1996 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 12,

Part 1

[ Page 1345 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Brewin: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House today Jane and Flip Richards. After a long and illustrious service to her state, Jane is recently retired as the Chief Clerk of the Arizona House of Representatives. Jane was the first American Clerk to become an honourary member of the Association of Clerks-at-the-Table in Canada. She and Flip have spent the last week here in Victoria and are soon on their way to Edmonton to participate in the annual professional development seminar of the association. While Victoria is cooler than Arizona, I'm sure we will give them a very warm welcome to our House.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of introducing someone I met on a railway train back in 1980 from Bombay to Delhi. He happens to be visiting British Columbia. He happens to be in the gallery with two of his friends. Jagat Jit Singh is the chap I met in Bombay. Surjit Singh and Surinder Gangar are British Columbians that are accompanying him. Mr. Singh is here with his wife and two children. I want the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce into the House two individuals that are visiting me and carrying on a bit of business. First of all, we have Dr. Dave Rempel, one of my constituents. He's a principal of an elementary school in my riding. Dave Rempel is a good friend and in fact is, I suppose, the grandfather or granduncle of our swans, Svend, Louis and Victory. Victory, of course, was hatched on May 28.

With Mr. Rempel is Mr. Boris Baev, who is visiting us today from Novosibirsk in Russia. Mr. Baev is the first businessman sponsor for a Russian school group who visited B.C. in November 1989. He has continued to be a strong supporter of student exchanges and is now working with Mr. Rempel on international adoptions, the Canadian Friendship Exchange Society. As well, Mr. Baev is out here scoping out the province for entrepreneurial investment in and around the tourism industry. He is very keen on tourism exchanges between our province and the region of Russia that he's from. I bid the House make my friends welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, we have visiting today two very good friends from Kelowna, Allan and Betty Richards, and another very good friend, Betty's mother, Aileen McLaren, of Victoria. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome my brother-in-law Bob McKinnon and his wife, Mary, daughter Stephanie and son Matthew from Camrose, Alberta, who are out to visit sunny British Columbia. I ask the House to make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery joining us today are a number of activists and leaders of the Indo-Canadian community from both my constituency of Victoria-Hillside and the greater Victoria area in general. With us today are Mr. Baghwant Jawanda, Mr. Rob Jawanda, Mr. Gurmeet Sandhu, Teja Singh Gill, Pal Singh Birring and Surinder Pal Dhillon. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Now that the member for Victoria-Hillside has stolen my thunder, I'd also like to welcome both Mr. Baghwant Jawanda and Mr. Rob Jawanda, and the rest of the delegation.

Also, hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is a longtime personal friend of mine, Mr. Hermal Gill, a gentleman with whom I have shared many adventures in my younger days. Would all members please make him welcome.

E. Conroy: Visiting Victoria today are my wife, Katrine, my son Ben, my daughter Sasha, and our neighbour and family friend Cindy Dombrowski. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Julia Robbins. Julia's husband, incidentally, is Peter Robbins, chief of Hansard; so if you're listening, Peter, hello. With Julia in the gallery are Margaret and Mike Middleton, Margaret is Julia's cousin; visiting here from Congleton in Cheshire, England. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome today a former resident of Port Alberni who is now from Penticton, Kathleen Navrot. I ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

ROLE OF JOHN LAXTON

IN B.C. HYDRO OFFSHORE PROJECTS

G. Campbell: On February 22, 1996, hon. Speaker, the Premier told the people of British Columbia that he had taken immediate action to remove John Laxton and John Sheehan from any involvement in B.C. Hydro. Last night we heard from the Minister of Employment and Investment that that was not true. John Laxton remains involved with B.C. Hydro. He is Hydro's representative on the board of a Pakistani company that is involved in a project with Hydro. My question to the Premier is: why did the Premier allow John Laxton to continue to represent British Columbia and B.C. Hydro after he told us that he'd fired him?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the Liberals are trying to pump themselves up because they think they're on to something here. You know, they think desk-thumping equates with substance. But let me deal with the question. First of all....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Hon. D. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong, and if they would sit still for a minute, I could possibly explain. I explained this in the estimates debate last night and this morning, but I see they think they're going to get something out of it in question period, so we'll go through it one more time.

Following the events of last February and the removal of Mr. Laxton and Mr. Sheehan....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps we'll take a supplemental and another kick at this.

G. Campbell: This is an important issue; it's not one to be sloughed aside by this government. In fact, what's wrong is a

[ Page 1346 ]

government that purposely goes out of its way to deceive the people of British Columbia. What's wrong is this minister, who doesn't seem to understand his responsibilities and his accountability to the people of British Columbia, and people are tired of that.

The Premier said in February: "Clearly these were actions, which were improper and may be illegal, by people appointed by this government." He was referring to John Laxton's activities. He was telling people in British Columbia that John Laxton would have nothing to do with B.C. Hydro or public life as long as this government was involved, and that is not the case. Why would the Premier leave involved in this project someone who has broken his word, breached public trust, lied to the public and is currently under an RCMP investigation?

Why would the Premier of British Columbia allow John Laxton to serve British Columbia or be appointed by B.C. Hydro anywhere in this world? That is the question.

[2:15]

The Speaker: I note that we had silence for the question. I hope that we will have relative silence for the answer.

Hon. D. Miller: Following the events in February -- as I was about to try to respond on my last question -- and the installation of Mr. Smith and Mr. Costello, they received twin mandates. Number one was to investigate the areas surrounding the establishment of the offshore companies and the investment by members of the board contrary to the Premier's wishes. Mr. Smith has indeed embarked upon that process and has produced a written report that has in part refuted the primary allegations made by the opposition.

Number two, the ongoing mandate of B.C. Hydro is to protect the investment of both B.C. Hydro and the shareholders with respect to this Raiwind project, which is a fundamentally sound project that has a number of partners. At the request of the Pakistani partners....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain that this gang wants to listen to an explanation.

At the request of the Pakistani partners, we were asked to allow Mr. Laxton to remain on the board of SEPCOL, because it was their view that it was important in terms of the share offering in Pakistan.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: We allowed that to happen. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are not in complete control of SEPCOL.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think you've dealt with....

Hon. D. Miller: We have many parties on the board of SEPCOL. That share offering was successful, and Mr. Laxton is being removed.

The Speaker: Minister, you have answered the question. I am allowing considerable time for questions and answers. In fairness, I think we must. What is good for one must be good for the other. Therefore, in that spirit, the Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: We don't care what the investors in Pakistan asked for. We care what's happening with the Crown corporation and the public assets of the people of British Columbia. For all we know, Mr. Laxton's behaviour may be acceptable in Pakistan. It was not, it is not and it will never be acceptable in British Columbia. The Premier claimed to all British Columbians that he had taken decisive action in February, but it is clear today that he took deceptive action. My question to the Premier, who claimed to take decisive action, is: how can you let this man represent British Columbia or B.C. Hydro anywhere in the world?

Hon. D. Miller: All the high dudgeon in the world will not alter some basic facts. B.C. Hydro management has an obligation to protect the interests of the taxpayers who own B.C. Hydro and the interests of the shareholders in this venture. They took appropriate action to protect both those interests, as any prudent manager would if faced with these same circumstances.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is disgraceful that, yet again, a minister of the Crown has to stand up and defend a fiasco of the former minister, who is now Premier. John Laxton lied to the people of British Columbia; according to the Premier, he lied to him. He put his own personal interests ahead of the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia not once, not twice, but several times, and his activities are subject to an RCMP criminal investigation. How can the Premier justify saying that John Laxton is the right person to go to Pakistan and protect the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: There are others in the business community who will support the actions taken by B.C. Hydro management. What is outrageous is the utter contempt shown by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for this House, and it's typical of the juvenile behaviour we've come to expect from that member...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: ...as he, last night in committee....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Excuse me, minister. Our practice in this chamber is not to deal with points of order in question period. We'll deal with that after question period. I think the minister had answered the question. I'll go to a supplemental -- briefly, if you would wrap up, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: The absolutely outrageous behaviour of that member in...

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: ...committee last night, referring to members as liars, then looking at the clock and saying, "I don't care, I'm going to leave this place anyway" -- the utter contempt....

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's amazing to hear the minister scream like a stuck pig when he gets caught with his pants down.

[ Page 1347 ]

All the bluster aside, the Premier fired John Laxton -- the Premier claimed to have fired John Laxton. The Premier said he was decisive; all the members opposite said how decisive the Premier had been. Yet he allowed someone who he himself said may have been involved in illegal activities to carry the B.C. flag in Pakistan. There are ethical standards, and there are ethical guidelines at B.C. Hydro. When will the Premier finally put the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia ahead of his political hide and ahead of his political friends?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to get the record straight, just for members opposite. I did fire Mr. Laxton from the board of B.C. Hydro; I did that immediately. Information was not given to me; instructions I gave were not obeyed. Actions taken were unacceptable to me and unknown to me. I did take immediate action.

After that action, we appointed the former Social Credit cabinet minister Brian Smith as chair of the board, and we appointed a new minister, who sits next to me today. They had the task, then, of unravelling this complex deal that was unacceptable to me and unacceptable to British Columbians. They are in the process of unravelling it. In the course of getting out of this unacceptable deal, we asked the minister and the board to act in a fashion that protects the taxpayers' investment and protects us from lawsuits in the course of unravelling this complex and, in many cases, sordid deal.

They are doing it now; there are investigations underway. There is an interim report; there will be a report shortly. The minister, the government and the board are handling this correctly and appropriately to extricate us in a manner which protects the interests of British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing how words of decisive action can turn to weasel words so quickly, hon. Speaker -- wriggle words. Today the Premier said that he didn't know. Once again he didn't know; he was asleep at the switch. Well, he fired the last people because of actions that were unknown to him. Does he intend to fire the new people because of actions unknown to him? And that includes the minister sitting beside him, who he's so proud of, and also Brian Smith, who has orchestrated what appears now to be a report that you can drive a semitrailer through.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member's actions, I think, have been clear and have been commented on by the voters, and he always seems to miss the mark.

Let's get back to the fundamental issue of managing B.C. Hydro's obligation to manage in the interests of both Hydro, which is owned by the ratepayers, and the shareholders. They were asked to allow Mr. Laxton to remain. I gave that mandate, a very clear mandate, to the management of B.C. Hydro and Mr. Smith. They carried out that mandate, and I confirm today that they have absolute confidence.... I fully approve of what Mr. Smith and the management of B.C. Hydro have done to protect the interests of British Columbians and the ratepayers and the shareholders in this deal.

M. de Jong: Both the Deputy Premier and the Premier have now mentioned Mr. Smith. I'm glad they did, because it was Mr. Smith who, on April 11, in explaining the decision to divest Mr. Laxton and his family of their interests in this venture, explained it on this basis: "We felt we needed to bring some stability to this project." That's why they needed to be divested.

Well, this morning the Deputy Premier said exactly the opposite. According to the Deputy Premier, it was in order to preserve stability with the venture that Mr. Laxton was required to stick around and continue as a member of the board.

The Speaker: May we have a question?

M. de Jong: Yes, we can. Maybe the Premier can help us out here. Maybe the Premier can explain to us.... He's got only two choices: was it Mr. Laxton's departure that was going to bring stability to this situation, as alleged by Mr. Smith earlier this year? Or was it Mr. Laxton's continuing on the board that was going to bring stability, as alleged by the Deputy Premier? Which one was it? You can't have it both ways.

Hon. D. Miller: Throughout this, the opposition has demonstrated a clear unwillingness to listen. SEPCOL is a company with many partners. British Columbia Hydro directly has about a 14 percent interest. Some of the other partners are Pakistani companies. At their request, in order to ensure a successful share offering...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: ...we did not take any action to try to remove Mr. Laxton from the board. That share offering was successful. We did exactly the right thing to protect the interests of British Columbians.

The Speaker: The bell terminated question period about four minutes ago.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Motion 40 that is on the order paper. It is as printed, and I so move.

[That, under

section 69 of the Constitution Act and sections 3 and 4 of the Statute Revision Act, the Select Standing Committee of this House on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills is designated under

section 3 of the Statute Revision Act as the committee to examine the Revision prepared under that Act, and the committee is authorized (1) to sit and carry out its statutory duties (

a) during a period when the Legislative Assembly is not in session, or

(

b) during the period after prorogation until the next following session,

(2) to advise the Lieutenant Governor under

section 4 of the Statute Revision Act of the committee's approval of the Revision and its recommendation that the Revision be brought into force, and

(3) following the adjournment, or at the next following session, to report or make any recommendations to the Legislative Assembly that the committee considers proper from time to time on the matters referred to the committee.]

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In

Commit-

[ Page 1348 ]

tee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we will be debating the Ministries of Employment and Investment; Small Business, Tourism and Culture; and Municipal Affairs and Housing.

[2:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 36: minister's office, $432,868 (continued).

W. Hurd: I wonder if I could briefly engage the minister in a discussion, or perhaps a clarification on his part, of the contents of a letter which was published in the Vancouver Province yesterday, under the authorship of the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment. If I could just....

An Hon. Member: And a good letter it was.

W. Hurd: And a good letter it was. I'm delighted that the Minister of Environment is in the precincts at this moment, because he may be able to offer some clarification as well. Just to quote two passages from a letter that I assume he signed, the minister indicated:

"Some media reports have expressed concern that we are walking away from Forest Renewal B.C. nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, our government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds to the government. Nor have we, as board members, given instructions to that effect."

Just to get the discussion going, I wonder if the minister can advise the committee whether he stands by those written comments that were published under his signature in the Vancouver Province .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course.

W. Hurd: Thank you for that clarification. I wonder if the minister can reconcile his position with that of the Minister of Environment, who's in the precincts at the moment. The Minister of Environment, who also sits on the board as a member, talks about.... I'm just quoting from a passage here:

"The Minister of Forests was reluctant to say whether he told the Forest Renewal board at a meeting last week if he wanted a portion of the fund returned to the provincial treasury. But the Environment minister, another member of the board, said that was in fact the government's position, that money should be returned from the Forest Renewal fund to the government."

I wonder if the Minister of Forests could clarify, since the letter in the Vancouver Province was cosigned by both himself and the Minister of Environment, which version of events of that meeting we are to accept as being factual. The letter in the Province indicates that the matter of diverting funds was not asked: "Furthermore, our government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds.... Nor have we, as board members, given instructions to that effect."

Yet the comments from the Minister of Environment seem to indicate that, on the contrary, instructions were provided to the FRBC board. The Minister of Environment, when asked if he supported the notion of a general revenue grab, told reporters: "I did indeed. I looked at that and said I don't know what we are going to do with all this. It makes little sense to me as a publicly elected official to see a bank account sitting there that you are not going to use for other purposes."

I'm wondering if the minister can advise us whether he continues to stand by the version of events contained in his letter to the Province or whether the version of events provided to the public by the Minister of Environment is the correct version.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministers who signed that letter agreed that that's the truth. I'm afraid the member is probably quoting from a Vancouver Sun

article where the reporters tried to twist our words and put it in some context to make it look like these two ministers and the Deputy Premier had in fact gone and said: "Give back $300,000 to $400,000." They distorted it by the way in which the letter was written. I dealt with that in this chamber; I put it on the record in question period. We've now put on the record the version of events that we both spoke to in extensive scrums with the media, and I believe that tapes of those scrums will bear that out.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the minister confirmed to the House that the issue of rediverting $400 million or so from Forest Renewal B.C. was discussed at the board meeting in question, and it would have been, I guess, a few weeks ago. I wonder if the minister, as a member of the board, can tell us how the issue appeared on the agenda in the first place. Did it come from his ministry, from the Ministry of Environment or from the Premier's deputy minister, who also sits on the Forest Renewal board?

I wonder if the Minister of Forests, as a board member now, can advise us how the topic came up for discussion, since he's confirmed in his letter to the Province that neither he nor the Minister of Environment raised the matter or asked FRBC to redirect funds.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: FRBC staff brought a presentation on the growing surplus and the business plan of FRBC to the board.

W. Hurd: As a point of clarification, the minister is suggesting that the executive members of the corporation were the ones to propose diverting funds to the government. Is that what I'm to assume from his remarks? Is that where the initiative first came?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

W. Hurd: I'm just trying to clarify the minister's remarks. He indicated that staff presented a proposal at this meeting. Can I directly ask the minister whether the proposal at that meeting involved a proposal to redivert funds from the corporation back to government? Is he saying that the initiative came from staff of the corporation? Is that what I'm led to assume from his remarks?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try again to explain what happened, which is in the letter. The board itself, the staff of the board, brought forward a number of roughed-out options -- just ideas of what they could do with surplus funds and the growing situation of accumulated surpluses, which included information on the fact that we've reached the target early for the cushion, the program continuity fund. There were some options presented. The board directed the staff to go back and come forward with elaborated options for consideration at the September board meeting.

W. Hurd: Just one other point of clarification. When the minister refers to staff of FRBC, who are we talking about? Is it the CEO and the president? Is it the executive members? Since

[ Page 1349 ]

there are 120 current employees of this corporation -- I believe that's the number -- can the minister advise us who presented the proposal and what staff members we are dealing with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The president, who is the CEO, and senior staff.

W. Hurd: The opposition notes that the Premier's deputy minister is also a member of the board. Can the minister confirm, as a member of the board, whether or not the Premier's deputy minister ever made a proposal to the Forest Renewal board with respect to rediverting the surplus funds in Forest Renewal B.C. back to general revenue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think there's any secret that the deputy to the Premier, who is a member of the FRBC board, has participated in discussions around the question of the growing surplus of the board and the underexpenditures on the program side.

W. Hurd: I'm deeply troubled by the minister's answer to this line of questioning. He is suggesting, first of all, that the option of rediverting funds back to general revenue came from staff. He has now acknowledged that the Premier's deputy minister, who sits on the board, may have raised the matter before and, I guess, has been addressing the issue of the growing Forest Renewal nest egg at a number of board meetings.

Given the fact that the Premier's deputy minister is, I suppose, a representative of the Premier's Office and of the government, what assurance can we have that in fact the initiative didn't come from government -- not from the staff of Forest Renewal B.C.? It would clearly lead one to assume that, in terms of influence on the board, the deputy minister's proposal on this matter would certainly at least influence the executive of the corporation to the extent that they may have been asked by the deputy minister in the Premier's Office to come forward with such a report.

I wonder if the minister can clarify that for us.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, this member is very adept at trying to put words into a person's mouth as he sees it and would like the truth to be -- but unfortunately he's wrong -- and then he asks somebody to agree to that, and I won't. I refuse to accept, for the record, that I have acknowledged that scooping money from FRBC was raised by the deputy minister. If you check the record, I said that the deputy to the Premier, along with other board members over the months, discussed the question of what to do with this growing surplus the board has. There have been general discussions.

The board staff has come forward with options, and they have been asked to refine the options, which, we said in the letter, include an option of returning some to the consolidated revenue fund.

We have said everything there is to say about what went on with respect to this subject. The reason the Minister of Environment and I chose to write the letter was as a matter of putting it on the public record, so that no editorial writer -- no one on the staff -- didn't have our version of events in their hands, so they wouldn't be relying, like the opposition is, on what people have done by stringing together facts out of context and trying to string together a different story. This letter denies the story that's there -- that we said that we, as board members, took it to the board. That's not the truth; this letter states the truth. I have nothing more....

You're getting awfully repetitive. We went through this for a week in question period. It's been the subject of a lot of debate. There's no new information on this. It's all in this letter. If you ask the question again, I'll just refer you to the letter.

[2:45]

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that explanation.

The minister's letter suggests that: "Furthermore, our government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds to the government." That's what his letter says -- "our government." I assume that to mean the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, perhaps the Premier's Office and perhaps the deputy minister in the Premier's Office, who sits on the board. I assume that it refers to all the members of government who sit on the board. I guess the Deputy Minister of Forests also sits on the board.

What the minister is asking the House to believe is that the suggestion that funds should be redirected to the government came from the staff or the executive of Forest Renewal B.C., not from any members of the board who may be government representatives. He's asking us to believe that that report was compiled by staff, with absolutely no prompting or urging from the deputy minister in the Premier's Office, the deputy minister in the Ministry of Forests, the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Environment. If that's his story and he's sticking to it, that's fair enough, but I....

It's not, with all due respect, hon. Chair, a credible position. I find it almost impossible to believe that the executives of Forest Renewal B.C., Mr. Stanyer and Mr. Smith, on their own, would take it upon themselves to generate such a recommendation or report, given the political sensitivity of diverting Forest Renewal funds and given the commitment that the government made. It stretches credulity to the outer limits that they would, of their own volition, have initiated such a report without any urging or direction from any government member of the board.

If that's the last point the minister wants to make on the issue, that's his call, but I would suggest to him that it's not a credible position.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to add, as I've said before, that in discussions in the spring -- it's interesting to see somebody over there laugh, when he doesn't even know what I'm going to say -- the Premier very openly discussed the growing surplus issue and what to do with it, and the fact that Forest Renewal was not meeting its program expenditure targets -- and to carefully spend the money. So that was new. There was public debate about that.

But it's interesting that the Business Council of British Columbia in its report on the budget would suggest that one of the options for government is indeed to divert Forest Renewal dollars to the consolidated revenue fund. They didn't say the surplus; they said Forest Renewal revenues. So it's not a new idea. This is not some idea that just popped out of nowhere. There's been discussion about this.

I stand by what's in the letter. We've said this before in the House, and we have said it to the newspapers. The fact that some decided there was a different story there.... We can't help what the newspapers do; that's why we've written to the editors.

W. Hurd: The minister has written under his signature a point: "Furthermore, our government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds to government." He may be taking a very literal

interpretation of that. Certainly the information that I've received, from sources I regard as reliable, is that the deputy

[ Page 1350 ]

minister in the Premier's Office had warned the corporation some time ago that the growing surplus was attractive to Treasury Board in terms of solving budget problems. Obviously those discussions may have been of the nudge-nudge, wink-wink variety. But I think the minister is making a very literal

interpretation when he says that the government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds. Maybe they haven't put it in the form of a formal resolution, and maybe it hasn't been a part of the minutes of the meeting, but I am sure the Minister of Forests will agree that if the deputy minister in the Premier's Office has been advising the board in discussions that this is a possibility.... That may not represent in literal terms a request for funds, but one could assume that since that individual is representing the Premier's Office on the board, that's exactly what the government had in mind.

Again I say to the minister that he may stand by that version of events -- and I have no doubt that perhaps there is no formal motion on the books -- but I would hope that before the board meeting in September, when I understand the decision will be made, the minister will reflect on what he has written: that the government has not asked FRBC to redirect funds nor have the board members given instructions to that effect. That seems to me to be a commitment on the part of the minister, and I would hope he won't raise the matter then, either.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We welcome the Liberal's new-found support for FRBC and are happy to see that finally they have woken up and are championing this program.

I stand by what's written in the letter. It's the truth, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

W. Hurd: I wonder if I could ask a few more questions about the nature of these board meetings. Can the minister tell us the extent to which the minutes or discussions of these board meetings are available to the public? I know it's an issue that we raised during the debate when this corporation was set up. Is his ministry in a position to release any of these transcripts to the public?

I am thinking particularly of the board meeting in September, which we're led to believe will be a momentous meeting as the corporation grapples with this mysterious request for transfer of funds from within its own ranks, one assumes. Now that the minister has clarified it, I wonder if he would be prepared, as one of the ministers on the board, to release the transcript or the minutes of all discussions that occur with respect to this particular meeting, which may well be a critical meeting in the future of this Crown corporation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As an individual member of the board, I won't release anything. What happens is that when the board has confirmed its minutes from the previous meeting, they will then be available to the public. That's done like any minutes: they're confirmed at the following meeting.

W. Hurd: Having dealt with Forest Renewal B.C., I want to recanvass one issue that I believe my colleagues have raised in previous discussion. It deals with the ongoing application of the Forest Practices Code. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee what work his ministry is doing in assessing the cost of implementation. The complexities of implementation certainly....

I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to review some of the articles in the latest RPF Forum , which is a

summary of the code application by a number of professional foresters in British Columbia. There is a lot of concern, as the minister knows, about costs, about complexities and about the delays in cutting permits and roadbuilding that have resulted. As we move through this transition period, I wonder if the minister could tell us what work the ministry is doing to identify the bottlenecks and the costs, with hopes of bringing them under some sort of control.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We did deal with it extensively yesterday, so let me just summarize briefly for you. There is an executive director of Forest Practices Code implementation in the ministry, who oversees it. There are internal committees in the ministry to identify problems in code implementation. There is a ministry-industry committee dealing with engineering costs. There are interministry committees dealing with the Ministries of Environment and of Employment and Investment. We're on joint implementation, because it involves all three ministries.

There are ongoing dialogues with industry, which include an open door for them to send to me, or the ministry, suggestions to streamline the code.

W. Hurd: Earlier in the discussion, the minister indicated that a harvest level of nine million cubic metres under the small business forest enterprise program had been achieved. He also indicated that there was an ongoing review of the program. Can the minister tell us whether the costs of meeting code requirements within the purview of that program are also being reviewed by the ministry? Certainly I'm aware that in incurring development costs for the small business program, the registered professional foresters within the ministry are also required to incur the same additional complexities.

Perhaps I can ask first whether the ministry has isolated the costs of meeting code requirements within the small business program and whether he has a figure available to the committee today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have no figure. The code is hardly up and running. Of course, we are looking at reviewing the costs of meeting the code within the small business program. The answer to the first part of your question is yes; and to the second part, no.

W. Hurd: I have to go back and clarify the minister's remarks. He indicated that the code is not up and running.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Hardly up and running. I'm really interested in a clarification on that point, particularly as it refers to the small business program. The minister knows the ministry faces considerable costs in this program as it is, because of the plans they have to develop for roadbuilding and the preharvest silvicultural prescription they have to do. The cutblock planning is all done by the ministry.

If what I hear is correct, the minister has suggested that even though the ministry itself will be expected to realize the code requirements, he doesn't know what the additional costs will be. Certainly on the private industry side there's a really rigorous attempt being made to quantify the increase in costs attributable to the code. Is the minister confirming that in fact the small business program is running behind the industry in identifying the costs of meeting code requirements?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The small business program is finding the same challenges as the private sector in meeting code requirements. There are changes in cutblock size, higher standards for roads -- all of this. I'd like to remind the member

[ Page 1351 ]

that what we are trying to do under the code is in fact what was purported to have been done in the many, many years of neglect in the forest -- that is, true integrated resource management. Some of those standards couldn't be achieved, and that's why the code came in. There was a request from industry to codify the practices so they knew where they stood, so they knew what the rules were.

W. Hurd: The chief forester has suggested that it may be possible to reduce the impact of the code on the annual allowable harvest to 6 percent. I am aware of some licensees who suggest that the figure might be closer to 25 percent. Within the context of the small business program, what has been the impact in terms of the volume harvested within that program as a result of applying the code requirements?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It wouldn't be the small business program itself that experiences a reduction; it would be if the chief forester made a reduction based on the impact of the code. If there's an AAC reduction, then there would be an apportionment decision made by the minister on how the AAC was apportioned. If there's a reduction, it may be that the small business program would be reduced accordingly, but that's not something we have experienced yet. I think the full impact of the code will have to be taken into account in successive timber supply reviews.

Those that are completed before the code couldn't have taken that impact into account. We would expect that the small business program will attempt to cut and meet its targets within the same kind of cut control that we'd expect resulting from variations in the market.

W. Hurd: When the chief forester makes an AAC determination, can the minister explain whether he has access to the impact of a code implementation? The minister seems to suggest that the chief forester may not in fact have access to that data. I'm aware that although the impact of the code tends to be site-specific, there are some areas where, because of the sensitive-area designation and the implementation of an overall land use plan, the impacts of the code may be much higher.

Could the minister describe to us whether there's an attempt being made here to establish a free flow of information to the chief forester, in terms of not only the ministry's findings on the impact of the code on the small business program but also the experience of other licensees who may be, as the minister has indicated, struggling to apply the code to their own licences? When the chief forester makes his AAC determinations, does he have access to any of the impacts of the code implementation, or is that still evolving as we move along?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, the chief forester accounts for current management practices. And if the current management practices include the code, then he takes that into account. With respect to the sharing of information, of course he has all the information that is available to the ministry.

W. Hurd: In terms of the ministry's collation of information, then, with respect to the impacts of the code, I'm aware that we passed changes to the Forest Act that require licensees to increase the flow of information and provide more data to the ministry. Is there an organized body within the Ministry of Forests that receives information from the various timber supply areas on the code impacts? Is it vetted through the regional manager, or does it come directly to the ministry?

Clearly, as the licensees work through the complexities of the code, there are some areas of timber that will not be economical to harvest or that they'll be unable to harvest. That will, I guess, have an impact on their annual harvest. I wonder if the minister could advise us what the flow of information is and whether there is a real effort being made to collect this information in a timely way in order for us to make a realistic assessment of what impact the code is having on AAC reductions in the 38 timber supply areas in the province.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester makes his determination based on all the information that is available in the timber supply branch. The timber supply branch works with district managers and TFL-holders to get the flow of information in, and it is made available to the chief forester to make his determination. Is there a concerted effort to look at the code? Of course there is.

W. Hurd: In terms of the timber supply reviews that were done in the period immediately after '92-93, when clearly the code wouldn't have applied and the land use plans wouldn't necessarily have applied, can the minister tell us whether those are under re-review by the chief forester? How are the code and the land use plans for the Kootenays, the Cariboo and Vancouver Island being determined as to what impact they're having on those initial timber supply reviews? As the minister knows, we're setting long-term annual allowable harvest levels for the 38 TSAs in the province.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester, when he does his next review, will take all new information, so it depends on where he is in the

schedule of reviewing that particular timber supply area or TFL. The district-specific information from any study will be available to the chief forester, and some of these studies that have been done are more global in nature. But if it's relevant, he will take it into account, as he will the higher-level plans and subregional plans that have been brought into effect between his last determination and the one that he's embarking on.

W. Hurd: I assume that the ministry is responsible for collecting the information that the chief forester would ultimately base his determination on. Is that correct to assume? I guess what I'm trying to determine here is the ministry's role in collecting the ongoing data not only from its own small business program but also from licensees who, I guess, are collecting information about the code's impact. I just want to clarify: is the chief forester requesting that information himself? Or is that information flowing from the licensees to the ministry, and then on to the chief forester in some orderly way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Part of the ongoing management practices is to solicit this information on the code impacts at the district level. So operators feed it into the district level; it's then made available to the chief forester.

In addition to this being a part of ongoing management, though, there is a special project in the integrated resource branch dealing with the monitoring of code impacts. I think you're finding not only that the code is a living document that needs change, as necessary, but that the ministries themselves are constantly upgrading their management practices so that they monitor and have essential management information available.

G. Plant: I want to change the general subject, probably significantly, and move into the broad area of aboriginal

initia-

[ Page 1352 ]

tives and programs within the Ministry of Forests. There's a number of general headings that the questions I have fall under. Perhaps I could begin, though, with a request to have a basic sense.... I'm sorry I don't have the organization chart for the ministry in front of me. I wonder if the minister could indicate how the various initiatives and programs, which are underway, are organized within the ministry. Are they all under one umbrella, or are they spread across a number of different branches of the ministry? How is this ministry set up to deal with first nations issues?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry is organized to do this. The delivery of all programs is done at the district level, so it's a decentralized delivery mechanism. But there's support to that, because it's a new way of doing business. It's a complex area, as you understand, where there are many ill-defined areas of endeavour, like traditional land use and so on. There is a support group to that in the ministry. The aboriginal affairs branch provides the support. It's kind of a staff function, but it provides support to the districts.

G. Plant: Are the people who are directly members of this branch full-time-dedicated to providing the support in relation to aboriginal affairs? How many people are there in this branch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they are full-time-dedicated, and the number is 21.

G. Plant: Some questions now about the various initiatives and the funding allocated for them, as well as the staffing allocations. I understand that for the fiscal year that's ended, the government's intention was to spend about $18.5 million and utilize up to 220 FTEs in respect of first nations peoples' initiatives and programs. Is that going to remain constant in the year ahead? Is it going to go up or down? What's the plan for this year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This year the intention is to spend $13.3 million and utilize up to 210.5 FTEs involving first nations initiatives and programs at the branch, region and district levels. So it's at all levels, 210 FTEs.

G. Plant: Doing a quick bit of arithmetic, it looks like there may be a reduction of something in the order of $5 million in program spending here. If I'm right, is there an explanation for that? And if I'm not right, then I hope the minister will let me know.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We haven't had a reduction. Perhaps you would quote your figure. We're looking for your figure. But we have constant spending; that's the information I have here. There hasn't been a reduction of any significance at all.

[3:15]

G. Plant: The figure I'm looking at purports to come from a

summary briefing note that would be just a bit more than a year old, so presumably was prepared in anticipation of the estimates debate last year. The figure was $18.6 million. It may be that that figure was wrong. Perhaps the minister could have another look. If not, we'll settle for the basic proposition that program spending is constant.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As far as we know, the spending is constant. But again, if you want to share something hard about where that came from.... It may have been a document in preparation of estimates, I don't know, but we don't have that as a line item anywhere here. We will continue to look, but our program people say they aren't suffering any loss in program funds.

G. Plant: I want to move beyond that. I might be able to assist the minister later with the particulars that he can't find in his documents. I want now to move on, if it's possible to do so, with the documents that the minister has available to him, to explore a breakdown of some of the particular program activities and initiatives, by reference both to the amounts of funding and the staffing. Is there a line item for treaty negotiations for the amounts to be spent in the current fiscal year? If so, what's the amount and how many people are dedicated to that task?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is a line item on treaty negotiations; it's $0.4 million, 11 FTEs.

G. Plant: I have to beg the minister's indulgence. I got the 11 FTEs, but I didn't catch whether it was $0.4 million or $2.4 million.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The figure is $0.4 million -- $400,000.

G. Plant: The next group I want to ask about are people within the ministry who are dedicated to the task of dealing with interim measures agreements and acting as aboriginal forestry advisers. I want to know, if I can, whether there is a separate line item for that group, and if so, what the amounts and the staffing are in relation to it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The funding for aboriginal forestry advisers and interim measures agreements is $4.4 million, and the resources are 43 FTEs.

G. Plant: There are a series of programs, at least in the document I'm looking at, which appear to be programs underway a year ago. If they are united by a common theme, it may be the theme of proactive steps on the part of the ministry to encourage aboriginal involvement in particular forest sector activities. The programs include something called the native orientation program, the forest worker development program, fire suppression, native unit crew program, and something called the native fire prevention technician program.

I'm about to ask a compendious question. We could do it one at a time, if that's more convenient. I wonder if I could impose on the minister to briefly outline what these programs, each of them, is about and the kind of funding and staffing that's going to be associated with them over the course of the year that we're now in.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With the first program under interim measures and aboriginal forestry, those funds go to create liaisons between aboriginal communities and the Ministry of Forests to establish protocol for aboriginal involvement in forestry-related planning processes. That's the figure of $4.4 million I gave you.

There is a corporate initiative for traditional-use studies with first nations. As the member knows, traditional uses are defined amongst those aboriginal rights that have constitutional protection of some sort, albeit poorly defined. The funding there is used for operating expenses of the field and headquarter staff so that we can fund first nations people to

[ Page 1353 ]

deliver this corporate initiative for traditional-use studies. In other words, we have to involve them in the traditional-use studies, and do so through this funding. This funding is provided by FRBC and internal corporate initiatives for inventories.

The forest technician training program is funded at a level of $480,000. There are 20 FTEs involved there. The forest technician training program replaces the native orientation program. This is used for salaries, tuition and operating expenses to support and train 20 aboriginal people in a pilot forest technicians training program. That has been announced and kicked out the door in the last couple of weeks.

The fire suppression vote, fire preparedness, is a native unit crew program which involves 134 FTEs and $3.57 million. That's used to fund 17 crews of 20 members each in full-time provincial firefighting teams. Those crews, the native unit crews, employ aboriginal people throughout the fire season and train aboriginal people in firefighting techniques.

Then there's the native fire prevention technician program, which is $450,000 and nine FTEs. That funding is used to employ full-time fire protection suppression technicians. The technician graduates provide support in fire prevention enforcement and awareness.

G. Plant: In the course of his answer, the minister made reference to traditional-use studies. I understand that funding is provided by FRBC, but either I missed the amount of the funding associated with that, or the minister omitted it. I wonder if I could just pursue that a little further. How much money is being spent to support the initiative of traditional-use studies?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The funding for the corporate initiative for the traditional-use studies is $2.2 million, and there are four FTEs in the ministry that deliver those programs.

G. Plant: There seems to be a number of potential contexts in which one could make use of traditional-use studies: in the implementation of the protection of aboriginal rights policy, in interim measures agreements or, perhaps, in treaty negotiations. What are the parameters within which these traditional-use studies are conducted? Is it across the board, or is it just for some specific items in particular?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The self-interest on the part of the province, which arises out of our obligations to resource management and our constitutional powers there, are the forest development planning for land use and treaty preparation. You could argue that the interim measure -- small "i," small "m" -- is to involve native people in the forest industry, broadly speaking. But to discharge our responsibilities to them, we need to know that if they don't cooperate in providing information about their rights, we are not absolved of the responsibility to know what those are.

When we discharge our forest planning responsibilities, we are aware of their rights on the landscape. But we try to embark on these studies cooperatively so there's a mutual advantage; we are able to achieve our objectives of managing the resource, all the while respecting their rights.

G. Plant: If I understood the minister's answer correctly, the two areas within which the ministry funds the undertaking of traditional-use studies are in planning and in the context of treaty negotiations. So I take it that traditional-use studies, done under what the minister has described as planning, are studies done as part of the development of planning for harvesting operations. That is, it's part of the discharge of the ministry's obligations, in the way that the minister has described them, but it's done in the context of particular planning for particular places, rather than in the air -- if that distinction makes any sense.

I guess what I want to know is whether the ministry is funding the undertaking of traditional-use studies in a way that is focused in relation to particular planning activities, as well as treaty negotiating, or whether there's just some sort of broad project here to fund traditional-use studies as and when people may want them to be done.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's the former, not the latter.

G. Plant: I'm wondering if the minister could now explain how, from an organizational point of view, employees of his ministry participate in the treaty-negotiating process. Perhaps I should just continue by clarifying the scope of that question. I'm not asking right now about participation in the Nisga'a process. I'm asking about participation in the B.C. Treaty Commission negotiations that are underway.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the participation is on an information and analysis basis as support to treaty tables as part of a government team approach. They participate as part of what you might have heard described as the regional government caucuses -- the caucuses of officials who are there to support the treaty processes. The participants are from the branch, regional and district level, so all three levels participate.

G. Plant: Could the minister either explain a little bit more what he means by information and analysis, or at least, alternatively, give some examples of the kind of information and analysis which these individuals are providing in the course of their work?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One good example would be analysis of the impact of various land selection models that might be taken to the treaty table.

G. Plant: Are these people also providing technical support in terms of identifying particular forest types and all the technical stuff around what kinds of trees you find where, and that sort of thing? I guess, to put it another way: are these people part of providing the information base within which the negotiations take place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We would provide information in the form of maps, and so we would support

interpretations of tables that might be generated, say, under a timber supply review or for some land use planning process that might have been undertaken. Whatever information is out there, they would interpret and be available as a resource to the tables.

G. Plant: I take it that these people are simply there as an information resource, and they are not there as part of the decision-making process that goes on in the context of the negotiations on the province's behalf. Or do I have that wrong?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, in the development of a mandate for the negotiators, decisions on mandate will come from cabinet, so they will feed information as necessary up through

[ Page 1354 ]

their line management to the cabinet table. Sometimes a question is revealed at the table and they may need some clarification on mandate, in which case they would come back and feed it through the ministry system to get up to cabinet level. But they're not there deciding the mandate with the negotiators.

G. Plant: The minister's answer, I suppose, exposes part of my interest here, which is to understand who's providing the expertise and the insight that leads to the development of the mandate. I understand that the mandate, when it is created, is a creation of Treasury Board. Much as I might like to inquire into that process, I'll not attempt that here.

One of the questions and concerns that stakeholders and others outside the treaty-making process or direct participation have had is with respect to the hierarchy of decision-making and input within the various ministries of government. It's not clear to me if the Ministry of Forests is there simply to assist the treaty teams that are assembled by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs by providing technical support, or if the Ministry of Forests actively engages in mandate development and the kind of policy-related stuff that would call on its expertise as the managers of the forest resource.

I am not sure which it is, or if it is some other variation of that. I wonder if the minister could shed some light on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At all levels there is interaction from the executive on down, from cabinet on down. The people behind the table, supporting the negotiators, respond to the Aboriginal Affairs negotiators who lead the process. So they are part of the team, and if there is an impact that has policy implications, then of course they would feed that back through the bureaucracy, and we would try to get a policy clarification or something like that.

With respect to advising on impacts, clearly information about third-party interests would be part of their responsibility too. It occurred to me that that may be one of the interests out there that needs to know that their information is available to treaty negotiations. We ensure that that happens. It would be the responsibility of Ministry of Forests personnel to tell the treaty negotiators what obligations there are on the land.

G. Plant: The treaty process, under the auspices of the Treaty Commission, has moved the parties over the last couple of years -- or the parties maybe have done it all by themselves, I suppose -- with a reasonable degree of dispatch, first through the first three stages, the initial stages, of the six-stage treaty process, which are, generally speaking, process-oriented. If the latest annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission is right, we are on the verge of quite a number of stage-four negotiations over the next year or so.

That will, I suspect, mark a significant change for all the parties involved in each of these negotiations as you move from process issues to the substantive issues. I am sure that from the vantage point of his ministry, the minister and his staff have had occasion to continue to develop the processes that work for this ministry in terms of their participation in and development of the whole treaty-negotiating process.

I'd be interested in the minister's general comment about whether, from his perspective or from the perspective of his ministry, the process is working, and if it's not, about what he'd like to change over the course of the next year or so, and where he sees this going, admittedly only looking from the forestry perspective, in the treaty process in the next year or so.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am sure the member understands that it is a challenge. He has laid it out well. There have been process matters that have been dealt with, and now stage four does present a formidable challenge. Without ramping up and giving a blank cheque to the people who resource these tables, we're going to have to work very smartly with respect to the utilization of resources, and we have devoted millions of dollars to it. As you know, we're cross-pressured in trying to get resolution so we have certainty on the land both for aboriginal people and for other parties on the land.

It will be a challenge -- that's the word -- to manage the expectations and the progress that we would all like to achieve with the limited resources we have. But there are far more resources than have ever been spent to resolve these issues. I'm sure you can appreciate that it takes tens of millions of dollars across government to do this, and of course we would like to see considerable dispatch in coming to agreements.

But as I look ahead, which was the invitation -- and I think it's a fair enough question.... Certainly I've thought about this a lot. There have been many discussions about the need for third-party interests to cooperate with government in the environs of a treaty table to ensure that what we call appropriate interim measures are taken under stage four so that there is comfort there that the treaty process can carry on to its conclusion and that there will be the prospect of settlement at the end.

G. Plant: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I want now to turn to the specific case of the Nisga'a agreement. There are a number of forest-related issues that arise in the context of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. I note that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is taking a keen interest in this debate, and that's fair enough -- I'm sure that's what he was doing.

The first issue I want to ask about is the promise, if you will, by the provincial government, hedged with certain qualifications, to make available to the Nisga'a a forest licence tenure that could have up to a 150,000 cubic metres of annual allowable cut. I have a number of questions about this, and some of them may just bespeak my ignorance on the point. Is it contemplated that this is a licence granted on new ground or that this is a licence that would be made available by, in effect, taking it from somebody else or taking land that is already licensed to some other entity?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As most ministers do, they're busy trying to prepare their answer before they've heard the question. I just want to let you know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs made a major contribution to this debate. He said that if he had all the resources of the Ministry of Forests, he could settle treaties all over the place very quickly. But I'm not about to let him get away with that.

With respect to the Nisga'a, as you know, any participation through a forest licence in the neighbourhood of 150,000 cubic metres would be from the existing base of cut. It would be under the Forest Act, and the agreement is a side agreement to the treaty. It is not to be constitutionalized, so it's simply under provincial jurisdiction. It's an economic add-on, as we call it.

G. Plant: I wonder if the minister could say what the value of the add-on is in terms of both the potential jobs that might be made available and the gross revenue, if I could put it that way, that would be produced for someone who had a licence up in that part of British Columbia with an AAC of about 150,000 cubic metres.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to remind the member, we aren't creating another licence. They would have to acquire an

exist-

[ Page 1355 ]

ing licence. They would pay stumpage as any other licensee would pay. So it's a question of transfer of rights under the Forest Act as opposed to the creation of a unique form of rights. With respect to the value, that value would be determined by economic negotiations between the parties.

G. Plant: I guess this is part of my lack of understanding of what was intended here. When the minister says -- correctly, I'm sure -- that it's not a creation; it's more like a transfer.... Out there in the marketplace, when people want to acquire other people's forest licences, something has to be paid for it. I'm not sure what the intention is, from the government's perspective, of these provisions of the treaty -- whether it's intended that the Nisga'a would buy a licence with this AAC or whether, in effect, the province would buy it on their behalf.

What I'm interested in knowing is: is it the intention of the province to put up the money on behalf of the Nisga'a to make the licence available, or is it simply an administrative undertaking by the government to say: "If you want to buy a licence, we'll make it easier for you"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wouldn't go so far as to say: "If you want to buy a licence, we'll make it easier for you." We would facilitate the purchase, sure. But we expect them to use the cash they have to buy economic opportunities. So they'd use the cash portion.

I used the word "add-on" not in the sense of adding quantum of value, but in the sense of packaging around the treaty environment to make economic viability a reality. If we don't achieve that through the treaty process and through government policy, we aren't going to achieve the social and economic objectives of security for those communities. I hope that clarifies it.

[3:45]

G. Plant: Let me take it a little further to see if I understand it correctly. In the minister's answer, he touched on a theme that he's heard public debate about and I've heard public debate about: what is the overall value of the treaty to the Nisga'a if it's implemented? What is the overall cost?

People begin that analysis by looking at the capital transfer payment, the $190 million. Then they look at the transfer of, or creation of, the land base known as Nisga'a lands and try to calculate what the aggregate cost is or the aggregate value of the lands and the resources that are expected to belong to the Nisga'a after the treaty.

There are people out there who would say that in addition to the land value and the resource value that are encompassed by the value of Nisga'a lands and the $190 million, you should add the economic value of a gift, in effect, of a 150,000-cubic-metre forest licence. What I understand the minister to be saying is that that analysis is incorrect, if I could put it that way, and that that's what the minister meant when he said it's not really an add-on in that sense. It's an add-on in a different sense. Do I understand the minister correctly?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, you've understood it correctly. We expect, parallel with discussions at the treaty table, that there are a number of undertakings the first nations will make. I could give you the example of them undertaking to purchase private property -- ranchland -- in order to acquire those rights, that space, because private land isn't on the table. They think they need that to make their future work for them.

So you're right, there is a misunderstanding out there. We are allowing the market forces to determine the value, but it will be money that they spend out of the cash quantum. So that's fixed.

G. Plant: Now let's deal with the second half of the whole Nisga'a AIP thing. If the treaty were negotiated in a final form, in a way that is contemplated by the AIP, what would be the implications for existing licence holders? I'm particularly interested in whether the ministry has undertaken any analyses of the anticipated loss of revenue -- stumpage revenue, in particular -- from what will amount to the transfer of Nisga'a lands to the Nisga'a, lands that currently have some forest tenures on them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question about the loss of revenues on land that becomes Nisga'a land is part of the ongoing discussions with the federal government on the cost-sharing agreement. Those discussions are ongoing because forgone revenue is something we're discussing with the federal government.

G. Plant: I'm confused a bit by that answer, because I thought there was agreement with the federal government about cost-sharing. I recall that at some point, the lack of agreement on cost-sharing was regarded as a hurdle to the completion of the negotiations of the AIP. So in that context, I'm not sure what it is that's not yet worked out with the federal government. I wonder if the minister could give me a slightly fuller explanation of the problem.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'll try. The cost-sharing agreement has been worked out with the federal government for treaties in British Columbia. What we have to work out is the application of the cost-sharing agreement to the Nisga'a agreement. That work has not been completed.

G. Plant: Would it be correct to say, then, that there is not a specific cost-sharing agreement between the province and the federal government relating to the Nisga'a?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to bring it back to my responsibilities, which are that we provide analyses to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. So just conferring with my colleague, when his estimates come up, I would invite you -- and he's inviting you -- to pursue it at that time. It's out of the realm of my responsibility.

G. Plant: From his perspective as Minister of Forests -- and sitting in that dark corner -- I take it, then, that what he doesn't know yet is what the cost-sharing agreement is, as it may affect the interests of the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When it comes to determining the impact on the forest resource, I'd have to say that there will have to be an AAC determination -- an allowable annual cut determination -- for the Nisga'a land. That's as a basis; we don't know what the impact is.

As you know, AAC determinations are much more broadly based, with inventory data from a random sample which covers a large area, and we don't have the detailed inventory information. But there will be an AAC determination made for the settlement area. The agreement-in-principle for the Nisga'a requires that British Columbia and the Nisga'a use their best efforts to determine what the AAC for those lands will be, because it has to take effect after the final agreement.

What the province intends to do is apportion any AAC impacts equitably across the licensees. If there's any AAC

[ Page 1356 ]

reduction because of a park or any other land use decision, or whatever, it's been the policy of government to distribute the impact equitably. You were asking earlier about impact on third parties.

G. Plant: I want to ask the minister some questions about a different topic. In March of 1995 his ministry promulgated a policy called protection of aboriginal rights. We're about a year and a half down the road from the announcement of this policy. I want to ask the minister for his general observations about the success of the policy to date -- or failure, from his perspective -- and I also want to impose on him to let me know if there is any formal review process or assessment underway with respect to this policy. If so, could he perhaps outline what the basis of that review is?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'd be pleased to update you. Let me start by a general comment that we're generally pleased with the way the courts have responded to the way in which it implemented our policy. I think it has in fact vindicated the need for the policy. We feel that we've made considerable progress by having that policy in place and managing to it.

Since March of '95 -- only recently, though -- we have initiated an evaluation of the aboriginal rights policy, of how it's going. We're also undertaking an analysis of what are referred to as log-around areas in forest districts, due to aboriginal issues being addressed. Where there was a dispute, the ministry would choose not to log in an area because of that.

We're analyzing what the impact of that is, and we're preparing comprehensive cultural heritage resource operational guidelines, which include guidelines to do with culturally modified trees, traditional-use studies -- which we discussed earlier -- archaeological overviews, archaeological impact assessments and cultural heritage overviews. All those are being undertaken to support the policy.

G. Plant: The first thing the minister referred to in the recitation of review initiatives or assessment initiatives was something he called an evaluation. How is that being undertaken? Is it expected to result in a formal review in writing? If so, does the minister anticipate making the results of that evaluation public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. We've let a contract to do this extra work. The process will involve interviews of two districts per region, and the licensees are being invited to participate, as well as first nations. We have the support of the Council of Forest Industries on this initiative.

G. Plant: The minister referred a few minutes ago to something called log-around areas. Does the ministry keep track of or have an inventory of problem areas like this? The question that arises is: how many of these are there right now in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to be clear. The log-around study includes areas where logging has been deferred because of aboriginal issues, but there are other reasons why we might be doing it -- environmentally sensitive areas. It's part of an overall policy, but this is the reason for the study. We're not exactly sure how many are out there.

We do know, though, that the logs are flowing. Come breakup last year, the log yards were full, and they were able to meet the market demand for their timber. We have been getting the timber out, so log-arounds haven't created an overall impact. We do have a substantial amount of cut permits out ahead. It's not as much as industry would like. Anywhere between eight and ten months of cutting has been permitted, so we're managing with these disruptions. As we refine our land use planning processes, we can often incorporate a lot of the same values and needs to do landscape planning that incorporates respect for all the users of the land, including aboriginal users.

G. Plant: I should have asked a question about the evaluation that the minister described a minute or so ago, which he indicated had the support of COFI. Is that going to result in a report that the minister will make public? I didn't quite get the answer to that specific question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's very clever questioning on the part of the member. Because you've asked, of course it will be public.

G. Plant: That's an invitation to ask questions that staggers me for a moment. Rather than take advantage of it immediately, let me ask about the study of log-around areas, which I understand is also underway. Is it intended that the results of this study will be made public in due course?

[4:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the information will be available, but it's a long way from being complete. We don't expect it to be done next month or the month after; it may take a considerable length of time. As I've said in previous answers, this isn't impeding progress out there. There may well be a problem. We're trying to get a handle on it, and we'll feed the problems back either into negotiations -- greater measures -- or into land use planning processes, or we'll deal with the issues. The information will be available when it's completed.

G. Plant: I suspect that the questions I want to ask now are being looked at by the contracting party undertaking the evaluation of the aboriginal rights policy. I'll ask a few of them anyway. Let me ask one compendious question.

The policy has a number of steps that ministry officials are expected to follow during the course of planning procedures to take into account. The first is to identify the existence of potential aboriginal rights and then, if necessary, to take steps to accommodate them -- involving consultation or heritage studies, and so on. There's a process that the ministry says it will go through in order to achieve the objectives of the policy. The policy itself has some time lines for things that have to be done during the course of the policy.

When you follow through the time line, you find that the basic intention is that some decision is supposed to be made, roughly speaking, about three months after initial notification to a first nation group that there may be an infringement on aboriginal rights. What is the ministry's experience over the last year and a half with respect to whether or not the time lines in the policy are being met by ministry staff?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's a mixed experience, but generally positive. Sometimes we will negotiate a change to the time lines, but we try to manage to the time lines of forest development planning. In the case of Clayoquot, it's a 60-day period. Considering all the other complex steps in forest development planning, I think it's a reasonable objective to follow the forest development planning time lines.

G. Plant: I was actually not interested in exploring whether the time line was reasonable, which I suppose is an

[ Page 1357 ]

interesting question. I was more interested in exploring what the ministry's experience is in adhering to the timetable it has set for itself in this policy. I'm going to put the question again, if I may, to the minister. This is not a philosophical question about whether or not there is a reasonable time frame here for planning decisions. It's more a question of: how often is the timetable being adhered to?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I did say it was generally positive. In other words, we are meeting the objectives that are set out there. In some cases, we ask for shorter time lines; in some cases, we give them longer. We are permitting millions of cubic metres of wood every year, so that attests to the fact that it is working. I'd have to say that it's a success.

G. Plant: One of the things that is critical to the success of this policy -- I suppose in the long term -- is participation by first nations in the various steps in the process which involve them. I think members of the public who have followed court cases -- at least, some of the early ones -- would be under the impression that there were a considerable number of first nations who were sufficiently uninterested in this policy that they were generally ignoring the ministry's attempts to involve them in it.

I'm afraid it's a hopelessly general question, which you can probably answer with a hopelessly general answer that I'm sure will reflect well on the ministry, but the question is: what is the ministry's experience with respect to actually getting active participation by first nations in the implementation of this policy? Are there places where it works better than others? What are the minister's plans to fix the problem areas?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just sitting here hoping that I don't get into a situation where the member opposite knows more about our policy than I know myself. I'm afraid that could happen. He knows what I'm speaking of.

What I could say -- and it's not hopelessly general, because I think there's some truth here -- is that where we've been able to establish memorandums of agreement on process with a first nation, the policy works well. It also works well where we've been able to engage cooperatively in traditional use studies and those kinds of things. Where we've been able to achieve that, the process works well. Where there's a more sovereigntist approach taken, or a litigious approach -- one political, one legal -- it doesn't work well. But even in those cases, as the member knows, the courts are finding in our favour, and I hope that continues.

G. Plant: I want to refer for a minute or two to a publication by registered professional foresters called the RPF Forum . The May-June 1996 issue was largely taken up with a discussion of whether or not this particular policy is working. I am going to take the advantage of reading selectively, but that suits my purposes, and I am sure it will suit the minister's.

One of the writers, on behalf of an industry association in the context of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Lillooet areas, says this:

"The largest problem currently faced by licensees is the inconsistency with which district managers have chosen to implement the policy. Currently there are situations where a licensee might consult with a specific tribal council in three different forest districts, and the process of consultation is different for each area because each district manager has implemented a different procedure. This is not only confusing for plan proponents, but it must certainly be cumbersome for the aboriginal groups in question.

Consistent application of a process based on the basic legal requirements for consultation is key in order to avoid mounting frustrations. The Ministry of Forests, Cariboo region, is attempting to address this problem by initiating dialogue between licensees and the ministry."

The problem identified here is inconsistency. It seems to me to be a potential inconsistency arising not just because of the possibility of one tribal council with interests in three different forest districts, but also because of the possibility of different tribal councils within one forest district having different needs. Of course, forest companies aren't necessarily well-equipped to deal with that. I'm inviting a comment from the minister on this comment -- whether or not it is in fact the experience of the ministry that there is a problem with consistency.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it's true that there is a problem with consistency. There have been lots of discussions as to whose responsibility it is to undertake the consultations and in-depth studies. One of the reasons we're doing the evaluation is to try to ensure some consistency.

To put it into some perspective, I don't think that this policy is creating anything near the problems, if I can call them that, with code implementation. For example, if there is a problem getting permits out, there's probably more a problem in learning to live with the code than there is in learning to live with the aboriginal question on the land. So just put it in that kind of perspective. It may not be comforting, but I know from personal experience that that question has been put in the context of land use planning and so on. There are larger issues out there that the professionals have to deal with.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Bringing it back to that particular discussion, we're aware of that, we're dealing with it, and the people who are here with me deal with it on an ongoing basis. I think the individual points to a problem that we are on top of. You can be sure of that; I stand here and say we are.

G. Plant: Well, that's reassuring. With that reassurance and all the expectations that it creates, I'll move on to a different subject: the interim measures agreements. I hope to not get caught up in terminology.

I'm not interested today in revisiting the entire history of interim measures agreements and memoranda of understanding as aspects of forest planning in the context of first nations. I'm more interested in getting a bit of a current status report. How many negotiations with first nations are currently underway which are intended to result in interim measures agreements, consultation protocols or memoranda of understanding? How many have been negotiated to conclusion of an agreement over the last half-year or so?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have 11 signed, and nine are being negotiated.

G. Plant: I take it that the 20 agreements or understandings that are encompassed by that answer are under the purview of the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the 20 are Ministry of Forests agreements.

G. Plant: Are the 11 signed agreements publicly available? As to the nine that are currently under negotiation, is the ministry consulting with the potentially affected third parties with respect to each of the negotiations, and is a list of those nine negotiations available to the public?

[ Page 1358 ]

[4:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, absolutely. We are discussing the nine with the third parties, so I think our intent is to involve them. We have to have an agreement that's workable, and since they're basically process documents, it brings comfort.

I'd just like to add that with these kinds of agreements, along with the policy that we discussed earlier, we're in much better shape than we would be without them, because we would probably find more litigation than we do now.

G. Plant: I wonder if I could explore a couple of aspects of the ongoing negotiations. Part of the task here is to ascertain how the provincial government is spending public money. I guess I'll start with this question: does the provincial government provide funding support for the first nations involved in the nine negotiations that are currently underway?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We cost-share this with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

G. Plant: Under the ambit of the 11 interim measures agreements or memoranda of understanding the minister alluded to that have recently been signed, and under the potential ambit of the nine that are being negotiated, is the province funding traditional-use studies? Is this one place where traditional-use studies are being used?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under an agreement, a traditional-use study might be something they wish to discuss or manage, but the funding for the traditional-use study wouldn't come under this; it will come from some other source. It wouldn't be the same funding as what funds the management of the agreement.

G. Plant: But the other source in relation to other traditional-use studies might include the ministry programs the minister referred to earlier. Am I right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the two sources are the inventory programs of government -- there's a number of them -- and FRBC has agreed to fund some of the traditional-use studies.

G. Plant: In conclusion, I thank the minister's staff for assisting in answering these questions, and I also thank the minister for his forthright and direct answers.

T. Nebbeling: Although I have some questions on how the aboriginal issue impacts on communities that rely on the resource of our lands, I would like to focus in the next little while on jobs, the inevitable loss of jobs that is associated with the annual allowable cut reductions in the various timber supply areas, and the initiatives by the government to compensate for these losses by a number of programs and initiatives of the ministry.

I'd like to talk about a number of things. The first thing is that there's a clear difference in the analysis approach towards what the real impact of a reduction of an AAC is. Whenever the chief forester announces another AAC, immediately we get reports from the ministry that the impact on job losses will be X number. I would like to know what formula is used by the ministry, by the chief forester's department, if indeed an economic assessment is part of the presentation of the annual allowable cut reduction. What mechanism do you use to establish the loss of jobs related to the annual allowable cut reductions?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When the chief forester puts out the documents on which he bases his eventual determination, the socioeconomic impact studies are done. They basically use so many jobs per cubic metre and work from there with a conventionally used multiplier effect. Once that document is out, the public or anyone can challenge the figures and discuss them. I know there are people who make submissions, and from personal experience I know there's a wide variation of commentary.

Ultimately, the chief forester uses that information when he makes a determination, because there's often a direction from the minister that will suggest that we want to see as much community stability as the allowable cut will supply.

T. Nebbeling: The number of jobs per thousand cubic metres that you indicated is used as a standard to establish the impact on the job market in any given area. That's different for the coast, I take it, than for the interior. What is the number for the coast and the number for the interior? I have some other questions on the counter-voice of the communities that often comes up with different numbers -- how that correlates.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We could try to get some clarification on that for the member, but there's no one number for the coast and the interior. It varies with the timber supply area. I would give you the example of the Queen Charlotte Islands, where there is virtually no manufacturing. The job impact there is quite different than in areas where there is manufacturing. While the job impact across the province may be the same, it has different regional impacts. But we'd be happy to get you the factors that have been used in the various studies that have been done.

T. Nebbeling: I'm a little surprised to hear this, because prior to the election, the Premier announced his target of 21,000 forest jobs. He clearly identified a number per thousand cubic metres; he didn't differentiate between different areas, but in general. So there must be a general number. I think he was going for two jobs per thousand cubic metres. There must be a factor there right now that is easily accessible and shouldn't require a research department to get together to find.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said in my opening speech, the 21,000 jobs would come from a ratio of 1.7 jobs per thousand cubic metres. We are currently at about 1.4, which is up from the 1.2 we had five years ago in 1991. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is about 15,000 jobs. If you go to 1.7, which is a 0.3 increase, that equates to roughly 21,000. It's different with different manufacturing, and when I say we refine this, we take the best available information and refine it down to the socioeconomic impact analysis that's done for each TSA.

I'd be happy to provide you with those studies that have been done on the some 46 timber supply areas. You will see that it is only slightly different in the various areas.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the offer by the minister to provide me with some of these socioeconomic studies, but I've got a whole stack of them already, and I've gone through them. I know there is a variation in calculating, but I am always surprised to see how low the job impact is when the chief forester presents his needed cuts, be it 10 or 15 percent for '96, and that the communities come up with a much higher number. I'll give you an example, and then I'll move on to the next part of the issues on jobs.

When the cut was announced in the Kingcome, the chief forester announced that the AAC for the Kingcome would be

[ Page 1359 ]

reduced by 25 percent, which represents 400,000 cubic metres. At that time there were approximately 100 real job losses -- primary jobs, not secondary jobs. The industry that looked at the same 400,000 cubic metres came up with a number where it actually created 640 direct jobs and induced another 1,280 -- almost 2,000 jobs in total, but the direct jobs were 640. How is it possible that there is such a discrepancy between these two numbers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I haven't seen the study. It would be very interesting to know if there is a study to back up that estimate, but I would suspect it's different assumptions, and this debate goes on. Whenever we release one of these estimates of socioeconomic impact analysis, industry is saying the impact is more, and you have the conservation community providing data that says it's less. In fact, there was a report released that said we were overestimating the job creation and hence the job reduction.

But I want to give you an example where the impact was actually studied. Your colleague there for Cariboo North knows the area. The AAC was reduced approximately 10 percent after the beetle-kill cut ended in the Quesnel area, but the employment actually went up 102 percent. So it is dynamic out there.

What happens is that a lot of these models are straight-line linear relationships, and they don't take into account that communities, sectors and industries are always adapting. So the worst-case scenarios are rarely achieved. I think it's sort of always a worst-case scenario. Communities have a tremendous capacity to respond. There isn't a community that can't show you how they can create more jobs out of the timber base that's there, and it's usually through value-added or maybe through more stewardship activities on the land.

T. Nebbeling: I do agree with the minister that often it is a worst-case scenario from one side. At the same time, I hope that the minister will agree that the other side often comes with the most optimistic projections. Ultimately, I think we're going to find that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

One question that comes to mind immediately is: when you start focusing on how to deal with these problems, these job losses, and when you start creating a remedial program around these job losses, are you going for the worst-case scenario, are you going for the middle ground, or are you going for your very optimistic numbers?

[4:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will be governed by what the realistic opportunities are for job creation in the particular communities. Take northern Vancouver Island, where 90 percent of the timber flows out of some of those communities. If they can capture a small amount, it will probably provide all the jobs that ever were there in those communities. So we are concerned about something of the magnitude of the Kingcome. We have put the challenge back to the communities and the partners up there, the forest licensees, to come up with some imaginative way to get around it, but a realistic way. They may come up with strategies that will really mitigate or minimize.

You are asking me a theoretical question: do I take a low, medium or high estimate? I could go for the medium, but I wouldn't accept that. I would target the maximum job creation we can get. That's one of the reasons why we've engaged the industry through the forest sector strategy to try to look at what's possible and try to realize that.

T. Nebbeling: That's an interesting point you're looking at. Well, first of all, on your point that if a percentage of the timber coming out of a certain area could remain in a community and that community had the mechanisms to deal with that timber, you could have a remedial effect as far as the job losses are concerned, I agree with you. Then the minister tells me also that he is looking at Kingcome. What are you doing right now in the Kingcome timber supply area that indeed follows up on what you just told me? What will make it possible for the job losses, be they 400, 600, 800 or 2,000 -- whatever the real number is -- to be covered by the initiatives of the government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't name you a particular project or a particular plan, but I can tell you that the MLA for that area is taking a leadership role to bring the parties together. The local government in the area, the mayor, is actively engaged in discussions. Forest Renewal B.C. is at the table. The union -- they are mostly union jobs that are affected -- is at the table. The company is at the table. So you have the community, the workers, the company and two branches of government -- Ministry of Forests and FRBC. They're all there, with the local economic development commission, and they've been invited to apply for funding to do the study for what can be done there.

Already there are applications in to Forest Renewal B.C. by the company to employ a number of people. In one I'm aware of, the proposal is out. It would propose to hire 12 people in a particular activity that deals with, I believe, commercial thinning. So already the community is engaged.

I'm really happy to report that I shared the anxiety that the member reflects on behalf of the communities in my previous portfolio, two times away, in Economic Development, where we tried to make the resources available at the community level, to look at what's available within the forest sector and what's available outside the forest sector. I don't think it's an option to continue overcutting, because that then will detract from other values, and as you know, the tourism business couldn't thrive if we didn't take into account sustainability, nor could our forest industry survive.

So once we find a definition of sustainability, then we try to optimize the number of jobs that are available. That means as many as we can get out of forestry, as many as we can get out of tourism, as many as we can get out of fishing, or whatever. I think it's going to be an ongoing process, because a lot of the changes that are taking place are structural in the economy; they have to do with a level of investment that's needed, and processes needing to be upgraded so that we remain competitive.

We do have high wage rates, which help sustain our communities and our families, and we have the highest standards, we think, in the world -- certainly in the 14 jurisdictions we studied. Those combine to set us on a foundation which -- albeit a high-cost foundation -- is a secure foundation upon which to build, as I say, the optimal number of jobs.

T. Nebbeling: Two points on that response, and then we'll come to my question. During the presentations in the last two days on the forest industry and the need for a reduction in AAC.... Nobody believes that there is not an adjustment needed. The severity of the adjustment is a judgment call, and the people who question the severity need.... But that's not the point I want to make.

The point I want to make is that as a band-aid element, every time that this cut has been mentioned, tourism has been thrown in as the alternative, or a potential alternative, to deal

[ Page 1360 ]

with that economic downturn. First of all, I should say, coming from the tourism industry, that I think many who work in the tourism industry will have a problem taking that statement by the minister, because of the lack of real support for the tourism industry, and of the promotion of the tourism industry as an alternative industry and a job-provider, to the extent that it would be effective.

The second point that the minister keeps making is that he's very proud about the fact that we have the highest standards when we look at the 14 other jurisdictions that have a forest practices code. For members who are not aware, when we talk about jurisdictions, we talk about other countries.

Coming from Europe -- I know Germany has done its part; I know Finland has done its part; Sweden certainly has done its part -- I can tell the minister one thing: in all these jurisdictions, with all the values that a forest practices code has to be considered for, and all the values that have to be protected -- be it the environment, be it the forest, be it the animals in the forest -- there is one thing that the other jurisdictions have done and where this jurisdiction is really failing, and that is in the value of the people whose lives depend on the forest industry.

I think the forest industry is right now under tremendous pressure, in part because I don't think the people value has been really acknowledged enough and early enough. When we see the pride of the government over the implementation of the Forest Practices Code, I often see also the anger, the fear and the hardship in the communities because people do not know if they have a future. Wives are sitting at home not knowing if the paycheque will come in and put food on the table. They do not know if the logger's child can go to university or to college, because they're not certain that there will be a job.

They do not know if they can pay for the loan for the truck which gets the timber out of the forest.

The people factor is very important. Now, we're beginning to focus on that a little bit, but I still don't think it's enough, and I still don't think that what is done is effective. This was really a comment directed toward what the minister stated there.

As we cannot use the Kingcome and the 400,000-cubic-metre reduction in annual allowable cut, maybe we can use another area where we do have some experience, where indeed a cut was implemented. Maybe we can get some background on the consequences of these cuts. I'm talking about Clayoquot Sound. Because the Clayoquot has seen considerable reductions, can the minister tell me how many jobs have actually been lost in that area up to today?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member can say there isn't enough consideration given to the people who are affected. I kind of resent that comment, because, if pressed, he would have to concede that what he'd like to see is short-term overcutting. That would mean not taking into account the children of those people who are concerned today. Getting to sustainability is the best thing for the people today, for the people tomorrow and for generations to come. It is fundamental to the security of communities and families that we look at what is the long-term sustainability of cuts.

The instructions from government are that there are socioeconomic objectives which must be taken into account. If it was strictly about timber supply -- what is a sustainable supply coming from that land base -- the cut in some cases would be lower. I'd like to think about getting to sustainability that takes into account the people in the communities, to give them time to adjust, and where there is time to adjust, the reduction would be much less than what it would ordinarily be. I would like to put that on the record.

Of course it's a concern. I think every member on this side of the House is concerned. They go back and they talk to these people who are working in the woods and whose jobs are dependent on it. We're not in a position to guarantee everybody the same job they've had forever. As I said, there have been big changes in the forest industry over the past decade, where we saw 40,000 jobs eliminated, in large part because of technical change.

This government has shown its concern for the interests of everybody by putting into place the forest renewal plan, by making sure that the timber reviews are done and by the programs which are in place to mitigate and to facilitate the change. I think that's a mature and positive approach. It does involve the government in an active way. We're not just allowing free enterprise to determine what happens. They're a partner, but we as government feel there's some leadership, and we put the resources into communities.

With respect to the Clayoquot, I don't have a figure for you here. The Clayoquot is a unique circumstance. It isn't an AAC determination - type reduction. The reductions and dislocation there have to do with a land use decision. The international eye was on this area. We have put a scientific panel in there, and the central regional board is to govern it. This is a constructive alternative to 100 percent protection. The member knows that there was considerable debate.

He also knows that we have done what we can to put a training program in there for people while they're waiting for cutting permits to come through, and it's our expectation that there will be a small fraction, albeit a fraction, of the people who work there. There's no question about that. We're under no illusion, and that's why we have agonized through to try to minimize the impact.

T. Nebbeling: The minister complained earlier that another member on this side was putting words in the minister's mouth, and I don't want the minister to do it to me as well. To deal with the people factor when we talk about all these initiatives from government, I never gave any indication that I believe that the only solution is just to continue to cut. I do not concede that. I believe there are many other ways.

What I do feel when it comes to people is that they are very often excluded from the process of dealing with the issues that will be imposed on communities because of government initiatives. The Forest Practices Code is only one initiative, but there are others as well that have exactly the same impact: the loss of jobs. We're going to talk about that later on, so I don't want to do that right now. I think you know where I'm coming from. I'm talking about the spotted owl issue and about the protected-areas strategy.

[4:45]

If you go to the communities of Squamish, Pemberton, Lillooet, Boston Bar, Chilliwack and all the smaller communities in between, and you talk to the people there, hon. minister, I guarantee you there is one sense that they all share. As I said earlier on, that is uncertainty. It is particularly strong because they are kept out of the process that determines how big the elimination of the harvestable working forest will be, to deal with these government issues. It is not something I am trying to make up. It is out there.

If you happen to be in an area that does not have these initiatives to deal with, then maybe you don't hear about it, but I am in an area where it happens, and I am confronted with it on a daily basis.

I still want to go back to Clayoquot, because, regardless of the fact that this is a reduction that is not caused for a

trad-

[ Page 1361 ]

itional or standard reason, be it an AAC reduction ordered by the chief forester or something else, the fact is that timber has been lost. Part of the working forest has been lost, and with that a number of jobs disappeared. I'm really surprised to hear the minister saying now that he doesn't know how many jobs have been lost, because I believe that number has been in the press a number of times. So I ask again: does the minister have an idea how many jobs have been lost? Maybe that is an easier question to answer.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member really wants to get in a political debate as to whether or not we should be doing land use planning and preserving.... Well, it is. He shakes his head, but the truth of the matter is that we may be able to give him an estimate but it will be only an estimate, and then he'll want to know what the methodology is, etc., etc., and so you go on.

We get sustainability for communities and for workers by trying to get our land use planning in place. With respect to the lower mainland, there is a table there, and never in the history of British Columbia have we had so much participation by so many, to the point of burnout. If we were to have had this debate a year ago, we wouldn't have said there's too much going on, there's too much involvement and our volunteers can't keep up. You can't have it both ways. We have opened up processes, and we have established tables, not just general meetings in one community or another to deal with the issue.

We have a table where the various interests are represented, including the communities of the lower mainland, and they have a responsibility to come back to their constituents to talk about impacts of various scenarios. If that isn't happening, I would invite the member to ensure that his community does deal with the impacts and with the representatives on that lower mainland planning committee, because the human impact has to be assessed.

I happen to know from the briefings I've received that there are people talking about mitigation strategies. I think we have to look at the other side of it. If we do nothing with respect to protecting the spotted owl, if we do nothing with respect to setting aside protected areas, we will have continued conflict. What these tables and processes attempt to do is find some general level of agreement.

I think you're talking to the people who feel threatened, but I think if you go into communities, an awful lot of people are feeling very positive about the future of their communities. But you can play on some anxieties, and you can talk about worst-case scenarios. I think what you do is say: "We have some problems. We have to set aside the land use disputes, and then build a secure economy on that. It's going to be tough, but we can live through it. We can work through it. We have processes. We have some options." I think that's the promise of Forest Renewal.

We do have tools to mitigate job loss, but we have to keep in mind that there are job losses for other reasons. This is just one more economic problem in which we are asking communities to share in planning for the mitigation.

With respect to the lower mainland, there are going to be job losses if we don't deal with the land use planning issues, if we don't deal with the treaty-making, if we don't deal with the issues in front of us, if we don't get a handle on the timber supply. If we hadn't brought in the Forest Practices Code, we would be the subject of considerable international boycott, and that would result in job loss. In order to deal with it, we have to get our act together, as they say. We have to protect the values in the forest. We have to support initiatives like the Forest Practices Code.

We have to say that we can deal with it. There are ways of dealing with it, instead of just dwelling on the negatives. Because there's a lot of positives out there, as I've said. There are 15,000 more jobs in the forest industry than in 1991. They may not be exactly in the same place or exactly in the same industry, but they are there. The Forest Practices Code and land use planning bring with them additional potential for job creation.

T. Nebbeling: I certainly am not trying to have a political debate here. I'd like to state that first. I'm trying to talk about the needs of the people that are affected by the decisions made by the minister's ministry.

The minister is saying a number of things that I don't accept.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to carry on.

I don't accept them, because I would be insulted if I thought that the minister spoke with knowledge. The fact that the minister is new is the only reason that I accept his making certain statements, as he just did.

When he says that the communities have a right and a way to have input on issues such as the protected-areas strategy through participation on tables.... I wish he would call the mayor of Squamish. The mayor of Squamish has jumped on everything she could jump on to get on the board, to have input into the board. The mayor of Squamish has threatened to do everything. The mayor of Squamish has been to the Ministry of Forests at least four or five times, talking about not being able to have any input.

Only after a very lengthy period of time of putting pressure on every individual she could was she allowed to sit as an observer, and that is still her status today. She is not a participant in the protected-areas strategy committee; she is an observer. So that so-called allowing the voice of the communities to be part of creating their destiny.... I think the minister has a wrong picture of what is happening in reality.

I was still talking about Clayoquot Sound, and I was still asking the minister for the numbers of jobs lost in Clayoquot Sound because of a reduction in the annual allowable cut. So far the minister has stood up and told me that I'm politicizing this issue. Then he starts talking about the lower mainland. So can I ask one more time: what is that number? And if you don't know the number, then maybe I can give it to you.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have a number. I will attempt to get one for the member, but I don't have a number.

T. Nebbeling: I think the number is in the order of 170 jobs lost, and of that number, a group of people have been given training through a program initiated by Forest Renewal funds. Does the minister have any knowledge of this training program?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: That ain't much.

With all these great initiatives the minister has been talking about for a while, in trying to convince me that the ministry is very much involved in making sure that the people who are affected by job losses are taken care of -- maybe not

[ Page 1362 ]

by getting the same job, as the minister keeps telling me.... We will talk a little later about what he means by that. Can the minister tell me what all these programs have done for the people who had jobs in the Clayoquot and who are out of work today? Or are there any people out of work today?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some people have moved out of the area. Some stay there in the industry or continue to work in the industry. Some are on training for work in other aspects of the industry. Some are working in other aspects of the industry in the Clayoquot Sound area now. To the extent that they have applied for training programs, FRBC has responded.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, some did leave; some found some work; but more than some are out of work. These people, I've been told, have actually gone through a six-month training program and were cut off at the beginning of July. These people are now walking the streets. Are we just going through a routine by giving them an opportunity to train for something, but at the end of the training there are still no jobs available? What is the minister proposing to do today to have jobs at the end of the training program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can inform the member that the MacKay crew is working from that area; they are working outside the Clayoquot Sound area. The people who were working on those training programs are back on them. It was expected that there would be employment with MacMillan Bloedel at the beginning of July. Those jobs weren't there, through no fault of the government. When the FRBC board became aware of that, they extended the contract, so there is an attempt to give full, year-round employment and training for those workers. If you were to phone those people now.... They are back in their program, although they expect to be actually logging soon.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister explain what these programs entail? What have these students of the forest, who are now being put into a new training program, learned in the last six months? What are they learning in that new training program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As we understand it, the basic training deals with computer literacy: some generic kinds of computer skills that can be used to diversify and to leave the industry, as some of them get a little bit older. There is training for watershed restoration work and forest renewal work. Those are the basics of what they're being trained for.

T. Nebbeling: Are we talking about 25 people right now? One crew is gone, so the number of students of the forest has been reduced. It is about 25 people, I believe.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to get that detail. We don't have every detail about every program, but I've asked for somebody to bring that information. I think it is in the neighbourhood of 40.

T. Nebbeling: It's interesting that the minister said that these students of the forest, as I like to call them, are in general older students. I don't think we are talking about 20-year-old individuals; we are talking more about 35 to 40 years of age.

Part of the program was to become knowledgeable about watershed restoration -- I believe he just told me that. Forest Renewal B.C. stated in their application procedures manual this year -- and I am reading a part of the manual -- that they were not accepting any watershed restoration projects in the Pacific region for 1996 because of lack of staff to administer the projects.

I think it is pretty bad when, in the second year of Forest Renewal B.C., they are already eliminating one of the major mandates that was stated under the Forest Practices Code: the restoration of watershed. They are training people for six months who are ready by July, because that was the end of the study program. At the same time, they are not accepting any watershed restoration projects. Why even bother getting these people into an education program, unless it is -- like I said earlier on and, as I suspect, in many cases -- a band-aid to keep people off the street and pretend that they are gainfully employed or studying to become gainfully employed again?

[5:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's hard to take criticism of the forest renewal program from a member whose party didn't support the program in the first place; that's really hard. You take your role of criticizing what a government that is socially responsible is doing, and try to pick it to pieces. In fact, this time I'm happy to inform you that you have kind of struck out. I'd like to say that while we're accepting no more new applications, there are already applications that have been approved and some that are in the process of application. What appears on the simple surface isn't always what's true in fact.

There are projects approved and there are tens of millions of dollars being spent in the Pacific region. There are lots of projects that have been approved this year that will roll out this year and next year. I am really hopeful, and I'm sure you'd be supportive of matching those people with those projects. We just have to find the mechanism to do that, and we just happen to have brought in a bill that will help us to do that -- Bill 12.

T. Nebbeling: I think the minister actually tried to throw in a political statement when he said that we, as a party, have not supported Forest Renewal B.C. What we did support, however, was the idea of collecting an additional stumpage fee from the forest industry and taking that money and returning it to the communities where that money was collected, so that the communities could actually become partners in this exercise of creating sustainability not only for the forest but for the communities and for the workers -- economic and social stability.

We don't agree with the government taking the money and pretending to be very cautious in spending it. What we see happening now is what we feared then and stated as a party: that once that fund was built up, it would most probably disappear into a direction that had nothing to do with forests. That is exactly what we see happening. The papers are writing about it every day: "Forest Renewal funds, up to $400 million, to be considered for going into general revenue, to offset deficit." That is what we feared then, and that is what is happening today.

Had the government listened to this side and accepted the concept of letting communities run the fund