[ Page 8457 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

G. Abbott: We left off yesterday in the latter stages of a discussion of issues around pulp and paper mills in British Columbia. I want to ask some concluding questions on that.

In the discussion we had yesterday in relation to the pulp and paper industry, I think that we established, among other things, that the industry does face pretty severe challenges on the market- and cost-competitiveness side. The price of pulp has been well below break-even for the industry in British Columbia for some time. Obviously we all hope that that changes. But irrespective even of the markets, the industry has to deal with considerable challenges on the cost side. So that's the backdrop to the subsequent discussion we were having around this government's current commitment to eliminate AOX discharges from pulp mills by December 31, 2002.

Among the other points that were raised yesterday in our discussion was the fact that the rest of the world appears to be going in a somewhat different direction than British Columbia on this. I talked about the major Swedish pulp producer that had gone to zero AOX after some considerable investments in their plant to do it, and the result of that foray was a realization that the bleached pulp which they produced was lesser in both strength and brightness than pulps produced by more conventional methods. The consequence of that was that there was no market for the zero AOX pulp, and as a consequence, this pulp producer, as I understand it, has been forced to move to a different product now, to the elemental chlorine-free northern bleached kraft pulp, which is more characteristic of the industry.

So there is that as a backdrop; we may, if the regulations currently in place are followed through on by December 31, 2002, be forcing pulp producers in British Columbia to produce a kind of pulp which, frankly, the rest of the world isn't interested in. Further, they are going to be forced to do that at some considerable cost. That will be the next place I go with my questions to the minister. What does the minister expect that this initiative on the part of government will cost the industry?

The other thing we should note first, though, is that the United States has gone to a limit of 0.623 kilograms per tonne of AOX as an acceptable maximum emission level and that Ontario has gone to 0.8. Our own producers have, over time, decreased to an average of 0.6 kilograms per tonne since the early 1990s. I guess the level was around 5.0 at the time the regulations were first enacted; they brought it down to about 0.6. I guess the issue here is: at what cost in terms of capital and jobs are we moving to zero AOX in our pulp production? Having done that, will it in fact have some consequences which may not have been anticipated at the time this government brought in the regulation around zero AOX for 2002?

The concern I have here relates to this government's rather frequent disposition to enact regulations and new initiatives based on either politics or ideology, rather than on common sense and science. I don't think the current Minister of Forests had a whole lot to do with this regulation -- perhaps he did; I don't know -- but he does bear responsibility, as Minister of Forests, for the future of the pulp industry in British Columbia. I think this is an important issue. I think there are important considerations here around a regulation that was enacted by a former Environment minister in this province. We ought to be clarifying whether the science is right and whether the sense is right -- clarifying that we are not doing something here that is going to: (a) perhaps cripple the industry with additional costs at a time they obviously can't afford them, which I think was pretty clearly established yesterday; and (b) eliminate wholesale many of the 12,000 jobs, I believe it is, that are directly involved in the production of newsprint, pulp and paper.

So these are serious concerns, and I want to explore them a little bit further before we leave this issue today. So I'll ask the minister this question. I think we established yesterday that the Ministry of Forests has not done any socioeconomic studies around the implications of zero AOX by 2002. Does the minister have any estimate of the cost that will be borne by the industry to comply with the regulation around zero AOX by 2002?

[10:15]

But on the AOX issue, I said yesterday that I think it is an appropriate one for the Ministry of Environment. We as government, of course, will consider the impacts of the regulations when they're made. We make them. There is no definitive analysis that you can do ahead of time. You do the best you can to project the effects of a regulation. But I think it's bordering on fearmongering to suggest that we're going to shut down 12,000 jobs in the pulp and paper industry. Clearly that's not acceptable. We will ensure that our cost is in line.

But you have to look at the benefit side. The opposition can't just raise the cost side without looking at the benefits. The whole reason that we brought in AOX guidelines had to do with the benefit to the environment -- at what cost, polluted water? You raised the issue of science. I'm sure that the Minister of Environment and the government will consider the science around this issue as we march in progress toward the year 2002.

So I just say that AOX is not something we regulate. I would suggest to you that that's appropriate for the Minister of Environment.

G. Abbott: I don't think what I'm doing here is fearmongering at all. What I am asking the minister about is a

[ Page 8458 ]

I hope the minister can appreciate that when we're talking about 12,000 pulp and paper jobs. . . . He says: "Well, the issue's not all that clear. We're not sure." Well, if we're not all that clear and if we're not all that sure where we're going on this, perhaps we ought to be taking a second look at it to ensure that we don't -- in the typical way we do it with this government -- throw another wrench into an otherwise reasonably operating industry.

I will leave the Forests minister with this thought: as the Minister of Forests, I hope that he takes this issue up in a serious way with the Minister of Environment and the provincial cabinet. I'm not saying I have the answers either. I'm just asking questions, but I think they're important questions.

I think that when we see experience elsewhere in the world leading in a certain direction, we have to say to ourselves that if Sweden tried this out, if the product failed, if there was no interest in the world for the product that was produced, and if the rest of the world is going to have rather more relaxed AOX emission guidelines than those we have been proposing, then we have good reason to step back and ask what we are doing here, really. Is this something that is going to further the interest of the industry? Or is this something, if it's followed through on, that is going to incapacitate or seriously harm the industry?

So I'll leave that point with the minister -- that I believe, as Forests minister, he should be trying to inject a healthy dose of common sense into this matter. I think, in fact, that some of the previous Ministers of Environment have shown rather less common sense than needs to be shown periodically to keep a handle on these things. So I'll leave that with the minister, and we will be raising this matter with the Minister of Environment in her estimates. I'll offer the minister the opportunity to respond to that if he likes, and then I'll turn to the regulation of private forest land.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the comments are fair enough. Yes, the market is one thing you consider. But I would remind the member that just because the rest of the world might go to more pollution, is that desirable here and are there other technical solutions? The pulp industry is probably working on that, because, of course, they have to market their product. To my knowledge, we have not had any official representation from the pulp industry yet to say that they can't meet these regulations. They have not brought forward the proposition you have brought forward. Now that you've brought it forward, of course, it'll be taken into consideration. We will be monitoring the situation and looking in the end at whether we can have a healthy pulp industry and a healthy environment at the same time. That would be foremost in our minds.

G. Abbott: I do want to turn to a different topic now -- that is, the regulation of private forest land in the province of British Columbia. I understand that for some time there have been ongoing discussions between the province and the Private Forest Landowners Association with respect to the application of regulations to that land. Now, I think a fair and quick summary of this particular issue would be that when this government brought in the Forest Practices Code in 1994, there was considerable resistance to the application of the code to private forest land in British Columbia. I believe it was Professor Baskerville of UBC who chaired a committee which dealt with this issue on behalf of the government. His conclusion, as I recall, was that the Forest Practices Code should not apply to private forest land in British Columbia, at least for the foreseeable future.

Since that time I gather that the Private Forest Landowners Association and the provincial government have been discussing and negotiating, looking for acceptable alternatives to the application of the full-blown code to private forest lands. Alternative models have been discussed with respect to private forest land, but it appears that at the moment there is something of a lag in terms of the introduction of a forest practices code for private forest land. The understanding I have of the situation is that while the Private Forest Landowners Association is not prepared for and indeed is heartily opposed to the application of the full-blown code to their lands, it is prepared to accept a simple results-based code which would achieve the fundamental environmental objectives which it appears the government wishes to see on those lands. I hope my summary has been fair.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

First, I want to ask a very general question: what is the status of private forest land regulation in British Columbia? I understand that initiatives around this have been announced by the government in the past. What is the current status with respect to the application of a simple results-based code to private forest land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, the Private Forest Landowners Association wants a package of incentives. They want the levelling of the playing field with unmanaged forest lands, without any suggestion of what that might be. And they are accepting that rather than a full forest practices code, there would be something that would govern water quality, wildlife, riparian guidelines, soils and the stewarding of trees. They would like to see something short of the full application of the code.

So it is still before government. We are still working on it. Anything that has a cost implication requires that we go through it to see that we get a benefit from any cost there might be. It's still under consideration, and there will be more discussions between the government and the Private Forest Landowners Association. We are trying to find a way to achieve the objectives at the least cost and the maximum benefit for both public values and the private landowner.

G. Abbott: My understanding is that over the course of the past three years, the proposed alternative package of regulations or code went through a number of permutations. I understand that most recently, by the end of 1997, it appeared that there was an alternative private forest land code that had the support not only of the landowners but also of independent sawmillers, labour resource communities and so on. In other words, there appeared to be a consensus around an alternative code for private forest land. Further, I understand that the government had given some indication that a private forest land code would be part of the legislative agenda for the 1998 session. Could the minister advise: (a) whether there was in fact a consensus at the end of 1997 around an alternative forest practices code for private forest land; (b) whether the government was prepared to introduce that package in the 1998 session; and (c) if the government was prepared to intro-

[ Page 8459 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not prepared to bring forward legislation at this time, but it is under consideration, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. We have some issues to work out around funding, as I said. This is not coming without a cost. Identifying the sources of funds to take into account the cost is a factor we have to work out. We're still working on it; it's a very active file. If we can get agreements and find a way to proceed, we will, but we're not quite ready to proceed.

G. Abbott: I'm trying to get a very clear picture in my mind as to exactly what the minister's response implies. I gather, first of all, that the remaining impediments to the introduction of a private forest land code revolve mainly around cost considerations. I presume, given that the private forest landowners would be bearing the costs of introducing and administering the code on their side, that what is at issue is how the government side of the implementation of those code regulations is going to be assessed. Perhaps the minister can tell me that. Is that the remaining issue that prevents a code from perhaps being introduced in the current session -- the government-borne costs associated with the administration of a private forest land code? Or are there additional impediments to the introduction of that code in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The costs are not just the costs of administration. There are the costs of an incentive package. It implies tax reductions. So there are other issues that need to be worked out with the landowners.

I'll just say this: if the landowners have agreement on how they should manage and on what the regulations would look like, then they are quite free to begin a self-administered process that will point to the results they have as evidence when we finally consider regulations. We're not holding up anything with respect to private land people getting into the management practices they think are desirable. They know what would be in draft regulations. The issues are around the incentive package. That's one matter. What would finally be in the legislation will depend a bit on that as well.

[10:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am prepared to discuss it only in general terms. I'll just say that it has to do with the level of taxation on private managed forest lands. The issue is under discussion in front of Treasury Board. I'm not at liberty to disclose where those discussions are at right now. Suffice it to say that there's always lots of back-and-forth that goes on, and we're not ready to announce any incentive package or the conclusion of our considerations around what will be in the whole package for private managed forest lands at this time.

G. Abbott: I can appreciate that the issue of the incentive package is before Treasury Board and that it is unlikely that the minister is going to provide, in detail, the contents of an incentive package that's under consideration by Treasury Board. Let me ask him this: has this incentive package been discussed and negotiated with the Private Forest Landowners Association?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not going to disclose the details. Suffice it to say that the incentive package that was agreed to is the one that's under active consideration, so we would consider some variation. I don't consider this the place to negotiate between private land interests and government. I think I've said everything I can say, given that anything I say here might cause some problems because there are land investments and other business decisions. The requirements are that when government is ready to announce it, we will do it appropriately and cleanly so that everybody has the same information at the same time. If you want some comfort, the package that was negotiated is the package that is still under discussion.

G. Abbott: Obviously the government has the opportunity to dictate what does and does not appear on the legislative agenda for the current session. That, of course, is their right, given the composition of government.

One of the final questions I have is: if the incentive package that is currently being considered by Treasury Board is finalized one way or another, is my understanding correct that with that sorted out, this private forest land code and the associated package could appear on the legislative agenda in the current session?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is future legislation, and I'm not at liberty to disclose that. I would just say to you that there is a timing matter. If the issues can't all be resolved, then we can't possibly introduce legislation. Suffice it to say that thought has been given to that, so it will be . . . . Nothing will fall through the cracks because we aren't ready. If it requires legislation, we'll do legislation. But first of all, we have to have agreement. There are extensive issues of cost, and it goes well beyond just what the private managed forest landowners want. There are some implications for unmanaged forest lands. We don't have agreement and details on everything surrounding it. There are policy implications for the future that have to be considered while we are considering this interim package, if you will, that the private managed forest land people have put in front of us.

G. Abbott: The minister notes that the draft package may involve. . .I think he used the term "unmanaged forest lands" as well as managed forest lands. Does that response suggest that the private lands code would be extended beyond those lands contained by the Private Forest Landowners Association? For example, would it be something that would apply to blocks of forested farmland or lands that have forest on them which are not at this point categorized as forested lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no. What the private managed forest lands people wanted to do was level the playing field with respect to incentives, such that you might attract people into the managed forest land classification. That was the intent. So I said that's an implication that has to be considered, because there are both costs and perhaps policy implications. But the effort right now is focused entirely on private managed forest lands. The incentive package was designed to try to attract people into that class. So there's quite a bit of discussion needed to find out whether in fact that might happen, when the appropriate time is to do that and whether the incentive package would be sufficient. There's a

[ Page 8460 ]

G. Abbott: I appreciate that clarification from the minister. I think that's an important point he has just made, and that is actually the right way to proceed on this: to deal with it through an incentive package approach, as opposed to the rather more onerous kind of approach that is sometimes associated with the extension of regulation. I think that is a sensible way to deal with it.

I want to move now to another of our current issues, and that is Ministry of Forests recreation sites. I don't know if you are. . . . I guess you are able to deal with that as a general issue here. This issue has popped up on a few occasions this spring, most recently in the media yesterday. The Ministry of Forests has, I believe, some 1,400 recreation sites in the province. I've enjoyed a few of them on occasion over the years. They are typically low-maintenance and low-fee sites that are in many cases very well utilized by the public. But for reasons which we'll explore here, the issue of B.C. Forest sites has become a fairly controversial one this year.

Could the minister begin by advising me of how the Ministry of Forests has been maintaining its sites in recent years? Has there been, for example, a move away from Ministry of Forests funding to maintain these sites to funding through Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Up until the year before last, it was funded through the Ministry of Forests budget. Last year we had contract money from Forest Renewal B.C. for the year. This year we don't have a specific budget item to fund it. This year Treasury Board did not provide the funding specifically for this. This is one of the things that is a victim of the downsizing of government and putting dollars into education and health care.

G. Abbott: The response about the priority of education and health care is one we've heard frequently in different estimates and at different times as a reason why funding was no longer being provided for amenities, programs or facilities. I think the issue is an important one here. I don't want to be partisan and rude, but the centrepiece of the 1998 provincial budget was the creation of 1,500 new campsites. It strikes me as unfortunate, to say the least, that while the centrepiece of the provincial budget is 1,500 new campsites, at the same time we have completely dried up the resources to maintain the 1,400 existing Ministry of Forests campsites in the province.

I want to begin with the general observation that there's a whole lot of things we do in government apart from health and education. I'd be glad to point out about 50 of them where we would happily see the expenditures moved from those to other things. Does it strike the minister as unfortunate, as I've termed it, that we appear to be putting great emphasis on creating new campsites, yet the government is unable to maintain the existing 1,400 Ministry of Forests campsites?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we haven't finished trying to identify funds that would allow us to keep most of the sites open, so you can't assume anything at this point. We are trying to do it with much-reduced funding, and there are lots of options for doing it. You're right; we are trying to make recreation facilities available for the citizens of British Columbia. The problem is making them available within the means that we have, and it is very real. When you try to keep the funding levels up in areas that are important to the public of British Columbia, other things have to suffer a little. We have an extensive set of recreation sites; not all of them have camping in them. We're well aware of the dilemma we have of creating new campsites while trying to maintain the campsites we do have. But they are a different kind of campsite with different levels of use and of service. We keep that in mind as we consider ways of keeping a maximum number of campsites open.

[10:45]

I think the government can go in two directions on this. One, we can continue to have the situation that we've had in the last couple of years, where there's a real shortage of resources, and as a consequence, we're seeing problems. The other thing might be to try to deal with them in a little different way -- to give them the resources to ensure that they are run well.

The issue I want to talk about next is Forest Renewal's contribution to this. As I recall, in his discussion he says: "Over the last two years" -- so I presume this would be '96 and '97 or '95 and '96; I'm not sure which -- "the Forest Service has implemented new approaches and taken advantage of Forest Renewal B.C. funds to largely eliminate public criticism and complaints." He says elsewhere: "Over the last two years, the Forest Service has spent about $1 million per year of Forest Renewal B.C. funds on this issue."

The first question is: is this use of FRBC funds to maintain Ministry of Forests campsites something that is consistent with the principle of incrementality that was outlined when Forest Renewal B.C. was announced?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The issue of the expenditures and the issue of incrementality went to the Forest Renewal board. They funded recreation sites in the last fiscal year. They were in full knowledge of what they were doing with the money. Given that the Ministry of Forests wasn't going to expend those funds last year, they agreed to pick them up for one year.

G. Abbott: The Forest Renewal B.C. board has. . . . We will obviously be hitting this full-time when we get to the FRBC discussion. But in a number of ways the principle of incrementality has been distorted and offended in many ways over the past two years, and it seems to me that this is one more. How can we argue that Ministry of Forests campsites are incremental to the role of Forest Renewal B.C. in putting resources back into the forest? I fail to see how this is incremental to the role of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's no secret to it; I've spoken about this publicly. If the Ministry of Forests is no longer doing that as part of its base operation, then it is incremental, and they are then able to do that. It passed the incrementality test, and there's no distortion. We're totally up front about what's happening. FRBC has been in the business of recrea-

[ Page 8461 ]

G. Abbott: The problem we have here is this. . . . The minister's right: the government can't do everything and the issue is that they shouldn't pretend to be able to do everything. The problem here is that we have 1,400 Ministry of Forests sites in the province of British Columbia that are experiencing all kinds of problems: public safety, liability risk, poor image, constituent complaints. They are experiencing all of these things because the government is not prepared or able to provide the resources to properly deal with them.

On the other hand, we have the same government making the centrepiece of the 1998 budget 1,500 new campsites. Somehow there is a huge discrepancy between what the government is doing, on the one hand, with Ministry of Forests sites and what it is purporting to do with respect to creating 1,500 new campsites under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

We've talked about an adopt-a-marmot program in this House; perhaps what we ought to have in this House is an adopt-a-Ministry-of-Forests-campsite approach. If we've got 1,400 Ministry of Forests sites that are suffering from lack of attention, we apparently have devoted the resources in the budget to creating 1,500 new Ministry of Environment campsites. Why don't we have an adopt-a-campsite program and deal with it that way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For some time our officials have been out there talking to people about the possibility of finding other ways of having groups and local agencies take over these campsites, particularly where they're interested in having them as tourism facilities. In my view there's no secret to this. We should be trying to keep as many of these open as we can. Between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, we will try to make sense out of which ones we maintain at which levels. But there is the option of user maintenance. Through public education, that's one way. We have to be careful, where there's public safety issues, that the required level of maintenance takes place. So there's no easy solution to it, and the suggestion you made to adopt a campsite is precisely one of the options that we have under consideration. Would you like to adopt one?

G. Abbott: Perhaps. Perhaps I will adopt one.

The issue of funding. . . . I presume the immediate and pressing difficulty around the maintenance of Ministry of Forests campsites in 1998 is a response to funding of about $1 million a year from Forest Renewal B.C. not being there this year. Am I correct in assuming that that is what has precipitated the current difficulties?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, it's about a $4 million price tag, and it is a matter of it not being available from either FRBC or the Ministry of Forests. There's no secret to that.

G. Abbott: At this point we have funding of zero, as compared to $1 million last year from Forest Renewal B.C. And we have. . . . I expect it can't be funding of zero from the Ministry of Forests, because there are recreation managers and so on in the ministry who I presume are still struggling to keep things afloat here. I think I recall from the article in the Province a couple of days ago about the Ministry of Forests site near Squamish that the local manager from the ministry is trying to deal with the situation on his own. Is that the situation we have -- no money from FRBC and only sufficient resources from the Ministry of Forests to maintain the managers? And the big vacuum is in the funds to maintain and control the sites. Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Essentially you are correct. There is money for staff that the ministry has. What is missing is the contract money to maintain the sites. We're looking for ways to find alternative sources of funding, as well as other ways of continuing to operate those sites. Sometimes, listening to the opposition, you get the feeling that they'd like us to spend the money, that they don't care about balancing the budget: they want us to spend everything and not balance the budget. That would be great for you, because then you could hit us for not balancing the budget. You can't have it both ways.

We're certainly open to suggestions about how we can carry on the level of service or what services we might eliminate. By implication of the position you're taking, it may well be that you either run a deficit or cut services. So you have to come clean on that.

G. Abbott: I'd certainly like to comment on that. What we have all too frequently with this government is a disposition to get up and proclaim some bold new program but at the same time to forget about their existing obligations. I have seen this far too many times over the years. I saw it back when I was a regional district chair and director. The government would announce a new program, a great splashy thing that was going to attract newspaper headlines and favourable attention. At the same time, regrettably, they would forget about the commitments that they had made in the past.

Where we have a big difference of opinion here is that we can have it both ways with respect to campsites. The last thing I would ever want any government that I was any part of to do would be flash up a big neon sign that says, "We're creating 1,500 new campsites," and at the same time absolutely cast aside -- ignore, forget -- 1,400 existing campsites which are suffering for lack of resources. And you can have it both ways. All you have to do is be fundamentally honest about these things and say: "Look, we're not going to create new campsites in British Columbia when we can't maintain the ones we've already got."

That's just fundamental common sense. It's not a case of deficit. We're talking relatively small numbers here. But we are talking about a government that is abandoning an existing responsibility they have while at the same time and on the other hand, creating a whole new set of responsibilities. For all we know, in another year or two or five, there won't be resources to deal with them either. Don't announce something new until you can take care of the stuff you're already supposed to be taking care of. That's our view, and I'd like to hear the minister's response to that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I understand your position and it's a legitimate point to make. But if you were listening carefully, I did say earlier that there's a difference between a Ministry of Lands and Parks campsite -- a higher level of service than what's offered. . . . The Ministry of Forests recreation sites have a much lower level of service. You almost don't need a

[ Page 8462 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talks about the campsites that are run by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks as campsites which have a higher level of service. And he talks about the Forest Service sites as being a more basic plan. Can you tell me which one of those is more expensive to maintain?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have a detailed level of information on that question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would think it would be pretty commonsense that if you've got a Ministry of Lands and Parks campsite which has a higher level of service, as the minister put it, it would be more expensive to construct, operate and maintain than would a Forest Service site. That's pretty common sense, and I think the minister agrees with me.

I was listening to the debate, and the minister was saying to the member for Shuswap, the opposition Forests critic, that the reason they had to close down these 1,400 Forest Service sites is because of the cost restrictions. Can the minister tell me how the government intends to save money by closing 1,400 low-service campsites and opening 1,500 new higher-service campsites?

[11:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I sat here and listened to the minister. He said that the reason these Forest Service sites were being abandoned -- or whatever term he wishes to use -- was because of budget cuts. He didn't have the money in his ministry to fund them, and they stopped doing it not this year but two years ago. FRBC picked up the cost of it last year, and they're not willing to pick up that cost this year, and therefore it's not going to be done.

So which is it? Are you going to be picking up the cost, or are you not going to be picking up the cost?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If you were truly listening -- you tried to put words in my mouth -- I said that we were examining a range of levels of servicing to these campsites. We may, in fact, be forced to close some of them. That may be an option. We don't have the level of funding that we've had in the past to service them. We still have employees of the Ministry of Forests; there are still E-teams out there; there are still volunteer organizations. We're trying to find alternative ways of maximizing the amount of service available at the rec sites.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't need to put words in the minister's mouth; the ones that come out of his mouth do just fine. The minister just stood up and said that they're going to be reducing the level of service and that they're going to have to decide if they can maintain them or how they're going to maintain them. Because of funding cuts, he doesn't have the money to do the job.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't say close.

G. Farrell-Collins: Close or reduce the level of service. The point is that the minister is standing up in the House and telling us, from answer to answer, that he's intending to save money by doing whatever it is he intends to do with the sites, whether it's close, downgrade, reduce, adjust or redistribute -- whatever word he chooses to use today. The fact of the matter is that he's not going to be providing the same level of service at those 1,400 campsites. The reality is that at the same time the government is going out there and announcing as a centrepiece for the throne speech in this legislative session that they're going to open up 1,500 new campsites.

So my question to the minister is: why is it that when the minister is standing up in this House telling us that he doesn't have the funds to maintain the most basic of sites that the government currently has, his government is going out and announcing 1,500 new campsites? Where is the logic in that? If the minister says the rationale is so that they have more money to put into education and health care, it seems to me that the net result of those changes is a greater cost to the taxpayers and less money going into education and health care.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think we've canvassed this issue. . . .

The Chair: Just as a point of order, I'd like to make sure that the members and the minister understand that they're to be recognized by the Chair before proceeding. That's standard protocol for Hansard. Minister, will you continue, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I've answered the question. It has to do with the level of service. The campsite announcement was about Parks campsites -- different users, different locations and a different type of program. We're trying to find cost-effective ways of keeping as many of the rec sites open as we can. They're recreation sites, not necessarily campsites. They're not all campsites. I think that if the member did a little bit of homework, he would come to understand that. They're not all campsites, and they're different than the Parks campsites. Common sense would tell you that.

So I think we have canvassed it. I have said what I have to say. It's very clear that we're looking for ways to keep a level of service at some of the rec sites. I don't think there's any point in carrying on the debate. It's getting tedious.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's getting tedious because the minister doesn't seem to understand the logic of what he's trying to say. I've been to both those types of sites; I've been to a number of the sites around the province. The reality is that the minister is telling us that he's trying to save money by reducing the level of service in the Forest Service sites. He's going to save money, and that's the goal: so they can put more money into health care and education. I know they're not exactly the same sites; anybody can understand that. But at the same time, the government, as the centrepiece for their throne speech, is announcing 1,500 new campsites out there. So is the goal here to save money? Or is the goal here to get a flashy announcement -- to try to find something, to scrape the

[ Page 8463 ]

The jobs program for young people in British Columbia: build a campsite -- work relief camps in British Columbia once again. Not since the thirties. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite talks about Bill Vander Zalm. He said: "Pick up a shovel." This minister says: "Go build a campsite." That's the Premier's youth jobs strategy: "Pick up a shovel and go build a campsite." I guess there's a lot more similarity between Mr. Vander Zalm and the current Premier than the member from Mission cares to admit to.

The minister stands up here and says that the government is going to create 1,500 new campsites -- a higher level of service, more cost, more money -- then justifies reducing the level and/or possibly closing the 1,400 Forest Service sites that currently exist and says that it's saving money -- that the net result is that they're going to save money and be able to put more money into health care and education

Which is it? Are you saving money? Or was the government looking for something to scrape together to make an announcement for the throne speech, something to offer the people of British Columbia, and all you could find was 1,500 new campsites? That was the work project for young people in British Columbia; that was it. Which was it: save money or create an announcement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not what the member says -- that is, about closing 1,400 campsites. We're not closing 1,400 campsites.

G. Abbott: In the briefing note from the chief forester to the minister, he talks about: "Over the last two years, the Forest Service has implemented new approaches and taken advantage of Forest Renewal B.C. funds to largely eliminate public criticism and complaints." We have certainly talked about the funds coming in from Forest Renewal B.C. What's not as clear is how the Forest Service has implemented new approaches. I'd like the minister to tell me what those new approaches are that the ministry has undertaken or implemented in respect to rowdyism and vandalism, particularly at recreation sites, and whether. . . . Let me leave it at that for now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some of the alternative approaches are to put site hosts in place, somebody on the site who can help control things. We would put down more gravel to soften the impact of rowdyism, for example, and intensive use -- in some cases, gating and also joint patrols with the RCMP.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise, of those different approaches that have been adopted over the past two years, which ones have proven to be effective in terms of reducing rowdyism and vandalism? Clearly the problems are still there. Have these new approaches been implemented to the satisfaction of the ministry? And to what extent have they proven to be effective?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Most of the efforts have been somewhat successful, but they don't solve the whole problem. If you put in a site host, and people don't like to be on that site, they can move somewhere else on Crown land. This is not a Ministry of Forests management problem; it's a question of what people in the culture are doing. It's a general social problem, as opposed to something that the ministry can be expected to control. We do have to concern ourselves with the safety of people when they're on a site, because of the implied liability and so on. If we can't control it, we may be forced to close some of these sites.

G. Abbott: The minister at one point in our discussion made reference to this: if you don't want to use a Ministry of Forests campsite, you can pitch your tent anywhere on Crown land. Now, was this actually a suggestion? I mean, is this something that the Ministry of Forests would condone or approve of -- the pitching of tents anywhere on Crown land? Or was that an offhand comment that has been pulled out of context here? Perhaps the minister can advise what the ministry's view is with respect to this sort of ad hoc use of Crown land for recreational purposes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The comment was made to say that that's what people do, have done and will always continue to do. The whole point of having recreation sites is to try to give people a level of service so that they don't have an impact on the bush away from these sites; that's the whole idea. But as you know, people do recreate all through the forest.

G. Abbott: The minister's right: they do. But if they are provided with alternatives, they will tend to congregate there. Again, I think -- as has been discussed here at some length -- what we need to do is realistically look at the value of Ministry of Forests sites in terms of providing that alternative to ad hoc or indiscriminate camping here and there on Crown lands around the province. I think there is a value to those sites, particularly from that perspective but obviously from general recreational perspectives as well.

Again, it's important if we're going to have those sites that the government and the ministry provide the resources necessary to do a proper job of it. The off-loading of this responsibility onto FRBC. . . . We'll have an argument around this point, I think, when we get to discussing incrementality under Forest Renewal B.C. But that was a way of setting the problem aside, really, for two years. This year we are dealing with the problem firsthand, because Forest Renewal is not the alternative funding mechanism that it has been in the previous two years.

I think that as the government examines its alternatives, they really should take a serious look at what we've been saying here. Don't create 1,500 new campsites and brag about it a whole lot and expect, when the rubber hits the road and the reality of 1,400 essentially unmaintained and abandoned campsites is there, that we aren't going to note it. I think the government should be taking a good, hard look at that and applying resources where they're needed.

I think that concludes my questions, unless other members have questions on the recreation sites. Unless the minister has some additional comments he'd like to make with respect to recreation sites, I'll move on.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, I think this is a good place to end this section. We have been taking a good look at it and have been working on finding alternatives -- and have been doing so for some time. We intend to find some resolution. There may be some hard choices ahead of us. So we are taking a good hard look at it.

[ Page 8464 ]

[11:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that each year -- that is, on an annual basis -- we advertise contracting opportunities and then sign annual contracts. So the only place where there might be contracts now are where E-teams might be involved in doing maintenance, but we haven't issued any contracts yet.

G. Abbott: Given that we're into June and obviously people are using those sites, how, for example, would garbage in garbage barrels be dealt with? How is the emptying of outhouses, and so on, being dealt with? How are those very basic and obvious physical concerns being dealt with? Where are the resources? Is the ministry finding resources from week to week to deal with them on a kind of ad hoc basis? How is it being done?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. There are a number of sources. We have protection crews out there that do other work when there are no fires. Some of it has been maintaining campsites. We have volunteers, we have our own recreation staff, and we've been using E-teams. So those are four sets of resources that we've been using.

G. Abbott: Does the minister anticipate that those four groups will be able to maintain the campsites through the very hectic summer months? Or is the ministry very quickly moving to find a resolution to this funding issue and looking at adding contractors to the mix? Unless the sites are closed, there will be very heavy use of Ministry of Forests campsites in June, July and August. Garbage cans will be filling up on a regular basis, and outhouses will be in an overflow situation unless they're dealt with. Does the minister anticipate that those four groups are going to be able to take care of it? Or is his ministry moving very quickly, hopefully, to find a resolution and the necessary resources to deal with some of these issues on a contractual basis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can't hold out the hope that there will be more resources devoted to it. We intend to use those sources, and where we can't use those sources, we may be forced to change the level of service. In fact, there may be some sites that are closed. We're looking at all the options, and we are going to move quickly to implement a plan that will maintain, protect or find alternatives to the current maintenance program for those sites.

G. Abbott: The contractors that normally maintain these sites presumably have not been engaged. Is there any indication of the number of contract jobs that are usually associated with Ministry of Forests campsite maintenance? What is the number of jobs involved there? What is the number of contractors involved there? What is the value of those contracts from year to year? Could the minister advise what they are?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have that information. I'll have to get it; we don't have it with us.

G. Abbott: Just to note that one of the concerns associated with the failure to execute contracts in 1998, as a consequence of the drying-up of resources, is that a lot of the students that normally hold these kinds of jobs, as employees of the contractors, are obviously not working on it. I know many of my colleagues have heard from young people who normally would be doing this kind of work but who, because of the situation that exists, have not been able to do it.

What is the time frame that the minister anticipates will be necessary for the ministry to form some conclusions about how to deal with the 1,400 sites in 1998? Is this something we're talking about in the next two weeks, or is it a rather longer-term proposition to form some final conclusion about the sites?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will be dealt with before the long weekend, which will be the next big rush on the use of campsites.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now to the issue of Tweedsmuir Park and the beetle infestation there. I'll give the minister a moment to. . . . I guess he has all the staff that's necessary to deal with that issue.

I want to begin by noting that the issue of beetle infestation in Tweedsmuir Park is obviously a very important one to the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako and communities in that area, like Burns Lake and so on. Over the past year I have been in receipt of a lot of correspondence related to this issue. People are very concerned about how the government should respond to the very serious beetle infestation that exists in Tweedsmuir Park and, of course, are wanting to offer some advice on how to deal with that.

Perhaps I'll begin by inviting the minister to outline, for the House, the nature of the problem that exists in Tweedsmuir Park, the extent of it and the most recent views of the ministry with respect to how to deal with that very serious problem.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to the management of the park itself, that should be addressed in the Ministry of Environment estimates. We have to work with the Ministry of Environment, and our concern is that if the parks are part of a source of infestation outside, we have to have cooperative management inside and outside. Our approach, as Ministry of Forests, is to get involved in a series of logging, prescribed burning and other methods of beetle control, outside the park. We're working on the zone outside of the park to ensure that the infestation doesn't spread and add further damage to what we have.

Just so the member knows that forest health is an issue, you can never get all the bugs; you can never get ahead of epidemics. Some of the warming trends do create additional problems for us, but we try to incorporate into the logging plans of existing licensees in the small business program -- where we can do that. A lot of the logging is not economical. There is a policy, as you know, of no logging in parks, so alternatives are being used there.

G. Abbott: I should put on the record, in a condensed form, some of the concerns that have been expressed to me around this issue. The village of Burns Lake, for example. . . . I'll quote just a small portion of a letter from Paul Jean, the mayor: "It is the feeling of council and a majority of local residents that the province's policy of burning trees containing mountain pine beetle larvae is both harmful to the environ-

[ Page 8465 ]

The regional district of Bulkley-Nechako takes a similar view:

"When looking at ways to control the pine beetle infestation, two alternatives have been presented: burning or harvesting. The burning option has, over the past three years, shown itself to be ineffective and, as a result, the infestation has expanded during that short time frame from under 1,000 hectares to about 15,000 hectares.

"If the infestation is allowed to spread -- and the mountain pine beetle is capable of flying many kilometres -- then most of the timber supply area east and south of the north part of Tweedsmuir in the Lakes forest district is at risk to serious infestation. . . . If the Lakes district's provincial forest becomes infested -- and 80 percent of it is mountain pine -- then the Ministry of Forests will be obliged to harvest that timber at an accelerated rate."

"The board does not suggest that 100 percent of the infested area needs to be logged. Perhaps a combination of burning and harvesting can strike an appropriate balance from an ecological perspective."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the figures on the amount of infested area right now, but I have taken this issue as a matter of urgent concern. A worst-case scenario would be if it's all pine -- it might all be, but it's not all old pine. It would be the old pine that could be threatened. But it is a case of a twofold attack: some burning and some harvesting. The ministry has been very aggressive at finding harvesting plans in the area outside the parks so that they contribute to the local economy.

But I would point out that prescribed burns by the Ministry of Forests that might happen outside the parks, which I'm prepared to talk about, are still a long way away. They may be the most cost-effective way, rather than risking the beetle spreading and having an even bigger fire later. It's probably humanly impossible to harvest all the wood ahead of the beetles. We'd never catch up when we get epidemic attacks.

G. Abbott: I'm raising this issue not because I think the government is necessarily culpable or anything like that. . . . I think we have a very difficult natural problem that everybody, particularly the folks who live in that area and depend on those forests, is trying to come to grips with. I expect that this won't be the last time we have to deal with an issue like this.

Perhaps we need to have a serious discussion about what methods can and should be used when we run across serious beetle or insect infestations in provincial parks. I think the issue is in all probability going to become an even bigger issue. As larger portions of the province are set aside for parks and protected areas, the possibility of insect infestations will become more pressing and real in parks and protected areas across the province. I think we need to discuss this matter in an open, honest and objective fashion.

[11:30]

The concern I have is twofold. One is raised by Burns Lake, and I've already noted that people in Burns Lake are very concerned about the health risks that might be associated with a massive burn. Second is the issue of whether, in all eventualities, burning is the best way to deal with the problem. Now, burning may well be part of the solution, but what I'm asking is: should we, inside park boundaries, be trying to look at a more full-menu response, which hopefully would be a more effective and perhaps even a more environmentally acceptable response than having just one menu item for treatment -- which is burning?

One of the suggestions about this, which was made to me when I was up in that area a few months ago, was that if the government is really, really stuck on the notion of no logging within parks, perhaps what we need to do when we encounter a problem of the magnitude of the mountain pine beetle in Tweedsmuir Park is do some rejigging of the park boundaries so that we can realistically come to grips with the problem. . .and come to grips with it in an environmentally acceptable manner.

I've raised a number of issues here, and I would like the minister to respond to them: (a) the business about the health risk; (b) the full menu versus single-item menu of treatment; and (c) the possibility of, in these kinds of situations, adopting a fuller menu or perhaps looking at a rejigging of boundaries so that we can quickly come to grips with problems that could be a considerable threat to our forest resource.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm prepared to talk about what happens outside the forest boundaries, but I ask the member to raise the issues of management within the parks with the Minister of Parks. Outside the boundaries we have a strategy that deals with closely monitoring the trends and the problem. Incidentally, we think it is a problem on 15,000 hectares outside the park. We would do more access construction, more baiting, more fall and burn on an isolated basis, where it's not economical to harvest, and steer conventional harvesting into some of those areas.

With respect to the smoke issue, we look at the venting index before any burn takes place, to avoid the problems that are suggested. I have said that it is a long way away and that not dealing with some burning now could yield a problem of a natural fire or some other larger fire later on. The issue is being given lots of consideration. All winter was spent readjusting plans to come to grips with it, so I think we have a strategy. The issues that you raise are issues for which there are no easy solutions, except to burn when appropriate and when there is a minimum risk to health. It's not like it's on the doorstep of Burns Lake. All of that is taken into account when making a decision to take a certain method of attacking the problem.

[ Page 8466 ]

Again, I don't want to underestimate the difficulties that face the ministry in dealing with this; I'm saying that we need to be realistic in the way we deal with it. I think that outside of the park boundaries, we are being realistic about it; inside, I'm not so sure. Again, the minister says, "Take it up with the Minister of Environment," and we'll do that. I appreciate that. In fact, it is in her purview -- the issue of burning and other methods of control within parks. I do hope that if this matter is something which seizes the interest of cabinet at some point, the minister can take to cabinet some of the concerns that have been raised here around how we should respond.

On a broader note, this issue is not confined to Tweedsmuir Park, of course. There are bug and beetle infestations that occur all over the province. We deal with them in different ways, though I know that the one consistent policy has been to never do anything other than burn within provincial parks.

On protected areas -- any areas that have a protected designation by the province but that are not within the boundaries of provincial parks -- is the full menu to deal with bug and beetle infestations available there? Or are we confined, on those protected areas, to burning alone? From a public policy perspective, I'd be interested in what the view of the minister and the ministry is with respect to that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the easy answer is -- and I would like to move on. . . . The issue is around commercial activities in parks, so commercial logging is not the issue. There is a full menu of baiting trees and so on -- a whole range of issues that can be considered in parks. If it's a forest management issue, I want to assure the member that the Ministry of Forests is quite willing, and has been working very closely with Parks, to make sure that the full menu is considered within the confines of Parks legislation.

There are some Parks protected areas that are not class A parks. You have to then look at what is in the higher-level plan, what is the designation and what are the permitted activities -- and therefore the menu -- of management strategies that can be made available. It varies with the nature of the protected area.

G. Abbott: I initially thought that the minister had misunderstood my question, but I think, in fact, that he did answer that outside of the defined boundaries of what we term provincial parks -- in those areas that have been set aside on an interim or permanent basis as protected areas -- it is in fact possible to use the full menu, that in those protected areas that are not designated as parks, it is not exclusively the domain of the Ministry of Environment to determine the appropriate response. Rather, the appropriate response is presumably determined by consultation between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and there may in fact be a range of methods used in those non-park protected areas, and depending on the situation, they may be full menu or they may be a narrow menu. Is that a fair summary of what the minister said?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that's a fair summary. I would make two points. One is that if there's a special area and that is why it's protected, then we'd have to go through some consultation with the public around the level of activity and the master plan that would be in place or an adaptive plan that would deal with the situation.

But I want to assure the member that with respect to this issue that we've been canvassing, I've taken the position that -- especially not so much now, when there isn't a shortage of available fibre to harvest, but. . . . We should be conserving harvests or directing harvests so we maximize the economic use of what might otherwise be burned. There has to be a good reason not to use the fibre, so where it is possible to use the fibre for some job creation, then it's been my position that we be very aggressive about maximizing that opportunity.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear the minister say that, because, again, I'd like us to be doing the right things in public policy for the right reasons. Beetle-damaged wood has value, both an economic value and as a job creator as well. If we can maximize those values and avoid unnecessary burns, than that's an environmental value as well.

This is just for the minister to bring me up to date on the situation in Tweedsmuir Park. I understand that for the first years, when the infestation was around 1,000 hectares or whatever, when it was discovered, the Ministry of Environment attempted to come to grips with the problem. And I don't know if it was in consultation with the Ministry of Forests or not. The problem initially was that the burns did not take off because of relatively wet weather in the area for the first three or four years. Is that the case? If that is the case, what is expected for 1998? Does the province expect to be conducting a significant burn in Tweedsmuir Park in 1998? Has that program underway now? What's the progress, and what's the prognosis on this problem for the coming year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Forests has been giving advice to the Ministry of Lands and Parks with respect to doing burns that are more effective this year. The problem we've had is that when the infestation was discovered, we tried, first of all, using pheromone baits and spot burns to reduce the number of beetles. But burns in the year of '96 were cancelled due to wet weather condition. So it was basically the weather that stopped us from using burns as an effective method. That gave rise, then, to a lot of concern in the communities about looking at alternatives. All the alternatives were looked at, including helicopter logging.

In 1997 there was a successful burn on 260 hectares, so. . . . In the fall there were some successful burns. We're trying to introduce burning this year on a more timely basis. There is a revised prescribed burning strategy for this year, on which we've been advising the Ministry of Parks.

W. Hartley: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Today visiting from two schools in Burlington, Washington -- the Bayview and Burlington schools -- are some 50 grade 6 students. They're here with teachers from their respective schools, Mr. Adeline and Ms. Aarstad. They're here for comparative government and local history. Would members please welcome them.

G. Abbott: It sounds like the prognosis is perhaps a little bit more optimistic for getting a handle on the problems in

[ Page 8467 ]

Are there problems of this sort emerging elsewhere in the province, within the boundaries of provincial parks? Is this going to be something we should be discussing as a public policy issue? Or is Tweedsmuir Park the one and only example we have of an emerging insect-control problem in British Columbia today?

[11:45]

G. Abbott: I presume that those high survival rates would give us great concern in the province. I would think, particularly given those high survival rates, that if the survival rates are occurring in parks just as they are in tree farm licences and forest licences and all the rest -- they are occurring across the province -- it does give us pause to wonder how we should be dealing with this down the line. If infestations of mountain pine beetle or any other beetle have historically been cyclical -- forests die, forests burn up and the volume of mountain pine beetles is reduced. . . . If we're going to take the view that in our provincial parks only burning is an appropriate way to deal with them, are we setting ourselves up in every provincial park across the province to create little storehouses of insect infestations -- if we're going to rely only on burning?

I guess the argument is that burning is a natural thing because that has occurred in the past, and that's fair enough. But we don't have the environment we had in the past of great expanses of forest that are untended and burn up over time. We've changed the nature of the environment, yet we are trying within the confines of provincial parks to retain an approach to insect infestation which is supposedly historical but which may be ineffective in the longer term, if we continue to see things like high cyclical survival rates among mountain pine beetles. I hope I'm making some sense in what I'm saying here. I'm saying that we are limiting ourselves in our response to insect problems within provincial parks, and that may be unrealistic, given the way in which we have inevitably manipulated the rest of the environment in the province. Is this something we should be concerned about? I'd like the minister to take a moment to consult with his staff and confirm whether that's in fact the case.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is indeed a cause of concern as we manipulate forest management strategies; there's no question. In some cases, we have an accumulation of old-growth pine -- perhaps more in some cases than existed historically. So it is a concern, and we then have to manage within the boundaries of parks and the transition zones outside the boundaries in a way that is mindful of the fact that if the park became a source of infestation outside, we'd have to control that. So management within the parks and outside the parks has to be aware of these overall dynamics.

I know there is concern amongst the profession that we haven't allowed enough burning to take place; we've put out too many fires. Well, we've put them out to maintain a commercial harvest. If at any time it is indicated that we have not been able to manage, then we'll have to adjust our management strategy. But I don't think we can suggest that beyond being a concern, it's a problem we haven't addressed right now.

At any given time people will justify elevated harvest rates based on beetle-kill wood that's there, but that causes the whole problem of building capacity. In some respects, that's what happened in Prince George: the capacity in our processing industries was built up based on beetle-kill wood. That happened in the Cariboo as well. We have an elevated cut based on the fact that there is wood out there to be harvested.

So there are adjustments that can be made. This drive to utilize every bit of salvaged wood can create overcapacity that can't be sustained with current -- or even any reasonable -- investment strategy in the land base. So this is something the chief forester has to balance: what is an acceptable level of loss balanced with the benefits of dealing with it.

To say that there is concern. . . . Yes, there's always concern. We are mindful of this issue. We have people dedicated to forest health within the forest practices branch and the research branch, who are looking at this very problem and monitoring it. But it's a debate that's gone on since I've looked at it, and that's well over ten years. I would say that with the exception of periodic outbreaks in one area or another, it does come under control at some point, to the point where we're comfortable that we're doing what we can do.

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

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, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

L. Reid: I believe we left yesterday's debate in terms of consideration of the choice of commissioner for the Barrett commission. Certainly I want to put on the record the opinion

[ Page 8468 ]

In that this is his opinion, and in that this is a decision from 1995, it certainly indicates that this government was more than aware that they were crossing the line between what is required of an independent commissioner and what is fraught with difficulty in their choice of appointment. It's my understanding that that court ruling stands today. It makes good sense, and they do believe that commissioners of inquiry should be non-partisan in order to do their jobs effectively. As members of the opposition, we do believe that this appointment is in violation of the Supreme Court recommendation. So again, I'm putting it on the record that the concerns are valid, and certainly we wish the minister to comment.

Hon. J. Kwan: The court ruling that the member opposite cited in fact referenced not so much the commissioner as a person but rather the work of the commissioner, in that the work of the commissioner must be independent and non-partisan in nature. In fact, I have a full copy of the court ruling and the decision, and the decision is very clear in stipulating that it is in reference to the work of the commissioner. I would agree that the work of the commissioner should not be partisan in nature and that the merits of the work of the commissioner should be such that they are not influenced by political partisanship.

As I said, I have a full copy of the court decision. If the member would like to see that, I would be happy to make it available.

L. Reid: The minister should be aware that indeed the report is very clear when it says "free from partisan loyalty." It's incredibly clear in that sense. It is not a discussion that lends itself to being massaged by this minister today. It reads: ". . .commissions of inquiry are, ideally, free from partisan loyalties and better able than Parliament or the legislatures to take a long-term view of the problem presented." In that that's the statement, to appoint any past parliamentarian is fraught with difficulty. I believe that the minister is aware of that, and her attempt to diminish that is, frankly, not falling on fertile ground. The decision is absolutely clear.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm not diminishing the court ruling in any way, shape or form. The court ruling references the work of the commissioner. It clearly states that. If the hon. member needs a copy of the ruling to look at it, as opposed to the release she's reading. . . . Then she would actually know that the reference in the court ruling is to the work conducted by the commissioner and that -- and I would agree -- the work conducted by the commissioner must be non-partisan in nature.

L. Reid: The minister must realize that if the commissioner is partisan, the work that flows from that commissioner will be partisan. This is not an opportunity to split hairs. The case has been made very adequately, I think. Certainly I do not accept the comment of the minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: I disagree with the member's point of view that the work of an individual, just because they may have political affiliations, would be partisan in nature. If that argument were true, then I would suggest that many of the Supreme Court judges or other appointments. . . . That may well mean that the Lieutenant-Governor -- who happened to be a member and who had partisan relationships in his past -- would, in his capacity now as Lieutenant-Governor, carry out his duties in a partisan manner. I don't believe that, and I don't agree with that. And I don't agree, nor do I believe, that the work of the commissioner for the leaky-condo inquiry would result in partisan recommendations. I'm looking forward to receiving the recommendations on June 19 and moving forward on the leaky-condo issues.

R. Coleman: I'd like to canvass the leaky-condo issue in a bit more detail now, with regards to different responsibilities and what have you. I realize that there's a commission of inquiry, but the commission of inquiry is not in this House, and I think that we should be dealing with this issue under these estimates. It should be stated that, politics aside, there are a lot of people suffering out there: they're losing their assets and their equity has disappeared. As a result of that, they themselves are losing what were basically their dreams, relative to the fact that they now do not own an asset that they can either maintain or keep. Some people are losing their homes as a result of this particular issue.

In addition to that, there's been a tremendous amount of rhetoric around this particular issue. I want to canvass the responsibilities back to the rhetoric, because I think it's important that this House recognize exactly where the responsibilities lie. At the same time, I want to ask the minister. . .and to ensure that she is also aware of where those responsibilities lie.

[10:15]

Obviously, part of that is the marketplace itself. We have a housing industry that is basically in crisis. If you look at the sales and the drop-off of 41 percent of construction starts in the Fraser Valley from May to June, that has a direct impact on all of us. We have to understand that for every 100 homes built, that's 280 jobs. If we have a loss of 10,000 construction starts in 1998, that means we'll lose 28,000 jobs. That's a huge economic indicator that is affected by Municipal Affairs and by the policies that are passed on by municipalities relative to housing. That economic indicator tells us that the economy is in much worse shape than even we probably realized as of yesterday, before we got those stats.

Let's go to the nub of this particular matter. First of all, I'd like to ask the minister if she agrees that the National Building Code of Canada, which was accepted by British Columbia, did not take into consideration the coastal climate of British Columbia in its design. I would ask at what point in time the ministry themselves recognized that it did not take into account the coastal climate and what they've done about it.

Hon. J. Kwan: I would not agree with the member opposite that we have not taken into account the coastal

[ Page 8469 ]

R. Coleman: The minister didn't answer my question. My question was: the National Building Code is in place; it didn't adequately take into consideration the coastal climate of British Columbia. . . . A study done by CMHC, dated November 22, 1996, identified the fact that we are operating under a National Building Code and have not adapted it to a coastal climate. I'm wondering if the province has amended the National Building Code for British Columbia in any way whatsoever to take the coastal climate of British Columbia into account in its requirements.

Hon. J. Kwan: In British Columbia we operate under the B.C. Building Code and not the National Building Code. Many provinces take the National Building Code as a guide for their individual provinces. We have done that, but we are actually operating under the B.C. Building Code.

Many of the studies that have been done point to many reasons as to why a condo may or may not leak. The Building Code has not been proven or identified to be a primary reason why condos leak. The CMHC study that the member cites makes about 17 points, I believe, as to why a condo may leak, and the issue with respect to the Building Code has not yet been proven to be the primary cause of leaky condos. Having said that, though, the Barrett inquiry has been given the mandate to go out to deal with the matter, and I look forward to receiving the commissioner's report. If the Building Code is identified as a primary factor as it relates to leaky-condo problems, our ministry would be taking his recommendations into consideration.

R. Coleman: Let's go to the B.C. Building Code, then, for a second. But first of all, let me tell you something: if you design a building, and you give it to a professional designer and you give them a code, the code is what they design to. So it is part of the root of the problem, and you can't hide behind any other fact than the fact that the code is a standard by which you design and construct a building. That is part of the root of the problem. By the time we're finished this, we will probably have discussed it to the point where we know that there's a whole number of roots of the problem.

I'd like to know, then: does the B.C. Building Code have a specific section or a specific area that deals with designing buildings in a wet coastal climate and with the use of materials in such a climate?

Hon. J. Kwan: The B.C. Building Code has one section that deals with exterior wall cladding, if you will. It states very clearly in that section that the exterior wall cladding must not allow for leaks or allow water to penetrate; in the event where water does penetrate, there must be a mechanism by which the water has the opportunity to dry.

R. Coleman: All kinds of codes give you ideas of cladding and tell you that things shouldn't leak. But my specific question is: do you have specifications in the B.C. Building Code that specifically deal with the specifications required to deal with different types of material in a coastal climate -- i.e., acrylic stucco, or the use of vinyl siding and how it should be clad to a building, and what type of overhangs there should be relative to leaks? Is it specifically in specifications in the B.C. Building Code?

Hon. J. Kwan: The B.C. Building Code essentially is divided into two sections in relation to this issue. As I think the member would know, because I believe he's a developer in his other life, it's very prescriptive with smaller buildings. It outlines a number of requirements, etc. But with larger buildings it's very much a performance-based issue, in that it stipulates the requirements for health and safety standards. It does not prescribe in this nature, much as it would for the small building. Its structure in that nature is very similar to the National Building Code.

I want to point out to you, as well, as it relates to design issues such as overhangs and materials being used, that it's very much in many instances a design issue. I know that in the city of Vancouver, as an example, they would go so far as to regulate the colour of a person's roof. The Building Code, in this nature, does not prescribe design issues but rather prescribes the performance issue in relation to larger buildings.

R. Coleman: I never would have been defined as a developer, because a developer was the one who had the capital and made the profit.

The question still hasn't been answered, as far as I'm concerned, because my question was: do you have a specific section that deals with the designing of buildings in a coastal climate? You talked about health and safety issues on the bigger buildings. Now define for me what you call "a smaller building." We will, as we go through this, get into the discussion as to the role of municipalities and their design panels on this -- and specifically the council that this particular member used to sit on -- relative to how some of their decisions relative to their building envelopes actually affected construction and design in the city of Vancouver. Before I move onto that, though, I want to get down to the question: do we have a specific section in the B.C. Building Code that outlines the designs for buildings -- the specifications -- to be built in a coastal, wet climate and what type of materials should be used?

[10:30]

"The Building Code is divided into nine parts. For the purposes of this paper, we will only deal with three of them -- parts 3, 5 and 9. For the purposes of application, the Building Code categorizes two types of buildings: part 9 -- small buildings and houses of three storeys or less with less than 600 square metres of a footprint, and multiple small buildings which can be joined together to form a large building, provided that they are separated from each other by firewalls; and part 3 -- all buildings larger than those covered by part 9.

"Once buildings have been categorized, the Building Code then deals with building envelopes in two ways: part 9 -- building envelope requirements for small buildings and houses are contained in this largely prescriptive part of the code; or part 5 -- part 3 buildings must conform to part 5, 'Wind, Water and Vapour Protection,' which is mainly a performance standard. Most large commercial, institutional and multifamily residential buildings fall under the requirements defined in part 3

[ Page 8470 ]

of the Building Code. This part focuses on use and occupancy provisions related to building type. Building envelope requirements for these buildings are defined in part 5, 'Wind, Water and Vapour Protection.' This is the key part that covers building envelope concerns. In the 1995 edition of the National Building Code, this part has been renamed 'Environmental Separation' to clarify the fact that it deals with all aspects that must be considered between two areas with different environments, e.g., the inside and the outside of a building.

"Part 9 deals with houses and small buildings with a footprint less than 600 square metres. Houses and small buildings are presumed to be designed and built by non-professionals, so this part is largely written in a prescriptive manner. In most respects, Part 9 of the Building Code is a code within the code, as most requirements that apply to small buildings are found there, including requirements for building envelopes. This part can be applied to some large multifamily projects because separate parts of a project may be treated as individual buildings that fit within the limitations of a small building. In effect, what looks like and is a large building may be a collection of connected small buildings designed and built under Part 9."

Then it goes on to talk about "Performance and Prescriptive Code Language." The other component within the Building Code is section 4.4, which is headlined: "How Regional Sensitivities Are Addressed." Again I will read from the code:

"The west coast climate, especially in the lower mainland and parts of Vancouver Island, although a mild climate, represents one of the most technically challenging climates for construction. Prolonged cool wet periods, at times with driving rain, offset by very short dry periods, reduce the length of time available for construction assemblies to dry. The Building Code addresses the needs in various climate zones by requiring building elements to be designed for the location in which they are found. Requirements identify rainfall, snow and wind intensity data that must be considered in the design. The Building Code refers to the supplement, to the National Building Code, 1990, which contains the climatic values. It is important to recognize that B.C. contains most climate zone types found in Canada, from the mildest to the most severe. Because of the mountainous topography, there are significantly distinct microclimates found within small regions. For example, parts of the Gulf Islands and southern Vancouver Island are drier than parts of the lower mainland."

So that is the nature of the code. To summarize very quickly, with larger buildings, generally speaking, the code regulates or provides the provisions for the basis of performance. With smaller buildings, it references various guidelines. For the information of the member opposite, the Building Code generally focuses on health and safety issues. Design issues are very much not regulated by the code.

R. Coleman: You could have just as simply said "part 5," "part 3" and "part 9," and I probably could have related them back to you, relative to the code. That's not the issue here. The issue is that you have a Building Code and then you have regulations to the code. My question is very, very specific: do you have regulations or standards in the Building Code that outline how you will design in a wet climate, or do you just use the general language and leave it to the industry? That's my question. Do you have specific standards of construction and design within the Building Code relative to wet climates like the coastal climate of Vancouver?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is the same as the one that I have previously given. To reiterate and repeat for the member opposite with respect to design issues, the Building Code is one that regulates and deals with health and safety matters. With respect to design issues, it is one that. . . . The Building Code does not regulate design matters.

R. Coleman: Then perhaps the minister, who says the Building Code and regulations don't regulate building matters, can explain to me why you have regulations and directives from your ministry relative to snow loads and roof pitches. Those are regulated by provincial statutes -- by you, by provincial regulation. You recognize that in that climate zone and send out specifics relative to snow loads and roof pitches, but you don't regulate in a wet climate. Can you explain it? If you don't regulate, then why do you regulate in one jurisdiction of the province and not regulate in another?

The Chair: I'd just like to remind the member to please direct comments through the Chair.

Hon. J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Because heavy snow could crush a building, and that would be a safety issue.

R. Coleman: And dry rot can bankrupt a family. Wet buildings can rot away, and they can become a hazard relative to their design. I'd like to know why we have regulations relative to one form of construction in one jurisdiction of the province, yet we've ignored an entire climate zone in those regulations and specifics relative to our Building Codes, both nationally and provincially, in another area of the province. I'd like to know why the difference.

Hon. J. Kwan: One of the critical issues that we're dealing with is in fact the leaky-condo issue. There are many factors, as we canvassed earlier. I have appointed a commissioner to look into the leaky-condo issue to address two areas. One is with respect to the current homeowners -- and the hon. member cites that many of them are facing financial difficulties as well as emotional strain, because the homes which they own and live in have major problems with respect to water penetration. The other piece is to look for alternatives and ways in which to deal with future problems, to ensure that there is consumer protection and to prevent the problem from happening again.

So I don't want to minimize the importance of that and the importance of that work. Through the Barrett commission it may well be that he will come back with recommendations with respect to the Building Code. But I want to say very clearly that the Building Code, as it has been set out, deals primarily with safety and health issues. In the instance where the member cites the structure of a roof in relation to snow, there are health and safety concerns, from the point of view that heavy snow could crush a roof and therefore put individual lives in jeopardy. We know that; we've seen it here in Victoria, not last winter, but the winter before, when there was a major, heavy snowstorm and many folks faced problems with their homes, particularly in the farming communities. So we know the impact of snow in terms of safety issues related to the Building Code.

Getting back to larger buildings and so on, the code, by its nature, regulates safety and health issues; design issues, by and large, are left for others to regulate. As I note, some jurisdictions have taken that up in terms of regulation.

Having said that, the Barrett commission's work is due on June 19, and I anticipate that his recommendations will address a number of issues relating to the leaky-condo matter. I will take his recommendations seriously, and we will move forward in dealing with the leaky-condo problem.

R. Coleman: Five minutes ago we didn't regulate anything in the construction industry, and now we partially do. The fact of the matter is that somebody has abdicated their

[ Page 8471 ]

responsibility in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs relative to the B.C. Building Code, by having implemented themselves or pushed themselves into one area of design in one area of the province. In reality, if you look at the pitch and the snow loads on a building, if it was a flat roof, that would probably become a leaky condo in that particular jurisdiction. If you can have regulations in one area, will the minister agree. . . ? Since this was canvassed in estimates in 1996 and in 1997, and a concern within the building community relative to leaky condos was brought to the ministry's attention, the issue has been around for a lot longer than most people will admit. Will the minister agree that somebody has missed the boat by not having some regulation in place relative to the specifications on construction in a coastal climate?

[10:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: I have to say that I take exception to the member's comments. I understand that he is making the assumption that the Building Code is the only thing that caused the leaky-condo problem.

As a point of fact, hon. Chair, the ministry has been in consultation, through a committee, for about a year and a half with various experts in the field. Experts include representatives from the UBCM, the Electrical Contractors Association, the Interior Designers Institute of B.C., the regional permits and licences committee, the city of Vancouver, the Mechanical Contractors Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Plumbing Inspectors Association of B.C., the Canadian Home Builders Association, the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., the Building Designers Institute, the Urban Development Institute, the Architectural Institute of B.C., the B.C. Construction Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and the Building Officials Association of B.C. Through the committee work for the last year and a half, there's no agreement amongst this set of experts that the Building Code is the issue as it relates to the leaky-condo problem.

Having said that -- and I will say this again -- the leaky-condo issue is a great concern for me. That's why I made it my number one priority when I was appointed as Minister of Municipal Affairs. To that end, as the member knows, I've appointed a commissioner to look into these matters, and I'm keenly interested in finding out who is accountable for the problem today, how we remedy these problems and, equally important, how we provide options for the families who are now faced with these problems that have exhausted them emotionally, as well as financially.

R. Coleman: Let's get through to the minister on this and make it very clear that I didn't say at any time in this discussion that the Building Code was the root of the leaky-condo problem. I said there were a whole number of issues and that I was going to canvass them all. But I can't get off the Building Code because I can't get a specific answer.

If you've had consultations with those particular groups of people, you will know that they've told you or your ministry many times that there need to be some specific regulations or criteria for building envelopes in a wet climate. That was long before we ever appointed a commission -- which, frankly, I don't believe is doing a review of the Building Code. So the first question I would have is: has the ministry at any time had any discussions on or looked at or put together or drafted any regulations relative to building envelopes and building designs and materials in a coastal climate?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm afraid the member opposite is perhaps misinformed. We actually have the minutes for the last year and a half from these experts who have been meeting to look at the array of safety issues within buildings in British Columbia. I'd be happy to make those minutes available for his reference. Clearly they do not identify or indicate that the Building Code issue, as it relates to the leaky-condo problem, is a primary factor for the groups. They do not identify that, and the minutes are there to reflect that. I would be happy to share them with the member opposite, if he wishes to see them.

R. Coleman: I'll take those minutes, but they don't include all the reports relative to code issues by these specific organizations and what have you. That's still not my question. My question to the minister is and has been: have you either (a) written design criteria for the coastal climate or (b) not written design criteria for the coastal climate, to be included in the B.C. Building Code?

Hon. J. Kwan: Again, for the member's information, the Building Code is there to regulate health and safety issues. It is not there to regulate design issues. Having said that, though, there are problems with the leaky-condo issues, and the various folks who've been working on these matters are aware of that. To date, there has been insufficient information to indicate the Building Code as the primary cause for leaky-condo problems. The work of the various experts who sat on the committee for the last year and a half has not identified the primary cause for leaky condos as a code issue, yet they have identified a number of other areas such as training issues, the design of a particular project with or without overhangs, and issues that they've identified around numbered companies. So there are many other factors they have identified, but through the work of this consortium of experts, the issue has not been identified in relation to the Building Code as the primary cause of the leaky-condo problems.

R. Coleman: I find it humorous that the minister keeps going back to the statement that the Building Code isn't the primary cause of the problems in leaky condos. That's not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about whether at any time this particular ministry recognized that they had a problem with a particular sector of construction that allowed for buildings to leak, that allowed not enough criteria to be followed, subject to studies that were already out there relative to putting them in the Building Code. I guess the answer is no, we just have not done that.

But the question is: if the Building Code is supposed to be relative to health and safety issues, how can anybody possibly think that living in a mildewed, mouldy, rotting condominium is not a health issue? I mean, that's a health issue, and that goes right back to the responsibility of the Building Code: health and safety issues. The health and safety issue that has been identified out there cannot be recognized by a commission that isn't even doing a review of the Building Code relative to, at the end of the day, the designing buildings that no longer do this. I'm asking the question of the minister again: has the ministry at any time done anything with the Building Code, like they did with snow loads, roof pitches and other regulations they put into place, and the impact of construction and materials in a coastal climate -- into the Code or regulated it as such?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm wondering whether or not the member opposite is suggesting that the Building Code should be changed in such a way that it stipulates, controls and regulates

[ Page 8472 ]

design -- for example, with respect to the work of architects -- or that we must clearly stipulate how one must design a building in order to address an array of issues. If that's what he's suggesting, I would be very interested in knowing and getting that confirmation from him.

But again, going back to the Building Code, what does the Building Code do? The Building Code deals with safety and health issues. The Building Code, as it relates to the water penetration issue, deals with these matters with respect to larger buildings on the basis of performance-based criteria. The Building Code is clear in saying that the wind and water must be kept out of the structure and that vapour diffusion through the envelope be controlled. Part 5 is the section of the code that applies to larger buildings, and that is governed by part 3. It states explicitly that there must be vapour diffusion control to prevent condensation within the assembly, that there must be an air barrier to reduce air leakage inward or outward through the assembly and that the building must be built to control rain penetration. As I said earlier, part 9 of the code applies to smaller buildings, and it goes into greater details with respect to what air and vapour barriers are to be installed and where, etc.

I repeat, for the member opposite, that the Building Code deals with these matters as they relate to the leaky-condo issue on the basis of a performance base, and it clearly stipulates that. . . . Wind, water and vapour protection in the code is very clearly set out. Again, I will also advise the member that if the Barrett commission comes back with recommendations relating to a whole array of issues, I will take all of his recommendations into consideration, including any reference that may be there relating to the Building Code.

R. Coleman: The Barrett commission is not doing a review of the B.C. Building Code or the National Building Code. It is receiving submissions from the public. . . .

We have known in this province as early as 1995 -- in reports to this ministry that have been received by outside and internal sources -- that we had a problem with construction materials and design relative to a coastal climate. So the first question is: why haven't we done anything about it before today? If I get the Barrett commission for an answer, I'll draw the analogy right back to the workers compensation amendment act which we just debated in the House, right in the middle of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation. There are times when government has a responsibility to step up to the plate and bring these things forward. Would the minister admit that this is one of those particular cases and tell me why we still have not adjusted our Building Code to recognize the problems within the climate zone we are dealing with?

[11:00]

I want to remind her of a couple of things. There were changes to the Building Code in 1987 and 1992 and some emergency changes in 1994. They had the effect of creating a negative interior pressure and sealing of the building envelope such that any moisture trapped in the wall cavity could not dry out. These changes were implemented with little, if any, training provided to the industry and without testing to determine the potential effects in our climate. Yet we implemented them. It's like taking a pair of wet socks and sticking them in a plastic bag, then sucking the air out of it, tying a knot, sticking it in a corner and coming back in six months to see what you have. The fact of the matter is that we changed the Building Code in 1992 relative to how we did vapour barriers on buildings without any training and without any testing to look at the potential effects in a climate like ours. We have known for at least two years that it didn't work. Why haven't we changed the Building Code back or adjusted that Building Code to deal with that particular issue in our construction industry?

Hon. J. Kwan: Look, I think the member is making the assumption that the Building Code is the only factor that caused the leaky-condo problem. That may be one of his opinions he shares with some people. But the fact of the matter is that in the last year and a half the ministry has been consulting with the array of industry experts I cited earlier. Through all that work, the leaky-condo issue, as it relates to the Building Code. . . . There is no consensus or agreement that that is the primary factor relating to leaky-condo problems. Having said that, the Building Code is an issue that has been raised. I know that Commissioner Barrett is looking at all the factors, as he has been given the mandate to look at all of the factors. I await his report, when it comes out, to see what his recommendations are, and I will take all of his recommendations into consideration.

R. Coleman: In three or four answers of the last five or six, the minister has said that I am assuming that the Building Code is responsible for the leaky-condo issue. Again I reiterate that I have not made that statement. You know what happens when you assume something. I can stop there with that explanation.

The fact of the matter is that there's no doubt that changes that were made to the B.C. Building Code did affect the construction industry in the 1990s. Prior to those changes in 1989, housing units experienced approximately four to seven air changes per hour. Then we changed the code to where we got down to two air changes per hour. Obviously some units became starved for air. The air wouldn't let the water out, and it would also pull from the cracks like a vacuum, internally.

My question to the minister is -- has been for the last 55 minutes -- very simple: has the ministry addressed these issues relative to the 1989 changes in the Building Code, to the construction industry, as we have recognized them in the last two or three years? Why haven't we put forward a regulation that would identify or deal with these issues, similar to what we did with snow loads and roof pitches in other regulated areas of the province?

Obviously the answer to the fact that the Building Code doesn't address the issue is there. Obviously the health and safety issue which we want to fall back on is there. We have a health issue; we have a safety issue; and we also have a human issue. They're all being affected by leaky condominiums. Part of the factor is relative to leaky condominiums. You'll find, even from the building trades and different groups like the UDI and the Canadian Home Builders Association, that they will tell you that it is not the whole problem. What I want to know is -- the ministry knew, we've seen the reports; the commission is still meeting, or hasn't written its report; the ministry knew about the problem two to three years ago: why have we not adjusted the B.C. Building Code in the last two or three years to deal with the problem? That's the question.

Hon. J. Kwan: For the last year and a half the BSAC group has been meeting and looking at the various safety issues as they relate to buildings in relation to the Building Code. It has been ongoing work that they have undertaken. To date, with all these experts at the table, there's no agreement that the Building Code is the source of the problem as it relates

[ Page 8473 ]

to the leaky-condo issue. However, they did identify a number of other areas as sources of leaky-condo problems. To that end, though, the work that this group has undertaken -- to review the Building Code and to make recommendations to me around this matter. . . . I have taken the further step of appointing Commissioner Barrett, and he has been given the mandate to look at all the issues as they relate to the leaky-condo problem, with the aim of dealing with current problems and preventing future problems. I await his report on June 19.

R. Coleman: That's all wonderful, except for the fact that this ministry has reports -- through CMHC, through the national building standards, through her own ministry -- that identified the problem a long time ago. We're not saying today that the Building Code is solely responsible for the leaky-condo issue. What we are saying, what I'm asking today, is. . . . This Building Code had an effect on the way buildings were constructed and, therefore, had an effect on how the buildings reacted to this particular climate. Two to three years ago we knew this problem existed. We have not made any changes to the Building Code or its regulations relative to the coastal climate. I would like to know why not. Why have we not dealt with it?

There is a responsibility of the ministry to deal with what is their responsibility. The construction industry has to take care of their knitting, and the other people have to take care of their knitting, relative to architects, municipalities and other levels of government. But this particular ministry didn't take care of its responsibility, and I want to know why not and when they will deal with this responsibility. You've waited three years now to deal with an issue relative to the Building Code. We've known it existed, and it hasn't been done.

There's no point in getting up and saying that somebody's assuming that this is the root cause of all leaky condos. There's no point in getting up and making statements that say we're going to deal with a commission on it. The commission of inquiry is just that; it's not an analysis of the Building Code and of construction. I want to know why the ministry hasn't done it. I have never seen the recommendations from this committee that has met for the last 18 months, but the bottom line is that even before this committee was formed, there were reports telling us that we had a problem with our Building Code in the coastal climate relative to construction in our climate. Why haven't we dealt with that in the Building Code as part of the overall responsibility for what is a very large issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: I disagree with the comments of the member opposite. The report states that there are leaky-condo problems. However, it does not go on further to say that there are leaky-condo problems as they relate to the Building Code. Again, for the member's information -- maybe he didn't hear me the first six, seven, eight, nine, ten times -- the committee of experts that I listed earlier, who have sat on the review of the Building Code for the last year and a half, have not come forward to say that the Building Code is the primary cause for the leaky-condo problem. They have, however, identified a number of other areas to be problems. Having said that, I remain open for any other information or suggestions that might come forward through the Barrett inquiry to advise that. . . . If indeed the Building Code is the primary problem for the leaky condos, we will take those recommendations into consideration.

R. Coleman: Maybe I could ask the question a bit differently. Would the minister tell me whether she believes that in no way whatsoever do the B.C. Building Code and the National Building Code have any responsibility for the leaky-condo issue in the province of British Columbia, according to her experts?

Hon. J. Kwan: I believe that the leaky-condo issue is a very complex issue. I know that it is a very critical issue. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .in that current homeowners are faced with major financial and emotional strain with this issue. I believe we need to look at how to prevent this problem from happening again. We will endeavour to work in that direction. Again, I reference the work of the panel of experts and the information that they have provided to me to date to indicate that the leaky-condo problem as it relates to the Building Code is not the primary problem here. The Building Code is very clear in saying that in any construction where there are issues of water penetration, it must be dealt with in that fashion. From that point of view, the experts have advised me that that is not the primary issue here, in relation to the Building Code.

Having said that, again, I'm open to the Barrett report and the recommendations that I know he'll bring forward with respect to this issue, and I will take all his recommendations into consideration.

G. Janssen: I've been listening with some interest to the debate that's been taking place here on the leaking condos. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Janssen: . . .and it is surprising that we're concentrating on a building code -- on building codes, as a matter of fact, from various jurisdictions. The impression that is being left here is that it's because of the code being applied that condominiums leak; yet not every condominium in Vancouver or in the lower mainland leaks. They're built under the same code, and yet some leak and some do not.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Janssen: Even with the changes, as the members opposite say, some condominiums do not leak. So is it the codes we talk about or the practices that are in fact building these condominiums?

I want to put a little personal touch in here. Like many other British Columbians, I built my own home. I'm a watchmaker and a jeweller by trade. I'm not a contractor; I'm not a carpenter. Like many other British Columbians, I bought myself a piece of land, cut down some trees, made some lumber, cut some shakes, and I built a house. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Janssen: Many of my neighbours did exactly the same thing. They don't leak. So the question becomes: why do they

[ Page 8474 ]

not leak? Why do people that are supposedly expert in designing code -- architects, contractors, engineers, carpenters, electricians, roofers. . . . Why do some of the buildings that are built leak, and why do some not leak?

[11:15]

D. Jarvis: Because they're not all the same. That's why a good watchmaker only makes. . . .

G. Janssen: No. When, in fact. . . .

The Chair: Members. . . .

G. Janssen: We talk about climate and climate zones in British Columbia. Right above Tofino, in my riding, there's Henderson Lake, which has the largest rainfall in North America, the third largest rainfall in the world -- 30 metres of rain last year, over 90 feet of rain. There was not one complaint from my constituents in Tofino about leaky buildings. So the question is: who's building these places? How are they being built, and who is regulating them? Is it the CMHC? Is it the provincial code?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

G. Janssen: Is it the self-regulating architects and engineers? Is it the trades? Is it the contractors?

D. Jarvis: That's what we're trying to find out from the minister.

G. Janssen: We continually hear the opposition calling for the cutting of red tape, less regulation. We ask them again and again. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Just a moment, member. I would ask the members that if anybody would like to take part in debate, they do so after this member has finished speaking. Member for Alberni, continue.

G. Janssen: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's amazing that we live in a democratic society and yet the opposition feels that it has the only right in committees to ask questions or to enter into debate; whereas, in fact, all members have that right in this House.

Time and time again, we have seen people's lives absolutely ruined by buying what they thought was a home, by buying what they thought was an investment; yet they find out they have something that was not properly built, that was not properly inspected, that was not properly regulated. Yet the opposition continually calls for less regulation, saying that the government is overly-bureaucratic and that we need to cut red tape. Now they're saying: why wasn't the code changed? The code in itself, in my opinion, is not particularly the problem. The problem, in my view, is: how were these built? Some were built exactly the same; yet some leak and some don't. Some people without any expertise built homes and apartments that don't leak. Somebody has made a colossal error. Somebody, in my opinion, in some cases. . . . There was a deliberate attempt to cut corners, to save money, to increase profit and to create, in fact, buildings that are. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Janssen: . . .now the ruination of many families. What the Barrett commission is attempting to do is to find out who, exactly. . . . Was it the code? Was it CMHC? Was it the lenders? Was it the contractors? Was it the people that put the roof on? Was it the workers? Was it the material used? Until we find those answers, it is actually impossible to do anything.

Again, how is it possible that some units -- some houses and homes -- are being built by totally inexperienced people and don't leak, and yet, on the other hand, we have units built by qualified people who hold certificates, by contractors who are handed building permits by city administrators, by provincial codes and federal codes and municipal codes, and leak like a sieve?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Janssen: The question is: why is that possible? We have a Barrett commission now seeking the answers; we are investigating how this is possible, how so many families and people's lives could have been ruined by this, and who, in fact, is responsible.

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member for Alberni for his comments.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: The members opposite laugh when I say that the leaky-condo issue is indeed a complex issue. Yes, it may not be very complex for the people who are faced with problems in their homes. The fact is that they've got water damage; perhaps they've got mushrooms growing in their living room. But the reality is, though, that in terms of. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .the issue of accountability, I am equally as interested as the members opposite in finding out who are the culprits of the leaky-condo syndrome. Is it in fact because of developers who want to cut corners, save dollars on materials, or because developers hire people who are not trained in the process? Is it because the inspectors haven't done their jobs adequately? Is it because of the Building Code? Is it because of a whole array of other issues? That is the question on which the Barrett commission is going to bring back some information for our consideration.

To date, though -- getting back to the issue of the Building Code and the suggestion -- it appears to me that the line of questioning of the members opposite, prior to the member for Alberni rising to speak, seemed to suggest that the Building Code issue is the issue and is responsible for the leaky-condo problems. Again, I go back. . . . Earlier the member for Richmond East said: "Why don't you have experts looking at this issue?" Well, the fact of the matter is that we have had

[ Page 8475 ]

experts looking at this issue in relation to the Building Code for about a year and a half. The list of experts is impressive; I identified them earlier, and I know many of them are supporters of the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: With the work that they have come forward with in the last year and a half, they have not identified the primary problem of the leaky-condo problem as one relating to the Building Code.

Having said that, hon. Chair. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Should the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi like to enter in the debate, I would encourage him to do so. Minister, continue.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will simply close by saying that having said that, I remain open to receive recommendations from Commissioner Barrett and to look at all of his recommendations. And if indeed the Building Code issue has been identified as being the primary cause as it relates to the leaky-condo problem, we will take his recommendations into consideration.

G. Janssen: Just a short question to the minister. . . .

The Chair: Point of order, North Vancouver-Seymour?

D. Jarvis: Yes. About ten minutes ago before the member for Alberni interjected and you allowed him to speak, he interrupted the member for Langley, who had the floor at the time and was asking a question, and there was no point of order on his interjection. Now you've done it again. So I would suggest that we follow procedures in this House.

The Chair: It is the Chair's discretion, I will remind the members. And I will remind the members in the House that there will be plenty of opportunity for all members to enter the debate, to ask questions and receive their answers.

G. Janssen: I find it just amazing and somewhat appalling that the members opposite, who believe in democracy, would limit debate to simply their side of the House.

Interjections.

The Chair: On the vote, members, on the vote.

G. Janssen: Just a very quick question to the minister. Are there regulations and certifications requiring roofers to be trained and qualified in British Columbia? I speak of this, again, rather personally. My son is involved in the roofing business. He was putting shakes on a roof, and about a year ago he came home and he wasn't working. I said: "Why are you off; why are you home?" He said: "I've been put out of work by UFOs." I said: "Well, what are UFOs?" In the building trade, that is "unemployed from Ontario."

It's a very interesting story, because the people who were roofing had never held a hammer in their life, had never put shakes on a roof before; they then. . . . The contract was changed, and of these five houses that were being roofed, four of them leaked. They had to go back afterwards to repair those leaking roofs; some roofs had to be taken off.

So the question is: is there in fact a certification, a requirement for some training for roofers to have some knowledge before they enter the trade?

Interjection.

G. Janssen: I know and I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- who is interjecting -- knows that in our own fatherland or motherland of Holland, such certification is routinely required before you enter any of those trades, to ensure that there is some qualification and some protection for the consumer. So is that the situation in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: In British Columbia, yes, there is a requirement for roofers to have a trade qualification. However, the contractors do not have that same requirement.

R. Coleman: A nice little interjection to move us off the topic isn't going to move us off the topic. The bottom line is that this discussion right now is leading us down a path where we're going to go through all the issues that the member for Alberni brought up relative to best practices, to trades, to all the rest of it relative to this industry. But we're trying to get past the first portion of the discussion, which is relative to the Building Code. Whether the ministry and the federal government wish to acknowledge it or not, the Building Code is something that people think they can reasonably rely upon. It is a document that is produced by levels of government that sets out standards of practice and certain guidelines for, as the minister said, health and safety relative to construction. From time to time it has also interjected itself into the industry, which is not a bad thing, and set down standards in other climate zones to regulate relative to snow loads and roof pitches, as I said earlier.

The question, though, that I've had for the minister has not been answered, simply because the ministry does not want to admit the fact that for the last three years they've chosen not to interject in this particular issue. They have sat on their hands and have not put something in the Building Code relative to it. By the time we're done canvassing this, it will become apparent to the member for Alberni and to the minister that there are a lot of people who are culpable in this particular issue. But you cannot deal with culpability, and thus you discuss each one of those points in isolation relative to how they affect the building and how they affect this issue. The commission of inquiry, frankly, does not have the ability nor has it had the time frame to do an analysis in the depth that would be required to deal with this issue.

Let's just stop for a second. Before I go any further, I want to ask the minister if she's familiar with the report that was completed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on November 22, 1996, which is a survey of building envelope failures in the coastal climate of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

[ Page 8476 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

R. Coleman: That goes right back, then, to the discussion that we were having earlier. If the ministry was aware of that on November 22, 1996, and it is now June of 1998, we have gone through another period of time where we have already had the experts do the analysis of the survey of building codes in our climate. They have identified to us some of the problems relative to how our building envelopes were constructed. The fact of the matter is that we had the information. I'd like to know from the minister: has at any time any recommendation ever come to the ministry to bring forward a regulation to deal with the building envelope failures in the coastal climate of British Columbia relative to this report or any other recommendation relative to the coastal climate of British Columbia? And if so, why wasn't it reacted upon relative to the Building Code?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: In relation to the issue of the Building Code and the work that has been done, various folks have been consulted by the ministry, including industry tradespeople, inspectors, architects, engineers, etc., and they have been reviewing the code, which will be updated in 1998. The member might have missed this information -- we discussed it yesterday -- that the British Columbia code is due for an update in 1998. The Building Code works on a five-year cycle, and, on an ongoing basis, various folks who sit on advisory committees review the code and bring forward their information and recommendations for my consideration. That work is due sometime this fall, and I'm anticipating their report then.

Just to clarify some issues with respect to the Building Code, I'd like to offer this information for the member opposite. Perhaps we should canvass the purpose of the Building Code a little bit. The B.C. Building Code is a set of minimum regulations for public health, fire safety and structural sufficiency. The code establishes a minimum standard of safety for the construction of all buildings, including building alterations and additions. The code is not intended to be a textbook on building design; its primary purpose is the promotion of public safety through the application of appropriate, uniform building standards.

[11:30]

"What does the Building Code not cover?" one may ask. Let me just advise the members opposite that the Building Code was developed to establish minimum technical criteria for construction. Code provisions are legal instruments that set out enforceable standards. While the code establishes standards of quality for building components -- materials, products and systems, walls and roofs -- the quality of construction practices, being open to subjective interpretation, is not readily enforceable. Poor-quality construction practices can result in a building where the basic requirements or intent of the code are not met -- i.e., building leaks. The code does not set out workmanship quality criteria or provide a "how to" construction manual. This is a distinction that has to be kept in mind, as there are often misunderstandings about the intent of the code's regulations. Quality construction depends on the establishment of and commitment to good design and construction practices.

I trust that this information may help the members opposite in distinguishing between the purposes of the code. . .what it does do and what it does not do as it relates to the issue of the leaky-condo matter.

R. Coleman: The code has interjected itself in issues of public interest and public safety over the last ten or 15 years on a basis of where it was needed. It's done that again, going back to snow loads and that sort of thing. It didn't do it in this particular case, in spite of the fact they had those reports that would tell them they needed to interject. The code for health and safety standards -- to not have buildings where you have mushrooms growing out of walls and dry rot and the safety of the building at risk -- would require some interjection on the part of the minister relative to the code. I mean, we have to remember that this is the same ministry that got rid of the building standards branch for building standards in the province.

I'd like to know, though, from the minister: at any time in the last three years, has a member of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff or people from the building standards branch who work for government made recommendations to the ministry to interject -- create or deal with changes -- relative to some of the changes that were made to the Building Code in 1989, to change air changes per hour relative to moisture content and control and to the ceilings of buildings? Have there been any recommendations from the staff to make regulation changes to the B.C. Building Code relative to this particular issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: My staff advise me that, in their collective memory, they have not received any recommendations of that nature. I will direct my staff to go back and check to see if in fact there were. But as I said, in their collective memory, they advise me that they do not recollect any recommendations of that nature.

R. Coleman: Maybe in the collective memory of the ministry staff. . . . Are they aware of the multitude of reports that dealt with the failures in building envelopes relative to the coastal climate of British Columbia? Are they aware of reports that have been done by various outside agencies relative to natural air changes in the ceilings of buildings, which I know have been forwarded to the ministry and have been in their hands since 1996? Are they aware of those, and if they are aware of those, why haven't they made recommendations to the ministry to deal with this issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, my staff are aware of the reports and have looked at them. But the reports really direct attention to areas such as consumer information, areas around the mandatory warranty in terms of consumer protection -- the registration-of-trades issue, as an example. The ministry has been actively working on these items over the last while. As well, I'm anticipating the report from the Barrett commission on June 19, and I will take his recommendations into my consideration.

R. Coleman: Isn't that quite the answer. If you read this one particular report, it in itself doesn't deal with any of the issues the minister just dealt with, but it does tell you what's wrong with the stucco, the vapour barriers and the exterior design of the buildings, and it does tell you how these build ings can be designed better. It was done on November 22, 1996, and here we are sitting today, in June of 1998, with no

[ Page 8477 ]

changes or adjustments to the Building Code to make recommendations to an industry or to tell an industry what they should be doing in a coastal climate.

What we've done is create an environment. . . . This is only a part of the puzzle; wait until we get to the rest of the puzzle, when we get down into municipalities, like the council that the minister sat on in Vancouver that changed how they calculated FSR on building envelopes. It affected designs of building and created a design that would leak because of lack of overhangs and such thing. Wait until we get down into the rest of this discussion. But we can't even get there, because all I'm asking the minister to acknowledge is that that B.C. Building Code does not address this issue, even though it was changed in 1989 and 1990 as to how we would seal a building. That has caused part of the problem; it hasn't been changed, but we did change the Building Code.

We recognized the problem as early as three years ago. It's been canvassed in estimates for three years in a row, relative to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at that particular time, and at the same time, we have not made any changes whatsoever to the code. And you're telling me that in spite of that, your officials don't have anything to deal with or are not aware of any report that tells them how they're supposed to change the Building Code to fix the problem, and therefore no recommendations to the ministry have gone forward.

My questions are: (a) do you admit now that the B.C. Building Code, when it was changed in 1989, had an effect on how the air in the sealant of buildings trapped moisture and sucked moisture into buildings; and (b) do you agree that your ministry has not responded and not made recommendations to you to change that portion of the code to get rid of that particular problem? I guess we'll just wait for the answer to those two questions first.

The Chair: Noting the time, minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will simply reply by saying that I disagree with the member opposite with respect to what I believe is his basic premise and assumption that the leaky-condo problems or building leaks are a result of the Building Code. Condos leak for a variety of reasons, and the report that the member is citing, the CHMC report, touches on a number of design issues. I agree that those issues need to be dealt with, but the question becomes: is that a code issue? I go back to citing a number of experts in the field who sat on a code review committee with the assumption that buildings leak as a result of the Building Code.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

---

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada