[ Page 5287 ]

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in Committee A, and in Committee B, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee in Supply B; I. Waddell in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: This afternoon, prior to the recess, we started to look at the small business forest enterprise program and how that program has really been a tool for many young entrepreneurially minded people working in the forest industry or in the reman industry to create opportunities whereby they could become self-sufficient and self-employed -- and hopefully, I suppose, as a consequence of that, be in a position where they would start employing people. For that reason -- now that I have a little bit of background on how the program was started, some of the criteria and objectives -- I must say that this is an excellent program. There have been many changes over the years, and with the jobs and timber accord, of course, the data will again be changed as to how the forest sector will do with the small business forest enterprise program.

We've gone over some of the elements, although we have been very brief in touching on some of the elements. I would now like to go into a little bit more detail on what is actually happening with jobs, where these jobs are and where the opportunities are. Maybe the minister can help me by starting off explaining to me how many are employed through the small business forest enterprise program and where these jobs are allocated. Is it in the market logging sector? Is it in the reman sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't track aggregate data on employment in any great detail; we rely on some of the larger surveys that have been made. But we listen to the small business sector. We know that they feel they can use more fibre -- and in doing so, because there's a larger multiplier with the value-added sector, we have a sense of the jobs that can be created. In the jobs and timber accord, we picked a figure that we thought was reasonable, that was conservative and that was attainable. We expect the jobs advocate will be looking in some detail at this and tracking more closely than we have to this point in time.

T. Nebbeling: That's obviously a surprising answer, considering that the minister and the jobs and timber accord teams have determined that there is room for 5,000 additional places in that industry -- with some help from the government, with some help from more fibre. In order to make a statement like that, I would suggest that there has to be a number today in the government, especially when it comes to the reman sector, that will be used as the base to evaluate down the road whether or not the 5,000 jobs have indeed been created. There must be a specific number somewhere in the system, because if we look at the jobs and timber accord, it's broken down by sectors.

The various sectors have been allocated a number of new opportunities to be created. Money is channelled towards these sectors. If we take the land-based management objective of 5,000 new jobs, we know how many people are working on that land base. We know how the money can be used to enhance opportunities. But there is a base.

If we look at the majors, who are going to be responsible for an investment of $100 million and who, through that $100 million, will indeed create another 2,000 jobs, there's a target there. So we know how many people are working in that sector. In order to do the same with the reman in particular, because it is an important component of the whole jobs and timber accord, the value-added principle will indeed create new opportunities that have not been here in this province. That added value will create these 5,000 jobs. That makes a very important component, and I would really suggest that somewhere there must be a base figure that the minister can use.

The Premier announced the jobs and timber accord and based the job situation today in this province at 85,000 workers in the forest industry, including reman. We have argued with that number. We do not believe that that is a correct number. We believe, because of data, that the number is higher, but the Premier has selectively chosen 85,000 people. We have to go along with that at this point, but I would suggest that somewhere there must be a breakdown of how these 85,000 people were being counted together. It cannot just be that 85,000 people are working in the forestry industry. Where they are, God knows. There must be a way of doing that.

[6:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I did say to the member that there are all kinds of ways of calculating. There is no one way, so it's a matter of making judgments based on the various sources of information.

There has been one study done for the industry by J.H. Fraser and Associates. It's called "A Snapshot of the B.C. Value-Added Industry." Their information is that the value-added sector employs in excess of 12,000 people, whereas Price Waterhouse figures suggest that the value-added component is about 13,000. So there's one that says 12,000 and one that says 13,000. But the same study or same report by Price Waterhouse would suggest that in the lumbering area, there are 23,700. This totals 99,000 if you use Price Waterhouse. So we know there are various ways of calculating things. Of the 23,700 in lumber, that includes employees who are engaged in value-added manufacturing at primary sawmill locations.

So there are two indicators of how many we have: there are 12,000 and then 13,000. Then there's a few more that are attached to the primaries, which in most cases are in the hands of the major licensees.

[ Page 5288 ]

T. Nebbeling: It's actually funny, this problem of having different sources, different numbers, as is the case here in the value-added sector. One study says 12,000; another says 13,000 and some more people working for the majors in the mills. We have the same problem with the whole timber accord. The government says there are 85,000 people employed today, which we use as our target data to evaluate in five years if we were successful or not. We on this side, using similar data based on similar principles, have come up with 105,000 people employed. That 105,000 is not at all out of line with the Price Waterhouse studies of last year. They're a bit higher, but then a year has gone by, and that is a year in which the government claims it has created 8,500 jobs. Other studies say that 5,500 jobs are gone from this province. So the point I'm making is that whatever number the minister takes, at the end of the day all the numbers better add up to 85,000. That is the number that the government says is employed; every other study disclaims that. I can't change the mind of the minister or the Premier to accept that the number is incorrect.

In the value-added industry, there's a discrepancy between different sources. Well, so be it. It is from 12,000 to 13,000 -- let's say 12,500. If that is the number, then we have something that we can work with. That's what I want to know for now, and during the estimates I will use that number again to make some points. Of course, it's not only the value-added sector that makes up the small business forest enterprise program; there are other components as well. I would like to hear from the minister how many people are working in the other components.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Earlier in the estimates debates we got into the discussion of what the base is and so on. We said we were using one base, used not by the government of British Columbia but by the government of Canada, and that's the survey of employment, payroll and hours. While Statistics Canada did have a problem earlier this year with that data for December '96 and January '97 -- apparently this problem inflated the estimate of the total Canadian new jobs for these months -- now StatsCan has corrected the problem and has apologized for the error. So neither the error nor its correction made any real difference to the SEPH estimates of British Columbia's forest sector employment.

We have admitted that there is a range here, depending on how you calculate it, and we have chosen, with the advice of many of the partners in forest sector strategy planning, to go with the survey of employment, payroll and hours. That particular set of statistics doesn't break down value-added from other kinds of manufacturing, so we go to other sources to try to estimate the number of employees.

I've told the member that we are attempting to double the amount of fibre available to the value-added sector, the reman sector. If there are 12,000 or 13,000 people employed there, plus some more at primary breakdowns, then we can expect to achieve the objective we've set. As I have said, it is a conservative estimate that we've set.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to argue about which study is correct or which study is not correct. The reason I'm not going to argue about it is that it's not winnable; it's a losing objective. We have agreed to disagree, bottom line. So what I'm now asking is something that the minister should be able to do when we talk about the small business forest enterprise program, and that is: identify how many people are working in that sector.

I cannot understand how the jobs and timber accord. . . . This is going to cost the taxpayers of this province well in excess of $1.5 billion -- close to $2 billion -- and is completely based on one principle -- that is, creating new jobs. I cannot understand how the minister can say: "We do not know, if we allocate 5,000 jobs to one sector of the forest industry, where to compare it to." There has to be a number within the ministry that says: "Today there are 12,000 workers in the manufacturing-reman industry." If I have that number. . . . I'm not going to pursue it. That's fine. The same should go for how many people are working under the category 1 grouping. There must be a number there where we can say: "Okay, that particular group is going to create 1,500 new jobs over the next five years. So here's the number." Five years from now, we can look at the total number and say: "Hey, we achieved our goal or we missed our goal or we exceeded our goal. We did better -- great."

So I'll ask one more time, and then I'll take it that the minister is not able to give me the number. That would be a problem in giving me any sense of credence with the whole jobs and timber accord, besides what has already been said. What are the employment numbers for category 1? With the value-added, I'll take the 13,000 that he mentioned earlier.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We know how many people are registered in the small business program, and that's 2,100. But we don't know how many they employ.

T. Nebbeling: What was the number?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are 2,100 registrants in the small business program, but as I said, we don't know how many they employ.

T. Nebbeling: Is that category 1?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That would be the whole program, and that would be section 16, category 1 and category 2, and what has been section 16.1, the value-added. So most of them would be contract loggers.

T. Nebbeling: I have 2,200 in category 1 and 508 in category 2, adding up to 2,769 in section 16 according to your own papers. And I'm not even talking about section 16.1, which is reman. I think the numbers we are getting are rather on the low side.

That is not out of line with what we saw when the jobs and timber accord was presented. Numbers were given to us that clearly were lower than what we believe reflects reality. This is a good example. I've got the papers here: small business forest enterprise program, category 1 is 2,261; category 2 is 508. So that's about 600 more jobs than the minister says, which represents about 25 percent. So 25 percent of 85,000, if we add that onto it, would also make up about 21,000 jobs.

Maybe we should look at the undervaluation of jobs, really, in the industry and try to get it up to a level where papers from the ministry show there really are. Having said that, maybe the minister wants to respond to that.

The Chair: I'll ask the minister if he wants to respond. Can I just say to the member. . . ? I couldn't hear your figures there. You're sort of leaning down on them. If you could pull them up so we can hear them in the mike, if you wouldn't mind, it will help Hansard, too. Now I'll ask the minister if he heard them. Could he respond?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I heard the numbers. When I said 2,100, I meant there were approximately 2,100 registrants. 

[ Page 5289 ]

That's not employees; that's people who are registered in the program who are eligible to bid. You picked up a figure of 2,200. I didn't mean that to be an employee number; I said we don't track how many employees they have.

Our database needs to be better. We think the timber jobs advocate and the resource jobs commissioners should do that. But it's very expensive to establish a new database. That's why, when we discussed it all, we agreed with the industry advisers who we are working with, the industry partners, to take something that would probably remain constant and that we could reflect back upon three or four years from now.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. If you want to see the paper, I'll show it to you.

The Chair: No, I just want to hear them, that's all.

T. Nebbeling: Yeah, but I've held it in front of the microphone.

Obviously there has to be some more work done in order to establish the real jobs that are available today in that industry, in order to be able to say five years from now yes, we did achieve the goals -- or not. I'm not going to stick on the numbers, because we have talked about it before. I've got a feeling that in the next couple of weeks, when we get through this whole program and we touch all the other elements that we still haven't done -- Forest Practices Code, Forest Practices Code impact on timber supply, status of code implementation, managed private forest land, timber supply review, protected-areas strategy, impact of timber supply, economic impact to forest communities. . . . The list goes on and finishes off with. . .

An Hon. Member: Want me to copy the page for you?

T. Nebbeling: . . .Forest Renewal B.C. No, no, we don't give copies. So as the minister can see, so far we've only touched four of the 22 items plus, then, Forest Renewal.

I have no doubt that in this process we will indeed from time to time have a debate on what the real numbers are that are employed in the forest industry, when it comes to the jobs and timber accord, and what the numbers are that we get presented by the government.

[7:00]

Again, that leads people to be suspicious that the jobs and timber accord is a number game rather than a true objective of getting new jobs in the government. I feel very bad when I say that, because when we start playing number games with $2 billion of taxpayers' money in order to show the populace of British Columbia how great we are, what we can do to create new jobs, I'm concerned, to say the least, and skeptical even more.

Now that we have agreed not to talk about numbers any further at this stage, the minister earlier on alluded that fibre is going to be the enticement for the small business enterprise program, to get the industry to come on board and become part of creating these jobs. Fibre is the key to everything in this particular case.

But what I would like the minister to do for me now is give me a bit of an overview of how fibre that has been committed to the program since, say, 1990, after the 1988 period and then a working period, say, 1990. . . . How has fibre flowed through the small business forest enterprise program, in numbers? Have the objectives of the program been met, as far as the amount of harvesting?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These are round numbers. Under the market logging sale, which is section 16, category 1, that's just under five million cubic metres. TFLs provide wood to various categories, and that's just under one million, approximately 900,000. Small sawmills, that's category 2, are just under 900,000 cubic metres -- just under a million. Under section 16.1, which is the bid proposal sale for remanufacturers, now renumbered as section 21, that's 2.6 million cubic metres.

T. Nebbeling: Just to make sure that I've got the numbers right, now, that is 16.1 at 2.6 million cubic metres; the sawmill operators, 900,000 cubic metres; the market loggers, and I suppose that includes the log brokers, five million cubic metres. Then it was one million cubic metres, as well, and that was the. . . . Sorry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under the market logging it's less than five million. It's under five million; I don't have the exact figure here. The one you're missing is the TFL. The TFLs have to provide a portion of their timber into the small business program. That is just under a million; that's 900,000 cubic metres.

T. Nebbeling: The TFLs -- when you say they have to provide a million cubic metres to the program, is that in the form of giving up timber licences, harvestable area? Or is it cubic metres that they make available under the credit system to the reman sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The 900,000 cubic metres from TFLs constitutes the 5 percent takeback. When there was a 5 percent takeback in '88, it was across the timber supply areas and the TFLs. They have to make that available either on an area basis -- an area that will give the equivalent of 5 percent -- or it can be a volume. Five percent of the logs that they harvest are then made available.

T. Nebbeling: So, based on what we talked about before dinner, that is 5 percent plus 5 percent, then -- the original 5 percent. Or am I mistaken?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the most part, that is the original 5 percent takeback. But any additional 5 percent upon resale or sale would be put into here, as well.

T. Nebbeling: I just want to make sure that this reflected both components -- the '79 decision and then whatever came into the inventory since 1988 because of the 5 percent clawback. How does the 900,000 or one million cubic metres that come from the TFLs get distributed? Is there a market? Is it a set-price concept? How do the logs coming from the TFL get to the reman sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The procedure is that they provide us with cutting blocks, much as we do on the Crown land. The 

[ Page 5290 ]

TFL holders provide us cutting blocks, which we then market the way the market cutting blocks are reflected in the small business program on Crown land.

T. Nebbeling: So this wood is not automatically going to the remanufacturers, to the mills? Is that clear? Small market loggers can actually bid on this timber, but then they have to supply it to the reman industry. Maybe the minister can clarify that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When the takeback originally occurred in '88, there wasn't a lot of demand. Progressively, as demand has grown for remanufacturing, more and more of it is apportioned and sold directly to remanners, who probably hire the same loggers. . . . It is not sold to the market loggers directly.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I was asking this is that on the last trip up the coast, where I met with a fair number of small remanufacturers, their main complaint was that it was just a struggle to get hold of fibre. Under the jobs and timber accord, I see more fibre going there, and I think it's a great move. It was not clear to me if, because of the small business forest enterprise program, they were not getting to the fibre that was allocated to them or if it was committed to them if they could use it in the 1988 agreement or if there were other reasons that the fibre was not available.

Who decides to make the one million cubic metres come out of that TFL? Who decides where that goes? Is it the TFL rights owner who hires the market loggers and says to log off that portion and that you have to commit it to the reman sector? Is there another form of communication between these two sectors of the forest industry that makes it a smoother process, so to speak? How have the remans up to now been able to tap into what they were supposed to get to?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The actual mechanism to decide what is sold between the market logger and the value-added is really the district manager, based on his local knowledge of demand. How many people are coming in? What is the unsatisfied demand by remanners? That sort of thing. It has been approximately a third of the TFL wood that has gone to the value-added sector and two thirds to the market logger. That was the portion, and the reapportionment of that has been the district manager's decision.

In future, what has been agreed at the small business table with government is that 100 percent of the TFL wood will go to the reman sector, but it has to be ramped up. We can't start tomorrow with 100 percent going there, because you might not have the uptake. As the uptake is there, we'll get to 100 percent.

T. Nebbeling: I apologize if I'm a bit slow, but I'm trying to learn how the system works while I'm talking to the minister -- through the Chair, of course. I'm trying to learn the nuances of exactly what's happening.

The Chair: You can put questions on the order paper, too, and things like that.

T. Nebbeling: Well, this is the first time I have been in government. I'm a rookie. I don't have the experience of the Chair, who I respect for having been in the federal arena and who is now in the provincial arena, having brought a lot of knowledge with him. I'm off the estimates right now, but. . . . Over time, when I have been in government as long as the Chair has been, I will no doubt learn all these little tricks as well.

For the time being, however, I will use the humble tool of estimates and a process of learning and asking questions and, ultimately, of making a contribution to the forest-dependent communities out there that are looking for these answers. Not every question I ask comes from my mind; many of the questions I'm asking are because of the answers I get. I'm looking beyond the direct answer.

Many of my questions are also questions that people in the communities have asked me: "Why is this happening? Why is that happening?" I say: "Well, when I'm in estimates and have an opportunity to speak to the minister directly, and the minister with his staff has an opportunity to give the answers, keep watching."

People are watching, by the way. Like I said the other day, I'm getting phone calls from all over British Columbia from people saying: "I'm watching this whole process. Can you deal with this? Can you deal with that?" I'm going to use one of the days in estimates to ask all these questions that people have asked me on all kinds of subjects that are forestry-related and that people are either not happy about or have questions about and so on.

Having said that, I'd like to go back. Can the minister quickly confirm for me, so that I know I am talking about it right. . . ? We are talking about the credit system within the small business forest enterprise program. Or is the credit system something else altogether?

[7:15]

T. Nebbeling: I thought that the credit system was actually from 1994 to 1995, which is two years ago, and that the system that is now under consideration is the manufacturing diversification initiative and that that is just up for discussion, and they may replace the credit system.

The minister has given his instructions to the Chair. That's good.

I'm surprised to hear that the minister says the credit system has been there for only six months and that it is now no longer in place. Can the minister clarify if it is indeed six months?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's simply a matter. . . . When I'm ready to answer, I'll stand up. I may discuss things with my officials. I was just mentioning to the Chair that I may need some time on these highly technical questions to become prepared. Besides, I might not want to give the answers that my officials give, because they're not always right, you know.

An Hon. Member: Neither are you.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's right.

So '94-95 was the era in which we piloted. It was six months in that period when we piloted the program you're talking about, which was called the credit system. It was not well liked either by the majors or by the remanners, so we chose a different route. We now have a new system in place under the accord.

The Chair: I don't know if the minister is referring to his new deputy minister on his right, there. But I'll ask the member if he's got a question.

[ Page 5291 ]

T. Nebbeling: About 1,300 -- there are so many questions. I must say I was surprised to see the new deputy minister. I could add to what was there before: I compliment the minister for his choice. I appreciate that he explained what he was doing when he was speaking to the Chair, not trying to influence the Chair's action in giving me the floor or not. But he was standing up for some time to consider before he had to answer. After all, the minister has three, sometimes four, advisers helping him formulate the answers, and I have to do it all on my own.

An Hon. Member: It's a sad story.

T. Nebbeling: It's a sad story? No, it is not a sad story.

If, indeed, the 1995-96 six-month period was then used to figure out the credit system, what was used before 1995 in order to fulfil that commitment that the majors had made towards the small business forest enterprise program to ensure that these young, new businesses would have fibre to undertake their business enterprise?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the 5 percent takeback went into the small business program. It was juggled between the categories, and as the reman sector grew, more of it was allocated from market logging to the reman sector. The credit system came along as a way to enhance that. It was voluntary and not deemed to be entirely successful. Because it wasn't successful and because we had another process underway -- namely, the timber jobs process -- the opportunity was taken to direct additional fibre to the reman sector. So the credit system that was there for a while tried to divert more fibre above and beyond the 5 five percent or equivalent. But the credit system was sawn fibre. That was the commodity that was being diverted -- not logs.

T. Nebbeling: The 1988 changes in the act guaranteeing the reman and the market loggers and brokers and small sawmill operators a percentage of fibre -- 5 percent, plus 5 percent after that, or whatever takeback or clawback that was happening because of the sale of licences. . . . Between 1988 and 1995, when the credit system was introduced -- be it for a short period of time -- in that seven-year time span there must have been something happening that led to dissatisfaction with the small business forest enterprise program operators to somehow get the government to say: "Okay, we're going to give you additional fibre through this credit system." The credit system basically said, then, that companies would commit 10 percent of their fibre to the small business forest enterprise program. Six months and it didn't work, and now we have a new system. The minister says it is the jobs and timber accord that is going to drive it, but I believe there is a new system that is called MDI, the manufacturing diversification initiative, that will basically do what the 10 percent was supposed to have done -- or the 700,000 cubic metres. Is it 700,000? I think it's 700,000 of total additional fibre to the small business forest enterprise program, representing a percentage from the interior and from the coast. Is it 700,000, plus 900,000 cubic metres additional? And how is that flow happening, then?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're confusing thousand board feet with cubic metres. The 16.8 percent that goes to the remanufacturers is sawn fibre, and that is in millions of board feet. It's 500 million to 700 million board feet.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the correction, because I knew when I said 700,000 cubic metres that it was board feet, so it had to be 11 times, then.

Nevertheless, considering that the credit system failed. . . . And I don't know if it failed because the suppliers didn't like it or if it failed because the small business forest enterprise program participants didn't like it. Can the minister tell me two things, then: first of all, why was the initiative taken to get more fibre to the small business program? That happened in 1995, it was done for six months, it failed, it didn't meet its objectives, and now we have this new formula. What was the basis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, over the years, looking at the remanufacturing sector has resulted in government being convinced -- the previous government and our government -- that there was sufficient need. The credit system was criticized, because the targets were too low, 4 and 5 percent, and it was entirely voluntary. It was a bit of a pilot, experimental. Whereas under the accord, we have an agreement, and the parties are bound to the agreement. So it's a degree of commitment of a completely different order than the volunteer credit program was. For example, you have probably seen this study that was done by Forest Renewal B.C. It quotes a study by the Simons consulting group that suggests that up to 1.3 billion board feet of remanufacturable lumber is being exported, and it could be processed in British Columbia. That 1.3 billion board feet is an estimate by a consulting group. So that's what we see as the latent demand there for this sector. We tried to get as close to that figure as we could, and we said we've approached a billion, or somewhere plus or minus, so we're certainly heading in that direction.

T. Nebbeling: We're going to get to the bottom of this.

The Chair: I've got bored feet, too, so I hope you get to the bottom of this.

T. Nebbeling: Well, as long as the boredom stays to the feet, we're doing fine; if it starts to rise, you let me know. Mr. Chair has been in Ottawa so long, I would have thought that this is a whole new dimension to the job and that he would enjoy learning -- like I'm learning.

What I would like to ask the minister, to really get my head around this, the credit system. . . . If companies did not fulfil their commitment under the credit system to supply X amount of fibre to the small business program, what were the consequences of that? Was there a consequence? There must have been a consequence.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were no consequences if they didn't. It was purely voluntary.

T. Nebbeling: I thought that there was a consequence. If that was not the case, then why was it introduced in the first place? The minister gives me at least the impression that this was to assist mills and manufacturing plants to have enough fibre to fulfil their demands. When I then also looked at the fact that at the same this was happening, the district managers had the authority to disburse this additional fibre on a basis that the district manager felt was correct. . . . And the minister gave me numbers: one-third of that fibre went to manufacturers and two-thirds went to other sources. This was under the 5 percent plus. So there was very little demand. Considering the amount of fibre that was available, there was actually very little demand for the manufacturing side. So why create a system in '95 that would add more fibre to it and fail, maybe because there was no demand for it at that time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I spoke earlier of the district manager deciding what portion of a program, that was the 5 

[ Page 5292 ]

percent takeback in the TFL, which is a minority. And he would make a decision. Most of the TFLs are at the coast, where there's much more of a log market. Unlike the interior, where most manufacturing facilities don't have enough of their own licence under quota, on the coast there are a number of licensees that have excess fibre to their manufacturing ability and therefore more readily put that on the open market. So there is a log market at the coast that doesn't exist in the interior. Where that was the case, it's not surprising that the full amount of the 5 percent takeback wouldn't be allocated to the reman sector, although it's certainly moving in that direction. The credit system was outside the small business program entirely. It was quota wood, major licensee -- big licence wood, as it were, not small business wood. So it's outside the small business program, and it was purely voluntary.

T. Nebbeling: I think I'm getting to the end. I'm getting to understand what happened with the various systems that forced fibre into that small business program. At least I understand the credit system, the 5 percent clawback and the 5 percent initial contribution to an inventory of fibre for that segment of the industry.

[7:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Now, under the accord, the major licensees are undertaking that they will keep their status quo practices regarding the disposition of logs, and then they will add this additional fibre to the remanners. They're bound to the accord. As I've said before, it isn't a contract -- unless you want to call it a social contract -- but the government can take measures to ensure compliance. We don't feel it's necessary. We think the companies undertook and will in good faith live up to their end of the deal. So they have agreed this time. Before, the voluntary program, which was called the credit system, was an idea that came up from the forest sector strategy, and because there was no other agreement on sanctions or whatever, it was instituted as a pilot. Government undertook to monitor it, and there was a check on how much was going. There was an increase, but there were mixed results because there was not an agreement amongst the parties. It was suggested as a pilot, and government implemented the pilot.

T. Nebbeling: I don't like the minister to use the word "social," because every time he uses the word "social" in the context of the jobs and timber accord, I immediately think of social engineering. And I'm not trying to put that word into the discussion, because that opens up a whole new door that we could go through to see what happens in that industry and in this province.

An Hon. Member: Soviet-style economics.

T. Nebbeling: It is Soviet-style economics. It's the commissariat.

When the minister says that there is indeed no legal obligation for a company to provide this 700 million board feet to the reman industry, when at the same time the reman industry will be mandated, and mandated in a very strong way, to create 5,000 jobs. . . . And if the 5,000 jobs are not created, there are going to be consequences. That I find surprising -- not very businesslike. What would happen if the. . . ? Well, let me ask another question before I go to where my real concern is. Do the suppliers of the 700 million board feet also have remanufacturers within their own corporate structure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the 16 and 18 percent are an industry-wide average. Companies won't be expected to add to that if they're already at the threshold or beyond the threshold. There are some companies that are at the threshold and above. Industry has undertaken to do this. That's their part of the accord. We're going to give it some years to see if it happens. If it doesn't happen, government is in a position to take other unspecified measures. Industry knows that and has agreed to that.

T. Nebbeling: So that we can move on, the companies that supply the 700 million board feet could indeed allocate a portion of that 700 million board feet to reman operations that are actually owned by these same suppliers or in which these suppliers are part owners. I think that is what I got out of this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I apologize. I didn't give as full an answer as I probably should. The 500 million to 700 million board feet are to the independent remanufacturers. The major licensees may have their own remanufacturing going on. This is for the independent reman sector.

T. Nebbeling: That gives them the level of comfort that indeed the particular sector that will have to create the 5,000 jobs will have the tools to do that. So I'm happy to hear that, because the rumour was that the fibre would not necessarily go to the independents exclusively, but that the majors could buy into up to 49 percent of an independent and then channel it to that independent. But that is obviously not possible under this particular good-faith document.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The majors could own up to 49 percent of an independent remanner, as long as they don't have a controlling interest.

T. Nebbeling: And the 700 million board feet will go into a pool, which the independent can tap into without anybody from the majors being able to delegate a portion of that fibre towards these reman operators that have 49 percent majors interest in there.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't anticipate that there's going to be a pool and therefore a marketing board. The only mechanism we've specified would be the value-added facilitators, which I indicated was an idea that to my knowledge originated with the industry itself. These regional value-added facilitators will attempt to facilitate the business deals where necessary or needed. This 500 million to 700 million board feet will ultimately be comprised of a series of business deals. We want the market to make the decisions.

T. Nebbeling: If that is the way the deal is written, that the market will dictate the decisions where that fibre goes, then obviously there could be the scenario I described earlier 

[ Page 5293 ]

on, where the majors just buy in up to 49 percent in a number of reman operations. They're going to get the fibre because it's a market decision. I take it there will be negotiations of what the price of the fibre will be. That could still be putting a number of the reman operators at a disadvantage.

I'm saying this because I have seen firsthand that these kinds of situations have been a reality with the old strategy, with the old conditions. If the reman industry will be mandated 5,000 new jobs to be created by them, they still may have to overcome some hurdles that won't necessarily be overcome. They're still open to some corporate strategy by the majors to make sure that at least 49 percent of the fibre that they now have to put into the reman industry, over and above what is already there, goes to remanufacturing plants that are owned by the majors.

If the minister says yes, that is a possibility and that's fine, so be it. But I think it should be pointed out that that is still a weakness that again may well undermine the existing reman sector so that it's not able to create 5,000 new jobs.

Let's go on; I'm sure the minister wants to go on. Earlier on one day we spoke on the whole matter of fibre coming into the program. Up to now, if I got the minister right, we have not seen the total allocation of fibre being used by the program's participants. I believe there is a shortfall or a backlog created on an annual basis. Can the minister give me an idea of how much backlog there is today in the total program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe we answered this question last week, and I'm going to try it again here just to be sure. I believe this is what we answered. In '96-97, the last year for which we have the figures, approximately 400,000 cubic metres was not sold. We sold 9.1 million cubic metres and 9.5 million was allocated, so about 400,000 was not sold. That's considerably less than the five-year rolling average, which was approximately a million cubic metres a year on the five-year rolling average. So that's what it has been for the five years preceding '96-97.

T. Nebbeling: When a year has a backlog or when a year finishes up with an amount of timber not being harvested -- although it was allocated for that particular year -- there is obviously a shortfall in revenue for the government. If there is a rollover from year to year to year and it is a million cubic metres, then we're talking about $60 million to $70 million for the government. Why is this timber not going to be considered for an extra sale if there is a demand for it, according to the ministry? Why would these backlog licences not be honoured in a very expedient way, as a bonus almost -- get that timber into the mills and everything and catch it that way? I believe that will help create jobs, rather than these other scenarios where people have to make commitments that don't necessarily have to be honoured.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the shortfall in the amount sold is that it takes staff to put them out. We have to have the silviculture proscriptions, we have to have the development, we have to have the money for the road development -- all that sort of thing. In attempting to address that, we have put up a couple of short-term forest licences in the Kingcome, and we've put up some forest licences in the Prince George area -- large sales. These have begun to deal with the backlog. So there are ways of doing it, but in order to do it, sometimes you have to put up more larger sales.

We have undertaken here to develop a system where a licensee can do some of the silviculture work, some of the work that government would ordinarily do, in order to get the sale out. So we found a system that can get the wood on the market.

[7:45]

These programs on paper look okay, but for all intents and purposes, they might not work out, because nobody has really committed to them. The only one that's committed to them is the government, and they have a stick in case somebody is not going to honour it. But that stick can only be used under certain circumstances.

I'm surprised to see that the backlog that is there is not being used as a tool to truly create new jobs by putting that timber into the system and making sure it stays in the system. That is done through efficiency and the system where, from time to time, these sales will happen.

Hopefully, the minister will still consider that, as well, and deal with the objectives in that way. If that backlog keeps going, how does the amount of money that that wood represents come through the system? I mean, there is $70 million out there, and it never comes into the system. At one point, the minister must have calculated that that would be part of the income for the ministry. In the books, how do you keep rolling it over? Do you just roll over $70 million worth of stumpage that is out there but that you haven't tapped into? Can the minister give me an impression on that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The last time I checked, it was an average of $30, so that's $30 million in revenue. If we're able to sell some of the undercut and meet the level every year, it will improve. Last year, when I said it was approximately 400,000 cubic metres and not a million, it was somewhat less than that. We base the estimates on what we think we can sell, not on the amount that's actually allocated to programs.

How much do we think we can get out? We consider the state of the five-year development plan, how we're doing in complying with the code and how we're doing generally in planning to get the wood out. The 400,000 cubic metres last year was largely the deciduous and problem forest type. They have their own problems getting the wood on the market for those two particular types.

T. Nebbeling: To get to a close on that subject, what is the total amount of timber available on an annual basis for the programs? I don't have the answer to that question, unless it is the five million, plus one is six million, plus one is seven million. . . . So it's 9,000,600 cubic metres.

[ Page 5294 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The small business forest enterprise program has been allocated about 13 percent of the AAC, and that is 9.3 million cubic metres.

T. Nebbeling: The reason for the backlog. . . . I'm just going through some points, because I've got a whole series of questions that I don't really want to ask because the minister has already answered these questions indirectly. I'm trying to pick out what I feel I haven't had an answer on. I need to come to an overall feeling of what's happening here on the objective that the government has with this particular program.

With the total backlog of 400,000 cubic metres, can the minister give me an idea of the reasons that this timber has not gone into production? Not long ago, it was a million, and now it is 400,000 cubic metres, so obviously there is an improvement. What are the reasons that people do not use up the total allocation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is not ultimately put on the market. In other words, we haven't put the sales up. The reason for that, in some cases, is resources. To get that number of sales out -- because they're relatively small sales and so on -- takes human resources, and government has been stretched for adequate resources.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

As for the deciduous and problem forest type that I said largely made up the backlog from last year, there are limited markets and limited demand for that sort of thing. In other words, there have to be some people who will take it in the districts where it's offered. Quite often the problem forest types are in abundance within existing chart areas, so to some extent, there's probably a lack of market demand. That accounts for last year's. If we had in previous years more like a million cubic metres that wasn't sold, then there would be more of the type that's easier to sell.

T. Nebbeling: Okay, now I understand. The 400,000 cubic metres was just not put out on the market for some reason, or there was no market for it. Then what happens with all these situations where somebody did get a bit, and he or she put in a deposit but the timber did not get harvested in the period when it was supposed to, for all kinds of reasons? What amount of timber are we talking about?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Ultimately, if through extensions it isn't harvested by the person who bought it, it could go back into backlog, or it is available. We don't take credit for it twice, and once it's sold, it is added up as part of the small business volume. If it's resold again, we don't count it a second time.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that answer and expected it to be of that nature. However, if a number of companies walk away from their obligation to harvest -- they won the bid and put in the deposit but didn't harvest that bid, timber licence or whatever they have -- the revenue is not coming to the government. That means these bids will have to go back into the pot, and they'll have to be retendered. Do these particular refusals of harvesting projects actually get back on top of the 400,000 cubic metres that the minister spoke about earlier on as an annual backlog, or is that over and above? If that is over and above, what amount of timber does that represent?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have some numbers, but they may not be exactly what you want. We have an average number of sales of 1,411 a year, and relatively few are turned back. When they actually log it and it's scaled and then billed, then we track that. When we make our forecasts based on performance in past years and how it looks for the state of planning in any given year, a projection is made. The projection is realistic, we think, based on what we know of past years and what we know of the state of readiness to put these sales up in this particular current fiscal year.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I'm pursuing this direction is that when the minister tells us the backlog is 400,000 cubic metres, I understand that that is actually a holdback by the government, for whatever reason. There is no market for a particular type of timber or other reasons. If, at the same time, there is another amount of timber that is not being harvested because the licensee has decided not to go into the area. . . . The minister says there are 1,411 sales. Well, these sales can be 50,000 cubic metres, 40,000 cubic metres, 10,000 cubic metres. It can be a mix of that, in 100,000 cubic metres. If there are 20 sales collapsing, that could well add 200,000 cubic metres -- easily -- to that.

I won't call it backlog in the sense that the minister used. There is another inventory of timber that has not been harvested, timber that was bid on, with a deposit received based on that timber, but where the market logger ultimately walked away. If that's the case, can the minister. . . ? There must be a number in the books of the ministry that shows how many of these sales or how many cubic metres come back to the ministry annually, because what has to be added on to the backlog really comes back to the ministry. That number must be considerably different from what we have been discussing here.

So rather than 400,000 cubic metres, based on a rate of $34.12 per cubic metre in stumpage. . . . But the mean value. . . . We're not talking about whether it is a bid and there is a higher bid than the mean value index. Then, you know, that can be considerable amounts of money that are out. That, again, could be used to throw in that backlog area which I talked about earlier and to create jobs on a permanent basis by using the timber that is already there, not the excess 700 million board feet.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I mention to the member that we'd have to go to 43 districts to find out how many sales are turned back in. Their instructions are to get it back on the market again and get it sold. But there are very few that are turned back. We undertook, for the member for Cariboo North, to get that for the Quesnel forest district.

The objective here is to sell the full volume. Last year it was only under 400,000 cubic metres. So the objective is to sell the full amount plus get the additional fibre directed, because the fibre that now is exported by the primaries in more raw lumber form could be remanufactured. By redirecting that into the reman sector and adding backlog, we think we can achieve the number of jobs here, because the figure we're using is 12,000 jobs. We want to double the amount. We think we can get at least 5,000, plus the 1,500 from the backlog.

[8:00]

One of the reasons I ask the questions, as well, is that the few incidents that I personally know about because I was 

[ Page 5295 ]

contacted. . . . The one single reason that these few missed sales had in common was the fact that the cost of the bid was excessive. With the changes in price, the people couldn't really honour that commitment. So the minister, not knowing how many of these 1,411 bids went sour, won't be able to give me an answer.

I believe that my colleague from Parksville would like to ask a couple of questions. While he does that, I've got some other papers. . . .

P. Reitsma: I've just gotten in from the other House, actually. I've a couple of questions on FRBC -- one of the programs. Is the minister aware of one of the programs called the Whale's Tale Skills Centre up in, I think, Tofino or Ucluelet?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to remind the member that we have an agreement that we will get the FRBC officials here when we want to get into FRBC and deal with it all. So perhaps you should. . . . You know, I'll try to answer the questions. But once we get into it, we want to bring the officials here so we can answer the details -- which these officials don't have with them.

F. Gingell: I have a few questions I would like to ask that are not on FRBC; they are very general. I hope it's convenient to the minister. I am wondering if the Ministry of Forests has any programs, in dealing with employees of the ministry, to deal with health assessments.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The Ministry of Forests uses the government's employee assistance program, which, as the member knows, is there for employees that have health and financial problems.

F. Gingell: I wasn't thinking of -- I've got to think of the right adjective -- programs that are set up for the purpose of dealing with problems that have shown themselves. In thinking about the Ministry of Forests, you have a large cadre of highly skilled, experienced, professional people. Certain things happen in government that can well create pressures on people, the kind of things that affect their health. Many organizations offer to their senior employees -- and perhaps more than just the senior employees -- health assessment programs that in effect measure risk, determine if the people are overweight or if their cholesterol levels are too high or whatever, to try and avoid the loss of their services and their skills through either physical or mental breakdown. I wonder whether the ministry has any programs of that type in place.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We monitor absenteeism. As a result of unusual absenteeism, we encourage the employee to take advantage of it and seek medical advice, and give them other counselling as necessary -- but no specific programs, no.

F. Gingell: Has the ministry ever considered that it would be worthwhile and looked into the issues of offering health assessment programs to employees, to try and improve or help them get through what may be stressful times?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These programs would, of course, be subject to debate as to whether or not they're cost-effective. As a result, we would look to the central agencies -- the Ministry of Finance and the public service employee relations organizations -- to be the ones that would design, recommend and oversee this. The Ministry of Forests would take direction. So we have some commonality in employee policy throughout government.

F. Gingell: As a matter of fact, these are questions that I would have asked of PSERC had I thought of them at the time. We decided not to get into discussions with PSERC. Clearly, ministries whose senior officials are professionals, people who bring a great deal of experience and professional knowledge to their roles, are perhaps a little more suspect or a little more at risk than some other ministries.

You did mention that you look at the issue surrounding absenteeism within your ministry. Have the issues surrounding absenteeism produced any results that concern you within the professional grade of employees -- i.e., all of a sudden you have substantially greater absenteeism happening high up in the hierarchy that has caused you concern?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have no data that would suggest there is one group of employees that is better or worse off than any other.

F. Gingell: Is that because the data that you have indicates that there is no difference or because you haven't looked for any differences -- i.e., this is not a subject that has been of concern to the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we monitor the data, and there are no trends that sort of leap out that would give us cause for concern.

F. Gingell: So I take it from that that the indications of the data that you have tell you that absenteeism happens in a similar fashion throughout the various professional levels within the ministry; and secondly, that as you have circumstances that cause greater pressures within the ministry -- usually related, of course, to reduced resources available to meet the workload -- there haven't been any statistics that immediately stand out as being separate and different from the norm.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that we expect our managers to look at their own units, and if they notice anything unusual or specific, that should be dealt with -- we ask them to get on it and deal with it. If it's a case where counselling is required, then they're expected to arrange for that.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to go back for a little while, for a quick while, to the numbers that the minister provided me on the backlog that's out there, and on what potentially could still be there in the area of bids that were handed out and then not worked on.

I'm a little bit upset, because I keep trying to get to the point where I get straightforward answers. Sometimes I really have to drag, and then I get accused of being repetitious; I get accused of dragging out this whole procedure. Like the minister and everybody else, I would like to complete this, as well. But the minister keeps telling me that there are 400,000 cubic metres of backlog -- it used to be 400. I asked what total amount has accumulated: "Oh, 400,000."

I had to go downstairs to pick up this paper. I didn't want to say anything earlier on, because I wanted to make sure I had my facts. But here it says:

"Log options. The small business forest enterprise program leaves about 1.5 million cubic metres unsold annually at this 

[ Page 5296 ]

time. There is about three million cubic metres of accumulated and still available backlog undersold volume. Of the annual undersold apportionment, about 400,000 cubic metres is apportioned to bid proposals. Of the three million cubic metres backlog, the majority originated from the bid proposals apportionments."

[8:15]

You were asking earlier about the number of sales that are turned in. In the Cariboo forest region, there are a total of five timber sale licences that were turned back. That's one of six regions. So there were five sales turned back.

T. Nebbeling: I've really gone beyond the 12,000 jobs. I'm talking about the fact that the minister keeps telling me that the backlog is 400,000 cubic metres. When I ask if there is any other amount of timber. . . . "No. There's maybe some in sales that didn't materialize." But the total used to be a million; now it is 400,000 cubic metres. That's the problem I have, because I do have my source here -- and I will tell you what the source is -- that says that the small business enterprise program has about 1.5 million cubic metres unsold annually at this time and that it has accumulated a three-million-cubic-metre backlog, originating from the bid proposal apportionment.

The source is a document that was presented to the small business table at a meeting where the Hon. David Zirnhelt, the Minister of Forests, was present; so were John Allan, Bob Friesen, Hartley Lewis, Grant Parnell, Randy Aitken, John Stephen and Joan Easton. All were present on behalf of the Ministry of Forests. There were another 20 organizations, like the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, C&C Wood Products, Brink Forest Products and the Canadian Log Builders Association -- 11 March, 1997.

The minister or his ministry presented this information to some of the parties that were present at this meeting in Victoria on March 11. Other parties present were the Truck Loggers Association of the North Island, another representative of the Truck Loggers Association, the Kootenay Woodvine network, Harmac forest products, the Interior Value-Added Wood Association, another representative of the Interior Value-Added Wood Association, the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors and Bill Smith Forest Products Ltd. These were the people that had this presentation made by the Ministry of Forests.

The numbers are there, and I just cannot believe that after my asking such a pertinent question, the minister is still trying to give me incorrect information. I don't understand it. I ask the questions in a way to almost help the government to find a way to indeed say: "With this, we can truly create new jobs." Three million cubic metres of backlog means at least 2,500 jobs, direct.

So can the minister tell me why he didn't give me this information when I asked for it, when it is public information?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As near as we can tell, you're quoting from a document that may have been presented to a meeting. I was at the meeting for half an hour and did not discuss data or any reports. So if the member thinks he's tripping me up somehow because I'm not disclosing information. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have answered every question you have asked me, and what I'd like from you is. . . . Send the document. Does it have "Ministry of Forests" on it as the author? What's the date? We're aware of a document with those figures in it that was submitted by an individual who was at that meeting. So come clean on it.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister attends meetings where the agenda is the government's objective at the jobs and timber accord small business table. . . . "Interests, Objectives and Options," prepared by the Ministry of Forests for discussion only, but nevertheless prepared by the Ministry of Forests and presented to the meeting April 22, 1997. . . . That's a document from the Ministry of Forests, not some independent information.

I can't believe it. The minister is now trying to pretend that he's angry that I came up with this documentation after I have been asking: "Could you please give me the number, so I can make a real assessment of what's happening?" And only now that I confront him with the numbers, the minister says: "Well, give me that. It has most likely been prepared by some outsider." Well, the Ministry of Forests prepared this, so I think an apology to the Legislature is in order for trying to mislead the Legislature.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are rounded figures in those documents. In the time that has passed since that document was produced, our best estimate is that there are two million cubic metres still available of what may have been at one point an accumulated three-million-cubic-metre backlog. After the timber supply review and so on, only so much is available. We estimate that what is available of the backlog that could be delivered now would be approximately two million.

T. Nebbeling: Two million or three million is really irrelevant on the issue now, because I have repeatedly asked the minister what was there, and the record will show that the minister insisted it was 400,000 cubic metres. It was a million a year ago; now we find out that it was three million a year ago.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Accumulated. I talked about the accumulated backlog that was there to be used to create jobs in the forest industry and in the reman sector. So now we hear it is two million. The point is that I feel misled.

I've said before that I'm trying to get straight answers, so I can go into the next issue. I have to drag it out of the minister. Tonight I find out that even what I get in the end does not 

[ Page 5297 ]

necessarily reflect the truth. I find it very shameful, and I think it really is hurting the integrity of the minister. I think the minister wants to respond.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I never, at any time, suggested that there was only a 400,000-cubic-metre accumulated backlog. I never, ever suggested it. Check the record. I said that last year the backlog was 400,000 cubic metres -- the last year for which data are available. I said there was a rolling average of approximately a million in the program for the last five years before that that wasn't sold. That doesn't add up to an accumulated backlog of five million. So what is available? If every year you don't sell a million, that does not necessarily mean that there is a million available each and every year.

There has been no attempt to mislead you. If you want highly technical information that isn't aggregated, I suggest you provide us a list of the questions. Table them. The suggestion from the previous Chair was a good one. You can put those questions here, and we will get the figures for you. We don't bring every last figure with us. Then we could come back tomorrow and update it. There is no attempt to mislead. Suffice it to say that we think approximately two million of the backlog could be sold, and we think that with that we can create 1,500 jobs. We expect that we'll create 5,000 more jobs by redirecting additional fibre from the major licensees to the reman sector.

T. Nebbeling: We will check the record tomorrow, and the record will show that I did ask: how much of the accumulated 400,000 is there? Are there any other areas? I went into detail. Is any lumber coming back that has been handed out under the bid process and is not being harvested? I have made these suggestions of how we could find more lumber, so the 400,000. . . . The minister said at one point: "Well, maybe it could be a bit more. But it is difficult to judge, because we have 1,411 sales, and we don't know how many of these sales have come back. It's only a small portion, but there are some." So we have gone into detail on this.

I feel we have been misled. I feel that we truly have not been given the answer that we deserve. Knowing that this document is there, I don't understand why the minister is doing this, quite frankly. The people who are on his list are here in the House with him. I don't understand why they're doing it, because this three million. . . . But now, suddenly, the minister knows about only two million. Right now, this three million cubic metres could create 2,500 jobs. If the minister would put these cubic metres out into the bidding process and do it in such a way that they have to be sold, that will create the jobs, and that's where I was coming from. In a sense, I was trying to suggest some ways of dealing with how we can create jobs.

Yes, I'm angry; sure I'm angry. But I'm trying to control it and stay civil. I will certainly check the records tomorrow and come back on this matter, because I don't think the minister can do what he did tonight in the House and get away with it.

Having said that, I was going to go on, but I'll stick for a little while longer with the small business forest enterprise program. Can the minister explain how the whole program has been managed by the Ministry of Forests up to now? Is it a group of individuals? Is it exclusively a group of people working within the ministry running this program? Can the minister give me an overview of how the program has been managed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are five to seven personnel in Victoria dedicated to the program, and then there are personnel in the regions. They are managed by the district managers.

T. Nebbeling: When we go into the regions, what kind of staffing is available in the regional manager's office for people or for businesses that come into the program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The day-to-day advice from the regional manager to the district managers. . . . It varies in any given district. Depending on the amount of wood that's in the program, it could vary from four to ten. In each region there are probably two to three staff members who are there to give advice on. . . . We call it staff advice that's general to the program.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister tell me if the way this process has worked -- although we now know that a considerable amount of timber didn't go out. . . ? The timber that was going out -- has that been managed well? And in general, has the revenue been got from the bids that have gone out, the tenders that have been successfully bid on and that have been worked in the field? Has there been a good result because of the management of the whole program?

[8:30]

T. Nebbeling: If things are going so well, then why is it that this year there has been a fair amount of discussion on a new agency -- a small business forest enterprise program agency -- that would be in charge of managing the program? Can the minister maybe explain what the advantages would be under a new agency?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were a number of options examined, only one of which was a stand-alone agency. The obvious advantage of a stand-alone agency is that it's much easier to put in resources and personnel and much easier to manage both resources and personnel. But no one option has been selected as this point.

T. Nebbeling: Was there another option that there would actually be, rather than a self-managed Crown agency, as the minister most probably had in mind when he spoke on one of the options. . . ? Within the ministry budget there is a statement about an internal agency within the Ministry of Forests. Is that an option?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the budget, the small business program is a special account. Perhaps that's what you're referring to.

T. Nebbeling: In the same presentation to the small business operators during this meeting on April 17, this agency was discussed as. . . . "The small business program would be reorganized as a Crown agency." And the minister has already explained that it was an option we have looked at, that it is not necessarily going to materialize. But then again, the agency will be responsible for the 400,000 cubic metres per year: ". . .increased sales up by 400,000 cubic metres per year to the remanufacturing sector, and a one-time volume of over two million cubic metres of undersold volume within three years." Those are obviously the numbers that the minister, after a lot of prodding, talked about.

How will this 400,000 cubic metres now go into the remanufacturing sector, and how will the one-time volume of 

[ Page 5298 ]

two million cubic metres of undersold volume be redirected in the next three years without a special agency being in control of it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Whatever the organizational form used, an objective will be set to deliver the backlog. We will examine options such as we have used in the Kingcome and the Prince George. As I've said before, things such as non-replaceable forest licences which could be made available and for which the licensee will be obliged to do the silviculture prescriptions, will thereby make it easier to get the volume out.

T. Nebbeling: Another element of how timber is flowing into the small business programs is through the allocation from tree farm licenses. Another objective in the presentation to the small businesses was the disentanglement of small business operating areas from major chart areas; particularly, tree farm licences were going to be sold. Can the minister confirm whether that is still an objective and why?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The list of things you have in the document were ideas that were put out. We had a shopping list of ideas for discussion, and we have not finalized with the small business sector all those ideas that we intend to bring into fruition -- things like disentangling small business from tree farm licences and putting them into a specific chart area. Nothing has been decided on that.

T. Nebbeling: I would like the minister to explain. . . . Regardless of whether or not the decision has been made to see the small business program operating areas removed from the tree farm licence areas and become their own chart area, can the minister explain how the dialogue is happening, why it would be done and why it has not been decided that maybe that is the formula the ministry wants to go with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are still discussions going on with the small business table; it is future policy. We develop policy in a number of ways, including consulting with outside agencies. Suffice it to say that it's future policy, and that's all I can say about it.

T. Nebbeling: If this happened, what would the Ministry of Forests or the participants gain? I cannot yet see the value of even seeing a change like that happening.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The assumptions in all of those ideas, and therefore the reasons behind them, are that they would improve the delivery of wood. Any consolidation, disentanglement or anything like that may have some inefficiencies in it. There were inefficiencies in the way that small business was delivered from the tree farm requirements. We thought that was an idea; it was a creative idea that was put forward for discussion. But I repeat: no decisions were taken on it.

T. Nebbeling: Then I take it that consideration of the launch of that Crown agency by April 1998 is also not, at this stage, an issue that has been decided on -- if that will indeed go ahead or not.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No decision has been taken on a go-ahead.

T. Nebbeling: As the minister has had a fair amount of dialogue, shown by these papers, and his staff has had a fair amount of dialogue with the industry, can the minister give me a feel for how the industry was looking at another level of bureaucracy because of the creation of an agency that would deal specifically with these programs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Suffice it to say that industry's main concern was the transfer of fibre. How it was delivered was really a matter for the bureaucracy to organize itself. The reaction, I think it would be fair enough to say, was mixed. I don't think there was any consensus. But I think industry was prepared to examine it if that was what it took to get the wood out.

T. Nebbeling: Now I think I'll get away from the small business forest enterprise program. But I reserve the right to come back on this one, because I still have a fair number of questions. Emotionally, I think I'll wait a little while, because every time I look at the papers I really get angry for having to experience tonight what I did. Like I said, once we go through the records of Hansard tomorrow, I will come back to this issue and deal with it in an appropriate way.

Five thousand of the jobs that will be created will come from the remanufacturing side. I attended a meeting in April this year with the interior remanufacturing organizations. There were a fair number of presentations made. The deputy minister was there, as well, so he can confirm this.

The one memorable speech that was made was from a gentleman from Europe. He talked about added value and how added value indeed can do tremendous things if it is done right, if it is the right product and if there is the right market. One of the most significant things this gentleman stated was that as far as value-added opportunities are concerned, you can talk about all the added value in the world, but if you can't sell the product because you're not competitive, it doesn't make any difference. You will just not create that value-added business.

I think he used that in a side dialogue, which was not part of the speech, with Ikea as a good example. Ikea could not even compete with the market today if they still had to go to Sweden. Considering that Sweden's stumpage or its taxation on lumber and timber is considerably lower than what we have, even Sweden could not do what Ikea has done.

What we did see happen is that organizations such as Ikea have gone to countries such as Poland, where there's more affordable labour, where regulations are less, where government cuts are less. As a consequence of that, Ikea is still thriving globally, selling value-added products in amounts that if we could just integrate our products in that section alone, we would indeed be able to create 5,000 new jobs. However, as the gentleman made very clear with what he knew about British Columbia and the cost of fibre, there was just not going to be, in any way, shape or form, added value that would be competing with the global market.

So seeing now that we're going into a program and exercise where we will indeed see, hopefully, tremendous money and manpower invested to make it all happen, can the minister give me an indication of how he believes he can get around that problem, with the products that the reman will produce, in the massive amounts it needs to produce to indeed accommodate job growth in that sector by 5,000 people?

[8:45]

[ Page 5299 ]

T. Nebbeling: I attended the meeting in the federal government facility that does forest research in Victoria. I know that the ministry works from time to time with federal partners in the forest industry. One of the issues I discussed with the forest institute was if they indeed had done any studies about the viability of a B.C.-created value-added industry in the global market.

The studies are available. They didn't do them just because I talked to them; they had done studies. To put it in a very simple manner, they said: "The only thing that we have seen a market for was chopsticks and wooden spoons for the Japanese market." And how many wooden spoons can you make?

I should also say that I have visited a number of reman facilities. The latest one I went to produced magnificent products: doors, windowsills -- very impressive. The door was $1,800; the window was about $1,200. The allocated timber that this particular operator had was indeed used up. One of the reasons that this company was bought up by one of the majors recently is that the operation just could not get the timber it needed to continue to provide for its customers. So for that very specialized type of reman component there is certainly an opportunity. There's certainly a demand for high-quality product. But it is not the type of product that, with investment, restructuring and remanning the mills, will allow us to create a 5,000-person workforce specifically in that area to produce product that will go into the global market. As the minister must be very well aware, it is the global market where you have to find a niche. British Columbia will not be able to absorb all the reman products that will be created in all the varieties.

So when I talk about added value and the objectives that the minister is trying to achieve through the various programs, including the institute in Abbotsford and something in the Kootenays and at UBC, the product they're making there. . . . I've seen some of the product. It is beautiful stuff, there's no doubt it. But again, it is not a product that will ultimately create the type of jobs that we're going to have, if we achieve them. What we're going to need are places where we can make furniture that people can put together themselves, where we can indeed make components that will be able to be produced in massive amounts, so that when there is a market for them, we can supply a global market.

Can the minister, then, give me an indication of what kind of research has been done by the ministry itself to feel comfortable and justified in having gone on this path towards value-added and where the information came from to have given him the level of comfort that indeed this industry can flourish and create the 5,000 jobs that are set out to be achieved?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe this question has been answered several times -- no one specific study. I've answered the question before.

I quoted for you earlier that a recent study by the Simons consulting group estimates that up to 1.3 billion board feet of remanufacturable lumber being exported could be processed in B.C. The collective wisdom of the remanufacturers' association is that they want to see more fibre. With the fibre made available, they say the entrepreneurs will develop. The next questions from a study would be: "Which products? Which firms are going to do it? How many? How many widgets? How many this? How many that?" Then you would argue that this sounds like command control, or some other asinine statement.

T. Nebbeling: I don't think I asked for that response, Madam Chair. What the study did show is that 1.3 billion board feet of remanufacturable lumber is indeed being exported which could be processed in B.C. to create thousands of jobs here. It's not that there is a fibre shortage. This is talking about a fibre shortage. This study is talking about another key challenge, which is doing more with minimally processed lumber that is currently exported, along with potential jobs. But that's not what we're talking about. I thought we had already settled the issue -- that if we had a global market for the product that would be produced, we would have the fibre to produce the products with.

This study just says that there is 1.3 billion board feet of lumber leaving B.C. That already creates a certain amount of jobs, of course, because it has gone through a minimum of lumber processing. This study in no way, shape or form says that these jobs can be created because of circumstances that are dictated not from here in the province but from outside in the global market. It is dictated by prices that manufacturers are getting from the product they produce. If our product -- a similar product -- is more expensive than what is produced abroad, the buyers are going to go for the less expensive product. I can guarantee you that; that is how business works.

For the minister to say he has answered this question. . . . No, he has not answered the question. He has quoted a study talking about fibre availability -- 1.3 billion board feet. There is more than 1.3 billion board feet, if necessary; the minister knows that. But what are you going to do with it, and can you sell that product?

At this point I would like to ask the minister: with all the fibre available, what will be produced to enter that global market at a competitive rate?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forest Renewal B.C. is working with the B.C. Wood Specialties Group on international marketing initiatives, such as establishing displays of B.C. value-added component homes in Osaka and Tokyo in Japan. That's one example of the things they're doing to ensure that we get out there and develop markets. It's well understood that a lot of the markets have to be developed. But the markets can't develop and people can't go into the marketplace and make commitments until they have supply.

There are two primary problems that the remanufacturers told us about. One was access to fibre, so we attempted to fix that. The other was quota. Quota is more difficult, and that means, therefore, that they have to go to other than the U.S. markets in particular.

T. Nebbeling: Access to fibre -- certainly it's a requirement. Quota -- I don't know what quota has to do with a manufactured product, unless the minister means that the quota to the United States applies to value-added products such as furniture or any other product. Furthermore, when I talk about the global market, I talk about well beyond the United States. So can the minister express what he means by "quota"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A certain portion of what the reman sector does -- things like finger-joining of 2-by-4s from mill ends or lower-grade products -- is subject to U.S. quotas.

[ Page 5300 ]

T. Nebbeling: When I see the products that are produced in these schools that have been financed by Forest Renewal B.C. to come up with the production of items that are potentially sellable in the global market -- and 2-by-4s with finger-joints may be a small percentage of that -- the focus. . . . The money is certainly spent on totally different types of manufactured products. It is the different manufactured products that in the future will indeed have a chance to penetrate the global market and support the sales of the value-added products created here in British Columbia. I hope the minister is not telling me that all that money the jobs and timber accord is channelling towards the industry and all the fibre that is being channelled towards that value-added industry. . .that it is done with the focus being on finger-joint 2-by-4s. I'm really surprised that the minister is saying that.

I was looking at what is happening in the Kootenays, and some of the work is very artistic. I don't think it is something that can be mass-produced. Nevertheless, the chairs that they produce there are beautiful pieces of work. You're not going to see 20,000 of these chairs produced in a mass system, or have a market for it, because of the cost. So I keep coming back to that, as well.

When I talk about quota. . . . If the minister says the only thing we're going to do is make products in the reman sector that still need added work once they arrive at their final destination, like 2-by-4s with finger-joints. . . . I truly think that when we talk about value-added, we talk about chairs, we talk about tables, we talk about cupboards, we talk about wooden parts for storage, we talk about wooden parts for the sauna; we talk about wooden ladles, wooden spoons, forks. We talk about windows; we talk about doors; we talk about all kinds of functional, usable components that make up households throughout the world.

That is the market that I truly believed we were going to create with the value-added component in our mills, with the upgrades that were going to be the components that were going to create the 5,000 new jobs in the value-added industry. So if the minister means that ultimately all we will be doing is finger-joint 2-by-4s, then I can understand why he says quota. If there are other items that are subject to quota, as well, I would like to hear that from the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The frustration for me is that you take a little bit of information and draw great conclusions from it. I stated that there were two problems the industry gave us; marketing wasn't one of them. The two top problems were quota and availability of fibre. The biggest one is the availability of fibre. We're dealing with that. The quota issue. . . . You said: "Why was that a problem for them?" And I explained why it was a problem: because they can't produce all high-grade, finished, value-added product. In fact, if there's a surplus of shorts and they make something out of it, because that's the only thing they can make out of it, and it happens to be finger-joining, they would need quota to export that. There's no perfect design of remanufacturing that doesn't have some by-products. So finger-joining is probably a by-product. I never meant to say, didn't say, wouldn't say and resent the member suggesting that I said that all we're going to rely on is finger-joint 2-by-4s for growth in this industry. I'd suggest that it isn't productive to try to do that sort of thing.

You were asking about value-added markets. There is no one study of the world market. We expect individuals, when they know fibre is available, to then engage in markets. We know that the sector has come to us and said: "Give us more fibre and we will develop the markets." With respect to where the employment would come, a snapshot of the British Columbia value-added industry. . . . Again, the J.H. Fraser and Associates study I quoted earlier suggests that most of the employment is in lumber specialties. The second-most is in sawmill specialty products, the third is in prefabricated buildings, and only after that do we get into windows, log homes, furniture, etc. So commercial and institutional furniture is a small amount; turned wood products, small; and custom processing is a small amount. So it grows, but the largest single remanufacturing employment is created in lumber specialties. Approximately 58 percent of the employment is in windows, prefabricated buildings, lumber specialties and sawmill specialty products.

[9:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Lumber specialties would be lumber that's possibly chopped, with knots taken out, reworked; clear strips glued back, laminated back together -- that sort of thing.

T. Nebbeling: Would these products, then -- for example, after they have been stripped -- and even finger-jointed 2-by-4s be used to construct, for example, windows, doors and products of that nature?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. For example, door stock and window stock might have the interior, or that part that doesn't show. . . . It could be made from a finger-jointed product or laminated product. The part that shows might have a clear grade on top. There is quite a bit of resawing that goes into the manufacture of sash and door.

T. Nebbeling: Once that finger-jointed, stripped 2-by-4 is glued together with other 2-by-4s. . . . It makes a nice little 4-by-4 to be used in a window or in a door. Will that door now be subject to quota when it gets shipped to the States?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, a door would not be.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to ask my colleague from Shuswap to take over for a little while, and then I'll come back on this particular subject.

G. Abbott: I would like to briefly discuss with the minister an issue which is certainly of considerable concern to me, and I know it is of considerable concern to the industry in the Shuswap-North Okanagan area and, I suspect, in other parts of the province, as well -- particularly those parts of the province that have not been fortunate enough, at least to date, to have cogeneration plants and that kind of thing in their neighbourhood.

The problem -- and the minister knows it well, but just for the record, I would put it in a nutshell, at least from a Shuswap perspective -- is that when the burner phase-out program was introduced in 1991, with deadlines generally in the mid to late 1996 period, there wasn't as much attention devoted, I don't think, to alternatives to beehive burners as there might have been. As a consequence, as the minister knows well, in some portions of the industry mills have, in some cases, been lurching from crisis to crisis, from threat of shutdown to reprieve, to threat of shutdown. It's certainly my hope that some better way of dealing with the wood waste disposal issue could be found.

[ Page 5301 ]

Could the minister advise, first of all, what initiatives his ministry has undertaken recently or plans to take in the foreseeable future to deal with the issue of wood waste and its disposal?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just by way of background, if we as government don't give firm targets, then there is no incentive for them to deal with their wood waste. So we have given objectives, and we have gone through the first level. The easiest ones have been done, and there are a number that are more difficult to do. I understand that there was an initiative underway just recently to look at the remaining burners, look at what can be done, look at how difficult it is for them to achieve their objectives and examine what the job impacts might be if they fail to meet the objective of phasing out the burners during this next phase of the phase-out.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether the initiative he mentioned is the work, funded by Forest Renewal B.C., that was undertaken by Claude Richmond to look at the magnitude of the wood waste problem in the North Okanagan-Shuswap and begin to quantify it? Is that the initiative he referred to, or is it a different one?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that it's a broader initiative than the one Mr. Richmond was involved in. It is funded by FRBC, and it is managed by the Ministry of Environment. I'd have to go to them for all the details, but, of course, we will be and are cooperating with them.

G. Abbott: Actually, I'm very much encouraged by the minister's response. To just back up and bit and explain, I think one of the reasons why there was perhaps less done by a number of the mills in the North Okanagan-Shuswap, and indeed Shuswap-Kamloops and perhaps even the Yale-Lillooet area. . . . Why a lot of those mills did less in the way of preparing for the future than we might have expected is because up until at least late '95 or early '96, it was anticipated that the Weyerhaeuser proposal for cogeneration in Kamloops would proceed. When that initiative failed for a variety of reasons, I think that to some extent the carpet was yanked out from underneath a number of those people. They had been banking -- perhaps naively, but nevertheless banking -- on the Weyerhaeuser proposal proceeding.

In the absence of that, it was difficult for a number of them to come up with solutions to deal with their problems. In the absence of that, I'm quite pleased that a number of them have come up with innovative solutions -- different technologies and so on -- for burning and that kind of thing. Some progress has been made.

I suspect that there is still a need for a proposal along the lines of the Weyerhaeuser co-gen proposal. Clearly it has to be on some different basis than that which was proposed in the last go-round, and I suppose that it's doomed to failure without some change in the components and the approach. Perhaps I'll ask the minister at this point whether he's aware of any new initiative on the part of Weyerhaeuser, on a rather different basis, to deal with the wood waste problem there.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the problems with any proposal that involves power, of course, is that there is a lot of power around, and therefore anything you do could easily constitute another subsidy somewhere. I'm not aware, and the officials I have here with me aren't aware, of a recent new proposal by Weyerhaeuser. Quite often, we do hear if there is something in the works. I'm sorry, but we haven't heard.

If there is one, I'd certainly be interested, because we are looking at ways of solving this common problem together. I am aware of people pushing the edges. I know that there's work being done at UBC, for example, on compressing spruce bark into a pressboard that doesn't require any glue. That's simply out of stuff that goes into hog fuel. The problem I hear of is that the co-gen facilities want the hog fuel -- and it's mostly hog fuel we're talking about -- at virtually no cost.

There's a big gap between what the producers of the hog fuel feel they can dispose of it at on their own and what the other people want for it; there is a bit of a gap there. Having laid the ground rules, I guess we expect the market to try to find solutions. Where they don't, we've got to seek other structural solutions if there's no easy market-based solution at the present time.

G. Abbott: I agree with the minister on his assessment of the challenges in dealing with this particular situation. In fairness to the producers. . . . This is an argument I have made on some occasions to try to deal with issues raised about why there should be any kind of subsidy directed toward the disposal of power from cogeneration. The argument I have used is one that I actually believe.

It is that if we as a society are going to take the position that in the interests of cleaner air, we will require industry to shut down burners that were certainly perfectly acceptable ten or 20 years ago but that now have been judged to be not environmentally friendly, and if we're going to take the position that it's imperative for the social good that those be shut down, then the complement to that is that, if we're searching for a social good on the one hand, we should be prepared to provide some kind of a social benefit or recognition that the industry is making a contribution to the better good of society.

They are getting rid of something that they've perhaps just a few years ago made a substantial capital investment in -- namely, their beehive burners. I don't have a huge problem with providing what is effectively a subsidy for those kinds of cogeneration producers, where we've mandated or required it, to fulfil a social good of cleaner air. I'd be interested in the minister's thoughts on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hydro did a proposal call, and there were three that were picked. There was credit given for environmental benefits, and on that basis, we moved ahead with some of it. There is limited demand for the power that's produced from this. The member said he has no problem with a subsidy. Ultimately, though, it comes back to every Hydro ratepayer having to pick it up, and I think that's the issue. It would, then, constitute a subsidy, as you suggested, and I'm certainly not sure that the taxpayers of British Columbia are prepared to do that. I think they feel that there is a responsibility for the producer of the wood waste to absorb the cost and that the industry itself, which produces it, should absorb it.

Of course, push is getting to shove here. We have done the easy stuff, and now the marginal stuff is going to be more difficult. I agree that it's something we should continue to examine, to see if on a social-costing basis, we can find ways to make these economical. They may well be, in time. I think we would be in a different situation if our cost of power was going up instead of seemingly coming down.

That's why I would suggest that there are ways other than electrical generation. If there is a use for those, that would be better; but it's certainly a problem we have to stay with until we find a solution. We can't drive people out of business in the process.

[ Page 5302 ]

[9:15]

I want to back up a bit now, to go back to the point about what's been termed a broader initiative to deal with the wood waste problem. I was elected about a year ago now, I guess it is. Sometimes it seems like ten years, but I guess it's just been a year. Over the past year, one of the most recurrent problems I have been hearing about is different mills in my constituency facing a burner phase-out deadline. They have been writing to me, as well as to the Minister of Environment and so on, about the pending shutdown. I guess that I've probably got maybe a dozen mills of varying sizes in the Shushwap constituency, and it certainly seems that at least half of them have had some problem or other in dealing with the wood waste disposal issue.

I came to the conclusion a few months ago -- I think it would be a few months ago -- that rather than deal with these recurrent crises in the mills as deadlines came and went, it might be better to try to work with FRBC to find some other way of dealing with the problem. After a meeting arranged with Bob Tomich, I think it was, from Forest Renewal B.C. and representatives of most of the mills in the Shushwap, it was concluded by the group -- not necessarily by Bob Tomich of FRBC -- that it would be appropriate to look to FRBC for the possibility of what could be termed a study, an assessment or whatever. Obviously some of this work has already been done by Claude Richmond in terms of quantifying the amount of wood waste that has to be dealt with. But going beyond that -- and in this study looking at the needs of the small mills, the needs of the larger mills, the possibility of cogeneration and its application -- whether in fact, as the minister suggested. . . .

I agree with his point completely: the small mills have very different problems. They can't necessarily afford to truck their waste over to Kamloops to have it go into a co-gen facility. In order to make that system work economically, they would probably have to be subsidized -- to use that awful word again. From their perspective, they would have to receive some compensation from Weyerhaeuser to do that. From Weyerhaeuser's perspective, as the minister said, they want it for nothing or perhaps even to be paid for taking it.

There are very different needs among the different mills, and it was my hope, and I think the hope of the forest industry representatives that I talked to, that Forest Renewal might be used to take a comprehensive look at what could be done in the North Okanagan - Shuswap - Kamloops area in terms of maybe one solution -- i.e., a co-gen through Weyerhaeuser -- or maybe as many solutions as there are mills in the area. So this would be a study or an assessment that wouldn't go in without any sort of pre-conceived notion about a solution, but would rather look at a range of solutions that might fit the numerous problems there.

This is all a very long-winded way of saying: is this. . . ? I had hoped this was proceeding. I had understood that FRBC had not favourably greeted that proposal, but if there's a broader initiative underway, is that in fact the one that is now on the books?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I know the Ministry of Environment is leading the study. Details of what parts of it might be funded by FRBC. . . . I'd have to wait until we got into the FRBC discussion. The officials I have with me aren't FRBC officials, and we agreed that we would talk about FRBC and what it is funding when they get here. I'd be happy to provide you information later. I mean, we'll go looking for the information, but in terms of discussing the full range of what FRBC is doing in that field, we'll have to wait for those officials.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what models -- if we can use that term -- and what other co-gen facilities there are in interior British Columbia, how they've worked and on what basis they work -- whether subsidized or not subsidized, the relationship between the co-gen operator and the small mills around, that kind of thing? Is there a useful model that we can look at that might be adopted in the Okanagan-Shuswap?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there are a number of models out there; there's no one model. The model that is being used now is based on social and environmental costing. Some of them, for example. . . . There's one in Williams Lake which is not truly a co-gen, but it's a wood-waste electrical generator. It's based on the price premium of 15 percent. That's a pretty hefty subsidy. There's the two, Elk Falls and Skookumchuck, which were based on bid proposals. There was one in Taylor that was market-based at the time, and now in retrospect is seen as expensive, partly because the price of hydro has levelled off -- in fact, it may have decreased in some areas. So there's no one model.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to come back for a little while to where I left off with the minister when my colleague from Shuswap took over, and that is with the issue of the products that will indeed allow British Columbia to create a value-added industry that can accommodate another 5,000 workers. I should say that one of the statements that has been made when it comes to value-added workers is that it is not just a matter of finding workers that can put together finger-joint 2-by-4s, that can put together glue lam, but one of the directions and objectives is to find enough workers with the right skills. It is a significant problem in B.C. right now. These skills are obviously targeted towards creating more than 2-by-4s and finger-joint pieces of wood that can be turned into butcher blocks -- which, again, I do not believe would need quota to get exported to the States.

What I would like to ask the minister is if he could give me kind of an idea of the money that has been spent so far in British Columbia on skills training for the value-added industry. I refer to the system that is in place at UBC, and I refer to Abbotsford and the Kootenay School of the Arts, which have been funded millions of dollars as institutions creating new skills in workers. Can the minister, first of all, give me a kind of rundown of what indeed the objectives are of the Abbotsford skills centre that was opened last year, and at what cost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is correct that yes, we do have to train, and people have to be trained when we know what the actual jobs are. The only one I have with me right now is the Abbotsford value-added training program, and that one was $9.7 million. I don't have the figures for the others, but I'll attempt to get them. If we're ready to get into FRBC, I'll get the officials here and then we can go. Is that what your wish is?

T. Nebbeling: No, that is not my wish. We're talking about value-added. Value-added is a component within the 

[ Page 5303 ]

jobs and timber accord that will create 5,000 new jobs, according to the minister, and there are certain mechanisms and vehicles in place today that will train the value-added worker in the future. FRBC may have been a vehicle to pay for some of the initial costs of putting these institutions together. FRBC may still pay towards the upkeep and the maintenance and the operation of these institutions. By institutions I mean UBC, the Kootenay School of the Arts and the Abbotsford skill-centre.

Now, if the minister hasn't got his numbers, that's okay. But maybe the minister can tell me what, for example, the enrolment of students has been in Abbotsford? What do they learn? Are they learning to make finger-joint 2-by-4s? Or are they learning to make other things that they would be able to sell in a global market, if the price is right? And it comes back again to the price; it is not just fibre. So the number of students, the product that they are learning to create, how long the study takes and if there are other parties that pay towards keeping a student in place. . . . Is there anywhere where the industry, for example, is in joint partnering, funding a number of students going through the system -- and that is specifically done in Abbotsford?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me, but I will get it for you.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the minister saying that, because too much time has been wasted in the last week or two trying to find answers that ultimately were not totally correct and didn't help anybody.

What I would then like to know is if it is the same situation with the Kootenay School of the Arts. Has the minister any information on that at this point? Again, I would like to add another part to the question: not only how many students are involved there and what the term of the study is but also -- because it is the Kootenay School of the Arts -- what kind of product they are producing there that can at the end, once these students are out of school and they go into a remanufacturing place, be a product that can be sold globally, again depending on price, which can compete in that global market. The art component I find interesting.

[9:30]

My own view is that when I talk to people about design for production, it seems that that's very important, because there are these niche markets of specialty products that can enhance the export of a product and also substitute imports that are coming into the country from other places. As our design level and the artistic value of these non-mass-produced articles go up, so does the price and therefore so does the profitability.

T. Nebbeling: It is indeed important that we do tap into these opportunities that the minister just described, and the minister also recognized that these will not be mass products, because of cost, primarily. I appreciate what the minister said. I will not go too far on this one, although I have a number of questions, but we will wait until the FRBC people are here and then most probably we can come back to this section. In the meantime, my hon. colleague from Aldergrove would like to ask some questions of the minister.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Coleman: First of all, I want to spend a few minutes on the five-year range program and a couple of questions relative to the industry, just for some clarification in my own mind.

The five-year forest and range resource program filed a report last year in August that I received. It had a mandate that I found to be very encouraging, and that was: "[To] encourage maximum resource productivity; manage resources responsibly to achieve the greatest short- and long-term social benefits; practise integrated resource management; encourage a globally competitive forest industry; and assert the financial interests of the Crown."

My questions, first of all, relate to the fact. . . . I found it rather interesting, in reading this report, how diversified the Forest Service itself is around the province. According to this report, three-quarters of the Forest Service staff, which is approximately 4,700 staff, work in 43 forest districts and six forest regions, and the remaining quarter work in the 20 branches in Victoria. My first question is: how many staff does the Forest Service now have, and has that increased or decreased in the last year? Are they still basically set up the same way breakdown-wise?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are 40 districts now, as opposed to 43. There are still six forest regions. There is still approximately the same breakdown in districts and regions as in headquarters. Last year the FTE complement was 4,810; this year it's 4,086.

R. Coleman: Just before I go on to the priorities of the resource program, when I was a young man, there were a number of opportunities within the Forest Service for young people out of high school and out of university. I'm just wondering what the turnover is now with regards to the Forest Service and how those opportunities with the Forest Service exist today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your general question is that there isn't a lot of turnover, because we are trying to manage to reduce numbers. But in terms of opportunities for young people, there are 150 co-op positions in the ministry, and we do hire seasonal auxiliaries, in summer in particular.

R. Coleman: Could the minister explain to me how the co-op positions work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The co-op program is generally a four-month program. They're managed in the regions and in the districts, as a rule. We have an educational institution that is sanctioned as an institution that is involved in the program. When that's the case, we take the students who have appropriate skills and match them up with the needs of the ministry. When there's a fit, there's a job, and that becomes a co-op student.

R. Coleman: The first priority in last year's five-year resource program report was to revise a list of study areas through gap analysis and assessment of resource impacts. I wonder if the minister can tell me how we're making out with that and what stage we're at.

[ Page 5304 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I take it that you're reading from the priorities of the co-op program. No? Sorry, I'm just not sure.

R. Coleman: I'm sorry, I probably just confused the minister a little bit because I asked about the co-op. I was just curious about the co-op and that, and you answered that question. That's all I really needed to know.

What I am referring to is the report "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program, 1996-2001." Page 7 of that report deals with current priorities. The first current priority that I'm asking about is the "[revision] of the list of study areas, through gap analysis, and an assessment of resource impacts." I'm just wondering what stage we're at.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We did get into this a little bit last week. What we are doing here is analyzing the gaps in the protected area in the representative ecosystems and then analyzing the impacts that those might have on resources so that we could find the appropriate balance between achieving the objectives of gaps in representation in the protected-areas system with the resource impacts. That would be fed into the land and resource management planning or regional planning that's taking place. That would be supervised by LUCO.

R. Coleman: So it would be safe to say that we've moved in the last year. We've moved forward on a gap analysis a little bit, and we're on track in our five-year plan in that particular portion of the priorities.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What would indicate that we are making progress is the fact that we have 17 of these LRMPs up and rolling. Our ministry staff is preparing information for them, so we're on track. The document that you have, of course, is a high-level five-year plan. If you break it down, there would be business plans on an annual basis. I'd say we're continuing to make progress in providing information to the land use planning process.

R. Coleman: Since I'm dealing with the five-year plan, I don't want to belabour the fact; I just want to make sure that we're focusing on it and working towards its success as we would with other areas of government.

I just want to touch on the other four points in the plan, which are: ". . .[applying] interim management and guidelines in cabinet-approved study areas to maintain conservation, recreation and cultural heritage values while the areas are being studied." I would assume that's ongoing. At the same time it says: ". . .review and revise existing protected area legislation, as required." When we say as required, I assume that it's going to be as required, so I don't think there's a necessity for a question on that particular point. The encouragement of first nations "to play a more significant role in the strategy, and in land use planning processes" -- I'd be curious to see how the minister feels that is going on. . ."and ensure the appropriate resource practices and uses in current protected areas."

I think two of those four points are easily covered off as part of what we would look at as being a five-year plan. I'm just wondering how we're making out with first nations playing a significant role in the strategy and whether there's been any need for any cabinet-approved study areas to maintain conservation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We got into that a little bit last week, and what I said then was that we are getting. . . . In the three major regional plans we didn't have first nations involvement, but in two of the most recent LRMPs, the mid-coast and the Cassiar, we do have involvement of first nations. We've been able to involve them. It's taken a lot of work, but we are making some success there.

I think your other question was around: are we continuing to apply the interim management guidelines to study areas? Yes, we are. We have very little problem with that, actually, by now. Since we started the process a few years ago, it's become second nature for resources agencies to try to reallocate areas of operation so that we don't end up logging in proposed parks.

R. Coleman: I'd just like to move on, then, to another portion of the report. I don't want to be repetitive to the minister if I've missed something that's maybe already occurred in Hansard.

The review process had five steps involved in determining the timber supply in the annual cut. I don't want to go into the five steps, but at the beginning of August, 1996, the status of the 36 timber supply areas being reviewed was as follows: 35 timber supply analysis reports have been released; 35 socioeconomic analyses and discussion papers have been released; 33 allowable cut determination meetings have been held; and 31 allowable annual cut determinations have been publicly announced. For the 34 tree farm licence areas, 33 licence management plans have been received; 30 allowable annual cut determination meetings have been held; and 23 allowable cut determinations have been finalized. I'm just wondering what has happened in the ensuing period, since August to today, in similar areas.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That was a process we called TSR1, timber supply review 1. It's complete; it's all been completed. We're now beginning the second cycle of TSR2.

R. Coleman: The report also referred to backlog reforestation. The government is responsible for reforesting backlog sites and sites that are not addressed through the basic program which have been disturbed by fire and pests and backlogged. The backlog sites included, in August of 1996: land harvested by major licences between January 1, 1982, and September 30, 1987; land harvested under the small business forest enterprise program and other minor tenures up to December 31, 1987; land denuded by fire and pests prior to 1987; and good and medium sites harvested prior to January 1, 1982. I'm wondering what progress we've made on that particular portion of the five-year plan in the first year of the plan.

[9:45]

I have some of the dollar amounts here. If you want to be specific, I'd be happy to get that information for you. But suffice it to say that we're continuing to make progress, and there is a tenure program in place under FRBC to deal with the pre-1987 backlog.

[ Page 5305 ]

R. Coleman: A couple of quick questions to the minister, then, just to see how we're doing, basically. In the past, one of the goals of the report with regards to the Forest Service was basically to keep the damaged areas of wildfire below 175,000 hectares and to keep the timber volume lost to wildfire below seven million cubic metres per year. That was one of the goals. I'm just wondering. . . . It's been a year. How did we do with regards to fires and timber loss last year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've just gone through the information we have here. We don't have that level of detail as to how much of it was NSR because of harvesting and how much was NSR because of fire. We'll have to get that.

The Chair: This is just to announce to the members here that a division was called in Committee A. But we will carry on with the debate.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I thank the ministry for providing that to me; I appreciate that. If it isn't here, I don't expect you to be able to pull it out. This is a very large ministry. It takes, I think, 62 percent of our province's revenue. So I don't think we should be expecting you to have every single answer at the tip of your fingers.

I just want to go into some of the recreation-related forest resource management objectives, first of all with recreation inventory. In 1996, 60 percent of that inventory was digitized, and new standards were completed for that recreation inventory. The objective is to get to 100 percent digitized by the year 2001. At that point in time, it appears that we'll revise our standards of inventory. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much more of the inventory was digitized in the past year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a long-term project, and each year we accomplish some. We don't have the information on how much was done last year. But again, we could try to get that for you.

R. Coleman: Last year, in 1996, several district recreation plans were initiated, and several recreation management plans were completed or initiated. By the year 2001, the district recreation plans are to be completed in all 43 districts, and additional recreation management plans will be completed. In the past year, what progress have we made in these particular plans?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to give you the same answer as to the previous question. We do several each year. It's our intent to continue to progress towards that. I'd have to get you the detail and report to you later.

R. Coleman: Also with regards to recreation use. . . . Now I'm going through this plan, and if the answers are that the information has to be provided to me, that's fine. I'm just curious. In 1996 we managed 58 million user-days, worth about $2.6 billion in recreation use expenditures, which is a pretty incredible figure. By 2001 we want to reach 67 million user-days, worth about $3 billion. Is the ministry able to tell me what our user-days were in the last year and how much they were worth in this particular section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just from my knowledge, it does increase every year in each district, but some years more than others. For example, this year tourism happens to be up in the Cariboo area, which will bring that up about 15 percent, I understand. I expect that will have an effect on the recreation sites as well. I'll have to get the details of that for you.

R. Coleman: The reason I'm canvassing these areas is that I don't think a lot of people realize what else the Forest Service does, besides allowing people to cut down trees, and how important it is to the overall operation of our province. With recreation features protection, we have the use-of-sites trail maps notation. We have about 4,000 areas.

Basically, it appears that the use of these sensitive areas -- landscape units, resource management -- is under the Forest Practices Code. Maybe I should leave this question for the Forest Practices Code. But I'm just wondering if there's been any progress in this particular area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is an area that we are familiar with. By October we intend to have some 2,400 landscape units in the province designated and, also in October, a strategy -- which ones we'll deal with first -- because it is a large job. This is the unit between the five-year development plan and subregional plans, so it's a huge job. We'll know by October where the priority areas are.

R. Coleman: I'd just like to make a quick comment with the fact that in back-country settings we have 43 million hectares of roadless area and 2.5 million hectares with a spectrum of recreational opportunities. By the year 2001, we're expecting to get to 38 million hectares of roadless area, which is reducing the 43 million to 38 million, but we're increasing the 2.5 million to 10 million hectares with a spectrum of recreational opportunities.

Could the minister just sort of give me a brief explanation as to how we classify those two areas, how one becomes a roadless area and one all of a sudden becomes a recreational opportunity, and how we're accessing the other 7.5 million hectares of land by the year 2001?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I know the member is genuinely interested in these matters. If he has more of this kind of thing and can give us a heads-up on it or an advance, we'd be happy to have it here in the chamber. But in the absence of notifying me ahead, I can only say I'll undertake to get that for you.

But it is very technical. There's no easy answer. You have to measure a certain number of kilometres from roads and so on. I guess, as we refine our land use plans, we are attempting to develop recreation areas within roaded and developed areas as well. So as development moves through a watershed, we're taking care of the recreation resource as we go and not just leaving it to the residual area.

R. Coleman: While we're on it, I just refer the minister to page 17 in the five-year plan. I'd also like to sort of get some description of how we're sitting with the visual landscapes. I won't refer to that question at this point in time, because it's unnecessary. Also, on page 18 of the report, I'd just like to touch on a couple of points. Again I'd like some additional information from the minister to see how we're doing, because, frankly, it's not a big deal that we have to have it in the House here tonight.

But the one I found most interesting and I would like to know the progress that we've. . . . In 1996 we had 1,400 recreation sites, 600 recreation trails of 5,500 kilometres, 95 interpreted forest sites, 700 -- 33 percent of sites -- trails established under the code, and 30 percent of 150 near-urban sites 

[ Page 5306 ]

subject to rowdyism and vandalism upgraded to a higher standard. I wouldn't mind, because this report doesn't come out every year, if the minister could just give me a short update on how we're doing in that particular area.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will endeavour to give you the latest information on that.

G. Abbott: I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[10:00]

P. Reitsma: Stay, all. I'm not going to talk about clearcutting at Cathedral Grove.

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Do stay. We're not playing any mind games at all, let me assure you.

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: So the fact that you come on B.C. Ferries is some other game, but then again. . . .

Talking about the office of the chief forester, does the minister have a flow chart?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: The minister does not have a flow chart. Could the minister tell me how many people are employed with the chief forester?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: You just heard the question. We'll be going on and on.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, order, please. The member has a question.

P. Reitsma: The question, hon. Chair. . . . And if they don't wish to answer any questions, that's fine. We may as well go home for tonight, and indeed start again tomorrow.

I asked the minister: the office of the chief forester -- how many people are employed at that particular branch?

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, next question.

P. Reitsma: I need some advice from the. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I'll yield to a question from the other side.

To the Chair, I might need some advice. Is it standard that. . . ? Being new, of course, I have the opportunity to ask: is it. . . ?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I wouldn't do that, Dennis, if I were you.

Is it appropriate for a minister not to answer any questions? I see myself as asking questions on behalf of my constituents.

An Hon. Member: Start over again.

An Hon. Member: They're all sleeping.

The Chair: Hon. members, please come to order. If conversations are required, perhaps you might consider doing them elsewhere.

The member continues.

P. Reitsma: I would like to start off again. Maybe the minister didn't hear the first question. I'm talking about the office of the chief forester. I would like to remind the minister that I'm here on behalf of my constituents, the taxpayers. They have a right to know what's going on. They pay taxes in my area, the Alberni area.

Talking about the office of the chief forester, could the minister, for my benefit and for those who are listening or watching TV -- indeed, they'll be able to quote from Hansard. . . .

S. Hawkins: Point of order. I'm sitting almost next to the hon. member, and I can't hear a thing. I wonder if we could get some quiet in the chamber so we could hear the member ask his very important questions, because I know that all members in the House want to hear what this member has to say. We certainly want to hear the responses from the minister. So I wonder if we could get some quiet in the House so we could hear this hon. member's questions.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! I concur with the point that has been made by the hon. member. The noise level is a little high, and it is indeed difficult to hear.

[ Page 5307 ]

There is a division in Committee A. Those who have responsibilities in Committee A may be excused. In this chamber, the debate will continue. At the moment the Minister of Forests has the floor. I request all of the members to be seated and for quiet to prevail.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In 1996-97 there were 7.03 FTEs in the chief forester's office, and in '97-98, this year, it's 6.77.

P. Reitsma: I would just like the minister to repeat. In the busy-ness of everything. . . . I'm very happy that he's answering the question now, which he didn't want to answer just a few minutes ago. Whilst my colleagues like to hear what I'm asking, all of us, with bated breath, would like to hear what the minister has to say. Just for my benefit. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I know there are lots of cross-conversations going on. It's like a soccer game, actually. If you give both teams one ball, you never have any fights, and they can score as many goals as they like. In fact, that goes for hockey too, for that matter. I will yield to the ancillary conversation, if necessary.

So I take it that the minister said that there were seven FTEs in '96-97 and 6.77 -- did he say? -- in 1997-98.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Chair, it's a perfect example of tedious and repetitious. It doesn't matter to the public whether it's six or 6.7. There's a small office. This is exactly what's been going on every day that I've been in here: repetitive questions.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, enough!

G. Farrell-Collins: I would suggest that we can have many, many, many more hours of debate on these estimates, and we're more than happy to do that. Whether they're tedious or repetitious or not is for the Chair to decide, not the minister. We'll let it go and see how long it takes.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, cross conversations on the floor do not assist the debate. The hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum has some comments to make.

P. Reitsma: I don't want to start all over again, although some of my colleagues didn't hear the question. In fact, I wonder if we should wait until Hansard comes out tomorrow, and then I could quote from Hansard, I suppose. I asked the minister about the numbers in '96-97 and '97-98.

G. Farrell-Collins: Given that the minister has left the chamber, I move the House stand recessed for ten minutes while he does so.

[10:15]

Hon. members, we'll proceed. The request has come from the opposition side of the House, and the tradition here is that it is not the opposition side of the House who makes such a motion. Therefore the debate will continue. It deals with House business, and that is the prerogative of the Government House Leader.

G. Abbott: I was just reflecting on this book, Canadian Legislatures, as we were talking here. I was thinking: isn't it a curious situation where we're doing estimates, and we're continuing those estimates without a minister to answer the questions? Yet curiously, every time the non-existent minister doesn't get up and answer a question. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order, hon. Chair. The members know they cannot refer to a member's absence from the chamber. It's against the standing orders.

The Chair: The Premier is indeed correct, and it's in the standing orders.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, hon. Chair, there's no need to refer to the fact that the Minister of Forests isn't here, because there's nobody to answer his questions. We don't need to refer to it; it just happens.

The Chair: That is not a point of order. I have ruled, and the ruling stands.

G. Abbott: This time, in order to not be unparliamentary, I won't make any reference to the absence of the minister.

The Chair: No, indeed you will not, and you've just done that.

G. Abbott: Oh, pardon me, then.

The Chair: You will not do that again, hon. member.

G. Abbott: What I will say, hon. Chair, is that there appears to be a certain reluctance on the part of the minister to answer questions, and that's most unfortunate. Perhaps in this interim, while we await some answers to our questions, I'd like to read from the foreword to this 1987-88 edition of Canadian Legislatures.

The Chair: On vote 37, hon. member.

G. Abbott: This will soon be related to vote 37.

The Chair: We hear a lot about preambles in this chamber. On vote 37, hon. member.

G. Abbott: I yield to the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

P. Reitsma: Before I go through the Forest Act -- and there are quite a number of pages in here, actually -- I was going to ask the minister, of course. . . . There seems to be some reluctance by the minister, as was mentioned, to stand up and be counted in terms of. . . . Maybe anybody can tell me. We determined that about 6.77 FTEs are with the chief forester's division. I wonder what the 0.77 is related to or where it stands. I would like to ask of the minister -- or a designated hitter, if you like -- how many are involved and in what capacity, in the office of the chief forester.

Hon. G. Clark: This is clearly an abuse of question period. I'd be happy. . . .

[ Page 5308 ]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Of estimates, excuse me. I'd be happy. . . . What we'll do, hon. Chair, with these pathetic questions from the opposition is take them down, and the minister will give an answer to the members opposite.

G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, order. Will everyone take his or her seat. When you've taken your seat, hon. member. . . .

Now, I understand that a point of order has been raised. I'm prepared to hear the point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice your diligence in the chair, and I would just ask you to call the Premier to order when he's raising issues that are not related to either answers or questions in the Forests estimates. Rather, he was just whining, hon. Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: What I said was: these inane questions about specifics -- how many people work in this part of the ministry, which have been answered already. . . . Even if they haven't, they're quite appropriate, if the members want to abuse the House time that way, and all of them will be answered. They'll be taken down, and an answer will be mailed back to the members in due course. There's absolutely no reason for the minister to engage in any such answers like this. There's been more time spent on these estimates, by the way, than in any jurisdiction in Canada. I know you feel you're winning on it. Carry on all you want. All the questions will be answered in due course by the minister.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hopefully, the Premier won't be surprised when I decline his kind offer, given the number of times that offer has been made by the members opposite with only failure to follow through. This just adds to the huge mounting numbers of promises which have been made by this government and statements made by that Premier, which later turned out to be far from the truth.

P. Reitsma: Whilst I don't want to digress -- and let me assure you that this is leading up to the next question. . . . I remember that during the campaign of last year -- and in particular, of course, in my constituency of Parksville-Qualicum, which includes Lantzville and north Nanaimo, as well -- like everybody else, we went out on the campaign trail promising that here was an opportunity. All of us did that, actually. If elected, if given the nod, if we would be so honoured as to carry the banner for whatever party we represented, in the House we would be able to represent the hopes and dreams and aspirations of people, our constituents. As a matter of fact, not wanting to go back to May 28, 1996, I'm going to go back to about April 26 or 27, 1970, rather a glorious week for me. I was celebrating my first week in Canada.

This is leading up to the question, slowly, but it's around the corner. It's a bit of a steep curve, I know, and I'm still learning, but I remember visiting this House -- not right here on the floor here but in the precincts over there. My uncle and aunt, as a matter of fact, took me around to the parliament buildings. Of course, I was quite in awe of the surroundings, the marble, the tradition, the heritage. I think it was around April 26 or 27. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, there's an issue of relevance that is arising here.

P. Reitsma: It's coming to the question. . . .

The Chair: On vote 37. Quickly -- relevant in committee, hon. member.

P. Reitsma: It is, hon. Chair, and apparently I do have 15 minutes to lead up to the question. I'm sure, even with my long legs, I'm going fast to get to that question.

I remember sitting in the precincts here listening to people debating, asking about Forestry estimates, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly -- which it doesn't always do, I guess. But I remember that. I thought: "Wouldn't it be nice to be able" -- I was an immigrant, for that matter -- "at one time to represent the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations and be part of this heritage, this tradition, those norms, those customs; to honestly debate and ask questions and, above all, get an answer to those questions." Sometimes, of course, I know it's quite difficult. I would assume that the question I've asked in terms of how many are in the chief forester's office is a difficult question. Fortunately, after three times. . . .

I'm not asking for the vote, hon. Chair; I'm just having a sip of water to lubricate those vocal cords, because we'll be here, I would surmise, a couple of hours, actually -- to indeed get the answers that we are looking for on behalf of our constituents and those who would like to see hopes and dreams and all those things materialize.

Leading up to the question -- and we're almost near the curve; it's a steep one, I know -- I think the first question I asked was in terms of the numbers in the chief forester's office. The question is to whoever may wish to answer, and I'll give the Minister of Forests about ten minutes if he wishes: is he able to tell this House the names of the people and what kind of qualifications they have in order to help, assist and determine the needs for the annual allowable cut?

I think that the Minister of Forests is unable, unwilling and is certainly not prepared, which really surprises me. I thought that the Minister of Forests was such a prepared person. In fact, we have a provincial emergency preparedness office in our constituency, but it's probably not related to this one, of course.

There is some indication from my colleagues that they would like to know what happened during my second week here in Canada. I can't really remember that, so I. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, standing order 61 talks about speeches in Committee of the Whole that shall be "strictly relevant." We're on vote 37, Ministry of Forests.

P. Reitsma: That's exactly why -- since I've been here almost a year now, trying to understand the standing orders -- I will not be talking about my second week in Canada. I'll do that another time. I think I've got some slides, too, actually, so we can do that at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Hon. member, on vote 37, Ministry of Forests estimates.

P. Reitsma: I won't talk about the third week, either.

On vote 37, as we're talking. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I always understand which side of the House the Chair comes from, but I would just. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that's not a relevant issue at this point. It's not an appropriate point to make.

[ Page 5309 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have not finished making my point. I would ask on the point of order that the members be allowed the time to develop their questions so that they can actually ask them. Obviously the Chair cannot anticipate what question the member is going to ask, and so perhaps rather than interjecting every 30 seconds, the Chair could allow the member to develop his train of thought and then ask the question.

The Chair: Hon. member, please take your seat.

I refer everyone to page 137 of Standing Orders. Standing order 61 says: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Vote 37 is the topic at hand. We have heard many speeches in this chamber, many presentations leading to questions. Most of them -- almost all of them -- while lengthy, were indeed relevant to vote 37. I encourage all members: vote 37, please.

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Go ahead.

The Chair: Hon. members, a member wishes to enter the debate, and all members in the chamber are preventing him from doing so.

[10:30]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

B. Barisoff: I want to go back to that environmental study and what took place on those streams. I just had an article given to me that gives me some great concern. It says here. . . Maybe I should put my glasses on; it would be easier. "Highway work caused outright loss of habitat in some cases, reductions in quality for two or three years in some and had negligible effect on others." I referred to that, and then when I read an article like this, where it had that kind of an effect, I have a lot more concern than what was immediately recognized just an hour ago. Could the minister confirm or indicate exactly whether that is the case, whether we've had that kind of serious effect on some of those streams?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it was our release that actually stated that. We were up front as to what we found, and there were various. . . . Some was very minor damage, and then there were some with severe damage. Some of it, as I said, was not to do with the highway construction. A lot of it had to do with the fact that the weather was such that there was a tremendous amount of damage done to the stream beds, etc. We are doing remedial action in those areas and repairing the damage that took place.

B. Barisoff: When I read words like "outright loss. . . ." It really gives me a lot of concern when we totally lose any stream bed anywhere. I can see, as we indicated before, that there are minor things that happen when we're doing stream beds and whatever else; some of these things happen. But when we have outright loss for two to three years to come, somewhere down the line more due diligence should have taken place -- or should take place to make sure that something of this nature never occurs in the future. If we were to do this in more streams -- and these are the ones that. . . . I admire the minister for admitting to the fact that this is what took place. But who's to know what takes place in some of the other ones?

Maybe if she could give the assurance to all of us that something like this -- and I hate to use the word "never. . . ." I don't think we should ever have ourselves fall into a situation where we have an outright loss. There's got to be some better monitoring or something done when we're in this kind of situation.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't assure you that it will never happen again. Like I said, some of it had to do with some of the methods we were using. We're changing those methods, and we're putting in place some assurances, so that we can -- as much as we can -- try to prevent that damage from happening again. In some cases, it just had to do with the heavy rainfall and the siltation that came down. When you get the rainfall that you had throughout this province. . . . We had roads washed out, and we had stream beds that were damaged where there had been no construction whatsoever. It has to do with the weather. Unfortunately, I can't do much to control that. We have certainly recognized those areas. We're doing everything within our power to try and limit the damage there, recognize when there has been damage and put in place the necessary plans to rehabilitate those streams so that there is no net loss at the end of the day in terms of fish habitat.

B. Barisoff: I guess there are occasions when government can't do anything it wants and ones when Mother Nature decides to let the rain fall.

Carrying on to just a few other items before we almost wrap up the TFA, is the Galloping Goose trail, which was actually scheduled for future light transit. . . ? My understanding is that the Ministry of Highways has approved funding for paving parts of that trail under the cycle program. Maybe you could bring me up to date on that.

[6:45]

B. Barisoff: I guess my concern lies with the fact that it was allocated to light rapid transit. Have we not worked these two together to find that we're criss-crossing here? There's a concern that we're going down a path of taking away from one to the other. I'm curious to know what this is costing and what it's going to cost in the future if we have to tear it back out to get back to light rapid transit.

Hon. L. Boone: There is enough right-of-way there to accommodate both, so we won't have to tear anything out.

[ Page 5310 ]

B. Barisoff: Has this project been tendered? Is it going ahead, even though we know that this is the situation? What kind of costs are we looking at for this?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, there is enough right-of-way for both projects, so it's not that we have to tear up anything at all. The project is $5.6 million. Our cost is $2.8 million, and that pays for eight cycling bridges.

B. Barisoff: I was led to believe that there was a cheaper crossing attached to an adjacent highway somewhere that could be built permanently. I was wondering whether there were any other options, rather than looking at putting the cycling path exactly where we've got something else that's planned for the future.

Hon. L. Boone: It was the best place for the project because the right-of-way is already there, it's a good grade, and the light rapid transit project is a long way away.

B. Barisoff: There was actually somebody else who was going to ask some of these questions, but I guess he's on some of the number-crunching people. I'm wondering: in short-term investments and assets, for '96 we had $31 million and the year before, $115 million. Any reasons behind this?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year, in 1995, we borrowed that money -- it was the end of the year -- to pay off projects, so at the end of the year this year we had less borrowed money to pay off, and we had less projects.

B. Barisoff: Just going down some of these other numbers that are quite a way apart. . . . We have here work in progress. In 1996 we had $619 million; the year before, $290 million. Any reason that all of a sudden we have such a great disparity in the amount?

Hon. L. Boone: It was that we were further on in so many more projects that were completed. A lot of them had just started, so it was $290 million; the next year, there were a lot more -- for example, a lot more money went into the Island Highway.

B. Barisoff: A quick explanation, too, on the current portion of capital debt, which was $60 million in 1995, and we're at $164 million in 1996.

Hon. L. Boone: We have more debt because we're actually building more. We had to borrow more money to build it.

B. Barisoff: I'm just looking here at moving on to revenue, where we've got Highway Constructors Ltd. revenue of $29 million versus $6 million, and training of $1 million. And the processing fees seem to jump from $31,000 to $145,000.

Hon. L. Boone: All of these things with regard to the Island Highway have to do with the fact that the project had just begun in 1994-95, in that section there. Construction and labour is the amount that is brought in from the construction companies. And, of course, in 1996 you'd have had far more construction going on, so there would be more coming in -- the same for the processing fees. We're much further along. The project was just beginning, so it was very small, and then it got larger.

B. Barisoff: I see we have $324,000 for rent in 1994, and $592,000 in 1996 -- quite a discrepancy between the two.

Hon. L. Boone: In 1995 you had HCL in operation only for part of the year. Then in the next year, you've got both HCL and the TFA rent.

B. Barisoff: Would that apply to. . . ? That was in office and rent. I see we've got travel substantially higher; we're more than double what it was before. Does that same theory apply to all of these? Why did the accounting and legal fees drop so drastically? If that theory applies to the opposite, then what's happening with the reversal of that?

Hon. L. Boone: We have setup costs and labour board hearings at the outset of a new structure such as HCL, and then obviously in the next year you don't have those same costs, because it's already set up and, hopefully, you don't need lawyers as much.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: My colleague next to me said that was an inappropriate comment. That's one of the few times I agree with the minister: we really don't need lawyers.

Just carrying on, the rest of them seem relatively in order. I'm just wondering what the projected legal fees for this year would be. Have they gone down again?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year the estimate for '96-97 -- the accounting and legal services together -- was $205,000; we actually spent $93,000. This year we are estimating $180,000.

B. Barisoff: If the theory holds true about the 190 to 106, because all of the things were put in place from '95 to '96, what created the jump back up to $180,000 for '96-97?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year's actual was $93,000. This year we are estimating $180,000. We do have an expansion of HCL. There could be expectations of other costs in there, but, hopefully, we will come in at less than that.

B. Barisoff: I think I missed something; it must have been a long weekend. I missed where we are going. What were the '96-97 legal expenses?

Hon. L. Boone: They were budgeted for $205,000; we actually spent $93,000. This year we've cut our estimate down to $180,000. So if we can come in at less than that, we will certainly hope to do so. But I guess, taking into consideration the expansion of HCL and costs that arise with any of those things, $180,000 seems like a legitimate cost.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next page of that budget sheet, net earnings. . . . Can you explain to me where that money is generated from?

Hon. L. Boone: That's the revenue that we have, such as the gas tax and the Quinsam, minus the expenses.

[7:00]

Hon. L. Boone: It's the total amount that we invested in new capital in '95-96.

[ Page 5311 ]

J. Dalton: I have just two or three questions with regard to a proposed shopping centre in Squamish that didn't come to be, and perhaps a question or two about a Mission project as well.

The Garibaldi Plaza. . . . Of course, Mr. Redlin will be familiar with this, as I have a letter on my desk here that was written to him on April 21. The Garibaldi Plaza was supported by many organizations in Squamish, including the chamber of commerce, the Sea-to-Sky economic development committee and the Sea-to-Sky transportation committee. But I gather from my reading of some of the correspondence that they ran into some difficulties around shared funding with BCTFA and MOTH. They requested funding for some highway improvements -- and the figure that I see here is a request for a highway upgrading at $1.6 million -- which, among other factors, resulted in the bottom line that this shopping project did not go ahead, even though it did have a lot of local support. Can the minister comment at all as to whether these requests that her ministry put to the project proposers were reasonable, given the other economic circumstances which, even though we had local support in Squamish, led to a project that, unfortunately, did not come to be?

Hon. L. Boone: This was not something that was required by the province, so it would have meant that the province was subsidizing a developer. I'm sure you recognize that in tight financial times, that's just not something that we can put as a priority.

J. Dalton: There is another shopping centre very near this which B.C. Rail has developed -- the Squamish Station. Was there any request of the ministry that B.C. Rail in any way participate in any highway upgrading or access to that particular project?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know. You're talking about a time period that we have no corporate memory of.

J. Dalton: I can see we're probably not going to accomplish a lot. Just one further question, then. There is a project in Mission which. . . . Perhaps for the want of a better term, I'll call it the Mission highway interchange, if that's reasonably accurate. This one involves Schroeder Properties. I understand from further correspondence I have that there was a one-third, one-third, one-third sharing of the $4.5 million cost of this highway upgrade. Schroeder, of course, participating as a one-third. . . . This is a P3 project, in a sense, I guess you would say. In fact, I believe it is referred to in some of the private-public partnership examples that the ministry has commissioned. So Schroeder has a one-third commitment, Mission district itself has another, and, of course, the Highways ministry is the other one-third. Is that an accurate summary of the funding contribution in that particular project?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is. The difference between this and the other project is that this project actually meets a long-term plan by the ministry for a future Mission bypass. The objective is also to improve safety in handling increasing volumes of traffic from commercial and industrial properties onto Highway 11. So in fact this is something that was in our plans for future development, and we were able to expedite it because we were able to get some cost-sharing.

B. Barisoff: I think that at this point in time, I'd like to thank the staff from TFA for their cooperation in what we've done and thank the minister for getting through this section of the estimates. I'm sure there are other things that we will be asking, and I would like to ask the minister if she could give me her assurance that if we do need other questions answered by the BCTFA, we can call upon them to get those answers in a timely fashion, so we can pass them out to constituents or whatever else it might be.

Hon. L. Boone: As we did last year, if individuals have questions and there aren't people here to answer them, we will take them on notice and get the information to them in written form outside the House -- or phone them or whatever. But we'd take them under advisement to make sure that they do get that information.

The Chair: Let's take a two-minute break while we change to the different staff coming in.

The committee recessed from 7:06 p.m. to 7:09 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to introduce the staff that are with me -- that cast of thousands -- here tonight: of course, ever present is Blair Redlin; Har Singh; John Dyble; our newest member, associate deputy Claire Dansereau; Bob Buckingham; and everybody knows Dan Doyle.

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. minister for the '97-98 transportation programs by highway regions. I have been asking for it, and she's up to her word in making sure that I got a copy of it. It's one of those things that you just like to know for projects throughout the province.

I'd like to start with a few housekeeping items, just to get them on the record. First of all, can the minister give me the ministry's budget for '97-98?

Hon. L. Boone: It is $807.6 million.

B. Barisoff: Carrying on, how many people are employed under this budget? A breakdown of the FTEs -- how many are full-time-equivalents, and how many are on contract?

Hon. L. Boone: Once the phase 2 transfer is completed, there will be 2,571 FTEs.

B. Barisoff: Could you give me the breakdown of what we've got for contracted people and which are full-time employees?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have any contracts that show up here. As I stated before, we have contracts that we give out on a temporary basis, but we don't have any permanent contract employees.

B. Barisoff: I imagine that would probably fall under professional services somewhere, if I could find out what we spend on professional services.

Hon. L. Boone: It's $33.823 million, and $29 million of that is highway capital. We recover all of that from the TFA. This is for engineering, designs, highways, bridges and all of those very expensive things.

B. Barisoff: Can you give me the allocation of the total salaries? I missed that. I have 2,571. What does that equate to in salaries?

[ Page 5312 ]

[7:15]

B. Barisoff: I think the member for Yale-Lillooet should. . . . I'm just trying to wake him up. I didn't think what we were doing was that boring.

The Chair: Order, member.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Chair.

Carrying on, could the minister indicate to me what the supplementary salary costs are?

Hon. L. Boone: Supplementary salary costs are admin allowances, call-out pay, clothing allowances, health and welfare, isolation allowances, allowances for parental and maternity, per diem allowances, salary protection -- that's pensionable -- standby allowances, short changeover, shift premiums, statutory holiday work, substitution pay, vacation subsidy. I think that's about it.

B. Barisoff: And that amounts to how much?

Hon. L. Boone: It's $3.338 million.

B. Barisoff: How does that compare with what we spent last year?

Hon. L. Boone: It's down about $2 million.

B. Barisoff: Can I have the same comparison for the professional operating costs? I'm sorry I didn't ask for the comparison between this year and last year.

Hon. L. Boone: It's down. Last year it was $44.469 million.

B. Barisoff: A couple of questions about travel expenses. I understand that we spend around $6 million for travel expenses. Who is eligible in the ministry for reimbursement of travel, and how many total employees is that for?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, anybody who travels is entitled to a reimbursement, provided that they are doing government business. The budget has gone down considerably. In `96-97 it was $8 million; this year it's $6 million.

B. Barisoff: Are the per diems the same as standard government rates?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Land acquisition represents $570,000 in this year's operating budget. I was going to ask you where you planned to acquire land, but it would probably be inappropriate to ask which land you're acquiring for that amount of money. But I guess some of it must already be on the books.

Hon. L. Boone: I know, for example, that we are acquiring some land in the Quesnel area to protect the right-of-way for the bypass. And we are acquiring land throughout the province -- sometimes it's to protect the land and sometimes it's for projects that are due there. But I can't give you the exact location, because it would be inappropriate, as you said -- and I don't know where it is -- either. I guess you don't want people escalating the cost of that land.

B. Barisoff: I appreciate your answer. In thinking about that in hindsight, you wouldn't know where to go with that.

Asset acquisitions are up by more than 200 percent from last year's budget. Can you give me some indication why?

Hon. L. Boone: Asset acquisition actually is down. I don't have the budget figures from last year, but last year the actual asset acquisition was $314.505 million, and this year it's $256.834 million. So we are actually down.

B. Barisoff: Has the ministry received, or does it expect to receive, any federal grants this year? Have you any amounts?

Hon. L. Boone: Some of the federal-provincial infrastructure money that has come in has already been announced, as you know, with a few of the larger projects -- some of the Transit dollars and the bicycle paths. We are awaiting approval from Minister Anderson on the other infrastructure dollars.

There's $5.5 million from the strategic highway improvement program.

B. Barisoff: An amendment of the commercial transport regulations was passed through order-in-council. I believe section 7.09 was renumbered as 7.09(1) and a couple of new subsections were added to it. Could you outline what these subsections are?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get back to you on that.

B. Barisoff: There are still a couple of other orders-in-council that designated the inland Island Highway, Highway 19 at Campbell River and the South Campbell River connector, controlled-access highways. Could the minister outline these designations and define what is meant by "controlled-access highway"?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's the right to control access onto them, because. . . . Well, obviously on a major highway we don't want people just putting an access onto the highway -- and it also allows us to control the zoning.

B. Barisoff: I think I may need a little bit further explanation of "control the zoning." I can understand the part about the access to the highway, but I don't understand what you're referring to when you're referring to the zoning.

Hon. L. Boone: On a controlled-access highway we have the final say on the zoning that's adjacent to intersections.

B. Barisoff: Maybe to clarify that a little bit better, could you give me some examples of what kind of zoning would be adjacent to. . . ? What would be put as zoning? What do we zone and why would we zone it in that particular fashion?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't do the zoning, but we have the final approval. For example, you don't want to have a high-density project adjacent to the highway so that you have a lot of traffic being built up that would want to come in off the highway there.

[ Page 5313 ]

B. Barisoff: Okay. I understand.

There was a disposition of lands located within the city of Richmond in exchange for advance acquisition of other lands that were required for road purposes. Can you tell me what lands were disposed of?

Hon. L. Boone: We'd have to get back to you as to the exact location on that.

B. Barisoff: So I imagine you'd have to get back to me on which lands they were exchanged for also.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: And I guess you'll have to get back to me on what the ministry's plan for the use of the lands was.

Hon. L. Boone: You got it.

B. Barisoff: Was there any monetary exchange for the deal? Or was it strictly a land swap? If you could get all of those together it would be greatly appreciated.

You've ruined all my questions. But I'm sure you will get back to me on what has taken place.

Moving on to maintenance, a little bit I'm sure that maintenance will probably be a question that a lot of my colleagues will be asking about. How many maintenance contractors do we have in the province to date?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 28.

B. Barisoff: Have there been any changes to the contracts in terms of compensation, and who are the contracts awarded to?

Hon. L. Boone: The last new contract was signed last fall. There were some changes within that period of time. When new contracts were signed, there were some changed operations; some stayed with the existing operator. But if you have a specific contract you want to know about, I could give you that information.

B. Barisoff: I was also concerned about whether any of the contracts were renewed. If so, why were they automatically renewed? Or if they weren't renewed, the opposite also.

Hon. L. Boone: There was no automatic renewal of anybody. It was by public tender.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister confirm what was happening with the maintenance contractors? Were they paid in full during the labour dispute or the work-to-rule by the unions in the go-round last fall?

Hon. L. Boone: They were just paid for the work they did.

B. Barisoff: Maybe I need a little bit more of an explanation. When you say they were just paid for the work they did when they were working to rule, a lot of the work -- some of the maintenance -- wasn't being done. So could you just elaborate on that a little bit?

Hon. L. Boone: They get paid for the actual physical work that they do. They get paid for the equipment that is actually on the road doing the work.

B. Barisoff: I would be led to believe that if there were a work-to-rule situation and normally they have 15 trucks out on the road and they have ten, the government is only actually paying for ten trucks.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Staying with maintenance, I just have a little bit of a concern. I notice in going over the records of the maintenance contracts from 1988, 1991, 1994 and 1996 that they all seem to be for less money. I'm just wondering how the government figures that the maintenance contractors that are maintaining our roads are getting paid less and less, yet collective agreements have gone up and up. Inflation is going up. I'm just wondering if either somebody was making an awful lot of money or we're not getting the same kind of services we received years ago.

[7:30]

B. Barisoff: There's no doubt that I believe in an open tendering policy, but I also think that road safety in British Columbia is of utmost concern. Being the Transportation critic for only one year, through one winter, last winter I actually got a lot of complaints about roads that weren't being maintained to. . . . I shouldn't say "weren't being maintained." They were always being maintained. But I wonder if there's a standard that we go by that is set by the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is. We do investigate those that are not up to standard or performing appropriately. I know that in the past a contract was taken away from a company in Quesnel. I think that was the only time. But we're certainly interested in making sure that all of those contractors live up to their obligations in their contracts.

B. Barisoff: I guess you partially answered this, but I'm just wondering: do we have people out there actually doing quality control of the independent contractors?

Hon. L. Boone: That's what the area managers in each of the districts do.

B. Barisoff: I'm wondering whether it would be more beneficial to have some kind of spot control, whether we're. . . . I know we have the area managers there, but I know sometimes that maybe spot control might be an answer for checking some of these things out. Has the minister ever thought of that?

Hon. L. Boone: The type of spot checks that you're talking about are done, in fact, by our area managers. They do spot checks.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, that's fine. Do we have any litigation going on with any of our former road contractors?

Hon. L. Boone: There are two contracts currently under litigation.

[ Page 5314 ]

B. Barisoff: I guess I'm referring to one for $9.5 million with OK Road Maintenance: is it still before the courts, or has it been settled?

Hon. L. Boone: That's been settled.

B. Barisoff: You knew I was going to ask this question: at what cost?

Hon. L. Boone: It was $1.8 million.

B. Barisoff: So $1.8 million was the cost. What was the settlement? I guess that $1.8 million. . . . Was that the settlement? What did it actually cost the government to fight this in court?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, $1.8 million was the settlement, but it would be all internal AG ministry staff who were working on it.

B. Barisoff: So all court costs that we have go internally through the Attorney General's ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: It was settled out of court.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister tell me how she thinks that the government's going to be able to maintain our infrastructure -- our roads in the province -- with a $73 million reduction in highways rehabilitation money? I'm sure that everybody around you would like to answer that question, because that's going to be a tough task to do. We've got more infrastructure and less money, and we're trying to. . . . I'm just wondering how we're going to maintain our roads with a reduction of $73 million.

Hon. L. Boone: With great difficulty. [Laughter.]

B. Barisoff: I think the safety of the motoring public of British Columbia warrants more of an answer than just "with great difficulty." I think that we're heading into a crisis situation in the direction that we're going, and I would like maybe more of an answer. There has to be some kind of a plan when we reduce the rehabilitation money by $73 million. I know that money isn't easy to come by, but I think the taxpayers and the motoring public of British Columbia deserve more of an answer than just "with great difficulty," because there is a lot of concern out there.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I wasn't joking. I think it is going to be with great difficulty, and we will work our best to prioritize our roads to try and make sure that our dollars are put into safety, so that our roads are as safe as can be. But let there be no. . . . It is not a secret. I would be foolish if I stood here saying there aren't going to be some problems out there, because there will be. We've had some bad slides in the last little while and some terrible weather conditions, and they're putting pressure on our roads everywhere. I'm not about to tell you that it's all rosy, because it's not a rosy picture out there for our roads. But we'll do the best we can. Our first priority is to deal with the safety features and make sure that our roads are kept as safe as possible.

B. Barisoff: How many road projects can we do with this reduction? How much rehabilitation can we actually get done in the province with that kind of a reduction and with the amount of money that we've got left? Maybe we could list a few projects. How much can we get done, and in what areas?

Hon. L. Boone: It's hard for me to say how much we can do, because it depends. In some areas we're doing some repaving; in some areas we're doing seal-coating; in some areas we're doing gravelling; in some we're changing the grade and taking out bad corners. It's hard for me to say that we can get X number of kilometres of road done with this amount of money.

We're trying to spread it out as best we can, and as I said, our first priority is to deal with safety features and try to make our roads as safe as possible. It's not going to be an easy job with this amount of money. However, one has to recognize that when you're doing the budgets. . . . As I said earlier, Health and Education have voracious appetites that eat up a tremendous amount of our money and I have not heard anybody say that they don't want money spent on health and education, and as long as they are. . . . We're trying to keep our commitments there. Unfortunately, our rehab budget has taken a hit in order to do that.

I also recognize what the member from North Peace says -- there comes a time when you can't get to some of those health and education facilities because our roads are in bad shape. I recognize that, we are making the case, and we're doing the best we can. The budget is not an easy situation to deal with, and I don't envy Minister Petter's job in terms of trying to get the right numbers into everything, when everybody -- everybody -- wants more money for everything. That's not a joke -- everybody does want more money for everything. At this particular time, I think we recognize that we have to do the best job we can with the dollars we've got, taking into consideration the need to keep our health and education dollars whole.

B. Barisoff: There's no doubt in my mind that we all know that Health and Education are important. Being the critic for Transportation and Highways, I guess I have a hard time seeing that kind of budget reduction. Then I look through some of the ministry's documents which state that good roads cost less. . . . I'm sure the minister herself has read those documents. Maybe, for the record, the minister could tell me what it costs to fix a road per kilometre when a road is 12 years old.

Hon. L. Boone: I've been told that 12 years is. . . . Your roads will still be in pretty good shape if they're done in 12 years. It's at 16 years that they suddenly crumble. It's like when you reach 50. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Hey, I'm 50. I can say that.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: There's nothing that says that they are going to suddenly deteriorate at 12 -- probably 15, 16 or some point along those lines. Yes, I recognize the cost-saving in putting money into roads. Yes, I'd like to have more money, but I don't. So in this ministry right now, we are dealing with our estimates -- the money that we've got -- and how we can best allocate that. The argument you're having with me on whether or not our budget is good enough is one that we can agree to agree on -- it is not. I'd like to see more, but I also recognize that the government's priorities are health and education, and that is where the dollars have gone. I accept that, and we'll do the best we can with the dollars we've got.

B. Barisoff: I think the question I asked was what it costs to redo a road at 12 years. I know how much per kilo-

[ Page 5315 ]

metre. . . . I know that you probably have those figures, because it comes right out of "Going Places." For the record, I would like to know what it costs to redo a kilometre of road at 12 years.

Hon. L. Boone: I could say that at 12 years it wouldn't cost anything, because that's what we. . . . But at 15 years, it will cost between $50,000 and $60,000 per kilometre to repave it.

B. Barisoff: Maybe I'll have to quote a little section out of here: "At 12 years, the average cost per kilometre is roughly $60,000 per kilometre."

Hon. L. Boone: Well, there.

B. Barisoff: Now, when we get to 18 years of age, which we're rapidly nearing with a lot of our roads, maybe the minister could check and see the difference between what it takes at 12 years and what it takes at 18 years. It becomes quite a staggering difference. For the record, maybe the minister could indicate the difference between 12 years and 18 years.

[7:45]

B. Barisoff: The point is that $60,000 at 12 years and $300,000 at 18 years is truly a staggering difference. I don't make light of the fact that I think somehow, somewhere, we've got to look at this situation. We have just finished I don't know how many hours of estimates on the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which is continuously building new roads. As the years go by, these new roads will become old roads.

I wonder how the minister thinks that we're going to maintain all of the new roads we're building if we can't maintain the roads we already have. They are getting into a situation of deteriorating fast. I'm just wondering whether the minister has ever thought of what kind of liability the province might be faced with as time goes on. If the minister has had the chance. . . . I know it has improved lately over on Highway 3, but some of the potholes on some of these roads are getting to a stage where I know they're being. . . . The maintenance contractors are doing the best they can, but some of them are on a constant basis, and I'm just wondering whether we've ever thought of the kind of liability we might be faced with in the future.

Hon. L. Boone: I think every day we think of the types of costs that we have in the future, and we recognize that these short-term budgetary savings could cost us money in the long term. However, as I said before, this is the budget we have, and we will do the best we can within the budget we have. We will try to make sure that our roads are as safe as can be, but that's. . . . I can't argue with you to get more money, and there's no point in you arguing with me to get more money, because it's not there. It's not there for me to get from the Minister of Finance, and I know that it's not there from him right now, either. So if we did that, it would just increase the debt. We'd have to borrow more money, and then you guys would be down our necks even more. So we're in the hot soup on this stuff. We have to do what we can, and I certainly understand the concerns.

I know the member for Skeena is well aware of the condition of roads, and I'm very aware of the condition of his roads. We're doing the best we can in those areas. As you saw also, there's no shortage of individuals wanting new roads, new passes, new bypasses, new bridges and all of those sorts of things, so it's not an easy thing. We can't say that we're not going to deal with any of those infrastructure needs, either, because we have some other problems in the province. It's tough economic times right now.

B. Barisoff: I thank the minister, because I do understand that it is tough economic times. What else could I be doing with my summer other than sitting here arguing about how much the Transportation budget could be?

Last year we had 620 projects that were under the rehabilitation budget. Can the minister indicate to me how many were completed -- we had $138 million to do them -- and how many are still to be completed?

Hon. L. Boone: We only have the list of this year's rehab projects, so we'll get that information from last year for you.

B. Barisoff: I guess it's tough when we get into the rehabilitation part of the budget, because it sounds like we're standing up here whining and crying. But in all fairness, I don't think that's the direction that I want to take this in. I'm sure the minister understands that I want the general public to understand that it is a serious situation with our roads, and they are important for a number of reasons -- the most important, of course, being the safety of the motoring public; the other is the tourist industry that exists. I think that when we neglect some of these things. . . .

I'm just wondering whether the minister should be fighting harder with Treasury Board to make sure that some of this money is directed towards road rehabilitation. I don't know what she can do to do that, but I am certain that there have to be a lot of areas where we mismanaged the entire budget. When we're looking at a $20 billion budget, I'm sure that a lot of areas have to be looked at very seriously because of the situation that we are in. I'm not trying to make light of it, and in fact we are in a desperate situation with some of our roads.

I think last year I indicated that $135 million or $138 million was lacking; I thought it should go up. I was criticized by my own caucus for asking for more. I don't think it's a matter of asking for more. I think we've got to make sure that we manage the dollars that we have in the best possible fashion.

That carries me on to the same thing with bridges. Sixty percent of our bridges are either wooden, over 40 years old. I'm just wondering what direction have we taken in the bridge situation. Have we got any projects for bridges in the near future?

Hon. L. Boone: The list of all the bridges that are being dealt with this year is in the book that I gave you.

B. Barisoff: I appreciate the minister giving me this book just minutes -- seconds -- before we were ready to go. But 

[ Page 5316 ]

that's all right: I wasn't going to ask her about every bridge, anyhow -- just a couple of them that have been brought to my attention. One is the Pitt River Bridge on the Lougheed Highway. It has, from what I understand, severe backup problems. That's probably one of the major ones.

Hon. L. Boone: Pitt River counterflow will open in the fall.

B. Barisoff: In this 1997-98 transportation program for the highway regions. . . . This is what's happening initially. Have we got a long-term plan of what we're looking at for bridge rehabilitation in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: We are looking ahead in the ministry on a regular basis. However, we can't really release anything until it has Treasury Board approval, and each year we have to go to Treasury Board for approval for whatever projects. So it's not possible for us to release that information until such time as Treasury Board has dealt with it.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure the minister has this graph of pavement age that I'm looking at. When I look at this graph. . . . I'm sure that the staff you've brought have looked at it over the years. This goes back to a 1995 provincial average. When I look at it, it's hard to imagine that we've got a lot of our pavement exceeding 16, 17. . .and all the way up to 25 years old. I guess it's still a concern. Maybe the minister can consult with staff to indicate where we are with some of these roads that are probably upwards of 25 years old and still looking for pavement.

Hon. L. Boone: When we talked about the average age of the pavement before -- 12 versus 15. . . . That's an average. We have roads, in fact, with pavement that's 25 years old which is still in good condition, possibly because of the quality of the pavement put down, because they don't have much traffic on it or because of the weather conditions. So it all depends on the type of conditions that they have. We are doing an assessment right now of the pavements in the province to determine the status of the major roads and the pavement.

B. Barisoff: Tootling on to another question, I'm just wondering, when I look at some of the pavement and the reasons why it's breaking up. . . . Has the ministry has ever considered lowering the gross vehicle weight of trucks that can be on big. . . ? When you look at some of the grooving that's taking place, I'm just wondering whether the ministry has ever considered lowering that gross vehicle weight so that some of the roads could actually last longer.

Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, it's the logging trucks that actually have the ability to go overweight there. I guess it would. . . . At this particular time, do we lower the weight that is allowed on logging trucks and put more financial problems on them? They wouldn't be able to carry as much at a time when the industry is suffering. You always have to weigh all of these things to determine what you would do. But this is not the first time it's been suggested to me that we lower the weights -- never by somebody in the forest industry, mind you. I think you have to be very careful as to the impact that it's going to have on the industry out there. I'm very cognizant right now of the difficulties the industry is having and would not want to do so without consulting with the industry as to the impact that that would have on them.

B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister could use the same criteria as they are using with the timber accord, where they're planning to pay the loggers the same amount of money for less work. Maybe we could pay the logging truck drivers the same amount of money for hauling less.

Carrying on with that, could the minister possibly check what the loads, the GVW weights, are in the state of Washington versus what they are in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Yeah, we'll check that out.

B. Barisoff: From what I know, I think that they are lower; and when you look at the big scheme of things economically, if everybody is working on a lower basis, it's not a problem. I know that we do allow overweights and whatever else, but I don't think, for whatever reason. . . .

[8:00]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, it's something that has been brought to my attention by some of my own members. I would consider discussing this with the industry to see if we could come to some agreement on this. But at this particular time, I would be very cognizant of the effect that it might have on the industry and not want to put any more costs on them. But if what you say. . . . Perhaps they may actually look at it and say: "Yeah, it's the same cost for everybody, and therefore it's not going to hurt us." But they didn't seem to think that way when it came to stumpage or to the costs of the Forest Practices Code. It hurt them all the same, but they still thought that it was an impediment to their business. I'd be willing to discuss it with them and see, but as I say, now is not a good time to actually foist new costs on them.

I. Chong: I wasn't going to participate in this part of the estimates, but a few questions that my colleague asked have raised some questions in my mind. I'd like to ask: is there someone you have on staff in the ministry office that actually deals with setting these minimum standards or criteria for the condition of the roads that have to be maintained?

Hon. L. Boone: We were talking about maintenance contractors. Are you talking about maintenance standards, like for snow clearing? Not down here -- you don't care about snow clearing, but you should. You had it last year, didn't you? Are you talking about the standards for the way we build our roads or the way they're kept or what?

I. Chong: Perhaps in conjunction with the building of the road, but in fact, I guess, the rehabilitation or maintenance of the road in general on an annual basis. I'll just give the minister a little more information on where I'm coming from. In the municipalities, for example -- having come from local government -- there is a minimum standard for our roads that we have to maintain on a year-round basis. An action 

[ Page 5317 ]

plan is developed, as I'm sure the ministry should be doing -- and that's why I'm asking this question -- to ensure that the roads are looked at every three years or every five years or whenever, depending on where those roads are located. Given that the maintenance of these roads, and the budget, has been reduced by a substantial amount, I'm wondering if there has been any revisiting of that to ensure that roads that can be extended for a longer period of time without maintenance can be done for safety reasons.

As my colleague has mentioned, the issue of liability can be raised. If a road is to be maintained every three years and if it is neglected and no one on staff has looked at that issue or is prepared to look that issue, then in fact we have a liability issue. We have a problem, because not only do we have neglect but we have a safety issue. Those are the questions I'm concerned about: whether the ministry has a committee or a staff resource that ensures that with the reduction in the budget, which I understand and accept, the roads can be maintained on a less-use basis or whatever the basis they have. So there has to be a criterion, I would imagine, or an acceptable level of road condition that the ministry has. There has to be, I would imagine, an action plan -- a five-year action plan, a ten-year action plan or something on that basis. I'm wondering if the minister can provide a little more enlightenment on that particular issue.

Hon. L. Boone: We do have a machine that goes out and actually measures the life of the pavement on the major highways. The other roads are done by visual assessment by our area managers, and they're done up to the standards. So we do have the knowledge as to what the state of our roads is in each of our districts. We are also trying to extend their life through things such as seal-coating and recycling the pavement -- you know, they call that hot-in-place. We're trying to do as much as we possibly can to extend the life of a road.

I. Chong: I certainly appreciate the fact that in order to be cost-effective, you do try to extend the life of roads. But where you can't, because the roads have been in place for a number of years and they are not due yet for a refurbishing or new asphalt or new paving, does the ministry keep an inventory of all the roads it's responsible for the maintenance of? If you're dealing with visual checking of the roads, surely some of these things would be missed. As I mentioned earlier, I know that at the local government level we do have to develop a systematic way or proof or an audit trail, if you will, to show that we have put in place some plan and show some accountability that we have dealt with the maintenance of the road and the public safety issue. We were told that if we did not, then if a cyclist, for example, hit a pothole or a car hit a pebble on a road that had not been cleared in what they would consider to be a frequent time frame, certainly there would be a risk the municipality would have to deal with, and there would be costs involved in the sense of liability and insurance. That's really where I'm headed with this. Could the minister advise if there is such a plan, or if there has ever been such a plan or whether there is any intention to have such a plan or to do an inventory of those kinds of things, given that it seems you will be trying to extend the frequency of how often the roads are going to be maintained with a reduced budget?

Hon. L. Boone: Our maintenance contracts have standards written into them. So they have to maintain the roads to these standards, and potholes, etc., have to be filled and maintained to those standards. We have standards that our roads have to be maintained at. The visual inspections are done by our area managers on a yearly basis, and it's the exceptions we keep track of. If there is a problem area and if there is one that needs to be dealt with, then we keep track of that. Those are done on a yearly basis. So we have very stringent standards and very highly qualified staff in the field to do these inspections.

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that the minister is advising that there are standards, because that's at the heart of what I was asking: to ensure that there are in fact standards, that there are acceptable and non-acceptable levels for that.

Given that the budget has been reduced so severely and that in the past there was a certain level of routine maintenance, I understand that the minister stated earlier that it's certainly going to be a difficult task to do that. Would those standards still be maintained or be in place? It certainly raises the question in one's mind that it would be very difficult to maintain the standards if you've got less money to deal with those standards. What resolution has the ministry come to on that issue?

Hon. L. Boone: We actually don't have a reduction in the maintenance budgets. There is a slight increase in maintenance, and they will be getting a cost-of-living increase, as well. It's the rehab budget that's been reduced considerably, not the maintenance budgets.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for the clarification.

One other question before I turn it back to our critic, the member for Okanagan-Boundary. He previously asked about the Infrastructure Works program that is now in place. The curiosity I have is the fact that Infrastructure Works was just announced recently, yet the budget was prepared for '97-98 some months ago, back in February and March. I'm curious how that has been massaged into the budget, when clearly in '97-98 you weren't aware of which infrastructure programs you would be participating in. How have you changed it now so that you can participate? Have you given less importance to some of the projects you had planned? Within your budget you had a certain number of projects that you were planning to do. I would imagine that you have reallocated that now to accommodate the infrastructure moneys and the one-third partnership issue. I'm curious if the minister can share with us what projects have now been deferred, if any, or how that has been reallocated in light of the ability to share in the infrastructure program.

Hon. L. Boone: In fact, this was written into our budget because we had been negotiating with the federal government. Prior to it being announced, we knew that those dollars were going to be made available to us, so we were able to put it into our budget for consideration. But there are things, such as the cycling network program, we didn't have to add anything to, because $2 million was already in our budget, and then $2 million came from the federal government and $2 million came from the local municipalities. So we just used the existing dollars that were already there. Those things were already written into our budget.

I. Chong: For clarification, what I'm hearing the minister state is that the budget prepared for '97-98 included a number of projects -- perhaps a bare minimum of what you wanted to do, in the sense of cycling paths and networks and a few other projects -- and that the announcement of the infrastructure moneys has allowed the ministry to expand on that, so that 

[ Page 5318 ]

there has not been a reduction. In fact, with the infrastructure program the federal government has provided, we are looking at an expansion of what the ministry had not previously necessarily committed to.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. As I mentioned, the cycling network is a very good example. We already had $2 million, so we were able to do $6 million. We would have normally done $4 million, because we had $2 million from us and $2 million from the municipalities. We are able to do $6 million because the feds put in their dollars. We had set aside this money in anticipation that we were going to be getting the dollars from the federal government and that we would be looking for projects coming from municipalities. In some cases, these are not projects that we would have done especially, because they are in municipalities, but we knew that the money was coming and we knew that this was in roads, so that was put aside.

[8:15]

Hon. L. Boone: Nothing has been dropped from the Infrastructure Works program. A lot of that has not been announced, as well; it's still to come. We're waiting for Minister Anderson to put his stamp on it and get it to us. If you have any pull with Minister Anderson, move him forward.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, he's not a New Democrat -- I know that for sure. We've been trying to boost him along on this, and I'd like to see those out the door as soon as possible.

K. Krueger: I listened raptly to the discussion between the minister and our critic about the state of affairs of the rehabilitation of our highways and the fact that at the 12-year mark, it costs $60,000 per kilometre, I believe, to rehabilitate a highway; by 18 years, that rises five times, to $300,000 per kilometre. Clearly, the time to act is well before the 18-year mark. Just as we don't wait to replace our roofs until the rain has been pouring into the house for a few years, we need to rehabilitate highways at the right time and before the expenses rise astronomically.

When we hear the minister talk about the fact that the government's priorities are health care and education, of course, the opposition agrees that public safety, health care and education are the highest priorities of government. At the same time, there has to be good stewardship of the public purse, and good and careful planning as to how and when other expenditures are made. When the opposition sees unnecessary expenses from our point of view, such as the Island Highway agreement brought about -- the HCL arrangement -- the health labour relations accord and all of these things, then we continue to feel an obligation to remind the government that we don't have a revenue problem in British Columbia. We have a spending problem. The minister, I'm sure, is aware of her duty to really represent the Ministry of Transportation and Highways well in Treasury Board discussions and in budget allocation discussions, so that important issues such as rehabilitation don't go unaddressed.

I have a letter here from a number of very knowledgable people in the highways maintenance industry. I won't name them, but they want this on the record, so I'll just read a part of it.

"We are extremely concerned with the reduced level of funding for the rehabilitation of the province's roads and bridges. This fiscal year, the total funding for rehabilitation is down to approximately $80 million, including a $15 million assist from the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. This is down from $138.5 million budgeted last year, an amount that was well below the MOTH's own estimates of basic requirements. This reduced level of funding has at least the following effects: public safety will be affected given that more potholes and general road and highway breakdown will occur; the provincial economy will be hurt because the deterioration of our roads increases the cost of transport of goods and people movement; rehabilitation expenditures will actually rise overall in the long run because the costs rise exponentially as rehabilitation is delayed.

"Reducing the rehabilitation budget is false economy. MOTH's own research suggests that $250 million per year is required to properly rehabilitate the provincial inventory of roads. Any annual expenditure below $250 million merely expands the already huge accumulated infrastructure deficit."

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I don't know what you'd like me to respond to. I've already stated that, yeah, it's a difficult situation. We're doing the best we can. We could easily use more money, but we don't have more money. The province, as you know, is faced with a situation of reducing the debt and coming in with a balanced budget. Each and every one of you has told us that's what you want us to do. At the same time, the public out there are telling us they want us to focus on health and education, so we are doing that. It means that we don't have as much money for roads. We don't have as much money for Environment or Forests or Agriculture or Employment and Investment -- you name it. There isn't as much money for any of these programs -- Municipal Affairs. . . . You know, the only budgets that have had increases have been Children and Families -- as you all know, there have been severe problems, so dollars go into that area -- Health, Education and AG. Those are the only ministries that have seen any kind of increase. So given what the public are saying to us in terms of getting our fiscal house in order, I don't see that we have any choices other than to live within the budget that we have.

We don't have the opportunity to increase the debt. That's not something that you would like to see. We do not have the opportunity to increase taxes. That's not something you'd like to see. We don't have the opportunity to not work towards a balanced budget. Those are the realities. They're not realities that I like. I'd very much like to have a budget of $280 million in rehab. I'd very much like to do all the things that I'd like to have happen throughout. . . . I'd like to deal with Highway 37; I'd like to deal with the roads around Kitimat; I'd like to deal with the Peace River area. I'd love to do all of those things, but we don't have those dollars there. So until such time as I do have the money, I don't have the opportunity to do that.

You mention HCL. The Kunin report just came out. It shows quite clearly that HCL did not cost the province money. The report that individuals keep talking about is one that was done prior to HCL even being in place. But that was a very good report that was done, and it clearly shows that that has not cost the province money.

[ Page 5319 ]

K. Krueger: But given the fact that a road in need of rehabilitation becomes a liability, and the liability is $60,000 a kilometre at the 12-year mark and will rise to $300,000 per kilometre in six years, does the minister not agree that it's a false economy to wait for the six years?

Hon. L. Boone: I certainly agree that we should have that money to spend on our roads right now, but I also know that you want your schools, you want your hospitals, you want the money spent on all of these various things. We can't do all of those things, and we can't do all of those things at the same time as reduce taxes and decrease the debt. It's just not possible to do. You know, if there was any other alternative out there that was acceptable, then maybe one could look at it. If you hadn't done such a darn good job making individuals say that the debt was a problem, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

Hon. L. Boone: We're doing the best we can to deal with the budget that we have, and that is all we have. I don't have any more money; this is it.

K. Krueger: I appreciate and accept the minister's accolades for the good job that we've done in ensuring that the government is aware that deficit and debt should be and must be major priorities of the government.

Nevertheless, we have to make the point that good stewardship is paramount here and that spending has to be done wisely and in the right ways. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem in B.C. There is enough money to look after our assets, including maintenance and rehabilitation where they are necessary.

How does the minister respond to the suggestion that the idea here is that there cannot possibly be a third term of NDP government and that therefore these expenses are simply being deferred, albeit at five times the levels, until a Liberal government will be dealing with them?

Hon. L. Boone: Oh, in the manner that it's given, it's a joke. Obviously, if we didn't think we were going to be in government, we'd be spending like mad because we'd be thinking that we had no problem. We wouldn't have to deal with it. If we really thought that we weren't going to be in government again, then we'd be spending like there was no tomorrow, because it would be you guys who would have to deal with the debt and the deficit. But when you try to be fiscally responsible, that is when it's really difficult. And that's what we're trying to do right now, hon. member.

Interjection.

The Chair: The Chair would like to bring members back to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

K. Krueger: As we swing back to those estimates, we'll just make the point that clearly that's what happened between 1991 and 1996. And now we're all paying the price.

One of the problems that has arisen in my constituency is the problem of road-salt contamination in the Heffley Creek area, which poisoned a number of people's wells. I wonder if the minister could update us as to what the current status of the cleanup project is.

Hon. L. Boone: The vast majority of the work has already been done -- getting people new wells, moving the storage area -- and there are just some very minor things that have to be done this year.

K. Krueger: What will the total cost of that problem have been when it's completed?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get those figures for you.

K. Krueger: Are there any consequences to individuals with regard to mistakes such as that having occurred? Perhaps from the minister's point of view it wasn't a mistake. Perhaps we could have the minister's explanation of how it could be that a mini-environmental disaster like this occurred.

Hon. L. Boone: These decisions were made in the 1950s, so there's no individual that could be held responsible. The ministry certainly has been deemed responsible and has paid for those actions. It would be very difficult to hold any one individual responsible for this situation.

K. Krueger: Since, by the minister's own admission, she was only three years old at that time, I'm going to take my seat and let the member for Shuswap deal with it from here.

G. Abbott: I'm not going to deal with that thorny issue; that's way too controversial for me.

I would like to briefly canvass three rather disparate issues, the first of which is the situation at Adams Lake. I want to begin with the rather unusual step of actually complimenting the minister on the progress that has been made there over the past year. I don't like to compliment the government too often, or they start to get the idea that they actually might be doing a good job. Generally speaking, we don't want to have that idea become generally accepted.

But seriously, I think the ministry has done a good job in putting together some progress there. In particular, I think the installation of the cable ferry and the improved service to the people there has in large measure contributed to a better atmosphere around Adams Lake and, hopefully, contributes in a positive way to the resolution of the broader issues there, as well.

In particular, I want to commend a couple of the minister's staff with respect to their work at Adams Lake. Assistant Deputy Minister Doyle was very actively involved and, I think, did a very good job, as did Okanagan-Shuswap district manager Dan Williams. Both continue to work on that project, if we can call it that, and I do want to compliment them for some very good work in putting a better situation in place in Adams Lake.

I don't particularly want to probe into where the ministry is going on Adams Lake. I think I understand in a general way what's proposed there. What I hope for and what I think everyone hopes for there is quiet progress in the year ahead and, hopefully, a resolution of the outstanding bridge and road questions. I think we have made progress over the past year by dealing with it in a quiet, respectful and responsible manner, and hopefully we can see more of the same.

I think the most recent work that's been done by the ministry has been very good in bringing the residents of 

[ Page 5320 ]

Adams Lake into the loop. I think it was quite an inspired move to create a committee that would actually give the non-aboriginal residents of Adams Lake, as well as the aboriginals, a sense of where the negotiations were going. So that's very good, and that has helped in considerable measure to ease some of the tensions which are so obvious at Adams Lake at times.

I think the process that's been put in place is a very good one. That's not to say it's necessarily going to succeed. There are all kinds of challenges that could emerge at Adams Lake at any given time. Hopefully, we'll have a quiet and peaceful summer there and continue to make progress on issues. But there is always a danger of that situation spinning out of control despite the best wishes of everyone. Regardless of what may happen in the months ahead, the process that's been put in place is a very good one, and I think it will bear fruit, hopefully within the year.

[8:30]

Knowing how difficult it is at times to devote the resources to putting out all the fires that are emerging around the province, I do hope, and ask the minister if she can provide assurance, that the resources that are necessary will continue to be allocated to Adams Lake, to see a successful resolution of this in the months ahead.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. We'll continue to work. I mean, it will all depend on the resources, you know. If suddenly there were more fires there -- let's hope there aren't any more fires -- we could be in big trouble.

I do want to add something to this, and I want to recognize Dan Doyle's participation in this, because he's done an excellent job of bringing together the communities. I also want to compliment you, as well, because I think you've done a tremendous job. You have not politicized this issue. I mean, when you first came to me as a newly elected MLA, you made it quite clear that you wanted to work with the ministry to find a resolution, and you've done so. I really appreciate that, and as you said, it's proven that it works. It's not always easy. It takes longer to work through some things like this, but by working cooperatively the way you have with the staff and the way everybody has done, I think we've managed to come to some good solutions there. So we'll continue to do that, and I want to thank you publicly for your assistance in helping us through this very difficult situation.

G. Abbott: Thank you to the minister for those kind words.

The second issue I would like to discuss with the minister revolves around, to put it succinctly, the use of recycled plastic materials by the ministry. The concern here revolves around some constituents of mine who have made a business out of taking recycled plastics and remolding them into picnic tables, benches and possibly portable washrooms and all that sort of thing. Their concern is that they are not getting from the provincial government -- in particular some ministries of government, and I think the Ministry of Highways is one of them -- a clear set of guidelines and a clear set of specifications as to what the ministry would look for in terms of recycled plastic products that could be used as tables and so on. Does the minister have any comment with respect to that?

Hon. L. Boone: These people have not contacted me, but if you'd like to put them in contact with Dan Doyle, give him their names, and Dan would be happy to talk to them and see if we can work out some solution to their problem.

G. Abbott: Just to pursue it a little bit more, the principals of this firm in Chase sent me copies of correspondence they've had with, first of all, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and secondly, Transportation and Highways.

The letter in response from Environment, Lands and Parks indicates that ministry staff are considering developing a green government policy for all ministries, agencies and Crown corporations related to purchasing; however, the deciding factor in determining the product selection rests with the purchasing agency and depends upon the product's ability to satisfy essential maintenance and operational requirements. So the indication from Environment is that they are planning an overall policy to deal with this, which I think would be commendable. Clearly, if we are going to be pushing for a maximization of recycling in plastics among other things, we should all be doing our part in terms of maximizing the use of those recycled products through our own ministries, local governments, etc.

The response from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is actually over the minister's signature, and I'll just note it briefly. It says: "My ministry supports protection of the environment through the use of recycled materials. Although some of the specifications preclude the use of plastic products, our reasons are based on established service and identity standards rather than a reluctance to use recycled plastics." Could the minister explain what would be meant by established service and identity standards?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it has to do with durability, visibility and reflectivity.

The best situation would be for these individuals to actually contact the ministry, and we can arrange to talk to them.

G. Abbott: That's fine, thank you.

There's one other point before I leave this area. In the same letter of January 15, 1997, it's noted that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has created a new product standing committee, and it says: "By copy of this letter, I am asking the chair of that committee, Mike Oliver, the deputy chief highway engineer, geotechnical and materials, to canvass the various departments and review their requirements." Could the minister advise what stage that review is at now? Is it complete, and are there results pursuant to it?

Hon. L. Boone: I'd have to ask that individual. I haven't seen anything on it yet.

G. Abbott: I don't want to dwell on this. I do hope that this ministry -- and I plan to raise the matter, of course, with the Minister of Environment as well -- will look seriously at the possibilities of using these materials in roadside pullouts and that kind of thing. Again, given that we are strongly encouraging the recycling of materials, the more -- to use that 

[ Page 5321 ]

tired word -- proactive we can be in this area, the better off we can be. Hopefully, we'll see some progress in that area in the year ahead, as well.

The other area I want to talk about is the capital rehabilitation program for newly incorporated areas. This is a program that was put in place in 1989, I believe. There was originally $2 million or $3 million attached to it. Could the minister advise what's in the current budget for capital rehab for newly incorporated municipalities?

Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, this project actually ended. The incorporation assistance program and the secondary highways program were eliminated, but we have maintained the money in our budget for outstanding commitments. So this year we have $1.5 million for those grants that were previously approved.

G. Abbott: Just to make sure I've got it right, the rehab program I'm talking about is the capital rehab program for newly incorporated municipalities specifically. If I can explain my thoughts and concerns here, when the district of Sicamous incorporated in 1989, I think one of the reasons people felt comfortable in endorsing incorporation at that time was that a program was being put in place, largely in response to the concerns of Sicamous about the condition of the roads they were inheriting after incorporation. So I think that implicitly at least, and I guess explicitly in the incorporation agreement, there was a recognition that the province would be funding a 75 percent contribution for the upgrading of roads Sicamous would be inheriting. So I have some concern here, given that I don't believe that for the last three or four years -- or maybe it's just two years -- the district of Sicamous has received any capital rehab funding. I'm wondering whether in fact the moral obligation of the province has been satisfied with respect to that community and indeed to others that have incorporated since.

Hon. L. Boone: Sicamous is receiving $11,000 this year for crack-sealing under the rehab program.

G. Abbott: A thank-you to the minister for reminding me that in fact Sicamous was getting a small contribution for the cracked-sealing. The larger project, though, for which the district of Sicamous has applied for funding -- for three years running now, I believe -- is the resurfacing of Main Street in Sicamous. It's been under request from the district for, I think, three years, and one that, the ministry indicated in correspondence two and three years ago, wasn't possible in that year but would be considered the following year. Am I to understand, then, that there is absolutely no prospect of Sicamous being funded for that project in the future?

[8:45]

G. Abbott: Just to make sure I've got it right: the initial response was that the program had been terminated. That's not quite right, then. Is there still a program that can be renewed next year?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: There are no new applicants coming into it, but we're trying to honour all our past applicants. So we've got ongoing commitments for about eight years.

J. Weisgerber: I want to follow up on a number of local road issues in Peace River South particularly, but I am sure there would be some overlap with Peace River North as well. The first area: in our estimates last year we talked about a new initiative by the province, which was to abandon maintenance on several hundred kilometres of road in both North and South Peace -- the argument being that these roads didn't service residences and were receiving a relatively low level of maintenance. As I recall our debate, the ministry simply withdrew those roads as part of the maintenance contract. Since then, I know that the minister, the deputy and others have had a number of conversations, meetings, within the community, etc. I wonder if the minister could give me a brief update on that program. Is it being expanded? Is it being maintained? Are there roads that the ministry has decided it in fact has an obligation to contract maintenance for? Have there been any changes in the status since our last discussions a year ago?

Hon. L. Boone: It's the status quo as it was last year.

J. Weisgerber: During the estimates last year we talked about the difficulties that the signs themselves presented. The ministry, while it had no money for maintenance, had money to put signs up in the middle of the road, saying: "We don't maintain this road anymore." In addition to the problems people had getting their equipment up and down the road, they now had to dodge the sign which said: "We don't maintain the road anymore." So I think one of the undertakings last year was that at least we would go down and move the signs off to the side of the roads so as not to present one more impediment to people trying to move large farm equipment down those narrow, now-unmaintained roads. Could the minister tell me what's happened in that respect?

Hon. L. Boone: I understand you reminded the assistant deputy minister of this problem, and he says he will take care of it.

J. Weisgerber: I take it from that answer, then, that the signs are probably still where they were first placed. Does the minister anticipate that before the fall season, before the harvest season, which is one of the times when these signs are particularly annoying, those could be moved off to the side of the road -- say, before the end of August?

Hon. L. Boone: Pushing a little bit there. Middle of September -- how's that?

J. Weisgerber: Well, this isn't an auction, so I guess whenever we get them moved, we'll get them moved. Hopefully, it can be done so as to remove that problem.

The rationale, as I recall, for the elimination of maintenance contracts on these roads was that they were low levels, the contractor didn't maintain them often, and instead the ministry was going to do spot maintenance on an as-needed basis. Could the minister tell us how much money the ministry has spent in the last 12 months on the kinds of maintenance on those roads that we discussed last year, which would be filling in a pothole, putting in a culvert, bringing in a few loads of gravel to make a road passable? How much money would have been spent on that undertaking?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that detail right here, but we'll get that information for you.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously my concern is that it would be little or nothing. If I'm wrong, I'll be pleased to be proven 

[ Page 5322 ]

wrong. The concern of the farmers who depend on those roads is that if it's not something that the maintenance contractor is obliged to do, the danger will always be that there's no money in the district office when the problem arises. So I'll look forward to getting that information.

The second issue I want to talk a little bit about is road bans. The minister will know that historically, when spring breakup comes, the ministry puts road bans on highways, secondary roads, feeder roads, etc., -- the rationale for that being that during the time the frost is coming out, there's a lot of damage to the roads and therefore there shouldn't be heavy loads. The last two years -- not just this year, but the last two years -- it's been almost the first of July before the road bans have been lifted, so those people whose economic activities involve the use of the roads -- the farmers, many of whom were harvesting in the spring this year; people who harvest aspen, which is often over part of the provincial grid-road system; gas and oil activity. . . . The economic activity of the region depends on roads, and it's been three months a year for two years in a row that people have not been able to work because they can't use the road system.

When I called this year, I was advised: "Well, we're only a little bit longer than we were last year in taking the road bans off." Arguments were given around the very wet season, etc. But I'm very much concerned that the trend has now been established where road bans are going to be left on Peace country roads for three months out of the year, and I think it's going to have some rather serious economic repercussions. If you can't haul grain, if you can't haul logs, if you can't do oil exploration for a quarter of every year, that puts a tremendous strain on the local economy. I wonder if there's a policy that has evolved here, the result of which is these long road closures.

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's just the conditions. There's nothing to say. You know, we've had a really wet winter at various places, and I imagine yours has been similar -- bad winter, heavy spring, not good conditions. But there's no intent to sort of keep our bans on a permanent basis. A similar concern about long road bans was expressed to me by some individuals from the Chilcotin. They were saying that they would like to have the road bans taken off at night when it actually freezes so that they could haul, so I said there's no reason we can't do that. We'll look into it, and we'll try to make sure that staff recognize the needs of the industries up there. But you have to understand that your roads are in bad condition up there now; we don't want to make them any worse by allowing trucks on them when they're in bad shape. Staff are doing the best they can to try to make sure that the roads don't deteriorate any more than necessary, but we'll make sure that they are reasonable in their demands.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly I appreciate the various pressures that are on the ministry. People are upset because the roads are bad; others want to work and say: "Well, the roads are so bad, what difference can it possibly make anyway?" The two points I want to make are that the road ban extension was not just this year; it occurred last year as well. So there's an anxiety that this is not just a reaction to a very wet spring but in fact a shift in policy. So I wanted to get that issue put forward.

I think that last year the argument was made that the frost was very slow coming out of the ground. This year nobody bothered to argue that by June 30 we were still talking about frost. It was simply, for the first time in my recollection, that road bans were left on the road not because of frost coming out of the roads but simply because they were in such rough condition that they couldn't maintain traffic.

The minister has given an undertaking that I think is as reasonable as anyone could expect under the circumstances, and I'm satisfied with that. I'd feel that I wasn't doing my job if I didn't again raise this issue of the terrible, terrible condition of the roads there this year.

As I listen to other debates here this evening and to the talk about the focus on health care and education, I want to again make the point that health care is only as good as you can access. If you can't get to town to see the doctor or if you can't get to town to get into the hospital, then it's cold comfort that the province is funnelling its money into the health care system.

Earlier this year I raised the issue of a lady in her nineties who, when she called the maintenance contractor to find out how she was going to get into town to get to the hospital, was told to find someone who owned a four-wheel-drive truck. One's imagination boggles a bit at a lady, 90 years old, on her way to the hospital, finding her way in a four-wheel-drive truck.

This spring we had school buses stuck in the middle of the road. I raise these points only with the hope that they will give some recognition in the Treasury Board debates that, yes, health care is important, and yes, there's a lot of pressure for education, but that a pretty fundamental part of both of those programs in our provincial economy is a decent road system.

We do need to have some kind of. . . . I think I'm talking to someone who understands that; I know I am. Nevertheless, I think the arguments have to be made. If we don't make the arguments, we accept the argument that the real priority for British Columbians is health care and education. I suggest that it's certainly an important issue for British Columbians, but I think our road system is also a priority that is important.

My sense is that to bring the Peace country roads back to an acceptable standard -- not even a standard that's maintained in Alberta, but an acceptable standard -- we need to spend about $10 million a year in each of the constituencies, north and south, and that we need to have a commitment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of a decade of that level of spending. So in other words, I think that over ten years we're looking at roughly $100 million in the South Peace and $100 million in the North Peace.

I wonder if there is any strategy being developed for an initiative to deal with this problem. It is a very, very serious one. I don't expect it will be fixed this year. I don't think any of the people who live and work in the Peace believe you're going to be able to resolve this problem this year or next. But I also think there's an understanding that governments. . . . I say governments because I don't think it's only the current government that has deferred rehabilitation on that grid-road system in the Peace for far too long.

Could the minister advise whether there's any strategy being developed within the ministry to deal with that particular issue of the Peace country grid-road system and the need to bring it back up to an acceptable standard?

Hon. L. Boone: At your caucus meeting you can discuss this, because your previous caucus member actually suggested that we initiate some kind of a planning process to work with the regional district, the municipalities and yourselves to establish priorities as to where one should go.

I know that when Dan Doyle went to the area, he talked to you as to where we can put our efforts in. We're trying to 

[ Page 5323 ]

deal with the federal government to see if we can get some money from them from the grain transportation fund to assist us in recognition of our expansion of the free area, going into your area there. We're very hopeful that we can get some dollars that we can use to assist in upgrading the roads and that. We do need some if we're going to have more traffic, with the grain traffic coming from Alberta.

[9:00]

J. Weisgerber: Certainly I appreciate the offer, and I will take up the offer to work on establishing priorities.

I think that may be the secondary problem. First of all, we need the money with which to prioritize. So far, that has been the big hurdle. In the Peace River area we need something in the magnitude of $20 million a year in new money over a sustained period of time if we're going to stop the disintegration of the roads and get back into rebuilding and re-establishing the road system.

It's a huge problem. It's one that the prairie provinces have dealt with because of the fact that they're central to their economy. They have been more cognizant of the issue. One only has to go up into the Rolla area, for example, where the Alberta border is almost invisible. One of the ways that you can tell when you cross over the border, if there isn't a sign, is that the roads on the eastern side are remarkably better. Where you come down a road that we have abandoned maintenance on, it connects with a road that doesn't serve any population. It's a high-grade road with a good-quality gravel surface.

That's something that I don't have any apprehension about being challenged on. I'd be happy to take a tour with anybody who doubts that to be the fact. I would be delighted to spend some time driving in the Rolla-Doe River area, because there are examples time and time again where the level of construction and maintenance is quite dramatically different in the two areas.

That doesn't mean that Alberta is right and B.C. is wrong. What it reflects is a province that is very much focused on those issues over the entire geographic area. Just as British Columbia understands issues such as logging and forestry and those issues which are the economic engines of this province, the northeast faces problems similar to those in the rest of the Prairies. Those provinces, simply by representation, geography and others, have come to realize that you need to spend some significant amounts of money on them.

I'd like to ask the minister, if I could, how, in the area of rehabilitation -- areas of work outside of the maintenance contracts -- the new application of the fair-wage policy applies. Could the minister give me a sense of the overall application -- where it applies to contractors working for the province as opposed to contractors or others working for the maintenance contractor?

Hon. L. Boone: In answer to your last question, anything over $200,000 is done by fair-wage.

In response to your other questions, I know that we need more money up there. We just don't have it right now, but we're working very hard to try and direct funds there and find the dollars that we can throughout. I do want to say that certainly I also recognize that we need to get to health and education, and there's no point in doing those things. . . . I can assure you that we will be making those arguments when it comes time for budget debates at Treasury Board next time around. But this time around, of course, we have to deal with the cards or the budget we're dealt. I reallocated some $2.6 million, I think, to your area last time, recognizing that there were some difficulties up there. I'm well aware of the problems you have, and we'll do whatever we can to try and assist you and every other region that has some rural roads that are really in tough shape right now.

J. Weisgerber: Again, let me say that everyone in the Peace recognized that there was an undertaking and an effort made by the minister to gather some extra money to deal with an emergency situation. I think everyone genuinely appreciates that.

With respect to the fair-wage policy and the $200,000 project limit, does that apply to an individual contractor? Or is that for an undertaking to build a chunk of road, and everyone who works on it, regardless. . . ? If they only have one piece of equipment, their revenues might be $10,000. Is it a $10,000 undertaking by an individual business entity or by the project itself?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, fair wages apply to all contracts over $200,000. On the daily rate, the day labour rate envisions fair wages within it.

J. Weisgerber: Day labour on any project, or only if an undertaking, a specific project, is more than $200,000?

Hon. L. Boone: The higher equipment rental rate allows for fair wages to be applied.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps before I get too much further down this particular road -- no pun intended -- can the minister advise whether the ministry offices in the Peace country have experienced some difficulty in hiring equipment since the application of the fair-wage policy to these projects?

Hon. L. Boone: The difficulty that we've had in the Peace is competing for heavy equipment with the oil industry, because of the rate that they pay for it.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could tell. . . . Is the problem that the gas and oil industry pay more on an hourly rate for equipment or that the operators feel that it is more advantageous for them to work in the oil and gas industry, where they're not obliged to follow the fair-wage policy?

Hon. L. Boone: You're asking me to speculate as to why the. . . . I can't really tell you why that situation is.

J. Weisgerber: Well, there's an old adage that says you should never ask a question unless you know the answer. I will suggest to you that it's perhaps a combination of both, but certainly the fact that the hourly wage for equipment on day labour hasn't gone up noticeably in the last three years is a big problem. My understanding is that there's a great deal of difficulty getting some projects kicked off because the contractors are reluctant to see themselves having to pay different 

[ Page 5324 ]

hourly wages for the same work, depending on whether it's working in the oil patch or working for the ministry. Secondly, many of them just feel that they can't afford to pay as much as $5 or $6 a hour more to an operator of a piece of equipment, if the hourly wage that the ministry pays for that equipment remains unchanged. People -- small operators -- are telling me that it will have to be family members who operate the equipment on the ministry jobs, simply because they don't believe they can afford to pay the extra wages and still stay within the $70 or whatever it is.

This seems to be a particular problem in the trucking area. People tell me that the hourly rate on some of the heavy equipment is pretty competitive. But in the area of trucking, the combination of relatively low hourly rates and the new application of the fair-wage policy has caused a serious problem.

I guess what I'm asking is: does the ministry have a plan to resolve it -- either to make some allowances under the fair-wage policy or in fact to increase rates at least to compensate for the net increase in expenses that an operator could be expected to incur?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: It's a governmentwide policy, so I can't just change it arbitrarily. If there is a problem there, we'll look into it, and we'll see if there's a solution to it. But I've not been made aware that this is a particular problem that we have there.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it is a problem; it's a problem that's just emerging. The road bans just came off last week. The ministry's planning its summer initiative in the Peace, and now people who are inquiring about work are being told about the fair-wage policy. I don't expect the minister to change the fair-wage policy. For those people who've been calling me about this problem, I've said: "Look, I'm going to raise the issue, but I certainly don't expect that there's going to be the ability for the minister to decide that the fair-wage policy doesn't apply." What the minister does have, obviously, is the ability to deal with the rate that you pay for the equipment that you've applied the fair-wage policy to. So I would suggest that when the minister looks into this issue, as she has indicated she will, she looks carefully at that question of giving some recognition to the fact that for these small business people, their wage costs may have gone up 20 percent.

[9:15]

Looking at this new development, I think it's going to be one more difficulty this year, when we should be getting on with some of this road repair. I think it's going to be a bit of a difficult issue for people to try and accommodate this fair-wage policy on the day labour side where the people aren't bidding -- are locked into rates that have been there for several years. I don't know any business person who would very happily accept a legislated increase brought in by regulation without any accommodation on the allowance made for the equipment that they provide.

B. Barisoff: Is the minister going to get into some photo radar questions?

Hon. L. Boone: The AG has.

B. Barisoff: You don't want to answer any?

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: The Attorney General is done already. Is the minister going to answer some of the questions on photo radar?

Hon. L. Boone: Photo radar is not in my jurisdiction anymore, so I'm really not in a situation where I can answer questions on photo radar.

The Chair: The Chair would just caution members that we are dealing with the minister's responsibilities.

B. Barisoff: Yeah. No problem. Moving on to motor vehicles.

Hon. L. Boone: Can I ask the member, please, if you are finished with Transportation and Highways? Can the individuals who are here go home if you're going to deal with motor vehicles now? Or is there still more to come?

B. Barisoff: Actually, there is still more to come, so we'll touch on some of the other things.

One of them is the road information you give out through the 1-900 number. Could you explain to me what the situation is at the present time?

Hon. L. Boone: It currently costs about $1 or $1.50 for a three-minute call to obtain information on roads. But we are also continuing to do other things such as the road updates that are on cable television -- and you've heard them on the radio. We do every area that we can to try and keep the public informed about the condition of the roads -- Talking Yellow Pages. . . .

B. Barisoff: Can the minister indicate to me whether this is a service that is provided by the ministry at the present time?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

B. Barisoff: Has the ministry entered into any service contracts with anybody else for 1-900 numbers?

Hon. L. Boone: It's through B.C. Tel.

B. Barisoff: I guess I should cut to the chase. I have a complaint here by Transpro Communications Ltd. If it's through B.C. Tel, I guess the question I've got to ask is whether, through B.C. Tel, the 1-900 number belongs to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. L. Boone: We contract with B.C. Tel for the 1-900 number. They keep the revenues and give us a portion back.

[ Page 5325 ]

B. Barisoff: So the 1-900 number is. . . . Road information is put on the B.C. Tel Interact computer, and then it's distributed from there. Who owns the 1-900 number? I guess maybe that's probably a better question. Is it owned by the ministry? Or is it owned by some individual?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, telephone companies always own the numbers. We contract with B.C. Tel. We don't own the number, as far as I know.

B. Barisoff: I guess the question is: has the ministry cut. . . ? Has the ministry cut anybody off from access to the Interact system that the ministry puts the road information on, which goes to B.C. Tel, if they happen to have a 1-900 number?

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't cut anybody off the 1-900 number. Anybody can still get the 1-900 number if they pay for it. We have a contract with B.C. Tel, but we are not. . . . There are individuals who want access to that 1-900 number so that they can get the information so that they can sell it. But our contract is with B.C. Tel.

B. Barisoff: So you're telling me that the decision of whether anybody gets access from that computer lies with B.C. Tel; it doesn't lie with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways puts the material on the B.C. Tel Interact computer to be accessed by whoever. I have a letter addressed to you, hon. minister, that says that on June 17 the ministry instructed B.C. Tel to block Transpro Communications from accessing road information on the B.C. Tel Interact computer.

Hon. L. Boone: There is a letter going back to that individual advising him which number he can use. But he was trying to use a number that was a free number through the ministry. He is an ex-ministry employee, from what I understand, who had access to a free number. Nobody in the province has access to a free number. The number that you have to pay for is a toll number, and he doesn't get any preferential treatment. He gets treated the same as any other individual out there.

B. Barisoff: I'm just trying to be clear on what I've got here. So what you're telling me is that. . . . What I'm led to believe is that he had a 1-900 number -- that he was selling the information. He was a former employee of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and he was selling the information on the road reports -- basically advertising the 1-900 number to sell the information. What you're telling me is that he does not have the access to be able to sell that information. Does anybody have access to sell that information?

Hon. L. Boone: No. Everybody has access to the toll line, and he had a number that he was getting into as a ministry employee. He's no longer a ministry employee. He should not have access to that free number, because that number is not available to anybody else free. He would have to pay for it the same as any other individual.

B. Barisoff: Just reading from the same letter, it's indicating to me that Cantel communications, B.C. Tel Mobility and the Hello! phone card have similar lines which terminate on the same equipment. They actually have access to that information for free, and they can sell it out however they want now.

Hon. L. Boone: I think it's probably easiest if we agree that you can sit down with staff and go through all the various ways that you can get information. You can dial in free to get it, but you can't through Cantel, I think -- or whatever; I'm not sure. They're not selling it. I mean, this is a different matter altogether. But I think if you sat down with staff, they could advise you exactly how you can access this information and how it can be used.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's exactly what I need do -- sit down and find out how that system works, to make sure that somebody isn't having free access to that information and that other people are having to pay to resell it. So to be very clear right now, the ministry doesn't have a 1-900 number for selling road information that people throughout the province can access?

Hon. L. Boone: Through B.C. Tel.

S. Hawkins: I have two issues I'd like to canvass with the minister. But first of all, I want to recognize two representatives of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways regional office in Penticton: Mr. Geoff Freer and Mr. Ed Saunders. I want to say that they are wonderful; they are very helpful, and my office certainly appreciates having them as contacts for the ministry. So I just want the minister to know that.

I brought this issue up with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and it has to do with the issue of Highway 97 which runs west of the Lake Okanagan bridge through the Westbank first nation's reserve. About 20 years ago, I understand, the road was to be widened and improved. What the province did was buy land from the Westbank first nation. Moneys from the purchase of the land were designated for the Westbank first nation to buy other land that the province and the federal government, apparently, would help turn into a reserve for the Westbank first nation. My question to the minister is: my understanding is that the title to that highway has never been turned over to the province -- can the minister advise me on that?

Hon. L. Boone: I understand that there are some delays with Privy Council orders, but we'd have to look into that and find out the exact status of the one you're talking about to find out what the delay is. You just said 20 years -- those are real delays. But we'll look into it and get that information for you.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate that, because that seems to be an issue that I understand has happened in other areas of the province with other highways. I find the 20-year delay a little bit surprising. But if the minister could check into that for me, I'd appreciate that.

[9:30]

I know that the ministry has been aware of safety regarding that road. In the package -- and I know the office has that -- are numerous letters outlining safety issues: narrow access 

[ Page 5326 ]

for emergency vehicles, poor visibility due to the number of turns and curves, unsafe shoulders on the road. I'm just wondering if the ministry has thought about this proposal and if the minister can advise where we are with regard to it.

Hon. L. Boone: I must say that it's kind of surprising sometimes that we don't have municipalities actually come forward and offer to cost-share. I know that they have put in a proposal for the federal-provincial infrastructure. Those all haven't been announced yet, but we do intend to work with them regardless of what happens on the infrastructure programs, to see if we can try to start to alleviate some of the problems along there. The whole project is $22 million, which is a lot of money that we don't have right now. But we'd be anxious to see if there's some way that we can work together, given the fact that they are willing to put some money towards it.

S. Hawkins: I think the Central Okanagan regional district is so anxious because of the condition of the road and the safety concerns -- the number of deaths in recent years on that road. I understand that one of the minister's officials has been touring the province. I invite her to send him, and I'll take him on a drive through some of the roads in my constituency, as well. This one is rather scary; I don't know if he'd want me driving while he's touring.

An Hon. Member: Do they get lunch?

S. Hawkins: Sure, I'll buy him lunch.

Is there a time frame within which the ministry reviews these proposals? When can we expect to hear something with respect to the consideration that's given this proposal?

Hon. L. Boone: The assistant deputy has decided that he would like to come sometime this summer to the Okanagan. What a surprise! But he will be there within the next couple of months to meet with the individuals to talk about how we can address that. Please don't get your hopes up; we're not going to have $22 million there. But hopefully, we can address some of them, given the fact that the regional district wants to put some money towards that.

S. Hawkins: Well, I appreciate the fact that the deputy has made that decision so quickly, and I will throw in lunch. Maybe I will drive him down that road myself, and he will see the recreational vehicles and the tourist traffic and the like on the road.

I have one more road that I wasn't going to bring up, but I noticed it in a letter written by the Wilson Landing volunteer fire department. I'll just put it on the record. It doesn't directly relate to Westside Road, but it talks about another road called Baird Road. It does say that the volunteer fire department has written to Highways a number of times, and then it says: "We have been ignored each time. We do not have hydrants in our areas; therefore we must get our water from the lake. The access on Baird is such that we cannot get a truck down to the lake with any certainty of getting it out again." I would say that this poses something of a risky situation. I wonder if the ministry would look into that for this fire department, given the fact that they took the time to put that in a letter in which they were addressing the Westside issue. Anyway, those are my concerns, and I look forward to hearing from the minister's official.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll be happy to look into that for you.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me what "origin, destination and postcard surveys" are all about?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't know about the postcard business, but it's just to determine where people are coming from and going to, I guess -- coming from, mainly. On origins and destinations, we had people reading licence plates to determine where they came from.

B. Barisoff: How many people are involved in this program?

Hon. L. Boone: No staff are dedicated to it. We do it on an ad hoc basis, project by project.

B. Barisoff: What would be the cost? It can't be on an ad hoc basis. There's got to be some cost involved with this program.

Hon. L. Boone: It would depend on the project, and we don't even know when the last one was done. So it's not something that's done on a regular basis.

B. Barisoff: Maybe I can inform you that the last ones were done on Monday, June 16, at the south airport in Penticton; Tuesday, June 17, on Sage Mesa Drive in the Okanagan; Wednesday, June 18, at 850 metres north of the Glenrosa near the pullout south of Westbank; Thursday, June 19, on Highway 97, 2.5 kilometres south of Commonwealth Road in Kelowna; Monday, June 23, at 1.2 kilometres north of College Way; Tuesday, June 24, at 500 metres east of Aberdeen Road; Wednesday, June 25, on Highway 97, 1.3 kilometres south of Redwing Road, north of Vernon; Thursday, June 26, on Highway 33 near Highway 97, Kelowna. There's got to be some kind of cost here, so we should be able to. . . . How many people are working at this? What kinds of costs are attributed to it?

Hon. L. Boone: That would be part of the Okanagan transportation planning system. It is to determine where the traffic flows are, where they're going and all of those various things. As to how much it costs us for all of those various things, we have to get a breakdown from staff as to how many people were there and how long they were there, etc. We need to get those costs to you.

B. Barisoff: Would they be based out of Victoria or Vancouver? Are they students? What kind of employees are they?

Hon. L. Boone: The information you've given is new to us here, so we don't even know if those are our people who are doing it. We'd have to check this out and find out. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, it could be federal people who are doing it; it could be the regional district. Any number of different groups might be doing that, but we will check and find out. If in fact it's done under the Okanagan transportation plan, then we'll find out who it is and how much it costs and all of those things. Right now I can't give you the information, because it's not something that we know.

B. Barisoff: Well, I would hope that we would find out, because they close off one lane of traffic. June 16 was a Monday morning. At 6 o'clock when I was on my way to 

[ Page 5327 ]

Penticton to catch the plane to come down to do the people's business here in Victoria, they did have one whole lane closed off. I understand that they closed lanes of traffic throughout the whole Okanagan during this period of time, so it would help if we could find out what's happening on this.

An Hon. Member: A practical joke.

B. Barisoff: I don't think it was a practical joke, because they had lots of people working there.

Another comment I'd like to make, hon. minister. . . . I did bring a petition to the floor of the House about the residents of the Queen Charlottes and the deplorable state of their roads. If you got the same package as I did, you probably got about 25 or 30 pictures that went with it. I'd just like to know whether anything is being done for the residents of the Queen Charlottes.

[9:45]

B. Barisoff: For my own satisfaction, to make sure we all see these roads, I would suggest that the next time Mr. Doyle goes to the Queen Charlottes -- particularly if it happens to be during a salmon run or something -- he ask the critic for Transportation and Highways on the opposite side, to make sure that we're both looking at the same holes and that we don't have any problems that we are shocked by, or that kind of thing. I'm sure the minister would allow that to happen.

Hon. L. Boone: Of course.

B. Barisoff: You heard it here first.

There is another letter that I'd like to read, hon. minister, and it happens to come from the Lumby and District Chamber of Commerce. It's dated July 4. It's addressed to you; I'm sure you have a copy of it. I just want to read one paragraph:

"Our provincial economy relies heavily on the tourist industry, and the image we convey by the state of disrepair of our highways and neglect of the signage is not one that will serve or entice them back. In particular, the highways of the Okanagan have been neglected for so long that they are at the point of being extremely dangerous."

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

The Chair: It sounds like the ayes have it.

Interjection.

The Chair: A division is called.

Hon. members, while we wait for the Clerk to compile the division lists and announce the results, I want to make sure that all members understand that pursuant to our sessional order for section A, members who are voting and who are not permanent members of section A have received the permission of their Whip to substitute for the permanent member for the purpose of this division, and independent members have received permission from the permanent independent member assigned to section A to substitute for them for the purpose of this division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 8
Symons	Barisoff	Hawkins
Masi	Hansen	Chong
Coell		Neufeld
NAYS -- 10
Randall	Boone	Robertson
Kasper	Lali	Kwan
Gillespie	Giesbrecht	Orcherton
	Calendino

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to express my disappointment. I think the estimates, particularly what we've been doing in the last couple of days in Transportation and Highways, have been going well. It's a long day for people like myself who come from the interior. I truly am disappointed with the fact that this is going to carry on -- that we're going to be sitting here into the evening when we've all spent probably 14 or 15 hours already going at it. I don't appreciate what's taken place, because I've tried to be very conscientious in staying to the point with what's taken place in the Transportation and Highways estimates.

I guess with that, hon. Chair, I'm obligated to leave for the time being. I will turn the rest of this time over to my colleague from Richmond Centre, to carry on with the estimates. I truly am disappointed with what's taken place, because I think we've accomplished a lot in the last couple of days in Transportation and Highways, and I don't think that we're going down that path.

Hon. L. Boone: I too appreciate what we've done in Transportation and Highways, and I appreciate the efforts of the member. However, as you know, we're not alone in this building. There is another chamber, there's work going on there, and that may not be progressing as well as this. Therefore we might as well get on with our business. I know that the member for Peace River certainly has some questions he'd like to get answered, so we can certainly do some business this evening.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister remembers the old rhyme from her younger years: "Early to bed, early to rise, makes an MLA healthy, wealthy and wise." It's true that maybe we won't get terribly wealthy at this job, but I think we don't get wise past 10 o'clock, either. Sometimes it's difficult, when one gets tired, to make progress, maybe as much as we would like to.

You may remember, hon. minister, that last year we had a similar situation, where I was asking some questions about the organizational structure of the Ministry of Highways, and 

[ Page 5328 ]

we didn't get very far. It's unfortunate that we only had a couple of hours of it, and it seems that we didn't get a chance to finish it. So I'd like to carry on this year.

I think we're going to have another vote.

The Chair: Members, we have a division in Committee B, so we will recess until that division is completed, and then reconvene.

The committee recessed from 9:59 p.m. to 10:10 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Symons: Hon. Chair, I would call for a quorum. I see there's not a quorum present.

The Chair: A quorum is present; we'll call the committee.

D. Symons: I'm not sure if we have the quorum. Would you check, please?

The Chair: A quorum is present, member.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if we might look at the organization of the ministry. If we could start with the regional manager of traffic operations. I thought what I might do this time is to work from the bottom up, because the other time I started from the top down. We didn't get that far that other night. I'm wondering who the regional manager is and how many persons would be in that particular department.

Hon. L. Boone: I do not intend to get into the same things as we did last year. I'm here to answer questions on the ministry. I'll send you a full organizational chart from the ministry, which ought to suffice. As you know, hon. member, there is no reason. . . . You may ask all the questions you like, but it does not necessitate me answering them. I have no intention of going through the organizational chart, as I did in the past.

The Chair: Just for members' benefit, the Chair would also ask members to adhere to the rules of relevancy in debate. And, of course, the rulings from the Chair are not debatable.

D. Symons: Well, then, I wonder, if you want to give me the organizational chart. . .you might tell me the budget for that particular department.

[10:15]

Interjections.

D. Symons: We can move on. If the minister doesn't know the budget for that department, we can move on to the Kamloops and Nanaimo regional. . . .

The Chair: Member, can you take your chair, please. I've cautioned the member in regard to relevancy. I'll caution him again. We're not going to persist in irrelevance during this debate.

D. Symons: I'm not challenging the Chair at all, but I believe that this is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways organizational chart I'm reading. That is the ministry we're now discussing, so I will continue. If the minister doesn't care to answer that one, then we might go into other materials in the ministry, but I'll stick with it for a while.

Some of the names on here have changed over time. There's been some reorganization of the ministry. I'm wondering if the minister can give us some flavour of the changes that have taken place and the downsizing and what has happened to those personnel who are no longer in the ministry. Some of them have gone to the TFA, I suspect. Can we get the bottom-line numbers -- this year compared to one year ago, and where those particular bodies have gone.

Hon. L. Boone: I gave the numbers to the critic when he was questioning me before.

D. Symons: I'm wondering, then, if the minister could say where they've gone, because I don't believe you did tell the critic that particular thing. Were they moved within other ministries or within other jurisdictions within government?

Hon. L. Boone: Some were moved within other ministries, some within other jurisdictions in government; some took early retirement and a few took voluntary severance.

D. Symons: I was looking for something a little more specific than "some" and "a few." You must have actual figures of where those bodies have gone. You say there is going to be a downsizing of the ministry, but if the downsizing appears as an increase somewhere else, that's the information I'm after.

Hon. L. Boone: Two were transferring to the Attorney General; 71 were placed in other ministries; 83 took the special retirement incentive plan; pre-layoff voluntary severance package, 61; severance, 22; layoff and recall, 4.

D. Symons: There are 22 severances? I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give us the maximum severance that might have been given to somebody. I'm curious on the amount of severances and the severance packages that were available to those people.

Hon. L. Boone: It's within the severance policy of government.

D. Symons: We seem to have seen before where some of those severance packages seem to have been very high. I'm not familiar with that particular policy, but if you could just give me a number, I'd be happy.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get back to you.

D. Symons: While you're getting back to me, I would hope that the minister might give me a list of those who have received severance packages, and the size of the severance package that went with it -- a grand total.

Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Finance did the severances.

[ Page 5329 ]

D. Symons: We had some in Transit; we had some problems with vehicles that were supplied by that particular department to their employees. I'm wondering if you might be able to tell me. . . . You have the deputy minister and others. Which ones are supplied company cars through their conditions of employment, or otherwise?

Hon. L. Boone: The deputy, the associate deputy and the rest of the employees have Ministry of Highways vehicles.

D. Symons: I guess the supplying of vehicles really depends upon what vehicles. A Saab is one thing, but a Ford -- whatever the Fords are -- is something else. So a Ford Tempo or something, I suppose, is. . . . Can you give us a flavour of the sort of expense, price range, luxuriousness of the cars that are supplied?

Hon. L. Boone: The associate deputy has the ministry's Buick. And the deputy -- two for the price of one -- as the president of the TFA and as the deputy for Highways, receives a car allowance, from which he rents a. . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .Geo Tracker.

D. Symons: A few years back, the Minister of Environment was driving an electric car. And I know that a year ago the Premier was pictured in the paper doing a test run with a General Motors electric car they were promoting out on the coast here. I wonder if the minister has availed herself of the opportunity of using a vehicle of that sort.

Hon. L. Boone: No, we don't have the length of extension cords to go to Prince George. The truth of the matter is that this year there were no new vehicles for ministers. All leases were continued in order to try and keep our costs down. There were no new vehicles for any ministries this year. That was a budgetary restraint that was imposed by Treasury Board.

R. Neufeld: I do have some questions with regard to my constituency that are of real concern to people in the north. We touched on some of them briefly during the TFA estimates. There was one question on the TFA that the minister said she was going to try and get a response on. Would it be fair to ask the question again? It was the arrangement with Quinsam Coal on the improvements that are going to be constructed and how they will be paid. Has the minister had an opportunity to get an answer to that? If not, it's no problem; I can wait until later.

Hon. L. Boone: No, we haven't had that opportunity yet. We only had 35 minutes at supper.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that; it was a quick supper.

I'm sure that the minister has received many letters from constituents in my district in regard to condition of the roads. I'm not going to read them all, but I do have just a few that I've picked out from different organizations and people. I'm not going to read all of the letters, but I'm going to quote just a few articles from each one.

The first one is from the North Peace Cattlemen's Association:

"At the annual general meeting of the B.C. North Peace Cattlemen's Association, our members made a motion that we write you a letter and tell you that we are very unhappy with the lack of maintenance on the roads in the North Peace. I have been involved with this association for 15 years, and I have never heard this discussed at a meeting before."

We have a letter from B.C. Grain Producers, written January 6, 1997:

"Over the past couple of years, the number one issue raised at agricultural meetings in the Peace River area is road maintenance and deterioration of transportation routes. The primary complaint has been from the producers unable to access grain and hay land. Roads were very soft this year and often impassable due to a shortage of gravel on the roadbed and infrequent grading. These secondary routes are deteriorating to the point where the expense to improve them might soon be unmanageable, therefore action must be taken now."

The other one is from the North Pine Women's Institute. They have some current concerns about safety. I quote again from their letter, which was written September 26, 1996: "We ask that these shoulders be immediately upgraded to at least offer some degree of safety should a motorist need to pull over. We look forward to immediate attention to this very dangerous condition." Again, this is for Highway 101 north of Fort St. John.

We go on to a letter written April 22 of this year from the Upper Halfway residents. In fact, I made a tour of that road, and when I spoke earlier about buses being stuck on the highway, this would be very scary. If the minister or the deputy drove that part of the road, it goes right along the Halfway River, and it's quite a ways above the river. It's one lane with a blind hill at the top. These people say:

"A level of concern has been shown by Upper Halfway residents for some time regarding the condition and safety of the Iron Creek. . .hill on road 117. This concern has now increased, as the hill is along the bus route from Freidens Farm and Miesau Farm to the Upper Halfway Elementary-Junior Secondary School. . . . The residents in the valley are dependent upon this road link to the highway, and the safety of the bus route should be seriously considered. We are hereby requesting an on-site meeting with the district manager to discuss the safety and future of this hill."

Another one is a note from a trucking company in the North Peace, and it's because of the road to Goodlow. With the road bans being on for quite a long time, what happens is that that road ties into Alberta -- I don't know what the Alberta road is like -- and there is no scale or control site at the border. The Alberta folks don't have a 70 percent road ban, although they will have a legal-load road ban. They just come in from Grande Prairie on our roads and do the work. Yet our folks that live in and operate out of Fort St. John can't go out there, simply because they would soon be caught, and they don't want to break the law. So it makes it unfair for them.

Bickford Farms is another one north of town. I quote from a letter from Inland Concrete Ltd., May 21, 1997:

"As you may know, we are the local concrete supplier. What you may not know is our equipment (truck) maintenance costs are the highest in our entire company" -- and that's across British Columbia. "I have tried for several years to cut our repair costs, but have come to the conclusion that unless our roads improve, I'll never get our maintenance costs down."

[ Page 5330 ]

There are numerous letters from the Peace River regional district and from the mayor of Fort St. John about the condition of the highways, and from the Prespatou Farmers Institute -- some from last fall and a bunch from this spring. Also, there are letters from the Fort Nelson-Liard regional district as to the condition of the roads in the northeast.

I know I talked briefly about it in the TFA estimates, but I wanted to wait till we got to Highways to deal with some of these issues a little bit further. The minister responded earlier that it's an issue about money, and I appreciate that. But I think the longer we leave our roads, the tougher it's going to be to fix them.

I'll just maybe have the minister look at some of these pictures that were taken this April of some of the roads that residents in the North Peace have to travel upon on a regular basis. Now, the pictures show a pickup, not a large truck. I would just like to get a little comment from the minister as to what she thinks of the pictures of some of our major arterial roads that take a heavy volume of truck traffic and vehicle traffic to serve the forest, the oil and gas and the agricultural industries.

[10:30]

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada