Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 16

Part 1

[ Page 5401 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: We have with us today several representatives of various religious communities in British Columbia. Not all of them have attended in the gallery, but were with me and some other members in a very interesting discussion today. I would like to introduce those I recognize in the gallery today.

We have Kathleen Wallace-Deering from the Anglican diocese of New Westminster; Gian Garcha from the Sikh faith in Richmond; Nina Khajuria and Ramesh Khajuria from the Hindu temple in Vancouver; Rev. Phillip Hewett, minister emeritus of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver; Gerald Vandezande, with the Grace Christian Reform Church in Scarborough, Ontario, and public affairs director of Citizens for Public Justice; and Dr. Vern Heidebrecht, the senior pastor of Northview Community Church in Abbotsford. There may be others here; I apologize to those if I don't introduce them.

We had a very interesting and stimulating discussion about the role of religious leaders in the moral and ethical challenges facing government and public policy today.

I would ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.

L. Reid: I believe that all of us in this chamber have a high regard for the work of the local press -- our regional press in our own ridings. The Richmond MLAs are joined today by Mr. Barry Link, a reporter with the Richmond News , and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: This is actually the first time I've had an opportunity to do this, so I welcome it. All of us in this Legislature take our strengths and our values and our roots from our family members. In the gallery today is the man who has been part of my life for almost 35 years and to whom I have been married for almost 32 years. So I would ask the House to make my husband Robert welcome.

T. Stevenson: I too would like to join in welcoming the religious leaders. It was a very exciting dialogue this morning that we had, particularly after listening to the keynote address by Dr. Gerald Vandezande. I would also like to particularly introduce Jim Angus, who is with the Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en and is a very active member with the United Church of Canada. Would all members please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: On behalf of one of my staff, B.G., aka Bernice Garrett, I would like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon some friends of hers: Vic and Dianne Endean. They have just finished up a trip across Canada with relatives from England, and have travelled from Chase, their home in the interior of B.C., and brought with them today Vic's aunt Ida Endean, visiting from Plymouth. Vic and Dianne are parents of two and grandparents of two. They were Citizens of the Year in 1994, and they continue to stay involved in their community.

Vic has a tire business in Chase, and I can remember, on a family vacation one year, on a hot August afternoon, receiving service from a Big O Tires store in Chase that helped me get my family on our way to camp at Shuswap Lake. The service was probably twice as much as I really needed, but it was well appreciated.

I beg the House's indulgence, because we have some folks here that are very active in their community. Vic has been active in the Kamloops Chiefs oldtimers hockey association and is past regional president and chair of the board of the Thompson-Nicola regional district. Dianne served as councillor for the village of Chase for ten years, for 18 years as secretary at Haldane Elementary School in Chase, and is currently president of the chamber of commerce.

As you can see, these folks are very well connected and active in their community. I bid the House make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I want to be very brief today. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources for pointing out my friends from the Shuswap, Vic and Dianne Endean. I had the pleasure to work many times with Vic when he was chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district and I was chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. I enjoyed working with Dianne as well. She has been president of the chamber of commerce, and I'd like to welcome them both from this side of the House.

E. Walsh: I take great pleasure in introducing, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ms. Pamela Nichol from Sutton, England. She is the mother of Bobbie Nichol, the assistant to the minister. Also accompanying her on the visit to Victoria is her granddaughter Fiona. I would ask that the House welcome both Fiona and Pamela Nichol to Victoria.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can extend my own greetings to Pastor Heidebrecht from the Northview Community Church. Since I was elected, Pastor Heidebrecht has reminded me on occasion that he and his congregation pray for all of the members regularly, and after watching proceedings here today I suspect they will redouble their efforts.

Hon. P. Priddy: As you get older you can't quite see all parts of the gallery, so as you check, you see more people. I'd like to introduce another friend of mine who's in the gallery today. My husband, who I introduced earlier, walked a very difficult journey with me for probably the last 32 years, but certainly in the last year and a half. But Tom Sigurdson, who is a very good friend of mine who lost his wife to breast cancer several years ago, also walked that journey with me last year, and I want to thank him for that support.

A. Sanders: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, Jennifer Byrnes. She is a two-time Iron Man finisher from the Canadian duathalon team and is the best physiotherapist in all of British Columbia. I would like everyone to make her welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is an old friend, Lee Loftus, the business manager of the Heat and Frost Insulators, Local 118. With him, and just mentioned, is Tom Sigurdson, who is working with the Heat and Frost Insulators on a leaky condo project. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: Joining us in the precincts today is a group of about 15 citizens from Denman Island who are here to explore with members of government the opportunities for developing a community forest on Denman Island.

B. Goodacre: I would also like to extend my welcome to Jim Angus, a constituent of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Also with us today is the mayor of Smithers, Brian Northup. In addition to serving Smithers for many, many years on the town council,

[ Page 5402 ]

he has worked as many years and more with West Fraser, one of the major employers in the forest industry in our area. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

MINISTRY MANAGEMENT OF

CHILD PROTECTION

G. Campbell: In November of 1996 the government began the process of hiring 20 regional managers for child protection. These positions were identified as being critical for good communications and reliable protection services. Key responsibilities for the position were "to create and direct teams of child protection experts who are able to deal rapidly with high-risk situations."

The process was bogged down in bureaucracy, incompetence and cover-up. Nine months later, not one position has been filled. Documents show that senior managers involved in the process pointed out that the ministry was doing exactly the opposite of what it said it would do. These managers were unanimous in their comment that the process "would severely damage the service delivery system and will place children at risk in their communities."

Can the minister tell us why her ministry is so dysfunctional that managers have spent nine months arguing with the ministry instead of focusing on protecting our children?

Hon. P. Priddy: If the group of people that the hon. member is referring to is the 20 senior directors in each region -- if that's what I understand him to say -- all of those regional directors have been in place since January. There was a transition team up until that time to look at what the overall structure would look like. The 20 senior people in the regions -- they're called regional operating officers -- have been in place since January.

One of the reasons they are there is that not only Judge Gove but the children's transition commissioner said that services have to be closer to where children and families are. You cannot continue to run a ministry like this out of Victoria. The closer you can bring it to children and families, the more likely you are to hear their voices and know what their needs are. All those managers are in place and continue to be. I met with them last week -- or the week before.

G. Campbell: I understand that these managers are temporary placements, but the minister told us in this House last April that she was going to spend more time listening to front-line workers. Let me quote from the notes of the meeting of these senior staff members on February 27, 1997:

"The managers were unanimous in their concern for the impact on field staff of this process, which alienated staff from managers at a time when staff needed all the support they could receive. This process is disruptive, breaks the continuity of relationships and serves no positive systemic purpose."

In fact, exactly the problems that are identified by the managers are the problems that we've seen identified in the Mavis Flanders case.

My question to the minister is: will the minister tell the House how she thinks this process, which is so dysfunctional, has helped her ministry protect children?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I understand the "temporary" comment by the hon. member. These are 20 full-time people, hired full-time in the regions. They are regional operating people who have just finished doing their budgets for every region. There's nothing temporary about their jobs whatsoever.

I don't know the memo that the member is referring to. I'll certainly look into that. It would concern me if we had 20 regional managers out there saying: "Gosh, we don't think any of this is going to work." People were told by me when we got into this ministry that this train was moving, and if people were not pleased with the direction of it, then that was certainly their opinion, but they needed to get on board anyway. I'd be surprised if that was from 20 regional managers. It may be. I'd have to check out the memo.

But it's helping. There will be a mandatory advisory committee for every single one of those 20 regions, where families and care providers and youth all have an opportunity to influence the services and how the budget is spent. Never before in the history of this country has that happened.

G. Campbell: We are referring to the regional manager, child protection position, which was advertised. I'm sure the minister knows that right now they are temporary or interim positions that are in place.

However, on February 27 of this year a number of senior managers from her ministry met with both Mr. Dawson and Mr. Green to discuss what had taken place. What those senior managers with many years of experience point out is that the process that has been entered into would severely damage service delivery systems and place children in communities at risk. This is exactly what happened with the Mavis Flanders case.

The question to the minister is: can the minister tell the House why the process that she initiated that was putting children at risk was left to go . . . instead of focusing on protecting those children day in and day out?

Hon. P. Priddy: When this ministry was formed on September 23, there were ten child protection consultants in this province. They all worked out of Vancouver, and then they flew to the rest of the province, depending on where someone needed them. What we have done is double the number of child protection consultants in this province and said that it makes more sense for those child protection consultants to work in the regions, with senior staff, closer to families and closer to service providers, as opposed to only in Vancouver, where you fly into a community and then leave again. You need to live in the region to know it and to work there.

M. Coell: In November 1996, 20 positions for regional child protection managers were posted by this government. Nine months later not one of these positions has been filled by a permanent manager. The mandate of these managers is to ensure that child protection services remain a priority while being coordinated and integrated with other child, youth and family services during the transition to the new ministry.

How can the minister repeatedly say that her ministry's top priority is protecting children when these most critical child protection positions remain unfilled today?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would be unable to provide the information about how many remain unfilled. It is not true that none are filled. I don't know how many remain unfilled.

[ Page 5403 ]

It's been very interesting what people have told us, though, as they've applied for this position: it becomes harder and harder to do this job when you continue to do it under a microscope. People find that a very difficult spot to be in.

M. Coell: Whenever we on this side of the House bring up problems in the Ministry for Children and Families, the minister stands up and says: "Don't worry. We're working hard to change the system. Be patient." The reality is that these essential positions remain unfilled today, through the chaos in this ministry.

Cynthia Morton said in her report on Mavis Flanders: "The case of Mavis Flanders and her son is strong evidence of the need to assess risk objectively, thoroughly and frequently." This is the job that these managers were supposed to do. How many other children have been placed at risk because these positions are not filled today?

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly will go back and check Hansard to see if I ever said to anybody: "Don't worry about this ministry." I will certainly check that, because I worry about this ministry every waking hour of every single day. Believe me, I don't think I've ever said: "Don't worry about this ministry." And it's not, "Don't worry about this ministry"; it's worrying about the children and families of British Columbia.

Yes, we said that we are working on it. This is a ministry that took about 20 to 30 years to get into the position where Judge Gove wrote his report and Cynthia Morton wrote her report. Gove has said that it will take several years to make the kind of cultural and organizational change that is required. So to say that I ought not to say that we're working on it . . . . I guess I could say that we're not working on it or that it is fixed, but we will not fix it in ten months.

If the opposition objects to the fact that we've doubled the number of child protection consultants, then I suppose we might have a difference of opinion on that. In point of fact, the risk assessments are done by child protection social workers; they are given backup by the people they are referring to. The risk assessments are done by 1,300 people who have had information and training on that since September 23.

FOREST SECTOR JOBS FOR ABORIGINAL

AND OTHER NON-UNION WORKERS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister of Labour. In many British Columbia communities, especially small rural communities, young people have traditionally looked to the forest industry as the best source of well-paying jobs that allowed them to live and work at home. This is particularly true of young non-status aboriginal and Métis people. More recently, these jobs have been available in the area of silviculture, such as tree-planting.

However, this government has decided that the preference for these jobs should go to displaced IWA workers rather than to these young people in rural British Columbia. Can the minister tell me why this minister, this minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, has turned his back on young aboriginal people in favour of the Premier's friends in organized labour?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to assure the member that this Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and this Minister of Forests have not turned their backs on aboriginal people who want to participate in the forest industry.

I'd be happy to provide the member with another copy of the jobs and timber accord, because it states very clearly that the priority for hiring for the 5,000 jobs that we expect FRBC to create will be to displaced forest workers, and displaced forest workers are union and non-union. That's our first priority. The second priority will be to local aboriginal people.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I'd be delighted to get the first copy of the jobs and timber accord. Perhaps it's in the mail. You can check with the Minister of Transportation and Highways; she'll tell you how the mail works. You stick it in the out-box, and it comes into my mailbox.

My question, then, to the Minister of Forests is: will the minister account for the jobs created for young aboriginal people, young non-status and Métis people? Will the minister account for the number of students whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of the artificial preferences that have been created by this government in its unseemly attempt to satisfy the demands of the IWA and the B.C. Federation of Labour?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member didn't see what we said about silviculture workers. The jobs and timber accord does not in any way touch the $150 million worth of basic silviculture that the companies are contracting. The jobs and timber accord doesn't affect that. That is the largest single source of employment for summer students and the part-time aboriginal workers that the member has mentioned.

TRANSFER OF

YOUTH PROBATION OFFICERS

TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

G. Plant: By the end of this week, youth probation officers will be transferred out of the Attorney General's ministry into the Children and Families ministry. Probation officers have been warning that this move will cost the government more and will also compromise public safety, yet their voices have been ignored by this government.

A retired Provincial Court judge, Cunliffe Barnett, has now joined his voice to others. He asks this question: "Why would any sensible person want to load more responsibility on a ministry that has longstanding problems already?"

Mr. Speaker, these are the voices of front-line workers and experienced members of the justice community. So my question is for the Attorney General: will he listen to these voices, and will he today promise to delay this transfer until its implications have been properly studied?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, Judge Gove recommended that these important services for children be provided under one umbrella and in an integrated fashion. The transition commissioner furthered those recommendations and indicated that that should be done. This is already being done in provinces like Quebec and Saskatchewan and is being done well. It's important that we proceed with this. We have prepared, by working with the Ministry for Children and Families, to deal with this issue in an appropriate fashion. I know that as we go through the transition, there will be difficulties, but we shall overcome.

G. Plant: Day after day in this House, we hear stories about the difficulty of constructing a Children and Families ministry that in fact serves all of those that it has to serve. And now we have yet another transfer into this ministry. Those who are on the front line, the front-line workers here, are saying that if this transfer takes place now, the caseloads will

[ Page 5404 ]

increase, and untrained and inexperienced social workers will be monitoring and recommending treatment for criminals, including sex offenders. There are issues of public safety at stake.

The question is: if there is to be no review, as the Attorney General suggests, will he tell us how public safety will be enhanced by the move?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that one could notionally argue that there is an inherent conflict of interest in someone working to protect the interests of children and to protect public safety. But lawyers, judges and probation officers are officers of the court. They have been protecting public safety while working in the best interests of children for decades and decades in this system of justice. I have complete faith in the professionalism of probation officers, whether they work with the Ministry for Children and Families or with the Ministry of Attorney General. They will do a job that protects the interests of children and protects public safety.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I have the honour to table two annual reports: the B.C. Systems Corporation for '95-96, and the B.C. Lottery Corporation for the same year.

Hon. J. Cashore: I am tabling the 1997 annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission and the financial statements of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'll clarify that the report I have received from the B.C. Treaty Commission states "Annual Report, 1997."

Point of Privilege

The Speaker: On Thursday, July 3, 1997, the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rose on a matter of privilege concerning the conduct of the Minister of Labour, alleging certain improprieties surrounding Bill 44, intituled Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, which was introduced into the House and received first reading on June 25, 1997.

In the course of his statement, the hon. member has referred the Chair to numerous precedents relating to breach of privilege that are presented in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition, and I've carefully considered the cumulative effect of those decisions on the member's case.

It is my view that none of the precedents mentioned can be relied upon as an authority to assist the hon. member in establishing a prima facie breach of privilege for the case in hand. Indeed, what emerges from these precedents is that a premature release of government policy or proposed legislation to the press or the public prior to introduction in the House does not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt.

There is, however, a caveat running through these decisions which suggests that the disclosure of the details of legislation to outside parties prior to their introduction in the House may involve a question of propriety or a question of courtesy. For example, the Saskatchewan Journals of April 5, 1976, at page 63, record the observation of Mr. Speaker Brockelbank as follows: "I wish to stress to the assembly that although it is a courtesy to the assembly for a minister to release information in the assembly before releasing it to the press or the public, it is not a breach of the privileges or rules of the assembly if this does not happen."

Dealing now with the other matter raised by the hon. member when he referred the Chair to standing order 78a, the member quite correctly observed that this standing order enabled the Minister of Labour to refer Bill 44 to a select standing committee immediately after its introduction in the House.

A close examination of standing order 78a, however, makes it abundantly clear that the power of referral is permissive only, and in the Chair's view, the discretion for such a referral was intended to remain the prerogative of the minister in charge of a bill. The discretion is unrelated to the authority of the Chair.

In conclusion, then, and based on the authorities noted, the Chair is unable to find that the hon. member has, prima facie, established a case of breach of privilege.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: First of all, I have some good news for the members, and that is that we will be sitting tomorrow.

I would like to call Committee of Supply in this chamber. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. And in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and of the Ministry of Environment.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

T. Nebbeling: This morning we talked about the annual allowable cuts and the process that is in place today to determine what actually can happen on a land mass, be it in a TSA or a tree farm licence, with the objective to achieve an annual cut that will indeed guarantee the sustainability of the forests in British Columbia. I am not going to spend much more time on this, because -- considering that we have so many other issues that we have to discuss -- I only want to come back to one particular point that the minister mentioned this morning.

As the minister knows, in this estimate I have put most of my emphasis on the impact of the programs affecting the forest industry that the government has introduced over the last couple of years, and the impact on the social and economic well-being of the communities and people that depend on forest activities. When we talked about the social impact study that has to be done by the government when it comes to the timber supply areas, the minister also mentioned that for the tree farm licences there is a different requirement.

[ Page 5405 ]

Could the minister or his assistant maybe give me a bit of background on how detailed, then, the timber supply area impact study is, as far as the social and economic impact on the forest workers through job losses and on the communities through economic activity reductions? That's less disposable income in the communities.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reality is that with respect to TFLs, the company is responsible for preparing the management and working plans. They have to do at least a cursory analysis of the impacts -- employment before and employment after the management working plan. This is all information that the chief forester can take into account when he makes his determination.

T. Nebbeling: What I was focusing on was the statement by the minister that the assessments done by companies that work in tree farm licence areas have a lesser requirement compared to the other companies that work in a timber supply area which may be adjacent to that. It still affects the same companies. Why I'm asking this question . . . . It is still Crown land. It will still have an impact on the people working on that Crown land, be it under tree farm licence status or any other type. Why is there a difference? If I can get an answer on that, then most likely we can go on to another area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to make it clear, there isn't the same degree of analysis required of tree farm licences. It sounds to me like it's for historical reasons. But that's the way it is, nevertheless.

T. Nebbeling: That clearly was not the answer I was expecting, especially if we're going to include historical perspective in the situation. I have complimented this government from time to time, as well, when they've done things right. I certainly would not want to hang onto the historical background of how the forest industry managed the forest in the past -- in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies -- how they most likely also had different standards and how they dealt with their employees.

I think it is not a good answer in the nineties, when we have introduced a tremendous number of policies and regulations that impact on how a forest company works in order to achieve a healthy environment and a healthy forest, when the minister says: "At the same time, you know, as far as the environment is concerned, we really stand up, and we make sure that we show clear improvements over the old practices." I think it is recognized that the government, to a certain extent, has achieved that goal; I've always complimented them for that. I've not always complimented the means, but they have made a difference if we compare what happens in the forests today to the sixties and the seventies.

However, to not have at the same time a rational answer when it comes to the people who work in the forest, and to not have a rational explanation why the people in the forest today do not have more socially acceptable treatment and consideration when things change in the forest . . . . I don't think that can be answered with: "Historically, there was always a lesser need for analysis dealing with people." I'm really disappointed to hear that.

If there is one thing that will ultimately bring peace to the forest, it is certainly the restructuring of the forest industry, the restructuring of how much timber will be available and how much timber will be there for future generations either to enjoy or to get a living off of. I would have expected that parallel with these objectives, these improvements, there would have been improvement incorporated into the way we deal with the people who have to live with the consequences of these changes.

[2:45]

The minister has said it is historical, so I can't go back to that. I will get away from that particular part, then.

What I would like to know is: when the chief forester announced the last round of annual allowable cuts in the B.C. forest, it was made clear at the time that yes, these cuts have a serious impact on the future allowable cuts. However, we have still not achieved the objective of a sustained forest. That is something that I've heard on a number of occasions. Considering that the government has indeed taken a large amount of timber from the existing forest inventory with one objective only -- and that was to achieve that objective of sustainability -- that particular claim surprises me a little.

Maybe the minister can explain if this is because we are in transition to become a province with a sustainable forest -- or have there been miscalculations? I don't know.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are in a transition period, moving from a point where we were cutting more because there was an accumulation of mature forest, to a sustainable cut as we harvested the mature timber. So we are in a transition. The chief forester is instructed, as he adjusts to sustainable cuts, to take into account new practices and in so doing have the minimum impact that he thinks is possible. That's the most important instruction -- that there is a policy that the Minister of Forests has directed the chief forester to take into account, and that is to reduce the cut only if it's necessary to ensure long-term sustainability, if future productivity is not affected.

T. Nebbeling: I now understand a bit better, because of the statement that the province, as an overall strategy in general, still hasn't got the reduction of the AAC to a level where we can claim that we have a forest that is sustainable. Considering the work that has been done, the reductions we have seen and the impact that has already been imposed on communities, I'm happy to say, in a sense, that there is indeed a transition period -- rather than trying to achieve this all in one swoop. That would then have even more impact on communities and on people in the forests, so I accept that that is a positive element of the strategy.

This strategy of getting to that point where the sustainability is indeed a fixed thing -- would the minister share some of that strategy with me? I am asking this question particularly because I do get groups, from time to time, who want to meet with me, who are concerned about the environment, who still claim that we should immediately set aside a tremendous amount more forest to have the sustainable forest. Obviously they would prefer that to be old-growth forest. The whole case that they make is based on the fact that this province has that goal, that objective -- to have a sustainable forest.

With all that has happened in the last six or seven years, it has not happened, and more should be set aside.

For me to deal with these groups and in a sense become an advocate for the government's approach -- how they came to the AAC that will ultimately achieve the objective -- would the minister share the strategy, especially when it comes to timing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A simple explanation of the strategy would be that every five years there is a new assessment

[ Page 5406 ]

done, and every five years we have better information on growth and yield. The central focus of the strategy would be to get better growth and yield information -- just how much more is growing, how much is growing on the second growth -- and as we develop more data there, we're in a position to make more informed decisions on what the long-term cut can be.

T. Nebbeling: I'll leave this for now, because if I go into the practices that are used in the forest to guarantee that yield and that inventory of timber, then obviously I'm going into a whole different area. I'll ask the minister to consider that later on in the estimates, but not necessarily today. I will come back to the component of how we enrich the existing forests and how ultimately, with the strategy that the minister talked about, we'll have a strategy that will in principle allow us to have less forest mass but high yield from that mass, thereby a better annual allowable cut.

That discussion will still come. When I bring it forward, I hope the minister is not going to say, "Well, you had an opportunity, under the annual allowable cut discussion during the estimates, to ask these questions," because that's a whole different field. It is silviculture, it is land-based management, and I'd like to do it all in one go.

Another area that has an impact on what happens in our forests is the protected-areas strategy that was introduced last year in the province. As the minister is aware, the objective of setting aside a massive amount of land -- 12 percent of the land in the province -- is to guarantee that future generations will also have the benefit of our natural resources. Certain areas have achieved that goal; other areas are still working on this.

In the lower mainland, the Soo TSA and the Sunshine Coast -- that is one area -- the government has had almost two years' experience in putting together a plan that would reflect a land mass set-aside which represents all the forest and land values that we have in the lower mainland. The creation of this plan was not easy, particularly because not everybody agreed, in the end, that 12 percent was enough.

Considering that we already have tremendous amounts of land set aside through our provincial park system -- to which the 12 percent is an add-on -- with that 12 percent protected-areas strategy initiative, we can indeed say that we now have a land mass that is there in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy.

What I would like to ask the minister about is the introduction of the plan in the lower mainland, the Soo TSA and the Sunshine Coast, the consequences of the introduction of the plan to these three areas and how some of the consequences that came with the introduction of the land being set aside have been monitored. If there have been problems in certain areas, maybe the minister can give me some background on that.

The first thing I would like to ask the minister is: what kind of monitoring was incorporated in the introduction of the protected-areas strategy at the time to make sure that not only would we achieve our goal by setting that variety of land aside, but even more importantly, that we'd also know what the expected consequences were going to be, be it the socioeconomic evaluation needs or the needs of other industries that were working on the same land mass that has been dedicated to park land now.

I know, at the time that the meeting was held in Vancouver -- I attended it -- that it was one of the subjects that was discussed -- that there was going to be a monitoring type of system that would from time to time give us a picture not only of achieving the objective but in what manner and whether the concerns about the impact, which were expressed at the time, were going to be addressed in such a manner as to alleviate most of these concerns.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Earlier in the debates, Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked questions about the amount of timbered forest land and so on. I just refer the member to what I said at that time. The impacts of what's actually inside a park properly goes to the Ministry of Environment estimates.

We won't know the full impact of the land withdrawals for the protected-areas strategy until the next round of the timber supply review has been conducted by the chief forester. He will then take into account . . . . He has the opportunity to add back to the forested land base from, say, non-productive lands or lands that have not been operable. There's a number of things that can be done.

The specific questions about the land use plan impacts, again, I would suggest can be appropriately directed to the Minister of Environment.

T. Nebbeling: I don't want to go to the Minister of Environment, because questions that I want to ask are based on . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I believe I have the floor. I will not go to the Minister of Environment, because the questions that I have, in particular, at this point are related to what the Minister of Forests at the time recognized as potential job loss. So again I'm talking about people -- the potential job loss related to the protected-areas strategy. At the time, it was identified as 90 to 110 direct jobs. There was an amount of money set aside within this strategy for dealing with job losses as a consequence of the protected-areas strategy.

So I don't think I have to go to the Minister of Environment to get answers in that section. That is, at that point, what I'm interested in. When it comes to other parts, when it comes to issues that are related to the environment and environmental objectives, sure. But I do not think that I should not have this question answered by the minister.

So the minister, being aware that some socioeconomic study was done as part of the introduction of the process . . . . At the time, it was definitely a question of the numbers that the socioeconomic impact reflected did hold water when it came to the test of whether this was right or wrong. One of the reasons is that the job ratio per thousand cubic metres of timber was an average of 0.42 person-years for these three areas. That's the information that is in the socioeconomic study -- or 0.42 to 0.51 years for jobs in the harvesting sector. Considering that in the rest of the industry we have a ratio that is 1.3, I mean . . . .

[3:00]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: No, no. It's just in case the minister wanted to hear the question. Can the minister give me an indication now, a year after the program was introduced, whether the jobs that were shown to be lost by the loss of land

[ Page 5407 ]

have indeed materialized and if that is based still on that ratio of 0.42? Or does the ratio truly reflect the standard for the rest of the province, and that is 1.3 person-years per thousand cubic metres?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The impact has not occurred, because a reduction has not occurred.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question. What does the minister mean by: "The impact has not occurred, because a reduction has not occurred"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It requires the chief forester to make a determination to reduce. He has not done that yet. As I explained earlier, it would be part of the timber supply review. When he makes it, we will know what we're dealing with in terms of impact.

T. Nebbeling: The lands that are being selected by the resource group that created the package that made up 12 percent of our land . . . . The lands that were identified had, in part, harvesting rights or had . . . . Actually, as a matter of fact, I know that some of them did have timber licence allocations. Is the minister saying that because the chief forester has not yet included in his total deliberations the annual allowable cut reductions, there are still harvesting activities going on, on these lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were study areas, and harvesting was restricted on them. We avoided areas that were candidates for protection, and those areas that have been protected have some interim guidelines on them which don't allow harvesting. As we are in the process of creating some protected status, either through the Park Act or the land use act, we don't allow harvesting. So there is no harvesting in protected areas.

T. Nebbeling: So we are talking about tremendous amounts of land being set aside, which, under circumstances that did not include the protected-areas strategy, would have seen harvesting activities. That, I believe, I can come to the conclusion . . . .

Because there has been a study done and 12 percent has been identified to be included in a park or in a land designation that is park, which will prohibit harvesting, the district managers that are working in these areas are not allowing any permits to be issued on these lands, which would have happened if these lands had not been in the protected-areas strategy.

Therefore I say that the impact, although the chief forester has not included in his annual allowable cut reduction review these lands to be included in that annual allowable cut reduction . . . . The district managers are acting, I believe, as if these lands have been excluded from harvesting. There must be an impact because of that alone.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is nothing surprising in your conclusions or your statement of facts, except that the district managers would be finding alternative harvesting. If there's enough cut there for even half the cut for a hundred years, then there's 50 years at the full cut. So it can be found in the short term, but you can't go on avoiding areas forever. At some point the cut may have to be reduced.

Now, I've already said the chief forester will do that. In the meantime, it may well be a constraint on finding available timber because of the time it takes to do planning. It is getting tighter because the land base is not getting any larger and much of it has been cut over, so there is no surprise that it's difficult to find areas. There's a conflict. There are conflicts everywhere on the land base, and our officials are doing their best to eliminate those conflicts.

T. Nebbeling: I am not criticizing the officials; I'm not criticizing the minister. If I criticize the minister, it is that he says, "Well, there has been no impact yet because of the protected-areas strategy and because the chief forester has not included these park lands in the next round of annual allowable cut reductions," knowing full well -- if I can find out through asking -- that the lands that have been earmarked for park status are protected from any logging activity, so there is an impact. Then the minister says no, there is no impact because we have alternative land that these companies that are losing timber can go and harvest.

Can the minister explain to me if these companies that had timber rights in these areas were given some preferential treatment to enter new lands? Were they in a position when applying for licences to avoid having to deal with the complications that the Forest Practices Code has imposed on the industry? Or did they not have to go through the licence system at all and were just given timber?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that for the time being, the cut can be found and is found in alternative areas. Some of the areas, I'm told -- like Indian Arm, for example, which is now a park -- have been considered in the chief forester's determination already. So some, but not all of them, have been considered in the cut.

T. Nebbeling: Cuts can be found. Now we find a cut for a company or a logging operation, which has been removed from an area because of the protected-areas strategy, and a new cutblock is identified. The point I'm trying to get from the minister is: can the new cut be entered without the traditional requirements that are imposed on anybody when they apply for a harvesting licence, for a cutting licence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we still have to go through the operational planning process.

T. Nebbeling: That's the area where the problem then arises. That led me initially to ask the question: have there been any layoffs because of the protected-areas strategy? The reason is that if a logging operation had a cutblock approved by having gone through the whole process of application, analysis, public consultation -- a process that takes a long time -- and had that permit in the operator's pocket for the logger, then he or she could have gone on at length, and that would have been it. Now, because they have been given a new area to apply for -- I suppose they still have to apply for it -- they have to go through the whole process again.

The minister knows very well that since the introduction of the Forest Practices Code -- another initiative -- the process of applying for a timber licence has gone from four or five months to approximately 14 to 18 months. So any operator with a crew who thought to enter the land, and then was stopped from doing that because of the protected-areas strategy, was given an opportunity to apply for a new piece of land but had to basically tell his or her crew: "Listen, you guys go home for about 18 months because that is the time it's going to take for me to get these licences."

Has the minister considered that, and how has the minister accommodated these people and these operators in that

[ Page 5408 ]

kind of a situation? If there's not been a consideration for it, then there has to be a record somewhere that a certain number of people who used to work in the forest industry are no longer working with that particular operator. Maybe they've found other work, but there must be a record of the action that happened.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is stating the obvious, and I will recognize the obvious. It would be wrong for me not to do that. The planning started a long time ago. Many of these areas were out of limits: there were log-arounds, and there were deferrals because they were controversial. So you have to go piece by piece, company by company, cutting permit by cutting permit.

The officials spend a lot of time making sure that we minimize, if not completely eliminate, the impact on specific operations. So yes, change has impact. But so does weather, so does market, so does a changing timber profile. Everything affects change. To pretend that there's some magic, static world out there that is unchanged by planning processes is really . . . . How can I say it most appropriately? I would be amazed that somebody wouldn't understand that planning is a dynamic exercise.

Those people are counted as best as possible. There are five-year development plans, and we've had years, not months, to get alternative harvesting plans approved. If there's a specific the member wants to talk about, give us the specific, give us the crew, and we'll go back and get the facts. Yes, it is taken into account, I assure you. It's a high priority for the Ministry of Forests and this minister to take it into account. I think it's offensive to suggest that we don't.

T. Nebbeling: I don't mind the minister getting heated because of things that I haven't said. I haven't said that things are not being taken into account. I'm asking what steps have been taken into account in remedial work to make sure that these operators are not getting the short end of the stick.

The minister says: "Hey, yes, we have an impact on it, and so does the weather, so does the rain." Well, the weather is

an act of God, and so is the rain. The actions of this minister are definitely not those of a God-like person, although last week he called himself "on the side of the angels."

It is very simple. My first question, once more, is: the number of jobs that were identified in the study that could be lost or would be lost -- has that happened? I even named the numbers: 90 to 110 direct jobs. If the minister had said, (a) "We have no record of that," I wouldn't have been able to push forward, or (b) "We know some jobs have been lost," then I would have asked what happened with these people and how they were assisted, because assistance was promised, or (c) "We are finding alternative ways for them right now," my first question could have been answered immediately that way.

Now that we know that indeed there are people who have been impacted, now that we know there are operators that have lost their ability to put crews on certain sites because of the protected-areas initiatives, can the minister tell me what the work has been and what monitoring has been done to make sure that the people who, through no fault of theirs, have gotten into a position where they were stopped from earning a living? How were these people assisted under the guidelines of this plan to make sure that there was a new door open for them at the time that the doors closed with the protected-areas strategy?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The monitoring system, basically, is with the resources jobs commissioner for the region, and he follows what goes on in the district. The regional managers follow if there are crews that are down, and they try to get the crews working. The companies monitor and assist; and if there's a particular crew, they try to put them to work somewhere else.

The member might want to specify which document he's quoting from, and I'll see if I can dig it up and see what assistance was offered and whether or not there's been some assistance offered.

I think it's early in the term. I'm saying that the cut has not been reduced, and therefore there should be cut available. Resource managers were instructed to find alternative cutting, and then there may have to be a reduction when the chief forester makes a determination. So the numbers that were given at the time were theoretical, based on an extrapolation of the amount of timber to the number of jobs. It's no more complicated than that.

T. Nebbeling: One of the ways that the government committed to deal with people . . . . And that, by the way, is not in the study; that's a fact from people who have been interested in watching what's happening in the forest and in the industry and what's happening with the people who used to rely on a job in industry.

[3:15]

At the time of the introduction, a $5 million fund was set aside to help each individual who would lose their job as a consequence of the creation of the protected-areas strategy. This $5 million was committed, I believe, in the framework plan that was distributed at the time. It was shown as being the tool for people who were going to be impacted by what happened because of the strategy. The tool was: "Here's the money that will safeguard you. As part of the presentation, we have studied the economic impact. We believe that about 100 people will indeed lose their job.

And a portion of that money will be channelled towards either a new career or new opportunities through education." I don't know what the qualifications were to tap into that money, but unemployment was definitely one, and it was unemployment related to this particular initiative of the government. Can the minister maybe tell me, now that we've gone through all this, if he's aware of any people who have tapped into that fund to create new opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I really appreciate, after about 15 minutes, you telling me which fund you are talking about. You didn't name the fund. It's a worker transition fund, and it's calculated based on $50,000 per worker, available for 100 workers. That's how the $5 million was arrived at. It's a notional fund. It's there under FRBC's worker transition programs, administered by the resource jobs commissioner. I'd be more than happy . . . . It would have been so easy if you had said you wanted to question what happened under the $5 million fund. Give us a day.

We'll ask our officials to put together the information we have. The resource jobs commissioner is assessing any individual who comes through the door, and yes, he's recording it, and he gives monthly reports. We can report specifically.

But the member didn't ask that, hon. Chair. Can I just suggest to him that if he's very specific about what he wants to do, then I would be very happy to try to provide that information. But that's where the tedium and boredom comes in, and the repetition. The member needs to be specific, and then I can give specific answers if we have them. But they are

[ Page 5409 ]

very general, and they are very leading. I spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out what in particular the member is asking. I'm doing my best, with the officials that are here, to provide the answers. But you have to be specific.

I would suggest that perhaps that side could think a little about an orderly development -- not something that is six or eight weeks beyond any reason. This session we've already gone just about twice the time we've ever spent in estimates before in this House. It's unnecessary. If members would be organized and tell us when they want to discuss certain things, we could have the officials here. If you tell me you want to discuss the socioeconomic impacts of the lower mainland regional plan, I'll get the information and the officials. There's an amazing amount of detail that three or four officials don't have.

We have people backed up trying to get the information. If you had any idea how many people scurry around because of your whims, you would be amazed. And the public would not tolerate . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the floor.

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister has the floor.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Chair: You asked for a point of order. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. All right. Point of order.

T. Nebbeling: Madam Chairman, we are not in an explanation of the inner workings of the Ministry of Forests. So can we stick to the estimates, please?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What that member doesn't seem to understand is that we would be happy to provide the information, but you can't ask the impossible. That side should really learn how it's done . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . and give us some

schedule of what orderly progress you want to have through the estimates.

The Chair: Hon. minister, a point of order has been raised.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a practice in this House -- to avoid the type of temper tantrum we've just seen -- that members address each other through the Chair. I would encourage the minister to do so.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, we're on vote 37. I would encourage all of us to talk about vote 37.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order.

The Chair: Point of order on the part of the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask that member to withdraw his comment about temper tantrums. It was a spirited response to a long line of questioning that was poorly, if at all, focused.

The Chair: Hon. members, I would encourage everyone to stay cool in terms of not only their frame of mind but also the language. Intemperate language is not helpful to any debate on either side at any point.

G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly if the member was offended by my

interpretation of his ranting as a temper tantrum, I would be more than happy to withdraw that. However, I would just encourage the minister to make his comments through the Chair, and perhaps the debates would be less personal than the one the minister was just engaged in.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to spend much time reacting to that little outburst. I don't know if it was done in order to give some of the staff time to come up with the pertinent information. All I will say is that I started asking what system is used to monitor people who are losing jobs because of the protected-areas strategy. That was my question, if the minister had answered it. There is a fund set aside that will assist each and every one of these workers through the forest job commissioner's office. That would have been the answer.

The minister knew the answer and could have avoided a rise in blood pressure -- not mine, because I'm cool as a cucumber. But the minister certainly needs some readjustment there.

I'm going to ask a very simple question. The three areas that are under the lower mainland strategy incorporated into the protected-areas strategy are the Soo TSA, the Chilliwack TSA and the Sunshine Coast TSA. Can the minister tell me what percentage of the 12 percent was allocated to each individual area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me.

T. Nebbeling: If I could get that information later, that would be helpful. When the protected-areas strategy was created, there were some guidelines. Can the minister give me a quick rundown of the objectives of the committee which was created to find the variety of lands that would represent the lower mainland's type of land mix?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That would have been the subject of last year's estimates and not this year's.

T. Nebbeling: I don't like to correct the minister time after time, but as he knows, at the time we had estimates last year, there was no definite selection made. At that time the committee was looking at a large number of areas that could have been considered. Ultimately, as a committee they had to select a group that represented the 12 percent which was the goal. Ultimately, it became 13 percent, but let's not split hairs here. This was definitely part of last year's estimate. Question one: how did the selection take place? And what kind of lands were set aside?

But what I'm also looking for here is to see what the consequences have been of the lands that have been set aside as far as an impact on the jobs -- and how that is monitored. How are the people who had to lose their jobs because of the plans being taken care of?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member would provide those people who have had that impact, I'd be happy to get an individual story on each one of them, if I can.

T. Nebbeling: As the minister knows, I'm the one asking questions, and I'm the one asking for information. Ultimately, what we are discussing here is what actions this government has done in the last year dealing with our most treasured

[ Page 5410 ]

natural resource, timber. It is for me, at the end of the day, to stand up when I'm asked if I can support the dealings and wheelings of the Ministry of Forests. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake here. So for me to say yes, I can approve the business plan, based on his past performance . . . . This has to allow me to ask certain questions.

Now, last year certain commitments were made by the government. At the same time, certain consequences were there because of these commitments. I'm trying to find out, through a simple process of asking questions and hoping for the right answers, if these commitments have been fulfilled -- particularly when it comes to the well-being of the people that have been affected. As I said earlier on, Madam Chair, I don't want to make speeches, but I constantly get these kinds of statements by the minister that drive up the blood pressure -- although not mine.

Ultimately, I'm looking to find out whether we are managing our forest land in such a manner that indeed we can look for long-term sustainable forests with an environmental control that truly will protect all the other elements that are important in the forests and in our land masses. But that includes . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, hon. Chair. That member has made something very similar to that statement at least ten times. He keeps repeating it, and I don't think it adds to the debate at all.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Minister, I would be happy not to have to repeat it. Statements made from your side are often such that my intent is not what I intend to do here. We were just exposed, and the gallery was just exposed, to another little tantrum, and that's not what I'm here for.

As I didn't get the answer on what type of lands have been set aside or the amount of land that has been set aside, for the protected-areas strategy in the three different areas, can the minister tell me if there have already been companies or logging operations through his office that were excluded from going into lands that they thought they had the right to harvest? How many of these companies have been to the Ministry of Forests to find alternative areas where they can continue to log, be it after a long process of getting permits?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that information here. We would have to talk to the three district managers to get the details. Since the member seems to be concerned about specific individual operations and may know of some, if he'd be happy to give us the names, we'll find out what happened to them.

T. Nebbeling: I'm happy the team is complete, so maybe we can move forward a little. If, for a moment, I can go away from the jobs that were -- or maybe still are, I don't know; I've asked the question, but I presume they were -- once available in these areas, which now have been designated for protected-areas strategy . . . . Can the minister tell me, as part of the creation of new opportunities for the communities that are dependent on these forest areas . . . ?

As part of the presentation, there was a direction towards recognizing some of the other activities besides logging that were going on on these landmasses. I'm talking about guiding activities and trapping activities. The minister can, of course, say that that is something for the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of Environment. So if he doesn't have the answer, I will understand that I have to find it somewhere else.

But if he happens to have an answer on how the operations are still able to maintain their presence in the area and thereby still maintain some jobs, can he say if these operations are still allowed to operate in what is now parkland or if these operations have also ceased and desisted from operating?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, they're not allowed to operate in parklands; I answered that question.

[3:30]

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister wasn't listening: I was talking about tourism jobs. Even in the study that I have been using for detail, which comes from the Ministry of Forests, tourism and recreation have been identified as a tremendous opportunity to fill some of these lost jobs that were in the past related to harvesting timber. If the minister now says, for example, "The back-country recreational policies do not apply any longer in these lands as well," and if that type of activity is no longer allowed to take place, then we have to look at the whole industry. Maybe the minister misunderstood my question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Forests does not license or regulate in parks.

T. Nebbeling: It used to be the Ministry of Forests, and right now there is a transition of that particular activity to the . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin comes in, and he knows that the back-country operators were never licensed. It was a non-licensed industry, and only last year did the government introduce some legislation that would regulate the back-country operators. The Minister of Tourism was very much involved in putting that together, and they have now handed over that authority to Crown Lands -- so a little education for the member.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been listening with some care to the member opposite. We're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. He seems to be varying between the estimates of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture. I would ask the Chair to call the member to order and keep the debate focused on the estimates of this ministry.

The Chair: I think your point is well taken. I would remind all members about the point about relevancy and repetition. We're on vote 37, Ministry of Forests.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister is not well informed, that is the business of the minister, but he should have been in the debate on tourism where that type of tourism activity is no longer controlled by the Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture. And that's the way it is; it is Crown Lands that is responsible.

Now that we have gone through this whole process of the jobs, I would like to spend a little bit more time on the process that indeed the minister has identified as the alternative for

[ Page 5411 ]

operators that can no longer go into the protected areas. The minister has given me assurances that he is not aware that any logging company or any logging operation has applied for an alternative site where they could have some logging activities, because they have been asked to vacate land that they thought they had under control. Can the minister, one more time, confirm that, now that his assistants are here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe I answered that, again. I said I would have to go to each district to find out if there were people who were displaced from park areas. I explained that, I think, very clearly.

T. Nebbeling: There are only three districts that we're talking about here: the Squamish district, the Chilliwack district and the Sunshine Coast district. That can't be too difficult for the ministry, as far as data is concerned, to find out. While the minister is doing that, maybe he can also give me the answer to one of my previous questions. That is, how much of the 12 percent, the total amount of acreage, has gone from the various districts? So if the minister is going to find out if anything has happened in these districts, then maybe I can also find out how much land would actually be taken out of the annual allowable cut for these three districts as well.

Obviously I'm going to wait for that answer. If it comes, it comes; and if it doesn't come, then I will get it in another form. But much has been said about what I thought was going to be a very simple process here, and that is how the monitoring was happening -- the monitoring of the impact of the land being set aside. The minister hasn't got many answers, and I'm not going to push it for now, although I hope he will get some of that information.

What I want to introduce is more applicable to the Squamish and Chilliwack districts, and that's the issue of the spotted owl. The minister, no doubt, has the information on the spotted owl. The issue started about five years ago, when spotted owls were heard and seen in the Chilliwack timber supply area. There were study groups going into the area to identify when the spotted owls were there.

Spotted owls really are not considered to seek this area -- the Fraser, the upper Fraser, the upper Lillooet and the Squamish timber supply area -- as their traditional habitats. It is getting too far north. The spotted owl habitats are in California, Oregon and a little in Washington. The spotted owl in these two timber supply areas has become a very serious threat to the forest workers, as far as having access to timber that should be available to them. Since that spotted owl issue raised its head, that has been denied.

Over time, there have been many more studies done. There have been many objectives sought to deal with it, and one of the objectives that was introduced during the time that the protected-areas strategy was discussed was that the percentage of land that would have to be set aside to accommodate the spotted owl was going to be part of the 12 percent of the protected-areas strategy. Can the minister confirm that that was indeed part of the objective and if that objective is still there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any areas that are protected are just that: they are protected. Any areas that are protected under the spotted owl strategy are in some kind of protection.

T. Nebbeling: To be 100 percent sure that a little while from now I'm not going to be told again that I keep asking questions in a manner that doesn't create the right answer, my question was: is the land that will be set aside to protect the spotted owl indeed included in the 12 percent, as it was supposed to be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be some confusion around, because the member uses a figure of 12 percent, which is a provincial average. It's 14 percent on the lower mainland. Any areas that are completely off limits to timber harvesting for purposes of spotted owl protection are in protected areas.

T. Nebbeling: Once again, to make sure we're not nitpicking: are these protected areas included in the protected-areas strategy, or are they protected areas under a different designation like, for example, spotted owl recovery areas, spotted owl protection areas or spotted owl conservation areas? I think the way that I've asked my question to the minister, my first question, was very fair. It was very straightforward.

The minister keeps complaining that my questions are not clear enough for him, so he cannot give me a clear answer. I'm sure my question was clear the first time. If the minister is trying to use the protected area as a label that will get him off the hook in answering the question of whether these protected areas are part of the 12, 13 or 14 percent of the protected-areas strategy in the lower mainland, I will ask him once again if that is indeed the case. Is it part of it, or is it not part of it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll say it again. Any of the areas that are protected for spotted owls are part of the provincial protected-areas strategy. The member was very confusing when he kept saying 12 percent. I don't know what 12 percent he was talking about, so I clarified that. It's 14 percent in the lower mainland. There's 14 percent in protected areas, and it includes those areas that are protected for the spotted owl.

T. Nebbeling: I indicated earlier on that I recognize that for the purpose of creating parkland for future generations to enjoy, the lower mainland has given up in land a higher percentage than other parts of the province -- or than most other parts of the province, because there have also been areas where they have given up even more than 12 percent.

The minister is very much aware that the provincial goal is 12 percent, so when I talk about the protected-areas strategy creating 12 percent, he should immediately tweak in that we're talking about the protected-areas strategy. If the spotted owl areas are included in that, then maybe the minister can explain to me how many special areas are set aside within the two timber supply areas that do have the designation of spotted owl special management area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are no areas set aside, but there are 18 special resource management zones that will be managed in part for suitable owl habitat.

T. Nebbeling: On the special spotted owl management zone, can the minister give me the definition of what a zone represents?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is one of those things that was put out at the time in the press package. The basic information is available, and the definition is in there. That's why . . . . If the member has a line of questioning on some of these things, when basic

definitions, which we put out at the time, are available to every grade 5 student that wants to look at the lower mainland . . . . I'll reiterate it to try to assist the debate, but this is what takes the time.

[ Page 5412 ]

Special management areas are areas that are available for resource harvesting. In these, one of the guidelines is for owl management. There are other special features that are planned for, and the guidelines are put out by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment.

[3:45]

T. Nebbeling: To help the minister a bit, the biologists who have been used in the past by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment to establish livable habitat for an owl had a formula whereby an area of 33,000 acres was going to be needed to sustain the livability of an owl. Of those acres, two-thirds had to be old-growth forest.

If, in a particular area -- I'm giving the minister the definition -- the two-thirds old growth was not achievable, then the land was to be expanded until such time as the equivalent of two-thirds of old growth was represented in that so-called special spotted owl management area. The reason I'm bringing this to the minister's attention is that there are, as he identified before, 18 of these special spotted owl management areas, which is an enormous amount of land.

If you take away two-thirds of the land from each of the areas, then my question to the minister is: does that leave enough harvestable timber for a company to go in? With these restrictions of access to the timber in a certain area, does it justify the cost to the government to be working together with the companies when it comes to road building and other parts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because we're aren't dealing with a uniform old-growth forest, we're not taking away two-thirds. It's only where there is remaining old growth that two-thirds of the old growth need to be maintained. That's defined as a hundred years, which is still a fairly young tree. So it's not like two-thirds of these areas have been removed from timber harvesting.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I heard it wrong, but did the minister say that it's not as clear-cut as that, because not all these spotted owl management areas have two-thirds old growth?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm saying that not all of the special management areas are covered with old growth; therefore, to suggest that two-thirds of the areas are removed is wrong. It's only that you have to maintain, in old-growth state, two-thirds of the areas that are of old growth -- that is, over a hundred years. Two-thirds of that has to be maintained -- not the rest of the land base.

T. Nebbeling: It's not for me to criticize the minister for having the wrong facts, but I believe that a minimum amount of two-thirds, representing a set land mass, is required by the biologist as the minimum land mass that a spotted owl can survive in. If it is in a couple or a pair, as they often live together, the land mass is still extended on that basis of the old growth . . . . Well, I'm not going to give you the definition, because all I'm asking you right now is just by memory, having studied that whole issue considerably.

Although I have more questions on this particular subject, the reason that I took this little side tour, when we were talking about the protected-areas strategy, is that when I was talking about the impact on people of seeing that land set aside, when I was talking about the impact on companies of seeing that land being set aside, the minister kept saying: "Well, you name them. You name companies, you name people, and I'll give you an answer."

The reason that I went to the spotted owl, if they are indeed included in the protected-areas strategy or the land, is that the minister is looking at permit applications right now. I think there are two from one company. They were caused by this particular company being taken out of a certain area where the protected spotted owl management status was in place, and it just did not leave enough harvestable timber in that particular cutblock to make it an economically viable proposition. I know that alternative land sites were identified, with the assistance of the district manager in Squamish.

The company still had to go through . . . . I won't say a bidding system, but they still had to put in a bid that they were not 100 percent sure was going to be successful for them. However, I believe they succeeded in getting two alternative sites and are in the process of going through the whole permit application. That company, because of the protected-areas strategy and the spotted owl and the requirements that are set out under the guidelines, did lay off a number of people last year who were working for them directly. It did stop some truck loggers from having work.

But more subtly than that, it also stopped one of the mills in Squamish -- because we are talking about the Squamish area. It shut down and laid off nine people, directly. And that was all because of the spotted owl and the protected-areas strategy. So when the minister is asking me why I'm so persistently asking about what has been done with people who have been displaced from working in the forests in these areas, that is just one example I have in mind.

I've spoken to the district manager about whether there is a way to fast-track this whole process for that individual. I don't mandate -- that's not my role -- but I've tried to find some ways of getting that particular company back in operation again. In a small community like Squamish, seeing a number of people like that being laid off has a serious impact on the social well-being and the economic well-being of these people and the community.

So I'm asking the minister again, now that I have illustrated one area where companies were not allowed to or could not economically harvest timber because of the regulations imposed through the protected-areas strategy or a component of the protected-areas strategy -- the spotted owl protected-area management strategy . . . . There must be more examples. Can the minister, maybe now that I've given an example, give me an idea whether there are other areas where the same type of problems have arisen -- be it in the Fraser . . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are many reasons why there might be a displaced forest worker, as I said in earlier commentary, so we don't have one monitoring system that is tracking for layoffs from a land use decision. I mean, the spotted owl is only one management consideration. There's watershed management and a whole lot of other things that are reasons why permits might not be granted.

But you started your line of questioning around protected areas, and I said: "No, people are not allowed to operate in protected areas; we try to find alternatives." Yes, there are constraints, and I mentioned that, and the spotted owl is one of them. But let me say that we have letters from virtually every company that's affected by spotted owl management; they've accepted the strategy. They understood that without any mitigation, there could have been job loss, and we've found a plan where, for the short and long term, we won't see job loss because of the spotted owl decision.

Now, there may be individual troubles getting permits out, but that happens every day. As I said, it would be foolish to think we wouldn't have concerns and troubles getting permits out, because the alternatives have the landscape wide-open to log anywhere, anytime. Clearly there are constraints, and we're trying to manage them. And yes, district

[ Page 5413 ]

managers . . . . I don't think you were listening when I gave you the answer about the monitoring. The district manager would watch what's going on and try, if there's any way legally possible, to fast-track permits. I'm sure that's happening; I know that's happening. They're under instructions to do that.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: In the gallery today we have five people from the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, of which Terrace is a major part. They are here meeting with various cabinet ministers in the next few days. We have present Andy Burton, who is the mayor of the district of Stewart; Rich McDaniel, a councillor of the city of Terrace and a director of the regional district; Jim Thom, a director from the district of Kitimat; and Les Watmough, a director from Thornhill. With them is staff member Andy Webber, who is the economic development officer, I believe. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: I would also like to add a welcome to the group on behalf of this side of the House. I have met with many of the representatives of the communities, and I know that they have a mission here in Victoria. I wish you all success, and I wish that you reach the objective you came here to find. Good luck.

Again, to the minister. The minister complained that . . . . No, I'm not going to start off like that, because then blood pressure will rise again. The minister explained earlier on that the information on these issues that comes to the ministry here in Victoria comes from the district via the district manager. This particular case has been going on for well over a year. I believe -- as a matter of fact, I know -- that the logging operation manager has been here in Victoria talking about this particular issue, as well.

When I asked if there were any operators who had to leave as a consequence of the spotted owl or the protected-areas strategy, which includes the spotted owl land management plan, I would have thought that the minister or his advisers would have been aware of these kinds of issues. If I know for sure about this particular one, how many others are there?

Maybe the minister can explain how the process works -- the process of getting feedback from the district managers or regional managers when it comes to these pretty serious situations where livelihoods are at stake. As I said before, I will always continue to push when that happens. Everytime a logger is out of work, out of a mill, the family suffers with that individual, and I will not just sit back and let it happen without fighting.

If the minister is relying on the information that comes from the district, can the minister please explain how the district communicates that information to him? Why is it that this particular issue, which has now been brought to the forefront by me, has been going on for well over a year? Let's say it's a year, and the issue is not known by the ministry's representative.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can assure the member that it is known, and I can assure him that if he is pointing to a specific situation that he has been well aware of, then he owes it to those people to have written the letter, to have asked about it and to be accountable -- and not wait for estimates to do that. I'm sure the district manager has been dealing with the situation. I don't have an explanation, but we have staff out there phoning the district manager now.

I would suggest that if there are any other districts where you want specific information, tell us. We'll phone, and we'll endeavour to have the information here so that we can expedite the debate. I did assure you that yes, there would be impacts from resource management decisions, and there are. Whether it's a community that doesn't want the watershed logged or it's somebody who has recently identified an endangered species, there are many reasons that there may be some disruption.

We do care. Our managers care; the ministry cares. The minister cares, as you say you care, about families that are thrown out of work, but if we don't do the land use planning and if we don't provide for things like the spotted owl, then there is potential that world opinion . . . . The purchasers of our goods would stop purchasing, and people would be out of work for other reasons. Then you would damn us. The opposition and the public would damn us for not taking action, for not being out ahead of it and doing land use planning.

I submit to you that the responsible thing, even though it means change and even though things can't go on as they were, forever the same . . . . We have reached limits. We have taken responsible action. I can assure the member that the spotted owl mitigation strategy, which results in no net loss of jobs, has been a wonderful example of how, by working with companies, unions and the ministries, we can actually accommodate a very smooth transition for what could have been a very dramatic change.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the minister's answer, in particular because it includes much of what I have done on behalf of this company in Squamish. I have communicated with the Ministry of Forests. I have been able to get appointments for these people at the time they were needed, so I have played my role. It was just that I was surprised that nobody in the ministry was aware of this particular situation, because of its uniqueness.

When it comes to my criticizing the Ministry of Forests because of what they do, the minister says: "Well, if we do this, we'll be damned; but if we do that, we'll be damned." Maybe always having that pendulum swing from one side to the other . . . . Maybe the minister should do what I would very much be doing if I were in his shoes, and that is finding a balance between the needs of the environment and the needs of the communities. That balance is what I would be looking for.

We seem to have that pendulum swing going on all the time, with three or four years of extreme protective regulations on the environment having led to serious, serious undermining of the viability of many communities, because of the implementation of all these rules and regulations that were very much focused on the environment and nothing else. Well, the pendulum seems to be going the other way. We now seem to be handing the whole industry over to the union, which is the other side.

I wish that one day we could be talking here in the House and agree that between the two extremes, there is an area where we can find common ground, where we can prosper and where we do not have to have all this action based on trying to extinguish a fire here and a fire there.

[ Page 5414 ]

So no, I would not always be criticizing the minister, and I would not always be damning the government if there were more common sense and more direction toward a balanced solution for how we deal with the forest industry and, in particular, how we deal with the people who have earned a livelihood from the forest industry and who were counting on that as a future for their children as well. Going from left to right -- the swinging of that pendulum to the extremes -- has taken a lot of that certainty away.

That is my response to what the minister just said. But earlier on, the minister actually made a point . . . . No, before I go to that point, I would like to ask my colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca to take the floor for a little while.

P. Nettleton: What I would like to do, if I may, is conclude a series of questions that I commenced . . . . I was going to say "last night" but in fact, it was this morning at roughly 2:15 a.m. As I said, I have a series of brief questions dealing with the whole question of the auditor general's audit of the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests. The general concerns that had been raised . . . .

I should back up a step and say that I represent the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Some of the concerns that have been raised have been brought to my attention from people working in the field -- that is, with the ministry -- in Prince George-Omineca, which includes a number of the outlying communities.

Some of the general concerns that have been raised and that have been brought to my attention, and that I, in turn, bring to the attention of the minister -- hoping for some clarification -- include the mandatory control of transported and decked timber reconciliation, the improved cut or cruise comparisons, improving the cruising checks, documenting revenue risk or revenue risk management plans, off-hours field inspections, improving waste surveys, implementing load description slips, off-hours check scale and site inspections, and increased reconciliation of scale data.

The scaling program of revenue . . . . The responsibility for the majority of this new workload will fall on the shoulders of the scaling program, which is responsible for approximately $1.8 billion in stumpage fees and the resultant revenues to the ministry -- approximately $20 million to $60 million per person, depending on the region.

Some of the problems associated with this program that have been related to me are that, due to cutbacks and early retirement, the provincial scaling program stands at an approximate 25 percent vacancy rate, and apparently some regions are above that figure. The question which would flow from that, assuming that that is the case -- that in fact the program stands, as I say, at an approximate 25 percent vacancy rate, which seems incredibly high, and that some regions are above that . . . . Why are some positions not being filled? That would be my first question to the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not filling positions sometimes because . . . . From time to time we freeze hiring in order to stay within our budget so that the opposition doesn't criticize us for going over on our FTEs.

P. Nettleton: But in terms of the impact of not filling those vacancies, it seems to me that there are difficulties that arise in terms of doing the job. Perhaps the minister may wish to comment on the downside of not filling these positions, in terms of, as I say, assuring that the stumpage fees -- which are considerable, $1.8 billion -- are in fact correctly reported to the ministry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think the member should assume that because there's a vacancy, there's lost revenue. The scalers are doing checking, and the scaling is taking place. The audits we do, in fact, show very good performance.

There is in fact one competition going on to fill the positions. But I just want to say to the member that we do go through early retirements, and if you lose people, you replace them as soon as you can. The managers do the very best they can so that there is no loss of revenue.

In general terms, we're acting on every recommendation of the auditor general's report we can act on in order to try to attain the revenues for the province. It's a very easy argument to say: "Spend more money so that you earn more money." Well, you'd argue that government would be too big. So I just caution the member that there really needs to be some consistency.

We are managing to our budget. We're managing to the number of FTEs, and occasionally in some places we're short of staff. But even though we're short of staff, the managers are managing, and they're doing as good a job as they can.

P. Nettleton: It's been suggested as well that there's no support for people in these positions -- that's within the scaling program -- from the revenue branch. It's been further pointed out that scalers are the lowest-paid people in operations. In addition to that, there has been no effort to resolve a three-year classification issue. Could the minister comment upon that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to assure the member that the auditor general is pleased, having just gone through a review. I know the auditor general's report has gone through the Public Accounts Committee. It just finished this morning. The Public Accounts Committee, I understand, is pleased with the progress that's been made.

With respect to scaler pay levels, that is currently in arbitration right now. It's gone to arbitration. I've actually met with representative scalers; I know it's an issue. They feel that the public scalers have to have a decent wage or we'll lose people to the private sector. We certainly have to have good people working for the public sector. Having said that, we could make that argument about a number of public sector areas. But this is critical, and we will do everything we have to do to ensure that we get the return to the Crown.

P. Nettleton: It's also been suggested that . . . . I mentioned the classification issue, and I believe the minister responded to that. However, it has been suggested that the ministry is experiencing some difficulty attracting people to the positions when they are advertised as a result of the difficulties associated with the question of pay as well as with the classification issue.

Another result, apparently, that has been brought to my attention -- and perhaps the minister can comment on this -- is that when positions are filled they are quite often by unqualified or unlicensed persons. This seems to happen particularly in the north. The result, of course, would appear to be that the programs suffer -- as a result, as I say, of the positions being filled by unqualified or unlicensed personnel.

It has further been suggested that -- being a little more specific -- this may explain why revenue in the Mackenzie district was down $30 million in 1996, when stumpage went up. Perhaps the minister could comment on those specific examples of difficulties associated with this area.

[ Page 5415 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we are unaware of any scaler positions being filled by unqualified people. They are licensed; scalers have to be licensed. The pay scale is in arbitration. There are often disagreements between the advocacy ministry and the one that's doing the approving; that sometimes happens. It all has to do with overall cost control and responsibility to the taxpayer.

As for $30 million in revenue that we don't have, I don't know where that would be. I'm just unaware, and my officials are unaware, of where that might be.

P. Nettleton: I don't know -- perhaps the minister would have further comment after consulting with his deputies. But the information I have, as I say, is that the revenue in the Mackenzie district was down some $30 million when stumpage was up.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It could be just a matter of when it was scaled. I don't know -- maybe cut control, maybe market, maybe weather. But I'm unaware of a connection due to scaling, because our people do check-scaling. The scaling is done on contract, and it has to be scaled because it has to be billed. So the function of the government scalers is check-scaling.

I could look at it, but our officials are not aware that there was an anomaly there. It is not unusual that a district would have revenues down for some reason, but I don't think that it would be because of check-scaling -- because overall, the check scales just check to make sure that the scaling is correct. No billing is held up because of check-scaling.

[4:15]

P. Nettleton: If the minister has further additional information following the estimates at any point, in reference to why it is that the revenues are down in the Mackenzie district, that would certainly be helpful from my point of view. Some of the results, as I say, associated with the whole question of scaling have been . . . . Scalers have apparently been moving to other positions, and revenue is down in some districts. One district that I've highlighted is the Mackenzie district.

A couple of questions, if I may, just in conclusion, in regards to this whole question of the auditor general and the audit of the revenue branch of the ministry. What was the director of the revenue branch doing visiting each targeted district -- telling them what to get ready before the auditor arrived?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My understanding is that it's totally normal and that it would be irresponsible not to be ready for an audit. You've got to prepare information to make the auditor's time effective, and I'm told it's normal procedure for this to happen.

P. Nettleton: Perhaps there is implicitly some suggestion that if the targeted district is told in advance what to get ready before the auditor arrives, there may be some opportunity to conceal difficulties if in fact there are difficulties. It seems to me that one of the objectives of an audit would be to assess if everything is as it should be. It seems to me that there are arguments to be made on both sides. But in any event, if, as you have suggested, that is standard practice, that is indeed the way it is.

One final question, if I may, in reference to the whole question of audits. I'm just wondering why so few people are responsible for the collection of so much revenue, in reference to the whole question of audits.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We collect all the revenue, except for 3 cents on every hundred dollars. So we haven't had a problem collecting the revenue. I mean, you can always be better, but it's not because we haven't got enough people.

It is standard practice that an audit plan is given in advance and is usually agreed upon. Audits are not surprises. When they're in a district office, they randomly select certain files to check.

P. Nettleton: Changing direction for a moment, a constituent has raised a concern with me in reference to a woodlot licence, and I'll just very briefly relay his concerns to the minister. Estimates does provide an opportunity to raise some of these individual concerns, and I would appreciate the opportunity to raise this gentleman's concern.

This is from a Mr. Tutte regarding woodlot licence 248. His letter to the minister indicates that he is protesting the current high stumpage rates and that he wishes to draw to the minister's attention that from his point of view, the stumpage rates have risen from 50 cents to $65 or more per cubic metre over the course of the past 15 years. Apparently, 15 years ago Forestry looked after silviculture, permits, roadbuilding, landings, cruising, inventory, etc. Obviously there was no Forest Practices Code to be interpreted. He also makes the point that we are much closer to utilization to adhere to . . . which is an extra added cost to the operator. He ends his comments by saying:

"I feel that some of the expenses could be saved by the ministry by providing blanket working and management plans and doing away with the cruise. Inventory could be done less often, and stumpage rates could be kept more current -- that is, one month should be sufficient to revise the rates."

Those are his comments and concerns and suggestions. Could the minister please comment on those concerns? He makes the point that he would be thrilled if stumpage rates were lowered -- for instance, to $30 per cubic metre.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm aware that that woodlot licensee has written, and I'm sure our staff has looked into it. I don't recall whether I replied to the letter or not. But yes, there has been a dramatic increase. I guess we've moved from the 50-cent wood days and away from subsidies to trying to run the ministry and do the stewardship and not having the taxpayers pick up the costs of other people making a living. The Forest Practices Code and the planning regime for woodlots will be changing dramatically. We will pass that legislation later this session. That will dramatically help those people who are planning their woodlots. It will require, for example, one plan, as opposed to many plans.

P. Nettleton: At this point I will defer to the questions of the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate my colleague coming in for ten minutes so that I could get some more information on the protected-areas strategy and the elements that are included, including the spotted owl, because I believe it is more serious than it may look on the surface.

One thing gave me great satisfaction, and that is that when we were talking about the need for communication between parties that feel that they are negatively affected by

[ Page 5416 ]

the decision to set certain land matters aside for parks purposes . . . . The minister feels that if the ministry becomes aware of these cases through proper communications, then, as a ministry, there will be options to have some mitigating solutions to the problems. What I have seen so far -- maybe it is lack of communication; I don't know -- is that for the people I have dealt with, in order to get assigned in a new cutblock or have the opportunity to bid on a new timber licence, it has been less than a pleasant experience. So maybe the minister could give me a bit of an idea . . . .

He said that once we know about this we can find some mitigating measures or take some mitigating steps to help these operators. Could he share with me what he has in mind when he speaks of mitigating measures?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, we may have to zero in on the specifics. But if a company doesn't have any tenure, then it is difficult. They then have to bid on sales, and sales may or may not be available in time. But mitigation would involve a district manager looking at alternative harvesting areas.

T. Nebbeling: To be a little bit more specific -- although I've already mentioned the situation -- what mitigating measures would the minister feel would be considered by the Ministry of Forests, be it through the manager or through the minister's office itself, when it finds out that a particular operator has the right to harvest in a certain area, then the spotted owl issue rears it head and decisions are made based on expectations of owls being in a certain area -- it is not necessarily proven . . . ? The moment an owl has been identified, heard or sighted, special status is given to the land mass.

We were talking earlier about what size of land mass has to be set aside to accommodate the livability of an owl. I said 3,200 acres, but it is actually 3,200 hectares. So that is a significant amount of area for one bird. Taking that into consideration, if that land is in an area that was applied for through a timber licence, then we can see what hardship this is going to cause.

When a particular operator -- and I mentioned a situation earlier on -- faces a situation where four cutblocks that the logging company was intending to harvest . . . . Suddenly these owls cause that land to get spotted owl management status, thereby taking so much of the harvestable timber away that the financial viability of that whole exercise is no longer there and thereby basically causing the cutting permit to be lost. What kind of mitigating measures does the minister think would be in order under these circumstances? As the minister indicated earlier, that is part of the role of dealing with these problems. So here's a specific situation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I assume the member is talking about the spotted owl strategy, although from time to time he mentions protected areas.

There is an economic strategy being developed by government with the unions and companies to address the social and economic impacts from reductions in timber supply related to the management of the spotted owls in the Chilliwack and Squamish forest districts.

"The strategy will ensure that mitigating direct job loss is the focus of any initiatives, thereby minimizing indirect or induced job loss. Funding sources, such as Forest Renewal B.C. will play a fundamental role in the development of mitigation measures . . . . "

It goes on. It's in the public document.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much for that very detailed and clear explanation of what would be done for companies and forest workers who, through no fault of their own, are losing their way of making a living because of the protection standards that have been set by the government, be it on the basis of a study area or be it on the basis of a confirmed area. It's quite frightening for me to hear that the only mitigation the minister can talk about is a strategy committee, consisting of various groups, that is looking at this issue.

We should realize that the whole spotted owl issue has been around for about four or five years now. I think it started in 1994. I know the last SORT report -- the spotted owl recovery team report -- was in 1994. So the issue itself was around since 1992 or 1993. Since that time there has been a tremendous amount of land set aside. We're talking about land in the order of 230,000 hectares in the Upper Fraser, in the Chilliwack timber supply area, and in the Soo TSA. So we're talking about an enormous amount of land.

[4:30]

For the minister to say at this point that so far all we have achieved is a committee to deal with the problems that have been going on for years now . . . . I really wish the minister would take the initiative to get closure to this whole issue, because the longer we keep talking about it and the longer we keep studying it, the more often we change the terms for how we're going to deal with it.

If we are going to come to a not unlikely situation, which is comparable to what happened in Oregon and in Washington . . . . Just to give the minister some logistics, 200 sawmills were closed down in Washington. Why? Because there was so much fibre that was designated as "protected while we study the matter" or was designated: "We know what's going on there, so therefore that fibre is no longer available" -- 200 sawmills in one state alone, only because there was no fibre available.

The minister must understand that that had an incredible impact on other communities. When I say Washington, it was Washington, Oregon, Idaho and northern California. So it was that land mass where the old forest -- and second-growth forest, actually -- formed habitat for the spotted owl. So whole towns actually disappeared, and we saw job losses of between 20,000 and 30,000 directly related to the spotted owl issue.

Well, here we are today: 18 special spotted owl management areas. Every time we hear an owl somewhere in the bush, I suppose we will see another area set aside, and every time we talk about that, there are potential losses of workers. At this time -- still, after all these years -- there is no clear mitigating package for companies that assures them that they do not have to face what this particular company that I talked about earlier on is facing. It took them an incredibly long time to get a commitment for timber.

Then, having to go through the process, which delayed matters further, has caused a number of people to be unemployed, walking around the town of Squamish and the town of Pemberton. That's just one example.

I hope that the minister, when I come back later on tonight, can talk in a little bit more detail about these mitigating measures that are contemplated. If there's any way we can speed it up so that people out there who have to live with this process know that something is happening and that it is not, after five years, still up for discussion by a committee . . . .

[ Page 5417 ]

If the minister would like to respond to that, that's fine. But certainly, on behalf of hundreds of people who fear that they're going to lose their jobs, I urge the minister to start initiating some leadership and making sure that these people will get their jobs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member would suggest that the situation is somehow parallel to that in the United States, where whole towns are shut down. There won't be any whole towns shut down in British Columbia because of spotted owls. I wouldn't want the public to get some idea that there are any parallels whatsoever.

Five years is a long time -- but it isn't a long time, you know? Overcutting has been with us for a long time. The destruction of fish habitat has been with us for a long time. Logging at accelerated rates -- overcutting -- has been with us. Living with inadequate inventories has been with us for decades. In five or six short years, we've tried to bring these things to resolution. I'm pleased to say that we now have a spotted owl mitigation plan in place, which the companies bought into and the unions bought into. We have a land use plan on which the committee found consensus.

We don't have expressions of concern in the Chilliwack forest district. Apparently, on both the spotted owl and protected area, there aren't a lot of concerns. In Squamish, I don't believe I have one letter of concern about the spotted owl. And I don't think I've heard from the member about concerns. I just say to the member: if he had concerns over the last year or since the decision, why didn't he write about those concerns? Then you're doing your job, and we can get back to you. If you want to be specific, if it's Squamish sawmills that you want to talk about, we'd be happy to talk about that.

It's a little bit like shadow boxing to suggest that there are all these impacts here. Show us, tell us what they are, and we'll try to deal with the specific impacts. It could be logging in a watershed; it could be a lot of things. But I can tell you that the spotted owl strategy is a major accomplishment. It provides for development plans; it provides for a transition period. It provides plans for mitigation -- there are funds there for mitigation -- and I think it's been a good job. The government officials, the companies, the workers and the communities who worked on it have done a wonderful job trying to reconcile conflicting values.

T. Nebbeling: Before I hand over, just for the record, I want to make sure that I have been very specific on the spotted owl issue. I have been very specific in naming a company losing four licences because of the spotted owl. It happened. I don't understand why the minister keeps saying that the spotted owl has not played a role in this particular issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No one over here heard you say "four licences." You may have thought you said it, but you didn't say it.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member didn't say "four licences" -- okay? So let's make it absolutely clear that if you're talking about four licences, tell us the name of the company and we'll go looking for it. You said "nine jobs." I said: "Well, we'll go look and try to find where those nine jobs are."

I'm saying that to wait till the House . . . . I didn't say there wasn't any impact. I'm just saying no one has brought to my attention specific impacts. If they had, I would have been happy to chase it and find it. We've just phoned our district managers, and they're working on the problem.

The member suggested that there were impacts in the Chilliwack area. He also suggested that there were parallels, where they shut down whole towns. But that member should rest assured that there will not be any whole towns shut down because of the spotted owl. In fact, we have a mitigation strategy, which means the spotted owl won't create job loss. The companies and the unions agree to that and are working on that, and I think that's wonderful. So for the member to keep saying, time and time again . . . . He ad nauseam repeats the same rhetoric. It gets to be a tone that sounds very much like whining.

T. Nebbeling: No doubt the minister will check Hansard and see that I am not whining. I have explained that I have indeed been a mediator between a logging company that has lost its licences because it can no longer go into an area that has been given the status of spotted owl management area . . . . I indicated to the minister earlier on -- he may not have listened -- that I have been able to put the lines of communication in place so that the companies are talking with the ministry. I have been able to tell the minister that in the Chilliwack area, the largest amount of land for the spotted owl has been set aside. So if the minister had listened, he would have heard that.

I have not indicated in any way, shape or form that towns would be shut down. But I have said that if this government, after five years of facing this problem and not having done anything . . . . When I asked if there was a mitigation plan in place, it was still under study by various groups, according to the minister, and Hansard will show that.

Only then did I make the point that if this government doesn't get its act together and start organizing what can go wrong, then we can face situations like we have seen in Washington and Oregon and other states in America, where, because of the spotted owl and land being designated as a protected area for the spotted owl, 20,000 to 30,000 jobs went astray.

So that concern has been there since 1993, and that concern will continue to be there until this government sets up a firm plan -- not another interim plan, not an intent plan, but a firm plan -- saying: "This is how we're going to deal with it once and forever, and this is the amount of land we set aside" -- not every time an owl is heard, another piece of land goes aside, starting the whole process all over again.

So I'm not whining. My blood pressure is still where it ought to be. I suggest to the minister that he listen when I speak rather than being in conference with his assistants, because he seems to be missing a lot of information that may have helped speed this whole process up. The whole discussion came up as: what are the mitigating elements that are in place today to deal with logging companies that lose land and timber rights because of the spotted owl?

Having said that, I will happily yield to my colleague from Cariboo North.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let the record show that I didn't say it was under study. There is a plan. After five years, there's a spotted owl management plan. It is a plan. You can read the words; it's written. We have a plan, and part of it is to work on . . . . There is more work to be done. To think that there's a blueprint for every stick of wood that's going to be cut and every piece of land is naïve in the extreme.

So there are mitigation procedures. It is under development. But you can't develop mitigation strategies until you

[ Page 5418 ]

have a plan. It is very elementary that you can't have a mitigation plan until you know what you want your mitigating for. I want the record to be absolutely clear.

J. Wilson: It's a pleasure to get up today and address some issues that have come to my attention. Quite a few problems have developed within the Ministry of Forests over the last few years, more so since the NDP government came to power. These problems are basically with small individuals -- small contractors. They feel that in some cases the ministry has not dealt fairly with their problems or their concerns. As a result, when they're handed a decision they can't live with, they keep on fighting. It would appear that quite a few of them are finally coming to a head, and we will perhaps see the end of it in the next year or so.

The first issue I have is with a small contractor who lives in the Prince George area. There was a series published by a writer for the Prince George Citizen by the name of Fred Gudmundson. He listed the problems this individual encountered in his dealings with the Minister of Forests and his desire to try and create employment for himself and other people, and to be able to carry on independently and create a living for himself. This gentleman's name is Bruce Bressette.

I have a few questions that are related to this. As I go through, I will probably ask the minister if he can answer some of these questions. I have no idea whether this information as it was printed in the Prince George Citizen is factual or not, but I assume it is, because most of these things have been documented at one point or another.

[4:45]

"Bruce Bressette is but one of many independent logging contractors, those whose entrepreneurial spirit, drive, skills, sweat and guts enriches the province and are all too often rewarded by arbitrary deeds of insular bureaucrats, seemingly bent on driving them out of business. Why? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly no one within the Ministry of Forests, right up to and including Forests Minister [at that time] Andrew Petter.

"By way of clarification, truly independent logging contractors refuse to make deals with the forest giants. They operate by way of bidding on timber sales periodically tendered by [the Ministry of Forests], harvest the timber, sort it by species and grade and sell it to whoever pays the highest price. To bid, a contractor must have a special licence issued by the ministry under its small business forest enterprise program (SBFEP). The SBFEP was established under the Socred regime to squelch criticism over concentration of control over B.C.'s forest industry by a decreasing number of increasingly powerful corporations.

"The SBFEP did nothing to dilute this power under either the Socreds or the NDP, and that's an interesting issue in itself. The SBFEP issues licences under two categories. Category 1 is for contractors who have no milling operations and intend only to harvest and sell to mills . . . . Category 2 is held by small, usually specialty mills using relatively small volumes with the balance sold to the big outfits.

"In the summer of 1993, Bressette used his SBFEP category 1 licence to bid for the right to harvest a block of timber designated as TSL A45809, located southeast of Valemount, in the Robson Valley forest district, with offices in McBride. He had an enviable track record: no infractions, no requests for extensions, no trespasses -- no violations of any kind. Until the fall of 1993 he was a tried, tested and proven manager of forest operations.

"Preparing a good bid costs money. Bressette was thorough, and guess what? He discovered large volumes of high-grade spruce and fir amidst the stand deemed by MOF to be infested with fir beetles, low-value hemlock and hollow cedar. Block A45809 was referred to as a 'salvage' operation by the ministry. Hence the ministry set an 'upset' (minimum) bid price at $12.96 per cubic metre, which was high enough for salvage timber, given market conditions in July of 1993, when tenders were advertised.

"A low upset bid underscores the ministry's assessment and invites low bonus bids. Bressette, having spent his own time and money doing his homework, ignored Forestry's assessment and submitted a bid based on his own findings. When the bids were opened on August 3, 1993, the lowest bid was $1.29 per cubic metre, followed by $5.54, $6.29, $8.60 and Bressette's winning bid of $30.40. This, coupled with Forestry's upset price, meant he would pay $43.46 per cubic metre for the right to harvest an estimated 17,811 cubic metres on timber sale A45809.

"What this means to taxpayers is illustrated by calculating the returns to the Crown. MOF's upset price would return $231,000; the second highest bid $340,000. Bressette's bid would pour $772,000 into public coffers from a 'salvage' operation on 39 hectares of fir-beetle-infested Crown land -- a whopping 335 percent increase over MOF expectation based on their own upset rate.

"Why was Bressette's bid so high? Simple. Aside from his knowledge of forest operations, he doodles away time on related matters. Among other things, he scans factors like interest rates, exchange rates, market conditions, lumber inventories, housing starts, projected construction needs and a host of subjects that good small businesses try to do and all the giants retain hordes of analysts to perform as a matter of routine. So when he prepared his bid for A45809 in July 1993, he knew, just as the multinationals knew, the price of forest products was about to soar. In short, he's an interloper infringing on the turf of the mighty, and he'd be made to pay.

"Bruce Bressette was in a hurry following his August 3 win, because work on the tender was to be completed by December 3, 1993. He deposited the $35,000 required by the ministry for security deposits and signed the timber sale licence, which included a comforter in clause 1:02: 'The term of this licence is for four months commencing August 3, 1993, provided, however, that the licensor or district manager may grant extensions on such terms as he may deem appropriate.' Comforters are important for those contending with vagaries of weather" -- as we'll see.

"Bruce Bressette needed clause 1:02 in the A45809 timber sale licence. Clause 1:02 stated: 'The term of this license is for four months commencing August 3, 1993, provided, however, that t