Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 7, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 14

Part 3

[ Page 5331 ]

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).

P. Reitsma: As I promised, I won't be talking about the third week. It's got nothing to do with the estimates, and I realize that, of course. I would like to say, though, that I heard some comments from the other side about how this opposition would dare to ask frivolous questions; it's expensive for the taxpayer. With their indulgence, I suppose, what about the staff that's kept here? They're probably from Vancouver. Who knows where they're from? I think some consideration should be given to staff as well.

Now, I'm waiting for an answer, any answer for that matter, from -- I'm just going to say -- almost any minister, but the Forests minister would do. I know he's busy at the moment. I wish he could answer for what he has been appointed, actually, by the Premier -- to be a Forests minister.

Certainly a Forests minister -- leading up slowly, but definitely to the next question . . . . I think the duty of the Forests minister is certainly to answer questions. Some of the questions may be difficult. No doubt we've all had difficult questions and difficult answers in the past. I'm somewhat disappointed that the minister simply refuses adamantly to answer any of the questions. I don't think that's why we were elected. I don't think that's why the minister was elected, and I don't think that the Premier really thought that the muteness and the deafening silence of the Forests minister would speak volumes, I suppose.

But be as it may, I'm going to have to go back in my MLA's report -- of which I will send a copy to the people in Alberni, of course, as well, because they hardly get any correspondence or any notification from their member. As a matter of fact, it's like the minister of explicit approval. I'm getting more and more questions from the Ladysmith and Cowichan areas as well.

Turning back straight on a one-way street, back to the question that is about to be popped in terms of relating to the forestry industry, again let me assure you that I'm quite disappointed. In fact, we're all very disappointed with the inability of the minister to complete and utter even one sentence pertaining to his ministry -- a syllable and an answer, a sentence, a book volume, if you like, that I could be proud of. I could send it to my constituents in Parksville-Qualicum, Lantzville for that matter, north Nanaimo -- lots of forests there. Some don't see the forest for the trees, but that's a whole other story, of course.

The question -- and we're talking about forests . . . . If the minister could . . . . Maybe with the indulgence of the House -- and I seek some guidance from the Chair on that -- is it possible for ministry staff to answer questions at all?

Since I didn't get an answer on that particular question, I would assume that it is . . . . Although I think it's quite appropriate for the ministry staff -- they're here, and they're paid. They probably have to come over from Vancouver. Why keep them . . . ?

Hon. Chair, we generally adjourn at 10 o'clock. It looks like something -- certainly not backgammon -- is being played. I'm pretty good at it, actually. I am even better at volleyball because of my height, for that matter, but . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, one of our . . . . Hon. members, enough. A member has the floor, and the member is entitled to a decent audience.

P. Reitsma: Having the floor, I'm almost down on my knees, I suppose. However, I don't want to start over again, as I mentioned. I am quite disappointed, of course. I don't think the deafening silence of the Minister of Forests is stimulating to business as a whole. Being in the tourism industry . . . . One might, of course, ask what that has that to do with forestry. It's a good question, if it were to be a question, and a good answer -- if the question were to be posed.

I'll give the answer anyway. Many forest-related industries are a tourist attraction in themselves, as well. Go to Alberni -- the member for Alberni is here -- or the interior and the Kootenays. At many of the saw operations, many bus tour operators from within B.C., Canada, the States and Europe bring in lots of people to look at the forestry-related activities. They come over to see the trees here and to see how things are done, which is good.

I was going to ask, if the minister could answer in simple terms, who the people are that are part of the office of the chief forester.

K. Whittred: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this particular vote. I must say I'm very disappointed that the minister is not here, and I don't think I will have my question satisfactorily answered.

As the House may appreciate, the constituency that I represent has a port area that is, I believe, the third-largest port in North America. Out of this port go the products of our forests, and it's to this end that I really want to address my questions. I recently had the privilege of touring a number of the sites on the waterfront in my constituency, and I was most impressed with the quality of the lumber that is produced in British Columbia.

I was particularly curious about one particular kind of lumber -- and I believe it's called J-grade lumber -- that appears to be shipped in vast quantities. I understand that the J-grade applies to Japan. One of the questions I did want to ask the minister is: is that lumber particularly milled just for Japan? Does any of it go to Korea or Singapore? What exactly is the meaning of that particular grade of lumber?

Hon. G. Clark: This is an excellent question, and it could easily be answered by staff in any kind of briefing, which we can arrange for the members. It's clearly a waste of the House's time and the taxpayers' time . . . .

Some Hon. Members: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: This is an excellent question that could easily be answered by staff in any kind of briefing, which we could arrange for the members. It's clearly a waste of the House's time and the taxpayers' time to educate the member in the chamber during estimates. Nevertheless, if the member wants to ask a question, we'd be delighted to just . . . . If the member would carry on with these questions, they'll all be answered by the minister.

[ Page 5332 ]

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: I'm baffled, and as much as I enjoy hearing from the Premier . . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I think we all enjoy the Premier's infrequent interjections in these debates, hon. Chair, but I'm not sure on what point he was rising. If he has replaced his Minister of Forests, I can say that the only person more disappointed than I am is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who thinks that that seat is reserved for him.

The Chair: Thank you for your point, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: In case the members didn't know -- maybe they don't -- any member of the executive council can answer a question on behalf of the minister, and . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . technical questions that can easily be answered by staff, either by way of a letter or by a phone call, should not be raised in the chamber. It's an abuse of the time of the House.

If members wish to do that, then that's fine, and we'll make sure they're all answered in due course. But if the member would really like to know, we could arrange a full briefing of staff rather than waste the taxpayers' time and money here answering these questions.

Filibustering the Forests estimates is kind of hilarious, and the members think they're winning. They could carry on. It's no problem for the government side, but as anybody watching would see, it's clearly a waste of taxpayers' money. Clearly, all of these questions can be answered by staff. If from time to time the members would care to read the standing orders to understand what estimates debate is all about, it might be helpful.

We're delighted, if the members want to carry on . . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to reassure members that all of their questions will be answered, and so we'd be happy to take notes. The staff are here. We'll make sure they're all answered.

G. Farrell-Collins: I love to hear those kinds of assurances by the Premier that all the questions will be answered and that any member can answer the questions. The Premier said that year after year after year, when he was a minister. Other ministers have done the same. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who's been bounced in and out of cabinet more like a tennis ball than anything else, has also offered those same assurances.

The problem is that nobody believes anything the Premier says, and nobody believes anything that the government says, so there's no way that we can take the assurances of the Premier when he makes those kinds of comments. Quite frankly, I don't believe what he says.

So when the Premier gets up and whines that his poor minister has been asked detailed questions on forestry, I'm shocked that he would be upset about that. I'm shocked that he would be upset that his minister has been asked detailed questions about forestry. The reality is that the government is once again doing what this government does so well, which is to abuse this House for its own purposes, something I know that the Premier, when he was in opposition, used to have some concerns about. It's amazing how quickly he changed his spots when he became a member of the government.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see the Premier getting testy, hon. Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Order, order!

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members . . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I would just ask that the . . . .

The Chair: Will the hon. member please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, please come to order. No one can hear anything in this kind of a din.

G. Farrell-Collins: One down and 37 to go.

The Chair: On vote 37, hon. member, which is the Forests estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think I said half a sentence. I don't know how the Chair could possibly have determined what my question was when all I said was half a sentence.

I find it shocking that the Premier would be upset that the Minister of Forests has been asked detailed questions about his ministry. If the Premier wants to participate in estimates, I would encourage him to come to the other House -- or we can do it in this House -- and we can call the Hydro estimates. We can ask the Premier about the truth with regard to the Raiwind scandal and the deceptions that took place there. We can ask him about the criminal investigation that's ongoing presently. We can ask the Premier about the Securities Commission investigation that's ongoing.

[10:45]

The Chair: Hon. member, this has nothing to do with the Forests estimates, so please come to the point.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members on both sides of the House, please come to order. As has been done in the main House, the

[ Page 5333 ]

Chair is quite prepared to start naming names. So let's just stay cool, everybody. We've got a discussion that we want to have. Let's get on with the discussion.

G. Farrell-Collins: I move that the Chair do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 26

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Sanders

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Whittred

Thorpe

J. Wilson

Reitsma

Symons

Hawkins

Abbott

Jarvis

Weisbeck

Chong

Coleman

Nettleton

Masi

Krueger

Barisoff

Neufeld

NAYS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Pullinger

Farnworth

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Cashore

Ramsey

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Smallwood

Janssen

The Chair: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the member for Matsqui has the floor. [Applause.] And as a reminder, hon. members . . .

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I won't push my luck.

The Chair: . . . I'm sure you realize . . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I'm thrilled that the minister is now able to participate in this debate. He was a shadow of his former self just a few moments ago. I see that he's in fine form now.

I wanted to canvass with him . . . . This was something that the committee I recently sat on -- the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs -- heard a lot about during the course of our travels right around the province. It relates to the opportunities that exist for first nations people to participate actively in the forestry sector. I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has received the report that was tabled last Thursday. I know that the Forests minister will be very interested, and we'll be very interested in canvassing those sections of the report that deal specifically with aboriginal participation in the forestry sector.

I want to preface my questions to the minister with a few remarks to place them properly in context. That will be helpful to the minister, as he deals with these questions. One of the things we heard right across the province was the frustration that aboriginal peoples feel -- be they young or old, people who in the past have been involved or other younger folks who hope to be involved in the forestry sector -- because their opportunities are severely limited.

They contrast that with the rather healthy participation rate that has existed for aboriginal peoples in an industry like the commercial fishing industry, where the history of that involvement is longstanding, and it remains strong. When you contrast that with what is taking place in the forestry sector, the comparison does not lead to very favourable results.

One of the things that we heard is the difficulty that aboriginal people -- be they individuals or groups of aboriginals who come together and may incorporate -- have in attracting capital. That is as a result of a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty they have in attracting capital by reason of the inability of lenders to properly secure against chattels and land. I know that is something that the government -- that both sides of the House -- are committed to try to resolve via treaty negotiations.

Quite frankly, our ability to do that is going to be somewhat compromised if the treaty that results at the end of the day doesn't provide the mechanisms that are necessary to achieve and secure that venture capital.

We heard from companies, from individuals, who drew this comparison, who said to us: "You will talk about joint ventures, you will talk about allowing aboriginal peoples to participate in the forestry sector, but what you're really talking about is non-aboriginal-controlled companies that may be employing a few more aboriginal peoples. What we are talking about, as aboriginal peoples, are true joint ventures, true partnerships."

One of the disturbing bits of information that we received during the course of our travels was this notion from aboriginal peoples that their ability to secure those true partnerships existed to a far better degree when they were dealing with American firms than when they were dealing with Canadian firms. The minister can offer some examples of Canadian companies, British Columbia companies, that have entered into true joint ventures, but they are few and far between.

It is legitimate for us to query the minister in these estimates debates -- because I know a portion of his ministry has been dedicated to this task -- and to ask him the question: what steps is he taking and what steps is his ministry taking to ensure that these partnerships, indeed today but particularly in the post-treaty era, will exist, will come to fruition, will develop further, and will be true partnerships representing a true link between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples?

This is the minister's opportunity in these estimates debates, in my view, to expand upon the initiatives that have been made -- the successes, if there are some, that have taken place -- but, more particularly, to provide this House with some notion of what his objective is as minister insofar as the future is concerned in realizing greater partnerships with aboriginal peoples in the forestry sector. This is his opportunity in these estimates debates to do that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's a great report, many good suggestions, and we're going to try to implement as many as we can.

M. de Jong: That's a good answer. I'm pleased to hear it. I would have thought that that kind of response would have come from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs before it came from the Minister of Forests. But be that as it may, I wonder if

[ Page 5334 ]

the minister is as familiar with the report as he appears to be, insofar as he has now characterized it as a great report. I wonder if he could indicate to the House which portions of that report -- particularly those sections dealing with forestry matters -- he felt best lent themselves to action by his government. He apparently is very familiar with the contents of the report.

[11:00]

It was not my intention, in any way, to try to entrap the minister. I merely pointed him to the existence of a report. I certainly didn't ask him to comment on which of the recommendations -- 72 in the main body of the report, and a number of others in the minority opinion . . . . I wasn't purporting to pin him down today. He is the one who characterized it as a great report that he thought his government would examine. My question, I think, was far fairer, far easier for him to respond to in these estimates debates.

I will say this. Notwithstanding the banter that takes place in this House, there are aboriginal peoples watching who take this issue very, very seriously. They're watching tonight, and they're going to read the Hansard . This is the opportunity . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Does a drive-by shooting sound familiar?

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure I understand what the Government House Leader is referring to by a "drive-by shooting." Maybe she'd like to clarify that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, byplay does not help the currency of the debate.

G. Abbott: Well, I think the comment with respect to drive-by shootings was most unparliamentary, and the House Leader should withdraw it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: According to a comment put on the record by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no, I won't. Hon. Chair, I'm actually repeating a comment that was made to me, that was put in writing by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members . . . . Who am I to recognize? I recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. It was read to me as a letter written on behalf of and concerning aboriginal matters -- that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano wrote. So I'm just quoting from correspondence from the caucus. It's actually on the public record.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the House Leader would like to clarify this more, but my understanding of the rules of the House is that if an unparliamentary comment is made and a request for its withdrawal is made, that that should be done.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I was actually quoting from correspondence. It's on the public record. So I don't think it's unparliamentary.

Some Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If indeed the opposition thinks that that language is unparliamentary and out of order, I will be most happy to withdraw, because the comment came from their side. So I'd be most happy to withdraw.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, the comment was made. A withdrawal was requested. I would like a ruling from the Chair as to whether the minister should withdraw or not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I did.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Honestly, hon. Chair, if the opposition feels that that language is unparliamentary . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm trying to clarify what it is I'm withdrawing. If the opposition thinks that that language is unparliamentary, I am more than happy to withdraw those remarks.

The Chair: Government House Leader, the Chair would request that you make an unconditional withdrawal of your comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, on the basis of those remarks being unparliamentary, I absolutely withdraw.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, I accept what the Government House Leader's comments are, and that shall be the end of it. No more comments on that topic.

Vote 37 now.

M. de Jong: Well, I feel better. It is a burden lifted from my shoulders, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Let me return to the issue before I was interrupted -- that is, to the Minister of Forests. The point is this: these are the Forests estimates. To my knowledge, we have not canvassed directly in these estimates the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Forests ministry to involve aboriginal peoples to a greater extent, to foster the training that would be necessary -- which they have called for -- to take away some of those obstacles to facilitating that involvement.

The people for whom this is a great issue, I know, would prefer to be watching this debate at another hour, but they are watching it now. And if they're not watching it now, they will review the tapes and review the Hansard at another time to see what this minister in this government said about an issue that affects them in a most profound way, an issue to which this

[ Page 5335 ]

government has devoted a great deal of resources, some of them in the Forests ministry, some in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and some of them in other ministries throughout the government.

I know that this minister will not want to stand silent -- or, in this case, sit silent -- while we canvass what for these individuals is a fundamentally important issue.

Let him now say to this House and to those people who are watching and interested in this point what his government has done, what it intends to do for the fiscal year coming and what resources he is prepared to devote to encouraging joint partnerships and the involvement of aboriginal peoples in the forestry sector, so that those people may have some idea and so that we, when we stand here again next year, can query this minister about whether or not he has met those objectives or whether the government has fallen short yet again.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have made progress on all the items you talk about: training, first nations participation in harvesting, access to timber and involvement in land use planning. We'd be happy to provide you with a detailed briefing so that you can participate intelligently in the debates.

M. de Jong: Well, we're getting somewhere.

I know that the minister and the government would not have embarked upon a comprehensive training program for aboriginal peoples without allocating a portion of the budget that would be finite, that would be fixed and that would be known. Maybe we can start there, and his staff can assist him in alerting this House as to what that figure has been and what it's projected to be next year. Because oftentimes, as we've learned from other ministries, these budgets will come from various STOBs within the ministry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The money spent on aboriginal training is FRBC dollars, and there was an arrangement whereby we would focus all FRBC discussion. But after some 40 hours of debate, we couldn't even get to FRBC, because that side of the House couldn't organize its questions and be disciplined about asking them.

M. de Jong: If the minister is frustrated by the course a particular debate has followed, then he knows the feeling that this side of the House experiences almost on a daily basis with regard to the manner in which this government conducts its business.

With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, the minister doesn't answer the question. We're dealing with this now. If he is suggesting that this is an unimportant topic that is not worthy of his reply, then let him say so. Let him say to the aboriginal people in the Cariboo, in the Chilcotin and in the Kootenays, and let him say to the aboriginal people in Prince George, in the Nass Valley, for that matter, that he doesn't think this is an important issue worthy of his time. That's what his answers and actions here indicate, Madam Chair.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't say that; I resent the member trying to put words in my mouth.

I said that there was an agreement that when we talked about FRBC, which funds training . . . . It's an important issue. It's so important that I offered you a detailed briefing so that you can ask informed questions about it.

M. de Jong: I will return to the question, which heretofore we haven't got an answer for.

The minister, I'm sure, would have this information at his fingertips, certainly with the assistance of staff sitting here with him today. He assures this House that it is an important topic, a fundamentally important topic. As far as he goes, I share that sentiment with him. Yet he seems reluctant to provide the actual information that's being requested. I'd ask him to reflect on how many of those 40 hours we could have saved if the minister weren't trying to be so coy and would simply provide an answer to the question -- which is, I presume, a fixed dollar amount.

With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, I think the minister condemns himself by his silence. He really does. The signal he is sending, in spite of a committee that spent almost a half million dollars travelling the province, eliciting the opinions of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people . . . . We heard from forestry companies, we heard from forestry workers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and in every single location we attended there was an expression of concern about the direction the government was headed on this particular point.

For the minister to say to those people, who took time out of their schedules to come during the day, to come in the evening, to make submissions about something that was fundamentally important to them, to their families, to the future of their peoples and to the future of their communities . . . . And the minister's response to that is: "I will sit here and ignore you. I don't think that your concerns are worthy of my response." That's what they're going to read tomorrow; that's what they're seeing tonight.

I don't think these are unfair questions. The minister may be tired, and I don't doubt that. He may be short-tempered; I don't doubt that. He may be frustrated; I don't doubt that.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, the Deputy Premier thinks the minister is confused. Those are his words, not mine.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, maybe the Deputy Premier is confused. I think the questioning has by no means been sterling, but I think it . . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Sterling or stirring. But the hour is late, and I think it begs the point: let's keep it simple.

If the minister thinks a line of questioning designed to extract from this government, his ministry, an indication of what it is doing, what it intends to do, what in the way of resources it intends to devote to the question of participation in forestry by aboriginal peoples . . . . If he thinks all of that is irrelevant, if that's his position, let him stand here and say so.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is what's been happening all through these estimates. The members don't listen to the answers. There was an arrangement . . . .

An Hon. Member: There were no answers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were. There were full answers and repeated answers. As a matter of fact, what I said was that

[ Page 5336 ]

there's nothing spent on training in this ministry's estimates. FRBC does spend money on training, and the arrangement was that when we talked about this important topic I would have the officials here for that. That was the arrangement we made. Those officials are not here now.

[11:15]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, I hear members wanting to learn more about my trip. I'm happy to share that travel information with them. I think the minister has better things on his mind than my trip, but I very much appreciate the request and . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Did your caucus support your being in the top 100?

M. de Jong: The Government House Leader's spirits soared when she learned of my inclusion in a particular list. That fact alone will sustain me through the rest of this week.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm almost overwhelmed, but back to the point at hand, which now almost escapes me.

The minister addresses training funds, says there are none within his ministry, but I am informed that within his ministry and particularly in the various regional offices there is a form of liaison officers that are at work. It's unclear to me from my travels around the province to what extent their duties relate exclusively to aboriginal liaison work, whether they have shared duties or whether they are assigned on a full-time basis to particular bands. It's unclear to me to what extent those are dedicated personnel to the task of aboriginal liaison, and I'm sure that the minister would want to clarify that ambiguity here during these debates.

I'm unclear, hon. Chair. Do you usually have to call upon the minister before he's obligated to . . . ?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Oh, I see. There is a line of communication between the Chair and the minister that I am not familiar with.

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair's role is to acknowledge the speaker as the speaker rises. That's the role that the Chair plays in all of this. So if no speaker rises, then I could, in this case, call the question: shall vote 37 pass? And then you rise, and I acknowledge that you have risen and say: "Hon. member for Matsqui, you have the floor."

M. de Jong: Well, it works, doesn't it, hon. Chair?

Let me ask the hon. minister this: if he is unprepared even to acknowledge whether or not his ministry includes aboriginal liaison officers, if he's unprepared to acknowledge that, either because he doesn't know or doesn't want to admit it . . . . I would think that this is a fact that the minister would want to tout as an indication of his government's desire to facilitate greater involvement, greater joint ventures. He doesn't want to acknowledge that, he doesn't know, or he doesn't care.

Again, what is the signal he is sending to the aboriginal bands around the Williams Lake area and in Terrace, where these joint partnerships are being negotiated? I heard from these bands that there was supposedly some relationship between the ministry and the band councils and the first nations governments. If that is not the case, then I'm mistaken. Again, we can make this as difficult or as easy as possible.

I don't think that these are unfair questions. I don't think that asking about an issue that is as fundamentally important to aboriginal peoples as this is is unfair or illegitimate. The minister by his silence suggests that somehow there is a lack of importance attached to this subject by him, by his government. I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would differ. Here's his chance. Tell the House and me and British Columbians to what extent within his ministry he has dedicated personnel whose duties include the facilitation of joint ventures in the forestry sector.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In some districts we have aboriginal liaison officers whose job it is to improve the relationship between the ministry and all its aspects and first nations people. If it's so important to the opposition, why didn't they raise it in the first 40 hours of debate?

M. de Jong: I'm pleased that we seem to be making some progress. With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, it escapes me why the minister would be so reluctant to share that information. Is he embarrassed? Is he embarrassed at the lack of progress? Is he upset? Has he, like one of his colleagues, received false information from his staff about some aspect of what is going on with these liaison officers? Maybe he's concerned about saying something that will land him in hot water later, when facts ultimately become known. I don't think any of that is the case. I don't think any of that is true.

But by virtue of his reluctance to engage meaningfully in a debate that has so much importance for so many people in the province, all of these questions arise. The minister obviously knows about the existence of these liaison officers. It's now taken about 20 minutes for him to admit that fact, but let's go a little further. Let's ask the minister whether he can indicate the number of officers there are of the sort that he has described and whether that number will be increasing or decreasing from the last fiscal year to the new fiscal year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Approximately 31 and stable, and no plans to increase.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I was momentarily distracted, and I apologize to the minister for that. I thought he said that the number is stable and won't be increasing. Was that the reply that he gave?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: We really are . . . . This is becoming positively accelerated now.

The number is stable, but the part of the answer that I still missed, and I apologize to the minister, is: what was the number that, as we now know, is remaining stable?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's interesting that he would tell me which answers he heard, but not the one that he didn't hear, until the end. It's 31.

Interjections.

[ Page 5337 ]

The Chair: Order, hon. members. The hour is late and we're not . . . . Shall vote 37 pass?

M. de Jong: Now that we have established some rudimentary facts surrounding the ministry's involvement in this all-important component of the forestry industry, I wonder if I can move momentarily to the question of mandate development, in particular insofar as it applies to treaty negotiations. We know from our hearings and from our discussions with the provincial negotiating team that they rely very heavily upon the Ministry of Forests for the receipt of information regarding annual allowable cut, the inventories that exist and where they exist, timber harvest and timber supply. Can the minister provide us with an indication as to how he has organized his ministry?

I will say to him quite candidly that one of the concerns we heard time and time again -- mostly, I would say, from aboriginal groups -- was a frustration with their ability to access information from government -- for example, mining information, but also forestry information. It wasn't clear to me in all instances why that frustration arose, what the difficulty was with respect to obtaining that information.

But the minister will know that one of the recommendations in the report tabled by the select standing committee was an improvement in the manner in which government in general, and his ministry in particular, transmit information for the benefit of all parties at the treaty negotiating table.

Let me say it again, hon. Chair: the minister may not be aware of this, but a number of members of this House -- 12 in total, I think; seven from the government side, five from the opposition side -- sat on a committee that spent six months travelling around the province and spent upwards of $500,000, almost half a million dollars. I'm not trying to unfairly pigeonhole the minister into endorsing, accepting or rejecting any one of those recommendations, but the minister knows . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Pigeonhole?

M. de Jong: That's a big word, like chocolate milkshake, Deputy Premier. I'll explain it to you later.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Isn't it "buttonhole?"

M. de Jong: Not where I come from, House Leader.

The minister will know that this has been an area of complaint. I know that his staff are aware of that. I know his staff who are with him have an answer to the question of how he has endeavoured to reorganize his ministry to take account of the frustrations expressed by aboriginal peoples in accessing information regarding timber harvest. Surely that is an issue . . . . Again I say to the minister: if he thinks that is an illegitimate issue, if he thinks that's an unfair topic to be raising in these debates, then let him say so. Let him stand up.

Because if he doesn't stand up, that is the implication of his silence. That is what British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can take from his silence: again, here is a topic that he doesn't think is worth his time; it's not important to him; it's not important to his government.

So my question again, in case he misunderstood or didn't hear the first time, is: can he provide the House with an indication of how his ministry has reorganized itself to facilitate the better dissemination of technical information to people at the treaty table regarding forestry-related matters?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a question of the ministry reorganizing itself; it hasn't and probably won't need to. It's a question of whether or not we take the data that is available in paper form and create it in digitized systems, and that is very expensive. As funds are available, we will try to do that.

M. de Jong: Well, we're getting somewhere. Do I take it from that response that the minister acknowledges at least that there has been a difficulty in the past?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The same difficulty exists for anybody who wants digitized information who could only get paper information. It's the same problem.

M. de Jong: I very much appreciate the minister's candour and full disclosure on this information. It's very helpful to those who are participating in this process. We now have some 50 tables involved in treaty negotiations. It undoubtedly is putting a burden on not just his ministry but other ministries.

One of the criticisms we heard from aboriginal peoples was the cost involved in obtaining this information. I won't presume to be an expert on anything, let alone timber supply data and annual allowable cut information. But the concern that has been brought to our attention is that information that is available to the government side of the table is only available to aboriginal negotiators at a cost. I'm not sure what that cost is and how it is calculated -- on an hourly rate, on a fixed rate or on some sort of a tariff.

But it does occur to me that where these negotiations are taking place, technical information of that sort that is available to one side could logically be made available to the other so that everyone's dealing with the same information.

We have been told that insofar as my information and forest-related information is concerned, there is oftentimes a cost or a charge involved with first nations accessing that information. Can the minister indicate whether that is on some sort of a tariff? How are those fees calculated?

[11:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're happy to answer all your questions, and we'll take them down and provide full and detailed answers.

M. de Jong: I suspect we are now getting to the most productive part of the debate. [Laughter.] What I would like to do, hon. Chair, in order to speed things up, in order to expedite matters . . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: No, no, I think hon. members are getting tired, and I'd like to move this process along as best I can.

Hon. Chair, I will suggest to the minister that from here on in, I will try to phrase my questions in a way that he can indicate his agreement with my position simply by nodding. He won't have to answer, and you won't have to acknowledge him.

For example, I am going to suggest to the minister that, in fact, in many instances, information that is otherwise available to government of British Columbia negotiators within the realm of forestry statistics and technical information is only available to aboriginal negotiators at a hefty cost, and that in some cases those aboriginal bands are without the means to purchase that information. Therefore they are placed, in their view -- and I think legitimately -- at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.

[ Page 5338 ]

The negotiations hit an obstacle, they don't move forward, the costs continue to mount, lawyers get rich, and negotiators get rich. But we don't move any closer to certainty, we don't move any closer to finality, and we don't move any closer to attracting the investment dollars that will undoubtedly flow once these issues have been settled. All of that comes to a grinding halt simply because the minister and the government are stuck on a policy that operates in a disadvantaged way to aboriginal negotiators. If the minister agrees with all of that, hon. Chair, maybe he could simply nod.

Interjections.

The Chair: The member continues.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to the minister for that answer.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I think the House Leader said "intently," and I'm flattered, again.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: If the hon. Government House Leader doesn't understand the shotgun approach to House humour, then I'm not going to explain it to her.

I want to again turn my attention to the Minister of Forests, who seems to be nodding off.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: There, he's come back. I think he's back with us, if only in spirit -- a shadow of his former self.

Let me ask the hon. Forests minister this. We canvassed very briefly this notion of training, which the hon. Forests minister indicated was properly the responsibility of the Forest Renewal B.C. organization. But we were able to ascertain and confirm that there are Ministry of Forests liaison officers out there doing something. The minister was very vague, but I know he will clear up that vagueness here shortly. I know that he will want to do that.

My concern, based on what I've heard, is that these liaison officers, these particular staff members -- and I think he said that there were 31 of them -- have a very vague notion of what their duty is, of what their job entails, and in some cases that has led to duplication. It has led to inefficiency, and it has led, really, to a wasting of scarce governmental resources.

Those are submissions on my part. I know that the minister will tell me so if I'm not correct, or if I am correct -- that these individuals have not been provided with a full mandate, a full job description, full terms of reference -- the minister can simply nod to indicate his agreement with those submissions.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister could repeat that. I didn't hear that.

One of the submissions we heard during the course of our travels across the province came from a young lady. She was from New Aiyansh, but I think she made her submissions to the committee in Prince Rupert. I think it affected a lot of committee members rather profoundly, insofar as she described the frustration she felt as a young aboriginal person. I think she was in her late twenties, early thirties. She described a situation where she and her significant other wished to purchase a home. The cost of the home was, in relative terms, quite low -- I think about $30,000.

She described the frustration that she and her husband felt, going from bank to bank trying to secure the financing necessary to purchase that home. Both of them were employed, both of them earned a reasonable income, and yet the difficulty they faced was an unwillingness on the part of lending institutions to extend the security that they required, partially because of their inability to attach to the land, which fell within a reserve.

You can take that issue and apply it to the difficulties that exist at a corporate commercial level, where legitimate business ventures are trying to attract the kind of investment capital that they need to employ aboriginal and, indeed, non-aboriginal peoples. The point I would like to make to the minister . . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: It always intrigues me how the Minister of Agriculture is able to provide these witty lines when he's got someone to feed them to him. He's sitting in the minister's chair. If he'd like to enter the debate, maybe he could ask the minister to move over one, and he can participate in a really meaningful way.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: If the Agriculture minister wants to jump in and provide an answer, I'm happy to listen to it. At this point, I'm happy to listen to just about anything from that side of the House.

I was told that the practice, when a minister has to leave the House to relieve himself, is to continue until he comes back.

The Chair: Hon. members, as you know, the rules suggest that the speakers have 15 minutes, and so you're entitled to 15 minutes to make speeches. There are no rules that say anyone has to answer the questions.

M. de Jong: Every day I wake up, and I ask myself: "What will I learn today?" Today I learned, thanks to you -- with the greatest respect -- that even though I get to ask questions, the ministers don't have to answer. So I've learned something today. That's tremendous.

But I think that the young lady I was describing, who lives in New Aiyansh and is wondering why she and her spouse can't buy a home, would expect an answer. I think the hundreds, if not thousands, of aboriginal people who are looking to the future with some hope, who are asking themselves whether all of the agony they are enduring as part of this treaty negotiation exercise is going to be worthwhile -- whether the difficulties they have experienced in the past, the inequalities that they legitimately feel that they've endured and the hope that they are expressing, time and time and time

[ Page 5339 ]

again, to put that behind them and move into the mainstream of Canadian society . . . . I think those people are asking themselves why this government and, in particular, this minister are so reluctant to engage in a debate that affects them in such a profound and fundamental way.

It's almost getting time for me to join the minister, wherever he may be, hon. Chair. I hope the buildings are connected to sewer.

Let me say this. We will undoubtedly return to this topic, because I think it is one that is important. But the people that will review these transcripts -- and there won't be many -- will be centrally concerned with the issue that we are endeavouring to discuss. They will see that when the opposition side of the House raised legitimate questions about their future, about the vision or lack of vision that this government may have with respect to how their future is going to be affected by their involvement in the forestry sector . . . .

They will see that when it mattered most, this government didn't care and this minister didn't care. The minister apparently has other things on his mind. The minister doesn't think that the question of aboriginal involvement in the forestry sector is important enough to warrant his involvement in these debates. This is his chance. He's got one last chance, for now, to stand up and make a statement on behalf of a part of his government's activity that we were told was important, that we were told was a fundamental tenet of their re-election platform.

Forever, from this day forward, when any member of this government or this government's back bench stands up and tries to tell the people of British Columbia that they care about the plight of first nations, we will know that it's not true. We will point to this day, when this minister turned his back on aboriginal peoples right across this province.

[11:45]

He's got one more chance to correct that fact, which is more than an impression tonight -- it is a fact that this government doesn't care. Let the minister stand up now and address this very important issue if he dares, if he now has the courage.

G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to ask some specific questions about forestry in the Shuswap riding. This has obviously been a subject of great concern to me. Forestry is the dominant industry in the Shuswap. The industry in the Shuswap faces a variety of challenges, and I'm looking forward to this opportunity to discuss these issues with the minister. I'm pleased that we have a good deal of time to do that. I certainly have a lot of thoughts, concerns and questions with respect to forestry in the Shuswap, and I look forward to this opportunity to discuss them with the minister.

I think the difficulties of forestry in the Shuswap, and indeed in other areas in the Shuswap, became very much evident -- as you know, hon. Chair -- last fall with the crisis at Evans Forest Products in Malakwa and Golden. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is here, and he is certainly very well aware of the difficulties that Evans Forest Products faced in his riding. The other side of Evans Forest Products is their cedar operation at Malakwa, which is in my riding. The plight of Evans Forest Products last fall and winter was and is of very great concern to me.

What I'd like to begin with here are some questions with respect to Evans Forest Products and how they have fared in the months since the restructuring agreement was concluded last December. Given that it's now six months, I'm very much interested in -- as I'm sure the workers at Evans Forest Products and certainly the communities of Golden, Revelstoke, Malakwa, Sicamous and other areas of the Shuswap are very much concerned with -- how Evans have fared since the restructuring agreement.

I'd like to begin by asking the minister how Evans have done. Have they met the objectives which were posed in the business plan? Have those objectives been met to date?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, the committee knows that I will take note of all questions relevant to estimates and will reply fully in due course.

G. Abbott: With all due respect to the Government House Leader, I don't believe that this is a topic where you write the question down on a piece of paper and get a satisfactory answer back on paper. I think this is an issue which very much demands the personal attention of the minister. It is certainly something that occupied much of my time for months last fall, and it's very important to me personally, as I have many friends who work at Evans Forest Products. I want to know how they are doing. I don't expect that putting the questions down on paper and receiving the answers on paper is a satisfactory way to deal with that at all.

If the minister is not available or is unprepared to field my questions with respect to Evans Forest Products, one thing I'm certainly prepared to do is to have -- as I believe is permissable under the rules of the House -- the staff that are available here from the Ministry of Forests address those questions which are of a technical nature and respond directly to me with the answers. I certainly would not pose questions of a political nature to them, but I think it would be entirely appropriate if the staff that are present could respond directly to my questions. I would be pleased to receive answers to some of my questions on that basis.

Hon. Chair, I wonder if you could advise me whether we could have, from the government side, some indication of whether they are prepared to let the questions be fielded directly by the staff that are present.

The Chair: As I understand the particular resolution under which we function . . . . I'll read the first point: "The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the minister."

My ruling would be that in seeing this is

Section B and that it also says that a minister may defer to a "deputy," that's the way it would have to work, and that only works in

Section A, not in

Section B. In this House the minister is the individual who responds, or a member of the executive council.

G. Abbott: You'll have to forgive me, because I'm a relatively new member of this chamber. Could you please explain to me this

Section A and

Section B difference? I don't understand that, frankly. Just for clarification, I'd appreciate a brief explanation of the difference between

Section A and

Section B.

The Chair: The motion was passed by this House on April 16, 1997, and there was a previous one passed in the last session which explained all the differences and the rules that apply to each of the two sections in which estimates and Committee of Supply take place. I am sure the member is aware of all of those.

[ Page 5340 ]

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that clarification.

If I can continue, then, with the questions with respect to Evans Forest Products. In the period between late September -- when, I believe, the severe problems at Evans Forest Products became evident -- and December 6, I believe it was, when the restructuring plan received at least approval in principle, a whole range of concerns were identified with respect to Evans Forest Products and how the arrangements under which they operated would have to be changed by the province in order to make the firm work on a long-term and sustainable basis.

Among those many issues which were raised -- very forcefully, I think -- by workers, management and professional foresters during that period . . . . I think that at the time this situation was resolved, at least for the present. I think everyone concluded that the dominant challenge for Evans Forest Products was the high cost of extracting fibre in the Golden TSA. The problem was not as acute in the Eagle River or Salmon Arm TSA of Evans Forest Products. The high cost of extracting timber in the Golden TSA was very much front and centre in terms of issues that had to be resolved in order to see the long-term viability of Evans Forest Products returned.

What I'd like to have the minister comment on, if he would, with respect to this issue of high fibre-extraction costs, is: first and foremost, what has been done since the restructuring agreement of December? What actions have been undertaken by the provincial government to ensure that extraction costs in the Golden TSA are brought to a viable level?

I guess, like the member for Matsqui, I'm rather puzzled about how we can deal with issues of this serious a nature in this House without any kind of answer from the government side. Again, what we're going through here is some kind of ridiculous head-butting exercise. We certainly would rather be doing other things; perhaps government members would be, as well. But if we're going to be here into the foreseeable future, as a member of this Legislature, I certainly would like to see my very serious questions answered with respect to Evans Forest Products.

These are the Forests estimates. Evans Forest Products' crisis and subsequent restructuring is probably the most important issue that the Ministry of Forests faced over the past 12 months. The situation more recently with Skeena Cellulose and Repap is certainly along the same lines. These are very serious and very fundamental issues that the Minister of Forests ought to be responding to me about. Frankly, if we're going to be here, I would like to see either the minister or his designate or staff respond to the very important questions that I pose. Any member of the executive council can respond.

I think it's unfortunate, in many ways, that the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is not in the cabinet, because I'm sure that he would be pleased to respond to my questions on Evans Forest Products if he had the opportunity. I think these are two important issues that need to be addressed. I don't think it's acceptable for the government to deal with important issues on this basis.

At any rate, since the minister is unprepared to respond to my question about the high cost of extracting fibre in the Golden TSA, let me simply conclude on that particular point -- that in fact the high extraction cost of fibre in the Golden TSA was and is the leading challenge to the economic health and viability of Evans Forest Products. Obviously, Evans Forest Products -- particularly in the Golden TSA -- operates in an environment that is probably the most challenging of all the TSAs in British Columbia.

Perhaps some would argue that point, but I think that when we take into account the kind of majestic, rugged scenery that has prompted a number of national parks in the Golden area, it's not surprising that there are high fibre-extraction costs in the Golden TSA.

The problem with high extraction costs involves a number of things. Certainly the application of the Forest Practices Code to the Golden TSA is one where the difficulties with the Forest Practices Code that the government has now acknowledged are taken into account. Obviously the cost of doing business is beyond the viable range. One of the statistics that I recall about the Golden TSA that I thought particularly put the issue into perspective was that some 80 percent of logging in the Golden TSA had to be done by either high-lead logging or helicopter logging, both of which are substantially higher cost methods of extraction than conventional skid logging.

Perhaps this is a good question for the minister. The Minister of Employment and Investment is here; maybe he can answer the question. Could the minister -- or indeed any minister on that side of the House -- advise what the comparison is between conventional skid logging and the cost of high-lead or helicopter logging, particularly in the Golden TSA? Could the minister advise of that, please?

[12:00]

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Sorry, hon. Chair. I heard some "ayes." I was just curious as to what . . . . Was there a vote held there?

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Oh, I see. There's some trickery involved here -- great.

This is really a useful dialogue I'm having with myself here, and I'm looking forward to continuing it. I've never actually been greeted with so much unanimity on the government side to suggestions that I have to make, and that's good. One gets so few opportunities, really, in the course of a parliamentary career to thrust an idea forward and to have it greeted with a resounding dead sound. That's the special opportunity I have here, and I obviously cherish this opportunity to continue it.

Just to continue this incisive line of questioning with respect to Evans Forest Products, I'm sure the minister and perhaps his associates on the other side can assist me on some of these questions. If not, as I've said, it would be great if staff could answer these questions directly, because some of these are of a technical nature and staff would be most useful in satisfying my concerns with respect to them.

As I've noted, there were a number of challenges that faced Evans Forest Products prior to its restructuring last December. I really would have liked to have known, as my first question that wasn't answered indicated, if the restructuring had in fact been achieving its objectives or not achieving its objectives. Unfortunately, we don't know that, because, for whatever reason, the minister has not chosen to answer any of my questions.

An Hon. Member: Except with his silence.

G. Abbott: Except with his silence. But there is a range of issues that contributed to the difficulties at Evans Forest Products.

Interjection.

[ Page 5341 ]

G. Abbott: The minister being primary amongst them? Perhaps. I would ask him that question if he were here.

The Chair: Hon. member, I have to draw your attention to the time. The 15 minutes seem to run consecutively.

G. Abbott: I was very surprised that I had gone on for 15 minutes. It seemed like 15 seconds to me, but sometimes time does fly.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I sensed I was in a red-light district there for a minute. I was actually quite alarmed, hon. Chair, that I might have fallen into such a disreputable part of the world.

S. Hawkins: I think Hansard is falling asleep up there.

G. Abbott: Hansard is quite gripped by this discussion, as you can tell.

The folks at home are probably wondering -- when the camera panned up the wall above me here -- what it was. I suspect it's maybe just a moment's letdown on the part of the Hansard camera operator. I'm sure it could happen even when the Minister for Employment and Investment is speaking, at times. I personally have never actually encountered . . . .

You'd like me to get back on the topic, wouldn't you, hon. Chair? Well, I'm pleased to do that. For a moment there I was distracted by some of the catcalls coming from the other side of the House, but now I'm going to return straight to the point.

As I was noting, one of the challenges facing Evans Forest Products was the high cost of extracting fibre. Another, which was identified, I think, early on in the process . . . . There is some more dispute about this one as to the real impact it had on Evans' financial difficulties last fall, but I think it's one that perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment could particularly comment on. I look forward, actually, to his comments on it.

One of the areas that the company forcefully identified as a problem early on in the process was the stumpage rate which it faced, particularly the stumpage on pulp logs. Pulp logs certainly are at a minimum rate, as I think everyone knows. Nevertheless, under the old model of stumpage which existed in British Columbia, I believe there was more of an allowance for stumpage loss where a company was in particularly unproductive operating areas, and there was absolutely no possibility of a forest company making ends meet in that particular operating environment.

The company argued that another look needed to be taken at stumpage rates that the company faced in the Golden TSA. I believe they argued that it was not fair for Golden to have to deal with the same stumpage environment that was throughout the rest of the interior, because, as I have noted previously, they faced particular challenges in the Golden TSA with respect to the extraction of timber.

The next question, I guess -- and perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment can comment on it, in addition to the minister -- would be . . . . My understanding is that the government was, and is, looking at what is termed the "Repap" proposal for stumpage in British Columbia. I'm not sure whether the government has proceeded to change the stumpage assessment formula for that in recent months. Perhaps the minister or the Minister of Employment and Investment could comment on the so-called Repap proposal for stumpage, and on whether the government continues to review that with a possibility of implementing it for the interior wetlands.

I guess the Minister of Employment and Investment hasn't gone into that area as much as he'd like to and perhaps doesn't feel comfortable answering the question. That's fair enough; I don't question that. It's just that I'd welcome an answer from anyone right now; but we'll continue.

The issue of stumpage. I sense that we're going to have some difficulty resolving here tonight whether the government continues to feel that stumpage wasn't as big an issue as the company felt it was, at least initially. I think this whole area of stumpage is a fascinating one which, in this particular discussion, would be very, very useful to have more information on. Certainly, at any point, if any member on the government side can leap in and make a contribution with respect to this whole issue of stumpage and its effect on the industry, I would welcome it.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

I see we have a new hon. Chair here. This is good -- welcome. I hope you enjoy the debate as much as the previous hon. Chair did. She was actually held in quite rapt fascination by me during much of my remarks. There's a lot of interesting stuff we've been discussing here. Perhaps you've been watching it on television when you didn't have an opportunity to be directly in the House. If you want me to actually recap any portions of the discussions to date, I'd be prepared to do that, hon. Chair, but I suspect you've probably been watching it on television.

I know that thousands and thousands of British Columbians are tuned in now at 11 minutes after midnight to engage with the minister from Shuswap and the hon. minister of . . . .

An Hon. Member: Minister from Shuswap?

G. Abbott: Did I call myself the minister from Shuswap? Hon. Chair, I'm so embarrassed. I referred to myself as the minister from Shuswap. I hope you see the colour coming up in my cheeks. I'm so embarrassed to have done that. I suspect that it was because I, as a member, had been asking questions of the minister and then, as a result of sort of a dead sound coming from the other side, actually responding to the questions, as well. I suspect that what I have done is inadvertently actually promote myself to being the minister for Shuswap, as opposed to the member.

An Hon. Member: Ask me the questions. I'll answer them.

G. Abbott: Well, that's a possibility. I don't know what the Chair would think about that, but that might be a possibility.

At any rate, to return to Evans Forest Products and this very useful discussion that we're having here . . . . That was just a brief note of welcome to you, hon. Chair, knowing the interest that you have in these proceedings and your evident interest in the Hansard man, as well.

The one issue which I think ties into the serious situation at Evans Forest Products is the application of the Forest Practices Code. It certainly entered into the high extraction cost, I think, to some extent. One of the leading arguments that was

[ Page 5342 ]

made -- not only by the company but by the unions as well -- was that the difficult operating environment and the application of the Forest Practices Code needed to be reflected in some recognition in the kind of stumpage rate which was paid by Evans through the Golden timber supply area.

What I'd like to ask the minister next, if I may, is whether the Forest Practices Code has in any way, informally or formally, been relaxed for the Golden TSA to take account of the very difficult operating environment which exists there.

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

G. Abbott: I actually have a lot more questions yet. But I guess, as has been mentioned a number of times here, the minister is under no obligation to answer questions and is under no obligation to actually even be here in a physical form. That's fair enough.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: There is a form other than the physical, and that is the metaphysical. The metaphysical form is the second form . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yes, it is. I have a very profound sense of the metaphysical at times. As I used to say: "When I was a lad, and old Shep was a pup, through the hills and meadows we'd run. Just a boy and his dog, we were both full of fun. We grew up together that way." A particularly touching moment, I think, hon. Chair. I hope you'll excuse this quite unparliamentary lapse into an emotional event from my childhood, when I was a lad.

That's probably about as metaphysical and profound as I can get -- a reflection on old Shep.

[12:15]

An Hon. Member: I wish I had a dog.

G. Abbott: Everybody would like to have a dog. Sometimes I think I've had too many dogs. I know that not everyone shares that view, but, being man's best friend and all that, it is important to acknowledge the importance of the dog in the life of humans.

The Chair: Hon. member, now back to vote 37.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that timely intervention. I am at times led astray by members on the other side, and I appreciate your timely intervention to bring me back into line.

I think we just really scratched the surface here in terms of the implications of the Forest Practices Code on the situation at Evans Forest Products. I found it interesting and kind of gratifying that in very recent weeks the Premier, the Minister of Forests and, I suppose by extension, the entire government have in effect admitted that there were very serious problems with the way in which the Forest Practices Code was structured and implemented in British Columbia. Certainly we've seen this come up as a very important theme in the jobs and timber accord. It's a theme that we hear rather frequently, particularly from the Premier but also, at times, from the Minister of Forests.

I think it's good, given the difficulties that Evans Forest Products faced, that there is now officially an acknowledgment from government that the Forest Practices Code did play a role in the difficulties that were imposed on the forest industry in British Columbia generally. I think, given all of the components in the difficulties at Evans Forest Products that I have outlined, that the application of the Forest Practices Code -- the problems with it -- would be particularly acute there because of the difficulties which are imposed by the operating terrain.

One of the things, for example, that is frequently noted is the very difficult costs for roadbuilding, particularly in the Golden TSA. Again, hon. Chair, as I'm sure you know from your many visits through the Golden area, the terrain is of a very steep nature. When you have very steep terrain, it's necessary, in order to keep grades down, that far more road is required. And in many cases, far more culverts and preparatory work are necessary than what one would certainly find in an area with less severe terrain.

Again, that reflects on the argument that was made, I think very persuasively, by Evans Forest Products about the difficulties of facing a stumpage regime which is similar to the rest of the interior wet belt.

I think, given the relative brevity of the answers I've been receiving . . . .

S. Hawkins: The non-existence of answers.

G. Abbott: Well, I don't want to say non-existent, because I think the Government House Leader did assure me at one point that my words were not falling on deaf ears or were not being cast like pearls before swine -- or some metaphorical extravagance like that.

I think I was assured by the Government House Leader that they were making copious notes of my questions and that there would be similar thorough responses to the questions at some point. So it's not entirely that the answers have been non-existent. They have been perhaps disappointing, perhaps rather brief . . .

S. Hawkins: Inconsiderate.

G. Abbott: . . . perhaps inconsiderate, and certainly not in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

Nevertheless, there are also some issues with respect to Evans Forest Products surrounding the annual allowable cut. I think there are some very intriguing questions here. I don't know if the minister is going to be able to come back in and respond to any of these.

I think that one of the really central features I want to explore about the Evans restructuring arrangement is the new provisions for harvesting. My understanding is that with respect to Evans Forest Products, the province has put into place for the treatment of the Golden TSA annual allowable cut a model which I think is referred to as the TIPSY model. I'm not sure what TIPSY stands for. Maybe I could ask the minister what TIPSY stands for before I proceed.

I thought perhaps one of the ministers might know what TIPSY actually stood for. I don't think it's any sort of disparaging reference to the sobriety of the model, the minister or indeed the member asking the questions. I suspect, rather, that TIPSY is one of those acronyms, like the RAT team.

We could speculate here on what TIPSY might be. I see the Government House Leader is doing that now, but I'm not going to fall into the trap of getting off track.

Interjection.

[ Page 5343 ]

G. Abbott: Well, sometimes I think I can.

The Chair: Hon. members, on vote 37.

G. Abbott: Yes, hon. Chair. I'm not going to fall into that trap of getting into speculation about what the TIPSY model might be, but I am making a serious point about the TIPSY model. The TIPSY model replaces the old model for the level of greenup that has to be achieved before a forest can be cut. It has great implications for Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA. I suspect that as the TIPSY model is extended to other parts of the province . . . . I guess if the minister could comment on this, it would be most enlightening. Has that new model been extended to other parts of the province? I'm not sure. I'm sure he would be, but he unfortunately can't respond at this time.

The issue, though, was that it has an enormous impact on the amount of fibre which is going to be available on an annual basis to Evans Forest Products. If we have an annual allowable cut of 200,000 cubic metres and if we bring in a model which permits the cutting of timber at different stages of growth, that annual allowable cut might be expanded to 300,000 square metres, for example, because of the fundamental implications of the model on cutting in the TSA.

In the case of Evans Forest Products, again reviewing the sundry challenges which Golden faced, one of the major problems that led, in most recent years, to a reduction in productivity at Evans Forest Products was the inability of the company to achieve its annual allowable cut. In the case of Evans Forest Products, as I recall -- and perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- the annual allowable cut was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350,000 cubic metres. That was the government-approved annual allowable cut.

However, due to the sundry challenges -- which I hope I've identified in recent minutes here -- in 1996, I believe, Evans Forest Products was only harvesting something like 180,000 cubic metres. There were a whole range of problems associated with the industry that needed to be resolved in order to make the proposition at Evans Forest Products work. Clearly among those was ensuring that there was an annual allowable cut which was sustainable in the long term.

Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could advise me whether there is a sufficient quorum in the House at present.

The Chair: There appears to be.

G. Abbott: How many members are present in the chamber, and how many are required under the rules, hon. Chair?

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Chair: There appears to be a quorum present. Shall vote 37 pass?

Interjections.

The Chair: The hon. member carries on.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that very much, hon. Chair. It's always good to know that the arguments and the propositions which one is making are achieving if not rapt attention at least the general appreciation of a sufficient number of members in the House.

Please come in. This is great. This is probably as fascinating a debate as you'll ever enjoy in this House, so come on in. If you ask me nicely I might even sing "Old Shep" for you. That's been quite a hit in here tonight.

The Chair: Order, please, member. On vote 37.

G. Abbott: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I'm sorry. Again I digress, and I apologize for that.

The point I was making, I think, at the time at which I alertly noted that there perhaps wasn't a sufficient number of members in the House to deal with it, was with respect to the annual allowable cut and the very critical importance assigned to having a sufficient annual allowable cut for the industry to maintain itself on a long-term basis. It was clear, because this is one of the elements that was key to the business plan -- that Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA be assured a cutting level in excess of 300,000 cubic metres per year.

[12:30]

My next question to the minister, or any member of the House which the minister so designates, is: what will the long-term annual allowable cut committed to Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA be?

There are a broad range of questions which surround Evans Forest Products and the difficulties which they experienced last year. I don't want to go on for hours about it. It is, however, certainly a very serious situation, I think, for the several hundred men and women who work in the forest industry in Golden and Malakwa. This was just about as serious an issue as one could ever be confronted with. Certainly that was the view in Golden and Malakwa when I visited those communities on a number of occasions last fall.

They were absolutely sick about the prospect of losing their jobs in the future -- and quite rightly. They hoped to see some addressing of the many problems surrounding the economic difficulties of Evans Forest Products. Certainly everyone was very pleased when those difficulties were at least temporarily resolved through the restructuring plan for Evans Forest Products, which was endorsed in December of last year.

I don't want to confine my remarks entirely to Evans Forest Products; it is not the only forestry firm in the Shuswap. There are probably a dozen others -- mills of large and small size -- and they have problems which I'm sure the minister would be pleased . . . .

I see that the Premier is here now, and the Minister of Employment and Investment. Perhaps one of them would like to respond to some of the questions that are posed, too.

Could the minister advise of the amount of not satisfactorily restocked area in the Salmon Arm forest district?

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I hate to see the members on the other side wearing out their vocal cords by shouting "aye" constantly. I'm quite prepared to get up again without being asked to do so, but it is appreciated.

I don't think I got quite the answer that I had hoped for to the question about NSR lands in the Salmon Arm forest district. This is, I think, an important issue -- certainly one that I

[ Page 5344 ]

think is important. We can, I think . . . . If we want to create a viable and sustainable forestry in not only the Shuswap but in British Columbia generally, we need to address the NSR issue very forcefully. It is my understanding that Forest Renewal B.C. would be an agency that would take a front and centre role in doing that. I would have been delighted to ask the minister about that -- the success, or lack of it, which FRBC had been enjoying with respect to replanting areas that had not been satisfactorily restocked. But I guess that's probably not going to work out at this time.

One of the questions that has recently been quite prominent in the newspapers in the Shuswap is the question of some selective or other logging in the Mount Ida area of Salmon Arm. I understand from the newspapers that the Ministry of Forests has undertaken a particular public process to assist it in determining whether that selective or . . . .

Is that for a cabinet meeting or . . . ? Don't we have to recess for a minute? I'll just wait till the bells pass. I want everybody to hear my next comments.

The Chair: Hon. member, carry on.

G. Abbott: Thanks very much, hon. Chair. I just . . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I was just sharing a moment of mirth with my fellow members across the floor. I appreciate the challenge you face as Chair in maintaining order amidst the kind of joyous mirth that occasionally jumps up. I'm sure that if this hon. member were to share the piece of paper with you, you'd understand completely why it had become the object of mirth. Perhaps he'll do that for you.

The question I was asking at the time I was so rudely interrupted by those bells, whatever they meant -- cabinet or whatever it happened to be -- and the point I was closing in on at the time I was interrupted was what public process has been devised by the Ministry of Forests to deal with the proposed logging of Mount Ida. I would like to pose that to the minister, or in his metaphysicality, to any other member of the cabinet who chooses to respond to it.

The Chair: The member continues.

G. Abbott: I thought the Minister of Agriculture was perhaps pinch-hitting for the Minister of Forests. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, as a minister, is very knowledgable in the area of logging, timber extraction and that kind of thing. Actually, if it's okay with the Minister of Agriculture, he could pinch-hit for the Minister of Forests on some of these questions. That would be great. I'd be really delighted.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm just here to heckle.

G. Abbott: Just here to heckle. Well, even that would actually be an improvement on the . . . . Even heckling, hon. Chair, would be a great improvement on the dialogue that has been occurring in here recently.

I will continue with some of the issues faced by the various forestry companies in the Shuswap. I appreciate the time that the government and the minister have taken to respond to these questions, because they are important to me and to my constituents. I do appreciate the time and attention the government is giving to me here.

I've pretty much had an unrestricted opportunity to ask questions. They've never even interrupted me with answers, and I have to say I really appreciate that. It's rare that one has this opportunity, in a very unrestricted way, to ask questions and not have to have the bother of those troublesome, pesky answers in the middle of the questions. It's pretty special.

I see my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs has arrived now, too. He and I had a remarkable exchange in Municipal Affairs estimates, and I'm just about to ask another question. I see that you're again going to be strictly enforcing that relevancy rule again, so I'm onto my next issue, hon. Chair, and I think this is a very important one. I see now that the former Minister of Forests is here, so there is no shortage of qualified ministers here to answer my question.

The issue I'd like to address next, if I may, is the whole issue of pulp and how the industry is going to deal with it. During the periods when pulp prices were high, when the market for pulp was very good and the costs of newsprint and cardboard were rising every day, it actually paid forest companies to harvest pulp. Everybody was pretty happy. But of course, as the Minister of Employment and Investment explained in the House very persuasively the other day, the price of pulp fluctuates with the market. Sometimes the price of pulp is going to be down.

Perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment could comment on the question I have. As I say, I found his explanation for this very persuasive the other day. Would it be a good idea when the price of pulp is low to in some way . . . ? I don't know what mechanisms could be used here, but perhaps the minster could comment. When the price of pulp is low, when the market is weak and the price is low, would it be a good idea to shrink the size of the cut of pulpwood through artificial or other means?

Would this have the effect, artificially or otherwise, of limiting the flow of pulp into the market? Would that have the effect of raising pulp prices? In turn, if the artificial reduction in the volume of pulp leads to higher prices and makes the harvesting of pulp viable again, at that point -- artificially or otherwise -- you could expand the volume of pulpwood that the companies could deal with.

This is an issue, and I must confess I don't have the background or the expertise to form any conclusions about whether that is even theoretically a viable proposition. Given the importance that pulp plays in the economics of forest companies and given the obvious importance that forest companies play in the province, would such a proposition be worth considering? I wonder if I could pose that question to the Minister of Employment and Investment to see whether he has any thoughts he might share in that regard.

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

The hon. member continues.

G. Abbott: Well, thank you hon. Chair. You know, I find ice water is so refreshing. It rejuvenates not only the body but the soul. I don't think I'll burst into . . . .

An Hon. Member: Song?

G. Abbott: I don't think I'll burst into song again. I try to restrict that to basically one song usually per legislative outing. Did I sing more than once in Municipal Affairs estimates? I'm not going to sing again, no matter how many people ask me to do it.

An Hon. Member: They're imploring you. Look, they're begging. They're on their knees.

[ Page 5345 ]

G. Abbott: I know they are, but I don't think that would be right. I think I've probably tested the relevancy rule far too many times already this evening, and I'm certainly not going to test it again. I'm going to stick on point, on question, and make sure that we get these very important issues underway and out of the way.

We thoroughly discussed the proposal for Mount Ida, and I think we pretty well canvassed to the limit the issue of the NSR lands in the Salmon Arm forest district. I really wish we could get more discussion going with respect to the proposition that I made about the elasticity of pulp production in a weak pulp market. I think that has some potential. I'm sure that there must be some very good arguments as to why that proposition has never been endorsed by government. I'm sure there is a very good explanation for it; I just wish someone on the government side could share it with me.

I'm trying not to be a difficult person; I try to look at the facts and assess those facts and draw appropriate conclusions from the facts that have been put before me. I think that I would certainly do that with respect to the issue of pulp prices and pulp supply, as well.

[12:45]

I think it's an important issue, because in the Evans case, it was one of those issues which I think contributed, in a very substantial way, to the economic difficulties they faced in the fall of 1996. Just to use this as an example of this very important issue, as I recall, Evans Forests Products were losing substantial amounts of money on their pulp logs prior to the difficulties they experienced last fall.

With pulp prices depressed and with the particularly difficult operating environment that the company was working in, it cost them a lot more to extract and to ship, and so on, all of the pulp logs than was the case elsewhere in the interior wetbelt -- and indeed elsewhere in the province of British Columbia. Because of the high cost of extraction, the high cost of the Forest Practices Code, a stumpage rate that was no different than folks in easier operating environments faced, it all contributed to compounding the problem of dealing with the pulp component in the annual allowable cut of Evans Forest Products.

So I think it is a very important issue. If, for example, there had been, for Evans Forest Products, an elasticity in the way that they dealt with pulp logs, perhaps it would in some measure have assisted them in overcoming the difficulties that they faced. Again, everyone is just happy as heck to cut down and ship and process pulp logs when the price of pulp is good. When the price of pulp is depressed, people get depressed as well. The market is depressed, and the producers are depressed. They can't possibly make money on pulp logs in that kind of situation.

So would an elasticity in cut help that? I think it might. I'm sure there is a range -- a battery, perhaps -- of arguments to suggest that that's not a good idea. Perhaps it's related to employment; perhaps it's related to other issues. I don't know. I've invited the minister and/or any member of the government -- even if someone from the gallery were to shout down and answer me, or if there were some divine intervention to alert me to the reasons why . . . .

S. Hawkins: Lightning didn't quite strike that side on Saturday.

G. Abbott: Even if lightning struck me and rendered me mute, I would be happy. I would be satisfied that at least some response to my question had been achieved.

Unfortunately, that hasn't . . . . But, again, the House Leader has assured me that they are taking copious notes of the important questions that I'm posing here and that in due course, I guess, I'll be receiving a thorough response to this. On this particular question, I really would appreciate a response, because I do think it's an important issue.

Turning our sights elsewhere, then, having discussed pulp for a brief time . . . . Time's just flying by here. It seems like only moments ago that I rose to my feet to commence these discussions.

S. Hawkins: You've just enthralled us; we're just captivated.

G. Abbott: All of my colleagues around me are reassuring me that, in fact, it feels like moments to them as well.

S. Hawkins: More, more.

G. Abbott: "More, more," they shout. They beg me, they implore me: "More, more."

Okay, I will continue. [Applause.] Thank you very much. I'm very much appreciative of that resounding applause, that thunderous applause which was accorded me for my brief efforts here.

What I'd like to turn to now, if I might, is to ask the minister, or in his physical absence, perhaps his metaphysical . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I hear a protestation from the other side.

An Hon. Member: Prostration.

G. Abbott: Prostration?

The Chair: Hon. member, on vote 37.

G. Abbott: Oh yes, pardon me. I was temporarily distracted by a minister, actually, on the other side who was trying to draw me into an unparliamentary exchange, but I'm pleased to return to vote 37 and to pose this question to the minister.

Could the minister advise what implications there are, if any, to the annual allowable cut of the licensees in the Shuswap forest district?

Perhaps I posed the question in a particularly difficult fashion, and perhaps what I should do is try to rephrase it in a way in which simplicity rather than precision is the essence. So what I'll ask here . . . . And I think this is an important point again. The government has spent literally millions of dollars in recent weeks advising the people of British Columbia what wonderful news the jobs and timber accord is. That's just wonderful. I'm sure we're all delighted by that, but I do have a question about what the implications are of that accord on the licensees in the Shuswap.

Will the licensees end up with the same net annual allowable cut after the jobs and timber accord that they had before the jobs and timber accord? I'll just pose that question to the minister.

I think we did get closer to the heart of the matter by rephrasing the question. Certainly I sensed that there was a far clearer understanding of the question the second time on the

[ Page 5346 ]

government side. I don't know, I suppose I could rephrase it again and try it in a way, where the issue was even more forcefully outlined for the benefit of the minister, but I don't intend to do that. I don't intend to waste the time of the minister. Obviously he's a very busy man. He is so busy, in fact, that his metaphysical side has to be frequently emergent here in the House.

An Hon. Member: He's sawing logs.

G. Abbott: The minister is sawing logs. Well, this is one way to put it. That may be true, but I wouldn't know that.

S. Hawkins: He's a shadow of his former self.

G. Abbott: He may be a shadow of his former self.

The implication, I think, of the jobs and timber accord for mills in the Salmon Arm forest district is an important one. The companies and indeed their workers, who obviously depend on annual allowable cut just the same as the companies do, are very much concerned with preserving the annual allowable cut that they have in the Shuswap. If the annual allowable cut is diminished, it means that there is less wood to process, that there is less wood to export, that there are fewer jobs.

Now, if the jobs and timber accord is going to -- as I hope it will -- provide some additional fibre to the value-added sector, particularly the value-added sector in the Shuswap, I think that's good. That's commendable. But does that come with a cost? If it does come with a cost, what would that cost be? I hope I put that succinctly, so that the government can appreciate what I'm saying here. Is this a win-win situation? Is it a win-lose situation? Or -- hopefully, this is not the case -- is it a lose-lose situation? I'm, again, just very simply asking.

Even the Government House Leader acknowledging that at some point I'll receive a written response to this would be welcome at this point, because I haven't heard anything from that side for some time. I'd like to know whether the jobs and timber accord has had an effect on the annual allowable cut of the licensees in the Salmon Arm forest district.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll make note, of course, of all the questions that are relevant to estimates debate and respond in due course.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that frank disclosure on the part of the Government House Leader. It's good to have that kind of exchange and feedback on the important issues being raised here. Certainly we'll look forward to that response to the question about the jobs and timber accord, because it is an important one to my constituency. I will leave that particular question for now. I suspect others may ask the same question for their constituencies. It would, I think, be useful to have a rather more forthright response from the minister to that question.

But I guess, in the absence of that, it's important to ask the question and hope that at some point the government and the minister deem it appropriate to respond in written form to the question.

The other question I want to . . . . This is actually a line of questioning, and I don't know whether we can really even use the term "line of questioning" in respect to these discussions. I guess it is a line of questioning. Perhaps in its purest sense, it's a line of questioning, because again, as we've noted, it's questioning that's pretty much uninterrupted by answers. So I guess it is really a pure line of questioning. That's what I want to do now: pursue a line of questioning which is very important to the future of . . . .

S. Hawkins: There's no line of answering coming from over there.

G. Abbott: No, I'm not troubled with a line of answers, so this is a pure line of questioning.

There's a whole range of questions which I have for the minister surrounding silviculture in the Shuswap. Silviculture is obviously very important to me in the Shuswap, as it is, I'm sure, for the hon. member for Okanagan West or the members for Saanich North and the Islands, Vancouver-Quilchena, Okanagan-Vernon and Langley. All of us are very much concerned about silviculture and the future of our forest industry.

Clearly, without good silviculture we can't have a strong, vibrant, healthy, sustainable forest industry for our grandchildren as well as our children. So it's very important, I think, that the government make the right decisions about the direction it wants to take silviculture in this province, to ensure that we make the right decisions that are going to provide us with trees in abundance in the decades and hopefully centuries ahead.

So the first question I have for the minister is: could the minister outline for me -- briefly, perhaps -- what strategy the government is pursuing with respect to intensive forest management in the Shuswap?

[1:00]

The Chair: The hon. member continues, and I'd just like to remind the member to deal specifically with vote 37.

G. Abbott: Sure. Perhaps you can advise me, hon. Chair. As you know, I'm one of the last members to ever challenge or in any way, you know, puzzle about the rules of the House. Would silviculture and the role of silviculture not be an appropriate topic to canvass under vote 37, hon. Chair?

The Chair: Hon. member, carry on.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will carry on, because as I understand it, forestry is all about silviculture. I think the strategy which is adopted by the government with respect to intensive silviculture is very much at the heart of a strong and viable forest industry in the future. The minister didn't provide even a brief outline of the strategy for intensive forest management, which he is proposing to pursue. There are, as you know, a range of options with respect to intensive forest management, which the government might wish to pursue in its pursuit of intensive forest management.

For example, pruning is something which is periodically done. I'm not sure if . . . . I don't think any forest companies undertake pruning on their own. I have seen it done. But I presume it is a strategy, or it's a . . . . Oh, what would the right word be? Words fail me. Can you help me here at all? Pruning is an activity which perhaps the companies undertake on their own without any kind of subsidization or cross-pollination from the government, but I suspect that we don't see a lot of that. But I'd be curious, actually, whether pruning is one of the intensive forest management tools which has been utilized by the government in the Shuswap.

[ Page 5347 ]

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass? The hon. member carries on.

S. Hawkins: It's like those "Carry On" movies -- carry on, George.

G. Abbott: Yes -- "Carry On, Member."

I find pruning, actually, probably as fascinating as the minister does. It's an interesting thing. It's fascinating to discuss. I'm sure that in another time, in another venue that maybe the minister would find more appropriate than this House, we could talk about it. Does pruning actually contribute in a measurable way to enhancing tree growth? That kind of thing -- you know, I've always thought this House might be a good place to discuss those kinds of issues. But apparently that view is not unanimously shared, so we'll move along.

The other strategies or activities which might be part of an intensive forest management strategy are thinning and fertilizing. Thinning, I think . . . . Again, the minister can correct me on this if I'm wrong. I understand that a certain amount of thinning is done by the companies themselves, whether it's subsidized by government or not. But I do understand that some thinning is done. In fact, for a relatively limited cost, the industry can secure much more rapid growth rates than would otherwise be possible.

My next question is whether thinning is part of the tool chest that the government uses in this pursuit.

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back; I enjoyed the brief break. I do want to take this opportunity to welcome the . . . . Well, no, I guess there hasn't actually been a transfer of chairmanship yet. So I won't actually welcome the Deputy Speaker, a.k.a. the Chair, back to the House at this point. I'll save that for a more appropriate moment. In fact, I'll return directly to my discussion of the intensive silviculture strategy which the government may or may not be pursuing here.

The third element in intensive forest management, or intensive silviculture, which I've always been fascinated with -- and I know the member for Yale-Lillooet has always been fascinated with it, as well; at times he talks incessantly about this -- is the use of fertilizer on trees. As some members of the House have noted, there is a certain amount of natural fertilization that occurs in the woods. For example, some species of wildlife contribute in immeasurable ways to the fertilization of the woods.

There's a very hilarious joke about some animals in the woods that I'd love to share with you, but I guess I do need to observe that rule on relevancy, so I'll save that for another time.

An Hon. Member: You're blushing.

G. Abbott: How can you tell? Maybe it's a reflection off you. I think it's mere reflection off you, hon. member.

I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I digress once again, and I thank you for returning me to order. At times, hon. Chair, I do fall into these unparliamentary exchanges with members on the other side. I lose control and I lapse into unparliamentary bursts which, I think, are most uncharacteristic of me generally. It's to remind us that we should all strive harder to try to truly reflect the rules of this House. [Applause.]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I want to thank the member for Okanagan West for that resounding round of . . . and another resounding round.

I was just getting to the issue of fertilizing, hon. Chair, and I do want to welcome you back. It seems like only moments ago that you left, but apparently, people tell me, it's actually been around an hour. That's quite amazing to me.

S. Hawkins: It seems like just five minutes ago.

G. Abbott: It seems like just five minutes ago that you departed. It seemed like actually a rather hasty return, but I do appreciate your return.

I'm not going to recapitulate the many issues that we've canvassed in your absence. I know that you've been following the events, probably very closely, on the legislative channel, along with tens of thousands of other British Columbians. So I'll just very crisply move on to the next point that I propose to make, and that is: to what extent has commercial fertilization of the forest been a tool in the government's tool chest of intensive silviculture management in British Columbia?

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

G. Abbott: I just have a few hours more of questions before we move along. I appreciate the latitude which has been shown towards the issues that I've raised. There are so many things to talk about, but I don't really want to monopolize this debate.

S. Hawkins: More, more. Look, Yale-Lillooet is begging you.

G. Abbott: They're begging me on the other side of the House, hon. Chair, to continue on for hours. Actually, given that in a few hours I'll have thoroughly canvassed all of the forest issues in Shuswap, I could then turn my attention to Yale-Lillooet.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yes, sir, you're absolutely right; there's plenty more to come from Shuswap yet. But I've always felt a kind of -- what's the term? -- affinity, kinship, powerful bond, attraction to Yale-Lillooet.

S. Hawkins: It's a fatal attraction.

G. Abbott: Fetal attraction. There has always been that attraction. I would be delighted, actually, to raise issues for or with the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet. I know he has concerns. Actually, I'd be glad to yield to him anytime that he wants to . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Milfoil? We could talk about that, but I suspect that I'd offend the rule of relevancy if I did that.

An Hon. Member: You can use it as fertilizer.

G. Abbott: I'm not even going to rise to that bait at all, hon. Chair. When people offend the rule of relevancy by

[ Page 5348 ]

dealing with things like Eurasian milfoil under Forests estimates, I'd be upset. I don't blame the Minister of Municipal Affairs for feeling the same way. I think he has every right to feel that way, and that's why I'm going to be very careful to observe the relevancy rule in this business.

There's another area, or another line of questioning, that I want to pursue. The last line of questioning was productive; it was good. It was a pure line of questioning, again, because . . . .

S. Hawkins: There was no line of answering.

G. Abbott: . . . there was no line of answering to interrupt it. So it was good. It worked very well, I think, to have that crisp line of questioning and that very succinct . . . .

S. Hawkins: Sluggish answers.

G. Abbott: . . . sluggish yet succinct line of non-answering.

If we can proceed, hon. Chair, there are a couple of other questions that I want to ask with respect to community forests, in particular. The community forest is a relatively new concept, I think, in British Columbia. At least, it is as far as I know. I'm sure the minister will correct me on the point if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, community forests are a relatively new concept. The one community forest that I know a little bit about is the Revelstoke community forest. Beyond that, apart from knowing that there are a few other community forests in the province, I'm really not that familiar with them.

What I'd like to ask the minister first, with respect to community forests, is: could the minister advise of the number of community forests which are currently in place in British Columbia?

The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?

G. Abbott: If the minister's answers were a picnic basket, we'd be quite hungry by now, if I may use that bold metaphor.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd say a lot of blubber . . . .

G. Abbott: A lot of which?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Blubber.

S. Hawkins: I think I would take offence to that.

G. Abbott: I think you might want to ask the minister to withdraw that.

The Chair: Hon. members. I think the Minister of Health might wish to withdraw that comment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're setting a new standard for unparliamentary language that will come back to haunt them. But I'm more than happy to withdraw the term "blubber."

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Oh, not at all. I'm just absolutely . . . . I don't feel thin-skinned about it at all, because I am frequently favourably compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger. So why the hell would I care? When it comes to issues about body profile or about physique, those kinds of issues, I feel very comfortable. I wouldn't want the minister who, I know, is also a very keen body-builder type of person . . . . I'm sure neither of us would want to make any member of this House feel uncomfortable about their physique, so that's the only reason I asked that. It's not because I took any offence personally. Why would I when I have the kind of sense of myself that I do?

[1:15]

Perhaps we can put that issue aside for now. I'm sure that there are no hard feelings on any side with respect to that. I'm happy to continue on with the purer line of questioning I'm currently undertaking. May I reaffirm that I'd be delighted to see my purer line of questioning interrupted at any point by a line of answering, if anyone on the government side chose to answer the important questions that I'm posing.

The next question I have with respect to community forests is: could the minister advise how many community forests applications are currently under consideration?

I appreciate this opportunity to continue the line of questioning. The issue is an important one, and I see the government treating it with the same respect and gravity that they've treated every other discussion here with -- which is zero. I guess we've come to accept that as the way we're going to do business here tonight. I'm certainly happy to continue for a few more hours, outlining the various concerns we have in the Shuswap with provincial forest policies.

The other issue respecting community forests is important, because obviously community forests are, potentially at least, a bold new direction in British Columbia with respect to the management of our forests. For decades we have had a particular operating style with respect to our forests, where major licensees were very much dominant and often had exclusive rights to timber. Now, through small business sales and other mechanisms and the relatively new mechanism of the community forest, some different models are being pursued in British Columbia. I think it's certainly important to . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was having difficulty hearing myself think for a moment there.

The important point I was trying to project over the din of the voices on the other side was with respect to community forests. Again, the important point I'm attempting to make is that we have adopted new models of forest management in recent years that we haven't seen in the past. The issue of community forests as a new model for forestry management in British Columbia is an important one. I would invite the minister to advise me: what are the parameters . . . ?

I'll just wait until I can get the Minister of Forests' attention.

I'm exploring the concept of the community forest and its application as a model for the future of forestry in British Columbia. Could the minister advise what parameters or considerations are utilized by his ministry in assessing applications for community forests in British Columbia?

I'm sorry. There appears to be a bit of miscommunication here between myself and the minister. We'll just try it again.

[ Page 5349 ]

What I have been pursuing here is the issue of community forests. As I explained, my experience with community forests is quite limited. The one example I know a little bit about is the Revelstoke Community Forest Corp. and its role in the community of Revelstoke. The issue is an important one, because the community forest does offer a new model of forest management in British Columbia. As I have previously discussed, the traditional model involving major licensees and a small amount of small business wood and so on certainly still continues to be the case.

It appears to me that the community forest concept is one that is growing in British Columbia. My question to the minister was: what parameters and considerations does the Ministry of Forests use in assessing applications by communities for community forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Metaphysically speaking, there are no parameters.

G. Abbott: If there are no parameters in terms of the ministry's consideration of a request from a community for a community forest, could the minister advise on what basis a decision would be made with respect to the allocation of a community forest or the determination of whether a community forest would be agreed to by the minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have already answered that question about 20 hours back in estimates.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether there are any community forest applications under consideration in the Shuswap constituency? Perhaps a better way to put it would be the Salmon Arm forest district.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

G. Abbott: The issue which is very important in the Shuswap right now, which I don't think I got a satisfactory answer to earlier on, is the question surrounding the public process on Mount Ida. There is a proposal to do some logging. I'm not sure whether clearcut or selective logging is proposed in the area of Mount Ida near Salmon Arm. Could the minister outline the public process which the ministry proposes in assessing that proposal?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We duly noted all your previous questions, including that one, and we'll prepare an answer.

G. Abbott: I missed the minister's answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm aware that you asked that question earlier, and the undertaking was to get answers to all the questions that were asked previously.

G. Abbott: I think the issue of mechanization in mills is an important one, as well. Could the minister advise whether the level of mechanization in mills today is something which the government hopes to see reversed to some extent through the jobs and timber accord? Or are they prepared to happily accept higher mechanization, in the hope that production will continue to grown and, as a consequence, the employment base will grow as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.

G. Abbott: I think that pretty well sums up the various issues which I wanted to address in my discussion tonight. I think it's unfortunate that a lot of the questions I wanted to raise didn't get the kind of attention that I think they should have. There is a range of issues surrounding forestry in the Shuswap which I think need to be addressed in a serious way. It's pretty obvious that those issues aren't going to get the kind of attention they deserve tonight. But it certainly has been enlightening to be up here for whatever length of time it's been and to at least ask questions on this issue.

With that, I yield my place to Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: It's a pleasure to rise and address the Minister of Forests at 1:30 in the morning.

The member for Yale-Lillooet has said that we need to talk about trees, so I would be very, very happy to do exactly that.

I would like to address a number of issues with the minister, specifically integrated pest management measures. I'd like to canvass the area of somatic embryo transplants in some species-specific studies, specifically polygenic resistance studies that are done in white pine, and maybe some phenotypic characteristics for trees that are potentially resistant to pine weevil. So yes, to the member for Yale-Lillooet, it would be very interesting to canvass these areas with the minister in terms of trees.

One of the organisms I am quite interested in is the mountain pine beetle. This is something that will be of very much interest to the Minister of Forests in his capacity as a logger himself. I'm interested in how much area, how many hectares above and beyond the allowable cuts, we now have in British Columbia that are involved in the mountain pine beetle logging provisions.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me. I'll be happy to get it.

[1:30]

A. Sanders: I'm interested, in terms of Dendroctonus ponderosae , which is the name of the mountain pine beetle . . . . It is an organism that is very, very important to our forest industry in that it attacks the older, large-diameter forests, specifically the pine. In British Columbia, in our Ministry of Forests, what strategies and tactics do we have for managing pine beetle, and what are we doing at this point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The strategies are updated annually, and I'd be happy to provide that information in some detail.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: You fry them up. No, you can't fry them up, hon. member, they are there for the picking.

In terms of the area on the Hope-Princeton, what are we doing in terms of suppressing infestation of lodgepole with mountain pine beetle?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll be happy to provide the details to the member.

A. Sanders: In terms of suppressing losses from mountain pine beetle, especially in the lodgepole species, are we using any specific system for rating susceptibility and risk

[ Page 5350 ]

factors for lodgepole pine, in terms of looking at entire stands and how those stands would rate in terms of potential for infestation? Do we have any kind of index or system within the ministry in order to deal with this very specific problem?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The more mature, the more susceptible.

A. Sanders: That's an interesting concept in that for very many of us, the more mature, the more susceptible we are. I'm glad to see that pine beetles follow the human species in terms of that.

In British Columbia, within the Ministry of Forests, do we have an integrated pest management strategy in terms of looking at mountain pine beetle infestation and what we're going to be doing with respect to this particular organism?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we'll get back to you with the details.

A. Sanders: In terms of looking at speciation and infestation, lodgepole and ponderosa are two of the very significant species that are problematic with Dendroctonus ponderosae . Unfortunately, Engelmann and white spruce are also a problem; and, again unfortunately, Douglas fir is another group of our harvest that really has a significant problem. These problems will be reflected very, very greatly in timber loss, but they are also reflected in problems with watershed, with fish habitat. There's always the cultural and heritage loss as well as the recreational loss in terms of this particular organism.

When we look at British Columbia, the areas that have the problem will be a very significant area, specifically Smithers in the northeast, all the way to the Kootenays and south to the border, across that whole block that includes the Okanagan -- again, my riding -- and certainly the riding of the Minister of Forests as well as many of the . . . as well as Yale-Lillooet. The member for Yale-Lillooet is sawing logs as I speak about this very important organism in his riding.

Basically we're looking at a circumstance where you have your initial infestation, and then three years after the attack, you have a very large stand of trees that were scheduled for harvest but are completely defoliated.

In terms of looking at speciation, this is probably one of the most critical organisms that is doing damage in my riding in terms of old, larger-diameter pine trees that could be available for harvest. In terms of the mountain pine beetle, are we in a situation where we have any integrated forest practices or integrated pest management practices to deal specifically with this organism?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes.

A. Sanders: Could the minister please outline, for the benefit of this member, what those would be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While I'm aware that we have some, I'll have to get back to you about the details. When I became aware of the impact of speciation, it was long before I was minister. I've actually hung a few pheromones on trees to help out.

A. Sanders: Another thing that the minister and I share in common is that we've both been involved in pheromone studies. I've certainly done my share in terms of pheromone studies with the codling moth, trapping way back in the seventies in the Okanagan. As the minister has made us aware, there are some pheromone trapping projects being done through Dr. John Borden at Simon Fraser University.

He is professor emeritus in the study of pest management and works cooperatively both with Summerland Research Station and with the Ministry of Forests, looking at an integrated status in new and innovative ways to deal with this very important pest in the British Columbia forest industry. Specifically in terms of the mountain pine beetle, I'm interested in what areas of British Columbia at this point are facing the most loss, in terms of harvest, from Dendroctonus ponderosae .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get those figures for you.

A. Sanders: Looking around the chamber, I realize we don't have a quorum. I would ask that the Chair call a quorum.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members. I appreciate the point that is made by the hon. member, but I believe a similar call was made not so long ago, and therefore I decline to ring the bells.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Langley for bringing up a very important point about a very important subject.

Interjections.

A. Sanders: I'm here for the benefit of government to provide an education on the 360 species of pests that are being integrated within the process of the Forestry ministry and being dealt with in the ridings of almost every member of the government as well as the official opposition.

Another organism that is very important in terms of . . . . I'm going to ask just a couple more questions on the mountain pine beetle, because this is such an important organism to me. In terms of the minister's own area of habitation in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the pine beetle is in one of the areas where there's been accelerated cut because of infestation. My question to the minister is: is the accelerated cut from the infestation of pine beetles still operational within the Quesnel area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is within some parts of the Cariboo and, in particular, in the Williams Lake and Chilcotin timber supply areas but less so in the Quesnel area.

A. Sanders: What is the strategy for those areas? My understanding, from being in a circumstance where I was primarily involved with individu