1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 18

[ Page 8633 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

R. Neufeld: It's not very often that I get to stand up and introduce someone from as far away as the north. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a young lady by the name of Alaina Soucie, born and raised in Fort Nelson, who now lives in Vancouver. Would the House give her a warm welcome.

K. Krueger: I have two introductions today, Madam Speaker, if the House would indulge me. The first is a large group of young people from Raft River Elementary School in beautiful Clearwater, at the foot of Wells Gray Park, with their teachers and sponsors. They may not be with us yet, but I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome, regardless.

The second introduction is of a gentleman I've never met, but my legislative assistant knows him well. His name is Ed Sem. He is past president of the Universities Model Parliament Society and part of a huge and rapidly growing group in British Columbia: people who are now B.C. Liberals but used to support the B.C. Reform Party. Would the House please make Ed Sem very welcome.

S. Orcherton: In the gallery today are two visitors from Ontario: Mr. Hugh Rose and Mrs. Shela Rose. They are visiting Victoria on holiday, and they're thoroughly enjoying both the social and the political climate here in British Columbia and Victoria. I had a lovely lunch with them today. Accompanying them is their son, also named Hugh Rose. I'd ask the House to make all three of them very welcome in this chamber.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is my pleasure to introduce Celine Maubaulos to you today. Celine is a student at UBC; she has worked in the downtown east side community and is currently working with the community development unit under Jim Green with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is Dr. Félix Peña, who is the Undersecretary of Foreign Trade of Argentina. He is accompanied by Francisco Ferro, the minister in the embassy of Argentina in Ottawa. I'll be meeting with them later on this afternoon. I would ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.

D. Symons: I see in the gallery two people whom many of us, as members of the Legislature, have probably heard from over the years. We have Mr. John Ratel and Ellen Chesney, who are government relations and public relations officers with the BCAA. I think we all get material from them dealing with traffic safety, and we appreciate their efforts on behalf of traffic safety. Could the House make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I'd like to make a couple of introductions today as well. I see that my former political science professor from UBC is here, Paul Tennant. I suspect he is here tending well, as he always does, the legislative internship program. I'd like the House to make him welcome and commend him for the great job he has been doing with his interns.

I'd also like to introduce the executive of the AVIM -- Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities -- who are here in the gallery as well. There is the president, Councillor John Crook of the district of Langford; first vice-president, Mayor Frank Leonard from the district of Saanich, who has been introduced before; second vice-president, Councillor Pearl Myhres from the village of Zeballos; directors-at-large, Councillor Stan Dixon from the district of Sechelt, Roxanna Mandryk of the Comox-Strathcona regional district and Joe Allan of the Cowichan Valley regional district; and the past president of that organization, Mayor Jim Lornie. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It is a great pleasure for me to introduce some very good friends of mine visiting the gallery today: Dr. Setty Pendakur, an old professor of mine who gave me my worst grade, and his wife Rajinder Pendakur; Setty's brother Dr. Manji Pendakur, dean of the faculty of information and media studies at the University of Western Ontario, and his wife Roja Pendakur. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I would also like to recognize Prof. Paul Tennant. He is accompanying next year's legislative interns on a brief orientation to the Legislature. The interns with Dr. Tennant are Faith Armitage from UBC, Paola Baca from UBC, Jitesh Mistry from Simon Fraser University, Tera Nelson from UVic and Quentin O'Mahony from the University College of the Fraser Valley. Would all members please welcome them.

The Speaker: Got another one?

W. Hartley: Yes, hon. Speaker. I also have a group to recognize from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. There are some 26 grade 6 students with their teacher, Mr. Teague. Please welcome them.

L. Stephens: In the precincts today there are 60 grade 7 students from Simonds Elementary School in my riding of Langley. They are accompanied by their vice-principal, Mr. Bennett, and several parents. They're here to observe firsthand the government demonstrating the democratic process at work. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: There are approximately 22 grade 7 students visiting us today from Chilliwack Christian School, and I'll be speaking to them shortly. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Brenda Bakker, and several adults. In fact, I'll be fielding some of their questions immediately following question period. I look forward to that.

G. Wilson: If only Dr. Pendakur had shared that grade with the rest of the people of British Columbia; he might have saved us some problems here. [Laughter.]

In particular I would like to welcome Mr. Stan Dixon, who is here with the members of the AVIM. People will remember that Mr. Dixon was formerly the chief of the Sechelt Indian band and in fact shepherded in the Sechelt Indian government district, the most successful Indian self-government in British Columbia. So I want to give a particular welcome to Mr. Stan Dixon for the work he has done on behalf of the establishment of Indian self-government. Would the House make him welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting us in the gallery today from Esquimalt and Smithers are my aunt Muriel Dunn, with whom I spend time when I'm in the capital, and my mother and father, Margaret and Jim Goodacre. Aside from naturally

[ Page 8634 ]

being grateful for having such wonderful parents, I also owe a very special debt of gratitude to my father for the special contribution he made to me during the election. Judging from the phone calls, congratulations and letters that he got, a fair number of people voted for me -- thinking that they were voting for him. So I thank him especially.

Oral Questions

NORTHERN B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M. de Jong: Yesterday, at 5.30 a.m., an injured railway worker was brought to the hospital in Smithers with a crushed and partially severed leg. The treating physician immediately contacted air ambulance dispatch in Vancouver and was told at that time that service wasn't available and wouldn't be available until 8 a.m., when a new shift came on duty. The faxed letter I have from the physician says that this delay may have cost the patient his leg.

Would the Minister of Health please explain how it is that a seriously injured man whose doctor is recommending immediate air transport could be forced to wait in excess of three hours because of a shift change? In fact, it turned out to be in excess of six hours, because there was a shift change and the service just wasn't available.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know the details and have not seen a letter from the referring physician. I will have my staff look into that, and we'll get back to the family.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

[2:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: Without reference to the first part of the question, if the circumstances are as described, it is an unacceptable delay, and that's why I will investigate.

S. Hawkins: Patients in northern rural B.C. have watched in horror as the NDP have gutted their ground ambulance service. They were assured that, at the very least, they would have a 24-hour air ambulance service. The fact is that this patient from Smithers was in a life-and-limb emergency situation and had to wait in excess of six hours to be airlifted out. My question is to the Health minister: why are she and her government failing to provide air ambulance service and putting rural patients' lives at risk -- a service that this government promised them and that they were assured they would have?

Hon. P. Priddy: What I said to the previous speaker was that if that situation is indeed true, then it is unacceptable. But we are not denying the air ambulance to everybody in the north; let's be clear here.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

MARKTREND POLL ON B.C. HEALTH CARE

S. Hawkins: New question, hon. Speaker. According to a Marktrend poll that was released today, two-thirds of those questioned said they believe that the quality of health care in B.C. has deteriorated in the last five years under the NDP. Half the people questioned said they believe that health care is worse for rural patients . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

S. Hawkins: . . . than for urban patients. My question is to the Minister of Health: will she finally stand up today and admit that she and her government are the problem? Or are two-thirds of the people in B.C. wrong?

Hon. P. Priddy: Not wishing to speak to the veracity of the Marktrend poll . . . . Maclean's magazine has just published an entire issue on health care, where it said that in almost every area, British Columbia leads this country in health care: in the number of physicians per capita, in the funding of health care per capita and in the health of British Columbians. Not wishing to speak for the perception of people, research that was done quite objectively, using national data, says that B.C. has the best health care system in this country.

FRBC AND FOREST SECTOR JOBS

G. Abbott: Certainly they also have absolutely the worst record in forestry in the entire world. That's clear as well -- absolutely the worst. In fact, hon. Speaker, according to . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

G. Abbott: . . . the former head of the Canadian Forest Service, Les Reed, the NDP's new silviculture hiring hall will double the cost of planting trees in this province. That means that only half the area that should be planted will be planted. How can the Minister of Forests justify his union-hiring-hall system, which would replant only half the area that should be planted in the forests of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know of any studies that Mr. Reed has done. They certainly have not been sent to me.

The studies that do count are the studies that are accepted by both employers here -- that is, FRBC and the companies. We have had a study done by Price Waterhouse that tells us that if anything, all silviculture costs would be less than current market rates.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: That's right, and I'm going to have a Porsche under my Christmas tree on Christmas morning. There's about the same guarantee there.

[ Page 8635 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, let the question come.

G. Abbott: Forest experts were predicting four years ago that the cost of the Forest Practices Code was going to double the cost of doing business in B.C. forests and kill jobs. They've been proven right. Now those same experts are saying that the NDP's silviculture hiring hall will result in fewer jobs and fewer trees being planted in this province. Will the Minister of Forests listen to the experts for once and abandon his union hiring hall before it drives up costs and puts even more workers out of business in this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I've said before in this House that it is not a union hiring hall, which is where you have to be a member to apply through the hall to get a job. Once you apply for a job, you do have to belong to a union and be covered by a collective agreement. But you don't have to be a union member to apply for the job -- there's a difference. New Forest Opportunities is an opportunity for all displaced workers to have an equal opportunity to be hired. It is a mechanism to take displaced forest workers and put them to work in the woods.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. It is now obvious that the vast majority of school trustees will vote down the agreement-in-committee arranged by this minister. With the vast majority of school trustees voting down this agreement, will the minister commit today that he will order the two sides back to the bargaining table and have BCPSEA negotiate a proper collective agreement with the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is one part of the member's statement which is accurate -- that is, this week and next the trustees will be voting on the agreement we have reached with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I will continue to say to trustees that this is an agreement where the teachers of this province have deferred wage increases for two years, because they want to put classrooms first.

It's an agreement that the government has committed to, and trustees should know -- and I'll say it again in this House, as I've said it repeatedly -- that there's $150 million to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade 3, hire 1,200 new teachers across the province and build 1,000 new classrooms for those smaller classes.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: This minister knows that there is not enough money in the system to implement this agreement. The minister knows today that the majority of trustees have already voted against the deal. Will the minister tell us today that with that information at hand, he will order them back to the bargaining table? Or will he come clean with British Columbians and tell us that he will legislate this agreement and thereby get rid of the school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me make it clear to this member in this House, as I have to school trustees and their superintendents: the dollars to make this agreement work are there. This government is committed to making it happen for our children. It is important that we advance this education initiative to reduce class size, and what I am committed to is making sure that those resources get into our schools this September so we can hire those teachers, reduce class size and improve education in schools around British Columbia.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I want the minister to tell this House: is he prepared to legislate this agreement and thereby render the school boards irrelevant? Will the minister come clean and tell us what he is preparing to do?

FRBC AND FOREST SECTOR JOBS

R. Coleman: I'm not surprised that the Minister of Forests is not aware of any reports by Mr. Reed. In estimates yesterday, I questioned him on a report on the shake and shingle industry, which contained a covering letter to him that he wasn't aware had been sent to him. In a recent speech, Mr. Reed said that the NDP is plundering FRBC with no regard for the promises made by the Harcourt government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to hear the question.

R. Coleman: Can the Minister of Forests tell us why, if FRBC is seen by experts like Mr. Reed in this light, the public should have any faith that FRBC isn't anything more than a slush fund for him and the Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a little hard to take lectures from members like that, because they're usually wrong in the reports they quote -- dead wrong, which is proven time after time after time. They presented a report on the shake and shingle industry that was done by a student and tried to somehow present that as a government report. If they would dignify that student's report by asking the student or the college to explain it, they could have a totally different explanation. The opposition doesn't know what they're talking about.

Rather than a speech by Mr. Reed, let me quote from the study that costed the collective agreement. The study says: "Based on the planned distribution of FRBC funds, there is very little difference between the current industry costs and New Forest costs. Assuming current productivity levels, the New Forest costs are estimated to be 1.7 percent lower on a weighted basis." We've said it's a cost-effective collective agreement, like the Island Highway project was.

RELEASE OF FOREST SECTOR LAYOFF REPORTS

G. Plant: Speaking of reports, we asked the Minister of Forests two weeks ago about the fact that he has been asking his staff to regularly provide him with reports about the number of layoffs in the forest sector. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Forests told us he'd give us those reports. Well, last night when we asked the minister about producing the reports, he started dancing around -- in fact, I think you could

[ Page 8636 ]

call it river-dancing around the issue. He said: "Oh, no. Let's let the opposition FOI those reports. After all, we're not interested in public disclosure." My question to the Minister of Forests is: is he so afraid of the truth of the failure of his forest policies that he will not table the documents?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because this opposition doesn't know the difference between question period and estimates, I'm going to prevail a little bit on my side's patience and explain that what I said last night was that it has been . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They never listen, hon. Speaker. I said that I would consider releasing information that . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We heard the question. Now let's hear the answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've explained that I'm prepared to talk about numbers in my estimates. We have an agreed-upon database to assess job creation and the status of employment in the forest industry. We'll do that. I said that I would consider releasing reports, but there is some . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, they should check the record.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I know the opposition is confused. The point is that there is confidential information that is the property of industry. Information is collected on that basis, and I'm quite prepared in estimates to talk . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston will come to order.

That's the end of question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we have a report to come forward now.

Reports from Committees

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: This report basically deals with four issues. It deals, first of all, with the responsibilities of the select standing committee in dealing with records retention and disposal.

It follows through on a recommendation to the Ministry of Finance to allow volume 3 and

section D of volume 2 of Public Accounts to be published on the Internet, and so reduce publishing costs.

[2:30]

It deals with the very current and critically important issue of the year 2000 problem. When we hear what is being said in the U.K. and Australia, we appreciate and understand that British Columbia has been aware of this issue and has worked hard to deal with it. The fact that the government has been bringing in, over the last few years, the new corporate accounting system has certainly helped, but the message that I have today for this government is that they must not rest on their laurels. The year 2000 millennium bug is a serious issue.

There are concerns about resources, both dollars and the skills of people who are able to fix this problem. It is important that ministries have an ability to test programs before the issue is upon us and we reach our deadlines. It is critically important that ministries have contingency plans to ensure that if something does go wrong, the world doesn't come to a stop at 12:01 on the morning of January 1, 2000.

I also wish to take this opportunity to impress upon the government that it's not just ministries within the consolidated revenue fund; there are big issues, critical issues, to do with Crown corporations and Crown-funded agencies.

Hon. Speaker, I commend this report to the government, and I ask that this House adopt the report.

G. Wilson: Speaking to the motion, and as someone who has sat on Public Accounts from time to time and who is now back on that committee, I would hope that all members of this House, but particularly members of executive council, take the time to read and seriously consider recommendations 1 through 4. These are recommendations that I think have a great deal of importance to the operation of government, and I would strongly recommend that they be implemented -- and implemented as quickly as is feasible.

In speaking to this report, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Delta South, who I think has been an outstanding chair of the Public Accounts Committee and who has made this committee work to the advantage of all British Columbians. And for that, we should all be grateful.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8637 ]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour at this time to present the 1997 annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: It may appear that we're already there, but I would like to call estimates. I call Committee of Supply in this chamber. For the information of the members, although I think we've slipped into it, we'll all be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. And in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

R. Thorpe: The first thing I'd like to say -- because the minister had the opportunity to wrap up, and the record will show what he said about himself -- is that I am not going to argue with any of the words the minister said about himself. So I just want to get that on the record.

With respect to the subject we were talking about -- the contracts that seem to be held up with respect to noxious weeds operations -- does the minister now have the information that he undertook to get during the lunch break?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I did undertake to get it. I did speak to people about it before lunch, and we've got it coming right now.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps as soon as the minister has the information, he will get up and share the answer with us.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that we're still waiting on the dollars to be allocated to complete the work. This is the second year of three-year contracts. There are four contracts between $25,000 and $30,000 -- something like that. The wish of the people managing contracts would be to complete the work by the end of July. But it's still waiting on dollars to be allocated.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm, then, that these dollars are in fact in his budget? What seems to be the problem here in management making a decision to go forward on these four contracts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is very simple. With budget cutbacks, we're examining every program to see if we can create some savings. You know the story. We aren't able to meet all the existing expenditure levels from previous years, so everything is being looked at. At this point, the dollars have not been allocated to this program.

R. Thorpe: When can we expect a decision to be made on these four contracts in the Merritt forest district?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Soon.

R. Thorpe: Is the minister aware that the employees who work on these contracts are, for the most part, students, and that summer co-op students from the University College of the Cariboo have actually signed on. Soon, hon. Chair, is not good enough. It's not good enough for the contractors or for the students. We need a decision. The reason we need a decision . . . . Hopefully, this government still has some concern for students, because these students have all signed contracts with the contractors. These contracts say they may not seek other employment or accept any subsequent offers of employment.

So "soon" is not a good enough answer. Can we not have a date on which the decision will be made on these contracts for these students and these contractors?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said it would be soon. I'm not going to make an administrative decision on the floor of this House; it would be irresponsible. The program managers are attempting to accommodate these contracts. They are all contracts subject to funding. If a contractor signed a subcontract, that's their problem. I sympathize with the students. We aren't in a position to guarantee every student every job they've had in the past. There are other areas where we can create employment. But in this case, it is a resource management issue: we are attempting to find ways to carry out the responsibilities of weed control. So "soon" is my answer.

R. Thorpe: It's unbelievable, hon. Chair, that the minister would take a position that contractors in good faith would go out and hire students, and in fact some of them are paying that. The minister insults those people by saying: "That's too bad." Can the minister advise how many other forest districts find themselves in exactly the same position with respect to this issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that two other regions use contractors.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what those two other districts are? And the next questions would be: how many contracts are outstanding, and what is the value of those contracts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That wasn't information you asked for before; this is highly specific information. I'll endeavour to get it for you. You know, this side doesn't appreciate lectures from that side, who would lower taxes, have less money to spend, slash everything and pretend, somehow, that you can balance the budget without any cuts. This government is trying to be very careful about expenditures, find savings and administer our responsibilities under our programs in a cost-effective way.

[2:45]

R. Thorpe: We know how careful this government is with the expenditures of the taxpayers of British Columbia. They twice said that the budget is balanced. It's not. That's how careful they are. They say the deficit is $95 million, and it's $949 million, according to page 33 of their own Finance minister's document. I don't know what economics books this minister has read, but perhaps the minister should take the trouble to understand that in every jurisdiction across Canada that has lowered taxes, they've increased their revenue, because people have more in their pockets to spend and generate an economy with.

In 23 states in the United States exactly the same thing has happened. Of course, they believe in free enterprise, not socialism, and that is the difference. Socialism believes in taxation, taxation, taxation.

[ Page 8638 ]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, hon. Chair. We're discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and the member is somehow wanting to get into some general budget issues. We'll speak about the Ministry of Forests budget.

The Chair: May I remind the member to stick with the Ministry of Forests estimates, please.

R. Thorpe: That's exactly what I was doing, hon. Chair, and I do appreciate the guidance.

The issue here is that free enterprise and timely decisions will result in summer students -- forestry co-op students -- having the jobs out in the forests, out in the ranges, to do the contracts. Make your decision soon!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We could have cancelled the contracts. We're trying to honour all the work.

G. Abbott: I presume that all the staff for Forest Renewal B.C. is assembled here. I would like to begin with a review of the current financial position of Forest Renewal B.C., in the wake of a couple of things: the recent announcement of stumpage relief and, of course, the fairly dramatic downturn in softwood lumber prices, particularly on the American market, and the implications that has for revenues to Forest Renewal B.C.

Could the minister begin by outlining, in detail if he would, the altered fiscal position of Forest Renewal B.C. as it pertains to the relief from stumpage that was announced a couple of weeks ago in Kamloops? I appreciate that the relief just came on stream as of June 1, but obviously it's going to have an effect on the final six months of revenues that flow to Forest Renewal B.C. Could the minister provide the detail around that, please?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to tell the member that with respect to Forest Renewal, as he knows, the business plan is in front of the committee. I am prepared to talk about the responsibilities I have, as the minister, for policy and so on, but I will refer detailed project information to that committee.

Forest Renewal B.C. funding is not derived from the consolidated revenue fund, so that's not estimates. I just want you to know that I am prepared to engage in some questions around government policy associated with FRBC.

About the issue around revenues, we expect $234 million less to flow from the government to FRBC this year. It won't affect this year's business plan for FRBC; it won't affect the expenditure level. It will affect the inflow of dollars at the end of the year.

The Chair: Member, may I just remind you that Forest Renewal B.C. has a business plan which is under consideration by the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Therefore any questions directed to that may be left for that committee.

G. Abbott: I do appreciate that we have a business plan and that it will be reviewed by the committee. It's actually not news to me; I'm the Deputy Chair of that committee and fully aware of the situation. Not to be difficult or unreasonable here, but I think the general nature of the questions that I'm asking are entirely in order. I'm not asking about the details of the coming business plan; I'm merely trying to ascertain the business financial position of Forest Renewal B.C. in the wake of a substantial announcement that affected them. Am I doing anything unreasonable here? I hope not.

I think it's perfectly in order. There's a whole range of questions that need to be asked here, and I fully intend to do it.

The Chair: Member, it was simply a caution. Maybe your line of questioning can be directed more to the estimates of the ministry, rather than that committee.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The purpose of making the comment was just to preface. Perhaps I should have done it before your question. Your question was in order; I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't.

The business plan of FRBC will be amended next year to reflect this change in positions. In the business plan that was issued, we didn't have a decision on stumpage, so it couldn't incorporate the decision. The revenue stream for next year will be incorporated in next year's business plan. We anticipate that it will be $234 million less than they would have got if we had not made the stumpage change.

G. Abbott: Could I interrupt myself to ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: I see in the gallery Theresa White, who is with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association. I'm not sure, but I think that the other ladies with her may be employees of the ILMA as well. No? I guessed wrong there. I'd like the House to make Theresa and her guests welcome.

The minister notes that it's anticipated that the recently announced changes to the stumpage system will result in $234 million less to FRBC. Given that those changes came into play on June 1, is the impact of that going to be half of $234 million, or what's the situation there? I understand those figures to be annualized figures rather than balance-of-year figures.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A lot of the revenue comes in in the month of March, before the fiscal year-end, and then there's two or three months during breakup and the final part of winter where there isn't a great cash flow. That is an annualized amount, and that is based on all the assumptions for lumber prices and so on that we made when we made the adjustment. If something happens in lumber prices and so on, there will have to be revised estimates made.

G. Abbott: Maybe we could just get this clear. It's a semantic thing. I don't think we're arguing here; we're just trying to get it clear. If $234 million is an annualized figure, does that mean that $234 million is the loss for the balance of 1998? Or will the loss to FRBC be some portion of the $234 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As it stands now, given assumptions and so on, that would be the amount -- entirely a loss of revenue to FRBC in this year.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the clarification. When the minister and the Premier made their announcement around stumpage relief in Kamloops a couple of weeks ago, they also put out the anticipated level of stumpage relief for 1999 and the year 2000. I ask the minister to refresh my memory on what

[ Page 8639 ]

those figures were. As I recall, they were somewhere in the neighbourhood of $220 million in 1999 and, I think, a little less than $200 million in the year 2000. Could the minister refresh me on that point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to get that for you. We took a rough, rounded average of $600 million over three years. The reason we did the rounding was because we're not sure exactly what lumber prices will be or what pulp chips will be. We expect that that amount will decrease if pulp chips come up, so that's why we did a rounding. The $600 million was a notional one. I'll try to get those figures, but bear in mind that those were based on estimates at that time -- estimates of volume and so on. I'll get that.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. The point I am leading to is this. Given that the $234 million is an amount that's going to be saved by the industry and/or lost to FRBC for the balance of 1998 -- that is, the months of June through December 1998, inclusive . . . . The set of assumptions that went around lesser numbers for 1999 and the year 2000 are not clear to me, when those in fact were full years of stumpage relief.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The calculations were as follows. The reduction in stumpage for '98-99 was $249 million, less the chips. There would be a recovery on pricing for chips, so there's $15.5 million. That nets out to $234 million.

In the 1999-2000 year, the reduction would be $275.8 million. But on the plus side, there would be a recovery on chip pricing of $54.7 million. That puts you down to approximately the $220 million figure that you were using earlier.

In 2001, it's $291.9 million, but the chip forecast would have a positive of $106 million. So the difference there would be $185 million. Hence the rough rounding over three years.

G. Abbott: That helps, although I'm not sure at this point that I entirely understand the other assumptions that must be implicit here. If we go from June through the end of 1998, that's a period of only -- what? -- six or seven months. I'll never be Finance minister either. It's somewhere in that area. We've only got a portion of the year in '98; yet we're assuming $249 million, minus the chips. In 1999, with a full year of stumpage relief, we're looking at $275 million minus $54 million for chips.

So I guess my question is: are we also building into the model an assumption of a considerable rise in lumber prices on the American market? What accounts for the full-year versus partial-year discrepancy -- or apparent discrepancy?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The $234 million net amount for this year . . . . You're just missing April and May. So it's ten months, because most of the billing happens in those other ten months. But if you want to know the assumptions, we've assumed that the U.S. lumber price of below $300 will recover to $350. Then the hemlock squares price built into these assumptions is the current $535 (U.S.), and from that current figure to $650 (U.S.) . . . but not for it to recover to previous levels, which were substantially higher than that. We've assumed that pulp will strengthen to $800 a tonne.

[3:00]

G. Abbott: That's useful in terms of helping to understand the impact of the new formula.

The suggestion that there's an assumption built in here of increasing prices for random-length dimensional lumber from $300 to $350 (U.S.), and for the hemlock squares from $535 to $650 and the pulp up from around $550 -- I think the current level is -- to $800 . . . . Are those assumptions made for the balance of '98, plus '99, plus 2000? Or does it come and go through that period?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the numbers I've given you are for over the next five years; that's over the cycle. Based on it being a slow recovery over those five years, what we've picked up in the computations here is the next three years -- this year and the next two. So the assumptions built into that are partial recovery, not the full recovery. That will take the full five years of the cycle.

G. Abbott: So it's over a five-year cycle that it's assumed that dimensional lumber will go from $300 to $350 (U.S.), hemlock squares from $535 to $650 and pulp to $800. That recovery is over the five years, and we are building in increments of improvements through those first three years. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

G. Abbott: That anticipates my next question. I've pretty much got clear the stumpage relief aspect of the fiscal position of Forest Renewal B.C.

In part, I'd just like a quick review, but also there's a question here. To my knowledge, softwood lumber prices, particularly dimensional lumber and random-length dimensional lumber in the U.S. market, has slipped substantially in the last few months. I think it's either at or just below the level at which superstumpage for the funding of Forest Renewal B.C. kicks in. I think we're around $280 now; I think it's at about $300 that the funding curve begins to kick in for Forest Renewal.

Could the minister, with the assistance of staff, refresh my memory with respect to when the funding curve kicks in for Forest Renewal and also briefly outline what the experience for the first few months of 1998 has been with respect to dimensional lumber prices on the U.S. market and what impact that has had on Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It depends on two factors. One is the exchange rate, and one is the price of lumber in U.S. funds, which is currently $260. The exchange rate is very favourable; it's 68 cents. There is a very complicated calculation to get a precise number. I'll undertake to get that for you. I don't have it here, and we can't calculate it here right now.

G. Abbott: If the minister's staff could provide that over the course . . . . I think it would be useful. It's not because I'm particularly interested in the details around that. It's just that as these factors change, it can have a very substantial impact on the level of funding that's flowing through to Forest Renewal B.C. As a consequence, it can have a considerable impact on their ability to deliver programs, if not in the short term, certainly in the long term. As a matter of being -- hopefully -- a useful Forests critic, I'd like to understand how those things are working.

The changes in the stumpage formula and the stumpage relief that was announced a couple of weeks ago, which, as has been noted, is going to produce a net of $234 million less to FRBC in 1998 . . . . I presume, from some of the earlier comments I heard, that the plan at this point is for Forest Renewal to continue on with the current business plan, the

[ Page 8640 ]

plan of the current fiscal year, and with programs as we discussed them at the Forest Renewal business plan meetings of the Select Standing Committee on Forests. I presume that we're going to continue that. And I presume -- and the minister can tell me further about this -- that the $234 million that is not going to be coming in the current fiscal year to fund those things will be made up from the reserve of Forest Renewal B.C. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the current business plan level of expenditure, the $517 million, is the target; but we will be prudent. If some project fails or doesn't meet their expenditure program, we're not going to be pushing to reach that. We're going to be very careful. That's because there will be much less money going into the forest renewal fund.

G. Abbott: I didn't really hear a definitive answer. If there isn't one available, the minister could say so. Is that the plan? Setting aside the "Yes, we're going to be prudent and all that" -- obviously anyone would be -- the aim of Forest Renewal B.C. is to continue to deliver the programs for the current year, as set out and discussed in our previous business plan meetings, and they are going to make up the shortfall for delivery of those programs via the corporation's reserves. Is that correct? I've asked the question before. I just need a little more precision in the answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes. The shortfall between what FRCB takes in and the $517 million will be funded out of the reserve. We will continue with the business plan for this year.

G. Abbott: After the FRBC reserve has been reduced by roughly $234 million, what will be the balance remaining in the reserve of Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The balance in reserve, which is the total equity, will be $393 million.

G. Abbott: Beyond the impact of stumpage relief, which we've defined quite well, and beyond the impact of the downturn in softwood lumber prices, which is rather more difficult to define, for obvious reasons, but which nevertheless is likely to have substantial consequences through the balance of 1998 . . . . Beyond those two factors, which will affect FRBC's ability to deliver programs in the short term and in the long term, are there any other factors or elements which Forest Renewal B.C. anticipates may impact on their ability to deliver programs in the short term or the long term? Are there any other factors or influences or considerations which may have a bearing in the longer term?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we haven't identified any other factors that would affect it.

G. Abbott: I think we have determined that the impact on the current year's programs should not be substantial. At least, I gather from the comments that have been provided that the impact of stumpage relief and of the other factors will not alter the delivery of programs in any material or substantial way in 1998-99. Could the minister, in consultation with FRBC staff, advise on what is anticipated in the longer term? We have an anticipation of a further $220 million net in stumpage relief in 1999-2000, and additional stumpage relief of $185 million is anticipated for 2000-01.

Is it anticipated by Forest Renewal B.C. that they will deal with that reduced funding through a reduction in programs and a further reduction in the ongoing balance of FRBC's reserve fund? Or do they anticipate some combination of those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The board of Forest Renewal will have to make the decision on whether there's a program reduction versus using up the unappropriated equity. That's a board decision. They're in a planning process now and will decide in preparation for the next year's business plan.

J. Sawicki: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member across the way for giving way.

In the precincts this afternoon, although I don't see them physically in the chamber right now -- unless they're behind me -- is a class of 53 grade 6 and 7 students from Cascade Heights Elementary School in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Hurd and Mr. Low, and eight parents. I met them over the lunch break, and they asked me some very probing questions about what we do here. I want the House to join me in making them welcome.

G. Abbott: I also want to address some questions around the issue of incrementality shortly, but I want to see whether any of my colleagues have further questions related to the impact of recent changes to FRBC's fiscal outlook.

[3:15]

R. Coleman: Recognizing that the Select Standing Committee on Forests has done some review of the business plans of FRBC, I don't think there's been any opportunity for a comparative analysis of plans from year to year -- how they're laid out and how they deal with each other. I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to do that, because I think there are some significant differences in how the plans are formulated. And I'd like some points of clarification on where FRBC is headed.

I've done the comparative analysis prior to being here today, in conjunction with some other people, so I will go through this, and then maybe the minister and the staff can basically answer why the differences and why the changes between the two plans.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

First of all, in a two-year period it's clearly evident that there have been changes made to the format, content, programs and sections of the plan and the organizational structure of Forest Renewal and the '97-98 and the '98-99 business plans. A comparative analysis of the '97-98 and '98-99 Forest Renewal B.C. business plans basically comes up with a few differences.

The first difference between the two business plans is the incorporation of program targets that existed in the '97-98 business plan and the removal of program targets in the '98-99 business plan relating to FRBC programs. Just to outline briefly, in the '97-98 business plan, investments were configured within five activity areas: land and resources, environment, workforce, communities and value-added. Within these five activity areas are specific programs related to each of the areas. The program objectives and purposes are discussed in a paragraph, and following the paragraph are the projected

[ Page 8641 ]

targets for each program for the fiscal year. Targets are provided that relate to the projected hectares of land that will be used, distance of waterways that are involved, number of activities within the project, number of employees being trained for the project and person-years of direct employment. I reference you to page 35 of the '97-98 plan. These projected targets allow for a measure of accountability to take place when trying to evaluate the success or improvement of the program.

However, in the '98-99 business plan, the format of the programs has been changed. The activity areas are now in the format of seven objectives, and within each of the objectives the programs are discussed. The description of each of the programs has been decreased significantly. More importantly, there are no program targets for each individual program, and they have not been solely comprised under the entire objective itself. Each program is now only explained in a paragraph, and the costs are provided in chart form at the bottom of the page. See page 25 in the 1998-99 program.

I guess my first question would be: why are there not specific targets given for each program in the 1998-99 FRBC business plan when the providing of target amounts allows for a measure of accountability and performance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it really is a question of formatting. The board, as I understand it, went to more direct, strategic objectives, and they have targets for each of the objectives. So that's a very legitimate question for the discussions around the business plan.

R. Coleman: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last part of that answer. I just got the first part, and I wonder if you could repeat the last part.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said the questions about the format of the business plan -- and the objectives and targets and budgets behind the lines in the business plan -- are quite legitimate to ask when the select standing committee discusses the business plan in some detail.

R. Coleman: How does FRBC intend to evaluate the success or failure of programs if there are no targets or goals given or set for each of the programs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just wish to tell the member that I don't think I'll answer any more of those questions. If he refers to page 19, there are program targets, so he can evaluate against the program targets.

R. Coleman: Isn't it amazing that we have a half-a-billion-dollar Crown corporation that refuses to answer questions about how it operates and how it does its planning.

The Chair: I recognize the minister on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a question of not . . . . I've made it clear that we'll answer detailed business plan objectives. That was agreed upon.

The Chair: If I could add to that, the Chair has also made a statement in regard to the substance. I could read it again, if the member wishes.

"Pursuant to

section 10(6) of the Forest Renewal Act, the FRBC business plan is currently under consideration by the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources of the Legislative Assembly.

"The Committee of Supply is considering the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Questions in this committee may be out of order if they deal with matters included in the FRBC business plan which is before the Forests Committee. Established practice in this House discourages debate on matters appointed for consideration in the House or in one of its committees.

"Given that administration costs of FRBC are funded through voted appropriations of the Ministry of Forests, the Chair will allow questions on administrative cost issues but would ask members to avoid questions on business plan issues."

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair. Just a point of clarification, then. Am I allowed to ask questions with regards to investment targets and corporate administration sheets relative to the business plan, or are these also exempt from questions?

The Chair: The minister may wish to clarify that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. What we can discuss is government policy and things within the purview of my ministry and my responsibilities as the Minister of Forests. But a detailed review of the business plan has a place, and that is that committee, and it is currently in front of that committee.

R. Coleman: I'm aware of it being in front of the committee. Was a comparative analysis of the two business plans ever done in committee -- the one from '97-98 and '98-99?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that precisely that kind of comparative analysis -- two years, comparing one year to the other -- has been done in committee. I understand that it's happened both times, and it will happen again.

G. Abbott: At this point, I want to address the principle of incrementality. Now, incrementality is a horrible term. I don't know who created it, but it's one that has been used fairly widely around Forest Renewal B.C. since its inception in 1994.

One of the big concerns about Forest Renewal B.C., from its inception, has been that because FRBC is a corporation with a lot of money, there would be an enormous, overwhelming temptation on the part of ministries that may at times be cash-strapped for a variety of reasons to attempt to off-load their responsibilities onto Forest Renewal B.C. -- because Forest Renewal B.C. had money and the ministries didn't. That, as it turns out, has been a very legitimate concern.

In fact, it's a concern that has been extensively discussed at meetings of the Select Standing Committee on Forests. In their discussions of the FRBC business plans, they have discussed the principle of incrementality in great detail over the years, and the problem of off-loading. Where we left this . . . . I think we had an interesting and in some respects a useful discussion about this issue at the last two business plan meetings of the select standing committee. I think it was very much the consensus of those assembled that this was an issue that needed to be raised in the special forum we have here, the B.C. Legislature.

The principle of incrementality has, I think, been strained; it has been stretched; it has been distorted beyond the wildest imagination of anyone who anticipated this back in 1994. Just to briefly review here the issue and what incrementality is, even back in 1995 -- I suspect at one of the first, if not the first, business plan discussions of the select standing committee -- the member for Delta South extensively questioned the FRBC staff, who were assembled for the business plan meeting, about the notion of incrementality.

[ Page 8642 ]

A couple of

definitions or clarifications were offered at that time by the chair of Forest Renewal B.C. that I think lay out fairly succinctly what incrementality is and what it implies for government. I'll offer a couple of quotes here from Mr. Stanyer, the chair: "As far as the things that Forest Renewal looked at are concerned, the project is incremental, because they are not the responsibility of the licensee or government. The project has enhanced the productive capacity of the forest lands." The notion is that FRBC would fund projects and programs which were incremental to the responsibilities of the licensees and government. That, I think, was clear enough.

On questioning from Mr. Hurd, the former member for Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Stanyer further clarified the point:

"As for what we actually mean by incrementality, as I said earlier, it is a question of activity. The Forest Act defines the obligation of the licensee or the ministry, and anything over and above that is considered to be incremental activity. In some cases it has been funded through FRDA programs and in some cases it has been funded on a hit-or-miss basis by the ministry over the years -- those kinds of things. It is now within the purview of Forest Renewal."

The object of incrementality was to ensure that Forest Renewal B.C. added to our ability to restore and enhance the productive capacity of the forest -- not to take on the projects, activities and special purchases that any line ministry of government might like to throw at Forest Renewal B.C. down the line.

At our last business meeting, I and my colleagues discussed some issues which certainly, in my view, offended in a serious way the principle of incrementality, and I want to discuss those today with the Minister of Forests. Again, I think that unless we forcefully highlight some of these issues, there will be a continued and perhaps more pronounced trend on the part of government ministries to try to fund their programs through Forest Renewal B.C.

That is the essence of the concern, and we can talk about those things specifically. But we did raise issues like, for example, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways not wanting to fund bridges to forested areas. By simply refusing to fund those bridges, they put a lot of pressure on Forest Renewal to take that on as an activity. The purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is another example of where the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks wanted to add to the province's holdings through that purchase and did it by off-loading that onto Forest Renewal B.C. There are other examples here, as well, that we will be raising and discussing.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Forests as to what his views are with respect to incrementality. Does the term, as it was discussed in October and November of 1995, still have some meaning? Or has the principle of incrementality been strained so far and in so many directions by government that it really no longer has any meaning in the context of 1998?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The decision as to whether something is incremental or not to what government is doing . . . . That test is something decided by the board when it takes on a program. You can get into discussions as to whether specific projects meet the tests. But I would say that as a rule, the board may consider taking on things that were previously done by government but are truly incremental to what government is doing. I think it just attests to . . . . The point I'm making is that there is no trend here. There are some things that were funded by FRBC last year that they aren't funding this year, and the example you gave was one of them.

G. Abbott: The point that I think needs to be made is an important one. We can't, from year to year, have such a loose definition, such a loose idea, of what is incremental or not incremental to the role of Forest Renewal B.C., so that we can simply say -- being completely pragmatic or using reasons of convenience -- that something is now incremental to Forest Renewal B.C. that was not incremental in the past. I want to pin the minister down -- and this may be difficult -- on whether we need to have a more substantial, fixed and rigorous notion of what is and what is not incremental to Forest Renewal B.C.'s role.

That way we won't have, in the short term and in the long term, continued pressure on Forest Renewal B.C. to take on projects, undertakings, programs and purchases which otherwise might not happen.

It seems to me that for a government ministry that is very heavily pressured to find funds to do things which may seem absolutely worthwhile, appropriate, necessary and all the rest . . . . If the funds are not there in the ministry, I think there is an overwhelming temptation for those ministries to chase Forest Renewal as a potential source of funding.

I again want to pose to the minister and to the board of Forest Renewal B.C. this problem, this dilemma, that they come under serious pressure from ministries of government to do these things. For example, on bridges across roads that are necessary to access forest resources in British Columbia. There is an overwhelming pressure on Forest Renewal to take those things on so that the resource can still be accessed, but without the Ministry of Transportation and Highways having to put up their funds, their money, to do it.

I'm asking the minister whether we need to pin down in a more precise way that definition of incrementality so that we can protect those incremental tasks -- the enhancement of the forest and those roles that are supposed to be at the core of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you could always try to straitjacket various agencies so there is no room to move with the changing times. That would require a whole lot more inflexibility that would, in my view, be detrimental to achieving the collective goals of the various agencies. Let me read to you the funding principle of incrementality. It says: "Forest Renewal B.C. funds should be used to expand the overall level of investment in the forest economy rather than displace existing spending. Forest Renewal B.C. will only invest in programs and projects that would not otherwise be undertaken by government or project proponents."

G. Abbott: The minister seems to be reading my mind, because I was just about to read that out as well. It goes on to say that proposals that contribute to Forest Renewal B.C. investment goals may be considered incremental if they are (

a) non-obligatory activities -- activities which proponents are not obliged to do by statute regulation or policy; (

b) activity accelerations -- activities which a Forest Renewal partner already funds, but which would generate broadly available forest sector benefits if current levels of investment were enhanced; and (

c) new obligations for newly required activities where no obligation existed previously and which provide benefits beyond a single organization. It seems to me that in some of those, (a), (

b) and (c), we do provide . . . . Actually, we can go to (

d) as well: " . . . beneficial initiatives for activities which may not meet one of the previous conditions but which the board considers to be beneficial and consistent with the mandate of the corporation."

I would say that (

d) in particular swings the door wide open for Forest Renewal B.C. taking on projects, purchases and activities which have been rightly funded in the past by

[ Page 8643 ]

ministries. Again, I think, in fairness to Forest Renewal B.C., you may want to give them some flexibility. But surely we've also got to have some firm understanding, some firm guidelines around what Forest Renewal B.C. should and should not be doing, so that the board does not at any point feel political pressure to fund things which I think are inappropriate to their purposes.

I'll invite the minister to comment on that one more time, and then I'll leave the general point about incrementality. I think it's an important one. I think the point that's being made here is an important one; it's a critical one, particularly in consideration of the fact that over the next three years, we are -- I think for good reasons -- going to see substantial reductions in the amount of revenue that flows to FRBC. There is going to be even tighter, fiercer competition for those remaining dollars going to Forest Renewal B.C.

I think that in fairness to the many excellent ideas and projects that exist out there in the province -- industry may have them, communities may have them, individuals may have them -- we need to protect those funds that are left. I think that unless we honour the original intent around incrementality, we are going to see the displacement of very good community projects with perhaps much needed but nevertheless inappropriate ministry funding.

I'll again invite the minister to comment on that, and then I'll want to pursue more specific examples of the problem.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that we won't straitjacket the board of FRBC. There are 14 people other than government people on the board, and they represent a series of interests, from labour to the community to the environmental movement. Those people all have an opinion on what FRBC should or should not spend its money on, given the terms of reference. So I recognize that there will be pressures; there's no question that there will be pressures. But this year, for example, there's probably less being spent in areas that might be called government program responsibility areas. We recognize the trend and the pressures that the member has pointed out.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased that the minister recognizes those. I guess the issue is: do we go beyond recognizing those pressures to acknowledging them and in fact bolstering our understanding of incrementality to ensure that the unfortunate scenario I outlined of fewer dollars and more demands for the ministry doesn't become reality? Is there any disposition on the part of the minister to tighten up that understanding so that we not only recognize that this is a problem but in fact put in place some defence against the continuing erosion of incrementality?

Hon. D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like the House to welcome some folks and some friends from my constituency. Mr. Ewert and 27 grade 7 students from Fraserview Elementary School in Mission have come over to tour and to watch, look and listen. They asked me some great questions out front. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not prepared to have government direct the FRBC board around what is incremental or not. We won't straitjacket the board. There's no appetite on the part of government to straitjacket the board, because they need the flexibility.

I would just point out to the member that we recognize the problem. It has to be discussed within government when government does its budgets. The FRBC board has to make discussions, and there will be contact between government and the FRBC board on their respective approaches to program funding. So the answer is no to straitjacketing the board around a further definition of incrementality.

G. Abbott: One of the issues I want to discuss in terms of the issue of incrementality is the issue of the Ministry of Forests' responsibility for backlog reforestation. It seems to me that we have one example of backlog reforestation with the Ministry of Forests off-loading their statutory responsibility onto Forest Renewal B.C. and then in a direct way onto the licensees -- although, of course, FRBC funds that task via the licensees. It seems to me that right within the minister's own ministry is one example of where the concept of incrementality has been offended, at least as it was originally defined.

To begin, perhaps the minister can refer to the definition of incrementality, which he and I have jointly managed to outline, and can explain how the transfer or off-load of responsibility for backlog reforestation onto Forest Renewal B.C. can be defined as incremental.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give an answer and then say that any more specifics should be discussed around the business plan, because any given program and the details around a program can be appropriately debated there. What the backlog reforestation program did was take lands that wouldn't otherwise be reforested in that time frame. It accelerated the reforestation program backlog. It essentially took responsibilities that weren't previously the industry's or the government's by statute. It's in the north, it's accelerating; therefore, it's incremental to what government would have done.

G. Abbott: The issue of incrementality that I'm raising here is, in my opinion, appropriate to this forum. Although the minister was not in attendance -- and I don't expect that he would be in attendance -- at our Forest Renewal plan meetings, we discussed issues like incrementality. Mr. Stanyer and Mr. Doney can engage in debate with me around these questions to a certain level, but quite appropriately for them as public servants, they don't want to be engaged in vigorous debate with me about principles of incrementality or other political sorts of issues once they're pushed to a certain point.

In fairness, we did take this very interesting debate around incrementality to a certain point in our business plan meetings, but there comes a point where Mr. Doney and Mr. Stanyer can't, in fairness, be expected to debate these principles with me or with any other member of the opposition. So that's why they're here. Again, I'm entirely mindful of the opportunity that the opposition members of the standing committee have to deal with the business plan in the appropriate forum, but there are some questions which have to come here as well.

[3:45]

The next question I have -- and I appreciate the minister's explanation of why, in his view, the off-load or transfer of that responsibility to FRBC was appropriate . . . . One of the concerns that exists with respect to the backlog reforestation program is that the program is a government statutory responsibility, and the transfer to Forest Renewal may in fact be contrary to

section 174 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. It is not only, as I've been making the

[ Page 8644 ]

case, contrary to the -- narrowly defined, at least -- principle of incrementality but also to

section 174 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The backlog reforestation program is not a statutory responsibility. Therefore it's incremental. I haven't got the code in front of me here; you may have it. I don't know what it says. But I would have to say that with respect to debating issues, you were calling it an off-load. I'm saying that it is an incremental activity that government would not have undertaken. But the definition of incrementality is not something given to the board by government. It is taken on by the board of Forest Renewal. It is their job to come up with that policy.

I think it is entirely fair to discuss that with the chair of the board, who represents the board when he comes to the meetings of the standing committee.

G. Abbott: The issue of that is also raised in a letter I just received. Actually, it's a copy of a letter to the minister, which I've just received from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. I'll read it:

"Your government, through the enactment of the Forest Practices Code, placed a legal obligation on holders of Crown land tenure, including ranchers, to manage their tenures in a manner that will ensure biodiversity. It has been stated by rangeland experts that one of the greatest threats to biodiversity is weeds. For this reason, we find it incomprehensible that Treasury Board would reduce the budgets of various ministries, including the Ministry of Forests, to a degree that would result in the virtual elimination of an effective weed control program on Crown lands.

"Notwithstanding the fact that the Ministry of Forests, under the Ministry of Forests Act, has a legal obligation to 'manage, protect and conserve forest and range resources' of the Crown. I would refer you also to sections 1(e), 2 and 13 of the Weed Control Act, which we believe infers further legal obligations on your ministry to control noxious weeds on unoccupied Crown lands."

I guess that's another example of where there appears to be some movement by the ministry away from statutory responsibilities. I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to review that letter of June 3, 1998, from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and has some response to that view as well.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that weed control may be a Crown responsibility, but it's not a statutory responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

G. Abbott: One of the issues which we did discuss at the last business plan meeting, which is a considerably important issue from the incrementality perspective, is the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch. I was hoping that my colleague from Peace River North would be here for this discussion; perhaps he will be able to join us. I'll just deal at this point with the issue side or the incrementality side of this, and I hope that he will be able to join us at a later point and talk about some of the specifics around this acquisition.

I just want to deal with the principle side of this. This is a Forest Renewal acquisition. I have the details here about the value of the purchase and so on. It was considerable. The argument that was made at the business plan meeting, as I recall it, was that the Empire Valley Ranch contained some unique terrain and flora and fauna features and so on that made it worthy of acquisition.

I guess what puzzles me in all of that is: why, if it's worthy of acquisition and is something that the government in the longer term might convert into a park or something that's going to be appreciated by the public for its natural diversity, would that not be an expenditure much more appropriately given to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? I have had difficulty from the start in understanding where the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch would appropriately fit into the acquisitions plan of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I refer the member to the business plan -- the private forest biodiversity program -- which states:

"This new program supports the acquisition of interests in private lands to conserve biodiversity, in collaboration with Nature Trust of British Columbia. The goals of the program include: conserving sites that have unique or exceptional biodiversity attributes; fostering private and public sector funding and management of partnerships; and providing educational and research opportunities."

That issue was canvassed, I understand, during the business plan discussions, and it fits within the program definition. Therefore it was a legitimate expenditure by Forest Renewal.

G. Abbott: I think we're getting exactly to the point here. How far do we stretch, push, pull or expand the role of FRBC in undertaking these kinds of purchases? It seems to me that the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is exactly the kind of thing which was a concern in the creation of FRBC. It does take us down a road that seems to me -- and I like to think I have some reasonable grasp on reality . . . . What's been done there is far removed from the stated intent of Forest Renewal B.C. to enhance the productive forest base in British Columbia.

I mean, quite apart from the words the minister has just spoken, which seem to me to be a lot of gobbledegook around, "We can do anything in terms of acquisition if it is somehow diverse or enhances biodiversity, or something like that," we could say that about literally anything. We could purchase a piece of land in downtown Vancouver and say: "This is really special. This is as much biodiversity as we see in downtown Vancouver, and therefore FRBC would be entirely in line in purchasing it." I think there's a big problem here.

I think that the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is not consistent with the core mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. There may be "wish words" around biodiversity, and so on, as the minister spoke about, which may provide theoretical justification for that purchase, but it seems to me that we have gone way over the line here in terms of what FRBC ought to be doing. I'll defer to my colleague from Peace River North, because I know he has a number of questions on this too.

But I want the minister to respond to my general comment in making this purchase, that we have really, really pushed the notion of what FRBC ought to be doing. What is the province going to do with the Empire Valley Ranch, having acquired it? Are we going to have it sit there on its own as an example of biodiversity? Are people going to be able to visit it to enjoy the biodiversity? Are we going to be creating a provincial class A park there in due course? Is it going to be a protected area under the protected-areas strategy? What's going to happen with it?

Beyond the mumbo-jumbo about enhancing biodiversity, what is it going to do to enhance the forest capability of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Amongst other things, the purchase will bring completion and certainty to the land use plan of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The board sought legal advice; it got an opinion that it was within the intent and purpose of the act -- which, let me remind you, is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities. It's within the

[ Page 8645 ]

act. The board considered the matter. They felt it was within their mandate. You can argue all you want about the value of biodiversity of the timberlands and grasslands of that region of the Cariboo, but it is a legitimate expenditure. And if you want to get into the details of how that's defined, I would again invite you to raise it, if you wish, during the business plan discussions of FRBC.

G. Abbott: The reason we're raising it here, particularly, is that -- and I guess I stated it as well as I could at the meeting of the select standing committee back on November 26, 1997 . . . . I said to Mr. Stanyer: "Thank you for that response. I'm not going to pursue that particular point any further at this time, because I think the argument is one that should be engaged in with the government rather than with Forest Renewal. You were responding to an order-in-council from government to acquire the Empire Valley Ranch.

So we'll leave that as it is now and take it up with the government in estimates in due course." So I certainly didn't leave unnoted the point that I thought it was important that it be followed up here -- in part, at least, because of the order-in-council.

I appreciate that the minister responded to a portion of the issues I laid out there, and I did lay out a number of them in my last comments. I do still want to hear from the Minister of Forests what Forest Renewal B.C. plans to do with the Empire Valley Ranch. Is it going to be a protected area? Is it going to be a park? What is the probable disposition of that piece of ground?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A perfect question for the Minister of Environment, in her estimates.

G. Abbott: I can't believe what I just heard. How can it be a perfect question for the Minister of Environment, when it was an OIC that was signed by the Minister of Forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because the control and responsibility for the land is with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

G. Abbott: Then why the heck didn't the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks buy it, rather than Forest Renewal B.C.? I don't get that connection. Here's where we're coming off the rails. Why is it that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has control? Why is it appropriate to direct questions to her about the Empire Valley Ranch, but we find FRBC buying it on the direction of the Minister of Forests through order-in-council?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The decision to purchase was a decision under the biodiversity program of Forest Renewal, to complete the land use plan in the Cariboo. Having done that, then the question of who would administer it, how it would be administered as a protected area -- since it was a protected area . . . . The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks undertook the role of managing, since FRBC isn't in the business of managing land under these kinds of conditions, under this land use plan.

[4:00]

G. Abbott: Exactly my point. Forest Renewal B.C. is not in the business of managing these lands, nor should they be in the business of acquiring those lands for ministries that have a specific concern about those lands and that have specific plans for those lands. Again, this goes to the absolute heart of the incrementality argument we've been having here. What we are doing with this acquisition is requiring Forest Renewal B.C. to buy something which the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks aspires to own and manage.

We're using the dollars that are generated from stumpage in the forests of British Columbia to acquire a piece of property which is going to be managed, directed and, I guess, owned by the province -- but directed by the Ministry of Environment. That's exactly my point: incrementality means nothing anymore. We've got to get back to basics here. We've got to get back to a point where incrementality means something, where the province, through Forest Renewal B.C., is not acquiring things which are not a part of the mandate and the operation of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question has been answered.

R. Neufeld: A few questions about the Empire Valley Ranch. I hope that we can get some responses to some of the questions that I have surrounding the Empire Valley Ranch. It's interesting to listen to the minister defend why he thought Forest Renewal B.C. should be buying the ranch: because of biodiversity. It's the responsibility of Environment, Lands and Parks now, and you can wash your hands.

I want to go back to the beginning. Because this is so close to the Forests minister's home, I want to ask him when the government first started thinking that it should purchase the Empire Valley Ranch -- and I'm not talking about having FRBC do it for them. When did the Ministry of Forests first decide, along with, I guess, the Ministry of Environment, that the Empire Valley Ranch should be purchased?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess the government started to think about it as soon as the Cariboo land use plan was completed.

R. Neufeld: You guess, or you know?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This member really wants some precision, and we'll give him as precise an answer as we can. As soon as the land use plan was completed, and in the discussions when the government accepted the land use plan, they knew that this element was in there. It was a recommendation from the stakeholders that were, in the final days, negotiating what would become the land use plan and what would be a protected area, and the undertaking was made. The plan undertook to see that this, when available, would be purchased.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: Could the minister give me the time frame -- a month and a year -- for when the Cariboo land use plan was going through -- when those discussions actually started taking place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, by agreement we were discussing Forest Renewal, so I have Forest Renewal officials here. If you wish to discuss the Cariboo land use plan, I'll endeavour to get the people here that can discuss the Cariboo land use plan.

R. Neufeld: No, you don't have to do that, because I imagine you would defer that to the Ministry of Environment, anyhow. I'm asking you to put on the record when your government -- when you -- started discussions around the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. You said it was during

[ Page 8646 ]

the Cariboo land use plan . . . . To my knowledge, that ranch is one of the oldest in British Columbia -- 100 years or more. Are you telling me that having lived there as the minister, having ranched in that area, you had no inkling, no desire . . . ? Did no one ever talk about buying that ranch until the Cariboo land use plan was in place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to talk about the Cariboo land use plan when I'm able to get some officials who know the details of the plan -- details that I don't have with me. But I'll answer the member. I'm not sure where he's going or what point he's trying to make.

There have been a number of interests in seeing that area become a protected area. But as far as government was concerned, government considered it during the land use planning process. The land use process was developed, as you know. There was a stakeholder group leading up to it. When government adopted the land use plan, they then considered the elements of the plan. It was in the elements. The date and time when government actually accepted it -- I'd be happy to get that for you.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure why I would have some of those details -- the actual date and month -- at my fingertips. But I'd be happy to get that for you. It's really irrelevant. Where are you going with the questioning, and what do you want to know? I'll try to get you the answers.

R. Neufeld: We're trying to get some answers around when . . . . I know you're a little hesitant about wanting to answer about when you decided as a government to buy the Empire Valley Ranch. I can understand why you'd want to move around that and all over the place and not commit to it. You've waffled on the whole issue around the Empire Valley Ranch. Your whole government has waffled on it -- not just you. The Minister of Environment was right along with you. What I want to do is find out from you when government first decided. Obviously, as the member for the area and the Minister of Forests, you're telling me you don't know. And if you don't know, you don't know.

Are you telling me that the order-in-council was the first time that you discussed the purchase of the ranch? The order-in-council, so you know -- and I have a copy of it here -- is dated July 29, 1997. Would that be the first time it was discussed within your government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm interested in what point the member is trying to make. The purchase of the ranch, as I was saying, was long considered by various people inside and outside government.

R. Neufeld: It's obvious that the minister doesn't want to commit to the time frame of when he and cabinet started discussing . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Why do you want to know?

R. Neufeld: Well, I want to know. I mean, the minister is catcalling me: "Why do I want to know?" I want to know. I mean, it's a pretty straightforward, simple question. Maybe that's the problem; maybe we have to go about it a different way. So could the minister tell me, then . . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, Chair.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me . . . ?

The Chair: There's a point of order, member. Take your seat, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My point of order, Chair, is that we explained very calmly that we've discussed FRBC. Details of the business plan and issues around incrementality -- whether specific projects, purchases or business decisions -- legitimately can be discussed at the FRBC hearings and when the business plan is discussed by the standing committee. My point is that I explained to the member that if he wants to discuss the details of the land use plan and the relationship of decisions that government makes around the land use plan, I'd endeavour to get that so I could be accurate.

I don't remember which month, which day or whenever. I'm asking what the importance of that is. If the member wants to explain that importance, then that might help me in answering his questions. But the sort of leading questions or something . . . .

R. Neufeld: You don't remember, eh?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if that member has any recollection of when he first considered the land resource management plans in his area and when certain zones and uses were first contemplated by him . . . .

The Chair: Minister, are you finished your point of order? Okay.

The member can carry on.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was just wondering if that was a point of order, a statement or a response to a question. Maybe you could clarify that for me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a point of order.

R. Neufeld: I'm asking the Chair.

The Chair: Possibly the point of order may not have been too . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order. Possibly the point of order may have carried on for a while. But I think the point was made, anyway, so we'll carry on.

R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll deal with some of those at a later time when the minister gets the information.

Something that FRBC actually could answer is: how did they value the Empire Valley Ranch? How did they put a value on that piece of property?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will be tolerant. I think the rules were that specific projects, specific items, specific purchases and programs should be discussed during the business plan discussions at the standing committee. But in the interest of expediting the debate here, I will answer that an assessor was hired by the appropriate government agency that handles that ---- that is, Lands and Parks. They hired an assessor and made the assessment available to Forest Renewal.

R. Neufeld: Can you tell me how much that . . . ? What were the results of the assessor's findings to Forest Renewal B.C.?

[ Page 8647 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm sure that the Minister of Environment, who has responsibility for matters that happen under the supervision of the Lands branch, can answer that question in her estimates.

The Chair: The member for Chilliwack rises on what matter?

B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce about 21 students -- I believe they're grade 6 students -- from Vedder Elementary School. They've had some wonderful weather today during their visit to Victoria. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Miriam Taylor, as well as five parents. Amongst the parents is the district manager for the Ministry of Forests in Chilliwack. Perhaps if the Minister of Forests needs some help in answering the questions here today, he could call on the services of Gerry Kennah. Would the House please make these people welcome.

R. Neufeld: The minister said in his earlier comments that the Ministry of Environment hired an assessor. They went out and assessed the ranch and provided information to FRBC. You have your FRBC staff here. I'm asking that you tell us what FRBC found out from the assessor as to the value of the ranch and how you arrived at that value.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll remind the member that he's getting into details that are more appropriately dealt with in the committee. Again, it is done . . . . When a report is received by the FRBC staff, they then consider a decision, based on the appraisal information that was given to them, and they give direction to negotiators.

[4:15]

R. Neufeld: Well again, I don't think that this should be a difficult question to answer. I don't think you have to say: "Now we have to go to committee to get this answer." Your staff that deal with FRBC are sitting with you in the House as we speak today. Even though the Ministry of Environment was the one that you asked to go out and assess it, they gave that information to FRBC.

I am asking the minister again: what information was given to FRBC as to the cost and the value of the Empire Valley Ranch, for them to make the decision to buy the ranch -- or for you to authorize up to $3.25 million out of FRBC funds to be spent to buy the ranch? I don't think that should be a difficult question.

The second part of the question is: were any moneys at all paid out of the Ministry of Forests to complete any part of that assessment to find out what the Empire Valley Ranch was worth? Was this totally, 100 percent funded out of the Ministry of Environment, FRBC or your ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I don't have the officials here who can advise me on the answer to the latter part of your question. I'll endeavour to get that information for you. The officials are watching, and I'll get the information and report it to you when I have it.

R. Neufeld: I wonder if it would be in order . . . . The difficulty that the minister is having, not being able to answer some of our questions, which are fairly straightforward and are within his . . . .

The Chair: The Minister of Forests rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By agreement of the members opposite and the critic, we said we would have the officials here who could answer the question. FRBC officials cannot advise me on expenditures of the Ministry of Forests. I'll endeavour to get the information for you on an orderly basis. That's the way it works.

R. Neufeld: Then I'll ask again. We know by your admittance -- you admitted just recently -- that the information that the Ministry of Environment put together in assessing the value of the ranch was given to FRBC for them to make the determination on purchasing the ranch. You have FRBC officials with you now. What I am asking the minister is to put on the record what process was used and how he arrived at a value for the Empire Valley Ranch as it was given to FRBC. Now, you should be able to do that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The point I'm making about the purchase with FRBC funds . . . . Questions around that can legitimately be asked during the select standing committee. That's the purpose of that review, and that's where they can be best asked and best addressed. We're in the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and your question was around whether or not funds from the Ministry of Forests were expended to do evaluations. I undertook to get that information for you. I don't have it here; I'll get those officials. I have FRBC officials here who, as far as they're concerned, only know about funds that are expended under FRBC.

R. Neufeld: I guess I'm just having a bit of difficulty trying to get my question across.

You have FRBC staff with you now. As I understand the minister, FRBC was given the assessment that was done on the value of the Empire Valley Ranch by the Ministry of Environment. Why can we not get the information as to how the evaluation was done from the FRBC people that you have here in the House today? Obviously they must know; they're the ones who purchased the ranch. You ordered them to. Through an order-in-council you ordered FRBC to buy the ranch. It had nothing to do, I guess, with FRBC wanting to or not. You -- government -- signed the OIC. You and the Premier signed the OIC to order FRBC to purchase the ranch.

Now all we're asking for is the information that FRBC has as to how you valued that ranch to arrive at what you were going to pay for it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the report here, and in any event it wouldn't be appropriate to have it here. It would be appropriate to discuss the details somewhere else.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the select standing committee. The issue around . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a little troubling when there are a bunch of experts over there on how we agreed to handle the estimates and in what order who weren't even part of the discussion.

[ Page 8648 ]

Let me try again. We'll discuss policy issues that relate to the Ministry of Forests as they affect FRBC, but the details of the business plan and the line-by-line expenditures can be discussed at the select standing committee. You have members on the committee. You can ask the questions there, and people can be brought there to answer the questions.

To answer the member's question again -- and it's going to be the same answer -- FRBC has an evaluation that was provided to them by Environment, Lands and Parks. Based on that, they gave negotiators a value and a mandate to negotiate the purchase of the ranch.

R. Neufeld: We'll try this a little bit differently. Maybe I can start with: who owns the ranch now? Who actually owns the Empire Valley Ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that the Crown -- British Columbia -- owns the ranch. It is administered by Environment, Lands and Parks; they are the land manager.

R. Neufeld: Could you explain to me why FRBC, the Crown corporation, purchased the ranch and why the land now is owned by the Crown and administered by Environment, Lands and Parks?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reason the ranch was purchased was because it was part of the land use plan. Government was asked to give direction. The board of FRBC asked for a directive; a directive was given which mandated FRBC to purchase it. The purpose of the purchase was to stabilize the land use plan in the Cariboo. Anything we do to implement the land use plan, in all its parts, stabilizes forest and environmental management in the area and moves towards protecting biodiversity.

R. Neufeld: The minister earlier put on the record that the ranch was purchased for its biodiversity. It fell within all the guidelines of FRBC for a whole host of reasons, and that's why FRBC should buy it. Can you tell me, then, why FRBC should only buy it and not administer the operation of the ranch? If it's in the best interests of the province from a forestry point of view, which you ably put forward, then why would FRBC not own the ranch so that they can continue to make sure that we maintain that biodiversity, so that they can make sure that the trees continue to grow and make sure that it's replanted?

Why would FRBC not continue to own it, if it was such a good idea for them to purchase it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, FRBC is the investment agency. They aren't land managers, in the sense of a day-to-day administrative responsibility for managing the land. Some other agency, appropriately, picks that up. But the management is guided by the land use plan.

R. Neufeld: So actually FRBC was the bank to purchase the ranch, and that's, I guess, the start and finish of FRBC's involvement with the Empire Valley Ranch. Could I then assume that FRBC, from purchase day forward, has no further interest of any kind in the ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there are some caveats around the purchase to protect the sort of interest and purpose for which FRBC bought it. We can get that for you. But I'm not sure where the member's going. And if you'd like to ask, we'd be happy to try to respond. Let me say that it will be managed. The agency charged with the management of it has to manage it in concert with the purposes of that area, that zone, in the Cariboo land use plan.

R. Neufeld: Well, where I'm going is to find out just what FRBC's involvement will be from the date of purchase. The minister has confirmed to me through his responses to my questions that FRBC was used as a vehicle to buy it, and that was FRBC's total involvement. All they were there for was as a banker. They wrote the cheque for government so government wouldn't have to have it on their financial statements. That would be the only purpose for which FRBC was involved, because they could come up with the money more easily than either your ministry or the Ministry of Environment could.

So after determining that and putting it into the record, could the minister tell me how much timber was harvested off the Empire Valley Ranch prior to FRBC purchasing it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information here. I may be able to get it, or the Minister of Environment may be able to get that.

R. Neufeld: When we're talking about the harvesting of timber, I would hope that the Ministry of Forests would have that information. If they don't . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If they would play by the rules that are agreed to . . . . If you want to talk about the Ministry of Forests, I'll get the appropriate Ministry of Forests people here. We have FRBC people here.

G. Abbott: If I could speak to the point of order . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Whenever that member is done, I'd be happy to speak to the point of order.

The Chair: You have the floor, member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. You have the floor, member.

G. Abbott: Thank you. I just didn't want to compete with the additional conversation on the side, hon. Chair.

The point here is an important one, and fundamental. I've tried to be entirely straight up with the minister in the way I've conducted these estimates. At the start, I advised the minister of where we would be going and that we would be doing Forest Renewal B.C. at this point. I had every expectation that in doing Forest Renewal B.C., we'd be discussing important things like incrementality and the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch.

[4:30]

[ Page 8649 ]

Let me settle, once and for all, this point about whether it is appropriate for us to be raising these questions. Again the issue is here. I raised the issue at the business plan meeting, and I asked Mr. Stanyer this: "I don't see the immediate connection between the mandate of Forest Renewal as set out in that statement and the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch for what appear to be purposes that one might well associate more with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks."

To which Mr. Stanyer responded -- and this is the basis on which this is being pursued here and may well, if we need to, be pursued when we go back to the Ministry of Forests situation as well:

"We go back to what I said earlier about providing the best examples, that would mean that government acquires the private lands for this thing or maybe sets aside a poorer example of Crown land that would impact more on forest development and these kinds of things. Whether or not it's entirely proper for Forest Renewal to be doing this kind of thing is something that the board felt was within their mandate. In order for us to make these kinds of commitments, we need the authorization or order of cabinet to do these kinds of activities.

"It's government oversight of the Forest Renewal Act that looks to see whether or not it fits within the mandate. It's within the programming of Forest Renewal. We developed the private lands acquisition program and sent that to cabinet for approval of whether or not this fit within their view of the Forest Renewal mandate. Our reading of the act was that it did, the opinion of the board was that we should do it, and cabinet has given us the authority to participate in such a program. It doesn't necessarily mean that everybody agrees with us."

To which I responded: "Yeah, that's right -- not everybody agrees."

But the important point here is that there is some question around the appropriateness of this. Appropriately, I'm directing that . . . . I mean, there's no point in me arguing about the appropriateness of a cabinet order or a cabinet decision with Mr. Stanyer or Mr. Doney. I can't do that. This is the appropriate forum to do that. We've tried to be entirely straight up about this. This may be a difficult and embarrassing situation for the government in some respects, but I think that what we're doing here is entirely appropriate.

The Chair: Thank you. Both points of order are well taken. The Chair made an earlier statement in regard to what we're discussing here, and that is matters dealing with the administrative costs of FRBC, funded through voted appropriations of the Ministry of Forests.

I understand that there was an earlier agreement between members. If there is some confusion about that agreement, then that might be something you might want to take up outside of this room. But right now we should be dealing strictly with the parameters of the discussion that we decided upon earlier. If there's difficulty in doing that, then perhaps we should pursue another line of questioning and pursue that one later on.

Interjection.

The Chair: Is it on the same point of order? I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is customary in this House to debate those items which come under the purview of the minister responsible for those items. In the case of Employment and Investment, that includes B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations and agencies.

Although there are no direct funds that one can trace from the ministry to the Crown corporation, other than the supervision of the duties of the minister and the minister's office, the minister's office vote is required to play a major and significant role in the oversight of Crown corporations, agencies and other bodies which come under the purview of that minister. So the dollars and cents that are being expended within the minister's office are being expended to comply with the duties of the minister, over top of all of those items which fall under his or her purview. All of these questions are in order.

I understand that there is an agreement between the two members here -- the minister and the opposition critic. But if the minister is unable to answer the basic questions with the staff he has available to him -- and from the time I've been listening, it should certainly fall within the purview of that -- then it's the obligation of the minister to get whatever staff he needs here to answer the questions.

The opposition tries to help and to avoid having huge numbers of staff sitting around waiting for questions to be asked by structuring the estimates in such a way that the minister can anticipate the issues to be handled. The questions raised by the member for Peace River North and the opposition Forests critic all fall within the purview of Forest Renewal B.C. or the Ministry of Forests.

If the minister is unable to answer those questions, I would suggest that he send out a message to his ministry staff and ask them to come and be present immediately so that we can move on with the estimates in a thorough manner. If he is unable to do that, I expect that these estimates will take a longer period of time.

The Chair: The Chair would just remind members that established practice in the House discourages debate on matters appointed for consideration in the House or in one of its committees.

The minister on the point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member makes an argument, and I don't think there is great disagreement. But the member for Peace River North was leading into items that were under the purview of other ministries and that were under the purview of other committees. There is a difference here: this Crown corporation is directed by legislation to present its business plan, unlike most other Crown corporations, as the member full well knows. This is somewhat unique. I would remind the member that had he been here, or had he been listening . . . . We addressed that at the beginning, and I am attempting to . . . .

The member for Shuswap did bring the debate back to the topic. I am prepared to do that. I have who I think are the appropriate officials present, and there are others listening. If they think it is a matter where they can advise me and bring me the facts and figures, they will come and do that.

If you want to talk about the order-in-council, I can answer that.

G. Farrell-Collins: A further submission. The minister states that Forest Renewal B.C. is in a unique position because its business, as he put it, is referred to another committee. I would remind the minister that it's strictly the business plan and the examination of the business plan. That is not an estimates process that takes place in this House. He is aware of that. The two are different items. It's a debate in committee; it's a discussion in committee to seek approval of a business plan. It is not a debate concerning the minister's responsibility and accountability and the role of the ministry in Forest Renewal projects.

The questions that the member for Peace River North was making certainly pertained directly to the role of the

[ Page 8650 ]

Crown, the role of the minister and his office, and the role that FRBC played in assessing a decision to purchase a certain amount of property. All of those questions fall within both the purview of the minister's personal responsibility, as he signed the order-in-council, and the purview of Forest Renewal B.C., which made those evaluations and made the decision to purchase the land at the direction of the minister himself.

The Chair: No further submissions? The Chair can only say that members will have to decide for themselves and make the agreement. Perhaps the minister wants to . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps I can clear it up and try to respond to some of the policy issues. I can discuss the policy issues around why government did what they did with an order-in-council. That's fine. How that policy was implemented by a particular agency is appropriate for the discussion around the business plan. The member shakes his head, but he has to be aware that it is an estimates-like process in the sense that specifics around expenditures under that business plan are under the purview of that committee and are discussed under that committee. I am assured by the officials that individual projects get discussed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm mindful of not entering into a debate on procedure, but it seems that that is what we've gotten ourselves into. The member for Shuswap -- the critic for the Forests ministry, who also, I believe, is Deputy Chair of the Forests Committee, which examines the business plan of Forest Renewal B.C. -- just read a statement out of Hansard from the chair of Forest Renewal B.C. which directed just the opposite. What's the process? Where is it that the minister wants to answer these questions? The questions aren't being answered at the committee level.

The questions aren't being answered by the people at Forest Renewal B.C. at that level, so we're directed to come to the ministry level, to come to the level of the government. We do that, and the minister tells us: "No, you can't do that here." So where does the minister expect us to get those answers? If Forest Renewal B.C. doesn't want to answer them and the minister doesn't want to answer them, does he know who we should go to to get answers to those questions?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member wants to wrangle on a lot of procedure. Let me make it very clear: if you want to know why cabinet directed FRBC, I can answer it. They asked for direction; they asked to confirm that this was in the mandate of FRBC. The board felt it was within their mandate. They asked for direction. Why did government direct FRBC? Why did they give direction, give permission? Why did they pass an order-in-council? Because that's the appropriate thing to do. It was done with the advice that cabinet usually has.

The purpose of the purchase was the objective I outlined before -- which I'm sure the member doesn't understand -- which is implementing the Cariboo land use plan. It has many objectives, one of which is to stabilize grassland and forest use in the area, and complete a system of protected areas that conserves biodiversity. The biodiversity program of FRBC was a program that actually had the budget in it, and then the board directed that it be purchased under that program.

Where the member was going before he came in the House . . . . He may have been listening, but I'm not sure how well he was listening. He was asking about evaluations of timber -- in other words, carrying out the direction and the policy. I'm saying that that can come up in discussion in front of a committee charged with the responsibility of reviewing how the business plan is being implemented. It's part of the business plan.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister may say I don't know anything about forestry, but he'd be wrong. And if he says I don't know anything about procedure, he'd also be wrong. The reality is that it was not just a question being asked about the cutting or harvesting of timber. He was also being asked a series of questions about the assessment that was done on the purchase of this land. Those questions clearly fall within the purview of FRBC and fall within the purview of the minister. The minister doesn't listen. No wonder he doesn't understand the argument that's being made.

No wonder he doesn't understand the procedures. When we're having a discussion about it, he seems to be wandering off talking to someone else. No wonder he stands up and makes his intervention like he has never seen the inside of a rule book.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We're on a point of order -- exactly. I rest my case. The minister doesn't get the procedures.

The fact of the matter is that the member for Peace River North was asking a question that clearly and concisely falls within the purview of the Minister of Forests and FRBC, all of which can be examined and should be examined and are open for examination at this level of the estimates. That is clear. If the minister feels otherwise, he should show me the rules. He should show me the precedents. He should tell me where he's dreamed up his justification for his assertion. There is nothing in the standing orders or in the precedents of this House that would lead that to be the case at all.

The Chair: Members, I think we need to bring this matter to a close. We're not moving forward. I think it has been made very clear in statements by the Chair and in statements by both sides where we are with this matter, and we either have an agreement or we don't. If we don't have an agreement that was established earlier, then I think we should move on to another line of questioning.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have just received a note that I have some students visiting here from Blessed Sacrament School in my constituency. There are 27 grade 5 students, their teachers and their parents. I'm sorry I wasn't able to meet with you earlier, but I want to welcome you to this House. I hope you are having a good visit in Victoria. Would all members please help me make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On a point of order, there may be some things that are not covered by the rules of the House. For example . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, I would like to see us go on to another line of questioning. I think we've dealt with this matter as thoroughly as we can.

G. Abbott: In view of your guidance, perhaps what we can do to resolve this matter in a way which will satisfy our continued and pressing interest in details around this matter but which also achieve the goals that the minister wants, is . . . . If he is prepared at some other point in these estimates

[ Page 8651 ]

to have the appropriate Ministry of Forests personnel assembled to deal with those matters which only the Ministry of Forests personnel can deal with, we can deal with those matters which the Forest Renewal staff can deal with now.

[4:45]

Again, the point here is that we don't want to end up at the end of this exercise not having answers to the questions that we feel are important. So I'll make that offer to the minister. If he is prepared to sort of stand down the questions that he can't answer now and assemble the appropriate staff and the appropriate answers at some further point in these estimates, I'm happy to do that -- provided that while we have the FRBC people here, the appropriate questions are dealt with by the FRBC staff.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the member's edification, I do have with me Ministry of Forests personnel who can talk about the role of the Ministry of Forests in overseeing assessments. I have people with me who are prepared to answer within the purview of my ministry's estimates.

The point that I would make on FRBC, though, is that I've said from the beginning that Forest Renewal's funding is not derived from consolidated revenue. Therefore the corporation's investments, like the purchase of land, aren't required to be discussed in estimates. But I've given lots of latitude here to discuss the policy. It isn't a policy that the member for Peace River North has been reaching . . . . I've been endeavouring to answer the questions if they are relevant and within the purview of these estimates.

Let me explain to the member for Peace River North, who asked that question, which I considered a fair question, that I now have the official with me. The Ministry of Forests did advise Forest Renewal and the Lands branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on the accuracy . . . . They gave an opinion and assisted in the evaluation of the ranch and, in particular, on the timber value, because that's their area of expertise.

R. Neufeld: Okay. I'll ask some questions about issues surrounding this referring to both FRBC and to the Ministry of Forests. The assessment that was done by the Ministry of Environment, obviously with the involvement of the Ministry of Forests . . . . Could the minister please tell me whether or not the Ministry of Forests did a timber cruise on the Empire Valley Ranch prior to or after receiving the assessment from the agency that had assessed the ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What happened is that the assessment was done, as I understand, by FRBC and the Lands branch. The Ministry of Forests didn't expend its funds to do a cruise. There was an assessment done of the timber value and the details of when and so on. I can get some details and make them available to the member later. We don't have those details here with us.

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, there was no cruise done on the timber at the Empire Valley Ranch to arrive at an assessment of the value of the ranch. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. If the member had listened carefully, I said that the Ministry of Forests did not do the cruise. All the assessments were done by other parties. We checked the information. Our role was to check the information made available on the appraisal of the ranch.

R. Neufeld: The minister stated that the Lands branch and FRBC did the cruise. We have FRBC staff with us now. Can the minister please tell me when FRBC completed the cruise on the Empire Valley Ranch as part of the evaluation of the property?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I undertook to get information about the details of the assessment for the member. I said there were appraisals done by FRBC and the Lands branch. We checked whatever information they had. Whatever assessment information was done on the values, we did it. I'm saying that the Ministry of Forests did not do a cruise. I don't know what level of information, what level of analysis, was done by FRBC and/or the Ministry of Lands. I undertook to get that information for the member later today.

R. Neufeld: I'll leave that line of questioning. I've been asking that question of the minister since February 10, so I'm hopeful that maybe a little bit later this afternoon or by Monday we will actually get that information. It seems to be pretty difficult to come by.

Maybe I can ask a question around FRBC. When did FRBC first discuss issues surrounding the Empire Valley Ranch at any of their board meetings? I would like a date and a year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the minutes of the board here. But the information about the board's decisions and discussions has been released by FRBC to various parties, so they are in the public domain. We'll endeavour to get you copies of the minutes, and with those will be the precise dates.

I'd just like to remind the member, regarding the previous line of questioning, that the Minister of Environment has the information on details around the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. She is quite prepared to discuss those. She can answer for the work that's been done by her ministry in that respect.

R. Neufeld: I have a set of minutes from a board of directors' meeting on July 10, 1997. In fact, it reiterates that the government is expected to direct Forest Renewal B.C. in the near future to make a payment of up to -- and I believe that's where the whiteout came in -- X million dollars for purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. Could the minister confirm with the FRBC staff: is that the first time that FRBC discussed purchasing the ranch for all the good things that the minister talked about -- the biodiversity, saving the rangeland and all those kinds of things? Or were there discussions that surrounded all those issues prior to July 10, 1997?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It sounds like the member is opposed to the purchase of the ranch. I'd just like him to confirm if that's his party's policy.

But to answer the question, the information you're seeking -- what you allude to as being whited out -- was privileged . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I know. At the time of the release of the document, it was appropriately severed from that document. Since then, however, the order-in-council disclosed that information, and once that happened, then this information could . . . . If they sent those minutes out again, that shouldn't be severed; the information is public. What was crossed out is $3.25 million. The reason that wasn't in the minutes was so the owners wouldn't know what the mandate of the negotiators

[ Page 8652 ]

was. That's quite appropriate and that's good government practice. If we had released it, you would probably have been beating on us for releasing it and jeopardizing the negotiations.

To fill out the information . . . . You're looking for something that probably isn't there. If you want to tell m