2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 9

[ Page 15325 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Joining us on the floor of the House, we have two special guests from the state of Punjab in India: the Hon. Sohan Singh Thandel, Minister of Food and Civil Supplies; and the Hon. Sujan Singh, Minister of Rural Development and Municipal Affairs. They are here to celebrate Baisakhi with the Sikh communities in British Columbia. Accompanying them are some prominent British Columbians who are sitting in the members' gallery: Gurbax Sanghera, Gurdev Johal, Balbir Changiara, Sarwan Randhawa, Gordui Dodd, Jatinder Saroya and Jarnail Bhandal, president of the Ross Street Temple. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As I think everybody in this House knows, this is Emergency Preparedness Week. I'm pleased that we have members of my ministry's emergency social services unit -- a small team that is responsible for coordinating the efforts of more than 5,500 volunteers across B.C. -- with us today. These volunteers help people forced from their homes because of things like floods, fires, earthquakes and local disasters, and they make sure that people have access to food, shelter, clothing and the other kinds of things they need in a crisis.

[1410]

I would like to introduce today the team in my ministry that helps coordinate the people across the province and support their efforts. With us today are Mike Woodcock, the executive director of the team; Kathie Stenton, the director; Brenda Fox, the volunteer coordinator; Dave Scott, the provincial response coordinator; Cheryl Venn, the administrative assistant; and Christine Ritson, the program assistant. I'd ask all members of the House to help me recognize and thank these individuals, as well as the people they work with across the province, for their work -- and also to welcome them to the House today.

M. Coell: I have some guests that I'd like the House to welcome today: Murray and Bernice Duncan, George and Mary Stoner, and my mother Norma Coell. I would also add my welcome to Victoria's own Gordy Dodd. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I have a number of guests today. There is a group of people from the Peace River country here to meet with the Minister of Agriculture and staff from the Ministry of Environment to talk about wildlife damage to crops in the Peace country. Karen Goodings is chair of the Peace River regional district; Tim Caton is the vice-chair; Burnem Grant is president of the Peace River Forage Association; Bob Nicholson is a director of the Peace River regional district; and Gerry Gleeson is a range officer with the Ministry of Forests.

Also in the gallery is Bill Vanderland. He's here, as he always is, to promote his interest in ethanol. Finally, Kanako Motohashi, a third-year political science student at UBC, is here in the gallery. I trust that members will be on their best behaviour, and I ask you to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'd like to introduce two guests of my very capable and hardworking ministerial assistant, Am Johal. Visiting today in the gallery is a UVic graduate, Hagit Katzov, and her father Alex Katzov, who is visiting from Israel. They have just come back from touring the beautiful Rockies this past week. Would the House please make these two special guests very welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure -- for the third time this week -- to welcome 26 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in my riding. They are here with five adults and their teacher. I hope all members will make them feel welcome.

E. Conroy: It's my pleasure this afternoon, on behalf of the government caucus, to welcome all of our constituency assistants to Victoria this week. We're very pleased that they're here and know that they're working really hard on our behalf. I just want to pass on my congratulations for your work. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: During the Second World War, 418 Squadron was one of the top -- if not the top -- scoring squadrons in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Today and over the past couple of days, past members of that squadron have been gathering in Victoria. Some of them are in attendance this afternoon. The former CO of the squadron, Russ Bannock, is here. Though they don't know it, I once counted myself a member of that illustrious squadron in its present location in the city of Edmonton. We're very proud of every one of them and all that they accomplished. I hope all of my colleagues will make them welcome today.

T. Stevenson: I have a number of introductions of some young people who are visiting the assembly today. They are the legislative interns for 2001. They will, of course, be beginning in January of 2001. I know that both sides of the House look forward to working with them and will welcome them here. We have Angela Chan, Marla Frketich, James Gillies, Jon Grenke, Stephen Hartman, Kyla Knowles, Jay Schlosar, Tiina Searle and Tracy Tang. Would the House make these young people welcome.

[1415]

P. Calendino: It is with pleasure today that I introduce a good friend and a very well-known person in the arts community in Burnaby, Mrs. Kathryn Nokony. Kathryn is the very proud mother of two young, energetic daughters who are with her today: Alana, who will be speaking with you later on this afternoon, and Kerri, who's a law student and will be interviewed for an articling position with the Ministry of Attorney General tomorrow. I would like the House to make them all welcome.

The Speaker: If I may, members, here in the gallery today are my constituency staff, Michael Sather and Joan Fisher, and, for his first day on the job, my executive assistant Ed King. Would members please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8

ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. D. Lovick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.

[ Page 15326 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I am very pleased to introduce the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. The McLeod Lake agreement has been ratified by the McLeod Lake Indian band, by British Columbia and by Canada. The agreement is now in effect, settling a 100-year-old dispute. This agreement settles a lawsuit by allowing the band to adhere to Treaty 8, a historic treaty signed in 1899 that focuses on a land and monetary settlement.

Introducing the legislation before us now is one of the steps in implementing this agreement. The McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act will enable the province to fulfil its commitments, its obligations, under the agreement. The McLeod Lake agreement creates land use certainty and economic stability for the band, for the forestry sector and for local communities. I am honoured to table this legislation today and move that the bill now be read for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the bill be referred for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REGULATORY STREAMLINING MISCELLANEOUS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to introduce Bill 12. This bill is the latest step in modernizing government for the twenty-first century. It amends several statutes to streamline government operations and remove unnecessary red tape to help reduce the regulatory burden and the cost of doing business without compromising the public interest. Bill 12 is yet another part of the streamlining initiative that began in May 1998, with the appointment of the Business Task Force, which brings together business, labour and government in a positive and productive way to modernize the way we do business in British Columbia.

[1420]

Bill 12 streamlines the Animal Disease Control Act, the Assessment Act, the Financial Disclosure Act, the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Islands Trust Act, the Land Act, the Land Survey Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Municipal Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Range Act, the School Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. I will discuss the amendments in more detail during second reading.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRIES SERVICE

M. de Jong: I have a question for the Premier. I got a letter, yesterday in fact, from a passenger who was sailing on B.C. Ferries on Good Friday last month -- one of the busiest days of the year for B.C. Ferries. He included a photograph. The letter was a copy that was sent to the government, and the government also got the photograph. The photo shows a passenger vehicle deck virtually empty, at a time when there were lineups extending well up the highway. That passenger was told that there was a staffing problem at B.C. Ferries. We have subsequently checked, and we were told something a little different. We were told that the ferry had reached capacity with walk-on passengers.

The question for the Premier is: will he confirm, for all of those people that were lined up halfway back to West Vancouver, that this is the price they will pay because of the decisions -- the horrible decisions -- that he and his colleagues have made to waste half a billion dollars on this fast ferry fiasco? Will he confirm that it is the decision of him and his colleagues that has condemned them to wait in lineups for upwards of five hours while ferries with half-empty vehicle decks sail off?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible.

The Speaker: Do you have a new question, member for Matsqui?

M. de Jong: It's certainly a new question, Mr. Speaker. I'll ask the Premier the question, as the head of the government. The bottom line is this: after wasting half a billion dollars on fast ferries that don't work and driving B.C. Ferries to the edge financially, the number of passengers and vehicles that can be accommodated on the route from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo is actually down -- decreased capacity.

The Premier, as the head of the government, surely will take advantage of this opportunity to apologize and acknowledge that to those British Columbians who, this summer, are going to wait in lineups that are longer than ever for hour and hours, simply trying to get home either to Nanaimo or to Horseshoe Bay. It's his fault. Will he make that apology now for the decision of him and his colleagues?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, I guess the member is stretching to put some new paint on the same question.

We have taken firm and decisive action to make sure that B.C. Ferries has a sound financial footing into the future and fulfils its role as part of the provincial highway system, serving a vital role in the economy and transportation to Vancouver Island. In this legislative session we'll be looking at dedication of fuel tax to B.C. Ferries, as we do for the highway system. We will be debating, very soon, provisions in the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, that provide for the relief of debt for B.C. Ferries. We have taken firm steps to make sure that B.C. Ferries has a bright future and can move forward and provide the service that British Columbians expect of it.

[ Page 15327 ]

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATIVES

MINISTRY'S COOPERATIVE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM

J. Reid: On Monday the government gave a $9,000 co-op grant to an existing business, Road King Bus Tours of Vancouver Island, to "augment the Island's tourist industry by offering an all-season transportation service to local groups and visitors." I talked to Fred Judson of Forest Bus Tours in Parksville. He employs six people and five buses by offering an all-season transportation service to local groups and visitors. But he is not getting a subsidy from this government, while his competitor is. Will the Minister of Community Development tell us why her government is giving out business subsidies to Mr. Judson's competitor?

[1425]

Hon. J. Kwan: The ministry actually does indeed provide for a range of contribution agreements, if you will, under the cooperative advantage program. The cooperative advantage program is a program that aims to support community groups throughout the province to develop co-ops and to enhance business opportunities. All of the cooperative advantage program approvals and applications are dealt with by staff; each of them is evaluated through a procedure. I'm sure that in the case where there is an application that came through from your particular group, it would be evaluated if they fall within the guidelines.

If they don't fall within the guidelines, then clearly they do not meet the guidelines of the program within the ministry.

The Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum has a supplemental question.

J. Reid: Part of the $9,000 is going to be used to develop a web site that will handle on-line tour bookings. In other words, the government is giving an existing business a $9,000 subsidy to get more bookings at the expense of its competitors. Community development isn't about businesses having to compete against their own tax dollars. Will the minister tell us why her government is penalizing small businesses by subsidizing their competitors?

Hon. J. Kwan: The government does not penalize businesses with respect to supporting all community groups to develop entrepreneurial objectives, whether it be a small business in the one sector versus the other. As I said, for all of the ministry's grant and contribution agreements, there are specific criteria to which they apply. People apply for them. If they fit under the criteria, they will then be approved. If not . . . . Of course, a lot of these grants and contribution agreements are oversubscribed, so not everyone can actually meet the criteria.

In terms of really supporting communities throughout where they do need assistance, especially communities in transition, those are the aims of the ministry and the programs of the ministry. Relating to the specific application or if there was an application by the particular business that the member mentions, I'd be happy to have my staff look into the details of that application and provide the details with respect to their application.

G. Plant: The minister's generosity knows no bounds. Yesterday her ministry handed over $20,000 to something called the Urban Spin Lounge launderette. The mind fairly boggles, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Premier is moving his office. Or was it the case that the minister relied on her good friend Dave Barrett to show up at the ceremony yesterday and hand the $20,000 over in $50 bills?

Some Hon. Members: Quarters.

G. Plant: Or maybe it was a bag of quarters. Mr. Speaker, the question is not: is this a good business idea? The question is: why are the taxpayers having to subsidize it? So my question for the minister is this: why is she giving 20,000 taxpayer dollars to a laundromat?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. J. Kwan: I know that perhaps the members opposite may not appreciate initiatives from this side of the House, where we're trying to help community groups and small entrepreneurs to begin businesses in their own community.

[1430]

In terms of a laundromat, I'll give you an example, hon. Speaker. I have an application that was approved in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant in the downtown east side. It was a program called Close Encounters. It was a cooperative program to be developed utilizing people in the downtown east side who are underemployed, to create opportunities there. The application and the criteria, as they apply to the ministry's programs, are exactly that, and that is precisely why we put forward contribution agreements to help community groups.

COMPARISON OF B.C. AND ONTARIO BUDGETS

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. As we all know, despite all the doom and gloom that the opposition Liberals constantly spread, the economy of B.C. is in fact turning around. As we all know, Mike Harris tabled his province's budget speech and his budget this week.

Interjections.

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, I'm glad they want to know what my question is, because I know that they're all just as anxious to hear the question. Can the Minister of Finance tell this House how Mr. Harris's budget priorities compare with British Columbia's? Also, hon. Speaker, can he confirm for this House that British Columbia rejects that extreme approach to budget-making that the provinces of Alberta and Ontario advocate, that Premier Klein and Premier Harris and, shamefully, the Leader of the Official Opposition have made?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that for a moment I thought it was the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain asking me the question.

[ Page 15328 ]

I have had a chance to examine the entrails of Mr. Harris's latest effort. I did want to report to this chamber that in spite of the glowing press about the investment in health, a realistic examination says that they have invested a grand total of an additional $49 million in the health system of Ontario -- less than one-tenth the amount that we've invested here -- which brings them all the way up to a level of $240 per person less than British Columbia. Those are their priorities.

I have had a chance to look at the education budget. At this point the per-student funding in Ontario in this budget is $810 less per child than it was way back in 1994-95.

Finally, I took a look . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . at the environment budget. Would you believe that the province of Ontario, with a population three times the size of British Columbia, is investing less in the Ministry of Environment than British Columbia?

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an extreme agenda -- nothing for health, nothing for education, neglect the environment. The only British Columbians that support these extremes . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . are the members on the opposite side.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the Minister of Finance thinks that the only people who support tax cuts and balanced budgets are members of the opposition, he should call an election, and he might be kindly surprised.

I wasn't going to ask it, but I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last year the Deputy Premier, who was Minister of Finance, said that it is a myth that lower taxes can lead to greater revenue for the province. Well, that's true. On Tuesday, Ontario did introduce its budget. It's a balanced budget, and it had 30 percent tax cuts -- a balanced budget, something this government has failed to do in nine years. After a 30 percent reduction in personal income tax rates, income tax revenues to the government were $1.8 billion above forecast.

So, hon. Speaker, for all those transplanted Ontarians sitting at home in British Columbia waiting for their $200 income tax refund cheque that will be coming from the government, will he stand up and admit that tax cuts work to spur economic growth and balance the budget?

[1435]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, hon. Speaker, it is good to see the Liberal opposition returning to their roots in the Reagan era and the Margaret Thatcher era -- the voodoo economics.

The Business Council of British Columbia advised me in prebudget consultations that they no longer believe you can gain revenue from tax cuts in a particular area. At best, they said, over time you might regain 40 percent of the cuts in a particular area. That's the advice from these members' friends. I don't know what economic books they're reading.

Let's look at Ontario tax cuts. This tax cut in Ontario . . . . There is a clear contrast. Mr. Harris has delivered 68 percent of the tax relief in his budget to the large corporations of Ontario -- 68 percent. I ask the members to contrast that with the tax relief in Budget 2000 in this House, where 90 percent of the personal income tax relief goes to middle-income families. That's good taxation.

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

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter, for the Minister of Finance, is that Ontario has balanced its budget. They're paying down their debt. People are paying hugely less personal income tax than they are in British Columbia, even at the low rates. The low-income people in Ontario pay less in personal income taxes than they do here in British Columbia.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance: when will an NDP Minister of Finance in this province, unlike those in Saskatchewan, actually stand up and admit that tax cuts work? That's how you get the economy going; that's how you protect health care and education -- by growing revenues instead of borrowing, borrowing and borrowing.

The Speaker: The light to end question period is on. I will ask the minister to give a brief answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will be brief. Hon. Speaker, there are indeed some differences between this province and others. One of the differences has to do with debt. Ontario right now has debt which is nearly $30 billion greater than when Mr. Harris took government. They have increased their debt by more than the entire debt of British Columbia.

I'm pleased to report to the House that yesterday the Dominion Bond Rating Service confirmed this province's credit rating of AA, saying that the province's credit rating continues to be supported by the following key factors: (

a) a relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio and consequently low debt-servicing costs relative to other Canadian provinces, and (

b) solid economic fundamentals and an improving economic outlook.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Introduction of Bills

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY,

1904 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

V. Anderson presented a bill intituled The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000.

V. Anderson: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

Motion approved.

V. Anderson: This act, The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, was originally passed

[ Page 15329 ]

by this Legislature in 1904. It's a private insurance company, and it's in the process of changing its name. That is simply what the act is about.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to table the report from the mental health advocate, 1999.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this House, we will continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

[1440]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

G. Abbott: When we recessed for lunch, we were discussing the B.C. Forests action plan, and hopefully the minister has had an opportunity to locate that Ministry of Forests document over the lunch hour.

One of the questions I asked . . . . We deferred the minister's answer to it, because they couldn't find the document at the time. The first question I had with respect to it was the promise to provide about 20 million cubic metres of wood to small business operators over what was then the next two years -- to value-added independent wood manufacturing sectors. Has that goal been achieved?

[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes. The ministry has sold almost 22 million cubic metres over the last two years.

G. Abbott: Again on bullet number 3, the minister answered one part of my question on that. The other part was whether the Ministry of Forests was driven in part, with this $100 million, through the negotiation with the federal government. I didn't get a response to that side of the question.

[1445]

Hon. J. Doyle: No, there were no dollars set aside by FRBC. The money was for diversification and training, and there were no federal moneys involved.

G. Abbott: Are there currently any negotiations or discussions ongoing with the federal government around funds of this character?

Hon. J. Doyle: No, there are not.

G. Abbott: One of the communities that the government committed to assist under the third commitment there, "Supporting Communities and Workers," was the community of Gold River where, of course, the major pulp mill shut down. At that time, the commitment of the government was to try to build some partnerships with Bowater, the province and the community of Gold River -- the local governments -- to, according to the news release of the day, "assist with local infrastructures, schooling, health care, counselling, worker adjustment and other immediate concerns." What has occurred with respect to Gold River as a part of that initiative by government?

Hon. J. Doyle: There's been a lot of assistance to the community of Gold River, but the Ministry of Cooperatives is heading up that effort.

G. Abbott: So the minister's not aware, for example, of whether there has been assistance from the province to deal with the cost of infrastructure -- that kind of thing? That information just isn't available here?

Hon. J. Doyle: I do know that moneys have been provided, but it's under the Ministry of Cooperatives.

G. Abbott: We'll leave that question aside, then. I think that in combination with what we discussed this morning, that completes my questions with respect to the forest action plan.

That takes us, on our list of agenda items, to the jobs and timber accord, and I'll begin that discussion. When we looked at Mr. Wouters's report yesterday and earlier today, we did talk about the table of the survey of employment, payroll and hours, the so-called SEPH statistics, from Statistics Canada. As I noted this morning, that table includes forest employment figures from 1983 through 1999. So it could be of some assistance in terms of the evaluation we have today, in that presumably we can compare the figures for 1996 with those in 1999 and so on. Is that a fair way to proceed as far as the minister is concerned?

Hon. J. Doyle: That seems to me a fair way to proceed, hon. member.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, the agreement would be entering, just now, its fifth year. I suppose -- whether we take it from March 1996, when the announcement of the jobs and timber accord was made, or from its signing in, I believe, July 1996 -- we would, at this point in May 2000, now be entering the fifth and theoretically final year of the jobs and timber accord. Is that the ministry's understanding as well?

[1450]

Hon. J. Doyle: It was announced in June 1997 and runs through to December 31, 2001.

G. Abbott: The agreement, then, in the ministry's estimation is in the fourth of five years. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with that.

G. Abbott: The jobs and timber accord was certainly ambitious in its goals. I gather now that we are all very keen,

[ Page 15330 ]

both in government and in opposition, on measuring performance outcomes of goals committed to. The jobs and timber accord does provide some opportunities for us to do that.

I want to review, in a fairly methodical sort of way, some of those goals and where we're at in terms of the jobs and timber accord. The accord -- on one of its early pages, under the general provisions -- sets out the employment targets: "A provincial target of 37,800 new jobs will be the goal for the term of this accord, made up of 20,400 direct and 17,400 indirect jobs."

Now, in looking at the comparative figures between 1996 -- 88,088 total forest sector jobs in 1996, and comparing that to 1999 with 85,605 jobs . . . . In that period there would appear to have been an overall reduction of about 2,500 jobs. Again, I'm sure the minister has more current information than I have. My expectation is that the 1999 figures were probably nearer the peak of the cycle and that there may have been some modest reductions since then. What are the SEPH figures that are available to the ministry currently? Tell us.

Hon. J. Doyle: In February of this year, the most recent number is 84,500.

G. Abbott: I guess that tends to reaffirm the suggestion I made that, based on some contraction in prices on the American softwood lumber market and perhaps the season as well, there's been some modest reduction from the 1999 figure -- just over 1,000. In any event, obviously there are some ups and downs with the seasons in British Columbia. But it would seem to me that based on a 1996 figure of just over 88,000 jobs, at this point we are likely around 22,000 -- perhaps 23,000 -- jobs in deficit from what was hoped for or anticipated under the jobs and timber accord.

In fact, we haven't seen 20,400 new jobs created. Over the time since the inception of the accord, we have in fact seen a modest reduction in the number of people employed in the forests of British Columbia. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct, and as you alluded to in your words leading up to your question, member, the number of jobs in February of this year was 84,500. As you know, those job numbers are taken monthly In February, of course, breakup is on, and jobs haven't returned on the coast as much as they have in other parts of the province.

G. Abbott: The reason I am asking this . . . . I know it always brings a certain pain to the government, because they made some ambitious promises around the jobs and timber accord based on what I think was the fatuous and specious notion that somehow government could cause, or direct to be caused, an increase in employment in the forest sector in the province -- that somehow the government could issue an edict or decree that we would get more jobs per cubic metre in British Columbia. It clearly has not worked out that way. There may be all kinds of reasons why we can't.

The fact of the matter is that the government committed to the notion of doing that, and the accord, I submit, has for all intents and purposes been a failure. I invite the minister's comments.

[1455]

Hon. J. Doyle: I'll just read from a document regarding the jobs and timber accord right through till today:

"The period following the accord has been dominated by changing global market conditions. From 1996 through to the end of 1999 the industry has cycled through a period of falling prices and markets to a period of rising prices and markets. Discussions around the accord recognize that the ability to bring about changes in this sector is always constrained by the realities of world markets. Nevertheless, a number of important commitments have been made under the accord."

I am pleased to say that the ministry has substantially completed all the accord provisions it was responsible for delivering. Many of these actions, such as those related to getting the wood out in a timely manner, along with the changes made as part of the short-term action plan, have stood us in good stead as markets have picked up through 1999.

G. Abbott: The translation, I think, of the statement that the minister just read is this: the accord has been a failure on the employment side. It has not seen the creation of the new jobs which the Premier of the day promised with so much fanfare back in 1996, and the government still sees that the accord, notwithstanding that, has some value because of some of the initiatives contained within it. I do want to explore some of those.

For the information of the minister's staff, we are in the general provisions. If we move over to the second page in the general provisions, this is a quote from the top of the page: "Industry and government agree to develop strategies to increase the timber supply over time." Unfortunately, the document doesn't have page numbers, or I'd provide staff with that. That's the commitment. Where are we at in terms of achieving that commitment?

Hon. J. Doyle: Back to the member's words before he asked the question . . . . The jobs and timber accord was signed back in 1996 and '97, and the softwood lumber accord has meant some restrictions on just what we can ship to the States. Another problem, of course, is quota -- which, as we talked about over the last day or two, has also created problems. And with the Asian market, I think 50 percent of the potential for shipping from the coast to Asia -- 50 percent of that market -- was lost to us. Thank God it is coming back again. But we have met the requirements as far as small business, and we've met the requirements as far as IFPA.

[1500]

G. Abbott: The question I asked, though, is around the quote I provided: "Industry and government agree to develop strategies to increase the timber supply over time." I'm asking how the government has met the commitment posed there.

Hon. J. Doyle: Government is looking for that three million lift through enhanced forest management pilot projects and IFPAs.

G. Abbott: So we're still looking for that.

Immediately below that, in the jobs and timber accord: "Consultation will be undertaken between government and industry for a B.C. forest job creation tax credit to hire youth, with additional incentives to employ women and aboriginals." Has that initiative or commitment been completed?

Hon. J. Doyle: No, we decided not to proceed with that.

G. Abbott: We'll move on to the next section, then: "Job Maintenance and Creation." In the second paragraph: "Job

[ Page 15331 ]

creation will come from increasing major licensee harvest volumes towards AAC by three million cubic metres by 1999-2000. This will create 3,900 direct jobs and 3,900 indirect jobs." Have we in fact increased major licensee harvest volumes by three million cubic metres as promised?

Hon. J. Doyle: We have been unable to close the gap on the primary factors influencing market harvesting levels, which are markets and world demand.

G. Abbott: So we haven't achieved that goal. The figures I have would suggest that in fact we have seen harvest volumes falling since the inception of the accord -- modestly, but falling. We can further assume from that that the 3,900 direct jobs and 3,900 indirect jobs have not followed either. Is that fair statement?

Hon. J. Doyle: There have been jobs created, but not the amount that we hoped to create -- not yet. In 1999 harvest levels rose as market conditions improved to 69.4 million cubic metres, nearly seven million cubic metres above the 1997 levels. That's as of 1999; therefore the gap between the harvest and the AAC has narrowed.

G. Abbott: The next question I have around performance measures is the final bullet under "Job Maintenance and Creation." That's a promise that job creation will come from: " . . . monitor forest management policy reflected in protected area strategy, land use plans, first nations deferrals, etc., to ensure that the AAC can be spatially demonstrated." "Spatially demonstrated" is a concept that I've always had some difficulty in understanding. Further than that, has the government been able to achieve this one?

[1505]

Hon. J. Doyle: No targets were set, hon. member. Until the land use unit plans are in place, we can't proceed.

G. Abbott: One of the questions that arise here is whether some of the prominent government initiatives . . . . And we have discussed them fairly extensively here over the last few days -- the identified wildlife management strategy, for example, the landscape unit planning and the higher-level plans, including the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan and so on. Are those initiatives consistent with the commitments that were made in this section? It seems to me that that's the drift of the job maintenance creation

section -- that government won't undertake processes that will result in the loss of forest jobs in the province.

I guess it goes back, again, to the issue of -- and I think I heard from the minister yesterday -- a strong commitment that we would not see those initiatives put in place if we were going to see substantial job losses occurring. There would have to be ways to mitigate that before the government would proceed.

Perhaps the minister can address that and address the general premise here that -- implicitly, I think, at least and maybe explicitly -- there is a commitment here on the part of government not to undertake initiatives that will cost jobs in the forest sector

Hon. J. Doyle: Government has to make firm decisions. At the same time, we have to go on with land use plans and make a balance between the jobs and the environment.

G. Abbott: That is certainly true; there's no question about that. What is equally important, though, I'd submit, is that when government attempts to strike that balance, they do it with the fullest of knowledge of what the social and economic impacts of those changes will be. I want to hear once again a commitment from the government that they will do precisely that -- that in looking at creating that balance, they will do it with a full appreciation of the number of jobs, if any, that will be lost as a consequence of the initiative and what portion of the fibre base, if any, will be lost as a consequence of the initiative. Is the minister prepared to offer me that commitment?

Hon. J. Doyle: I think we must also look at the long term. If we don't take care of the environment . . . . Of course, the marketplace is out there watching. We might lose jobs down the road if we don't take some action. As far as, for instance, the Kootenay land use plan, which we spoke about, I think, yesterday . . . . Some weeks ago I met with representatives of the forest sector from the Kootenay area -- the ILMA -- and we talked about that very issue. I charged my deputy to work with that group to make sure that we can come up with a final plan that is acceptable to the Kootenay area and the communities and jobs that are out there.

G. Abbott: We'll leave that discussion aside for the moment and move on to the

section "Initiatives by Tenure Holders." The second paragraph of that

section reads: "Specifically, industry will commit to projects that will create 2,000 direct commercially feasible jobs. This will also result in 2,000 indirect jobs." How have we done on that particular part of the accord?

[1510]

Hon. J. Doyle: In the report of last year the advocate reported that there were 800 jobs, and this was reported by industry.

G. Abbott: So those are 800 jobs that have been created by the addition of new plants or where an existing plant has been expanded for a new or expanded purpose. Correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.

G. Abbott: The next

section is "Initiatives by Forest Renewal B.C." The first paragraph of that reads: "Job creation objectives will be further enhanced through the improved delivery of funds and programs from Forest Renewal B.C. so that at least 5,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs will be created."

What, by the government's reckoning, has been the success in achieving that goal? And further -- while I have the floor and in the interest of some economy of time here -- have those jobs that were created been of a short-term or a long-term character?

Hon. J. Doyle: Some of the questions the member asked on this point may be better canvassed in the select standing committee to do with FRBC. But the 5,000 direct and indirect jobs that the member . . . . It's hard sometimes to count them, because some of them are full-time and some are part-time or seasonal jobs.

G. Abbott: This actually is a question that I have canvassed at times in the select standing committee as well. The

[ Page 15332 ]

reason I ask it, of course, is because the commitment forms part of the jobs and timber accord, and therefore it seems reasonable, at this point in time, to try to secure some indication of how many . . . .

Well, let me phrase it this way. I think it is fair to ask the question here. I've asked it elsewhere, and in fact, I ask it every year when we're reviewing the business plan. Let's talk about those permanent long-term jobs that have been created. Seasonally, Forest Renewal creates jobs to do watershed enhancement and other things, and that's useful. My concern is: how many full-time permanent jobs have been produced as per this commitment?

Hon. J. Doyle: Approximately 5,000 jobs were created in 1998-99. But again, as I mentioned earlier, some are seasonal jobs.

[1515]

G. Abbott: Then the minister doesn't have a breakdown of those at this point in time.

Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC does not collect that information.

G. Abbott: The next paragraph reads: "To provide stable employment opportunities, Forest Renewal B.C. will increase funding for eligible land-based programs. Forest Renewal B.C. annual expenditures will be 70 percent of total expenditures directed to land-based related activities up to $300 million. The maximum funding to government land-based related activities will be 20 percent of the available funding for this category." Have we achieved the commitment or goal set out in this paragraph?

Hon. J. Doyle: We do meet or exceed the 70 percent target.

G. Abbott: The latter part of that paragraph reads: "The maximum funding to government land-based related activities will be 20 percent of the available funding for this category." My understanding is that the maximum funding for government land-based related activities is still in excess of 20 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm sorry; we don't have that data with us at this time.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the minister could provide me the answer to that when the staff or the information is available to him.

Moving on to the next page, second paragraph down: "Priority funding of $25 million for existing experiments will be set aside to finance activities conducted under enhanced forest management pilots and innovative forest practices agreements. Government will increase this level at the same proportion if further enhanced projects are approved." Have we completed our commitment there?

Hon. J. Doyle: We invested $12.8 million into this. We didn't need the full allotment that was spoken about in this accord.

G. Abbott: I think part of the suggestion here was that the $25 million would provide an expansion in the number of enhanced forest management pilots and IFPAs that were going to be undertaken. In fact, the funding has been about half of what was committed here. I think the minister mentioned $12 million. As I understand it, that remains the maximum amount that has been committed. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.

G. Abbott: The following paragraph reads: "In addition to existing programs, industry will have the opportunity to submit plans to Forest Renewal B.C. that cover the incremental activities listed below. Funding will be distributed to ensure regional equity and equity between forest company participants for a total cost of up to and not more than $50 million for each year of the accord."

The number is $50 million, and the activities listed are operational inventory, planning and code-related incremental road costs. My recollection is that this particular objective or commitment was abandoned when the government announced the reduction in the stumpage rate in June 1998, if I've got the year right. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct. Those results were also covered in last year's estimates.

G. Abbott: Moving on to initiatives for small business: "Government and industry will work together to achieve the goal of 1,500 direct jobs and 1,500 indirect jobs through tendering the full harvest of the small business forest enterprise program . . . . " We'll be talking about that later on. But generally, have those direct jobs and indirect jobs been achieved?

[1520]

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.

G. Abbott: Could the minister quantify that for me?

Hon. J. Doyle: We've exceeded the volume that we forecast, and the jobs went along with that.

G. Abbott: One of the ways in which that was to be achieved was the tendering of cumulative small business forest enterprise program undercut through non-replaceable forest licences or other forms of agreements. Can the minister advise whether that commitment has been achieved? Have we actually reduced the cumulative small business undercut over time?

Hon. J. Doyle: I'll read from an answer to the question that the member has asked. A plan for selling 2.1 million cubic metres of small business undersold some volume was developed and implemented. As of March 31, 2000, 1.95 million cubic metres or 93 percent of the identified undersold harvest had been sold. The remaining 0.154 million cubic metres is planned for sale in fiscal 2000-2001. The 2.1 million target will be met.

G. Abbott: That's good, but what I was looking for was a sense of whether the accumulated small business undercut, which I think, as I recall in estimates with the former minister last year . . . . The cumulative small business undercut peaked at somewhere around -- and I may well have this wrong --

[ Page 15333 ]

eight million to ten million cubic metres or something in that area. What I'm looking for is some indication of whether the cumulative figure has actually been reduced over the period.

Hon. J. Doyle: There was a large undercut, member. There was 2.1 million cubic metres of that delivered.

G. Abbott: Perhaps there's a ministry person somewhere struggling to come up with this figure for me, but I know that the plan was to gradually try to draw down that cumulative undercut over time. It had built up particularly in the years around '97-98. The plan was to reduce it over time.

I think the minister is pointing out that 2.1 million cubic metres was the volume that they hoped to reduce the cumulative undercut by in the past year. Again, I just want to get a sense of where we are at in terms of that overall figure. If it's not available, I'll just accept that as an answer, and the minister can provide it when staff can generate that for us.

[1525]

Hon. J. Doyle: Some numbers I don't have with me, and we'll get that. Some of this also went into the timber supply review, hon. member.

G. Abbott: Yes, that's certainly the case. I'm sensing that the figure I'm looking for is not available. The minister can advise me of it as we go on.

The second bullet under "Initiatives for Small Business": "Tendering any current year [small business] undercut not sold by the [small business] agency through non-replaceable forest licences or other forms of agreements." There's a couple of elements to this: (

a) whether the government still sees the non-replaceable forest licence as the way to deal with this . . . . How many have there been? Has that part of the program been successful to date?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes.

G. Abbott: Good. I appreciate the agreement. What proportion of the small business undercut has been sold through the non-replaceable forest licence route?

Hon. J. Doyle: Under

section 13, in the last two years 800,000 cubic metres have been sold.

G. Abbott: What proportion of that has been sold by direct award, and how much through competitive bidding?

Hon. J. Doyle: Almost all of it has been sold competitively.

G. Abbott: Moving on to the remanufacturing sector: "Government and industry will work together to achieve the goal of 5,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs, which will be created through increasing availability of sawn lumber to independent remanufacturers." Is it possible to even get a sense of the numbers that have actually been created?

Hon. J. Doyle: The advocate said in his annual report that the job numbers had been met. But I'm sorry; we don't have the actual report with us. We'll get it to the member.

G. Abbott: If the goal of 5,000 direct new jobs in the reman sector has been achieved, would we expect those to show up in the SEPH figures among the forest industry -- all sectors?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, they would be part of the SEPH numbers.

G. Abbott: I presume, then, it would also be fair to deduce that there has been a shift in employment in the forest sector, such that either primary or some other area of forest sector employment has contracted and the reman sector has increased by that amount. Is that correct?

[1530]

Hon. J. Doyle: We don't have anything to compare those numbers, but I do know that in the Golden forest district, when I attended the Value-Added Wood Forum for the whole Kootenays -- I'm including part of the Boundary area and the Okanagan area -- some numbers that we had there showed a very significant increase in value-added sector forest jobs.

G. Abbott: The point I was attempting to make is -- and it may well be true -- that we have seen, through a variety of initiatives, the creation of some additional jobs in the reman sector. But if we take the overall survey of employment, payroll and hours that's generated and is produced in the Wouters report . . . . Clearly, if there has been growth there, there must have been contraction in some other area of forest sector employment, because overall the number as we talked initially is down slightly. I'm presuming that it is merely logical and reasonable to assume that either the primary or some other sector had seen some decline over that period -- correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: Not necessarily. I think we're talking here . . . . What we're trying to do is add more value to the wood that is cut.

G. Abbott: I understand that. The concept in value-added or remanufacturing is that as one moves that piece of wood through more and more elaborate systems, more employment is secured from it. I understand that concept.

The point I'm making here is that the survey of employment suggests that over the period of '96 to '99, there has been a decline of about 2,500 forest jobs. If over that same period we've in fact seen a growth in the remanufacturing sector and in the value-added sector, which there may well have been -- I suspect there probably was . . . . As that grew, there must have been a corresponding contraction in some other area of forest employment, otherwise the figure that we see under survey of employment in Mr. Wouters's report would in fact show an increase of a few thousand. Correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: No, I would disagree with the member across the floor. SEPH doesn't pick up all the jobs in the value-added sector. A good example would be Canwood, the furniture-making company in Penticton.

G. Abbott: Does the minister know for a fact that those jobs aren't picked up? At what point does a remanufacturer of wood products not become noted in the SEPH report for the forest sector?

[ Page 15334 ]

Hon. J. Doyle: We're not talking about remanufacturing; we're talking about a finished product in this case. For instance, this company in Penticton is not part of the SEPH numbers, because they're not in value-added; they're in remanufacturing.

G. Abbott: Okay. Then that would be part of the source of the confusion, because we started out talking about the remanufacturing sector and the goal of 5,000 direct jobs, and the minister assured me that those had been met.

My point is: if the remanufacturing jobs are showing up in these numbers, then clearly there has been a contraction in some other area. I don't want to argue about it all day. It's pretty darn obvious that if we have seen a slight overall reduction in the number of jobs but one of the sectors that comprise that overall figure has grown, then clearly another -- or all the others -- must have contracted in some degree.

[1535]

Hon. J. Doyle: I guess we could debate this all day, and we've talked about it for some ten or 15 minutes now. It's not always true that the primary sector has come down and value-added has come up. But at the same time, I know that in my constituency, for instance . . . . By and large, it's getting back to that value-added wood firm in the Kootenays some weeks ago. In some areas of the Nelson forest district, there has been a reduction in primary jobs, and they have been picked up by the value-added sector. I think total jobs are pretty well equal in numbers to what there was some years ago.

G. Abbott: We'll move on. Again, we talked about this last year, in terms of our review of what was going on with the jobs and timber accord -- alternative work arrangements. It's my recollection -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- that the alternative work arrangements

section of the jobs and timber accord simply did not proceed and that consequently the target for 3,000 jobs under the alternative work arrangements was never met either. Correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: This is something we can agree on. That is correct.

G. Abbott: In fact, we've agreed on most things through the discussion -- at least recently. That might not have been characterized by it, but . . . .

Just to conclude our discussion here of the jobs and timber accord, frankly, I was -- as I'm sure the minister is aware -- skeptical of the jobs and timber accord from its inception. It is premised on the notion that government can create, or cause to be created, changes in the direction of the forest economy. The former Deputy Premier -- the Minister of Energy and Northern Development, I believe -- probably best put this style of command-and-control economics that was incorporated in the jobs and timber accord up at the Northern Forest Products Association meeting last year, when he decried Soviet-style forest policy.

I think the jobs and timber accord does claim to be directing the forest economy in a particular direction. It's based on the assumption that somehow we can take a lot of variables that exist in this cyclical industry of forestry and that we can manipulate them in a way so that we get more jobs -- or we do this or do that. I know that when the minister gets up, he will argue: "Well, we've had the softwood lumber agreement; we've had the problems in Japan and so on." There's no denying that.

But the fundamental point here is that before governments lay out ambitious job creation plans that are directed out of Victoria, they have to take account of the fact that frequently there are variables, domestically and internationally, which we can't control. And that is particularly true in the case of forest products.

Therefore I think this accord was based on some very faulty premises. I don't know whether at some point the government will disavow the direction that's contained in the jobs and timber accord. I don't know that. That really goes to the heart of some of the politics that exist between the former Premier and the current Premier, the current government and the leadership of the former government. That I don't know. But clearly there are some elements in here that are consistent with what the former Deputy Premier describes as a Soviet style of forest policy management.

Now, I will give the minister this opportunity to provide us with the current view of the government around the jobs and timber accord. I know it's not something that the government routinely brags about these days -- and not surprisingly. The job creation numbers just aren't there, and we've been talking about that today. A number of the initiatives that were outlined in it, as well, simply didn't proceed for perhaps, in some cases, good reasons.

[1540]

I think all of this underlines the critical importance of governments understanding the critical role of the marketplace in determining the direction of the forest economy, as opposed to a government trying to intrude and saying: "No, this is what we are going to do, and this is what the result is going to be." The danger of doing that, as I've said, is that there is a whole range of variables, both domestic and international, which can very quickly intrude on those ambitious plans.

I've probably said enough about that and have set out philosophically my concerns around the jobs and timber accord and the government approaches like it. I'll invite the minister to offer his candid assessment on the jobs and timber accord as well.

Hon. J. Doyle: When the jobs and timber accord was announced in the last four or five years, the Asian markets, for instance, had been strong for at least 40 years. Hopefully it wasn't wrong to presume that we would continue to ship roughly the same amounts to Asia. The member said I'd mentioned Asia and other things. I did mention Asia, but hopefully Asia . . . . We were assuming those markets would continue -- as they had for many, many years -- to be strong.

While it is true that the targets identified in the jobs and timber accord were not met, partially because of just what I mentioned, many good things did come from the accord. The mill closure review, for instance, is another item I just mentioned. The accord was a starting point for other government initiatives, including code and stumpage changes, the forest action plan and even the forest policy review. The majority of the accord's initiatives have been implemented and have supported or created forest jobs.

G. Abbott: Do the job commitments contained in the jobs and timber accord remain the goal of government?

[ Page 15335 ]

Hon. J. Doyle: We would all like to see job increases, and actually we're getting back close, I think, to the 1996 levels right now as we speak. We do see, in the member's constituency and mine and in other parts of the province, new initiatives starting up and jobs being created in many, many communities in value-added and secondary industry. No doubt jobs do come one at a time, and there are many new jobs being created out there at the present time.

G. Abbott: Does the government have today a greater market orientation, as I'll term it, than what were the philosophical underpinnings of this back in 1996?

Hon. J. Doyle: Government does work closely with the industry. I think some of the initiatives that have happened over the last few years have proved that. It has worked well, the government and industry working together, as far as some of the savings that have been identified -- the roughly $1.1 billion that has been saved, which has helped the forest companies and communities and workers throughout the province to get mills up and running again and, through that, employ people and make sure that we have healthy communities.

For instance, stumpage that is collected by the Ministry of Finance last year was higher than what was projected. I think we're on the right track. Government always can learn; I guess the opposition can always learn too. We all can learn from mistakes that have been made or that might be made tomorrow.

G. Abbott: Working with industry is certainly good and commendable. I sense a reluctance on the part of the minister to characterize the government's approach with respect to a market orientation or a market approach. Perhaps I'll just test that proposition in a more direct way by saying: is the government contemplating the creation of what might be termed "jobs and timber accord 2" or "son of jobs and timber accord"? Is this going to be a one-of-a-kind thing? Or does the government anticipate, should they be fortunate enough to remain in office on December 31 of 2001, the opportunity to have yet another jobs and timber accord?

[1545]

Hon. J. Doyle: When we're re-elected, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think we have done a good job of working with the industry and with communities across the province. There's a very good relationship. I've always felt, in different offices that I've held in elected office from municipal to provincial over the last nine years, that it is important to work with communities. Keeping the doors open on all sides is very important. That is something I intend to do as Minister of Forests.

G. Abbott: Again, this is not something I propose to dwell on. Just so the historians note it, there does appear to still be a reluctance on the part of the current government to question the orientation of the jobs and timber accord. I believe that clearly there has to be a broader sense in the development of provincial policy about the urgency of meeting the demands of the marketplace. That is not reflected in that document, which I think . . . . I'm glad the former Deputy Premier has returned. He provided us with that . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Oh, that's right -- former Premier. Although I was . . . . The famous quote that you provided was at a time when you were still the Deputy Premier. Sorry, hon. Chair -- the Soviet style . . . .

An Hon. Member: Soviet-style forest policy.

G. Abbott: That's right.

He's forever done us the favour of characterizing an orientation. I think we do have to move away from that, and I hope we see more movement in that direction.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Sorry. No solution. Oh, okay, thank you. Clearly you don't either.

We can move on, I think, unless the Forests minister has anything he wishes to add with respect to the jobs and timber accord before we move on to the issue of fibreglass.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to talk about markets and supply of timber. This government I think has a very, very good record of having worked to make it possible to retain the markets that we have through some of the work that we've done -- the land use plans across the province, the Forest Practices Code. If the member or anyone else in this House thinks that was not an important brick as we build the walls to make sure that we do eventually get the certification . . . . Without some of the things we've done in the last nine years . . . . Sometimes there has been some pain, but hopefully it was short-term pain for long-term gain.

G. Abbott: If we can move on to the issue of fibreglass. Really, here, I think we're focusing on the current initiative of the government around the cost-driver initiative. Perhaps what I'll do initially here is invite the minister to advise the House of what the major components of the cost-driver initiative are from the ministry's perspective.

Hon. J. Doyle: The initiative is all about continuing to work with industry to make sure that by working together, we can find continued savings out there and at the same time protect environmental land use plans, which ultimately means we protect our markets.

G. Abbott: Can the minister identify for me some of the principal components of that initiative?

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm reading from a document prepared by the ministry on this cost-driver initiative. In the ensuing year, 830 separate streamlining or cost-efficiency measures were put forth as potential cost-driver initiative issues for resolution. By April 1 of this year over 670 of those issues had been addressed by ministry staff, with approximately 65 percent resulting in a positive business improvement and the remainder requiring simply clarification of the requirements. I'm also led to believe that at least half of these streamlining initiatives came from ministry personnel -- were initiated by the Ministry of Forests.

[1550]

G. Abbott: I was hoping to get at some of the specific things that are currently being worked on between industry and government. But maybe I'll try to move some of the

[ Page 15336 ]

discussion ahead myself here. One of the areas where I think there is very considerable opportunity in the future to see some improvement on the cost side and indeed on the operational side, in terms of avoiding delays, is around professional accountability.

One of the things I hear over and over again is the complaint from professional foresters who say -- I know there have been some steps taken to address this, but clearly some more are needed -- that they submit a silviculture plan based hypothetically on, say, 65 percent Douglas fir, 20 percent pine and whatever of cedar. They'll submit it, and sometime later they will get back a notice that it wasn't acceptable, that it should have been X percentage this, X percentage that. And it tends to be an issue, apparently, where one forester is second-guessing the judgment of another.

Now, as I understand it, the Professional Accountability Task Force was launched, which was to deal with some of these issues. Can the minister advise me when the task force was commenced, what issues it embraced and what the current status of that task force is?

Hon. J. Doyle: The task force was formed; it is no longer in place. As far as some of the recommendations that were made, I can get them to the member. I don't have it right here in the House.

G. Abbott: Does the minister agree with the general proposition that we should embrace the notion of accountability and responsibility in the hands of professional foresters in dealing with issues like silviculture plans and harvest plans? Again, I think one of the things we need to get around, in this province -- or get over -- is the notion that government needs to second-guess the professional opinion of foresters. Again, we don't have teams of doctors that second-guess the diagnoses of doctors in private practice.

We don't have teams of lawyers from the government that second-guess the legal opinions generated by lawyers in the province. Similarly, given the training, the responsibility, the ethical requirements that face professional foresters, I think what we need to do is move beyond the notion where we think we need, as a government, to second-guess the silviculture prescriptions of professional foresters or the harvesting prescriptions of foresters. Does the minister agree with that proposition?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree, by and large, with the member across the floor. One of the problems is that there's not a governing body that regulates all this -- the professional foresters in the province. If they had a regulating body, that would assist us to get to where we'd all like to be.

[1555]

G. Abbott: Is the ministry working with the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters to try to bring about some resolution of that particular situation?

Hon. J. Doyle: We are working with the private sector -- public and private working together -- to see if we can attain that goal that we'd all like to get.

G. Abbott: Are there any time lines that we can note with respect to putting that measure in place?

Hon. J. Doyle: There have been ongoing discussions, but we need to do some more work to make sure that the public accepts the changes that would be made as far as public values and what they want out of this. I think we will get there.

G. Abbott: We had some discussion of this the other day when I asked the minister to clarify some of the discussion we'd had on the first day of debates around whether the idea of public distrust of professional foresters, or the industry, was in some way going to inhibit necessary changes with respect to professional accountability. The minister assured me that it would not.

Is that still the case? Are we going to be able to proceed in a way that seems to me to be entirely logical? I mean, obviously there's always some distrust of the legal profession; there's always some distrust of the medical profession. There's always that in the public mind -- some distrust of where professionals may take us in some circumstances. But again, what we're talking about are people who are well trained to make the realm of decisions that are part of their jobs.

It seems to me that if there is some limitation, in terms of professional accountability, around having a self-regulating body to deal with, we should get on with putting into effect the statutory arrangements we need to achieve that goal.

Hon. J. Doyle: We'll be better able to defer to the private sector foresters once we have completed land use plans and landscape unit objectives.

G. Abbott: That may or may not be true. I don't see that as being central to the issue here, but I'm not going to debate that. I think it's critical that we move this part of the reform of the forest policy framework along, and I think the changes that I've suggested are critical to doing that. We've discussed this at different points in our debates, and I don't want to get preoccupied with it at this point. We're trying to get a sense of where we're going around the cost-drivers.

One of the concerns that's occasionally and forcefully raised with me is the issue of archaeological assessments. I can't claim to understand all the terminology here or what's involved in every case. But as I understand it, I guess companies are obliged to do these archaeological overview assessments. There's some concern that those are not really effective and that frequently they simply end up resulting in a request for an archaeological impact assessment. Again, the expense and difficulty around that is something that obviously is producing some frustration. Where are we at in terms of coming to grips with that particular issue?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. Doyle: These assessments are new. It will take some time to refine the process so that we make sure that we do move along and that there is no duplication, if at all possible, and we can move through these assessments as quickly as possible when they do occur.

[1600]

If I could get back to the former question from the member, as far as professional foresters, I look forward and the ministry looks forward to working with them. But I think that on any of those issues we have to make sure that we don't get ahead of the people or the public out there. I think I did say this before, and the member and I generally agreed on this, I think we can work to make sure the professional people

[ Page 15337 ]

in the province -- they're all honourable people . . . . We can work along. At the end of the day, the figures that are presented by one professional versus another . . . . We won't need to get to second opinions or third opinions, except in a small number of cases.

G. Abbott: One of the cost areas that is only partially in the realm of provincial jurisdiction is over fish and fish-bearing streams. Again, one of the concerns that is frequently heard is that when it comes to fish and fish-bearing streams, we get into some interesting regulatory jurisdictional issues where we could have, in some instances, the involvement of the Ministry of Forests; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; the provincial Ministry of Fisheries; and then the DFO, federal government fisheries, as well. Are we moving in some kind of methodical way towards local area agreements that would resolve some of those jurisdictional management issues?

The Chair: I just want to let the committee know that in the precinct this afternoon are 50 grade 6 visitors from East Ridge Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington. They are accompanied by 16 adults. They're here to have a look at the parliament buildings and understand comparative government and local history. They're accompanied by Ms. S. Thomason, a parent. I would hope that the House would make them welcome.

Hon. J. Doyle: The question from the member before the introduction . . . . We are doing our best to work together and make sure there's not too many cooks here making the broth. For instance, we are working at the present time with DFO to make sure that we do work together, so you don't have to go through federal and then provincial or vice versa.

G. Abbott: Is the Ministry of Forests taking a lead or coordinating role in terms of putting together what might be called local area agreements, to really clarify, to avoid overlap and duplication, and to ensure that in each instance it's clear who will be taking the lead in terms of being the appropriate regulatory body? Or are there still a lot of instances arising where multiple agencies think that they have jurisdiction, thereby frustrating the application process?

Hon. J. Doyle: In areas of the province there are local area agreements where ministry officials do work together. I know of cases throughout the province. Sometimes a Ministry of Forests office has Environment officers, so they don't have to go to another shop to find out some information that could be found out inside that ministry office.

G. Abbott: Is it the hope of the Ministry of Forests that ultimately this can evolve into what I guess might be informally termed one-stop shopping around that part of the regulatory framework?

Hon. J. Doyle: That's a goal that we would like to attain very much, hon. member, as far as the provincial agencies. We cannot speak for DFO in that respect, but as far as provincial agencies, it would be our goal to hopefully have one-stop shopping.

[1605]

G. Abbott: Is that one-stop shopping initiative one that is currently in the hands of the deputy ministers of the applicable ministries?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes. At the assistant deputy minister level and out in the regions, there is a lot of that happening already.

G. Abbott: I'm presuming that the one-stop shopping initiative would embrace, at minimum, the Ministry of Forests; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; the Ministry of Fisheries; and the Ministry of Energy -- provincially. Is that correct? Is that an inclusive list, or are there other participants that I'm not aware of?

Hon. J. Doyle: I would agree with the list that the member mentioned -- and also now, more often than not, Tourism.

G. Abbott: Does the committee report out at regular intervals to the applicable ministers or cabinet? When is it anticipated that there might be some definitive results from the discussions?

Hon. J. Doyle: There is no formal committee, but there are just ongoing working relationships -- assistant deputy ministers and people in the regional offices working as best they can to make sure we get the number of roadblocks down to one.

G. Abbott: So it should not be styled, then, a committee. It is rather, perhaps, a working group where the assistant deputy ministers are trying to work through problems on a case-by-case basis as opposed to redesigning a process, which would then, perhaps, be considered by government. Or is the latter a part of the discussion that's going on?

Hon. J. Doyle: Assistant deputy ministers and people in the regions get together on a case-by-case basis, meeting to try to come to a solution together, as government officials, on an issue that may be out there with someone in the private sector.

G. Abbott: So if any structural change was being anticipated around one-stop shopping or, the more elaborate phrase, single-window regulatory approvals . . . . If substantative changes to the structure of government were to go in that direction, this is not something that would be expected of the assistant deputy minister working group, although they might add their experience to it. Is that notion -- that there could be one-stop shopping, single-window regulatory approval . . . ? Is there anyone in the Ministry of Forests -- i.e., the deputy minister, in consultation with his counterparts elsewhere -- looking at a structural change of that character?

Hon. J. Doyle: This is part of the cost-driver initiative we're talking about. We've communicated with COFI to ask them to prioritize items they would like to see on the list, in whatever order they would like to see them dealt with.

[1610]

G. Abbott: In an attempt to paraphrase -- I frequently do this, and perhaps unfairly so . . . . As I understand it, from what the minister said, the Ministry of Forests is open to suggestion and discussion around the concept of single-window regulatory approval -- i.e., one-stop shopping. They are awaiting proposals -- suggestions from the industry or others around how that might be achieved. Is that a fair

summary of where we are at?

Hon. J. Doyle: At this point, there are 160 issues outstanding on the cost-driver initiatives that we spoke about earlier. We are waiting for industry to prioritize those 160.

[ Page 15338 ]

G. Abbott: Can the minister offer any response, though, to the question I posed about the single-window approval?

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Nebbeling: There is in the gallery right now a group of students -- grade 5 students from Aldergrove, I believe. On behalf of the member for that riding, I would like to ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. Doyle: This item that we're discussing in the House now is one of the 160 items that is outstanding. So maybe industry . . . . There may be others that can move along faster than this one we're talking about right now. That's why we're asking industry for their input on this list. Maybe they will go to some other number or get back with a different list or priority, as they see it working out there in the field.

The Chair: Minister . . . . Member.

G. Abbott: Thank you. My heart always just skips a beat when you make that tiny little mistake about minister.

The Chair: I'm sure it does.

G. Abbott: I'm sure the anticipation is in the right direction and certainly is borne of a sound heart.

The Chair: No comment, member.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for the clarification around that. I look forward to seeing and hearing what the results of that will be down the line.

One of the final issues I want to discuss in this

section -- and the minister may want to highlight others of the 160 remaining potential cost-drivers that are under discussion -- is around the green-up requirements under the code. In the view of some, there needs to be more flexibility around green-up or free-to-grow requirements -- that the strict application of the current guidelines is not something that meets the test of common sense and has the effect of, in some cases, adding to the cost of harvesting. Can the minister confirm that that is one of the 160 elements still being considered for discussion, and what the status of that is?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes, we are working on that, and we're also willing to look at other proposals on this.

If we could get back to the little chat the member across the floor had with the Chair, I think it did lead to some potential for the member behind him getting all excited and maybe smashing up his desk, so it might be a little bit dangerous to do that again.

[1615]

G. Abbott: We are looking at the green-up standard, and we've presumably . . . . Is there any time frame around how this will move ahead, or is the ministry awaiting further guidance, suggestions or advice with respect to exactly how this new flexibility might be achieved?

Hon. J. Doyle: As we mentioned earlier, 75 percent of the 830 separate items have been dealt with. There are 160 left, and we're hoping to get the 160 that are left dealt with inside the next year, if possible. We're working together with industry prioritizing their thoughts on which should be one, two or three.

G. Abbott: I would like, then, to move along to discussion of stumpage issues. I expect that that would require a modest change of staff on the part of the minister. I know, just for the minister's information, that one of the members on this side has some questions around agricultural leases. Now, I don't know whether that is a very specialized piece of knowledge that will be required, but I just wanted to give a heads-up on that.

We've had some previous discussions of stumpage and issues around stumpage, particularly in the context of the Wouters report. Quite apart from that report, is the government moving, either on the coast or indeed on the coast and in the interior . . . ? Is the government in the process of reviewing potential changes or reforms to the existing stumpage system in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: We are looking at options to do with the stumpage. They're mentioned in the Wouters report, as the member mentioned. But we haven't made any decisions yet, until we get further input. No decisions have been made yet.

G. Abbott: How is the ministry's review of the stumpage issue being conducted? Are there particular members of ministry staff that are seized with looking at the different elements in the stumpage structure in British Columbia? And are they expected to report back to the minister at some juncture with respect to what changes might be considered?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is that we do it internally, but we also do work for the industry on this initiative.

G. Abbott: Who internally is charged with that?

Hon. J. Doyle: This issue is handled by my deputy and also by Mr. Howard, who is sitting here to my right.

[1620]

G. Abbott: Apart from the internal discussions, are there stakeholders that are engaged in terms of reviewing options around stumpage?

Hon. J. Doyle: At this stage it is informal, but if we decide to move ahead, there will be formal discussions.

G. Abbott: One of the features of the Wouters report is that he very much draws a distinction between the coast and the interior around stumpage issues. Of course, there already is a distinction between the coast and the interior around stumpage issues. But his proposal is to further add to that distinction by going to a transaction-based system -- or proposing, at least, a transaction-based system -- for the coast. Is that, broadly speaking, the direction of the ministry as well? Or is the ministry still in consideration of changes which would be common to both the coast and the interior appraisal areas?

Hon. J. Doyle: All options are on the table at this time -- coastal, interior, all areas in the province.

[ Page 15339 ]

G. Abbott: To summarize, the discussions are informal at this time. Presumably, as the discussions advance, they may be formalized by drawing in stakeholders such as the Council of Forest Industries or others who the minister might find to be appropriate for those discussions. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct. That's who is involved and who would be involved.

G. Abbott: My colleague has some questions around agricultural leases, if we could entertain them at this time.

J. Wilson: For a considerable time now I've been asking that the ministry review the stumpage issue in relation to agricultural leases. To this point, it would appear that those requests have been totally ignored. I'm wondering if the minister has any intentions of reviewing this. It is a fairly serious issue. The volume there is a fraction of a percentage of the total cut, and some people have been put in really precarious positions because of the stumpage assessment that's carried out.

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes. The Ministry of Forests presented a paper to the Agriculture Committee, and we're waiting for that to proceed.

J. Wilson: Since it's in the works, could the minister give me a time frame when we can expect to see some movement here?

Hon. J. Doyle: We're waiting for advice from the select standing committee. Whether the member is on that committee or not, I can't say; I'm not sure.

J. Wilson: Yes, hon. Chair, the minister is right. However, the committee reporting will probably not come in a time frame when it will be able to circumvent some of the problems which are arising today. What I would like is a commitment from the minister that this could be reviewed. It is his ministry, it is his call, and he's quite capable of reviewing it without waiting for a recommendation from a committee. That's what I would like to know.

Hon. J. Doyle: It's the feeling of the ministry that it would be imprudent to go ahead until we hear back from the committee, of which you're a member. Maybe you can do what you can to get this committee to work as fast as possible to get the recommendations back to the ministry.

[1625]

J. Wilson: I would love to be able to move mountains, but it's not feasible at this point.

I would like to give the minister an example. This is his ministry. I have a constituent with an agricultural lease that is infected with pine beetle. The ministry has set the stumpage at $68; the market value of the wood is between $70 and $80. That means the holder of the lease would lose approximately $10 a cubic metre to get rid of that wood.

The Ministry of Forests has told the holder that they have until July to remove the bug-wood from this lease. The holder of the lease asked for a stumpage reduction. The ministry said no. On top of that, what they said is: "If you don't do it, we will send in one of the major licensees to do the harvesting." I am sure that if they do that, the stumpage will probably come back at $3 or $4 or $5 a cubic metre.

Why would the Ministry of Forests not act in good faith and reduce the stumpage on the infected wood? It's for everyone's benefit. It will stop the spread of the bugs. I know of other similar circumstances, where the stumpage appraisal on wood that has pine beetle in it has been reduced to the $20 range. I'm wondering why the ministry, in this case, won't consider all these factors and take immediate action to help this leaseholder out.

Hon. J. Doyle: What I will commit to the hon. member on this individual case of his constituent is that when my estimates finish, I will be happy to sit down with the member and bring staff into a meeting in my office to see if we could work this thing through.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for this opportunity. He can rest assured that I will take him up on it.

G. Abbott: While we have the appropriate staff here . . . . I was going to do it under the forest health section, but we must do it now, with the appropriate staff here. What is the province's policy around the bug-killed or insect-damaged wood? Obviously there are different degrees of damage. At some points, if the wood is harvested quickly enough, it's not checked or discoloured in the way it is subsequently. What is the ministry's policy with respect to the stumpage on that wood? Is there one overall rate, or does ministry personnel somehow do an assessment of value?

Hon. J. Doyle: The degree of damage to the wood, as to how long it's been standing out there -- the problems with the timber -- affects the stumpage that is paid by the company.

G. Abbott: The reason I ask is that obviously there's a lot of volume being dealt with currently in some parts of the province under the forest health umbrella. Is it left in the hands of district staff, for example, to make an assessment of an area and form some conclusions about whether the wood is outright salvage or whether the harvesting is being done in time to avoid any discounting of the value of the wood? How are those kinds of decisions reached, and how is that then translated into the stumpage rate that is applied?

[1630]

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry tries to see that the tree is harvested as soon as possible, before there's too much damage done. Also, as I said, part of the other answer is that at that time the degree of damage is taken into consideration when the stumpage is set.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the question is an unfair one, because we're talking at this point about a huge area. We're talking of a range of damage from, I guess, peripheral area that is likely to be infested right down to trees that probably have been severely damaged already and perhaps are just the barest of salvage.

Again, given the magnitude of the problem that's facing the province right now, I'm assuming that for somebody it's a pretty darn big job trying to sort out how to bill for it. This is not a trick question, and I'm not trying to trap anyone; it's

[ Page 15340 ]

information. How would you go about dealing with a situation like that, given the magnitude of the problem that confronts . . . ? Do we have a situation where the lion's share of the wood is billed at $2.50 a cubic metre or 25 cents a cubic metre? How is that worked out so that obviously it's fair to the Crown and to the licensee involved?

Hon. J. Doyle: Stumpage is set by ministry staff for a cut permit area. So there's no extra work as far as ministry staff, whether it's an area that's affected by bugs or not.

G. Abbott: Again, either maybe there's a misunderstanding of my question, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the character of the problem that we have. As the ministry monitors the expansion of the mountain pine beetle problem across British Columbia, presumably on occasion it is finding areas where there might be, for example, five hectares of new infestation. I'm also presuming that when they discover that, they try to set up some kind of harvest plan for the area so that the infestation is dealt with and the five hectares doesn't grow into 50 the subsequent year.

So they find the area. Do they offer it up? Well, I guess it would depend. In some cases, they might offer it up for competitive bid. But I'm presuming that in most instances, that's not the case -- that in most instances it might be in a licensee operating area. How is the value determined? I would expect that it would not be the full value that would normally be ascribed to that area. How is it arrived at?

Hon. J. Doyle: The area -- the five acres the member is mentioning -- is located by the industry in their cutting area. They apply for a permit; staff get the data from the company. They work together, and at that time the stumpage is set.

[1635]

G. Abbott: That satisfies my intense curiosity with respect to that matter.

Is there an ongoing effort by the ministry to do comparisons? Again, we're not talking bugs now; we're back to regular stumpage. Is there any kind of ongoing effort by the ministry to compare where we are in terms of stumpage rates with those in Alberta, Ontario or Quebec? Do we do that? Or are we operating domestically here without that information?

Hon. J. Doyle: No, we don't do comparisons with the neighbouring provinces. One of the reasons is that the species mix here is quite different than you would find in the other jurisdictions that you mentioned.

G. Abbott: Occasionally the IWA treats me to a copy of their comparisons. Obviously, based on the comments around species mix and so on, I expect the ministry would take the position that these are a comparison of apples and oranges and that the validity is strained at best. Would that be a fair characterization?

Hon. J. Doyle: We are aware of comparisons in other jurisdictions across the country. I also sit down with Mr. Haggard or other people from the IWA on a regular basis. At the end of the day, it is very, very hard whenever you are comparing different species in different jurisdictions. You get wetbelt; you get many, many other areas in this province that possibly some of the other provinces don't have.

R. Neufeld: I have a few questions. I'll go around a little bit here, but it has to deal with the Empire Valley Ranch. I usually ask every year. I don't suppose . . . . In fact, I would be surprised if the ministry had the numbers with them. I would like to know the total cubic metres of timber harvested in Fort St. John, both coniferous and deciduous, and what the status is of the lands in Fort St. John that were traded for the Empire Valley Ranch -- what state they're in, whether they've been turned back to the Crown and the Crown is now reforesting them and just where that whole issue is at.

Maybe I should sit down. The minister may have that information at his fingertips, and I'll just get his response.

Hon. J. Doyle: The question that the member said he has asked more than one time in this House on the Empire Valley Ranch and the status of it . . . . I don't have that information with me right now, hon. member, but I will get it to you.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I think that kind of covers that part of the Empire Valley Ranch issue.

I have one other question about the Empire Valley Ranch. As I recall, there was a court action brought against both the Minister of Environment at the time and the Minister of Forests at the time, who is not the present minister. I know that you can't respond for the Minister of Environment. But is there still a court action pending against the previous Minister of Forests?

Hon. J. Doyle: I don't have a definite answer right now. We think there is a case, but I apologize again. I'm saying that I don't have the information with me, but I will get it to the member.

R. Neufeld: I await that.

I have one further question in regard to trade of timber for land that the province may want to protect. It seems as though it happens on quite a regular basis, more regular than the public knows about. I want to know if the Ministry of Forests is presently in negotiations with any other individual in trading forest resources for land that the government wants to protect at the present time. Are there any other trades going on right now?

[1640]

Hon. J. Doyle: There are ongoing transfers that have been looked at. This ministry does not lead them; they are led by the Ministry of Environment. But there are some ongoing discussions as we speak.

R. Neufeld: I remember the Empire Valley Ranch deal quite well. It was the Ministry of Environment that led it, but Forests plays a huge role. Could I request from the minister that he provide to the opposition all of those lands -- through the Ministry of Forests, with Environment being the lead ministry -- that are anticipated for trade and the ones that were traded last year?

Hon. J. Doyle: I would be happy to do that.

R. Neufeld: When we are getting that kind of an answer, I've got to carry on and ask a few more. One other question. When the member asked the questions here a while ago about

[ Page 15341 ]

the agricultural lease issue and the stumpage, I don't know whether I misunderstood the minister or not. But maybe he could correct me. Did he say that the Ministry of Forests made a presentation to the Agriculture Committee and you were waiting for the Agriculture Committee's response to that proposal? Is that what I heard, or did the minister say something else?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry presented a paper to this committee that you're referring to.

R. Neufeld: I guess the grey hair is actually showing that my memory is not as good as it used to be. I sit on the Agriculture Committee, and I don't remember that paper. But I didn't get to all the meetings either. I will be interested in going back and reading that proposal from the ministry. As the member spoke earlier, it may take a while before that committee finally reports out. Maybe what we should do in the interim is respond. Because we have a fairly good position in that committee, we should respond to that proposal that the Ministry of Forests has put in place.

I would ask the minister if he would commit to the House now . . . . If we did that in the next little while, would the ministry look at speeding up the process of putting that kind of a recommendation into place? Will the ministry actually put into place the recommendation we put forward to the minister?

Hon. J. Doyle: If the committee speeds up the process and gets it back to us, we can be sure that we will get it processed sooner.

It is just terrible -- all this agreeing, hon. member, by you and me here today.

R. Neufeld: Just so we understand, we may not have the final report ready as the Agriculture Committee. But we may take that portion out, make some recommendations on it and give it to the ministry. That's what I'm trying to say. If the minister is agreeing to look at that seriously when we do that, I'd appreciate that very much. It is an issue not just in the member for Cariboo's riding but in my riding or any one of the other ridings in rural B.C. where there is farmland involved and there are forest resources on those farmlands.

Hon. J. Doyle: The commitment that I made is exactly what the member is saying. If he doesn't have a copy of the paper, we'll be happy to provide you with another one, hon. member.

[1645]

G. Abbott: I'd be pleased now to move on to the Forest Practices Code discussion. I anticipate there'll be a modest change of staff here. I should advise the minister of what areas of the code I want to pursue in this section, because we have had considerable discussion of the code in a variety of contexts, including the Wouters report and others.

I'll have a few questions around the

summary report entitled "A Review of Forest Practices Legislation, Regulation and Guidelines in Selected Canadian Jurisdictions," a publication that was provided to the ministry by Gary Bull and Associates, a group of forestry professors from UBC, primarily. I'll have a few questions on that. And the other element in the code discussion that I look forward to here is more information with respect to the code pilots that are underway in four jurisdictions in the province. I'll be seeking more information on that, just to give the minister a heads-up on what we'll be doing.

[J. Cashore in the chair.]

Hon. J. Doyle: That's as good as it gets.

G. Abbott: I'd like to start with the report from Gary Bull and Associates, which takes a look, comparatively, at forest practices legislation in different provinces in Canada. I've had an opportunity to read it, and I think it's a very interesting report. They don't frame some of their comments quite as provocatively as I would have liked. It would have been a great document for question period had they used rather more colourful phrases at points, but regrettably they don't do that. Nevertheless, I think there are some enormously interesting observations that they make in their paper.

Frequently we do get wrapped up in what's going on in the province of British Columbia and the regulatory structure that we've developed, and we don't get to look outside and see what other people have done or other jurisdictions have done to try to achieve, obviously, many of the same goals that we try to achieve in our legislation. So I think this is a particularly interesting and useful study that has been done. I was quite impressed by some of the observations, in terms of comparisons with other jurisdictions.

The most important comparisons I'll note for those who are not familiar with this document, and I expect many British Columbians aren't. It's a document that I believe we secured through freedom of information. It has not, I don't think, been released publicly yet by the ministry. Perhaps it has, but I don't believe it has. The jurisdictions that are looked at in the study are British Columbia obviously, Alberta to some extent, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. It is interesting to look at how different provinces have structured their forest practices legislation.

Now, some of the points that are made, I think, are particularly compelling. We have done some things, according to this, in British Columbia which have not been done elsewhere. We have created in many respects -- and I'll go into some detail on that -- a more elaborate, more complicated, more involved forest practices management structure than exists elsewhere. For example, and I don't know if the minister has the paper with him, on page 15 of the

summary report Mr. Bull and his associates make the observation: "Planning procedures and operational practices in the four jurisdictions" -- and I'll note the four jurisdictions outside of British Columbia -- "vary, but all tend to rely on guiding principles rather than strict rules and tend to be results-based rather than process-driven."

The report then goes on, for example, to note that in Ontario they have a Crown Forest Sustainability Act. It does not specify specific management processes but rather, presents objectives and guidelines. "In Alberta a simple statement of objectives is given, followed by standards which must be met and guidelines towards the achievement of the standards. The standards are clear and concise and the guidelines brief." That, I guess, as an introduction to this, is some useful commentary.

[1650]

In looking at how we might reform the Forest Practices Code in British Columbia to move from a process-oriented

[ Page 15342 ]

code to a results-based and incentive-based code, we do need to look at the experience elsewhere. Ontario and Alberta certainly are not simple jurisdictions in terms of environmental management either. Like other areas of Canada, they seem to have been able to achieve a different balance than we have in British Columbia.

I'll invite the minister's comments with respect to that -- whether there are some important lessons, some important things that we can learn from jurisdictions outside British Columbia, other provinces. And where does the ministry currently sit in terms of analyzing and trying to implement some of the lessons that are pretty clear in the work provided to the ministry by Gary Bull and Associates?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has had two senior staff working and comparing the Alberta and Ontario experience, and they will be reporting back to the executive next month.

G. Abbott: That's encouraging. I think there are some important lessons to be learned here. Hopefully the impressive work that has been conducted by Gary Bull and Associates will yield some fruit in term of regulatory improvement in the province of British Columbia.

There are just a couple of other portions of the report that I want to call to attention of the minister. I think it's really important to note these. I was quite fascinated to read this. When the university professors compared how strategic plan names and authoritative approval were developed in the different provinces, they note the jurisdiction -- whether a strategic plan is required and what the strategic plan approval and discretionary authority is in each of those jurisdictions.

For example, in Ontario, yes, a strategic plan is required. In fact, in all jurisdictions, including British Columbia, a strategic plan is required. In Ontario the approval authority is the Ministry of Natural Resources. Now, it's fair to note at the outset that Ontario has a different cabinet structure than we have in British Columbia. The Ministry of Natural Resources embraces what would in British Columbia be both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. But there is just the one approval authority. I hope the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks doesn't get too nervous about this, but I'm sure she isn't.

In Alberta there is a strategic plan required but, again, one regulatory authority, the Ministry of Forests. In Quebec, again, a plan is required, and again there is one strategic plan approval and discretionary authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources. When we come to British Columbia, according to Dr. Bull and his associates, yes, a strategic plan is required. Strategic plan and approval and discretionary authorities are: Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Forests district manager; Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks designated environment official; and Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1655]

Again, I think it's a pretty clear example of how -- and the minister knows well that others have previously observed this -- there are perhaps too many authorities involved in providing those approvals in British Columbia.

I'll give a second example, and then I'll provide the minister with an opportunity to respond to both if he wishes. Again, operational plans . . . . This is for the information of the ministry: page 28 of the

summary report, table 4.2, "Operational Plans, with plan name and approval authority." The table goes through the same five jurisdictions that we've been talking about -- whether an operational plan is required and, again, the discretionary authority.

In Alberta, yes, an operational plan is required. The approval authority is the Ministry of Forests district manager. In New Brunswick, yes, an operational plan is required. The approval authority is the Ministry of Forests. In Ontario, yes, there is an operational plan required, and again, just one authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources. In Quebec, yes, a plan is required. There is one approval authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources. In British Columbia, yes, an operational plan is required.

The approval authorities are the Ministry of Forests district manager and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks designated environment official, in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests DM -- district manager, presumably.

In British Columbia we have a more complex approval authority than we find elsewhere. Now, we may have evolved our regulatory framework over time for the best of reasons, but the fact of the matter is that we are doing some things in British Columbia in terms of multi-agency approval authority that are not being done in other jurisdictions. I'll be very surprised if anywhere in the world we have the kind of multi-agency approval authorities that we find in British Columbia. I understand that the current government even agrees with that proposition and is attempting to find ways in which we can streamline approval authority in British Columbia.

That's a very long-winded way of inviting the minister to comment on those, I think, very informative tables that are contained in the Gary Bull report to the Ministry of Forests. What does he make of what's contained in these tables? What's the ministry's view with respect to streamlining and simplifying regulatory approvals in the province?

Hon. J. Doyle: I think that in this province, hon. member, you would likely agree . . . . We've talked about the different areas. There's the coast, the wetbelt, the other areas of the interior, the north. They're all quite different. There are very diverse, complex areas in our province -- and I'm sure in other provinces, too, but maybe not to the same extent.

As I mentioned in my previous answer to the member, we have two staff working. They've been in other jurisdictions; they're going to report back to the executive next week. If there are any changes that can be made and still secure the environmental standards, etc., that we have in our province, we will surely look at them.

[1700]

G. Abbott: I hope that enterprise bears fruit. I do think we have an inordinate level of complexity in our regulatory approval process which does need to be addressed. It goes back to our discussion -- probably the central theme of our estimates process here -- that the debate is not about whether environmental standards should be changed. That's not being requested by anyone. The debate is about whether those standards are being delivered in the most effective and efficient manner that we can.

I think we probably have agreement on both sides of the floor that if there are more effective and efficient ways of delivering, we've got to look at them and put them in place. I look forward to seeing some fruit being borne from the process which the minister has outlined.

The report also contains, I think, a very interesting discussion of comparative timber harvesting practices in different

[ Page 15343 ]

provinces. Here I would suspect . . . . The minister can confirm this or certainly raise my level of understanding around this, because in respect of timber harvesting practices, clearly we have very different situations in different parts of the province, and I suspect it does make it very difficult to compare. Nevertheless, obviously that was part of the mandate that was given to Dr. Bull and his associates, because they do review the comparative harvesting practices in the different provinces.

Again, just of note, the different jurisdictions and the different maximum clearcut sizes in the provinces: Alberta has a 60-hectare average, 100-hectare maximum for deciduous and pine forests and 24-hectare blocks or 32-hectare strips for coniferous forests; New Brunswick has a 100-hectare maximum; Ontario, 260 hectares in the boreal forest, unspecified cut in the Great Lakes region; Quebec, 150 hectares; B.C., 40 hectares in the south coast and interior regions and 60 hectares on the north coast.

I'll invite the minister to consult his staff here. Obviously this is a complex and difficult thing to come to grips with. Could the minister take a moment and consult with his staff around what read his staff have taken with respect to the timber harvesting

section of this? Is there also, with respect to this element of the report, some ongoing discussions within the ministry about how, if anything, the experience of those other provinces can be applied to British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: The present average cut size in the province, as mentioned by the member from the report, is 40 to 60 hectares. That is the default size of cutblocks at the present. When higher level plans are in place, there could be changes made according to the terrain or where the cuts are. At the same time, I think many times the industry or the sector out there is reluctant to go to too large a cutblock, because sometimes they get pressure as a company from the public in that area or somewhere in the province.

[1705]

G. Abbott: Could the minister tell me what, if anything, they believe the experience of the other provinces in this comparative study can tell us about what we're doing in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: In the code in the province, we will allow larger cutblocks where they are possible, to some extent, as I mentioned in my last answer. We will work with industry. We'll also be looking at this report and working with the committee of members, as I said, from senior executive members that are reviewing this report and working with other jurisdictions in Canada.

G. Abbott: Thank you to the minister for that explanation.

The code pilots we've talked about a little bit before. These are obviously pilot projects around ways in which the Forest Practices Code might be streamlined or in some way improved by the experience of conducting those practices in somewhat different ways. As I understand it from the minister's earlier comments, we have four code projects that have been undertaken in the province. One of those I know reasonably well; it's the Riverside project near Kelowna, a very interesting project.

Could the minister outline for me where those four are located? Well, let's just start with that, and we'll work from there.

Hon. J. Doyle: There are six pilots. One is the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association; another is the Cariboo Woodlot Association. In the next one, Canfor is leading a project with partners. Riverside Forest Products was mentioned by the member. Weyerhaeuser has a project underway near Powell River, and there's the Bulkley TSA pilot.

G. Abbott: Obviously as the codes have been developed and approved, in each case, the industry and the province are looking for different elements in the code that can be improved. Can the minister tell me, for example -- he may not want to do this with all of them, or perhaps he can, if it can be done in a fairly economical fashion -- what the primary goals are of, say, the Riverside project? What are the elements in the code that are potentially going to be reformed by that project?

[1710]

Hon. J. Doyle: The member mentioned -- and we talked about -- the one in Riverside the other day. I was made aware of that when I was up at the ILMA, I think it was last week. The Riverside Forest Products one, for instance is a project advisory panel consisting of stakeholders, public proponent and agencies in reviewing a draft detailed proposal that generally follows an ecosystem management model for strategic planning, linked to LRMP processes, with compliance being added against criteria. This model includes an emphasis on empowering licensed professionals to make operational decisions to be accountable for this item.

Another instance, Canfor and their partners . . . . The central purpose of this pilot is to link provincial regulation under the Forest Practices Code with ISO, CSA and FSC certification requirements. The proposal is to set objectives at the development plan level, with compliance via third-party audits against operational Canadian Council of Forest Ministers criteria and indicators. A public advisory group will soon be struck to provide public oversight to the project.

Those are examples of two of them, hon. member.

G. Abbott: The kind of thing that is potentially being embraced here in the code pilots, it sounds, would be -- and I hope the characterization is appropriate -- professional accountability, an attempt to see the authority properly in the hands of the professional foresters involved in designing the silviculture and harvesting management plans, and so on. In the case of Canfor, the dominant element would probably involve professional accountability as well, but with the linkage to certification and third-party audits as a way of, I presume, moving away from the monitoring and enforcement element in the current code. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: Professional accountability in each one, as the member is recognizing . . . . The whole six are a little bit different -- just to check out different methods or, ultimately, to get the certification.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what different elements might be found, for example, in the two Cariboo projects that will assist us in streamlining the code as well?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member asked about the two Cariboo plans. The Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association -- the purpose of this one is to cap the efficiencies gained through planning and public involvement and improvement based on the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.

[ Page 15344 ]

The other one is unique in the respect that it is a woodlot association, the Cariboo Woodlot Association. This pilot's purpose is to replace the existing operational planning regime with a comprehensive management plan. Quality assurance is proposed through periodic audits that may include a public participation component.

[1715]

G. Abbott: While obviously there may be some regional variation, there are still the two dominant elements there again: seeking streamlining of approval authority through professional accountability and the link to third-party audits and certification. These seem to be a common element in all of them, if that's not an unfair generalization.

Were there proposals made for code pilots in different parts of the province that were not accepted?

Hon. J. Doyle: There were no more than the ones that are out on the table right now, but we are looking at more coming out.

G. Abbott: We had an opportunity to discuss this a little bit yesterday, I believe it was, so I don't want to dwell on it. My recollection, in terms of the reporting out or the ongoing analysis of the code pilot projects . . . . I believe the minister's response to my question was that the pilots would be assessed on an ongoing basis and that as the ministry became comfortable with the lessons learned from the code pilots, those would, as soon as appropriate, be incorporated into legislation. Again, I may be simplifying excessively here, and if I am, I'll ask the minister to correct me on that.

Hon. J. Doyle: Member, that is correct. Your memory serves you well from yesterday.

G. Abbott: This question, perhaps, will provide us with a bridge from code issues to forest health issues. For the minister's information, when I had the briefing with the deputy minister and other officials, it was suggested that the discussion of innovative forest practices might be better moved down to our discussion around other FRBC issues. I think that's a useful way to proceed. This will take us into forest health next. I'll pose this question because it involves a bit of a code issue, and it kind of involves forest health issues too.

I'll preface it with this comment. A couple of years ago I had the good fortune to be up in the Bowron Lake area, where there had been a very substantial clearcut to deal with a huge pine beetle infestation some years ago. The neat thing about that was that the area has been reforested, and the trees are certainly commonly in the 30-foot range now. Actually, it's pretty darn beautiful in through there again.

Has the ministry had to confront the issue of maximum cutblock sizes as it attempts to deal with the beetle infestation this go-round? I mean, there must be lots of instances where the infestation is such that you might need an opening of 500 hectares, perhaps, to deal with it. How does the ministry come to grips with that?

Hon. J. Doyle: The code does allow larger openings in areas like we're speaking about, where there are beetle problems.

G. Abbott: So the maximum is effectively waived in instances where, due to circumstances of forest health, the licensee or the contractor must go in and deal with it. There's no maximum in that case; it's left to the discretion of the ministry officials to determine.

[1720]

Hon. J. Doyle: They're not waived -- the size. But we do try to mimic natural disturbances that would occur through natural events.

G. Abbott: The question I asked was of a more technical nature. When those questions arise, does it fall to the discretionary authority of the district manager to determine what cutting approval would be appropriate?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member is right; it is in the jurisdiction of the local manager.

G. Abbott: What I'd now like to canvass briefly with the minister is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Again, I'm not sure -- is the appropriate staff here for that? Mr. Konkin knows everything, so he can answer the question. That's great. What is the government's estimate in the year 2000 of the number of hectares that are in some degree affected by the mountain pine beetle infestation?

Hon. J. Doyle: The current estimate is 195,000 hectares. We will not know the total infestation in the province until we complete the surveys that are ongoing at this time.

G. Abbott: Are the surveys being conducted primarily by aerial means, or are there other ways that's determined?

Hon. J. Doyle: Aerial and ground surveys are done.

G. Abbott: How has the number of affected hectares changed since . . . ? Let's go back to 1999 and 1998. I just want to get a sense of the recent growth of this epidemic.

Hon. J. Doyle: The average year is 50,000 hectares. For instance, as we mentioned a minute ago, last year was 195,000.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure I understood the minister's answer. The average area affected in British Columbia in an average year is 50,000 hectares. We have moved to 195,000. Obviously we're way above average in terms of the natural cycle of this insect.

Does the ministry anticipate -- again, barring the good fortune of a particularly cold winter -- that the epidemic has reach