Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 7 -- Wednesday, May 3, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

[ Page 15259 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two introductions. Firstly, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These men and women have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations to the order and select the recipients for the June investiture. I understand that there were 136 nominations this year from every corner of the province, with many submitted by members on both sides of the chamber.

The advisory council is chaired by the Hon. Allan McEachern, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for B.C. It includes, of course, our Speaker; Mayor Steve Thorlakson of Fort St. John, who is the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Dr. Gerry Kelly, president of Royal Roads University; Ms. Lyn Tait, who is the deputy minister of the intergovernmental relations secretariat; and two members of the order, Dr. Beverly Witter Du Gas of Vancouver and Mr. Charan Gill of Surrey. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

[1410]

I have another introduction to make. I take extreme pleasure in welcoming Sohini Chowdhary, an exchange student from Lawrence School in Sanawar, India. Sohini's mother, who I actually talked to a few weeks ago -- she called to congratulate me for my new position -- is the Member of Parliament for the area from which I came to British Columbia. Sohini is accompanied by Charles Peacock, the Glenlyon-Norfolk Senior School headmaster, and her host family, Arthur, Mimi and Liam Warren. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hope the House will help me make welcome an old friend of mine, Gord Zeilstra, who's here from Cambridge, Ontario. He was here for a while in British Columbia and went back to find work in a more prosperous province. I don't know if his $200 cheque is in the mail or not, but I'm sure he's paying lower taxes. He has brought with him three friends: Andrew Hatch, Adrianne Steel and David Gammon. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

One more introduction. I notice on the floor a former colleague of all of ours, the former member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have two introductions today. First, visiting us in the House today is Nicole Watt, a grade 9 honours student at Melfort Collegiate. Nicole is a world-class skater and recently competed at the Senior Canadians, placing fourth. She has won many medals since she started figure skating at the age of seven, but she's unique in another way. She is also one of four million Canadians who suffer from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis; she was diagnosed with this debilitating illness at the age of eight.

Accompanying Nicole are Maxine Watt, her mother; Cindy Soules, director of communications for the Arthritis Society of B.C.; and Don McDonald of the Robertson Group. Will the House please make them welcome.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment not to make an introduction but to mark the passage of someone who I think meant a great deal to an entire generation of Canadians on both sides of the House. That is Mr. Bob Homme, whose alias, known to all of us, was "The Friendly Giant." He was, for 25 years, very much a part of what it meant to be a kid in British Columbia and Canada. He was a unique Canadian institution known around the world. I know that all of us in this House will miss the Friendly Giant, Rusty and Jerome, and it's fitting that we mark the passage.

Hon. A. Petter: First off, I am also going to acknowledge the presence in the House of the former member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I'll just mention that he happens now to be the vice-president of Simon Fraser University as well as an ongoing chronicler of historic and current events in B.C. politics. I know we all welcome him here and enjoy his presence.

An Hon. Member: His name, his name.

Hon. A. Petter: David Mitchell is his name. There we go. I can say that, you see. All these years of training have prevented me from mentioning anyone's name who sits on the floor of the House.

It's also my pleasure to acknowledge in the gallery a number of articling students from the Ministry of Attorney General who are with us today. These are the articling students who have to deal with some of the laws that we pass here and make sense of them and any number of other activities that they are exposed to during the course of their articles. They are Nan Aulakh, Simon Coley, Kimberly Henders-Miller, John Horsfield, Wanda Kelly, Nancy Pye, Gavin Last and Sherie Verhulst. They're accompanied by a member of the legal services branch, Brian Young. I'd ask the House to join me in making them feel very welcome today.

R. Neufeld: It's not my habit to reintroduce someone, but all members will know that I don't have the opportunity very often to introduce someone from my constituency. I would like the House to make welcome the mayor of that great city of Fort St. John, Mr. Steve Thorlakson.

[1415]

E. Walsh: I'm pleased to introduce two very important people to the House today, and I would ask the House to make them welcome. The reason that they're so important is because they're from Cranbrook, which just so happens to be in my riding. I would ask the House to please welcome Harry and Evelyn Mathias.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure once again to introduce 26 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in my riding. This is the second group that's come this week, and they're along with their teacher, Mrs. Douglas, and five adults. I bid the House make them welcome.

J. Wilson: It's my pleasure today to introduce a constituent who is here visiting the city. I ask that the House make Floral Brown welcome.

J. Cashore: I think that almost all MLAs know Prof. Don Balmer of Lewis and Clark College in Portland. This week he has attended our Legislature for the forty-third time. Professor

[ Page 15260 ]

Balmer had to return early, but there are six of his students in the gallery. Would those students please take to him our very warm regards. Please make them welcome.

Also, hon. Speaker, I want to announce that alias "Don Cherry" -- I have on very good authority -- this morning came within one inch of getting an eagle on the seventeenth hole at Cordova Bay.

S. Orcherton: Joining us today in the gallery are three British Columbians who work very hard on behalf of their constituents and indeed on behalf of and to the benefit of all British Columbians. Joining us today are Mr. Bob Brett, the president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association; Mr. Ed Pakos, the Vancouver Island vice-president; and Mr. Tim Ballie from the Surrey Fire Fighters. They're here today for meetings with the Premier and the Deputy Premier. I'd ask everyone in the House to make them very welcome to these chambers.

I. Chong: I too have the pleasure of introducing some very special people today. Firstly, I have a grade 10 student from Arbutus Junior Secondary School in my riding, who today participated in job shadowing and has enjoyed wandering the precincts and looking at all the various corners where MLAs gather and do business. He is here today to also observe question period and the riveting debate that will occur subsequent to that. Along with this student, Graham Sullivan, is my constituency assistant, Terry Rachwalski, who has never had the opportunity, although in Victoria, to attend question period. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

The Speaker: Members, if I may make an introduction, in the gallery today we have Sher Briach, who is an agriculturist from Abbotsford. I would ask members to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, 24 hours have passed. I've had a chance to do a little bit of research, I've got my arch supports in, and I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday outside this chamber he said that he had known all along that the funding formula for independent schools had been changed. I find that interesting, because unfortunately, no amount of bluster changes the facts. It's interesting how the record comes back to haunt you.

During the campaign for the NDP leadership, on December 15 in Prince George the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the Minister of Education at the time, said with regard to independent schools: "Well, the independent schools are funded by formula, and I can tell you, as the Minister of Education, in the preparation of this year's budget, there is absolutely no proposed change to that funding formula . . . . I can assure you that in what is being prepared there is no recommended change in that formula."

The Minister of Finance is from Prince George. When he heard those comments from the then Minister of Education, why didn't he stand up at that time, correct the record and tell the minister that his information wasn't accurate? Why didn't he do that for the people of this province?

[1420]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it's way outside of ministerial duties, but I will tell the member that I wasn't in Prince George when that debate took place. I simply wasn't there. This decision was made by Treasury Board . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, if the member is going to draw conclusions, at least he should base them on facts.

This was the decision made by Treasury Board in preparation of the budget. It did contemplate a change in funding formula. The Premier has made it very clear that his commitment was to not change the formula. It has not been changed. Independent schools in this province will receive the full amount of funding due to them, including the $5 million that they were concerned about.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday outside this House the Minister of Finance said he knew that the formula had been changed all along. That's what he said outside the House. I assume the member . . . . I know, as a matter of fact, that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast sat on Treasury Board at the time. When the Minister of Finance hears, reads in the media, finds out that the Minister of Education at the time, who sits on Treasury Board, goes out and tells people something that simply is not true on radio in his riding . . . . As Minister of Finance, he would stand up at some point and correct the record.

Did he ever tell the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that that wasn't the case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that this is a strange line of questioning. I know the Liberal opposition found themselves caught flatfooted yesterday. I know they couldn't quite get off the dime and figure out that their second, third and fourth questions were irrelevant, because the Premier had responded to the first one by saying that the $5 million had been restored. But really, this sifting the ashes for some sort of conspiracy is simply irrelevant. The money is there. We are supporting education. We think it's important, and we're going to do it in this province.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader with a further supplemental.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's not like it isn't a pattern for this government to put out false information and just let it hang there. In fact, a little under two weeks ago, on April 20, the Minister of Education stood up in this House -- she sits right beside the Minister of Finance -- and said: "The question of independent school funding and maintaining the kind of per-pupil ratio that has been established has actually been maintained." The Minister of Finance stood outside this House yesterday and said that he knew all along that the funding formula had been changed.

Did he not think, when the Minister of Education made that statement, to lean over and correct her and make sure that she set the record straight and didn't mislead the people of this province?

[ Page 15261 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Although this was a decision, as the Finance minister has referenced, before I was the Minister of Education, I have known all along that this is a regulatory change. When I talk about the per-pupil ratio, the money for teachers is being absolutely passed through to independent schools. I don't believe that would have caused a large difference in per-pupil ratio, but I've always known that it would take a regulatory change to do that. I don't believe that that would have caused a large difference in per-pupil ratio. But I've always known that it would take a regulatory change to do that.

C. Clark: Well, I still want an answer from the Minister of Finance, because during that leadership campaign every single one of the people who were seeking the leadership was swanning around British Columbia telling British Columbians that there would be no cut to funding for independent schools. Meanwhile, he was cooking up a budget that included a $5 million cut.

[1425]

The now Premier promised at least twice that there would be no change in the formula. This minister presented the Premier with the budget, and he never thought to tell him that there was a change. Is he expecting us to believe that he never thought once -- after observing the leadership campaign in action, after hearing the Premier make his promises -- that when he presented him with that budget that represented a broken promise, he should have informed him that he'd broken his promise and that he was going to go back on what he said he would do in the leadership campaign?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The decision to change the funding formula was made by Treasury Board in preparation of the budget. Late in 1999 all officials were fully apprised of that. The budget was tabled on that assumption.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is fascinating to watch this. The important thing, I think, for the children of the province is that the funding is there, that class sizes are going down this year, that portables are being reduced, and that people are being connected to the Internet. Education is a priority for this government, not for that opposition.

The Speaker: Member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain with a supplemental question.

C. Clark: You know, I cannot believe that he expects British Columbians to believe this excuse. I mean, his colleagues are just arguing that they didn't know what was going on. They're arguing ignorance -- total incompetence. They weren't paying attention.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to know what his defence is. Is it the same as his colleagues'? Is he just incompetent and wasn't paying attention to what was going on in his own budget? Was it inconvenient -- he didn't feel like informing the province of what was going on during a leadership campaign? Or has misleading the public become such common practice for this government that when he heard his colleagues misleading British Columbians, he never thought to get out of his chair, inform them and tell them to start telling us all the truth?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the record of this government is absolutely clear in providing assistance . . . . [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the opposition is applauding the record of this government in education, its cutting class sizes in K-to-3, its hiring almost 900 new teachers in the last year and its increasing funding every year, year after year, for the last nine years, what is the position of the opposition? The last time they prepared a budget for British Columbia, or pretended to prepare a budget for the people of British Columbia in 1996, they said, "Oh, we forgot the post-secondary education" -- as if post-secondary education did not exist for the opposition.

Hon. Speaker, we have a vision on this side of the House. Our vision is: we want the people of British Columbia . . . . We want to have a healthy, productive, well-educated workforce living in a healthy, clean environment in British Columbia. That's the vision we have on this side. And for that we need continued increases in funding for education, both for K-to-12 and for post-secondary. I would like to know: what is it that they stand for on the other side?

G. Plant: Here's what we stand for: government should tell the truth.

On December 15, 1999, the three leadership candidates -- I don't think Mr. Werden was in the picture then -- were all over Prince George radio, swearing solemn oaths about independent school funding. And then the Premier becomes a Premier, and he brings a budget into this House. It hides the truth about a $5 million cut in independent school funding, and they don't hide the truth just once. On April 20 the Minister of Education stood up in this House and said that the funding has "actually been maintained." That was not the truth.

How could the Minister of Finance sit there on April 20, while his colleague stood up and said something which he knew was not the truth, and not take the trouble to correct the record?

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, the budget tabled in the House and the estimates show clearly that even with the change in funding formula and the possible reduction, funding for private schools was going up. That's what the budget documents show; that's the reality. That happens to be accurate. If the members want to check estimates, they'll see that both private and public school funding in the documents tabled with the budget show an increase.

As a result of the decision made yesterday, that increase will be even more, because we are going to make sure that the funding formula that has been in place in this province continues this year and continues the next school year.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental question.

G. Plant: There's a term for that answer; it's called wriggle room. It didn't fool the public once, and it won't fool them again. The Minister of Finance says they knew all along that there was a change. Well, on December 15, when the former Minister of Education was on the radio in Prince George, he

[ Page 15262 ]

was on Treasury Board, I think. Did he know the truth at that point? The Premier has been on Treasury Board from time to time. Did he know the truth at that point?

On April 20, when the Minister of Education stood up in the House in answer to our questions and said that the funding had been maintained, was she telling the truth? She has a duty to stand up now and tell us. When did she know that the funding formula had been changed? And when will she apologize to the 60,000 students of British Columbia that she left hanging out to dry week after week?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know that sometimes the best defence is a good offence. But, hon. Speaker, the Liberal opposition was caught flatfooted yesterday. They couldn't figure out how to get off the dime and change their line of questioning. This sort of tack is a wonderful offence. But frankly, they're the ones who couldn't figure out that the Premier had just said that we're going to do exactly what you're urging us to do. That's what happened yesterday, and no amount of bluster today is going to make up for that.

M. de Jong: I guess a government that is in court defending allegations of having lied in its 1995 and 1996 budgets knows all about defence, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member for Matsqui has the floor.

M. de Jong: We've heard about the statements that were made on December 15. We've heard about the statements that the Education minister made on April 20 -- "No change; we're maintaining the funding" -- except that on the very same day, her deputy minister is writing letters acknowledging that exactly the opposite is taking place.

The question that this Minister of Finance doesn't want to answer or apparently is incapable of answering is: why on earth would he sit there between two people who are making exactly the opposite statement to what the public needs to know -- which is the truth, which is that he tabled a budget that cut funding to independent schools in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Point of fact: this year there are 28,000 children or students in independent schools who are actually getting more money than they got last year. This opposition, which is so concerned about education funding, has voted every single, solitary year against more money to educate students in British Columbia. They voted against smaller class sizes for kindergarten-to-grade 3. They voted against 22,000 new spaces in schools this year. They voted against the $227 per-pupil increase in the public school system this year. So their new-found concern about education funding is somewhat suspect.

G. Farrell-Collins: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege regarding comments made by the current Minister of Education.

[1435]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have the honour to present the annual reports of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the years ending 1998 and 1999.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the pleasure to present the 1999 annual report for the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

Hon. H. Lali: I have the honour to present the annual report of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for the period April l, 1998, to March 31, 1999.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I too rise to table an annual report. This one is for the environmental assessment office for the period of April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm rising to present information on annual allowable cuts over the last five years, which the opposition has asked for.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this House, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

[1440]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).

G. Abbott: Yesterday when we adjourned for the evening, we were discussing the Ministry of Forests business plan for 2000-2001. We're on page 24 of that document, discussing the compensation initiative. I think we discussed most aspects of it.

The one question which I posed to the minister was whether there were any discussions or negotiations ongoing with Husby Forest Products regarding the loss of some of their cutting permits and cutting opportunities in the Queen Charlotte Islands. The minister indicated at that time that the ministry -- and I hope I'm not paraphrasing unfairly here -- had an open mind with respect to that issue.

Is there a policy in the Ministry of Forests around compensation for either lands or cutting rights lost as a consequence of the workings of land claims negotiations with first nations? The reason I ask is that in most of the cases of compensation we discussed yesterday, the compensation was for lands acquired for park purposes. But there doesn't seem to be a corresponding policy with respect to opportunities, cutting rights, lost by companies because of the unfolding of aboriginal claims. What policy guides the ministry with respect to that? You can use the Husby Forest Products as an example to explain the ministry's position here.

Hon. J. Doyle: If I could ask the member to hold that question for now. We're bringing the appropriate staff person into the building as we speak.

G. Abbott: We'll come back, and the minister can give me a signal when the appropriate staff person is here.

[ Page 15263 ]

If we can go on to page 25 for the moment, we have the small business 2000 initiative: "Provision of affordable wood to the value-added forestry industry." The first bullet under "Accomplishments" says: "Licences for 3.8 million cubic metres were awarded with an average term of 4.3 years. In return, clients will maintain and create 1,908 jobs annually over the average term of the licences." I find it remarkable that we're able to count the jobs down to "08" on 1,900. I presume that is a cumulative figure based on projections that are offered by a variety of value-added producers on their 20.1 sales.

Is that the case? I'm presuming that the ministry doesn't expend human or other resources to try to track with precision whether in fact we are creating 1,908 jobs annually.

Hon. J. Doyle: That is the case, as the companies that are interested in bids do evaluate how many jobs they will be getting out of that. That's where the information came from -- the 1,908 jobs.

G. Abbott: But the ministry doesn't expend resources to attempt to document that. Is that the case? Or is there some attempt made, at least in a general way, to ensure that those who win those value-added sales do produce some jobs? How does that work?

[1445]

Hon. J. Doyle: Actually, we do talk to the companies. We do our best to evaluate the jobs that they're saying they will create -- that they are effectual.

G. Abbott: Has the ministry identified cases where sales were awarded on the basis of jobs created, later to find that those jobs were not created? And what does the ministry do when they are presented with such a scenario?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry does follow up with the individual successful companies that get this wood to find out if the jobs have been created. But at the same time, if the wood has been cut, there's not much we can do.

G. Abbott: It may be true that there wouldn't be a lot that could be done at that point. I guess the only issue would be if the sale was awarded on the basis of jobs created, as opposed to some competitive market mechanisms that . . . . And this is probably where some of the concerns I occasionally hear come from. If companies are awarded on the basis of job creation promises, they are able to avoid a competitive market situation. Hence another producer who might also like to access that particular volume or profile or fibre is thereby deprived of that opportunity. Is that a scenario that the ministry is seeing. And if so, what can we do about it?

Hon. J. Doyle: When it does happen that a company doesn't produce the jobs that they said, in a sale that they were successful in . . . . If that doesn't happen and they're way out, without any other unforeseen circumstances, it really does jeopardize their chance of getting another sale. So that's one way that we feel we've got some control when they don't deliver.

G. Abbott: I want to move on to the next . . . . I see Mr. McRae is here. Is he your land claims man or your compensation man?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I thought so. Good. I'll pose the question again. Should I repeat the question? Or have you relayed it to Mr. McRae?

Hon. J. Doyle: On the original question that the member asked, the difference between a park and a first nations settlement is that when it is a park that has been settled, as we spoke about yesterday, we pay for 95 percent. When it's for a treaty, we pay for 100 percent. But we only pay when there is a treaty signed.

G. Abbott: I guess what I should ask here is whether the ministry, in making that policy of 95 percent compensation for park and 100 percent for first nation but only after a treaty is signed . . . . Does that represent a strategy on the part of the Ministry of Forests? Or is it a policy that is bound up in legislation?

Hon. J. Doyle: The difference between first nations and a park is in

section 60 of the Forest Act. You do take that 5 percent back; that's the difference. That's the answer to the question.

G. Abbott: I understand the distinction, then, about 95 percent versus 100 percent. That's useful. I guess the more important point, from my perspective, is the issue of not addressing the compensation until after the treaty is signed.

[1450]

Again, if we use the Husby example . . . . I have reviewed that file. But I want to review it again, because we will likely be discussing these issues again in estimates. Is the minister then saying that in the case where Husby's interest is in a portion of land in the Queen Charlottes on which they have established contractual rights, any compensation related to that particular file will have to await a final resolution of those first nations issues?

Hon. J. Doyle: In the Husby area that the question is about, we are talking about a suspension of cutting rights. That is all we are doing at the present time. We are not giving any compensation to the first nations band in that area. Because there's some discussion going on, we're talking about suspending cutting rights.

G. Abbott: Again, I will review the documentation I have on the Husby situation. I think it's an important issue for all members of the House to understand, because obviously instances where this kind of situation occurs are likely to become more common rather than less common over time. Perhaps there are some important principles we need to identify here.

As I understand it, Husby's cutting rights, which are established by contract with the Crown, have indeed been suspended and appear to be suspended for at least the foreseeable future. For the company, obviously the dilemma is not only that they have to lay off staff, lay off their cutting crews and so on, who would be engaged in cutting those areas, but that it also has some very substantial economic impact certainly in the short term and in the longer term, just as long as the situation in that portion of the Queen Charlotte Islands remains unresolved. So the core of the question I'm trying to ask here is: how is the ministry going to deal with established

[ Page 15264 ]

contractual rights which have certainly been lost for the foreseeable future, given that those cutting rights have been suspended as far as the company can see into the future?

Hon. J. Doyle: Government is open to damages to a company like Husby, in this case, for problems, frustrations, that they are going through to do with the cutting rights that they feel they have. Any compensation that government would offer would be for this concern they have when this issue's been settled.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: We are joined today in the gallery . . . . Actually, the official opposition caucus is blessed with the assistance of Christian Kittleson, who works for us during session. His mom Carol Kittleson is here from Pincher Creek, Alberta, as is his wife Meribeth Burton and, perhaps most importantly, his brand-new daughter Kennedy Grace Valentine Kinelson, who is today a celebrating a life of two months and four days. I hope everyone will make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for his response to the question around Husby. Again, I think it is very important . . . . This is as much a statement as it is a question. I think the ministry would be well advised to look, I guess in conjunction with other relevant parts of government, at how to deal with the kind of situation that we see in the Queen Charlottes with Husby Forest Products.

[1455]

Husby is enormously frustrated by the situation, as the minister has acknowledged. They can't get into areas which are economically critical for them to access. Obviously they've made substantial investments in roads and infrastructure in order to access areas where they have a legal right to cut. Because of a suspension which they could not have anticipated, they find themselves in a position not only of suffering economic loss but also of having to put some of their valued employees on the unemployment line.

Again, everyone may be going into this with the best of intentions. Notwithstanding that, I think what we are seeing develop -- and obviously it is developing -- is a most unfortunate situation, where the ministry apparently feels constrained by its policies to act. But at the same time, Husby Forest Products feels that in order to secure some compensation for the economic and other harm that has occurred to them, they need to seek relief in a court of law.

Again, at least in my experience, the court-of-law route is one that is almost invariably less than fully satisfactory either to the government, which is being challenged and which will ultimately have to pay compensation in addition to the legal costs incurred, or of course to the plaintiff, which is obviously expending some of its precious resources on legal actions and will see its day for compensation delayed because of the long legal processes involved.

It just seems to me . . . . I don't think there's any lack of good faith on the part of Husby here. They want to see a resolution to a very difficult situation for them, and they have been compelled to go down the litigation route when I think they would much prefer an opportunity to see some satisfactory negotiation and resolution of this. That's a very long-winded statement but also, I think, an invitation to the minister to work with colleagues to develop some better mechanism to address situations like the one that faces Husby Forest Products.

Hon. J. Doyle: I thank the member for the question, which is a good question. I'd just like to make clear that when I stood up before . . . . The difference between compensation for a settled . . . . Last year we set up a park. Or if a treaty is signed, that is final. The moneys that we are giving to any company, including Husby, would be for the fact that they're delayed in going to work; they have equipment and workers lined up. Maybe you didn't get that from me before. We do agree, and we are in good-faith discussions with Husby because of this concern.

I would agree with you that it would be nice if we could work out some agreement so that there wasn't this uncertainty for a company or for communities that are involved.

D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us, having just performed on the steps out here, is the Handbell Choir, which is the whole of the grade 4-7 class from 70 Mile Elementary. I'm proud to introduce this accomplished class to you. They are sitting in the gallery. Accompanying them are a number of adults and supporters to get them here, like the bus driver. The adults and teachers are Robin Rusau, Gail Moseley, Leslie Dixon, Ray Kline, Heather Muskyne, Carolyn Vink, Cindy Doyle, Sue Wheeler and Rick Kinkhecker. Would the House please make them most welcome.

G. Abbott: I just want to try to summarize the situation and then move on. When we talked about this yesterday, the minister indicated that the government would have an open mind in terms of dealing with the situation which faces Husby Forest Products through negotiation. The responses today would indicate that while the government may have an open mind, they are constrained by existing policy in any negotiation or discussion that might take place. So I guess the upshot of that is: is the minister effectively saying that the only route available for redress for Husby Forest Products at this point in time is through litigation?

[1500]

Hon. J. Doyle: No, there has been no decision made. Maybe one day a decision will be made that they will be allowed back in there to cut. That decision hasn't been made. In the meantime, we can't do any more than what we're doing right now. I would like it if there was. I would like as much as you to find a way to make this more clear for all the people involved.

G. Abbott: The minister mentions that they may be allowed back into that area, the contentious area, to cut at some point. Obviously, from the perspective of Husby Forest Products, it's extremely important for them to know whether the time frame for resolution of the issues which caused the suspension of their cutting rights is six months, a year, two years, five years or indefinite. Clearly, from their perspective, that's a critical thing in making plans for the future. Can the

[ Page 15265 ]

minister today offer to Husby Forest Products a commitment as to when Husby can expect a resolution of the issues which gave rise to the suspension of their cutting rights?

Hon. J. Doyle: We can't give the hon. member or Husby a date at this time, because no final decision has been made on where boundaries are for a park or first nations settlements in this area.

G. Abbott: The minister does acknowledge, though, that Husby Forest Products has legitimate and recognized contractual rights over an area which has now become the subject of larger negotiation around -- at least primarily -- aboriginal claims in the area. I presume that the ministry would have some targets in terms of commencing those negotiations that could resolve that. Is the issue in process, or are we awaiting some development on the first nations side before this larger process either commences or is completed?

Hon. J. Doyle: The suspension that is in place, as far as Husby logging in that area, runs through to December 31 of this year, and we all hope that something is worked out before that time.

G. Abbott: The suspension, as I understand it, runs year to year, and it has been continued from year to year. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: The suspension has been extended one time. It's one year at a time, so it ran out December 31, a few months ago, and is extended now to December 31 again.

G. Abbott: And it is the hope of the ministry that the issues that gave rise to the suspension would be resolved within that time frame -- i.e., by the end of 2000.

Hon. J. Doyle: It is the hope of the ministry that this would be worked out. But as the member is aware, these are difficult issues.

G. Abbott: There is, of course, one other very high-profile compensation case around issues that certainly involve first nations, and that is the well-known Carrier Lumber situation. Is there at this point in time any discussion underway between the Ministry of Forests and Carrier Lumber with respect to resolution of issues between them?

[1505]

Hon. J. Doyle: The issue that you mentioned -- the Carrier Lumber issue -- is under appeal. So the answer is no. The issue is under appeal.

G. Abbott: The case, as I understand it, is that there was of course the ruling in the B.C. Supreme Court. The government has, I believe, served notice that it intends to appeal that decision in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Is there any projected date for when that appeal will be heard?

Hon. J. Doyle: The court hasn't yet given us a date as to when it will sit on this issue.

G. Abbott: The ministry has no intention, in the interim, of attempting to secure an out-of-court settlement with respect to this matter?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no.

G. Abbott: I want to move on now. We may need to revisit this compensation area; I think there's a provision for it later in our estimates. But we can certainly set it aside for now at least.

I want to go on to page 26, if I could, with the minister and just look at a couple of those in the

section "Accomplishments 1999-2000." "Forest Health Initiative: Control of insect damage to mature commercial timber. Completed approximately 3,000,000 hectares of aerial surveys and ground assessments to identify locations of bark beetle infestations."

The province is a big one, as the minister knows so well. The three million hectares of aerial surveys and so on -- do those account just for the highest-priority areas in terms of beetle infestation? I presume, given that we are talking of probably a potential area of infestation of -- I don't know how much -- probably 20 million hectares . . . . Is three million going to take care of the inventory side of things that we need?

Hon. J. Doyle: We did survey three million, but it's about 195,000 hectares that are infected in the province.

G. Abbott: The third bullet under forest health initiative notes: "Streamlined approval processes to authorize a 750 percent increase in the number of logging sites in infestation areas." I know that the Northern Forest Products Association has been working very hard with the Ministry of Forests to try to come to grips with what is obviously a huge problem in that part of the province. I know we have problems in the Cariboo and the Okanagan and elsewhere as well. Does the streamlined approval process . . . ? Has the change been enough to keep up with the rate of spread?

Hon. J. Doyle: Licensees in the infected areas . . . . I took the opportunity to go up through this area of the province, this range in particular, shortly after getting this position. Licensees have expressed that they're happy with the work that's gone on between them and government.

[1510]

G. Abbott: On the regulatory side as well, in many cases -- or at least this is what I know from my limited experience -- we see mountain pine beetle infestations popping up sometimes in perhaps a hectare or some portion of a hectare and quite scattered, dispersed geographically. In some of those cases, I think the ministry has taken the view through the district offices that the best way to deal with them effectively is through small-scale salvage programs.

Are there any regulatory constraints, either in the small business program or in the small-scale salvage policies of the ministry, that constrain the opportunity of the ministry to respond to those kind of situations through those programs?

Hon. J. Doyle: The code has provisions to speed up removal of areas like those you're referring to.

G. Abbott: We'll be discussing this perhaps in a little more detail later on anyway, so we'll leave it for now.

The landscape unit planning initiative notes that stakeholder discussions, policies and guidelines have been

[ Page 15266 ]

finalized, initial training completed, 1,300 draft landscape units defined and two trial landscape unit plans completed. When the ministry is pursuing this landscape unit planning initiative, are they running the initiative through what might be termed either a business lens or through a socioeconomic analysis that will predict with certainty what the consequence will be, both in terms of cost and in terms of possibly additional constraints on cutting opportunities within those areas?

Hon. J. Doyle: Landscape unit planning supports higher-level plans.

G. Abbott: I'm aware of that. The question I posed was whether this initiative was going to contain either what I might term a business lens or a socioeconomic analysis to determine what the impact from both the cost and a cutting opportunity perspective would be.

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is both. The socioeconomic analysis occurs at the higher-level plan level.

G. Abbott: So it will be very clear before the first landscape unit plan is implemented what the cost will be to both the government and the licensee involved. Further, it will also be very clear before the first plan is implemented what the effect will be in terms of any potential reduction to the AAC. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: To implement this program, the ministry set a cap of no more than 6 percent of the AAC.

[1515]

G. Abbott: I don't know whether it's coincidence or not. As I recall, either the promise or the commitment or the prediction around what it would cost or what it would mean in terms of AAC to put the Forest Practices Code in place was also either 5 or 6 percent. Are we saying, then, that we are looking at at least another 6 percent on top of the code impact as well?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no. It's within that 6 percent cap.

G. Abbott: When the minister uses the figure of 6 percent to assess the impact of the code landscape unit planning and presumably any other related initiatives around this, including perhaps the identified wildlife strategy and so on, are we saying that the sum of all those is going to be no greater than 6 percent?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is the target that the ministry has set.

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned yesterday that the ministry had conducted a cost study with respect to the landscape unit plan initiative. Can the minister advise, in this golden age of glasnost that exists in the province of British Columbia, when he can make a copy of that study available to me?

Hon. J. Doyle: The hope would be in the next two or three weeks.

G. Abbott: Is the minister prepared to provide to me some indication of what the cost of this would be, based on what has been determined in the studies to date?

Hon. J. Doyle: As I said yesterday, the cost is 3 cents per cubic metre, but we haven't completed discussions with industry on what the final cost would be.

G. Abbott: The minister states that the projected cost for the landscape unit planning initiative would be 3 cents per cubic metre. Has there been any commitment made to licensees or to others that 3 cents per cubic metre is a maximum or upset figure and they would not be expected to absorb any cost beyond that?

Hon. J. Doyle: I was amiss a minute ago. We don't yet know the cost for landscape planning. The 3 cents that I mentioned was for ID wildlife.

G. Abbott: I thought that might have been the case, but I didn't want to be so presumptuous as to correct the minister before he had an opportunity to do it himself.

We're saying, then, that we don't know the cost of the landscape unit planning initiative. But presumably we're not flying entirely in the dark here. I would presume as, well, that there have been some considerable discussions between the industry and government with respect to what the costs might be. Have any commitments been made to industry with respect to a maximum or upset cost that would be associated with this initiative?

[1520]

Hon. J. Doyle: The former minister had the deputy minister write to industry saying that we would go to Treasury Board if the cost of both these initiatives was more than 10 cents.

G. Abbott: The commitment obviously has been made in writing, between the former minister and either individual licensees or whatever association represents them, that the expectation of government is that the cost of landscape unit planning would not exceed 10 cents per cubic metre and that if it did, the government presumably would absorb that cost. Is that the upshot of the commitment?

Hon. J. Doyle: The letter was written by the deputy minister. The minister and I would carry out that commitment; if it did go beyond 10 cents, we'd go to Treasury Board and argue for the moneys.

G. Abbott: The minister would go to Treasury Board for those funds should the cost exceed 10 cents per cubic metre. We anticipate that there will be rather firmer information around this at some point in the next two or three weeks as the government has an opportunity to complete and release the socioeconomic analysis that has preceded this initiative -- correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the member. The answer is correct.

G. Abbott: I want to move on, then, to the recreation management initiative at the bottom of page 26. The bullet reads: "The forest recreation regulation was amended in March 1999. Camping fee revenue covered approximately 25 percent of recreation site operating costs in 1999-2000."

As the minister knows, this imposition of a new fee to cover the operation of forest recreation campsites was greeted

[ Page 15267 ]

with some displeasure by many in the province. I'm looking for some indication from the ministry's perspective of how satisfactorily the new fee regime has worked out. One of the concerns, for example, that I raised last year in estimates with the Minister of Forests was that, given the remote location of many of these sites -- indeed, that's in large measure one of the attractions of them -- it would be difficult if not impossible to enforce any sort of camping regulation. Could the minister advise what the experience of the ministry has been with respect to the recreation regulation in the past year?

Hon. J. Doyle: It will take some time for people in the province to become familiar with this program. Acceptance of the program varies according to what part of the province you're in.

G. Abbott: The bullet notes that camping fee revenue covered approximately 25 percent of the recreation site operating costs. Again, we talked about this in estimates last year, and my recollection -- and I'm sure the minister can correct it or at least refine it to a more precise level -- is that the cost of maintaining these sites is in the $1 million to $2 million range. I believe that's the case. Could the minister advise what the cost of maintaining those sites is or is anticipated to be?

[1525]

Hon. J. Doyle: There was between $1 million and $1.3 million invested in recreational campsites this year.

G. Abbott: So $1 million to $1.3 million is the anticipated cost of maintaining the sites. Could the minister advise what the revenue in 1999-2000 was from the implementation of the regulation and so on?

Hon. J. Doyle: Total revenue was $600,000.

G. Abbott: So we saw revenues of $600,000 from the annual and nightly fees that were put in place for the forest recreation campsites. Is there some additional breakdown of the $600,000 beyond that?

Hon. J. Doyle: The breakdown on the revenue the ministry received is camping pass sales of $429,000 and enhanced services of $165,000.

G. Abbott: Could the minister remind me of what enhanced services are?

Hon. J. Doyle: Those are the fees charged at sites where there's extra security provided.

G. Abbott: Again, I'm sure the minister is reluctant at this point to run the white flag up and say that the cost of doing this -- putting in place a new fee which has certainly not been universally welcomed -- is probably overwhelmed by (

a) the staff time involved in dealing with it and (

b) the overall aggravation of dealing with a difficult, at times, client base.

Is the ministry looking at this from a business perspective and perhaps assessing whether, for the system, this is the way to go?

Hon. J. Doyle: I must say that when I came into this job a couple of months ago, one of the questions I asked was the one that you asked me a minute ago. But experience has shown other jurisdictions, like our neighbours in Alberta . . . . I live up in Golden, and sometimes I'll go up and camp in a federal park, and there's a fee charged there. So I think acceptance is over time. People do accept that there is a cost, and there are services provided -- picnic tables or others. Sometimes it's very little or sometimes it's very much, and people pay accordingly.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advice me how the $600,000 was collected? Was it collected primarily by Forest Service staff? What kind of time commitment was involved on the part of staff in order to fulfil this function?

Hon. J. Doyle: The tickets, or the passes, are sold by government agents or private vendors in communities. There's no ministry staff involved in the issuance of passes or whatever they are.

[1530]

G. Abbott: What was the cost of the administration of this program?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry spent $100,000 in producing the passes and getting the program up and running.

G. Abbott: So that $100,000 was the cost of the passes. Presumably there was an administration cost put in place to cover the costs of either the private vendor or the government agent that was selling them. Presumably there was an administration cost there. Do we know what that is?

Hon. J. Doyle: Government agents get $2 to keep for their trouble or work in issuing these, and private vendors get $4. This is for yearly passes.

G. Abbott: So presumably, based on a $27-a-year fee, at least that portion of administration would probably have been in perhaps the $100,000 range as well. I'll let somebody else do the math on that.

Could the minister advise whether there was significant non-compliance or defiance of this by a portion of the client base?

Hon. J. Doyle: In the first year of this program, there truly was a significant amount of people who didn't know the fact that there was a fee being charged. So we have used the first year to make people more aware there is a fee for camping at these sites.

G. Abbott: So the first year there were quite a lot of people who were either not informed of the program or, for that or other reasons, reluctant to pay the fees. Did the ministry, in that first year, attempt to enforce compliance through legal or other means, or was it strictly a voluntary process?

Hon. J. Doyle: As far as making people aware the first year, if someone was camping out there, we would ask them to pay, or provide an invoice to them and ask them to pay.

G. Abbott: But if they didn't pay, it was simply let go.

Hon. J. Doyle: There was no legal mechanism to ticket people.

[ Page 15268 ]

G. Abbott: For the coming year, I gather that that mechanism has been put in place. Again, just quoting from "Today's News" and the Kamloops Daily News , which apparently has an

article in it today or yesterday about "Forestry staff given power to ticket campers . . . . " I'll quote the

summary here: "Forest Service staff will be armed this year with the power to ticket campers who refuse to pay site fees. This season is the second year the Ministry of Forests has required a pass for camping at Forest Service sites. Bernie Ivanco, recreation forester for the Kamloops forest region, said regulations will be in place for the long weekend this month to allow for ticketing." Perhaps the minister can provide a little more comprehensive explanation of that.

Hon. J. Doyle: I read the same

article in the clippings yesterday or whatever day it was. Our ministry is not looking at ticketing people that may be out there. If someone is camped there, we're going to ask them to pay. If they don't pay, we'll ask them to vacate the campsite.

[1535]

G. Abbott: The issue of enforcement, then, I guess, is one that should be pursued here briefly. Is the intention to have Ministry of Forests staff attempt somehow to find their way to forest recreation campsites to see who's there and to check and see whether they have season passes and all that kind of thing? Again, I have in the past enjoyed a number of these sites, and sometimes you have drive two or three or four hours to get to them. Indeed, that's part of the attraction of them. How are we going to enforce this?

Hon. J. Doyle: Ministry staff that may be out at whatever site it is, if it's part of their regular duties and they're in that area, would be checking on campers at that site.

G. Abbott: Again, I'm concerned that we will be taking away Ministry of Forests personnel from other very important duties which they should be pursuing and having them effectively become kind of campsite cops, clearly something which . . . . If I was a Ministry of Forests person, I wouldn't particularly relish the opportunity to go over and tell somebody that they better buy a ticket from me or vacate the campsite. I can't imagine that being among the more pleasant of the duties that a Ministry of Forests officer might have, particularly where it's an isolated campsite.

If the guy tells you to go jump in the lake, I guess your options are to call the RCMP to attempt to enforce something -- which, again, might be hours away. I just question the practicality of the venture from that perspective.

Hon. J. Doyle: The forestry campsites, I'm sure, have been around for many, many years. The Ministry has always had personnel go out and check on these sites before this fee came in last year. There's always been ministry personnel that checked behaviour, state of sites, repair of equipment or camp tables and things like that out there. Personnel have been in place -- and they are still in place -- to do regular duties like this.

G. Abbott: That is true, although I have to say that there have been a number of sites that I have enjoyed in the Cariboo and the Okanagan-Shuswap where there were agreements in place with the local licensee to do some of those things. In some cases, the local fish and game club will be there to carry out those kinds of things. It's not always going to be a case where there's Ministry of Forests personnel around.

Again, I don't want to spend any longer dealing with this. What I'll do is send across this constructive missive. From my perspective, I think that the costs of doing this in terms of the effective use of ministry time will be such that it will call into question the effectiveness of these fees. I'll leave it in the hands of the minister to assess this. But I frankly don't think that in a cost-benefit analysis, it would be very easy to sustain the notion that campsite fees are something that are working for the government. Now, they may work elsewhere. Who knows? I don't know that they do or don't.

I guess our case may not be the same as elsewhere. We have an extensive system of supervised campsites under the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, which perhaps other jurisdictions don't enjoy. So I'm not sure in some cases whether we should see some of the more heavily used forest recreation campsites where, for example, we may need ongoing security . . . . Perhaps the government needs to look at moving some of those into the provincial campsite chain under the Ministry of Parks. If we require those kinds of resources to maintain and sustain them, perhaps it's time to move them on to a higher level of maintenance that we can't provide in Forest Service campsites.

[1540]

Further, maybe we should be rethinking the Forest Service campsites, to the extent that these are remote. They are largely natural or rustic sites where people can get away with their kids for a weekend and probably never see anyone else. That's one of the amazing things about these sites. Frequently you can stay in one for a week and never see anybody else. That's how remote they are.

I'll leave the minister with what I hope are some construction suggestions. I don't need to make the ministry's life more difficult around that. I suspect there'll probably be a built-in group that will do that for me.

Hon. J. Doyle: Thanks to the hon. member. Maybe instead of going up to the national parks to camp this year and paying the $12, I'll go to one of these Forestry sites.

As far as ministry personnel, we do use contractors in many, many cases too. We also have looked and are . . . . I will take the member's . . . . Regarding using Environment, Lands and Parks and their campsites, maybe we could do some further work in moving them over to that ministry, where they have done this kind of thing for years.

G. Abbott: I'll move on to road maintenance and replacement of bridges again. The bullet lists the accomplishment in '99-2000: "Maintenance of approximately 12,000 kilometres of Forest Service roads and replacement of 195 bridges required to access timber and recreational opportunities." That replacement of 195 bridges and maintenance of 12,000 kilometres of forest road was presumably accomplished with the $15 million that was recently approved by special warrants -- correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: The $15 million went strictly for bridge replacement.

G. Abbott: Was the maintenance of the 12,000 kilometres of road provided for in the regular budget of the ministry?

[ Page 15269 ]

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes.

G. Abbott: We referred to this yesterday -- the reduction in the available dollars for this function in 2000-2001. Is there anticipation on the part of the ministry that there will be some reallocation of responsibility for Forest Service roads and/or bridges from the ministry to licensees, in some instances, pursuant to some of the legislation that we passed last year?

Hon. J. Doyle: For this year, in 2000-2001, the ministry has money in the budget for roads and bridges.

G. Abbott: Could the minister respond to the reallocation question that I posed?

Hon. J. Doyle: I feel I answered the question by saying that in the year we are talking about, the ministry has moneys for the roads and bridges. The next year I can't speak about. The budget is not yet built for next year.

G. Abbott: There does seem to be some apprehension in industry circles that there is going to be a downloading of responsibility for what had been Forest Service roads and bridges to the industry. Is that not the case? Is that apprehension misplaced?

[1545]

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has no plans to do that -- to off-load the cost to the industry, as you asked.

G. Abbott: That concludes my questions with respect to the business plan, and I don't believe any of my colleagues have additional questions on it. We can move to our discussion of the U.S. softwood lumber agreement. Would the minister like a recess for a moment, to have the appropriate staff come in?

Hon. J. Doyle: We're all set.

G. Abbott: One of the most important issues, I suspect, that we will be canvassing in these estimates is the potential renegotiation of the U.S. softwood lumber agreement. As I'm sure most British Columbians know, that five-year U.S. softwood lumber agreement will be expiring on March 31, 2001. There are a lot of questions in the air, both within the industry and within the general public, about how the agreement has worked to date, whether it has been satisfactory from a variety of perspectives, whether it ought to be renegotiated and, if it is renegotiated, under what terms.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Obviously it is a very critical issue, given that the forest industry is our number one producer of jobs, of investment, of government revenues and certainly of exports. It's also important from the perspective that access to the largest and most powerful economy in the world is very much predicated on having an agreement or at least an acceptable relationship with the United States around access by our producers to those American markets.

Given that, obviously it's very a important discussion that is going to have to occur in something less than the next 11 months in order to secure a new agreement with the United States, if indeed that is the route we go. Could the minister begin today by outlining, from his perspective, the goals that British Columbia will be pursuing in the next 11 months in line with the possible renegotiation of the softwood lumber agreement?

Hon. J. Doyle: The stand of the British Columbia government working with the industry on this says that we want unfettered access to the United States market. And if there is a countervail, we want the right to fight that.

G. Abbott: Unfettered access is certainly a goal that would be embraced, I suspect, by virtually all British Columbians. I'm not sure that I have heard of any who would be opposed to that. I'm sure we could find them if we looked hard enough, but most British Columbians, I suspect, would welcome the opportunity to see our forest products readily accepted, without the interference of duties or penalties, in the American marketplace. Are there any other goals that British Columbia, at this point, would like to see achieved as part of this negotiation?

Hon. J. Doyle: If we don't attain this, you and I agree that we would like -- and all British Columbians, I'm sure, or hopefully so -- unfettered access to the American market. We want to make sure that out of discussions we would have, country to country, the right to fight any countervailing duties imposed by the American government.

G. Abbott: The issue of a potential of countervail action by the Americans in the absence of an agreement is an important part of the discussion and something I'll certainly be posing some questions on in the minutes ahead.

However, so we can keep a clear sense of what the goals are from the government's perspective, unfettered access is the key to a successor agreement. As is the case with most agreements, in order to exact one set of opportunities from an agreement, the other parties to the agreement will typically, in order to provide that, demand a corresponding set of opportunities or a corresponding set of changes in order to win their approval. Can the minister advise what he knows exists at this point in the realm of American demands in order to continue or renegotiate an American softwood lumber agreement?

[1550]

Hon. J. Doyle: The United States is very vague as to just what it wants at this present time.

G. Abbott: We are, in May 2000, entering into what is or will be the strongest period in the American electoral cycle. Not only the President is being elected but virtually every office, from the President down to the dogcatchers in a lot of communities, is going to be elected over the next several months in the United States.

One of the suggestions made at the Northern Forest Products Association by one of the speakers was that it would be absolutely critical for Canadians, including British Columbians, to capture the attention of American decision-makers in the month to three months ahead, before virtually every decision-maker is captured by that intense portion of the electoral cycle here culminating in November. Has the government of British Columbia attempted to do that?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with what the member raises in his question. Likely some of the people that work with the pres-

[ Page 15270 ]

ent Clinton government have already left. There is a long lead-up, I agree with you, and then there are many months, sometimes, after the election that . . . . Maybe it has to go before the Senate or some other governing body before they appoint a new negotiator. So there's a long, long time of uncertainty down in the United States -- I don't mean uncertainty, but to do with the election process issue alluded to.

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline for me . . . ? I know that the minister and the former minister had the opportunity to meet with some of the Canadian trade officials that are responsible for this particularly critical file. I'm sure that in those meetings there has been a game plan or a process laid out which hopefully was going to culminate in some kind of meaningful negotiation. Can the minister outline for me -- and obviously to British Columbians generally, through these estimates discussions -- what that process will be?

[1555]

Hon. J. Doyle: The British Columbia government and of course Canada, as you know, because they agree . . . . Negotiations will be country to country. Some weeks ago I met with the federal Minister of International Trade. I think I mentioned that yesterday. We are saying that we would be interested in getting into some discussions about just what form a new agreement, if that was the wish, would take.

G. Abbott: Has the federal government at this point articulated a structure that those discussions will take place in? For example, will each of the provinces have a voice in the negotiation? Who is going to be the lead official from the Canadian side? How are they going to be taking account of British Columbia's interests through that process?

Hon. J. Doyle: The lead official would be Doug Waddell. Of course the provinces -- the timber-producing provinces like B.C., Alberta, Quebec and Ontario -- would be involved in any discussions. But it hasn't yet been struck or pulled together, a course that we all want at the end of the day. Industry is also involved. As you know, they met in Calgary about a month or six weeks ago to try to come to a consensus as far as industry across the province. At the end of the day, we all hope that we can speak with one voice as a country. If that is possible, that would be good for us.

G. Abbott: The minister is certainly right that it has been difficult for the industry in British Columbia, never mind the industry across Canada, to build a consensus around their position. It's my estimation, though, that a great deal of progress has been made in recent months around arriving at that consensus. I think the fact that the minister and I appear to agree on where we're going here is probably a part of that consensus as well.

Surprisingly or not, there seems to be a far greater consensus in the B.C. industry today than there was six months ago and far more than there was a year ago. Having now achieved that consensus, what is the projection in terms of Mr. Waddell pulling together a structure and a strategy to engage the Americans before we get too far into that electoral cycle?

Hon. J. Doyle: Industry, for instance, has one more meeting set. I think it's next month in Toronto. Hopefully, at the end of the day, Doug Waddell will want to pull all of the opinions together as quickly as possible and hopefully will make them into one opinion.

G. Abbott: Has Mr. Waddell provided the minister with assurances or a mechanism that would provide that B.C.'s interests will be expressed and protected through the process?

Hon. J. Doyle: The Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pettigrew, as I mentioned some time ago, when he came to Vancouver some weeks ago . . . . The first province that he met with was British Columbia, because we are 50 percent of the forest economy in Canada. So there's no doubt he's aware of that through the meeting he had with myself and senior officials. Hopefully he was aware. That's why he met with us first of all.

G. Abbott: Has Mr. Waddell or Minister Pettigrew provided the minister with any indication of when they do plan to put some meat on the bones in terms of a structure for pursuing an agreement?

[1600]

Hon. J. Doyle: The hope is shortly.

G. Abbott: I'm presuming we don't need to explore the term "shortly" too much. Obviously there is an imperative here around launching the negotiation, if indeed there is going to be one.

I think the issue is particularly critical. I know the current agreement has frequently been the object of a lot of frustration, particularly by those companies that don't enjoy the opportunity through existing quota to get into the American marketplace. Obviously it's been an enormous frustration, particularly for some coastal companies that had geared their production to Japan and were later not able to shift into the American marketplace. So it's been very frustrating. I guess the inequitable access to the American market has been an object of huge frustration.

I think that in some cases, companies have responded to that by saying that at least on April 1, 2001, there will be equitable access to the American marketplace.

The danger, which I think we perhaps haven't really come to grips with yet . . . . What's going to happen on April 1 is quite nebulous, but what could happen on April 1, of course, is the commencement of a countervail duty against British Columbia. There are really three schools of thought around the possibility of a countervail -- probably more than that, but three basic schools at least. One is that the Americans will launch a countervail on April 1, based on the premise that they have already established that there is . . . .

[Interruption.]

G. Abbott: Sorry, can the minister hear any of this? Probably not, eh?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Not a problem.

There are three views with respect to what will happen on April 1, 2001. Obviously the agreement ends on March 31, 2001. There may be one of three things that happen on April 1. Hopefully the minister's staff have been looking at this issue

[ Page 15271 ]

and will have thought it through and can provide me with some insight on this. On April 1 the Americans could, based on their previous case against British Columbia about economic harm, launch an immediate countervail. That's one view.

A second view is that the Americans will not take a countervail action for some months; they will wait until . . . . What they expect will happen is a flooding of the American marketplace with lumber from producers who were previously excluded, and the consequence of that will be a reduction in softwood lumber prices. Then the Americans will have a case for harm established.

The third view is that perhaps the Americans won't do anything at all -- they won't launch a countervail action. Has the Ministry of Forests staff, perhaps in conjunction with others in government, done an analysis with respect to the risk around countervail?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member is speculating about what might happen. Of course, many people in the industry -- workers, community leaders and many, many people -- do wonder about that. Ministry staff and myself are doing our best to get some trade arrangement with the United States well ahead of time. But if there is a countervail duty down the road in negotiations, or some trade arrangement doesn't come together . . . . We're spending as much time as we can looking at all the possibilities.

G. Abbott: There has been no risk analysis, so to speak, conducted by the ministry around the possibility of not having an agreement effective April 1.

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, the ministry has looked at that, but as I know the member understands very, very well, to get into that might harm our case as far as the negotiations or the discussions we're having with our customers south of the line.

[1605]

G. Abbott: The ministry is aware of some of the risk, at least, involved around the countervail scenario, and obviously it is a delicate area. Nevertheless, I guess what I'm looking for is some assurance that there has been a contingency made for the possibility of a countervail effective April 1, 2001, or some subsequent date. Again, I think the concern I would have, based on a limited knowledge of trade issues, is that countervail actions can take years to resolve, in some cases, and can be quite damaging in the interim. Perhaps the minister can advise me whether some contingency plan has been put in place to deal with that.

Hon. J. Doyle: Absolutely, and we are very well prepared.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise what plan if any exists around apprising the public of the negotiation that will perhaps commence in the days and weeks ahead? One of the issues in the last go-round was that we had an intense negotiation. Obviously the character of negotiations tends to be secretive, and that's understandable. Given the magnitude of importance of these negotiations, is there any plan to inform the public with respect to the issues that are on the table, the proposals that are being made and how some of the issues around softwood lumber trade are being managed?

Hon. J. Doyle: Industry is at the table in discussions that are ongoing. We could rely on the industry to inform their companies and who they wish to inform, as far as their stakeholders out there. If there are any discussions or any negotiations ongoing that we feel wouldn't harm the negotiations that you mention, that we could release to the public, we will surely do that.

G. Abbott: In the last negotiation, which preceded the softwood lumber agreement in 1996, there were key personnel from the government of British Columbia who were, for a period of time at least, assigned to this particular file. Is that going to be the case again in the negotiations that will precede a possible renewal or renegotiation of the softwood lumber agreement in this case? Have officials from British Columbia been designated at this point in time to be, effectively, our point people with respect to this file?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, we have. You're looking at three of them assembled around me right now.

G. Abbott: I have the pleasure of knowing the officials around you, but perhaps for the edification of the general public, you could advise who those officials are.

[1610]

Hon. J. Doyle: Deputy Minister Lee Doney, Bruce McRae, and Lois McNabb in the chair behind.

G. Abbott: Unless colleagues or the minister have anything further to add with respect to the softwood lumber agreement, we can move on to the discussion of the Wouters report.

Hon. J. Doyle: The member and I, as he mentioned, virtually agree on the importance of this to British Columbians. It is the biggest industry; the biggest part of the moneys that communities depend on comes from the forest sector. A new agreement, a new trade arrangement, with the United States is very, very important. This is not a partisan issue. It hasn't been in discussion here this afternoon. But it's most important to all of us that we do get some new trade arrangement as soon as possible. The forest industry is doing very well. It is important that we get something in place as soon as possible on this issue.

The member mentioned part of the discussion in the last half-hour or so. If there is any problem with the agreement that we're still living with today, until March 31 of next year, it is the haves and have-nots. I'm sure the member has in his constituency, as I have in mine, many companies that got quite a bit of quota and others that have none. There's a problem with new entrants. There are trigger quota to take care of those, but it was never to the satisfaction of some community trying to survive out there with some new mill that they opened.

So we all hope that we can as a province work out with our federal government the best agreement possible for British Columbia, because of the importance of the forest sector to our economy.

[ Page 15272 ]

G. Abbott: I certainly hope that the province can enjoy success in the possible renegotiation of the softwood lumber agreement and that we can achieve the goals of unfettered and equitable access to the American softwood lumber market, given its importance to us. I don't, however, think for a moment that the achievement of those goals will be easy. Undoubtedly, there will have to be some very tough decisions made by the minister and cabinet over time with respect to some of the issues. Again, in any agreement, there is frequently some give-and-take. It may be a tough decision.

It may be a difficult assessment that has to be made by the government around whether what we have to concede is more than balanced off by the additional opportunities conferred by that unfettered access. I wish the minister and his staff well in the pursuit of that agreement.

We could turn now to the B.C. forest policy review, the so-called Wouters report. Does the minister have all the staff necessary to discuss that? Yes?

Good. Thank you. The report obviously makes a lot of recommendations, and I don't propose to explore all of them. We'd be here for weeks if we did that.

[1615]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: You'd like to be here for weeks?

An Hon. Member: Oh, yeah.

G. Abbott: I know many people have the view that they would like these estimates to carry on indefinitely. I'm actually not among that group. It's just people with shallow interests, like having their own set of estimates that are being delayed by these ones, that have that view. But I do want to look at some of the, I think, critical recommendations that are being made by Mr. Wouters to the minister and, I guess, look further at some of the concepts that are contained in the report.

To begin, one of the terms that is used frequently in the report . . . . It's not a term, I don't think, that necessarily is used a lot in Ministry of Forests documents or Ministry of Forests policies or regulations, but it's a phrase we've discussed previously in these estimates. It's "the working forest." When Mr. Wouters uses the term "working forest," what does that mean to the Minister of Forests?

Hon. J. Doyle: What Mr. Wouters meant was finding more security for the forest sector on that land base that they work on.

G. Abbott: Perhaps I was reading more into the expression than others, but I also get a sense when I read the Wouters report and he makes reference to working forest that he is not only looking at the tenure arrangements that may be in place in different operating areas around the province, but he's also looking at identifying that working forest, in much the same way that parks and protected areas have been identified in this province.

One of the reasons I made that particular deduction is based, for example, on page 9. Mr. Wouters states: "There must be more certainty on the land -- how it will be used, who will have access to it and how it will be sustained. We need to clarify the use of forest lands, including identification of areas for parks, conservation and a working forest." The sense I get there -- and I think it is reinforced at numerous points in the report -- is that we need to move beyond where we are today, where we have clear identification of the parks.

We have clear identification of the boundaries of protected areas, but we don't have the same kind of identification and certainty around what might be termed the working forest.

I'll invite the minister's response.

Hon. J. Doyle: There is no doubt that we would all like to know how much land would be in the province for a working forest. It's very, very important to the whole province. At the same time, Mr. Wouters made reference to the fact that we must complete land use planning. The hope is that in, I think, two years, with a bit of luck, land use planning will be finished, and then we will know what area there is for forestry and forestry companies to do forestry on. And they do a very good job at that.

G. Abbott: I think we touched on this yesterday, but I think it's an important point and one that we need to review at least within the context of the Wouters report.

Interjection.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

G. Abbott: Sure, we can do it at length. The Minister of Finance prefers to do things at length, so we can do it at length.

The 23 million hectares that effectively comprise the harvest area in British Columbia today, which yesterday I attempted to relate to a working forest . . . . Is it the goal of the Ministry of Forests -- and presumably if there is an advocate in government for the forest industry, it should be the Ministry of Forests -- to identify and protect that 23 million hectares, or perhaps even more, as a working forest in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: Most working forest land has a general level of protection already through provincial forest designation, reinforced, in some instances, with Crown land reserve.

[1620]

G. Abbott: We'll come back to the working forest and some of the elements around that. I'll try to proceed in order through the pages of the report so that we can deal with this in a methodical fashion.

On page 30 of the forest policy review report there is a brief discussion of the Forest Practices Code. I'll quote from Mr. Wouters: "With the introduction of recent legislation, it is possible to test new approaches to enhance the code's efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency can be provided through testing performance-like measures. Effectiveness can be achieved by testing new approaches for ecosystem management that will better link forest management practices with the issue of product certification."

A question here. From the general thinking that I've done around this issue, it seems to me that there is an opportunity . . . . I'm not sure that it's even well articulated in here. If we are going down the road of certification, at some point that

[ Page 15273 ]

might provide an opportunity for some administrative streamlining around the code. Has the ministry done any analysis or devoted any thought to that possibility?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what form and direction that analysis took? How does the ministry see the certification opportunity relate to the enforcement or the monitoring of forest practices, for example?

Hon. J. Doyle: Certification, when we reach it -- and hopefully we will soon -- does provide an auditing through that certification, and maybe there could be some changes made at that time. Of course, it is really important. We will not be reaching certification, as I'm sure the member agrees, if we don't have good stewardship of the land, the Forest Practices Code and all those things in place.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear that the ministry is thinking in those terms, because I think it's important that some thought be given to it. Certification is something that undoubtedly is going to be the wave of the future in respect of acceptance of B.C. forest products in the international marketplace, so it's something we're going to have to come to grips with. I think it's equally important, again, from the cost-structure perspective, that we achieve economies and efficiencies around the cost of the code and the cost of certification and the cost of auditing, all that stuff. I'm pleased to hear the ministry is looking at those possibilities.

The next paragraph from Mr. Wouters is this: "There has been a call to complete code implementation. Industry is concerned that if this is done, harvest levels could be reduced more than 6 percent. However, government officials assert that the code can be implemented within the 6 percent guideline." Can the minister advise, first of all, whether the ministry shares that analysis with Mr. Wouters, and further, what the ministry believes has been the impact, percentage-wise, of code implementation to date?

Hon. J. Doyle: We agree with the author of this document, and we do feel it could be done with the 6 percent guideline that was mentioned.

G. Abbott: We talked earlier about landscape unit planning, higher-level plans, identified wildlife strategy and other elements that could potentially be put in place in the months or years ahead. What has been the experience in British Columbia of the impact of the code to date, excluding those things that are yet to be done? What has been the impact of the code to date on harvesting in British Columbia?

[1625]

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry will not know until the timber supply reviews are complete, but it's our understanding that it will be under 6 percent.

G. Abbott: One of the facts, I guess, of the B.C. forest industry -- and in some cases, one of the strengths of the forest industry -- is that we have a great diversity of forests across the province. We have a great diversity of landscapes, diversity of climate, diversity of topography and so on. As a consequence of that diversity, we see quite astonishing differences in the cost of the code in different regions. The minister and I both know this very well, because the forest industry in the part of the southern interior that we are both from probably has some of the highest code costs in British Columbia.

Can the minister advise what regional variation there is around that 6 percent figure? For example, is it the case that perhaps full implementation of the code might mean 5 percent in some areas and perhaps 10 percent in others? Is that the case, or do we have a commitment here that we are going to keep it within 6 percent in all regions of the province?

Hon. J. Doyle: We just don't have a number right now, until the code is fully implemented. I will agree with the member that where he and I live, where some of the trees grow in the communities that we represent, it doesn't look very much like Saskatchewan. In the wetbelt . . . . It's tough going out there. So there's no doubt there will be a difference between one area of the province and the other. We just don't finally have a number on that right now.

G. Abbott: One of the requests that's frequently made by some of the producers in what might be termed the interior wetbelt is a request for compensation or recognition within the stumpage system that there are additional cost burdens that have to be absorbed by the industry in the interior wetbelt. Perhaps there are good arguments to be made for other areas of the province as well, but certainly the interior wetbelt producers make the argument that there should be some recognition in the stumpage system of the particularly high cost of administering the code in their areas. Has the minister given any thought to how that might be achieved?

Hon. J. Doyle: The stumpage appraisal process does its best to take care of concerns that are raised. I am very familiar, as the member is, with the wetbelt that runs from our corner of the province right up through to Smithers and up through to the Prince Rupert area. Of course, if you do make a change in one area, maybe it would satisfy many communities -- and maybe it's very necessary to make a change in some areas -- but many times they say it's water-bedded. Of course that doesn't make the other members in COFI very happy, so maybe they don't fight very hard.

I don't mean maybe don't fight for it, but if it is water-bedded . . . . There have been changes made in the past where it has gone to cabinet and to Treasury Board to make sure that it's not water-bedded, and then it's easier to put this in place.

[1630]

Actually, as an MLA back four or five months ago, I worked with a group of people in the wetbelt through the area just mentioned and actually had a meeting down here with the MLAs from the affected areas right up through the area that I mentioned -- most of the MLAs and some of the stakeholders from the areas -- because of the concern that you and I are aware of as MLAs back in our constituencies.

G. Abbott: Perhaps we can carry that argument on further at another point in our discussion here today. The next point I want to engage the minister on is on page 31, under "Forest Management and the Annual Allowable Cut." I guess this is one area where I feel some frustration about the Wouters report. I sense in this

section particularly, and certainly feel it in other points in the report, that Mr. Wouters attempted

[ Page 15274 ]

to juggle the frequently competing interests of different groups and tried to satisfy them all -- the product being that perhaps it satisfies no one. Certainly that's the sense I get in this particular section. I'll quote it, and we can discuss it:

"Much debate occurred about the appropriate AAC level and the key factors affecting long-term forest sustainability. The Council of Forest Industries believes an annual allowable cut of 100 million cubic metres is an achievable long-term goal. The current harvest is 70 million cubic metres annually, and environmental groups urged that the cut should be substantially reduced. We had neither time nor resources to investigate this complex question. We believe a further review is necessary."

[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]

And at another point -- I'm not sure if it's in this report or in a news

article around the Wouters report -- Garry mentions that environmental groups had been urging a cut of 30 million cubic metres a year. It seems to me, and I do want to engage the minister on this, that it is only common sense to increase the annual allowable cut if we can -- not increase it by cutting at unsustainable levels but increase it through the examples of forest management that are contained, for example, in the innovative forest practices agreements. That would be one way. The intensive silviculture, the variety of ways that we've talked about at different times on how to improve growth and yield in this province . . . .

I think that's the statement that COFI is making -- not that we artificially increase the cut but, rather, try to increase it over a long period of time. My frustration with the Wouters report is that it doesn't even seem to go that distance. It is more a political statement, in that while some groups think that the cut should be less, some groups think that the cut should be more; therefore we don't really know whether it should be less or more. We need to study it more. That's my frustration with this section, and I would be delighted to hear the minister's response to that.

Hon. J. Doyle: In the last line in the item that the member hasn't read yet -- or maybe will read in a minute; I know he didn't purposely leave it out -- Mr. Wouters said: "We had neither time nor resources to investigate this complex question. We believe a further review is necessary." We pretty well agree that no one wants to get the cut to an unsustainable level. He mentions some of the things that I would have mentioned. I would have mentioned innovative forestry, intensive silviculture.

But at the end of the day, whatever the cut level is, it has to be sustainable, and it has to be based on science. Otherwise, if anyone out there in the province feels that we can go to 100 million overnight and thinks it won't have some big effect, no doubt our children won't have as many trees to cut. The other more important and immediate problem would be the impact on markets, because we're being watched very, very closely in British Columbia.

I feel it was based on the good work of the chief forester, which he does every five years, and it was based on science and intensive forestry and other work that can be done on the land base. Out of that, if the cut goes up, great.

[1635]

G. Abbott: We're in agreement here. Clearly the level of cut has to be sustained by science, and it has to be justified by the chief forester, who has special responsibility for this -- no question. The point I was making here is that I would have liked to have seen from Mr. Wouters a more definitive vision around better management of the forests and expanding the AAC as a goal. Unfortunately, I don't see that, and I don't expect the minister to leap up and agree with me and share the view that he's disappointed in that

section as well. But I certainly welcome that opportunity, if that's what he wishes to do.

Hon. J. Doyle: I would have been happy, as the member would have been, if Mr. Wouters could have addressed this. Had it been in his report, a lot of people hopefully would have been happy with the recommendations he would have made. One of the reasons Mr. Wouters didn't deal with this issue is that COFI didn't provide the analysis and science to achieve their 100 million cubic metres. I know that Mr. Wouters consulted with many, many people across the province, as we both know. But I would have been happy if it had been possible to include it in this report and if it could have been reported out in a timely manner.

G. Abbott: If we can move on to pages 34 and 35, which go into land use planning, the questions I have relate to recommendation 1: "The government should renew its commitment to the land use planning process by clarifying its land use objectives and planning framework." It's unlikely that anyone would disagree with that as a broad goal. There are some questions, though, that are raised in my mind. If I can refer the minister to the

section entitled "The Planning Framework," it reads, in part: "Provincial land use planning should continue to be guided by the following policies: the commitment to double the protected area of the provincial land base by the year 2000 . . . . "

I guess, depending on what your starting point is, the reference to doubling the protected areas might make some sense. If your starting point was when British Columbia had 6 percent set aside in parks and protected areas, perhaps this makes some sense. But I'm a bit puzzled, given the context we have today of being very close to the 12 percent goal for parks and protected areas, about a commitment to doubling the protected area.

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the member that that could have done with another little bit of ink on the bottom of that page. We did start out with 6 percent, as the member alluded to, when the land use planning process started. The member alluded to the fact that we're almost at 12 percent today. That's what these couple of lines are about.

G. Abbott: So the goal remains 12 percent park and protected area. We're not contemplating a double of that 11.9 percent to 24 percent or anything like that.

The next bullet reads: "Reduced harvesting in special management zones -- which give priority to non-timber values -- will be balanced by increased harvest opportunities in enhanced management zones -- where timber harvesting takes precedence." I'd be interested in what the minister's reaction to this one is.

[1640]

I think it's in the right direction, although whether we want, as a matter of goals, to reduce harvesting in special management zones . . . . Presumably, what we want to do is

[ Page 15275 ]

have an appropriate level of harvesting in special management zones. As I understand the theory behind a special management zone, there are harvesting opportunities, but they are constrained by, perhaps, other resource values, like wildlife or topography or heaven knows what. But there are issues or priorities which take precedence over timber harvesting. Am I to assume that the province's goal would be to have an appropriate level, as opposed to a reduced level, of harvesting in those zones?

Hon. J. Doyle: It would be the view of the Ministry of Forests to have an appropriate level of harvesting in those areas. The government hasn't yet put the guidelines in place for the special management zones that were set aside through the land use plans in the province. There is actually a committee looking at that very issue as we speak, and hopefully they'll report out with something that's agreeable to all parties as soon as possible.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the minister could advise me on the nature of the committee. Is it one that's looking at this issue regionally, or is it a pan-provincial committee?

Hon. J. Doyle: They're looking at it on the provincial level.

G. Abbott: Is the committee looking at just special management zones, or is it looking at harvesting levels in both the enhanced management zones and the special management zones?

Hon. J. Doyle: This committee that I spoke of is just looking at special management areas.

G. Abbott: And is the committee one that is intra- or interministry, or does it draw in a range of stakeholders?

Hon. J. Doyle: It's a multi-stakeholder . . . . There's a variety of people at the table.

G. Abbott: The other part of that bullet is saying: "Reduced harvesting in special management zones . . . will be balanced by increased harvest opportunities in enhanced management zones . . . . " Again, I think we need a little discussion around this, because I think it's an important point. The one area of the province where these zones have been reasonably well delineated but are still a source of frustration is the Cariboo. When I was up in Williams Lake, some of the ministry personnel, I think it was, showed me how the zones were laid out in the Cariboo.

But there still seemed to be some frustration around the level of constraints, even in the enhanced management zone areas where theoretically the timber harvesting was the top priority.

One of the reasons why I want to pursue this is that I have been impressed in the past by a study done by some forestry professors from the University of British Columbia, among them David Haley, that looked at harvesting in an area up around Revelstoke. I'm sorry, the name of it eludes me. They had a look at harvesting costs in an area. They compared, I think effectively, a regime of costs where the licensee simply had to work with the code, versus a regime of costs where it was "code plus" -- code plus costs for all of the different other resources that might come into play there.

I guess that's a long-winded way of asking the minister for his comments on enhanced management zones. Have they worked to the effect that was originally contemplated? And what's the ministry doing in terms of trying to ensure that costs are minimized in those zones?

[1645]

Hon. J. Doyle: When we spoke of special management zones in the last minutes, we said that the guidelines hadn't yet been put in place. The same applies for the enhanced forestry areas; I know it was meant to -- those areas identified when land use plans were done, where they said intensive forestry or enhanced forestry could happen. It is important to get that in place as soon as possible, because they were identified as ideal areas to harvest trees in an intensive way.

G. Abbott: What is the ministry's target or goal around doing that? I suspect, now that the minister mentions that fact, that it probably was at least part of the source of frustration for the licensees in the Cariboo -- when they looked at a map and it said this is an enhanced management zone, this is where we can really work hard at harvesting, yet they didn't appear to enjoy the benefits of that designation. So what's the game plan in terms of getting that sorted out? Does the ministry plan on having stakeholders involved in getting that in place as well? How are we going to proceed?

Hon. J. Doyle: We have had discussions with the stakeholders out in the field. There has already been identified, we feel, roughly a 16 percent increase in harvesting through the discussions that have been ongoing. But the discussion still continues as to just what the final rules and regulations are around those zones.

G. Abbott: Does the ministry have goals and targets in relation to that? Or does it believe that this is just an issue that will evolve as time goes on?

Hon. J. Doyle: The feeling of the ministry is that it will evolve as we get the enhanced management zones guidelines in place.

G. Abbott: The next paragraph does make reference to a point that we talked about earlier, and that is . . . . I might as well quote it for the record: "While these policies are provincial guidelines, it is recognized that local biophysical conditions will necessitate regional-specific variations. For instance, it is understood that the percentage of protected areas will be higher in some regions and lower in others. Similarly, the level of Forest Practices Code impact will differ by region." It goes on, but I'll end the quote there.

Again, I think Garry Wouters is pointing to an important element that needs to be identified and discussed. That is that the impact of the code and the things associated with the code, whether it's identified wildlife strategy or the many other factors that can come into play -- caribou management, management of particular species, and so on . . . . The distribution of that impact is not equal across the board by any stretch of the imagination.

[1650]

I have a real concern that in some parts of the province -- and I guess it's not surprising that a lot of this is associated with the coast or the interior wetbelt regions, where there tends to be quite a bit of biodiversity in the terrain, the species, the forest profile and all that -- what we're creating, as we put

[ Page 15276 ]

the regime of code and code-related constraints in place, is that some regions will suffer disproportionately from the additional costs of this. If that's the case -- and certainly Mr. Wouters seems to be pointing to it as the case -- I think we need to also focus our attention on how we should mitigate that. Is the ministry contemplating such mitigation? We talked about stumpage, but perhaps there are some other ways that it can be done.

Hon. J. Doyle: As we know, we can't change Mother Nature and how the land is laid out. But the ministry does try on a regional basis to take care of it, where at all possible.

G. Abbott: Does the minister share the view I've articulated -- and which I think is pretty much articulated by Mr. Wouters -- that there is a disproportionate impact on different regions of the province from code and code-related matters?

Hon. J. Doyle: I'll agree with the member that there is more of an impact in the wetbelt areas, but it is being taken into consideration as we bring the full code into effect in the various regions in the province.

G. Abbott: The ministry is taking it into consideration as the code is implemented in the province. It's good that the ministry is taking it into consideration, but what does that mean in terms of potential mitigation of the cost impacts? We saw this very acutely in the case of Evans Forest Products when they went through their difficulties in '96. People sat down and started analyzing the impact of Forest Practices Code issues and others. It was very clear that because of the terrain, the cost of harvesting practices -- in some cases, high-line logging or helicopter logging . . . . All of these things come into play and have a huge impact on harvesting costs.

As we see more and more regulations brought to bear on the industry and we see that disproportionate impact . . . . It's one thing to say that we take it into consideration, but is there any way that we can mitigate the impact?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member and I are both aware, as I've probably mentioned, that when Evans Forest Products had some troubles in the fall of '96, one of the issues was the cost of logging and working in the wetbelt area and the tough area out there. That's where I was pleased, four or five months ago, to have collected a group of people that advocated to have a meeting down in Victoria with the wetbelt operators in the province. Personnel came from the then minister's office to attend that meeting.

But as far as an area like, let's say, Golden, through that area the Kootenay land use plan will soon be implemented. As that high-level plan is brought into place, we will weigh the social costs at that time.

G. Abbott: As the government weighs the social cost, are they receptive to some way to offset those social costs, should they be quantifiable and documented?

[1655]

Hon. J. Doyle: To the degree that costs increase with the land use plan in place, hopefully that is picked up when the stumpage is assessed for the area.

G. Abbott: I'm not so sure that it would be satisfactorily. But again, that's going to be an ongoing problem for the ministry to attempt to deal with.

A little further down on page 35, it talks about where there is no agreement on a land and resource management plan: "If there is not agreement or if insufficient detail is provided, government should assess impacts and identify strategies to balance local, provincial and regional objectives, thus completing the plan for subsequent cabinet approval." That's what Garry Wouters is suggesting should be done. Could the minister advise how that varies, if indeed it does, from the current policy around LRMPs?

Hon. J. Doyle: The portion of page 35 that the member read out is current practice of the ministry.

G. Abbott: The second recommendation is: "The government commit to a timetable for completion of land use plans in order to finalize and make certain the areas for parks, conservation, a working forest and other purposes." The report then goes on to lay out the LRMPs that are about to be completed and those that could be completed as late as 2003.

The next

section talks about higher-level plans. It says: "The government should endorse the following timetable for completing [higher-level] plans." It lists for the year 2000 several plans from Vancouver Island through Kootenay-Boundary through Robson Valley and so on.

Can the minister advise what socioeconomic consideration is given prior to the designation of a higher-level plan? Is this exactly the same discussion as we were having around landscape unit planning, or are we talking a different set of objectives here?

Hon. J. Doyle: The list of plans to be designated higher-level plans, read out by the member . . . . Before government would designate them higher-level plans, a socioeconomic analysis would be done at that time.

G. Abbott: So again, just as in the case of the landscape unit plans, the minister didn't address that part of the question: what the relationship is between a higher-level plan and a landscape unit plan. Perhaps they are identical; perhaps we're talking two different animals. I'm not sure, and the minister can clarify that point. But we have a commitment here that prior to higher-level plans being implemented, we will have a very clear idea (

a) about the cost and (

b) about the impact on the annual allowable cut. Correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: The higher-level plan sets the objectives, and then the landscape plans come along and complete the work on the ground.

[1700]

G. Abbott: Thank you to the minister for that clarification, but the commitment here is that we will know both of those things before the plan is put in place. Again, the reason why I ask . . . . It's no secret that there has been some considerable controversy around the implementation of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, and it has obviously caused some consternation on the part of the licensees and others in the Kootenay region. The anticipation or the concern of licensees in the area is that, for example, the implementation of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan could see a reduction of, overall, something like 14.5 percent of the annual allowable harvest in that region.

In some parts of the region, I understand that the fear is that it could virtually eliminate the annual harvest and could

[ Page 15277 ]

potentially affect up to thousands of jobs. Just so we're clear -- and I'm sure the minister doesn't like to contemplate the loss of jobs or the loss of AAC any more than I do -- how can we be sure, when we are putting a higher-level plan in place, that it is not having the impact of eliminating jobs in that area?

Hon. J. Doyle: As a resident of the area -- and of course the critic across the floor is very familiar, as the critic and as a resident of the area also -- a month or six weeks ago I met with representatives of the companies in the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan area, because they had concerns. Out of that meeting, I sent my deputy and other key ministry staff up to work with the ILMA -- and individual companies in the area, through the ILMA -- to make sure that when the Kootenay land use plan is finally announced, the higher-level plan and the economic objectives are taken into consideration.

T. Stevenson: I just have an introduction. In the gallery today are . . . .

The Chair: Is leave granted?

T. Stevenson: Oh. I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Chair, in the gallery today are four visitors, grade 12 students and five adults from the Brethren Heritage School in Modesto, California. They are here with particular interest in comparative government with Canada, local history of British Columbia and the architecture of our parliament buildings. Would all members kindly make them welcome.

G. Abbott: Back to our discussion of higher-level plans. Have similar higher-level plans been put in place elsewhere? I think they have in the Cariboo. What was the experience in terms of the impact of the plans in those areas when they're put in place?

[1705]

Hon. J. Doyle: In the Cariboo, so far the plan has been well received.

G. Abbott: Has there been a reduction in the annual allowable cut that could be attributed to it?

Hon. J. Doyle: In the negotiations to put together the plan in the Cariboo, there was an agreement that there would be a reduction in the annual allowable cut.

G. Abbott: Let's go on to recommendation 4: "The government should complete the designation of parks and, within the context of implementation of higher-level plans, provide statutory protection for a working forest and other values."

Here we're starting to get to the heart of the issue, which is that we currently have a designation of parks in protected areas which is close to 12 percent of the province of British Columbia. We have perhaps 56 or 60 percent of the LRMPs reporting to date in British Columbia. So I'm presuming -- and I'd like to hear the minister's response here -- that when all of those have been reported, we will end up in fact with a considerably higher percentage of the provincial land base devoted to park and protected areas than 12 percent. I don't know what that would be. Perhaps the minister has some idea of whether it'll be 16 percent or 20 percent or what it might be.

Looking at it in the broadest terms . . . . We talked about this the other day. About a quarter of the land base in the province is economically and environmentally suitable for harvesting in a working forest. How are we going to ensure the protection of that working forest as we have the remaining LRMPs reporting and, I would suspect, some considerable pressure to again erode that working forest base that we have in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: I think it's 56 percent of plans are completed, and 24 percent, if I remember right, are ongoing. There are some, as the member is aware, that haven't yet started -- on the coast in particular. We have to wait until those land use plans are completed. They're done on a regional basis -- Kootenays, Cariboo, other areas in the province -- as you're aware. So nobody, hopefully, is suggesting that we don't complete the land use plans. They've been done in different areas. We have to encourage some people to do them.

I guess we could look on the mid- to north coast, where some people are pushing us a little bit to finish it, including forest companies working with environmental groups.

At the end of the day, hopefully soon, when those land use plans in the province are finished . . . . At that time, it would be important that government would have -- hopefully, possibly -- legislation to lock up and secure the working forest so people would know just what they had to work on.

G. Abbott: I do appreciate the difficulty that the minister faces in applying a percentage to something where issues are being discussed locally. We don't in fact know what will be reported out from some of the LRMPs or what compromises might be made around a table in determining an LRMP.

So I acknowledge the problem that the minister faces in responding to that part of the question. I think, though -- and I hope I can articulate what I have in mind here . . . . If we have a working forest of some approximately 23 million hectares -- give or take whatever few million might be -- the concern I have is that we will see a continuing erosion of that 23 million hectares as these processes are being completed. I'm wondering in what way, if in any way, we can provide the statutory protection of the working forest which is referred to by Mr. Wouters in recommendation 4.

Hon. J. Doyle: The member, other members in this House and the Chair of the committee right now are of course very, very aware of the importance of forestry in our various communities and to our province. We all know -- even people who live in Vancouver and other areas where there is no forestry -- that it's still a very big part of the economy of our province.

[1710]

At the same time, I guess we can't have it both ways. We're both admitting that we should finish land use plans. Until they are finished, hon. member, as you alluded to in your lead-up to the question that I'm answering now, we just cannot give a definite answer. But I know -- and many, many members in this House know -- the importance of forestry to communities and to the province.

G. Abbott: I'll then frame the next question more technically. I presume that Mr. Wouters discussed with Ministry of

[ Page 15278 ]

Forests staff, at some junctures in the preparation of his report, some of the provisions or recommendations that are provided here. When he says: "The government should complete the designation of parks and, within the context of implementation of higher-level plans, provide statutory protection for our working forest and other values." What, from the ministry's perspective, are ways in which statutory protection for a working forest could be provided?

Hon. J. Doyle: I read out some time ago that most working forest land already has a general level of protection through provincial forest designation.

But I must get back to my previous answer. Even, for instance, as COFI members . . . . COFI and many, many people in communities depend on forests -- in my constituency to a great extent. But at the same time as COFI and many other people depend on forests in our province, including the Minister of Finance over here, COFI members are sitting down at the present time with environmental groups in the province and looking at possibly taking some of that land, be it many hectares or a few, away from that working forest.

So I think it shows that we really have to finish the land use plans, or they'll be imposed on us by the marketplace. I would hope that as soon as possible we can get down to knowing just what the working forest is.

G. Abbott: I'll move on to recommendation 5 -- and this is really a question of clarification more than anything. The recommendation reads: "The government should clarify how other commercial and non-commercial interests -- not addressed in the code -- can be better accommodated and how the mandates of separate ministries can be harmonized." Perhaps the minister can get an explanation from staff of what Mr. Wouters intends in this particular recommendation, because I don't think there's a lot of clarity there.

[1715]

Hon. J. Doyle: This is something -- the question the hon. member asked . . . . We review this report -- ministry staff -- and get consultation from people across the province. That's something we'll have to do for the review.

G. Abbott: So it's not entirely clear to the ministry at this point what this recommendation means either?

Hon. J. Doyle: It is not clear to the ministry, either, at this point.

G. Abbott: We'll go on to recommendation 6: "The government should test and develop new approaches to ensure effective implementation of the Forest Practices Code." It also makes reference to "pilot projects could be employed in a variety of ways" and goes on to discuss them.

Is it the understanding of ministry that Mr. Wouters is anticipating in this recommendation anything over and above the existing pilot projects which are underway in the province?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no.

G. Abbott: So he is simply converting into a recommendation something which has already been undertaken by the Ministry of Forests. Is that right?

Hon. J. Doyle: Mr. Wouters, in his report, is supporting the Ministry of Forests initiative.

G. Abbott: Perhaps we should spend a moment discussing this one, because I think it's important. Last session we dealt with a bill which gave legal foundation to the Forest Practices Code pilots. I know the current Chair and I had a considerable debate around the bill; I think it was Bill 82 or Bill 84 or something like that. It was all about pilots for the code. One of the things that we had some disagreement on -- and I think eventually we agreed to disagree -- was whether the maximum 10 percent of the AAC could be included in any particular pilot project.

Now, I don't want to revive that debate. It was a good one, and there are some debates that are best not relived at every turn. But I'm curious as to whether in the experience of government, as they attempted to put pilots in place . . . . Did that constraint become one that perhaps ruled out some innovative pilots which could have looked at some aspects of the code?

Hon. J. Doyle: To date, not. And I find it hard to believe that the former minister, who is such an agreeable chap, would be disagreeing with anyone. I find that hard to believe, but it must have been the other person.

G. Abbott: That's entirely possible, because I do know the genial good nature of the former minister, and it is hard to imagine him ever being part of a disagreement. In fact, I think it was a good disagreement, because the point I attempted to make in that debate was that before a pilot for the code w