1998/99 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 10

[ Page 13909 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is my pleasure today to introduce a constituent of mine who is well known to many of us in this chamber. Indeed, he's seated almost directly behind me. I'm referring to Jim Manly. Jim Manly was a Member of Parliament who served Cowichan and the Ladysmith area for two terms in the House of Commons. Jim has a hugely long list of accomplishments to his credit, and I won't attempt to list those today. I would simply say that Jim Manly is a person who I think has inspired many of us to carry out a political career. He's the model, quite frankly, for a good elected member.

I feel honoured to know him; I'm sure many would also join me in saying that. I would ask all members of the House, then, to please join me in making him most welcome.

G. Campbell: I am pleased to be able to introduce today to the House the mother of Mike Morton, the communications director for the B.C. Liberal caucus. Phyllis Morton is here from Peterborough, Ontario, and she's joined by her granddaughter Carissa. I hope we'll make them welcome.

[1410]

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, Craig Keating, an avid follower of the proceedings in this House. I'd ask all members to join me in making him welcome.

L. Reid: Joining us in the gallery today are David Hughes and Mrs. Hughes. David was the founder, if you will -- the person with the insight and the wisdom behind the creation -- of the Technology Industries Association of British Columbia, which continues to offer enormous wisdom to the advancement of high technology in the province. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: I would like to join in welcoming Jim Manly. Jim Manly is a longtime friend of mine and a fellow United Church minister. As the Minister of Labour said, he certainly has inspired many to go into politics -- me being one of them. So I hope the House will make him welcome.

G. Hogg: With us today is a friend and longtime employee of the Attorney General ministry who has recently retired. I hope the House will please make welcome Mr. Dave Bahr.

Hon. A. Petter: I have a number of people in the gallery I'd like to introduce. First of all, Connie McCann, who's a councillor in the city of Esquimalt and also a representative on the Provincial Capital Commission, where she, along with other municipal and volunteer reps, does excellent work on behalf of the province and on behalf of the capital region. In addition, Leah Squance, co-chair of the Young New Democrats, is in the gallery today, together with Morgan Stewart, Alison Therriault and Amanda Bedard. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming all of these guests who have joined us today.

Hon. C. Evans: While others are recognizing Jim Manly as having inspired them to get into politics, I would like to recognize Sandy Korman for the same reason. Ten years ago, when I was happily driving a bulldozer, she thought it would be a good idea to send me here, and I'm sure all members would agree.

I'd like to recognize a few more people who worked on the project. They are Lorene Lyons, who works in the community living sector and still thinks it's worthwhile visiting the government; Simon Lyons, her son, who helped me get elected when he was only 11 years old; and Christa Phyper, his friend from Creston, who's here getting trained in sign language. I hope the House makes all these folks welcome.

Introduction of Bills

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Regulatory Impact Statement Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm very pleased today to introduce Bill 81, the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. The purpose of this bill is to promote better and smarter regulatory policy. The Business Task Force is a group of business, labour and government representatives that has been advising our government for the past year on ways to reduce the cost of doing business and to cut red tape here in British Columbia.

Since regulatory policy can have a significant impact on the cost of doing business, the task force has recommended that the government ensure that these policy decisions are well informed and transparent. They have recommended that we do that through legislation, and I'm very pleased to do so with this legislation.

This bill acts on their recommendations in several ways. First, the bill requires the government to implement policies and procedures through which regulatory impact statements will be prepared and published for significant regulatory policy decisions.

Hon. Speaker, I think this may be the first time, but I'm also tabling the "Regulatory Impact Statement Policies and Procedures." They are in effect immediately.

[1415]

Regulatory impact statements, which I'll discuss more during second reading, are intended to demonstrate that regulatory policy decisions are based on clear objectives and effective consultation with interested parties. This bill enables the RIS requirements to be imposed by law for regulations made under the Regulations Act.

Finally, Bill 81 provides for the appointment of an ongoing business task force on regulatory impact. That will continue the work of the current Business Task Force by advising on the implementation of this policy and other regulatory policy matters.

This act, the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, is part of our commitment to streamlining and cutting red tape to effect

[ Page 13910 ]

an efficient regulatory policy and to listen to those who are affected by our policy. It is one of several bills introduced so far . . .

The Speaker: Minister, your two minutes are up. If you'd move the motion now, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and it makes a great contribution to streamlining of government to improve decision-making. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ACCURACY OF SURGERY WAIT-LIST DATA

C. Hansen: A little over a month ago the Ministry of Health launched a wait-list Internet site to prove that they were actually doing something to address the serious problem of surgery wait-lists in this province. Well, now the first report card is in, and incredibly, this source of information shows that the problem is getting worse. According to this site, waits for surgery have increased by over 2,500 patients in the last month alone.

Will the Minister of Health tell us, first of all, whether these wait-list numbers are going up because her policies have failed to address the problem? Or, secondly, are the numbers put together so sloppily that patients should not have any trust in the data that's contained on that site?

Hon. P. Priddy: The numbers are actually put together by the individual hospitals and health authorities in the regions from which the numbers come, not by the ministry. So we take our numbers from the information that is given by them to us, and I certainly trust that health authorities would make every effort to provide accurate information to the ministry.

Given that we have put up the web site . . . . It is new; there are still pieces that we're working out. But nevertheless, 58,000 new surgeries are being funded this year. There is no question that that will make a difference in the wait times for patients.

In point of fact, as I've been told by staff -- and we're still verifying this -- there's a patient from one part of the province who had been waiting a long time for surgery, who went to the web site, found another community where he would have a shorter wait time and has had his surgery much earlier than he normally would have. That's a success, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I take it from the minister's answers that she stands by the numbers contained in here and that in fact the problem is getting worse. Let's look specifically at hip and knee surgery, because the government recently made some announcements in this area to reduce wait times. This particular web site shows that in the last month and a half alone, there are 200 more British Columbians waiting for hip and knee surgery. It shows that the wait time in British Columbia for this type of surgery has actually increased by two weeks in a little over a month.

Why do patients have to put up with more spin-doctored announcements from this government that do not do anything to result in faster access to real doctors in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of whether I stand by the numbers, I stand by the fact that those are the numbers given to us by hospitals and health authorities throughout the province. I don't know why they would provide inaccurate information to the ministry, but we are trying to ensure that that information is consistent as it is provided to us. So I repeat: those numbers are from the hospitals and health authorities.

[1420]

As it relates to orthopedic surgery, as the member has asked about, it was only a month ago that we announced a 22 percent increase in the number of orthopedic surgeries -- hip and knee surgeries, specifically -- that would be done this year. I don't expect that all 22 percent of those have been done in the last four weeks. It is being accountable. We've put that up; we don't even have to put that information out. It's on the web site to allow everybody to measure. I think that when people see the 22 percent increase in surgeries, the wait times will have changed.

J. Reid: I have a constituent in my riding, Mr. Pynter, who's been waiting for hip surgery for over a year. He's tried using the web site, and he's tried using the 1-800 number to find a doctor with a shorter wait time. His surgery has now been slated for August -- 64 weeks after he first learned that he needed a hip replacement. Will the Health minister tell us why Mr. Pynter has been waiting for well over a year -- 64 weeks -- when her Internet site says that the wait for hip replacement is 18 weeks?

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that the member knows that to bring an individual set of circumstances to the Legislature and ask why, for this particular individual, the wait time is longer . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. All members, come to order. The minister has been recognized and has the floor.

Hon. P. Priddy: To bring an individual situation and ask why the circumstances around that . . . . I think the member knows that I not only would not be able but would not choose to comment on individual circumstances.

We all know, as the orthopedic surgeons have said to us . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . that there is considerable variance in terms of how the orthopedic surgeon assesses the patient . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 13911 ]

The Speaker: Members, the minister is not finished.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . and what the urgency of that particular surgery is. For anybody waiting, it's incredibly frustrating. If the member wants to give me that information, I can certainly provide her with information about those circumstances. But for someone to have been waiting five and a half years -- I believe she said -- is almost impossible.

J. Dalton: The minister has to know that every MLA on this side has dozens of these examples. Let me tell her another one. Diana Dimozantos of West Vancouver has been on a wait-list for three months.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, just wait for a moment. We need order in the chamber for the question to be heard. Thank you. Member, continue.

J. Dalton: I don't know why the other side is so excited, hon. Speaker. Ms. Dimozantos has been on a hip replacement list for three months. She's still waiting, and she's still in pain and agony. The Health minister makes announcement after announcement . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

J. Dalton: . . . on her Internet site, and yet the numbers keep going up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

J. Dalton: So my question to the Health minister is: why are the wait-list numbers increasing when she keeps telling us that they are decreasing?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two parts to the answer. The first one, in point of fact, is that where we have put infusions of resources into the system over the past six or eight months, things like cardiac surgery have decreased and things like MRIs have decreased in terms of wait times -- considerably. So we do know that there are wait times going down.

But this is the opposition who support the business summit that said: "Cut a billion dollars out of public programs." This is the opposition that says $6 billion is enough for health care. Boy, they better get it right. More money? Less money?

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: Support the business community or support their constituents, whose needs are real?

CROWN LAND APPLICATION BACKLOG AND TOURISM BUSINESS

T. Nebbeling: Five years ago Blackcomb Helicopters, a small helicopter operator in the Sea to Sky corridor, applied for a licence from the Ministry of Environment so that it could take hikers and sightseers into remote areas in this province. For five years they have faced an onslaught of moratoriums, studies and policy reviews -- and, of course, still no licence. Ten days ago they were told that their application had a further delay for yet another government study. This study will not be completed for another year. Can the Minister of Environment explain why her ministry has spent five years throwing up obstacles for a helicopter operation that is trying to create jobs?

[1425]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have in place now the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, which has virtually eliminated the backlog of applications, and that is excellent news for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is absolutely no question that more and more people are applying for either tenure leases or sale of Crown lands, and we've got a system in place now that deals with them expeditiously but also fairly. There are many issues around land use that are of competing interest in this province. We have a system that's thoughtful, that maintains the highest standards of land use and that allows for as much commercialization as is acceptable to maintain our natural heritage in this province.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do have a system in place for people who are not getting their licences dealt with properly. I'd be happy to take the individual circumstances under consideration.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: But we are maintaining the highest standards of land use while eliminating the backlog.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: Well, we could speak about many small companies facing the same problems. But I'd like to stick to Blackcomb Helicopters. Because of the action -- or the inaction -- of the government, Blackcomb Helicopters had to put off the hiring of five permanent staff members and ten seasonal employees. This is happening after a year, when a year ago we heard that this government, because of its red tape and delays, had caused the loss of 20,000 jobs in British Columbia and a loss of $1 billion in revenue to the tourism industry.

This time, will the Minister of Environment tell us how she is going to give answers to small businesses -- how they are to create jobs when, at the same time, her ministry still cannot get its act together?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This government created a corporation called the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation to deal with exactly the issues around tenure and leasing and sales of Crown land in this province. We've added resources to it.

[ Page 13912 ]

We've virtually eliminated the backlog of applications. I'd be more than happy to take the individual circumstances of this case. But I will tell you that in the last year alone, we've created thousands of jobs and added millions of dollars to the economy . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . through the proper and quick approval of sales and leases of Crown land. The record of this government in assisting tourism is an unprecedented record. Year after year tourism grows . . .

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and we still protect our natural heritage, which is what British Columbians want -- not the opposition, but it's what British Columbians want.

G. Plant: Actually, what British Columbians want is a government that keeps its promises.

Last year we heard about how delays and backlogs in the Ministry of Environment were costing B.C. thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lost investment. The Minister of Environment says: "It's okay. I'm fixing it." Her colleagues say: "We're introducing the business lens." But despite these hollow assurances, we hear horror story after horror story after horror story. To the Minister of Environment: if a company like Blackcomb Helicopters has to wait five years for her ministry to process a simple permit, is it any wonder that B.C. has the worst economy in the country?

[1430]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I say this with the greatest . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'd be happy to look into the circumstances of the Blackcomb enterprise. But perhaps they should get a different MLA, who actually knows how government operates and would refer the question to the proper position.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order! Minister, take your seat. Members, come to order. The question was asked. We're entitled to the answer. Everyone come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This government is moving forward on improving the economy each and every day.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops-North Thompson, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The news comes in each and every day about improvements in this economy. Retail sales are up; manufacturing is up; exports are up. Film production . . . . Just today the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, who I know wants to bring this news to the Legislature . . . . We broke a billion dollars in film production. I know that if the Minister of Small Business and Tourism could get up here right now, he'd tell you about the expansion in tourism, hon. Speaker. He'd tell you about how we're working with communities . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . to expand the economy.

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are cutting red tape. We're cutting the cost of doing business. We're lowering taxes, and it's working. The economy is on the move.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. House, come to order.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I table the 1998 annual report of the B.C. Rail Group of Companies.

Hon. C. Evans: I have the privilege of tabling the 1998-99 annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not every day that I get a thumbs-up from the opposition, but we'll make history right now. I have the pleasure to present the B.C. Buildings . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, so that we can hear what the report is.

Hon. M. Sihota: You're going to end up clapping for this.

. . . Corporation annual report for the year ending March 31, 1999.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. House, come to order. When the House is ready, we'll proceed.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, if the members can contain themselves for a minute, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

[ Page 13913 ]

Ministerial Statement

GROWTH OF B.C. FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to advise the House that film and television production in British Columbia will reach a record high of $1 billion in 1999. This is up from a record last year of $808 million; 113 productions have been confirmed in the first six months of this year, more than 70 percent above the 65 productions shot in the same period of 1998. This is worth $509 million to the economy. We have 32 feature films, 34 television movies, pilots and specials, 17 television series, five animations and 25 documentaries and broadcast singles.

This activity is largely the result of two pieces of legislation passed by this House last year: the Film Incentive B.C. tax credit program and the production services tax credit program. Indeed, Film Incentive British Columbia for B.C. filmmakers -- those film-makers at home here -- has triggered $130 million in B.C.-controlled production. That's three times bigger than the program last year. We're making progress in spreading it out amongst the regions. Eight productions worth $52 million have benefited from the program's regional tax credits.

So B.C. is among the top three production centres in North America, behind Los Angeles and New York. Last year the total economic impact of the industry was $2 billion, employing 25,000 British Columbians. As an executive producer said today -- Phil Savath, who is producing a TV series called "These Arms of Mine" -- and I'll conclude with this: "B.C. is a great place with great talent to produce film and television." I'd like to congratulate the industry. This is spectacular growth.

[1435]

Interjections.

The Speaker: In response -- when the House calms down -- I will recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: It's amazing: tax breaks work. But let us be very, very clear about where the success should be bestowed. It's upon the industry -- the directors, the producers, the actors and the very skilled crews that work throughout British Columbia. That's who deserves the recognition today. What this industry is asking for is a vision of the future, a strategic plan for the future and for all governments to recognize that the industry must be a globally competitive industry.

So the official opposition looks forward to working with the industry on an ongoing basis. We look forward to the industry building and being a globally successful, profitable industry, one that creates more employment in British Columbia. And we look forward to this government releasing its movie, "How They Shrunk the Economy."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Petitions

M. de Jong: Diane Davies is the owner-operator of the Highwayman Pub in Abbotsford. I'm presenting this petition on her behalf, signed by 7,000 of her patrons who have concerns about the smoking ban in neighbourhood pubs.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

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

[1440]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 34: ministry operations, $282,402,000 (continued).

G. Abbott: I just want to give the Forests minister a rundown on what I am looking forward to canvassing today, so that he can organize staff appropriately. It will, to some extent, be a bit of a smorgasbord this afternoon. I hope that the minister can treat that with his normal patience and forbearance, in dealing with that.

We have a few questions from a member with respect to annual allowable cut reductions. That's where we left off yesterday. From there we'll move into forest health issues. In that

section I'd like to deal with some issues which are closely connected to forest health and some which are not. In that

section we will do forest recreation issues, small-scale salvage issues -- if indeed some members still have questions around small-scale salvage issues -- and roads and bridges. Then we'll move on to fire protection after that. I suspect that we probably will have pretty well exhausted the day and the evening by the time we are through that. But if we haven't, then we'll go on to the issues as they're laid out in the

summary I gave to the minister: stumpage, small business certification, expropriation and compensation issues, and FRBC issues. But I think we're certainly looking at tomorrow for the bulk of those.

So if that's a fair explanation of where we're going to be moving today, I'll ask the member to begin his questions with respect to the AAC.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to spend a little time on the Soo TSA -- the Soo timber supply area. In particular, looking back at the supply area, I think that over the years it has probably seen cuts more severe than in many other areas, for a number of reasons that the minister's aware of.

[1445]

Over time, these cuts have obviously had a tremendous impact on the communities in the Soo TSA -- Squamish, in particular. To a large extent, the economy of Squamish depends on the Soo TSA and the timber activities there. But we can't forget communities like Pemberton, Birken, D'Arcy and the Anderson Lake nation, at the end near Lillooet Lake. So when we see activities today, again, that could lead to further undermining of the AAC, there is certainly concern expressed to me -- especially lately.

One of the concerns related to the AAC of the Soo TSA that seems to be developing quite strongly right now is the

[ Page 13914 ]

treaty negotiations that are going on with the Skookumchuck and the N'Quatqua. It is clear that part of the settlement, I believe, that will eventually be reached in this treaty will include a substantial component of forest land.

Right now there is very little knowledge in the communities that today have licences in the areas which, in the future, the Skookumchuck people may well have dominance over about how these treaties are going and if, indeed, when the treaty negotiations are finished and land is set aside, that land will be taken out of the Soo TSA, or if there is going to be another kind of formula created so that the TSA that is left is not going to be impacted by that treaty decision. Could the minister maybe enlighten me a little on where this stands at this time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just had a brief conversation with officials and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I don't have with me details on how the process is, but we expect that all of the licensees and forestry stakeholders are involved in some way and represented through the treaty advisory process. It's my understanding that there is always full disclosure about land selection. The general answer to your question is: if land is going to become part of treaty settlement land, then eventually it will be removed from the land base.

As with the Nisga'a, once we know how much land base is removed, then it's for the chief forester to possibly make a temporary AAC determination, but certainly to quickly begin the work of looking at the final analysis of what impact there is on the cut for the remaining timber supply area.

Should there be a situation where the TSA is too small to manage, or whatever, then there can always be amalgamations and so on, but it's our expectation that, like the Sechelt, there isn't substantial involvement of timber resources that constitute part of the treaty. I would ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to elaborate on that.

Hon. G. Wilson: In this particular table, as the member talks about, it is a very open process. It's a process where every

chapter has in fact been distributed publicly. On the matter of lands and forests there is ongoing discussion and negotiation with licence holders who may be affected. There has been no finalization on the land selection process, and those people who . . . . Third-party interests on the TNAC are very actively involved in the discussions. We do not anticipate there to be any conflict, and in fact we believe that there is quite likely to be equal opportunity for both first nations and non-first nations in that area when the final settlement is made.

[1450]

T. Nebbeling: There's a little bit of a contradiction here between what I hear today and what the licence holders and the small contract loggers are telling me. There's also a little bit of contradiction here in what I hear from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs when it comes to the role of the various parties in the whole process. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is well aware, this particular table is far ahead in its process of getting to completion.

Even within the Ministry of Forests -- especially in the forest district offices -- there's very little information available on how indeed the forest land that will be given to the aboriginal community will be treated as far as the TSA is concerned.

It is that uncertainty in regard to the annual allowable cut that creates the turmoil. It is not necessarily the amount of land that we're talking about that is of concern. We have to know the status of the land. Is it reserve land? Is it managed land? But these are questions that we can find answers for. But it's truly the status of the land that ultimately will be part of the treaty negotiation settlement and what impact it will have on the AAC. If it will not be taken out of the annual allowable Soo TSA cut, then I believe that would give many of the small contract loggers a level of comfort that they can continue to do their work in that area.

However, if the TSA would be impacted by having the timber removed from the TSA that would then be allocated to the Skookumchuck people, then this may well lead to further undermining of the communities that are finding their livelihood in these forests today. So the question is not how much timber and not what the status is but: will whatever timber is going to be taken impact the AAC? Or will there be a different way of calculating, so that the small AAC available to the contractors and the local companies today will remain in place -- until such time, of course, that the chief forester does a recalculation, as he does every number of years, and comes up with a new number?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You say that there is little information available. When information is available, it will be shared. The forest district office can't tell you anything about what might be on the table until it's on the table. There has been no land selection. Until there's a land selection, they can't look at the forestry impacts. So a theoretical question: where does the timber come from if timber from a land base is included in treaty settlement lands . . . ? A decision will be made as to the proportion of it that comes from various sources. There might be some that has to come ultimately from a TFL.

But the approach being taken in the case of the Nisga'a is that we look at whether or not we can accommodate by rearranging working areas. That might be possible; it might not. But it makes sense that if you reduce the land base, you reduce the timber supply, and therefore you have to get it from somewhere. It would come, in some proportion, from probably all of the programs in the area.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'm surprised to hear that at this stage the Ministry of Forests -- or even the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which is quite far in bringing this particular treaty to conclusion -- have so little information available on what the land mass is that will be handed over to the first nation in the treaty settlement negotiations going on. So I'm really surprised to hear that somehow the Ministry of Forests is not really involved in this process and is just sitting back like everybody else, waiting for what will come out of the pipeline.

It sounds as if only then will the minister decide how he's going to deal with the people that are negatively impacted, who are the people that are working in the TSA today and will be excluded from certain areas.

[1455]

That is more a statement than a question. The next question I have . . . . Let's say a certain mass of land will be reduced from the existing TSA and will be given reserve status. Now, when the chief forester goes back into the TSA for a re-evaluation of what the next annual allowable cut should be, will part of the total annual allowable cut to be determined include the reserve land as well? Will there also be reductions taking place? Or will the reductions for that particular Soo TSA only apply, in total, to the lands that remain available for the non-native operators?

[ Page 13915 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To imply that the Ministry of Forests doesn't know what's going on . . . . Nobody knows. Nobody in government or in the public knows what the settlement lands are. It's in negotiation. All that has been identified are areas of interest. There has been no land selection. Once the land selection is finalized, then the impact will be known. How you deal with the impacts might take some time. It might be part of the implementation. Certainly the discussion of the need to mitigate the impacts will take place in and around the treaty discussions.

I'm not sure about the second question. The second question had to do with if it became reserve land. I don't think any of the treaty lands would become reserve lands, so reserve lands are out of the AAC calculation now. Treaty settlement lands will be taken out of the land base upon which an AAC is calculated. I don't know where else it can come from. It comes out of the total AAC. What I said to you is that there can be a reapportionment of the AAC, as to whether it comes out of one of the three or four Ministry of Forests small business programs or whether it comes out of the major licensee categories. All that depends a bit on which land.

But to the extent that people have operating areas, then we have to deal with it. If a small operator -- a small licensee -- had 100 percent of their operating area affected, then we would look at maybe trying to redistribute the impacts of that around all licensees. It depends, first of all, on what the impact is, and then you deal with the impact. There's no cookie-cutter stamp you can put on any treaty to say that this is exactly how you're going to do it. As I say, in the case of the Nisga'a, it's possible that all the small operators won't be affected, because you can move their operations somewhere else in that TSA or in another TSA.

T. Nebbeling: Then to conclude this portion of the questions that I have related to the AAC reductions, it really worries me -- but at the same time, it may give me an answer to a question that I have always asked when we talk about the treaty negotiations -- that it is really so difficult to get answers to questions not just that we in this House have but that people in general have. After the three and a half years that this particular treaty has been negotiated, the minister is still saying: "Well, we don't know any answers. We don't know what's going on there.

We'll find out once it is all done." That is a fundamental flaw in the process. You can't expect people whose livelihood depends on the forest industry and who are today working in a timber supply area to sit back year after year after year . . . . When they do talk to the representatives of the ministry and talk to the district managers and get answers like, "Well, we don't know what's on," then I really think it is time that British Columbia starts to re-evaluate how we deal with the treaty process.

This is unacceptable. This is about people who do not know, once this treaty is finalized, what may well happen in the next two or three months -- if they still have a job. Contract loggers, if they can still do contract logging, if they can still employ the people . . . . This is a fundamental flaw that I think the minister just identified and is obviously not willing to deal with.

[1500]

But what the minister does know is that the Soo TSA includes tree farm licence 38, and because of former cuts in the annual allowable cut in this tree farm licence, we have seen a logging operator forced to close down mill operations. The cuts that they had to absorb annually -- or biannually or every three years -- led to an overcapacity in the mills. Then the company had to basically reduce some of its mill operations. So the minister is aware that every AAC reduction has an impact on operators -- if they can continue a mill operation or not.

It's no wonder that the communities that depend on this mill for jobs are right now asking questions. Not getting answers is not going to put their minds at ease; it will just make it worse. That's why I brought these questions to the minister's attention.

Having brought in the Interfor mill -- which was closed six months ago, I believe -- can the minister say how the annual allowable cut that is derived from tree farm licence 38 will be dealt with in the near future? The period that Interfor has to conclude whether they can open the mill or not is coming to an end. I haven't heard anything; the community hasn't heard anything. Has the minister any clarification on that particular issue -- again, in order to put the community's mind a little bit more at ease or give them the truth and then tell them what's going on there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, you know, the member will remember that I'm not going to let him quote me and leave on the record a misrepresentation of what I've said. It's fair enough to recognize the concerns that are expressed by people who might be impacted. But it is patently unfair to stand here and suggest that a district manager doesn't know anything. The district manager can tell you what areas of interest have been identified on the map. But he'll tell you that there's been no land selection. Therefore we can't answer the question of the impact of land selection.

It's a hypothetical question that is irrelevant until there's some basis. So you tell me which district manager said that he doesn't have information, because the district managers do have access to all information.

I would suggest that if the member hasn't been to a treaty advisory committee, he should go and hear the information as it's disclosed. All the information that is available to the treaty tables is reported out in some fashion or other. These are not closed-door meetings. Of course, the Ministry of Forests is there, ready to provide people information when we know specifically. But if you ask the question -- do we know what the areas of interest are? -- and we're not talking about that treaty -- if the information has been tabled and areas of interest have been tabled, they are known to the ministry. I think it's wrong for you to suggest that that district manager doesn't know that.

So tell me specifically: what information do you want to know? Your question is: "What's the impact of the treaty on the small operators?" We don't know until we know the shape of the treaty -- simple question. That's all this debate's been about for ten minutes.

With respect to your second question, the AAC in the area was reduced to 506,000 cubic metres from 580,000. Then there was a partition made for cottonwood, so there are 202,500 cubic metres established for that. The second TSR process is underway. The analysis will be released in August. I submit to you that the reductions have, in large part, been due to overcutting in the past. This is essential for community stability; it's to bring the cut down to a sustainable level slowly and over time.

With respect to Interfor, it is not true that the community doesn't have full information. I told the community that I had

[ Page 13916 ]

taken the steps that needed to be taken. I told them in a public meeting that I will take the steps to ensure that we have the information necessary to take action under

section 71, which is the takeback of volume should they not open the mill. I made it very clear. The mayor knows that; the community was told that. I would only repeat that if I had to respond to a query from the community.

[1505]

So the process is simple. We do the work, as I told the community we did. We've calculated the amount of wood that's gone through that facility, and that is the basis for a

section 71 takeback. That public meeting was on April 1, so there's no new information. I've done what I said I was doing at the time. I'm well aware of the July 3 deadline, and I will make a decision before July 3 on what to do with the timber in TFL 38.

T. Nebbeling: On the first point of defence that the minister makes, my first question to the minister was: can the minister tell me if the Skookumchuk band, when they finalize the treaty . . . ? If the treaty contains a land mass with timber, will that timber be within the AAC as it is today, or will it be outside the AAC? And will the allowable annual cut for the remaining lands remain as it is? That was my question, which the minister has not answered. That is the question that the community has asked the district manager, who also has not answered it and most likely can't answer it.

If the minister doesn't know, how can I expect the district manager to know? This is not the district manager not knowing because he's not willing to share. It is the process that the minister has explained is taking place in negotiations that prevents the public at large from knowing exactly what the details are. That's what my question was all about, and that is still an issue. And I haven't finished. You gave me three answers. I'm going to give three answers to the minister.

The second point was that the AAC reductions in the past were caused by the overcutting of the past. The annual allowable cut was at one time 890,000 cubic metres a year and is now something like 475,000 cubic metres a year. That's the issue. It is not what happened 50 or 60 years ago; it is what is happening today. Any further reduction will just make it so much more difficult for the communities of Squamish or Pemberton or Birken or D'Arcy or Anderson Lake to find enough economic viability to sustain themselves as communities. That was the reason for question number two.

Then the third one. Yes or no: the minister came to Squamish on April 1 -- that's not a joke, because it was a serious issue -- and he told them what he would consider. Since that time, a lot of water has gone under the bridge, and nothing has been heard. That's three months ago. I think the community is saying: "Well, that so-called period of consideration is over. What's happening?" The ministry has not made a statement -- has not said anything. Hence we see a community that is clearly wondering if they still have a future. All it will take . . . . I'm not trying to make the minister's life miserable.

An Hon. Member: You are.

T. Nebbeling: No, I'm not trying to do that. That's not my nature; the minister knows that. I'm a soft-spoken, gentle person. But my nature is to ask the questions here in the House that the people in these communities are asking me, right up to yesterday. As long as the minister is not going to give me an answer, I'm going to continue to ask these questions.

I know you were there in April. You told them what you planned to do. The time has come now to indeed say: "I'm doing it."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Do what?

T. Nebbeling: What you said in April you would do if the mill was not opened.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

[1510]

T. Nebbeling: The mill is not open, so it is time to speak up, Mr. Minister.

There's one more point I would like to mention in regard to the AAC in the Soo TSA, and that is the fact that now that MacMillan Bloedel has negotiated a deal with Weyerhaeuser, again there are some people in the area that I'm talking about who are very concerned. As the minister is aware, within the Soo TSA there's a fair amount of land that is being operated or being held under licence by MacMillan Bloedel.

There have been a number of small contract loggers who have worked with MacMillan Bloedel on these lands in the form of the harvesting, and there are actually some contract loggers who have been negotiating up to now with MacMillan Bloedel to purchase some of the licences in the Soo TSA. Now, of course, with this deal that's going on with MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser, those contract loggers are wondering if they still have the contracts that were in place with MacMillan Bloedel, now that there is a new owner.

What is the status in regards to the licences that were under negotiation for transfer to these contract loggers? Is the minister aware that there were negotiations between MacMillan Bloedel and some contract loggers, and will the minister give any indication to the new company that now controls these lands . . . ? I won't say owners -- we as British Columbians are of course the owners of the land -- but the new companies that control these lands. Does the minister expect that the new owners or the new company will uphold the commitments that MacMillan Bloedel has made up to this stage -- maybe only verbally? Does the minister have any ideas about that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't want the member to ever say that I didn't answer his question, because I gave him a full answer. What I told the community that I would do, I am doing. I said that I would do the process of evaluating how much wood went through the mill. That's important. I said that I would do that, and I'm doing that. I have put the company on notice with respect to

section 71, which is being considered, and the work is being done. I have until July 3. I can't make any decision . . . . I can't sit here in the House and tell you what I have to do under the Forest Act -- that is, give a statutory decision before the statutory time limit has run out. So I will make a decision on what happens. I'm giving you full information. There is no more information than that.

The mayor knows that. The mayor hasn't asked me for a meeting. I haven't had any inquiries from anyone there. This is the first I've heard that there is somebody who doesn't

[ Page 13917 ]

understand it. I would just tell you to go back to them and say: "He's doing what he said he was going to do at the public meetings. He will make a decision at the appropriate time, before the year is up, on

section 71." Now, you know that there are efforts being made to open the mill. If a mill opens, then

section 71 is not germane. So that's what needs to be said there.

With respect to MacMillan Bloedel, am I aware of any deals being negotiated between contractors and M&B? No. I take them to be private sector arrangements. When a deal is made is usually when we find out about it. So I was not aware of any. Will the new owner, Weyerhaeuser, be expected to live up to the commitments? Any contractual commitments that they have made -- yes, they will be expected to live up to those. The enforceability of those would probably be both civil law and the Forest Act.

T. Nebbeling: My final question, and also a kind of response . . . . I will sit back now until July 3 and see how the whole Interfor mill saga finds its final conclusion. It's obviously my hope that the mill will indeed open again and that there will be some gainful employment available for people who have been sitting at home, waiting for six months and wondering what the future holds. That's why it is such an important issue to me. The less we can have people feeling anxious about their future -- "Can I pay the mortgage?" "Can I pay for the kids' education?" -- the better we as a society can work.

[1515]

On the MacMillan Bloedel issue, of course, with these small contract loggers and their issues and concerns . . . . The minister is aware more than anybody that in a transaction of the nature we are discussing here -- the transfer of ownership from MacMillan Bloedel to Weyerhaeuser -- there is always an option for the minister to exercise the 5 percent clawback clause. It would mean that 5 percent of the timber that would be part of this particular deal in the Soo TSA would come back to the Ministry of Forests.

Would the Minister of Forests be open to discussion at this point with some of the contract loggers in Squamish or Pemberton -- or wherever they live in the Sea to Sky corridor -- who have been working in the Soo TSA for MacMillan Bloedel and who may well lose the opportunity to continue to do that? Would the minister consider having discussions with these particular contract loggers and logging operations to see if some timber could be made available out of the 5 percent clawback that we expect the minister will take, as it is a traditional action by the Ministry of Forests when these kinds of traditions have been . . . ?

That was my last question. I hope I didn't make the minister's last 25 minutes miserable, because that was certainly not my intention. I would appreciate an answer to the last question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I have enjoyed the debate, member, so . . . .

The 5 percent clawback is automatic. That has been in the Forest Act for 12 years or more, so the 5 percent is automatic. What is done with the 5 percent is a matter of decision. There will be public meetings of some kind, and at that point we expect that if someone has a view as to what should happen with the 5 percent, it should go through the public process.

I'm quite happy to hear from anyone who's interested, whether it's a community forest licence, the licensees or whatever. One of the main considerations is what happens to licensees, because there are Bill 13 responsibilities. What happens to the communities that have depended on that wood for economic activity? The community stability is very much considered in the process of evaluating what happens with, first of all, the transfer -- should it take place? -- and secondly, what happens with the 5 percent.

G. Abbott: I'd like to proceed now, having completed the AAC section, to discuss forest health issues. I appreciate that there may be a necessity for some shuffling of staff here. Should I wait, hon. Chair, or start with a general question?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Sure.

I'll start at a general level. The issue of forest health has become an increasingly important public issue in the past year. I suspect that forest health issues wouldn't have got a lot of attention a few years ago in these estimates, but they are an increasingly important public issue. I guess it's probably, in part, because at times they do bring land use issues into play. But I gather it's also because we are dealing with some natural environmental factors that are producing -- in some areas of the province, at least -- outbreak infestations of insect problems.

In terms of the government's tracking of this particular problem, I'm curious as to whether the government prepares any sort of annual or periodic

summary of the growth loss and mortality problems that are caused by major forest pests. One of the reasons I ask is that someone was kind enough to mail me a table which goes into annual mortality and growth loss from forest pests in British Columbia. It covers the period 1988-92. Does the Ministry of Forests track the relative magnitude of this problem in British Columbia? Do we have a corresponding table for more recent periods to look at the magnitude of the problem?

[1520]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the information for this year, but we have it up to this year. We don't have it right here. We can get it.

G. Abbott: For comparison purposes, then, in the period 1988-92 -- for the magnitude of the problem from various insect infestations that were occurring during that period -- the annual losses were in the six-million-cubic-metre range. That's for mortality and to a lesser extent -- it's by far the smaller element here -- growth loss. Those two elements accounted for about six million cubic metres lost per year in British Columbia. In relation to what's been happening in more recent years, what's the magnitude . . . ? What's the expectation of growth loss and mortality from the insect pests that we currently have in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The mortality typically varies between four million and eight million cubic metres. Historically, that's what it's been. It is more, of course, when there's an epidemic, as seems to be the case now. Recently -- in the last few weeks, really -- we have known that the results of the probing, and so on, indicate that we have a more difficult situation than was

[ Page 13918 ]

predicted. The effect on growth and yield due to health problems that may be of a temporary nature . . . . It's very difficult to get that data. I think it's just that the state of the science around that is minimal.

G. Abbott: I would judge from the minister's response that we would certainly be at the high end of that four million to eight million cubic metres in loss, based on what I hear around the province about some of the problems, particularly the mountain pine beetle. The minister is saying that we are likely to be at the high end of that. I gather that some recent information that the ministry is in receipt of would suggest that the number may be even higher than that. Is that fair?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This issue is around gross or net loss, because the net loss is what we're really concerned about. In a lot of cases, there is salvage. That depends on how effective the strategies are. So, yes, it's on the high end. We are currently evaluating the information. We don't have an answer as to what it is. It's in the process. If we have to make strategic decisions about harvesting or health activities, we'll do it based on the

summary results of the surveys that have been done. So it's loss after salvage, I guess, that is the main concern.

G. Abbott: I know that some members want to ask questions about the mountain pine beetle infestation in and around the Tweedsmuir Park area in the northern Cariboo and the north. So we'll leave that aside for now.

[1525]

I just want to get a sense . . . . Among the forest health problems we faced back in '88 to '92, certainly the mountain pine beetle was the principal problem at that time. Does that remain the case today? I would judge by what I've seen that it certainly is the overwhelmingly challenging pest that's facing the forests of British Columbia right now. Perhaps the minister can give us more up-to-date information on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, the issue is overwhelmingly a mountain pine beetle issue, because that's where the epidemic appears to be developing. The history is that it has been maintained over the last several years, growing only slowly in the last three to five years. Recently it has escalated. During that time, there were measures taken to contain it. Even during the low ebb, when the low side of the loss is being taken, efforts are still made to keep the population in check to forestall the epidemic developing.

G. Abbott: I'm certainly well aware of the salvage operations. We talked about the one in the Merritt area that's very substantial. There are obviously salvage operations going on in and around the Tweedsmuir Park area on a large scale. Can the minister outline, from the perspective of the Ministry of Forests, the success that has been enjoyed in containing this infestation through the salvage operations that have been in place for a few years?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have been successful in keeping the populations down and stopping their advance in some areas through what's called sanitation. That's the brood-tree removal. The information we have is that for every dollar we spend, we get $5 in benefit. That's backed up, apparently, by a Deloitte and Touche study. But the main factor in controlling it is not the logging, not the sanitation and not the salvage. It's still back to weather. If you don't have the weather, you can't get ahead of it.

[1530]

G. Abbott: We'll explore the issue of a dollar spent and five bucks returned on that investment presently.

Are there particular parts of the province where the mountain pine beetle is getting the upper hand? I gather that in some areas, we've enjoyed more success -- through sanitation or salvage or logging -- in containing the epidemic. But I gather that in other areas it's simply out of control. Is that a fair analysis of what's going on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The combination of a warm summer and a warm winter has really meant that there's probably an equal outbreak across the province. But where the sanitation approach has been taken, it has been effective. The question is always access and second-guessing where the winds are going to move the bugs next. So we have a pretty good idea of the direction, and we can address our activities to the front of the travel of the infestation spread. We've had considerable success, particularly in the Lakes district, doing that. Until this year, that's where the biggest outbreak was.

G. Abbott: I guess we're almost getting into the Environment ministry's area here, and I've asked these questions there as well. Are we finding that the effort to control the infestation is being particularly stretched or challenged on Crown lands adjacent to protected areas and parks? Are we finding that those areas are effectively becoming seedbeds for adjacent Crown lands? Is that part of the problem here? Obviously we can't do any salvage logging in parks. The burning seems to have been of limited effectiveness to date. Is that a big part of the problem here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It could happen anywhere. The question is: how effective are you at controlling it? In the case of Tweedsmuir, in order to economically handle it, and because there was an access, you'd have to do it on the ground -- single-tree burning, which was being done. In order to control it effectively, there would have to have been fires. It's either been too hot . . . . The burn window last year was at exactly the same time as we had the fire going in Salmon Arm, and a decision was taken not to light it up. It was very dry everywhere, and it would have been difficult to control it.

So that would have been the best control method. In previous years it's been too cold. But that could have been anywhere.

The problem is that the pine is aging. Because the fires have been put out consistently, we have an aging pine stand. So it's incidental that there was a problem generated in the park. The problems we have now are not -- with the exception of the lakes area -- generated from within parks. So as a general rule, no, that's not a problem. It's all pervasive, and the park boundaries really are not relevant in this case.

[1535]

G. Abbott: I want to ask the minister about the age class issue in terms of pine. Environmentalists like to talk about trees that are hundreds of years old. I don't think that happens with pine. The life of a pine tree is probably 100 years or thereabouts. It matures and dies, and in the latter stage of its life becomes highly susceptible to attacks from the mountain

[ Page 13919 ]

pine beetle. Is that part of the issue here too? In the past -- pre-man, I guess -- we would have seen regular burning off of the older pine stands. That doesn't happen now, so as a consequence, we are inevitably going to be faced with fairly massive insect attacks at a certain age level. Is that a fair

summary of part of the challenge here too?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there have been strategies in the past to direct licensees -- in fact, new licences and some new opportunities, in the case of the Chilcotin . . . . Because they feared a massive epidemic 15 years ago, licences were directed in there in the green stands that were susceptible. So yes, as the pine stands reach 80 years -- 80 to 100 is about the average, although they can go to 200 -- they're of a size and so on that attracts the pest. So we have to direct our harvesting strategies to take this before the bugs get it.

But as I've said, what's happened is that without fire on the landscape as much, there's been an accumulation of this age class, which means that it is susceptible.

P. Nettleton: On behalf of the residents of Prince George-Omineca and on behalf of the mayors of not only Prince George but Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake and other communities which extend well beyond the borders of Prince George-Omineca, I know that there is a huge concern with reference to this issue of the spread of pine beetles inside Tweedsmuir Park, which now extends beyond the boundaries of the park.

It extends, in fact, into the protected areas -- namely, the protected area in and around Burns Lake, threatening that forest district and extending, as well, beyond the Entiako area, the protected area which acts as a buffer between the working forest of the Vanderhoof forest district and Tweedsmuir Park.

Again, the threat to those working forests is a very real threat. I think it's a threat that the minister is very aware of -- acutely aware of. I understand that the ministry, in fact, has been working together with industry on a district level to move towards harvesting those areas which border the working forests as well as the protected areas, in some kind of attempt to at least slow the onslaught of the infestation of the mountain pine beetles on the working forests.

I've been representing the Prince George-Omineca area now for some three years. I know that from the outset, in my experience in terms of representing this riding, this is an issue which has been raised repeatedly, particularly by members of the regional district, representing as they do the various communities in and around Tweedsmuir Park. I think of folks like the mayor of Vanderhoof, Frank Read. I think of Tony Thompson of Fraser Lake -- people who have really championed this issue and who have made forays to Victoria to meet with staff.

I know that I was involved in arranging one such meeting, having met some time prior to their meeting with high-level ministry staff with reference to this issue.

[1540]

But if the response of government can be characterized, it can be characterized, if I may, by inaction, inactivity and paralysis. It seems that there's been a complete lack of consensus between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment in terms of how this issue should be approached. In fact, it's my understanding that this was an issue in the late 1980s. It was an issue which led to the preparation of a report, I believe, in 1987 which pointed to the threat posed by the beetle infestation in Tweedsmuir Park, not only to the park but to what are now the protected areas and the working forests.

Again, if I may, I would like to mirror the sense of frustration and the sense of indignation that I see, that I hear, that I sense in those communities where their livelihoods are now threatened -- as I say, in no small measure due to the inaction and inactivity of the Forests ministry with respect to this problem.

I know the minister has made reference, over the course of the discussions over the last few minutes, to the weather. He's made reference to problems with access. But again, it seems to me that given that a report was prepared in 1987 in terms of the whole question of foreseeability, this was a problem that was foreseeable. I'm certain the weather did exacerbate this problem. Perhaps the magnitude of this problem was unanticipated.

But in any event, I'm looking today for some assurance that the minister -- beyond rhetoric, beyond some agreement to talk and meet with mayors and other representatives of that region -- has some sense of a plan of action in terms of how he and his ministry, he and his government, plan to address this problem which threatens these communities.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're dealing with shifting ground. Any report done in '87 is out of date. I'd like to say to the member that I think words like "inaction," "paralysis," etc., are a wrong characterization. On behalf of the officials who are working really hard on it and of the industry people in the communities, I resent that, quite frankly.

You can't spend enough money; you can't log enough to fix the problem. The solution that came from the communities was: log the park. It wasn't economical to log the park. If you logged every beetle-attacked tree, you would have so much wood on the market -- probably at cost, because you'd have to subsidize it -- that you couldn't afford to do it. The forest economy can't absorb the losses from beetles. You do the best you can to cope.

What's happened recently is that the problem is worse, not because we didn't log in the park, not because we didn't burn in the park, but because the endemic levels which are everywhere have come on strongly all over the place. It exceeded the capacity of anybody -- industry, government, communities -- to respond. So it's almost humanly impossible to do what that member is asking us to do. He characterized the efforts so far as inactivity, paralysis, etc., which is a slight on the people who have taken the lion's share of the health budget -- industry, who have adapted their planning and are working on a proactive plan . . . .

Is there a plan in place today dealing with the huge outbreak that we've known about only in the last weeks or months? I've flown over the area. You look at it, and you can't tell where it's attacked. You begin to get a glimmer of where some of the beetles have moved. But it's a massive job to assemble the data and plan strategies, because direction of wind, weather, temperature -- all those things -- are affecting it. I will acknowledge the member representing the concerns and feelings of the people in all those communities. They certainly were heard.

Not a week has gone by that I haven't asked for an update on where we're at in developing the strategy, because I too share the frustration, as does every senior member.

[1545]

[ Page 13920 ]

Those mayors and leaders of those communities came down here and met with the assistant deputy minister on the operations side. She went up there to meet with them firsthand to talk to people and explain what's going on. So there will be what I call an extremely proactive management of the beetles in the working forest. There's a task group of the community, industry and resource agency staff that meets regularly to direct how the Vanderhoof LRMP will be implemented in the working forest in light of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Substantive road development will occur this year.

That isn't doing nothing; that isn't inactivity. Emergency forest development plans will be submitted after the overview surveys to provide accurate infestation information in August. So industry is active, the ministry's active, and we are keeping in touch with the stakeholders up there so that we do respect the local resource management plan objectives that have been established in the area.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted to hear that the minister is, in fact, moving forward to work together with stakeholders to address this problem. I stand by my comments with reference to the inaction to date of his ministry and his staff. They have failed to address this problem in a timely fashion, and now it is, in the minister's own words, an epidemic -- an epidemic that was foreseen and that should have been addressed by this government and wasn't. For that, we hold you responsible. We hold your government responsible for not dealing with this epidemic in a timely fashion.

We look to you to keep your word -- that is, to work together with stakeholders to manage this problem now. Beyond dialogue and rhetoric, we want to see some activity in the field, managing and dealing with this problem. We're going to hold you to this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The epidemic, to the extent that we have one, was not foreseen. Let me make that very clear: no one foresaw the epidemic that we have. This minister, these ministry officials and the scientists can't play some kind of higher being in knowing it. The weather is the big problem. Everybody is working full out to deal with this, but it is complicated by the fact that the epidemic is breaking out across the province. So yes, we're concerned. We will deal with it as best we can. It's not the first time there have been epidemics; we've had them in the past. We had a massive one in the Chilcotin, and ten years later they're still harvesting the results of that epidemic.

You have my assurance that we are working diligently on it every day of the week. As information becomes available, we will be applying resources -- whether it's logging, small business forest development activities, industry activities -- all directed at trying to contain the outbreak. But the point I'm making is that these beetles exist at low levels everywhere all the time. As soon as you get the right conditions, they spread. So to pretend that somebody could have, should have or would have been able to contain a mountain pine beetle epidemic is, I say, absolutely wrong. There aren't enough resources.

[1550]

I've pressed my officials on that, and they say that you could spend all the resources in there -- and that would mean, inevitably, logging it all -- and then you'd have a huge falldown somewhere else. While it might look attractive to people to say that you can salvage every last tree, you build an economy that's going to collapse somewhere, because then you have to wait for it all to grow up again. It's the careful management of the harvesting of mature trees that will forestall the movement of the epidemic into those areas.

G. Abbott: A couple more questions on the mountain pine beetle. Do we have epidemic-proportion outbreaks in any area other than what we'd generally call the Tweedsmuir area? Is it generally contained by existing salvage operations and so on in other parts of the province, or do we have an emerging problem elsewhere?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are using the small business program, the major licensees dealing with salvage. So there's both salvage, where you actually take the wood, and sanitation, where you might burn it in place if it's an isolated tree. Those are being used, really, all across the province. But I have to say that significant resources, because we seem to have a front moving in the Lakes district . . . . That's where we've put a lot of our efforts. Now it appears that the sanitation hasn't contained it. The warm summer last year means that we've got a problem this year. It will be toward the end of the summer before we actually know the extent of the epidemic.

G. Abbott: Before I forget, if ministry staff could send on to me at some point -- and we're not going to wait for it in these estimates, obviously -- the latest ministry analysis of these problems, that would be useful.

The issue of the management of forest health problems in protected areas is certainly much less clear than it is with respect to parks, where options are really limited, and to Crown lands, where there is a good deal more flexibility in terms of the management regime that can be used for forest health purposes. It seems that the protected areas are somewhere in the middle there. My understanding is that in the one protected area north of Tweedsmuir Park, there is in fact a snip-and-skid selective logging operation going on, at least on an experimental basis, to look at that as a way of dealing with the problem.

We discussed this a little bit in the Ministry of Environment estimates, and perhaps that's the only place we're going to discuss it. Are protected areas something that fall under the purview exclusively of the Ministry of Environment, or does the Ministry of Forests have some jurisdiction on the management of forest health problems in protected areas?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because we have the expertise, we do the advising and work with them as teams. Ultimately the responsibility rests with them. While you have a team of district managers from Parks and Forests working together in that particular area, they work inside and outside the park together. But the responsibility for the management of the land base in the parks is exclusively the Ministry of Environment's.

G. Abbott: From the professional appraisal of the Ministry of Forests staff with respect to the ongoing operation in, I think, the Entiako protected area . . . . I'm probably wrong. I believe that's the one where they're doing some selective snip-and-skid. Has the ministry had an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of that? I understand from some of the people directly involved with it that they feel that it's very promising and that they're enjoying considerable success with the selective harvest operation. Is that a view that would be shared by ministry staff as well?

[ Page 13921 ]

[1555]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have a final report in yet. But snip-and-skid is a form of sanitation logging, as you know. The initial take is that it's positive, but we won't know until we see how many trees around are affected. I've been on the ground there. It certainly looks good and certainly preserves a lot of the other values; and it works, provided you do have a network of access roads in place.

G. Abbott: That's encouraging. I'm always delighted to hear when things appear to be working out. And I have heard the same thing in a couple of very different parts of the province -- one in the Okanagan and, I think, one in the Kootenays -- where, again, the ministry has gone in on an experimental basis and removed some trees, for whatever reason. I have no idea what the natural processes are, but it appears to strengthen the resistance of the remaining trees. I don't know a lot about that, but I commend the ministry for the success they've enjoyed to date and hope that we see more of it in the years ahead.

As my colleague from Prince George-Omineca has noted, this is an issue that tends to touch people emotionally. I guess (

a) they're concerned about trees, but (

b) they are just as concerned about losing a resource which has been an important part of their economic livelihood in most of the province. So I hope we continue to see progress on the mountain pine beetle front, at least in some of those management areas we've talked about.

There are, of course, other insect problems in British Columbia. I don't intend to canvass them thoroughly, but I just want to briefly touch on them. Perhaps the minister, in consultation with his staff, can bring me up to date on whether there continue to be significant problems in relation to some of the other more common pests in British Columbia. I guess that after the pine beetle would probably be the hemlock looper, or the western budworm and the spruce beetle. Those would, I think, be the next three that are most commonly a significant cause of the devaluation or harm to the forest. Could the minister just give us, in consultation with staff, a brief

summary of whether any of those pests are moving to outbreaks of epidemic proportions or whether the existing management of them has kept them in check in recent years?

[1600]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to the hemlock looper, it's quiet. Five years ago there was a little bit of an outbreak, but it's receded. The western budworm is quiet again; it's not expanding. The spruce bark beetle is at endemic levels; there's no epidemic threat right now. We're managing for it. It is somewhat complicated in that often the spruce is in a riparian area, so there are sort of environmental concerns -- watershed, fisheries issues. But it's cyclical. It will raise its head again at some point, but right now it's stable.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that update. Clearly the challenge for the next year or two or five is going to be dealing with that particular forest health issue -- the mountain pine beetle.

The issue of the Ministry of Forests forest health budget came into play last year. There were a couple of stories in the Vancouver Sun about cuts to the forest health budget of the Ministry of Forests. I know that the ministry struggled with Treasury Board to try to get the forest health appropriation back up again this year and enjoyed success, as I recall, to the tune of about $7 million, which, I suspect, is considerably less than the ministry would've liked to receive but is more than what was available -- which, I think, was $4 million -- in the previous year's budget.

Can the minister give us an update in terms of the resources that have been made available through the budget to deal with forest health problems -- where we were last year, where we are this year and whether, at the level of resources we have, we're going to be able to deal with the problem that we see emerging here in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Knowing what we knew last year when we began the budget process, and knowing the extent of the problem then, we would have had adequate resources to deal with the issue. As I say, you can always spend more, but it gets to be a case of subsidizing salvage. We have enough to deal with the problem as we saw it last year during the budget development. Now, with other problems looming, it will tax those resources, and it will be a problem. So I think we have to -- as the member for Cariboo North was saying -- take the bull by the horns. We have to grapple with this one. So we have.

We will be developing a strategy, but based on the analysis. We have to have an analysis. We'll go through all the cost-benefit calculations we have to, to apply the resources to deal with it in the most effective way.

G. Abbott: Were the budgetary numbers that I mentioned close to accurate -- $4 million last year and a $7 million appropriation through Treasury Board this year?

[1605]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm getting the number for last year, because there was some rearrangement of expenditures. This year is a total of $9.5 million; $7 million of that is funds allocated to manage the mountain pine beetle, and $2.5 million is allocated to the management of fire and associated pest infestations -- in particular, the reforestation of the areas that have been damaged by fire.

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned earlier in our discussion that the value of forest health is that . . . . The estimate is that for every dollar that we expend in managing, controlling and limiting forest health problems, we get a $5 return, presumably in the value of the resource when it is extracted. Are we -- at $7 million for the control of the mountain pine beetle -- anticipating that down the line, that measure of control is going to provide us with, hopefully, $35 million or thereabouts in returned resource in returned resource? To what extent are we shortchanging ourselves in terms of this budget?

What would we ideally need in order to do as comprehensive a job as we could on the mountain pine beetle?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question of shortchanging . . . . We could probably spend more, but then we wouldn't spend it on roads or on enforcement. So there's some other account, either . . . . There might be more fish streams damaged if we didn't take care of them. Something has got to give.

It's a question of calculating what the risk is. We haven't completed that analysis. It is based on the probes that we're doing now and that we'll do this summer. We'll have a better idea of how much needs to be spent come the fall. But this is what we have in our budget today, and if it isn't enough, we're going to have to rearrange some funds to try to deal with it. It has to come from somewhere; it can't be picked out

[ Page 13922 ]

of thin air. Your side says that we should spend more on children and families. We'd like to do that. We should spend more on waiting lists. We'd like to do that. So it really is a question of what's going to fall off the table if we redirect it, but we can't do it until we have a complete analysis of it.

The amount spent on forest health last year -- in '98-99 -- was $3.5 million. This year it's gone up to $7 million for the mountain pine beetle.

G. Abbott: We will look forward to receiving more information about that as time goes on.

Clearly, if we are losing wealth from the resource in the long term, we need to put as many resources as we can towards protecting against that. The minister is right: it's always an issue of where we're going to find the money.

In my view . . . . Well, we won't get started down the road of fast ferries and all that, or we'll be here yelling at each other all afternoon. I'm sure neither of us would find that a productive exercise.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Perhaps we will. I've awakened the dead here, hon. Chair. It doesn't take much to get them excited at this time of the afternoon -- ten after four. We're almost into silly hour, and we have some of the right members of the cast here to carry it off.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Well, I try to imitate you, hon. minister, and I guess I've succeeded if I've become that boring. I guess that goes with the territory.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

[1610]

G. Abbott: We've become very excited here at the moment.

Could the minister advise whether there is -- I guess there isn't within the $9.5 million -- any component for research on forest health issues in the current budget of the Ministry of Forests? This is an area that I think FRBC covered the cost of for a time, but they're not doing that any more. Is there a budget for the current year for that research component?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no research budget for forest health. For 30 years the Canadian Forest Service has been researching forest health. They're in the business, they remain in the business, and that's where we get the primary research. At the operational level, we have members on staff who are research officers. So when it comes to applying research, understanding implications of research, getting ready to use that research to inform our strategies, they're there. They're in the research branch.

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned the federal Pacific Forest Research Centre. I just have a brief question on one issue that was highlighted by the Pacific Forest Research Centre recently. That was the arrival of some new pests, among them the European spruce bark beetle. They showed up, apparently, on a container of Norwegian granite.

Does the minister find it ironic, as I do, that after our forest products have been threatened in Europe because of supposed European concerns about pests coming into Europe from North America, the Canadian Forest Service, on checking this load of Norwegian granite, found potentially devastating pests that could be a problem in B.C. forests? Is there anything we should be doing in relation to the federal government about such a thing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You rightly point out that there are problems cropping up all the time, and we are in constant contact with the federal ministry. If there's a problem that we don't think they're addressing adequate resources to, we'll talk to them about it. A perfect example, I think, is the gypsy moth. They control it until it gets out of hand, and then it becomes a problem we have to deal with. And we have; we've taken action there.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

G. Abbott: May I say that it's a great pleasure to see a friendly face in the chair. Not that the usual faces aren't friendly, but this does seem a particularly friendly one -- and wearing a suitably coloured jacket, I might add as well, for the purpose. Not to embarrass the Chair unduly at this point . . . .

[1615]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I just did -- too late. Right.

The minister anticipated the next area we want to talk about a little bit, and that is the gypsy moth aerial spraying program. I suspect that this is not one of the minister's favourite topics. I want to briefly get a

summary of how the ministry came to take upon itself the responsibility for the spray program. I think that originally there was a decision by an environmental appeal board last year which agreed to an appeal against a spray program. That produced a delay in the implementation of that program, so the program has been undertaken this year by the Ministry of Forests and, I gather, is just in the completion stages now.

I guess the two questions I have are: why was the ministry blessed with the opportunity to be the managing agency here -- for example, rather than Agriculture -- and what does the ministry estimate the one-year delay resulted in, cost-wise, for the program? What was the projected cost? What has it actually cost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, had we sprayed last year, it would have cost the same as this year. It cost $3.7 million to spray this year. But the issue last year was a determination as to whether or not aerial spraying should take place; that was rejected. But what was approved was a ground-spraying methodology; that was undertaken. But then we found out that this wasn't effective. We had to take action quickly then and agreed to do the aerial spraying.

I. Chong: I would like to continue along with the question of the aerial spray -- the gypsy moth particularly, since the spraying took place in the greater Victoria area, not neces-

[ Page 13923 ]

sarily over the constituency that I represent but certainly over a number of the constituencies represented by members opposite. But for some reason I have been singled out by many of those who oppose the aerial spraying program to speak on their behalf.

I have raised the issue in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment estimates. I can say that, through the Ministry of Agriculture, the minister was, I would say, cooperative in suggesting that we do need to take a look at the emulsifying agent that is combined with the pesticide to ensure that we find what the ingredients are when that emulsifying agent is added, to ensure that we are not unduly harming human health.

I'm just giving this to the minister by way of background, so he knows the line of questioning I'm coming from. What I found out through the Ministry of Environment, as well, was that they did not have what I would say is a consistent policy in terms of pest management control within their ministry, and they've suggested that this be canvassed in this area.

My concerns are firstly financial. This was a cost and a program that was originally borne by the CFIA -- the Canadian Food Inspection Agency -- as I understand it, through the federal level of government. Somehow this has now been passed on to us provincially. I'm wondering why we would have assumed this cost when in those other years there was no cost to the province -- unless I'm mistaken. Would the minister help me with that clarification firstly?

[1620]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The general arrangement is that when it becomes an established pest, it's the responsibility of the provincial jurisdiction. While it's still not established, that requires some research and scientific definition. That was the very issue before the various agencies considering the strategies. So we did write to the federal government and asked them to contribute at least what they would have spent were it not an established pest. Once it was established, somebody had to deal with it. Rather than bicker with the federal government, we had to take action.

It would be nice to collect from the federal government, but I don't see that that would be worthwhile. It had to be done, so we did it.

I. Chong: When the minister states that it has become an established pest, can he advise what the process or criterion is to determine that it has become an established pest? The reason why I ask that . . . . Again, I'm not trying to ask the minister something that I already know the answer to. I'm trying to get a feeling for why this has occurred. I understand that the issue of the gypsy moth has been around for some ten years. So it's rather astounding, I guess, that we should suddenly determine that it's established now, ten years hence, when it was first determined to be an established pest in the views of some of the people here in greater Victoria.

So if the minister can advise as to what criteria are used in conjunction with the federal government to determine when it is deemed to be an established pest, I can then ask a follow-up question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that the federal government makes a decision as to whether it's established or not, based on the extent and numbers. I can try to get them for you, if you will, but I'm not sure of the advantage of a technical debate here. The question is: who decides it's established? Well, the federal government required that we deal with it, because in their opinion it had become established. Yes, there were attempts over several years to keep it in check that worked. What conditions kept it in check, I don't know, but over the last two years, the expansion started.

I. Chong: I would appreciate it if the minister's staff or someone can provide further information as to the determination for the establishment of the pest. The reason why I say that is because, if for all these years we were able to insist that the gypsy moth was not yet established and have the federal government be financially responsible for this, then surely we would have continued.

My understanding was that the financial agency -- the CFIA -- was having difficulty with the Environmental Appeal Board upholding the decisions of those who are opposed to the aerial spraying created much of the problem, and the CFIA no longer wanted to deal with that consistent problem year after year. For that reason, perhaps, it suggested to the province that it was now an established pest and that now the province would have to bear the cost and the financial burden of dealing with this. Whatever clarification the ministry's staff could provide would be helpful.

I would also like to ask about the cost of this program. What has been reported to me is that this was a $2.5 million-per-year program. I just heard the minister say that $3.7 million was spent this year. That's a 50 percent increase over what was reported a few months ago. Can the minister advise, then, what the cost will be and whether this is an amount that is to be allocated each year within the budget? Or was this a one-year project that was anticipated?

[1625]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We did an estimate at $2.5 million. What wasn't known at the time was that we would have to spray Tsawwassen. It wasn't determined at the time that we should do some background health studies. That was an add-on. There was a bird and lepidopteran study that was done, and the federal Department of Transport required us to use larger aircraft. That was not known, and couldn't have been known, at the time that we did the $2.5 million budget.

I. Chong: Can the minister provide, as well, then, the answer to the other part of the question I had: is this anticipated to be a one-year spray program, or is there a longer-term plan in place? Are we going to be looking at spraying for the next five years or for the next year only? Can the minister advise what is anticipated at this time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have to assess the effectiveness of this year's program. You do that by trapping in the spray areas and other areas that might be marginally affected outside the spray areas to check to see how it's done. Based on the results of that, we will budget for next year. So we don't know at this time whether it will be necessary.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise when the assessment would be taking place? Given that you plan your budget figures -- allocations, appropriations, etc. -- sometime in February or March, I would imagine, for the ensuing fiscal year, when would the assessment have to take place in order to include that in the budget?

Also, can the minister advise whether the amount that was spent in the 1999-2000 year was originally budgeted for in the 1999-2000 budget?

[ Page 13924 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We used funds that were last year's funds; they were savings. We were under budget last year in a number of areas, and we were able to shift the dollars to use them this year. It wasn't budgeted last year, but when we knew the problem, we rearranged funding in order to spend it on aerial spraying.

We will know the results in September-October -- because the traps are out there now -- and that's in lots of time to do budgeting if it's necessary for next year.

I. Chong: So for clarification, for the spraying that took place this year, for the '99 year, the 1999-2000 budget did not include an amount, and the cost was therefore expended from the '98-99 fiscal year budget, the underbudgeted figures or whatever. Is that what the minister is saying? Is that how the funding for this was allocated? Just a yes or no would be fine.

[1630]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The spray was bought last year, and the plane costs were spent out of this year's budget.

I. Chong: So the spray was purchased in the '98-99 budget year -- the spraying pesticides -- and the cost of labour or the cost of the planes in the field, etc., was expended in this year's budget, even though there was no budget item for it, as I understand it. Is that correct?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You won't see in these estimates a line that says $3.5 million, $1.0 million, or any of that detail. These moneys come out of forest operations. You take the situation you have, and you move it. All the time you're moving funds -- maybe out of different activities. Some of the plane costs, I understand, did come out of last year's budget, but some of them came out of this year's. The trapping comes out of this year's budget.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're asking for what we would report out in the Public Accounts Committee -- or just what? I'm not sure where you're going with it.

I. Chong: As I said to the minister, I'm not trying to coerce any kind of answer out of him. I'm just trying to get clarification on the cost of this program, because I do believe it is a rather large financial cost that appeared to be unanticipated. I don't expect to see it in a line item in the blue books; that's not what I was asking for.

What I am trying to determine is, in the allocation of costs, what the intent was to deal with the established pest. If in fact you purchased the spray items in the previous year's budget but did not allocate costs towards planes, then perhaps was there another method that was being anticipated that would be used to deal with the gypsy moth problem? However, if you had budgeted for the planes, then we would have clearly understood that this was the program that was the intention all along. That is what I am trying to establish. If the minister can answer that, perhaps we can move on to another question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the public comments by ministers and information that's been released at the open houses have been complete. We knew it was coming as a problem. Halfway through the year, we knew it was a problem. So we ensured that we would have access to some funds this year to complete the program. We were able to identify funds in last year's budget to do some prepurchasing. You have to order the spray; there isn't anywhere with a warehouse that has it. You have to order it; they have to culture it and produce it. We did place the orders in the previous fiscal year.

It wasn't that we ordered a whole bunch that was going to be hand-sprayed and then changed our method. That was never true. We knew last year that we had a problem on hand. That's why we made the order-in-council decision, the determination, in the last fiscal year. The planning for that was at least six or eight months ago.

I. Chong: That does clarify the situation somewhat. I am aware that the problem surfaced to a greater magnitude last fall and last winter, when there was the threat of a quarantine which I am aware of. I am aware that on February 11 or 18 -- around that date -- there was an order-in-council. Again, I am very aware of those circumstances leading up to the aerial spray.

The minister also mentioned that there were open houses and that all the information was shared at that time. I just want to pass on to the minister some information I received from those who had tried to attend each and every one of these open houses, whether they were here locally in greater Victoria or were as far up as in Duncan or Nanaimo, where I think there were a few other open houses. A number of those who opposed the aerial spraying wanted to also have their message out and were precluded from providing information to those members of the public who were coming out to hear this.

I don't believe that was a good public consultation process, even though the ministry had already made up its mind that it was going to proceed with the aerial spray program.

[1635]

I want to just pass on to the minister that in the future, if more open houses are being held, certainly those who are opposed to this should still have the opportunity to provide what they feel is another side of the story -- perhaps even, through those open houses, have an opportunity to speak to ministry staff, who may be able to work with those who are opposed to aerial spraying to find a more moderate solution. Those who are opposed to aerial spraying certainly feel that it was a very direct approach without an opportunity to apply moderation.

I also want to say to the minister that I've never professed to be an expert on the gypsy moth nor on scientific awareness of this. We've always suggested that those who can provide the scientific data should, so that those who are opposed to aerial spraying, as well as ministry staff, can both rely on scientific data when making the decision to aerial spray.

I was concerned when, on April 1, 1999, I received a press release from the University of Victoria; it was entitled "Gypsy Moth Is 'Here to Stay.' " I don't know if the ministry staff also received that. I would just like to read very quickly into the record what was contained in this press release. It says:

"The B.C. government's planned aerial spray program against the gypsy moth is based more on threats of U.S. trade embargoes than science, says Dr. Richard Ring, a University of Victoria entomologist.

"Under the controversial program, 13,400 hectares of southern Vancouver Island -- mostly in greater Victoria -- will be sprayed with the biological insecticide Btk between April 1 and June 30. The plan is opposed by several municipalities and

[ Page 13925 ]

community groups, who are concerned about possible health and environmental risk. Ring says that the B.C. Ministry of Forests seems unwilling to admit that the gypsy moth is 'here to stay,' because it's almost impossible to eradicate an insect pest once it has become established over such a wide area.

"He adds that the $2.5 million cost of the spray program would be better spent on long-term pest management measures on the ground, such as pheromone traps and collecting egg masses, augmented as needed by spot spraying. "The ministry should also be doing impact assessments on non-target moths and butterflies," Ring says.

That is the extent of the press release.

Could the minister comment on a number of things contained in that press release -- specifically, the statement that the gypsy moth is here to stay, implying that it's established? First of all, does the minister agree that -- regardless of the appeals and the opponents that have occurred over the past ten years, or even the past three years -- it had already been established here? And when it was established here, why did we not do the aerial spraying in such an aggressive way in past years?

Also, would he agree that the money could be better spent on long-term pest management measures on the ground, such as the pheromone traps and collecting egg masses? Could the minister perhaps provide his thoughts on that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We had medical health officer Dr. Stanwick respond to those concerns. As to your previous concern around the open houses, anybody could come to the open houses, share information and make their information known. What we said people couldn't do is come and drown out other people -- bring placards and disrupt the open house. That we didn't allow. I would say that those people who are anti-spraying activists got their word out on television and on the radio, and they could hand out leaflets or whatever. Their view has been well known, and I think we've responded to those concerns.

[1640]

As to whether the gypsy moth was here to stay, no. No one knew that it was established until this year. I don't know what the good doctor you quote means by "It's here to stay." Maybe that's his assessment that it has become established. It was not established, in the minds of the federal scientists, until this year. We agreed that we had to deal with it, so we took action to deal with it, rather than be seen not to respond.

Whether the money could be better spent on ground spraying . . . . The determination was made that it was too risky -- that with ground spraying you have to look under every vehicle and under every building. It's very difficult, considering that the original gypsy moth infestation seems to have been traced to the hub of a vehicle. It's very difficult to find it on the ground. I don't think there are enough people to put out there to find these. We have attempted, in the past, to do that, and it just wasn't successful. It got out of hand.

People are free to have their opinion, but the considered judgment of many, many people was that we had to take action, and we did.

I. Chong: As I said, I have never met Dr. Richard Ring from the University of Victoria either, just so that the minister is aware. He is an entomologist who I would imagine carries much more scientific data in his head than I ever will. Based on his comments, I certainly felt that it was worthy of raising at this point.

An issue that I would also like to ask the minister about is whether or not the future of dealing with the gypsy moth . . . . Would we ever consider not aerial spraying? Or because this year it had been established and had become such a problem, was this the year that we had to deal with it in terms of an aerial spray program? In the future would we be able to go back to a less costly or less environmentally harmful method of containment? Is that a possibility that his staff could share with us at this time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We had to do the aerial spraying this year. In future years it will depend on the results of the analysis. So we don't know. If we knock it back, then the ground treatment may be totally adequate. But we won't know until we've done the surveys.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise: if, for some reason, the program is extremely successful, shall we say, and the gypsy moth problem is entirely eradicated -- and therefore there would be no further costs to the province for a period of a number of years -- would the responsibility always remain with the province? Or having eradicated this pest, would it be a federal jurisdiction if it were to resurface years from now?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the information on what the disestablishment procedure would be. I guess it would be an argument amongst scientists. If it were no longer considered an established pest, then probably the responsibility would go back to the federal government. Like anything else, you'd probably try that route, and if you could convince them, they might take it on.

[1645]

I. Chong: I guess that's a fair enough answer. I'm not asking the minister to try to predict the future, but from the point of view of the member on this side of the House, I am taking a look at a potential savings in the millions of dollars. We could look at putting that into the areas of health and education if we didn't have to use it in an area of pest management control which the federal government had previously paid for. Again, I'm just looking for a solution more than anything.

I want to conclude with a final comment. I would hope that the ministry continues to work with the other ministries -- the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and particularly the Ministry of Health, which does not appear to be named on the order-in-council, which is surprising. Not only is this an environmental issue, but it certainly has been raised as a health concern.

Although there is a health officer here in the capital health region who would suggest that the spray -- Btk -- is safe, I can assure you that I've received a number of letters from other doctors in the lower mainland area who have suggested that that is not the case. In fact, a number of people who were asked to endorse the use of Btk would not provide that endorsement because of those concerns.

I thank the minister for his assistance, and his staff as well. I look forward to hearing more about the solutions that we can possibly find to deal with the gypsy moth, in addition to finding a better and less harmful solution than that of aerial spraying. I know it's a quick form of dealing with the problem, but I'm not necessarily convinced that it is always the best form. So I thank the minister for his assistance at this time.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to call a three-minute recess, if I could.

[ Page 13926 ]

The Chair: By agreement, we'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I just have a couple of quick and, I think, fairly straightforward questions about tree improvement for the minister, and then we can move along to forest recreation issues. The government took a decision earlier this year to shut down the Green Timbers Nursery in Surrey. My understanding is that the closure of that leaves five seed orchards on the coast and four in the interior. I'm not sure what the distinction is between a seed orchard and a nursery, if indeed there is one. Could the minister briefly outline what the current situation is with respect to ministry-owned or Crown-owned facilities of this character and what the ministry's plans are for those?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The difference between a seed orchard and a nursery is that the nursery is where you grow the seedlings for transportation out. The seed orchard is established stock where breeding programs go on and where the seeds are produced from which you grow the seedlings.

The plan with the seed orchards is to look at those that are productive and cost-effective and to maintain those. Right now we don't have any plans to shut any of them down. With respect to nurseries, we did amalgamate Green Timbers with the other one in Surrey, and we did that because we could produce the seedlings that were required in a cost-effective way there.

[1655]

G. Abbott: The other part of my questions was how many other nurseries there are in British Columbia that are currently under ministry or Crown ownership.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two: one in Surrey and the one in Skimikin, which is in your back yard.

G. Abbott: Indeed it is. Skimikin is in the Shuswap.

The new amalgamated Surrey operation and the Skimikin operation -- are those both . . . ? From the current information available to the minister, are they both self-supporting or economically viable -- or whatever the expression was that the minister used to describe the new Surrey operation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The situation is that the two are viable in the sense that they're both running on a break-even basis. These aren't for profit, so if they break even, that's good. But we have concerns that in order to maintain that production, we would need to put capital investment in. Right now it doesn't appear that the capital investment would be justified, given the number of seedlings. So that's the situation as of today.

G. Abbott: There are, of course, quite a number of private sector nurseries in the province that provide seedlings to industry and others. I presume that even the government gets some from private sources as well. Is there something in the operation of Surrey and Skimikin that provides a product that's not available in the private sector? Obviously the ministry is weighing that, if they're looking at the issue of whether to make a capital investment in those operations and wondering whether that would be appropriate or not. Is there something about the government nurseries that provides a product or an opportunity that would not be there from the private sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The data we have from this small business program is that we grow 20 million, and 11 million of them are contracted out in addition to the 20 million. So that's a pretty large number upon which to base our calculations. And our costs are about the same -- public or private.

G. Abbott: So those operations, from the immediate- and intermediate-outlook perspectives of the Ministry of Forests, are going to stay in existence and continue to produce as they have. Is that right? Or is the ministry contemplating any changes with respect to them?

[1700]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are in the process of doing the business case, and I think we'll look at it on an annual basis. But no decision has been taken at this point. We will have to continue to look at the costs in order to keep our budgets in line. So we will be looking at the cost-effectiveness virtually on an annual basis -- looking at the business case. Right now the trouble is that the capital investment required doesn't seem to be justified, given the smaller number of seedlings that we are producing now.

G. Abbott: Can the minister give me some idea of what capital investment is required to bring these operations up to date or to improve their efficiency -- or whatever it is that the capital investment is intended to address?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're in the process of doing a business plan, but we don't know the answer to that right now.

G. Abbott: I'll move along, then, to forest recreation issues and pause for a moment perhaps.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: No, no need to pause; just keep rolling right along. That's good.

I want to talk a little bit about the user fees that have now been put in place for forest recreation campsites -- some issues around that and the enforcement of those new user fees. We have some constituency issues around recreation sites which members may wish to bring forward. And I also would like to discuss with the minister the future of some of the more heavily used forest recreation sites in the province.

Let's begin with the user fees issue. This has been controversial in the past few months since the user fee system was announced. I'm sure the minister has received all manner of correspondence on it and petitions and so on. I think I currently have a petition of several hundred or more names of people who have enjoyed the use of forest recreation campsites in the past for free and who are now unhappy with the prospect of having to pay for that. Could the minister begin by advising me of the cost per year of maintaining the roughly 1,300 forest recreation sites in the province?

I think it's in the $3 million range, but could the minister advise what the current expectation of cost is for forest recreation campsites?

[ Page 13927 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Historically, we have spent $3 million. This year in the vote we budgeted $1 million, and we were hoping for $700,000 in fees. What we have done, though, is taken the 30 most expensive sites, which are those where there are enhanced services, and put them into a self-supporting situation through the fee system.

G. Abbott: Did the minister say the 30 most heavily used sites? I just missed the number. If you could repeat that, that would be useful.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's 30 or 32. We'll have to check.

[1705]

G. Abbott: That's close enough. We'll come back to those sites a little bit later in our discussion here.

We expect that it's going to cost $700,000. We have $1 million in the vote for the maintenance of them, and 30 -- or 32 -- have been put on a self-supporting basis. Does that still leave us with a shortfall of approximately $1 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are making a number of efforts to try to work within this reduced budget. Some of the things we're doing are: minimal maintenance . . . . We are trying to get user maintenance by requesting that people take their garbage out, for example. In some districts, there might be a part-time person reallocated out of a warehouse situation to do part-time maintenance. We ask that when people are on other field trips, inspections or patrols, they stop in to check out and report in on the situation and maybe do some minor maintenance or upkeep. We're trying to use every source we have of operational capability to add to the dollars we have for maintenance.

G. Abbott: I've had the pleasure of enjoying stays in a number of forest recreation campsites in the province, and I actually spent a couple of weeks up in the minister's back yard last year in some excellent forest recreation sites.

One of the sites, as I recall, was . . . . I think the sign referred to a partnership between a forest company and the ministry to maintain the site. Is that an option which is being pursued by the ministry on a broad basis: to try to enter into long-term partnerships with companies to have their forestry people, as they go about the hills, looking in on sites and doing some informal maintenance? Is that part of the scheme as well?

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There has always been a partnership arrangement over the years. We've always encouraged municipalities and sometimes recreation groups or companies to work with us. There's a long history of that. Last year, when we had virtually no budget, we encouraged the development of more partnerships. That may be the result, and it will vary from region to region and from district to district. As you know, down in the lower part of Vancouver Island -- mid-Island at least -- there are many forest recreation sites that are run by companies, usually on TFLs. There are probably more of them than there are forest recreation sites run by the ministry.

[1710]

G. Abbott: I want to briefly discuss the enforcement side of this. The province recently enacted an order-in-council dated May 27, 1999, which sets out a

schedule of regulations, including fines with respect to different uses. Perhaps I can get an explanation. For

section 13 of the regulation, which is for an unauthorized stay exceeding 14 days, we have three figures: $50, $8 and $58. Could the minister explain what that means in this context?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll try to get the information. We've always had a policy of trying to make sure that people don't stay the whole summer in a park, but we haven't had the ability to enforce it. It's now becoming more critical that people get access to it. In order to have the authority to ask someone to leave, we had to bring in a modification to the regulation.

G. Abbott: I can see that probably being the context of the unauthorized stay exceeding 14 days.

The new regulation also includes

section 26(2), which is: a penalty of $100, followed by $15 and leading to a total of $115, for failure to vacate a site, trail or area upon lawful order. Would this have any reference to the problem which some people anticipate around the new user fee -- that people will simply pack up the RV or the tent and move it 300 feet down the road and not use the site? Would that have anything to do with this? Or is there any anticipation that that issue will be a problem?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. We've always had dispersed use through the forest, and we always will have. We're monitoring it to find out if there is a problem. So far it appears it is not a problem in the Cariboo, in Kamloops and in the Nelson district. In Invermere there were some bush parties; two truckloads of trash were removed. In Prince George it hasn't been a problem. Prince Rupert appears not to be a problem. In Vancouver there is dispersed use and random camping as well as camping in day-use areas at sites.

It is a problem in Chilliwack and Squamish, but those had problems before, and it doesn't appear to have notably escalated. But we are monitoring it, and I've asked the staff to report different patterns of behaviour to me.

G. Abbott: We can come back to some of the other issues, but I know some colleagues have an interest in asking questions about the forest recreation areas in their particular constituencies.

J. Reid: I'm sure the minister is familiar with Nitinat Lake. It's on Vancouver Island. It is certainly one of these popular destinations. It happens to be a popular destination for windsurfers. Hundreds of people use this site, all the way from nine years old to 70 years old, and they come from all over B.C., all over Canada and, in fact, all over the U.S. to this remote and undeveloped spot. Now, it's my understanding that this is a Forest Service campsite, and many campers at Nitinat Lake were asked to fill out the 1998 Forest Service user fee survey. Those surveys never made it to the ministry.

In fact, in that process one of the people involved says that they filled out the surveys and gave them to the volunteer camp

[ Page 13928 ]

post, and when he inquired about sending the sheets in, he was told that they were not required -- the decisions were already made, and these sheets went into the fire.

[1715]

Certainly that process left a lot of those users concerned that their opinions really didn't matter and that the decisions had been made. Now there's the annual pass that's required to use this site, and there's also a daily user fee. These windsurfers would like to know precisely what they will be getting for that fee compared to the services that already existed at that site.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's unlikely, unless we move to provide different services because of intensified use . . . . You pay for the services that are there. You pay more where there are more services. That's the basic principle.

We're not aware that somebody destroyed some surveys, but from the surveys we had, we had about 70 percent approval when people were asked the question: when faced with closure, would you rather pay or not have a site? They opted for doing that. We hired Angus Reid to do the survey for us, so we had no evidence that it was not done professionally. This is the first I've heard of that.

As to whether a decision was made, no, the decision wasn't made until the budget was formalized. I don't know who said the decision had already been made. That might have been the opinion of somebody, but it certainly wasn't my opinion, and there was not a decision made. All we did last year was look at the options. We had no money budgeted last year. We had to take it from various other budgets in order to maintain the campsites such as they were maintained last year.

J. Reid: Actually, in the past, the users -- the campers themselves -- took on much responsibility for the maintenance of this campsite. With the services -- they were meagre at best, with the windsurfers carrying on their cooperative activities . . . . So on behalf of the users, I would just like clarification tha