Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 8

Part 1

[ Page 4903 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine who is visiting here. She lives in Victoria. Shirley Bouck is the wife of Mr. Justice Bouck of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I bid the House make her welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce my wife Linda to the House. She is touring the precincts someplace. She is over for a few days to enjoy our new second home, which we bought in the constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill, and so is her travelling companion Sidney Squirrel. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday thanked the interns working for the opposition caucus. I'd certainly like to join with him generally and thank legislative interns Clayton Jones, Anne-Lise Loomer, Amanjit Pandher, Lisa Pape, Jane Ramsbotham, Liz van der Kamp and Lori Ziebart. They will have completed their four-month caucus assignments tomorrow. I hope that what they have learned here will contribute to their goals, whether they are continuing with their education or beginning a career.

I know that during this busy legislative session, having the help of Clayton, Liz and Jane on our side, in the government caucus, has meant a lot to our caucus. We wish all the interns the greatest amount of success.

G. Plant: I'm delighted today to have the honour to introduce and welcome to the House my mother Frances Plant, and my sister Brenda Plant. I ask that all members please make these important members of my family welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to introduce two members of the Richmond Seniors Advisory Council who were meeting with my staff today -- lovely young women who have much advice to offer me: Lillian Durant and Aileen Cormack. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

L. Stephens: I am very pleased to welcome to the House today two people from Fort Langley and Aldergrove who are here for important meetings: the Langley township administrator, Mr. Mark Bakken, and Dean Drysdale, one of our Langley township councillors. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Lali: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of friends of mine who are here today. Sitting up in the gallery is Mr. Amrik Sangha and Inderjit Hundal, who is actually meeting with other folks in the buildings. Accompanying them are their colleagues John Frostad, Mark Watson and Harish Joshi. The group met with me, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and the Attorney General to talk about trade opportunities with India.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd ask the members of the chamber to help me welcome 15 grade 9 students who are here from Bodwell College in Vancouver. With them are Ms. Elizabeth Workman and Mr. Grant Chu, their teachers. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: I have two announcements to make to the House today. The first is that a constituent of mine, Maureen Jacob, and her cousins Susan and David Farr, here in Victoria from Durley, Hampshire, are joining us. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Mr. and Mrs. Johal and their daughter Taryn are joining us in the assembly today, as well. The House should know that they are parents of Asha Johal, one of our assembly Pages. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Sihota: I'm sure we've all had students spend a day with us so that they can learn a little bit about what we do as MLAs. Today I have a very special young student . . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Well, this person in particular hangs out with me, as you will find out in a moment. This young student has been spending the whole day with me and has spent the last ten years of her life with me, and that's my daughter. She is here visiting today: Karina.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure to introduce, in the gallery today, 40 youths from the Native Youth Movement, who are here talking to ministers about issues of concern to them. I've worked with some of these youths before. It's important, actually, that I acknowledge that it is because of the voices of the youth who are here today that issues such as street issues and alcohol and drug issues for native youth are being dealt with. It's because of the power of the stories they tell. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

A. Sanders: I'd like to introduce in the gallery Mr. Fred Herfst from the Federation of Independent Schools.

J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Nikki Hill, a person with a lot of energy, a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of commitment. She is the co-chair of the Young New Democrats. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: At the risk of embarrassing myself in front of my deputy and others, I'd like to suggest that perhaps the most difficult job in public service in British Columbia is that of being chief executive officer of the Columbia Basin Trust, an area the size of a European country. Ivan Robinson and his wife Jackie are here to join us today. I think, actually, the chief financial officer, William Wallace, is as well. Will the House please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here in the House and wish my LA, Monica Ghosh, a very special and happy birthday today. I would like the House to join me in wishing her the same.

J. Smallwood: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming another group of young aboriginal students who have joined us today. They are participants in the United Native Nations Local 162 aboriginal watershed restoration project. They are accompanied by Bruce Ferguson, the administrator, and Margot McDonald, the coordinator. There are three other young people joining us today, and I'd like us all to welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency Communications Corporations Act.

[ Page 4904 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce the Emergency Communications Corporations Act, which will enable the development of integrated public safety communications services on a regional basis throughout the province. This act will enable the creation of corporations to govern regional wide-area radio and dispatch centres. It provides the legislative authority for public safety and emergency agencies to join together in non-profit corporations designed to meet local and regional needs.

The integrated services which this act will enable will improve coordination in the event of an emergency by allowing police, fire and ambulance services to communicate efficiently with one another in a single system. This legislation responds to recommendations in the report of the commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia by the Hon. Mr. Justice Oppal.

[2:15]

The act is particularly timely in that it supports the implementation of the development of an integrated emergency communications system and dispatch facility now underway in southwestern British Columbia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the city of Vancouver and the RCMP, who have jointly managed this project over the last two years. I'm proud that my ministry is a partner in this undertaking. I should also like to thank all those who have participated in this process. I'm pleased that this legislation will provide the framework for the development of this project and perhaps other projects across the province.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

POWER FOR JOBS DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Power for Jobs Development Act.

Hon. D. Miller: More good news at the beginning of summer. I am pleased today to introduce Bill 50, the Power for Jobs Development Act. The Power for Jobs Development Act follows through on our throne speech commitment to use the province's hydroelectricity strategically to benefit all British Columbians.

Our government is committed to job creation and economic development right across this province. Bill 50 will enable our government to implement Power for Jobs. The plan includes using energy from downstream benefits, or DSBs, from the Columbia River Treaty to create jobs here in British Columbia. It empowers government to provide development-priced power to new and existing investors in exchange for jobs.

Here in B.C. we're very fortunate to have access to vast and valuable hydroelectric resources. This abundant supply of power provides a comparative advantage. Starting next year, Columbia River Treaty DSBs begin to revert to provincial control. Bill 50 creates an opportunity to use the province's hydroelectricity to generate jobs and new industrial activity in British Columbia while protecting our environment. The good-paying, family-supporting jobs Power for Jobs can create will uphold British Columbia's treasured quality of life.

By providing access to development-rate electricity, Power for Jobs will attract industrial investment and spur regional economic growth. Industries such as mineral extraction and processing, forestry, electrochemicals and science and technology will be the primary focus of Power for Jobs. These industries will be attracted to Power for Jobs because they're energy-intensive. Their energy costs represent a fairly big part of their overall costs.

We are looking forward to addressing this bill in the House. We know that the opposition will be supporting this bill, which in its first incarnation will develop over 4,000 direct new jobs here in British Columbia and up to 3,000 indirect jobs. We are looking forward to this.

Bill 50 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CONSULTATION ON LABOUR CODE CHANGES

G. Campbell: It is now etched in stone that you simply can't trust anything that this NDP government says. The NDP promised there would be no major changes to the Labour Code without full consultation; they promised that to people across this province. Yesterday 12 amendments to the Labour Code were introduced which strip workers, unions and businesses of their rights. Was there any real consultation? The answer is no. What happened instead, we know from the Minister of Labour, was that Ken Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour dictated the Labour Code changes.

My question to the Minister of Labour: what groups other than Mr. Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour did the minister consult with prior to stripping the rights of the people of this province?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that a good many of the recommendations came from the labour board itself. Many of these amendments could be classified as housekeeping, characterizing . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is factually correct. Many of these amendments are housekeeping amendments.

Of those amendments that are of significance beyond housekeeping, there has been consultation. As I have said before, the consultation that has taken place has taken place with a wide variety of British Columbia interests over a great many years. We have been in discussion with all facets of business, and we have been in discussion with all facets of the broader interests of the province as well. Through that discussion, we have concluded that we should proceed with what is in that bill.

I also add that it does not help when the content of that bill, now that it has been seen by the opposition, is misrepresented.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister; I'll ask you to wrap.

Hon. J. Cashore: I call on the opposition . . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. I think we're going beyond the scope of the question now, so I'm going to ask you, if you'll presume . . . .

G. Campbell: What's clear is that the minister doesn't understand what's in that bill and the devastating impact it's going to have on the economy of British Columbia. But what

[ Page 4905 ]

is unforgivable is that the minister doesn't care about the devastating impact it's going to have on the economy. The minister doesn't care about what's going to happen to small businesses in this province. He doesn't care that he's driving jobs out of the province. He doesn't care that he's putting a stop to outside investment in the province.

The minister has said that Mr. Georgetti felt this was a bill that Mr. Georgetti was entitled to. My question to the minister: did the minister spend any time at all talking to the small business community in this province and finding out what they were entitled to? Or did he even care about what they had to say?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, very early in the year I met with the small business community. I listened to what they had to say. They said very clearly what their position was on a number of these issues. I also met with Mr. Hochstein in March. I listened to what he had to say, and he made his position very clear on a number of these issues. But when this hon. member suggests that he is standing up for the rights of working people in British Columbia, then I know that we will have no difficulty in passing this bill.

G. Campbell: I expect the minister to stand up and be forthcoming and forthright. For him to suggest that he had a meeting with Mr. Hochstein where they shared their thoughts with regard to changes in the labour bill is simply not true. The minister knows -- and I know, because Mr. Hochstein and his group came and talked to me after that meeting -- that they'd talked to this minister, and the minister said: "I don't know what's going to be in the labour bill." He obviously hadn't received his instructions yet.

My question to the minister is . . . . He has stripped rights from the people of British Columbia -- from workers, unions, small business and enterprise in British Columbia. He has certainly considered what Mr. Georgetti felt he was entitled to. Did the minister spend one minute considering what all the rest of British Columbia is entitled to?

Hon. J. Cashore: This Leader of the Opposition talks about rights. What about the rights of women? What about the rights of janitorial workers? What about the rights of food service workers who have fairly bargained collective agreements, and one day they come in and they find out that somebody has underbid that contract and they don't have a job anymore? They have mortgages and they have families that they care about. Is this hon. member saying that he doesn't care about them?

C. Hansen: This minister has the gall to talk about the rights of women and the rights of janitorial workers while he's sponsoring legislation in this House that's going to deprive them of their right to vote -- deprive them of their right to have a secret strike vote -- and deprive them of the right to choose the bargaining agents that they want. He's got a lot of gall!

The Minister of Labour was asked yesterday to explain what problems were going to be solved by these Labour Code changes. What was his answer? "It was something the unions felt they were entitled to." Will the minister tell us what entitlements small businesses have and what entitlements individual workers have when it comes to influencing Labour Code changes?

Hon. J. Cashore: We know that this opposition is against the minimum wage, we know that they're against employment standards -- they've said that -- and we know that they're against the Labour Code. We know what they're against. But when this hon. member asks a question and says that this legislation takes away the right to choose a bargaining agent, he is factually incorrect: this legislation creates the right to choose a bargaining agent.

C. Hansen: Perhaps the Premier should brief this Minister of Labour about what he said to Nike when it comes to workers' rights and the priority of workers' rights. On this side of the House we are going to stand up for workers' rights. We have a minister who thinks that the union bosses are entitled to dictate changes to legislation. Did the Minister of Labour ask individual workers and individual small businesses what they thought their entitlements were when it came to changing legislation? Or did this minister even care?

Hon. J. Cashore: We talk to those entities regularly; the hon. member knows that. When the hon. member talks about who we have talked to . . . . Yesterday he said that business is entirely against what is happening here, and he knows that is not the case. I'm sure that you've seen the letter from Bob Morrison of the Construction Labour Relations Association. They were consulted. I believe that Mr. Lampert respects Mr. Morrison and that Mr. Morrison is a responsible business person. He is praising this legislation and saying that what this legislation does is not being served by the alarmist, untrue statements that are being made.

[2:30]

B.C. HYDRO POWER MARKETING AND AMERICAN TRADE LAW

G. Wilson: The Americans are, through their domestic Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, trying to exercise what amounts to extortion by attempting to force B.C. Hydro into compliance with the American domestic performance tariff 888-A before providing Hydro with power-marketing authority. The American demand lies well outside of NAFTA requirements. It comes strictly as a result of American industry trying to get B.C. Hydro to submit to American domestic trade law.

My question to the minister: does the minister agree that B.C. Hydro should knuckle under to this level of American extortion, as they are doing with their urgent application before the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know that that is particularly called for -- the way the question is framed. The member is correct with respect to the Americans overstepping their jurisdiction on the question. Notwithstanding that, as has been evidenced by the debate we had in the estimates this morning, we do not -- B.C. Hydro does not and British Columbia does not -- fear competing in a competitive environment. B.C. Hydro is taking steps -- through the application to the B.C. Utilities Commission for the transmission rates -- to further the application to FERC to maintain and enhance export opportunities. We fully expect that we will obtain that.

So while dealing with the Americans becomes a bit of a challenge -- as the member quite rightly points out . . . . We've seen that in softwood lumber, where notwithstanding a free trade panel ruling, they imposed a tariff on our lumber. We see that now in the absolute failure of the American government to make a commitment to conclude a Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the efforts of the Premier of this province to stand up for British Columbia's interests and the interests of conservation.

[ Page 4906 ]

G. Wilson: Supplementary. I would point out that the Americans have withdrawn from salmon talks, and it is yet to be seen what we intend to do now.

But having heard the minister and having read Hansard from this morning's estimates debate, where the minister says that Hydro and government are proceeding to deal very prudently with the way these issues are dealt with . . . . that's out of this morning's Hansard .

Could the minister tell the House if he has a legal opinion that advises him that after this application to the B.C. Utilities Commission, if it is successful, we will not have foreclosed on our options to be able to use the protections that exist under NAFTA, and that we will not have made legal in British Columbia what is currently illegal in international law?

Hon. D. Miller: We are confident that we will proceed through the FERC process. But the member raises an important point. There are those within British Columbia who have gone running to the United States, telling lies about how we run our operations here, both in Hydro and in forestry. Last night I was dismayed that the Liberal opposition gave comfort to those people who are running to the United States and trying to use trade dispute mechanisms to harm our economy here in British Columbia. I've appealed to the Liberals to stop doing that, to stop feeding into that process, but so far they haven't paid attention to me.

CONSULTATION ON LABOUR CODE CHANGES

R. Coleman: The message of this new labour legislation is that this government doesn't care. This legislation hurts the poor. The cost of social housing and the cost of transition housing are tied to the maximum unit price. It is clear to me that this minister does not understand the industry itself. Where was the consultation with the Housing Commission? Where was the consultation with renters associations? Where was the consultation with residents associations? This bill means less housing for those who need it the most.

The Speaker: Member, the red light went on some time ago. Would you please give me the question.

R. Coleman: My question to the minister is this: is it now the criterion that those who need help the most must donate to the NDP at the same level as Ken Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour?

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to point out that this legislation only relates to the unionized construction sector, which is less than 30 percent of construction. I want to say very clearly that I respect union workers. I respect what they achieve through the joint effort of employers and union workers and through apprenticeships to be well trained and to ensure cost-effectiveness because of the fact that they are well trained in those trades. I don't know about you, hon. member, but I have friends who are having to pay an additional $20,000 because of leaky condominiums where the standards were inadequate.

That's not acceptable. While this legislation doesn't directly address that issue, it gives me the opportunity to say to you that I have no hesitation in expressing my respect for those who have that training and are able to do that work.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'm going to ask you to wrap that.

Hon. J. Cashore: In conclusion . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, I'm sorry. We are much beyond question period. I'll ask you to take your seat.

Following today I'm sure both sides will be anxious to leave the chamber and review the rules governing question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the first-ever annual report of the Columbia Basin Trust.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

T. Nebbeling: This morning when we started the estimates on the Ministry of Forests we started to focus on what I believe -- and what my caucus colleagues believe -- to be a very important part of the whole debate on where the forest industry is going in the future and how it relates to the budget for the upcoming year, the 1997-98 budget.

Much focus has been placed on the jobs and timber accord. What we are trying to pursue here today, and maybe tomorrow, is the foundation that has been used by the Premier of the province to justify the increase in job opportunities in the forest -- without truly seeing an increase in timber for forest workers to harvest. While we are not looking for an increase in the annual allowable cut, we would like to find out what has given foundation to the jobs and timber accord.

We spent about an hour and a half this morning pursuing this foundation for the jobs and timber accord. Unfortunately, we didn't get far, except that at the end of the morning session the minister did agree that indeed the answers were to be found in the two states south of us; that is, the state of Oregon and the state of Washington. What the minister concluded this morning was that the job ratios used in the jobs and timber accord in British Columbia are indeed based on what was supposed to have been achieved by the industry in these two states. So we went for recess and now that we are back . . . .

I know that the minister is worried about repetition of questions. Nevertheless I will come back to that whole issue -- based on the fact that if these two states have played such a dominant role in the decision-making process by the provincial government in British Columbia, we really have to know what that basis represented.

My first question to the minister this afternoon is . . . . Considering that there are rumours coming from Washington, in particular, but also from the state of Oregon that the forest industry is not in as healthy a state as we may believe -- based on it being chosen as the model to be used in British Columbia to justify jobs in the forest -- I would like to hear

[ Page 4907 ]

from the minister what he believes. I haven't put my question yet, but I have a problem with discussions going on on at the other side . . . .

The Chair: I'm not conscious of any untoward noise in the chamber at the present time, so if the member could proceed.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I was -- that's fine. I'll remember that one from the other side when these points are raised.

My question is: can the minister give me a rundown of what he knows about the state of health of the forest industry in the states of Washington and Oregon?

[2:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia. I said that the debate about how much other jurisdictions create in terms of employment is a debate we have put behind us -- perhaps not for the member, but the people who are involved in advising the government on the forest sector strategy . . . .

Let me just reiterate for you. The Premier set a goal based on an understanding, a general understanding, of the rates of employment for a metre of wood in various jurisdictions. As I said, there are many sources of that. We then put this task to the forest sector strategy group, which created a task force on forest sector employment. That group reported to the forest sector strategy group that more work should be done. The forest sector strategy group didn't think that was necessary -- did not accept that recommendation. They thought: "It's wrong to quibble, but in fact we should engage in what we can do here in British Columbia."

We then moved to bilateral negotiations with industry -- between industry and government -- and we came up with the accord. That's the result. It is still a target, and we feel it's achievable. Some of that's going to be by increasing the flow of fibre up to the allowable cut; diverting fibre from export into remanufacturing; creating more full-time employment and other work arrangements. It's all very clear; it's all in the accord. We intend to pursue trying to reach those targets.

T. Nebbeling: I know what the objectives of the accord are. But can they be achieved? Considering that in this year's budget approximately $300 million, through Forest Renewal funds, was channelled towards the objectives of the jobs and timber accord, and another $100-125 million will go towards the accord in different forms, it is very much an issue of the estimates here today to make sure that the foundation that led this government to justify that kind of expenditure -- and not only for this year but for the next five years -- is indeed based on some solid principles.

We now know from the minister that many of these principles use a comparison with two states in the United States that have ratios of jobs against 1,000 cubic metres of harvestable timber and that we are trying to achieve the same ratio. I think it is very important to note that indeed we are using a benchmark that is based on a serious and a real foundation; I think it is very important to know that indeed that benchmark is a real benchmark, and not a benchmark full of holes.

It is not me who has made the statement that this government is using the benchmarks of the states of Oregon and Washington as its target. It's the Premier who made that point on March 21, 1996. It's the Premier who had pamphlets sent out making that point. It is not that I'm trying to add a new element to this debate. I'm just saying that if this is what the government feels they can achieve, because of what has been achieved in the two states, can we then make sure that the situation in the states is as it has been presented?

This morning I asked what kind of information has led the minister . . . . Who did he use to compile that material, and who was responsible for analyzing available documentation to show that these numbers are working? That's what I'm after here. I think it is very important. That's why my first question asks whether the minister is sure that what is happening in the states of Washington and Oregon is what it seems to be -- so that it is justified for us to become equal with these two states. So that's why my question is within the context of estimates. I can get to that question 20 different times.

I hope it is not going to be necessary, because that is wasting a lot of time. But I think it is very important that before we get to talk about the jobs and timber accord, before we start talking about what really are the job opportunities in the forest industry today . . . . With what the forest industry is today, is it possible to meet these targets with the lack of investment in that industry today -- except, of course, now the government investment?

I think it is very important to note that we get these answers before we get to really talk about what I want to talk about, and that is the jobs and timber accord and the Forest Practices Code. But I can't do it if I have to second-guess whether your base for your programs is solid or not.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I'll answer this once more, and then after that, that member can talk till he's blue in the face. I just caution him that he's boring the public and boring everybody else, and I said we have moved on.

Instead of going through analysis after analysis that was inconclusive, the advisers to government -- the forest sector strategy group -- advised that we move on. So we very quickly moved into bilateral discussions with the major licensees. They didn't say: "We must have a base, we must have a base, we must have a base." There was an agreed-upon base, which was the survey of employee hours. I've told you that that's the base. We announced it when we announced the accord. That was agreed on. Sometime after, the Premier made his announcement.

So you kind of slide the jobs that FRBC creates into all the other jobs, and you have to look at each sector. With the FRBC jobs, we know from our experience how many years of employment can be created from the $300 million investment. We know that. We're working on that; we're refining the data. We said it isn't good enough that they're part-time jobs; we want more full-time jobs.

The answer is that we are not going to quibble about what other states do. We know there is more employment. We're not talking about Oregon's forest policy now. We are talking about increasing the number of jobs per thousand cubic metres in British Columbia. That was the intent of the accord, and I can't make it any more clear -- just to let the member know that that will be the answer. Everything is in the record, and I think we should move on in the debate.

The Chair: I'm sure the member takes that into account. It is the Chair's position as well.

T. Nebbeling: I do take that in account. But let it be known, and let it be on record, that the ratios that this jobs and timber accord is pursuing to achieve, with any return that will create the so-called 21,000 jobs, are the identical ratios of

[ Page 4908 ]

Oregon and Washington. They have been used as an example to sell this deal. They could do it; we can do it. That's not me; that's the Premier saying that. So to ignore these numbers and to ignore these facts, and to ignore that that is an important component in what we are doing here -- trying to find out if the business plan of the Ministry of Forests is truly a viable business plan --I think you are not serving the public. It may be boring, but dammit, the truth sometimes will take a long time. If that takes time that is considered to be boring by the minister, then we're going to go through a boring time.

What I would like to ask the minister at this point is whether he is aware of the state of the forest industry in Oregon and Washington and that they needed a $2 billion federal capital infusion to keep that industry going in 1993. That must be prior to the Premier's decision to take Washington and Oregon as an example of how we in British Columbia can create a healthy industry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to answer questions about the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and related policies of our ministry.

T. Nebbeling: My suspicion is that the minister is indeed not very aware of the situation in the forest industry in other places. It's obviously shown by his answer. It is really sad because it is these areas that are going to be the example, or have been used as the example, by this government to say: "We can create . . . . "

Let's talk here for a moment about the minister's constant insistence that the forest industry is a partner in this. The minister stated it this morning clearly. There is no partnership. There is, as he described it, a good-faith agreement. Good faith on whose behalf? A $2 billion agreement based on good faith -- no agreement. None of the businesses, the industry leaders, have signed this accord. This is not an accord; this is an edict. I said this earlier on.

So I think the minister should at least show that although the government has made this decision unilaterally, the decision is based on some solid principles, that there is full comprehension of the examples that the government has put in front of them and that they indeed reflect that the world is going around. And it is not. I'm really concerned that this government is in the process of committing, or has committed, $2 billion to create 21,000 jobs to achieve ratios per thousand cubic metres.

That's the basis: ratios based on examples of the forest industry in the States, where the federal government had to come in and bail them out with a $2 billion subsidy.

Having said that -- and I think we are stuck with the fact that the minister doesn't want to show his knowledge on the situation -- I would like to hear from the minister. At the time the Premier made the announcement the first time, in 1996, there were contradicting reports from the industry questioning the numbers that the Premier used to justify his announcement of 21,000 new jobs. Is the minister aware of reports that contradict all the information that was used to come to the conclusion that we could create 21,000 new jobs in this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm certainly aware that there was debate following the Premier's announcement, and I know that it was well debated within the forest sector strategy . . . . We moved on from that debate, and industry and government agreed to a number of principles that became the accord.

M. Sihota: I just want to enter this debate briefly, to simply say this: one can talk about numbers all one wants and make sly comments about knowledge -- and I must say the minister has done an outstanding job as Minister of Forests -- but we really have to go back to some very basic issues.

What is our obligation as a government and as a society to our forest resources in this province? It seems to me that our fundamental obligation has to be to ensure that the next generation has access to the same level of resources that we as a generation had access to. Forests provide remarkable opportunities for British Columbians. They provide jobs, and they are also a comment on the state of the health of our environment. Constantly, within the policy apparatus of government, we are working to protect jobs and to protect our environment, and to seek a reasonable balance in terms of those often-competing tensions in terms of forests and environmental policies in this province.

When this government took office in 1991, we found ourselves in a situation where forest practices in British Columbia -- logging activity -- were certainly not up to standard. Our forest resources were being taken for granted. At that time our government brought forward tough, new standards to ensure that logging activity occurred in an economically and environmentally sustainable fashion. We follow that by ensuring that we protect the biodiversity of our forest base, in order to protect that resource for future generations.

We did that by implementing land use plans, where we said to people: "Look, let's map our forests much like we map our cities. In the cities we decide what is to be zoned for urban development and what is to be zoned for schools and parks.

In the same way, let's zone our forests and decide where we can cut and where we can't, and what we need to protect for wildlife, for fish and for other habitat values." During that time period, we took remarkable steps in terms of ensuring that we were able to sustain this resource for the benefit of future generations, so that they may have access to the same level of employment and enjoyment that we as a society and as a generation have had.

Having made those steps as a government, we also realized that we had an obligation to make sure that we maximize the number of jobs that are created from every tree that is cut, that we create as many jobs as we possibly can by not simply in cutting the tree, but using that wood for a multitude of purposes -- log houses, door frames, window frames, conventional lumber, pulp and the like -- to maintain the economic viability of this province. What we've done, through the jobs and timber accord, is ensure that we'll be able to use that forest resource to generate 21,000 new jobs in our forest sector over the next five years.

Each and every one of these steps has been opposed by the opposition. They voted against the Forest Practices Code, they indicated that they weren't in support of Forest Renewal British Columbia, and they have taken umbrage at the land use strategies that we as a government have implemented. All I can say is that in this complex area of public policy, we on this side of the House have offered salient solutions to ensure that future generations will have access to a sustainable forest industry.

From that side of the House, we have not heard any constructive comments about what we should do to better manage our forest resources, but just sort of mindless criticism of government policy for the sake of criticism.

During the balance of this debate, I would hope that in his exchanges with the minister the hon. member opposite will be productive and positive, and willing to give this government credit for what it's done -- because in historical terms, that credit is long overdue.

[ Page 4909 ]

[3:00]

T. Nebbeling: The previous speaker has been in this House and has been involved with the forest industry and with the environment, so I take it he has good knowledge of the matter that we are discussing here.

When this government came into power in 1991, for sure they started very rigorously to shift the agenda as far as the forests and the forest industry and the people living in communities that depend on the forests for their livelihood -- the forest-dependent communities. They started a series of changes in legislation and in policies that created a strong emphasis on the environmental-protection side in this province. I don't think anybody in British Columbia saw that as a bad thing.

As a matter of fact, I think it was welcomed, because the practices of the past in the sixties, seventies and eighties have led to some very serious degradation of our forest base and our environment and to the viability of the buyer climate in our province. So everybody supported some changes, including . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I'm sorry, I was not in this House, hon. member. I'm talking about me, and I talk about what was in . . . . The majority of these members were not here in 1991. So if I can continue . . . .

Changes were needed. The protected areas strategy was a good thing. Nobody fought the creation of a land mass of an approximate 12 percent set-aside. I'm talking for myself, hon. member. What we did fight, and rightfully so, was the CORE process, because that process was based on selective groups dictating how we were going to deal with our environment.

When the protected areas strategy was introduced, this side also agreed that it was a good thing to set aside some land for park purposes, in perpetuity. So nobody was fighting about that. But we also said that that had to be it. Once that was set aside, we were going to take care of other important facets of the whole issue as well -- in particular, the people issue. Some of the things the programs of the past have done is protect forests, biodiversity, soil, water and trees. But the one thing that wasn't done was take care of the people who had been depending on living off the resources that were getting the protection.

The initiatives of the government opposite really led to a period of time when the protection became so excessive that thousands of jobs in the forest industry were lost. If the minister wants to write it down, I'll spell the word if he needs it. Thousands of jobs in forest-dependent communities were lost because of these initiatives of this government. Still today you see the impact of these initiatives. If you talk to the people in Ucluelet, you will hear it; if you talk to the people in Port Alberni, you will hear it.

Even today, because of these initiatives -- because it not only saved the forest, it also put tremendous cost on people who work in the forest -- communities such as Terrace, Hazelton and Stewart are under the threat of losing their jobs. The minister knows very well that 600 people were laid off in the Terrace and Rupert areas last week: mill people, loggers -- no longer providing fibre to the mill.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: If the member opposite would check, he would see that all the logging operations stopped; roadbuilding stopped.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I believe I'm still standing, so maybe . . . . Thank you.

Many initiatives were taken by this government, but it did a lot of damage to the well-being of thousands of people in this province. In 1994, the then Premier Mike Harcourt stood up in the Clayoquot and said: "Yes, we will have to reduce forest land. Yes, we will have to take more care of the environment. But don't ever worry, because we will make sure that because of our programs not one job will be lost." That was a commitment made by this government. The members opposite are suddenly very silent, because they know they were part of making that commitment.

Well, these jobs are gone, and they were in the communities such as Ucluelet and Alberni then, and in Terrace, Rupert, Hazelton and Smithers now. The minister knows it, so let's not say that the programs created by this government were all for the sake of the people of this province. Different values were given high priority at the cost of many thousands of people in this province. Every time a logger loses a job, there's a family behind that logger; there are children behind that logger who thought they were going to go to school; there is a family behind him who thought they had a future.

So it is much more serious than the previous speaker is trying to say by stating how great the government has been for the environment. Yes, they did great for the environment, but it went with a lot of suffering by the people.

In spite of what that government thinks, I'm here for the people who are affected, and I'm going to speak for them. So when I see programs introduced by this government that are basically created for the sake of creating the funding to provide for the people who are kicked out of jobs and for the families behind those . . . . If those funds had been created to assist them -- not just to give them a handout, but to create new opportunities -- then I will stand up until I see that happen. That's what FRBC was supposed to do, which was another initiative by this government.

For the first three years, that fund has done zilch: 943 jobs is ultimately what this government can say FRBC created. The rest were study programs, sending people to school for six or eight months and then nothing functional, nothing productive, nothing that could say: "Here is an opportunity to create something that is year-round, full-time employment at the end of whatever you do in studying or retraining."

So here we are in 1996. Once again the Premier stands up and says: "I've got it. I found a way to create 21,000 jobs, and I'm going to make sure that it will happen." So the world was smiling again. The Premier had made a commitment, and he said it with a smile on his face. I'm really sad to see the member for Skeena sitting with a smile, because it is in his riding that 9,000 jobs are under very serious threat. That is not a number that I make up; that number comes from the job commissioner, who is trying to save some of these jobs but doesn't get much cooperation from this government to do that.

So I'm going to continue to fight with the minister, through the Chair obviously. And you, hon. Chair, can indeed stop me if you so choose, but I will go on. Ultimately I will be fighting to make sure that the public of this province knows what the Minister of Forests is doing with his budget and with his ministry in the forests, in the communities. That is my job. I will make sure to point it out if I think something is not right. If something is not wrong, sure, we will point it out, as well.

[ Page 4910 ]

But if we are talking about the new direction today in the forest industry, which the Premier calls an accord and I call an edict, it's a financial handout for a period of time and then God knows what.

I will come back from time to time to what I was asking questions on before, because I have to know what the foundation is. If the minister doesn't know the answer, then I'd appreciate it if he'd say: "Well, I checked it out, and I'll get the information to you later." But to portray himself as an outraged person that I dare to ask questions that he doesn't believe to be important on the whole issue of . . . . Are we indeed going to create the jobs with the money that is going to be spent, the $2 billion? Or is it just another exercise that may work but not necessarily will work?

Should $2 billion definitely be spent on the basis that it may work but not necessarily will work? So, Madam Chair, I've asked enough now.

Is the minister aware of what has happened in Oregon? I've asked the minister if he knows that Oregon's forest industry lost about 65,000 jobs in 1992-93. I've asked the minister if he knew that Oregon was given $2 billion by the federal government, during the Portland meeting with President Clinton, the industry people and the workers, to rescue that state.

Although he hasn't answered that question, if he knows that, then I would like to ask him: do you really believe, Mr. Minister, in using that Oregon and Washington scenario as an example to make the forest industry in this province wholesome? I ask that question, now that I've given him this information on what has actually happened in these two states that the Premier has constantly held up as the examples. Then, after that, I have some more questions on the ratios here compared to what's happening over there.

The Chair: Hon. member, I suggest you get to those other points. You've asked that kind of question for quite some time. I would suggest and encourage you to move on to another topic of conversation.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, I'm not going to argue with you, because that's not allowed. But I didn't think I had asked the minister if he knew that the forest industry in Oregon had been subsidized by $2 billion.

The Chair: Hon. member, hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: That's fine, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We appreciate your comments. Move on, please.

T. Nebbeling: At the time that the Premier came forward -- March 21, 1996 -- in British Columbia, 40,000 jobs could be created in the forest industry. It was to be achieved with a ratio of 2 to 2.5 workers per thousand cubic metres of timber harvested. Is the minister aware that these are the numbers that are the ratios in Washington and in Oregon?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Chair, I told the member that rather than being stuck in the past, when an objective was set to us, the forest sector strategy group decided to get on with it and cooperate with government. We've moved well beyond simply a matter of ratios. We've looked at British Columbia's industry, at British Columbia's policies. Based on our policies and the incentives in the accord, we came to an agreement that we would create the 22,400 jobs -- 20,400 plus 2,000 Fisheries Renewal jobs.

We're confident that if we work hard -- industry and government -- and we each do our part, we will achieve those goals, based on a common understanding of many knowledgable people working together many, many hours and in lots of tough negotiations.

I just have to say that the member is attempting to respond to some of the inaccuracies. When the bank shut down and threatened to shut down Repap, it had nothing to do with B.C. policy. We have stepped up to the table, made the changes and adjustments which have been acknowledged by industry. There is nothing more for government to do, unless he's suggesting the massive subsidies to the banks that his leader dared suggest. That we give FRBC dollars to the banks -- we've ruled that out.

I just ask in return that the member try to focus his questions on the estimates of the ministry and what the ministry will be doing. I think we should leave Oregon to their own devices -- massive land withdrawals down there, with no mechanism in place except, as he suggested, a bailout by the federal government. We have programs in place; we have FRBC in place; now we have the jobs and timber accord. These major policy instruments will help us make adjustments, if we need to, in our communities.

[3:15]

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go into full debate at this point on what's happening with Repap. Again, the minister is giving in his answer a twist that does not reflect the truth. Nobody is trying to bail out the bank. We have suggested to the minister that the mill itself should be granted an opportunity to restructure for capital reasons -- the restructuring of equipment -- which could make the mill once again a profitable mill if the pulp prices stabilize where they are today. That would, over a three-year period, create certainty that the mill will be back in the black.

The sawmills are in the black, so that's not a problem. Basically, what we have said is to become a partner on a short-term basis -- three years, four years -- to get that mill back into operating form. That's what our suggestion is.

We have never said anything to the banks. The only connection there with the banks is that the government, which tried to help some of the small logging operators who have not been paid for months on end . . . . The only way the government has worked with the bank is by making a deal with banks to become agents on behalf of FRBC to give small loans to these logging operators. But that's the only bank connection, as far as FRBC is concerned, that we have asked for and pushed for.

Considering that we are willing to spend $2 billion on creating 20,000 jobs in the forest industry -- of which 5,000 jobs actually are created with that $2 billion, and the rest is the programs -- I suggest that a handout to Repap would have been very much in order, not as a handout but as a loan to get them back into operation. That will be profitable and will ultimately save 9,000 jobs in that area. It is a very serious situation there.

The lack of coming in, in a manner that is viable and feasible, by this government and staying on the sideline, jeopardizing the lives of 9,000 forest workers' families, I think, is appalling. But we're going to go into that a little bit later when we talk about real jobs in this province. Are we creating jobs? Are we saving jobs? What is our mandate -- save jobs or re-create jobs? I don't know any longer, because the messages are very confusing.

[ Page 4911 ]

We don't want to talk about Oregon any longer, and we don't want to talk about Washington any longer. So we're going to talk about British Columbia. What I would like to hear from the minister, then, is . . . . The ratio of jobs against 1,000 cubic metres today in British Columbia -- what are these ratios?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They're the answer when you divide the number of jobs by the number of cubic metres.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't ask the minister for a smart-aleck answer, but that's okay as well. If the minister today doesn't have the amount or the ratio that is standard in this province for what a thousand cubic metres produces in job opportunity, then again it is clearly a reflection of the knowledge of this minister on forest matters. I find it quite appalling. I don't get angry with this minister. I have gotten over that kind of emotion when I talk with government representatives.

The public out there should really be aghast, truly aghast that we have a minister running a ministry that brings revenue direct from the industry into the provincial coffers of about $1.5 billion, $1.6 billion -- considerably less than it was a couple of years ago, but nevertheless a major contributor to our provincial wealth; it creates jobs . . . . To not know what the ratio is today of how much each thousand cubic metres coming out of the forest produces in jobs in this province, and then turn around and say, "Well, we're going to spend $2 billion to bring that ratio up," doesn't make any sense to me.

If this minister doesn't know what the standard is today, what the benchmark ratio is today, it's incomprehensible to me.

I mean, the thought that the Premier is walking throughout this province right now, telling everybody: "We will increase the job ratio per thousand cubic metres in order to create 21,000 new jobs . . . . " On my question -- what is the ratio today? -- the minister said: "Well, it's dividing some of the amount of money coming in on a 1,000 cubic metres by the number of people working." That's not an answer, so I ask once again: can you tell me, do you know the ratio? Maybe you don't know. If you don't know, say so, because then I can go on. If you do know the ratio of jobs created per thousand cubic metres in this province, please, I would like to hear that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps I can add a little bit. We cut 70 million plus or minus a few -- it depends on exactly where you are, which year. We said we've used the base of 86,000 jobs, and if you make that division the way I suggested you do it, you get about 1.2222 forever.

Just in general terms -- because that's all that it was -- this was not some master blueprint for which they would castigate us without consulting everybody under the sun and never arrive at a better answer. The Premier thought that we should raise by at least 0.3 jobs per thousand cubic metres. If you happen to multiply that by 70 million, you end up with 21,000 jobs.

So we want to increase the number of jobs. We've been clear that that's the direction we're headed. The Premier has made it clear that he wants new jobs. He's not arguing about ratios; we're not arguing about ratios here. We just want more. We put a number down, and we drove an accord to achieve that, as close as we could get to that number. Depending on how you cut the numbers, there are more. Industry wants to include indirect jobs. We want to just speak to direct jobs, but we acknowledge that there is a multiplier effect and an employment effect of indirect and induced employment.

T. Nebbeling: This morning, when we spoke about the real job numbers in this province, we spent a little bit of time on that. The minister stated on two occasions, when I questioned the numbers of jobs in this province and when I stated that rather than having created jobs in 1996, there has been a deficit of jobs -- 5,312 according to StatsCan, based on jobs, hours and payroll -- the minister jumped up and said: "That's outrageous. We haven't lost any jobs in our province. We have built new jobs. In May 1997 we have 100,600 jobs." It's in Hansard. It was stated twice.

So how can the minister say today that the benchmark of the jobs and timber accord is based on 85,000 jobs or 86,000 jobs -- whatever you mentioned? That's how we just explained how the ratio is created. I don't understand that. On the one hand, we have the minister saying that we have 100,600 jobs right now in British Columbia. Now, to give his story a different spin, he says we have 85,000 jobs. Divided over 70 million cubic metres, that means so many jobs. If we increase it by X amount, that will create 0.3 more jobs per thousand cubic metres, so that's how we get 21,000.

I really think that maybe we should spend some time on that number and see what indeed the number of jobs is today in British Columbia. By that I mean full-time, year-round forest sector jobs. If it is 100,600, as the minister stated twice this morning, the numbers obviously do not work as compared to what he just stated: that it is based on 85,000. I don't know where it comes from. So maybe the minister can give me some clarification on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to try to give that clarification. I think that if you read the record, it is absolutely crystal-clear. What I said this morning was that you have incorrectly used a 5,500 job-loss figure. I said that you must be using the labour force jobs survey, which did show an up-and-down . . . they drop in the spring, and then they increase throughout the year.

I'm just saying that if you use the labour force survey, if that's what you're using -- because in the debates, in question period and in all of your speeches you have used those, as near as we can tell -- from May of 1996 to May of 1997 there has actually been an increase from 100,000 to 100,600, using those figures.

We are not using those for the purpose of the accord; I've made that absolutely clear. Let me read into the record again that we will use the StatsCan survey of employment, payroll and hours, which is what was agreed to with industry. It doesn't matter what the base was that the Premier used. He said what the base was to be when he used them. This survey of employee payroll hours is about employees. It doesn't include contractors, so there is a weakness in it. Everybody recognizes that, but there is no one agreeable baseline. So I want to make it absolutely clear that the baseline we're using for the accord is the survey of employment payroll hours from Statistics Canada.

Based on that, in March of 1996, when the Premier set the challenge, set the goal, the baseline was 86,184. I've used that figure in calculating the ratio to help you. In March of 1997, it was 85,038. That's available to you. I'd be happy to give it to you. I'm just asking you not to say that there were 5,500 jobs lost, because the statistics show otherwise. The important thing is that we do have a baseline, industry agreed to it, and we're going on from there.

[ Page 4912 ]

T. Nebbeling: The most boring thing that we can ever do in debates, in question periods, is of course to work with numbers, because numbers confuse people and put people to sleep.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, because -- through you, Mr. Chair -- the minister is constantly using numbers to defend the success rate of the affairs of the Ministry of Forests. Now he says that the Premier used the number of 85,000 on March 21, 1996.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

T. Nebbeling: No? Would he repeat the number, then, that the Premier used?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The target was 21,000 more than we had in March of 1996. In March of 1996, the survey of employment payroll hours -- in which, in the year that has intervened since the Premier set his targets, there has been agreement with the major partners on what the statistical basis will be, and it is the survey of employment payroll hours . . . . In March of 1996, when the goal was set by the Premier, the employment level was 86,184. That's the best measurement that we've got of employees. I'm saying that as of March 1997, it was 85,038.

T. Nebbeling: Well, if that is the case, then how can the minister, on at least six occasions during that year, have stood up in this House -- when we on this side made the point that instead of gaining jobs, we were losing jobs in this province . . . ? This minister stood up to proudly announce at the beginning of the session that there had been 10,000 jobs created since 1991, and at the end of the session -- and recently as well -- that there had been 15,000 jobs created. In that year, according to the minister's numbers -- given to this House -- 5,000 more jobs were created. If I add 5,000 more jobs to the number that the Premier stated . . . . We are well into the nineties.

[3:30]

If there is confusion, it is not from here. It is because over the period of time that we've been in the Legislature, the minister is constantly bringing in different types of numbers. I don't know if he does it to confuse us, but it certainly is not coherent. It's not presented in a manner so that we can have fairly good comprehension of what indeed the situation is around jobs in this province.

And this whole jobs and timber accord -- I'm afraid to say it -- is based on how many jobs there are here today and on how many jobs are going to be here five years from now. That's the jobs and timber accord. If there are 100,000 jobs here today, then at the end of the five-year period, we can expect 121,000 jobs. We're going to spend $2 billion on that: $1.5 billion directly to land improvement programs, and the rest in topping up salaries, supporting companies that will provide services, with the Forest Practices Code in mind and adherence to the cost factor.

I need to know, in order to judge the jobs and timber accord -- its value and its achievable objective -- what number the minister is playing with. He cannot ignore the numbers that he has stated here in the House from time to time. You can go through Hansard , and they're there; I've got the whole folder. At the beginning of the first session, it was an increase of 10,000 new jobs in this province since 1991; recently, it was 15,000 jobs since 1991. That is a 5,000 gain.

The minister is shaking his head. Maybe the minister has changed his calculation system; maybe he's using another form of data -- I don't know. Can I be confused by what he's doing? It is very simple: if there are 100,000 today, that should be the benchmark -- not what it was in 1996. This jobs and timber accord did not start in 1996. It starts in 1997; it started a week ago. In 1996 there was an announcement that we were going to have 21,000 jobs by the year 2000. The government failed doing that. It didn't materialize. We are saying on this side that you actually lost jobs.

The minister has a problem with that statement; that's fair. But we get the new announcement -- new numbers, new conditions -- in 1997, two weeks ago. I would suggest, as it is again for a five-year period, that the benchmark is now. So is it the 100,600 jobs that you mentioned this morning? Or are we just going to stick with the number from the Premier? If you stick with the number in 1996 from the Premier, then just by virtue of waiting a year to reannounce it, he's already gained 15,000 jobs.

Can the minister give me a good idea of where the numbers come from? How has he found them? What database has been used? What is the ultimate number, and how does it compare to last year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've actually answered the question very clearly and fully. There's another part to his question -- and I would suggest that if there's any confusion, any attempt to confuse the public, it's on that side of the House. Let me just tell you, without holding me to exact numbers, that in rounded numbers since 1991 -- until March of '96 by one measure, probably the labour force survey -- there was an increase of 15,000 jobs. Then there was a drop-off, by the labour force survey, of approximately 5,000. But that was restored this spring, so we're back up to approximately . . . .

I'd have to check the exact source of those numbers, but I have checked it so many times that for a while there we were prepared to stand behind an increase of 10,000 since '91, because there appeared to be a dip using that survey.

We're not using that for the accord because of the inaccuracies, because they in fact report people who are laid off at breakup. I suggest the member take my word -- read Hansard when you get it -- that we are using 86,000 as of March. The Premier said that was the baseline, as of March '96, and that is what would be measured. In fact, five years isn't the year 2000 but the year 2001. Maybe sometimes in speeches people round off a year, but he said clearly that he set the goal for the next five years. That's four years from now, if he said it a year ago. That's five minus one equals four: '96 to 2001 is five -- okay?

I think you're attempting to split hairs. I've told you what industry and government -- in the intervening year -- agreed was the baseline. We're going to use this baseline -- that survey. It will be that same database, unless somebody finds a better measure. But I assure you that we're not going to try to take credit for an increase in jobs from 86,000 last March to 100,000 this year. We have not created that many jobs in one year.

If you check the record, all of this is clear. I would suggest that any more debate on it really is a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. We've told you the baseline; I've answered the question, and I wouldn't want the public to get the impression that

[ Page 4913 ]

the critic over there just doesn't understand. But I will not repeat it again, because it's on the record, the public record. It's clear as could be that industry and government agreed on what the baseline data would be. So I think that's very clear.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the minister has to talk himself out of this little hiccup, and I consider it a little hiccup. But let it be known -- I've got it right here -- your statements in response to my questions in this House . . . . My question was: how can you claim more jobs when StatsCan says we have lost 5,300 jobs?

You're not talking in your answer about the different systems -- "Well, for this type of objective, we're going to use this data because it fits the picture; and then for that kind of an objective, we're going to use that data." The confusion is in using different data when it comes to jobs, depending on the project that we are involved with. You stated here very clearly, Mr. Minister: "We created as a government 10,000 new jobs in this province, and we are very proud of it." Those are your words, hon. minister.

That message changed not so long ago to 15,000. I'm so happy that you've got all your advisers sitting around you when I'm trying to tell you . . . . I don't mind that you take some hints on how to respond from other members, but I hope you understand that I'm not taking these numbers out of the air. These are your statements. I really have a problem with having a government that uses different data at different times to justify their position, their statements. If that were done in the private sector, I think business would be . . . .

Well, no certified accountant would sign off on a yearly accounting report if the goalposts were constantly changed to fit the objective or the picture that a business tried to portray. You start off on the base, and you stick to that base. Then you can judge if you have achieved your goals or not.

This kind of wishy-washy, goal-moving type of an approach is obviously the reason that I'm extremely concerned that the jobs and timber accord is based on a lot of -- what can I say? -- moving around of the goalposts in order to make the picture look good. The numbers are being used to do that. I think principles are being used to do that, and I don't think that this can be a basis of a jobs and timber accord that is going to cost this province $2 billion over the next five years. I'm not going to argue with the minister, either, whether 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 or 2001 is five years.

If I restructure it a bit, I can make it six. The original deal was presented to be for the year 2002. At least, that's what I heard the Premier say in the meeting.

Now that we have agreed that the numbers are reflecting the real jobs in this province, as presented by this government, I won't say that they have no merit. There is a basis there, but they are very confusing. If I don't understand it, I don't feel bad about that, because I think the minister has just explained that part of the strategy has clearly been to create confusion. When you work with different data at different times in talking about the same subject, you create confusion.

If that is part of how the Premier is going to justify that in the future, he has indeed achieved his goal by taking a number today that five years from now, or maybe already by next year, will show that there is a tremendous increase. If you change the goalposts again next year, what do you do?

I'd now like to ask the minister about the data that are used, the labour force data. I believe you use the employment data and hours data and the annual manufacturers' data. Who in your ministry looks at this information and gives you the advice to say: "Okay, this is your number"? As there is so much confusion, somebody has to be responsible for that number, and I would like to know if it is a committee within your ministry or if it is an individual who gives you that information.

I. Waddell: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to assure the member that this minister and this government are making no attempt to mislead the public. We have made it clear what the basis of our numbers was, and I've repeated in this House the source of any data that I use. To answer your question, the trade and economics branch uses Statistics Canada numbers, unless there is information provided, for example, by somebody like Price Waterhouse, and then we will look at that.

It is the trade and economics branch, and when those figures are supplied, if we want them to be the official figures we use, they're usually, if not always, checked by the deputy minister. Ultimately, I'm responsible, and I would suggest that if you want any official numbers to be put in writing, we're quite happy to inform you what numbers we use. As we said, for the accord, we have made it clear that we use the survey of employee payroll hours.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, it's my duty as the Chair to inform the House that there are certain rules governing tedious repetition. I would caution all members that we have canvassed the issue of numbers extensively, and perhaps we should go on to another question.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that you caution the member of the government that the same answer is considered to be too tedious, and hopefully he will take heed of that. What I would like to ask the minister . . . .

[3:45]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Rulings of the Chair are not to be commented on, and they're not subject for debate. Just that as a caution.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to comment on anything.

What I would like to ask the minister now is about the job figures. I'm not going to get back to the confusion over how many there are. There will be other opportunities to come to that. Can the minister explain to me or give me a rundown on what kind of jobs are included in the count the ministry is using to come to the number that has been presented here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The types of jobs that are direct jobs are in silviculture. There are some miscellaneous jobs in panel

[ Page 4914 ]

boards, sawn wood, logs, pulp, the paper manufacturers, finished wood and engineered wood products. Those are what are considered the direct jobs.

T. Nebbeling: What number of jobs are in the harvesting sector, then, and what number of jobs in manufacturing? How many are indeed earmarked for or are actually land management jobs, such as silviculture and others?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Logging and forestry service jobs for 1995, from the survey of employment payroll, are 29,465; wood industries, 39,916; and paper and allied jobs, 18,248. That would total 87,629.

T. Nebbeling: So what was the total number? I think you were off about 10,000.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the year of 1995, that was 87,629. For the year ending 1996, it was 86,323. It depends. We've got it by month. That's what we have it by, and it's summarized. I'm not sure what the member is getting at, but if you want the baseline of March 1996, which is the baseline for the jobs and timber accord, it's 28,056 in logging and forestry, paper and allied at 18,429 and wood at 39,699, for a total of 86,184.

T. Nebbeling: Sorry, I thought the minister had said 76,000; that's why I said you're about 10,000 off. This information comes to the ministry on a monthly basis through the district offices. How does this come to the minister?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These figures come from Statistics Canada, and they come monthly with a lag. For example, the most recent information we have is March 1997. So there is bit of a lag, but we get it monthly.

T. Nebbeling: Considering that I am trying to get a good sense of how the number that the minister presented as the baseline for 1996 was arrived at, is there any information or data collected in the district managers' offices or in the regional offices that comes to the ministry, as well as an element that is considered in the total consideration of what the actual job condition is?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, the only data that we collect would be jobs associated with the value-added bid proposal sales. We need those when we're assessing bids. But other than that, we don't collect statistics.

T. Nebbeling: These numbers that you're giving are the 1995 numbers finishing in March 1996, I take it. Is it the '95-96 year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To make it clear, the figures I was using were as of March '96. The baseline for the jobs and timber accord is the March figures for that year. You could back up to February and get different numbers, and back up to January and get different ones. They vary through the year.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the numbers do vary every month, especially with the breakoffs at that time of the year. I think I was talking about that earlier on, and some variations I can accept. I can't accept variations of 15,000 in a given period. I'm still not happy with that number, but I'm trying to get a little bit more of a feel . . . .

The Chair: Hon. members, I have an introduction I'd like to make. At this time joining us in the gallery today is someone we all know well who works in the buildings: Alistair "Red" Grant. He is there, joined by his wife Joan. Today is his last day working for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and I've got some information about his history here. If you will bear with me, I'd like to tell the rest of you about it.

He has worked for Saanich and the city of Victoria. He began his career in the public service in September 1971 with the Department of Public Works as a relief worker in the Legislature. Later he went on to work at the museum and the archives, and he came to the buildings permanently in 1978 when he joined the newly established British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

Red has always come to work a half hour early to check on the building, to say hello to folks and generally to see how things are going. As a dedicated worker, he often took on less desirable jobs without a word of complaint. As many here can attest, Red has always been happy at his work. During the course of his service to the people of British Columbia, Red has outlasted six Premiers, ten Speakers and eight Attorneys General.

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, it's been added: "and only one Clerk."

On a personal note, Red enjoys taking walks with Joan, his wife of 26 years. He is a neighbour of mine, and I see the two of them frequently on their walks. He's a hockey fan, and he cheers for the Rangers -- he doesn't much like the Cougars, we've discovered. He's rather, we might say, like Gretzky -- he could have retired last year, but he continued on just like "The Great One" for another period of time.

For his future, Red will continue to live in Victoria after retirement, and the biggest challenge that lies ahead for him is remembering that he doesn't have to put on his work clothes at three in the afternoon. Alistair, we wish you health and happiness and fulfilment. Enjoy your retirement. We will miss your very ready smile. [Applause.]

I might add, for those hearing and those present, that in the Cedar Room there is a small cake to say farewell and thank you. For those who are, as I say, within hearing distance and watching, you might join them over there for the next hour. Thank you for your indulgence everyone.

T. Nebbeling: I should say that I've only been here for 14 months, but I do agree that the smile is phenomenal. Every afternoon around 5 o'clock I would see him. He always stopped. It's amazing, considering the amount of people that are in this building, that he did take the time to just say something to everybody every day. So I think he's going to miss us all as well, by the way. It's a two-way street.

Having said that, we were on the job situation. I'm a little bit surprised that the minister can only give his numbers for '95-96, considering that we are in '97 and that the minister stated that these numbers do come in on a monthly basis. But with this lag, there is a period of time between the information gathered and coming there. Can the minister give me any indication about the numbers, according to StatsCan, in the different regions for the year '96-97, counting up till March?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To our knowledge, there's no breakdown by region from Statistics Canada. Just to remind the

[ Page 4915 ]

House, I did give the '97 numbers. I gave them at least twice. I'll give them a third time, and that will be the last time. In March 1997, these same statistics show a total of 85,038. So they're current to March, then there's a lag -- but no regional numbers.

T. Nebbeling: I was not looking for the regional numbers. I was again looking for the sectoral groupings we looked at for 1995 as well: the manufacturing side, the land-management side and the harvesting side. The numbers for '95-96 are broken down in these three categories. I was wondering if the minister could also give me the breakdown for '96-97, as he has the total number.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I do have the breakdown, and this is for the month of March. In logging and forestry, it's 25,982; in paper and allied, 15,734; in wood, 43,322, for a total of 85,038.

T. Nebbeling: So that we have it on record, wood is reman, sawmills and activities such as that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that has to do with wood manufacturing.

T. Nebbeling: So there's a decline in jobs in the field, and there's a decline in land management of about 7,000 to 8,000 people that have been picked up in the reman industry. I think that's part of the problem we face when we talk about the forest industry. We see many scenes of . . . . Especially the logging community seems to be -- not the target; I wouldn't use that word -- the victim of all the initiatives that the government has taken over the last couple of years to put more emphasis on the environment and environmental protection.

Of course, the Forest Practices Code has been a tool that certainly did not help any forest worker to go into an area where he rightfully could have been, because the area was approved for harvesting. But unfortunately, through other circumstances, that didn't happen.

That is the group I'm very much focused on, because I think we cannot just replace jobs as we seem to be doing here. If we haven't had the decline in jobs that we feel are happening, there certainly is a shift in jobs from one sector into another sector, from harvesting into reman. Not very often will many of the people that have been working in the forest for 30 or 40 years be in a position to go into a mill and become a productive worker. I've visited a few mills because of my critic role, and I'm always astounded by the amount of expertise needed to be a productive and safe millworker. Safety is a big issue, of course.

[4:00]

In spite of the numbers, there is a large contingent of forest workers that have not been able to find an opportunity to continue to earn a livelihood and provide security for their families. What I would like to know from the minister is: besides Stats Canada information, what other sources are there to monitor that particular component?

That's why I asked earlier about the role of the Ministry of Forests, the district managers and the regional managers, and whether they are at all involved in tracking that data, so that at the end of the day we don't say: "Listen, everything is great, because we've only lost 1,500 jobs." No, we haven't. We have lost thousands of jobs, and we have created jobs in other industries, but not necessarily the same people are still at work.

So what I am looking for is: has the government at this stage, or has it in the past, done any form of tracking as to which jobs are actually lost within these sectors -- how many, what percentage -- and what is happening with those workers? If that happens, I hope to be able to get a feel for how the ministry deals with that particular problem, because I consider this to be a very serious problem. When we talk about the job losses not really being there and we know that there are thousands of people walking the streets of the communities because they are not at work, something is wrong in analyzing the real job situation in the forest industry.

Having heard some of the numbers and how it breaks down in the different sectors of the forest industry, where there is a serious decline in one and an increase in another, these jobs are not necessarily useful for an individual who has been kicked out of one sector. Is there anything that the ministry is doing to track these numbers, as well, so that we can have a reaction and deal with that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just for the member's edification, he's talking about loss of jobs in logging and forestry. If you go from March of '96, you had 28,000 in forestry; by July it was up to 32,000, and by August it was up to 33,000. It was down in September and up again to 33,000 in October. So there are wild fluctuations. Weather is a factor, tech change is a factor, and pulp prices are a factor. When there's a slump in pulp prices, it's no surprise that there would be fewer people working in pulp. They just aren't cranking out as much of the material.

And yes, the growth will be coming in the solid-wood side through remanufacturing. That's why we've targeted that sector in the accord -- because it has tremendous growth potential.

We are not going to have our district managers become statisticians. There are local economic surveys. There are various ways of trying to measure it, but you can spend an awful lot of time measuring. What our people do is worry about the goals of getting fibre out. That's what they're oriented to. They do notify Forests if there are individual firms with trouble on a licensed operation. They tell us about that, and they ask the mill management or the manager of the logging company how many jobs . . . . We collect the information on a needs basis. But in the end, the sector is dynamic and it's changing, and we expect that these numbers will fluctuate through the years.

T. Nebbeling: It is telling that in order to illustrate how the fluctuation in the job market for that harvest sector is a traditional element of the job base, the minister starts off saying that in March '95 we had 29,000. Then we have some dips and we have some ups, and then in October it is 29,000. I wish he would go on and come to March the following year, because then you can have two comparable points. In March 1995 there were 29,000 people working in the forest, and in March 1996, according to the numbers that the minister just quoted, there were 25,820. So that is a decline of 3,200 people, or 11 percent. That is serious.

Whatever the reason is, and I understand that there are all kinds of outside factors that have to do with it . . . . The minister keeps emphasizing that pulp price is a key factor. If there are high prices, there's more product demand, which means we can have more people going into the forest. I agree that price is a big factor. Down the road in these estimates we're certainly going to talk about what drives the need for a certain market price in order to make an operation profitable.

I think many of the provincial programs today are adding so many upfront costs to the raw product which will produce pulp, that at the time the pulp is being produced the price is higher than the market will pay for it. Am I right about these numbers -- that March '95 is 29,000 and March '96 is 25,820?

[ Page 4916 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have figures for March '95. I gave totals for March '95, as I recall. I have March '96 and March '97. But as I say, it's up and down from year to year, and I think we have to agree that it would be a yearly average or something that we'd have to take.

We're going to leave the fine-tuning of that kind of thing to the jobs and timber advocate, who will look specifically at the need for an improved database in order to track it. Licensees will be anxious as to what their quotas of jobs might be under the accord, and they will be very willing to demonstrate just how many jobs per thousand cubic metres they have. I have had experience with trying to do this kind of survey, and it is difficult to get an actual figure of how many people are working at any given time. I don't even think the logging associations collect those, except maybe on a survey basis. I think there is a real need for data, and fair enough. We should try to get better data.

But the accord is looking at the province as a whole. Things will change as we move logging operations to the north, because that's where the available timber is. Falling is more highly mechanized there than it is on the coast. So you might find different ratios as you move into different timber types. On the other hand, as you move into high-lead logging -- helicopter logging -- the ratios of employment on the logging end go down. So it's very dynamic, and I don't think there's any snapshot anywhere that we could take and use as a measure, because we have to use aggregate data in order to assess it.

We've put that out there and said that in the next four years we will look back and have it tracked, through time. We expect the jobs advocate to file a report annually, much like the job protection commissioner files a report, and he'll report out on the basis of employment.

T. Nebbeling: I agree that the 29,000 was March 1996 and the 25,820 was '97. Nevertheless, that's an 11 percent decrease. If we take March 31, 1996, as a snapshot and we take March 31, 1997, as a snapshot, and if these numbers indeed apply to that, then we have an 11 percent decline in that sector of the forest industry. I believe that is serious, and we can't ignore it. Either we're going to ask people working in that sector and most likely living in an area where there is very little reman at this time to move to other areas, be it the interior or the northwest, or these people are going to be out of a job.

Or FRBC is going to create different opportunities in these communities. That was the intent, and that's why I think there are so many thousands of workers out there that are feeling betrayed because that money didn't come to their communities to create new opportunities through added value, through re-education.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, and that's why it is important that we know the ratios per thousand cubic metres in different areas. That's why, in the beginning of this estimates process, I started to look at what has happened in the States as far as these ratios are concerned, because our target is to come up to their level.

It's 4:10. I am going to take a little bit of a break, and then I'll come back. My colleague from Cariboo North wants to continue.

J. Wilson: Good afternoon, neighbour. It isn't every day you get to stand up and chat with your neighbour, so I'm going to make the most of it here.

I noticed earlier today that the minister made a statement with regard to the creation of jobs in the formula. I believe what he said was: "We have aimed at getting halfway to the job ratio of other jurisdictions in the number of jobs per cubic metre." Now, do I take this literally, or was it simply a figure of speech? Would we not try to get all the way? Could the minister explain?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I really have nothing to add to the target figures. They have been canvassed very thoroughly, and I think the record will speak. Everything we have to say on that subject has really been said.

J. Wilson: I assume, then, that I take this literally -- that we are aiming at half the number of jobs per cubic metre that there are in some other areas. In which case, we may have canvassed this thoroughly, but I'd just like to know. I didn't ask him for those numbers. I didn't ask him where we had a comparison. I simply wanted to know: was it simply a figure of speech, or was it an actual projection?

Through the jobs and timber accord, we have Forest Renewal B.C. woven very intricately all through this plan. At this point I have yet to receive a copy of the business plan for Forest Renewal B.C. so that I can actually look at that, try to analyze it and transpose it onto this jobs and timber accord. Without this information, it's very difficult to stand up in this House and try to analyze or justify the spending of government.

I would like to ask the minister if this is available -- the business plan and the budget for the 1997-98 year -- or whether we will see it at all during this estimates process.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, with respect to the business plan, until we concluded the jobs and timber accord, we weren't able to finalize the business plan of FRBC. We have been checking the numbers, and I think that in the next few days I will be tabling a business plan for Forest Renewal B.C. In fact, they're going through the last stages of getting it ready for publication -- so in the next few days.

With respect to the comment, "The minister was trying to put words in my mouth," when I said we would try and achieve half of the employment per thousand cubic metres, what I said . . . . This is notional; I want to make sure I use that word. It's notional because there is no definitive statistic on which everybody agrees. When the Premier made his announcement, he thought we were at something like 1.4 jobs per thousand cubic metres, and he'd like to get to 1.7. I said that 0.3 represents 21,000 jobs on a base of 70 million cubic metres. That's how he got them. There's nothing more precise than that about them.

If other jurisdictions are at, say, 2 -- a lot of them are more than that; some of them aren't there, but some comparable jurisdictions are in that area -- that's halfway. One point seven jobs per thousand cubic metres is halfway.

In the year that has intervened, we've used a different basis for calculating. Industry agreed that we should use a different base, and at that base we are at 1.2. The fact is, we're not looking at decimal points and multipliers; we're trying to get more jobs for every cubic metre as an absolute goal. It doesn't have to be a relative goal anymore with other jurisdictions; it's an absolute goal. That's a very ambitious target; everybody has said that. It will test our ability to work together to get that 21,000 or 20,400.

[4:15]

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for the information. In the next few days we can expect a budget. I assume that will be in the next week that we're back in the House.

[ Page 4917 ]

How about the budget for the upcoming year? Is that also being held up because of the jobs and timber accord, or is it available?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. There are two things. There is the investment plan, and that was released last week by the Premier. Then there is the business plan, and that's what I will table in the Legislature here. Those are various aspects of their budgeting process.

J. Wilson: Going through the jobs and timber accord, it's not the easiest thing to try to figure out; it's a very complicated piece of work. We have a lot of job creation, and somehow each job creation program is tied into the job creation in the other areas around it. If one were to fail, you would have failure right through, except for the possibility of the money that is going to be put into our land-based projects. That seems to be the most stable component of the whole program.

With this job planning, do we have a plan in mind, or is this simply an idea at this moment? Is there anything there where we can say that at the end of next month we will have reached this target and at the end of this year we will have reached this target? Or is it simply an idea today, and we are starting from scratch, not quite sure where we're going?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the words of one industry leader commenting on this, he said: "We now have a strategic plan." And that's how he characterized the accord. What we will develop now with industry is an implementation plan, and there will be planning at various levels. I expect the regional advisory process will feed into the planning that Forest Renewal does, to make sure that they're distributing the jobs in the best possible way that we'll end up with the job creation, the longer-term, stable jobs, that we have industry's commitment to create, using FRBC funds.

We hope that that there will be a refinement, company by company, licensee by licensee, and that those then will add up to be regional plans for FRBC's investment, as we have now. And we will refine that process as we go along.

But if you were to ask if we now have a blueprint and whether I tell you where all of industry's 2,000 jobs will be, I could suggest to you that there's any number of fibreboard plants, finger-joining plants . . . . There are a number of things in the planning stage at the firm level, but this is a commitment. Industry said they'll create those 2,000 jobs through new investment. We know where some of those are; we don't where all of them are right now. There is not a master plan agreed to that is an appendix to this accord. These are all things . . . . The deliverables have to be worked on.

J. Wilson: I assume, then, that there has been some planning in process for a period of time now, so we'll undoubtedly see something happen this year. I would hate to think that it's all going to be thrown back out there and redesigned, and we'd have to get everyone to agree as to what they need and then put it back together and have the government go over it and then come up with a plan. That could take a year or two down the road, considering the pace at which the government moves. It's not real swift, sometimes.

The issue of 2,000 new jobs that the minister referred to -- these 2,000 new jobs are going to be created by the major licensees, I believe. He's referred to finger-joining, several types of value-added mills. Is this job creation going into, say, the construction of these facilities and that will be the end of the job? Or is it actual jobs working within these facilities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These are direct jobs, permanent jobs. They're not construction jobs.

J. Wilson: So then the major licensees, as part of their commitment, will create 2,000 full-time, sustainable jobs that will be in the value-added industry. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's only one category. We expect some to be in producing and developing higher value-added products, but there will be other initiatives. We expect them to invest capital to improve technology, operations efficiency and product value. They could be in adding value to logs -- for example, by doing more sorts -- perhaps earlier in the chain of production. There could be jobs created in log distribution, log markets. They may wish to create a log market. There could be some in the initial breakdown.

They could be in pulp and paper value-added; they could be in panel, shake and shingles, remanufacturing . . . . These are some examples. Beyond the mill, there might be more in marketing. Someone might start up a new marketing venture that exports to a different market. There are all kinds of things that can be done. We just have some suggestion of what those might be; the onus is on industry to do it.

J. Wilson: I would really hope that we can get there before the year 2001; otherwise there's going to be a few disappointed people. Now, I guess at this point . . . . This is a tough one to get into and get anywhere, because we've got potential jobs all over the place. Without being able to break these down in any way, shape, or form, it's very difficult to do an assessment on what I see here.

Does the minister have any idea at this point in time? He's indicated that some of these 2,000 new jobs will be in the value-added sector -- not all of them. They'll be all over the board, but there will be a few in the value-added sector. At this point in the evolution of this concept, does he have any . . . ? I'm not asking for a number, but for a proximity to a percentage that possibly is there.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we don't, for the 2,000 jobs. Industry just made the undertaking. There are, however, going to be some 6,500 jobs targeted for the remanufacturing sector, and they will be created by cutting undercut in the small business program, cutting the full cut that's allowed and through using sawn fibre coming from the majors. So when we talk about 2,000 jobs, the major licensees can create those in value-added, but it's only a portion of the jobs that we expect. We fully expect that there will be new, major primary opportunities becoming available.

For example, a quarter of a million cubic metres is being advertised, or will be advertised, in the Fort St. John area. We expect somebody will bid for that and hopefully create additional employment with that.

J. Wilson: This quarter of a million cubic metres in the Fort St. John forest district . . . . Is that correct? Is this going to end up as a five-year non-renewable licence? Is it going to go to value-added, or will it go to a major licensee?

[ Page 4918 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just getting the actual figures. It's 219,000. It will be one opportunity, and it will in all likelihood be in a non-replaceable forest licence. The number of years of the terms of the licence has not yet been determined.

J. Wilson: Then it would be up to . . . . Or is this going to be open now? Can a value-added mill come in and bid on this, or is it open to the majors to come in and bid on this wood supply? Is it open to some of the pulp mills to come in and bid on this wood supply? Have you got any direction for it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As is the case with this kind of licence, we advertise the volume and say we're interested in employment and investment. And it's wide-open. Value-added people can bid or primary operations can bid. This type of licence is generally fairly wide-open.

[4:30]

J. Wilson: Is this a simple, straightforward bidding process, or will it be tied into some of the strategy I see in the jobs and timber accord, where part of the requirements will be the creation of jobs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. We have just announced the accord. We intend to get into implementation, and there have been opportunities out there in the past. What we have said in the accord is that people have to play by the principles of the accord, and then they qualify for new wood when it becomes available. So in all likelihood, we will be looking at targeting jobs. We hope that any firm bidding will have thought about the accord, will have thought about maximum employment that they can generate. And in order to do that, we expect them to be full participants, for example, in FRBC funding and a number of things like that.

J. Wilson: There's a lot of hope around here. But suppose that no one does come forward that is going to put in a proposal or put part of their package up and say that we're going to create 300 new jobs or 100 new jobs. They simply put in a bid on the wood, so much a cubic metre. Will it be dispersed in that way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the bonus bid would be one factor that's considered. But we have to consider the criteria of the development objectives of the Crown. We've made it clear that we want to see more employment. So clearly maximum, optimal employment is going to be a factor in awarding any licence.

J. Wilson: Will this hold true, then, for every non-renewable licence that is brought forward in the future for various reasons -- one being that the allotted cut was not reached, things like this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the criteria are set out in the Forest Act, and it involves forest management objectives, stumpage that they pay, development objectives of the Crown. We will always use the licensing provisions to assist areas. For example, we're investigating an opportunity to make a licence available for the district of Stewart targeted for employment in that area. So the development objectives of the Crown are still there, and there is a tension in the economy for us to localize benefits. That's what local people want: they want fibre processed locally.

But then there's the demand in the industry to allow logs to flow to their maximum utilization, and that is usually somebody who can pay a bigger price. But there's a tension here, and we manage that tension through very complex policy mechanisms. The accord will have to rely on us making timber available to people who will create full-time jobs and live by the spirit of the accord.

J. Wilson: I'm a little bit confused by the minister's explanation. It sounds like it may be business as usual, but on the other hand, it may be business as we see it. I guess what I want to know is: is there a set of guidelines? When I go in and make an application for this wood, is there anything that gives me, say, a point system, where I get so many points for this, so many points for that -- something that I can write up a project on? I can bring something forward based on your criteria, what you would like to see. They are guidelines and they give a target, and they make it a lot easier to meet that target.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me just point out to the member that nothing in the accord changes the role of the Minister of Forests. The Minister of Forests, under the legislation, when putting forward forest licences and then subsequently evaluating them, would look at five criteria.

The first one is: "Creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits in British Columbia." The second one is: "Providing for the management and utilization of Crown timber." The third one is: "Furthering the development objectives of the government." Then: "Meeting objectives of the government in respect of environmental quality and the management of water, fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage resources." And finally: "Contributing to government revenues." That is how we evaluate; there's no weighting, no points. Those are the criteria in the award of forest licences.

Under the accord, we have put in some incentives, and for people to have the benefits under the accord, which include access to new timber, we've said they have to abide by the principles of the accord and agree to create jobs by taking their share of those 5,000 jobs we expect industry to create with Forest Renewal dollars. But if it's a brand-new operation, we have to take that into account. Then they become a licensee.

We are concerned with the jobs and timber accord primarily with those people who have long-term, replaceable licences. They are the foundation and the backbone of the industry here.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's because the accord is with the major licensees.

We also expect to make a deal with the small business remanufacturers, many of whom don't have any . . . . Well, probably none of them have replaceable licences.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

J. Wilson: I would like to move on, and eventually I'll get sorted out in my mind, I guess, what's going to happen.

In the value-added component of this accord, we have a suitable number of jobs. This is going to the small business and secondary industry part of it. These are basically, in my mind, value-added. But if I'm wrong, I would like to stand corrected. Does the minister have any idea at this time as to the actual breakdown of where these jobs will be created?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The only breakdown we have at this point is that we expect that industry and government will work together to achieve 1,500 direct and 1,500 indirect jobs through tendering the full harvest of the small business forest enterprise program apportionment. We expect industry to help engineer the sales; some licensed people may be expected to engineer the sales. We will tender the cumulative undercut through non-replaceable licences, and we intend on . . . . Through the reman sector, government and industry

[ Page 4919 ]

are going to work together to achieve a goal of 5,000 direct and indirect jobs by increasing the availability of sawn fibre. We expect to reach a target of 18 percent of sawn timber at the coast and 16 percent in the interior from the replaceable licences, directed and made available to the remanufacturing sector at internationally competitive prices. So there's 1,500 from dealing with the undercut and 5,000 from a redirection of

fibre.

J. Wilson: I'd like to start with the undercut. Is there any possible way that the minister can, in his best opinion, break down the 1,500 that will be associated with the undercut?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the purpose of the accord, since it's provincewide, we used aggregated information. There are 36 timber supply areas and 34 TFLs, all of which have small-business wood in them. So we took the volume, used a standard multiplier and came up with the 1,500 jobs. We can dig up the information -- how much the undercut is -- district by district, but for the purpose of the accord, we just took provincewide figures.

J. Wilson: I assume that these 1,500 jobs . . . . What I need is: are these jobs harvest-related? Will a percentage of them be created within the ministries to go out and monitor the harvest of the wood that normally would have been left?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These 1,500 jobs are in harvesting and in primary breakdown. They don't include figures from secondary and further manufacturing, and they don't include personnel in the Ministry of Forests.

J. Wilson: Now, I'm not in the forest industry, so could the minister lay out a fairly accurate description of primary breakdown?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Debarking, sawing and planing.

J. Wilson: So then the . . . . This is getting confusing here. This additional cut will come into an existing facility, I assume -- probably one of the major licensee's yards. It will go through the debarker; it will go through the whatever in that facility. Now, that is considered . . . . Only a portion of those extra jobs are going to be created through harvesting. The other question I would have in this is: has there been any consideration given to the hauling of this wood? Is that factored into the number that you've come up with?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well again, it may be difficult to pin down which jobs there are for every operation. We've used a multiplier of something close to 1.2 jobs per thousand cubic metres. I suspect that when we come to add them up -- because we've agreed to use a survey of employment hours, and we haven't defined log transport in the forest sector -- they wouldn't be picked up in any measurement, but they would be part of the multiplier jobs. That's why we're always quick to add that there is a 1-to-1 ratio from primary job to indirect job.

The direct-to-indirect ratio is one, and they would be picked up in the indirects. So when we say there are 17,000 indirect jobs, I expect log hauling will be picked up in that process.

J. Wilson: Okay, we have a few extra jobs here; then we've got some secondary spinoffs. Let's go back to the initial jobs. We can't actually break down the job and look at it as a job, I don't think. I assume you got this through your formula, whereby if you process this many more metres of wood, it takes this many hours to process this much wood or to harvest this much wood. Am I correct there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We simply use a ratio of jobs. You know, you can get all kinds of estimates on how many jobs harvesters put out, but we haven't gotten into that level of detail, because we aggregate it for the sector, and we take it across the province. So it's more accurate than it is for any given operation. As you know, it varies with the type of machinery that's used. But we do have a database. We do have some numbers of harvest -- the amount of harvest. We do have some ratios of jobs per thousand cubic metres, and we use those. And industry uses them all the time.

J. Wilson: It's kind of a tricky situation we're in here, because in the past couple of years there's been a slowdown out there. And I'm sure the minister is aware of it. We've more or less gone from operations running nine months of the year to operating five months a year. Those crews are still there. They don't go anywhere, but they simply work fewer hours, because there may not be the supply of wood. The mills will shut down. They'll take extended periods of shutdown for maintenance, this kind of thing; they may close. Normally they would shut down for a week. They might shut down for three weeks.

What that does is allow them to send their crew home without having to worry about anyone complaining, so they can say: "Well, we need an extended shutdown period."

If you dump this tiny amount -- it's a fraction of the total cut; that's what you're going to add to it -- how are you going to create actual new jobs here? All I can see happening is that you'll speed up production a little bit. You may add another two weeks to the operation during the year in that facility, or you may add another month onto the actual working time that the contractor gets out there on the land base when he's harvesting.

I really have trouble visualizing where these 1,500 new jobs are going to be created, other than through extended hours of employment. At this point in time, because of all the things that have gone on here, our window of employment could be stretched close to two or two and a half times what it is right now. It'll create a better job, yes, for those people that are working. But I fail to see how we are going to create this number of what I would call new jobs.

What I consider to be a new job is: I take this person who doesn't have a job, and I say: "Would you please pack your lunch pail tomorrow and put your work boots on? I want you on this worksite tomorrow morning. You're going to start a new job here." I don't see that happening. I don't see that window of opportunity for the creation of this portion of the 1,500 jobs that you have said will occur because of the additional cut that operations are going to be forced to take. Well, I shouldn't say forced. You're going to allow them to cut; you're going to see that it gets cuts so that it creates jobs.

The way I see it, we will create a better job for the person that has a job -- and the same thing can apply to the primary manufacturing facility, which is the mill that the major licensee owns. This wood will go in there. If they operate that mill an additional two weeks out of the year, they will have met their target of creating -- say it's half of that -- 700 additional jobs. But it's actually just 700 hours of more employment. Their workforce may not change. Could the minister comment on this?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

[ Page 4920 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are many factors, including technological change, that affect the ratios at the primary level. For the purpose of the accord, we have defined a job as a minimum of 180 days and/or 1,440 hours for logging, silviculture and other forest fieldwork, unless the traditional operating season in the region is shorter. We've defined it as 220 days for all other forest sector workers.

Just for your information, the example you use of somebody going down to five months -- a four-month reduction -- is about a 45 percent reduction. But it doesn't hold true across the piece, because we have . . . . In 1991, when we were first the government, there were some 73.6 million cubic metres harvested. It actually has gone up about one and a half million, to 75 million last year. The wood is being harvested. It may be harvested in different time frames, and we recognize that we don't want people working when it's too wet.

But this varies, anyway, with weather and with where you are in the climate and where you are in the species. We're moving into more and more difficult land. A lot of the easiest and best land to log has been logged.

There are factors here, and all I can say is that we do use ratios and numbers. We add them all up at the end of the day, and we are expecting to get these 21,000 more. That's what we've done. There will be more in logging. If they're going to log more, there's either going to be more people working longer, or there's going to be more people working -- one of the two.

J. Wilson: The reason I asked all these questions is because we have to differentiate between people working longer and more people working. If you make the statement, "We are going to create 21,000 new jobs," my understanding . . . . I'm sure that the majority of the people in British Columbia will take that statement, and they will understand it to mean yes, there will be 21,000 additional bodies out there doing those jobs. If that's not the case and you simply extend the hours of employment, sure it'll be a boon to the people that do have a job, but it's going to be a major disappointment to the people that were expecting a job.

There's another point that I'm a little bit confused on. The minister brought it up at this point. Depending on the sector, he said that you'll get 200 -- I forget the exact number -- days of employment or 180-some days of employment. Is he saying that it depends on whether you work in a manufacturing facility or a primary facility, or whether you are in the harvesting sector or in silviculture? Is there a breakdown here as to where these number of days are going to be applied? Have you broken down the harvesting -- separate from the silviculture and separate from the actual work in the facilities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, no more than by stating and defining a job as 180 days or 1,440 hours per year for logging, silviculture and other fieldwork, unless the traditional operating season is shorter. It could be a job that's six months in an area where there are six months of winter. We have put the hours in here: 220 days for all other forest sector workers. There is no further breakdown of these numbers.

J. Wilson: When you work out a day for a worker, how do you arrive at what you consider to be one day?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me read what it says in the accord: " . . . a minimum of 180 days and/or 1,440 hours per year for logging, silviculture and other forest field workers, unless the traditional operating season in the region is shorter."

We've created a timber jobs advocate position. Industry and government will agree as to who it is, and that person will be making reports on the status and the effectiveness of the accord. He will be an advocate for the accord, and he will count the numbers. It's incumbent upon everybody in the industry that if they want credit for jobs maintained or jobs created, they'll have to begin to create their own baselines of data and be able to back them up.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

J. Wilson: If I go to work and I work 12 hours a day for 120 days, is the industry going to step in and say, "Okay, now you'd better go home; someone else has to take over your job here," or can I continue -- if I have an additional six weeks or ten weeks of opportunity -- to work? Am I going to be pushed out, or will I be allowed to carry on with that additional employment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's nothing I'm aware of in the accord that would push anybody out of a job.

J. Wilson: Then this brings us in a circle again. In order to create the 1,500 additional jobs, if they're going to actually be what you would consider new jobs, additional people on the workforce, then somehow you have to limit the number of hours that the present workforce is working. If you don't do that, as I tried to explain before, for that percentage of wood that's going to be logged and milled, the window of opportunity is there to simply extend the number of hours the employee works, and you won't see one new job created in that sector of the industry. It's very simple.

You have to come in with a set of rules that say: "Look, you got your 214 hours, or whatever it is; go home for the rest of the year, and we'll call you when we start up again."

[5:00]

It may work in certain areas. As the minister has explained, in certain regions production has gone up. Well, if the wood is there and the major licensees want the wood brought in, you're going to see production go up. We have the capability with the present workforce out there to just escalate it overnight. If you want to run things around the clock for three months, you can double your production. There's no problem. Part of the slowdown we had is a whole different field, and it's because of the U.S. lumber tariffs. It's added to the cost of logging, so they've backed off.

This is why we have more slack time in the system. They have backed off there because of that additional cost. I think this is one area where maybe we'll have to go in and investigate.

At this point in time, though, I'm going to drop my questioning on the jobs here. We've covered just a little bit, and I believe the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has a