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)

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 6

[ Page 15215 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Today I have in the gallery two very interesting people that I would like to introduce to the House. I had lunch with them. It was very, very interesting, and we can be very proud. They are a young woman named Angela Anoliefoh, who is an athlete and student at Burnaby Central Secondary, and Geza Baranyi, who is a social worker.

[1410]

Angela is a 17-year-old student. She is a high jumper, and she participates in heptathlon events and is very good at it. She has a grade point average of 3.3, and she has just accepted a scholarship to Purdue University in Indiana, where she will be studying kinesiology. I would like the House to join me in congratulating her. She does credit to British Columbia, she does credit to her school and her coach, Ken Taylor, and indeed she does a great deal of credit to her own determination. Congratulations and welcome.

C. Clark: We have eight students representing the SFU B.C. Young Liberals joining us today. They're on their annual pilgrimage to Victoria to see how politics is done. I'd like to introduce each of them that's here: Mark Acosta, Afyia Khan, Parmjit Vinning, Dan Bjorkdahl, Chad Pederson, Andrew Haskell, Mac Runyowa and Ed Hsu. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special guests from the Philippines. Gov. Ofelia Bulaong is the head of the Board of Investment of the government of the Philippines. She's accompanied by a delegation which includes Director General Augusto Santos of the Philippines National Economic Development Agency and Director Meynardo Orbeta of the Philippines Department of Trade and Industry.

Governor Bulaong is exploring joint-venturing initiatives and business linkages between Canada and the Philippines, and I'm most looking forward to our meeting this afternoon. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to this House and to our province.

Hon. H. Lali: I have the pleasure to introduce two individuals who make my life a lot easier; they are my two constituency assistants. In the gallery are Wendy Eeckhout, who has actually been one of the longest-serving CAs on this side of the House, and also Millie Mitchell, who started out first doing part-time and replacement work in my office in 1993. I would like to ask the House to please make both of my constituency assistants welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to add my words of welcome to those of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for one of my hardest campaign workers. That's Parmjit Vinning, and I'm glad to see her here today. She's a good friend of the family, and I just want to ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As everybody in the House knows, I hope, this is Child Care Month. Today I have the honour of introducing a very special guest. Bobbi Brewer is a seven-year-old Okanagan girl. She's here today to celebrate with me the launching of Child Care Month. Bobbi drew the picture that has become the poster that's been distributed across the province and is in fact on the buttons that every member received this morning.

We've had a delightful couple of hours, including a visit by the whole family to the Premier's Office, where Bobbi presented the Premier with one of her buttons. I'd ask the House to please congratulate and welcome Bobbi, who is seven years old and in grade 1 at Alexis Park Elementary School, and also to welcome her family: her mom Sherry Louis, her dad Darrell Brewer and her ten-year-old sister Julie. I'd ask all the members to make this very talented family very welcome.

S. Orcherton: It's a pleasure today to introduce a constituent from the constituency held by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The reason I'm introducing this individual is because she is my wife's cousin; I guess that makes her my cousin-in-law. In any event, she's visiting Victoria, and it's her first time to be at the Legislative Assembly and to witness question period in this House. I'd ask that the members make Ms. Carolyn Potts very welcome to these chambers.

L. Reid: We're joined in the precincts today by a lovely group of grade 7 students visiting from Richmond East. They represent General Currie Elementary School, and their teachers accompanying them today are Mrs. Topp, Mr. Avery and Mr. Reid. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1415]

J. Cashore: We have in the gallery today three residents of Coquitlam, who are members of the Riverview Horticultural Society. They are Norma Gillespie, the president, and two executive members, Mary Brown and Donna Crosby. They're here today to witness the presentation of a humongous petition advocating the protection of green space at the Riverview lands. They deserve a great deal of credit for the work that they do on behalf of the environment in the area. Would the House please make them very welcome.

E. Gillespie: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Dana Nutland, a grade 11 work experience student from the Comox Valley school district who is here doing a work-shadowing with me today. She's been to visit the Premier and the Speaker -- thank you, hon. Speaker -- and is joining us in question period now. Please join me in welcoming Dana Nutland.

R. Thorpe: I'd like the House to please welcome an associate that I used to work with back in the eighties, Marg and Bill Taylor of Penticton.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask leave to table ministry performance plans.

Leave granted.

[ Page 15216 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a pleasure rise today and table, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, performance plans for each and every ministry of government for the fiscal year 2000-2001. On March 27, budget day, I tabled the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act here. This act requires performance plans to be tabled for each ministry in the House. While that act is not yet law, we're not waiting; we're acting now.

Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to table the performance plans for each ministry.

They include the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, including the Information, Science and Technology Agency and the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Ministry of Attorney General; the Ministry for Children and Families; the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Employment and Investment; the Ministry of Energy and Mines; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations; the Ministry of Forests; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Multiculturalism and Immigration, including the Public Service Employee Relations Commission; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security; the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and the Ministry of Women's Equality.

There you go.

The Speaker: The minister tables reports.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

G. Campbell: In its most recent budget, the government announced a cut in the education funding for 60,000 students in the province of British Columbia. That obviously caused grave concern amongst their parents in the independent school movement -- and frustration and anger. The Minister of Education announced just last week that the decision was final.

My question to the Minister of Education is: how on earth can you possibly justify cutting $5 million in support to independent school students, their teachers and their parents when the government has wasted a hundred times that amount on fast ferries that make absolutely no difference to any British Columbian?

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am visible.

Hon. Speaker, this is obviously a very difficult issue. During the leadership campaign I made a commitment that there would be no change to the funding formula for independent schools. I did that twice during the leadership meetings. When I was made aware of this item in the budget, I was advised that that wasn't a change to the funding formula -- that it was a stricter enforcement of the funding formula.

I now have learned that it is in fact a change to the funding formula. I want to make sure that I keep my promise. I made an announcement about ten minutes ago that $5 million would not be cut and that there would be no change to the funding formula.

[1420]

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.

G. Campbell: I'm very pleased that the Premier has finally decided that education is important enough for him to understand what his government's budget was. The Premier made a number of commitments during his leadership which he decided not to live up to. So it's not surprising that, once again, parents and students in independent schools were concerned about what this government has done.

My question will be to the Premier. Why on earth would you approve a Finance minister's budget, an Education minister's budget, that cut $5 million from independent schools, which was a direct assault on the students and teachers in independent schools across British Columbia -- when he said he would never let that happen?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have in fact . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . given the fullest possible explanation to the House in my previous answer.

G. Campbell: The Premier has given us an answer. My question to the Premier is: does this Premier, like the previous Premier, find budgets boring? Doesn't he pay attention to students? Doesn't he pay attention to schools? Doesn't he understand what his government is doing? Why on earth would he create this uncertainty with parents and students -- 60,000 students -- in the public education system in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, this side of the House makes commitments for enhancing and improving education every year. Throughout the leadership campaign we did that, and we would deal with those issues in the next campaign. The opposition, in the only opportunity they had -- particularly this Leader of the Opposition had -- made a commitment to cut 15 cents out of every dollar in advanced education in British Columbia.

G. Hogg: Well over 100,000 people have been influenced by this disruption and uncertainty. There have been teachers, parents, students . . . . The Premier said that he had been advised that this was not a change to the funding formula. My question is to the Premier. If that is in fact the case, could he tell us who gave him that advice?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . I made a commitment. I have always said that in public life, I am not a vengeful person.

[ Page 15217 ]

People sometimes make honest mistakes. This is not about heads rolling; this is about doing the right thing and keeping your promise. I've just done that. And if the opposition can't come to terms with the fact that they didn't have any other questions for this particular day, then perhaps they should reconsider their question period strategy.

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock with a supplemental question.

G. Hogg: A majority of these students have been from middle- and low-income families, and there were kids with special needs, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Hogg: The Premier has stated that he's not prepared to name people. But is he prepared today, because of the disruption, uncertainty and problems that he's caused to all these people, to provide an apology to all those people for all he's put them through in the past number of weeks?

[1425]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I find it amazing that this opposition stands on the other side and attacks this side of the House about doing damage to education. We have consistently increased funding for post-secondary education and for K-to-12 every year of the last nine years of this government. We have created thousands of post-secondary spaces. We have made commitments to reduce class sizes in K-to-12. I have made a commitment that if we could afford it in the next budget and the budget after, over the next few years we would in fact phase out the tuition fees in post-secondary education in British Columbia.

BIJOUX FALLS PARK

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Environment. Most of the new parks created over the last nine years have been in very remote areas. They're inaccessible to all but the very rich and a few privileged environmentalists, like former MLA Tom Perry.

In the meantime, fees have been introduced at Forestry campsites, and services at accessible class A parks are ever reduced. Bijoux Falls is a classic example -- a beautiful little class A park immediately adjacent to Highway 97 in the Pine Pass that has had the toilets and picnic tables removed. Can the minister tell us why she continues to alienate resource-rich land when her ministry won't service the parks that are already established?

Hon. J. Sawicki: The hon. member is right. This side of the House has created spectacular parks. In fact, we are very close to doubling the number of protected areas. We've done that in the lower mainland; we've done it in the hon. member's region of the province. We have done it in every region of this province, because we do believe in protecting the biodiversity and special places in this province for present and future generations.

The park that the hon. member is asking about was determined to be a small roadside park that more properly belonged to a Ministry of Highways rest-stop function. For that reason, discussions were made with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to be able to provide that function.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.

J. Weisgerber: Bijoux Falls is much more than a highway rest stop. It's a magnificent falls and is accessible to seniors, handicapped people and people in wheelchairs. It's a beautiful place for a picnic. It's a great place for motorists and local people to stop, and statistics indicate that they do in serious numbers.

My question to the minister is two questions. Has she ever been to Bijoux Falls? And does she believe that those seniors and handicapped people who use the park should be expected to drive 40 kilometres to use a washroom?

Hon. J. Sawicki: I know that the hon. member feels very strongly about Bijoux Falls, and certainly we have heard from some of his constituents. The facilities at Bijoux Falls were moved to another highway rest stop. I will certainly concur with the hon. member that providing facilities inside our parks is incredibly difficult when you have the number of parks that we have in British Columbia. But I want to say that I am very proud of our staff and Parks B.C. in terms of trying to maintain the highest-quality facilities that we can provide within our provincial parks.

MENTAL HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

C. Hansen: Earlier in this question period the Premier made a comment. He said: "I keep my promises." Yet earlier today the B.C. Mental Health Monitoring Coalition put out a report that chronicles this government's record on mental health over the last six years. It is appropriately titled "Promises Made, Promises Broken."

[1430]

When they adopted the mental health plan, they made a commitment in the area of residential care for up to 244 people with severe and complex mental illnesses. Do you know what has happened to date? Nothing. They promised 35 more beds for emergency response. What has happened to date? Nothing. They promised day hospital programs and increases in 30 acute care hospitals for up to 1,800 clients. Do you know what has happened? Nothing. The list goes on and on.

I would like to ask this question of the Premier, in view of the commitment he made earlier that he keeps his promises: will the Premier stand up today and make a commitment that all of these promises will in fact be kept?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, we have a mental health plan that's to be phased in and implemented over five to seven years. We have made some concrete progress already, as I said yesterday, in terms of legislation that needs to be put in place so the rest of the plan can be implemented. We've done work around best practices -- best practices that are recognized as leading the way in the field of mental health in this country. We have a lot more to do, but this government is committed to implementing that mental health plan and the recommendations in it.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental.

[ Page 15218 ]

C. Hansen: Those are hollow words, because in the budget . . . . This is a question to the Premier. In this budget, on page 161, is funding for adult mental health programs. There is not one dollar to implement the mental health plan in this coming fiscal year. Will the Premier stand up and tell us why funding for the mental health plan is not in this budget that he tabled in this House?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, you know what's really interesting when they talk about hollow words? It's that I've had the media wanting to talk to me all day about mental health. There have been hundreds of people on the steps of this Legislature advocating for increased funding for mental health and implementing the mental health plan. But when it comes to the opportunity for that opposition to hold the government accountable . . . . The lead-off question -- do they ask it on mental health? No, they don't. Do they ask their second question on mental health? No, they don't. Hon.

Speaker, it's their third question. I think that says more about their priorities and where they place good mental health than anything else I can say.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

REPORT OF MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE

A. Sanders: In a recent speech the mental health advocate outlined the lack of services, lack of timely care, lack of respect and lack of dignity that people with mental illness get from this government with respect to their issues. She outlined what everybody knows -- that "closer to home" for the mentally ill is alone under the bridge, alone in the park, alone in flophouses and alone in jail.

The minister has a report from the advocate. We haven't seen it. I'd like to ask the minister when we will be seeing his version of the report from this supposedly open, honest government that's going to give us information.

The Speaker: The light has gone on. I'll ask the minister to make a brief answer to the question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The report will be tabled in this Legislature. I'm glad the member talked about homelessness, because when it comes to people with mental illnesses, it's true. I'd like to put this challenge out to the Leader of the Opposition: does he agree with his housing critic who says that we should not build social housing, but we should have rent supplements? Rent supplements will not house the mentally ill.

[1435]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Petitions

J. Cashore: I rise to present a petition signed by 4,425 B.C. residents, urging that the Riverview lands in Coquitlam be preserved in perpetuity for mental health services and as public green space. These signatures are in addition to 17,000 names collected on earlier petitions also supporting this initiative.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the other chamber -- the Douglas Fir Committee Room -- we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

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

E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: I would like to introduce 48 grade 11 students from Vanier high school in the Comox Valley school district who are visiting the Legislature today, and I ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.

Interjections.

The Chair: The committee will come to order.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

G. Abbott: When we adjourned just before lunch, the minister made some comments about the opposition and about how successfully his ministry had resolved this situation. Frankly, I was ready to let the question . . . then, but I was disappointed by some of the comments being made. So I think it's appropriate that I read into the record -- and I know my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove wants to read into the record -- a couple of responses that we've received from people who are less than satisfied with the agreement that the minister has put together.

[1440]

I don't want to spend the rest of the week on this issue; I think we've canvassed it sufficiently. But I know I have a thick pile of e-mails and letters that I've received on this issue. If the minister would like to do that, we can certainly spend a great deal of time doing that. But I'm happy to sum up on the issue with just a few of the many correspondences that I've had on this matter, and my colleague will want to add to that.

Again, just to give you a sense of some of this, this is an e-mail I received on April 26 from Keith Fitzgibbon of Duncan. Actually, it's a copy of an e-mail to the minister. It says:

"Sir:

"Your office has indicated that 85 percent of respondents are satisfied with the province's offer to submit part of the taxes resulting from FRBC's incompetence in regard to forest worker income assistance. Please do not include me in that group. It's your screw-up -- fix it.

Keith Fitzgibbon"

And this is from Darryl Clarke on April 26 to me:

"Of the many people I know that are impacted by this huge surprise forest worker retraining program tax debt, not one of them is content with only having one-third of the debt cor

[ Page 15219 ]

rected. The notion that 85 percent of us might be happy with still owing two-thirds of huge surprise tax debt is laughable.

"Thank you.

Darryl Clarke, Aldergrove, B.C."

From Robert Ell of Courtenay -- and again, this is a courtesy copy to me of correspondence to the Minister of Forests:

"On Thursday, April 20th, 2000, I happened to come across the debate on the Committee of Supply B, Ministry of Forests estimates. Minister, first of all, I want to go on record as stating that my wife and I are not to be included in your statement that 85 percent of the people contacting you are satisfied with the provincial government paying only the B.C. portion of the income tax owing on payments provided under the forest worker transition program . . . .

"I am still dismayed that when I met with you in Victoria on March 30, you indicated that you were not prepared to assist the workers any further and that all legal costs associated with this matter will have to be picked up by the workers themselves. Mr. Minister, this problem was caused by your own program. It is shameful that you now expect the court costs to be picked up by those who can least afford it. I was truly hopeful that you would in your new capacity of minister take an honest, independent review of the actions of FRBC. My disappointment with your decision is great indeed.

Clearly if you and FRBC were honest in your approach, you would have offered to subsidize the cost of a court action.

"Your response to the questions asked by [the Forests critic] on April 20 are a clear indication that either you are not fully aware of the actions of FRBC or you have chosen to ignore them. I again request, sir, that you open your mind and heart to this matter and accept responsibility, as the minister of the Crown responsible for FRBC, to satisfy the legitimate demands of the thousands of British Columbians impacted by the failure of public policy. This matter is not going to go away."

That's from Robert Ell of Courtenay. Just a final example, and again, we can read lots into the record if we're going to have a contest about that. But I'll just read a last one here. This is from Tony and Jill Rushton:

"Dear [Forests critic]:

"I just read last week's Hansard and would like to thank you for continuing to push for a resolution to the tax issue for those affected by the disastrous FWTP. While the [hon. Forests minister] may believe that most of the affected families are satisfied by the government's offer to pay one-third of the tax bill, we are not. I wrote to [the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Premier], thanking them for that start but suggesting that the government should pay the whole tax bill.

I received a reply from [the Minister of Employment and Investment] that he had forwarded my letter to [the Minister of Forests]. I received nothing from [the Minister of Forests]. The Premier's Office was kind enough to forward their news release."

Their letter concludes:

"This program, that I'm sure began with good intentions, turned into another mismanagement of our tax dollars and has created considerable difficulty for a great many B.C. families. The government should start to take some responsibility for their programs. Obviously I would like to see the government pay the whole tax bill.

"Thanks again for remembering us.

Tony and Jill Rushton"

So those are a few of the many people that have contacted the official opposition with respect to this matter. There are many more. Believe me, if we want to spin the notion that everyone in the province of British Columbia is happy with this arrangement, that is utter nonsense. I'll invite my colleague the minister to respond to that.

[1445]

Hon. J. Doyle: I understand fully the concerns raised by the member opposite, and I am familiar with most of them. Government and FRBC are also concerned by the concerns of the clients out there who lost their jobs when there was a downturn in the forest sector. That is why government worked to start the forest transition plan, which by and large has been a great success. There have been some problems, and I'll admit them -- I'll agree with the member there -- but by and large it's been a successful program.

R. Coleman: Before I get to my letters, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of quick questions. First of all, how many calls have you received that make up that 85 percent that you're quoting? How were they qualified when they called FRBC to say they were satisfied with what you'd come up with?

Hon. J. Doyle: There were 299 calls to the Forest Renewal 1-800 line on this issue. These were clients who were out there and were just curious as to the agreement-in-principle that had been worked out between the federal and provincial governments. Out of those 299 calls that were received, 11 people said they were still opposed to the agreement-in-principle. But all the other people said that once the agreement-in-principle was explained to them, they felt it was a pretty good deal and satisfied their needs.

R. Coleman: Isn't it unbelievable that by phone calls from 299 people out of over 6,300 people affected, we tack a number of 85 percent against that and say: "Everybody's happy"? I got over 600 calls on the $75 transit fee in my riding in the last two weeks, and I don't consider that to be necessarily a scientific sample of the opinion of my total riding. Yet the minister is prepared to sit there and accept 299 calls. Did he think of doing a survey of the 6,300 people, if he got that many calls, to find out what the real numbers, the real concerns and real issues were with people?

I'd like to know if FRBC actually contacted those 6,300 people and said, "What do you think, really?" -- instead of just going by a few calls that came in over the telephone line.

Hon. J. Doyle: For the information of the members, it was 96 percent approval, not 85 percent. But for the information of the member across the floor, every person who was a client of this forest worker training program got a copy of the agreement-in-principle. Based on them receiving that, approximately 300 -- 299 -- have called the Forest Renewal office, and out of that, 96 percent said they were satisfied with the agreement-in-principle that has been worked out.

R. Coleman: I'd be curious to know how many of the 6,300 people that you put into some form of personal bankruptcy or financial distress actually even have a telephone left that they can pick up and phone you on. The fact of the matter is: for a government or a Crown corporation to take 299 calls and trumpet it as satisfaction is absurd. It's absolutely absurd that you would take that and trumpet out publicly that that many people would be satisfied. I have more e-mails of dissatisfaction coming across my desk than just about the number of phone calls that FRBC has received.

I just want to read a couple into the record, because it's just amazing to me. I still can't get over the fact that you're actually accepting 299 calls as a sample when it's not even scientifically done. You haven't done a professional poll. You haven't measured it correctly

[ Page 15220 ]

and yet, at the same time, FRBC seems to think that the minister can use this as some sort of crutch to say: "Everybody's happy because they're going to pay their third of the tax."

Here's an example. Maybe this goes to your satisfaction -- I don't know.

"I am currently a full-time student attending the University College of the Fraser Valley. I am enrolled in the criminal justice degree program and have one more full year to complete my degree. I am one of the many people who have been hit hard by the Forest Renewal-Revenue Canada issue. I acted in good faith when I took the recommendation from Forest Renewal British Columbia to file my FRBC income as a bursary -- tax-free.

"Sir, I am in no position to be able to afford the tax bills that I am receiving. I have one more year to complete my education and am doing so through the use of student loans and savings from working as a logger during the summer. I am asking that this issue be brought in front of the Legislature as it is having a profound effect on myself and I am sure many others.

"Thank you.

Robert Pelz"

[1450]

Well, Robert, I brought your issue to the Legislature. It seems that out of 299 phone calls you're not one of them.

This is another issue. I'll read this one into the record too, because I'd like to know about this little poll. We have the 299 sample, but there's also another poll that somebody did. Maybe the minister would be aware of it and would be able to tell me what the results of this poll are.

"I was listening to 'Almanac' this afternoon on CBC radio, with Mark Forsythe, and he was discussing the NDP offer to pay the provincial share of the FRBC tax bill. On the program he read a news release statement from the NDP stating that a recent poll found that 80 percent of FRBC recipients are now employed.

"That's very interesting, because someone called me two weeks ago from Angus Reid, asking me to take

part in an FRBC poll. At the time I thought: 'Great. Now I get to tell someone about this.' But the man on the telephone only asked me three questions:

1. Did I complete the FRBC program?

2. Was I employed?

3. Was I employed in the forest sector?

"That was it. I wasn't even allowed to elaborate. I am sure the information I gave them was being taken out of context because:

1. I have finished the FRBC program, but this is only because I've used up my allotted portion of funding. I did not receive career counselling because I was already enrolled at SFU and knew what direction I was going.

2. I am employed, but part-time -- just 20 hours per week -- because I'm still going to school full-time and will be until the fall of 2001.

3. I don't work in the forest sector because I'm training to be a teacher.

"Mr. Coleman, I expect the next move the NDP will make is to take full credit for me finishing school. If it was indeed the NDP who commissioned the poll, I find this absolutely shoddy and underhanded. They are attempting to transfer their burden of responsibility back onto our shoulders . . . .

"Thank you for your support. It feels good to know somebody is attempting to help us."

So I would like to ask the minister: what was that poll? And would they table it in the House today?

Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC did not conduct any poll.

R. Coleman: Is the minister aware whether Angus Reid conducted a poll and used FRBC's name in the poll?

Hon. J. Doyle: No.

R. Coleman: There were 299 calls that came into FRBC. The minister trumpets 95 percent satisfaction.

I have one widow with a tax bill. I have other people that are going bankrupt. We have people that are losing their homes. I would doubt that any one of them would tell you they're satisfied. So 6,300-plus people are affected, less than half of 1 percent make a phone call to FRBC, and FRBC thinks this is the way we decide on things.

I was very satisfied with the way my colleague for Shuswap was conducting the debate and discussion with regard to this, and I was very happy with the fact that we are actually getting some chronology and information on the table. I was extremely disappointed with the shallow application of one letter prior to lunch that led us to this discussion this afternoon.

Hon. minister, I think you dropped the ball. I also think that FRBC should be absolutely, fundamentally ashamed to do any kind of press release that says 95 percent of people are satisfied because some people make phone calls to FRBC. There's nothing scientific about it; there's nothing professional about it. They're only trying to hide something under the table.

I ask the minister this: will the minister do a press release today and tell the press that they only had 299 calls, that it wasn't scientific and that for FRBC to use that information to try and shadow this thing up as being a wonderful decision on behalf of government was nothing but a sham as far as insulting the people who are affected and the 6,300 people in the forest worker transition program?

[1455]

Hon. J. Doyle: Forest Renewal sent out a package to all of the affected clients. Included in that package was a 1-800 number that they could use to call Forest Renewal B.C. Two hundred and ninety-nine clients decided to respond to that survey -- excuse me, not to a survey, but to the explanation to them of the agreement-in-principle. As I said, no press release went out; believe me, member, no press release went out. I was asked in this House sometimes over the last few days how the agreement-in-principle was being received and how it was going.

I responded to those questions by saying, at different times, I think it was, 200 calls, and 250 to 300 as of, I think, last Friday. No press release was received or was put out by FRBC, so I don't think we have to put out another one to negate the one that we didn't send out.

The best thing to help the client or taxpayer out there is a job. I think that by and large this program has been successful in employing people who were unemployed.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, 6,001 people haven't responded. The people out there are facing debt, and they're facing bankruptcy. They're facing the loss of their credit, because they are out there trying to make a living in the job that you've helped them find, and then all of a sudden they wake up the next day, and they have a tax bill that you told them they weren't going to have.

[ Page 15221 ]

All through this process there has been nothing but a lack of clarity on decisions and recommendations from FRBC to these clients, a lack of clarity on what was being said and a lack of clarity on what the options were. It's sad; it's very sad. I would have to say that in my four years in this Legislature, this is one of the most disappointing discussions I've ever had in any kind of debate. I believe that you dropped the ball. I believe that you have 6,000 people out there hurting because you got them all tax bills they weren't expecting. And I think you've ignored the fact that that happened to them.

You ignored it back in 1996, 1997, 1998 and as recently as 1999, in some of the ambiguous correspondence you sent to those people who frankly don't have tax accountants at their fingertips all the time. Frankly, they were just trying to make a living or get re-educated so they could get a job.

They had other priorities and you had a fiduciary responsibility to them, I believe, relative to the advice that you were giving. I don't think it was good advice. I'm just disappointed that we have to deal with it -- stand in this House for three or four days and have my colleague walk through this and walk through this and walk through this simply because nobody wants to pay attention.

Hon. J. Doyle: There were over 6,000 letters, I think it was, sent out to the clients on the agreement-in-principle. I encourage all clients to call the 1-800 number and have it explained to them -- the agreement-in-principle. If they don't like it, that's their right; if they do like it, that's their right. I'm just telling you, and I've told you and this House, how many calls we've had and how many people have liked or disliked the agreement-in-principle.

R. Coleman: I'm not going to argue with the minister about his feeling about the 6,000 letters that went out and the telephone calls that came in. All I want to do is say this, and this is a quote: "So, tired of going hungry so I could pay my bills, I gave up. I don't have medical -- and I need it -- because I have to file my tax return to apply for hardship -- or whatever they call it -- medical. I had to quit making mortgage payments in order to pay the bills and buy the groceries and pay the taxes."

It doesn't matter how many letters you sent, hon. minister; it doesn't matter. These are real people with real issues who have been affected by a Crown corporation that dropped the ball.

Hon. J. Doyle: Forest Renewal sent letters out on a regular basis to keep clients updated on the discussion between the federal government and FRBC. We sent the same letters out on the agreement-in-principle to inform those members that there was an agreement-in-principle in place and encouraged them to contact FRBC, whether they liked it or didn't like it, and some people have called. I encourage others to call to ask about the agreement-in-principle.

[1500]

G. Abbott: I don't propose to belabour this any further. The comments of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove are right to the point. This is a human dilemma for a whole bunch of people in British Columbia. I think we have, over the past hours and days, thoroughly canvassed that. I think we can now let the record speak for itself with respect to the advice that was tendered and the reason why it was tendered. I believe that we have had a massive public policy failure here around this issue, but I don't propose to belabour it any longer. As I say, I think my colleague hit just the right note in terms of winding it up.

I am happy to return now to our discussion around the state of the forest industry and invite the minister to make whatever changes of staff that may be necessary to achieve that; or I can ask a question -- whichever the Chair would prefer I do.

Hon. J. Doyle: I would ask the Chair that we have a five-minute recess. I have to get something out of my office, if that's okay with the opposition.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 40 students from Credo Christian High School who are in the gallery with their teacher, Mr. deJong. It's a grade 11 class and their chaperons are Mrs. Vander Horst, Mrs. Bysterveld and Mrs. Baartman. Credo Christian is an independent school in my riding. I'm sure they're glad to hear that the pressure from the opposition pushed them to restore the funding for their school.

The Chair: We'll take a recess for five minutes -- make that till ten after three.

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

G. Abbott: When we left this subject to discuss the forest worker transition program, we were discussing some broad issues around the state of the industry. The theme of the debate at the time we left it was cost-competitiveness. I had indicated some concerns with respect to how B.C.'s cost-competitiveness had been eroded over the 1990s as a consequence of some public policy changes, most notably the very prescriptive Forest Practices Code we have in British Columbia. We were talking in general terms about the possibilities of improving cost-competitiveness by replacing the very prescriptive code with a results-based code.

[1505]

The government has at times indicated, at least rhetorically, that it also shares the view that we need a results-based code in British Columbia, although obviously there may be some debate around exactly what a results-based code is. When I asked the minister about that very near the end of our discussion here -- and it's going back a few days now . . . .

In response to my question about the importance of delivering environmental standards in the most efficient and effective way -- i.e., through a results-based and incentive-based forest practices code -- the minister responded: "Probably the biggest opportunity for regulatory reform may be in the professional people in the province working with the industry -- working together to see the savings that they could find. That's something that must be done. But the concern and the problem is that as far as government, people are telling us that they don't always trust the work that might happen out there."

My question to the minister is this -- and it's really a request for clarification on the point: is the minister saying that the people don't trust the government and therefore we have to have layered accountability around things like the Forest

[ Page 15222 ]

Practices Code? Or is the minister saying that the people don't trust the forest industry to deliver a results-based code without having oversight at every stage from the government? Or indeed is he saying both? That's my question to the minister, to begin this.

Hon. J. Doyle: What people are asking for in the province is a results-based code; they want a system of checks and balances. I've no doubt that government and industry RPFs and other officials in the ministry and, of course, in the private sector can work together to ensure that there are savings where at all possible, without in any way endangering the Forest Practices Code that is in place.

G. Abbott: So in terms of the question that I posed, it appeared from the quote that the minister was saying: "People are telling us in the province that they don't always trust the work that might happen out there." My understanding was that the minister was advancing that distrust as a reason not to proceed towards a results-based code. Am I now to understand that, rather than that, he was attempting to say: "Yes, we can go to a results-based code, and there is not a distrust of government and/or the forest industry to deliver that"?

Hon. J. Doyle: In no way was I implying that we did not trust the private sector. I have great confidence in the private sector. A day or so after I got this job, two-plus months ago, I addressed a meeting of the RPFs in Prince George. I know many of those people -- as you do, hon. member -- and I trust them fully. I have no doubt that they can work together with government officials to make sure that we are good stewards of the land and to deliver wood to yards or marketplaces at a competitive price.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clarification. I think it's an important one, not just for registered professional foresters, but for the broader industry -- to know that the process towards a results-based code is not going to be in some way impaired by an emotional distrust on some people's part towards either the industry or the government.

[1510]

The document that I was working with at the time we recessed this discussion previously is a document by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled "The B.C. Forest Industry: Unrealized Potential," dated January 2000. We have agreed that PricewaterhouseCoopers is a very reliable observer of the forest industry in British Columbia; therefore we have to take very seriously the concerns that are sometimes raised by that organization. I want to put a few more of them on the record and allow the minister to respond to them.

One of the points raised in this document, on page 3, is around logging costs and operating costs for 1989-1998.

"The chart shows that in the 1989-1998 period, average provincial log costs rose from $37 per cubic metre to $57 per cubic metre. The 1989 cost, trended to 1998 for inflation, would have resulted in a 1998 cost of $45 per cubic metre. The $12-per-cubic-metre gap between actual operating cost and the inflation trend line is almost entirely the result of the Forest Practices Code. The $12-per-cubic-metre gap is equivalent to increased costs of $680 million per year."

Is that a piece of analysis that the ministry would agree is accurate?

Hon. J. Doyle: We have no reason to dispute the numbers that are in the report you are quoting from.

G. Abbott: I think that's encouraging. I think it provides a good example of why we need to proceed to a results-based code in the province.

Again, in their further analysis on page 4 of this document: "This increase in logging cost coupled with the cost impact of policy changes restricting log supply is a primary reason why the British Columbia forest industry was, by the end of 1998, less competitive than that of eastern Canada. Differences in taxation and other public policies between B.C. and the rest of Canada also impacted B.C.'s competitiveness."

I'll ask the minister first whether he agrees with this assessment of the competitive position of the B.C. forest industry vis-à-vis that of eastern Canada, and ask further -- as part of the same question -- whether his ministry has done its own independent analysis of B.C.'s competitiveness in relation to the eastern Canadian industry.

Hon. J. Doyle: Looking at costs only is misleading, as it is only half the story. To get a complete picture, one must look at revenues -- the trees that grow in British Columbia versus other jurisdictions and what one receives for them in the marketplace.

G. Abbott: That is at best a partial answer to the concerns that have been posed here. The quality of timber certainly is an issue. The fact of the matter is that in the situation we have in the United States and in Japan, what we have seen is an erosion of B.C.'s market share in both of those marketplaces, as the high-cost producers are forced out when prices decline. We can perhaps excuse a marginal difference in, for example, stumpage -- around the quality of the timber.

But I think it is a partial answer at best to say that somehow a qualitative difference in the fibre allows us to avoid the cost-competitive issues which, as I understand it from other documentation, have seen us lose market share to other competitors in Scandinavia and eastern Canada, and in our U.S. marketplace and the Japanese marketplace. Does the minister not agree?

Hon. J. Doyle: The loss of market that the member speaks about . . . . To a great extent when we're speaking about the United States, it's to do with the softwood lumber agreement in place and the fact that we're limited in just how much we can ship in there. A large part of our market also went to Asia. We lost a lot of that market. Some of the market in Japan that traditionally came from the coast is now being supplied by companies from Europe.

To a great extent, the reason that some of the companies on the coast are not shipping to Japan right now is because they're bringing in a dried product from other parts of the world. The industry on the coast is not yet set up to supply to that market.

[1515]

G. Abbott: I don't dispute the minister's response, but I hope he doesn't dispute this either. When we get into -- I guess it would be best termed "penalty wood" under the softwood lumber agreement, where there's an additional $50 or $100 levy on the B.C. wood, once people exceed their quota . . . . It's there that our producers are finding, that as the high-cost producer in the marketplace, they can't compete against jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, who can move their product into the marketplace and undercut the B.C. producers. So again the question is: is it not the case that the high-cost producer is the first one forced out of the marketplace when we see price reductions?

[ Page 15223 ]

Hon. J. Doyle: When one takes into consideration the species that we're shipping in British Columbia compared to other provinces, we are not the high-cost producer in Canada.

G. Abbott: That surprises me -- and certainly it would be news, as well, to the industry that we're not. And I'm not sure what species the minister is referring to. I think that overall, we certainly are the high-cost producer. I hear that over and over again not just from the industry but from very informed folks like PricewaterhouseCoopers that monitor those things on an ongoing basis.

The other point which is made on page 4 by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the document, "Unrealized Potential," is this: "With the overall increase in the cost of logs and timber availability issues, it is not surprising that the actual log harvest from Crown lands has been substantially below the annual allowable cut set by the province's chief forester." That's Pricewaterhouse saying that we're getting a contraction in timber harvest well below the AAC as a consequence of the cost of logs and timber availability issues.

Again, I think we may have touched on this in previous discussions. The cut in '98 was well below -- indeed, probably close to 15 million cubic metres below -- the AAC as a consequence of some of the issues we were talking about. Could the minister remind me . . . ? Did we cut to the AAC in 1999, a year which I'm sure we would all agree was a far better one than 1998?

Hon. J. Doyle: No, we did not cut the full cut in 1998. As far as the question that the member asked before that as to the shipments of B.C. products, markets were down in the world -- in Asia and other parts of the world. So we're not going to be cutting trees, hopefully, just to pile them up in someone's yard.

G. Abbott: The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis goes on to note on page 5, and again I'll quote for the record: "The contrast between British Columbia and the rest of Canada in the last ten years is startling. The policy and taxation regimes under which the British Columbia forest industry now operates have made the B.C. industry smaller and less competitive, while the industry in the rest of Canada expanded and earned a better return on capital employed."

Again, the argument made here is from PricewaterhouseCoopers and is not intended, I don't believe, to be confrontational. It is intended to be a statement of fact. Would the minister agree that indeed the contrast, as set out here, is a statement of fact?

[1520]

Hon. J. Doyle: Part of the reason has to do with the fact that we have increased costs -- I'll agree with you -- to do with the Forest Practices Code. But we have been working with the industry, as you're aware, to try to reduce those prices.

G. Abbott: The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis continues: "Had the B.C. industry been able to keep pace with the rest of Canada: direct and indirect employment would be up 2,500 jobs instead of down 25,000; capital expenditure would be almost $500 million higher in 1998 than the $729 million reported; [and] B.C. government revenues would be higher, reflecting the increased sales revenues, employment and economic activity generally." Does the ministry agree with that analysis?

Hon. J. Doyle: This assumes there's a market to sell the product in.

G. Abbott: That's the response now from the minister on a couple of occasions: you can't cut trees down if you don't have a market for them. The issue, I think -- and I'm not sure that the minister has yet dealt squarely with it -- is that if you are cost competitive, there are more markets that you can access and trade in. If you have a fixed-cost structure that is higher than your competitors, your ability to trade in the marketplace, particularly when prices are turning down, is very much impaired.

The purpose of this discussion is not to embarrass the government. The purpose of the discussion, I think, is to emphasize the point that if we see, for example -- as some people fear -- a further contraction in the prices that exist in the American softwood lumber market, we are going to find ourselves, as a high-cost producer, unable to make the changes that are necessary to keep us actively trading in that marketplace. That's the concern here, and the minister might like to respond to the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis from that perspective.

Hon. J. Doyle: There were cost increases to do with implementing the code and to do with the environmental standards that we felt were necessary in order to secure the markets out in the world. At the same time, we have worked . . . . I think it's been $1.1 billion of savings that have been identified. Government and industry work together to make us more competitive in the marketplace and, at the same time, keep our environmental standards in place. That's important for the marketplace.

G. Abbott: I acknowledged this last time. There is some considerable skepticism, I think, in the industry about whether in fact $1.1 billion in savings has been had. Nevertheless, even if that is the intention, it is in the right direction. The question really is whether the government is moving quickly enough or effectively enough to try to take some of the unnecessary costs out of the cost structure that currently faces the forest industry in British Columbia. I don't believe the government has. I think the rhetoric from the government has been more ambitious than the actual changes that have been made to date.

[1525]

The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis goes on to state on page 6:

"Had B.C. forest industry earnings not been diverted to support the excessive bureaucracy of the Forest Practices Code and keep stumpage at uneconomically high levels, they would have been available for reinvestment in existing and new operations in B.C.

"That reinvestment would have generated economic growth and employment, creating additional government revenues that could have spent on health, education and other important provincial programs. Instead, the government had to borrow funds to maintain expenditures on social programs."

The point here that PricewaterhouseCoopers is making is that we are seeing too many resources devoted to what they term "excessive" bureaucracy. No one disputes that we need

[ Page 15224 ]

to maintain environmental standards, but we do need to deliver them in the most efficient and effective way. I think the minister should be concerned when an organization like PricewaterhouseCoopers is stating, and not too gently, that excessive bureaucracy of the code is one of the reasons why we haven't been able to make the reinvestment in the industry that we need to maintain competitiveness as well. I'll invite the minister to respond.

Hon. J. Doyle: The member is quoting from a 1998 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I'll ask him maybe to have a little look at the 2000 report that came out in early March, where we see that the return in British Columbia was the same as any other province in Canada. There's been a lot of work done, as I mentioned earlier, to reduce costs in the Forest Practices Code. Actually, there are six pilots out there right now, and they have actually been company-driven. I'm asking them to work to see if they can identify costs for the cost reductions on the lands.

G. Abbott: I'm afraid I need to correct the minister here. This is the unrealized potential. It's the report of January 2000. It's not 1998; it's January 2000. The minister noted that in 1999 the return on capital employed improved for the industry in British Columbia, and that's true. It did. In 1999 return on capital employed came up somewhere near 6 percent -- modest for returns on industrial investments but certainly up in the ballpark of where the Canadian average has been.

The one thing the minister doesn't note in that analysis is that it's the first time in five years that British Columbia has seen the same return on capital employed that other parts of the country have. I want, first and foremost, to make the point to the minister that this is the January 2000 report, not a 1998 document. Further -- and this is the last quote I want to address in this particular document -- I think this is a reminder of the potential we have that has not been realized to date in the B.C. forest industry.

This is a quote from page 7 of this January 2000 report: "If the actual harvest for the decade was at AAC levels" -- which is around 72 million cubic metres -- "average direct and indirect employment would be approximately 26,000 greater than today's levels." That's the Pricewaterhouse view. I don't think we can dismiss the cost-competitiveness issues that are raised in this document by saying that the markets didn't exist. For every notch that we are more or less competitive, our ability to compete in more or less markets is very much determined. I'll invite the minister to see whether he has any further comments with respect to that.

Hon. J. Doyle: Back to the report that the member and I have been speaking about, the member has to admit that the data in that report only goes up to 1998. It may be that the report came out in the year 2000, but it only goes up to 1998, so the report that he's speaking about is two years old. The next report that comes out in June of this year hopefully will more reflect the costs we see today.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that as far as our competitiveness analysis that was done in 1998, data was collected by Resource Information Systems Inc., a well-known and respected consulting company specializing in the forest products sector. The RISI information is copyrighted, so I can't go into detail here; however, I would be happy for staff to brief the critic.

I'd like to say that the employment numbers you mentioned are based on this information up to 1998. Today, in the year 2000, employment is back to very, very close to where it was in 1996, which was a very good year in British Columbia.

[1530]

G. Abbott: The report I've been quoting from is January 2000. I obviously will look forward to seeing the June 2000 report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. It will undoubtedly tell us more about 1999 than the January 2000 report did. Whether it will say we have turned the corner and succeeded in eliminating all the costs that we need to eliminate in order to maintain competitiveness in B.C . . . . I think it's most unlikely that the report will say that. In fact, I'll be astonished if it does, but we'll await that report and see what it has to say.

Another issue I want to ask about . . . . I think the minister will have this information, because I know that his ministry monitors mill closures and presumably mill openings as well. I'm not sure whether the issue around jobs -- how thoroughly we can deal with that . . . . I guess it depends on how many of the remanufacturing and higher-end wood manufacturing jobs are included, and all kinds of things.

Can the minister tell us . . . ? In 1998 there were a number of closures. Again, from the information the minister has assembled . . . . There were no additional closures of pulp mills in '99, as far as I know. Gold River was closed in '98. I don't believe there have been any in '99 or 2000. Were there any sawmill or plywood mill closures in '99? There were ten major mill closures in '98. Were there any in 1999?

Hon. J. Doyle: There's none that I'm aware of or ministry staff here are aware of.

But I must get back to the report that you've been quoting from. If you look in that document, the January 2000 report that you speak about, all the information and all the graphs are from 1989 to 1998. So the information is two years old in that respect.

G. Abbott: Well, it is the most recent report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. I never made the contention that it was right up to the minute. The contention is, as they state in the report, that there are continuing cost-competitiveness problems in the British Columbia forest industry. The minister can dispute that if he wants, but it's not reality. I think the attempt to discredit the report by saying it's two years old is nonsensical. It's the most recent report that PricewaterhouseCoopers has generated. And until we get the next report next month, it's the one that I think we need to look at with interest for the important information that's contained in it.

The minister mentioned that employment levels in '99 were up. Certainly they were. Again, one would hardly expect otherwise given the dramatic improvement in American softwood lumber prices, particularly in the first six months of 1999. Of course, everyone was going flat out trying to take advantage of whatever quota they had and obviously to generate whatever profits they could.

But even with the industry operating at full bore, we still see less than the full AAC being cut. Further, we are still miles behind -- and I hope the minister will acknowledge this -- the claim in the jobs and timber accord, which I gather represents the policy of this government that we would create 21,000 direct new forest jobs in British Columbia over the five-year period after 1996 and that we would create over 40,000 direct and indirect new forest jobs in the province. When he

[ Page 15225 ]

says we're up where we want to be, is the minister saying that we've achieved the lofty goals of the jobs and timber accord? Or are we about 21,000 to 25,000 jobs short of that goal?

[1535]

Hon. J. Doyle: We haven't attained the goals that we would like, but we are, by and large, back to the 1996 levels. We have not attained the levels that were mentioned in the program announced by the former Premier in Prince George some years ago. Of course, that is before the downturn in the markets and other things that happened.

I must get back to . . . . I don't mean to go back to this 2000 report, but I'm just saying that the data is only up to 1998. In no way does it reflect the $1.1 billion in cost savings that have been accounted for -- industry and government working together to make sure that we are competitive in the marketplace.

G. Abbott: The minister acknowledges that the province hasn't achieved the goals set out in the jobs and timber accord. In fact, they haven't succeeded in getting any one of those 21,000 new jobs. In fact, I suspect that we are even a little bit short of the '96 level. Clearly the jobs and timber accord was very much a kind of fatuous attempt by the government of the day to say, "Well, we can direct growth in the forest industry," and obviously it's been a complete failure. We're going to spend some time later on in these debates talking about the jobs and timber accord and how effectively, if at all, the goals contained in it have been achieved.

Again, if somehow the minister is saying that the report of January 2000 by PricewaterhouseCoopers . . . . If he's saying that all that stuff is old news, that the cost competitive issues raised in there are not valid, then he should say so. He shouldn't be saying: "Well, it's '98 information; therefore it's dated." Clearly there's a lesson here.

Again, the danger of saying that it's dated, it's old information, and we don't need to deal with it seriously is that there is a very clear and obvious relationship between American softwood lumber prices and the ability of employers in the forest sector in British Columbia to have full employment. If we see prices drop in the American softwood lumber market, we are going to see thousands of forest workers lose their jobs in British Columbia.

Part of this is cyclical, but part of it is structural. That's the only point I'm trying to make here -- that we need to address . . . . We can't address the cyclical side. I don't think British Columbia is able to say: "We're going to somehow influence the American softwood lumber market in a way that's going to ensure that prices stay high." We can't do that. What we can address, and what we need to address as aggressively as we can in British Columbia, is the structural side -- the cost structure that faces the B.C. industry.

Again, if we are the high-cost producer -- and I believe that overall we are -- when those prices go down in the American softwood lumber industry, as they cyclically do, it means that more people are going to be out of work in British Columbia than is necessary if we work more cost-competitively. That's the core of the argument that is being made here.

I don't know why the minister keeps going back and saying that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of January 2000 is based on '98. Of course it is. And until we get updated information, that's what we're going to have to base our conclusions around. The issue is: do we agree that it's critical that we be as cost-competitive as we possibly can be, so that we can stay active in the American softwood lumber market as prices tail off to the $225 or $250 level? That's the point I'm attempting to make, and the minister may wish to respond.

[1540]

Hon. J. Doyle: The government recognizes how important cost-competitiveness is in the British Columbia forest industry. That is why we have worked with the industry to bring our costs down. None of this means that we can afford to be complacent on the issue of competitiveness in the world. That is why the government recognized industry's cost problems and acted. Over the past two years the government has moved ahead on a number of initiatives to enhance the industry, to make it competitive in the marketplace out there. Those initiatives were designed, often in consultation with the industry, to lower industry costs of delivered wood.

We must have been doing something right, hon. member, because we are almost back to the 1996 job level. Maybe we didn't reach the heights that we talked about earlier in the jobs and timber accord, but we are almost back to the 1996 employment levels.

G. Abbott: Would the minister acknowledge that staying at the current employment level that we have in British Columbia is very much contingent upon us being continually competitive in an American softwood lumber market where prices may decline?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.

G. Abbott: I want to address briefly here a document which is produced by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. It's entitled "Profile 1999: Softwood Sawmills in the United States and Canada." This document discusses, among other things, industry capacity. I'll quote from the document: "Changing economics and technology have significantly affected the sawmilling industry in the past five years. By our account, 55 mills have been permanently closed since 1995, resulting in the loss of 8 million cubic meters of capacity. More than 50 percent of these closures have occurred in British Columbia, followed by the western and southern regions of the United States."

This is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Forest Service, saying that more than 50 percent of the closures in North America have occurred in British Columbia. Does the minister agree with those statistics?

Hon. J. Doyle: I had assumed that the information is right. But I don't know when this information came out that the hon. member is quoting from. It's possible that some of those mills may have started up again.

G. Abbott: The report is dated October 1999. It's an attempt to look at B.C.'s place in the North American softwood lumber market. I believe the information to be correct. It's further documented in a table on page 3, which goes into some details on the number of mills closed, the number of mills opened, the capacity volume closed or opened, expansion to existing capacity and net gain or loss. It is interesting to note that according to this study, in British Columbia 26 mills closed and four opened. There was a loss of capacity of 4.483 million cubic metres, 261,000 cubic metres opened and a net

[ Page 15226 ]

loss of 2.666 million cubic metres. British Columbia acts as the only producer listed here that has a net loss in production capacity in the period in question.

[1545]

I think it goes to underline that from a North American perspective, we have created a situation in the 1990s in British Columbia, with the addition of the regulations that we have -- particularly the very prescriptive code, which I think the former Minister of Forests agreed had cost the industry some $300 million a year in unnecessary costs . . . . This is a factor which has led to losses in our productive capacity in British Columbia, and I'll invite the minister to comment, if he wishes, before I move on to the next document.

Hon. J. Doyle: The AAC has come down. There was some excess capacity in mills in the province. But you must remember -- the member is well aware of this; I am -- that there have been new mills. For instance, in Golden there's new LVL; there are OSB plants. So there's new reconfiguration of mills to a different product that's in demand in the marketplace out there.

G. Abbott: The minister is right; the industry is constantly changing. The question always is: are we attaining the maximum opportunity, the maximum value from the forest industry that we have in British Columbia? Are we cutting to the optimal harvest level? Are we securing the optimal return? Are we protecting our position in the marketplace as effectively as we need to? These are all the questions that are naturally asked when discussing something like the state of the industry in British Columbia. I celebrate -- just as the minister would -- when a company enjoys success, when a company diversifies.

That's all welcome. But we do have to acknowledge that we have some severe problems, particularly in some parts of the province and in some parts of the industry.

I think the government needs to work absolutely tirelessly to ensure that at every juncture they are giving our industry the best opportunity they can to compete on a global basis with a world that is increasingly awash in wood and awash in new competitors to the forest industry in British Columbia.

In that line, I think one of the most impressive quotes I have seen around this issue comes from one of the most distinguished observers of the forest industry in British Columbia and certainly one of the most widely respected observers in British Columbia -- that's Dr. Peter Pearse. He wrote in Business in Vancouver , September 14, 1999:

"The recent upturn in forest products prices is a blessing, modest and faltering as it is. But it presents another, more subtle threat to the needed forest policy review. The return to profitability, however transient and short of potential, has already begun to take the pressure off . . . . This of course is short-sighted. The need for major changes in the way we manage our forest resources and our forest industry is obvious and long overdue. The problem won't be solved by a cyclical recovery in product prices."

Again, that's Dr. Peter Pearse. I think he reminded us in a most timely way that we can't forget that we've got vital cost structure problems to address. We can't let short-term improvements and commodity prices mask the real need we have to restore competitiveness in B.C. I invite the minister to comment on Dr. Pearse's comments in Business in Vancouver .

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. Doyle: Like the member, I would agree that Dr. Pearse is a very respected individual in our province and, I'm sure, in our country and throughout the world. No doubt he does some work. The concerns and items that the member raised and that were mentioned by Dr. Pearse are likely the reason why, before he had written this

article in the Vancouver magazine that you mentioned, we commissioned the Wouters report, which was delivered roughly a month ago, to look at other avenues and other ways we can do business.

[1550]

G. Abbott: One of the continuing problems for the B.C. forest industry has been the efforts by some groups to subvert the interests of forest companies, particularly coastal forest companies -- I think it probably happens to some extent right across the board -- and to subvert their position in the marketplace and try to turn buyers against the companies and so on. Can the minister advise what his ministry is doing, perhaps in concert with FRBC or on its own, to try to address what I think is a campaign of misinformation being directed against B.C. producers in the domestic and foreign marketplaces?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member asks a good question. FRBC, in the budget of this year, has got money in place to assist to correct misstatements that are in many, many cases out there in the world marketplace -- to let people know just what we have done in the past years to ensure that we are good stewards of the land.

When I met with the federal minister, Mr. Pettigrew, two or three weeks ago in Vancouver, I encouraged him to ask his cabinet colleagues in Ottawa to see if Ottawa would assist British Columbia in marketing and let the world know just what we do as far as our stewardship of the land and why, in some cases, there are campaigns out there which are very, very unfair and which of course come back and impact on the people in the communities that we all reside in.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear those comments from the minister. I think we have not done what is necessary in recent years to try to combat what has been a very destructive campaign on the part of some groups to try to subvert our position in the international marketplace. I believe we need to do much more. Certainly I've had the pleasure of discussing this issue with officials from the IWA, from Forest Alliance, from a range of industry groups like COFI and the area associations.

I think people are convinced that if we want to continue to protect our markets, we need to begin, in a much more aggressive way, telling the world that we are doing a very good job in managing our forests and that our forest practices and our forest products are second to none in this world.

The government frequently says: "Well, we've got the most stringent Forest Practices Code in the world, therefore we have done our part to protect B.C.'s position in the marketplace." It seems to me that somehow -- and I don't blame the government for this -- there's been a disconnect in terms of follow-through on that. Despite having the strongest Forest Practices Code in the universe . . . . That hasn't prevented us from being the target -- unfairly, I think -- of a market campaign around our forest practices. That tells me that clearly we need to be more aggressive in working with partners like the IWA, the federal government, Forest Alliance,

[ Page 15227 ]

COFI, area associations. We need to get a broad range of groups on board to start taking the message to the marketplace that not only are our products second to none but our forest practices are second to none and that people ought to feel proud about buying B.C. forest products. I'll invite the minister's comments on that.

[1555]

Hon. J. Doyle: I agreed with the member a minute ago that there are very unfair messages going out to the world as to how our stewardship of the land is. I also, actually, meet with the IWA's Mr. Haggard on a monthly basis or every couple of weeks.

The real answer, I feel, member, is certification. It's something we're working on at the present time, and hopefully that will give British Columbia other products throughout the world once you are certified. So we're working with the industry. In the small business sector -- 13 percent of the tenure in the province is the Ministry of Small Business -- we set up, some weeks ago, three pilots to work on certification. So I think that certification, at the end of the day, will hopefully give us a fair shake in those marketplaces out in the world.

Also, land use plans . . . . It's interesting. At the present time, as the hon. member knows, on the coast there are six companies sitting down with other groups, like environmental groups, because they're concerned at the end of the day about the marketplace. They feel it's important to complete the land use plans that were started some years ago by government -- to complete them and make sure we have the Forest Practices Code. But I really feel -- and hopefully this, at the end of the day, will prove it -- that our product is as good as any other as to the stewardship of the land, when we do get certification in place.

G. Abbott: I won't take exception to what the minister says. I agree that certification is part of the answer; there's no question about that. There's a thousand unanswered questions around what's the appropriate vehicle for certification. Is it CSA? Is it ISO? Is it the Forest Stewardship Council? These are important questions, certainly. I think that certification can be part of the answer. Completing the land use processes in British Columbia is part of the answer as well.

But when I look at some of the information that comes to me around the tactics that are used in international marketplaces by some of the radical environmental groups, and the consequences of that, I don't think that certification on its own is going to be the answer either, any more than the Forest Practices Code on its own was the answer.

If we have, for example, one of the tactics that's been used by Greenpeace Japan in recent months -- to some effect apparently, according to Interfor, who has been the primary victim of this . . . . Greenpeace Japan launched a postcard campaign against the buyers of Interfor's forest products. It seems to me that if we want to counter the aggressive campaign of misinformation that exists against our products in international marketplaces, we have to do more than just pursue certification. We have to do more than just complete land use plans.

We've got to have a much larger, more aggressive effort in our marketplaces to sell not only the products but the forest practices as well. I don't believe that our opponents or our enemies in the marketplace are going to go away. They're going to continue to undermine our companies with misinformation. I think we have to be aggressively in there doing the same thing. I invite the minister's comments.

Hon. J. Doyle: Ministry personnel are in daily communication with embassies throughout the world to find out just what has been said in that embassy, in different parts of the world, and to address misinformation. But I agree: there's no end to just what we can do to make sure that we can keep those markets and, of course, hopefully get new markets out in the marketplace. And we will not get those markets as long as there's misinformation out in the marketplace as to our stewardship of the land in British Columbia.

[1600]

G. Abbott: I recently received . . . . Obviously the minister would have received it as well. Probably all Members of the Legislative Assembly received this. It's a message from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club of British Columbia and the Coastal Rainforest Coalition, dated April 13, 2000. The press release notes, among other things:

"During the past several months Weyerhaeuser, Interfor, Canfor, Western Forest Products, Fletcher Challenge and West Fraser have been working towards reaching agreement with the Sierra Club of B.C., Greenpeace and the Coastal Rainforest Coalition to establish an 18-month standstill on logging operations in many of the ecologically critical intact watersheds in the coastal rainforest and an 18-month standstill in our global markets campaign which has targeted these companies. It is our view that it will create a peaceful space in which all British Columbians can work toward lasting solutions that recognize the need for new forest management and protection designations for the coast."

Can the minister advise what role the Ministry of Forests, in combination with the Premier's Office or indeed any other arm of government, has played with respect to this coastal forest conservation initiative?

Hon. J. Doyle: I think you're right. All members did get that communication from the environmental group that you refer to. As far as what government is doing, we're involved at the deputy minister level. The deputy minister of my ministry and other ministries are involved -- but not officially, because I've still got concerns, as all members of this House would have. There are people who are not at the table -- communities, workers, first nations. Those people are not at the table. A cabinet committee has also been struck; I think we're having our first meeting later on this week.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear those comments, because that certainly is my concern and the concern of the official opposition as well. Forest workers and communities are the ones that are going to be directly suffering as a consequence of an 18-month or any standstill on the coast. The minister is telling me that the deputy minister's involved . . . . Presumably it's Forests. Or is it Forests, Environment and others? Is their status strictly that of being observers, or are they involved in some aspects of the negotiation here?

Hon. J. Doyle: Deputies are not negotiating with this group.

G. Abbott: They are observers only.

Hon. J. Doyle: They are observers only; that is correct.

[ Page 15228 ]

G. Abbott: There are a number of concerns around this. I think the total AAC that could be affected in some way by this, in my understanding, is somewhere around seven million cubic metres. Again, the government will have better information on this than I do.

From the deputy minister's involvement, does it appear that the impact would be in terms of jobs on the coast, should an 18-month standstill be undertaken?

Hon. J. Doyle: The total annual allowable cut in the area that the member is speaking about is five million cubic metres. It's too early to tell what the impacts would be. Within days of getting this job and being fully briefed on this initiative between companies and environmental groups, I was in contact with mayors and other people -- IWA and other people -- in the affected areas to let them know. As I said earlier, and you agreed with me, ultimately this is about communities and people who live in them -- mayors, first nations, workers, all those people.

[1605]

G. Abbott: Is it the minister's understanding that an 18-month standstill could be negotiated between licensees and these ENGOs -- environmental non-governmental organizations? Is it his understanding that those two broad parties could put in place an agreement that would impact the annual allowable cut in the area without the agreement of government?

Hon. J. Doyle: Companies can voluntarily, as you know, decide not to cut. But if they don't keep up their annual allowable cut or cut it in the cut control period, they would be in danger of losing that cut.

G. Abbott: So the position the government is taking, at this point at least, is that the annual and five-year cut-control limitations will still be in effect regardless of whatever arrangements might be negotiated between the licensees and the environmental organizations. The minister's telling me that those cut-control constraints will still be in place irrespective of any agreement that might be negotiated between those parties.

Hon. J. Doyle: At this stage, existing first policies are in place. There's no change as to the discussions that companies and environmental groups are having.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps on behalf of you, as well, hon. Chair, but certainly our colleague the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, would like to welcome the students from Corpus Christi School who are joining us in the gallery today. There are 29 students and four adults. The teacher who is joining them today is Joanne Salas. On behalf of not only the Minister of Small Business and Tourism but the Chair and myself, I would welcome the students and ask the House to join with us.

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned that the annual allowable cut on the coast is five million cubic metres. Typically, an allocation per thousand cubic metres, I believe, is about 1.7 person-years. Is that what the formula would be on the coast? Perhaps it's a little bit higher than 1.7. If the minister would like to let me know . . . .

Hon. J. Doyle: I would agree with the member to some extent. The formula that we use is one job per thousand cubic metres, plus the spinoff jobs that follow that of course.

G. Abbott: We certainly, in any 18-month standstill, would be looking at a very substantial dislocation in terms of job losses. Would the minister agree?

Hon. J. Doyle: Not necessarily. There may be areas, possibly, that the groups are talking about -- unofficially, as far as government is concerned, at this time -- where operations are not presently ongoing.

G. Abbott: So from the government's perspective, if something like the coast forest conservation initiative was to proceed, it would be built around the assumption that cutting areas that would be left intact would be offset by enhanced cut in other areas where there was agreement that that could proceed. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: I feel that the last question the hon. member asked was about this. This discussion is between these two groups with the 18-month stand-down. I'm saying that if companies are not presently operating in the areas that are under discussion, there'd be no effect as far as wood coming out of the bush and jobs.

[1610]

G. Abbott: That would be true, except that as I understand it, there are cutting permits that have been issued in a number of those so-called intact watershed areas. There would have to be some movement into other areas, should this initiative proceed. That's certainly my understanding, but the minister can correct it if it's not correct.

Hon. J. Doyle: We would expect some impact. You make reference to cutting permits that may be in place, but in no way would the full AAC be impacted. Just for the information of the hon. member, within a week or two of me getting this job -- under discussions that had started previous to me being the minister and this coastal initiative -- I did travel up the coast to have a look at the affected areas and the communities that are involved, as maybe he has in his time as critic of this ministry.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise . . . ? I have been briefed on occasion by the industry about the progress or lack of it around this initiative. I have not been briefed for at least a few weeks now. I presume the minister would have a more up-to-date understanding of what's going on there. Could he advise me what the current status of these talks are?

Hon. J. Doyle: There is no agreement, as we speak, between industry and the groups that are presently at the table. They have agreed in the next 90 days to broaden the amount of people sitting at the table to make sure . . . . As we mentioned earlier, there's lots of people not at the table presently. They have agreed to broaden their table and have more representation at the table.

[ Page 15229 ]

G. Abbott: There won't be any conclusion to this process for at least 90 days -- is that correct? -- and presumably some a deal longer than that.

Hon. J. Doyle: Whether it's 90 days or sooner or longer, it's really in the hands of the people at the table presently in the discussions.

G. Abbott: One of the questions I have is the relationship between this coast forest conservation initiative and the ongoing land and resource management plan process that has been ongoing, I think, for probably close to a couple of years now on the coast. I would have assumed that some of the issues that are part of the conservation initiative would have been addressed at some point or in some way by the LRMP table that has been active on the coast. Could the minister provide me with an update of where the LRMP sits in terms of its discussions and negotiations and its possible reporting out and how, potentially at least, the LRMP process meshes with the coast forest conservation initiative?

Hon. J. Doyle: The LRMP process was not moving along very fast, because by and large, some of the same people who are sitting down and talking today were usually knocking heads before. Hopefully, the fact that there is some discussion amongst the . . . . I don't mean antagonist in a bad way, but that is what I am sure they were. There was very little progress at the LRMP table.

Now that they are sitting down . . . . At the end of the day, hopefully, they can work out an LRMP process on the mid-coast, where it has been stalled for some time. I don't have any progress as to when that could be worked out. But hopefully the initiative that has been started by the environmental community and by the industry will go some way as the table is widened out to include other people, so that at the end of the day, as soon as possible, we get an LRMP signed off. And hopefully that would assist as far as some of the concerns that some people have as to what should and shouldn't happen on the coast.

[1615]

G. Abbott: My concern frequently is with groups moving the goalposts when they achieve some concessions or gains in one forum, but not achieving everything they're looking for, they effectively move the goalposts by moving the processes. I'm not convinced that we aren't in some way undermining the very difficult negotiations that have gone on around the LRMP table by effectively supplanting those discussions with a fresh set of discussions with, in fact, many of the same players that were all at the LRMP table. Somehow it seems to me that we do face a danger of goalposts being moved by having a new process overtaking an existing process, which has very much been promoted by the government.

Hon. J. Doyle: The question the member asked on LRMP . . . . As the member is aware, on the north coast there has been no LRMP process started. The mid-coast is one that has been ongoing. We're stuck somewhat, and it still is officially not moving off the stop that it came to. At the same time, government has reached land use plans -- CORE or one process or other throughout the province -- in 54 percent of the province. I think that 24 percent of the province's LRMP process is ongoing.

G. Abbott: I don't dispute these statistics. They're certainly consistent with the ones I understand in terms of the progress of LRMPs. My question was around the potential supplanting of one process -- i.e., the LRMP -- by a new process which may capture some of the players in the original process but which will have the effect of moving the goal posts, creating a new set of expectations which have only partially been met in the first negotiation. I hope that's not too complex a question, but I think the folks across the way understand the point I'm getting to.

I'm looking for some acknowledgement that we don't want to see the current government-sanctioned LRMP process -- which, as the minister says, has been completed in some parts of the province, is ongoing and near completion in other parts of the province and is, in some cases, just beginning in different parts of the province . . . .

I don't think we want to put the message out there that if you don't get your way at the LRMP table, you create a market campaign and put pressure on to create a new process which will effectively supplant the LRMP. That's my concern, and that's what I want the minister to address.

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the concerns that the member raises. It's the very reason there are two groups at the table now: industry and environmental groups. That's why we have asked them to widen out their table to include some of the other people you mentioned earlier -- community leaders, workers, first nations and other affected people -- so that it is truly encompassing the people who live in that area of the province.

G. Abbott: I want to move on to the Ministry of Forests business plan 2000-2001. At this point I don't expect they'll require a change of staff, but I don't know. I'm happy to pause for a moment if they do, but I wouldn't expect it. In fact, the areas I propose to canvass in the business plan are pretty much consistent with the discussion we've just been having around land use planning on the coast, so I'll just continue with my questioning and assume that people will come and go as necessary.

The first question I have is from page 5 of the business plan. In the second paragraph down, it rightly notes: "In fact, less than half of the 49 million hectares of productive forest land in the province is currently managed for timber harvesting, some 23 million hectares. Of that 23 million hectares -- the current timber-harvesting land base -- less than 1 percent is accessed for timber removal each year."

[1620]

Now, I agree with that. We do currently have, I think, what would properly be termed a "working forest" of about 23 million hectares in British Columbia. My first question around the business plan is this: in the minister's view, do those 23 million hectares constitute the working forest in British Columbia? And does the minister share my concern that it is critical that we maintain that productive 23-million-hectare area of working forest in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree it is 23 million hectares. At the same time, before we get down to the area which would be a working forest in a province, you have to finish the land-use plans that we've spent the last 15 or 20 minutes speaking about.

G. Abbott: The total area of British Columbia is close to 100 million hectares. As we've been noting, something around

[ Page 15230 ]

or perhaps a little bit less than one-quarter of the province is currently a part of our working forest or our area that is managed for timber harvesting. So roughly one in four hectares of British Columbia is currently being managed for harvesting. It seems to me that we can do all kinds of things with the other three-quarters. We can make three-quarters of the province, if we like, a park and protected area. It seems critical to me that we not see continued erosion of the 23 million hectares that remain. Does the minister share that concern?

Hon. J. Doyle: The 23 million that we more or less agree is -- or is -- in forestry in the province has other values. As far as making sure there is a working forest, as we talked about earlier, at the present time there are no doubt six members of COFI sitting down with environmental groups on the coast, looking at that same land base and possibly looking at some of it being removed from that working forest.

G. Abbott: Certainly one of the concerns I would have, in terms of a lot of the LRMP processes yet to be reporting out, is that we will see, in the balance, some substantial erosion of what I'm going to term the working forest.

I know that one of these days the government will pop up in the Legislature and announce that we've reached 12 percent. We've been on the brink of it, if in fact we're not there, for some months now. I think we're at 11.94 percent or something like that, and I'm sure it will be a political golden moment when the Premier pops up to tell us we've achieved the 12 percent.

All members of the House share that goal of 12 percent park and protected area in British Columbia. The issue, though, is that I think that with only 56 percent of the LRMPs reporting out, we are quite possibly going to see either some additional alienation or additional constraint on what is currently termed the working forest. Does the minister share my concern that what we need to do with LRMPs yet to come is try to ensure that at the end of all that, we still have the kind of fibre base that we need to maintain a viable, economic and productive forest industry in British Columbia?

[1625]

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree fully that it is important that we have a land base out there that continues to have trees available for the many, many communities that depend on them -- forestry being the biggest economic generator in our province. At the same time, we spent some of the last half-hour saying -- I think we more or less agree -- that we should finish the LRMP process on the coast and possibly start one on the north coast.

At the same time, there are members of COFI voluntarily sitting down with the environmental groups today, looking at possibly taking some of the forests in the province -- the areas now in the allowable annual cut -- out of it, in order that they could protect some markets somewhere in the world.

The Chair: Member continues.

G. Abbott: Sorry?

The Chair: Member continues.

G. Abbott: Sorry, I thought there was some broader message there than "member continues." I'm looking at the time and . . . . Thank you.

Is it part of the vision of the Ministry of Forests . . . ? Again, we're in the vision

section of the business plan. Is it part of the commitment of the Ministry of Forests to . . . ? Again, we've got 100 million hectares of land in British Columbia. About half of that is forested; about half of that half, or about a quarter of the total area, is working forest. Is it part of the vision, part of the commitment, of the Ministry of Forests to try to build that area of managed forest in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the member. It is important that we keep the land base for forestry as large as possible. But we must remember something: what we do on that land base has to be sustainable. We must make sure that what we do on the land base is sustainable. I'm sorry; I just forgot . . . . Other lines will pop back into my head in a minute, hon. member.

G. Abbott: I think the sustainability issue would be more around the debate about the annual allowable cut, rather than the forest base. But obviously the magnitude of that working forest base is going to have a very important impact on annual allowable cut down the line. Perhaps that's the point the minister was getting to.

One of the references that's made at a few points in the Ministry of Forests business plan kind of intrigues me. It's first raised again on page 5, and I'll just ask for a clarification of this. The quote is this: "Unlike those jurisdictions that practise plantation forestry, British Columbia strives to manage forest lands to maintain natural attributes over the landscape and over time."

I'm not sure what is meant by that, and I'm not sure what jurisdictions the ministry has in mind when they make reference to plantation forestry. Is there a suggestion here that some jurisdictions are planting species which are foreign to that jurisdiction and therefore that's a plantation forest, as opposed to a properly replanted and tended new forest in British Columbia?

[1630]

Hon. J. Doyle: I just remembered . . . I couldn't remember some minutes ago when I was answering the last question. I talked about, first, the land base being sustainable. The other words were "intensive forestry" on that land base.

As far as the question the hon. member asked, I agree with him. But mostly what we're speaking about there are plantations that might be down in the southern United States or other areas like that, where they bring in species that are not natural to the area.

G. Abbott: So, effectively, if we attempted to cultivate large areas of eucalyptus in the southern interior of British Columbia, we would construe that to be a plantation. But the ongoing reforestation, replanting of our forests, in British Columbia would not in any case be construed as plantation forests from the ministry's perspective. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: In the replanting of our forests in British Columbia, we're trying to replicate nature as to what has grown there or what should best grow in that area.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the clarification. Every time there is a harvest planned for an area, there also has to be a silviculture plan for an area. That silviculture plan will specify 65

[ Page 15231 ]

percent pine, 25 percent fir and 10 percent cedar, or whatever it may happen to be. Obviously it's going to vary according to what the professional forester thinks is appropriate to the area. Typically, they will try to replicate, at least to some degree, what was there before. They may vary it a little bit according to projected economic returns, but they obviously will try to plant a forest that's going to grow there successfully. There's no point in planting eucalyptus in a place where only Douglas fir is going to survive. It would just be a colossal waste of time and effort.

We in British Columbia have been unfairly criticized as having some kind of plantation system. Just to be clear on this point: when we talk about natural forest, natural attributes and so on, the ministry is agreeing that there is nothing inconsistent in the harvesting of those forests and the replanting of them.

Hon. J. Doyle: We harvest all species in a sustainable manner at all times.

G. Abbott: The next question I have is on page 8; it's related, and it comes in the first paragraph on page 8. It says: "B.C. also has more of the world's natural temperate rain forest than any other jurisdiction -- an estimated 10.6 million hectares of the world's remaining 30 to 40 million hectares of coastal temperate rain forest." What does the word "natural" mean in this context?

Hon. J. Doyle: It means primary forest -- the original trees, as far as we know, that grew in that area.

G. Abbott: Again, just to be clear, the fact that an area has been replanted according to a silviculture plan in no way diminishes its ability to be described as natural from the ministry's perspective. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: Absolutely right; I agree with the member.

[1635]

G. Abbott: A little further on page 8, in fact the final paragraph, it says: "British Columbia also retains a greater amount of biodiversity than other jurisdictions with temperate climates. Maintaining biological diversity and the natural attributes of forests is of increasing importance for policy-makers and international environmental communities." Could the minister clarify what is being said there?

Hon. J. Doyle: It means that we're maintaining biodiversity in the new growth and old growth.

G. Abbott: The paragraph continues: "A key measure of biodiversity conservation is the amount of protected area. To date, B.C. has dedicated over 11 percent of its land base to parks and protected areas."

Again, this is where I'm concerned about the messaging around this particular paragraph. That is, when you say that a key measure of biodiversity is the amount of protected area, it seems to suggest that if an area is harvested, somehow it has lost biodiversity. The question is: does this mean that biodiversity is lost unless harvesting is prohibited through parks and protected areas? Is that the implication here?

Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no. It just means there's a change in the biodiversity in the area.

G. Abbott: The implication is not that the only way to maintain full biodiversity is to have one very large protected area. That's not the implication here.

Hon. J. Doyle: No, but at the same time, protected areas do mean that you never lose that biodiversity in that protected area.

G. Abbott: The first paragraph on page 9 states the following:

"Given these attributes, it is hardly surprising that British Columbia's management of forest resources is under continuous global scrutiny. Nor is it surprising that customer concerns about environmental issues is increasing and that the demand is increasing for wood products that are certified as sustainably produced. That kind of stewardship scrutiny will be an ongoing fact of life for B.C., and the province's forest policy framework must accommodate it."

We've talked a little bit about the certification issue. Is there anything else that we are doing in the forest policy framework to accommodate the international issues that are outlined in this paragraph?

Hon. J. Doyle: Protected areas strategy is one. Timber supply in a sustainable way is another way that we are doing this.

[1640]

G. Abbott: A little further down on page 9 it talks about some of the other international trends that are affecting the B.C. forest industry, and it notes: "These factors mean that our forest products are competing in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. British Columbia is highly dependent on its forest product exports and is a 'price taker' in global markets." These are some of the points that I actually was attempting to make a little earlier on in our debate about obviously being a price-taker rather than a price-setter and the need to be competitive in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. How is the ministry proposing to meet this challenge?

Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC is working on technology as far as advancing that, and also engineered wood products. The ministry is working on innovative forest practices.

G. Abbott: A little later on in the business plan the analysis rightly points to some of the challenges in being competitive, and I'll quote here the comment in the business plan:

"Production costs are a key factor for success in cyclical, competitive markets. The ministry can expect ongoing industry pressure to reduce costs or keep them as low as possible -- particularly if commodity prices weaken. At the same time, environmental standards will have to be maintained or increased. This will undoubtedly create some interesting challenges and pressures for change for the industry and the ministry, and both will have to consider new ways of doing business in order to succeed."

That's certainly the case; it is going to be a challenge. Rather than focusing on whether we reduce environmental standards, it would seem to me that the key to addressing those competing goals is that we focus the debate around how those standards are delivered. We've had some discussion of this earlier in the debate, but I think it's an important point. I don't think it's acceptable to the industry, to the public of

[ Page 15232 ]

British Columbia or to the international community to see any sort of reduction in environmental standards in the province. The issue is around the delivery of those standards. If there is an accommodation possible between the competing demands that are laid out in the quote I just read, I believe it's through the most efficient and effective delivery of those environmental standards. Would the minister agree?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, we agree, and that is why we are doing code pilots across the province.

[1645]

G. Abbott: We'll certainly be discussing the four code pilots in time as well. I think they are interesting at least, although in my view they've been somewhat more constrained than is appropriate. They do offer some possibilities.

The next quote is again on page 11:

"For industry, part of the solution to higher costs likely lies in the development of new products of higher value. For government, new approaches will likely include using more market incentives to accomplish objectives rather than regulatory and legislative controls, and the remaining direct involvement of government in forest sector decision-making will be more transparent and streamlined."

I think that goes to the heart of what we have been discussing -- that for government, new approaches will likely include using more market incentives to accomplish objectives rather than regulatory and legislative controls. Perhaps the minister can further explain just what is being suggested here.

Hon. J. Doyle: Innovative forest practices throughout the province are a good example of what the member is mentioning. For instance, companies get to keep 50 percent of the AAC increase.

G. Abbott: In some respects, the innovative forest practices agreements are a good example of an incentive-based approach to managing forest production -- no question about that. I think, though, that we also need to look at the delivery of the code in the same way. We'll be talking about some examples of how there could be improved delivery of the code through the pilot projects that are on. I think an even more intensive process is needed than what we have seen to date.

At the bottom of page 11, there's a reference to the softwood lumber agreement. It notes: "The current softwood lumber agreement expires on March 31, 2001. British Columbia's recent experience with U.S. trade law and the importance of access to the U.S. market make it advisable for the province to consider changes which would minimize the potential for U.S. trade action." From the American perspective, I think that some of the impediments to improved relations between Canada and the U.S. on softwood lumber . . . . We know what some of those impediments are.

But what is being contemplated here, when it is suggested that it may be advisable for the province to consider changes which would minimize the potential of U.S. trade action?

Hon. J. Doyle: The key one would be looking at our stumpage to make it more market-based.

G. Abbott: Could the minister elaborate on . . . ? We know, for example, what is in the Garry Wouters report around the issue of stumpage, which is, effectively, I believe, a one-year pilot looking at a market-based stumpage system for the coast region of British Columbia. There's no suggestion about how to change the stumpage system in the interior. Is that what is being suggested here -- something along the lines of the Wouters proposal?

[1650]

Hon. J. Doyle: This is under active review. At the present time we're waiting to hear comments back from people, as we've said, after the Wouters report was released. We're waiting to hear communication back from people until roughly the end of the summer.

G. Abbott: Is stumpage the only area where it may be advisable for the province to consider changes which would minimize potential for U.S. trade action? What else are we talking about here?

Hon. J. Doyle: Stumpage is the main area that we're looking at.

G. Abbott: Are there any other areas that the government is looking at?

Hon. J. Doyle: Not at this time.

G. Abbott: One of the areas that is frequently raised, by at least some in the American timber lobby, is around the limitations on exports of logs from British Columbia. Is that an issue which has been raised in the context of SLA discussions as well?

Hon. J. Doyle: The issue has been raised by the U.S., but as the hon. member knows, there has been a lot of export policy in place in British Columbia for roughly 100 years.

G. Abbott: On page 12, first paragraph, it says: "While markets appear to be pushing us towards global companies with large asset bases, British Columbians are indicating they want smaller local enterprises and increased local decision-making. Indeed, people around the world are increasingly uneasy about corporate concentration and control and about the preservation of cultural identity." I don't know who wrote this, but how would one form the conclusions that are contained in that paragraph?

Hon. J. Doyle: As the member well knows, in communities throughout the province -- in a community like Revelstoke, for instance, close to the member's riding, and in my riding -- people are asking for more say over the trees that grow in their back yards.

G. Abbott: There seems to be a suggestion here, though, that British Columbians are intrinsically opposed to larger companies with larger asset bases. Is that a misreading of this? Is it correct that that's not being stated here? It certainly would appear to me that some assumptions are being made about what British Columbians think around that issue of corporate concentration, but perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

Hon. J. Doyle: I think what people are saying in British Columbia -- what this statement is trying to allude to -- is

[ Page 15233 ]

that we need a mixture of big and small. The member would well remember the discussion, when Weyerhaeuser took over MacMillan Bloedel, of some of the concerns that were raised in some of the communities where Weyerhaeuser presently does business.

G. Abbott: Again, to clarify a point: at and around the Northern Forest Products Association meeting, the Chair of Canfor suggested that there might be a reluctance on the part of the minister to allow or embrace any further corporate concentration in British Columbia. The minister, as I understand, had responded to that by saying -- at least this was the press report of the day -- that he did not have a bias against that, that the government was not contemplating any legislation or other means to curb any further corporate concentration in British Columbia.

Now, the minister can clarify the point -- it's entirely possible that my reading of that was flawed -- and correct the point. But again, it would appear that what's being said here is something that is, at least on the surface of it, hostile to corporate concentration.

[1655]

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm well aware of the statements that were made by the Chair of Canfor in his speech in Prince George some weeks ago. When I was asked by the media about the concerns that were raised by this individual, I said that I would look at any transfers on a case-by-case basis.

G. Abbott: So the minister does not, notwithstanding what's being said here, come with any particular bias for or against corporate concentration -- correct?

Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.

G. Abbott: A final question, with respect to this

section at least, is just the second-last paragraph on page 12:

"One group that will, over time, take on a larger role in the forest sector is first nations. As treaties are resolved, first nations will be the new landlords for part of the forest land base. The ministry is moving forward with a strategy to provide first nations with greater opportunities for forest sector participation."

I'm aware of some of the arrangements that have been put in place by licensees with first nations in their operating areas. Is there something more here, in terms of a specific Ministry of Forests strategy around enhancing first nations' access to the forest land base? Is there something else at play here that is going to have an impact there?

Hon. J. Doyle: It's the ministry's view that we would facilitate and work with first nations people throughout the province as we get through treaties.

G. Abbott: Thank you, but I do want to get some more information on this. Are we talking about a strategy that is distinct from the treaty process which is ongoing generally and which, hopefully, is resolving some of the issues around the management or ownership of the land base? Again, the minister can answer in relation to some of the initiatives on the part of licensees, which presumably have been sanctioned by the ministry. Is there a strategy here that is separate from or different from the broader strategy around treaty resolution?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes. If the member will go to page 16, he will see that we have a strategy in place.

G. Abbott: I actually do have some questions when we get to that point as well, so we'll address the specifics of that strategy when we get there.

Under "Strategic Goals and Objectives," the first line is: "Increasingly, the British Columbia public and international forest product buyers expect and demand that healthy and largely natural forests are maintained." Again, I just want some clarification on that phrase, because I find it a bit curious -- "largely natural forests." Again, why would that phrase be used in this context?

Hon. J. Doyle: What the statement means is that when a certain species was harvested in a particular area, we would do our best to replant the same species.

[1700]

G. Abbott: Again, I'm presuming that that wouldn't extend to having precisely the same forest profile that existed pre-harvest, but just similar species and a similar nature of the forest. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't want to dwell on the point. I think we've debated it sufficiently.

On page 14, it talks about some of the goals of the ministry. It talks about points 1(h), "meet critical inventory and data management needs of the ministry," and 1(i), "focus research and extension to support critical resource management needs." To what extent is the ministry looking to Forest Renewal to provide either the dollars or the delivery of (

h) and (i)?

Hon. J. Doyle: For incremental forestry we're looking for Forest Renewal to assist.

G. Abbott: Now, the basis on which Forest Renewal B.C. operates is that it is supposed to fund projects and processes and so on that are incremental or in addition to what is done by the ministry. So they are not supposed to take over existing functions and projects of the ministry. But of course, the rules around Forest Renewal B.C. were adjusted two or three years ago to allow these so-called beneficial uses as well.

Again, what I want to know is around inventory. How much of the inventory work is going to be done by the ministry, and how much is going to be done by FRBC? Or at least what's the anticipation of that? When it comes to research, how much of that does the ministry contemplate doing -- you can give me approximate dollar values -- and how much is it expected that FRBC is going to be carrying?

Hon. J. Doyle: Excuse me, Chair. We have some numbers that we thought we didn't have. Now I will just sit down and get the numbers and give them to the member.

Okay, we thought we had the information here. We don't have it; we will get it to you.

G. Abbott: I'll look forward to receiving that when it's available.

Under point 2, which talks about ensuring the well-being of economic resources and the well-being of citizens and communities and so on, point (

a) states that the goals "foster a regulatory and administrative climate which enables a competitive forest industry."

I'm puzzled why the term "enables" would be used when it would seem that what is being sought here is

[ Page 15234 ]

"encourages a competitive forest industry. " Can we read "enables" in this context to mean exactly the same as "encourages"?

Hon. J. Doyle: I would agree with the member. Encourage would be the same as enable in this context.

G. Abbott: In point (

b) the goal is to "maintain or improve economic potential from forest, range and recreation resources." How is that goal to be achieved?

[1705]

The Chair: I'd like to inform the committee that in the precinct today are 48 visitors from the Glenwood School in Glenwood, Washington, accompanied by their teacher M