[ Page 5443 ]

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministries of Transportation and Highways and Environment, Lands and Parks.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: I hope the minister had a good dinner and that we're all in a good mood to go for a couple of hours. We still have some outstanding issues on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

This afternoon, before I asked my colleague to take over for awhile, we were discussing the protected-areas strategy and its implementation. We agreed that indeed the spotted owl special management lands were to be included in the total of the area set aside for the protected-areas strategy -- the 14 percent in the lower mainland. That is 2 percent more than the provincial average, when we work it all out.

We had a fairly detailed debate on this issue. In the end, just before I left, the minister stood up and stated that after having struggled for a number of years with the issue of finding enough land for the owls in a manner that still allows other values to happen -- values such as jobs -- there is now indeed a study available, and the study is complete.

My first question, then, to the minister. The study that he showed this afternoon -- which I thought was quite thin, considering that other studies on owls are considerably thicker. . . . I am wondering if the minister can, first of all, tell me if this is the conclusive study that will determine the handling of the owl within the land, once and forever.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What I was referring to was the summary report of April '97 called "Spotted Owl Management Plan." It's a summary report. There's a thicker report, and the technical analysis is yet more work -- all of which fed into the ultimate management plan.

T. Nebbeling: So there is not really a plan yet, if I heard the statement of the minister correctly, because there still has to be further evaluation to happen.

As the minister has a summary, maybe he can enlighten me, then, on a number of the issues that I know have been outstanding. There is one issue in particular that has always been a concern, and that had to be dealt with. The minister is well aware that at one time there were six different solutions on how to deal with the spotted owl and how to set land aside for it. One of the main questions that was always asked by all these groups that were looking at the issue was: "Okay, once this plan is working, is this the end? Or are we still going to see new openings happening and new debates arising that will just put the whole issue back into the fray of debate, and ultimately, obviously delay further activities in areas where the spotted owl will be recognized as the number one value?" So maybe the minister can tell me if, within this summary, there is something of that nature to indicate if this report, that will be a conclusion of the information that is there now, will indeed lead to a final decision, once and forever. How will the owl be dealt with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, let me first of all say that it is a plan. A plan is just that. It has a certain number of elements; it shows the way through the future. I feel we're revisiting it. There's an implementation strategy in there. There are relationships to other initiatives. We cover biological analysis, the special resource zones and so on. So it is a plan and there is a part of the plan that deals with spotted owl research and inventory. There is an advisory committee where the various stakeholders sit. They will review information as it comes available. Of course, the attempt is to try to encourage the recovery of the spotted owl.

There is no detailed, final solution to the recovery of the spotted owl. This is a new area of forest management, and so we have to be open to new information. But in our view it is a plan that can be carried out without job loss. We're very pleased with the support we've had from companies such as Pacific, J.S. Jones and Canfor, the three major companies involved. They are supportive of the spotted owl management plan. They sit on the advisory committee that's overseeing research. It is as conclusive as any plan can be, given the work and the time that we had to undertake the work.

[6:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I believe they were. I don't have their letter with me, but they were a part of it.

T. Nebbeling: If Interfor was indeed part of that committee, one of the initiatives that we have seen over the last year or year and a half, in particular with Interfor. . . . Interfor has spent a fair amount of money on studying the whole issue of the spotted owl, for obvious reasons. They do have a fair amount of land that could be impacted by what will ultimately be the final solution in a plan that the government puts together on how to protect the owl -- or even go further than that and see the owl thrive in numbers that we do not have today. I don't know if there is a section in the plan that actually deals with that. We know today that there are about 100 spotted owl couples. These couples have a vast amount of land. If we strive to increase that number of owls in our land mass, then there will have to be questions answered. Does that mean that over time we will have to increase the land mass to accommodate the owls, partly because they need a certain amount of hectares per owl to sustain themselves in a manner from the land base? The owl needs approximately 3,200 hectares, two thirds of which must be old-growth forest. The reason for that is that in old-growth forests there are support species that can sustain the life of an owl in a land mass like that.

So one of the concerns that Interfor has, because of the potential growth of the owl population and thereby, potentially, the increase of land mass. . . . Interfor has been a very 

[ Page 5444 ]

strong proponent of looking at a plan in which the special spotted owl management areas would actually include not just timberland but also existing parkland. By that I mean not land that will be set aside under the protected-areas strategy, but land that is already provincial parkland.

In this particular area that we talk about -- the Harrison area, the lower Lillooet, the upper Lillooet, the Ure Creek area. . . . Let me see. I'm trying to visualize this -- going to the Clendenning, the Elaho, the Cheakamus or the Callaghan. . . . That area has a large amount of timber rights, and Interfor in particular, in tree farm licence 37 -- that is the Clendenning, the Elaho and part of the Lillooet Valley -- has done a lot of study on its own.

First of all, is the minister aware that Interfor has indeed studied the whole matter and tried to come up with a solution to solve the problem in the long run?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I am aware. Our technical people looked at their technical work, and in the end I believe that we went with our technical work. We had to have a solution that worked for the other companies as well.

T. Nebbeling: ". . .worked for the other companies as well." That's an interesting statement, because we are talking about the same land. I know tree farm licence 37 is more north of Squamish and goes up in a line and then comes to the upper Lillooet. But many of these lands go over into each other, so I would have thought that what Interfor had in mind as one of their technical solutions to the idea of accommodating the growth of the population of the owl was indeed to incorporate the parklands that exist today, such as Garibaldi Park. That's not a bad idea if you think of the fact that Garibaldi Park is adjacent to many of these spotted owl reserve areas and, furthermore, that Garibaldi Park consists primarily of old-growth forest, which is the natural habitat of the owl.

So can the minister explain if the technical work that the minister didn't think would work for all the companies and therefore was rejected. . . ? Part of that technical approach was, I believe, the inclusion of parklands, thereby not having the need to set aside large areas of forest land for the owl. Is the parkland-forest land combination one of the elements that the government was not comfortable with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know that. I've given the member the answer that I feel comfortable with -- that we reviewed all the technical information. I'm very pleased that the member is on record supporting yet larger areas for spotted owls.

T. Nebbeling: Before I remark on my support for the spotted owl, can the minister explain what he means by the technical matters that his ministry was not comfortable with? He obviously must have knowledge of these technical elements, as his advisers are sitting with him.

As far as being on record, indeed I have no problem with land masses for the spotted owl that will guarantee the sustainability of the species, but only if the government is also willing to have some imagination and not stubbornly say: "Okay, we will not include old-growth forest" -- enormous masses of land where the spotted owl will be anyhow -- "in the deliberation of how much land will have to be taken away from the harvestable forest." So if the spotted owl habitat is made up partly of provincial parkland that is already there and of new land, fine with me. If the spotted owl habitat will be made up of land that is exclusively under the protected-areas strategy and will ultimately cost jobs because of the approach that the government has taken, then I will not support that one.

Having said that, one of the reasons that the minister felt comfortable with supporting the committee's recommendations was that it would indeed create an environment for the owl and it would have the land for the owl, and at the same time there's a guarantee that there would be no jobs lost. Can the minister explain which technical details in the plan that the committee has come up with will guarantee that there will be no jobs lost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've answered that. I said it's in the report, and I quoted from the report.

T. Nebbeling: As the minister is aware, that report has not been distributed. At least, it has not been sent my way. I haven't got the report; therefore I cannot quote it. If the minister wants to deny me an opportunity to have a rational, quick debate on what is in the report to secure the jobs, then we are back to square one, and regardless of what others think, we will start all over again trying to find the answers.

The minister has the answers. He says: "Look at the report." I don't have the report. I am in estimates right now, so let nobody stand up later on and say I'm repetitious. Let nobody stand up later on and say: "I've been asked that question and I don't have the answer" or "I'm not willing to give the answer." One way or another, we will get there.

It is unfortunate, because the minister is constantly trying to reach audiences to show his displeasure with the fact that I am standing up and asking questions. When I come back to the minister with the same question by a different route, he gets a little bit angry. I still don't get an answer, so that's fine. We go back again, and I find another way to get there. In general, the minister will ultimately find a way to give me the answer.

So when I have a very simple question which is based on a statement that the minister made ten or 15 minutes ago -- that he is very pleased with this particular committee that has come up with the recommendations to settle the spotted owl issue, because it's a technical plan that will work for the preservation of the owl and will also work for the people who work in the forest because the technical reality will lead to no job losses. . . . He made that statement earlier on. Let me share in that great plan; give me that information. With what technical elements is the plan going to do that so-called preservation of the status quo of jobs?

I think it is very important to know -- and the minister should really know -- that there are a fair number of people in the lower mainland watching this program. I know there's a fair number of people in the Squamish area watching. For these people this is definitely a very important matter. These are people living with uncertainty because they don't know, and I don't think it is right that the minister. . . . If he has the answers that these people should start to take it easy and start relaxing a little bit because the plan will guarantee them their jobs and will not exclude them from making a living, then I think it behooves the minister to share that information. If that is by answering my question. . . . I would suggest that that's the simplest way of doing it.

So once again -- maybe the minister has changed his mind -- will he consider sharing with us tonight the technical elements that made him go with the recommendation? That includes, then, the technical direction that would secure the jobs that are in the forest industry in these areas now.

[ Page 5445 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's very unclear, but I want the audience from the member's riding to see that we do care and did care, and that's why we accepted a plan that would result in no net loss. I didn't say no job loss, but no net loss. They're going to move into commercial thinning.

I want the member's constituents to know, too, that the member thinks that by lecturing and being pedantic and accusatory of the Minister of Forests he's helping the people in his riding. I've talked to lots of people in his riding. They know that he could be a little more precise and a little stronger in his advocacy. I hardly get a letter from the member or a phone call asking me to do something on behalf of his constituents. So I think it's important that the listeners know that he thinks estimates are the time to try to corner the minister and come up with something.

I would need to know what technical information you're asking for. But when I told you about employment mitigation strategy, I read it out. It's there. I think your constituents should also know that you don't read the press kits that are available, because it's in there. You could question something in the press kits. I'd try to get whatever backup there is.

But there are inches of technical information, of science around the spotted owl, and it is very inconclusive. At some point resource managers have to make decisions, which we did. Our responsibility is to make decisions.

So what technical information do you need? I'll endeavour to get it for you.

T. Nebbeling: I'm really happy to see that the minister is getting up to his feisty level -- also a little bit of a misleading level. It was the minister who suggested that he chose to go with the recommendation of the committee, which had an opinion that was counter to that of Interfor, because of technical elements that the minister liked better in the report from the other group. I've asked him for these technical elements. The minister then turned around and said: "I'm not going to tell you, because they're in the report. So read the report."

The minister knows I don't have the report. What the minister thinks I have is a press kit, a PR product that was created by the people in the communications centre, who are professional writers and write a press kit to impress the press. I'm very sorry; I do not belong to the press corps. I go by what the official documentation is, and that is not what is in the press kit. The press kit may be great for the press to look at the items, ask a couple of questions, write an article and on to the next one.

What I'm doing here in estimates is making sure that when the minister gets approval for his budget, I can truly say I have covered the bases and know that indeed the management of the Ministry of Forests is properly conducted. If I cannot get questions asked, or if I cannot ask the questions to establish if indeed the Ministry of Forests is properly managed and if the financial management is indeed of such nature that it deserves my support, I cannot make up my mind. If I cannot ask the minister the questions about the programs that the government will introduce or has introduced at a cost to the taxpayer and cannot ask, if a program has been introduced, if there has been monitoring done on the output of that program -- did we achieve our objective? -- then I cannot in good conscience say that whatever the minister puts in front of me has my support, which means I will have to recommend to my colleagues not to support it.

[7:00]

Now, if the minister, because I have a concern about how the spotted owl over the last five years has been dealt with and how the issue constantly. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What's the problem?

T. Nebbeling: The problem is that there are communities, some of them in my riding, that are asking me: "Ted, what's happening with the spotted owl? Are we still talking? Or is there a final solution created that we can look at and say okay, now we can live with this?"

The minister says today for the first time, although I have been talking about this plan right here, which is a lot thicker than the summary that the minister has, that's a technical analysis of how in the future. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What do you want to know about it?

T. Nebbeling: What I want to know about it is: if there is a study, can you give us the details, so that the people in my communities. . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What details?

T. Nebbeling: The details of the plan, not only how the spotted owl will be protected, as the minister is seeking to do, but also how the people who used to work in these 18 different so-called spotted owl protection areas and who had been denied access to these areas while waiting for a solution or final decision by this government on what is going to happen on these different land masses. . . . That's what I'm talking about. If it is in the plan, give it to me. Then we can talk about some of the details, and we can go on.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know -- typical fashion -- the member brings up a report after he's been discussing it. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Answer the question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He's been discussing it. If he wants to get into discussing a report, let me know and I'll get it. I've had a summary here; I told him about the summary. But for your information, it wasn't a press kit. It was an information bulletin put out for the information. . .which your research people would get. If you were going to debate it, you have a responsibility to get it. You do have a backgrounder, the fuller report.

You want to get into some technical aspects. What technical aspects do you want? I said there was a decision made. It came out of the land use coordination office. Government made a decision: "Province Implements Balanced Spotted Owl Management Plan." There's a short summary, then there's a longer summary, then there's a bigger backgrounder. There are probably many technical appendices.

I don't know what the member wants more than the fact that I read out from the part in English. I quoted the part that talked about the mitigation strategy. So yes, there is a plan. There are activities to assist in employment. You know, there are a number of things. If you want to ask specific questions, again, I will attempt to get you specific answers.

T. Nebbeling: Great. Now that the minister clearly is not willing to give me the report at this stage, let's ask some 

[ Page 5446 ]

questions, then. The first question is on the so-called SOCAs, the spotted owl's special management areas or whatever else the label was, given to the lands that were set aside to protect the owl. In the last five years, it started off by. . . . The moment an owl was hurt in this area, all forest activities had to cease and desist. Can the minister tell me, under the new plan, if indeed the moment there's an owl hurt and seen in an area, forest activities that are legally in the area have to cease and desist?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are no SOCAs.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe they're not called SOCAs today, maybe they're special spotted owl management areas. The moment an owl is hurt in a new area, is there going to be a designation put on that land mass that will prevent activities such as logging or roadbuilding from happening?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not sure whether you're talking about owls outside the special management areas. Let's use the proper terminology if you want a proper answer. If the opposition critic, who thinks he wants to debate spotted owls, doesn't know that there are no longer any SOCAs, then we have a basic elementary problem of language. There are no SOCAs. We've gone through this. There are special management areas. There are resource management plans within special management areas, and there is research going on. So if an owl flies somewhere outside a special management area, people carry on, as far as I know. I'll check. There may be something I don't know.

T. Nebbeling: I find it quite funny to see the minister now beginning to fight back a little bit, because I'll be fair: I've been dishing it out to him once in a while. So I have no problem with the minister trying now, as well.

Of course I know what the SOCA was and what is happening today. As a matter of fact, I was on a committee for a number of years that dealt specifically with this problem and how we could indeed save jobs rather than lose jobs because of the owl's introduction into certain areas in these two timber supply areas.

So the minister is saying -- and this is a very important distinction -- yes, there are special spotted owl management areas today, and there are special plans created for their particular habitat. The ministry is trying to find ways to incorporate other activities as well in the special spotted owl management areas. But what will happen if an owl is sighted next week outside one of these 18 so-called special spotted owl management areas? Will the tree that owl is in be harvested? Will the road that is built under the tree be shut down? Can the minister explain that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The primary goal within SRMZs is to integrate spotted owl management and forest management in consideration of environmental, social and economic objectives. I went into how you achieve that by leaving 67 percent. The owl habitat that is protected, as far as I know, is restricted to special management areas. There may be a resource management decision made that may be on the border; I don't know. There's a lot of technical information going in to make it up.

Does the member know where this has happened? If he does, then he should say so. We'll check and see what the situations were rather than answering a theoretical question.

T. Nebbeling: This is surprising, because the minister is trying to make me sound as if I indeed. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, hon. Chair. I don't mind if there's going to be debate on the other side, but it should be at a level that I can at least speak to the minister and that the minister can hear me.

I. Waddell: Point of order. I was just asking him. . . . He's charging the taxpayer $150 a day.

The Chair: I would ask the member to sit down, please.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order. Considering that it was the NDP members on LAMC who insisted on an increase. . . . We are not here for the money; it was the members of the NDP who insisted on the increase in there. The member should take it back.

The Chair: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

I. Waddell: Point of order. Hon. Chair, the hon. member was challenging us on what we had demanded. I was simply pointing out that he's delaying these estimates, charging the taxpayer $150 a day. Is that a nickel a question or a dime a question? Maybe the member could tell us that. Or he could wind up his questions after six or seven days and save the taxpayers some money.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order, either. I would ask the member to proceed.

T. Nebbeling: On a point of order, I would like the member opposite to withdraw every accusation he made in his last statement.

The Chair: I would ask the member for Vancouver-Fraserview to withdraw the remarks -- anything offensive to the member across the floor.

I. Waddell: I don't think I said anything offensive. I simply asked: was it a nickel a question or a dime a question? He's gone on for five days. It's costing a hundred and fifty bucks a day for him. It's costing $40,000 for this place. Now, what's so offensive about that? If he thinks that's offensive, I will withdraw it. I would think the taxpayers would find it offensive. . . . But if he thinks it's offensive, I certainly would withdraw it.

The Chair: That is fine, hon. member. I feel that you have withdrawn the offensive remarks.

T. Nebbeling: On a point of order, I'm not going to take it as lightly. Withdrawing his remarks by making the accusations again that I'm standing here counting my words and adding a value to them is very offensive. If the minister. . . . I expect him to take it back.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would ask you to take your seat. In the opinion of the Chair, the matter has been dealt with, and I'd ask you to proceed at this time with the estimates.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate your wise decision. Solomon could have taken lessons.

[ Page 5447 ]

I'm going back to what I was talking about before, and that is the special designation for the spotted owl. The minister is not willing to give me the study that has the conclusions on how the spotted owl will be dealt with in the future.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order. The minister did not say he was unwilling to give you any study.

T. Nebbeling: The minister has not been willing to give the study. The minister has merely offered me a look at the press kit that has been sent to my research department. I have told him that I do not belong to the press corps and I don't work with press kits. I look for documentation that reflects the details, not what the minister likes to share through the press.

The minister wanted to know, then, some specific technical questions. I asked him a very, very straightforward question -- a question that has been unanswered for the last five years and has caused tremendous problems. If the minister is going to sit back for a little while so that his blood level comes down again, then when his blood pressure comes down again, I will get the question.

But the minister will have to listen to what has been, for the last five years, a very serious problem in the communities that have traditionally been working in these areas where today the government is establishing the special spotted owl protection management areas. The fact is, one of the problems since day one has been that every time an owl was heard in a new area, immediately that area was shut down.

So my question to the minister earlier on was: can the minister tell me, if an owl is heard in an area that does not yet have the designation of special spotted owl management area, does that owl just sit there while the work -- the harvesting of timber -- continues on, which may include the tree that owl is sitting in? Roads will be built under the tree that spotted owl may be sitting in. That particular owl is not one of the 100 spotted owls that are supposed to be living today in the 18 designated areas. So if the minister says. . . .

[7:15]

The Chair: The Chair would like at this time to be mindful of the member's words and pass that on to the member who is now taking the floor. We're on vote 37. Proceed, member.

T. Nebbeling: I am constantly on vote 37. To hear criticism from a member who has been in this House maybe half an hour of his time over the last couple of days doing work, to have him coming in here to make. . . .

I. Waddell: Point of order. Part of the rules of this House is that you make no reference to when a member is in the House or not in the House. That's a rule of the House, and I'd ask the hon. member to withdraw that and apologize.

The Chair: The point is well taken from the member as to not mentioning individuals who may or may not be in the House.

T. Nebbeling: So if we can go back, then, without interruption by the member, who truly is not up to date with the material that has been discussed here. . . .

The Chair: Member, I would ask you to please get back on vote 37. We can continue this all evening. We waste this. . . . This is on vote 37. Proceed.

T. Nebbeling: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On vote 37, we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The Ministry of Forests intends to allocate an amount of money in the coming year -- money that comes out of this budget -- toward the prevention of spotted owls in certain areas that happen to be (a) in the Chilliwack timber supply area and (b) in the Soo timber supply area. The fact that there will be money spent one way or another -- be it more study, be it more committee meetings or be it on implementing a real plan -- justifies me to ask any question on the particular subject that we are discussing now.

So I would really appreciate it, if I have a question on this particular subject, that I will. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Don't tell us. If you want to ask the question, ask the question.

T. Nebbeling: If the member would listen when he is in the House -- and I didn't say "when he is not in the House." When he's in the House, then he will see that questions have been asked many times and very rarely got an answer. So I keep coming back. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well then, sit down and finish the estimates.

T. Nebbeling: No, I don't sit back. That is not my nature. I will get my question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I challenge you to finish the estimates. Act like a responsible parliamentarian.

T. Nebbeling: Don't challenge me, because I may take the member as an example, and that would not sit well with my constituents, because they expect to have a member that really stands up for them rather than just talks a bit and then disappears.

Having said that, I come back to that question that I put to the minister and then rudely got interrupted by the member opposite before the minister could really give me the answer as I think he wants to. And that is: if, indeed, a spotted owl is located outside one of these 18 special spotted owl management areas, will there immediately be some action taken to protect that owl? Or can the logger go in and chop down the tree or do anything else that they want? Can the minister answer that question about how that kind of a scenario is covered under the new plan?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I could ask the member. . . . When he asks his question, there's always another sentence that is very difficult to hear. I know the member is probably getting tired, but it is very difficult to understand. So I would urge him not to editorialize at the end of his question. Just leave it and let me get the answer to the question.

I will try to answer the question, because it's a hypothetical question. What do you mean by "located"? That is really 

[ Page 5448 ]

difficult. There are a number of special owl habitat areas outside of the special management areas, I am told, called matrix activity centres, which will be phased out. There are eight of them. They are managed to maintain 67-percent-suitable owl habitat within the 3,200-hectare activity centre. These centres will be phased out over the next 50 years at the same rate at which the suitable habitat will be restored within the 21 SRMZs.

If the member is leading somewhere, then let's get to the point rather than asking me all of these theoretical questions. I have to be careful what I say, because the member is probably trying to entrap me into some kind of solution and then. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Point of order. To think that I would entrap the minister is just not acceptable as a statement. I'm trying to establish some knowledge of land that is now there and how this spotted owl issue will be dealt with in these areas -- which also happens to be, in part, in my riding.

The Chair: Member, this is not a point of order. I would ask you to proceed -- if you have another question -- on vote 37.

T. Nebbeling: I was listening to the answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I gave the answer that there was management taking place outside the special management areas.

T. Nebbeling: I'm appreciative of the minister recognizing that maybe some of the language that I use in talking about how these matters are being discussed, often on the committee level, as well, but certainly in the communities. . . . When I speak about a spotted owl being located, that means that a particular group that has gone into the woods has identified a site where a spotted owl either has or is suspected to have its habitat. That is locating a spotted owl. That is a term that has been used forever -- since I know the spotted owl became an issue in the lower mainland. So there is no entrapment there. That's a term that people use. So the term "entrapment" was unfair; it was hurtful; it will cause me to. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, I'd ask you to take your seat. I think we dealt with that item a few minutes ago. I'd ask you to proceed with vote 37. I said it was not a point of order, in the Chair's opinion, and it seems the member is still continuing to speak on that point. Proceed.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was answering to vote 37. I was answering to the accusation the minister made, because he did not understand the word "locate" in terms of spotting a spotted owl. I wanted to make sure that when I used that word, there was no intent whatsoever to mislead or entrap the minister. That was the reason I had to give a little side statement.

However, the answer still is, of course, if indeed that scenario develops. . . . The reason I'm asking the minister this particular question is that on a few occasions over the last five years, in these two timber supply areas, owls were located in areas that were not designated as protected areas for the owl. Like in the past, the SOCA label. . . . Today it is the special spotted owl management area. Can the minister give me a kind of scenario? That is not because it's hypothetical, but because it's happening all the time. Owls are hurt, found in other areas. In the past, it led to immediate shutdown of the area and the 32-hectare designation then became a reality because of its status. . . . And until it was established -- if, indeed, the owl was there or not -- nothing happened. Under the new structure and under the new plan, how would the situation be dealt with?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Spell that word. I bet you couldn't do it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try a third time here. This is not a press kit; it's an information bulletin. It is about the public documents under which we manage the spotted owl. I suspect the member has some critique of it, and I'd be happy to know what that critique is. Let me quote from page 10 of the summary report:

"Although no special management practices will be required within these matrix activity centres, they will be harvested in a manner that attempts to maintain spotted owls for as long as possible.

"The overall impact on spotted owl population should be minimal, since the rate at which matrix activity centres are phased out closely resembles the rate at which suitable habitat will be restored within SRMZs.

"Spotted owls found after June 1, 1995 may receive some habitat protection through the landscape unit planning process under the Forest Practices Code. For example, a strategy will be developed to integrate spotted owl management in the Ainslie, Mohowkum and Haylmore creeks to provide some long-term protection to spotted owl habitat by overlapping them with the biodiversity requirements. However, unlike matrix activity centres, no additional timber supply impact over and above those created by the Forest Practices Code will be incurred as a result of integrated spotted owl management with landscape unit planning."

T. Nebbeling: I was almost going to say after that answer that I was pleased to hear what the minister said, because I thought he started by saying: "No, if this is outside the special spotted owl management areas. . . ." The matrix issue is a whole different issue that has not got much to do with new areas where the owl has not been -- owl habitat, that's what I was talking about. If that indeed happened, I thought the minister was going to say: "No, these special areas have now been set aside, that land mass has been decided and that would be it." Then, unfortunately, I get the feeling that the minister turned around and said: "Well, they may have to adjust a little bit as a logging operation to accommodate the owl." Well, you can't be a little bit pregnant. If you accommodate the owl under the existing habitat guidelines -- and I believe that they are still part of the whole approach to save habitat for the owl -- an area or a parcel of 3,200 hectares has to be created immediately, of which two-thirds, or 67 percent, has to remain old-growth forest. That means if that particular 

[ Page 5449 ]

parcel where this owl is suddenly found -- it wasn't there before -- is in an area where harvesting was to take place, seeing 67 or 70 percent of the old-growth forest being removed from that harvesting plan. . . . The minister can figure out, being in the forest industry, that the idea that the remaining 30 percent would justify the investment that has been made to get into that area is just not a viable proposition. That is why there has been so much uncertainty in these communities, because they're saying: "Great. If there's a plan, let's set aside land, and even if it isn't a large amount, so be it. If it is included in the protected-areas strategy, so be it. But at least then we know what is left over. That is where we can guarantee finding our ways of making a living. That is where we can find, indeed create, that certainty."

I don't want to divert again, but I don't know if the members opposite, if they ever in their lives, after a period of time thinking that everything was going well -- you had the world at your feet and you believed in your future. . . . If something happens in your life -- like that -- that creates that sense of uncertainty. . . . I don't know if members have experienced it, but it is a very bad feeling, it is a very dilapidating feeling, and it is a very paralyzing feeling. Uncertainty is the one. That is indeed what my concern is: that after five years of planning, after five years of debating, we are still where we were in 1993 -- if the minister's version is right.

[7:30]

If the minister can give me, under the new rules, some satisfaction, by giving it to me he gives it to the communities in Squamish and Pemberton and in the Fraser Valley up to the Boston Bar area. That's where the loggers live who go into these areas: the upper Lillooet, the Clendenning, the Elaho and the other valleys as well. I am really surprised to see that at this stage, even with the new plan that the minister has. . . . I haven't read the whole plan, but what he has said about it so far doesn't give me the satisfaction that that particular part has been addressed. It is that particular part that makes the difference between having a part which these communities can live with and plan with and not having it be the part which will just continue to create disarray, dissatisfaction, discord, and where, ultimately, there will be jobs lost.

The minister talked about jobs being status quo. What the minister may have in mind is that if indeed a logger cannot go in the forest, then with the new jobs and timber accord and the work agency, he will be able to get a job as a tree-planter or a pruner and become involved with land base management. But that is not what we're talking about.

An Hon. Member: Question.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: The light is still okay, and I'm thinking. . . . I would like to put closure to this, but at the same time there is too much openness there. Once this issue has been dealt with here tonight -- or tomorrow, whenever we finish -- I will have to wait for a year to come back to it again. Don't give me these stories of, "There's a plan coming; read it, and you'll get all the information you want," because I've had the plans. I've had many plans over time, all on the spotted owl. Five years later, you're still going strong on not finding the answers.

Can the minister explain to me: if the road has gone through the new. . . ? No, I'm not going to talk about the potentially new ones. If a road today goes through the special spotted owl management area to access land beyond, are there any rules that apply to how the new roads will have to be built to get to areas beyond the special spotted owl management area, or do they have to go around it? How will that work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: All of that's covered in the operational guidelines. You know, I'm surprised that, in doing the homework, the member didn't get the package. We'll send it to you. You seem to have some information there, but we will provide you with a technical briefing. That's all in the operational guidelines.

I want to assure the public of British Columbia that if the opposition critic at any time during the year has got some critique of how we're carrying out the policy, he owes it to his constituents and anybody else to pass that on to us in an official capacity so that it can be dealt with. He doesn't have to wait a whole year. Really, there are other places where the critic can do his job. I would encourage him to occasionally, from time to time, raise some of these questions with me. I'd be happy to, because I too am interested in the lives of the working people out there and in making sure that we have this balance between protected species and protecting the people working on the land base.

But he can rest assured that there is as much certainty as can be had, given the conditions we had to work with here. Any more certainty for the jobs would have meant less certainty for the owl, and any more certainty for the owls would have meant less certainty for the workers. We do have a balance. We think we picked the balance that was responsible. I've given lots of detail. There are answers to all of your questions in the operational planning regulations. I'm really quite surprised that you haven't got them, quite frankly.

T. Nebbeling: If this part of the estimates debate will ultimately lead to a good relationship with the minister that goes beyond the process right now, that will be a tremendous plus after what we have gone through for the last week and a half.

Let it also be known that on behalf of my constituents. . . . I don't want to stand here just talking about my constituents, because it's the province as a whole that I represent. The minister made the invitation that if there are problems in the areas arising because of, for example, this new strategy on how to deal with the spotted owl, then I can contact him. Over time I have contacted his office, and my staff have talked to his office. We have, as I said this afternoon, been able to communicate and bring different parties together within his office, as well. I do have frequent or fairly regular communication with the district manager in Squamish when it pertains to that area. District Manager Kuster is well aware of my presence and my role in trying to make sure that we keep the communication lines open.

I hope that the minister will have that open mind about us communicating, that that offer will extend beyond tonight from time to time during the year. I know that this is not a pleasant experience for the minister. I'm not looking forward to being a minister, when I will have to go through this, as well.

[ Page 5450 ]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I knew that by saying that I would get some smiles on their faces. That's what I was looking for. Everybody looked so sour. I thought I would just throw a line in there. Like hungry fish, they came to the surface, and they grabbed at that hook. That's good, because we have to have some lightness as well, even if it comes at the cost of vote 37. But I'll be back to that right now, Madam Chair. Everybody is smiling again.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Great. As long as there's a dog, I know a buddy who wants to roam with me in the fields.

If the minister will provide me with the report very soon, that would be helpful.

Another area that has often led to the problem of escalation or exacerbation was the fact that when owls were found, people had to find alternative ways of finding timber. When we talked about this problem this afternoon, the minister indicated that there are some ways now in the new plan -- some mitigating plans -- and he mentioned some earlier on that would allow workers to find some other type of work so that they do not necessarily have to join the ranks of the many unemployed that we have seen develop over the last. . . . The question is still out there, however.

The contracts in these particular timber supply areas are often with small contractors, and they certainly cannot. . . . In spite of seeing their workers finding alternate work under the jobs and timber accord and the land-based management plan, how will the company that has made an investment and then, for reasons discussed earlier. . . ? How will that company find some restitution financially so that it does not go under if one of these situations arises where a diversion from land has to take place because a new owl has been found or heard? If we can have that question first.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know what investment the member is talking about. What investment are you talking about?

T. Nebbeling: I think that one of these days, when we're out of the House, I'm going to ask the minister to come with me to a logging company. If the minister doesn't know that before a company can go into some land to do harvesting, they have to invest in equipment and in all kinds of elements that will make it possible for them to harvest timber. . . . If the minister doesn't know that, then I would love to see him come to one of these areas with me, and we will visit some of these companies. If he comes to Squamish, I may actually take him to a company that recently decided to throw the towel into the ring and walk away.

Obviously investments have to be made. I would like to hear from the minister. . . . When a company has made application, has gone through the paperwork and through the process of getting its permit -- which is an investment in itself, and a considerable one -- and they go in with the materials -- again an investment -- and the scenario arises that they have to move, as we discussed earlier could be an option, how would the company itself, not just the workers, be compensated?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I asked what investment. . . . Not too long ago the member was talking about roads, so that's why I asked what investment he meant. Obviously it's in equipment. I said that the attempt was to find alternate operating areas; that's the mitigation. There is no compensation. There's mitigation if we can mitigate, but we can't mitigate for every situation that comes up. If you have a specific case, then I'd like to know the details; but in theory, there's no answer to it.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not talking about a certain case now. This afternoon I highlighted a situation that has been a problem, but now I am just talking in general, because we're talking about. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Don't ramble.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't hear the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want it to be on the record. Don't ramble, be focused, and I'll try to answer.

T. Nebbeling: For a moment, I thought the minister made me out to be Rambo -- me of all people.

I'm not rambling. What I'm doing is saying that the experience of five years has shown me that in communities where the impact of the owl is felt, these kinds of situations happen. What I'm doing is making sure the minister is aware that these things are happening and that somehow, mitigation has to take place.

I understand that the government does not pay compensation; they don't pay back. I understand that, but if mitigation consists of offering an alternate piece of land or offering an opportunity to bid on a piece of land -- not necessarily that it will then come to that operator, but I believe that that can happen, as well -- the operator nevertheless still has to go through a new process of applying the whole Forest Practices Code requirements that then come into play. Before that operator can go back into the bush, we may well be a year and a half or two years further on. That is two years of having equipment standing there and doing nothing else. That is two years of time during which the individual was supposed to have been making a living, making a future, building a company and through that, hopefully, employing more people.

Is there anything in the system that will assist these small logging operators from somehow getting into a situation where the backlog and the duration of application can be reduced? It may be through proactive work -- I don't know. Is it guaranteed that cutblocks will indeed be made available? Or is it primarily having the right to bid for them, and whoever has the highest bid can win?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Repetition.

The Chair: The member continues.

T. Nebbeling: Well, okay. The minister talked about eight matrix areas. Could the minister explain to me what matrix areas are?

[7:45]

[ Page 5451 ]

T. Nebbeling: We're back again to the old routine -- that it is in the report, but I haven't got the report, so I don't know what it is. The reason I'm asking now is that if the minister gives me a quick overview of what the matrix is, why it is there today, how he foresees the transfer into unhindered land over a period of time, and how and why that is happening with these lands. . . . It would be helpful to get an answer now so that if I have a question, I could ask it now. Otherwise I have to come back to the whole issue again, and once this spotted owl issue has been dealt with, I don't think I want to come back to it. Of course, we have been going over it for quite a while now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have read the simple description, the quick overview, of the matrix. I read that.

The Chair: Hon. member, better try another topic.

T. Nebbeling: Yeah, we could do that. Sure, we could do that. Can the minister give me an idea of all the lands that in total make up the program of special spotted owl management areas in the matrix areas? How many hectares are actually occupied by that program?

S. Hawkins: Point of order. It was always my understanding that although there's a healthy tradition of heckling in the House. . . . I've often had the Chair advise me that I should be sitting in my own seat. I wonder if the Chair could advise the members opposite that if they want to heckle, perhaps. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wants to heckle, perhaps he should be sitting in his own seat, too.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is indeed well taken.

I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: It's good that voice is back again.

The Chair: Hon. member, you've got the floor, and we're expecting something.

T. Nebbeling: Oh, you did recognize me.

The Chair: Yes, I recognized you several minutes ago.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you so much to the House Leader. I'm trying hard. I want to get out of here.

The Chair: Hon. member, vote 37.

T. Nebbeling: Like I said, I'm trying. If the pack opposite could be controlled a little bit, I'm sure we could move forward.

To continue on the spotted owl issue, although there are certainly a fair number of issues still outstanding that I may have to come back to once I have received the report from the minister. . . .

An Hon. Member: Then you're stopping?

T. Nebbeling: What I will do is go on to another topic. Earlier on, my colleague from Cariboo North touched on the fact that there are a fair number of people in this province who are dissatisfied with the way they are being treated by the government and in particular by the Ministry of Forests.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Obviously I have to take everything that I'm going to talk about now. . . . You know, it's a one-sided story. I do not want to take people's stories just for granted, so before I respond to some of these letters that I have received, I am going to ask the minister some questions and see if we get some clarity on some issues that are out there. And then I can deal with this.

I have a letter here from a Mr. William Watt. He is an individual who lives in Williams Lake and is having a problem. First of all, can I ask the minister, to make sure that we don't go wrong. . . ? I'm sure the minister is aware of this Mr. William Watt and has had communication with this person. This person had a problem with road access. Can the minister tell me if this problem has been solved or if it is still an issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my understanding that the party is taking it to the ombuds. I won't make any further comment on it.

T. Nebbeling: Well, then, I'd like to read into the record the letter that this gentleman has sent me. That's the only way we can have recognition of him. This is a fairly serious problem. The letter is addressed to our caucus:

"Dear Sir:

"We are having nightmarish problems with the Ministry of Forests blocking access to our ranch and farm operation. As you can see from the enclosed documentation, we have been stonewalled, lied to, delayed and generally given the runaround by the Ministry of Forests for over 14 months now. As a result of their actions, we lost our entire hay crop last year, and will again this year if we do not get any action soon."

"We were very recently lied to by the assistant of the minister" -- although the name's in here, I will not mention it, Madam Chair -- ". . .who told us two weeks ago that the minister would be making a decision with respect to granting us restricted access via a locked gate over an unused forestry road with accesses to a ranch we are attempting to bring back into production.

"He told us he is the assistant to the minister. He told us to go back and a decision would be made by Friday. We called on Friday, and he told us that there was no decision and no briefing note. He told us on Monday they had received a briefing note, and he said that he didn't know who was making the decision and that maybe the minister had taken it home with him for the weekend. He was going to confer with the regional manager" -- and the manager is named -- ". . .before making the decision.

"On Monday we called back, and this assistant told us that the deputy minister would be making the decision, but the deputy minister had been away on holiday and we would hear from him soon. We then called the same day to the district manager in Williams Lake, and he told us that the decision had been made two weeks ago by the district manager, Mr. Grant. We called Mr. Grant, and we were told that he was denying us access. This is after 14 months of telephone calls, faxes, meet-

[ Page 5452 ]

ings, reports and various untruths being told to us by various ministry personnel. When I again spoke to the minister's assistant, he suggested that we move away and go somewhere else. I was astounded. These people appear to be so blasé about abusing people, lying to them and destroying their lives that it is almost a joke to them. I'm horrified that people such as this are in positions of power."

It's these kinds of letters, and I've got a whole pack of them. . . . I think the minister is aware of it, and I've talked to him about certain other ones, as well. I'm not going to read them all into the record, and I'm not going to continue reading them out, either.

It is a concern to me that on such a frequent basis I get letters that really reflect that the bureaucracy surrounding the minister, be it in the districts or be it right here in the office, is not very accommodating when it comes to people. I have six or seven cases that are going to court now.

I ask the minister: is there no other system where a person, when a request seems to be quite realistic -- but even if it is not realistic -- can get a straightforward answer and be told no, rather than, in this particular case, waiting for 14 months?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm quite happy to actually get into a little bit of discussion with you on this.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, no, I want to respect the fact that it's in front of the ombudsman; but as I've thought about it, I'm quite happy. I know the case well.

We get hundreds of phone calls a day if people are unsatisfied with a "no" from the ministry, and they want to appeal and appeal and appeal.

In this case, yes, Mr. Watt came to see me and explained it. I looked into the situation. I found out that the decision is a decision by the district forest manager. In making his decision for road access, in this case, the appellant. . . . This person's business hasn't been destroyed; let's make no mistake. They haven't lived in there. They bought a place that hadn't been lived on for at least a decade -- very rough roads into it. There is a public road into the area. There is a logging road that went by it for a period of time.

The decision was by the coordinated access management planning process, which is an advisory process to the district manager. It was clear that the road would be closed to protect critical wildlife habitat and to protect the guiding operation and some of the other ranching operations in the area. So this ranch has access. It's a rough road. They want to go to the forestry road, which isn't an all-weather road, but for which the decision was made to close it.

I looked at the situation. I asked the district manager. I followed all the processes, and there was a. . . . The mistake was that somebody thought there was a decision note coming to the minister. I said that as far as I was concerned, I would take an information note -- that I would not make the decision if it was properly the decision of the district manager.

In these cases it's my usual practice, as the MLA for the area -- I've done this on a couple of occasions -- to ask for a reconsideration by the appropriate body that's advising the decision-maker. In this case, the body is the coordinated access management planning group. A majority of the interests represented on that group -- again, upon reconsideration -- recommended that the district manager keep that forest road closed.

I said that that was good enough for me. I'll support, as minister. . . . I have no reason to second-guess the decision-maker. In my view, it was due process, it was fair, and I spent as much time on this particular case as on any other case. Here's a case where somebody is buying an operation or leasing an operation that has not been functional for some time.

If you listen to the language, they suggest that my office lied, etc., etc. The same person alleged that I said I would direct that there be a special use permit. Well, that's absolutely not true. That person, in some of his correspondence, put words into my mouth that were never there. I've checked the records of the meeting, and I wouldn't do that.

It's my view that the appropriate decision-makers make decisions. I think that in this case due process has been served. I guess what I was saying is that I do believe people have access to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman will look at it and decide if there's due process. As is my practice, if the ombudsman disagrees, then I ask my ministry to reconsider. But in this case, it was proper that the decision be made at the district level and that the interests that are in that land management area advised that the forestry roads stay closed and not provide quick access to people into the area, so as to protect it. I believe it's a moose calving ground, and there're a number of other values there.

This party can get in via the public road that's there. It's called the Maindley Road. They can get in. There's no restriction on their access.

[8:00]

However, I do have another case that certainly concerns me more, and this is a recent case. I've got the whole chronology here of a situation not in my riding. It is in the Kamloops riding -- a small logger who, through some strange circumstances, has ended up losing his operation. He ended up in tremendous debt and had his equipment confiscated.

I don't know if the minister has spoken with this particular individual, but what happened is that this logger got a contract and started to work the contract. He had some subcontractors working with him. While they were harvesting, they were approached by a native band. There were some culturally adjusted trees. I don't know what the expression is, but in any case, the job got shut down.

According to the documentation with the minister's district manager in Lillooet, there was no real cause for it. The job could open up again, could shut down again. It is just an 

[ Page 5453 ]

ongoing series of unusual things: affidavits, offers by the ministry to pay part of the outstanding bill, counteroffers again, meetings with the district manager, meetings here in Victoria, more offers for partial payment.

The reason I want to bring this one to the minister's attention -- and I would, with permission of the Chair, actually give the binder to the minister so he can look at it -- is that the individual actually came into my office -- an older gentleman. I've never met him before; I have no relationship to him. He just told me his story with a lot of tears, because two days before he came in, the sheriffs had taken out all the equipment. To me this was a drama, and normally I would not bring this to you in this manner. But, of course, this is a very recent thing, because there's tremendous hardship going on right now. There is definitely recognition within the letter that the district manager recognized that he was entitled to the work, and that for some reason it went sideways.

So if I can leave this one with the minister, I would truly appreciate it. Maybe the minister has heard of this company. It is Chaps and is from the Kamloops area -- Chaps Enterprises from Barriere. I don't know if you have heard of them. I will leave this with the minister, and, hopefully, we can deal with this one. I appreciate it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I appreciate the member providing that to me, and I will look into it immediately. I am aware of the situation, although perhaps not what's happened over the last month and a half or so. We'd be happy to look into it, and I appreciate you having brought that to my attention.

T. Nebbeling: As I said, I will stop talking about the spotted owl issue, and I will stop talking about the protected-areas strategy. There is still a fair amount of issues that will have to come up in the estimates.

I should say I had intended to spend at least two days on the Forest Practices Code, but considering that we will be debating a bill in the very near future that will deal with many of the issues that the minister's dealing with right now in the required amendments, I would like to just spend a short time on the Forest Practices Code as we see it today to find out about some things that happened that really surprised me.

Maybe the very best way of starting the questions that I have is to go back to a situation that arose in the beginning of this year, when the Sierra Legal Defense Fund came up with a news program or a binder where they identified 20 different problems in different streams. They made a case in each and every one of these.

A couple of things happened that had me baffled. First of all, the fact that the Sierra Legal Defense Fund came out with the study didn't surprise me, and I would like to go over some of these issues with the minister. But what did surprise me was that soon after that, I spoke with the Forest Practices Board. We were discussing in part what was happening here, and I asked the board why they weren't actually given the materials so that as a board they could look at the various claims made by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund and go the proper route.

What I did see happen was that soon after I had that meeting with the Forest Practices Board, there was a press conference where the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment announced that they were going to undertake or had undertaken a study of some of these streams claims. I felt the way that was handled. . . . And maybe the minister can give me some clarification here. How was it that the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, who are the managers of many of the projects that are done with FRBC guidance, were actually going to be involved, analyzing if some of the claims made by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund were indeed true?

Can the minister tell me if he recalls that? A working team was formed to analyze some of these claims in April, I think it was.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My intention was to take seriously any serious allegation. The Minister of Environment and I agreed that we would have a joint investigation into the findings, to tell us as quickly as possible whether there was something in the findings of SLDF or not. Then they reported out to us and we took a series of actions.

T. Nebbeling: Before I go into what was reported out to the ministries, I want to ask the minister: is it not unusual. . .or is it even proper that the minister does an investigation on allegations made by a third party on Forest Practices Code implementation, when at the same time, the whole system that we have here in British Columbia is that complaints about the implementation of the Forest Practices Code go to the Forest Practices Board? Can the minister explain why the minister and the Minister of Environment thought it was proper for these two ministers to initiate an investigation that basically led to investigating their own activities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you will recall, the allegations were against the companies and the way in which forest practices were carried out. As you know, there are various levels of investigation. This was a special little investigation on behalf of two ministers to find out -- to advise us from our ministries' point of view -- whether there was something to it. It's well within our responsibility to do that, to ask our officials to look into situations. We do it all the time. In fact, they do it as a normal course of their work. In this case we asked them to take this particular report and verify some information.

T. Nebbeling: Has that report or that study been prepared? Is that a public document?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we reported the findings. We can provide you with a copy of it. We thought there was enough in there with respect to technicalities of the implementation of the code that we chose to refer aspects of the riparian management to the Forest Practices Board. So they are, this summer, conducting their own investigation.

T. Nebbeling: Were these outside consultants who, on behalf of the two ministries, then looked at the allegations? It is still not clear to me why the minister did not immediately refer it to the Forest Practices Board, which I thought was the practice when something of this nature, of this size, comes forward. Was the evaluation of the correctness of this material done by outside consultants or by people working within both ministries?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I said it was internal. We didn't have any consultants do it. The report was finally signed off by the regional directors of Environment and Forests. It was internal to the ministries, meaning that the ministries' own resources did it. We made it public.

T. Nebbeling: Did all the claims that were made by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund. . . ? I believe there were 20; I haven't counted them. Were all the claims referred to the Forest Practices Board, or was there a selection made?

[ Page 5454 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the numbers with me here, but the review looked at 18 cutblocks, and they reviewed 63 stream reaches. We found that of the 63, 44 were properly identified on plans submitted. The 19 remaining streams were either misclassified or not mentioned in the licensee's plans, and will be further investigated.

So we did find that some of the findings of SLDF did appear to have merit. But it was an area of sufficient interest and complexity. . . . And I'll illustrate that. A fish-bearing stream that dries up: is it a fish-bearing stream? It's certainly not bearing any fish when it's dry. So these are some of the unknowns about a lot of the riparian areas. We are still learning. In the interest of doing yet a better job on stream classifications, we thought that issue should be looked at by the Forest Practices Board. So some of their findings appeared to have some merit, and some of them didn't.

T. Nebbeling: Again, I think the minister can understand that at the time the announcement was made that the two ministries would investigate their own work, there was a fair amount of skepticism not just on the part of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund people but in other circles as well. It was reported as such. Does the minister, with hindsight, think it was the right thing to do -- to investigate work or action by their own officials with officials from the same departments?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I also said this: it was the ministries investigating the stream classification that companies did. So it was the ministry investigating the work of companies.

T. Nebbeling: Now I understand that. I thought normal practice was that under the various requirements which a company has to provide is indeed a plan of how to deal with riparian areas, with stream protection, with restoration. That work, when companies are involved with it or when they are finished working in a certain area. . . . I would think the district manager's work crew or a representative from the district manager's office would go into an unfinished cutblock and assess if indeed everything has been done according to the plan. I thought the Forest Renewal B.C. implementation plan described that. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member -- I won't put any words in his mouth -- almost implies that we should check and recheck and recheck. Companies submit their plans; ministries approve them. They do some checking, but it's this checking that actually slows down the approvals. So we have plans signed off, and we go through the checklist. We approve them. There are sometimes field inspections, but there isn't 100 percent auditing of approvals.

So it is quite appropriate, if a third party points out some inadequacies, that we look at it, because if there is a problem, we want to know. So it's entirely appropriate that the regional managers check into what the districts have been doing in terms of the approved plan. It's totally appropriate.

[8:15]

Having said that, one of the problems that was identified during this year by the opposition and by myself when it came to the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment is that at the time layoffs were announced. . . . We certainly agree that the bureaucracy has to be reduced. We certainly agree that there's far too much bureaucracy; there's far too much paperwork. But what we didn't enjoy and what we didn't agree with was indeed the elimination of 504 Forests jobs. I don't know how many people were laid off from the Ministry of Environment.

One of the concerns we had was that the work that had to be done in the field to make sure, once an operation was in process and working, that the work that was done was indeed done in a proper way. . .and that from time to time the district manager would have his people going into the field.

The minister may not agree with me, but at the time that the whole Forest Practices Code was introduced and the district managers' office workers were pulled in to become part of the team to make sure that indeed the Forest Practices Code was going to be implemented by companies, that was not the role at the planning stage, although in the planning department role.

But once the company was in the field, was doing the harvesting and was supposed to work with certain guidelines and directions, there was this whole debate. Should we hire more people just to look at that work and make sure that everything gets done according to the plan? Or are we going to have our field workers, that are in the ministry's operation already, be responsible and see to it that the code gets implemented? Now, maybe it was not throughout the province, but I certainly know that in some of the district managers' offices -- I face it frequently, where I know most of the people -- that was certainly a real debate.

So the intent to have on-site inspections to make sure that indeed the work got done according to the Forest Practices Code requirement, according to the riparian requirement and all the other rules. . . . I'm surprised to hear that the minister says we don't have the manpower for that. I think -- I even pointed it out at one point in a discussion -- that if the bureaucracy was going to be reduced, it should not be the people that work in the district offices, because they are the people that go in the field. They're actually the people that touch the ground and work together with the people that do the harvesting. They are the people who see the results. If there are cuts, it should be more in the offices, be it at the regional level or here in Victoria.

So I do not totally agree that the mandate of the minister includes that he or she can decide what they are going to investigate when it comes to violations or potential violations. I say "potential." If the minister indeed gets complaints and has his or her own staff doing the investigation, which basically means they have to check whether the people responsible for auditing on the lands have not done the work, then I see a conflict there.

I thought also that that was the reason we have the Forest Practices Board. We have not spoken about the Forest Practices Board yet, because we're going to need a little bit of time on that one.

But I do say that when I met with the chairman of the Forest Practices Board and asked specifically on this particular issue, they were quite. . . . Well, he was not rolling his eyes, but he was not very comfortable with me asking why his office, his board, was not doing that investigation rather than the minister's staff and the Minister of Environment.

Can the minister give me a feel that he understands that suspicion was created by having the minister appoint people 

[ Page 5455 ]

who had to investigate their colleagues and then report back to the minister, and then, based on these recommendations, the minister together with the staff deciding if they would go on and transfer or then bring some of these issues in front of the Forest Practices Board?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess I'm not as suspicious. If somebody -- a member of the public or an organization -- is capable of launching a lawsuit, brings out some information, and they've done an investigation, it's quite within our responsibility as a ministry to ask our officials to check something like stream classifications -- quite our responsibility.

An independent board can do what it chooses if it has within its mandate a responsibility to look at forest practices. But they have to have somebody take it to them, and at that point, they didn't have this issue in front of them.

Rather than wait for an investigation and see if an independent board was within their mandate or whatever, we knew it was our job to ensure that there was good classification of streams -- not the Forest Practices Board, but the Ministries of Environment and Forests. So we undertook to have our managers check stream classification. They weren't investigating other ministry officials or anything else; they were investigating the classification of streams. It's totally appropriate.

The other argument would come -- I can see it now -- if we hadn't done anything. I can see an opposition member standing up and saying: "You shouldn't have had to wait for an independent board. You should have gone in and investigated and got hold of it right now."

I think there's responsibility that we have as ministers and managers to get in, get to the bottom and see if there's something behind some of these before we comment further.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister answer my question: when a complaint is made by a citizen on an action by a company, do they always come to the minister? Is it the ministry's authority to decide if it goes to the Forest Practices Board? Or is there within the act a stipulation that if any person feels that an investigation should take place on an action that is managed or controlled by the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment on private lands through a contractor -- being a forest company. . . ? Does the person have the right to get that hearing, or is it the first requirement?

Quite frankly, I'm asking this because I don't know. Does a person have to talk to the Ministry of Forests to file a complaint, and is it up to the Ministry of Forests, or is it the right of a complainant to go to a higher body that is independent of the people who were supposed to have done the checking work -- the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment -- but not independent, because it is still driven by government regulations and its action are driven by government regulations? So can the minister maybe answer that question at this point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, a third party can go wherever they want. They can go to the press, the Forest Practices Board, the ministry, their MLA, the local press. In fact, some of them go to international organizations. In this case, a third party had done some investigation. They had what appeared to be a damning report, and they issued it publicly, which brought a high profile to it, which brought a responsibility to respond appropriately, which is what we did. Rather than take it at face value, we sent people out in the field immediately.

But third parties can go wherever they want. And they do have a right to take any forest practice to the Forest Practices Board, and the board will decide whether or not it's worth investigating.

T. Nebbeling: Now, if a third party who wants to file a complaint can go anywhere they want, are we not, in a sense, telling the Forest Practices Board that it is going to investigate a number of these issues that now the minister, through his officials, has referred to the board? I believe the minister said a number of these issues were referred to the board.

Are we not saying, then, that we have already found it guilty, so we feel it merits further study by a so-called independent board, and that independent board can then apply some penalties -- although I believe the ministry can do it themselves as well -- or some further action? By having played a role in analyzing the validity of the claims, and finding, as the ministry, just cause for the claim, and then giving it to a board that is supposed to investigate it. . . . Is the party not already found guilty before they actually get a hearing with the board that is to determine the penalty and remedial action?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What the findings are? We didn't find anybody guilty of anything. All we did was try to verify the stream classifications.

I'm really not sure where the member wants to go with it. Let me suggest that there are a number of parties that could go to the Forest Practices Board. In this case, a party went public and suggested that there was misclassification of streams.

The Forest Practices Board deals with the practices. They take the code and ask if the practices are consistent with the code. We do that all the time when we are asked to approve permits and so on. So there are all kinds of judgments being made.

The ministry will look at things that come their way, but in this case, what was in the public was some suggestion that, in fact, maybe there was something wrong with our policies. There was a critique, actually, of the code -- not whether the code was being applied. So it wasn't clear, exactly. It was a public relations exercise, in part, because they released it in public. We weren't sure whether there was a question of forest practices or whether it was a question of forest policy.

So our investigation, if you want to call it that -- I don't know any other word -- gave us a little bit more information on which to go. We, in turn, asked that the general issue of stream classifications be looked at by the Forest Practices Board.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to ask the member for Langley to take over for a little while. But I would like to come back to this one, Madam Chair, because I do see a conflict. I see a role that the ministries are playing by doing a first assessment of the claims and then selectively taking parts that you then send to another judicial body and say: "We want you to consider these claims, although we have already found something wrong with them; that's why we sent them to you." I think the best thing would have been for the ministries to have sent this document straight to the Forest Practices Board and let them judge if they should be involved with that or not. I will come back to that one in a little while.

L. Stephens: I have a few questions this evening around the Vancouver forest region. They particularly apply to the fibre flow issues that have been experienced in our region. 

[ Page 5456 ]

Over the past two years there have been a number of factors that contribute to the constraints of that fibre flow. Licensees and the small business forest enterprise program have had difficulty in achieving the full harvest levels. Prior to the introduction of the code, the approvals occurred relatively smoothly, but as the minister is aware, that has slowed down.

[8:30]

I wonder if the minister could tell us what percentage of the annual approved cutting permit was in place for the Vancouver forest region on, let's say, March 31, 1997, or whatever -- March, April or May, or whatever amount the minister may have handy.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're looking for the information, but I guess I need clarification. Are we looking at the small businesses or the major licensees?

L. Stephens: Both, if you have the numbers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Actually, in the first quarter of 1996 there was 0.68 of a year's approvals. It's actually been reduced to 0.6 in the first quarter of 1997 -- a slight worsening of the situation. But this not having two years' wood ahead is one of the reasons why we've put this into the jobs and timber accord. We recognize that we now have to undertake -- partly through revising the Forest Practices Code -- to do a better job of getting the two years' supply of wood ahead.

L. Stephens: One of the issues that was identified as being a significant problem to getting these permits approved relatively quickly was the Forest Practices Code. It's brought numerous land and resource requirements that far exceed the pre-code requirements. These new conditions now require more of an in-depth level of detail and complexity in the actual field layout.

Associated with this increased review process is ensuring that all the requirements are met. I know that when we were travelling around the north, one thing we heard time after time was that a lot of the companies were bogged down in repetitious red tape. The forest services personnel were overwhelmed by a lot of it, as well.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about the duplication of processes; for example: the Ministry of Environment, where I understand there's a protocol, yet there's a lot of duplication between the Forests ministry and MELP as to what they should be doing. My understanding is that forestry has a rather tough view on what must be adhered to, and yet the Ministry of Environment is a little bit more lax in forestry and conservation issues, and they're more focused on environmental issues.

Could the minister talk about the processes between the two ministries and whether or not there has been some resolution in streamlining some of those in order for the licensees and everyone else to obtain those permits relatively quickly?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's no question about the fact that the Ministry of Environment is there essentially to protect the environment and make sure that timber harvesting is done in an environmentally appropriate way. If the Ministry of Forests is there also, there is an overlap and joining of jurisdictions. I guess if they didn't risk overlapping sometimes, some people would suggest that they don't even touch one another and that there's no continuity. So there is sometimes overlap.

The ministries meet at the executive level, they meet at the regional management level, and we have forest ecosystem specialists who are employees of the Ministry of Environment that actually work out of the Ministry of Forests offices. So we are working collaboratively with them, and we do have differences of opinion.

We are streamlining the code and trying to reduce the number of plans from six to three. That will be the subject of legislation that has been deposited in the House. So this will hopefully reduce unnecessary information. Anything that we can achieve to simplify it, we're happy to try to do that.

Nobody wants duplication. I think sometimes people argue that there's duplication, when it really is a question of different objectives colliding.

L. Stephens: One of the other areas that has been identified, as well, is inadequate professional expertise that's available in both resource agencies -- both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment -- to conduct those necessary assessments in a timely way.

The other issue that was identified was the delays due to hearings and appeals associated with this operational planning process. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about whether or not that's been tackled and processes or streamlining put in place to deal with those issues, too -- the hearings and appeals.

Again, that was the other thing that we heard -- that you could get an approval, and then an individual or group could come along and say, "Well, we think that this should have been done or that should have been done," and the process starts all over again. That can go on and on and on. So I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk about how they're addressing that particular problem.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's interesting that we're now onto what could be a criticism of an elaborate process. The previous member who was speaking really was suggesting that we shouldn't look into things to see if there really was something there before we allow it to go to some other level of appeal. So you can get this going both ways.

I think hearings and appeals are there to allow due process to both parties: the government and the forest industry -- and the public, who have values out there that they wish to be protected sometimes. So it's not surprising that things occasionally do get caught up. But to say that they don't, then, would mean there's no due process, there's no way to appeal, and that's sort of counter to natural law as we understand it. We have to make sure that the processes are fair and that they're not encumbering anybody any more than is necessary. But there's no question. . . . If you're going to give the public the right to challenge government decisions -- which is part of what we were talking about here -- there's got to be a process, and it has to be articulated. I would certainly agree that it shouldn't be arbitrary and that it should have some substance to it, and that's exactly why we expect our officials to look into things long before they proceed to an appeal stage.

L. Stephens: I don't think anyone is suggesting that there shouldn't be arbitration processes and all of those kinds of 

[ Page 5457 ]

mechanisms to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. But there comes a point where overregulation and overprocess has the exact opposite effect to what perhaps is intended. From what we're hearing, that in fact is what's happening with the code. It's in every part of the province, and I'm sure the minister is hearing this. It's not just the opposition; it's communities -- and I'm sure the minister, as well. The structure of the code. . . . Perhaps satisfying legal requirements and the legal system really does hinder the fibre flow, because of its process orientation. These processes do add little value to the direct benefits of forest management, but they consume large amounts of the government's and the licensees' time. They delay the essential forest management activities of the Ministry of Forests.

I know that the employees of the Forests ministry. . . . There are not as many of them as I'm sure the minister would like. Perhaps if we talk about efficiency and effectiveness of the staff, doing something about some of the red tape might be one place to start. I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not that's something that the ministry is working on. Is it looking at trying to take some of those pressures off staff in the field to deal with the permits that are coming before the different field offices?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While we agree with the intent of the comments by the member opposite, that's why in early June the Minister of Environment and I tabled the revisions to the Forest Practices Code. We actually have before the House legislation that was designed to do precisely that -- that is, simplify and streamline the processes, based on our experience. That's in hand.

L. Stephens: As part of the simplification, is there a move to perhaps standardize specific plan contents, through development of regional templates, to do that? I'm not sure if the minister heard what I said. Part of the ability to move these cutting permits ahead and do all of the other work that the ministry staff has to do. . . . Is there a move toward standardizing specific plan content through the development of regional templates?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding we do have regional templates, and we're looking for the best of that to use provincewide.

We have a goal -- which is a goal of the organization -- to get the two years' wood ahead, so we're expecting our officials to find appropriate administrative processes to get us there.

L. Stephens: The cut reductions in the timber supply areas -- the protected-areas strategy has been identified as one of the issues that has made it a little more difficult. There's a log-around strategy in place, apparently, and it has become very constrictive.

I wonder if the minister could talk about boundaries. I understand they have to be marked now to ensure that trespass does not occur when harvesting is undertaken on adjacent areas. Is that a problem with the Forests ministry? Is there anything being done about it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do expect that the boundaries will be marked before someone cuts up against a protected area. The log-around policies the member talks about -- there are deferral areas and study areas where there are interim management guidelines, if it's an area that might become a protected area. Once we've got a land use plan in place, the log-arounds cease to exist. It makes good sense to log around, not in, areas that you want to become a park. That's why we do that; otherwise there's no point in talking about it being a park. Those areas that are candidates are kept to a minimum. If we're aiming for 12 percent, it is plus or minus 18 percent in study areas at any given time. That may fluctuate, depending on the need to continue operations and keep operations going at the approved level.

[8:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We didn't cover this, although we did talk about spotted owls. The National Committee for Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee is responsible for overseeing and coordinating recovery efforts for nationally endangered and threatened species. At the request of the national committee, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks' director of wildlife established the Canadian Spotted Owl Recovery Team in 1990. This team was comprised of professional biologists and professional foresters, and the mandated recovery team was to examine the current status of spotted owls in Canada and develop a national recovery plan for the species.

I would say that our management plan has really put into place a way of managing for recovery. This is one of the arguments we've used -- to say that we have an equivalent process to whatever Canada think they want to do, and therefore intrusion of Canada into our activities isn't really necessary.

L. Stephens: Is there a permanent spotted owl conservation area, or are there just temporary conservation areas at the moment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have answered some of that. There are special management areas now under the lower mainland regional plan. There were spotted owl areas, conservation areas; that was a temporary measure. Now we have permanent protected areas, and we have special management zones that are managed to take care of management objectives such as the spotted owl.

L. Stephens: I apologize -- I was looking specifically for the Soo and Fraser TSAs and whether or not there are permanent spotted owl conservation areas there. How has that impacted on some of the licensees? When there was a temporary spotted owl reserve, there were some licensees that found themselves without really any operable area at all in those two TSAs. Could the minister tell me the status of the Soo and the Fraser?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have what is not perhaps widely known. . . . I wasn't sure how much was in the hands of the opposition Forestry critic. There was an information bulletin put out with a complete package, and we went into some detail on the status of managing for the spotted owl. I'm going to give you a brief answer but would ask you, if you would, to review today's Hansard. If there are outstanding questions, please ask again or contact us directly.

[ Page 5458 ]

The companies -- J.S. Jones, Canfor, Pacific and Interfor -- all sent us letters of support for the spotted owl management plan. We did that when we had negotiated with them a mitigation plan that would see no job loss. They were confident that we could find ways in which they could live with the results, and they were satisfied that there would be sufficient recovery that we wouldn't continually be criticized. What has happened since the announcement is that there has been very little criticism, if any, coming from either the forest industry or the environmental community.

There was a bit of chatter at the time from some of the conservation groups who want a more ironclad guarantee for the recovery of the spotted owl. There are no guarantees. This will optimize recovery potential, but at the same time, it will keep operations going. We did a check this afternoon with the Chilliwack district office, and they say that things are quiet there both for the impacts of the protected area and with respect to the spotted owl.

We're anxious to hear if that's not true. That is what our officials are telling us, and we encourage anyone who knows of a displacement or something that hasn't been taken care of. . . . We certainly would get on it and find a way to minimize it to the absolute minimum.

L. Stephens: I will go back through the Hansards and have a look at the rest of the answers around the spotted owl. I'll just move on to the Vancouver Island land use plan. That's part of the Vancouver forest region. For the general forestry areas and high-intensity areas, have there been some definitions and approvals by government on what those areas may be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are no approvals yet with respect to the intensively managed areas. We have had a process called the Vancouver Island resource targets process, and within the last month, there has been a major seminar and a reporting out of some technical work from the team that was doing the resource targets process. Those zones are still under consideration.

L. Stephens: My understanding is that the code was built on the premise that a higher level of strategic planning would be in place, as many of the objectives determined through this process drive operational planning. The operational planning is being carried out in a vacuum of information which exacerbates the fibre flow. Could the minister talk about that a bit and about how that may be remedied, and when? Does he have a time line on when he hopes to have a resolution to that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the case of Vancouver Island, there would be two of what you might call higher-level plans. For the Vancouver Island plan, we anticipate a phase through the summer of continued public review and comment, and in the fall, a proposal and public input would be compiled. The technical team's role will have finished. Based on that input, there may be further review options that may be identified. Between the fall of this year and December, we expect to get to a decision. Late this year we expect a government decision on the Vancouver Island resource targets.

In addition, to assist the operational-level planning, there is a need for an intermediate step, because it's a large region. What really gives the most effect to the code is landscape unit plans. We expect to have approximately 2,400 landscape units defined by October, and we expect that they will have priorities set for which ones will be undertaken first.

L. Stephens: My understanding is that that requires a high degree of consultation with stakeholder groups, communities and so on. Is that the case, and is that underway?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. With the Vancouver Island resource targets, there's a multi-stakeholder group, and there seems to be discussion in the paper frequently. With respect to the landscape unit plans, I said there would be 2,400. That's across the whole province. There have been six pilots done. I can't give you the number for Vancouver Island. It will take several years -- five, perhaps more -- to complete all the landscape unit plans, so there is ample opportunity for public input.

I know it's disappointing that we don't have a plan, period, but it is very complex to resolve the multiple values involved. Just generating the technical information and allowing the stakeholders time to give the input means that it is going to take some time.

L. Stephens: I do appreciate the enormity of the task.

The specific licensee issues that result from the reduced fibre flow are, of course, mill closures and reductions in production -- our mill at Fort Langley has closed -- and that the owners or the operators may be subject to punitive measures under the Forest Act. Those penalties involve a reduction to the annual allowable cut of one or more replaceable Forest Act agreements held by the mill owner or the affiliate.

This was one of the other issues that we heard about when we were on our tour of the north, coupled with the fact that licensees (1) had difficulty getting their permits and (2) were terrified that they would do something wrong or they wouldn't adhere and would incur these penalties, which are quite significant.

I wonder if the minister has any record of how many mills in the Vancouver forest region have closed and perhaps how many of those licence holders have been penalized. How many of the owner-operators have been penalized for any of these transgressions?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This may take a couple of back-and-forths here, but let me start. We're not aware of any closures that have been land use plan-oriented or specifically Forest Practices Code-related. There may be closures. There have been some allowable annual cut determinations, but most of that has to do with lack of inventory and past overcutting.

I would need to get more specifics about the particular Fort Langley mill to know the reason why. There are any number of reasons why closures might take place. But before there is a reduction of the AC of a particular licence, I would have to, as minister, take into account many factors. So I think I'll ask the member to give me a few more specifics, and perhaps we can get to the point of the questioning.

[9:00]

My question was: how many mills in the Vancouver region have closed that the minister is aware of? Does he have that kind of information? More specifically, how many mills 

[ Page 5459 ]

have been penalized? How many licensees or owner-operators have been penalized for transgressing the Forest Act, section 56(1)?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I understand now what you mean by penalizing -- that is, reducing a company's cut because they've closed the mill. Before I would do that, I would have to. . . .

I'll read you the section of the act:

"71(2) In determining whether to make a reduction, or in determining the amount of reduction, the minister must consider the extent to which the difference in average allowable volume calculated. . .is attributed to (a) reductions. . .in the allowable annual cut, (b) the fact a non-replaceable agreement has expired, (c) reductions in the volume specified in a pulpwood agreement. . . . (e) the fact that a strike or lock out has occurred, or (f) an interruption in the supply of logs to the timber processing facility caused by (i) afire, flood or other natural cause, or (ii) or a forest closure under section 84 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act."

L. Stephens: There was a report called "Analysis of Woodflow in the Vancouver Forest Region." The minister responded to this report on. . . . November 26 of '96 was when it was released, and this was the response that appeared in the Vancouver Sun of that date. The report said that they forecast a loss of up to five sawmills, one pulp mill, one of two plywood plants and seven cedar shake and shingle mills when the full impact of the government's forest policies kick in. I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk about whether in fact some of these events have occurred.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The biggest single factor that's going to affect the mills in the lower mainland or in the Vancouver forest region would be what I would attribute to overcutting.

The reductions that there have already been in the Vancouver forest region have not been attributable to the Forest Practices Code or the land use plans. There may be some effects coming. Although we want to limit the effect of the Forest Practices Code to 6 percent across the province, it may be as much as 8 percent.

But to date, the effects and any closures that there have been would be from the policy which we call the timber supply review, which is the process of reviewing the timber supply, and the chief forester making a determination based on not leaving the cut so high as to impair the long-term forest productivity and create major and greater problems down the road. The chief forester is under instructions, if he chooses or feels he has to determine that there's a lower rate of cut, to do that in a way that steps down the activity over time. In some cases, if the timber just isn't there and we're eating into the long-term timber supply, he sometimes makes more drastic changes. In the case of the Fraser TSA and Port McNeill, for example, he has made significant reductions.

L. Stephens: The region stretches from the Fraser Valley, which is my area, to the central coast and includes Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes. At my count here, the numbers I have are 162 mills in that region. Most of them are located in the lower mainland, with the exception of the pulp mills, most of which are on Vancouver Island.

These are some of the comments that the minister made at that time in his response to this report. I'll just read them to you and ask for your comment on whether or not these. . . . Well, we'll get to that. The first one here is:

"'We have a tremendous overcapacity in the lower mainland, compared with the timber supply. . . . Manufacturing jobs are at risk because of pending reductions in the Vancouver forest region's timber supply. . . . The government's own forecasts show that the Vancouver forest region faces an 11.2 percent reduction in its timber supply because of three government programs: the Forest Practices Code, the timber supply review and the protected-areas strategy."

It goes on to say:

"As other areas are cut back, they will want to retain more timber for their own plants. 'When you are looking at the lower mainland, which only produces 47 percent of its own wood supply, it is vulnerable and dependent' " -- as in fact, it is. " 'So that has to be considered in policy-making.' "

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no one policy that gives a simple answer. Let me start by saying that some rationalizing in the lower mainland is absolutely necessary. I don't think it's a case of just reducing shifts; there's got to be some rationalizing. We just have to accept that as a fact, because there's an overall reduction in the supply area to Vancouver and its region.

We are going to see an increasing tension. Small communities that sit with high unemployment and a strong dependency on the forest sector are going to want more and more wood left in their own areas, and this is going to have a negative effect. So we have to consider that the Vancouver region does import a lot of wood from other regions of the province -- up-Island, the midcoast and so on. We have to take into account and balance the interests of small communities with those of the larger metropolitan area.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

L. Stephens: What was identified was a loss of 4,000 jobs and a possible 16,000 supporting jobs. I wonder if the minister could talk about. . . . I know he's going to talk about the jobs strategy and the jobs and timber accord to try to alleviate some of these losses, but I would suggest that probably they will be more significant than 4,000 jobs just in the lower mainland. I think most people in the lower mainland don't realize how significantly forestry impacts on them. I believe it's something like one in three jobs in this province that are dependent in some way, shape or form on the forest industry. So could the minister perhaps talk a little bit about what kind of an impact this reduction will have on jobs in the lower mainland, and what he has in place to try to mitigate the loss of those jobs as much as possible?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The major elements that we have to deal with mitigation of impacts in the lower mainland would be principally -- you anticipated correctly -- the jobs and timber accord, where we just expect more jobs out of cubic metres. . . . Hopefully, that will create more jobs to go around. 

[ Page 5460 ]

But the regional equity principle of FRBC is the argument that, in the past, the Vancouver region contributed a large amount of stumpage; therefore this is their time of need. We would expect that to be a consideration when FRBC is balancing its regional equity principle. We would expect probably more funds from FRBC coming into the region than is the proportion of stumpage paid. Now, that is very difficult for people in the north to take, but they understand that they too might find their need greater than this region, and they would expect this region to contribute.

The fibre transfer program of the jobs and timber accord will direct 18 percent of the fibre to value-added. That's a 70 percent increase; we expect at least a 70 percent increase in the number of value-added jobs. That will help.

The chief forester and the forestry planners will look at moving problem forest types -- those are things that have not been harvested in the past -- including deciduous trees. We can look at the use of deciduous as a way of looking at the hardwood industry, for example. Those are some of the specific elements of strategies.

Now, the challenge is that each company, working together with government, will have to come up with what I call the regional expression of the jobs and timber accord. Industry has undertaken to create a number of direct jobs by further investment. We've undertaken to take out the undercut, which amounts to about three million cubic metres for the major licensees. That, we anticipate, will create a number of jobs in the lower mainland.

I think our experience has been, in communities where there have been reductions, that there are ways of taking up the jobs. Sometimes the expanding role of planning and forest practice management on the ground has created more jobs. We expect, over time, that the people responsible for local economic planning will look at areas in which there can be growth -- and in particular, in the forest sector, at the tertiary field, the services to the forest industry. There was a study not too long ago which said that if nothing was done, virtually all the growth in the industry -- there's going to be tech change that shrinks the industry -- and all the growth in the service sector and in programming and services to the industry would be in the lower mainland, where there are software businesses, for example, and manufacturers that manufacture equipment and electronics. I think there's going to be an uptake there that is what I would call inordinate. The other areas really have to look at primary and secondary, because they don't have as much opportunity to get into the tertiary.

[9:15]

I personally believe we'll be able to see minimal impact if we're successful in achieving the jobs and timber accord, because every job there will have at least one spinoff, and we haven't even counted the induced jobs. There's a lot of employment in induced employment.

L. Stephens: I certainly share the minister's wish for a minimal impact on communities around the province -- not just in the lower mainland but all around the province -- on individual lives, families, and so on.

In the Blues the minister again mentioned the timber transfer program, which sounds really interesting. There's just a short reference to it here. The small business enterprise program and the secondary remanufacturing area is another area that I'm particularly interested in, having been on the all-party standing committee that looked at remanufacturing and went around the province, which was extremely excellent. I know a lot of the initiatives that have come forward have flowed from that study and the recommendations that were made and what members learned when they were out on that committee.

I know that the small business forest enterprise program was talked about today. I haven't had a chance. . . . I've tried to find the Blues, but they're not ready yet, so I will not try the minister's patience tonight. I will try and find the Blues and find out what was talked about. If I have any further questions, I will do so either later this evening or tomorrow morning. I want to thank the minister for his responses tonight.

D. Symons: Now for something a little different maybe. There are two topics I'd like to explore that haven't been covered yet, I believe. With the first one, I guess I want to get out of the woods and the fibre and so forth, and discuss the ministerial responsibility under the resource road act. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea -- and in these cases I'm only interested in ballpark figures, to get a feeling for it -- of how many kilometres of resource roads the Ministry of Forests is responsible for. I'll get that, and then I will ask the remaining questions to do with it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is a rounded figure, and it comes from the auditor general's report. It's 150,000 kilometres.

D. Symons: Again, just in rounded figures and generalizations -- I don't mind that at all -- can you give me an idea. . . ? Of that 150,000 kilometres, how many of them might now be referred to as abandoned or as roads that are no longer needed? I'll ask the second part of this. What percentage -- again, in rough figures -- of those that are no longer needed would you say are ones that must be decommissioned because there are some environmental concerns about them? Again, just a feeling for that topic.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that information with us. We'll try to get it. I can tell you that for the regional investment plans and with the watershed restoration part under FRBC, we've been doing quite a bit of planning and inventory work. We may be able to get that, and we'll endeavour to do that.

D. Symons: If you could add one more thing to your list of what you're going to get, I'd appreciate it. I suspect the ones I was referring to a moment ago are the ones that have some ecological concerns about them. I'm wondering, then, how many of those you might be planning on decommissioning per year. I gather you've got money going in for decommissioning, so if you'd give me an idea on that other one. . . .

Might I ask how much is being budgeted for resource roads -- in dealing with that aspect of the Forests ministry for this particular budget year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Unfortunately, we don't have the budget broken down into that level of detail in the documents we have here -- and we have quite a few. We probably have that in our information system, and there will be people looking for it now.

[ Page 5461 ]

D. Symons: I'll add that to the list. If you don't mind, you can put it in letter form to me later on.

You may or may not have this one also. You have inspectors, people who go out, and their particular expertise within the ministry is to deal with the resource roads and to evaluate them and check as resource roads are being built to see that they meet the standards required under the resource road act. Can you give me an idea of how many people work in that particular field in the forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have road and bridge engineers in the regional offices, and then there are engineers and technicians in district offices, as well. We'll endeavour to get that information to you, along with the rest of it.

D. Symons: When you use the term "engineers," are these civil engineers -- engineers with an engineering degree -- or is this a term that's just used? Does it represent expertise in the field of university engineering?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They are professional engineers.

D. Symons: To be different -- but still to do with resource roads -- I gather that a good number of resource roads are used by private citizens to go hunting and fishing and so forth. I suspect that some of these roads are not in the greatest condition. If somebody is injured on those roads, there could be the possibility of a liability for the Crown, even though the people, in a sense, are trespassing on forestry lands. Does the ministry carry some sort of insurance to cover that particular liability?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The provincial government is self-insured. We don't carry insurance, but we do assessments. If there is a safety hazard, we can either correct the hazard or, in some cases, we may have to close the road.

D. Symons: I was under the impression that a few years ago there was a rule that those who were using the resources were supposed to have at least $200,000 of public liability insurance before they were allowed to use these roads. I was wondering whether that is correct and whether that is the figure. Or has the figure been raised as claims seem to go up? Is there any way of checking, or is there a posted notice as people enter forest lands, indicating that before you go past this point you are to have liability insurance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: So far as we know, we're not doing that at this point. We'll check into it, just to make sure.

D. Symons: Maybe I didn't make it clear, too, but I was referring to vehicle insurance rather than personal insurance on that.

A different topic again, and that's marine log salvage. I'm wondering if the minister might give me an idea of how many log salvage permits there are in the Vancouver log salvage district -- the lower mainland, I suspect, up to the northern end of Vancouver Island and the Strait of Georgia, etc. How many people do have log salvage permits? I'll ask the other question after that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're looking for the official. He's in the building, and we'll get him up here. He'll be able to help me answer the questions.

To fill in the member, as you know, it was a controversial topic. We did a major investigation into it, and a big report was issued. We undertook an action plan to follow up on the recommendations. We were able to follow up on all but a few. There are some that are going to take a little more work. We have a process underway to investigate ways of acting on those reports, as well.

I see that the official has arrived here now. We'll try to crack his books and see if we've got the numbers for you. He doesn't need to crack his books -- 250 is the number.

D. Symons: You say the recommendations were made out of the consultant's review that took place a year ago, and you mentioned that you've taken in many of them. Could you give me a flavour for one or two of the ones that weren't policy before that you've now put in? I don't want a whole string of them, just maybe some of the more important ones that needed to be done.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the report here with me, but I'd like to inform the member that the main objective of all of the recommendations is to create a better climate and working relationship between all of the stakeholders. Sorry -- I don't have the details with me, but I'd be happy to provide you with that information.

D. Symons: Having hit a log out in the gulf -- riding over one, actually, in a boat -- and also having hit a deadhead in the Fraser River, I have a bit of interest in log salvaging. I gather that the logs, as they're gathered by the salvagers, go to the Gulf Log Salvage Cooperative Association. I'm under the impression that this is an association of logging companies, and that the logs basically go back to the companies. They're sorted and sent back to the companies. I'd like to know if that impression is correct, and whether the salvage fee paid to the salvager meets the market value of the wood that they're getting. Do they get the per-cubic-foot market value of the wood they're turning in, or is it some percentage of that? How is the fee they get for salvage determined?

[9:30]

D. Symons: I was sort of curious about the fee that's paid. What you say is that they basically pay back to the salvager as little as they can -- just enough to encourage him to go out and get the logs. If you were to charge more and maybe not give the salvager that money but use the residual amount -- the profit on the operation, so to speak -- to have them salvage those logs that don't have a salvage value. . . . There are a lot of logs being gathered by various harbour commissions and so forth, or by some organization, and they don't have a salvage value.

There's a problem disposing of them. If you could build into the salvage operation. . . . With most of those logs, the companies in the salvage co-op association will probably deny that they're theirs, but they're certainly coming from the logging industry. It's rather obvious that that's the case, yet there doesn't seem to be much interest on the part of the salvagers to pull those, because they're not going to get anything for them. Is there something built into the system that takes care of that particular problem?

[ Page 5462 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that the payment schedule was part of the review, and one of the reasons was precisely that. Is there sufficient incentive to encourage the capture of logs that don't have as high a market value? For example, the lower-grade logs -- those that are worth less -- have a higher percentage attached to the salvage, so there is bottom-loading, if you will, to encourage the worst to be rescued. Anyway, we haven't made decisions on the fee structure. That's still under review.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I would say that I would encourage something of that sort so that logs that might be of zero salvage value as far as the logging industry is concerned are still taken from the rivers and the oceans of the coast. It would be an improvement.

I must say that whatever system is being used, I have noticed over the last 20 years out on the water and on the foreshore that the issue of logs being in the water seems to be getting less and less refuge from the forest industry. So whatever has been going on in the last 20 years seems to be getting better and better. Any improvements that you can make on that will be even that much better.

I thank the minister for his answers, and I look forward to all that information that you're going to pass on to me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since I have the information, the most efficient thing is to provide it to you now.

The questions on how many kilometres of road are deemed inactive. . . . There are 30,000 kilometres that could be fully or temporarily deactivated. With respect to budget matters, the small business forest enterprise program has $49 million for road development. I know that's not old road maintenance; it's road development and may be part of upgrading and extending roads. Forest Renewal B.C. spends $10 million on road maintenance and minor bridge replacement. Then FRBC spends $10 million on major bridge replacement.

With respect to the staffing, there's 125, plus or minus, engineering staff in the regions and districts involved in design, inspection and regulation of access.

The law says that anyone using forest roads must have a valid driver's licence -- because they're public roads -- and they have to carry $1 million liability insurance. It's not that there's checking. If it looks like somebody is out of line and there's a conservation officer or someone around -- the people who enforce the Forest Practices Code -- of course, they're fair game for them. But I'm sure they would only be bothered if they looked like they were breaking the law.

J. Wilson: I'd like to go back for a brief moment and revisit a subject, if the minister will permit, that he previously covered. There are a couple of points that I need clarification on, on the CAMP plan -- the coordinated access management plan -- on the 1700 Road. Could the minister give me the date that this group originally got together and struck their first meeting?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that the Rosita-Tautri coordinated access management plan -- that is, the CAMP -- was initiated in February 1988. Now, I don't know when they actually held their first meeting, but that was the initiation of the access management plan. The participants in that planning process included government agencies, first nations representatives, guide outfitters, trappers, ranchers, residents and the timber industry.

J. Wilson: I had a little trouble hearing the minister. Did he say '98 or '88?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The process started in February of 1988 and the CAMP was completed in May of 1988. So between February and May, there must have been a series of meetings. I know there were minutes cited from the process and so on, but I don't have the minutes with me here.

J. Wilson: Has the CAMP group met on a yearly basis, or does it get together every two years or three years? Is there any schedule set down in their minutes as to how often they should meet?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't be sure, but I do recall that there is an annual meeting. But it certainly would be on an as-needed basis. In the sitting before dinner, I did urge that there be a reconsideration at a CAMP. . . . I know that the district manager took it. . . . He may have called a special meeting. I don't know; I could find that out.

J. Wilson: The decision-making powers or rules that applied to the CAMP process -- would they be the same as the decision-making that went on within other land use or, I should say, primitive land use processes at that time, in the era before we got into the CORE years? Did the same rules apply within the CAMP process as applied within the local resource use plan that occurred in my area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have a comparison with me of the LRUP rules and the coordinated access management rules. But I can tell you that in the area, the coordinated access management group has been meeting. In another case, they decided to open a forest road. Upon reconsideration, in this particular case they agreed to leave it shut. As far as I know, the rules are the same. But I can't tell you right here if they are the same rules. We don't have the information here.

J. Wilson: I was party to an LRUP process back in the late eighties and in 1990. One of the things that came out of that was that all or any user group that felt the urge to come to a meeting to present their case. . . . You would sit around a table, but at the same time there were personnel from each ministry present at the table.

It was made fairly clear that in the decision-making process, ministry personnel would have a vote that would carry weight in the final decision. The parties that had a concern would be listened to and heard, and possibly their concerns would be acted on. But also, certain ministry personnel had decision-making powers in these processes. This type of land use planning did not go over very well. It was flawed in the sense that it was not a consensus agreement among the stakeholders, because ministry personnel had too much power over the process.

As a result, the CORE processes developed and the land use planning processes developed, whereby all of the stakeholders would gather. The basic function of the ministries was to provide technical information to those groups, so that they could carry on their jobs and try and work out problems, taking into consideration the technical information that was supplied to them.

Recently, in regard to this access problem, I have read a letter from the district manager, who states that in his opinion the CAMP process is an acceptable part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. Now, I may be wrong -- and if I am 

[ Page 5463 ]

wrong I would be more than happy to stand corrected. But in reviewing the land use plan, I could not identify where it specifically mentioned that land use planning process.

We took in the Anahim round table and various other land use planning processes that were comparable to CORE processes, and included them in the land use plan. At that point these older land use planning processes -- which at that time had become more or less part of the archives, because they were not developed or designed to operate the same way as the newer ones -- should not, in my opinion, have carried the weight that a land use planning process such as the Anahim round table or the ones dealing with Amoco, or other ones out there in the Chilcotin, had. I'm wondering if the minister has considered this. Would he consider it and possibly advise the district manager -- if he agrees with me? If he doesn't agree with me, that's fine. But I would like him to consider it. I would also like to get a list of the participants in the CAMP process.

[9:45]

As I suggested to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I take these process items -- due process and appeal processes and so on -- seriously and want to make sure that they're fair. In this case I've done a little bit of checking on my own. At the rodeo over the long weekend, I talked to one of the participants in the CAMP process and in fact asked him about the meeting. Before that it was sort of unofficial; but officially, as minister, I asked the question -- because it was put to me by the aggrieved party. They asked the question in correspondence -- "Was it a majority of interests or a majority of the people at the meeting?" -- alleging that the meeting was perhaps stacked in favour of the previous majority. I was assured by the investigations into the process by the regional manager that in fact it was a majority of interests who were there.

The CAMP processes are not by consensus. They could choose to operate that way, I guess. In this case the decision-making was done by the managers. It's his responsibility and his responsibility alone not to come up with a land use plan but to come up with the access management plan to improve and manage the roads in accordance with the advisory process -- which is this CAMP group -- which is open to those interests that have, it looks like, a registered interest in the area. You have to have some kind of a registered interest, some right to use the land or some responsibility for what's going on in the area -- or be an owner.

So it isn't entirely parallel with the CORE process, which really was more a party of stakeholders. In this case it was a group attached to the district manager. It is his authority that is being exercised there. So I could seek clarification for you, and I will take it under advisement as to how the membership is constituted and examine our policy around the CAMP process. I guess that in order to get to the essence of the issue, when I found out that it was properly the role of the district manager, and I was satisfied that he had advice from a majority of the people there. . . . I would be interested if the member has had some dialogue with any of the other parties. I haven't sought out individual members of CAMP, because I prefer to let those processes function. My only intervention would be to refer back and to try to ensure that there is a further consideration. That part of ensuring due process, I think, was accomplished, and the decision turned out to be the same.

J. Wilson: This is the reason I would like a list of the participants in the CAMP program. I haven't had detailed discussions with them, but I have had some information come forward that in three specific instances, three different parties were not opposed to restricted access -- which would mean access by a locked gate, which would become the responsibility of the individual. This is not opening the country up; this is putting the problem in his hands, to maintain restricted access to keep out the public. Yet he can go in and take care of the enterprise that he wants to start.

As the minister well knows, I was party to the CORE process and involved in the land use process -- the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use planning. One thing we made sure of all the way through these processes was to look out for the interests of absentee landowners. Now, when these processes were developed, absentee landowners at that time, in a lot of cases, didn't get excited about what was going on. If they lived a few hundred miles away, they couldn't be there to participate anyway. In a lot of cases, they either didn't know about it or it went by them and they didn't get involved.

Through the CORE process, we made sure that the interests of absentee landowners were included in the talks and the negotiations. This was one of the differences between the two processes, I believe, and possibly one of the reasons we ended up with a more effective process in our land use planning -- or a more effective land use plan than we would have had had we ignored the people that we knew had an vested interest out there but that weren't able to present their argument at the table.

Basically that is where I stand on this. I realize there is another access there. The access that is there is a very poor access. It is not all-weather access; it is not all-season access. I understand there's a creek crossing on it that is a real problem. It is more or less a wagon road through the bush that is four-wheel-drive in dry weather conditions.

Other than going to the expense of accessing a right-of-way through Lands, getting a permit to go in and build a road at considerable expense and constructing a road that would add, I believe, another 30 or 40 kilometres onto the trip to get to town to do business, there is a road that goes half a mile from the property: the 1700 Road. When that road was built, part of the construction of that road came out of taxpayers' dollars. That's my understanding. It was built several years ago. Stumpage credits would have been issued for the construction of the road. Some of the wood off of this private property, I believe -- I may be wrong -- was hauled over that road to get to town. The only common, logical solution is to provide restricted access so that that individual could go in and work on that piece of deeded land. He's forced to pay taxes on it year after year after year, and the way it stands, there can be no remuneration from that property.

I would like to maybe check into this a little more, if I could. I realize the minister and his staff are busy -- at this point in time we're all busy -- but I would like to get possibly a little more feedback from the participants that were in this CAMP process and actually find out what they had to say about it. This would exclude, of course, the ministries, which I don't believe have any. . .should not at this point in our evolution in land use planning be the decision-makers within a local land use plan. I'll leave it at that.

I have a note here. I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 5464 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

B. Barisoff: Noting the crowd that's in here with the anticipation of finishing off on our estimates. . . . It seems to me that there are only two people here: myself and the minister. I definitely won't call for a quorum; I'd sooner get out of here tonight. I said that I wouldn't.

I think we left off where I was concerned with the 31 percent of cabs that had failed the testing. I don't think I got an assurance from the minister that I can have a copy of the final report that indicates what these cabs failed for, just for my own record.

Hon. L. Boone: As soon as we've finished it and done the analysis, and we've got the report, we'll make sure that you get one.

B. Barisoff: What kind of enforcement initiatives is the ministry considering to combat. . .I guess you could almost call it fraud if the figures indicate that we're anywhere close to 31 percent -- what must be taking place at some of these inspection facilities? If we're running at those kinds of figures, something must be wrong with what we're doing.

Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the things that our analysis will show. If it shows that there are consistently one or two inspection companies that various cabs are going to, then certainly we will investigate those, and we can in fact pull their licences. I certainly would not be adverse to doing so. I've said that before.

We are doing an inspection and have put in place. . . . Here it is: "In May 1997 the superintendent imposed a temporary suspension of inspection facility approval." So we aren't getting any new inspection facility approvals put in. That will allow for the development and implementation of new entrance standards for those wishing to obtain that designation. Also, as a result of the review that was done by the task force, the commercial vehicle inspection program and the delivery through the designation inspection facility was reviewed by the task force. We are going to be working to enhance this program and implement the assessments through the task force, to make sure that those inspection facilities are adequate and that they're performing the jobs that in fact they're paid to do.

So clearly, we have a job to do, I think, in inspecting the inspectors to make sure that they are doing the proper job.

B. Barisoff: The ministry has introduced a new series of licensing requirements for taxicabs. For the record, could the minister briefly outline what these new requirements might be?

Hon. L. Boone: That's not us. I think you're talking about the city of Vancouver, which has implemented some new requirements. But that's not the motor vehicle branch.

B. Barisoff: It might be the city of Vancouver. I know it's been in the news a lot. I just thought the ministry had introduced some, too.

I just wonder what kind of consultation-deliberation process the ministry would conduct. I seem to remember that the Vancouver airport authority had made a public statement about the issues of cabs and whatever else. Has there been any talk with the authority about what's taking place there?

[6:45]

B. Barisoff: It seems to me that there have been a lot of people that have jumped into the jurisdiction of licensing. I'm sure it's because there seems to be a lucrative market out there for how they can make money.

I was commenting about talking to the taxicabs. I understand that even here in Victoria taxicabs no longer go to the airport. They have to actually pay a fee to go out there. I'll just check to see whether that is true -- that they actually pay a fee to be able to go and pick people up at the airport.

Hon. L. Boone: You're right. The airport authorities in both Vancouver and Victoria do impose a fee. They are imposing the fee, and it's not anything to do with the MCC.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure I remember somebody talking about this last night, but I have a few questions on it: the unsafe-truck hotline. How long has the hotline been in place?

Hon. L. Boone: The toll-free line was early in 1997. We went through that in depth last night. I don't know if there are any questions that you have aside from the ones that we went through last night.

I think there's been something like 70 responses to it. We assess the responses and have people go out and check them out. So far it's a little early to actually assess how responsive 

[ Page 5465 ]

it's been or what's. . . . It's only been in place for a very short period of time, so we'll do an assessment of that line probably at the end of a year.

I think we can assess and determine whether we're getting value for it. It's been suggested by some members that we may want to extend that to all personal vehicles, but right now I think we're going to make sure that we get it operational and that this one is functioning properly.

B. Barisoff: Is it a 1-800 number? Does it just go to a recording, or is there actually somebody at the other end that decides what's happening?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a 1-888 number -- and yes, there are people at the end of that line. They take the concerns that are raised to them, and they refer those to inspectors, who would go out and check up on the various concerns.

B. Barisoff: Is somebody at the other end of the line 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not 24 hours a day, but I can get back to you as to when those hours are.

B. Barisoff: I guess, then, I've got to question the validity of the line if it isn't there for. . . . I'm not suggesting that we do something like that, because I can just imagine the cost of having a line with somebody 365 days a year, seven days a week. Through our travels throughout the province it was pretty well documented to the committee that travelled with the Motor Carrier Commission that most of the unsafe trucking usually takes place on the weekends or at night when they're trying to bypass scales or whatever. Maybe the minister could indicate whether this is a five-day-a-week, Monday-to-Friday type of situation, where we've got somebody sitting there, or. . . . Normally, as I indicated before, coming from that industry, if somebody was trying to beat the system, I'm sure that's what they would be doing. If somebody called in on a late Friday afternoon, I'm sure that by the time the message got to some inspector, the guy could either be from Osoyoos, at the border, up to Fort St. John in the riding of the member for Peace River North, or he could have had a trucking accident on the way. So I'm just wondering whether that 1-888 number -- not a 1-800 number, although I'm sure it is still toll-free -- is actually serving its purpose.

Hon. L. Boone: I think we'll do an assessment later on. I need to get the exact hours of operation for you. I guess one can always say: "You could do better." This is a start; this is the first that we have. We have had 70 calls to it. One of the things that I pointed out last night was that this line was put in place not just for people to report operators or their vehicles, but in fact for truckers to report vehicles that they've been asked to drive -- resulting from the accident that occurred where an individual was actually fired because he refused to drive a vehicle. The next driver that came along drove that vehicle and then had an accident after that. If this driver had had a place where he could have reported the vehicle, other than to his employer, he wouldn't have been fired. The vehicle would have been inspected, and the brakes would have been taken care of. From that perspective, I think it provides an opportunity for them to make those calls as well. But I'll get the exact hours. I'm sorry that I don't have them here for you, but I'll get the exact hours of operation for it. And if we can improve it, we will.

B. Barisoff: I think there's probably a lot of room for improvement. I guess I'm still wondering why, if what the minister just indicated was one of the areas that they're looking at, we couldn't have created a 1-888 number or 1-800 number to the Motor Carrier Commission's office. I'm sure they probably field calls like that a lot, just for unsafe trucks or whatever else that might exist. But my concern still lies in the fact that if we're just doing this on an ad hoc basis, and if we've only received 70 calls, I don't know whether we're accomplishing a lot. It would be interesting to see what the calls indicated, what they were all about -- whether it's a truck without a light, a truck that's going at 55 kilometres an hour when it should be doing 50, or whatever it might be. I'm just wondering about the validity of the program. It looks good on paper; I know that, but there are costs involved. I think what we should do is have kind of an inspection on that.

R. Masi: I promise I won't mention Delta, but I would like to just ask a few very general questions on tour buses. But before that, I would like to just go over a little bit of what happened last night. Because it was an extended session, I really got an appreciation for the extent of the Ministry of Highways and Transportation. It certainly was enlightening. Despite the long-drawn-out hours, etc., it is. . . . When you start to measure the situations north, east, south and west, I can appreciate that it's a major job. I just wanted to state that, just so you don't think that I have only one focus in life.

Anyway, to get back to tour buses, just a few general questions that have been brought to me relevant to the regulations that apply to tour bus drivers. I would like to ask about certification, the hours of work, the logs that they're supposed to keep and the whole situation there relative to rest periods, in terms of the safety of the passengers.

Hon. L. Boone: It's no different for tour bus drivers or operators than for any other bus operators. They're all under the National Safety Code; they have to adhere to the same standards that every other bus operator has.

R. Masi: My concern, I guess, then, is that -- from calls that I get and discussions that I've had with tour bus drivers -- there seem to be inconsistencies in the enforcement of the regulations relative to hours of work and rest periods. I think this is a bit of a concern. I just wonder if you could comment on the inconsistency of the inspections or of the attention paid to the regulations.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of any inconsistencies. Everybody is subject to the National Safety Code -- the same as every other operator around. If there are inconsistencies in terms of how it's being applied or what they're being forced to do -- you know, how they're being forced to adhere to those regulations -- then I would ask the member to make us aware of such a situation so that we can investigate it and fix it.

R. Masi: Maybe I should explain further. I think's it's a question of turnaround time for drivers. Some companies abide by the regulations and a certain period of rest; other companies don't, so that you're required to work excessive hours in a short period of time. I think that the problem here -- and I think it's a genuine problem -- is that if we have these discrepancies and inconsistencies, then we're looking at a concern about public safety. I'm not as concerned about the drivers themselves, but I am concerned about what it can lead to. We have massive tourist buses operating, drivers going all over British Columbia, through the interior, over the Island, etc. I think that if the rules aren't applied evenly, we could have some serious situations.

[ Page 5466 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not going to argue with you. They have to be applied the same. If you are aware of a particular company that is not adhering to those rules, then I would appreciate it if you would let us know. We would have that company inspected and make sure that they adhere to the National Safety Code rules.

My concern, of course, is. . . . You might say you're not that concerned about the driver, but the concern about the hours of rest always has to do with the fact that the driver may in fact have an accident. And that could involve another vehicle. Whether the driver is driving on his or her own or is in fact driving with a group of people that he or she is carrying, the driver still could be involved in an accident that could involve other people. That is the sole purpose for having the rest period. It's not to say that we are concerned about the health of the driver; it has to do with safety on the road. If there's a company that you know, please make us aware of it so that we can inspect it.

[7:00]

Hon. L. Boone: There are spot checks. There are regular checks on the roadside that take place. Logs are checked at that time; we need to make sure that we know it. But like I said, if you know of somebody that has managed to evade all of these things and their vehicles or their drivers have not been inspected, then give us the name of the company, and we can make sure that they are investigated. That's one way to make sure that the checks take place.

I've actually had complaints about inspectors going in to a certain tourist attraction spot and checking tour buses and actually grounding them there, leaving the passengers without any transportation. It's not that we don't do inspections. We may miss somebody because of the spot checks, or we may not get them all, as you heard earlier. We have 29 inspectors, I think it is, in the province that are doing these things. So they're out there, and they're doing as many as they can. But obviously, if there's somebody out there that's not abiding by these rules, give us their name. We can then go out and investigate them.

R. Masi: I wonder if I could have the number of tour bus operators or companies in British Columbia now.

Hon. L. Boone: There are approximately -- because we don't have all the figures here -- 400 licensed in B.C. But there's a large component of tour buses, as you know, that come from elsewhere -- they come to B.C. or through B.C. There are approximately 400 that are licensed here in British Columbia.

R. Masi: I guess my concern here is still one of supervision and inspection. Is there no way that their logs can be turned in to an inspection office rather than doing a spot check? I think this is the critical point here in terms of how the drivers use their hours. Tow boat operations -- you know, boat people keep their logs religiously.

Hon. L. Boone: We're in this weird jurisdictional quagmire here. After phase 2, ICBC will be responsible for the inspectors. But I'll take your suggestion and pass that on to ICBC for their consideration.

R. Masi: I'd like to thank the minister for her forthright answers.

A. Sanders: I have a couple of questions from within my constituency: one from a chartered accountant, Douglas Brown, who incorporated another from the chairman of the chamber of commerce, Mr. Ted Scott. They have both written to myself and, I believe, to the minister in the last few days. This letter is dated July 3, 1997:

"Dear Minister:

"I'm writing to express my concern about the deplorable state of the highways in the province, specifically the Okanagan Valley. The highways in the province have been neglected far too long, and it's time for immediate action to be taken to get them into a respectable state. For a province that relies heavily on the tourist industry, you are not putting on a very good show. Our visitors, as well as residents, deserve better.

"There is one location that requires immediate repair before the province is involved in a serious claim for injury and possible death. This is a washout on Highway 6 one-half kilometre west of the village of Lumby that has sat untouched for two months. The shoulder of the highway is quickly eroding and creating a very dangerous situation. The road is narrow to begin with, and the washout is located at the bend in the road. The area is travelled frequently by logging trucks and heavy vehicles, as well as motor homes. The corridor is also used extensively by bicycle traffic, and this spot creates potential for serious accidents.

"The local maintenance contractor has put up warning signs at the washout, but they are not illuminated, and there is very little advance warning of the problem. The signs are not securely affixed to the site, and vandals frequently enjoy removing them, creating an even more dangerous situation. The pavement has eroded to the edge of the driving lane, and the road surface is quickly undermining. If this damage is not repaired immediately, the cost of eventual repair will only escalate.

"Highway 6 through the village of Lumby has seriously deteriorated over the past year to the point where the pavement is crumbling and large potholes have developed. One month ago a local maintenance contractor repaired a portion. The repair consisted of resurfacing a portion 300 metres in length, one and a half lanes in width in the centre of the village. However, the old pavement was not removed and the base repaired. They only applied a thin coat of asphalt over the existing road. This, in my opinion, was a total waste of time and money. The repair will not last a year. With the numbers and types of traffic this particular portion of highway receives, the only way the problem could be repaired properly would be to repair the base and resurface the area with adequate-thickness asphalt.

"In closing, I must reiterate my concerns with lack of maintenance on our provincial highways. Our province has one of the highest rates of gasoline tax in the country, and with the tolls collected, there should be adequate resources to properly maintain roads. I'm concerned about these funds being swallowed up into general revenues, and not dedicated for the purpose they were intended. I would appreciate your attention being drawn to this matter.

"Douglas Brown
Chartered Accountant"

Specifically, having received two letters this week and having had to go out to Lumby on the weekend, I can concur with the writer of the letter that the highway is actually undermined right to the edge of the driving lane. I did see a number of young people on bicycles trying to get into town and having to drive right into the main oncoming traffic in order to get past the area of the washout. I just want to bring this to your attention on behalf of my constituents, as I have been written several letters about this particular issue.

Hon. L. Boone: As you can see, the Ministry of Highways staff have all left -- they've abandoned us. That's not true. They were allowed to leave by the critic, who told us that he was finished with Ministry of Highways stuff.

[ Page 5467 ]

I'm not aware of what's happening on that particular road. We'll have to get back to you on it with regards to that particular section.

A. Sanders: My purpose specifically. . . . Again, because of the timeliness of actually having the estimates of this ministry going on, and having seen this road over the last number of months and wondering what was going to happen to it, and then having the chamber and an individual citizen write to me, I thought it would be appropriate to read it into the record. Hopefully, the minister will look into this during the next little while.

B. Barisoff: I guess our estimates are scintillating again. I see the member for Yale-Lillooet is back, and I would just like to remind him that we're still here, hon. Chair.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: That's right. We are discussing the estimates, and there are probably some roads in his constituency that should be looked at. In fact, I mentioned one for him the other day -- the road from Princeton to Coalmont. But I just wanted to make sure that he was paying attention to what was taking place.

I just want to touch base on the auditor general's performance audit on trucking safety. Could the minister tell us what changes have been made to address the auditor general's 1996 performance audit?

Hon. L. Boone: We had already removed the superintendent of motor vehicles. I did that at the same time that I requested the auditor general's. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: I requested that the comptroller investigate this.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, this is a different matter. Okay, I'm catching up. It was a late night last night.

Actually, the auditor general's report that came down -- and my memory is now clearing. . . . A lot of the concerns that he raised were concerns that were addressed through the Task Force on Commercial Vehicle Safety. So we have put in place a number of different issues to try and deal with the concerns that he raised on the inspection facilities.

There are some budget implications, because I know he talked about increasing the staff. Those are issues that ICBC would have to deal with, because this would be in their jurisdiction, and they're well aware of it. They're also well aware of the task force recommendations and are committing to implement them in as timely a fashion as they can.

B. Barisoff: In the report there were two objectives. Can the minister indicate those two objectives for the record?

Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, you never ask a question unless you know the answer, and I'm sure he knows the answer. So can he tell me where they are, which would save us the time here?

B. Barisoff: It is true that I don't often ask questions unless I do know the answers.

G. Abbott: This is one of those rare instances.

B. Barisoff: That's right. Normally I'm looking for the information, because I know the minister usually has it at her fingertips.

But I will read into the record two of the objectives that the auditor general was looking at: to assess whether the programs were "designed and implemented to achieve trucking safety in a cost-effective manner" and to assess the extent to which the branch had examined whether the programs were "the most effective alternatives in achieving trucking safety." Those were the two objectives. Does the minister care to comment on those two objectives?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they sound pretty good to me.

B. Barisoff: In his report it was also indicated that some of the things weren't well designed or well implemented. There was some criticism of some of the things that were taking place.

This program that the ministry was initiating with truck safety. . . . At what cost is that going to be?

Hon. L. Boone: We're not at a point where we can estimate the cost of all of those things. We are currently assessing them; we're working to develop a plan for implementation. As you know, we just got the report a couple of months ago. I'm pushing ICBC in terms of developing an action plan, and they've got the timelines there. ICBC will be working on this, and the cost issues would be ones that ICBC would be dealing with.

[7:15]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. As you know, we mentioned the four that we would implement immediately -- writing and taking the test in English only, the brake fines, the review of the point system as it relates to safety, and graduated driver's licensing -- but also the implementation of a program that recognizes good companies, similar to the PIC program in Alberta.

B. Barisoff: Just for the record, the PIC program is called Partners in Compliance -- so that people reading Hansard will understand that. I understand it's an excellent program that's taking place there. It has got a lot of companies hiring trucking firms, from what we gather, throughout the province. . . . And people that do business in both British Columbia and Alberta -- as a matter of fact, throughout Canada and the U.S. -- know that a lot of companies are only hiring people that belong to the PIC program, because they know full well that when they hire people that have those stickers, they are hiring trucking firms that are operating safe, efficient equipment.

Even at, from what we understand, a slightly higher cost in some cases, where they were paying a little bit more money, it was a benefit, and it's maybe something that the ministry could promote here in B.C. -- if we can create a program similar to that, where people out there are saying. . . . And you take some of the big corporations; the last thing they want to be known for is hiring somebody that was going down the road with improper equipment, improper brakes or whatever else.

[ Page 5468 ]

So from what I understand it has turned out to be a good program. Maybe the minister could indicate whether there's a possibility that a program of that nature could be instituted in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the recommendations that is going to be instituted. We haven't said it will be the PIC program, because what we'll probably try to do is pick the good things from the PIC program and improve upon it if we can. Paul Landry is working with my parliamentary secretary to investigate the issue and to find out how that program can be implemented here in British Columbia.

You're right: by recognizing the good drivers, you're doing a couple of things. You're not only saving those companies the time -- and time is money when you're driving -- of going through inspection facilities all the time; you're also giving them a boost in terms of recognition from the public as to the fact that they are safe operators. And it allows our inspectors to do what they're supposed to be doing, which is doing the inspections on the bad operators out there.

So from our perspective it's something that will go a long way toward meeting our objectives, which are trying to do more inspections on the bad operators and making sure that our good operators get recognized.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to something a little bit different: weigh scales. When I first came walking through the door of the Legislature and shortly thereafter was told that I would be the critic for Transportation and Highways, and somebody asked me what they should do with weigh scales and they realized that I was from the Okanagan, the first direction I got from people was, "Let's turn them into fruit stands; they would be better served" -- that kind of thing. After travelling throughout the province and listening to a lot of complaints about weigh scales, I sometimes wonder whether that wouldn't have been the right idea.

But I know that they serve a purpose, and there's a lot of good people that work in them and a lot of good things that can happen. There are also a lot of areas that create a lot of problems for the trucking industry, which, from our jaunt throughout the province, has been very negative.

I understand that as opposed to hiring new staff, staff was redeployed from some of the fixed weigh scales to what they call the flying squad that's travelling around. I guess I could question the minister's or the staff's decision to take people away from fixed weigh scales and put them out on the road. I know we pick up some people that are trying to bypass the scales, but we are not getting the truck traffic going over the scales, which we should also be looking at. Can the minister comment?

Hon. L. Boone: Actually, that's responding to some of the auditor general's response, as well. He indicated that we should have some flexibility in the hours of operation, the geographical coverage and the monitoring of provincial and international border entry points. By actually getting our people out of the fixed scales, we are able to cover that ground, to do the necessary hits on areas where they're least expecting us.

One of the downfalls of fixed scales is that unless you have them in operation 24 hours a day, many times -- and you and I both know this -- there are people who will deliberately wait until the scales close before they travel through; or they go around them in order to avoid them. Those people who are doing those things -- who are going around them to avoid them or deliberately going through at a time when the scales aren't operating -- are the ones that we need to catch, because they are the ones who are trying to avoid the scales for a particular reason. Usually they don't want to be inspected because they have some reason.

By moving our people out into the field, by doing the audits and the roadside inspections through moveable scales, mobile scales, we're able to concentrate our efforts on catching those who are trying to avoid the scales.

B. Barisoff: It surprises me a little that truckers would do something like that. The member for Peace River North happened to be in the trucking industry also, and knowing the quality of person he is and the quality of person I am, it surprises me that truckers would do such a thing as try to avoid going over the scales. But I know it does happen.

R. Neufeld: The minister is actually accusing us.

B. Barisoff: I was just trying to make sure that the minister understood that some of us don't do that, at least not on a regular basis -- try to avoid what's taking place out there.

On a more positive note, I was called by the press today -- a radio station in Osoyoos -- and they said that there was a study going on about the location of scales throughout the province. Maybe the minister could update me if this is happening.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think there's been a study on the location of scales throughout the province. I know there's been some concern expressed about the Osoyoos site and the Pouce Coupe site -- we know that. There have been some other issues where people have indicated where a scale should or shouldn't be, and we're looking at the hours of operation, but I don't think we are wholesale looking at changing the sites of the scales around. But I do know we're certainly looking at the Pouce Coupe one.

B. Barisoff: I guess that probably leads me into a little bit of lobbying for the site in Osoyoos, which the minister knows is all prepared -- everything's there. It's basically a matter of transferring the building down from the Kaleden weigh scales, south of Penticton. They were going to start there, which I think would be an ideal location; it would serve a number of purposes. It serves the purpose, as I mentioned sometime during those hours of last night, at the southern Trans-Canada -- the trucking industry that comes through from the south. . . .

I would also think that if we're going to make a scale there. . . . It presently looks to me like the town enjoys the facility for congregating for the July 1 parade, or whatever. That's the usage of the land. It seems to me that it's appropriate to use, because it's there. But I think it's inappropriate to think that the amount of money we spent on that particular site -- and we haven't gone the extra mile to finish that off. . . . It would be one of those sites that I think would serve the entire province really well.

I know that the minister just indicated that Pouce Coupe was being considered. I would urge the minister to seriously consider the one in Osoyoos, because of its location and the benefits it would have to the trucking industry as a whole and the fact that. . . .

I think that if the minister looks back on the records from the Motor Carrier Commission. . . . I don't know if it's a 

[ Page 5469 ]

document or not. It wasn't like the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, where Hansard was there documenting every word. We were informed by a gentleman in Cranbrook that he was riding a bus line out of Spokane, making the turnaround in Osoyoos, and he just had this great fear in his heart every time he crossed the border that he would get stopped, because he said that he wouldn't put his mother or any relative on the buses that he was running. In fact, I think that at one point he said he was even wondering whether he would put any of us on there, as politicians. You've got to imagine how bad that bus must have been if he wouldn't want us to go down with the bus.

It was of great concern to us to think that. . . . Afterwards I talked to the gentleman, and he said it was quite serious. It was a situation where they were getting away with a lot. A location like Osoyoos would, I think, snag a lot of that. I ask the minister whether she would give further consideration -- more than just further -- to the point of. . . . I think it's an area that should be seriously looked at.

Hon. L. Boone: Decisions on weigh scale locations, etc., will be made by ICBC. I will pass your comments in Hansard on to ICBC for their consideration.

B. Barisoff: I got off the beaten track, trying to do a little politicizing of a particular project that I think is of utmost concern.

We were looking at the flying squad. How many staff were transferred from the permanent scales to the flying squad at that time?

Hon. L. Boone: Four.

B. Barisoff: When we transferred four people from there, did we have to cut the hours or close any of the present scales for any amount of time?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

B. Barisoff: These answers are getting to be too easy -- just no and yes.

The other thing I talked about a little bit just now was the consideration of opening 24-hour-a-day weigh scales. Sometimes I wonder whether, if we're going to work on a five-day week, we should work on a Friday-to-Wednesday kind of thing, or Friday to Tuesday -- work over the weekend, when a lot of people are trying to get by the system. I think something that should be considered is some of the more important scales that happen to be points of entry into the province. Of course, that would include the one in Osoyoos. I'm sure there are probably a couple in the lower mainland -- and there's got to be one up in the Peace River somewhere and probably one up by Golden -- that we could be looking at that would be seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

[7:30]

B. Barisoff: What kind of revenue do we generate in fines from the weigh scales or the portable weigh scales? Have we got a figure for what kinds of fines are issued throughout the province?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that breakdown for you.

B. Barisoff: Thank you. Knowing some of the fines they get, they probably do better than they would if you turned them into fruit stands. Mind you, with the price cherries are going to be this year, fruit stands wouldn't be a bad idea in those particular locations.

At this point, fines for brakes have been levied against operators. I understand that the minister also talked about levying fines against the carriers themselves. In fact, she mentioned just a minute ago -- probably more than a minute ago -- the 1-888 number, where people would phone in because they'd have to operate a vehicle that was unsafe. I'm sure that this is probably the case in more cases than we'd want to believe are happening out there. Has any consideration been given -- or is it going to happen -- to levying some kind of onus of responsibility on the owners or the companies themselves?

Hon. L. Boone: ICBC is considering those things. So those decisions will be made by ICBC.

B. Barisoff: Enforcement of safety regulations. Clearly the audit reflects that there is a significant difficulty with how truck safety is actually enforced. Those that choose to not play by the rules often get away with breaching the safety regulations. How does the ministry plan to rectify this imbalance that we've got of a lot of truckers out there that don't play by the rules? Is there any means that the ministry has thought about so that we can get to some of these unsafe carriers?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are the things that I talked about in the recommendations. One is the flying squads, by deploying some of the people from the weigh scales to actually catch those individuals who are trying to go around the scales; by more mobile scales; by introducing the PIC program or a program similar to a PIC program, which would enable us to focus our attention on the bad operators.

I always say this -- and I think I have to do this -- because I think the majority of operators out there are good and responsible operators. We need to concentrate our efforts on catching those bad actors who feel that they don't have to abide by the rules. So we are and have been concentrating our efforts there on trying to catch those individuals.

There are other things that you pointed out -- 24-hour operations. Those will be considered by ICBC by varying the hours of operation at some of the scales, so that you don't always know when they're there. I've had weigh-scale operators indicate to me that they've come in on a Saturday morning and because nobody expected them to be there, they've managed to catch quite a few who were deliberately trying to avoid the scales. So those are some of the ways that we can try to address this situation of those who are avoiding scales.

B. Barisoff: We were considering the issue of certification. I know that they've had some major accidents in Washington because of how they install the wheels and whatever else. In fact, we had a B.C. Transit bus, I think, that had a very serious accident. Is there anything that the minister has looked at at that end of it, with the certification of installing wheels or what takes place with that portion of it, considering the accident that we had with B.C. Transit?

Hon. L. Boone: I just need to clarify whether you're talking about certification in terms of driver certification. One of the recommendations from the task force was that those driving schools. . . . Currently, driving schools are allowed to 

[ Page 5470 ]

certify their own students. So if you go through a school, they are then allowed to certify you. Clearly there is a conflict there, and there is a recommendation from the task force that this be eliminated. ICBC will be working towards that. But, of course, you have to have in place some other alternative, so it's not an easy thing to actually do. Is that the certification process you were talking about?

B. Barisoff: I think it's not so much that as the fact that when we are looking at driving schools, we almost have to look at. . . . I don't think anybody learns to drive a truck in 20 hours. I think that we have to go beyond that category of getting behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a truck that's hauling 100,000 GVW down the road. The concern that I have as critic for Transportation and Highways is that we have to look at almost a well-rounded driver, where he has not necessarily some responsibility but some idea of what takes place with the wheels and how they're put on. I think that if the driver understands and knows what's taking place. . . .

I'd like to see something that's quite a bit more extensive in the province. In the state of Washington -- and I can't verify it, but I will find out for sure -- I understand that it takes two or three months before you ever get a licence, and it's almost along the lines of a graduated licence. But it's also in terms of knowing a little bit about the rig that you're actually driving: you know that when you're putting the wheels on, you've put them on properly.

We've seen the incidents with what's taken in place in Ontario; we've seen the incidents at B.C. Transit. I had not the misfortune but the fortune of knowing a family that happened to survive one. They were on the interstate going into California, where a wheel came off a truck coming the other way and totally demolished their car. Fortunately for them, they were all right. It folded up around them. They happened to be driving -- I'm not going to advertise a particular car -- a car that truly served the purpose.

But sometimes I wonder whether some kind of -- and I don't think I'm mentioning certification. . . . But I'm wondering if even when they go into trucking -- O.K. Tire or the big truck outfits that are changing tires -- the people that are doing that understand and know what they're doing, or if they can visualize and know when there's a cracked wheel or whatever, so that we don't have these kinds of accidents. I think it's more along that line.

Hon. L. Boone: We are putting in place a graduated drivers licensing program. That came about as a result of the task force. ICBC is working on that, and we are improving the standards for licensing, so hopefully that will take place.

We are also doing some inspections of our inspection facilities to make sure that they're doing an adequate job of inspection. Hopefully, that can address some of those concerns.

B. Barisoff: Thank you minister. I think that's a positive step.

Can the minister confirm the number of accidents involving large commercial vehicles in 1996?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that information, but we can get that for you.

B. Barisoff: When the minister gets that information, could she also get to me how many of these involved failed brakes or what the problem was? I know that a lot of times when they look at a trucking accident, the immediate first concern is that. . . . When you see it on BCTV, you see the big headlines that three of the ten or 12, or whatever, brakes weren't working, and everybody automatically assumes that it's because of faulty brakes. I think that in a lot of cases it's not faulty brakes; it's faulty drivers, people that haven't been trained and become faulty drivers.

So if the minister could undertake, when she gets me that information, to find out exactly whether the accidents were not due to the report that says it's because three brakes didn't work but whether the driver was going too fast or whether he was doing this or doing that.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information to you. I have no idea. . . . You're going to need a bigger office at the end of these estimates to get all this information that you are getting from us.

B. Barisoff: Yeah, that's right. I hope that our House Leader, Whip and Leader are listening to you say that I need a bigger office. I don't have the smallest office of the group, but it's rivalling some of them for being small.

Initially, when the minister mentioned in the House about people concerned about the highways of British Columbia, I just wanted to make sure that she understood that the Transportation critic is very concerned not only about the condition of the highways but also about the safety. So getting these reports will just reinforce some of that direction. A lot of times I truly hope to work together with the minister to be able to get some of these problems solved.

I think our goal, and I'm sure her goal, is to make sure that the motoring public of B.C. is as safe as possible within the realms of economics, that we don't go overboard to the point of making it unfeasible to be operating in the province. In fact, one of the comments that we heard travelling throughout the province was that B.C. stood not for British Columbia but for "bring cash" if you were a trucker, because most of them were getting fined for one thing or the other. I think there's got to be a balance between what takes place between the two.

I just want to touch a little bit on the issuance of overload and overweight fines. The legislation is written where the overweight fine goes to the person that's driving the vehicle, and that goes on his driving record. I sometimes wonder whether we shouldn't be looking at the carrier or the shipper. They should be as responsible for what takes place, or even responsible. A lot of times -- and we heard that again in our travels -- the shipper just loads it up onto whatever happens to be on the docks of Vancouver, and they say: "If you don't take it, somebody else will."

That's the case in point in these cases, where maybe some of the fines should be levied to the shippers or to the actual companies rather than the drivers. Let's face it, in today's day and age, today's industry and today's job market, it's trouble enough getting a job. I know -- I think I mentioned it to you last year -- that if any of us were put in that position, where it was putting food on the table for our family to haul a load that happened to be a few hundred kilograms over, we'd probably jump on it and do it and say: "Well, we'll take our chances."

Hon. L. Boone: That's actually in the task force recommendations with regards to fining shippers for overweight. So ICBC is currently working on that.

[7:45]

[ Page 5471 ]

R. Neufeld: I just had to step out for a smoke.

The minister had responded to some questions earlier about inspection facilities. There are about 1,400 of them across the province. Out of those 1,400, is the minister aware of any one that has lost its privilege to be an inspection facility?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't say definitively if there's been any. There is a process in place to do that. I don't know for sure if there have been any. I'm sure there must have been, at some point in time, some that have lost their licence to do that. I would have to check and just make sure on that. We are currently investigating some with a view to withdrawing their licences.

R. Neufeld: When I heard the number of taxis that had failed, it brought my attention to the matter. In fact, if what I saw on TV was true -- and you can't always believe what you see on TV. . . . If it was even partly true, then there must be some inspection facilities that are actually doing some pretty shoddy work for whatever reasons. So I would hope that there would be a crackdown on those facilities, also.

If I remember correctly, some of the truck accidents that took place in Vancouver recently had gone through inspection facilities and had their safety stickers. I don't think it's good enough to park just the taxis and the trucks. I think that we also have to look closely at the facilities and the people that actually issue the safety stickers to people.

Secondly on that issue, there are individuals who own companies that can inspect their own vehicles and in fact put inspection certificates on their own vehicles. I know that in most cases I'm aware of, it's usually larger firms that have a pretty good track record. Maybe the minister could just help me here a little bit. If there are companies that do not have a good safety track record, has the right to certify their own vehicles ever been withdrawn from a company? I don't expect that the minister would have that information with her now. If she doesn't, could she let me know?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I will let you know. The member is entirely correct. I mentioned, when we were talking about the taxicabs that as a result of our taxicab inspections, we're doing a review. We're putting together the information so that we can identify those inspection facilities that were consistently the inspectors of some of those taxis that failed. As a result of that, we are starting to inspect those inspection facilities and investigate them. The ultimate end could be, should be and probably will be the withdrawal of some of the certificates and the right to operate.

R. Neufeld: I'll wait for her response to my other question about those private individuals that can certify their own vehicles. I would also hope that there is a public issue made of inspection facilities that have their licences lifted, if it is in fact the case that they have certified some vehicles, whether they're taxis or trucks, unsafely. I think that people around the province should know, by some kind of public advertising from within the ministry, that that will not be tolerated and that their licences are lifted -- name them. We do that with other people; we're doing that in all kinds of areas in law within the province. I think it just brings everyone to attention on those issues.

The minister talked earlier about the scales in Pouce Coupe and Dawson Creek. I appreciate that it's going to be a responsibility of ICBC. Pouce Coupe and Dawson Creek, which are seven miles apart, have two fully operational scales. I am surprised that she had said that the scale at Pouce Coupe was actively being looked at right now for whether you're going to decommission or not. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I've been trying to get it actively looked at for some time now, but it's kind of hard to. It's a little bit like an elephant. I'm not quite sure how one actively gets this to happen, because there are so many things that seem to be impediments.

I would very much like to see it happen. I talked to the minister from Alberta in terms of trying to coordinate our efforts so that we have one scale and one facility, because they are so close together. It just doesn't make any sense for companies to have to stop and go through the scales so often. It makes all the sense in the world to actually close one of them and combine our operations, but sometimes those things are easier said than done. I would very much like to see it happen.

R. Neufeld: I agree with the minister fully. I can't imagine why we should have two scales so close together. In fact, there are three, if you include the Alberta one, all within about a ten-mile distance on the highway. I think that how the minister could do that -- and it's just a suggestion -- is when you're reducing staff, you just happen to reduce the staff at the Pouce scale by about 95 percent, and it will soon be closed. It's an easy way to do it. It's been done in Chetwynd. That's exactly how the scale was closed there. To my knowledge, I don't think the scale in Chetwynd has been open for a long time, because there is no staff to run it.

The part that concerns me a bit, when the minister is talking about closing the Pouce scale and working with Alberta and the Dawson Creek scale, is that when we went through the TFA estimates, you were anticipating -- and I can't remember the exact amount; it's not my constituency -- spending a fair amount of money to put in passing lanes to facilitate better entry into the Pouce scale. Maybe the minister could just help me with that a little bit. Why would we be doing that if we're anticipating closing it? Just further to that, I can think of a place where you could spend that money very well -- the money that you're spending on passing lanes at the Pouce scale -- if we're looking seriously at closing the scale.

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have any of that information on the Pouce scale, the passing lanes and that, here right now. I'll look into that and get back to you on it, because I can't remember any of that stuff. There's just been too many roads, too many bridges, too many lanes talked about this time.

R. Neufeld: I assure the minister. . . . And I don't have my TFA book here. I know we've finished those estimates, but it just struck me, when you talked about closing the Pouce scale, that we would actually be at the same time contemplating spending money on widening the road. Just a suggestion that maybe we should look at reallocating that money from the Pouce scale for the widening of the road to some other region of the northeast, preferably north of the Peace River, to help with some of the roads there.

Another thing about scales. What is the minister's position on having the RCMP at the scales both while the scales 

[ Page 5472 ]

are in operation -- they're opening the scales at nighttime, I guess, because they don't have enough to do in other areas -- and actually operating the scales as scale persons?

Hon. L. Boone: The RCMP do not have the keys for the scale operation, because that was shut down. The scales are left on, so that truckers can drive over them and see for themselves if they're overweight or what their weight is. The RCMP can in fact take vehicles over there to have them drive over the scale if they believe that they're overweight, as well.

R. Neufeld: Back to the Pouce scale, it is in region 4, central northeast: "Pouce Coupe weigh scale passing lanes: design and value engineering for four kilometres of passing climbing lanes on Highway 2 near Pouce Coupe weigh scale." It doesn't say the amount, but if we're talking about a four-kilometre passing lane, it's probably a fair amount of money. Seriously, maybe that's something we could divert someplace else if that's what we're looking at.

I've had that answer on the RCMP from the ministry before -- not just from you but also from other ministers -- that the RCMP do not have the keys to the weigh scales. I beg to differ. I know for a fact that they do have the keys for the weigh scale, regardless of what information you're given. In some areas -- and I'm going to speak specifically of Fort Nelson -- the RCMP spend a tremendous amount of time at the weigh scale with keys at nighttime or in off-duty hours when there's no scale person around -- because I think now we're down to one scale person in Fort Nelson -- weighing trucks.

I know of an incident where the RCMP officer kept a truck on the weigh scale for over an hour, but she was not sure how to run the scale or whether the truck was overweight or underweight or overheight or overwidth, or whether the trucker was breaking any rules or not. At the same time the RCMP officer was on the telephone to the weigh scale operator at his home, trying to get some idea of what she could charge this trucker with, while the truck driver is standing on the weigh scale. That's just one isolated incident, so it does happen.

There are RCMP who obviously have access to the weigh scales. I can only think that they have keys to get into the weigh scale. If they're not supposed to have keys to get into the weigh scale, could I ask the minister to write a letter as the authority on weigh scales to the RCMP, telling them that they do not have the authority to go into weigh scales and weigh trucks? They can take trucks onto the weigh scale, and everyone can look at the scale from the outside, but they do not have access to the weigh scales, if that in fact is true.

Hon. L. Boone: To the best of our knowledge, we thought that it was an isolated incident and that it had been dealt with. But if the member says that it hasn't been dealt with, then I will look into it and take the necessary steps to see that it is rectified.

[8:00]

Will the revenue from scales and permits that used to go to government or to the ministry into general revenue. . . ? Can the minister just tell me how that's going to be divided out now that ICBC is taking over the operation of the weigh scales across the province? Will they have all the revenue from the sale of permits and such from the weigh scales, or will they only get enough revenue to cover their particular costs?

Hon. L. Boone: The latter: just enough to cover their costs.

R. Neufeld: I guess it's too early to tell, but does the minister have in her documents how much it is anticipated to cost to operate the weigh scales? I suppose we should probably know from prior experience -- the ministry has been operating the weigh scales for a long time -- how much that actually is.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer that because it's not in my estimates, so it doesn't show up in any of my information as to what the cost would be. I would imagine that it would probably be similar to what the costs were in the past, because I don't. . . . You know, any improvements or changes would be made by ICBC, but that would be a management decision by ICBC.

R. Neufeld: The PIC program in Alberta, which you spoke about earlier -- I just wonder: has there been any headway made with the province initiating a 1-800 number that truckers entering British Columbia can call to actually receive permits over the phone? That's a process that's done in Alberta and has been done for a long time, and it works very successfully. For an out-of-province truck coming into Alberta or for Alberta trucks within the province, there's a 1-800 number -- or maybe it's a 1-900 number; I'm not sure -- that they can call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They give them a credit card number and the name of the company. They're all on their systems, and they will get a number, so that the permit will be mailed to them later in case there is no scale open. I think what it does is improve the efficiency of the weigh scales, because you don't have to have them open 24 hours a day. Most folks, as you spoke about earlier, in the trucking industry actually want to be legal and have the correct paperwork when they're travelling around the province. It's the ones that are trying to sneak around -- the people that you were talking about, the flying squad or whatever it is -- that we'll be able to catch.

I think this is a simplified way of dealing with permits all across the province, which works well in a province that's been doing it for quite a few years. I'm quite well aware of it and have operated it. I know I've brought it to the minister's attention before -- maybe not to your attention, but to the previous minister. I'm just wondering if we've made any headway in looking at that.

Hon. L. Boone: ICBC has indicated that they will be looking at ways of improving that whole process of receiving permits. But those would be decisions by ICBC.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I'm bringing that to the minister's attention because we're again in a crossover. Possibly with the help of the minister -- a letter or a phone call to ICBC, just to jar their memory. . . . Sometimes these things get forgotten in all the other things that have to be done, quite understandably. A letter from the minister reminding the people at ICBC that this may be a good avenue to look at would be appreciated.

Hon. L. Boone: I know that they are looking at it, and they're looking at other. . . . They have some concerns in 

[ Page 5473 ]

terms of getting the necessary systems in place, so they're looking at some temporary methods of doing things differently, as well. I know that they're considering all kinds of areas to try and reduce the paperwork for inspectors and to make it a little easier both for the inspectors and for the truckers.

R. Neufeld: Just one last comment on that. This would also be a number that could facilitate the efficiency of the truck safety line -- I think quite well -- which you and the official opposition critic talked about earlier. I think that could be something which could be combined quite easily.

B. Barisoff: I just want to ask the minister whether she's familiar with Australia's Telstra system.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

B. Barisoff: I know that your parliamentary secretary and I could easily investigate this for you, but. . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, I didn't say your ministerial assistant. As the minister is not aware, Australia is using video cameras tied to a central computer bank, where they're able to get all kinds of information on heavy trucks: how long they've travelled, how long they've been on the road and speeds they're travelling. It's called a Telstra system. Actually, I've gotten some of the information from Mr. Kasper, your parliamentary secretary, and from Craig James, the Clerk of Committees, when they happened to be down there. It sounds to me like an excellent system that could be investigated, as a way of probably ultimately saving money by having a good monitoring system throughout the province. I'm wondering -- and this isn't a suggestion for the minister to go have a look at it. . . . We should send -- I was going to say more qualified -- people to have a look at that system.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you; I'll take that into consideration.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I think, hon. Chair, I've opened a door here. I see the deputy minister, and I'm sure that all concerned will want to be on this committee to investigate this Telstra system. On a serious note, I understand that it's supposed to be an excellent system, and it would probably be worthwhile for the minister to find out a little bit more about it and see what it's all about. It's not something that would happen overnight. Considering the fiasco we went through with photo radar, I think we've got to be careful about what kind of systems we get involved in too soon. But it's one of those ones that sounds good on paper anyhow and should be looked at.

I know that Ontario also has an automated commercial vehicle identification monitoring system. I don't know whether the minister is aware of that.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we've looked into some of these areas, but we need to deal with some of the more basic areas in terms of the enforcement, and then we can look at some of the more automated systems.

B. Barisoff: For the minister's information, what it amounts to is that selected carriers are able to bypass inspection stations because they become part of that program. And I think there's a lot of incentive for being on it, if you have a system of that nature. If people could bypass scales for whatever reason, I'm sure that they would ultimately do a better job of keeping their equipment in up-to-date fashion.

A few questions here. The inconsistency of weigh scales is one of the areas that we also found in our travels -- not only inconsistency between a weigh scale in Pouce Coupe and Vancouver. I think the gentleman who gave us the information came from Prince George. He left from Prince George, and I think he went through three or four different sets of scales before coming all the way into Vancouver. When he got to the scales in Flood -- and it wasn't in the wintertime, when he was picking up weight or anything else -- he should have weighed less, but he actually got a ticket at Flood for being overweight. Lo and behold, we find that the inconsistency can not only be from scale to scale but from direction to direction. I asked a few of my friends in the industry. I said, "This is hardly true," and they said: "Oh, for sure, there are some scales out there that give one weight if you come on them from, say, the north, and give you another weight if you come on them from the south."

I wonder if the ministry has looked at any kind of better method of making sure the consistency of scales throughout the province is more in line with the fact that when we're paying fines for it, it's quite a concern.

Hon. L. Boone: I wasn't aware that there were inconsistencies with the scales. If there are scales that people are alleging there are problems with, then we'd be happy to look into it. But what you may find is inconsistency in terms of application of enforcement. Some may not be as stringent; some employees may not be as stringent as others. But the scales are all calibrated; they should be the same. If they're not, then we can look into it.

B. Barisoff: No, it's not that. The inconsistency between scale and scale is probably the biggest complaint of all we've heard. It was the resounding complaint that we heard everytime we held a public hearing. I was just listening to the member for Peace River North, who just said they have that same problem in the north country, up in those areas where the scales actually have different weights. It's something that I think we should be more aware of. I have canvassed the private driving schools a little bit, and whatever else. I just hope the minister will continue on in that direction of graduated licences, to make sure that we have better drivers on the road, and maybe look at a longer period of time.

Just a few more things that I'd like to touch on. I can see the minister is getting tired, and she almost looks to be getting more tired than I am, so I'd like to get this through.

Out-of-jurisdiction fines. . . . I understand that we don't help Washington State collect fines, and in turn, we don't collect fines from out of province. We have a difficult time, and I was told that we hardly ever collect any from out of province. Does the minister know anything of this?

Hon. L. Boone: It is more difficult to collect from out of province. I guess we try to, but we don't have licences that we can withhold or any of those things. But this is now ICBC's problem to deal with.

B. Barisoff: I'm beginning to understand why the minister has transferred motor vehicles over to ICBC. But I understand she still sits on the ICBC board.

[ Page 5474 ]

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, she doesn't even do that. Now I can really understand why she wanted to get out. There are a lot of problems there that are created, I guess, throughout the whole system. I have my doubts and my reservations on whether it's going to work, with motor vehicles and ICBC being together. When you have, basically, the judge and jury working together, you can dictate whatever happens. I wonder whether ultimately it's going to work. But years, I guess, will tell whether it's going to be a good system or a bad system and whether we might be taking motor vehicles back out of ICBC and having a separate entity.

[8:15]

Hon. L. Boone: Well, as you know, we don't foresee the testing of substance use as they do in the States. This is an American program, so I'm not going to comment on a program that they have. Talk to us about something that we have.

B. Barisoff: The reason I bring it forward is the fact that a major portion of our trucking industry crosses the border in B.C., and they're B.C.-based firms. With deregulation, we're going to have even that many more crisscrossing the border. I may be wrong, but I think that the trucking industry, the B.C. truckers that cross the border, is obligated to abide by those same kind of rules. I'm just wondering -- I know we're not doing it -- if we shouldn't be looking at educating or training our own local truckers in how to deal with the testing and whether we would be considering going in that direction.

Hon. L. Boone: That's future policy.

B. Barisoff: We're getting down near the end here.

Stolen or wrecked vehicles monitoring program. There are three main components of this program of mandatory reporting of written-off vehicles to the registrar. I'm not going to ask the minister whether. . . . I'm getting enough paper from her as it is. As I was indicating, I do know the answers to a lot of the questions. Permanent branding of documentation; electronic files of stolen, irreparable, rebuilt or salvaged vehicles; electronic access to vehicle status code. . . . Is B.C. participating in this program at all?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. We brought in legislation on that last year. This has gone over to ICBC.

B. Barisoff: Could I ask the minister whether ICBC could give me the detailed information about exactly how this works? I've got a number of questions that deal with it, but if she could undertake to give me the information on exactly how we'd set this program up, I would. . . . Considering the time of day and the time we've spent here, if I could just look at that information. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: I'll get ICBC to get that information for you.

B. Barisoff: Last year I think we canvassed five-metre, 16-wide motor homes in northeast B.C. I know we had a policy change in what's taking place. I'm just curious to see how the program's working. I haven't heard any negative things. I'm just wondering how it's going and what's happened.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, from what I gather, it's going very well. The residents in the Peace area were very happy to have this announcement made, and we've had no indication that there are any problems with it at all.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure that, considering being up in the Peace and seeing how flat it is, it probably does work there. Is the minister considering extending that anywhere else in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: When I got the report from our parliamentary secretary, who recommended that there could be pilot projects in other parts of the province, I indicated that I would only consider those projects if in fact there was a request from the communities from where they came, from municipalities and from those areas. So far, there have been companies that have requested it, but I have not had any community anywhere -- whether it be a municipality or regional district or a chamber of commerce -- actually ask to have a pilot project implemented.

No, I'm not considering it. It doesn't look as if too many people are that interested in it, other than some of the companies who'd like to have it happen. We did this thing in the north Peace because there is a strong sentiment from all the residents up there that they wanted this to happen, and quite frankly, I'm really glad that I was able to respond to their concerns.

B. Barisoff: How many manufactured homes were actually moved, with these new permits up in the Peace?

Hon. L. Boone: In the first two months there were 28 permits issued: 27 manufactured homes and one grain bin.

B. Barisoff: You got my other question, about what else besides manufactured homes was moved. You're getting better.

One other concern that I had when this was going on -- and I know it is working well in the Peace -- is the economic impact that it's had in other areas of the province, sort of in the manufactured home. . . . Has the minister at all canvassed that area or looked at it to see what effect it's had on any of the B.C. producers?

Hon. L. Boone: No. I've made it clear that my interest was from a safety perspective, and I base my decision on the safety aspect of the trailers. I know that there is considerable concern raised by some of the companies in the Okanagan about their viability, but I've not had any indication that any of them have shut down. It certainly is not the job of the Ministry of Transportation to investigate what's happening to the various industries there.

B. Barisoff: I guess from a safety standpoint, it did work out in the Peace. I do have some concerns about what would take place in the rest of the province to move those homes. Of the 20 -- or did the minister say 28? -- manufactured homes, were they built here in B.C.? Where was the origin that the manufactured homes came from?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know, but I would imagine they were probably built in Alberta.

[ Page 5475 ]

B. Barisoff: I hate to tell a minister this, but I think we've just about come to the end of our questions. I had that much more to go, but looking at the minister's eyes and seeing that she's getting a little tired, and also the staff, and with the amount of time they spent last night. . . . We've had a reasonably good working relationship in getting information. Before I close, I'd like to thank all the staff that have shown up for the amount of time that they've put into it.

I would like to ask the minister before I close debates on Transportation and Highways if I could have the undertaking of the minister. . . . I know that she does give me a lot of information that I ask for. Some is in a timely manner; some of the others aren't as timely as I would like. It would help, and it would probably help the estimates process in the future also. . . . I'm not saying that things should happen immediately and the minister has to drop what she's doing to make sure that the critic has whatever information it might be. But I think that at times it has taken a little longer than I think it should have, because when people phone and I can get back to them with information, it usually solves the problem. It usually stops the bleeding a lot of times if you can get back to them with something. If it takes too long, it usually carries on and on and on, and people get a little put out and perturbed and whatever else. So, in closing, I would like to ask the minister for some of the information, most of it or all of it -- I'd like all of it; it's not very often that I get into things that I shouldn't have, I don't think -- in a more timely fashion than it's been given in the past. It sometimes takes a little longer.

With that, I again thank the minister. It's been an enjoyable process up till 10 o'clock last night. Today has been quite a bit longer than what I had anticipated, but once people got geared up to talk, I think a lot more talking took place than what we both expected. But I think we both accomplished a lot. There was a lot of information that we got out of here, and I hope that there wasn't too much of it that was frivolous, a lack of information. . . . I notice this year that we didn't go through the flow chart of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, so the minister should be happy with that -- as much as we attempted to do that. Again, I thank the minister and I thank the staff. I think it's a job well done. It's a difficult job to be able to answer all the questions that we have.

I'm sure that when we go back through Hansard. . . . The amount of material that we've asked for is quite substantial. I don't, of course, expect to get that immediately, but I would like it if we could get a lot of that information within the months to come. Short of the initial things that I phoned for, I would say that we've had a pretty fair working relationship and hope that this can continue on in the future. I hope that we don't carry on until 2:30 in the morning, because at one point last night I was a little put out and a little angry about what was happening. Again, thank you to the minister.

Hon. L. Boone: I want to thank you, hon. member, for being an enduring critic and a very responsible one, as well. I think you've taken your job very seriously and certainly haven't asked frivolous questions, and I appreciate that.

We certainly will endeavour to work with you as well as we have in the past and improve that if we can. It's in all of our best interests if we have a good working relationship, because it's up to you and myself to work on behalf of all our constituents. So I thank you.

[8:30]

We thank you very much for the courage to stand up to the criticism. I know you've taken some -- in fact, quite a bit -- over the issue. I thank you very much for it.

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: ministry operations, $507,681,000 -- approved.

The Chair: That completes the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We will now go to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. We will take a two-minute recess while staff make the changes.

The committee recessed from 8:31 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

Hon. C. McGregor: It's certainly my very great pleasure to introduce the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. I really do look forward to these discussions throughout the next several days, as I have the opportunity not only to engage in discussions but to really have a close scrutiny of our ministry operations and its goals for the future. This is my first portfolio in government, so it's a very exciting opportunity for me, and I actually am, unlike other ministers, looking forward to this estimates process. I'm certain that my colleagues across the way will share this enthusiasm as well.

Certainly within the Ministry of Environment we have much to be proud of. We are both an international and a national leader in environmental protection measures, and we've been very proactive in planning and in our response to public concerns on a wide variety of fronts. Of course, we are, as well, in the midst of some serious fiscal challenges. We've experienced some reductions across government, and that has happened, as well, within this ministry. We've needed to do that as a government in order to protect the priorities of health care and education. But that doesn't mean that we aren't continuing to make significant progress on a variety of issues, both now and looking forward into the future.

Before I talk a little bit about what our ministry has accomplished, I would like to acknowledge the significant contributions that have been made by my predecessors, including the members for Coquitlam-Maillardville, Esquimalt-Metchosin and Prince George North. They have clearly provided for me a strong model of leadership and passionate advocacy on behalf of the environment.

As I mentioned earlier, B.C. is leading the way. We probably have the jurisdiction with the most progressive environmental laws in Canada. The issues that our ministry covers include forestry practices, chlorine discharges, contaminated site cleanup, motor vehicle pollution measures and -- one 

[ Page 5476 ]

measure that I am particularly proud of -- the new way we have of doing business in regard to industrial stewardship programs.

The industrial stewardship programs really began with tires, batteries and engine oil, but we have moved far beyond that and now include paint -- we have more than 100 depots across British Columbia -- and other hazardous household products. I think, though, that it's not just industry that are important environmental stewards in our province but individual British Columbians as well -- in particular, the progress we've made as a province and as individuals in reducing our solid waste by more than 35 percent. We're certainly showing our leadership in Canada in that regard.

We've also said, as a government and in response to concerns of British Columbians, that we must protect the unique biodiversity of our province. So we've put in place a variety of conservation strategies, some of which include both grizzly bears -- a very important symbol of our province -- and, of course, salmon.

On the national front, we have certainly provided leadership to all other provinces and our national government. We've improved the level of cooperation with our federal counterparts. I particularly note the work that my predecessor did on climate change, most recently the work we're doing with salmon protection and the cooperation that we as a provincial government have achieved working with the federal government on this very important resource.

An area where British Columbia is acknowledged as a world leader is, clearly, protected areas. Our protected-areas strategy is the envy of other jurisdictions. When we talk to others, particularly in the European community, they look with great envy to the model that we have created in this province, which clearly involves communities and individuals in the stewardship of our land. In this province we are getting close to achieving our goal, which we committed to at the Rio earth summit in 1992, of protecting and setting aside 12 percent of our province as a protected area. Certainly we've set the bar very high for the rest of Canada.

We are committed, of course, to continuing the progress that's been begun. To demonstrate that, in the last year we've added 75 new parks, including 23 protected areas in the lower mainland. I think the protected areas in the lower mainland deserve some particular mention today, because green spaces are particularly important in crowded urban environments. The access that it provides to a vast majority of our population in British Columbia by setting aside those spaces, so that there is an opportunity for our current generation and, perhaps even more importantly, our future generations. . . . Certainly the work I've done over the years with children and youth has made me understand how important they believe the planet to be, that they will inherit this planet and that the efforts we make today will be the rewards for them in the future.

In terms of protected areas, though, I think the marine ecosystem environment is somewhat underrepresented in our current parks. Again, an example of the partnership that we've engaged in nationally with the federal government is the example of the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy agreement. Through that agreement we have acquired 11 properties on the Gulf Islands. Again, we are able to move forward on areas of particular concern to British Columbians, particularly in coastal communities.

Beyond the protected-areas strategy, we've also made a lot of effort and a lot of progress on clean air. This is a matter of some considerable concern to urban British Columbians in particular, as well as other provincial residents, of course. Because of transportation and smog issues, this is of utmost importance to urban residents. We are clearly a leader. We have the toughest vehicle emission standards in North America. The AirCare program, which was begun in British Columbia, has received international recognition and, when I met with the previous federal Minister of Environment, great praise for the province in taking this leadership.

Reducing pollution has delivered on our goals for British Columbians in terms of having an environment in which they want to live and work, but it has also created a new opportunity for the business sector. As a result of the very progressive pollution prevention measures that we as a government have put in place, we have had businesses begin that introduce many new non-polluting technologies. I think a very important example is Daimler-Benz and Ballard Power Systems, which have become world leaders in zero-emission transportation technology. The clean air strategy we have adopted as a province is a triple win. It's a win for the environment, it's a win for the health of the people of British Columbia, and it's a win for our economy.

As I mentioned earlier, we really are leading the rest of Canada on the industrial stewardship front. Recently the deputy minister had a chance to be at the Recycling Council of B.C., and they described our progress on this front as dizzying. It has been dizzying, because in fact we have achieved more in the management of hazardous products than any other jurisdiction in North America.

In the past year we have tightened the regulation for recycling leftover paint, and we now have more than 100 depots, as I mentioned earlier. By March 31, they will have collected over four million litres of paint for recycling or safe disposal. That's a record to be proud of. The B.C. Paint Care Association deserves a great deal of credit for that effort, because they have been the leaders in designing the system and taking the kind of leadership, as stewards of their product, that has led to the Paint Care Association. They are very pleased at being courted by other governments and other jurisdictions across North America as a model to follow.

[8:45]

An effort that I am also particularly proud to mention today is the expansion of our beverage container system. It's the first expansion in 27 years. It has had an enormous degree of public support. It's probably the one issue, when I go to other places around the province, that people mention time and time again. "Right on," they say, "all those beverage containers will now be recycled." They are very supportive. As well, we've had a great deal of support from the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the recycling industry.

The common denominator in these industry stewardship models is the user-pay principle. It's taking the burden away from local government and the taxpayer and placing the burden where it belongs: on those who manufacture and sell the product.

Looking back at the progress we've made over the last year, and prior to that, is an important thing to do in develop-

[ Page 5477 ]

ing our discussions and as background for the beginning of our discussions around estimates. But it's also important to look forward and to talk about goals and actions that we may take in the coming year.

Certainly key priorities for me and the work our ministry is doing are both water and fish. Water is a top priority. It's not just a priority that I personally have or that ministry staff have; it's obviously a priority in our communities all around the province. Safe drinking water, high-quality drinking water and access to water are key issues around the province. We need to involve communities and individuals as a part of the solution in managing water issues.

I can think of two examples we've engaged in within the ministry that support that partnership view of the world. First, there's the example of the capital regional district here in Victoria, where we've developed a joint program around non-point source pollution. There's a series of videotapes, there are some brochures, and there are people working actively in the community talking to individuals about how we can change our behaviour in terms of the runoff of residual material into the water supply. So it's about how we as individuals can adapt our behaviour so as not to in any way harm our water supply.

There are other exciting examples. I think of the recent environmental awards we had just about a month ago here in Victoria, where we drew to the attention of the public a couple of developers who have a small company. They've used some new technologies in a building designed and built in Sooke to really have a closed-loop water system, where they could reuse grey water within their building. That's innovation, and that's business and industry really taking leadership on those kinds of stewardship opportunities that exist in our province because of our strong commitment to environmental protection. As well, we will be releasing a discussion paper on water later on this year.

There is an overlap, really, between the issues related to water and our fisheries strategy. I know that the members opposite are aware of the Fish Protection Act. It is really a key element of our fisheries strategy here in British Columbia, which will deal not only with the issues related to fish and fish management but with stewardship of water and protection of water quality.

Throughout the ongoing debate we've had over the Pacific salmon fishery, there's always been one point on which we've been able to agree -- that is, we have to preserve salmon fish habitat and the integrity of our rivers and streams and put the preservation of stocks first. That point has been made over and over again by our Premier in recent weeks.

The Fish Protection Act opens the door for both the province and local communities to make better planning decisions about water allocation, riparian zones, watershed management and other fish- and water-related issues. It will help us address the chronic undervaluing of fish and water as both natural resources and components of our environment.

We also need to maintain B.C.'s leadership on air quality. This province has introduced the strongest measures in Canada for cleaner transportation, but obviously even more is needed. We need to consider what steps are necessary to strengthen air quality laws and to enhance our ability to involve communities in strategies like airshed planning.

I had the opportunity several months ago to be involved in a review of an Environics poll about people's attitudes across Canada related to environmental issues. They said that environmental issues related to their personal health are the absolute top priority, and that's why air quality is one that we really need to continue to make progress on. As the Environics poll indicated, we need to make steady incremental progress by moving forward on these issues and addressing them over time, so that we can protect our health and our children's health.

We will also be reviewing B.C.'s greenhouse gas action plan, which was designed to provide us with some strategies to move forward on air quality issues from now until the year 2000. Why is it important for us to continue to move forward on our greenhouse gas action plan? Well, I'm going to quote from part of the greenhouse gas action plan. This is actually an excerpt from a letter written by a Vancouver resident who put it forward to be considered. In it, he said: "We" -- and he's talking about British Columbians -- "are members of the most important target group regarding [greenhouse gas] emission reductions, the consumers. It is millions of everyday actions and decisions by this group which will determine the success or failure of the stabilization target. We are determined to continue our action and to provide an example to other Canadians. . . ." Again, the quote really points to the role that we can play individually as stewards for our environment, and that's another reason for us to move forward on air quality issues.

Pollution prevention has always been a very important part of the work we do within the Ministry of Environment. In the past, we've focused probably too much on what we call "end-of-pipe pollution" from obvious identifiable sources. We need to create a shift from thinking about how to limit the pollution that enters our waters or air to really thinking through in a proactive way both watershed and airshed management, making the connections between environmental, economic and social considerations.

An example of how we're moving forward on that is one of the pieces of legislation I recently introduced in the House related to pest management. We're taking a more holistic approach. Instead of a single-use permitting system, we're saying: "Let's sit down and manage together. What are all the interactions around pest management and the application of pesticides? How can we coordinate that better and use other strategies we know about, beyond the chemical solution, to manage pests?"

There is another area that has to be given high priority in the coming months and the years ahead, and that includes park planning and future management. We have the best system of provincial parks in Canada, and it's very representative of B.C.'s natural, cultural, historical and recreational features. But we've doubled our parks recently, and that presents new challenges to us. We are going to need to take new approaches to ensure that we can be fiscally prudent but also manage these expanded provincial parks with a stewardship model, which I talked about earlier, involving individuals, communities and government. We face the immediate need of providing adequate protection for ecological values in parks, but we also need to provide new planning approaches that will involve those communities and address the increasing complexities of park management, as well as the challenges that expansion brings.

B.C. Parks staff are in the process of devising new ways to address these concerns. We're going to be asking the public and concerned groups to help us with that process, as well as continuing to build on the cooperative working relationships we have with first nations.

So looking forward, it's clear that we still have an enormous job ahead of us, but we have a vision for British Colum-

[ Page 5478 ]

bia. There is much at stake. British Columbia is a world-class place in which to live. It's been said many times that B.C.'s competitive edge in the global economy is going to depend more and more on our quality of life. This means building on our strengths, and that includes a world-class health system, excellent universities and schools, an advanced transportation and infrastructure program, communications infrastructure and a well-trained workforce.

Just as importantly, environmental protection and a high quality of life and resource stewardship are a big part of what makes British Columbia a great and wonderful place to live. So we need to continue to work together as communities, as business and industry, as individuals and as government to achieve this vision. I certainly have the utmost confidence in the professionalism of our staff, many of whom are here today to begin these discussions with you to support these goals.

I would like to welcome the opposition critic's opening statement and response. Actually, I'm in eager anticipation of hearing some of her ideas and goals and visions for the future, because I think there's an opportunity here to build a bridge, to work together on some common issues, because I know that you care as deeply for our British Columbia environment as we do here within the ministry.

Just before I stop, I think I'll just take the time to introduce the staff I have here today: first, Cassie Doyle, who is the deputy minister; Greg Koyl, who is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Jon O'Riordan, who is the assistant deputy minister of environment and lands regions division; Don Fast, assistant deputy minister of environment and lands headquarters division; and Wayne Hodgson, manager of financial planning and reporting.

C. Clark: I will start by offering my congratulations to the minister, because this is her first opportunity to go through an estimates process. It's my second. I don't feel like an expert at it, by far. But this is her first opportunity to do this, and I think, having had an opportunity to make her mark in the ministry or having been minister for six months or so -- something in that neighbourhood -- and, hopefully, being minister for a few more months or many more months. . . . I'm looking forward to a productive process as we seek out information through the estimates.

I will respond to the minister's statement. I'll start by saying that when we talk about the vision that each of us has for the environment in British Columbia and about where we want to see the Environment ministry go, this estimates process is really our opportunity for the opposition side -- and, I suppose, the public through us -- to search out what the ministry's vision really is. There is what we say, and then there is the way to back it up, which is by looking at the numbers behind it. That's what the whole estimates process is premised upon -- being able to look at those numbers and try and see how that backs up the action that the government has promised in certain areas. So we're looking forward to doing that.

I have to admit a little bit of concern, though, when I hear environment ministers -- and this minister is not alone in that -- talking as much about protecting health care and education as they do about protecting the environment. It's my view, certainly, that we need to protect health care and education -- absolutely essential services for British Columbians.

But we need to bring to government -- I bring to government -- the view that each minister acts as an advocate for his or her ministry and for the goals of that ministry within the government and around the cabinet table. It's essential that the Environment minister, just like the Health minister and the Education minister, projects that vision and ensures that those goals are carried forward. If there isn't an advocacy role for a minister or for a ministry, then you have to wonder why you have the ministry at all.

[9:00]

But I'll return to my original point. We need to have a ministry that clearly puts forward its goals and fights for its ideas around the cabinet table and within government on a broader level. I have to express some concern that this ministry and this government, actually -- I certainly won't lay that at the feet of the ministry or the minister -- have allowed British Columbia to start falling back in its national prominence as a leader in the environment.

Previous governments have undertaken some initiatives, and this ministry has undertaken some initiatives that really have put British Columbia at the forefront in some ways. There's no question about that. But it appears to me that we are starting to fall behind; in fact, we have fallen behind. We've certainly fallen behind economically. We're tenth in Canada now in terms of economic growth. I worry that at the rate and the trends that we are going in the environment with this government, in terms of environmental protection and environmental advocacy, we may be going in the same direction on a national level. I wouldn't want to see British Columbia fall to tenth, as it has economically -- in the economic statistics. I'd hate to see our environmental statistics and our national environmental ranking fall to that level.

When I think about our ranking, I'm talking about fish issues, for example. Fish issues is an area where there's been a great deal of discussion between the government, the opposition and the public, of course -- habitat protection and the seriousness of the government toward protecting habitat for fish; the seriousness of the government in ensuring that threatened species of fish are protected and that inland fish stocks are protected; and ensuring that the government plays a leading role in its own agencies in making sure that our fish stocks are protected.

The Fish Protection Act -- I know we can't discuss that in estimates specifically, because it's under consideration by the Legislature -- is a piece of legislation that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. It seems to me that in fish protection, this government is talking the talk but not walking the walk.

The Premier is declaring war on the United States, meanwhile not taking care of the issues back home, which the Americans complain about when they say we're not protecting our habitat. I think that as British Columbians, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have the strongest negotiating position possible with the Americans.

We need to ensure that when they come to us and say, "British Columbia, you're not protecting your fish habitat," we can say that's not true and have it be true. We need to ensure that the numbers on fish habitat and fish protection actually support what the government says about them. Otherwise, our position is weakened.

[ Page 5479 ]

If the Premier is going to declare war on the United States, I personally don't want to see him lose. I'd hate to think what might happen if he loses. I'd hate to think what might happen to the fish; I'd hate to think what might happen to the fishers in British Columbia.

Clean air is another issue where we've really fallen behind in a big way. That's been in the news a great deal because of the anniversary of the commitments that were made in Rio about meeting our greenhouse gas commitments. Canada has fallen behind in a big way, but certainly British Columbia has contributed to that problem and contributed in a big way. The government's greenhouse gas action plan hasn't been met in many areas. The big problems that needed to be addressed in that action plan haven't been addressed; they still need to be met.

It's no wonder we're falling behind in our clean air strategy and in our greenhouse gas strategy. The government is not taking the actions that it needs to. When we look at the numbers in this estimates process, that's what we on this side of the House will be asking the government to demonstrate: that their words are backed up by actions, and the actions for government are always demonstrated in the numbers in the books.

I believe that the vision or the goal for the Ministry of Environment must be threefold. First, the ministry has a responsibility to provide some certainty and some simplicity for the public and for industry. That's got to be a key goal of what the Environment ministry provides. The ministry needs to cooperate not only with other governments and industry but with the public. Take those views -- those consultations -- seriously, follow suggestions and work constructively with other stakeholders.

The ministry needs to find balance in everything that it does. If the Minister of Environment is an advocate for environmental initiatives and environmental protection in the government, she will be balanced -- or the ministry and the ministry personnel will be balanced, I am sure -- by competing interests in other areas of government -- no question about it, wherever they may be.

Within the Ministry of Environment the government needs to find a balance. We need to find a balance between job creation and environmental protection. The two are not polar opposites, and this government needs to stop treating them as though they are polar opposites.

We need to find a balance between habitat protection and the economy. We need to find a balance between industry and advocacy groups. And we need, more specifically, to find a balance between policy-making and service delivery. It appears to me, from having examined the estimates on paper as we enter this process, that the balance on many of those fronts appears to have been lost. Of course, within the ministry I don't see that balance being met and kept, and certainly within the government I don't see that balance being met and kept. Indeed, I see the battle being lost within the government.

If, at the end of the day, there is anything that we on the opposition side would like to get out of this process, it is to impress upon the government that it needs to find that balance again. Until there is that balance, we will continue to have confrontation. We'll continue to be declaring war on every group, stakeholder and individual out there, and we will continue to be driving investment and jobs out of this province.

To me that is really the most essential thing that the ministry needs to achieve. In this estimates process, that's where we'll be looking to try to send a message and make suggestions to the government, if we can. We'll certainly seek out the government's vision of where it's going and where it intends to go, and hopefully try and find that balance again. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to introduce the estimates from the opposition. I understand that now we start the question process.

The first area that I'd like to explore is the ministry reorganization that's been undertaken. I know it was a huge reorganization. It meant some very, very major changes in the ministry. I'm concerned, however, that perhaps the reorganization was driven more by the need to just find the dollars rather than the need to improve the way the ministry delivers its service and to ensure that the ministry operates as efficiently and as well as possible. So I wonder if we can start by exploring that process a little and if the minister could tell us how that process was undertaken and what sort of goals and objectives that process had at the beginning.

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member notes, part of the process was driven by our need to achieve some savings across government. While the member may not like that our government has a commitment to health care and education, that was indeed what drove our decisions to try to achieve savings in other parts of government.

So our ministry was mandated to achieve some savings. It was mostly an upper level management process through which a variety of canvassing instruments were used to talk generally to senior staff about how we could better integrate our services across the ministry. Really, it was a key goal of our reorganization plan to integrate many of the issues that before had clearly had a lot of separate streams. There are overlapping management questions and habitat concerns, for instance, that go across. . . . say, wildlife as a separate stream from fish, and so on. . . .

I note from last year's Hansard that the member is familiar with how the ministry was organized in sort of these long single streams and spoke in favour of a more integrated approach. That is indeed the strategy that we put in place to try and have more of an integrated management of environmental issues across government and to generally protect field services in the regions as well. So a great part of our management reorganization was targeted towards reduction at the senior management level in order to preserve services in the region.

C. Clark: The minister was joking, I'm sure, when she suggested that members on my side of the House aren't interested in protecting health care and education. If she wasn't joking, I'm sure she just misinterpreted what I said. What I was suggesting was that as Minister of Environment, she's the Minister of Environment, not the Minister of Health or Minister of Education, and it's my view that every minister needs to be an advocate for his or her ministry. That's simply what I said. Certainly health care and education need to be priorities for government, but I think the priority for this minister needs to be the environment.

It's as simple as that. You can try to be minister -- I suppose she might eventually get to be Health or Education minister -- but I simply don't think it's appropriate for any minister to sort of treat a ministry as though it's a study project for another ministry. That was simply what I said. She will know that on our side of the House, we have been fierce advocates for the protection of health care and education funding, the quality of which has been declining quite severely under this government.

[ Page 5480 ]

But back to the question at hand, hon. Chair, and I appreciate your allowing me to digress and answer that point. The minister gave a very brief outline of the purpose or the goals that the ministry was trying to meet in integrating the ministry. I certainly support integrating the ministry, trying to find some more efficiency and kind of modernizing it, if you will, because as we've canvassed in the past, it was sort of a product of being torn apart and put together a whole number of times.

I certainly support that, but I would suspect that there must have been more criteria than just simply what the minister mentioned as the ministry undertook the downsizing process. I would be surprised if any government ministry undertook a downsizing of this magnitude with such a broad goal and without any parameters set on the outcomes of those cuts. I suspect there must have been areas of programming that the ministry decided they wanted to enhance or at least protect, and there must have been areas the ministry decided were less important and could take bigger cuts.

I understand so far that there was a differentiation between the regional and headquarters sides. I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific than that, because that's quite a broad parameter.

[9:15]

C. Clark: When I look at the budget in the estimates that have been provided, it appears that there is a greater cut in the regional services than in the headquarters services, and we'll certainly get to that a little later -- hopefully not too much later.

When the minister says that the ministry was trying to undertake these cuts without affecting front-line services, was there any directive by the ministry? Were there any written documents, any White Paper, any proposal, any guidelines that the ministry produced to ensure that regional services were not affected?

The stakeholders out there all strongly suspect that regional services were affected by the cuts, some would even suggest disproportionately. I'm trying to square what the minister is saying about not wanting to cut those areas and setting that as a parameter, with what appears to be the ministry's failure to meet that goal. I wonder if the minister could explain that apparent difference.

Hon. C. McGregor: The decisions were made not on the basis of whether they were offered in a region or in headquarters but on the basis of the function that they served. So, for instance, the functions of environmental protection meant those services that are provided by the ministry -- identifying those core services that needed to be maintained and then using that as a means through which we could achieve some reductions.

C. Clark: Just to clarify that, then, is the minister saying that when the ministry undertook the downsizing and defined regional services as a priority area -- if I'm restating that correctly; I don't want to put words in her mouth -- they defined those by their function, by their definition strictly, rather than as a service delivery model? Normally, that's the way I would define the difference: service delivery versus policy-making. I take it that the ministry has used a different definition in the way it determines what functions are going to be cut.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I tried to communicate earlier, the major objective of our reorganization was to improve coordination and communication across the ministry. We made that a key priority. So we really combined functions that at one time were. . . . Some were held at headquarters in the Victoria area; some were in regions. We did some cross-matching and tried to integrate those services better.

But in terms of protection, we did try to protect front-line services as much as possible. Really, our key areas of reduction were in the policy, communication and administrative functions -- which I tried to indicate in my first response -- in terms of how we streamlined administratively and reduced the amount of administrative staff within the ministry in order to achieve savings but protect services and functions around those key priority areas.

C. Clark: So the policy, communication and administrative functions, wherever they were in the ministry, would be -- were, I imagine -- a target for downsizing. Can the minister tell me, then, what percentage of the administrative, communication and policy functions was cut at the regional office level -- and when I say regional office level, I mean those offices that are outside of headquarters in Victoria -- versus the percentage of those functions that was cut specifically in the headquarters area?

Hon. C. McGregor: In terms of the percentage of reductions in regions versus headquarters, I'm not sure that we have exactly the information you need, but let me start by giving you this. By and large, the policy and administrative functions are in the headquarters area. There were some limited ones in the regions as well. So the reductions in regions were much smaller than they would have been in headquarters.

On the policy side, we took a 35 percent reduction in headquarters; and on the administrative side, as an example, corporate services took a reduction of about 12 percent in administrative costs.

C. Clark: What I'm trying to figure out with these questions is. . . . The minister keeps saying that there were fewer cuts in the regional offices than there were in headquarters. That is not my reading of the numbers. I mean, when you look at the numbers that are in the estimates, you find that over a few-year period, there are much more significant cuts in headquarters than there are in the regions. But even just from year to year, we've seen the functions and the ability of regional offices to function and do their jobs severely diminished.

What concerns me when the minister talks about administrative cuts in regional offices versus headquarters. . . . It may be that in a regional office that represents -- I don't know, take a shot in the dark -- 5 percent, 10 percent of its budget and that in corporate services it's a much bigger number. But when you're talking about a conservation officer in an office in Kamloops or in an even smaller centre, who is dependent on a very small number of administrative staff or even half a staff person to do that paperwork, that's a big, significant cut. If that administration officer took up half a day 

[ Page 5481 ]

every working day and isn't there anymore, somebody has to do that paperwork, and I assume it's got to be the conservation officer. So that's what I'm getting at here; that's why I'm interested in these numbers.

Maybe we can break it down a little further, then, and find out, just for the administration functions, how much the cut was in administration budgets for the regional field offices versus the cut in the administration budget for the corporate headquarters in Victoria.

Hon. C. McGregor: To be able to answer the question adequately, I'm going to try and use an example of how we reduced administrative costs in regions. The member is probably aware that what we did was combine Environment and Lands operations. So where we used to have two levels of management, two levels of administrative support, those have been combined into one office for efficiencies. So that's an example of how we reduced administration in the regional areas.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's efforts, although I have to admit that that still doesn't really answer my question. Maybe I could be more specific. Could the minister tell us about the cuts, then, give us some numbers for the cuts in administrative support staff rather than for administrative managers -- and I assume there's a distinction there -- in regional offices and what percentage that cut represented to the regional budgets? Or even a flat number -- I could do a percentage.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member would like a more particular breakdown, we can attempt to provide her with that information. Generally, we believe the number to be about 5 percent.

C. Clark: I have heard a great deal of concern from people in the regions -- and I know the minister and ministry staff have, as well -- about the ability of the ministry to continue to fulfil its roles and its responsibilities out there in the regions in light of the cuts that have occurred. I have not, however, heard complaints from a lot of people -- and maybe that's because Victoria is a long way from most people in the province, I suppose -- about the cuts that have happened at the corporate level in Victoria. That's why I'm seeking these numbers at the regional level.

Maybe we could start. The minister could tell me about the total cuts to the budget for conservation officers in terms of FTEs. I recognize that it may be that there have been no cuts to actual bodies, but there have been cuts to positions. Perhaps we could start there.

Hon. C. McGregor: The number of conservation officer FTEs for fiscal '97-98 is 145. That's seven reduced from the previous year. But all of those positions were already vacant.

C. Clark: Can the minister give us, then, a breakdown of the budgets per region -- I guess, at least the total budget per region for the regional offices? Clearly some of the offices appear. . . . Well, I shouldn't say clearly they appear; they do appear to have a tougher time meeting their responsibilities, given their budgets, than others.

I'm curious as to why some of them might have more difficulty. Is that because some of them have lower budgets than others? Are there different needs that are met and determined in each area, and different budgets provided as a result? I wonder if the minister could give us a very quick sum of the numbers for each region.

[9:30]

C. Clark: Did the ministry, when they made the cuts for each regional budget and. . . ? My math isn't perfect, but it does appear to me that the cuts, as a percentage of total, were a little bit different in each region. I suspect that's probably the case. It doesn't look to me like it was a flat 5 or 10 percent cut across the board. When it was making these cuts, did the ministry allow the regions to determine how they would continue to provide the services that they were required to provide at the regional level? Or were those decisions about the continued delivery of services after the cuts were made at the headquarters level? In other words, did headquarters say: "Here are the cuts we want you to make. This is going to mean you have to cut your budget for an administrative staff here, a conservation officer there"? Or was that determined in the regional offices?

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously there was consultation with the regions in terms of how decisions were made. But in the end, the decisions were in fact made in the headquarters office. We did use, as we pointed out earlier, the integrated model. So what we were trying to do is say: "Integrating all of these services together, what are the base services we need to continue to provide in each region of the province?" In addition to that, we identified special projects that might require additional funding, including things like the degree to which there needed to be ongoing monitoring related to the Forest Practices Code, standards and implementation, for instance, as well as first nations consultation.

C. Clark: I take it that the headquarters decisions were fairly specific and would in the end set a budget for the region outlining what services would continue to be provided, what staff would continue to be budgeted for, what facilities would continue to be paid for and all those specifics. I take it my understanding is correct. Can the minister tell me, then. . . ? She mentioned that there were consultations that occurred with the regions. Could she give me an outline of what those consultations were, how they were undertaken and how the outcome of those consultations was interpreted and implemented by the ministry?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: I hope the member appreciates that a reorganization of an organization as large as our ministry is a very complex matter. In fact, the chief function related to that reorganization was handled by the executive of the ministry. That is not to say, though, that the assistant deputy minister 

[ Page 5482 ]

didn't engage in regional consultation; he did. He met with his regional directors to help him determine how to make appropriate decisions related to budget reductions.

C. Clark: I understand clearly that budget decisions need to rest with the appropriate authority in the end, ultimately the minister, because the minister has responsibility for everything that goes on in the ministry. If anything goes wrong, the minister has to bear responsibility for it. If anything goes right, the minister herself gets to take credit for it. Although there is a balance to be found there, in that regional operations the folks that are working in the field must have, I assume, a better idea of how their services can best be provided. I would hate to think that the ministry has a one-size-fits-all approach to the way it organizes itself and is responsive to staff in the field. I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific about the nature of the consultations that were undertaken. Was there any formal structure for it? Was there any formal method of input from ministry staff? Were there any memos that went out? Was there any formal structure for this consultation?

Hon. C. McGregor: The key vehicle through which most of our budget planning in regions is used is called the annual operating plan. It's how regions use that as a tool to designate resources necessary for things like fisheries, water, environmental protection and so on. So within the regions, there were meetings amongst regional staff. There were executive meetings within regions, and then they would provide input to the ADM of regions as well.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us what form that input took? Was it verbal? Was it written?

Hon. C. McGregor: It was a combination.

C. Clark: Just to be absolutely clear about this. The minister, then, is saying that the consultations resulted in written input, which was provided to the assistant deputy minister, and the written results of those consultations were produced from each region and forwarded to headquarters for input.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there were written reports of course, but there was, as well, considerable back-and-forth as a result of those written suggestions.

C. Clark: One of the questions that perhaps the minister didn't hear was: were there written reports from every region or just some of the regions? What I'm looking for here is: was there any consistency in the way these consultations were undertaken?

Hon. C. McGregor: Every region was treated the same way.

C. Clark: Okay, well, I understand. If they were treated the same way, that doesn't necessarily tell me if each of them responded the same way. I suppose we'll have to leave that one for now.

Did the ministry consult with any of the stakeholder groups? We've had a great deal of consultation after the fact, I know; but before the fact, was there any formal consultation undertaken with stakeholders outside the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

C. Clark: The ministry has heard a great deal of concern about the cuts at the regional level. I wonder if the minister could outline for us how the ministry intends to respond to those concerns that have been expressed by stakeholder groups after the fact. If the consultation didn't occur before, I'm sure the ministry would want to be sensitive to those stakeholder groups after and make sure that people with an interest in this ministry are treated fairly and sensitively -- because, of course, they are the people who depend on it.

Could the minister tell us if there's a plan in place to respond to the concerns that have been expressed and maybe give us an idea of what kinds of concerns have been expressed -- if, indeed, any have been -- to the minister?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member opposite and I both know that there have been concerns raised in regions about our ability to maintain certain core services and services that we've always been able to offer in the past. That causes concern for our organization and the ministry, as well. We're doing our very best to address those issues. We are in fact looking at new ways of doing business, particularly in areas like Crown lands, where we've had a significant reduction in our staff. We have to look at different ways of managing our workload. We are, within the ministry, engaged in that process as we speak. Our key goal in that is to maintain the level of high-quality service that the public has come to expect. Obviously it is an ongoing issue, but we are trying to respond as quickly as we can to the concerns that are raised by stakeholder groups.

[9:45]

The ministry doesn't appear to be doing anything to address that. There seems to be no plan; there seems to be no initiatives there to try and address it. I can only assume that that is one of the functions that the ministry decided was not a critical, essential part of its service delivery and that it could afford to be cut back. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I pointed out earlier, when we started these discussions around conservation officers, there has not been a reduction in the number of conservation officers. We have placed a priority on maintaining the conservation officer service and the enforcement functions that they provide for us. We are engaging in new initiatives that will increase our ability to enforce in a number of areas. I'll give as one example the river guardian program, where we're having an opportunity to put people who have been through the 

[ Page 5483 ]

conservation officer training program onto a series of very high-use rivers, where there are a lot of overcrowding concerns with people who might not be licensed, and so on, taking the resource. This is an area of deep concern to fishers around our province, so one of the ways we've addressed it is through the addition of a new program, the river guardian program.

C. Clark: Well, when I talk about enforcement, clearly the only ingredient in enforcement isn't just simply the conservation officer. The conservation officer needs to be supported by a staff and a budget and all those other things that allow him or her to do the job.

One of the things that has occurred out in the regions with the cut of administrative staff is that conservation officers are now doing administration work. When they're pushing paper and doing the work that might normally be done by an office support staffer, the conservation officers are not out in the field enforcing the rules. That's my concern. It's not simply the conservation officer himself or herself; it's also that the package of the budget that's there. . . . It's that whole package that's essential. Conservation officers are spending less and less time in the field as a result of these budget reductions. That is a big concern not just for me but for many, many people out there. I know that the minister has probably heard it in her own constituency in Kamloops, because I know I heard it when I was up there.

Can the minister tell me or tell the committee what the administrative cuts have been at the regional office level in terms of support staff? If she can't tell me that, does the minister have some idea of how much time conservation officers have available to spend in the field today versus before the cuts happened, when they had support staff in their offices in the regions?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think there is an opportunity for us to fully canvass these issues subsequent to today's meeting. I don't want to get started into it now, because it may be that we'll be at this forever.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:51 p.m.

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