1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999

Volume 16, Number 10

[ Page 13909 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction of Bills

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT ACT

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

[ Page 13910 ]

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

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

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

Oral Questions

ACCURACY OF SURGERY WAIT-LIST DATA

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

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

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

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

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

C. Hansen: I take it from the minister's answers that she stands by the numbers contained in here and that in fact the problem is getting worse. Let's look specifically at hip and knee surgery, because the government recently made some announcements in this area to reduce wait times. This particular web site shows that in the last month and a half alone, there are 200 more British Columbians waiting for hip and knee surgery. It shows that the wait time in British Columbia for this type of surgery has actually increased by two weeks in a little over a month. Why do patients have to put up with more spin-doctored announcements from this government that do not do anything to result in faster access to real doctors in British Columbia?

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

[1420]

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

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

Interjections.

[ Page 13911 ]

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

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

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

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

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

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

CROWN LAND APPLICATION BACKLOG AND TOURISM BUSINESS

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

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

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

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

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

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

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

T. Nebbeling: Well, we could speak about many small companies facing the same problems. But I'd like to stick to Blackcomb Helicopters. Because of the action -- or the inaction -- of the government, Blackcomb Helicopters had to put off the hiring of five permanent staff members and ten seasonal employees. This is happening after a year, when a year ago we heard that this government, because of its red tape and delays, had caused the loss of 20,000 jobs in British Columbia and a loss of $1 billion in revenue to the tourism industry. This time, will the Minister of Environment tell us how she is going to give answers to small businesses -- how they are to create jobs when, at the same time, her ministry still cannot get its act together?

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

[ Page 13912 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

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

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

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

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

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

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

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

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

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

Interjections.

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

Tabling Documents

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

[ Page 13913 ]

Ministerial Statement

GROWTH OF B.C. FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

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

[1440]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

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

We have a few questions from a member with respect to annual allowable cut reductions. That's where we left off yesterday. From there we'll move into forest health issues. In that section I'd like to deal with some issues which are closely connected to forest health and some which are not. In that section we will do forest recreation issues, small-scale salvage issues -- if indeed some members still have questions around small-scale salvage issues -- and roads and bridges. Then we'll move on to fire protection after that. I suspect that we probably will have pretty well exhausted the day and the evening by the time we are through that. But if we haven't, then we'll go on to the issues as they're laid out in the summary I gave to the minister: stumpage, small business certification, expropriation and compensation issues, and FRBC issues. But I think we're certainly looking at tomorrow for the bulk of those.

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

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

[1445]

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

[ Page 13914 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just had a brief conversation with officials and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I don't have with me details on how the process is, but we expect that all of the licensees and forestry stakeholders are involved in some way and represented through the treaty advisory process. It's my understanding that there is always full disclosure about land selection. The general answer to your question is: if land is going to become part of treaty settlement land, then eventually it will be removed from the land base. As with the Nisga'a, once we know how much land base is removed, then it's for the chief forester to possibly make a temporary AAC determination, but certainly to quickly begin the work of looking at the final analysis of what impact there is on the cut for the remaining timber supply area.

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

Hon. G. Wilson: In this particular table, as the member talks about, it is a very open process. It's a process where every chapter has in fact been distributed publicly. On the matter of lands and forests there is ongoing discussion and negotiation with licence holders who may be affected. There has been no finalization on the land selection process, and those people who. . . . Third-party interests on the TNAC are very actively involved in the discussions. We do not anticipate there to be any conflict, and in fact we believe that there is quite likely to be equal opportunity for both first nations and non-first nations in that area when the final settlement is made.

[1450]

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

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You say that there is little information available. When information is available, it will be shared. The forest district office can't tell you anything about what might be on the table until it's on the table. There has been no land selection. Until there's a land selection, they can't look at the forestry impacts. So a theoretical question: where does the timber come from if timber from a land base is included in treaty settlement lands. . . ? A decision will be made as to the proportion of it that comes from various sources. There might be some that has to come ultimately from a TFL. But the approach being taken in the case of the Nisga'a is that we look at whether or not we can accommodate by rearranging working areas. That might be possible; it might not. But it makes sense that if you reduce the land base, you reduce the timber supply, and therefore you have to get it from somewhere. It would come, in some proportion, from probably all of the programs in the area.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'm surprised to hear that at this stage the Ministry of Forests -- or even the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which is quite far in bringing this particular treaty to conclusion -- have so little information available on what the land mass is that will be handed over to the first nation in the treaty settlement negotiations going on. So I'm really surprised to hear that somehow the Ministry of Forests is not really involved in this process and is just sitting back like everybody else, waiting for what will come out of the pipeline. It sounds as if only then will the minister decide how he's going to deal with the people that are negatively impacted, who are the people that are working in the TSA today and will be excluded from certain areas.

[1455]

[ Page 13915 ]

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

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

T. Nebbeling: Then to conclude this portion of the questions that I have related to the AAC reductions, it really worries me -- but at the same time, it may give me an answer to a question that I have always asked when we talk about the treaty negotiations -- that it is really so difficult to get answers to questions not just that we in this House have but that people in general have. After the three and a half years that this particular treaty has been negotiated, the minister is still saying: "Well, we don't know any answers. We don't know what's going on there. We'll find out once it is all done." That is a fundamental flaw in the process. You can't expect people whose livelihood depends on the forest industry and who are today working in a timber supply area to sit back year after year after year. . . . When they do talk to the representatives of the ministry and talk to the district managers and get answers like, "Well, we don't know what's on," then I really think it is time that British Columbia starts to re-evaluate how we deal with the treaty process.

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13916 ]

[1505]

T. Nebbeling: On the first point of defence that the minister makes, my first question to the minister was: can the minister tell me if the Skookumchuk band, when they finalize the treaty. . . ? If the treaty contains a land mass with timber, will that timber be within the AAC as it is today, or will it be outside the AAC? And will the allowable annual cut for the remaining lands remain as it is? That was my question, which the minister has not answered. That is the question that the community has asked the district manager, who also has not answered it and most likely can't answer it. If the minister doesn't know, how can I expect the district manager to know? This is not the district manager not knowing because he's not willing to share. It is the process that the minister has explained is taking place in negotiations that prevents the public at large from knowing exactly what the details are. That's what my question was all about, and that is still an issue. And I haven't finished. You gave me three answers. I'm going to give three answers to the minister.

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

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

An Hon. Member: You are.

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

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Do what?

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

The Chair: Through the Chair.

[1510]

There's one more point I would like to mention in regard to the AAC in the Soo TSA, and that is the fact that now that MacMillan Bloedel has negotiated a deal with Weyerhaeuser, again there are some people in the area that I'm talking about who are very concerned. As the minister is aware, within the Soo TSA there's a fair amount of land that is being operated or being held under licence by MacMillan Bloedel. There have been a number of small contract loggers who have worked with MacMillan Bloedel on these lands in the form of the harvesting, and there are actually some contract loggers who have been negotiating up to now with MacMillan Bloedel to purchase some of the licences in the Soo TSA. Now, of course, with this deal that's going on with MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser, those contract loggers are wondering if they still have the contracts that were in place with MacMillan Bloedel, now that there is a new owner.

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't want the member to ever say that I didn't answer his question, because I gave him a full answer. What I told the community that I would do, I am doing. I said that I would do the process of evaluating how much wood went through the mill. That's important. I said that I would do that, and I'm doing that. I have put the company on notice with respect to section 71, which is being considered, and the work is being done. I have until July 3. I can't make any decision. . . . I can't sit here in the House and tell you what I have to do under the Forest Act -- that is, give a statutory decision before the statutory time limit has run out. So I will make a decision on what happens. I'm giving you full information. There is no more information than that.

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

[ Page 13917 ]

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Sure.

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

In terms of the government's tracking of this particular problem, I'm curious as to whether the government prepares any sort of annual or periodic summary of the growth loss and mortality problems that are caused by major forest pests. One of the reasons I ask is that someone was kind enough to mail me a table which goes into annual mortality and growth loss from forest pests in British Columbia. It covers the period 1988-92. Does the Ministry of Forests track the relative magnitude of this problem in British Columbia? Do we have a corresponding table for more recent periods to look at the magnitude of the problem?

[1520]

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

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

[ Page 13918 ]

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

[ Page 13919 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there have been strategies in the past to direct licensees -- in fact, new licences and some new opportunities, in the case of the Chilcotin. . . . Because they feared a massive epidemic 15 years ago, licences were directed in there in the green stands that were susceptible. So yes, as the pine stands reach 80 years -- 80 to 100 is about the average, although they can go to 200 -- they're of a size and so on that attracts the pest. So we have to direct our harvesting strategies to take this before the bugs get it. But as I've said, what's happened is that without fire on the landscape as much, there's been an accumulation of this age class, which means that it is susceptible.

P. Nettleton: On behalf of the residents of Prince George-Omineca and on behalf of the mayors of not only Prince George but Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake and other communities which extend well beyond the borders of Prince George-Omineca, I know that there is a huge concern with reference to this issue of the spread of pine beetles inside Tweedsmuir Park, which now extends beyond the boundaries of the park. It extends, in fact, into the protected areas -- namely, the protected area in and around Burns Lake, threatening that forest district and extending, as well, beyond the Entiako area, the protected area which acts as a buffer between the working forest of the Vanderhoof forest district and Tweedsmuir Park.

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

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

[1540]

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

I know the minister has made reference, over the course of the discussions over the last few minutes, to the weather. He's made reference to problems with access. But again, it seems to me that given that a report was prepared in 1987 in terms of the whole question of foreseeability, this was a problem that was foreseeable. I'm certain the weather did exacerbate this problem. Perhaps the magnitude of this problem was unanticipated. But in any event, I'm looking today for some assurance that the minister -- beyond rhetoric, beyond some agreement to talk and meet with mayors and other representatives of that region -- has some sense of a plan of action in terms of how he and his ministry, he and his government, plan to address this problem which threatens these communities.

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

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

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

Is there a plan in place today dealing with the huge outbreak that we've known about only in the last weeks or months? I've flown over the area. You look at it, and you can't tell where it's attacked. You begin to get a glimmer of where some of the beetles have moved. But it's a massive job to assemble the data and plan strategies, because direction of wind, weather, temperature -- all those things -- are affecting it. I will acknowledge the member representing the concerns and feelings of the people in all those communities. They certainly were heard. Not a week has gone by that I haven't asked for an update on where we're at in developing the strategy, because I too share the frustration, as does every senior member.

[1545]

[ Page 13920 ]

Those mayors and leaders of those communities came down here and met with the assistant deputy minister on the operations side. She went up there to meet with them firsthand to talk to people and explain what's going on. So there will be what I call an extremely proactive management of the beetles in the working forest. There's a task group of the community, industry and resource agency staff that meets regularly to direct how the Vanderhoof LRMP will be implemented in the working forest in light of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Substantive road development will occur this year. That isn't doing nothing; that isn't inactivity. Emergency forest development plans will be submitted after the overview surveys to provide accurate infestation information in August. So industry is active, the ministry's active, and we are keeping in touch with the stakeholders up there so that we do respect the local resource management plan objectives that have been established in the area.

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13921 ]

[1555]

G. Abbott: That's encouraging. I'm always delighted to hear when things appear to be working out. And I have heard the same thing in a couple of very different parts of the province -- one in the Okanagan and, I think, one in the Kootenays -- where, again, the ministry has gone in on an experimental basis and removed some trees, for whatever reason. I have no idea what the natural processes are, but it appears to strengthen the resistance of the remaining trees. I don't know a lot about that, but I commend the ministry for the success they've enjoyed to date and hope that we see more of it in the years ahead. As my colleague from Prince George-Omineca has noted, this is an issue that tends to touch people emotionally. I guess (a) they're concerned about trees, but (b) they are just as concerned about losing a resource which has been an important part of their economic livelihood in most of the province. So I hope we continue to see progress on the mountain pine beetle front, at least in some of those management areas we've talked about.

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

[1600]

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

The issue of the Ministry of Forests forest health budget came into play last year. There were a couple of stories in the Vancouver Sun about cuts to the forest health budget of the Ministry of Forests. I know that the ministry struggled with Treasury Board to try to get the forest health appropriation back up again this year and enjoyed success, as I recall, to the tune of about $7 million, which, I suspect, is considerably less than the ministry would've liked to receive but is more than what was available -- which, I think, was $4 million -- in the previous year's budget. Can the minister give us an update in terms of the resources that have been made available through the budget to deal with forest health problems -- where we were last year, where we are this year and whether, at the level of resources we have, we're going to be able to deal with the problem that we see emerging here in British Columbia?

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

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

[1605]

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

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

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

[ Page 13922 ]

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

[1610]

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

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

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned the federal Pacific Forest Research Centre. I just have a brief question on one issue that was highlighted by the Pacific Forest Research Centre recently. That was the arrival of some new pests, among them the European spruce bark beetle. They showed up, apparently, on a container of Norwegian granite. Does the minister find it ironic, as I do, that after our forest products have been threatened in Europe because of supposed European concerns about pests coming into Europe from North America, the Canadian Forest Service, on checking this load of Norwegian granite, found potentially devastating pests that could be a problem in B.C. forests? Is there anything we should be doing in relation to the federal government about such a thing?

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

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

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

[1615]

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

The minister anticipated the next area we want to talk about a little bit, and that is the gypsy moth aerial spraying program. I suspect that this is not one of the minister's favourite topics. I want to briefly get a summary of how the ministry came to take upon itself the responsibility for the spray program. I think that originally there was a decision by an environmental appeal board last year which agreed to an appeal against a spray program. That produced a delay in the implementation of that program, so the program has been undertaken this year by the Ministry of Forests and, I gather, is just in the completion stages now. I guess the two questions I have are: why was the ministry blessed with the opportunity to be the managing agency here -- for example, rather than Agriculture -- and what does the ministry estimate the one-year delay resulted in, cost-wise, for the program? What was the projected cost? What has it actually cost?

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

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

[ Page 13923 ]

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

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

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

[1620]

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

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

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

I. Chong: I would appreciate it if the minister's staff or someone can provide further information as to the determination for the establishment of the pest. The reason why I say that is because, if for all these years we were able to insist that the gypsy moth was not yet established and have the federal government be financially responsible for this, then surely we would have continued. My understanding was that the financial agency -- the CFIA -- was having difficulty with the Environmental Appeal Board upholding the decisions of those who are opposed to the aerial spraying created much of the problem, and the CFIA no longer wanted to deal with that consistent problem year after year. For that reason, perhaps, it suggested to the province that it was now an established pest and that now the province would have to bear the cost and the financial burden of dealing with this. Whatever clarification the ministry's staff could provide would be helpful.

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

[1625]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13924 ]

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

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

[1630]

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

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The minister also mentioned that there were open houses and that all the information was shared at that time. I just want to pass on to the minister some information I received from those who had tried to attend each and every one of these open houses, whether they were here locally in greater Victoria or were as far up as in Duncan or Nanaimo, where I think there were a few other open houses. A number of those who opposed the aerial spraying wanted to also have their message out and were precluded from providing information to those members of the public who were coming out to hear this. I don't believe that was a good public consultation process, even though the ministry had already made up its mind that it was going to proceed with the aerial spray program.

[1635]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13925 ]

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

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

Could the minister comment on a number of things contained in that press release -- specifically, the statement that the gypsy moth is here to stay, implying that it's established? First of all, does the minister agree that -- regardless of the appeals and the opponents that have occurred over the past ten years, or even the past three years -- it had already been established here? And when it was established here, why did we not do the aerial spraying in such an aggressive way in past years? Also, would he agree that the money could be better spent on long-term pest management measures on the ground, such as the pheromone traps and collecting egg masses? Could the minister perhaps provide his thoughts on that?

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

[1640]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1645]

I want to conclude with a final comment. I would hope that the ministry continues to work with the other ministries -- the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and particularly the Ministry of Health, which does not appear to be named on the order-in-council, which is surprising. Not only is this an environmental issue, but it certainly has been raised as a health concern. Although there is a health officer here in the capital health region who would suggest that the spray -- Btk -- is safe, I can assure you that I've received a number of letters from other doctors in the lower mainland area who have suggested that that is not the case. In fact, a number of people who were asked to endorse the use of Btk would not provide that endorsement because of those concerns.

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

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

[ Page 13926 ]

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

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

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

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

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

[1655]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1700]

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Let's begin with the user fees issue. This has been controversial in the past few months since the user fee system was announced. I'm sure the minister has received all manner of correspondence on it and petitions and so on. I think I currently have a petition of several hundred or more names of people who have enjoyed the use of forest recreation campsites in the past for free and who are now unhappy with the prospect of having to pay for that. Could the minister begin by advising me of the cost per year of maintaining the roughly 1,300 forest recreation sites in the province? I think it's in the $3 million range, but could the minister advise what the current expectation of cost is for forest recreation campsites?

[ Page 13927 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

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

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

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

[1705]

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

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

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

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

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

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

[1710]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

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

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

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. We've always had dispersed use through the forest, and we always will have. We're monitoring it to find out if there is a problem. So far it appears it is not a problem in the Cariboo, in Kamloops and in the Nelson district. In Invermere there were some bush parties; two truckloads of trash were removed. In Prince George it hasn't been a problem. Prince Rupert appears not to be a problem. In Vancouver there is dispersed use and random camping as well as camping in day-use areas at sites. It is a problem in Chilliwack and Squamish, but those had problems before, and it doesn't appear to have notably escalated. But we are monitoring it, and I've asked the staff to report different patterns of behaviour to me.

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

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

[ Page 13928 ]

[1715]

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

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

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

J. Reid: Actually, in the past, the users -- the campers themselves -- took on much responsibility for the maintenance of this campsite. With the services -- they were meagre at best, with the windsurfers carrying on their cooperative activities. . . . So on behalf of the users, I would just like clarification that there's no intent on the part of the ministry to actually provide better services than previously existed. Whatever might have been there before will be maintained at that level, but for this extra fee, there won't actually be additional services. If I could just have clarification on that, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not like we have a budget and we're charging fees and getting more money and therefore can enhance services. It's using the fees to partially offset the costs of maintaining the rec sites. These are rustic areas. I don't think that one's been upgraded; nor is it proposed to upgrade it to enhance services. But if it gets so much traffic, it might be a decision that's made. The basic maintenance is simply to clean the outhouses, tidy and rake the area, clean the fire pits, make minor repairs to structures, pump the toilets out when necessary, collect garbage when the containers are provided and manage hazards, like hazard trees.

On the enhanced sites, there is supervision, and there are basic maintenance services being carried out. If it's a site with basic level service, we'll attempt to provide exactly the same service as was there before. If these people cooperate and help maintain it, then perhaps there will be a maintenance level that's higher than we would have provided under any circumstances.

J. Reid: From the amount of mail I've gotten about this particular site, it seems that these fees are quite offensive to the people using this site for a particular reason. That's that they have had this spirit of cooperation at this site that, apparently, has been quite unusual and quite unique and has lent itself to a very special experience at Nitinat. The concern is that the people before, when they were responsible for the site, acted responsibly. With a fee imposed, no matter how large or small the fee, in people's minds, there's an idea that now the government is responsible.

Whereas before, the people took on that responsibility and participated in a cooperative way, now, even though the services aren't going to increase and the people were looking after the site, there will be less inclination on the part of those people to participate. They're expecting that now, through this fee, there's going to be an increase in service. As a result, these people are concerned that with this fee, it's actually going to backfire, and the site will end up in worse shape than it's been in. If the minister could respond.

[1720]

What they should be encouraged to do is understand that we were faced with budget-trimming, and in order to maintain the level of service, we had to charge a fee. I think that if they knew that, then perhaps they would say: "All right, we as citizens understand, and we'll do our part." I would expect every citizen that goes to one of these campsites to do what they can to help keep it tidy. There are going to be some people who are less concerned than others. By all means, I think we have an uneven distribution of people accepting volunteer responsibilities. My advice would be to encourage them to, first of all, understand why the fee was charged. The fee was always intended to be charged for the same level of service as was provided there before.

J. Reid: It has been said that this Nitinat site has been the cleanest Forestry campsite in B.C., even with the incredible volume of users. Apparently, at this site at times -- because special events are held there for windsurfing -- up to 450 people can be in attendance at an event. I am wondering if the minister can let us know, with a daily user fee, whether there will be someone in full-time attendance in order to collect this fee -- or how he proposes that a daily user fee would be practically imposed at this remote site.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the district recreation staff that oversees that site. . . . But if it's getting intensive use and people are planning events -- whether it's voluntary or not -- then it would seem to me reasonable that those people would work out some arrangement with the contractor. It's in the contractor's interest to be there to collect the fees, because they get a share of that for the work they do. So if it's high use and high maintenance and there's more work, the maintenance contractor does the work and gets paid for it. In order to do that, part of their job is to collect the fee. So I don't see why -- if it is, as you say, a responsible organization -- they can't

[ Page 13929 ]

J. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments and the suggestion that perhaps something could be worked out here. That is certainly in everybody's best interest.

Certainly, as the minister has explained, there are perhaps communications difficulties. People need to understand where the ministry is coming from. My question would be: would the minister be interested in meeting with these people -- representatives of this group -- to talk about some of these alternative arrangements and try to find other solutions to the problem?

[1725]

J. Reid: I appreciate that. I will provide the minister with the contact names and then trust that he will put the right people together.

I know that some of these next questions will be canvassed in a broader sense, but since we are talking about Nitinat and the popularity of this site. . . . We're concerned about the future and whether the ministry has discussed the future of this site -- what it sees for these popular sites and, specifically with regard to this site, how they might be developed and whether the minister is aware of any future plans.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the question was what the future plans for that site are, I would have to check with the district recreation officer to find out what they are.

J. Reid: I think, perhaps, that I would like to follow up with the minister on that, putting the question to him so that he could get back to me on that point.

Having attended most of the debate with the Ministry of Tourism, my next question is: with these sites that obviously have great tourist potential, what kind of interaction is there between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Tourism to protect and develop these areas and to provide cohesive plans? When people come into a tourist area to use a site like this, there are an awful lot of spinoff dollars that benefit other people, so we don't want to dissuade them from using a site through higher fees without looking at the bigger picture. If the minister could explain how the ministries actually interact in a situation like this. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, the mandate that we have, and our objective, is to provide rustic sites. It's not a tourism mandate per se. So if the Ministry of Tourism wants to talk to us about it, they phone us up. All their people are down here, with the exception of one officer in the Cariboo. If there's a need to coordinate planning, we can do that.

But the private sector has a role to play in developing campsites as well. We're cognizant of the fact that in tourism industry development, there are private operators that want to develop sites as well.

J. Reid: With this particular site, I'm sure that there would be interest from private operators. There might also be parts of it that would be involved in the land claims process.

Looking at sites that have this tourist potential and that do fall within the Ministry of Forests, I hope that the ministry will take a broad enough view so as to not look at things in isolation but realize that there has to be this interaction. We're all after the same goal: to look after these resources and certainly to support the benefits that they bring back to the area.

I will be following up with the minister on some of these questions to try and get the details, and I appreciate his comments.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A final comment: we never look at things in isolation. You can always do more in terms of integrating and planning and so on, but it really is one of those things where you have to make sure that you try to look at all the factors when you're making your plans.

J. Wilson: I would like to ask the minister a little bit about the way that the ministry is going to take care of the fee that is being assessed here. My understanding is that there will be certain outlets where you can buy, say, a summer pass or an overnight pass for a campground. Is there any other way. . . ? Say you don't do that. Is there another means by which you can get a camping permit for an overnight?

[1730]

J. Wilson: If a contractor who is looking after a campsite is given the job of selling these passes, will there be a book of passes, where there's some paperwork and he'll fill out a form and give it to the camper? Or will he just say: "Well, that's fine. It'll be $8 for the night, and you'll be entitled to stay here; and if you want to stay again tomorrow night, we'll be back to collect another $8"? What has been set in place to ensure that this money, which is probably going to be cash in most cases. . . ? At most of these campsites, you don't have the luxury of Interac and that kind of thing. What's to assure the camper that this money is actually going to end up in the hands of the government and not in the pocket of the contractor?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as the member knows, there's no guarantee against scam artists trying anything, especially before the public fully knows what's going on. We are experimenting and testing different methods of financial control, making sure, of course, that the dollars get to us. We're attempting to make sure that the person collecting the fee is identified in some way with the logo or name on the jacket or something, so that people know the person is official. They would have a fee book. They get a receipt, and they can use that. That's their ticket to the campsite.

[ Page 13930 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are concentrating on this phase-in. You can't be up and running in anything right away. People need to know about it. So we're concentrating on education and making sure people know that there is a requirement. If somebody who's maintaining and operating a campsite goes there, they can issue a warning ticket. They can issue an invoice. We're finding that people are responding and sending the money in with the invoice when they get home.

[1735]

But a lot of people that use our campsites are non-residents. I see a lot of paperwork that may end up really as nothing more than paperwork that never generates a dime in the end. That is one thing that I can see happening. A lot of people that use campsites may be travelling. They may not have any intentions of going to a Forests campsite, but for some reason or another they don't make their destination that day, and they decide they have to stay over. They'll stop at a campsite. If there are facilities there, they'll use them. If there are no facilities, well, they'll look after themselves.

Is the minister not worried about the fact that people will probably stop anywhere out there and make camp, and rather than go to a specific location where there's more control on what activities go on and what could happen. . . ? You know, you have areas there where you may have a place for garbage disposal and this kind of thing, and perhaps there's a little firewood. The alternative, as I see it, would be to stop, pull over on a Forestry road or anyplace and make camp. You may have to go cut some firewood if you want to build a fire, and you may not have any place to put the garbage. As we know, some people just cannot seem to look after their garbage at times.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have a little more faith in people than that member has. You know, I think that as people get educated about the fact that there is a fee and it's returned into the maintenance of the sites, then people will do it. The compliance is increasing. We're monitoring dispersed use. I'm not sure whether you were here, but I actually went through it region by region and said that in most of the regions, dispersed use is not a problem -- no more than it's been in the past.

We know that people camp everywhere, all over the place, and it isn't a problem. But these campsites do provide services that aren't available out there, and it hasn't been a problem to date. There are going to be isolated cases, but we won't take a general rule. It's our hope that as people become educated as to the need to pay a fee, they will comply. And no, we are not going to spent a lot of time on paperwork where we're not getting any returns. I don't think Treasury Board would let us do that, and it wouldn't be smart to do that.

As for the out-of-province people, I don't know that they're any more delinquent than anyone else. My guess is that they'd like to come back to British Columbia, but if they get known as travelling around and not paying, then maybe we'll have to develop a system for people who persist and let it be known. But they pay road tax, and they bring other benefits when they come in. Those are export dollars coming into the province, and they are generating economic activity. But there is no evidence yet that people from out of province are behaving any differently than people from in the province.

J. Wilson: I'm glad that the minister has a positive attitude toward the motoring public and the camping public. That's good, but right now I'll get off the subject of the fee structure.

I'd like to look at the level of services that we're going to get here. Realistically, I would like to know from the minister what we can expect in services in the Forest Service campsites that we have. Not necessarily all over the province -- but in particular, I'm thinking about the interior. I would expect that there will be some loss of service because of certain things that seem to be coming down the tube. Could the minister maybe tell us just what level of service we will lose in the next year or two?

[1740]

The basic service, or what I read into the record -- and I think the member was here -- is cleaning of the outhouses, raking the area, cleaning the fire pits, making minor repairs to structures, pumping the toilets when necessary, collecting the garbage when containers are provided and managing hazards -- hazard trees. That's what we intend to do. As for things like firewood, it varied whether or not there was enough money in the contract to be able to do that. In some cases, we provided firewood; in other cases, we didn't. They're trying to maintain the same level of service that they had before, but they're trying to standardize it.

J. Wilson: With the cuts that we're going to see in the ministry's budget for road maintenance on Forest Service roads, I would expect that there will be a number of campsites out there that the public won't be able to access -- or, at least, not all of the public. In some cases, if the road deteriorates to a point where most vehicles can't get through, it may simply be four-wheel-drive traffic from there on. There could be any number of campsites from that point on too. We don't know where on that road, say, a washout or something occurs.

The campsites that are caught in this net where the ministry can't maintain the roads so that the public can access them, I would say, is going to be a loss of service, because there's a campsite, and now you can't use it. Can the minister tell me how many campsites in the Cariboo-Chilcotin we could be looking at closing in the next year or two? To me that is the loss of a service, because it's been there; it's been provided. It

[ Page 13931 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some sites are river access only; some, I am sure, are accessed by trails. If the member is asking whether a road to a campsite constitutes a service, my answer is yes. If the member is asking if you close the road, you are dropping the level of service to the campsite, then the answer is yes.

J. Wilson: That was my question. But can the minister tell me how many campsites in the Cariboo-Chilcotin we can expect to see closed in the next year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll remind the member that there are washouts, and roads have been closed. There have always been sites closed, sometimes temporarily, and others started up, depending on the level of service that is accessed to them. That's always been the case. At this point, we are endeavouring to keep all the sites open. Last year we had no money budgeted. We cobbled together dollars from various budgets -- a little bit here, a little bit there. We used E-teams; we used firefighters. We used anything we could -- forest recreation officers -- to keep them open. From last year to this year, we actually have slightly more money to spend on the sites.

[1745]

J. Wilson: I'm quite sure that the minister is right when he says that there will probably be some closures, but we don't know at this point. There are a lot of people out there that do use these roads, other than campsite users. Should a road deteriorate to the point where it becomes impassable for vehicles, is the ministry going to just say: "Look, we'll put up a barricade or put up something there to stop vehicles"? Say there's a user beyond that point and that user decides to come in and do his own road maintenance. Will the ministry be in agreement to allow a user to go ahead and do some road maintenance, so perhaps they can access a point beyond that damage in the road without having to go through a lot of hoops and paperwork and permits and that kind of thing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are continually monitoring roads, and there have been times in the past when if a road was unsafe, we closed it. What you're talking about is level of maintenance so that you can use it.

There's a number of ways we can handle it. We can enter into a special use permit for the user, and they could then agree to a certain maintenance. In fact, for the use of a road, we can require a certain level of maintenance. I think there are going to be any number of arrangements that are worked out.

If you know of a user and a specific road, I would suggest that you raise the issue either at my level or with the district manager and see what can be worked out with the users that are dependent on those roads.

G. Abbott: Just a couple of final things to wrap this up before the dinner hour. The revenue anticipated or hoped for through the user fees, I believe the minister mentioned, was $700,000. Is that net of the administrative costs?

To tie in a second question: when the 463 vendors sell an annual permit for $27, is there a portion of the $27 that is built in as payment, an administration fee, to the vendor?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of the $27, $2.40 is GST. The government agent has a fee. We've contracted out the administration. So every time a ticket is sold, it has to go from a vendor. Either it's directly sold for the government agent, in which case there's no vendor fee, or the government agent processes the paper on our behalf, and the vendor collects $2. So there's a potential $6.40 that comes off the fee.

[1750]

G. Abbott: The minister pretty much anticipated my next question, which was the volume of sales to this point. So we're at -- I don't know -- about one-fifth of anticipated revenue at this point. We would certainly, by my calculation, be looking at close to 26,000 in annual passes to make the $700,000, or more if we are looking at $700,000 as a net figure. But I'm not going to pursue that any further, because this is the first year. We'll see how it works out and base our comments in future on the practicality of this, according to how it goes this year and other years if it's continued.

We are, I know, pushing the supper hour here, but I want to finish this section on recreation issues and then come back to roads after dinner. One of the things that is sometimes said of the opposition is that they never make any constructive suggestions. I want to make what I hope is a constructive suggestion as we go to dinner here.

That is, the Ministry of Parks is always looking for opportunities to create new campsites. Indeed, we've seen in recent budgets and throne speeches, and so on, a commitment by the government, through the Ministry of Environment, to create more campsites and so on across the province. As I've enjoyed forest recreation campsites in the province, it seems to me that there are a couple of different situations. I guess there are maybe 1,300 different situations, but there are a couple of basic situations.

The site I really enjoyed last year was well back from any community. It involved about an hour's travel over logging roads to get there. We were there for five days and never saw another person there the whole time. It's a great little site that had all the basic amenities that the minister mentioned. To me, that is the best example of a forest recreation campsite, where

[ Page 13932 ]

The other example -- and here's where I think the notion or the theory behind forest recreation campsites is strained -- is where we get into a situation where the site may well be on a lake, but it's relatively close to communities. Or it's very easily accessed in terms of transportation; the roads are good, and so on. The sites are very heavily used, and there are all the problems of vandalism, parties, rowdyism, and so on, that go on.

Those are the two examples. It seems to me that part of the problem with the latter group -- the ones that I'm sure the minister knows all too well are the primary source of problems for forest recreation campsites. . . . It seems to me that the use of and the location of those has gone to a point where, while they may be excellent from the perspective of providing recreation, they really are in need of the higher standard of care that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is in the business of providing.

[1755]

The Chair: Minister -- noting the time.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I note the time. I will respond after private members' statements, when we reconvene. So 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.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

THE COMMONWEALTH OF LEARNING

[1840]

I want to move on to a message from the president of the Commonwealth of Learning. He says:

"Commonwealth leaders, when they met in Vancouver in late 1987, demonstrated amazing foresight in agreeing to create an agency for the promotion and development of distance education. The Commonwealth of Learning came into existence in January of 1989, when its headquarters were established in British Columbia, and since then it has grown to be a valuable asset of not only the Commonwealth but also the wider world."

"Working with associates all over the Commonwealth, the agency has been at the forefront of developing knowledge and capacity in open and distance learning around the world. By doing so, it has helped change the perceptions of government leaders, policy-makers, educational managers and the lay public as to the value and importance of applying innovative techniques and technologies to take education and training to users, wherever they may be.

"Today almost all 54 countries of the Commonwealth use distance education methods for one purpose or another. The Commonwealth of Learning can take pride in the role it has played in shifting distance education from being a sidestream to a mainstream provision in many of these countries. It did this by making use of the plentiful talent of the Commonwealth for the needs of the Commonwealth."

Access to education means access to a better future. It is the difference between one person's hope and another person's hopelessness, the difference between a prosperous nation and a dependent nation. Education lays the ground-

[ Page 13933 ]

Evolving from correspondence courses developed decades earlier, it's a strategy that successfully merged with new technologies beginning in the 1960s. This approach is proving to be increasingly effective in overcoming the problems of isolation and restricted access throughout the Commonwealth. Today, with modern communications technology, distance education will reach far more people in remote areas as well as in cities, providing opportunities for those who are unable to study in a formal setting due to personal or other circumstances. It is both a distinct alternative and an obvious complement to traditional educational methods. Distance education allows more students to learn at the location, time and pace of their choice for far less money and with far greater results. That's the mandate of the Commonwealth of Learning.

One of every four persons on the planet lives in a Commonwealth country. The Commonwealth of Learning's goal is to make education available to every single one of them. Such an ambitious ideal is supported by voluntary contributions from Commonwealth countries and accelerated by advances in communications technology. Again, founded in 1987, the Commonwealth of Learning has moved from gradual steps to progress in leaps and bounds. The Commonwealth of Learning has forged a unique and important role in the international education sector and has established itself as a cost-effective implementation agency. They also spend some time on an advocacy role. In recent years every major Commonwealth forum and international body -- such as the World Bank and UNESCO -- has recognized the role of distance education in supporting resource development. Their ongoing mandate is to support and improve the institutions already engaged in distance learning, to create better systems for distance educators to communicate and share information and to forge new partnerships between Commonwealth countries and distance educators.

[1845]

The Hon. Don Boudria, Minister for International Cooperation, said in 1997: "Canada is pleased to be the host and a significant contributor to the Commonwealth of Learning. This unique institution is at the cutting edge in terms of its capability to help developing countries improve access to quality education through the use of distance education. It is an important example of the ways in which knowledge can be harnessed for development."

The Hon. Baroness Chalker, Overseas Development minister in the United Kingdom, said in 1996: "Britain endorses the valuable work of the Commonwealth of Learning in expanding access to education. The demand for distance learning in developing countries is increasing, and the Commonwealth of Learning is well-placed to provide much-needed educational opportunities."

"Ghana attaches great importance to the work entrusted to the Commonwealth of Learning and the dedication and professionalism with which this mandate is being pursued." Those remarks were made by His Excellency Annan A. Cato, High Commissioner for Ghana in Canada in 1996.

These testimonials speak well for this organization, based on ten years of achievement.

P. Calendino: I want to thank the member for Richmond East for bringing up this very important topic. I think it's one of the topics that, on both sides of the House, we don't have any differences on.

Obviously the Commonwealth of Learning was established to ensure that the developing world is ensured access to the type of education that we take for granted in our developed countries. Sometimes we don't realize how fortunate we are to have an education system that allows most of us to take advantage of all sorts of technology to improve access to education. Our distance education system in British Columbia -- both at SFU and the Open Learning Agency -- is exemplary around the world. As a matter of fact, even in Europe our Open Learning Agency is establishing programs to access small communities around the various countries.

Of all the good things that the member for Richmond East said, there's nothing that I would contest. But I want to read what is happening in the world of education today, particularly in distance education. These are statements made by the vice-president of one of the largest technology companies in Canada, Nortel. She was speaking at a conference of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and it shows the difference between the developed and the developing world. She says: "The distinction between developed and developing countries will no longer be measured by who has more roads or skyscrapers but by who has more Internet users or data transmission lines. With the world increasingly turning to a knowledge-based economy, countries that do not make relevant skills training a priority will find themselves part of the info-poor."

That's one of the novelties that we're experiencing in the world today. A new form of poverty is arising, and that is technology poverty. She says: "This is a real danger. When so many countries do not have adequate infrastructure, their people cannot connect with the rest of the world. They cannot participate in the global economy." This is creating a new form of poverty called information poverty. The Commonwealth of Learning is one of those agencies that are trying to minimize this information poverty that's developed.

[1850]

I want to point out that Canada and British Columbia played a very key role in the creation of the Commonwealth

[ Page 13934 ]

At the same time in Quebec, a counterpart was being discussed for the French-speaking countries, which we now know as la Francophonie. Within la Francophonie the same type of technology advances are being made again, to make sure that people all over the developing world have access to the information and the methods of instruction that we develop in the western world.

The creation of the Commonwealth of Learning arose out of the shared belief that citizens of the Commonwealth must have access to knowledge regardless of where they live and whether they are rich or poor. As a matter of fact, there was a fear among the Commonwealth states that, given the economic advances of the seventies and the eighties in the developed world, the undeveloped world was being left behind, and the students of the developing countries that used to be able to access universities in other countries were being left out. So what they decided was to bring the mountain to Mohammed instead of Mohammed to the mountain. So education was brought to the students.

The Speaker: The member will note the time. Member, thank you.

L. Reid: I will thank my hon. colleague opposite for his remarks. I will also take a minute to reference the remarks of my colleague to my immediate left, from Peace River North. His riding has a very large distance-learning component headquartered in Fort St. John; it serves the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and northern British Columbia. There are geographical constraints in the rest of our province that allow distance education to make a name for itself and to continue to provide learning opportunities for young people and for people of all ages who otherwise would not have those opportunities. So I thank my hon. colleague for bringing that information forward.

The Commonwealth of Learning offices are located in Vancouver at 600-1285 West Broadway. I want to put into the record the web site -- http://www.col.org -- because I know that the Commonwealth of Learning would welcome interested individuals to visit their web site.

I want to put on the record, as well, some student comments. In October of 1995 a student in Tonga told a Commonwealth of Learning representative: "I am most grateful for this incredible learning opportunity, one that until now I thought could never be possible."

In June of '96, one of their tutors reported: "I enjoyed working with the students and found the course in distance education interesting, thereby increasing my knowledge. I wish to thank the Commonwealth of Learning for giving me the opportunity to be a tutor-counsellor for these students."

There are some amazing projects going on in the world. One of them that I want to reference is the computer training centre on the copper belt in northern Zambia. There are programs happening in Ghana -- mass literacy programs. They talk about a new portable community broadcasting station. Radio is the most important media in Ghana and most other developing countries. With portable but professional equipment, an open-air studio was created which allows these young individuals to receive training that will hopefully allow them to seek some gainful employment.

Three countries -- three important skill areas: Dominica, teacher education; Jamaica, information technology; and St. Vincent and the Grenadines are working on hospitality, tourism management and teacher education distance-learning programs.

Four Malaysians and two Singaporeans were recognized by the Commonwealth distance-training program in legislative drafting in a ceremony held on December 4 in the Attorney General's chambers in Kuala Lumpur. They're among the first to fulfil the requirements of a new international program. No matter the corner of the world, there are some wonderful things happening in this area.

[1855]

BRITISH COLUMBIA'S INVESTMENT CLIMATE

The corporate capital tax threshold will be raised to $3.5 million as of January 2000. In 2001, it will be raised to $5 million, which means 90 percent of the businesses in British Columbia will no longer pay corporate capital tax. In March of this year, the corporation capital tax holiday was extended from two years to four years for qualifying investments. Personal income tax for individuals is being cut by 2 percent, resulting in a taxpayer savings of $110 million a year. Combining this reduction in personal income tax with the previous two-years' reduction makes a total reduction of 6 percent, which is very, very important for the taxpayers of this province.

The provincial government also understands that we must work directly with investors and corporations to attract, establish and expand new and existing industries throughout British Columbia. Some of the examples of this are the provincial government support for Ballard Power Systems and DBB's fuel cell development programs the facilitating of the demonstrational use of this technology within the greater Vancouver transit system.

[ Page 13935 ]

The province is also contributing to the expansion of our aerospace industries -- extremely high-tech industries. Recently, a $17.5 million commercial loan was provided to Conair Aviation of Abbotsford to assist the company in constructing a new 22,500 square metre hangar, which will expand its aircraft maintenance repair and overhaul operations. As Conair president Barry Marsden stated: "This is a catalytic investment, and it does give us the opportunity to grow at a much faster rate than we could have."

Working with the provincial government, Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. has committed almost $300 million to modify production processes of its Chetwynd mill. The plan includes agreements from workers, the district of Chetwynd, B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and the provincial government to cut costs and increase competitiveness -- a partnership that will create almost an additional 600 direct jobs for this region.

[1900]

A similar project has recently been announced for the Fletcher Challenge pulp mill at Elk Falls in Campbell River, in my riding. Again, this is a huge, huge megaproject -- about a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of investment in Campbell River and Fletcher Challenge. It will create efficiencies at the Fletcher Challenge mill for the workers and the community as well -- really long-term. I think that's really important, given the competitiveness of our global economy, in particular in the pulp sector. This is an example of public-private partnership with B.C. Hydro and Fletcher Challenge, now Westcoast Energy Inc. It's very appreciated in our riding.

The Ministry of Forests has worked in close conjunction, very cooperatively, with Tembec Inc. as well. The province has agreed to increase the company's access to timber in exchange for job creation commitments, which include building a value-added mill in Cranbrook and conducting a feasibility study on another co-gen plant. These are great investments, and Tembec was very pleased to come to British Columbia.

Also, $100 million has been allocated to post-secondary institutions for the knowledge development fund, to assist in the further establishment of and improvements in the research and development infrastructure within the province. In February of this year Minister Petter, the Advanced Education and Training minister, travelled to Washington, Oregon and California -- acknowledged leaders in high-tech -- to gather information, compare experiences and develop strategies to further aid in the expansion of B.C.'s high-technology industries. In the spring of 1998 the B.C. government finalized an agreement with IBM Canada Ltd. that merges the skills and knowledge of the public service with the benchmark technology. The bottom line with this investment is that we're going to get a tremendously high-tech investment, one of three centres on the globe, situated in British Columbia.

In 1996 a major reconstruction of the 16-kilometre-long Strathcona Parkway, providing access to Mount Washington, was completed at a cost of $16 million. I know my colleague from Comox is extremely pleased about this development, because Mount Washington is a major tourist draw from all over the world.

B.C.'s oil and gas industries are also thriving. Last year the province introduced the oil and gas initiative to promote expansion of this sector, and since then, the results have been really astounding. Oil and gas wells drilled are up. . . .

R. Neufeld: They've gone down.

G. Robertson: I see that the member opposite from the Peace is very pleased about this.

Oil and gas wells drilled are up by 11 percent. Oil production is up by 7 percent, and 25 billion cubic metres of gas have been produced. That's the most ever in the province.

With regard to B.C.'s traditional economic mainstay, forestry, the provincial government's efforts to improve the investment climate are especially welcomed by industry representatives. Government's actions have been considered to be constructive approaches towards alleviating stagnancy within the economy of B.C.'s forest-dependent communities, particularly along the province's coast. The stagnancy has risen not because of poor. . .

The Speaker: Member. . . .

G. Robertson: . . .public policy but because of perpetual overharvesting.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll notice that your time is now up.

S. Hawkins: I was quite interested to hear the comments by the hon. member, and I was quite surprised that someone from that side of the House would actually stand up and speak about the investment climate in B.C. and actually give us a platform to respond.

Well, let me just put some facts on the table here. Total investment in B.C. fell by 8.3 percent in 1998 to $19 billion -- the second-biggest decline among the provinces. StatsCan predicts another drop in capital spending, of 4.4 percent, in 1999. Business investment fell by 10.5 percent in 1998 and is expected to decrease by another 9.2 percent in 1999. Fixed capital spending in B.C. has decreased for five straight years, and B.C. now has the worst investment record in Canada. I don't think that's anything to be proud of.

Exports were down by $1 billion in 1998 from 1997. Housing starts dropped 32 percent from 1997 to 1998. All these things speak about jobs and opportunities for people in B.C. -- we're not seeing that here.

[1905]

[ Page 13936 ]

We know that small businesses are the engine that drives the economy. They are the business creators. A lot of businesses are not happy with the tinkering -- if I can put it that way -- with policies that affect them. Just recently the business summit gave an F -- a failing grade -- to the policies that were implemented by this government. They gave an F to fiscal policy for the buildup of the debt. They gave an F to labour policy for discouraging investment. They gave a D for taxation. The member did mention a little bit about taxes. The business summit recognized that it was looking up slightly. They gave a C minus for cutting red tape. So there are a lot of challenges that face the economy.

I think it was only a week or a week and a half ago that the high-tech companies. . . . I heard the member mention high-tech and what a promising field that is. Yes, it is. But imagine how much better we would be doing if we actually listened to the companies and recognized that we could be doing more for them. Frankly, they gave failing grades to government policy as well. They again cited taxation as a major issue.

Mining in this province has been decimated. In 1990 we saw the mining industry spend $142 million on exploration development. In 1996 only $38 million was spent on mining industry exploration. That's a 73 percent drop. We all know what that means. That means fewer jobs today, fewer mines tomorrow and fewer jobs for our kids in the future.

It's easy to talk about one-off deals. Unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing lately -- a preoccupation with one-off deals with individual companies, rather than improving the taxation and regulatory burden for everybody. This afternoon we did hear a ministerial statement with respect to the movie industry. Guess what: as the member for Okanagan-Penticton said, tax cuts work. There's an industry that did get the benefit of tax cuts. We're seeing over a billion dollars in revenue in that industry.

Rather than doing one-off deals, why not put everybody on an even playing field? Why not let businesses compete on their own? Why not make an environment where we give investors confidence and where we invite them back to invest in B.C.? We need to create that environment once again in the province. Because you know what? We do. We have the best location. We have a talented workforce. We have just an excellent place for people to come to. We want private investment to come here and invest again. We want them to create jobs, but we don't want to have to induce them to come here with special incentives. I think that's wrong.

The Speaker: The member will see that her time is now up. I recognize the member for North Island with final comments.

G. Robertson: It was interesting to hear the member for Okanagan West with her statements. Actually, I'm quite surprised. The member should realize that the year is 1999 and not 1998. If you continually look backwards at what has been, you'll get a sore neck. I suggest that she take a look ahead. Quite frankly, I give the business summit a big F. I think that's what they really deserve. If you take a look at what's going on in British Columbia today, they've been dead wrong. I really think you have to take a look.

The Speaker: Through the chair, hon. member.

G. Robertson: Hon. speaker, our forest policies are world-class -- there's no doubt. I think the stagnancy of our industry in British Columbia is a result of not investing in British Columbia, and we've had some great investments over the course of the last few weeks.

[1910]

Government's efforts to improve B.C.'s investment climate for the forest resources sector are now reaping benefits, and we're quite pleased about that. International prices for lumber, pulp and panelboard are on a steady swing upward and are nearing record levels. A BCTV financial analyst, Michael Campbell -- I think that's the Leader of the Opposition's brother -- states that this is the time to make investments in the British Columbia forest industries. A Vancouver Sun article today stated: "Investor interest is growing in British Columbia's forest industry. . . ." The TSE's forest products index on Monday posted its biggest gain since November 1990, climbing 7.2 percent.

Other non-traditional industries are growing by leaps and bounds. Our tourism industry -- hotels are making mega-investments in British Columbia's adventure tourism. B.C.'s film industry is growing by $200 million this year. A report released last month by the Conference Board of Canada also states that B.C.'s economy is growing at 1.3 percent. That's outpacing Alberta's growth, which is 1.2 percent.

All of these facts reflect the positive investment climate that exists in British Columbia. They are not only indicative of the government's effort to create a viable economic strategy for this province; they also reflect the strong working relationship the province is fostering with the private sector -- the result of which has been innovation, creativity and a very positive outlook towards the future when it comes to the economic development of our province.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHILDREN

[ Page 13937 ]

This video reminds us where someone can go for help. It explores the role of the office of the ombudsman, the office of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition and the office of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, just to name a few. Just as important, though, the video addresses the fact that along with human rights come responsibilities. All too often we hear about human rights but then we fail to speak of our responsibilities to each other. It is not that we don't understand or acknowledge those responsibilities. They too just happen to be taken for granted. So let us not forget to be mindful and to be respectful of each other, because we do live in a multicultural city, we do live in a multicultural province, we do live in a multicultural Canada.

When we speak of human rights, I think many of us would agree that we automatically envision adults. We seem to have forgotten that youth and children also have rights and responsibilities and that these need to be heard. That is why the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is so important. It represents the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history and addresses how children and youth should be treated. It has been stated that the convention outlines the government's responsibility in ensuring that children have the family as well as the social supports and resources to grow up to be responsible adults.

[1915]

I am also proud to announce that the Queen Alexandra Foundation for Children, in partnership with the Ministry for Children and Families and many other local groups, is sponsoring a symposium on the rights of the child. It's commencing tomorrow, it continues through to Saturday, and it's being held here at the Victoria Conference Centre. The Queen Alexandra Foundation is a local organization that is located in the constituency that I represent. Its members have always been concerned about the health and well-being of children and youth.

It is because of those concerns that the foundation formed a steering committee which identified the need to raise the level of awareness about the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Furthermore, it was quickly determined that the convention is not widely known in the capital health region and that no one across Canada had yet attempted to promote the health-related aspects of the convention with a community-based initiative. So I wish the symposium much success and that all participants attending will come away with a renewed sense of awareness that we must continue to promote human rights for all.

It cannot be said too often that we do need to start learning about rights and responsibilities when we are young. In fact, it has been acknowledged that children who are more informed and who receive quality care, whether by family members or by other caregivers, live longer, happier and healthier lives than those who do not enjoy such starts. This is exactly what the convention is all about and why it is vitally important that we promote these rights and raise its level of awareness.

Further to this, I would like to offer some observations about our province's record on our responsibility to children and youth. I do not intend to criticize nor in any way be disrespectful of those who are working to make changes to the lives of the children and youth in our province. Rather, I would prefer to take this time to remind everyone that there is still much to do. I say this because I have spent some time reviewing the last three annual reports submitted by the office of the child, youth and family advocate.

In 1996 in particular there were three key recommendations. They were (1) improved services for youth 15 to 19 years old, (2) improved child and youth access to legal representation, and (3) expansion of the advocate's mandate to help children and youth. So in 1996 we saw three recommendations dealing with children's rights and responsibilities.

In 1997, however, the annual report that was released indicated. . . . There were six key recommendations that were put forth:

1. Government should create a separate, dedicated, early-intervention fund for children of tomorrow.

2. The ministry should automatically receive annual funding based on the number of children in government care.

3. Guarantee certain services to youth who have been in government care beyond their nineteenth birthday.

4. Again, improve services for youth from 15 to 18 years old.

5. Older youth, once qualified for financial support, should receive benefits which are predetermined and outlined in regulations, regardless of the ministry administering the program.

6. An assessment tool should be developed to guide decision-making regarding the eligibility of older youth.

The Speaker: The member will see that her time is up for this portion of her remarks.

I. Chong: I do, and I will wait for my response.

R. Kasper: As the member noted, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. . . . This is their tenth-year anniversary. The UN convention on the rights of the child was brought for adoption to the General Assembly of the United Nations at the end of 1989. In 1991, Canada ratified and became a state party to this convention.

The convention aims to set universal standards for the defence of children against neglect, exploitation and abuse. It is a comprehensive document bringing together the various legal benefits and stipulations concerning children which were previously scattered through scores of other international agreements of varying scope and status. More importantly, the convention enshrines as its guiding principle respect for the child, noting that the best interest of the child should be used as the touchstone for all decisions affecting children's health, well-being and dignity.

[ Page 13938 ]

[1920]

We in British Columbia are committed to caring for children's and families' basic needs. B.C. is one of only two provinces to fund new social housing in Canada. Our province has led the way in the national attack on child poverty. The first national child benefit cheques were issued in July 1998. However, British Columbia children have been receiving the benefit payment since July 1996 -- two years ahead of the rest of our nation. Up to $103 per child is provided monthly as a result of the B.C. family bonus. This is supplemented by the Healthy Kids program, which ensures that all children, regardless of the of their family incomes, have access to good dental and optical care.

The convention on the rights of the child allows every individual the chance to develop to his or her potential, and contains provisions relating to the child's right to education; to rest and leisure; to freedom of expression and information; and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

In B.C. we're investing in children's education. The core funding for education has been increased this year by some $45 million. That's nearly $6,000 for every student in British Columbia.

The second right, the right to development, also stipulates that the children of minority communities and indigenous populations have the right to enjoy their own culture and to practise their own religion and language. To this end, the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism is offering the heritage language program. This program will provide considerable financial assistance to the 159 B.C. schools teaching 26 languages, including Chinese, Punjabi, Cree, Hebrew and Portuguese.

The third right that is detailed in the convention is protection. This ranges from protection of mentally and physically disabled children, abandoned children and those in trouble with the law. . . . As well, children must be protected from economic, sexual and other forms of exploitation, including violence and drugs. The Ministry for Children and Families has made an effort to ensure protection at the earliest possible stage. The Building Blocks program, for example, introduces enhanced services to families with babies and toddlers, putting more supports in place earlier so that children can get the best possible start in life.

I would like to add that it behooves all of us in Canada to offer help with some compassion to those who come to Canada. It's important -- not only to those who are refugees or new immigrants, but to those who have citizenship, on this tenth anniversary -- that we have made some progress in ensuring the basic rights of survival, development and protection. But no measure of progress is ever enough, and we have to make sure that all of us set aside our political views and set aside some of the emotion and strive to work together.

The Speaker: Member, as you see, your time is up.

I. Chong: I thank the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca for offering those comments on the convention. I think it was important for them to be acknowledged and read into the record.

Yes, I would certainly agree with him that British Columbia has made some progress. But as I mentioned in my earlier comments, we still have a long way to go. We still have to continue to work together, and that is why the need to raise awareness of the convention is necessary each and every year. That is why the symposium that is going to be held this weekend is also so very important.

I want to say that one of the quotes on the front of this brochure is very telling. It's from Darryl, a 14-year-old: "We want our voice to be heard. Kids deserve that." Hon. Speaker, that is coming from a child -- a youth. Too often, it is adults who are trying to express what we think it is that children need to express. What this symposium, I hope, will accomplish is to hear exactly what children want expressed, and the facilitators that will be there will definitely offer that opportunity.

[1925]

I do implore that all members of this House work together, that we continue to work together in raising the awareness of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and that we will continue to look for ways to advocate on behalf of our youth and children. Hon. Speaker, it is not always so much in the way of funding. As we all know, that sometimes does not reach the child. It does not reach the services that we want for youth and children. We must ensure that there is a process by which children and youth in this province know that they have a place to go, know that there will be someone who will listen when they feel their rights have been violated and, more importantly, that they know they have rights and responsibilities. I think, hon. Speaker, that all of us are willing to do that, and I thank all members who have listened and participated.

PORTABILITY IN EDUCATION

When I first decided to run for election in Surrey-Whalley back in 1986, one of the main issues that was really, truly heartfelt for so many families in Surrey was the opportunity for their children in schools and the frustration that many

[ Page 13939 ]

When you see those portables, hon. Speaker, what you don't see is the fact that many of the children that are attending classes in portables have to go into the schools to go to the washrooms. They have to go out in the rain. They have to take their turn in an auditorium with a number of other classes, and the auditoriums were never meant to serve that number of children. They have to take their turn in the libraries, where libraries were never meant to serve that number of classes.

It also meant that they were giving up their playgrounds for the actual siting of the portables, so that when there was recess or lunch or after school, they didn't have access to the playing fields that other children in less-rapidly-growing districts might have had.

Many of us lobbied pretty strong and pretty hard, and we brought the issue of school funding to the forefront for the government of the day. We pressured that government to begin to invest in growing districts to deal with the kind of capital commitment that was necessary to deal with those portables.

Our government has an exemplary record. It's because of that record that British Columbia is seen as the education province. I'm very proud of that. In this last budget in particular, we took on the question of portable reduction. We developed a portable reduction strategy. When it was first announced, there were 3,100 portables across the province. By the end of this summer, there will be less than 2,700 portables, which is right on target. The target is to reduce the number of portables by half by the year 2002. It's a direct result of largest school construction initiative in B.C.'s history.

[1930]

The Speaker: The hon. member knows the rules about the spirit of private members' statements: no partisan argument and debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Now, members.

J. Smallwood: I certainly will heed your caution, hon. Speaker and will be reviewing the Blues for other members' replies.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, that's not appropriate or necessary.

J. Smallwood: The funding of $338 million that was invested in the last fiscal year to create 17,200 new spaces for students throughout the province is a record that our government is proud of. It's a record that reflects the values of parents and students, not only in Surrey but throughout the province. I think it bodes well for the future and for future opportunities.

Some might argue that governments should not be spending money at a time when revenue has been reduced. I will argue -- and have consistently argued -- on behalf of the people that I represent that an investment today is a timely investment and truly gives those young people an opportunity for a future and an opportunity for growth in the province.

What we've seen through this considerable investment in construction is nine new schools, 64 school expansions and two major renovations. Of this $338 million, we've seen $31.2 million invested specifically to eliminate portables. These are tangible examples of improvements to education and opportunities for young people to alleviate the pressures that we've seen in growing districts. It's these kinds of opportunities that allow young people access to an equitable quality of education across this province. Young communities like mine can stand shoulder to shoulder with more established communities, with communities that perhaps have demographics that have a higher income level and more options for students and their parents.

I welcome the member's reply.

[1935]

However, one of the comments I might make is that it's probably about time. . . . The member was very correct in a number of the remarks that were made about the inadequacies of working in a portable. One of the things that's happened over time is that as safety and technology have changed, so have the expectations of what can be accomplished in a portable classroom. When we think of communication, things like computers often would not be hooked up in portables, so students would be shortchanged. The technology simply could not be wired into the portable classroom.

Libraries, of course, were very far away. The convenience of other resources, such as film projectors. . . . Just the sheer mechanics of going and getting the equipment to show a video in your classroom became an act of endurance. In many portable classrooms, teachers were forced to teach subjects when they did not have the proper facilities -- for example, teaching art in a portable where there was no water and no availability to wash out a paintbrush, the distance to washrooms and all of those sorts of things.

But mainly there was a lack over the years of any sense of direction and of planning and vision. The situation that the member noted in her own riding -- and pointed out that she had worked for, for a number of years. . . . By the way, I congratulate her for that. But that probably should never have been allowed to happen -- at least not to the degree that it did.

In keeping with the non-partisan nature of these remarks, I would note that this strategy -- however welcome it is -- is

[ Page 13940 ]

I also note, from the government's information on the Net regarding the downsizing of portables, that there are plans for how to dispose of the portables. One suggestion is that the Ministry for Children and Families use these for day care centres. Well, I did have a situation in my riding where in fact a day care centre was in this situation of wanting a portable. Unfortunately, the cost was going to be over $80,000. So I would just point out to the member that some of these, I think, are. . . . Perhaps they look good on paper but are very likely not to be practical.

[1940]

J. Smallwood: I'll take. . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. . . .

J. Smallwood: . . .the member's comments as an endorsement of the government's initiative and a wishing-well for the government to continue investing in children and investing in schools and the infrastructure necessary for education in this province. But one cannot have half a loaf. What it means is that as a government one has to appreciate the significant investment that is necessary and the wisdom of that investment. I will expect a continuation of support for those spending dollars.

Secondly, I want to make a point with respect to the member's last comments around the portables. Portables are assets that belong to the people. They have been bought, and they have been paid for. I think that it's important for us in the next phase to recognize that and to ensure that the best use of those portables, in their disposal in the days and years to come, continues to serve the broad public interest.

I want to talk about my own school district, Surrey. Surrey saw rapid growth. We truly needed this investment of real classrooms. I'm happy to say that we're now seeing the fruits of our commitment. This latest instalment meant ten projects for Surrey: one new elementary school will be built, and there will be additions to nine others. This will allow 37 portables to be removed.

Since April '98, Surrey school district has benefited from a bonanza of new construction at New Chimney Hill, East Whalley, Grosvenor Road, South Clayton and Tynehead elementary schools. We've built 38 new additions to Ellendale, Holly, Cedar Hills and Royal Heights elementary schools, all in my constituency of Surrey-Whalley. There are 11 additions to elementary schools in the Liberal-held constituencies of Surrey-Cloverdale and Surrey-White Rock. We have constructed a new South Newton area secondary school. There are new additions to Earl Marriott Secondary School. We have renovations to K.B. Woodward and Holly elementary schools, and replaced four classrooms in Harold Bishop Elementary School.

Some of our more minor but still very necessary capital projects in Surrey include developing a parking area at Riverdale Elementary School, providing access for wheelchair users at the board office, Fleetwood, Riverdale and Crescent Park elementary schools -- the list is a lengthy one. These are capital improvements that make a real difference in our students' and teachers' lives and provide tremendous hope for the future for Surrey and for the province.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their statements. I now call on the Government House Leader.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

S. Hawkins: I have a constituency issue I'd like to raise with the minister. It's regarding a company in my riding, Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. I did receive a copy of a letter that was sent to the minister. It's dated May 6, 1999, and it deals with two issues, really. The first issue is a potential road blockage, and the second deals with the uncertainty regarding a memorandum of understanding that the Ministry of Forests will hopefully be signing with one of the first nations bands in the Okanagan. I think the minister is familiar with this issue.

[1945]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am familiar with the issues, although I might not have what's happened in the last three or four days. The last time this was brought to my attention, these are the things that happened. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who has the lead on the file, spoke with one of the chief councillors and tried to get a more accurate picture of what

[ Page 13941 ]

[1950]

S. Hawkins: The road in question is Ashnola Road, which is down in the southern Okanagan. I thank the minister for bringing me up to date on what has taken place. I know the minister understands that this, because of the delay. . . . I understand that it has been delayed significantly now, partly because the company wants to do it in a way that results in the least amount of conflict as possible. I think that's very commendable. The company is being very cooperative and is trying to be a good citizen and work with all parties.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any time lines he's working with, with the other ministries. I understand that when things like this happen, it does cross into interministerial boundaries, so we have the Aboriginal Affairs minister, the Highways minister and the Forests minister working on this issue. I know it's very complex. I understand that it has been delayed now until, possibly, the fall. There are jobs involved in this, and I know the workers in Westbank are quite concerned about this. I'm also wondering if the minister can tell me a little more about some of the issues that are being discussed in the MOU and how close that is to being signed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the specifics here with us. I've asked the officials to come up with the information.

You asked about time lines and jobs and what's happening. You correctly understand that the company doesn't have to be in there till this fall, at which time they have to do some development work. So we aren't pressed for time, which gives us more time to work out some of the problems -- to maybe accommodate the first nations interests and do some advanced work on some of the economic development programs that it has been suggested we cover off in the MOU.

I don't have a draft of the MOU here. I don't know how close it is; I'll try to find out for you and let you know. Typically, what's in memorandums of understanding like this would be understandings on how we give effect to the law respecting the need for consultations. We have an agreement as to when information will be provided about a proposed development and in what form: the nature of the maps, the time lines for a response. What is always at issue is the capacity of the first nations to respond on a technical basis. We try to cover off how we would resource the capacity. How much comes from the first nations? How much comes from, maybe, the third party that's operating in the area? How much would come from any of the line ministries that are involved?

We are managing it with a committee -- between Aboriginal Affairs, Highways, and Forests. As you know, we are being very careful not to provoke a confrontation. A number of companies and ministries have been served notice up and down the Okanagan. We are trying to take away any legitimate issue by resolving it and getting to an understanding.

The MOU, in short, would try to address the issues of how we do consultations and how we address the economic development needs and interests that have been expressed. Those are typically the two things that we cover off in MOUs.

S. Hawkins: I just want to emphasize that the company will be significantly impacted. I was reading through my notes here. This timber supply that is potentially blocked by a road blockage represents 25 percent of the company's timber supply. Certainly the company employs 250 people, and I understand that's 13 weeks of operation. That is a significant impact on a company that's trying to work through challenging times. I know the minister knows that; I just want to emphasize that.

[1955]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I can tell you what I know, having been briefed. The Ministry of Highways is confident that there's nothing more they need to do to prove title to the road. They are acting on legal advice, and they assert that and have explained everything with respect to the documentation to the first nations. As you know, in these cases someone may make a case and advance a case. But we're confident that we're on strong grounds, and should this go to court, we feel we could win it. We're confident there.

Yes, Gorman Bros. . . . Because it isn't pressing, and we can find alternate operating areas, we will work in the alternate working areas. We will work in the alternative working areas, but we're always cautious not to do something wrong by way of resource management in another area when we should be accessing this area. I've been advised by the company that they're prepared to wait awhile. That gives us more time to work things through.

Last September -- I think it was late September -- I visited the band and tried to advance the issues. We agreed to bring the federal government to the table to fund the development of capacity at the band level. Canada has recognized and agreed that it's their responsibility. We're working with the federal government to try to get them to bring some resources there so that when it comes to dealing with planning issues around resource development, the first nations do have the capacity to respond.

S. Hawkins: The only reason I asked about how confident the province was. . . . An issue arose in my riding about

[ Page 13942 ]

I'm basically done. I wonder if the minister can commit, then, to getting me some more information on the MOU and keeping me or the critic advised on the discussions that are happening around this road. It's a significant issue for this company in the riding, and I would be happy if the minister would keep me apprised of the situation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll undertake to brief you on the status of the MOU and try to keep you updated.

G. Abbott: As the minister has probably figured out, we're on to roads. When we left, we left the final word to the minister with respect to the suggestions I made with respect to forest recreation campsites. I don't know whether the minister wants to give us a final word on that, and then we can continue on with the discussion of road issues.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Over the dinner hour, I checked just what we had done. As you know, the Forest Service is primarily responsible for providing wild-land recreation opportunities. Parks, as you correctly point out, has a responsibility at the higher-level end of service, where the traffic is more frequent. We are prepared, and remain prepared, to work with Parks or any other agency to ensure safe and quality opportunities.

[2000]

The Ministry of Forests position is that we're quite prepared to give up or transfer management options, should someone have the business capacity to run it. By that, I mean a plan that they can resource with appropriate staffing. We would be loath to try to upgrade any service that we couldn't pay for. Similarly, we can't transfer them if Parks is not interested in taking them and if they haven't got the resources. It does become a budgeting or a business development issue.

G. Abbott: We can turn our attention to Forest Service roads. As the minister undoubtedly expects, the focus of the discussion will be around the document from the resource tenures and engineering branch with respect to Forest Service roads. That will be the principal discussion area from the opposition's perspective. There are a couple of questions, though, around roads, and we actually just talked about one of them here. There are a couple of other ones too, and maybe we can just get them out of the way and then go on to the core issues.

The first of the miscellaneous issues that we have. . . . We've been getting some correspondence -- and obviously the minister has as well -- about the apparent construction of a logging road through Manning Park. I don't know a thing about this and have no idea of what's being proposed or why it's being proposed, so I'll invite the minister's comments on what's occurring and why it's occurring.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The authorization of any road through a park, of course, would be the Minister of Environment's responsibility. But there is a perception that there was a commitment to allow access to an isolated piece of timberland -- that is, isolated by the park. There is an understanding on the part of the timber interests that there would be access granted. Right now there is consultation taking place, I believe, under the direction of the land use coordination office -- trying to get the views of the various parties. There is resistance from those people who see fit to protect the park as boundaries that shouldn't be violated in any way. So the issue is: can we find a way that's acceptable to the stakeholders to provide access to this timber? I think it's one of these things that in the past was not resolved adequately at the time of the creation of the park and remains an unresolved problem today.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise on the volume of timber which is isolated currently due to the park? And who, in the ministry's estimation, are the stakeholders involved in the process of trying to sort out how to access that volume of timber?

[2005]

G. Abbott: I look forward to receiving that information so that I can pass it along to those who have written to us expressing their concerns.

The final area involving roads that doesn't really fall into the Forest Service road discussion, which will follow, is an article from the newspaper Houston Today of June 9. The headline is "Forest Officers Set up Radar," and the article goes on to detail attempts by the Forest Service to take steps to get control over speeding on Forest Service roads in the Houston area, including, I guess, some training in radar detection for Forest Service staff. Having occasionally driven Forest Service roads, I can appreciate on one level why this might be undertaken.

Perhaps the minister can give us a little bit more information about the program. Is this a kind of pilot program just in the Houston area because of unique problems there? Or is this something that's being planned for other areas? How far does the minister anticipate this program is going to be extended?

[ Page 13943 ]

An Hon. Member: Yeah, that's sad.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it's not sad. I think it's a matter of historical reality that some of the older public roads are not maintained. They're older public roads. For various reasons, when you needed to take timber out they built new roads. So some of them were built to a very high standard to accommodate larger vehicles. That's the upside of it.

But in this particular area they had some problem with accidents. There was concern by the public who were using the road that there were people driving too fast. So on an isolated basis, because we had a problem there, we sought to work with the RCMP to provide some method of controlling speeders on those roads. We do not contemplate having this program somewhere else at this point. If something comes up, we might consider it.

G. Abbott: We can move, then, on to the issue of Forest Service roads generally and the challenge that maintaining them is posing currently to the ministry. The issue is set out pretty well in the letter of April 27 from the director of the resource tenures and engineering branch to the forest engineering steering committee. I'll just quote briefly from a portion of it, because I think it does set out the problem pretty well:

"For the fiscal year 1999-2000, MOF has been allocated $7 million for the maintenance of FSRs. With the expected contributions of almost $3 million from MOTH and the small business forest enterprise program, an estimated $10 million will be available for the maintenance of FSRs and bridges. This allocation is about $20 million short of the need to maintain all FSRs to the code standards -- hence the urgency to address the FSR maintenance issue through different options, as developed in the enclosed discussion paper."

[2010]

G. Abbott: I wasn't actually looking for that answer from the minister. I was looking to whether that $7 million and $3 million and the $20 million shortfall adequately set out the parameters of the problem we have.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as I have said in interviews and as I've said in this House, this deals with the worst cases. If we have the worst cases of road failures and degradation, we would need $30 million. That's the upper limit. We have never had $30 million to spend. As I said, you could upgrade and upgrade -- get rid of the washboard, replace culverts and so on.

The reason the document is out is so that people could openly discuss it. This was widely circulated and was there as the basis of discussion. When confronted with whether or not there's enough money in the $10 million to maintain the roads, we're at a point now, in June, where we are not facing any significant closures. It is an upper limit; it has to be seen as an upper limit. We have to do with less, but I think we'll find that you can't translate $10 million in funding as meaning that you can only maintain a third of the roads, because that's not true.

G. Abbott: You made me feel good there for just a minute but brought me crashing back to reality so quickly.

The minister is suggesting that we can possibly get along with the $10 million. Is the $3 million from MOTH secure for this year and for subsequent years? Or is it going to be a matter of negotiation from year to year with MOTH?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It varies a bit from year to year, depending on whether or not the public is using a particular road, but they produce about $1.5 million. You'll notice that the line says $3 million from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the small business forest enterprise program. So the small business program contributes about an equal amount.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that clarification. So it's about $1.5 million from each of those two: MOTH and small business. Good. Thank you.

I'm sorry -- is that provision. . . ? The $1.5 million from small business would certainly be secure, because that would be part of the budget set out year by year by the Ministry of Forests. Is the MOTH one based on an MOU with Highways or on some other kind of agreement of some sort?

[2015]

G. Abbott: Could the minister provide me with some background on how FSRs have been maintained or managed over the past three years? Has the lion's share of the funding allocation come from Forest Renewal B.C. in, let's say, the previous two fiscal years?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm trying to get the year-before funding, but last year it was $7 million, and that was paid for by FRBC. So we've gone up slightly this year.

G. Abbott: The report also notes, again, in the initial letter: "In recent years, MOF has been unable to fund the road maintenance program adequately, despite funding contributions from the forest industry, Forest Renewal B.C. and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Forest Renewal B.C. funds are no longer available for the maintenance of FSRs. Similarly, Forest Renewal B.C. has cut off the bridge

[ Page 13944 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Basically Forest Renewal did agree, because it went through a few years of having surpluses in the bank. The stakeholders on the FRBC board agreed that the maintenance of roads was something they could fund -- that it was a good use of dollars that originated from stumpage. This is really an FRBC question, and we'd have to go to the minutes. We can do that, if you want, when we talk about FRBC. As I recall the decision, this was not a high priority by industry stakeholders on the FRBC board. They saw higher priorities, particularly in the land-based programs, so it fell back on the ministry to seek the funds from Treasury Board.

G. Abbott: If the minister has the figure for the previous year for FRBC funding, that would be useful.

The jobs and timber accord makes some reference to FRBC funding of up to $50 million for a variety of purposes, one of which is code-related incremental road costs. It reads: "Incremental costs due to higher standards required for new road construction and for rehabilitation of existing road networks. Activities are necessary due to new regulatory standards." Could I get from the minister an interpretation of what that means in terms of any ongoing responsibility that FRBC may have in relation to road costs? Is there a fundamental change that has occurred here, which allows that particular initiative by FRBC to no longer have force in the context of road costs?

[2020]

You asked about the actual expenditures. Road and bridge maintenance expenditures in '97-98 were $8.8 million, and in 1998-99 it went down to $4.87 million. Those were the dollars spent by the ministry. So those were FRBC dollars spent: '97-98 was $8.7 million, and there was about $37,000 that came out of the ministry vote, for a total of $8.8 million. In the following year -- '98-99 -- $4.8 million was spent by FRBC on roads. And then this year the budget has gone back up, but in the ministry, to $7 million. I used the figure of $7 million from last year. I gave you an approximate figure of $7 million for last year, and I'm now telling you that it's $4.8 million. But you have to add onto that the money spent by Transportation and Highways and the small business program. Projected for '99-2000 is the $7 million plus the $3 million, which we had been talking about. So we've gone from $8.8 million to $7 million to $10 million.

G. Abbott: That helps clarify the situation. I guess the only question that remains after that explanation is why the estimate of $30 million would have been used in the context of the report, given that there doesn't seem to be a historical basis for it. That's the only lingering question I'd have with respect to that particular part of it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was the one who asked that we disclose the situation to get into a frank discussion with stakeholders out there -- other people who might have shared responsibilities for the roads. When we put it out, we had the engineering staff talk about what would be ideal. I think the member can appreciate that when you put budgets together, you always ask for what you think you would really like to have, given an ideal world, and I think the budget figures just show that we haven't. In the history, then, at this level of expenditures -- floating up and down a few million -- we haven't seen any significant closures of roads. We've been getting by and asking people to do as much as they possibly can. I have no doubt that we could spend $30 million or more for the next ten years. We would then have a road system that would be in excellent shape, probably with no risk whatsoever to the environment or to safety, but I don't expect to see that ideal world.

[2025]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Discussions are ongoing. We didn't put options for $10 million, $20 million, $30 million -- nothing like that. It was just a basic background document. It was distributed to the various industry association members. Government and industry are working on it. We have reiterated our commitment to the major industry group, COFI, that we wouldn't action any of these items until we'd had further discussions with them. All I can say is that it's a work in progress.

G. Abbott: Just to briefly explore some of these options, I'm curious about the applicability that they would have currently. One of the first options noted -- as I say, I'm not going to ask about them all but just some of them -- was the forest-industry-pays option. A portion of this reads as follows:

"Any expansion of forest company obligations would be through a general stumpage increase, perhaps to establish a floating fund to carry out both routine maintenance and emergency repairs on our Forest Service roads; assuming that the appraisal system is maintained in its current form, increasing the cost of maintenance by the licensees will result in lower unadjusted stumpage values; for the government to achieve its target revenue from the appraisal of timber, the stumpage rates would need to be raised to accommodate the increase in maintenance costs."

[ Page 13945 ]

When we talked just moments ago about the industry accepting that in return for lower stumpage rates as of June 1, 1998. . . . Is it the minister's understanding that the industry was accepting that it was going to be losing the $50 million benefit in taking on that lower stumpage rate? That's clear enough. Was there, from the minister's perspective, any explicit or implicit agreement that the companies were also expressing a willingness to take on the cost of Forest Service roads maintenance?

[2030]

We agreed with industry that we wouldn't be exercising this option until we had some kind of understanding. You know, we're facing the reality that we have to find out what's fair in terms of who should pay. We're aware of the fact that there's only so much we can do, but that it's seen as an underwriting of what would normally be accepted industry costs. So it is a very complicated technical matter with respect to how the appraisal system recognizes these roads. But if it's an expense of doing business, at some point we're going to have to recognize that it may have to be recognized in the stumpage system.

G. Abbott: That does clarify the matter. Just so we're all clear on what's intended here or what's possibly being suggested here, is the minister saying that -- given that the minister has, I think, an agreement with the industry to look at ways to reduce costs and to avoid bringing on new costs. . . ? For any kind of a move to be made in the direction of the forest industry assuming responsibility for the maintenance of Forest Service roads. . . . Before that would happen, that would have to be the product of some sort of agreement between the industry and the government. Is that clear, or am I reading too much into what's been said?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's the preferable way to go. That's what this document forms the basis of -- a discussion to determine exactly that. But I'd just remind the member that when FRBC paid for road maintenance. . . . Essentially, you had stumpage paying for that road maintenance. It was collected as stumpage and then went back into road maintenance indirectly. So we're trying to find a much more direct method -- through either some kind of cost allowance or some direct user-pay based on who's using the road. As I say, there are a range of systems right now. If industry wants to use a road, they have a road permit and are then responsible for the maintenance of the road at that time.

G. Abbott: The logical flow gets a bit strained there at some points, but that's fair enough. The understanding I have is that the forest industry certainly should not expect that there will be any sort of unilateral change in the technical application of stumpage to accommodate this particular expenditure. That would be something that would follow consultation -- and, preferably, agreement -- before anything like that would be seen. I guess the minister can confirm that.

I'd be curious, as well, about whether any sort of change in the stumpage system, as is proposed here, would be the flip side of the deal with the U.S. It's a change to the stumpage system. Is it something that could be considered objectionable under the softwood lumber agreement?

[2035]

G. Abbott: I'm satisfied with that comment.

Another one of the options that's explored a little later on in the paper is under "Privatize Forest Service Road Maintenance." It notes:

"Another option for this ministry is to privatize maintenance in one of two ways. We might follow the example of MOTH and establish contract areas throughout the province for private sector companies to bid on carrying out maintenance on Forest Service roads, on the premise that costs can be reduced by this method.

"As a separate process, however, we might consider inviting proposals from interested private sector groups who might be interested in maintaining our roads if they can set up a cost-recovery process from road users, both industrial and non-industrial."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is an idea, and it's an option that's just roughly described. What might be involved here is that a contractor might take on a number of these roads and, through economies of scale, be able to manage them more frugally. Right now there are direct contracts -- small ones for grading, gravelling and whatever. It is a question of administering a lot of separate small contracts, as opposed to maybe turning over much more of the administration at a fixed cost -- not unlike the privatizing of road maintenance. You would never know unless you had good baseline data. It's an idea put out there to see if somebody has some feedback on it that might be useful.

G. Abbott: The Ministry of Forests, as I understand it, doesn't have road maintenance crews -- doesn't have its own crews. I guess what the minister is saying is that right now there are a wide array of contracts with the private sector to maintain different portions of the road, and it's a suggestion that when we use the term "privatize," it's simply a matter of rolling a bunch of those into a much larger contract and putting that out. Is that the difference? I don't see where we have a public sector that would be comparable to the Ministry of Highways pre-privatization road crews.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The first part of your commentary was substantially correct. It is a case of trying to wrap a bunch of

[ Page 13946 ]

[2040]

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Streifel: I just noticed in the gallery tonight a pretty long-term friend of mine, the Chair of Committees, the member for Yale-Lillooet and many other members in the House, who's a well-respected forester from one of the most progressive companies in British Columbia: Al Staehli with J.S. Jones. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Abbott: I think I understand now what the minister is suggesting would be the approach on privatizing Forest Service road maintenance. Does the minister have any idea of what kind of costs savings might be produced by this particular option?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it's a very preliminary concept, and there's probably not much more known than what is in paragraph 543. That's it. This is a very preliminary document.

G. Abbott: One of the other suggestions that's made is to deregulate one of the other options that's outlined under "Deregulate MOF Liability: As an option to providing sufficient funding for road maintenance, with or without other options to have someone else take over the roads, the ministry might relieve itself of all legal obligations. This includes specifically amending the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia and the forest road regulation." Can the minister outline to me what the implications of a deregulation of an MOF liability with respect to Forest Service roads would be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suppose the implication is that if the liability is transferred to the user, the user is then responsible for maintaining it in a safe condition. Should the user not be able to do it and with the ministry not being liable for its maintenance, then a closure might happen, were the user not prepared to maintain it.

G. Abbott: I presume that the status quo, with respect to liability, would be that where a road failure occurs, which results in some sort of damage to downstream uses or something along that line barring some other way of adjudicating -- the matter may ultimately end up being an issue that would be resolved in a court of law. Is it the minister's understanding that in the absence of a deregulation of liability, that's how it would be sorted out?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The idea would be that if you have a clear definition of law as to who's liable, then there is less likelihood of somebody bringing about an action against a government official. We have court cases now around signage and so on. Nothing stops anybody from raising these issues in a court of law. We've got legislation in the House that would say that it isn't the official's responsibility; it's government's responsibility and liability. If we are taking over the responsibility of roads, it falls on government, under the code, as opposed to an individual district manager. It's a question of trying to place the appropriate liability in the appropriate place. If in fact a road is a user's road -- only a user doing it -- then it makes sense that that user maintain some liability. That's the thesis here.

[2045]

Certainly the liability issue is a real one. The minister knows, for example, of the unfortunate situation at Hummingbird Creek in the constituency of Shuswap. After some protracted rain there was a road collapse, and a tremendous debris flow which followed did damage in the millions of dollars to a community called Swansea Point. I think it was one of the largest disasters of that kind in British Columbia. The issue there is complicated. The liability issue, certainly complicated, may ultimately be sorted out in a court. Hopefully, it can be sorted out through other ways. The issue there, it seems to me, is maybe more complicated than average.

Would the minister agree with my premise that it's not unusual for these Forest Service roads to have multiple users, multiple stakeholders and multiple interests involved in them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that most of the problems occur on non-status roads, roads that don't fall under the regulation implied here. So there are problems on roads; that's where the potential environmental damage is. If there's a washout, I guess there's a safety concern. The bigger problem is on those roads.

G. Abbott: I'd like to move on to the second-last option, and that is "Reduce Road Network/Closure." Can I take some comfort from our previous discussion that, as we have discussed in some detail, $30 million a year isn't required for the ongoing maintenance of the roads, that we can get the job done at $10 million and that therefore any sort of public apprehension about, for example, half of the roads having to be closed because the money is not there. . . ? Roads wouldn't be closed for that reason. Roads may be closed off for a variety of other good reasons. But any real or perceived shortfall between $10 million and $30 million is not going to result in a reduction of the road network or a closure of portions of the road network.

[2050]

[ Page 13947 ]

What we're attempting to do through the cost reduction strategy, the cost-drivers study, is identify on a site-specific basis whether or not we can vary the regulatory requirement for maintenance so as to stay within the liability implicit in the code and still have a safe and usable road that is not at risk -- for environmental damage. So the question is: how much protection do you want? How high do you want the standard to be?

We think that given some variation in the liability, given some variation in the maintenance standards. . . . You vary that so that you're dealing with only having to close those that are unsafe on a site-specific basis. For some roads you can reduce the liability and reduce the standard and still have a passable, usable road that's safe. So we're working on a site-specific basis to vary the regulatory requirement.

G. Abbott: The final option that's laid out in a framework for managing FSRs is "Forest Renewal B.C. Pays." The suggestion here is that FRBC needs to use FSRs to conduct its activities under the enhanced forestry program, watershed restoration program and the resource inventory program. Therefore Forest Renewal B.C. should fund the maintenance of FSRs for its own needs, as well as for a portion of public needs. It goes on to explain that the exact amount can be calculated based on cost experience.

Is this an option which the Ministry of Forests will continue to pursue? Or is the notion of a contribution from Forest Renewal B.C. pretty much beyond the pale at this point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Given the stumpage reductions and the consequent reduction in income that FRBC has, it's not a very realistic option. The board of Forest Renewal said fairly clearly that they're going to go to putting the money into the land base. I expect there will be discussions amongst the various programs that are going to be putting forth demands on roads and between the various users -- whether it's an FRBC program, mainly delivered through the licensees, and the Ministry of Forests and other users. We'll have to come up with some way of getting the road open and maintained so that the program can be delivered. Here's where you need the site-specific and the program-specific decision made by the people in the field.

G. Abbott: I just have a couple of final questions with respect to the road issue. They are pursuant to questions which have come to me from other sources. That will conclude all the questions I have on roads. Then we should be in a position to move on to the fire protection issues in the morning.

One is a letter -- and I got a copy of it; it's actually to the minister -- from the Elk Valley Regional Economic Development Society. The first paragraph reads: "The communities of Elkford, Fernie and Sparwood are becoming extremely concerned at the lack of maintenance of forestry roads in the Elk Valley. Of immediate concern are the Hartley Lake road and Highway 43 north of Elkford, the only road access to Elk Lakes Provincial Park."

Is there any issue with respect to the Elk Valley and their roads, and the maintenance of them, that would distinguish it from the issue anywhere else in the province? To them, it's obviously a special situation that merits a response, but I frankly don't know. The minister has obviously received this letter. Actually, he didn't receive it very long ago.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Oh, he's had it for a while, so he'll probably know the answer.

[2055]

This is typical of what's going to happen to us as we reduce revenues -- put downward pressure on the revenues from the forest resource. We're going to want to use those revenues in the most cost-effective and targeted way to maintain the forestry infrastructure. If it isn't forest recreation that's being used -- if it's a park use -- then we would argue that if the parks want to keep it open, the parks should pay. We get these letters all the time from the tourism industry. There's no revenue stream directly from the tourism industry that feeds back to the maintenance of these, so it constitutes a subsidy to some aspect of their economic development. It's the dilemma we're faced with, and that's why we're trying to find a fairer way of apportioning costs for the maintenance of roads.

G. Abbott: The last issue is about the school bus routes. The report does identify 23 school bus routes that could be affected by the maintenance issue. Would it be fair to presume, in terms of the $10 million that is available for maintenance, that one of the bedrock concerns or bedrock issues that would have to be addressed in the context of that $10 million would be those Forest Service roads that are necessary for the transportation of children to schools? Or is there an ongoing issue here with, for example, the Ministry of Education?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are putting environmental safety and public safety as the two highest priorities. Now, certainly school children are public. If that's the only route, we would consider putting in money that would create safety for the travelling public. But if we couldn't and it was a huge amount of money that had to be spent -- and it wasn't a public highway -- then we might feel that we might have to close it in the interests of safety. So if a road requires $3 million in repairs and we only have $10 million, we might well not spend it on that particular road. But I'm informed that to date there are no contemplated road closures that involve school bus routes at this point.

If a road needs to be maintained generally and there happens to be a school bus on it, we will take that into account. Where there are children travelling on it daily, that would be a factor in whether we put maintenance money in there or faced a tougher choice, and that might be to close it. But to date there have been no closures.

[ Page 13948 ]

If that's no problem, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[2100]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada