Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 12

Part 1

[ Page 5131 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Visiting in the gallery today is the Rakhra family: Bhaukhandan, Kamaldeep, Sandeep and Kulpreet. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me today to be able once again, on the very rare occasions that I do have, to introduce folks from the north. We have with us today Colin Griffiths, city manager for the city of Fort St. John; Pat Pimm, a councillor; and Brian Churchill, a councillor. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: Today in the gallery I'd like to introduce two very interesting women with whom I had lunch in support of the James Bay community school project and their work. They are Doris Holden and Doris Hrychuk. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today, visiting from Kelowna, are my brother-in-law and sister, George and Kathy Ferguson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is Grand Chief Edward John, from my part of the province. I'm glad to have him down here in Victoria. Mr. John is a member of the First Nations Summit task group. Would all members of the House please join me in making him welcome.

E. Gillespie: Joining us in the precincts today is the former MLA for Cariboo North, Frank Garden, who is now a constituent in the Comox Valley. With him, visiting from Dundee, Scotland, are Dave and Margaret Worsley with their daughters Michelle and Claire. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

M. Coell: I have two guests in the precincts today: Cynthia Robinson and Jean McCulloch. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As is the custom when I'm in my estimates, I invite my family along to attend so the proper order is maintained. It's getting increasingly expensive, though, to achieve that. I'm delighted to have my mother from Ontario here once again, along with my sister Joan Snapp and my sister-in-law Helen MacPhail. I expect the same decorum to continue on their behalf. Please make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is a young woman who is a resident in my constituency and also an athlete of some note in my community. She is the all-star pitcher for the National Little League. I ask the House to make Caitlin Haggarty welcome.

P. Calendino: I really do this on rare occasions. Today I take great pleasure in introducing a few members of my extended family. In the gallery is my sister Ada and her husband Silvano Reginato, with their son Domenico. Along with them are two of my lovely nieces who hail all the way from Aylesbury, England, even though they were born here in Tsawwassen. I'd like to introduce to the House Jennifer and Cindy Parise. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: I'd like to introduce a few more members of the Vancouver Public Aquarium team who have joined us today. There is the director of education and community programs, Katherine Warren; the outreach supervisor, Leslie Leader; and the environmental youth intern team, Leela Chinniah and Shannon Vitols. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased today to introduce to the House Alvin and Donna Myhre. Alvin is president of the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased today to introduce a constituent, Mr. Peter Yim. He's over here working on a very important health issue involving seniors, so please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: With us in the gallery today is Elaine Wells, from Victoria, who is a friend of my administrative assistant, and her daughter Jennifer Wells, who is visiting us from Portland, Oregon. I ask the House to make them both extremely welcome.

Ministerial Statement

REPORT ON MAVIS FLANDERS CASE

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement regarding the children's commissioner's investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mavis Flanders and the questions taken on notice yesterday. It has always been my intention to speak to the House on this report at my first possible opportunity following its public release.

In the days following the death of Mavis Flanders, I provided this House with information regarding the ministry's involvement with and assessment of Mavis Flanders. That information was provided to me by staff working in the field. We know now that that information was wrong.

With the benefit of the commissioner's independent report, which I asked the Attorney General to ask for, we now know that the ministry could not tell me, as the minister, what was really happening in the life of Mavis Flanders, because the ministry did not know. That is the problem at the very heart of this tragedy. The problem is not that the ministry didn't provide me with accurate information to provide the House. It is a much more substantial problem: I did not have and we did not have accurate information to inform our decisions about Mavis Flanders and her son.

The commissioner's report makes it painfully clear why I was not able to provide a full and accurate accounting to the House three months ago. It also makes it painfully clear that the ministry did not have an accurate picture of the needs of this family, because the case management was poor, the risk assessments were inadequate, and critical information was not shared amongst key people.

The commissioner also said clearly that this case highlights the critical need for the application of two fundamental tools for effective child protection: integrated case management and the use of an objective, thorough risk assessment tool. Mr. Speaker, those are exactly the tools we are putting in place. My greatest regret is that they were not in place and were not even available at the critical times for Mavis Flanders.

I also regret that the information I provided to the House, which was the best information the ministry had at that time, has proven to be incorrect. I have never intentionally or

delib-

[ Page 5132 ]

erately tried to mislead this Legislature. As I think the House realizes, I've made a commitment since becoming the minister to be open and to be accountable. I continue to believe that an open and honest accounting of the ministry's actions, within the bounds of confidentiality and respect for personal privacy, is the best course. I will continue to try to be as forthcoming with information as possible.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the response from the Minister for Children and Families is cause for great sadness throughout this House. The children of British Columbia count on the Minister for Children and Families putting children in this province first.

When the minister doesn't know an answer, I count on the minister to stand up in the House and say: "I do not know the answer." When the minister comes to the House and tells this House, tells every member of this Legislature, that something has taken place, that in fact the ministry has acted appropriately, that a client has in fact completed a number of programs that were put in place to protect the child as well as to protect the client, we have a right to believe and to understand that the minister is telling us the truth.

[2:15]

If the minister doesn't know, the minister has got to tell the House and tell the people of British Columbia that she doesn't know. We have a young child who was 22 months old and who had been apprehended twice. His mother had consistently failed to meet her obligations. His mother had consistently failed to live up to the responsibilities that she had as a parent. In spite of her love for her child, which was clear throughout the report, she was not able to live up to her responsibilities.

The ministerial statement does not come close to answering the facts that are placed before us in the Morton report. The minister told us explicitly in this House that people were very pleased with Mavis Flanders's progress and were pleased with the services she had accessed. That was not true, hon. Speaker. Someone is not telling the truth. Someone in this system is not telling the truth. It is time for the truth so that we can protect the children of this province, as every single member of this House says we have to do. We have to do it with the truth.

The minister told this House that Mavis Flanders had successfully completed substance abuse programs and parental guidance programs. The minister told this House that people who knew Mavis Flanders were shocked at what took place. Obviously they were shocked at her death. They were not shocked at the substance abuse. They were not shocked that she was a drug abuser. They were not shocked that she had problems with alcohol. Those were things that people were explaining to the ministry, were explaining to workers. Those were things that people were crying out to have served, to have those needs met.

The minister tells us: "She successfully completed . . . . " She did not successfully complete. In fact, she only went to one session of a drug and alcohol education series in March.

Hon. Speaker, someone in the Children and Families ministry has to know what's going on with young children. The Gove report is not a new report any longer. It was almost two years ago that it was brought forward. It is time for us to act; it is time for us to respond.

I am not satisfied with the minister's statement, because the minister does not seem to understand that what we on this side of the House have committed to and what people across this province have committed to is to provide the resources that are needed to protect the children of British Columbia.

The minister has told us that it wasn't a caseload problem. Who told the minister that there wasn't a caseload problem? One question was asked by Ms. Morton, and it was pointed out that there was a caseload problem. Who told the minister that there wasn't a caseload problem? We should know that. The Legislature should know that. The people of British Columbia should know that. The minister should know that, because that person did not tell the truth. And in not telling the truth, that person jeopardizes future children in the province. That's what we must stop.

There are so many inaccuracies in what the minister told us. What I would say again to the minister is: the time for truth is now. When the minister stands and speaks, we expect the minister to tell us everything she knows. When the minister stands and says with certainty what has taken place in a situation, we believe that it is important that we can take her word for that and that she has the resources to make sure that that has happened. That has clearly not happened in this case, and that's wrong. It's wrong for the Legislature, it's wrong for the staff members of Children and Families, and, most importantly, it's wrong for children in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Sadly, we have heard one of the most damning indictments of a ministry that I've ever heard, and the fact that it's a new ministry makes it even worse. For a minister to stand in this House and say, "Ms. Morton could get information from the ministry that I as the minister couldn't obtain," suggests to me that there are fundamental problems, perhaps unprecedented in this House and in this government. It's an admission by the minister of failure -- failure by the minister, failure by the ministry. It's reminiscent to me of the tragedy that we saw around the Matthew Vaudreuil case.

Perhaps what is worse is that we didn't hear any sense of a solution or resolution to the fact that for some reason -- some unexplained reason -- the minister couldn't find the facts from her own ministry when she requested information and brought that information to the House. That says an awful lot, sadly, about the new ministry.

I will genuinely look forward in the days and weeks to come to hearing some solution, some resolution, to this problem, because it is indeed a serious one and a tragic one for children in care in British Columbia today.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON MAVIS FLANDERS CASE

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister for Children and Families. The minister did report to this House on April 1 that Chabasco Flanders had been returned to mom under a court order with mandatory conditions of supervision, which included ten weeks of alcohol and drug counselling, which she successfully completed; family or parent classes, which she successfully completed; and drop-in counselling and visiting with social workers, all of which she successfully completed. Cynthia Morton says that that is not true. My question

[ Page 5133 ]

to the minister is: why didn't she know that that wasn't true, and how can she take responsibility for a ministry which gives her such false information?

Hon. P. Priddy: The information that I provided to the House, as I have said, was wrong. That indeed was the information provided to me by the staff in the ministry over the first few days or the first week after this tragedy. That is not acceptable. Certainly it did not work for Chabasco. It was a tragedy for his mother, and it is unacceptable to me.

It is, however, the information that I had available to me at the time. It seems to me, in watching ministers in the past, that you have two options. You can say: "I have no comment. I will speak to you in five months" -- or whatever -- "when the report is finished." Or you can try and bring information forward as quickly as you can. I think that people would agree that we have made every effort to do that.

In this case, it was clear that people in the field did not have correct information, had not shared it with other people they worked with and were not able to provide it to me. There are changes underway, and I could speak more to those on the next question, I'm sure.

G. Campbell: The problem I have, again, is that the minister comes to the House knowing that there is a problem. There was no question that there was a problem. The minister goes and asks . . . .

What tools did Cynthia Morton have, except to go and ask someone a question, a question like: how did she do? Cynthia Morton is very clear: "The approach to monitoring progress for adherence to any of the conditions set out in the supervision order was ill-defined and not managed effectively."

She only knows that because she asked a question. She only knows that because she asked and she cared about the child. That's what I thought the minister cared about, too. The issue for me is: how can I believe what the minister is saying today, in view of the fact that she clearly didn't understand or didn't care about what happened previously?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me. Members, I am not going to ignore comments that go back and forth across the floor, and I will be naming members. That is simply not acceptable. Let's listen to questions and answers.

Hon. P. Priddy: The children's commissioner, who did a superb report, had almost three months and a number of investigators to talk with literally hundreds of people -- collateral people, neighbours, landlords, community people, physicians and so on -- and met some who we should have talked to during our management of the case and did not. But to suggest that in the four or five days following the tragedy we would have been able to gain as much information in such a complex and, quite frankly, not well-managed situation as the children's commissioner was able to obtain in three months does not actually make sense.

We have a children's commissioner with investigators at her disposal to do that kind of in-depth investigation. I stand in this Legislature, and I have for six years. I've been in this cabinet for six years, and I actually take some pride in that. But I have never, ever stood in this Legislature and suggested that someone in this Legislature does not care about children -- we are all parents, and we are all grandparents. That's intolerable.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the care has got to reflect itself in actions. It has got to reflect itself in a change to the way we do things. What we have found is that we consistently have these problems. We have consistently had a cabinet minister, for the last six years, stand up and say, "We're going to fix it; we're going to change it," and we still have these problems.

This is a report on a young man 22 months old, and his mother. It's dozens and dozens of pages. It clearly shows that we have not moved to a position where we are putting the child at the centre of our care. It does not show that we put the child's protection first in our concerns. We're allowing someone to call the ministry and say, "I'm doing fine, thanks," someone who was clearly the subject of substance abuse and drug abuse and alcohol abuse.

The minister explained to us again in April that she was shocked, that everyone was shocked, at what had happened to Mavis Flanders -- her family, the people working with her, presumably the people who saw her on a regular basis in Kiwassa. Yet the sad fact is that we know that people from those organizations, particularly people from Kiwassa, were very concerned.

How could the minister say that everyone was shocked at the Flanders drug overdose when she and virtually everyone who was involved in the case knew that Mavis Flanders had a serious, serious substance abuse problem?

M. Coell: The Minister for Children and Families stood in this House and said of Mavis Flanders that since December 12 she had seen homemakers, social workers, workers at the neighbourhood house -- none of whom raised any questions around child protection, she said. Cynthia Morton's report said that the Kiwassa worker contacted the ministry to express the concerns of other mothers in the group with regard to Mavis and her son, that they seemed "off" at the group meetings. The ministry did know and did have an opportunity to know that there were problems. My question to the minister is: why didn't the minister know?

Hon. P. Priddy: What the tragedy is in this . . . . The member says that someone from a particular organization called. He is correct; they did. I did not know that at the time. Did the ministry go out and check? Yes, they did, so the children's commissioner's report says. They did go out and check. The tragedy of this, particularly in terms of drug and alcohol addiction, is the public face of Mavis Flanders. Even people who spoke to the children's commissioner said what they had originally said to me, which is that she seemed, for the most part, to be together and that her son was well-loved.

[2:30]

What they did not do was move to the evidence that proved it. They felt she looked all right. They thought she was okay, and they didn't move to the evidence-based

decision-

[ Page 5134 ]

making part to say, "What is the private face of Mavis Flanders?" -- which was still a loving mother but struggling with a drug addiction. Again, I reported what I knew at the time.

But I also heard the comment: "There are no changes, and you stand here and continue to say there are no changes." At that time there was the very beginning of risk assessment training in this ministry. There are now 1,300 -- which is every single one -- child protection social workers in this ministry that have been trained with our risk assessment model. In point of fact, the Ontario government put out a press release today saying that they too had adopted that same risk assessment model.

M. Coell: The Morton report said that in January of this year . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I'm sorry, member for Saanich North and the Islands. I will not tolerate this interaction back and forth across the chamber when members are asking and answering questions, so please don't do it.

M. Coell: The Morton report said that in January of this year a worker at the neighbourhood house confronted Mavis Flanders about her suspected drug use. The Morton report said the worker let the ministry know again that they suspected Mavis Flanders of using drugs. That's twice that the ministry was told that something could be going wrong. Again, why didn't the minister know if the ministry knew?

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know if there's another way to state the answer. I have acknowledged that the information provided to me was incorrect. There is an internal review going on to find out why this case was not well managed -- and not only by this ministry. The children's commissioner also speaks to the people in the community. I think Mavis Flanders's mother was quoted as saying: "There's no way she could possibly be a drug user." There were medical professionals in the community who knew of this. There was no way for that information to be shared.

We've signed new protocols with the College of Physicians and Surgeons about both the ability and the responsibility of not only us to ask, which we have done, but of them to report that information to us. No, we did not know. Yes, it was investigated and seen as an isolated incident, which simply speaks to the incredible complexity when working with families with alcohol and drug problems and the fact that neither case management nor risk assessment was in place when this happened.

FOREST COMPANIES' ROLE IN

JOBS AND TIMBER ACCORD

G. Wilson: On a somewhat different note, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. I have a really interesting document in my hand. It is a document that is marked "Sensitive and Confidential," and it was prepared for the eyes of only the top CEOs of the major forest companies. It is with respect to the jobs accord. This document, among other things, makes it clear that while the forest companies are prepared to romance away the soft summer evenings with the NDP, when it comes time to go to bed, they're going to bed with the Liberals. That's what this document says.

Will the Minister of Forests agree with the characterization that is in this report, which says: "The accord is largely a politically driven issue through which the government will develop an aggressive and positive profile. Industry's role is secondary . . . . "? It then goes on further to suggest that the role of industry is "to prevent the government from 'fudging' the accord by enriching it with hyperbole and setting the goals too high." In light of this great new working relationship, I wonder if the Minister of Forests would agree with that characterization.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure what the member's quoting from, but it may be a highly excerpted report, prepared by an individual.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I understand. I believe what the member has is some excerpts from a report prepared by an individual. I just received a copy of that report and was amused by some of the comments myself.

There's no question that the truth about the accord is that the government is proud of the achievement of an agreement between industry and government. It doesn't surprise the government at all that the people that bankrolled that party over there in opposition intend to keep being in bed with them and will only flirt with the government at best when it suits their purpose.

G. Wilson: On a somewhat more serious note, I'm familiar with the excerpted report that the minister makes reference to, but I have the actual document in my hand, not the report that the minister refers to.

The minister and the Premier have repeatedly said that the strength of this jobs accord is in the fact that there will be alternative job and work relationships in order to provide unemployed workers with the opportunity to have employment in the industry.

Can the minister comment on why the senior CEOs of the major forest companies would say that what the companies must do is "resist alternate work arrangements" and "put a fence around the IWA - HCL agreement" and "ensure that the IWA and CEP do not confuse cost relief to the industry with more dollars on the bargaining table"? Can the minister tell us exactly how these new jobs will be created if the very deal that the Premier said was going to be on the table is being refuted by this document?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I haven't read the full report. Suffice it to say that what industry has said about the accord is in the press and that we stand by our agreement. We will hold industry to that accord.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Point of Privilege

Hon. J. Cashore: Further to the point of privilege raised this morning by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I would like to make the following comments.

First of all, my actions and the actions of ministry officials authorized by me have not impinged upon anyone's privilege.

Second, the briefing materials shared with stakeholders on the day prior to the introduction of the bill are clearly marked "Draft."

[ Page 5135 ]

Reports from Committees

G. Bowbrick: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

June 18, 1997

Hon. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

(1) that the

preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled TD Trust Company Act, 1997, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading;

(2) that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Graeme Bowbrick, Chair.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the B.C. Transit Corporation. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 37: minister's office, $433,000 (continued).

T. Nebbeling: This morning we talked about the role of the jobs advocate, where initially much focus by the minister was on the so-called monitor role that the jobs advocate would have been involved with. Through questions, I believe we've concluded -- at least, I have concluded; I don't want to put words in the mouth of the minister, but I think he will agree with me -- that the job of the jobs advocate is considerably broader than just being a monitoring agent of what happens related to anything that will have to make the jobs and timber accord a success story after five years.

In order to be a success story after five years, it obviously has to become a success the moment the plan gets implemented.

[2:45]

I was quite surprised, of course, after the minister was so strong on that monitoring part, to hear that other activities that I believe will take much more of the time of the job that the jobs advocate is about to undertake . . . . It will take a lot more time in order to deal with all the problems that are out there in the forest industry, be it in the forest itself, undermining the economic viability of the industry, or be it in the mills or be it a pulp mill.

Consider what's happening in the northwest, where about 600 jobs are directly at stake, related to a pulp mill that is just not able to operate in a businesslike manner and in an adequate manner so that it can turn a profit. As a consequence, the mill started to lay off people last week.

There are problems that we can foresee with the sawmill operators throughout the province. Of course, Terrace and Carnaby are going to be a typical example where, because one mill owned by a company goes down, ultimately the other elements that make up the total company structure go down as well. Obviously that's a main concern for me. This is one scenario that I just described in the northwest -- in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Stewart, Hazelton, Smithers -- where, in total, 2,500 direct jobs are going to go down. Ultimately, it will affect approximately 9,000 jobs -- through indirect and secondary jobs, as well.

So seeing now that the jobs advocate is actually going to be involved with these companies as well, because many of these companies will, while they're still in operation, be relying on extra fibre that under the jobs and timber accord could come the way of a company if they're willing to go with the conditions that will be negotiated, I believe, by IWA and the company representatives.

When that happens -- and the jobs advocate will have to come in to save operations -- then I really fear that the whole job of monitoring will become secondary and something that will be done when there is time.

I have asked before, and I would like to close my questions on the advocate position at this time, at least, by asking once more of the minister if he can tell me the staff that he foresees that this agency will have. Will he, under his mandate, have the ability to mandate other people to take certain portions of his job description under control? If that is so, what kind of budget is being set aside? Maybe if I can get the proper answers for that, I can go on and start talking about other elements that will have to be really right in order to make the jobs and timber accord work. So if the minister doesn't mind answering these three questions . . . .

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The timber jobs advocate will have adequate staff to do the job. As I said, we expect to select an advocate and do a business plan. As we're doing that, we will be working on implementation measures with industry.

But I want to let the member know that it isn't the job of the advocate to enforce this agreement. If you read the accord -- on page 10, just before the jobs advocate -- it says: "If industry fails to achieve its job targets referred to in this accord, government will undertake a review of these provisions and additional measures may be necessary to ensure compliance." That's why I say industry has agreed to undertake these objectives. We intend to hold them to that, and we accept their good faith. Never mind that there may be some in industry that don't like it.

But we own the resource; the people of British Columbia own the resource. We believe that with a modest-sized office . . . . We don't know how big that is, but small -- several people.

I would expect that if the jobs advocate is busy producing an annual report or gathering data or monitoring and they need help in some field where they feel they can provide a minor facilitation role, then they will, through the Job Protection Commission, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Employment and Investment or possibly FRBC . . . . Who knows where they might get the help? But several people will surround the advocate. I suspect there will have to be several people. They will be an extension of the advocate.

The advocate position is the office and the people in it, much as the job protection commissioner has an assistant who goes around and does a lot of the mediation work and a lot of the economic planning work.

[ Page 5136 ]

T. Nebbeling: I do not agree that the jobs advocate is not a person; I believe it is very much a position by a person. It's even in the description: "A jobs accord advocate will be created. The [jobs advocate] will be a person with a recognized expertise in relation to the British Columbia forest industry . . . . "

So it is an individual, and part of the individual's authority -- his mandate -- has to include delegation of powers to other workers that work in his organization, to make sure that the workload that will come his way, no doubt, can be . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I thought the minister indicated that it wasn't a person and that it was a bureau, an office.

Having said that, I think I am going to go on for awhile on another element that I think has to be covered in detail when it comes to the viability of the jobs and timber accord. The jobs and timber accord will no doubt need, in order to survive, a healthy climate in which the investment world is willing to come back and start investing in our province, in our industries and in our towns.

Considering that over the last year or two, the traditional investors -- overseas investors in particular, including the American investors base, which is huge . . . . Considering that almost all of these investment sources have disappeared, the reason being that the decline of the business climate in this province is such that nobody is going to risk investing here any longer . . . . Furthermore, the few people who have invested are looking at a return that is far below what they would get from a basic bank account if they just put the money in the bank.

That is not the type of climate that any investment corporation or private investor will be enticed by to say: "Okay, I'm going to come to British Columbia."

As a matter of fact -- and the minister will hopefully be able to acknowledge this -- much of the traditional funding that has come into this province for the forest industry, the billions of dollars, has been diverted from British Columbia. And we have heard the same CEOs, who are supposed to have supported this deal . . . . Earlier we heard the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talking about the document. That clearly shows that the support was not something that was given with flying flags and banners, but that it was more like: "Well, we'd better say something in order to satisfy the government."

Having said that, however, these same CEOs made it very clear during their annual shareholders' meetings that they, as companies, no longer invest in this province -- that they have taken money that was supposed to be invested in British Columbia into other forest-producing areas such as Chile, Argentina, south of us in Oregon and Washington, Alberta and provinces in eastern Canada. So we have lost a lot of the goodwill that in the past was part of us being able to say that we have a healthy forest industry.

I would like to ask the minister at this point what he intends to do to bring back some of these dollars that are sorely needed, and that I think are recognized by the government as sorely needed, to make the jobs and timber accord work.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just going to give a list of investments. I'm going from memory here, but I think I'm close. My understanding from our investigation is that last year's investment -- the '96 investment -- was $1.3 billion, which is not too far off the ten-year average. There were a couple of years when there was over $2 billion invested, but that's because there was a major push by the pulp industry to upgrade their facilities to meet new, high pollution-standard controls. You can't have that sustained level investment forever. So I would say that $1.3 billion is a good support for the business climate in British Columbia.

We admitted that there are some problems, that we'd try to adjust to new environmental standards, which everybody wants -- which that member there says he supports, but he's not prepared to put a regime in place that would allow us to enforce it. So all the puffery around your support for environmental standards means nothing, because that side has said they would take a chainsaw to the Forest Practices Code, which is a totally irresponsible approach.

We have said that if you're going to invest in British Columbia, take care of the environment. It's important to the future workers; it's important to the general investment climate. I submit to you that $1.3 billion in investment is significant. I'll provide you a list of the investments.

If you'd like to name those companies that went to their shareholders and said, "This is not a good place to invest," I'd be happy to respond, because I know that many of those CEOs have gone to their shareholders and said that they would like to invest in British Columbia -- "It will turn around when the pulp slump is over," just to quote one, the CEO of MacMillan Bloedel, then the biggest company in the country. I've got his report; I can get you the quote.

For you to stand up there and say there hasn't been reinvestment in British Columbia is absolutely wrong. The CEOs that we negotiated with said in the accord that they understand. We understand that the investment climate, the viability of business, the economic performance and the return on investment are all important. We recognized that up front. We have said that industry undertakes to create 2,000 additional jobs by investment. They agreed to that; they think they can do that. They believe in this industry; they believe in this province. Why don't you?

T. Nebbeling: Could the minister repeat the number that the industry has committed to over the next five years under the timber accord?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They have agreed to create 2,000 direct and 2,000 indirect jobs through investment on their own.

T. Nebbeling: It's always interesting to see how the numbers are used to justify action, even if that action has been almost fatal to the industry that we talk about. When the minister says, "Hey, wait a second; $1.3 billion has been invested in the industry; that's not chicken feed," I agree that that's not chicken feed. But it is only a percentage of what was normally coming in in investment in this province. If you take an average, it's about 40 or 50 percent of what has traditionally been invested.

The minister is shaking his head. I've got the data, too, just like the minister. I am using the number from the . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I am giving you the data: $1.3 billion is a percentage of what has traditionally come into this province as investment from the forest industry, when things were right. Right now, what we see is that . . . . Companies have an infrastructure. If the roof is leaking, they will have to fix it, like

[ Page 5137 ]

it or not. If a machine breaks down, they either shut down the whole plant or they bring in a new component; that will continue. A truck that collapses on the road will have to be replaced; I understand that. But there is no billion-dollar investment in a new pulp mill somewhere that will be able to give 400 or 500 jobs to a particular area.

[3:00]

Instead, what we see . . . . And let's quickly talk about it. We see companies trying to sell their mills, a corporation trying to sell its tenure. We see these companies not being able to sell. We saw it in the northwest, with Repap. Repap thought they had a deal with Avenor. What did the investors say? The minister is not listening, because I am using facts about what happened this year. The shareholders of a national and international company are saying: "There is not a hope in hell that we're going to buy that outfit in British Columbia." And these are the shareholders that are in the east, in the States and abroad -- not a hope in hell, and the whole deal collapses.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I gave you the statement, Mr. Minister. Repap in Terrace, in Carnaby, and Rupert . . . . The Repap deal collapsed, not because the company thought they couldn't get the price they were asking, but because the buyer's shareholders -- the investors in the company -- said: "No, thank you very much. This is not a good deal. We are not going to invest in British Columbia."

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: It doesn't matter. The member is reading a book. I suppose that is the only way he gets some arguments to speak up, because otherwise he's extremely silent in this House.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Oh no, never. Never, ever.

The Chair: Order, members. Through the Chair.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the Chair can control this a little bit, as the Chair is supposed to do.

Having said that, if the Repap-Avenor deal that went totally sideways is not a typical example of what has happened in this province . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, to me . . . . Maybe the minister says it's not. But to me it is a very good example, because he is saying that the investment world is still willing to invest in British Columbia. Well, they were not willing to invest in this particular operation.

At the same time, to make the painful experience even worse, Avenor, which was supposed to have bought the Repap operation in the northwest, turned around and went to one of the properties on the Island -- Gold River -- and got the small community together, whose main way of making a living is from the mill in Gold River . . . . Avenor turned around and said to 70 jobs that are here today: "They will be gone by next year, so be prepared. We're going to try to sell the mill in Gold River, and if we can't sell it, we will dismantle it and take it out."

The investors of the company give these companies direction about what to do with the money they have to invest. When they thought they had the deal with Repap, the investment community said: "No, thank you very much." If the minister has another opinion on what happened there, I would like to hear that right now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Pacific Forest Products is up for sale, and at this point there's no sale. If you've got sources that say people won't buy it because of British Columbia, that's fine. The member says they want to shed 70 jobs in Gold River, and they do. They feel they need to do that to be competitive, to get their costs down. The member has stood there and lectured and lectured about how industry has to be cost-competitive or it can't do business here. Well, that's what they are trying to do; that's their reason.

With respect to Repap, that's not typical at all. In fact, you're absolutely wrong. It shouldn't surprise you, because I don't think you did your homework. There were two sales of Repap Canada. In the first case it was all of Repap, and that was rejected by the shareholders. The second sale was for the rest of Canada -- not the British Columbia operation -- and the shareholders rejected that. So there must be something else wrong with Repap. I can tell you that the sawmills are viable. They would be taken up if they were split off.

You're shaking your head. The monitor for the banks said the sawmills held by Skeena Cellulose are viable. But the member knows better than the banks. Fair enough. We don't always believe the banks, but the monitor reporting out to the court has said they're viable. He said there's a problem with the pulp side. Big surprise that a company that was mismanaged, took its profits out of B.C. and left that part saddled with $450 million worth of debt, isn't going to be snapped up by somebody as a good investment. Some surprise!

T. Nebbeling: Before I interrupt my line of questioning for my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I have to correct the minister and say that I have stood up in this House three or four times in the last week, trying to get the minister to understand that the mills in Terrace, Hazelton and Carnaby are viable, profitable operations. They are part of a total conglomerate that could be saved if this government was willing to come into that area and spend some of that FRBC money -- the $1.5 billion they are now going to commit to creating 5,000 jobs.

They could use a small portion of that money as enriched funding to modernize the pulp mill in Rupert, thereby eliminating a considerable amount of the cost of producing the pulp, thereby making the pulp viable. There are opportunities if this government had been willing to participate, but this government has said: "No, thank you very much, we're not interested. We are not in the business of saving jobs. We're in the business of creating new jobs." That that goes at the cost of 9,000 existing jobs doesn't seem to bother the minister. If the Rupert mill goes down . . . . They closed down last week.

If that's permanent, then the minister knows that Skeena Cellulose will follow in the next two or three weeks -- and that's another 1,200 to 1,500 direct jobs.

I know the mill is viable. If the rest of the organization can be made viable, as well . . . . The tools are there. It is really quite shameful that the minister is trying to put words in my mouth when it comes to the viability of the operation, because I am the one who has been telling the minister for a week now

[ Page 5138 ]

that the viability is there, that it is a savable operation. The minister has rejected that: "That is not the business we're in, and others will have to come to the rescue." Well, the others are the investment sector, and they're not willing to come in. So regardless of what the minister says, the numbers don't jibe the way he presents them.

As far as Avenor is concerned, it's 70 jobs now. But Avenor has also said that if there is not a buyer for that mill: "We are out of there. We will dismantle. We will have a buy-back package for the community, and we are gone." With that, opportunity is lost forever, and that is because the investment world is not willing to come in here. When we are trying to say that through this jobs and timber accord, we are going to create 21,000 new jobs, all I can say is: at what price?

It certainly is not at the price of creating a new, healthy, businesslike, world-market-competitive business environment. If that happened, then I'm sure people with the dollars would look at British Columbia much differently -- as they used to do. I don't know if the minister wants to respond. Otherwise, I would like my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast to take over.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: "At what price?" I don't really know what the nature of that question is. Certainly we're not going to create a whole bunch of new jobs and then say: "Well, everybody else, you've got to work part-time." Most of these licensees have the same amount of timber allocated to them. There may be changes. There may be changes in the nature of work. There may be tech changes that go in the woods as people seek to log profitably. Perhaps that's going to happen.

Our objective under the small business program is to create more jobs through labour-intensive kinds of logging -- small logging operations. We certainly intend to do that. What you don't recognize, also, is that we've just had a sale of a major company here. TimberWest sold. The operation has changed hands; people are upbeat about it.

It's not just private land. There were separate parts that had no private land involved -- in Williams Lake, in Mackenzie. No private land: recognize it. Wake up and look at the facts -- that there are people investing. It doesn't surprise me that an old pulp mill laden with debt, that hasn't been restructured, wouldn't be a good investment. No, it isn't. That's the problem. It's laden with debt. We've got to deal with the debt.

I don't think it serves the people of British Columbia for the Forests critic to stand up and say: "Try to pretend that this Minister of Forests said that the sawmills attached to Skeena Cellulose weren't viable." Those words have never passed my lips. I did say that for somebody to invest, to be restructured, everybody in the community wants there to be a viable operation.

So I suggest that it would help if you listened carefully to what I said, and don't try to twist things that I didn't say into something that serves your purpose. I don't think you're serving the people of British Columbia. As a critic, criticize, ask questions, make your points -- but don't try to twist words. Don't try to deny the facts when they're presented to you, and don't take partial analyses of things that have been said.

The Chair: The hon. member, on . . . . What's your point?

T. Nebbeling: The point of order is that this has nothing to do with the estimates. The minister is making his arguments against my actions. So that's my point.

G. Wilson: I'm just delighted to jump into this debate. I appreciate the opportunity that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has given me to ask a few questions of the minister.

I want to talk about this forest jobs accord. Just to give the minister an idea of where I'm coming from, so that he has some understanding, I don't take a position in opposition to a strategy that would help to promote the forest sector and help to secure employment in forest-dependent communities, because my riding is made up of forest-dependent communities. I think everybody there recognizes a need for us to come forward and do something positive and constructive.

I'm pleased that at least we've turned a corner with respect to a land use policy that now starts, at least on the surface, to put some priority towards the defining of a working forest and, hopefully, securing levels of investment to be able to secure employment. My concern, however, is that it seems that the government has embarked upon a course of action that is going to alienate a huge sector of the forest industry -- namely, independent loggers, people who are involved in small independent forest companies, people who are dependent upon the small business program and need access to timber, and people involved in silviculture programs and forest-related activities who are non-union.

The reason I say it appears that way is because if we look at this jobs and timber accord and read the press release that was put out by the minister and the Premier with respect to the good things that are coming down the pike -- 22,400 new direct forest jobs . . . . They suggest that they're going to come from 6,500 new jobs from small business and secondary industry; 5,000 new jobs renewing our forests; 5,900 from forest companies; 3,000 new jobs from new working arrangements.

Yet you read the briefing binder that's prepared for the CEOs of the major forest companies -- which I hope by now the minister has a copy of, because I've asked for a copy to be made . . . . I see him shaking his head. If my staff are paying attention -- and they should be -- can they make sure a copy comes down immediately for the minister so that we can look at this? What concerns me is that this briefing document . . . .

I don't take issue with the fact that the companies have the right to prepare a media strategy, but a lot of what's in here flies in the face of what it is the government is saying we're doing. All of it flies in the face of those who argue that what we ought to be trying to do is accomplish a greater degree of balance and a greater degree of access to timber. So that's where I'm coming from in my questions.

I wonder how the minister reacts to that and whether the minister can counter that by at least suggesting, as this document comes down to him, whether or not he agrees with that characterization and, if so, how we combat that; and whether or not he has some words of comfort to those people who are involved in small, independent businesses that are not part of the

[ Page 5139 ]

major forest companies -- so that they may have those words of comfort to take home and be able to have confidence in, so that they know they'll continue to be key players in this industry.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the first item, with respect to this document -- of which we have only excerpts -- I appreciate your offer. We have asked COFI, as the author of the document, to provide it to us directly. We would prefer to have their copy. I'm not sure that the individual who provided you a copy didn't excerpt from it, or whatever. In any event, I appreciate the offer, but we have asked COFI to send it to us, and we've also asked them what their position is. They have said that industry is on side with the accord, that they support the accord and that their spokespeople, the 21 CEOs, agreed.

They would be happy to phone the member or anyone else who has a question about industry's position on it.

As for the characterization, yes, it's not surprising that we've had to build a relationship with industry. It's important that we work together. We have different objectives. For people to say something is politically driven . . . . Well, politics is about allocating resources, achieving objectives, that kind of thing. It's clearly an objective of this government to create more employment in the forest industry, so we stand by that. If that's politics, so be it. We will stand by the forest communities, by the families and ultimately by the employment. We intend to hold industry to the accord.

As for the concerns of silviculture workers, we have tried to assure them, despite some of the contractors themselves -- not the silviculture workers -- being international corporations. We've tried to assure them that the $150 million of basic silviculture work that industry does -- is required by law to do -- is untouched by this accord. So the traditional work of the silviculture industry is secure.

Yes, they will be in competition for the enhanced forestry jobs funded by FRBC. We've admitted that one of the failings of FRBC is getting the jobs to displaced forest workers, whether they're union workers coming out of mills or logging operations or whether they're coming out of the silviculture industry. We don't actually know. The silviculture industry probably doesn't know yet, although we funded them through FRBC to study who they are, how many of them were displaced and what their nature is. Are they people who just want to work a few months? Are they people who just thrive on part-time, or whatever?

Our primary concern on the accord is full-time, family-supporting jobs. We want those to be stable jobs. We want to have a chunk of the forest renewal jobs, about a quarter of them at least, to be full-time forest workers.

Now, the small business people . . . . There is a table with the small business people, in particular the remanners. The small business organizations are there -- woodlot. I believe even the horse loggers were invited. A number of the small organizations like salvagers had a spot at the table. We had a separate table with shake and shingle operators, a bilateral table between government and small business operators. You're right, they need comfort under here, but what we've got here to offer them is a major chunk of fibre that was not made available to them to this point.

We have an undertaking from industry to provide 18 percent of the sawn fibre on the coast and 16 percent in the interior. That should help them.

Now, did the small business people get everything they wanted from government? No. They want a reapportionment within the small business program so that we can direct more to remanufacturing. We're examining that. We're also examining proposals to have the existing small business logging community continue to do the logging so that we've got security there. There are implications for government revenue; fair enough. But we want to find ways of using the small business program to get the share of jobs that we have undertaken to get through the accord.

Partly getting the AAC out will help small business people -- another five million cubic metres. We hope to get at least three million cubic metres of the undercut out. Within the small business program, we expect to sell some of the undercut, which will help create employment in the short term.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's answer, because it allows us to really get into some nuts-and-bolts issues here, really start to talk about some hard issues.

The minister suggests that this accord is going to provide the opportunities for the independent sectors. We've talked about the fact that there was a table set up for shake and shingle, for salvage, for the horse loggers and so on, but these people today are being shut out of the industry. They are -- because I hear from them every single week. They are people who can't get access to timber even on a direct sale, even though the act provides that they can.

They are people who are consistently being blocked by field offices who say that their workload is too high and that they are going to look after the interests of the major forest companies first. When they have time, then they'll come back and deal with the issues of small business. And that's a problem; that's a big problem.

The second issue I would point out is that this accord does not drive dollars into a small business opportunity or into an independent logging opportunity in British Columbia. This accord drives dollars into major corporate enterprises which are buying up "value-added" mills more and more, even though those value-added mills, which may be reported to be owned by a major forest company, actually aren't.

It's interesting when you start to look at value-added mill ownership in British Columbia, as I've had an opportunity to be doing over the last number of weeks. They are reportedly connected to major forest companies, because the major forest companies essentially put a squeeze on them by saying: "Either you buy our timber, take our timber and when the value-added material comes back, you sell to us, or you don't get supply." Those value-added mills are listed as being company mills; they're not company mills at all. They're mills that don't have a choice because the majors have determined to a large extent, with respect to wood supply, where they're going to get their timber from.

I think the minister talks a great line here. I don't mean to be facetious, but even the forest companies worry about the hyperbole and the rhetoric that come from the politicians. Being one, I'm sure I'm not without a certain amount of hyperbole and rhetoric myself from time to time. But we have to get down to the hard-core issues here.

Just very briefly, for the minister, I would quote what is now a very famous quote from H.R. MacMillan, whom most of us will know. He said:

"It will be a sorry day for . . . British Columbia when the forest industry here consists chiefly of a very few big companies holding most of the good timber" -- or pretty near all of it -- "and good growing sites to the disadvantage and early extermination of the most hard-working, virile, versatile and ingenious element of our population -- the independent market logger and the small-mill man."

How true that has become.

[ Page 5140 ]

So I ask the minister: where in this accord do we tackle the real nuts-and-bolts issue within the forest industry, which is tenure, which is reform of the tenure system, which is putting more timber into a competitive, open log market so that we have a greater degree of opportunity for people who are really, honestly putting value to timber, who are actually making that timber worth more because of their ingenuity, because of their craftsmanship, because of their ability to find niche markets for value-added product?

Where in this accord do we provide them access to the market so that that level of ingenuity can progress in British Columbia rather than be controlled in a conventional way by tenures that are locked up by major forest companies?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the accord calls for 500 million to 700 million board feet of incremental supply that wasn't available to them before -- aimed at the independent reman sector. In addition to the 5 percent takeback by the previous government, this represents a significant transfer of fibre to the independent remanners. Again, through the small business program, we intend to make more fibre available.

The studies that have been done show that there is a tremendous capacity for uptake. Assuming the markets are there -- and I think there is reasonable expectation that there are markets -- we will see almost a doubling of the amount of fibre available for the independent remanufacturers. That's significant.

Now, the accord also says that if the independent sector can't use it, it may revert back, and that would be a troubling day. So H.R. MacMillan will get his day if there is uptake. But you know and I know that they have to have long-term agreements to be able to go to the bank to expand and so on. So it's not just a question of the availability of fibre; it's the availability of logs on which to make some profit. That's what a lot of the small, independent people are saying. We have said that the lumber should be made available to them at market prices.

So 500 million to 700 million board feet, again, of incremental fibre which is directed at the independent reman sector is a significant increase. It's a huge increase.

G. Wilson: I wish I could share the optimism of the minister with respect to having those additional allocations benefit anybody other than the major forest companies. It's not that I've got anything against the major forest companies. By way of that digression, let me say that I've had a chance to meet with many of the key players in the major forest industry, and I've always been supportive of what they've been trying to accomplish. I've offered, when they've asked, my advice on how one proceeds with certain issues. They rarely take it, and that's fair enough. That's their prerogative.

I wouldn't have gone this route. I think this is a road that's going to walk them into some difficulty; but nevertheless, that's the route they've chosen.

Let me just say this. The four cornerstones of commitment as defined in this document . . . . By way of digression, let me also say that I'm somewhat amused by the fact that the minister thinks he knows where I got this document. Clearly both of us receive by way of fax the excerpted version, which I know the minister has. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that the original necessarily came from the same source or that it didn't. Let's leave that a mystery for the time being.

This document, which I have absolutely no doubt is authentic, says that with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. -- this is the major forest companies: "We will aggressively develop FRBC projects and make them work to create jobs." That's essentially the tax that has been taken off at the top from harvest, which the government now holds, and which the government is now going to give back to the major forest companies by way of job creation programs. That's essentially a return of revenue from the Crown forest to the major forest companies.

They talk about reman, and they say: "We are offering a sizeable amount of our lumber to the reman sector, and we will cooperate with them in expanding their opportunities." I'd like to hear from the minister on that issue as to whether or not he believes those are independent mills. And if they are, are those independent mills free, in a competitive, open log market for purchase anywhere? Or are they going to be constrained by the major forest companies with respect to where those logs originate and where they can be sold? Because that's what's going on.

On the third one, investment, they say: "As our economic strength grows over the next five years we will make investments in new facilities and job-generating projects to create 2,000 direct jobs." Throughout this document, the forest companies say that all of this agreement hinges on the fact that they can show significant revenue increase.

And the way that they want that to happen is for the government to provide them a greater degree of access to timber, a greater supply of timber, a relaxing of the Forest Practices Code and an opportunity for them to be able to have a more productive investment climate -- none of which I necessarily argue with, but none of which is going to go into the independent logging community. This is directed towards the major forest companies.

The fourth is protection. This is an important point that I hope the minister will hear. It says: "We will endeavour to protect existing jobs" -- not create new jobs -- "by taking advantage of our full AAC allocations, as specified by government in the accord." So they're not looking at additional increases within the AAC allotments to create new jobs. They're saying that's what they need just to maintain the existing jobs. I wonder where this optimism stems from.

It strikes me that what we're really looking at here is an accord that provides the companies great opportunity. If the market stays strong with respect to timber and lumber prices, if we can relax the code and if we can allow greater and freer access to timber supply, then maybe, just maybe, we might be able to get some economic spinoff. But I certainly don't see the confidence here that we're going to have the 22,400 jobs secured.

[3:30]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, with respect, you're quoting from a communications strategy, and I suggest that the communications people, at best, imperfectly understand the details of the accord, whether it's government's communications people or industry's communications people. There are details in there that we have to deal with.

Let me deal with some of the concerns. Yes, we expect industry to aggressively develop FRBC jobs, but this is not giving money back to the company. It does not go to the company's bottom line. It's reinvestment in the forest land base. They are the agents of delivery. Money will go to them for jobs in incremental forestry watershed restoration. It's not money to their bottom line, so it shouldn't affect them. They have the infrastructure to efficiently administer it and do the planning and so on. They would be paid for their planning, but it's not to go to their profits, not to go to their bottom line.

[ Page 5141 ]

The remanufacturers. Yes, we want to expand opportunities for remanufacturers. We do expect the sawn fibre to be incremental to what is now being provided to them, up to the 16 percent and 18 percent. They could supply logs if they wished, but the accord deals with a primary commitment by the major licensees to supply sawn fibre. That's the nature of this. Some of them already supply round logs through market opportunities. Quite a few major licensees contribute to the log market, and there are local and regional log markets. But they could supply logs.

Where the additional logs would come in, for the reman sector, is through a deal that we're trying to negotiate with them now, to take more of the small business program, which does put logs onto the market, and direct that to the reman sector. But that's not covered by the accord; that's separate. We're working on a table with the small business sector to do that.

Significant increase in profitability. I think the document is full of comments about us recognizing economic viability. We expect there to be investment only if there is some return on investment, but there won't be any relaxing of the code. Streamlining, relaxing of the planning provisions, the administrative load and duplication -- yes, all of that will be relaxed, but not the environmental standards in the code. So they're not going to make profits and return to profitability on the backs of other resources that are out there.

With respect to protecting existing jobs, we have recognized -- the Premier has said and I have said -- that it is important to recognize existing jobs. Sometimes a job kept is like a job created, because the job would have gone. So we have to recognize that there's an element of that in all of this. I can't speak for their comments about whether or not they want to top up their existing input through their mills and keep jobs that way. We expect that achieving the full AAC will create jobs, and they've undertaken to create new jobs with that. So again, we will hold them to their word to create new jobs.

Again, with respect, I haven't read that document. We will certainly analyze it. We've gone so far as to talk to COFI, and they're on side with the accord. They will have their designated spokespeople talk to anybody, including yourself. They'll place a call to you to assure you that they're behind the accord.

Now, this is an accord with the major licensees. I know you're speaking to the small, independent remaner and the independent logger. There is nothing in here that takes away from that industry. In fact, there's something here that adds to it. We have additional initiatives underway with the small business table to look at ways to further, in particular, the independent reman sector.

G. Wilson: I'm certain that COFI probably has already made a phone call to me. I look forward to that, and I welcome that call. I think we've worked out a good working relationship, and I hope we can continue that. I don't mean to castigate anybody by this. I'm just saying that we need to get to the heart of what is really going on. That's what we're looking at.

Let me just come back to something the minister said. I put a bit of a caveat on what I'm saying, because I am acutely sensitive to the fact that the Americans are monitoring this debate. I'm also acutely sensitive to the fact that we have got a particularly sensitive issue around the softwood deal. I hope that nobody will interpret any of my questions or remarks as trying to further complicate what may already be a complicated issue on that level.

I do want to ask the minister about what the minister believes decoupling the code and the accord means if it doesn't mean that it is going to generate additional money, additional dollars, for the industry. The minister said just a moment ago . . . . At least, I think he did. I don't want to put words in his mouth, and if I'm wrong, he'll have a chance to clarify that.

I think what he said was that in this agreement they're looking to decouple the code but that the code is not going to be amended in any way that will provide a greater degree of revenue flow to the industry -- in other words, that the environmental integrity is protected and that this code isn't going to provide economic benefit.

With great respect for what the minister says, it is a communication document, and he's suggesting that the people who drafted it may not be as familiar as they might be with the code. I look at the people who are on the committee representing MacMillan Bloedel, West Fraser Timber, Canfor, Lignum -- I don't need to read their names into the record; the minister will have the copy in front of him. These are people who are well-known in the industry and people who should know if they don't know -- and they probably do know -- what's in the accord.

What they go on to say is this, and this is to allay investor fears: "Where appropriate, individual companies should privately reassure the investment community that industry's financial burden under the accord is not severe and that costs are more than offset by code revisions and FRBC funding." If the code revisions don't provide the kind of financial protection that the ministry is suggesting, then what does that mean? And what does it mean to decouple the code from the accord?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try and answer. I can't explain what they mean. Without reading the document for the background, I don't know what they mean. But let me make no mistake about it. We started the streamlining of the code back in August, when it became clear that we had to make some midcourse corrections. Industry said it cost money. Government knew the code was going to cost money. There were some indications that it was more than we predicted, so we looked at it, and we looked at ways of streamlining. The streamlining of the code will help government have more personnel to go out and do their work. I don't expect it will help government's bottom line that much.

We do expect that the streamlining of the code itself will help industry. It will make their costs of getting logs out cheaper, if they don't have to spend so much time on the planning components associated with the code. That's not a subsidy; that's just a question of doing business more efficiently. We want to make sure that people are clear that we aren't trading environmental values for industry profitability. I just want to make that absolutely clear.

With respect to decoupling, I'm not sure what the document means. We know that we were streamlining the code as a separate procedure. We got into the jobs aspect; we wanted to concentrate on the job creation. Separate from that there were discussions around whether or not the stumpage system took into account market prices of pulp logs, for example. Did it take into account adequate costs for logging now that we have studied the costs of logging under the code for a year?

As you know, the stumpage system has a number of factors in it, and we have to look at the costs of producing the logs and the costs of doing logging. These are all separate, but of course, the industry is all interrelated. It wasn't like, "We'll do this; you do that," with a whole bunch of horse-trading going on around it. We have separated the activities so that they're discrete. We didn't want to confuse the jobs and timber

[ Page 5142 ]

accord and getting the wood out with code changes, although if we can do planning more cost-effectively, we'll get more wood out. We didn't want the new jobs to be dependent on some sense that we were going to change the stumpage system across the board, because we're not going to change the stumpage system. We are very cognizant of the softwood lumber agreement, and we can't do anything that will circumvent that agreement.

G. Wilson: Yeah, I would certainly agree that this . . . . I don't take the position that some have taken publicly -- that somehow this jobs and timber accord violates the softwood agreement. I don't think it does. Furthermore, I would vigorously support the defence of anybody who seeks to try and challenge that it does, because I think we've been pushed around enough. I don't want to get off on that tangent, because I get quite angry that we can have domestic policy from another nation state determining what we can and can't do with the resource base in this country.

However, having made that point, I do want to come back to two things that the minister said. With respect to the amendments, to the revisions to the code, as the minister will know, I was supportive of doing what I called an environmental audit. With that we could have a very clear set of information in front of us with respect to how the Forest Practices Code had provided the kind of environmental protection that we needed, what issues existed within the code that were causing financial difficulty or access problems for people in the forest industry and how we could amend it.

I don't know that that environmental audit was actually done. My question to the minister is: was such an audit done? Has there been a document that demonstrates what level of effect, positive or negative, the code has had since its implementation? If so, does the document also tie the environmental benefits or effect with respect to the economic consequence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, there hasn't been an environmental audit of the code; it's probably too early to do that. We do have reports from the Forest Practices Board. As you know, they are looking at the effectiveness of the code with respect to riparian management. That's one major part of the code.

We're still bringing in guidebooks. We just started; June 15 was the second year of full compliance. Until we've had a few years under our belt, it would be difficult to do such an audit.

There's been great confusion created by some environmental groups taking pre-code and transition period practices, pretending that they're somehow fully compliant with the code and then saying that they aren't meeting the standards under the code. We've had a phase-in period, so that's important. We expect the Forest Practices Board to conduct audits on a periodic basis. They are doing what we call environmental audits, and that's a major part of their role.

We've also had the compliance reports, which is kind of an audit. Are companies complying? The standards are there, and they are assessing whether or not companies are complying, and I would think there is a very high compliance rating. We expect another report out in mid-July, within ten or 12 days, which will give us the second year, the second full compliance report. That will be kind of an environmental audit.

[3:45]

Having studied, with the assistance of KPMG -- it was an industry-government study, again . . . . What we do know is that there were costs attributed to the code, and there are environmental benefits of the code -- soil preservation, water protection, riparian protection. All those things have been benefits but are very difficult to put a figure on. Suffice it to say that there were administration and planning costs identified that we were satisfied they were spinning their wheels on, producing duplicate information and so on.

You could argue indefinitely as to just what that cost is. We think, or industry themselves through the Forest Alliance, would argue that of the $12 the code was costing, these revisions might save as much as $300 million to $400 million, which is in the $4 or $5 range. It's not our figure; it's the figure put out by the Forest Alliance. So in a sense there was an audit of the costs, and we've taken steps to reduce that -- all of which will help industry.

If there are any incremental costs to the jobs and timber accord, and we don't know where they might be, there are certainly some offsets in it. There are advantages to industry there, and that's why this agreement is about carrots. There are a few sticks in it -- we always have sticks if we want to use them -- but this is more about carrots and less about sticks. There is some language in there that suggests that we will hold industry to the accord.

G. Wilson: I'm going to resist the temptation to draw the analogy between standing timber, sticks and the kind of practices we've had. The opportunity is just too great, but I am going to try to resist talking about sticks and/or carrots. I do want to know, with respect to the revisions that were tabled in this House, what prompted the minister to select what was selected if there was no audit done. Why were the sections chosen that were chosen, and on the basis of what information were those sections selected?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, we stuck to process, not standards, when we reviewed it. It was all process, and we looked at whether we could simplify the process. There was an extensive review started back in August, with a report to stakeholders in December and comments by January. That's the study Ken Baker did. It was reported out to the steering committee of the three ministries involved in the code, and on the basis of that, changes to the operational planning regulation were proposed. Some of it is in legislation, and we can debate some of that when we debate the legislation. It was really based on examining unnecessary process.

G. Wilson: The revisions to the code, then, were driven in large measure by industry requirements. The industry, in other words, has communicated its concerns with respect to process, and the code revisions were driven primarily because of industry requirements.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was broad consultation in the review of the operational planning regulation with various stakeholders -- truck loggers, major licensees, minor licensees, woodlot licence holders and environmental groups. I think that's about the extent. The report was made widely available for groups to comment on.

G. Wilson: That actually leads me right into the next question. To what extent were people outside the major forest companies talked to with respect to some of the difficulties they faced -- particularly as a result of the language of the code, which was quite discriminatory with respect to certain kinds of loggers? Truck loggers, I think, have found some serious difficulties with respect to the code. They had some

[ Page 5143 ]

very particular issues that they certainly brought forward at their convention. I know that the minister was there and heard them, yet I don't see within the revisions that there has been equal attention paid to the problems associated with the independent truck loggers as opposed to what is clearly a very well orchestrated and well-defined lobby that has come from the majors.

Let me say at this point that I don't take issue with some of the changes that are made. That's not my point. My point is that when looking at amendments to the code, I think we have to recognize -- and I don't know if the minster would agree with this -- that we are going to have to look sectorally within the industry at what that code does to particular players in the industry that might be quite different for another player.

We can't just do a broad-brush kind of change without recognizing that there are certain operators who will find, because of the nature of the timber they have access to -- low-grade timber or timber that is difficult with respect to access because of roads and steep slopes or because it's interior versus coast -- that there's a whole host of reasons why these things are very specific to particular sites.

I wonder if the minister would not agree that rather than look just at some broad-brushstroke changes, which is essentially what we've done -- and which once again is going to benefit major forest companies over and above the small operators -- we should have looked at two things. One is differential changes with respect to sectoral operations within the industry, and a second one is to recognize that there has to be some modification or change with respect to stumpage for people who are involved in the industry.

They are now facing $102 a cubic metre to harvest timber that they can't sell for more than $65 at market. These people aren't going to go to work; they're out of business. These are all small operators, and most of them are community-based operators. They need the assistance of government to give them greater security in terms of their ability to make some money.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're dealing with the jobs and timber accord, and we're now moving off that a bit. I just want to say that we've approached sectors that appear to have a problem with forest policy, and we've engaged them. Whether it's the marine log salvagers, the woodlot owners or the small business sector, we've given them an opportunity to be consulted. The main thrust of the jobs and timber accord was to take those people who had the major amount of timber in the province and bring them along to a point where they're prepared to create more employment and contribute to other sectors.

With respect to the code changes, we extensively consulted with the truck loggers, who were the example you met. There were at least half a dozen meetings with the truck loggers to deal with their concerns. Some of the proposed changes to the code that are in the Forests Statutes Amendment Act directly relate to their concerns and also to those of woodlot owners and other small business people.

It's not just the truck loggers as an organization. The other independent logging agencies have had concerns. They've raised the issue, for example, of vicarious liability. We have chosen, through the code, to separate out areas where they're at fault and areas where they're not at fault, and those are major changes that go a long way. I can just say to you that having been in Terrace where the mood isn't that great among people who are out of work, people would stand up -- not friends of the government -- and say that they appreciate the changes we've made to the code.

I would submit to you that while industry also benefits, the major licensees -- the people doing the work, the subcontractors -- also benefit from a simplified code. They have fewer hoops to jump through, and they'll be put back to work more easily through our efforts. We intend to get more wood ahead so we're not jamming people through lurch logging at the coast or in the interior and forcing long layoffs. We expect to extend the work season for loggers because we expect to have more permits out. So in the area in which they can work, there are more permits, and the area in which they can do licensed work is much more extensive.

G. Wilson: I've got just a few more questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask them. They relate to the accord, but they do shift a bit.

We have, I think, a very real opportunity to expand revenue -- not only revenue to government but the flow of revenue provincially -- if there is an honest commitment to put value-added manufacturing in place in British Columbia, something that is outside what we might see as simply shifting timber generally considered as part of the small business program or 16.1 sales into value-added mills.

I'm talking about a commitment with respect to making a significant amount of timber available on a competitive log market -- that's the key: on a competitive log market -- to be able to make sure that people are able to bid that timber, because they know they can make a greater degree of return per cubic metre of timber harvested if they put it into value-added production than they can if it goes into a standard mill.

One of the areas in which we can greatly benefit from that is the salvage industry. I appreciate the meetings we've had with the minister. I appreciate the fact that at least on Vancouver Island the log salvage people have come together and are now starting to work. The minister has been most forthcoming, and I appreciate that. But even today we do not place a high enough priority with respect to access to and availability of personnel within the ministry to deal with salvage applications.

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not there has been a change in the commitment with respect to direct sales to salvage loggers; that is, have instructions been provided to field workers that say that an individual who now finds timber available and who makes an application for a direct sale cannot get it? Because the small operators -- those people that are requesting under 2,000 cubic metres of wood -- have to go through a competitive bidding process, but if the direct sale is part of a larger commitment of timber supply, the larger operators are able to fast-track and get direct sales.

Has this been a change in the commitment of the ministry? Are these small independent guys that are trying to go out there and pick up some small salvage logs, which they've essentially found . . . ? They see that it's there, and they've taken people out to demonstrate it. I can think of one example where a guy has to walk a mile into the bush to get it, because you've deactivated the road. Nevertheless, it's there. Now he's being told that this has got to go to a competitive bid. I mean, we're talking about a handful of logs here; we're not talking about a huge sale.

Right down the road there's a larger forest company -- in fact, it's one of the major forest companies -- that has a surrogate bidder going in there getting a direct sale on 2,000 cubic metres. Why is there that differentiation? Is that policy, or is that just the whim of who happens to be in the field office at the time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On your last question first, it could well be that what you call the surrogate bidder may be

work-

[ Page 5144 ]

ing on the licensee's chart. We've been asking licensees to take care of salvage, because they're the licensed operators. Rather than leave salvage and less valuable wood, they should take it out or make it available to salvage logging.

We are proposing changes to allow the lift to go from 300 to 500 cubic metres as the norm. The 2,000 is the limit, but the norm has been 300. We propose to lift that, and that's in the legislation.

Through the eight pilots that we've been dealing with under the salvage logging program, we are experimenting with the finder's licence. If you find it, you put it on a map and you get the access to it. It's a way of simplifying things so we don't have to go to a competitive bid. In a sense, the competition is that the person who finds it first and registers the sale gets a crack at it. So we're experimenting with that.

What we're also doing to assist salvagers is simplifying the forest development plans. They don't have to go into the great detail in a forest development plan that we would normally expect for full harvesting. The salvage will have a simplified forest development plan, and somebody will be able to propose that. We are going to be evaluating the salvage pilots with an attempt to try to expedite the sales.

With respect to additional staff and so on, we don't have any additional staff to allocate to that, although we have dedicated some staff to try to make sure that the pilots work and are carried out properly. We found in one case that it took 5.5 personnel to get out 25,000 cubic metres, and nobody can afford that. So we've got to find new ways of doing that -- although if the employment factor is great, it may be a decent investment. Those are problems we're trying to iron out as we get the reports in from the eight salvage pilots.

[4:00]

I would just suggest to you that we are making some changes that we feel comfortable making, and we will probably make more as we get the reports evaluated.

G. Wilson: I just have a very brief comment on that, and then I'll move to another topic.

It seems to me that we really have failed in what I think our commitment should be. I don't mean this by way of a direct or personal criticism of the minister, but I think that successive governments -- not only this one but the one before it and the one before that and the one before that -- have failed in their commitment to make sure that the public forests, the Crown forests . . . . I'm not talking about private land or sales of companies on private land. That's what's going on.

Of course, American interests are picking up British Columbia forest land as quickly as possible, because it's a good investment for them. The only place that anybody's making any money on right now is on private forest land, it would seem.

I'm saying that we've failed in our commitment to look at significant tenure reform.

I think that when you deal with the salvage loggers and when you deal with the value-added groups, the reman, and look at the jobs and timber accord and all of those sorts of adjustments that we're trying to make to the industry, we don't accept, I don't think -- and I'd like the minister's comment on that -- that the real nuts and bolts bottom line here, if we're going to get this industry running in a more cost-effective and more efficient way that's going to generate not only jobs but greater revenue flow both to government and to the economy, is to implement significant tenure reform that eliminates vertical integration of the industry, from the harvest to the export of finished product, and eliminate the opportunity for the majors to literally control who goes to work in the woods and who doesn't.

And that's what's going on.

Just by way of a short digression, let me quote again from the 1950s and H.R. MacMillan on this one point, just to show that we really haven't progressed very far. He says:

"There is no apparent good and sufficient reason why any of the large companies should be aided by government policies to grow bigger at the expense of the smaller. Our forest industry is healthier if it consists of as many independent units as can be supported."

I think that statement is as valid, if not more valid, today than when he made it. It's ironic that his company became one of the major forest giants.

It is important for us to recognize that the key to success is in changing tenure, so that British Columbians living and working in British Columbia with good, creative, innovative ideas for turning standing timber into major, high-value products have an opportunity to get that timber on an open, competitive log market.

I don't know why it is that we have consistently rejected that notion, save and except for the fact that this kind of thing -- a jobs and timber accord, which is struck between the major forest companies and government -- has prohibited us from looking at that most vital and most necessary amendment to the way we practise forestry. I'd like to hear the minister's response to that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There will be an open competitive market for the sawn fibre that's going to be made available to the remanufacturers.

You speak about an open log market. Let me just say that I don't believe there's consensus in British Columbia around tenure reform. I think there was consensus that they didn't want more of the forest licences turned over to TFLs on a wholesale basis; there seemed to be some kind of consensus around that one. Dave Parker tried that.

Right now, what you're suggesting sounds great: to create this big log market and let the logs flow to whoever pays the highest price. But I would submit to you that when that happens, more logs, not less, will flow out of Port Hardy and Port McNeill down to the lower mainland. Not always, but some of it might flow back. The problem is that you're putting communities in jeopardy, because the transition would be massive as you move to a wide-open log market.

The tenure system now is specifically to try to tie licences to a commitment to run manufacturing facilities on a year-round basis. You can say: "Well, they'll survive; they'll just buy it on the open market." I would suggest to you that that's very dangerous. If you stand on the streets of Williams Lake or Quesnel and say, "We're going to take these licences away from these majors, we're going to create a log market, and we're going to let the logs flow," I can tell you that the little bit of log market that we have by putting the 16.1 sales that are not targeted to communities that are there to flow . . . .

If you don't have as much flowing back into a community as flows out, they say: "We want those resources here to provide employment in these communities." I don't know any other way than by having a tenure system that ties the log supply to job creation. So I do admit that some market is good, and we have a market of logs -- 15 percent or so of the logs are on the market. We expect a lot of sawn fibre to be on the market. So we will have the equivalent of a lumber market more freely flowing.

I would submit to you that by virtually doubling the supply to the independent reman sector, that's enough to

[ Page 5145 ]

create thousands more jobs, and we'll see if there's uptake. If there's still demand after that so that we can remanufacture and create more jobs here, I'm sure we'll look at it, because there's no end to the number of jobs we'd like to create out of the forest industry.

G. Wilson: I'm not going to get too far down this path, because we could get into a long and maybe even productive philosophical debate. But I do want to counter what the minister suggests. I find it ironic in the extreme that the people who have put together this kind of package, who are the senior CEOs from the major forest companies, are the strongest, staunchest, most vocal, most vociferous defenders of free enterprise in every

section except their industry, because they've got it pretty cosy there. They don't have to have free enterprise in the forest sector, because they've got tenure locked up with long-term supply.

When it comes to negotiating the softwood lumber deal with the Americans, there's a handful of companies that benefit with respect to tariff-free export. But what about the other guys who operate in British Columbia, who weren't part of those people who, based on historic record, could demonstrate export supply and therefore get tariff-free status?

I know that some of my critics are going to say: "The only reason he's mad is because of the

section here that says, 'Play ball with the NDP, but we're really supporting the Liberals,' and his political party wasn't named in this document." I want to put that thought aside. It wasn't that they didn't put my party in here; I would have been just as vociferous in this if they had. And they had a chance; they had that opportunity, and they didn't do it. They blew it.

Anyway, the point is a free-market system -- an open and competitive log market. It's not for all timber, obviously, because there's community-based forestry, there's small business opportunity, there are people that are going to be involved with private forest lands and those sorts of things -- but a much, much greater percentage in free enterprise.

If the major companies -- the staunchest defenders of free enterprise in every sector except theirs -- think that they can compete with small value-added manufacturers, even salvage loggers who are picking up and putting greater value to timber that they were going to burn in the bush, in some cases . . . . If they can compete and put value to that timber, they will have that supply. But if they cannot -- and I submit that they can't, because they don't have to -- then we will continue to have that.

I reject that we're going to have more jobs leaving Port Hardy and Port McNeill and Powell River, because I've seen the hardship that people involved in small forest-dependent enterprise in those communities are suffering right now. And I just don't believe the minister when he says -- although I think he says so with all full, good intention, and I think that certainly the minister believes -- that somehow there will be an open sawn-lumber market that will allow an opportunity for value-added mills to get access.

I can tell you that my experience has demonstrated -- and in another forum I'd be happy to sit down with the minister and prove -- that the major forest companies are manipulating right now where that timber can go, to what mills and where that sawn lumber must be sold in terms of the market. That's what is going on. It's not a competitive market at all, because they simply have too great a control over supply.

With that, I've made my comments on the record, and I'm going to ask one last question to do with whistle-blowing legislation for scalers. Scalers are not included in legislation that protects workers when they find that false scales are being done, if they report those to the powers that be. The minister well knows that there is legislation that protects a whole series of workers in the industry, that says that you cannot discriminate against an individual, or that a company cannot fire somebody because they report goings-on that deserve to be reported.

Unless they're in some of the major companies that have their own, by contract now, most scalers are hired into a site. If an individual witnesses that there are some scales that don't add up or that there are some problems associated with scaling . . . . Keep in mind that the minister knows that that is the record we go by in terms of what's owed and who pays and how much. If they find that they wish to report scales that are inaccurate -- maybe even deliberately so -- their chances of getting another job are pretty slim.

Therefore the contractors, by and large, will discourage that kind of reporting, because they don't want to be known as a company that causes difficulty for the company that they're scaling.

The way to protect them is to amend legislation to include scalers in a whole list of forest workers who are protected by that whistle-blowing legislation. I wonder if the minister might comment on whether or not he's proposing to do that, and if so, when we can expect to see that done.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are seven check scales per scaler, annually. There is virtually no difference between the scales of what the check scalers are doing and what the regular contract scalers are doing, so there's very little error. We just had a report from the auditor general; I'm sure the member has it. We've gone through it. The auditor general looked at our revenue scaling system and suggested a number of changes. It has not been suggested that we need this. I acknowledge that there may be an interest in this in some quarters. I know of your long-term interest in that.

Interestingly enough, I met with the scalers a few weeks ago, and this was not on the top of their list. In fact, they didn't mention it to me, which is fair enough. I should go back and ask them. But I had a very short visit and I said, "What are your most important policy issues that you think I should deal with?" and this wasn't one of them. I'd be happy to check to see what the history is there, but I can assure you that if the auditor general saw a need to do it and recommended it, we'd be pleased to implement that. But I'll take that under advisement.

I don't know what else I can say to you. I would try to get a response back to you if there's more detail that I can provide, but certainly our scalers should be protected. If they report something amiss, they shouldn't be penalized by not being able to be hired somewhere. Our view is that the check scaling that we do reveals that there is minimal error in the scales that they do. We've had that verified by the auditor general, so that's my response.

G. Wilson: I'm not going to take up too much more time on this at this time. But I would say that the ministry has been made aware of this issue. I have actually sent material, and I know the minister knows that I have a concern with respect to this.

Check scales are well and good, but I'm told by people in the industry that it's often . . . . People know when the checker is coming and there are other operations where issues are not correct. In fact, there is a case that the minister is well aware of, in which there is a sizeable amount of timber scaled with a

[ Page 5146 ]

scaling number that doesn't even exist; it's a number that doesn't belong to anybody. The minister is aware of that, because that's material that the assistant deputy minister has been dealing with.

So there are problems out there, and it seems to me that for those people who are working, we need to have . . . . I not only met with the scalers, I met with the owners of companies who contract scalers. In those cases, the individuals at that meeting unanimously said that they would prefer it if they were protected under the legislation that is provided other workers within the industry. It's interesting that in the legislation it explicitly excludes them. By virtue of them not being included, they are therefore excluded. If the minister can commit that we will work on this, I think that would be to everybody's benefit.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will look into it further. The senior officials I have with me here weren't aware of your letters to the ministry, so I've asked them to look into it. I know you did tell me you wrote, and I expected we would have an up-to-date note on what's happening on the issue. But I'll undertake to get that.

G. Wilson: I'll forward my file again, rather than you doing a long paper chase. I've got the material, I can make sure that it's reactivated, and we can get this back on the front burner. With that, I appreciate the opportunity afforded me by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate.

T. Nebbeling: In the approach to getting to the meat and potatoes of the jobs and timber accord, we have so far been talking primarily about all the principles that will guide the jobs and timber accord to produce the ultimate objective of creating 21,000 new jobs. We have spent a fair amount of time not agreeing with each other about certain components of the jobs and timber accord that to observers look quite innocent but that actually have more of a message behind the innocence. I used the jobs advocate position as an example.

I think it is now time for me to go into the actual components that will in time create the 21,000 new jobs -- or 22,400, as the minister corrected me yesterday. The area that is of most serious concern to me -- and I think others have expressed the same concern -- is the 5,000 jobs which will be managed by the job agency. The reason that this particular objective of 5,000 new jobs is of concern to me is that it will enter an area where traditionally thousands and thousands of people have been making a living -- particularly non-union workers, part-time workers and young students.

I have some artist friends who annually work three or four months in the silviculture industry and make enough to feed themselves, provide shelter and keep themselves alive to pursue their artistic aspirations.

So the silviculture industry has always been a bit of an anomaly when it comes to the forest industry. It is a segment that has bucked the trend a little bit. Lots of the traditional jobs are much more structured, such as the harvest and manufacturing sectors. The land-based management area has created a lot of opportunities for people who either are professionally involved with silviculture activities year-round or are, like I said before, in the big army of students who get involved in that sector.

Having watched this whole transition of FRBC, with its target approach -- there is so much money annually; this year we will support this project, and next year we will support that project . . . . Having seen the shift to a more results-oriented type of land-based management strategy, I agree with the principle. But what has happened is that the people in the silviculture industry -- the 18,000 workers . . . .

About a year ago, when this government introduced Bill 12, which laid the foundation to legally create a work agency, the silviculture industry really analyzed very carefully the workers in the silviculture industry and what the potential consequences could be of having a job agency managed by the IWA. Over the last year I have spoken on many occasions with people from the industry who have kind of warned me of what they feared would happen.

At the same time, they also knew that the representatives of the industry were talking to the ministry as well, trying to find a level of comfort -- how they could ensure that in the long run, once the government announced this job target of 21,000 new jobs, the existing workers would not stand on the side while we went towards a strategy where existing silviculture jobs would be eliminated in order to create new unionized silviculture jobs.

So I know through discussions with the ministry that the silviculture industry has expressed its concern. They have expressed their doubt on the viability of seeing a whole new army of workers being created that will do work that has been done by the traditional industry -- and very effectively, to the satisfaction of everybody, I believe. Having now seen the jobs and timber accord including a new direction on how the new land-based management will take place, I think the fears and concern of the 18,000 workers have come to fruition and proven to be justified.

One of the strongest areas where the so-called new jobs will be created is indeed in the land-based objectives. I would like to spend some time in detail on, first of all, how the fear that the industry has expressed so many times can be allayed. In part, I will speak on that because the minister and the Premier have from time to time have assured us that there is no reason for fear and no reason that there will not be work available for these workers in spite of 5,000 traditionally being funded by the government -- be it through the Ministry of Forests or Forest Renewal B.C.

The fear has always been talked away: "You don't have to worry. The jobs will be there for you. Your industry can survive. Your industry will survive. We can work together hand in hand."

We know, of course, that in the last year there have been many, many companies involved in the silviculture industry that have gone under, not because they didn't want to work but because somehow the funding dried up -- I don't know for what reason. We may be able to talk a little bit about why that happened. Many of these company owners have written to us and to the minister, saying: "I used to employ 50 people. I now have eight people. As a consequence, I can't provide the community-based jobs that we used to provide." There's clearly something happening that is eliminating the traditional silviculture worker.

So can the minister answer my first question: is there within the Ministry of Forests real statistics on the silviculture industry -- its permanent job numbers and its perceived part-time job numbers? Does the minister have that information available?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me start by saying that there are companies that will go out of business. They fail; they choose to go out of business; new ones start. I don't believe I've received a letter from a company that's gone out of business.

[ Page 5147 ]

They would be fools to write to you; you can't do anything about it. So they should have written to me. If you've got letters from silviculture people who have gone out of business, explaining their reasons, I would really be happy to see them.

Let me explain a little bit about silviculture funding. In '81-82, the total spent in the province was $76 million. It went up in the next year to $93 million, down to $87 million, up to $107 million, up to $131 million -- we're at '85-86 -- up to $136 million, up to $154 million in '87-88, up to $217 million, up to $274 million, up to $310 million, again up to $354 million in '91-92, down to $333 million, back up again to $353 million in '93-94, down an insignificant $2 million to $351 million in '94-95, down to $319 million in '95-96. My guess is that the accuracy of these figures . . . .

We haven't got all the accounting in, but it was down to $302 million, up to $323 million again in this year. So over the space of 12 to 14 years, it's gone from $76 million to $323 million. There's lots of people who cycle through that industry; by its nature, a lot of people cycle through it.

You make these statements, and you ask for facts. We asked the silviculture industry, and they didn't have a clue. They didn't have a clue how many people there were. What did they do? What was the first thing they did? "We want money for a study." The study has just been completed; we're reviewing it. They say 12,000 employees based on 220 days -- not 18,000 but 12,000.

We're saying to you that the basic mainstay of their work -- $150 million of industry silviculture -- is committed this year. It's been $150 million for the last four years; before that it was $118 million. So there's been quite a bit of growth in the industry generally. There's going to be more money spent on silviculture this year.

So the trick is -- and I make no apology for it -- that we have not designed the accord for students or artists. I think you mentioned you have an artist friend who likes to work four months. That's fine; that's their choice. That's not our primary concern in this. Our concern is to respond to the kind of criticisms we've heard where people say we've gone from virtually full-time, seasonal work -- which much of the industry has been -- to try to get some security there for families. Family-supporting jobs mean good wages, not taking your chances with low-bid policies, etc., etc.

I think we've canvassed this issue. We've said that the basic silviculture is there, hasn't changed, won't be affected by this accord. But the enhanced forestry? Yes, there will be competition from those people who are new, those people who have been in the business for awhile in basic silviculture, who maybe got their feet wet in enhanced silviculture that companies were doing. Companies can still hire them to do some of their own work. But the work done with public taxpayers' dollars, with FRBC dollars, we expect to be full-time as near as we can achieve -- full-time jobs, year-round. And they're there for displaced forest workers.

Who are displaced forest workers? Both union and non-union, coast and interior, loggers, manufacturers, silviculture workers, enhanced silviculture workers -- the whole gamut. Everybody will qualify. But it's true that we are asking that the work be organized as much as possible on a year-round basis, that safety be provided for. I would remind you that if there is one criticism of that industry, it's that the safety record isn't that great in the silviculture contracting business. We have to do a better job there. And we expect to do that by making sure people are trained, that they have adequate housing.

I could read you letters that I've received from people who welcome this initiative so that they might be better organized into full-time crews that have training and certification -- that sort of thing, so that they are going into good working conditions.

The other side of it -- and what you've heard from -- is silviculture contractors, for the most part, who stand to make a profit by hiring people for piecework. We're saying: "The accord isn't about that. The accord's about more full-time work."

We're proud. That's the difference between that side, driven by bottom-line competition to the point where people aren't being paid a decent wage, and us on this side, who are prepared to direct jobs to communities so that they're full-time and so that people can make a decent, family-supporting wage.

[4:30]

T. Nebbeling: I promise you I will not ask all the questions that that particular answer has caused me to write down, because it would be about 30 questions. I will try to be selective.

First of all, when the minister ran down the whole list of expenses, I was very impressed. Clearly, this is an industry that indeed was growing; this is an industry that showed prosperity, from $76 million in the early days to $323 million -- the last number. That's a good sign. I don't know why the minister was trying to say it as if it were a horrible track record that this industry has been able to not only sustain itself on a level of expenditure but grow. Let's face it -- to a large extent it's the private sector that puts these dollars in there.

It is the companies that provide the funding for the government to pay for these silviculture activities. I see that as an excellent track record of the silviculture industry, the way the minister gave me the numbers.

I would like quickly to ask the minister . . . . He stated that the forest jobs commissioner, I believe, was involved in doing a study on the state of affairs in the silviculture industry, that he has that report and that it's under review right now. Two questions: number one, when did that review start? When was this report released by the person who compiled the information to get a clear picture of what the silviculture industry means to British Columbia today, and how many people have been working on that? Number two, would the minister share that report with us?

The reason I'm asking this is that in the past we have been politically in battles where after the battle was over -- and I talk in particular about the last election -- the government won the election with a small margin of members, not votes. You know, they won, so they're the government, but they won primarily because a lot of promises were made by the government. A lot of promises were made by the Premier, and wherever the Premier went, it was prosperity that he delivered, accompanied by big bags of money and guarantees that nobody had to worry about their future because with the NDP they were all going to be happy, hunky-dory, fine.

That also applied to the forest industry. We know very well that the moment the government was elected, the Ministry of Forests had to release a study that was done well in advance of the election. I believe it was actually presented to the government on February 22, 1996. That study clearly showed that all the promises that the Premier was making, all the promises the minister was making, were just not going to happen. Rather than bringing messages of prosperity, if the minister had had the guts to release that study on what was happening in the industry, it would have shown that in the

[ Page 5148 ]

lower mainland alone 4,000 jobs would have been in jeopardy. I've got the study here. I'm going to use it later on when we talk about the jobs that will be lost in this province because of the management of the forest industry by this government and how that will balance out against the so-called 21,000 new jobs.

The point I'm making is that there are studies that the government has. I believe that if we have a debate on industry components and if these studies are available, the minister should truly make these studies available. So I'm asking if I can indeed have the privilege of a copy of that study so that I can look at it as well and see some of the conclusions that the minister may have derived from that study when he talked about some of the elements that the silviculture workers represent in the total forest industry. Those are the two questions.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not in the practice of giving out draft reports, because they may have errors in them, and they need to be checked. It's standard practice. I assure you that to release a draft report would be irresponsible. The report we're talking about has been done for the silviculture contractors with funding from FRBC, and it's a profile of the industry. When it has gone through the due diligence that it has when it's accepted as a report, it will be made available.

T. Nebbeling: About the policy of not giving reports out in draft, like my colleague just mentioned, we have a matter of privilege being discussed right now. Bill 44 was handed over in draft form to groups that were not necessarily here in the House. So that policy doesn't seem to apply to all ministries. It is unfortunate, because if the minister had been willing to give it, even in draft form, that would have meant that that recipient, when he received it, would have known that there is a potential for changes. That's why we put "draft" on it.

That would still have given me an opportunity to analyze what is truly happening in the industry, so that I would not to have to second-guess, as the minister believes I have to, because of the industry's lack of knowledge about their own industry. So not having that draft study available to myself, I just have to go with what I have learned by talking to a large number of people. I will have to go with what I have read. I will have to go with the data that I have been able to collect over the last little while.

If the data or the knowledge I have is in conflict with what the minister has in his draft report, so be it; he will be able to correct me, then.

I do believe that the silviculture industry is a non-union industry. I think I would want everybody to remember that: it is a non-union industry. I believe that non-union industry has done a tremendous job, very often under very difficult circumstances, because going in the bush, planting trees and that kind of work is not an easy job. Considering the investment that has been made over the years in the industry and the growth of the investment, I think the silviculture industry has done well, and I think the forest companies have done well.

So why is it so necessary to basically eliminate the o