Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 17

Part 1

[ Page 5485 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am very pleased today to have in the gallery my administrative assistant, Wendy Twomey. With her are two people, her friends Harold and Marion Taylor of Victoria. Marion, I understand, is retired now but was a longtime worker in the Ministry of Human Resources. She was also very active in her union and a BCGEU shop steward, and I understand that Marion took that passion for workers' rights into politics, and that she is in fact responsible for Wendy and others becoming active in politics. So I would ask the House to make these three people very welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce my brother Harry Gaede and his wife Betty to the Legislature. They are out here from Camrose, Alberta, visiting. So I ask the House to please make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: A friend of mine is in the gallery today -- a fellow United Church minister from Rossland -- Kent Israel, with his wife Suzanne and their daughter Catharina, as well as a friend of Catharina's, Elizabeth Cobham from Warfield. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Reitsma: Just scanning the gallery, I notice across from me a good friend, a terrific lawn bowler -- in fact, he set up the lawn bowling association in Parksville -- Jim McVicker. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Arthur and Doreen Exley have journeyed from Wallasey in England to visit their family, Diane Exley and Jim Grieshabor-Otto, at their family farm in Agassiz. They are here in Victoria today touring the Legislature. I know that lots of you have worked with Jim on government issues or agricultural issues in the past. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I notice in the gallery Reg and Eileen Chan from Quesnel, who worked with me when I used to be the MLA for the whole of the Cariboo. Please make them welcome.

B. Penner: It is my privilege today to introduce someone who is looking over my shoulder up in the members' gallery: His Worship the mayor of Chilliwack. First elected mayor of Chilliwack in 1987, John Les was the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 1995-96. Would the House please make him welcome.

I. Waddell: I see in the gallery and would like the House to welcome a fellow Scot and an old friend of mine, Margaret Birrell, who is the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and who came very close in the riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain in the last election. I'm sure the opposition would like to . . . . [Laughter.] I'd like the House to welcome her.

G. Wilson: Visiting us from Alberta today is Mr. Alan Langdon, who is here with his sister, Dianne Patterson, from Victoria. Mr. Langdon was the former president of the Alberta Liberal Association and continues to fly that flag in the heart of Manning country. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce three guests to the House today -- Joie Warnock and Chris Labrecque from my constituency and also another important person in my life: Doug Vurzinger. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: Today in the House we have the mayor of Smithers, Brian Northup, for his second visit -- he enjoyed yesterday so much. Today we also have the administrator of Smithers, Ms. Terri-Anne Barge. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997

(GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS)

L. Reid introduced a bill intituled Family Relations Act Amendment Act, (No. 2), 1997 (Grandparents' Rights).

L. Reid: The community of grandparents in British Columbia is truly committed to maintaining ties with their grandchildren for the simple reason that they believe in family. They desire contact with their children's offspring. It is a very good decision on their part, and it is one I am pleased to stand in support of today. These amendments to British Columbia's Family Relations Act would see grandparents included in the deliberations which determine the best interests of the child and, further, that an order for access may include access to the extended family of the child, including grandparents.

Quebec has had such legislation for a decade, Alberta since May 29 of this year. Preserving the grandparent-grandchild relationship is worthy of the support of this Legislature. Denying children access to their grandparents during a time of family disruption may indeed remove the only stability and constancy available to that child.

Hon. Speaker, I'd be pleased to dedicate my remarks today to Nancy Wooldridge, the founder and president of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association.

Bill M208 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

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF JOBS AND TIMBER ACCORD

G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberal opposition has now received documents that show the government is spending $925,000 to develop a creative advertising campaign for the jobs and timber accord. It will have to be really creative, because the contract was signed months, or at least weeks, before the accord was actually brought forward.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why does the Minister of Finance think it's necessary to spend $925,000 in creating propaganda, if it's not to cover up the truth about the thousands of jobs that have been lost in the forest industry under this government's regime?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, government communication and advertising budgets have been reduced this year as part of the

[ Page 5486 ]

government's savings exercise. That has not stopped the government, however, from informing the people of British Columbia about important objectives, such as the objective to create jobs in cooperation with the forest industry through the jobs and timber accord.

I would have thought that the member opposite would appreciate this advertising campaign because it might at least deflect public attention from the complete dearth of ideas and initiatives on jobs that come from the Liberal opposition.

G. Campbell: The $925,000 is not for the advertising itself; it's for a "creative campaign." It's to create the illusion that this government has actually finally got it and that they recognize that their policies have driven thousands and thousands of British Columbians out of work in the forest industry.

While this minister is signing contracts or having contracts let for creative campaigns for $925,000, 5,500 forest families lost their jobs last year. There is not one of those families that would say that this government should spend 925,000 of their dollars to create a better image -- or try to create a better image -- for the government.

Is the Minister of Finance willing to look into the eyes of unemployed forest workers in Terrace, Cranbrook and Williams Lake and tell them right now how spending $925,000 on propaganda will put those families back to work?

[2:15]

Hon. A. Petter: This is a little hard to take from the Leader of the Opposition, who is responsible for spending a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a self-serving political mailout in the last few months.

Yes, this government is committed to creating jobs. Yes, we're committed to working with forest-based communities and forest companies to create those jobs, and yes, we're not afraid to communicate that in as effective and clear a way as possible. We will steward our communications resources to do that, because the communications budgets are down. We're not afraid to tell the people of British Columbia our commitments and what we're doing to fulfil those commitments. As I said to the member opposite, he could take some relief that the people of British Columbia may therefore take less of a close look at their failure to have any positive program to create jobs here in British Columbia.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'm amazed that this minister doesn't understand the difference. This side of the House told the truth with our mail-in; this government has never thought of telling the truth.

We're talking about this government spending $925,000 -- not to buy media, not to communicate, not to let people know that 5,500 people have lost their jobs and that we're trying to bring them back to work . . . .

The question to the Minister of Finance is: doesn't he really think that that $925,000 would be better spent on protecting children in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I don't know that I have a lot to add. If the Leader of the Opposition really thinks that the people of British Columbia believe that a million-dollar political mailout designed to negatively attack the government of British Columbia is a good expenditure of funds, then I'll leave him to try to defend that.

Yes, this government is prepared to communicate and to spend the necessary funds to ensure that that communication is put together in an effective manner to reinforce its jobs commitment. The only commitment from members opposite towards jobs in this entire session has been to attack government programs to get people off welfare and into jobs and to encourage the government to cut taxes for large corporations. That's their jobs program. Perhaps they'd like to send their next mailout, explaining that to the people of British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I've got some news for the Minister of Finance. British Columbians aren't interested in slick, propaganda-style advertising campaigns. They're not interested . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. I know we're all anxious to hear . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members! Members, please. I know we're all anxious to hear the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, some more news from the Minister of Finance: people aren't interested in the NDP's latest edition of Pravda , which will be arriving at their doorsteps momentarily. If you're a British Columbian who has relied upon the forestry sector to raise your family, what you're interested in is the fact . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Steady, member, steady.

. . . that in the last year alone, NDP policies have resulted in over 5,000 British Columbians losing their jobs.

Let me ask the Finance minister to explain why it's necessary to spend millions of dollars advertising a deal which, if it were half as good as the government would have us believe, should sell itself.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll certainly defer to this member's opinion on whether slick advertising works, based on the performance of this party in the last election campaign.

This government's performance in creating an environment to work with business and to work with the people of British Columbia in creating jobs over the last years has been second to none in this country. In the last five years this province, with only 12 percent of the population, has created almost 50 percent of all the jobs in this country. That's an unequalled record.

For the members opposite to cry about jobs in the forest sector in particular -- and I want to inform the member that the numbers he gives are no longer the numbers that Statistics Canada is using -- is a little hard to take, when I understand that the member for Okanagan-Vernon only last week, or two weeks ago, was quoted in the Vernon Morning Star as indicating that she is angered that forest companies will have difficulty laying off employees because of government action.

That's the kind of crocodile tears we hear from the members over there. But what they really think, I think, is reflected in the statements from the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

[ Page 5487 ]

M. de Jong: What the minister demonstrates is a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between what is slick and what is truthful. That's what he doesn't understand.

But let's just take a little trip down through memory lane and think about some of the government's past forays into creative advertising. Who can forget the multicoloured, glossy edition from Forest Renewal promising more jobs? What did we get? We got fewer jobs. But my favourite, Mr. Speaker . . . . Remember last year's balanced-budget campaign? It was millions of dollars to talk about the balanced budget. A brilliant campaign, except for one small fact: it wasn't true.

How much more? Tell us now so we know; tell British Columbians so they know. How much money are we going to spend telling unemployed forest workers that they're actually better off under the NDP? Tell us now.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member opposite would pay more attention to the facts and less attention to the sound of his own voice, he would consult the budget and see that communications spending under STOB 40 in this year's budget is down some 25 percent, from $22.5 million to $16.9 million. We're reducing our commitment to communications as part of our commitment to reduce costs within government.

But I can only say that it's a little sad to see the members opposite once again attacking in any way they can initiatives by government to try to protect or create jobs in British Columbia. That's what they do here in the Legislature, but when they get home, they do what the member for Okanagan-Vernon did -- they disclose their true agenda, which is to lament the fact that large corporations are going to be inhibited in laying off workers and to advocate more cuts in taxes for those corporations. It's time they came clean and told the people of British Columbia where they really stand and what their agenda is on jobs.

NANAIMO HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS

P. Reitsma: On a different subject, year after year more and more patients join the wait-list for elective surgery at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. In fact, there are close to 3,000 patients waiting.

While patients suffer long waits, the Health minister continues to sit on a completed review of the Nanaimo hospital. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I asked the minister for a copy, and I was refused. However, in a unique way we have obtained a copy of this report, and it reveals the shocking facts. It reveals the shocking facts of patients waiting, on average, between four and six months for cataract and joint-replacement surgery.

My question to the Minister of Health is: why won't this Health minister make the Nanaimo hospital report public? What is there to hide?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we've been working very closely with the NRGH and the regional health board in that area on providing for the very much needed services in that area.

Unfortunately, the Liberal MLA opposite . . . . Let me use my own prop: "MLA Blasted by Councillor for Misleading Document." That's the evidence presented by . . . . "Reitsma's report is outdated, uneconomical, inefficient and bears no practical application to our present situation in our community," said one of his own councillors in his own community when talking about the hospital situation in Nanaimo.

But let's go to the real facts about what's happening in Nanaimo and around the wait-lists that are there. Yes, it is true. There is a burgeoning population and an aging population in the Nanaimo area. There is no question about that. But it is also important that we deal with the facts around wait-lists. The wait-list is about 2,000. It's grown to about 2,000 since December of '91. The population itself in that area has increased by about 35 percent.

The review was done. When that member opposite asked for the review, we gave that review. It's an excellent review. They are working toward implementing the review now, and that hon. member had his full input into it. Actually, he's had a full briefing on it, as well.

P. Reitsma: Is it any wonder that people in my area are saying that the minister is not protecting our health care? The minister is not listening. The Nanaimo hospital report sadly outlines the plight of patients. It states: "Unacceptably frequent overflow to holding areas and backup and blockage of emergency facilities is resulting in operational and patient-care problems." It notes in particular that one patient was bounced between six different beds, shuffled in and out of the emergency department. That is not protecting patients' health care.

To the Minister of Health: why should anybody believe the NDP are sincere about fixing the situation at the Nanaimo hospital when they have broken so many promises to these patients in the past?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just remembered something. It was in Nanaimo about 14 months ago that the Leader of the Opposition said . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just wanted to note that we've completed my estimates, and my budget is $7 billion. It was about 14 months ago that the Leader of the Opposition said that $6 billion was enough. In Nanaimo the Leader of the Opposition said $6 billion was enough.

But unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we've actually made a real financial commitment to Nanaimo. Let me just tell you. Since 1992-93 the funding increases have totalled $9.77 million. There's been transitional funding of $6.1 million over the last two years: $100,000 to address the psychiatric workload; $450,000 for 45 additional hip and knee surgeries; $100,000 to address the extended-care bed needs; $442,000 in base funding for 600 additional cataract cases; $7.2 million for a new ambulatory care unit -- and this hon. member knows he'll be invited to the announcement later this summer, if we can ever leave this chamber; $950,000 . . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. Will you wrap . . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Speaker, this is important information for Nanaimo, I must tell you. If we have to rely on the misleading documents of that member, they will not know what's going on.

And the last good news is that the new CT scanner that we opened, worth $800,000, will cut by the thousands the number of people who have to go elsewhere for CT scans. That's what's really happening in Nanaimo.

[ Page 5488 ]

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period. The red light went on approximately two minutes before, for members' information.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I have the pleasure to table the annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia for 1996-97.

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, 1996-97.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 1996 annual report of the Forest Practices Board of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

J. Wilson: Today I've got several issues I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister. I'm going to bounce all over the board.

I think one of the first things I would like to revisit a little bit is the situation that occurred at Repap. I have a question for the minister here. If this company goes down and the government has the opportunity to reissue a licence on the tenure that existed under Repap, will there be any riders put on the new tenure that will enable the government to recoup some of the lost revenues that have occurred there because of the failure of the company to pay their stumpage?

What we wouldn't do, and would be very loath to do, is jeopardize the future of the whole operation based on one or another condition. There may be many conditions on the transfer, but it will be considered.

J. Wilson: I understand that you can't collect the entire bill in a short time frame, but I understand the minister to say: "Yes, we are going to consider it, and there is the opportunity of possibly recovering some of this money." Are you looking at trying to recover at least some of the losses that we have incurred in the past year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I beg the member's indulgence, because as you know, we are in negotiations with owners of the company and others, and the job protection commissioner is constructing an economic plan, so I want to be careful to get it as close as I can. I am advised that we are very mindful of the $140 million that's owed to creditors, and we will make every effort to ensure that there is fairness in the construction of any deal which would involve repayment schemes.

As an aside, I'll just say that Forest Renewal B.C. was careful to deal with local creditors so that FRBC wasn't in the position of paying off the eastern-based banks who are creditors as well. When it comes time to reconstruct or reconfigure a deal that will benefit the communities, we will take into account the needs of the community for a stable financial base for creditors who are in the area. I would say that there have been many discussions with groups up there -- secured and unsecured -- with respect to their interests being built into any economic plan.

[2:45]

J. Wilson: It's good to hear that we have the interests of the contractors at heart and that we are going to try and do something to recoup some of the losses they have incurred in the last year.

At this point in time, I understand that FRBC has done some work to help mitigate some of the impact that has occurred because of the debt that the company has left the contractors holding. Could the minister outline to me exactly what role FRBC is now playing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can give you four concrete examples of what's being done: the $15 million bridge financing program put in place by FRBC to assist contractors; $2.6 million has been committed to building a road to access some beetle-damaged wood, which will give immediate roadbuilding and then logging work to local contractors; funds have been provided to the district of Stewart to do an economic development feasibility study to attract businesses to that area to become involved in the forest industry; and there are other activities going on with FRBC in terms of all of their programs being there and available for access, should access be necessary to those programs.

J. Wilson: It seems that in the last several years -- especially in the last year or two -- we have spent all our time running around putting out spot fires. I believe there are ways of covering off these situations which would work better than the present system. In my mind, the money that Forest Renewal is dumping into these problem areas to put out these fires is not the best way to spend these dollars. These dollars have been eartagged, for the most part, to do a job that we've laid out for it.

If we can put something in here that will cover off situations like this that do have the possibility of arising and which have been coming up on a regular basis -- and that I believe will continue to arise within the industry -- then I think it's time we made a move.

One of the things I believe the contracting industry needs today is some type of a security on the wood that they harvest

[ Page 5489 ]

that will allow them to collect the money that is owed. What I'm referring to here is something known as the forest workers security act. I believe a lot of work has gone into this. At present we have what is known as the Woodworker Lien Act. I believe that one of the last changes to it was in the year 1895. It's amazing how we stay current on some things, but others just seem to slip through the cracks, and we forget about them until we finally get to a situation like we're at today, where we find we need something.

An act that's over 100 years old just doesn't cut it anymore.

I believe that the minister is aware of the forest workers security act and has a fair amount of knowledge about it. My understanding is that it has been brought to his attention more than once. Could I ask the minister if anything is being done on this at the present to put something in place that will secure the interests of the contracting industry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe you're talking about the Woodworker Lien Act. I think that's probably legislation. It was brought to my attention on my trip to Terrace when I met with people in the community up there, and I referred it that day to my staff. We have now obtained a copy of the Law Reform Commission report, which I believe is a recent report. They're looking at it and studying it now. But it only came to my attention when I was in Terrace -- as I recall, in any event.

I would just say to you, in defence of not having examined this as a solution before, that I don't know the full history. I've asked for a report as to how long this has been an issue. When I was in Terrace, the contractors themselves mentioned to me that they were aware that this is only recent. I explained to them the length of time it took to prepare legislation. It may be a solution that wouldn't help them today, but as you say, it may be part of a package of what helps people in the future. Some of these things can be done, but I would be very cautious in saying that we would get rid of FRBC and not have FRBC there to step in.

We're very fortunate to have had FRBC to deal with the spot fires we have. But something like Skeena Cellulose is a conflagration; it's not a little spot fire. In any event, they went into trouble because of their particular debt problems, which . . . . If there had been no FRBC and no stumpage, it wouldn't have changed their precarious financial situation. In fact, it might have allowed money that would have gone into stumpage to have left the province and been scooped off, as has happened in the past. It is their debt, and it is the drop in world prices for pulp which makes it very difficult.

I think the people up there understand that some of these larger structural issues are in the way more than some of the other fixes that we have to deal with. In any event, you're right about looking at systematic change. We have looked at technical changes in appraisal and in streamlining the code as fixing part of the larger problem.

J. Wilson: I've looked at the report -- I believe it was 1994 that it came out -- and I've done some reading on this subject. The Woodworker Lien Act really gives you no security on what has happened. The forest workers security act would be a tremendous improvement over the old act. I guess what I'm doing here is requesting that the minister consider this. It is something that is necessary. True, I am not disagreeing that FRBC shouldn't have a purpose out there, and it's a good thing we do have it today. However, we've got to look ahead a little bit to try to put something in place that will do the job.

My opinion is that if the ministry goes ahead and does some work on developing the forest workers security act, they should carry it a little further and make it a condition that when wood is harvested, there be put in place a time frame similar to what is there now with the collection of stumpage revenues. Once that deadline is hit with regard to the payment of the contractors -- the same thing as applies to your stumpage -- then it becomes a delinquent account. Now, if it's one little mill in the province or one big mill in the province, the province can absorb it.

They can say: "Yes, we'll collect that money down the road." When you're dealing with a little, independent contractor out there who has a crew to hire and pay so that they can feed their families, and who has his own family to feed, and he puts everything on the line in order to go out and create jobs, we need to give him a little more consideration than what the government needs in these situations.

Once you reach a point where a contractor's paycheque has become delinquent, there should be something put in place -- and it could be worded in as part of this act -- so that something will automatically kick in that ensures that payment.

The reason I would like to see that is because contractors tend to be a very vulnerable group. They need the job, they need the work, and they cannot rock the boat by going to their employer and saying: "Look, you didn't pay me last month, so I'm not going to work for you this month." They've got payments to make: mortgage payments and bank payments on equipment. They've got to keep their outfit running, and they've got to have a cash flow.

As the minister reviews this, I would hope that they will keep in mind the point I have just made on behalf of the contractors in this province. Would the minister care to comment on this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We certainly have that under consideration and will take that under consideration. I would say, though, that the government's objective would be to have a balance between government doing everything to secure people and providing all the security everybody wants -- where it begins and where it ends -- versus the normal way of doing business with contracts. If they are bound by legislation, this will affect the investment. If everybody is paid before the companies themselves are paid, or the shareholders are paid, there may be no shareholders willing to invest.

There has to be some sharing of risk. But we take the point. We understand it's a problem; we understand that the Woodworker Lien Act doesn't serve them.

Let me remind you that it was this government that brought in Bill 13's subcontractors clause, which gives them some guarantee of work when licences transfer. So it's not that we haven't done something. The question is: how far do we go? We would have to keep a balance between protecting subcontractors . . . . You can make the same argument for the people who sell the tires to the truckers, or the people who sell the trucks to the loggers, or the equipment. If the member and the opposition have a position on that, I would suggest that they make that clear.

Once you draw the line at logging contractors, do you do it for temporary subcontractors who might be hauling, who might take their gravel boxes off sometimes and go log-hauling? Where does it begin, and where does it end? That would be a question we have to take into consideration.

J. Wilson: It has been my experience that if people like the contractors have a cash flow, they do pay their bills. You find the odd bad apple, but not very many. With a cash flow, all of your spinoff jobs will flourish. There are a lot of ways of doing it, and one that I'm sure the minister or his staff maybe

[ Page 5490 ]

have considered . . . . If I'm not going to get paid, I could handle a little bit of security on some standing timber out there. If I know I didn't get paid for last year's work, if there's something there that would allow me tenure on that or give me control over that standing timber, I know I'm going to get paid down the road. The fibre will flow and jobs will go on -- this sort of thing. It's just a thought.

I think I'll change gears here and run off on something else. I have an order-in-council here; it is No. 0691. I would like to read it in. It's signed by the Minister of Forests:

"On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, orders that authorization is given to Forest Renewal BC to implement a program on private land, including participation in the acquisition of interests in private land, for the purposes of conserving the biodiversity of forest lands."

I would ask that the minister expound on this order-in-council.

[3:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The order-in-council that the member refers to was put in place after the board of Forest Renewal B.C. introduced a program which had been in development for several years called the private lands program. The OIC gives cabinet direction, which the board asked cabinet for, as I said. They wanted to go ahead with this program. Under the BC Forest Renewal Act direction is required on some matters, and this is one of them they required direction on.

J. Wilson: Will they include participation in the acquisition of interest? Could the minister lay out clearly for me what exactly they mean by acquisition of interest?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Purchasing -- they could purchase land or rights to land.

J. Wilson: By purchasing, Forest Renewal . . . . I did not realize that Forest Renewal was in the real estate business. My understanding of purchasing would be for Forest Renewal money to go into the purchase of private land. Is this the case?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The purpose of the program is the conservation of biodiversity and the development of timber on private land. So FRBC does have the authority to do that, should they get approval from cabinet. That's the rationale. It is within their mandate to do that, provided that they get direction from cabinet. They sought that direction and were given it.

J. Wilson: So Forest Renewal B.C. has now been given a mandate to come in and work on private land. Is this strictly limited to projects or issues that come to Forest Renewal at the request of the private land owner?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, not necessarily. I think FRBC has purchased land partially at the request of the land owner, I believe. This request came from the environment committee of Forest Renewal B.C., which a number of people sit on, including representatives of the community, environment, industry and government.

J. Wilson: Would I be wrong in assuming that Forest Renewal is within their mandate? I am not really up to speed on that, because I didn't realize that Forest Renewal had a mandate to come out and take up projects on private land that they were not asked by the landowner to be involved in. So my understanding here is that Forest Renewal, with this mandate they now have, rather than purchase private land can come in and put their program in place whether the land-owner agrees to it or not.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The wording was "purchase" or "acquire purchase," not expropriate.

J. Wilson: So we will not see the intervention of FRBC in any private land without the prior purchase of said property?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The purpose here is for FRBC to be involved in the purchase of properties from willing sellers of private property.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for his concise explanation of this. It does add a lot of clarity and possibly a lot of relief to some people.

I assume that at present this private forest land we're referring to here takes in all private land. Or at this point is it simply looking at the forest land that, say, remains unfenced or forest land that may be put in up against a woodlot or something like this? Is this what you're looking at, or is it private land that has no relationship to either of those examples?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not familiar with a case where FRBC intended to do that or where it has been recommended that they do that. I guess it is possible that they do that, but the perfect example here is the Churn Creek properties of Empire Valley. That's the kind where, under a land use plan, government agreed to acquire property if it came available. In that case, the owner had written to government, and government had a program. This was a program that had been targeted for months for this kind of thing, and they have a complex arrangement with Ecotrust to manage the land. So this is a perfect example.

In this particular case, it happens to be forest land that's partially forest and grassland. The other example is one where there was private land exchanged for Crown land, and there was some reforestation done as part of the deal.

Those are the only two examples that have come forward, but there may be another long list. I would suggest that the considerations, the intentions and the dimensions of the program could be communicated to you. And I would offer you a briefing, if you'd like a detailed briefing on the state of the private lands program development and on FRBC. I'm reminded, too, that FRBC does do and has done work on watershed restoration on both public and private land, because there are inherent public values that need to be conserved.

J. Wilson: I'm glad the minister brought up the topic of Empire Valley. At this point in time, has the Crown purchased this property?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Government is involved in negotiations at the present time, but there's been no purchase.

J. Wilson: I do know a little bit about the Empire Valley. I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion right now, but the minister stated that they were looking at the option or were after the option of purchase on this property, should it come up. I believe it did come up, and I believe it was sold. They didn't pick the option up, but now they're in negotiations for picking that option up -- is that what you're saying here? -- but you haven't come to a settlement. Is that correct?

[ Page 5491 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Empire Valley Ranch recently sold, in the spring of this year, and the new owner, the new purchaser, wrote to government to see if government was interested in purchasing.

J. Wilson: I assume that the government said yes, but was that before or after it was logged off?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was during the time . . . . Government said they were interested in entering into discussions and negotiations. It was during the time that logging had commenced, so it is my understanding that there has been some logging taking place and that then the logging stopped.

J. Wilson: Maybe the minister can clarify something for me here. Did the logging stop on the recommendation of government, or has the logging stopped at the desire of the landowner?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Deputy Minister of Forests, who's here with me in the House, instructed a negotiator to enter into discussions with the company and ask them to stop logging while negotiations are going on, and they agreed.

[3:15]

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for his explanation.

There's an issue that I've always had a little bit of concern with with regard to government getting into deals like this -- not that there's anything wrong with government buying private property.

Generally speaking, what happens when you buy up a place . . . . Today we have a ranch that is operating, and it's got a forage base which is maintained. What happens when government takes over a place -- and I've seen this more than once -- is that they buy up the land, and they say: "We're going to put this into a protected area so that we have wintering range for whatever -- mule deer or . . . . " In this case it would be deer and sheep.

Part of the reason that we have a reasonably healthy sheep population and deer population in an area like this is because they depend on that base there, that forage base that is maintained and looked after, in order to winter.

One of the scenarios that develops as government buys up stuff is that it tends to be neglected and just goes back to the wild. If you want to get a good, clear picture of what happens here, all you have to do is move up to the junction block. We have a fence on one side; it's a protected area, and nothing happens in there. On the other side of the fence, we have a divot or two with some good forage. Any time you want to find the sheep in that area, you go and look in the alfalfa field.

Why do you not find the sheep in the protected area? Because you have forage there that, in the spring of the year, is a lot of dead grass. You have a tick problem, the dead grass has lots of third-stage ticks on it, and animals tend to avoid these areas. If, say, you went in and burned that off in the spring, you'd create good, succulent forage for them to eat right away. But it doesn't happen. So the animals move to where the feed is the best.

If you take an area like the Empire Valley, which is somewhat isolated in itself, without the proper maintenance, you're going to see that game population disperse. They will go from that nucleus, and they will just fan out and really have no base, as they do today, in which to survive and multiply. I've seen this happen in more than one area. I've seen it happen in an area where they had an elk problem, and the solution was for government to buy it up. Well, it just moved the problem from one area to another.

I'm wondering if the government, through FRBC, has considered this and has any plans for maintaining at least a resemblance of an operation in this area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to answer that. The member, as he is familiar with the Cariboo land use plan, will know that it wasn't made a park, it is a protected area, and that in the protected areas in the Cariboo, grazing will be expected to be continued.

I have not heard of an expression that we should exclude ongoing operations, so it's quite conceivable that the management plan for that area will continue to carry on operations. I think most of the conservation interests that have expressed an interest understand that limited . . . . That is, good management, good stewardship, can take place, and it can involve domestic animals grazing.

If it can be shown, and if what the member says is true about the need to manage grasslands -- in a way, to crop grasslands in order to stimulate growth that does benefit the sheep populations; and clearly that is one of the reasons why the protected area was created -- then I would expect that that would get full consideration in the development and management plan for the area. But it would be guided by the purpose of the protected area, which is, as you know, covered by the land use plan and subsequent implementations of it.

The member knows I'll return to the chamber shortly. The Minister of Finance is prepared to entertain questions, and I'm sure that he, as the former Minister of Forests, will be able to answer some questions.

J. Wilson: The questions that the Minister of Finance, as former Minister of Forests . . . . Is this our interlude here to get into, say, the woodlot series?

Hon. A. Petter: No. I understand that there is an understanding that the Minister of Human Resources, who's also a former Minister of Forests, will be available to answer woodlot questions at a later time this afternoon.

J. Wilson: To the Minister of Finance, I will go back on this issue. In the negotiations for the purchase of the Empire Valley, has there been anything set aside in the budget for that purchase and for the maintenance of that operation?

The Chair: Minister of Forests . . . . The Minister of Finance.

Hon. A. Petter: Thank you, hon. Chair. It was very kind of you to refer to me as the Minster of Forests. It makes me positively nostalgic. I'm delighted to take

part in this debate.

As I understand it, there has been an indication of interest by FRBC with respect to the Empire Valley property, but negotiations have not been concluded. I'm sure the member can appreciate that it would not be helpful to conclude those negotiations in a cost-effective way if we were to discuss publicly the mandates that may or may not have been developed and the costs associated with those in advance of the conclusion of negotiations.

J. Wilson: I think we'll carry on here. I had a couple of general FRBC questions that I would like to get an answer to.

[ Page 5492 ]

We've taken some of the basic responsibility of the ministry, and we've moved it laterally, stepped out from under our responsibility here as a ministry and dumped it into the lap of FRBC. Now, I'm not going to go on and expound on all the reasons the ministry shouldn't have done this, but in order to do this, there will have to be a shift in FTEs. Can the minister tell me how many FTEs that are presently working for MOF will be transferred onto the payroll of FRBC?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, let me just say generally -- and I know this same matter has been discussed in the context of my estimates and at other times in this House -- that cuts were made across government, including within the Ministry of Forests. The FRBC board then decided to provide some funding to cover matters that otherwise would have been cut. As I understand it, no employees have been shifted from the Ministry of Forests to FRBC. Ministry of Forests employees remain Ministry of Forests employees. There has been no shifting of FTEs as a result of the reduction in funding by the Ministry of Forests and the decision by FRBC and its board to fund some of the land-based activities.

J. Wilson: I think I'll go back to the Minister of Forests and repeat my question. Maybe I can get a straight answer. We know that when you move a job description from here to here, the people that worked here and did this job are now reduced in numbers, and they're going to move over with that job. What is the shift? How many people are going to be involved in the shift?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Nobody is going to be transferred to FRBC. These funds will be the subject of a standing contract that we've had for three and a half years, or something like that, to deliver services between FRBC and the Ministry of Forests.

J. Wilson: I realize there's a standing contract, and I realize that a percentage of FRBC funding goes into ministry coffers to cover off those people that are involved in looking after the contracts. They are FTEs of the Ministry of Forests. This is what I would like to know. We now have another $70 million worth of contracts going out that were the responsibility of the ministry last year, and it is going to take people to see that those contracts are done up in a proper manner by Ministry of Forests personnel.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The money flows to the ministry and supports the goals of FRBC in respect of silviculture and associated work. So indirectly some of that money does support the activities of officials that work for the Ministry of Forests.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that; that was what I thought happened. My question was: how many people? But obviously we don't have a number here right now. I believe there is a memorandum of understanding to this effect between FRBC and the Minister of Forests.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to go back to the other question to make it clear, there are 84 people that work for MOF that are supported by some of this money. There is a budget letter between the CEO of FRBC and the Deputy Minister of Forests. That's the letter of understanding.

J. Wilson: Would the minister be willing to supply me with a copy of this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we can supply you with a copy of the letter.

J. Wilson: I had a question here. I'm not sure how I'm going to word this, but I believe there has been an increase in the number of enforcement people within the ministry. Will anyone with FRBC be involved in this aspect and go out and monitor things that are happening on the land base? I mean, we need to see if the results get done, but we also need to know if there's any damage created out there. So will there be an enforcement aspect that will be picked up through FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that none of the money goes towards enforcement activities of the ministry.

J. Wilson: Will all of the enforcement be picked up through the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment? Or is it a combined effort at present? I understand that we have the third largest enforcement agency in the province created by the government, and I'm wondering how many members of this force are Ministry of Forests personnel.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to dig up that number and get it for you. Enforcement is a joint activity, as you correctly point out, between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. I'll get the numbers for you.

J. Wilson: I would like to deal with something else, and it is FRBC-related.

Incidentally, I had one more question directly on FRBC. We have a lot of job creation at present. I would like to know what FRBC has in place so that they can actually come up with numbers or track these jobs so that they know where they are, when they exist and when they don't exist. What do we have in place at present to allow this to happen?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to remind the member, we have an agreement that some of the in-depth information that requires the presence of FRBC officials will be discussed at the standing committee. I'm not sure about communication, but I would refer you to your House Leader with respect to that. But I'm happy to try to answer those questions if we have the information here. We will be attempting to answer some of your questions here. I just remind you that we have agreed that there is another place where you can discuss the business plan.

Your question was: what's in place so that FRBC can track job creation? I'll be getting that number for you.

J. Wilson: I realize this, and I'll try to avoid in-depth questions, although I didn't think that was all that deep.

There is another issue, and this may be an in-depth question, too. I don't really expect the minister to give me a definite answer today. It's just something that I would like to know. I may bring it up at the standing committee. It's something that I feel is important, and I would like to bring it up here. For three years now, we've been spending a lot of money out there doing assessment work, research, inventories, land-based projects. Out of all this, there has had to have been a considerable amount of knowledge accumulated.

As this is taxpayers' money, I would like to think that we are spending . . . . It's millions and millions and millions of dollars. When you spend money on things like this, each of these projects has to come back and needs to be catalogued. That information should be made available to the public so

[ Page 5493 ]

that at any point when we need information on the land base, we can go there and look for it, and chances are it will be in there. Is there anything being done to see that this happens today?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member raises an interesting question, and I would encourage him to pursue some of it with the select standing committee. I will raise it, time permitting, with the FRBC board that meets tomorrow. I'll be happy to raise that.

But let me just say that there was quite a bit of concern over the last year amongst members of the board that there was perhaps too much money going into research-type activities. Certainly it was a concern of government that not enough was being spent on getting displaced workers back to work and on the land-based programs -- that is, the substantial investment in land-based activities.

So I will just say that from the tracking mechanism we have, while it's imperfect because we are still putting some of the monitoring systems in place, the tracking is sufficient to tell us that over 8,000 person-years of employment had been created as of last spring. But there's no question: we do take advice. When it sets the business plan, the board of FRBC takes advice from its various committees and also from the regional advisory process when it comes to establishing various objectives. We do have to track success factors. We do know how many miles of creek have been surveyed and how many miles of watersheds and roads have been treated in some way.

Yes, there has been knowledge accumulated. I think, like anything else, there's pressure on the budgets. There is never enough money for inventories, although there's been considerable expansion in inventories, particularly in the north where they feel they should do the inventories before development. So some of those things you might call knowledge and research, but they're all critical to assisting forest-based planning.

Not being sure what the member is getting at but thinking I might know, I'll try and answer the question about what happens to this knowledge that's accumulated. For the most part, I understand, the reports are released, although in some cases, if maps have been developed, there may be a charge for a copy of the product to the user who wants to benefit from it. But the knowledge itself, as far as I know, is public knowledge. You'll recall a dispute around who owned the 25-year harvest plan over timber availability in the Cariboo. At what stage do you make information public? When you're comfortable with it, when the client is comfortable with it, or before?

J. Wilson: The point I'm trying to make is that if we don't take the data we collect and compile it in one central location, we're not going anywhere here. We can put $1 million or $2 million or $5 million out to this company to do assessment work on streams, inventory work, research work.

If we don't take that data on that specific land base and put it into a database, then next year another company or another project will come along, and they will go out there, and they will probably do almost the identical study without knowing what went on before because this stuff is held by the people that have done the projects. They know what's out there, but if they give it up and move on, they lose it.

That information should be compiled. It wouldn't be a difficult job, and it wouldn't be that onerous for FRBC to simply type it into a database when they get it back. For instance, if I want to know the population of, say, chisel-mouth chub in Beaver Creek, I shouldn't have to go and do another study, because it has probably already been done. When a project comes in, you type it in, and it will tell you whether there has been work done or not. If the work has been done, you don't need to worry about another project. I can name one system right now that I know of . . . . I'm not going to get into it here.

In the last four years there have been four studies done on the same bloody creek, and now we have a new one coming, for some $200,000. There is no correlation from one to the other. One group decides it's going to study it for this, another group decides it's going to study it for something else, and they are overlapping tremendously. This is the kind of thing we have to try and stop, so that when we do spend money, it's spent in an area where we need the work done.

The same thing goes for inventories. Whether it's inventorying NSR land or inventorying species, we need to compile it so that we access it. It shouldn't be at a user fee. It should be available to the public, because it's tax dollars that are collected in the first place. Even though we're creating jobs in the process, there has got to be an end result. That's the point I want to make. I hope that the minister will consider that and pass that on to FRBC. At present it may not be important, but it's not going to be too far down the road when we're going to need some of this.

If we happen to run out of money, what are we going to do to get the information that we spent the money on -- where did it go to?

J. Dalton: We are broke.

J. Wilson: I'm sorry -- we are broke. But when we're more broke.

I have one other issue here that I want to canvass. Actually, I've got two or three. I'm going to just cover one, and then I'm going to let the member for Peace River North get up for a bit. He has a few questions for the minister.

The issue I would like to look at right now is the one on . . . . I believe a study group has been put together -- it was supposed to have been done by March -- to do some research work into Cryptosporidium . Would the minister care to bring me up to date on what's happening here: what the involvement is and where it stands at the moment?

[3:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am aware of work being done to deal with Cryptosporidium , but I don't have the results of the study with me. I'll attempt to get that, if indeed the study is finished. I certainly haven't been briefed on any final report.

I'd like to go back to your question about money being spent on various systems. Certainly FRBC needs to turn its attention to avoid duplication at all costs. But I'd like to caution the member that in fact the criticisms that often come up, including from that side of the House and certainly from members in the community, is that FRBC is slow to approve. The project approval process has to do research, and we don't have databases that check and cross-check. But it should be there if it's affordable to have it there, and they at least know what they have funded. This is why there is a referral process.

Making sure that new studies are compatible with old ones or aren't duplicating what old ones have done does occasionally slow things down. There is no question that there should be coordination there.

I would certainly be interested in knowing where there have been four studies done on the same creek. I would trust

[ Page 5494 ]

that they're not duplications. They may be different studies. Riparian ecologists can't do what some other biologist might do. Often the studies are on different subjects. But I would urge the member to pursue that, and I will certainly raise that with the board members of

FRBC.

On your questions about livestock and community watersheds, the contractor that was doing the work . . . . It's really just editing a Cranbrook report. Members of the steering committee who are overseeing it do just that. There has been a model developed to look at impacts. The contractor started in late March, and the process of developing this model includes a workshop to determine values and weights to be used in the decision-analysis component of the model. The workshop apparently was held back on May 28 and 29 and was attended by interested stakeholders. So the contract is expected to be completed and the risk assessment model endorsed in September '97.

J. Wilson: I would like to examine this in some detail, if it's possible. Does the minister have staff available, say after our supper hour, to canvass this a little further?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Bearing in mind I do understand that the member is knowledgable about some of these matters and therefore might wish to get into some detailed, technical matters, we will endeavour to have appropriate people available. Did you suggest this evening? Are you asking for a private briefing on the subject?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll endeavour to get you a private briefing after supper on this. Or did you want to get into the debate here?

J. Wilson: I would like to bring it to the floor and have my discussion in the House.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will have people here who can discuss it.

R. Neufeld: I have a few issues that relate specifically to my constituency but probably affect some other parts of the province in much the same way.

One of the problems is the difficulty woodlot owners and farmers have who are clearing land in an area -- specifically Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, which are both in my constituency -- where there is only one mill to receive the harvested timber -- in Fort Nelson, that being Slocan, and in . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order. There was agreement, at least with members of the opposition, that we would get into woodlot discussions at 5 o'clock, and those discussions will be undertaken with the acting Minister of Forests. If there are questions about marketing, I'm prepared to answer them, but if they're about woodlot management, I would defer them to 5 o'clock.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. This is not about woodlot management, although I'll be interested to listen to it. It's more about marketing the logs that are produced off of the woodlot.

If the minister is uncomfortable dealing with woodlots, we can just talk about the farmers and their difficulty with trying to market their logs, and leave it at that. But I guess it's much the same thing, whether it's coming off a woodlot or off a farmer's field.

I have had representations made to me on a number of occasions -- in fact, more than once over the past number of years -- about the difficulty for farmers who are clearing land to be able to sell their wood to mills at even a break-even price. In most cases, most of them have to take money out of their pocket because of the way the stumpage moves up and down.

The forest industry, of course, has the ability to log in a good part of the province at times when the stumpage rate is low and to sell that timber when it's a little higher. Farmers don't always have the ability to do that. What they find many times is that they have gone out and logged and hired a contractor to sell it to the mill -- because most farmers aren't loggers -- and before they get the logs delivered to the mill site, the stumpage rate has changed. The mill, of course, has lots of timber, so they're not willing to pay more for timber off farmland. That goes for woodlots, also. That's specific to the area around Fort St. John, where there are a number of woodlots.

The Fort Nelson Farmers Institute has met with me a number of times and in fact has sent a number of letters to the minister, as late as last fall, asking for some reprieve on the super-stumpage so that they can, if not break even, have a few dollars that they can put back into the land base. I just wonder if the ministry has done any work -- I know I have talked to the ministry about this before -- dealing with the situation of how these farmers can actually deal with major companies, major licensees, in selling timber that's taken off their land.

It should be noted by the minister, too, that much of the timber that is coming off a lot of this land would never be taken to market, because there's not enough of it to warrant going in and harvesting it if you were just looking at it from a pure logging stance. So when the farmers go in there and log a lot of that land, of course they will find small patches of spruce, for instance, that is merchantable timber and has to be taken in. They don't have any problem with that.

The fact is that the Ministry of Forests would never allocate that land to someone to go in and use it as a cutblock to bring timber out of there. What they're faced with, in many cases, is taking a $10- or $15- or sometimes a $20-per-cubic-metre hit on it. I think the minister is aware, as I am, that farming is a tough enough go. It doesn't matter where you're at.

I've asked many of the farmers, especially in Fort Nelson, why they would want to spend a good part of their life farming there when they could probably go to the southern part of the Peace region and buy farmland that's already in production for a lesser cost. Mr. Minister, I have never received an answer to that, other than these are entrepreneurs who want to farm in northeastern British Columbia.

I don't think it's all that bad an idea, the way we're populating the farmland in the south. I mean, at some point in time, I guess we have to realize that we're going to have to eat, and it's going to have to be grown some place. Whether people think you just go to Safeway or whether it really comes from the farm group is something that British Columbians are going to have to deal with. I can't fault them for doing this. In fact, we should encourage them.

Provincial policy has dictated that there is a huge amount of land around Fort Nelson that is in the agricultural land reserve. If it's in the agricultural land reserve, someone at some point in time must have thought that this is good agricultural land and that at some point in time someone is going to farm it.

Maybe the minister could tell me, just briefly, if there has been any headway made within his ministry on how we can

[ Page 5495 ]

deal with the issues surrounding how the farmers are going to be able to harvest the merchantable timber that they have to, haul it to the mills and at least break even or make a few dollars on it so that it can be invested back into the land base.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we have some data here on licences to cut. There are peaks in prices and there are ways of playing the market -- in other words, selling when the price is up. I appreciate that we're in a difficult situation now, where the price of wood has been a lot higher than it was, in particular because of the softwood quota. That drives the price of all stumpage, so that's a problem. The evidence we have is that while it does create a problem for some, it's not universal. They still have some ability to pick their times to market that.

The other part of what the member says is true: there are limited numbers of buyers for the product. There's one thing that the farmers could do, and that is to create marketing co-ops of some kind or marketing corporations to help market and organize harvesting and selling to maximize, or optimize, their opportunity. I know that's difficult. They're all individuals, and they don't readily have organizations of a marketing type that they can go to.

The other solution, of course, would be diversification within the industry, so that there is more than one buyer. I know that the member and I have had discussions about the matter of how difficult it is. We've got one major purchaser that really sets the price in the region, so I guess that would speak to the need for economic diversification within the region. Now, I would suggest that this appears to be a problem that they aren't easily overcoming. They haven't had the flexibility in the last couple of years, since the price of stumpage has gone up and seems to stay up there because of fairly good lumber prices.

First of all, any individual should make sure that the ministry in the revenue branch looks at the stumpage determination to make sure that it really reflects the cost structure to the industry there. The other solution would be to move towards a more market-based stumpage system, which looks at the price of logs. That's a big policy decision. It isn't part of the stumpage calculation that we have now. We do look at a basket of U.S. commodities that are analyzed by Statistics Canada, so we just feed that into the formula, and it indicates what the stumpage should be.

I am prepared to admit to the member that there does need to be work done on this, but it is speaking to quite a different change, and that is looking at the price of logs. As you know, logs are a factor in determining stumpage on the coast, where there is a log market. It is a limited log market up there, so more work needs to be done.

I would suggest that we encourage the farmers, through their organization, to open dialogue as an organization with the revenue branch. Now, when those letters come in to me, they go down for answers to be prepared. These issues generally come forward, and the complexities of making changes are explained to me before I sign any letter. I'm just not sure which ones have yet to be answered.

[4:00]

I do know, for example, that over the last two years there were times when the price of lumber was very high and stumpage was in a slump. Those are the times, of course, when landowners make the best deals. I'm certainly aware of the fact that we don't hear from people when stumpage is low and the price is up and they're doing all right. But when it goes the other way, especially for people who are caught through contracts or whatever, they are in a bind.

I would also encourage individual farmers who want to sell to make sure that they have a contract in place for a price, so that at least the price holds during the time of harvest. But I do appreciate that it is a risky business, and I appreciate the difficulty that the member's constituents are in. It's not uncommon in other places in the province, and we do encourage their individual cases to be brought to the ministry. But I would put out this caution and ask the member to encourage those harvesters, those logging contractors, those farmers to keep good track of their data and have data that can then be used to inform the people in the region that are making the stumpage determination.

R. Neufeld: There are a number of suggestions that the minister has made, and I appreciate that. But in response, Mr. Minister . . . . And I'm not talking about responding to letters; I'm talking about actually making some decisions so something can happen. We've dealt with this issue before. This is not new. The minister is quite well aware of it. He's very aware of the difficulties with woodlots -- I know that for a fact -- through his own business. He understands, I know very well, what some of these people are facing.

But to stand up and say, "Well, keep good track of records to make sure you let people know" is all well and fine, I guess, down here in the world of Victoria. But when you've got your feet on the ground in Fort Nelson and you're trying to do some farming, it doesn't always work that way. These people need some responses to some specific problems that they face.

The minister is quite right. I agree with him completely when he says that this problem is not universal across the whole province, but it is universal where there is only one major log buyer, or one major mill, in a huge area. Farmers from Fort Nelson, I guess, can elect to haul their logs to Fort St. John. It's quite interesting, when you do the math on it, what Fort St. John will pay for logs, because there is only one large mill there, or one consumer, that actually will buy sawlogs. They're still in the hole. Or they can move them to Prince George.

It's the same thing: by the time they finish paying the extra trucking, they're still in the hole. So when there is an area where there is no competition for good sawlogs, these people fall between the cracks. That probably happens, I think, a bit more in Fort Nelson than even Fort St. John, because Fort St. John has a bigger centre that it can deal with.

But to talk about marketing co-ops for marketing logs off a little bit of land in Fort Nelson is . . . . I'd like to remind the minister that those folks are farmers, probably working in the oil and gas industry to support their farm. To start setting up co-ops to market logs . . . . It doesn't take very much arithmetic to figure out that even on your own, it doesn't matter whether you have a marketing co-op or not. You're in the same glue. It doesn't matter how you work it out. I guess, just for the record, I should inform the minister that there are 12 bona fide farmers in Fort Nelson.

That's what the Agriculture ministry talks about. So we're not dealing with hundreds and hundreds of farmers. Within Fort Nelson there are ten.

The minister also stated that farmers should be careful to have ironclad contracts with loggers before they sign on the dotted line and to make sure that the price is stable. In fact, that's true, and I think some of them have done that. I have an example here of a fellow that's done that. But the Ministry of Forests prices for stumpage change. Again, it's difficult. I know it's quarterly, but it's difficult for some of these people with some of the areas, the terrain, that they log. Some of it is logged-off land that's not really well accessible in the summertime, so they do it in the wintertime or in the fall. That's a difficulty. These farmers have had . . . .

[ Page 5496 ]

Another suggestion the minister made was to have a dialogue with the revenue branch. Well, these farmers have been trying to have a dialogue. They've come to me because they have some frustrations. I know it's not easy. I'm not for one minute trying to indicate to the minister that this would be an easy process to deal with. But I think that putting the farmers onto the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Forests and saying, "Here, you whale your way through there, folks; when you come out the other end, I hope you've done okay," is not going to help the issue at all. All we're going to do is break a few people that want to try and get ahead.

So I'm going to give the minister just a few numbers. The farmers institute had some suggestions about super-stumpage. I believe they have a good point, because what they say is that the super-stumpage applies for FRBC for renewing the forests, but the land that they're trying to clear is not going to be used for forest purposes again. It's going to be used for agricultural purposes.

If we are going to reinvest that money back into the Forests ministry, maybe we should be looking at -- and I see the Minister of Agriculture is here -- investing that money, the super-stumpage on agricultural land where trees are harvested, back into agriculture. And instead of taking that money and giving it to FRBC to deal totally with forestry, maybe that should go back into the Minister of Agriculture's budget to see if we can't diversify farming and encourage more farming in British Columbia. I don't think that's all that bad an idea. I think it should be looked at seriously.

The other issue is that with super-stumpage, when the price of lumber goes to a certain point, there is absolutely no super-stumpage. So what you do is look favourably at the forest industry on that occasion so that they can survive, but the farmers have to continue to live with it -- whether or not they can. So there are some difficulties.

Just to carry on a bit, I'll give the minister a few numbers. I want to tell you that this is one of the better loggers in Fort Nelson. He has lived there for quite a while and has done a lot of logging -- but for the major companies up there, both Canadian Chopstick and Slocan -- over the years. He made a deal with a number of farmers last summer that he would log their land and deliver their logs to Slocan. Slocan had given a price that they would pay for those logs, and it was all determined on $41 per cubic metre stumpage total. These are not exact, but they're fairly round numbers, just so we can make some sense of them.

The logger was actually doing his work, was out there hauling the logs to the mill, and the mill was buying them. The trucking cost him about $6 a cubic metre. and it was $14 a cubic metre to log it and bring it to the dump site. So when all was said and done, by the time the logger logged it, moved it to the dump site, paid the stumpage of $41 a cubic metre, there were a few dollars left on top of that for the logger, compared to what Slocan was going to pay. But on October 1 stumpage went to $55 -- boom! It was, I guess, expected a bit, but not that much of an increase.

Now we have a logger who actually tried to get as much in as he could, because he had a contract before the deadline of October 1, and now he has about 2,000 cubic metres laying on the ground which will actually cost him about $20,000 to deliver to the mill. We're not talking about a lot of money here to start with. He doesn't feel he has $20,000 in his jeans pocket. So he went to Canfor in Fort St. John. Like the minister says: "Let's try someone else out." Well, that would cost him $40,000 out of his pocket. Now he says what he can do is leave it on the ground.

He's been trying to deal with this with the Ministry of Forests since last fall and is at a loss. That's why . . . . He just phoned me, in fact, yesterday. He can leave it on the ground to rot, and in about another three months most of it's not going to be that good anyhow. In the meantime, Slocan was forced to log a fireburn, and they're not really all that keen on buying any sawlogs.

So what he could do, I guess, is leave them on the ground, and the farmer is going to pay the penalty to the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Forests will get its money. We'll have a half a dozen farmers bankrupt and a logger that's going to be in a bit of difficulty -- I don't think that gets us anywhere at all -- and a bunch of rotten logs or logs that aren't really of too much value: 2,000 cubic metres. I know it's not a huge amount, but it is huge when you're talking about someone that's trying to farm in the area.

So these folks have tried to go the regular route. They've worked with the Ministry of Forests, they've worked with the ombudsman, and they're not getting anywhere. The time is coming along where they have to do something, and it's getting closer and closer to where they have to move these logs to market pretty soon some place, or else all will suffer the consequences. That's just an example that's recent.

It's much the same as some of the other ones I've talked to the minister about before. Is there some way that we can look . . . ? This person isn't wanting to make a huge amount of money over and above what his logging costs and his trucking costs are. By the way, he's a farmer also. He wants to get the logs sold. He doesn't want to leave them rot. He doesn't want to see anyone go bankrupt. Worst of all, the Ministry of Forests . . . . For the small amount of money it would mean, I don't know whether it would really be worthwhile to pursue all these things. But he did get caught.

He's a person that's experienced -- has been in the logging industry for a long time and has been in the farming industry for a long time -- and did get caught in the issue of a big spread in stumpage costs. I just wonder how we can deal with that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have the director of the revenue branch contact you directly to get the details of the last one you spoke about. I would be curious to know if you're jumping back and forth between coniferous or whether you're dealing with deciduous as well, because deciduous is at 25 cents, apparently.

R. Neufeld: I'm dealing with coniferous, not with deciduous at all. I appreciate that, and I will wait for that call so that we can maybe come to some kind of understanding on how we can deal with this issue.

I would seriously like to briefly remind the minister of the issues -- in the greater degree, not just this person and a half-dozen farmers but the agricultural industry as a whole -- in the Peace region when it comes to the stumpage that they have to pay and what they can actually get from either Slocan or Canfor. In most cases it's less than what it costs them to log it. One wonders why you would have a woodlot if it costs you more to log it and deliver it to the mill than what you're going to get for it.

So I think that those are good issues that we should deal with and come to some kind of solution -- probably the sooner the better. I guess that's why I bring it to the minister again in the House. I think that's one way that we can bring some light of day to it and maybe get some answers to that.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to remind the member that if it hadn't been for the Minister of Forests, now Minister of

[ Page 5497 ]

Finance, Canfor and Slocan would have been one company and the market would have been even more severely restricted.

I am prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem with the limited number of buyers there. One would wonder what would happen if the stumpage were lowered there. Could you lower it for farmers and not lower it for the Canfors and the Slocans. If you did that, would that not just bring down the final price of logs? The companies would know that it is being reduced, as well. So there are some problems.

Back to your suggestion that land that is being converted to farmland . . . . Provided that there is some recognition that land does come out of forestry and therefore the net loss to the forest industry -- it's not then part of the land base that contributes to the cut -- has a downside . . . . Of course, it has always been considered that paying stumpage on agricultural land helps pay the value of the standing trees to the Crown, because after all, it is Crown land that is being logged. Your suggestion that the increase in stumpage that goes to FRBC, which you referred to as super-stumpage . . . .

It doesn't go back into the land, but I would remind the member that FRBC has a number of programs, including the woodlot program that has extension services and is further developing that program indirectly; it doesn't go back to individual landowners.

But with some of the general work that's being done -- say, a private land program is being developed that may at some point be available for people to participate in, that is, through reforestation activities -- there is money going back into private land where there needs to be watershed restoration. So there is some money going back in.

It is an idea that's worth pursuing. I think we should pursue it, as I said, through the Farmers Institute and the revenue branch.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response from the minister, and I will certainly be looking forward to working with the ministry.

I should remind the minister that the Canfor-Slocan deal was fully supported by the MLA for Peace River North. Maybe a little bit of credit should come to this side of the House for those same good decisions, to be able to at least keep the market within two major licensees rather than one. So I agree totally. It's not very often I beat my own drum, but I could hardly resist getting up with a response to that.

The difficulty when we talk about cutting the price of logs and stumpage . . . . I think the minister and I both know that it's difficult for Slocan, specifically in Fort Nelson, to pay 65 or 70 bucks a cubic metre for wood, when we both know that their stumpage is much lower than what is charged to the farmers -- for different reasons -- and they can work it into their systems. So there's not a lot of encouragement from the industries there to go out and really purchase that timber for someone.

I guess the third point is: money back from FRBC. I appreciate the minister and FRBC actually sending more money back to Omineca-Peace. It's gone from $50 million to over $100 million, I think. I'm having difficulties getting copies of the FRBC business plan, but I guess at some point in time those will be printed and they will be given to all members of the House. It's rather surprising that a Crown corporation that has a fiscal year ending March 31 still hasn't printed its business plan so they can send it around to different members of the Legislature.

In any event, we are slowly starting to get our share back. It's still a long ways away from the amount of money we put into it, as I understand. We continue to pay in more than we get out so some does come back. There's no doubt about that.

Another issue surrounding FRBC funding is -- and I've asked FRBC, but they referred me back to the Ministry of Forests -- that when contracts are awarded they should be awarded to British Columbia companies with British Columbia employees, with money going to British Columbians that actually live in British Columbia, and that's not always the case. I haven't had the opportunity to bring it to the minister's attention, but I'm aware of one FRBC contract for well over $1 million that was awarded out of province. Most of the people, as I understand it, will be coming from out of province to work in northeastern British Columbia.

We face that all the time in the oil and gas industry, and now we're facing it within FRBC. When you try for so long to finally get some money expended in the Peace country, only to see that because costs are less in Alberta than they are in British Columbia and they can get more done on the ground than British Columbia companies can, it's difficult. When we actually look favourably at those Alberta companies . . . .

But I'm told that that direction has to come from the ministry to FRBC -- that they ensure contracts awarded by FRBC will actually be awarded to British Columbia companies and that there will be British Columbia employees. I don't think that's too much to ask. It's much the same as the Vancouver Island Highway project, where anyone can bid on it, but you can only bring two or three key people with you and the rest have to be local employees. I don't have any problem with that. I think that rationale should work in the northeast just as well as it works on Vancouver Island.

I wonder if the minister could just tell me a little bit about what we can do about this in the future. I know there's nothing we can do about what already took place, but it's a lesson to be learned, and there may be some way we can rectify it in the future.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I agree with the member in the intent. I was curious as to whether he has an official position from his party that does ask for us to put up trade barriers. As you know, ministries of government -- unlike Crown corporations -- who in this case are delivering the programs, albeit it for a Crown agency . . . . The dollars flow from FRBC to the ministry. It's not a Ministry of Forests policy; it's a government policy. Government is not able to have a local-hire-only clause in contracts.

This is precisely why we've tried to steer the majority of the land-based program to where we have permanent employees, rather than contract employees or at least short-term employees. The 5,000 jobs we've targeted under the jobs and timber accord would be in direct contracts from FRBC to a sponsor. In many cases, it will be companies with long-term umbrellas, and they then would hire local employees. The priority will be for local hire.

We're well aware of that issue. We don't actively encourage out-of-province bidders. So when we advertise, my understanding is that we advertise locally, although I can understand the problem of papers going across the borders and people from across the border being in there. So it is an issue around trade barriers. We're aware of that and wherever we can, we do encourage and regulate for local hire.

R. Neufeld: I don't think that from the time I've been elected or even long before that -- having competed in the northeast against Alberta companies in a business of my own ever since I started in the oil and gas industry -- I would have

[ Page 5498 ]

had any different feeling than I have today. If we're going to employ people in British Columbia then, darn it all, those people should come from British Columbia. They should be British Columbians as much as we can manage, and that money then will stay in British Columbia. I've always felt that way. If the minister is saying to me that he is quite comfortable with going out with block requests for proposals and getting them from Alberta so that he can get them a little bit cheaper, then fine. I guess that's a change in direction.

On the Vancouver Island Highway project, I do know that it is open to bidders from all over, but you can only bring in a few people -- and it's just a few -- and the rest is local hire. It's total local hire for those contractors that subcontract to HCL. That means Vancouver Island people get to work. I don't have any problem with that.

But it just amazes me how the philosophy changes across the way when you're talking about northeastern British Columbia. We talk about Vancouver Island, the most western extremity of the province, and we put up trade barriers and tariffs. When I debated with the Minister of Employment and Investment -- and I see he's giving you some information -- and talked about that for northeastern British Columbia, everyone on that side of the House stood up and said: "What's the matter with you? We can't put up trade barriers. We should be open." I think it's time for us to get open across the whole province.

If that's what you want to do on the Vancouver Island Highway, then boot out all the stuff you've got there with HCL and put it out to open tender so that anybody can come in and bid on it.

All I'm asking for is that when we have million-dollar contracts in the northeastern part of British Columbia, through FRBC, a Crown corporation that is totally under the direction of this government right now, we ensure as best we can -- and we're not going to be able to do it 100 percent -- that we employ British Columbians. It shouldn't be strange that I'd want to do that. That's where I live; I've lived there all my life. I'd like to see British Columbians be employed.

I'd like to see them pay income taxes into the British Columbia system so that we can continue to enjoy the things that we get in British Columbia. I don't think that's too much to ask, and I don't think I should be chastised for it -- not at all.

I would hope that the Ministry of Forests will take some direction and give it to FRBC -- that we do look at that favourably. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. But if the minister wants to have one policy in one part of the province and another policy in another part of the province for political gain, I guess -- that's the only thing I can think of that it would be, and heaven forbid that we would think we'd try anything for political gain when we're talking about Crown corporations; it's just unbelievable that we would do that -- then so be it. I've made my pitch to the minister.

I hope that he listens and that he directs FRBC to have some form of tendering in place. Let the tenders go out, but at least weigh them very carefully so that we look at British Columbia men and women that can go to work on British Columbia projects where British Columbia stumpage dollars are actually paying the fare.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to take a very brief time, so as not to prolong or take the time of members opposite in these estimates. But the member has raised some interesting questions, and I want to pose one, as well.

It's clear that under our trade obligations as a province, we are prohibited in a direct way as a government from putting up trade barriers. In other words, restricting firms that might bid on work available in British Columbia to only British Columbia firms. However, we do have the ability in our Crown corporations to put in place measures that provide an advantage to British Columbians.

The model the member referred to is called the HCL model -- Highway Constructors Limited -- which has been used on Vancouver Island because the Transportation Financing Authority is, in effect, a Crown corporation. That agreement says that we won't prohibit companies from outside British Columbia from bidding on work on the Island Highway.

However, any company that bids has to live up to the following conditions: they have to pay the wage rates specified in the collective agreement; they have to pay dues -- I think the employees have to pay dues to the specified unions in the roadbuilding sector; there has to be local hire -- in other words, people on Vancouver Island in those communities have hiring preference; there has to be an extensive apprenticeship training system as part of that model. That's worked and worked well on Vancouver Island, I think. We saw about a thousand people employed this past year on that highway contract.

The question really is: should we use that device and expand that model to other parts of our province? I think it's an important question, because as I recall -- the member might want to clarify this -- his party and the main opposition party vilified this government for bringing that model in. The question is an important one, because if there's a desire to expand . . . . We did expand the HCL model for the lane-widening project on the Trans-Canada Highway, for high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. We've applied it to whatever happens on the Lions Gate crossing.

But if the member is saying that he likes that model and wants to see that applied generally throughout the province -- whether it be highway work, presumably school construction, hospital construction, you name it -- then I think he should stand up and say that he'd like it. I can tell you as the Minister of Employment and Investment that I'd certainly be interested in exploring that if that is indeed to the benefit of people in his constituency. So I'd be really pleased, and I know the minister would be very pleased, to receive some support from a member of the opposition to proceed in that manner.

[4:30]

R. Neufeld: We delved into this quite in depth during that minister's estimates. What I will say to start with is that, no, I don't think you need the absolute model that was done on Vancouver Island. I think that's your government's idea of how you have to do it to encapsulate everybody into a union. I don't agree with that.

What I'm saying, though, is let's start reducing the costs in British Columbia for British Columbia companies through many different ways, so that their unit costs are getting down to where they're not . . . . We'll probably never get as low as Alberta, but let's get as close as we can to Alberta so that our companies can compete fairly. You make it sound as though it's quite easy, but it isn't. I mean, when you increase all kinds of costs in British Columbia and you pile all those obligations on companies and industry in British Columbia, and they have to try and compete with those folks just across the border in Alberta, that does become very difficult.

What I'm saying is that what you can do to a Crown corporation, and I know you can, is ensure that local hire is there, that you abide by the rules and regulations that are in place in British Columbia -- on projects like that it would be quite easy to do, I would think -- and that you deal with

[ Page 5499 ]

apprenticeship. I think that's what FRBC is supposed to be all about, in some form, if I recall correctly. It has to deal with apprenticeship and training and those kinds of things.

But I don't think you have to put it in the total HCL model. Now, that may be something that the minister or the whole government over there is very comfortable with. No, not everybody is totally comfortable with unionizing the whole province. I'm sorry; that just isn't what I believe in. I don't have any problem with unions. I think they serve a good purpose in areas. But I don't think we have to unionize the whole province carte blanche, just so that we can keep all the money in British Columbia, because if that's what happened, we wouldn't have any bidding from other countries or provinces against union jobs. Really, Mr. Minister, you can do all the smoke and mirrors you want.

All I'm saying is let's start treating people in the northeastern part of British Columbia -- contractors, men and women alike that want to work on FRBC contracts -- much the same as we do on Vancouver Island when it comes to building a highway. I don't think that's too much to ask. I don't think we have to go too much deeper into it to deal with that issue. That's a pretty straightforward British Columbian way to think. Now, that's the way I think.

Maybe the government thinks the opposite. Maybe the government thinks we should boot everything over to Alberta. Maybe that's why there are companies continually leaving to go to Alberta. Your Premier is hiking his way down across the line to try and get Nike to come up here -- a company with such a great record, isn't it? There are some issues around jobs in northeastern B.C. that you folks just don't want to cotton on to. If you don't, you don't have to. But people up there are getting a little upset with companies that are moving out. Down here, you're trying to get Nike to come up here and draw up a business.

In the north, you drove six companies -- six corporate head offices of fairly substantial, large companies that have provided employment and taxes to the province for years -- to Alberta. Real good move, folks. So as you drive them out one end of the province, you run down to the States to see if you can't get some of those real high-paying jobs. Well, I think that's the wrong way to look at it. I, for one, think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at it that way. It's time we started looking seriously at what's happened in northeastern British Columbia.

This is one good example of a million-dollar contract of FRBC money that I understand is going to a post office box in Prince George -- absolutely ridiculous. But if you want to defend it, Minister of Forests and Minister of Employment and Investment, I guess you can go ahead.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For some reason, the member, I believe, took what I said in the wrong way. I didn't feel I was chastising his objective of local hire. In fact, I said the Financial Administration Act and other laws govern the way we do business directly through the ministries, which have been the delivery agencies for FRBC in order to get the money out to hire local people, for the most part.

But we had to have a way of getting up and running. We've used ministries as the contract agencies. Those contracts, because of the interprovincial trade agreements which we ended up honouring -- because we'd have to negotiate our way out of it, because there are benefits for our citizens in being able to participate in other provinces' economies as well . . . . There are interprovincial trade barriers that have been removed, so that's the ministry.

That's why, for the permanent local jobs, we've tried to move as much of it as we can into the Crown agency, being the delivery agent, by contracting with a local proponent, which will be local companies. We are moving in that direction. We may be a bit at odds over the way in which it's done, but I think the intent of local hire is certainly there.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. I hope that's the direction we're going. I can be assured, I guess, that I'm not going to receive any more letters like I received from the gentleman from Fort St. John. Maybe some of you are aware of this gentleman. I forgot to . . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I wonder if I could just remind you to speak through the Chair and to refer to your colleagues, the others on the other side -- and the minister -- in that way.

R. Neufeld: Okay. Through the Chair, again, maybe the minister is aware of this person and his name. It's a company in Fort St. John; the name is Brian Churchill. He doesn't have any problem with me putting it on the record. Brian Churchill was the NDP candidate. It's interesting that I'm standing arguing for an NDP candidate that I ran against in Peace River North. He's a wildlife biologist, a well-trained individual capable of doing work. He sent me the letter. I'm sure he sent it to the government also. That's where I got the letter from; it's from your own people.

They're a little upset that you would send these kinds of dollars across the border. So I guess he doesn't agree with everything that you do over there.

One last issue, because I think there are . . . . I just want to ask some questions. There's an employer in Fort St. John, by the name of R&B Contracting, that encroached on Crown timber that they shouldn't have been harvesting and they were in fact assessed a fine of $90,000 by the Ministry of Forests. I guess I should say the fine wasn't $90,000; the stumpage would have been $90,000, and it's times four, so the fine was $360,000.

The company is quite willing to pay back the $360,000. They know they owe it. They admitted that they have done wrong and have had some difficulty with meeting the targets that were set and that were agreed to, as I understand, by both the company and the Ministry of Forests. As I understand, 20 percent of their revenue was to go back to the Ministry of Forests monthly. The agreement was done sometime in March -- maybe even a little bit later -- of this year. There were some bulk payments made, but to date this company has paid back $100,000 so far. But they're experiencing some difficulty.

They've had to change accountants. They go to chartered accountants because they also have some other problems with source deductions with Revenue Canada and those kinds of things.

The Ministry of Forests, as I understand, is contemplating putting this company into receivership shortly, within the week. The company doesn't have the assets that will pay that fine back. On top of it, I believe that the Ministry of Forests is third in line for some other moneys that are owing.

So they're wondering if there's some way that they can deal with the Ministry of Forests. They're not having much luck dealing through the revenue side of it. Through Public Accounts the other day, I listened carefully. There's a gentleman in the House who will remember that an assistant deputy minister had said that, really, what the ministry intends or would like to do is to be able to collect all the money and not put people in receivership and cause job loss.

[ Page 5500 ]

I'm wondering if there is some way that the ministry or the revenue branch can look favourably at somehow reducing the payments. I'm amazed that this company, in a couple of months, has been able to pay back $100,000 to the Ministry of Forests. So they obviously have the capability to do it. They just need a bit of breathing room.

I guess it's much the same as the budget here this spring, when we called it wriggle room for the province. I think what this company needs now is that same kind of heartfelt thought from the government, to have a little bit of wriggle room so that they can pay the bill back. I just wonder if the minister would look favourably at that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I could certainly look favourably upon assisting you in having that company appeal to the Victoria revenue collection system. The gentleman with me in the House will talk to the member about that at the same time that he talks to him about the other issues. I understand there is some urgency. But if it is a repayment schedule, there is always some room to do some renegotiation of payment schedules, because in the end, the Crown is interested in receiving it -- not so much when, but in fact receiving it.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response from the minister, and so will the company. They've tried to deal with the Prince George regional office, and I think they're saying: "A deal is a deal, and we're going to go with it."

Just so the minister knows, this is the largest employer of people on the Doig Indian reserve. It's one major company that the band owns that is doing this kind of work and has been doing it for quite a while. They realize their obligation. They're not trying to weasel out of it or get out of it at all. What they'd like to do is just renegotiate a payment

schedule so that they can keep employing the band members and in fact end up repaying to the Ministry of Forests the $360,000.

I'll wait to get together with your ministry staff after your estimates are over.

K. Krueger: I realize there's been an agreement made on some of the FRBC issues, that they'll be dealt with through the select standing committee. I'm not a member of that, and if the minister wouldn't mind indulging just a couple of questions with regard to FRBC projects, I'd appreciate it. I wonder if we could have a brief and general outline of the recreational projects aspect of FRBC's programs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because of the agreement, I asked the officials to stand by for the committee. We will make an attempt to get that in the next few minutes, but I don't have it with me in the House. I can just tell you that we will attempt to get that.

But while I'm on my feet, the member for Cariboo North asked a question earlier, and this is the first opportunity I have to reply to him on the record. The member was asking about compliance and enforcement staff in the Ministry of Forests. There are 440 compliance and enforcement staff in the Ministry of Forests.

K. Krueger: My thanks to the minister. If it works out to be a difficulty at all with regard to not having the right resource people here, I'll ask my colleagues to bring it before the committee.

One of the issues that has been brought to my attention is the burgeoning problem with the access road to Sun Peaks, which is a tremendous ski development near Kamloops. The fact is that there is open range along the road, cattle grazing along both sides of the road, and the end up wandering across in front of the sports cars and so on that are commuting to the ski development. It's growing so quickly that this is quite a hazardous situation.

I'm not sure if a project like that would be funded through FRBC, in any event. I know there's a grazing enhancement program that sometimes deals with situations like that, and there's been some discussion of that program perhaps being able to fund construction of barbed-wire fences to avoid the obvious safety hazards.

I wonder if the minister has any personal knowledge of that and could deal with it.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I do have some familiarity. It is a bit of a stretch; a road to a ski hill is a bit of a stretch. It tends to be forest-based recreation, but perhaps there is some latitude. We'd have to ask that question, but I don't think FRBC is interested in getting into cattle management problems. There is a difference between managing range for multiple values, some of which are public values and some of which are private values -- that is, grass for domestic animals.

The fundamental problem you have is that it is a big budget item to fence both sides or even one side of roads that go into developments. It's a big budget item. The law now requires that only

schedule 1 roads be fenced. I'm sure that's a

schedule 2 road. This issue of fencing

schedule 2 roads has been a perennial item of discussion between successive governments and the cattlemen's organization.

My own experience with it is that sometimes signage and so on can deal with the problem. Sometimes cattle management itself, just out of pure self-interest to the people who own the cattle, can keep cattle from drifting out of the areas by salting and so on, but I would have to say that the board of FRBC certainly has been reluctant to get that far into recreation and that far into the management of cattle.

Even the grazing enhancement fund itself doesn't fund cattle management. I mean, if there's no ecological or resource stewardship reason for the cattle not to be in that area, then it is a cattle management area. In other words, just stopping them from drifting across a road wouldn't qualify as grazing enhancement. I see all kinds of problems there.

If the problem has not been raised directly in letter form to me as Minister of Forests, I would suggest we get it in writing to me at my level, and then we can deal with the policy issue and certainly be made aware of the issue. We are engaging the cattlemen -- the Ministries of Forests, Agriculture, and Lands and Parks. We are engaging the cattlemen in discussions about the funding of range management projects. Old ones are a particular problem because the life of them has run out. It's not a subject I'm unfamiliar with, but I am short of solutions for the Sun Peaks situation.

V. Anderson: I want to change topic for a moment. The minister is aware that it is one of the responsibilities under the Multiculturalism Act for each of the ministries to have a multicultural plan and program. I wonder if I could just briefly ask him about that. The last report we have is from 1994-95, and I'm wondering if the minister could just briefly update us on the multicultural plan within the ministry at this point.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've sent for the official who knows about that program, and I'll have them here in a minute. If you have another question, perhaps you can raise your question.

[ Page 5501 ]

J. Wilson: In an effort to pass the time here, until we can get down to the woodlot issue, I would like to canvass the results of a bill we passed last spring that dealt with the wood salvage program. I understand that there have been a number of pilot projects underway since last year. Could the minister give me the number of pilot projects that were in place in the salvage program and which forest districts they took place in?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were eight programs, and I am looking for the seventh. We're looking for the information. There was one in the Lakes forest district, and one in the Horsefly district, Vernon, Salmon Arm, Queen Charlottes and Port Alberni, and we believe there's one in the Prince George forest region. So we're looking at which district that was for.

J. Wilson: Could the minister give me a brief description of each pilot project? What volume was involved and what interest group carried the project out? I understand that a report is forthcoming or has been released on the results of the study of these pilot projects. Could the minister fill me in on what the content of the report was?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we will be attempting to get the detail. We don't have that level of detail here. The report is forthcoming in a matter of weeks. Each tried to do some kind of a different technique, but the report is in the final stages of preparation. I expect to have it within the coming weeks. We will try to get the details, such as we have, on the salvage projects of each district for you.

J. Wilson: Would it be possible for the minister to provide me with a copy of this report when it comes out?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we expect to make the report public when it comes out, and we'll make a note that you would like to receive a copy.

V. Anderson: I was asking the minister a few moments ago about the multicultural plan, because the last one we have is '94-95. What is the current multicultural plan in the ministry, as part of the fulfilment of the Multiculturalism Act?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do have a multicultural plan in place. The target for this year is to increase employment of visible minorities by 12 people. The ministry meets frequently with multicultural groups and organizations and does outreach recruiting.

V. Anderson: One of the items that I noticed the ministry undertook a couple of years ago was sending some of its personnel to the Hastings Institute for diversity training. Is that still being continued either by them going to the institute or, as they were doing, by having the institute do courses for the staff?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we have used the Hastings Institute in the past, and that was for a course in managing for diversity. Now the courses are run in-house, but we sometimes have members of the Hastings Institute assist as resource people in those in-house courses.

V. Anderson: I was reading about a document called "Forest Service Guiding Principles," which was developed by the ministry. Is that still available, and could we get a copy of that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is available, and yes, we can provide you with a copy of it.

V. Anderson: Is there a multicultural committee within the ministry, and is there a budget for it? Who would be the person responsible for such a committee if it existed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is a budget of $400,000. It is under the direction of the ADM of revenue and corporate services, Harry Powell, who is with me here in the Legislature. There is a committee, but it does not deal exclusively with multicultural issues. It deals with employment equity issues.

V. Anderson: Does it have representatives on the interministry multicultural committee, and does it meet regularly with them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the Ministry of Forests does meet regularly with the committee, but we don't have a representative on it.

V. Anderson: I'm a little mystified -- but I won't worry about it at the moment -- about how we meet regularly with them without a representative. I always figured you needed a representative. I noticed in the report of '94-95 that the ministry was making the multifaith calendar available to its staff, because it lists all the cultural and religious special days. Is that still being done by the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's concern, and I won't take more time at the moment. But in case the minister doesn't have a multicultural calendar on his own desk, I'd be glad to present him with one so that he has it in front of him. We just discovered that the government had set up a program of meeting with multifaith people, but by not looking at the calendar, they had to reschedule it because they had it on one of the days when they couldn't meet. So I'd be happy to present the minister with a multifaith calendar so that that doesn't happen with any of his engagements.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I appreciate the gesture from the member, and I will display it with honour in my office and refer to it from time to time as I look at the calendar.

[5:00]

I know that the member for Cariboo North asked some questions about the average bonus bid in the Quesnel district over the last 12 months. The average was $17.41. The upset was $41. He asked for the number of TSLs that were turned back. The answer to that is five. On the question about how many deposits have been returned, the answer to that is five. He asked how many extensions there have been; the answer to that is 20.

You had a question about unsold decked wood. The only decked wood that was not sold last year was 200 metres of wood at Willow River. That was A55657. The details are as follows, and I would ask the indulgence of the members to read this into the record. "The small business forest enterprise program planned to prebuild a road to access A44495 in the summer of 1996. The wet summer prevented construction start until August 3, 1996. It was completed by the end of September.

The right-of-way wood was decked, and when the road was finished, the district office put together a timber sale licence with a rate of $48.90 on it. On November 27, 1996, the sale was advertised for December 12, 1996, and there were no bids received. The sale did not occur because of soft demand

[ Page 5502 ]

and a considerable distance of snowplowing that would have been required. It will be re-offered this season."

I believe that may be the one. So 200 metres in Willow River is all we seem to be aware of.

I'd like to turn over now to the Minister of Human Resources, the acting Minister of Forests. I'll be back after the dinner hour.

J. Wilson: I have a few questions that relate to woodlots. To begin with, maybe I'd better give the acting minister at this moment a chance for his staff to collect around him so they can give him assistance on some of these questions if he needs it.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I would like to do a little research under the woodlot program as it exists today. First I would like to get some statistics from the minister, if possible. Can the minister supply me with some averages on stumpage rates? There are two districts I would like stumpage rates on, in particular. One is the Williams Lake forest district and the other is the Quesnel forest district. Could the minister supply me with the average stumpage rate for the woodlot program since January 1997, the first quarter of this year?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to stand in for my colleague. I've been away from the portfolio for a while, so I would beg the member's indulgence in allowing me the opportunity to retrieve information from the staff that are here to support me.

If I understood the question, it was the average stumpage in the Williams Lake and Quesnel districts from January. It will take some time to produce the average number in that vein. We would be pleased to supply that information when we can get it produced. It may be a while; just so you're aware, it may be outside the estimates. If you're looking for specific stumpage rates, I think we could probably achieve that, but the average will take a little longer.

J. Wilson: What I would like is the average for the first quarter of this year, and it shouldn't take too long to get it. Perhaps you may be able to pull it out of your computer by the time we come back from recess.

The other figure I need is for the small business forest enterprise program. I would also like the average stumpage. The minister gave me the one for Williams Lake, I believe, which is $41 for upset and $17.41 on bonus. Maybe it was Quesnel, but I think it was Williams Lake. I would like those figures for both forest districts, as well, so I can do some comparison between the stumpage charged on woodlots and the stumpage charged on small business sales.

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, we will supply the information. We don't have a computer with us. We don't have the capacity in this forum to generate an average over a period of time -- be it a quarter or a half. We can certainly produce it as quickly as possible. I understand that we can retrieve that information for the member at least by tomorrow.

J. Wilson: When can I expect these figures?

Hon. D. Streifel: I believe my answer was that we'll try to get it for you tomorrow, likely by noon. But those are all likelihoods.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for giving me a time frame. At present we are looking at a program in the interior to top up the woodlots. Can the minister explain to me what the end result of the top-up on the woodlot program will be?

Hon. D. Streifel: Currently there are 518 woodlot licences in the province. They are eligible for top-up as they come up for renewal. I don't know if the member is aware of where the top-up extends to. It would be 400 hectares on the coast and 600 hectares in the interior. Of course, there has to be a demonstration of excellence in forest practices and forestry in order to qualify for the top-up.

J. Wilson: My question is: what can we expect as a result of the top-up? What will be the end result to the woodlot owner?

Hon. D. Streifel: If a woodlot of a certain size is expanded to a little bit larger size, there would be a larger land base to work from, there would be more fibre available to work from on that land base, and there would certainly be more flexibility in how the operator works with that land base. You could certainly expect a higher level of economic endeavour and longevity for the forester who works with the woodlot. It is certainly a positive venture to expand the size of the woodlot in this manner, based on individuals who are really good at what they're doing.

If they prove through the processes that they are good at managing their woodlot and they get a top-up, an extension, it's certainly healthy for that aspect of the forest industry.

J. Wilson: Listening to the minister, then, I assume that if we top up a woodlot by 30 percent, say, we would expect to have an increase of an additional 30 percent in our harvest rate. Is this correct?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it would be fair to comment that 30 percent could be an average. But if you give exactly what an average is, in order to achieve an average -- some are larger; some are smaller . . . . But over an extended range and number, I think 30 percent would be a fair expectation for the member.

J. Wilson: I was just using that as an example. The number was irrelevant. What I was trying to get an answer for was: if we increase our land base in the woodlot by any percentage, whatever it is, will we see that percentage translated into the allowable annual cut off of that woodlot?

Hon. D. Streifel: Within the woodlot program . . . . Except for the separate category woodlot, we could expect an increase in the AAC within that woodlot structure.

J. Wilson: The point I'm trying to get is: can we rest assured that if we top up our woodlot, we will get an additional cut to that percentage of the increase in the size? If you're not going to get an increase in cut . . . . If you're simply going to get more land to manage and have the same annual cut, there is not going to be any incentive there. So I would assume that by increasing the size of any woodlot out there, you would automatically boost your annual cut by the percentage that you increased the size of the woodlot. If you do