1998 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1998

Morning

Volume 10, Number 19

[ Page 8695 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR GREATEST RESOURCE

J. Doyle: The title of my private member's statement today is "Opportunities for Our Greatest Resource." The greatest resource we have in British Columbia and Canada is our youth. The community action program for our youth, announced earlier this week or last week, is great news for British Columbia and our youth. I am proud of this program, and we all should be proud of this program. Community service and volunteers that provide that service in our communities greatly benefit all of us in our communities. This program that was announced is good for our communities and especially good for our youth.

One thousand young British Columbians, spread evenly throughout the 75 constituencies in our province, will have the opportunity to earn tuition credits through community service. Participants will receive a credit certificate with a value of up to $2,400, the equivalent of one full year of university tuition in British Columbia. Our province is providing the $3.4 million for this program. It is a pilot project, launched under the Premier's Youth Options initiative.

Who can apply for these 1,000 positions? Anyone between the ages of 15 and 24 who is a resident of British Columbia. Each youth can earn credits of $8 per hour for volunteer work. Firstly, our youth will gain great work experience through this program. It will strengthen our communities through the work that they do and the strength and vigour they will bring to this program. Thirdly, it will also increase access to education for some youth who maybe otherwise couldn't afford to head out to advanced education.

The minimum number of hours that can be volunteered is 100, which would give up to $800 credit towards tuition at a university or another higher education facility. The maximum number of hours is 300, which equals $2,400 -- the tuition fee for higher education programs in British Columbia. The program is in effect from June of this year through to June 30, 1999. Youth can apply through any one of the 16 host agencies spread throughout our province. Also, they can apply or make inquiries at any one of the 75 MLA offices in British Columbia or by calling 1-800-784-0055. It's also on a Web page via computer.

The 16 host agencies will work with community-based, non-profit organizations to make sure that this program is a success. Priority will be given to community development, culture, heritage, recreation, community safety and literacy. Our youth already volunteer many hours in our communities, but this program will also assist them, through that volunteerism, to enter advanced education facilities. Tuition fees in British Columbia are already the lowest of any province in Canada, except Quebec, if I'm right on that.

This program will assist community groups and students. Who can ask for more than that? Students from grade 10 on can accumulate credit-hours. Points must be redeemed within five years of when they are earned. Earned credits can be used for university, business college, aviation training, hairdressing school, computer training, accounting, and film and media arts -- among many other programs that youth want to enter so that they can get on with their futures as they grow up and become leaders in our province.

I see this program as a great assist to rural B.C. -- to constituencies like mine. Many times, of course, students from rural areas like mine have to pay for room and board or to stay at a university residence on top of tuition fees. A program like this will greatly assist students in a constituency like mine.

B. Penner: I appreciate the comments from my colleague the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. This is an interesting program, and I think it's a timely program for British Columbia.

I just want to take some time to reflect on the situation we're facing in British Columbia. Most visitors to our province are impressed with British Columbia. They think, I dare say, that we are blessed in our province -- blessed to live in such a beautiful part of the world with a generally mild climate and a pleasant population. We're blessed to live in a province that, at least until recently, has been the economic envy of virtually everyone. From the snow-capped mountains along the eastern and western extremes of the province to the roaring rivers and majestic forests, B.C. combines physical beauty with industry and economic know-how.

Unlike most provinces in Canada, the youth population in B.C. is actually growing. Many other parts of the country see a shrinking number of young people as part of their overall population. That means, years down the road from now, that those provinces will have a harder time sustaining their social programs, because they'll have a smaller workforce as the population greys and more and more people retire and become seniors. British Columbia has a unique opportunity if we can find meaningful work for our young people to expand our tax base to support social services off into the future.

That's where some of the difficulty has obviously been in British Columbia. I'm just looking at some statistics here. Two years ago our youth unemployment rate was about 14 percent. Today it's approximately 18 percent. There are 16,400 fewer jobs for young people today than in 1991. Clearly we have a tremendous challenge facing us here in British Columbia to find meaningful work for our young people. We need to turn the economy around and start producing jobs for everyone.

In terms of the specific program that my colleague the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke refers to, it will potentially create 1,000 spaces for people seeking to do volunteer work. I think it's worth noting that last year there were 141,000 young people enrolled in B.C. post-secondary institutions. So while it may be a good start to have 1,000 volunteer spaces, it still is a small fragment of the 141,000 overall that went to post-secondary schools in British Columbia last year.

Some other criticisms, which may or may not be fair, were mentioned in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun this week, on June 9. They note that the age limits are quite restrictive: between the ages of 15 and 24. Of course, many people attending post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are older than that and will not be eligible to qualify under this program. The editorial board at the Vancouver Sun also wondered whether existing volunteers will resent working for free when other students are getting $8 an hour. Now, I suppose we can't expand the program to help everyone. That

[ Page 8696 ]

may be a legitimate concern, or it may not be. I suppose we'll have to wait and see and talk to existing volunteers in the field to see how they feel about that.

[10:15]

One other concern that I have is the 16 host agencies that students will need to contact in order to apply to enrol in this volunteer program. In the past it's been somewhat difficult to find out, at least by the students out on the street and in the schools, just where to go to apply for these programs. I'll be looking into it myself for students in my area to find out what the appropriate agency is in my community so that I can relay that information. That's one of the challenges we face whenever there's a government program: getting the information out to people in an effective way and, as well, in a cost-effective way, so that it doesn't cost taxpayers much to communicate that.

I'd just like also to reflect on an experience I had last year when I was travelling in Southeast Asia. I'd gone on part of the Team Canada trade mission and took a bit of detour and ended up in Cambodia. While I was in Cambodia, I met a young person from British Columbia who was studying at the University of Toronto. That university gave him credit towards his master's degree for doing volunteer work while in Cambodia assisting people with agricultural production.

I thought that was a meaningful experience we could give young people: not just allow them to earn credits by doing volunteer work in the province, but someday I would like to see us encourage young people to do humanitarian work in the most needy parts of the world. I know that the province of Alberta does have a program now that funds volunteer work in those types of situations in the harshest parts of the world, where people are truly in desperate need of food and other assistance. So perhaps someday, when British Columbia is in a position of no longer having a deficit . . . .

I know that this year we're going to be borrowing more than $1 billion just to finance the operations of government. Hopefully, someday when we're in a surplus position, the B.C. government can consider some kind of program like that to encourage our students to volunteer overseas and help the most needy.

J. Doyle: I'd like, first of all, to thank the member for Chilliwack for his remarks. Just to refer to his remarks, B.C. is Canada's fastest-growing province. Our Premier, as Minister Responsible for Youth, with the clout of his office and by being Minister Responsible for Youth, is who initiatives like this do come from. It would be easy for newspapers like the Vancouver Sun to criticize this. But there never have been programs like this in place in the past. Compared to other provinces . . . . For instance, British Columbia's tuition is at least half the price of what it costs to go to university in Ontario.

Adding further to my statement, just imagine, hon. Speaker, a thousand of our youth working in our communities to assist community groups. This is great news. Many volunteer groups will gain from this injection of youth into their groups. Many volunteer groups are overstretched and tired. Most museums -- for instance, in my constituency -- have a group of volunteers that work hard at those museums. If our senior citizens could get one or two youth volunteers to assist them, it would do a lot for them to make their job a little easier and to keep museums in small communities open, for instance.

This community program is a great example of what government can do to assist our communities and our youth. Hopefully, other provinces will look at it. It links our communities, our education and work experience; this is all great for our youth. If we as a government can assist our youth to attain higher education, all of us are winners -- us in this building and all four million British Columbians.

Hopefully, all MLAs in this House will work hard to raise the awareness of this program, as was mentioned by the member for Chilliwack, so people do know where to apply for this program if it will assist them with their activities. If this youth initiative is a success, and I feel that it will be, I would hope, through the success of this program this year, that we will see it continue in years to come.

DIVERSITY WITH DIGNITY

L. Stephens: My private member's statement this morning is entitled "Diversity with Dignity." Racism is growing at an alarming rate in British Columbia. More and more, we hear in the news about racially motivated hate crimes and the promotion of hate literature in our communities. These crimes have always seemed to be distant events, anomalies in British Columbia. But unfortunately, we can no longer ignore the clear and present reality of racism right here in B.C.

When a hate crime is committed or when blatant discrimination occurs against an individual, family or community, people are not only stripped of their dignity but also of their fundamental human rights. As racism grows in our society, bringing with it discrimination, intolerance and hatred, we as legislators have an obligation to protect people's basic and fundamental human rights. We have an obligation to fight against racism, because hate crimes are not only acts of violence against individuals but also an assault against an entire group of people.

The promotion of hate literature is a principal mechanism for dividing our communities. Addressing the role of the Internet is the latest challenge in the struggle to combat racism. Recently we observed the community of Oliver dealing with this issue. Although the growth of the Internet and its role as a communications medium are extremely difficult to regulate, the town of Oliver was able to send a clear message by declaring their community as an official anti-racist community.

Unfortunately, we as legislators will not be able to stop all hate literature and to eradicate all hate crimes, but we must at least try. We must recognize that the victims of racial violence not only suffer the trauma of physical injury, property damage and emotional shock but are also likely to experience anger, fear and a sense of isolation. The psychological harm, mental anguish, insecurity and fear that remain with victims of any form of racism are not only personally disturbing, but the consequences break down the social fabric of our society.

Our country prides itself on its multi-ethnic composition. We as Canadians celebrate our diversity, and we triumph in the dissimilarity of our peoples. British Columbians can be especially proud of our ethnicity and our culturally diverse population. Our diversity is an integral part of our history.

In 1997 the Canadian Human Rights Commission reported that complaints on the grounds of race, colour and national or ethnic origin comprised 18 percent of their annual caseload. The real figures are likely to be even higher, as the majority of hate crimes go unreported, either because victims believe that nothing will be done or because they are afraid of retaliation. We must take steps to assure victims that their complaints will be heard and equitably addressed.

We must also address the continued and more subtle existence of prejudice. Discrimination and unequal oppor-

[ Page 8697 ]

tunity often go unnoticed and are difficult to identify. Only through education and the promotion of tolerance will we be able to overcome prejudice.

According to a 1996 census, visible minorities make up 20 percent of British Columbia's population. In the lower mainland this percentage is much higher, often exceeding 50 percent in parts of Vancouver. One cannot measure the invaluable benefits that such a diverse population has brought to our province. Our differences, however, have often been the sources of misunderstandings. The murder of the Guru Nanak Temple's caretaker, Nirmal Singh Gill, allegedly by white supremacists, was an absolute tragedy and a blatant reminder of the horrific consequences of racism.

Later this month, a march and a rally will be held in Surrey to demonstrate intolerance of racism and clearly display the outrage that the majority of British Columbians feel toward those who support racist actions. It is time to take a strong stance in this province and, in cooperation with community efforts, to strengthen and enforce legislation against hate crimes and racial violence. We must lead by example and ensure that we continually and thoroughly respect and protect our diversity.

J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for her statement; I think it's very timely. She has focused on certainly one of the most concerning aspects of the way in which we address multicultural issues when we find that indeed there is the presence of racism. Certainly the example of hate crime is disturbing. I think she correctly brings the focus to the impact on children. We all recognize the innocence of children, and when they are impacted by such experiences, it is truly devastating and is the beginning of planting the seeds for difficulties later on.

I think that, very clearly, government has responsibility in this area. But it is not a responsibility that can be carried alone by government. As the member says through education among our general citizenry . . . . It is only in those situations in the office, in the school and in the neighbourhood that we begin to come to terms with that. Education can be quite enjoyable in addressing the issue of racism, because of the enjoyment of learning about the diversity and uniqueness of the peoples who make up our land. Indeed, except for aboriginal peoples, we are all either immigrants or descended from immigrants.

It is that aspect of our society that I think contributes to making Canada a wonderful country and British Columbia a wonderful province.

I want to point out that our Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism has stated that B.C. is leading the nation in multiculturalism laws, human rights legislation and financial support to organizations. No less than Vera Radyo, executive director of the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C., validates that statement when she says: "I think B.C. is the only provincial government that in the last five years has actually increased funding."

I think we need to take a look at the goals that we are trying to achieve and the principles by which we seek to achieve those goals. We need to ensure that they are implicit and explicit in whatever we do, both as citizens and as government, so that when it comes to issues of hiring, issues of education and issues of community settlement and development, we are always cognizant -- going back to the point about children -- that the way children experience the attitudes of adults will determine the kind of future they will inherit when they become adults.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for his remarks. Much has been done in this province, but there is still much to do. I agree with the member when he talks about involving children.

A grade 7 student at Simonds Elementary School in my riding of Langley wrote a speech. His name is Kelvin Morris. This is a speech on racism that he prepared to deliver to his classmates. I'm going to read a little bit of it. He says:

"Racism is saying that you are better than someone who has different skin colour than you. Racism has been around since the beginning of time. It has caused problems for many people. Your parents and their parents have strong feelings about race, religion and politics. It's up to us, as the younger generation, to be more educated about racism.

"Not only is our skin colour different, but our languages are too. Think of how boring it would be with only one language. We wouldn't have songs like the 'Macarena.' If it weren't for different cultures, we wouldn't have egg rolls or tacos. And what would life be like without lasagna?

"Before saying something hurtful to someone different than you, think about it, because if it would hurt you, chances are it will hurt them. We should take advantage of the skills that people from different countries have to offer. Be respectful of their heritage and teach them about yours. Canada will be a stronger country if we take a stand against racism. We should be proud to be part of the human race and proud to have so many ethnic backgrounds."

That's from a young fellow in the public school system who obviously has had some direction and understands the issues that we face today.

As elected representatives in this House and creators of legislation and public policy in this province, we have a special responsibility to dedicate ourselves to the task of abolishing all forms of racial prejudice and discrimination and violence in British Columbia. We must send the unmistakable message that racism, in all its forms, will not be tolerated. We must also involve all of society in this responsibility. Creative and strategic approaches to this task must be developed in conjunction with public education programs such as those in our schools.

[10:30]

To increase effectiveness, action taken should be the result of joint endeavours with members of the community, educators and public officials. Only with cooperation and widespread participation will we be able to achieve progress. To this end, we must work together and remind the citizens of British Columbia how important it is that we build a society that protects the human rights of all its citizens. The people of this province deserve to celebrate their diversity with dignity, and it is well within all of our fundamental human rights to expect the laws, public programs and the courts of British Columbia to support and protect those rights.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

E. Gillespie: This morning I'm going to speak on endangered species and endangered spaces. No matter what point of view you come from with respect to the beginnings of life on this earth, there can be no argument as to the elegance of our natural environment, an elegance which we humans sometimes attempt to replicate and more often dominate in our constructed environment. Our understanding of this elegance, the way in which all living things interact, is imperfect at minimum. More likely, it's just scratching the surface. Our level of understanding and appreciation for any plant or animal species often relates to its utility to human beings.

Recently I read a column in one of my local newspapers about the Vancouver Island marmot, a column questioning the scientific and public attention paid to this creature, one of the world's most critically endangered mammals. "Species

[ Page 8698 ]

come; species go. That's nature. Why all this fuss to recover the Vancouver Island marmot population?" That was the tenor of the argument. Well, the month of May was the month in which a public awareness campaign took place in this province. I had the opportunity to participate in programs with school-age children introducing them to the Vancouver Island marmot, its habitat and the challenges facing the future of the species. Aside from the marmot's appeal as an attractive and fascinating social animal, the children I met were acutely aware of the relatedness of living beings, of the food chain and of the need to protect endangered species.

Hon. Speaker, over 150 vertebrate species -- that is, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles -- as well as many plant species and ecosystems are currently on the B.C. red list of species in danger of becoming extinct. Three species of particular interest to me in my constituency of the Comox Valley are the Vancouver Island marmot, the east coast Vancouver Island coho and the Garry oak ecosystem.

We've heard a lot in these past few weeks, probably most of us for the first time, about the Vancouver Island marmot. Mount Washington, just outside Strathcona Provincial Park, was host to a colony of these marmots until the late 1980s, when they disappeared completely. By 1997 the total population on Vancouver Island was reduced to about 150, with only 20 to 30 breeding-age females. It's the only species of mammal that is found in British Columbia and nowhere else in the world. Small numbers make the species extremely vulnerable to predation, to disease outbreak or to extinction by a catastrophic event such as a fire or the weather.

With such small numbers, monitoring and protection programs are not sufficient to ensure survival of the species. That is why a captive breeding program has begun at the Metro Toronto Zoo, and this year it will be extended to the Calgary Zoo for their future reintroduction into the wild. Only today I learned from a reliable source -- that is, a member of the press -- of work that's begun towards a captive breeding program at the Mount Washington site.

Critical to the success of this program is a high level of public awareness and commitment to support the government and industry partnership which has flourished over the past ten years. You see, the habitat of the Vancouver Island marmot is largely on privately held lands, lands owned by MacMillan Bloedel, TimberWest or the Mount Washington ski corporation. It is a public commitment that actually makes a difference in terms of our ability to preserve and enhance species that are on the verge of extinction.

I'm going to speak for a moment about the east Vancouver Island coho and, in particular, about the urban salmon habitat program. Just this week, the grants were announced for the urban salmon habitat program, 15 of which went to organizations in the Comox-Strathcona area. Many of these organizations are community groups that have come together out of particular interest in preserving or enhancing the coho. Some of these organizations are groups of people who have enjoyed recreational fishing in the past. They may be commercial fishermen.

They may be people who have never previously had anything to do with the fishery in any respect but who have come to be involved in something that is much greater than themselves. One of these groups is a group of home schooling families, which has taken on a particular watershed and has benefited from urban salmon habitat program funds over the years.

The other species I want to speak about briefly is the Garry oak. In Courtenay we find the most northerly sizeable grove of Garry oaks. It's not just the trees themselves that are important but the delicate ecosystem which comprises a Garry oak grove. Recently, the expansion of the local arena threatened the integrity of the grove, but alert community members organized to protect the grove and ensure that construction would not impact on it.

Whether or not you call yourself an environmentalist, there are moments when our attention is completely captivated by the plight of a particular species. Children, in particular, and communities organize around that particular species, and that can be the opening of a door into a much greater understanding of our environment. Government has a part to play in this. Often government must lead, but without the support of communities across British Columbia, we would never be able to preserve and enhance our delicate environment.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I'm very pleased to recognize in the gallery today quite a number of young students from Margaret Jenkins Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. O'Connor, and several parents. I understand they're going to be meeting with you and asking you some interesting questions later. Members, please welcome them.

M. Coell: I am pleased to reply to the member's comments on endangered species and endangered spaces. I concur with many of her remarks. I would like to share with the member two experiences I had early in life, so that she might understand how I view endangered species and endangered spaces. The image I wish to portray is as vivid in my mind today as it was 35 years ago. I was lucky enough to grow up in a municipality called Saanich, a stone's throw away from the Colquitz Creek river system. Thirty-five years ago you could swim in that creek.

Crayfish were visible, salmon spawned in that creek, and it was filled with ducks, minks and owls, and surrounded by Garry oaks. It was truly a beautiful place to grow up and to enjoy -- and I did.

I can remember, when I was about nine years old, walking down there with my fishing rod and a friend and running into two teenage boys who said: "Would you like to see what we did this morning?" We said, "Yes," and they showed us what they had done that morning. They had killed ducks, minks, owls, and they had them all lined up. I was shocked and horrified by that. That image of two young people who didn't respect animals, who hadn't been taught to respect nature, is still in my mind. I think that that, for me, showed a need for education at a very early age, for people to respect animals and species. I've carried that with me to this day.

The other is that slowly that same place, over a period of time, with the expansion of Saanich, became very polluted, and access was cut off because of houses. It was turned into a drainage ditch, and the septic tanks were dumped right into the creek. It lost its coho salmon that spawned; it lost its crayfish; it lost its wildlife. It soon became overgrown with weeds and broom, and basically was used as a drainage ditch for many years. I was very sad, and I know that a lot of people in Saanich were.

But something happened, in that the municipality started to buy property, started to redevelop and to replace trees that had been cut down, started to introduce salmon to that stream again. Today it's a vibrant place where people can walk, where fish spawn, where birds nest. It hasn't returned to near what I remember as a child, but the lessons I learned are still there with me.

[ Page 8699 ]

Education for young people, education for all of us, and the need to save species -- all of them . . . . It's not just the endangered ones; we need to protect the ones that aren't. And we need to protect spaces, not just for the species that live in them but for us as well. We need to spend a lot more time and effort on that protection and enhancement of what we've destroyed. I think that we can do that. I view the environment and endangered species and spaces as something that shouldn't be partisan; it should be something that every British Columbian, every Canadian, wants to enhance.

I think it's something we have to learn, and we have to teach young people that we can make a difference. We can protect and enhance our environment.

I hope that, in sharing those two thoughts with the member, she has an understanding of how I view environmental protection. I thank her for her comments. I very much agree with them.

E. Gillespie: I'm very appreciative of the member's comments and the story of his experience. I had a good opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to take my 11-year-old son to the Fanny Bay Salmonid Enhancement Society's major celebration. We released a number of coho -- not fry, the next size up -- into the river. My son had the opportunity to do that, and I think that kind of hands-on experience really carries something with you.

I've watched many classes of children who've taken on the responsibility of raising fry and releasing them into streams around the Comox Valley and seen how much more aware they are of their own activities with respect to those streams -- how washing cars and changing your oil and that sort of thing has an effect on the habitat of our endangered coho and, certainly, all other species.

I want to be very clear about the commitment of British Columbia to the protection of species in ecosystems at risk and to say that it's not at all without controversy. It's a very controversial area, because wherever you go to protect species, you're going to run into business interests or industrial interests or human interests with respect to residential issues and agriculture. We're always coming face to face with those interests with respect to environmental issues.

B.C. is a signatory to the Rio convention of 1992, committing our province to protection of endangered species and to biodiversity. We have committed to an accord with the federal government, and the federal government is committed to introducing endangered-species legislation. British Columbia has taken a number of initiatives in order to protect the environment in British Columbia: our protected-areas strategy, the Forest Practices Code, the Environmental Assessment Act, the grizzly bear conservation strategy. And we've taken a leadership role in monitoring species at risk and contributing to recovery efforts, such as those for the marmot, which I have spoken about already.

Once again, I would like to emphasize that the role of communities in protecting species and ecosystems at risk is primary. Without the support of people in communities . . . . And I would agree with the member that that starts at a very young age. If children are exposed to their place in the environment, how they fit into the natural cycle and the importance of the natural cycle itself, then their commitment can grow into a larger commitment of families and communities. We have seen many cases where people have organized around particular species and how that has grown into a much greater movement.

ILLICIT DRUGS: KILLER OF PEOPLE,

KILLER OF CITIES

M. Coell: I rise to deliver a private member's statement on an issue that I believe has become a crisis for our province, our country, its cities and, most of all, its citizens. In making this statement, I'm drawing on my background as chairman of the Saanich police board for six years and as an employee of the British Columbia government's heroin treatment program in the late seventies, and on experience gained as a contract social worker in both federal and provincial correctional facilities in this province.

[10:45]

The crisis is the illicit drug trade -- the cost to individual lives and the deterioration of our communities caused by drug abuse. Before I deal with the specifics of British Columbia in 1998, I would like to comment on the history of use and misuse of drugs, keeping in mind that alcohol is also a drug used and abused in our society.

Throughout history, drugs have been used for religious, social and medical reasons. Society has controlled, prohibited and regulated their use for hundreds of years. Countries have fought wars in the past over the use of opium and heroin. Hundreds of billions of Canadian dollars have gone into the policing of drugs over the years, but never before has drug use and the drug trade become so prevalent and so profitable as it is today.

The United Nations' own estimates of the total revenue accruing from the illicit drug trade range as high as $400 billion (U.S.) a year. At that level it would be equivalent to 8 percent of the total international trade in iron, steel and motor vehicles. We now have an illicit drug industry with profits that rank with the top industries in the world. The only difference is: it's totally illegal, it's growing faster than any of the other industries and it's killing people.

The drug trade corrupts individuals and governments. It now uses the realities and opportunities of our contemporary world, from computers to international banks. International drug traffickers launder their money to hide the illegal funds from detection, and in so doing they corrupt our financial institutions as well. It has become a very sophisticated industry that does not respect national boundaries or the laws of nations. The addictive substances that are sold range from cocaine and heroin to a host of other drugs originating in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. They find their way into our cities, into our schools and into our homes.

This brings me to the city of Vancouver, which has been designated by American and Canadian drug enforcement authorities as a major port of entry for drugs to enter Canada and the United States. In the past decade, we have seen an increase in drug abuse and many of the problems associated with it. The spread of AIDS, prostitution, gangs and increased breaking and entering are all associated with the drug trade. The Vancouver council, its police department and its citizens need help to fight this problem.

The increase in drug trafficking cost the lives of 1,653 people in British Columbia from 1990 to 1997 -- 693 of them in the city of Vancouver alone. Drug deaths by suicide, by overdose and by murder are all preventable deaths. The drug industry is powerful; it kills people, and if we let it, it will kill our cities. If we think that we can confine illicit drugs to the downtown east side of Vancouver, we are wrong. We are fighting a rear-guard action.

The drug connection in Vancouver runs deep. It also runs deep in British Columbia and in Canada. I think it's important

[ Page 8700 ]

that we rethink the programs that we offer, that we deliver -- the costs and the moneys we spend on enforcement and deterrence. We need to review all of the studies on drug abuse, all of the documents that government has compiled over the years. We also need to look at the programs that are offered in British Columbia, Canada and the world.

Many attitudes toward the drug trade and to drug abuse have changed, and I think that we all see that there's no easy answer. As a matter of fact, at present there is no answer that seems to be working to stop the killing and to stop the increase in trafficking that continues to corrupt our institutions, our way of life and the children of this country and this province. We have had national drug strategies, international drug strategies and wars on drugs. In British Columbia we had the Cain report in 1994. Federally, we had the Le Dain commission in the early seventies.

And it can be said today, as it was in the early seventies, that our programs are all over the map in the delivery of enforcement, in abuse and in imprisonment. There is no central drug strategy in Canada that is coordinated with the provinces and with community policing.

I'm suggesting to you that if you are in a war and you are losing, you should reconsider your battle plan. I'm not suggesting that we give up the battle because it seems hopeless. I am suggesting that it's time to focus our energies, find a consensus on where the Canadian people want to go and develop a strategy for the new millennium. I believe that it is extremely important for all British Columbians. As I said, Vancouver has been defined by U.S. and police agencies as the gateway for southeast Asian heroin flooding North America. If the outlook for Vancouver is grim, it is grim for all British Columbians in every community.

This new global high-tech industry of drug traffickers will continue to corrupt people at all levels of society in order for it to succeed.

I suggest to you today that Canada and British Columbia must have a royal commission on illicit drug industry and its effects on our cities and on our individuals. We need to develop a new strategy for the new millennium that will be focused and coordinated. The programs delivered by government must be coordinated with law enforcement, prevention and suppression of trafficking at the community level as well as the international level.

The development of a drug control policy must begin with a reinstatement of principles, goals and priorities. The primary objectives should be to minimize the consumption of illicit drugs that are harmful to the health and safety of all citizens. These must be primary in our new drug strategy. We must begin to turn back the tide, to save lives and to make our cities safe again. The hundreds of billions of dollars that all three levels of government spend each year to deter, to enforce and to cure drug abuse make it mandatory that a national consensus be developed in the new millennium. We must ask the people of Canada where then want us to go.

G. Janssen: Certainly, I and the entire House appreciate the remarks of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. We have seen in British Columbia and Washington a tremendous increase in the use of drugs and in the effects thereof. We have responded with the state of Washington to do regular highway spot checks to stop the illicit movement of drugs across the border.

As we all know, some of the most potent marijuana and hashish now comes from British Columbia. It is grown, as we regularly see on television night after night when drug busts are made, in homes that are usually rented and that are well-equipped with hydroponics and with grow lamps. It is becoming more and more difficult to patrol.

The RCMP are consolidating their drug officers and their drug units into larger units. Rather than having up to 11 units operating in the lower mainland and on lower Vancouver Island, they are consolidating them so that there is better communication. Obviously, as the member has pointed out, there are not only national drug rings but international cartels that are operating and dealing in illicit drugs.

We have seen a dramatic reduction in the crime rate in Surrey and a reduction in Port Coquitlam, in Vancouver, by as much as 17 percent. However, as that crime rate drops overall, the crime rate in break-ins -- particularly in the Richmond area -- and armed robberies is increasing. This is a direct result of the exploitation of human beings with drugs. The need to have the drug, once addicted, is so great that almost any risk will be taken to achieve the means to supply those drugs.

The issue of deaths rising with drug use is particularly a concern, because the public really doesn't care. The public views the deaths from the use of illicit drugs as something that perhaps happens from somebody making their own choices. Yet these are our children, our family members, that are dying on the streets of Vancouver, of Victoria, of our major cities. What we need to address in this province and this country is an awareness.

Certainly, if that many people were dying from the illicit use of alcohol or from the overuse of other prescription drugs or from traffic accidents, we would be looking for society to somehow try to correct that. Yet as a society we have more or less ignored people dying from illicit drug use on our streets.

I agree with the member: there should be a national program and a national awareness, perhaps even a royal commission to examine where we are going with our drug programs, which now seem disjointed -- federally, provincially and interprovincially.

Perhaps we should even look at what my home country of Holland and Switzerland have done, which is the medical prescribing of addictive drugs, so that the person who is addicted -- and certainly we can all agree that this is a health problem, not a crime problem -- can go to a doctor, receive medical advice and treatment, and perhaps even receive illicit drugs, as we now know them, or some alternative like methadone, so that they have contact with some real help. It's worked in other countries. It's a very complicated and very controversial program, but I don't think it's something that we can ignore.

I certainly hope that if a royal commission is established it is something that it will be prepared to look at.

M. Coell: I appreciate the thoughts of the member. What both of us are saying is that a national strategy needs to be developed. For too long, it's been three levels of government doing what they think is best. I think that, in the long run, the Canadian people as a whole need to be part of determining a strategy for the new millennium. Every one of these deaths in Vancouver and across British Columbia is preventable, and I think that's what we have to work towards. It's the value of one human life.

I agree with the comments of my colleague across the floor, in that many people don't seem to care about what's going on until it affects them. I think you just have to look at downtown Vancouver and the problems now being faced by their city council and police board. That problem has grown from a couple of corners in East Vancouver to covering a good

[ Page 8701 ]

portion of downtown East Vancouver, and it will continue to grow if we do not have a strategy. I know that the Attorney General has recently produced an independent review of organized crime, and I think that that's very positive and that it will help.

I see a need to involve the people of British Columbia and Canada in that strategy and to look at the options that we have for drug treatment -- from medical legalization to decriminalization. Canada has to look at those concepts and at how we enforce the penalties for drug trafficking. In some instances, people get off on technicalities because they can hire the best lawyers, the best accountants, in the world -- because the money is so great in that business. We're not in a war like the drug wars in the sixties and seventies; we're into a high-tech, high-profit era of the drug trade. We have to be coordinated if we're going to save lives and protect our communities.

I thank you for the opportunity to present this.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I thank all the members for their statements today.

[11:00]

L. Stephens: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: In the precincts this morning -- and I'm hopeful that they will be in the gallery momentarily -- are about 30 visitors. They are grade 7 students from Noel Booth Elementary School in Langley. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Amada and by a number of adults -- parents who are here to see how government works. Hopefully, they are going to have a wonderful day in the precincts and in Victoria, and I'd like the House to please help me make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members for their thoughtful presentations this morning.

Now I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, in Committee A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In Committee B we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 44: minister's office, $436,000 (continued).

G. Abbott: This morning I'd like to continue on with questions with respect to Forest Renewal B.C., moving along to New Forest Opportunities as time permits. But prior to that, one of my colleagues has a specific question around a silviculture issue, and I'll ask him to address that now.

D. Symons: I understand that a year or so ago, young students who were working as tree planters were offered either a scholarship or -- I don't know -- financial assistance in order to continue their studies at university, in lieu of doing the tree-planting, I believe. I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with the program that was offered to them, and whether that comes under his responsibility. If not, can he tell me where it might be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not familiar with it. If the member has some information that it is related to FRBC, I would be pleased to try to dig, but the officials with me don't recognize that program.

D. Symons: I'll just explain a little bit of what I understand of the program. There was a young lad, and apparently there were more of them, who were tree-planters and students. Basically, last summer they were given the option of retiring from tree-planting and getting $400 a week, as long as they stayed in their post-secondary education courses. It seems to be related to the silviculture program, and I suspected that the money was coming from FRBC. Is that not true?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Without knowing the names, the program or the institution, what it could be is that some young people who happened to be students and happened to be tree-planters qualified for the forest worker transition program. If they qualified as a displaced forest worker, they may well have qualified for one of the worker transition programs.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me whether a student who is not a year-round tree-planter, but rather just there for a summer job when he's going to university . . . . Would that sort of work be covered through FRBC -- through this worker transition plan? Would they be eligible? They weren't professional tree-planters and they're not, in my understanding of it, in a case where they're learning, or where they're caught in one job that's disappearing and they're being trained for another job. They're just there as summer students.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was not a student program, and it isn't a student program. But many tree-planters are part-time, not full-time, so it may be a coincidence that they were students as well as part-time. If they had 700 hours in two years -- that year and the year immediately preceding -- and 65 percent of their income, then they do qualify as displaced forest workers for the worker transition program.

D. Symons: Since I gather that this government is going to be continuing with silviculture projects around the province, then silviculture wouldn't be a sunset industry. It would seem, then, that if you're paying people to attend university as a work transition, you're transitioning them out of a job that does exist, not as displaced forest workers who are coming in. The reason for my question is that it appears to me that what you're doing, basically, is buying off people who are tree-planters so that you can make space for displaced forest workers to come in and become those tree-planters.

So it's not a case of training somebody for a new job; it's a case of making a space so you can put somebody into that position under your program.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is not the intention of the program. It's not a program designed for what the member says we're doing. Silviculture is continuing, and it will be a program funded by both . . . . Industry is doing a certain amount of silviculture -- less when the markets are down and they're cutting less. If there's a general shrinkage in FRBC budgets, there will be less enhanced forestry generally, because we've had record levels of expenditure -- way beyond what we had projected. So there may be less work. Not all the jobs in silviculture that there were before are there, so there may well be people who are displaced.

D. Symons: Well, not to flog this issue, but from what you are saying, silviculture is not a sunset industry. I'm just

[ Page 8702 ]

wondering, then: are you still moving people who had been forest workers before, who are no longer employed in the forest industry, into the silviculture area? If that's the case, and I believe it is, from everything that we've heard from the ministry . . . . If you're placing people that no longer have jobs cutting trees into jobs like silviculture, and you're helping people that are currently doing silviculture to attend their university programs, through financial assistance, then this is indeed what I think it is. It is a case of buying these people off to make positions for your loggers who are now moving into silviculture activities.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is not the intention, and that is not the way the programs are designed. You talk about silviculture. You have to distinguish . . . . The money that Forest Renewal is spending is on enhanced silviculture. We've said that it doesn't matter where you're displaced from: basic silviculture, enhanced silviculture, the pulp industry, the solid wood industry. Wherever you're displaced from, you qualify equally for those programs. Nobody is guaranteeing all the jobs that are out there in exactly the same sectors. Some parts of the sectors shrink and some parts expand.

But if the person qualified, was truly displaced under the criteria and no longer had a job . . . . Not that there aren't some jobs out there, because for a displaced forest worker in the solid wood industry, there is a still a solid wood industry out there. But they may be generally displaced and no longer have a job. So if their job is gone, then they may qualify for some kind of training. The whole intent of the program is to give a fair chance to people to be retrained somewhere in the industry and, in some cases, out of the industry.

D. Symons: Well, as I understand it from my source, last year somebody from the ministry was approaching these students who had jobs planting trees and was basically encouraging them to apply for your forest worker transition program. They had no intention . . . . They weren't asking for that. It was suggested to them that they might apply for this, and I gather from everything the minister has told me that they're now being paid $400 a week not to work in the forest industry and to continue their education, which they were planning to do with their earnings from tree-planting anyway.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we know of no instruction, nor of anyone from the ministry or FRBC who is out there encouraging that to happen. So if you have a name, then provide it to us. We want to know about it; we want to track it down.

G. Abbott: Yesterday I advised the minister that I would be looking for some figures around the targets for treatment areas in the current operating year. I wanted to see what the projection was, in hectares presumably, for spacing, pruning, fertilizing, planting, backlog planting and so on. I presume, given that we've had the evening to work on that, that the minister can now provide me with those figures. I'd like a breakdown in terms of coast and interior and a breakdown by category.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I explained yesterday -- I may not have . . . . Page 19 of the business plan has the breakdown of the projects, the person-years of employment, the hectares treated and, in this case, the number of bridges replaced. It is also broken down by the six regions. So it's on page 19, and I would encourage discussion of that versus performance or whatever at the standing committee. You can get into that information in some detail, if you're looking at variance or at some details on the breakdown of those targets. But it's there.

For example, it tells you that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, there are 194 projects; in total, there is $6.8 million in backlog silviculture; and the number of hectares treated in all programs is 26,000.

The FRBC officials would gladly speak on performance in previous years in some detail.

G. Abbott: Obviously the minister misunderstood my request of yesterday. I wasn't looking for the detail that's contained on page 19. I wanted to get a breakdown on what we were doing in those different categories. The whole flow of the argument at that point in time was around how we were going to measure the efficacy of the different forms of treatment over time, and I wanted to get a more precise idea of their goals in terms of hectarage -- what they were proposing to achieve on those. I see the total area there, but I was looking for a breakdown within that category. I understood that I was going to get that today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that we'd have to generate that information. We have it; it's just that we have to go multi-year agreement by multi-year agreement. These are the overall targets, and we would have to . . . . Well, we haven't signed all of the agreements. These are the targets. You want to know what has been done. Some of it hasn't started yet. So I'm just a little unclear on what the member is looking for.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I've tried to be very straightforward with the minister throughout these estimates. I tried to give him 24 hours' warning that I was looking for some kind of breakdown in terms of what our goals are in the current year for spacing, pruning, fertilizing projects and that kind of thing. Now I understand that the information can be generated but that apparently what I was looking for wasn't understood on the other side. Pardon my frustration, but I'm feeling some here, because I tried to be as clear as I could about what we were looking for.

I didn't think there was any misunderstanding about what the heck we were looking for; in my estimation, it wasn't that complicated. I guess we can't pursue this line, given that it appears that we don't have that information here.

[11:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm advised that the efficacy of the treatments is not based on how many hectares you do; it's based on how you plan and what objectives you're trying to achieve -- whether it's volume or value. If you want to give us some guidance as to what you want the information to tell you, we'll try to provide the information.

G. Abbott: What I was looking for -- maybe it translates into volume better than value; I'm not sure -- was what the goals were on the coast and in the interior, in terms of how many hectares we wanted to achieve in terms of spacing, how many in pruning, how many in fertilizing, and that kind of thing, to get an idea of where the emphasis was going to be in the current year around those kinds of projects. Again, we had an extended discussion yesterday, and I don't want to go into it today. We've got a time element in these estimates, and I don't want to redo what we've already done.

We had an extensive discussion yesterday around measuring effectiveness over time. Hopefully, one of the ways we'll be able to assist ourselves in measuring our performance over time is by setting out what it is we're trying to do and then looking back to see how well we did in achieving those

[ Page 8703 ]

goals. Obviously the information is not here, so I'm not going to flog away a lot of valuable time this morning trying to get information that's not there. We've done too much of that through these estimates already.

Could the minister tell me the current status with respect to the model that is going to be used in the interior of British Columbia for the delivery of enhanced and/or other FRBC silviculture projects in the current year? Obviously we have NFO on the coast. What's the situation, the status, with respect to the issue in the interior?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The accord called for some work arrangements, some delivery model, to be developed between industry and the IWA. That is being worked on now; it's the subject of negotiations. There is a facilitator or mediator standing by who, in the end, can arbitrate if there's no agreement.

G. Abbott: I have yet to meet anyone in the forest industry or in the silviculture business in the interior of British Columbia who wants to have anything to do with the New Forest Opportunities model, frankly. Can the minister advise me who are the proponents of that model in the interior? Why is it that we continue to attempt to force that model onto the silviculture industry in the interior?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The NFO model is not forced on the people of the interior. In fact, the accord states that they weren't going to start with a model like the Island Highway model, which the coast opted for. So discussions were pursued along those lines. It's been put to the parties to come up with some model that will effectively prepare for the hiring of displaced forest workers on an equitable basis -- some way to sort out those people who qualify as displaced workers, with the priorities being local and first nations. Somebody has to decide who gets hired along those lines.

We put it to industry and a group representing labour to come up with a model, and there are no more instructions than that.

G. Abbott: Given that we are now six months into 1998 and that to this point, at least, if anything has occurred in the way of enhanced silviculture projects in the interior, it would be on the same basis as it has been conducted in the past -- that is, I guess, essentially a market-driven, competitive, contract-driven model of silviculture delivery -- are the enhanced silviculture projects in the interior that are funded by FRBC awaiting the outcome of this model? Or is work proceeding in the absence of a conclusion of those negotiations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Work is proceeding.

G. Abbott: On what model is it proceeding?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On existing arrangements -- the same way it's been done before.

G. Abbott: And what is it in the nature of the existing arrangements which is proving troublesome to the government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that there are some 6,000 displaced forest workers at the coast who have in one way or another registered, who can't get access to some of the FRBC jobs. The NFO model is going to allow and facilitate that. In the interior, some one thousand people are enrolled in the worker transition program. There is no mechanism for them to get access to existing FRBC contracts.

G. Abbott: What puzzles me is: what barrier would exist? I know enough about the silviculture industry and tree-planting and so on to know that if there are contracts, if there is work to be done, people put their names forward through a variety of mechanisms; they're hired on to the crews and they go to work. I'm puzzled what barrier there is to the 1,000 displaced interior forest workers picking up jobs in the woods. There is none. Tell me what's preventing them from getting those jobs. I know of absolutely nothing.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It might be training; they might need to be trained to do it. The contracting community may want to hire someone else -- may not want to hire these people. The commitment is to give equal opportunity to people, wherever they're displaced, to work on a project funded by FRBC. And it's not the basic silviculture work; that's excluded.

G. Abbott: I know lots of people who work in the silviculture industry. What happens is that if a silviculture contractor needs someone to help him do some spacing or pruning or thinning or tree-planting, if he doesn't have a full crew, he'll go to the marketplace and find people. And if he wants them to work, he'll train them. There's lots of training being done on the job in the interior; it does not pose a barrier to people working in the silviculture industry.

What we're doing -- what the government seems intent on doing -- is taking something that works very well, that works very efficiently, very productively, and turning it into another bureaucratic nightmare. There is no reason; there are no real barriers to people getting jobs in silviculture in the interior. The contractors, when they need people, will train them. Is that not the case? I'm not aware of any contractor who would not assist with the training of people he wants to work for him.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is no mechanism -- other than, as the member says, some wide-open market -- to take people who are permanently displaced in the forest industry and place them in FRBC-funded jobs. We are moving towards multi-year agreements. We're trying to create those jobs so that they're longer-term, so that there's planning, so that there are more permanent jobs, and to give those people -- whether they were working in basic, in enhanced -- in all aspects of the industry an equal opportunity to participate and to take some of the longer-term jobs that we expect to come from the multi-year agreements.

G. Abbott: What's just been said here, I think, is that we have a body of permanently displaced forest workers in the interior -- and the estimate, the minister says, is about 1,000 right now. And we need to take those displaced forest workers and move them from wherever they are -- perhaps it's unemployment insurance or social assistance, or whatever . . . . They want to get back to work in the woods.

I think the preference, probably, of the great majority of the 1,000 would be to go back to mill jobs somewhere. Most of the people I know who work in the industry -- particularly guys who are getting up into their forties, fifties or sixties -- are not looking to go out tree-planting. They are hoping to get jobs in the industry that incorporate their skills again. But if they are in that unfortunate position where their prospects, for whatever reason, are limited in terms of getting jobs back in another mill situation, we want to get them from their current place on the unemployment line and get them working on an FRBC-funded enhanced forestry project.

The minister says we need a mechanism to move them from unemployment into an FRBC-funded enhanced silvi-

[ Page 8704 ]

culture project. If there is any barrier, clearly it resides with the FRBC-funded enhanced project. I don't see why we wouldn't simply hire them if they were available. The point here . . . . We'll get around to dealing with that in further measure later on. When the government starts to interfere in the awarding of contracts and the assignment of labour and all that, it gets confusing and it gets costly; we're going to go through all that, because I think it's vital that we appreciate it.

But right now let's just deal with this issue in the interior with the 1,000 laid-off workers. We need to get them from the unemployment line into work with a contractor who has an FRBC enhanced silviculture contract for spacing, pruning, thinning -- whatever. He's saying we need a mechanism to move them from A to B. Well, maybe the mechanism is simply that the contractor hires them. I presume that's what is happening now. Unless FRBC is posing some barrier to move from point A to point B, I don't know what barrier would exist to prevent that from happening. Perhaps the minister can tell me that.

F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: It's a pleasure for me to introduce the mine rescue team from Line Creek Resources today. They won first place in the zone competition in Elkford on May 30 this year. The provincial competition is being held in Victoria on Saturday, June 13, at 9 a.m. -- that's tomorrow -- at the Construction Aggregates pit at 3497 Metchosin Road in Victoria. I would like to introduce Frank Walsh, Rob Robinson, Bill Bolen, Kevin Hilderbrandt, Kevin Beattie, Dean Hills and their coach Gerald Mattl. These workers are represented at the minesite by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115. Would the House please make them welcome and wish them good luck tomorrow.

[11:30]

E. Walsh: I too would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Walsh: I would like to join my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds by welcoming the first-aid mine rescue teams that are here from my riding -- from Elkford, Sparwood and Cranbrook, actually. They make up these teams from all over the valley. I would also like to welcome their partners who are here with them and the youngest member, who is also an up-and-coming first-aider and rescuer: Dean Hills's daughter. She is up in the gallery. I would like to ask the House to please welcome them and wish them all luck in the competitions this weekend. I know that I represent the best, and they are all here. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to go back to the basics here. When the jobs and timber accord was agreed to, industry agreed to ensure a priority hiring system that first provides for the hiring of local displaced forest workers and ensures increased employment for native people in forest work, followed by a local hiring process for qualified local workers. There is no mechanism to do that. You could maybe make it a requirement of the contract that the companies administer, but there's no mechanism to do that.

Somebody has to do it, whether it's industry, an agency or some cooperative venture between industry and labour. We've put it to the industry to come up with a mechanism. We've said that government and industry acknowledge that the interior negotiations would be based on respect for the diversity of the interior industry, and we've acknowledged that the industry's position in those negotiations will be that an alternative to the Highway Constructors Ltd. model must be sought.

G. Abbott: Good. Maybe we're getting somewhere here. The issue is: how do we achieve the very practical measure of moving permanently displaced forest workers from that position of unemployment to those enhanced silviculture projects which are delivered by contract and funded by Forest Renewal B.C.? If the companies themselves can do it, as I guess they are now -- that's essentially the mechanism that's being used -- that's fine. I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this.

I think it's important that rather than trying to impose something that will add considerable expense to the industry and make our industry less efficient, less productive, less competitive -- as I suggest New Forest Opportunities will -- we go to a very simple mechanism. It doesn't have to be elaborate. There are all kinds of different federal and provincial organizations in communities to assist people in finding work. I don't think we have to go through elaborate and expensive processes to achieve that.

In fact, I want to move to the New Forest Opportunities model now. I've made this argument, and I assure the minister that I've made this argument as forcefully as I can in the committee, and I've taken it as far as I can in the committee, and I need to take it up here. I am absolutely, fundamentally appalled by what has been done with respect to the silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia. I think that what has happened there is dead wrong, and I'm going to take that argument up here today.

What has happened is that Forest Renewal B.C., through the subsidiary corporation of New Forest Opportunities Ltd., has taken what has been a very efficient, very productive silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia and is in the process of turning it into another one of the bureaucratic monsters that this government is so fond of creating in order to create the illusion of creating new jobs. Whether we call it the jobs and timber accord, or whatever nonsensical scheme is being advocated by the government this week to pretend that they are creating rather than destroying jobs in the forest . . . .

What is fundamentally wrong with the New Forest Opportunities Ltd. approach is that it forces unionization on an industry that may or may not be prepared to accept it. Now, I have lots of respect for the IWA. I have no problem with them; they've done a lot for working people in the province. What I take absolute exception to is this government coercing people into joining the IWA in order to access FRBC-funded enhanced forestry projects. That's dead wrong. There is everything wrong with that. It is a fundamental right for people in this province to organize and to form unions.

What's being done here, with New Forest Opportunities, is in fact an abridgment of a fundamental right -- a violation of a fundamental right -- not to join a union. And it's dead wrong -- dead wrong -- what's happening with new Forest Opportunities.

I'm sure we're going to have a vigorous debate around this. I want to begin by asking the minister about what elements in the catalogue of FRBC projects are included in the New Forest Opportunities approach. My understanding has always been that tree-planting would be exempt from this, but that all of the catalogue of things associated with enhanced forestry, including spacing, brushing, pruning and so on --

[ Page 8705 ]

and fertilizing, I guess -- would be considered enhanced forestry, and therefore all of the workers in an FRBC-funded contract for one of those things would have to come through the New Forest Opportunities hall. Could the minister advise whether that's correct, and further, whether the watershed restoration crews or any other project areas are going to fall under NFO as well? Can I get a breakdown of what falls under NFO and what does not, in terms of contracts for these things?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The shorthand is that it's all the land-based programs: pruning, brushing, weeding, recreation, spacing, watershed restoration and some inventory.

G. Abbott: In short, New Forest Opportunities applies to everything in the catalogue, with the exception of tree-planting. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On behalf of the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, I have the utmost pleasure in recognizing that we have with us 50 grade 6 students and their teacher, Miss Rispin, from Betty Huff Elementary School in Surrey. Surrey is one of my favourite places; I have a lot of relatives and friends living there. I ask the House to give a special welcome to these children, their teacher and any other adults that might be with them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's all land-based programs except tree-planting.

G. Abbott: A recent press release -- or a handout, at least -- from New Forest Opportunities makes the following statement: "Both union and non-union workers will share in the benefits which flow from the collective agreement." I've spent considerable time studying the collective agreement and trying to reconcile that statement with the actual terms incorporated in the agreement. I simply don't see where there is anything in this agreement which in any way protects the rights of a non-union worker in this province in relation to FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture projects.

We find, for example, in terms of union security: "All employees under this agreement shall become members of the designated local union" -- i.e., the IWA. They have to become members within 15 days, and so on. It's very clear that anyone who wishes to access employment on an FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture project -- or indeed, any FRBC-funded project on the coast, with the possible exception of tree-planting -- will have to join the IWA. In fact, on the next page of the agreement is the IWA-Canada checkoff, which seeks names and asks: "Are you an IWA-Canada member?

In what IWA operation were you last employed? What is your local union?" It goes on to advise of union initiation fees, union back dues, union dues, union assessments and so on.

Clearly this agreement is built, in its entirety, on the IWA and the requirement that anyone who wishes to seek employment through New Forest Opportunities is going to have to become a member of the IWA for the purpose of those projects. Further, I suspect this is where the minister will go in his response, in terms of outlining the enormous benefits of this to non-union workers. He'll talk about the employer management rights on page 9. These say, for example: "The management, operation, direction and promotion of employees is vested exclusively with the employer . . . . " That's great.

"Subject to the provisions of this agreement, the forgoing enumeration of management rights shall not be deemed to exclude other rights . . . . " However, what is also stated in this agreement is that the contractor can have one person who will be outside of IWA membership. That one person, furthermore, will have to pay the equivalent of all the union dues and fees and so on to the IWA. But I guess he does get to have one management person regardless of the size of the crew.

After that long

preamble, let me ask this: how will New Forest Opportunities Ltd., through its collective agreement, realize the statement that's made in this New Forest Opportunities handout that both union and non-union workers will share in the benefits which flow from the collective agreement? Can the minister tell me that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's simple. The benefits package, the regularization of pay, will go to anyone who's working on the project, whether they come from a union background or not. Clearly the member is opposed to unionization -- it's that simple.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it sure sounds like it. Not too long ago, he was arguing that we weren't working at employing displaced IWA workers. That's who is in the woods and in the mills, and we have to have a mechanism to do that. They want to do it and have some regularization of, and some continuity with, the benefits. If we didn't provide for this, I'm sure the member might think about standing up there and defending people who had to go from a job with benefits to a job without benefits. Well, we're way ahead of you.

We're saying that the benefits are there for everybody, whether you come from a union background or not. Whether you're a member of the union on that project or not, you can qualify for the benefits.

G. Abbott: The minister is absolutely wrong if he's suggesting that I or anyone else here is opposed to unionization. Unionization, as I said at the outset, is a democratic right, a fundamental right. If people choose, for their own reasons, to unionize, that's just fine. What I am absolutely and utterly opposed to is the forced unionization of an entire sector by a government that's completely preoccupied with that. This is bogus; this is wrong. It's fundamentally wrong that people are forced to unionize whether they want to or not.

There is no way, under the terms of this agreement, that they can do anything other than that. It's totally nonsensical that this minister stands up and tells me that it benefits both union and non-union. If they come from that background, somehow they benefit from it. This agreement forces unionization, and that's fundamentally wrong. If people want to unionize, that's their right. If they're forced to unionize, that's wrong. This is a Cuban labour model; it's absurd. It's fundamentally at odds with our rights in British Columbia. I ask the minister to respond to that.

[11:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's often a condition of employment that somebody belong to the union, and it isn't forced unionization of a sector. There are lots of employees in enhanced silviculture work that work for the companies. There's other silviculture work out there . . . . Basic tree-planting is exempt from this. We're saying that if someone wants to work on a FRBC project in enhanced forestry, and they come from a

[ Page 8706 ]

unionized or non-unionized background, however and for whatever reason they're displaced -- as long as they qualify and have put in time in the industry -- they qualify. We say they have a right to have the benefits, and we let that agreement be negotiated between a representative of the workers and the representatives of the companies.

G. Abbott: If the purpose here is to extend benefits to people, that could be done. If somebody says to New Forest Opportunities: "I'm philosophically opposed to unionization for religious, moral, cultural" -- or, God knows, any -- "reasons; I'm opposed to being forced to be part of the union if I don't want to . . . . " What this government is saying is that whether you want to be a union member or not, you're going to be -- because you have no choice. If I want to work on an FRBC-funded project on the coast of British Columbia, I have to be a union member; that's clear.

If I'm opposed to it, what am I going to do? What are you going to provide in terms of exemptions? We've been talking a little bit about some of the philosophical objections which, obviously, a number of Indian bands have with respect to being forced into this model. If I'm opposed to unionization but I want to work on a FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture project, am I going to be exempted as well? Or am I going to have my fundamental right not to join a union be offended, in order that I can access an FRBC-funded project?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would go back to the member and say that industry agreed to a model -- the HCL model that we applied on the coast. They agreed to that. They're used to dealing with the unions. They know it's a convenient way to deal with some of the problems, and they know and recognize that there should be a fair-wage and benefits structure. The only way to get that is to come to some agreement on what's fair. How do you agree to that? You have some kind of a negotiation. That's how you agree on what's fair.

G. Abbott: Where does the silviculture industry fit into that? They sure as heck were not happy with this. The Western Silvicultural Contractors Association was fundamentally opposed to what's going on here -- and they still are. The fact of the matter is that what's going to happen here is that an entire industry is going to be disrupted. Lots of existing silviculture workers are going to be dislocated as a consequence of this move.

The minister has talked about fairness to union and non-union. I understand that in the Pacific region in 1998, we're looking at a target of around 8,000 hectares of treated forest land for spacing, pruning, brushing -- that sort of stuff. I understand that about 4,000 of those 8,000 hectares are being committed to direct awards to IWA and community partnerships. In other words, 50 percent of the multi-year work -- the 8,000 hectares -- is going to exclude the traditional silviculture workforce from that possibility. Further, I understand that about 1,100 of the 8,000 hectares are being committed to Port Alberni. The minister can tell me that.

What's going to happen here is that half of those 8,000 hectares is going to be lost at the outset to the partnerships with the IWA and the communities. The other half is going to have the NFO model applied to it, so that there's going to be no work for the non-union silviculture contractors and workers around the province. How does this all fit together? How is this fair to people who fundamentally feel that they want to be non-union and enjoy that freedom? What's in it for them here? How is this in any way fair to those workers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that the only crews that are exempted are existing first nations crews. Those are the only ones that are exempted. If the member wants to ask further questions, I'd be happy to answer.

G. Abbott: Let's explore the native exemption for a moment. We've raised this issue in the House on a couple of occasions in question period. The first issue we raised was about the Lillooet River watershed society. The minister advised at that time that an exemption had been granted by the ministry or by Forest Renewal B.C., or whoever -- maybe it was both -- to the watershed society to proceed with their project without the NFO model being imposed. Subsequent to that, in the discussions we had with the Lillooet River Watershed Society, there seemed to be some doubt as to what had actually been exempted.

Now, I gather that funds were released for the planting of whips and so on, and presumably that's exempt from the NFO model, anyway. But where have we gone since then?

The other issue we raised more recently. Another Indian band on Vancouver Island was fundamentally offended by the notion of NFO being imposed as well. The minister indicated at that time that some exemption would be provided for first nations who were opposed to this. Can the minister outline for me what the policy of the government or Forest Renewal B.C. is with respect to first nations who may not wish to participate in this particular Cuban labour model of employment on the coast?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The policy that NFO and FRBC are working with is that if there is a biological window, then we have to exempt in order to expedite the program. We may have to make an exemption to get the work done in this season. There is an exemption policy under the collective agreement, and we are in the process of discussing the rationale for the exemptions with some of those groups, particularly the first nations. With respect to those particular projects, it's my understanding that there have been ongoing meetings. There hasn't been resolution yet to their concerns, and the discussions are ongoing.

We expect there may be some bumps along the way in getting this model up and going. The opposition mightily criticized the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, and if you ask anybody on the Island, it's very popular. The idea of having local displaced workers -- and in this case, members of the primary partnership of Forest Renewal, of which first nations are some . . . . They need to be accommodated. They have unique circumstances, and that's being accommodated under the collective agreement.

G. Abbott: To conclude on the issue with respect to first nations and their potential exemption from the requirements of the collective agreement of New Forest Opportunities, we are clearly moving away from the advice which was tendered to the Lillooet River Watershed Society on April 17, 1998. This is to the watershed society from Mr. Beard, who is the president and general manager of NFO.

This is a quote from the letter: "As an agreement holder or as a partner or contractor carrying out the work, if the Lillooet River Watershed Society receives Forest Renewal B.C. funding for land-based project work, work crews must be employed by New Forest, and those crews will work according to the New Forest-IWA collective agreement."

Am I to understand, then, that we now have some new flexibility in New Forest that would permit the first nations, at least, to apply for and possibly receive exemptions from the provisions of NFO?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

[ Page 8707 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The policy is -- and the letter is correct -- that they do have to be NFO workers. The exemption is for existing crews. They are exempt from the placement process, not the terms of the collective agreement.

G. Abbott: Then if we are talking about existing crews . . . . I think that in the case of the Lillooet River Watershed Society, they did have an existing crew; but I could certainly stand to be corrected on that. I know that in the other first nations case, we talked about there having been an existing crew. If we have existing crews in the community projects around the province -- whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- are they going to be able to apply for exemptions as well? Can that occur?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're speaking about the coast, and there are opportunities for unique circumstances to be argued. There is a committee that examines it, and they can make an application. There is no broad group of exemptions, other than the existing first nations crews. So the answer is whether other community projects . . . . Only in unique circumstances, and one unique circumstance might be a long-term project that's been going on for a long time and to which it would be disruptive to do it some other way.

G. Abbott: So there is a distinction being drawn by New Forest Opportunities, then, between aboriginal pre-existing programs and non-aboriginal pre-existing programs. Is there a distinction being drawn between those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's true, and there's a reason. We have a priority-hire policy, and first nations are one of the priorities for hiring, as are local displaced forest workers.

G. Abbott: I do understand that point about priority hire. I don't see where that fits into the distinction that I just talked about. Yes, they do have priority-hire. Why would it affect whether a community project was eligible for exemption versus, say, an aboriginal one? Overall, they are priority-hire. That's clear in the agreement, and it's clear in previous arrangements. How does it affect this case?

[12:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To achieve the priority placement goals that FRBC and NFO have, the easiest way is to provide this exemption for first nations.

G. Abbott: But that doesn't address the question I posed, which was why a pre-existing community group, with its established workers, would be treated one way and aboriginal pre-existing crews would be treated another. Again, it has nothing to do with whether there is aboriginal priority-hire. That's a pre-existing arrangement that's been there for a while. What's the difference between those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any other community group -- and I'm not sure what he means . . . . Well, he would have to define the community and the group. If there's something unique, they can apply for an exemption. But there are unique circumstances around pre-existing first nations crews. They are a partner; they are specifically named as a priority placement requirement. We have some objectives there to do that, and that's in the spirit of the partnership around FRBC.

The other priority placement is local displaced forest workers. With the exception of where somebody may apply for some kind of unique circumstances, everybody is treated equally, if they're displaced forest workers under the definition, in having an opportunity to be employed in FRBC work.

G. Abbott: And if I am philosophically opposed to joining a union because of my religious beliefs or because of my political beliefs or for any other philosophical reason, can I get an exemption from doing that and still access work under New Forest Opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is commonly a condition of employment to belong to a union or to be someone who benefits from the collective agreement. There is a collective agreement out there. It has been worked out. We had advice from a number of parties to advise the employer on the agreement. Many of the provisions in the agreement are there because some of the parties had wanted them. Now we're trying to make the model work on the ground and meet the spirit of the employment objectives that NFO was created to achieve.

G. Abbott: I want to try to clarify a big distinction for the minister. If I want to work in the forest industry and I want to get a job at XYZ mill, I know when I go there that XYZ mill may be unionized under the IWA or it may not be. I make a choice. Yeah, if I'm going to work there and it's a unionized shop, I'm going to be a union member. XYZ mill is paying my wages, and I accept that.

What's fundamentally wrong with the imposition of the New Forest Opportunities model is that it's funded by Forest Renewal B.C. It's funded by dollars that I hope are public dollars, yet if I have some philosophical difficulty with joining a union, I don't have any choice but to do it. The government has decreed that if I'm going to get access to any job in enhanced forestry that is created by Forest Renewal B.C., I have to join a union.

In some circumstances -- for example, if I'm Seventh-Day Adventist or some religious persuasion which tells me that I can't submit to any secular authority in this world -- generally there is some mechanism whereby one can be exempted from the requirement to join the union. Does that exist here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The labour laws of the province apply, like any other collective agreement. The point of having a collective agreement is that it covers everybody in that group. Somebody will know, when they go to work for NFO, that it is a unionized work area. They'll know that. Right now they go, as you say, to M&B. At M&B they know if they work there that it's unionized. There's basic silviculture, there are probably private land silviculture crews and there's other work that they could go to if they choose not to work for a unionized group.

You argue it from both sides. When it serves your purpose, you say that industry paid this money. When it serves your purpose, you say that it's public money. We're saying that for the work created and funded by public money, people deserve the protection of not having to give up benefits if they were coming from an area of the workforce that had benefits and that everybody working there would be treated equally, regardless of the background they came from.

The only way you can do that and agree on the terms of reference and get the benefits of controlling costs, getting training and having a common wage structure throughout the industry -- to allow people to move without having to take a minimum-wage job -- is to have some kind of collective agreement.

G. Abbott: The argument that is being advanced here is an entirely specious one. MacMillan Bloedel has numerous

[ Page 8708 ]

shops where their employees have unionized -- of their own volition, of their own choice. They made a decision at some point that they wanted to unionize under the IWA, achieve a collective agreement with the company and proceed. They did it of their own volition. They did it voluntarily; it was their choice.

Here we've got New Forest Opportunities, and the government has made the decision. The government has made the decision that everybody who is going to access an FRBC-funded enhanced forestry job has to join the union. Apparently there is not even any provision for people to pay their union dues but at the same time have some relief from the compulsion to join the union. There's a huge difference here between people exercising their democratic right to unionize and being forced to unionize in order to access FRBC-funded enhanced forestry jobs.

There is a huge difference. On the one hand, we have the wages being paid by M&B; on the other hand, we have the wages being paid by Forest Renewal B.C. It's fundamentally wrong that a person can't access those jobs without succumbing to the forest unionization that's being imposed on them by this government.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm glad the member is making it clear that they would deunionize it, and they would not give protection and decent wages to people. They would have no way to do it. They'd say: "You're there in the market; low bidder takes it. Pay minimum wage. No protection, no good working conditions, no easy way to go from a non-pension job to bridging into a pension job."

We want to make it as easy as it can be to keep working families working in the industry with a fair chance for the public dollars. There's no priority given to one sector or the other. It's the forest sector as a whole. If you're displaced in that sector, you have an equal chance to make a decent family-supporting wage. The opposition would deny that opportunity. They say it time and time again. I know the working people in the forest industry are watching you; they're listening to what you're saying, and they'll remember that.

G. Abbott: I hope they are watching. I hope they are watching a government that is systematically stripping people of their rights in this province. One of the rights people have -- and it's fundamental -- is to voluntarily unionize if they choose. This government has taken away that right. They're saying: "Oh, we know better, as a government. We're the New Democratic Party; we know better. We're going to force people to unionize whether they want to or not.

We say that the silviculture industry is fundamentally unjust." This is the whole nonsensical argument that this government repeatedly throws out there: that the silviculture industry has abused people; that it's a bad industry; that the market is a bad way to operate; that people aren't treated fairly just because they're not members of the unions.

Here we have a government that says: "Oh no, that's not good enough. We know better. We're Big Brother; we know better. People have to unionize. That's the way it has to be if they're going to be treated fairly in this society." That's exactly what the minister is saying. And you're right: we would make changes to NFO. You bet we would. This is an absurd model, this is a stupid model, and experience is going to prove it to be exactly that. This is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally wrong. I hope people are watching, because they will appreciate that this is a government that is absolutely destroying the forest industry in British Columbia.

You know, you can dress up the pig that is the NDP's forest policies. You can do all kinds of things with it, and you can pretend that all the things that this government has done have helped forest workers in this province. Well, everything this government has done has destroyed the industry in this province. You're constantly forcing people out of work as a result of your policies. You're pricing the industry out of the world markets because of some of the ridiculous policies adopted over time. This is another one.

You tell us that the stumpage relief and the changes in the Forest Practices Code are all things that are going to make our industry competitive again. Yet you turn around and take the one aspect of the industry -- silviculture -- which has worked very efficiently, very productively, and you're going to wreck that too. The government is not going to be satisfied until it's wrecked everything associated with the forest industry in this province.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to pose a very simple question to the minister during his estimates relative to the topic that the member opposite seems to be getting so excited about.

The question is really directed to the minister. I wonder if he is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech made in Prince George some two weeks ago, made an absolute commitment to shut down an operating pulp mill in this province and throw all of its employees out of work. I wonder if the minister might have some comment, given the hectoring of members opposite with respect to the issue of jobs in forestry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I certainly do. I can say that if that party were ever government -- God forbid -- and shut down that pulp mill in Prince Rupert, those employees would be glad that there would be work funded by FRBC that they could move to and take some of their benefits -- and not have to be out on the street and give up everything they've worked for, for years and years.

It's clear that the other side of the House would deny people working on enhanced silviculture . . . . They'd pretend that it's all silviculture. They keep saying that, trying to scare people into . . . .

G. Abbott: I've been saying "enhanced" all day.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, but you slipped up. You would like people to believe that it's all silviculture. The truth of the matter is that people working on enhanced silviculture and land-based programs for Forest Renewal, which is government-funded, have the advantage of having benefits and a known wage rate -- some stabilization. In fact, Dirk Brinkman, who represents the industry, said that one of the benefits of the collective agreement is stability in wage rates, stability in benefits.

G. Abbott: I'm glad to yield the floor to the little lovefest across the way. If the minister of defence has any more fluffballs he wants to throw at the Forests minister, I'd gladly yield the floor to him.

[12:15]

Hon. D. Miller: One is tempted to ask the member whether he agrees with his leader with respect to the closure of that mill -- I suspect that he doesn't, really -- but that would be a contravention of the rules, so I won't do that.

G. Abbott: We'll be dealing with the issue of Skeena Cellulose in due course. We'll be doing a very thorough and

[ Page 8709 ]

methodical job of dealing with that when the time comes. I look forward to returning now, if we could, to the systematic discussion of Forest Renewal B.C. that we had going -- if the minister of defence has taken care of his interventions here on this point.

What I want to address next are the concerns -- and I think they're well-founded concerns -- around how to bid an FRBC contract that is bound by the conditions of NFO. Let me make the case this way. Let's say that I am a contractor, ABC contractor. I have a work crew of 20. We've done jobs over the past several years, and I know what the productivity, efficiency and level of training of those workers is. When I bid a contract, whether it's for so many hectares of spacing, thinning, pruning or whatever -- or some combination of that -- I know what to expect from the workforce of 20 that I've assembled.

I can bid in an accurate way, based on what I know they're going to be able to achieve on that site. How is it going to cost anything other than more . . . ? If I'm ABC contractor, I'm looking at the same job, but I'm looking at having to lay off ten of my workers, because that's a compulsory thing under the terms of the collective agreement.

Actually, I may have to lay off all of them. Unless they are prepared to join the IWA, I'm going to have to lay them all off. That's fundamental here, and we've explored that sufficiently, I hope. But I'm going of have to lay off at least half of them. I can keep the first ten, I guess, if they join NFO. Beyond that ten, I have to -- as I recall -- take on six trainees and four name-hires out of the NFO hiring hall. I think that's the breakdown. In any event, it's going to introduce a very considerable element of doubt into my contracting.

How can I bid -- not knowing the level of productivity, energy, training and their ability to produce -- on the same basis as with my crew of 20? How can it not do anything but make our silviculture industry and the conduct of those contracts anything other than less efficient and less productive?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that the Price Waterhouse work which costed the collective agreement said it was cost-effective, that what it does for the industry is say: "These are the standards, these are the rates, and everybody has to pay them." By the way, there's 24 to 27 percent turnover in the industry and in the crews anyway, according to the studies made by the industry itself. That particular contractor might have two contracts and put ten on each. There are many ways that this can play out.

I won't deny the fact that we are saying to people from other parts of the forest industry: "You have an opportunity to be trained, to become productive and to contribute in a cost-effective way to the work that needs to be done. If you don't meet 85 percent of productivity, which is within the range of what happens on these crews, you will be dismissed eventually." There is a progressive plan to allow people a fair chance to get trained, to become productive. These are provisions that were put in there on the request of industry. We agreed; we want to see cost-effective projects.

G. Abbott: Let me try to put a bit more of a human face on this issue. I recently spoke on the phone to a long-established contractor on the coast, who posed the dilemma that he faced in this way. There was an FRBC contract. It involved roughly 20 employees -- in the range of 15 to 20 employees, as I recall. He would be flying those employees into the site to do the project.

His big concern was that, yeah, he knew the productivity level and so on of his existing crew, and he would be taking at least half of them from people he knew, but there was going to be a significant portion of his crew about whom he had no idea, before he bore the expense of flying them into the project and setting them up and so on, about whether they understood the rigours that they were going to be facing as silviculture workers. He had no idea of their energy level, their efficiency level or their productivity level, yet he was going to be facing a very considerable cost in moving those workers into place.

This, again, is one of the reasons why we're going to see costs driven up. Don't keep citing this study. I haven't met anybody yet who believes the figures contained in there. I think that over time, it's going to be proven bogus.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member should talk to some of the CEOs of the company. They reviewed this study and accepted it. They're the employers.

Under the collective agreement, 70 percent of the employees will be fully trained, so he's going in with a 70-percent crew. What did that person do before? He has always taken people in, and he didn't know about up to 30 percent of the people. What did he do then? If they're not productive after a certain period of time, then they're let go.

This is not a guarantee of a job at low productivity. There are some standards in there, and there are incentives in the contract for people to get above 85 percent productivity. This employer is in virtually the same situation. He has an opportunity to name-hire a number of people, and the industry is going to work with approximately the same attrition rate as it did before.

G. Abbott: The big difference -- and I had hoped that the minister would have identified it by now, after our extensive discussion of this -- is that in the past, this contractor could interview people, talk to them about what they knew, what they could offer his crew, what their experience and training was, what kind of work they'd been doing, whether they were prepared to accept the rigours of the job and so on. That's the way it had been done in the past. I guess that's kind of old-fashioned now. Now we have to have an agency that's going to tell us who's suited.

His opportunity to have a look at the people and make an informed judgment about who he should risk flying in there and who he shouldn't has been taken away from him.

I guess we run head-on into a philosophical difference between ourselves on this. We are hearing from the government: "Yeah, we know better, and we're going to do it that way." That's fine. The minister may have some comment with respect to that. I also want to ask here about the productivity provisions in the contract itself. The minister has noted the 85 percent provision. I understand and appreciate that if a worker does not achieve 85 percent of the target productivity level, they could be let go.

Regrettably, in the case where there is considerable expense in moving people in and out of projects, that's going to possibly be an additional cost burden to the contractor and may affect his ability to do a contract.

But laying that aside, I want to talk about the target productivity provisions contained in the contract as well. I want the minister, in conjunction with staff there, if we could, to go to page 18 of the collective agreement. Actually, I'll go to the start of subsection (d):

"For each project, block within a project or part of a block, a target productivity required to earn the day rates described in paragraph (

a) above shall be established as follows . . . .

"(ii) if the average productivity of qualified employees working on a block or part of a block is, for the first two weeks of the block, or part of the block, less than the target productivity set under subparagraph (i), the target productivity may be adjusted by the contractor;

[ Page 8710 ]

"(iii) if the average productivity of the qualified employees working on a project, block within a project, or part of a block is, at the earlier of eight weeks or completion of the project, block with a project or part of a block, less than the target productivity set under subparagraph (i), the target productivity shall be adjusted to such average productivity;

"(iv) any downward adjustment to the target productivity made pursuant to subparagraph (ii) or (iii) shall be made retroactive to the beginning of the project."

Can the minister advise whether the 85 percent productivity measure may in fact, retroactive to the beginning of the project, end up being something less than 85 percent?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that this particular provision was put forward by the silviculture contractors as a suggestion to protect the workers so there were not unrealistic productivity requirements placed. There's an opportunity to adjust productivity.

G. Abbott: That's interesting, because the particular concern around this

section was in fact raised to me by more than one silviculture contractor. The concern is that under the provisions of this, if after two weeks it's found, for example, that the productivity is 25 percent less than the target productivity, then the target productivity is simply revised downward by 25 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The figure there, I'm told, is to measure the productivity of the qualified people; they set the standard. Half of those people are picked by the employer. That's the control. They have to know and set appropriate productivity rates, and they're doing it based on people who are already trained and who probably worked for that employer before.

G. Abbott: That may or may not be true, depending on the circumstances and who happens to be working on the job. The interesting thing about this particular section, subsection (d), is that it pretty much makes it impossible not to achieve productivity targets. How could you not achieve a productivity target when if it's found to be too high after two weeks -- or after eight weeks or after the completion of the project -- one simply adjusts it downward? How can one possibly ever not achieve a productivity target if it can move up and down with the level of productivity?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're forgetting that the price is fixed. He'd be cutting his own throat to reduce the productivity requirement unnecessarily.

G. Abbott: No, the contractor will not want to reduce the productivity; there is no question about that. It seems to me, though, that this provision in the contract has been set up to ensure that the NFO approach never fails. That seems to me to be the essence of this one.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if there are parts of this collective agreement that aren't working, we've got Dan Johnston, who's the mediator, and he can come in and assist in fine-tuning the agreement to make it work for both parties.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise, with respect to the 85 percent productivity measure . . . ? If someone doesn't perform to the 85 percent level, they can be let go or fired or whatever term we want to give it. If 85 percent is the measure, does that measure also vary with the target productivity in subsection (d)?

[12:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's 85 percent of the average productivity of the trained members of the crew. It doesn't vary.

G. Abbott: On the issue of putting New Forest Opportunities into action, can the minister advise whether this model is now in place and whether it is working? Are there people now employed on FRBC-funded enhanced silviculture projects who came through this hiring-hall route and are now out on jobs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The projects are actually just starting now, so we don't have any sort of history yet.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, there's been a few, or perhaps many . . . . I don't know; staff and the minister can advise me here. I understand that there have been some contracts placed under the terms of the New Forest Opportunities approach. Can the minister advise how many there have been and in what location?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The multi-year agreements are signed, so the funding is in place. Companies are going through the process of bidding, and we don't know how many subcontracts have been signed or awarded. We don't have that information.

G. Abbott: Can the minister advise, from the inception of the idea of creating New Forest Opportunities -- the addition of staff and so on -- what the cost is of New Forest Opportunities? What is the cost of administering New Forest Opportunities? What is the cost of the model that has been put in place to achieve the goals associated with this organization?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The cost of administering the client services, which includes the administration of training and so on, is expected to be $2.2 million, and FRBC's investment in land-based activities in the Pacific region is $94.4 million. So the cost of NFO is a little over 2 percent of the investment.

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline for me the personnel structure associated with New Forest Opportunities from . . . ? It's a president, I think, who directs the organization. Could the minister provide me with a capsule

summary of the organizational structure associated with New Forest Opportunities and the key personnel?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The basic structure is that there are four senior people in the management group, and then there are nine clerical and assessment staff. We're blending in the forest worker transition program, so we're taking two programs and blending them into one, to get the administrative efficiencies. New Forests currently has 13 staff. The forest worker transition program has 40.

G. Abbott: New Forest Opportunities recently released a request for expression of interest for prequalification of instructors for the job readiness training program. I presume that they are looking for instructors to train people for the different silviculture mechanisms that are available. Could the minister advise what the call for instructors was about? Is it as I have suggested? How many have been hired, and so on, to this point in time?

[ Page 8711 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two levels of training. There is work readiness training, of which this contract is an example, where we're hiring an instructor. Silviculture contractors would be hired to do the short-term training. The other level would be with a contractor -- on-the-job training. What I should have said earlier is that one of the advantages of this model is that there is pretraining. The work readiness training is there, so the contractors will be pulling from a pool of people who have had work readiness training.

G. Abbott: Could the minister answer the following questions? How many workers have completed the work readiness training? How many personnel have been engaged to provide the work readiness training? How many have completed it and been registered with New Forest Opportunities? And of those registered, how many have been placed in employment to date?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forty people have gone through the job readiness training, in four sessions. NFO has 400 to 500 people who are registered. I don't have the exact number here with me. Approximately 100 people have been placed on projects, and as I said earlier, a lot of the projects are being advertised and tendered right now.

R. Coleman: Just going back to some descriptions relative to New Forest Opportunities, we now have 40 people trained and 400 to 500 people on the list. Do those 400 to 500 people that have registered with New Forest Opportunities require training?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have those details here. Some of them may and some of them may not. You're looking for a level of detail that should be raised during committee discussions.

R. Coleman: It's amazing. Every time I ask a question of the minister, I get told that the question should be raised in committee discussions. Let's go back to the . . . . We're not talking about the business plan; we're talking here about New Forest Opportunities. There are a number of questions on New Forest Opportunities.

New Forest Opportunities has a goal to place 1,500 to 2,000 in the first year on a priority basis, to give them training where needed and to help ensure that their jobs are stable and continuing, and that's a lofty goal. You have 40 people trained, you have 400 to 500 people registered, and you have 100 placed. It is now June. I guess the first question would be: how much of the work that is relative to what we're discussing is seasonal work? And in what period of time do you see that work taking place? Do you see it taking place prior to the end of August, the end of September, or October?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The biggest chunk of the work is spacing, and that's traditionally done in the fall. For the watershed work the window is now, and in the next few weeks you will see those jobs starting up.

R. Coleman: Does New Forest Opportunities have any concerns about reaching its goal of 1,500 to 2,000 workers getting employment in the first year on a priority basis? A second question relative to that is: have the minister and FRBC done any calculations as to whether any people that have been long standing employees in reforestation with the silviculture contractors are actually going to be displaced as a result of this agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that 80 percent of the contracts are in place. It is now the responsibility of employers to get people to work. The money is out the door, and Forest Renewal's responsibility is to sign the contracts. That number is based on the investment plan, and I can't tell you if there are going to be people displaced who work for some of these employers or not. If they are, they certainly qualify for work on New Forest projects. The name-hire provision should see the majority of the people named by the employer. This is going to go by averages; 70 percent of the people will have some training, and there's a 30 percent attrition rate in the industry.

R. Coleman: With 85 percent of the contracts in place, are there enough people registered in NFO? When we have 40 trained, 400 to 500 registered and 100 placed, are there enough people registered in NFO to meet the needs of 80 percent of the contracts?

[12:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's 80 percent -- not 85 percent -- of the contracts that are out. Why a low number of people registered is because the name-hire people are going to be named by the employer, and they don't need to be preregistered. They will eventually have to register before they start up work, and half of them are in that category. They may well be there making the arrangements directly with the employer and then will come in and register. There are going to be a number of first nations projects that will be employed, and those numbers . . . . We're optimistic that we'll reach that number.

The money's there, in place. It's now for the people with the contracts to get on with the employment.

R. Coleman: Could the minister tell me . . . ? You have a company that gets a contract, and some are name-hire and some come from the New Forest Opportunities hiring hall -- for lack of a better description -- and you have 400 to 500 people registered there. The number that's quoted in the information provided to me from New Forest Opportunities through FRBC is 1,500 to 2,000 workers in the first year on a priority basis. In that 1,500 to 2,000 workers per year, are you also including the existing silviculture workers who come in and work for NFO as part of the calculation?

Or are you actually finding 1,500 jobs for displaced forest workers plus the people who are on the list of companies as far as name-hire is concerned?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Fifteen hundred is the total number of people who will be placed on NFO projects.

R. Coleman: So the 1,500 . . . . This says 1,500 to 2,000. Let's leave it at 1,500. So the people placed on NFO projects could be already working for a silviculture contractor by name-hire, or they could be displaced forest workers, be it IWA or non-IWA, who've come to work for NFO and are placed in jobs as a result of the company getting a contract through FRBC, for whatever. It could be watershed restoration or whatever the case may be.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It includes both.

R. Coleman: Could the minister then tell me how, when you have one group of people who are already working for the contractors through name-hire . . . ? They would be working for that contractor nevertheless, whether or not he got the contract in the forest industry. Then you have the people who are displaced forest workers that are coming on.

[ Page 8712 ]

Could the minister tell me how he measures those two groups and that number of 1,500 back to the numbers that are identified in the relationship of this . . . ? One of the statements made is that this fits with the jobs and timber accord, and that the jobs and timber accord committed to creating 22,400 direct jobs in the forest sector and a further 17,400 indirect jobs. It said that they'd be created by licensees in Forest Renewal B.C., and that New Forest Opportunities would be the placement agency for 1,000 person-years of jobs created under the jobs and timber accord.

Can the minister tell me what we're measuring, relative to the jobs and timber accord, through NFO? Are all those workers being claimed as being in new jobs under the jobs and timber accord, or are those that have an existing lineage with the company actually being added twice?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The jobs and timber accord jobs are funded by FRBC; they are jobs that wouldn't be there if we didn't have FRBC. FRBC and the jobs and timber accord are designed to facilitate placing displaced forest workers, whatever the source, on longer-term jobs. Another part of the jobs and timber accord is the multi-year agreement. So we're talking about long-term jobs under Forest Renewal's subsidiary, New Forest. We expect New Forest and FRBC collectively to move toward long-term jobs under multi-year agreements, and the number of those jobs that we're targeting is 5,000.

R. Coleman: Taking that back a step, has Forest Renewal or the ministry done a cost-benefit analysis that would show how many jobs would have remained in the forest industry if less money had been taken out f