfitters, and to the native

community. We want all of these people involved when we strike a

committee or task force to come to some conclusions.

guess I've strayed a little from the exact question, but it gives me a

chance to express the opinions and the feelings of government that we

want to try very diligently to involve native Indian bands in the

economics of the forest industry.

MR. MILLER : I

don't mind talking about that. I was trying to keep a fairly narrow

focus in terms of the issue of coming to decisions about cutting-plans

on specific sites. Is a specific study required?

[ Page 10870 ]

I'm aware of another location in my constituency, the Kitasoo band — Kitasu Hill, I believe it was called — where

a specific study was commissioned by the Ministry of Forests to

identify the archaeological sites and the archaeological interests and

historical interests that the Kitasoo band had in that area. I'm not

too familiar with those kinds of studies. I couldn't tell you if it was

comprehensive, but nonetheless it did identify all of those concerns.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

this particular case I've referred to, is that a requirement? Is the

ministry required to have a study, a document they can actually refer

to which identifies those archaeological sites?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On the specific example of Kitasu Hill, yes, I had a meeting some time

ago with the chief and their band administrator; I just don't remember

the names offhand. That was discussed, and we are very aware of their

concerns. As a matter of fact, we've put a hold on that sale until such

time as we've determined whether it should go ahead and under what

conditions and who should get the licence, etc. So we've just put a

hold on it. I've written telling them that. Because of their concerns

over the herring-spawning grounds and other things, they make some very

good points, and we don't want to continue with anything that's going

to damage their means of making a living. They're concerned with the

long term. So we've put a hold on that licence.

MR. MILLER :

Yes, I'm aware of that, and I've had fairly extensive discussions with

Chief Councilor Percy Starr about their concern. The minister is

obviously aware that their herring licence really allows them to

generate economic activity within the band, and I applaud their efforts

in expanding their fishery program to try to provide increased

employment in that community.

I only referred to that

because I was aware that that specific study had been done by the

Ministry of Forests, and my question really was broader: is that a

requirement? I refer back to the document that I quoted initially, the

letter sent by the deputy on integrated resource management. The whole

thrust of the letter was reinforcing the notion that integrated

resource management had to consider this full range of values; there

had to be a level of competence that the values that people had were

being considered. And in that context I ask: does the ministry have to

come up with a document on these kinds of sites?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On those kinds of sites, yes, we will have "experts" study the site and

give us a report. But to answer the broader context, if we were to

impose a moratorium on logging any site that someone had an objection

to or a query about, then we would probably shut down the industry in

very short order. We get letters on a daily basis asking for people to

stop the process here, stop the logging there and not to do anything

until this happens. We just cannot accede to every request to stop

logging until something happens. We would probably shut the industry

down within 24 hours. But wherever there is a concern such as that

mentioned by the member, then yes, we do require some facts and an

expert to look at those sites before we will proceed.

MR. MILLER : First of all, we have established that a specific study — or a report at least — has

to be done by the Ministry of Forests. Going back, I noted a couple of

questions ago that the minister said: "We inform the natives." I think

it goes much beyond informing; surely the minister is aware of that. I

also think he must understand that his government's refusal to deal

with the substantive issue colours the relationship. I'm talking about

aboriginal title and negotiations; it makes it more difficult. I am

certainly not advocating shutting down the province.

Going

back to the earlier conversation, if forestry isn't number one, then I

would think something's wrong. I think it should be number one, and it

should be bigger than it is now. I think it can be. But dealing with

this relationship, the letter says we must seek out and respond to

desires in planning and management. Now, having conducted the study, is

there a further requirement that the district manager would in some

formal sense have to sit down with the interested parties and come to

an agreement, to try and sort out any conflicts that might exist?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Of course, Mr. Chairman. Having identified archaeologically sensitive

areas and reported on them, the next step would be to sit down and

discuss them and come up with a way that we could get on with the job

of harvesting or not harvesting in an area. We use local knowledge to

alert us to the existence of any of these areas, we use experts to

identify the sensitive areas, then we sit down and try to come to some

agreement with the Indian band involved. There's no question about

that. That doesn't mean to say we're always going to come to an

agreement. No matter who is involved, when you have two parties arguing

two sides of something, we're not always going to come to an agreement.

come back to the two instances in the Queen Charlotte Islands. One, I

think, is being resolved between the two parties; and it appears on the

surface that the other is not being resolved without ending up in

court. So the process is not perfect.

MR. MILLER :

Would the minister agree, then, that something is required beyond

advising people that the plans were available for public viewing at a

meeting? In these instances, do you think there is a requirement beyond

that, whereby the district should be proactive in seeking a meeting and

trying to head off any problems?

I've been informed that on

the Collison Point site the CMTs are fairly closely grouped, and it

would not be that difficult to have those set aside and the sale

continue. Yet in that particular case, because of the uncertainty, the

successful bidder, as I have been

[ Page

10871 ]

advised, was advised not to proceed. And we have

the other unfortunate situation in which a small business logger, who

can ill afford to not have capital flow, is really caught in a squeeze

that is now unfortunately before the courts. I don't know if there is

any resolution the minister can suggest that we could deal with on that

question.

seems to me that this illustrates that a more

formal process, where the ministry was more proactive in seeking a

formal meeting with the concerned parties — in this case, the Council

of the Haida Nation or the individual bands of Skidegate or Masset —

could

have resolved.... And I understand further that there are conflicts

between the archaeological sites branch and the Haida in terms of what

they would like to see where culturally modified trees exist.

would point to the process laid out by your ministry with regard to

heritage trails. In reading that, it seems to me the ministry has

correctly recognized the importance of heritage trails and has set in

place a process involving not only your ministry but also the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. It's very specific in

terms of not only the public involvement but also the whole planning

process: "A public planning process which is carried out for each trail

... approved jointly by two ministers." It goes on in terms of a

memorandum of agreement, identifying that heritage trails have heritage

and recreational value. Who is responsible for defining a specific

trail? "Any detected problems will be resolved through joint liaison by

the parties to this agreement and in keeping with the spirit of the

stated purpose of this agreement." In terms of guidelines, it points

out very specifically that road crossings should be kept at a minimum.

Buffer zones will be established on either side of the trails.

"All non-commercial timber, including immature trees, will be left standing,

subject to the silvicultural considerations.... If a trail is disturbed as a

result of logging, the operator must restore the trail to its condition prior

to the logging, using hand methods if necessary.... Recreation objectives and

visual-quality objectives shall be established in the management plan.... The

management plan must identify how the trail area will be managed for timber,

range, recreation, heritage and other resource values.ff And jointly prepared

plans. Here we have, to illustrate the point when it comes to recognizing heritage

trails, a fairly extensive and very well-laid-out policy in terms of how that

planning process will be conducted.

don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to read the affidavit

regarding the CMTs, but I don't think you could argue that there would

be any distinction between these areas — in terms of their

significance, if not for everyone, at least for the people who live

there — and heritage trails. It seems to me they are fundamentally

dealing with the same kind of thing.

I was fairly moved, in this particular case, because part of the rebirth of

Indian people in this province is a rediscovery of their roots. I think that's

fundamental to any people's sense of place: where they are, who they are

and where they come from. I think it is fundamental, and I think a number of

Indian people in this country have lost that, and in seeking out.... We have

a museum across the road here that has devoted a considerable amount of money

in that regard.

was thrilled, as were others, to see the results of that rediscovery in

the form of the canoe that was carved under the direction of Bill Reid,

one of the foremost artists in this province, if not this nation. And

that process of rediscovery was in part assisted by being able to go to

those sites that I've referred to. Yet it appears that in the planning

process it is given relatively short shrift. There does not appear to

be a formal process. There does not appear to be the necessity of the

ministry being proactive in terms of taking a particular study and

sitting down formally and going through it and identifying conflict

areas and trying to come to a resolution.

[3:45]

would ask the minister to respond to that and perhaps advise whether or

not, given the importance that he is giving to the issue of integrated

resource management, there needs to be a better system set up to deal

with these issues.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I thank the

member for his endorsement of our policy on heritage trails. It sounded

pretty good when you read it back. Wes is sitting here just grinning

from ear to ear.

I can inform the member that the licensee

at Collison Point at the time of the issuance of the licence was aware

of the culturally modified trees. All the intending bidders were

notified, No objections were received from the Haida after they were

informed of the existence of the location of the trees. Now all of a

sudden we have a problem.

There may, Mr. Member, be a need

for a process, but up until now the process has worked very well. I am

told this is the first time we've had this kind of a problem. If it

isn't working and we need to have a better process, that may be

something we'll have to look at.

You must admit — and I think everyone would recognize — that

the political climate on the Queen Charlottes has changed dramatically

over the last year or two. There may be a whole new mind-set and a

whole new agenda over there that we must become aware of. I don't have

to tell anybody; it's no secret to you or anyone else that the heat is

being cranked up over there on many issues, not just forestry issues

but fishing and other issues. So you may be absolutely right: as

conditions change and people's values change, we might have to initiate

a whole new process. I can tell you that up until now it has worked

quite well. This is the first time we've had this kind of a problem.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I could comment on the fishery: I disagree. I think the

minister draws the wrong conclusion, and I don't know where he gets his

advice. But it's interesting to note that there is a parallel, I

believe, with the fishing issue in the

[ Page 10872 ]

Charlottes,

in that it is really a resource-allocation issue. If you look closely,

you find that the traditional commercial fishermen — the trollers — are

supporting the Haida, many of whom are traditional commercial

fishermen. We're talking about the allocation of a resource for a new

use and about the allocation of a resource without consultation and

input from the local people, and I think there's a real parallel

between what's happening there and what's happening in forestry. And I

don't think it's because of....

I certainly agree that

Indian people in this province are doing whatever they can to press

their case. What is unfortunate is that the government is not

listening. That is making the situation more difficult. But I don't

agree, in that particular case the minister referred to, that that's

the issue. The issue is resource allocation and the fact that it's been

given by a federal government to a new industry, and the people who

have traditionally harvested that resource have been ignored. The

people who sacrificed their livelihood by not harvesting that resource

in order to allow those stocks to rebuild are now being told that they

can't have access to the stocks: "Now that they're larger and coming

back bigger, you can't have access." That's the issue up there.

don't mind praising the minister or the ministry where it's due. I

reserve the right to both praise and be critical. I've pointed out that

the ministry understands — or accepts — the need for a fairly well

documented and extensive policy with regard to heritage trails. I

simply asked you whether or not that same kind of policy should be

applied in the instance I'm talking about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

As I said to the member — I didn't want to get off into talking about

other issues, because they can be canvassed under other ministers'

estimates — where

conflicts do occur, we put local resource use plans into place. They

work fairly well. I don't say that they are perfect, but they do work

reasonably well.

We have the Forest Resources Commission looking at this very issue — public involvement — and

I believe the Provincial Round Table on Environment and Economy will

probably be dealing with it as well. Yes, we're very concerned about

public involvement — about looking at the planning process, at how the

public does get involved and at meeting the public's needs. As I said

to the member, this may very well be an issue where we have to take a

look at a special process, as we've done with heritage trails. It's

worked reasonably well up to now. It hasn't been "broke," so we haven't

fixed it. But if it's broke, we'll take a look at it. It may be very

necessary to fix it.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue beyond that. My colleague from Cariboo may wish to pursue the issue that I've raised.

would ask specifically, with regard to the people who have been caught

in the middle, what advice the minister may be able to offer. Is it

possible, through the ministry, to resolve the situation that the

people I've referred to find themselves in?

Small

business

loggers do not have access to large amounts of capital. They rely on

being able to bid on sales fairly, to get their machinery and equipment

onto the site, to get their workforce onto the site, and to apply their

expertise and their workers' expertise in getting the harvest out and

marketed, in order to keep operating. In this case — and I won't get

into it in terms of laying blame, fault or anything else — we've got a

small business logger, a native of the Charlottes, who finds himself in

a very untenable position.

think there may be opportunities to find some redress to resolve this —

hopefully, to their satisfaction. I ask the minister if he can offer a

position in terms of that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Certainly whenever there is a conflict and I can help by getting

involved, I would be more than happy to do so. In fact, on numerous

occasions conflicts have got to a point where they can't resolve them

at the district or regional level. It requires their coming up to the

senior management level; or in some cases the minister has to get

involved. I haven't been asked to get involved in this one yet. There

is, I believe, a court proceeding underway; there's an injunction

involved, or proceedings towards an injunction.

If we can't

resolve this conflict at the district level, I would certainly be more

than happy, if I think there's a resolution to it, to sit down and

mediate or resolve the dispute between the two parties. I'm a great

believer that when reasonable people sit down together and talk

reasonably to each other, a reasonable conclusion will be reached. If

that will expedite this or solve the impasse, I'd be more than happy to

make that offer. To date I haven't been asked. I usually wait until I'm

asked; I don't like to inject myself into disputes. I like to be asked

to resolve them, and I would be more than happy to do so.

MR. MILLER :

Unfortunately, I phoned your office at five to nine this morning, and

you haven't got back to me yet today. I would have asked.

appreciate the minister's response. I think the important point here is

that the contractor is not in a position to wait for a resolution

through the courts. It is simply impossible. I appreciate the

minister's offer and will contact him privately, should that be

required.

I would ask my colleague to proceed.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Pursuing this issue, I don’t think it's a matter just of trails or

archaeological sites per se. I think the whole issue in forest

planning.... If we're going to be proactive about finding out where the

spots are that are going to cause trouble, we have to change the

process a bit. I don't think it's working to advertise five-year

development plans, because there's usually too much. There is no

response capability on the part of the Indian bands. I happen to know

that they never have enough resources to respond to the number of

professional people generating the plans. Often they attempt to make a

general

[ Page

10873 ]

response and ask for a process that maybe serves them a bit better.

wonder what your feelings are about being proactive about seeking out

the opportunities for conflicts before they occur. It's my assertion

that the process you have now doesn't work. I'll give you an example:

the referral process. You don't make bands a referral agency for the

purpose of referring cutting plans, as you do other agencies. That has

been a longstanding request and something that I think would help

immeasurably in terms of alerting people to the next area of cutting

plan. As I say, the five-year development plan is almost too much.

There are too many of these kinds of sites. Would you care to comment

on that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Chairman, I just

want to canvass the last item the member for Prince Rupert mentioned.

I'm informed that there is an injunction by the Haida against this

logger he talks about. The last place I like to see anything end up is

in court, because usually the only people who win there are the

lawyers. So if we can resolve this issue without going to court, I

think that's what we will endeavour to do.

If you were

phoning me today, the reason you couldn't get me was because I've been

in cabinet all morning and then in caucus and then into the House. So

if there's a message there from you and I haven't responded, it's

because I haven't seen it yet. I will respond to it. If asked to, I'd

be more than happy to get involved to try to resolve that impasse.

answer the second member for Cariboo's question, yes, we're looking at

the process. We realize that in all cases our process of involving the

public is not perfect. That's one of the reasons we've asked the Forest

Resources Commission, as one of the specifics of their mandate, to look

at just exactly that: public involvement. You are probably correct that

it is necessary for us to be more proactive. Wherever we anticipate

that, we try to.

You mentioned limited resources. I've got

to tell you that we have limited resources too, and at the moment they

are stretched to the limit. So it isn't always possible for the staff

to maybe be as proactive as we would like to be. However, we're taking

that under advisement, and we also await the report of the Forest

Resources Commission.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I

just want it to be clear. I think it illustrated the situation fairly

clearly as I understand it, the ministry has said: "Look, we've put up

an area for sale. There's a court action it's not our responsibility."

There may be some assistance; the minister referred to that. All I'm

saying is that the contractor I'm referring to is not capable of

dealing with it, nor should he be put in the position of having to

resolve it. So with that, I'll.... Did you want to pursue it?

MR. ZIRNHELT : To go back to the issue of the Chilcotin and just emphasize

the problem, I suggested, as you know, a process that would have focused on

the Chilcotin. I think you gave some consideration to it, but you decided to

focus on the overall Cariboo, because that was the timber supply unit. In doing

so, you end up with representation offered to tribal councils, and, as you know,

that doesn't always adequately represent the local bands. So the process

is at a scale that doesn't work for the very purpose that it has been created

for.

While

I understand that you can't continue to put unlimited resources after

unlimited resources, I think that it becomes a matter of approach. What

happens is that it may be a case for extension among your staff, where

they work differently — not more, or whatever, but work differently — so

that when they're involved in the planning process, early in the stage

of five-year development planning other users are used. We're

particularly sensitive to the ones about the native people because they

seem to be in a position to get injunctions. That's what people in the

industry are concerned about; they never know where the next one's

going to be. In the process, the net doesn't seem to be cast wide

enough or early enough; it's always putting some of these users in a

position to have to be reactive to the five-year development plan.

some point we've got to start the process. I realize that we're dealing

with a problem that has been there in the past. But, for example, the

Chilcotin: it seems to me that in many respects it is a sub-region. You

alluded to that yourself. It may need some process of its own, rather

than on a Cariboo-wide basis.

Just as a further point to

that, there are people on the east side of the Cariboo who are asking

for information on the supply blocks so that they can look at the

relative amount of extraction over time in that area, just as the

people in the Chilcotin are concerned about the pace of extraction and

whether it will decelerate after the bug-kill cuts. You have to narrow

the focus of a lot of these planning processes, or it's too much for

people to handle.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Chairman, a

lot of what the member says I don't disagree with. We have no problem

with narrowing the focus and getting local bands involved. We've done

that in a couple of instances. We are involved in negotiations now, as

I said, with the Ulkatchos and the Kluskus.

Most Indian

bands are very willing to sit down and talk about that; I'm coming back

to native Indian bands for a minute. Some are not, though. It wouldn't

matter what process you have in place, because they're hung up on a

certain philosophical difference that the member for Prince Rupert and

I discussed a few minutes ago, and that's where the negotiations stop.

Until you're willing to sit down to negotiate aboriginal title, they

will not discuss it any further.

They said to me twice now

at meetings when I've been up there that they intend to blockade a road

or do whatever is necessary, regardless of what else happens. So in

some cases it wouldn't matter how

[ Page 10874 ]

much planning or local input you had, they've got some hang-ups on a philosophical basis.

But

I don't have any problem in narrowing the focus of a task force or a

committee to deal with specific areas, specific tribal councils or

specific needs of guides, outfitters and those who depend on the

wilderness for a living. I don't have a problem with that at all.

MR. ZIRNHELT : In this case, the Chilcotin, where you have met with some intransigence, which I understand is over the question of title....

think we have to admit that there are some rights. If there weren't,

then the courts wouldn't be giving injunctions over culturally modified

trees or wouldn't be prepared to consider giving injunctions where

there is a band trapline involved or whatever. There are a number of

what appear to be established rights with respect to hunting, trapping

and those kinds of things. There is enough common ground where I don't

think your government would dispute those rights, and where you could

sit down and consider the effect of those undisputed rights on forest

management in the area.

am looking for the common ground, and I think another run has to be

taken at this in order to talk about — even in a hypothetical way —

what the impacts are, for example, of forest practices and the plans in

the region on these particular bands. It could be hypothetical.

You

have a situation where there is no recognition, and you're waiting for

the courts or some other process to define the implications of the

title argument, but there is no question that there is a common ground

where we have to deal with forest management practices as they affect

some of these resources which are the subject of the claims.

regardless of who owns title to the resources, it is my belief that

progress can be made if it's framed in the right way. If there is some

willingness to deal with some of these other rights — albeit not the

global rights of title — then you are prepared to localize the planning

process on the Chilcotin plateau.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I think we've demonstrated that while we may have a philosophical

difference on the overall subject of land title and aboriginal title,

we have recognized in many instances — and continue to do so — other

rights such as trapping, hunting, fishing, traditional berry supply

areas and the rest. We don't intend to get away from that practice. As

a matter of fact, these are the very things we want to sit down and

negotiate, and we are.

When

we talk to these Indian bands — the Ulkatcho is a good example, where

they have some very specific ideas of how they want to harvest, etc. —

we're

very willing, and we are talking with them about just that very thing.

So we do recognize the rights of users of the forest land — not only

natives, but guides, outfitters, trappers and the like who rely on the

wilderness for their livelihood.

I guess other than — we keep coming back to it — the

basic philosophical difference of the overall aboriginal title, that

doesn't mean we don't recognize their rights in these other areas.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Just on a slightly different approach: assuming that the

native people themselves are not prepared to sit at the table in the Chilcotin,

are you prepared to sit down with the other users and localize the process?

I see a problem with taking the whole Williams Lake TSA as too large a focus

to satisfy the sub regional needs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Oh, sure. We put a task force in to deal with the Cariboo, but we

intend to deal with local issues on a local basis. If that means

forming subcommittees or whatever, then we will do that — absolutely.

We don't intend to have this task force deal with the entire Cariboo

every time they have a meeting. They will deal with the specific local

issues.

MR. MILLER : Moving right along, I wanted to

deal with the letters of understanding. The minister is familiar with

the subsidiary agreements — the letters of understanding — which is the

policy where you are going to basically turn it over to industry to

provide you with the information and, I think more importantly, to put

them in a position where they are the lead agency that can influence

what happens.

This really flowed from something I referred to yesterday — a

1983 letter from the Council of Forest Industries addressed to the then

Premier. The letter stated: "This letter and the attached brief are

submitted to you in response to your personal invitation to the Council

of Forest Industries on May 27 to present industry's ideas on ways to

make the Ministry of Forests' activities more cost-effective." Of these

21 specific recommendations, one was to delegate responsibility and

accountability fully to licensees, in line with their existing and

suggested additional contractual obligations.

think that has been part of the problem with this and previous

administrations. Their closeness, if you like — or appearance of

closeness — to the industry and their reliance.... Particularly, the

last minister was quite over reliant on the industry.

This

was followed in December 1987 with a letter to the forest licensees

outlining what form these agreements would take. I'd like to read the

letter, because it's illustrative of the issue. It was from the

Ministry of Forests to licensees:

"Dear Sir:

"We

would like to inform you that the revised replacement forest licence

document will be finalized shortly and that it will be forwarded to you

by the regional managers. The forest licence document was revised to

reflect input received from industry associations and licensees. The

revisions also reflect the ministry's new forest policy.

"While we do not intend to discuss all the revisions to

the forest licence document at this time, we would like to advise you that the

intent of the letter

[ Page

10875 ]

of understanding (subsidiary agreement) is to be included in

the revised forest licence document.

"Essentially,

this means that the licensee will be responsible for obtaining input

from other resource agencies and licensed resource users for five-year

development plans prior to submitting them to the ministry for

approval. Issues which cannot be resolved between a licensee and a

resource agency will be referred to the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

"In

addition, the licensee will be responsible and accountable to perform

all operations under the licence to the standards approved by the

licenser and to comply with all operating constraints negotiated with

and agreed to by the licensee with other resource agencies and licensed

resource users. The licenser will audit the licensee's performance."

The

letter outlined the policy desired by COFI. COFI said, "We want it, "

and this letter essentially gave it to them. It made the licensees the

lead agency. The penultimate paragraph in this letter is: "The licensee

will be responsible for obtaining input from other resource agencies

and licensed resource users." That was fairly vigorously opposed and

withstood for some time, but finally the government decided to overturn

that policy. Presumably they listened to public opinion on it. At the

time that they did that, in September 1989, they earned a glowing

headline in an editorial in the Times-Colonist :

"Forestry Blunder Erased in Secret." Nonetheless, a letter was sent out

in September from headquarters to the regional and district managers.

It goes like this:

"A number of things have changed since the Forest Service

began entering into letters of understanding with TFL and FL holders. For example,

it had originally been decided that the Forest Service would focus on periodic

technical audits to maintain control of forest management on TFLs and forest

licences and would shift the responsibility for day-to-day monitoring to the

licence-holder. However, it has become clear that this concept would not be

in full harmony with public expectations, and that some Forest Service presence

on a cutting authority, in addition to the audit, is required to ensure approved

plans are implemented as intended and that the public interest is protected."

That is a startling reversal, Mr. Chairman. I can understand why it was done, as the Times-Colonist

editorial has suggested, in secret, as they had embarked on a very

unwise course of action, in my opinion and in that of others. The

ministry didn't necessarily want to admit that publicly.

[4:15]

Having gone through that step, I was somewhat alarmed when the previous minister,

in his hometown in late September of last year, had this to say about that policy

reversal. I'm quoting an

article from the Terrace Standard — a very good

newspaper in Terrace — from September 27, 1989. The headline is: "Audits

Still On Way." The

article reads as follows: "Critics are wrong to

interpret a ministry document as meaning it is abandoning plans to let the industry

police itself, says Forests minister Dave Parker." I think that was a couple

of days before he was fired.

HON. MR. MESSMER : Be nice.

MR. MILLER :

Okay, I'll be nice. He was responding to opposition claims that a memo

from assistant deputy minister Wes Cheston meant just that. In a letter

to regional and district managers Cheston said: "It has become clear

that this concept would not be in full harmony with public

expectations." He also suggested some Forest Service presence in

operational woodlands would be required. However, Parker maintained the

memo basically says we won't be moving quite as quickly into the audit

function.

The policy went on to say: "The ministry was

still in the process of developing a system which would leave it to

tree-farm and forest licensees to ensure their operations met ministry

requirements. The policy would cover anything to do with operations, "

he explained, "including logging, slash burns, replanting and

stand-tending. Ministry officials would then carry out periodic audits

to ensure companies were complying."

Parker went on to make

some rather odd analogies, and they're worth quoting: "Maintaining the

industry should not have to 'baby-sit' the companies, we consider all

British Columbians to be honest, to know what their contractual

obligations are and to live up to the letter of the contract." Offering

the analogy of the hunting licence, Parker said that was essentially a

contract, which allowed him to harvest certain wildlife....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Which Parker is he referring to?

MR. MILLER : I stand chastised by the member for South Peace River. I referred to the member by his name — the

former minister. I'll use "the member for Skeena." Offering the analogy

of a hunting licence, the member for Skeena said that that was

essentially a contract, which allowed him to harvest certain wildlife,

subject to specified regulations. He added: "But I'm not going to have

a conservation officer holding my hand every time I go out with a

rifle." Well, it's certainly not true in this province, because they

are few and far between.

The point of this is obviously the

severe contradiction between the statement by the ministry official and

the statement by the ministry. I seek clarification from the current

minister with regard to these letters of understanding, these

subsidiary agreements. Who is right? Is it the letters sent out saying

that these are no longer in effect? Is that the current policy? Or is

the policy as outlined by the previous minister in his last few days in

office the one that exists?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The

letters of understanding were discontinued. They are no longer in

effect, and we have made provision for more monitoring in the field. To

that effect we have 45 additional FTEs in the field. So the policy is

that it's history. They are no longer in effect, and I can assure you

that it's going to stay that way.

MR. MILLER : Just to quickly follow that, on June 20 in this House I put this question to the Minister of

[ Page 10876 ]

Environment

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds): "Could the minister advise whether or not the

forest licensees are still the lead agency when it comes to these

referrals? In other words, do they pilot the application through the

referrals?" The Minister of Environment said: "Yes." The member for

Prince Rupert goes on to say: "Is that not a contradiction of an

earlier statement made by the Minister of Forests that that practice

would cease?"

I think it is incumbent on the minister....

He was very clear in his answer, and I guess the conclusion is that the

Minister of Environment was wrong.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Not having been privy to that and not having been here when the

Minister of Environment answered the question, just let me say that

where there's an environment problem, the licensee will deal with the

environment directly. If they can't resolve their problem, then we will

get involved and try to act as a mediator and resolve it. But it is

incumbent on the licensees, for example, to deal with the Ministry of

Environment.

If it's a pulp mill or a logging practice next

to a creek or whatever, it's up to the licensee to deal with the

Ministry of Environment if he's in violation or perceived violation of

some regulation under Environment. They would deal with him directly.

MR. MILLER :

That's not the basis on which I put the question, just to refer to the

earlier part of the questioning. The question was very specific, and I

didn't read this one previously. I said: "Could the minister advise

whether or not the forest licensees are still the lead agency with

regard to those referrals?" I think that's somewhat different from a

forest licensee company dealing with the Ministry of Environment on a

particular issue that might affect the operation of that company.

Really,

it talks about the licensee being a lead agency. I think the ministry

finally accepted the reasons why that was not the case. But I don't

want to belabour the point. I accept the minister's explanation that

it's no longer a practice and that the planning is done with the

Ministry of Forests as the lead agency. They're the ones who gather the

input from the other referral agencies. So I'll leave it at that,

although I do think that the minister might want to take the

opportunity to clarify that policy I could send the Minister of

Environment a copy of Hansard .

I wanted to discuss the

issue of access to information and information considered confidential.

It is a big problem, and it ties into the issue I referred to earlier

and certainly into the issue of integrated resource management. It has

been the cause of concern from groups and individuals trying to obtain

information so that they can assess plans put forward by forest

companies. I think there's a real problem with that so-called

confidential information.

I know I asked the minister a

question on that earlier this year in question period. I would ask him

to comment on the specifics of this case, wherein an organization wrote

to the district manager and made specific requests for wood-waste

billings on particular cutting permits and asked for the volumes and

the monetary value of penalties. In addition, they asked for a list of

trespass billings leveled against the operating company on their

cut-block. That was followed up by several phone calls and ultimately

by a letter from the ministry, which reads:

review of the Ministry of Forests public information policy has

revealed that your request for information dealing with (1) wood-waste

billing and (2) trespass billing cannot be accommodated without the

consent of the person to whom the scale and royalty account was

registered. Subsequent to acquiring written consent from the party

involved, a ministry information request form, FS400, must be

completed, giving explicit information pertaining to the request.

"Please

note that such inquiries are subject to appropriate handling charges,

in accordance with ministry policy, currently set at $50 per hour."

would ask the minister why that information would be considered

proprietary. What possibly could be done with it other than inform the

people in that area, who are concerned about forest policy and

planning, the nature of the companies operating in their region and the

implications of how they operate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem with freedom of information. I'm

a firm believer that the public should know as much as possible about

this industry, this ministry and every other ministry. The only place

where we would draw the line is when it is private financial

information belonging to a company which they might not want to make

public or which might put them in an adverse position for marketing or

put them at a competitive disadvantage or something like that. I

believe in running a wide-open shop, and wherever possible, we will

provide the requested information.

If the member knows of

areas where we recently haven't given information, and it should have

been given, please let me know, because I've informed the staff and all

the offices that, other than for really confidential information which

could do damage to a company if it got out, I have no objection to the

public having access to any information.

MR. MILLER :

The latest letter is dated in January. I don't know if the minister is

aware of any activity subsequent to that which makes this out of date.

As far as I'm aware, the information is still not being provided.

Specifically, I'd ask why wood-waste and trespass billings would be

considered confidential. If I recall correctly, that information was

made public in a number of instances where the ministry advised the

public that certain companies operating in British Columbia had been

fined certain amounts of money for waste billings — in other words, for

timber that they had left lying on the ground. Do these requests fall

within that area of confidentiality or not?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On the surface of it, it would appear that they do not. If they do not, it should be made public. As I say, if you know of

[ Page

10877 ]

instances when people have requested information

that isn't of a confidential nature and haven't got it, let me know.

I'll make sure that they get it. We don't have anything to hide in that

regard. I would prefer that wherever possible, everything be done out

in the full view of the public so they know what's going on.

guess I could go on on a philosophical bent here and talk about other

things that I think should be done out in public. I think a lot of

negotiations should be done in public, before the scrutiny of the press

and the TV cameras, and we might end a lot of posturing in certain

areas and have the public better informed. Mr. Member, if you or any

other member knows of instances where information is being denied the

people, let me know, and we'll see that they get it.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : If the member for wherever it is is bored, I'd have to say he's easily bored. That becomes his problem, not ours.

want to keep on this, because it seems to me that it's part of the

problem with respect to the public involvement that the ministry talked

about and included in their submission to the Forest Resources

Commission. They thought it was an essential ingredient for proper

forest planning in Canada and for also having the public on side in

terms of what's happening.

Maybe I'll just recap what

occurred with respect to this particular case, because when we went

back farther to when the company was preparing their five-year plan on

this particular cut-block, various requests came forward from groups

and individuals in the region, asking that they be given certain

information so they could do an analysis of what the company was

proposing.

That was refused on the basis that it was

proprietary. It was refused on the basis that the company had certain

systems that they didn't want anybody else to know about. It ultimately

led to one of the more embarrassing moments of this government, and

that was the wood-waste articles in the Globe and Mail .

It had the opposite effect: it simply alienated people. They felt they

were not part of the process, that they couldn't go to a private

company to get information and that it doesn't really work.

They

have to be able to go down to the local Ministry of Forests office, and

when they request information, it has to be made available to them.

They can't be deterred or put off either by $50 an hour fees — perhaps

the minister might want to comment if he's scrapped that plan — or

a private company given a proprietary interest over a large area of

land, saying: "Sorry, this is ours. We don't have to give you any

information."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Is the minister contemplating any further changes with respect to those five-year

plans that companies are obligated to submit — tree-farm licence holders — and

the obligations they are required to meet under the Forest Act? Clearly the

ministry and the minister feel that the issue of public consultation should

be greatly expanded. But what about these tree-farm licences which are on Crown

lands, but where the management has been delegated to individual companies?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Our policy has certainly changed over the last little while. I don't

know how far back in history the member is going. But I will just

reiterate that we want to make everything possible available to the

public. I guess we can't dictate what private companies do, but