1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 7
[ Page 6451 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
N. Lortie: We have with us in the precincts today 56 grade 5 students from McCloskey Elementary School in North Delta, led by their teacher, Mr. Weir, and several other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: In the precincts today are 46 students in grade 6 at the Talmud Torah School in my riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain, along with their teacher, Mr. L. Bauer. I ask members of the House to make them welcome as well.
H. Giesbrecht: In the precincts today we have 60 grade 6 and 7 students from Len W. Wood Elementary School in Armstrong, along with their teacher, Miss Smith. It's my pleasure to introduce them to the House on behalf of the MLA for Shuswap, who is unable to be here today due to another commitment. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply and advise all hon. members that Committee A will deal with supply as it relates to the Ministry of Environment. In this chamber we shall deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS AND TRADE
(continued)
On vote 23: minister's office, $347,800 (continued).
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that by agreement we have decided to deal with the Pavilion Corporation, so the officials can be here to assist and then go back to their business, if that's all right.
L. Stephens: During last year's debates we went on at some length about the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, and there was quite a large amount of overrun there. We'd like to talk a little bit more about that this year. First of all, what is the financial position of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to reply in both general and specific terms. First of all, may I introduce John Harding, the corporate comptroller of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation; Bob Adams of the policy and planning division; Dawn, who I introduced before; and Ian McKinnon, the deputy.
We are arguing that the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, as you know, should try to reduce its dependency on government funds. They are moving in that direction. This year there will be a total of about $4.71 million in subsidized operations in effect. It's not an overrun but a budgeted contribution from the government to the corporate bottom line. That's comprised of $3.29 million in operations and $1.42 million in capital, for a total of $4.71 million -- down considerably from last year, when the total was $5.38 million. There is a substantial reduction in operating deficit, and that's what we're trying to do: bring down the operations. In some cases, as a corporation, it isn't highly capitalized. They generally feel they'd like to invest more capital, get a better return, and maintain the facilities. They've done some fairly innovative things, going to the major suppliers and contributing capital for long-term projects in exchange for product marketing services. So by encouraging the self-reliance of this corporation, we're happy to report considerable progress.
L. Stephens: Last year there was also an operating deficit of $1.5 million in investment. Is that the case this year as well? The capital investment last year was $8.4 million, the investment was $1.5 million, and the operating losses were $2.4 million. Are there any other areas in the subsidies in addition to operating and capital?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Last year extra funding was contributed to pay for construction of Tradex. That was a major one-time write-off, I understand. There was a considerable extra deficit to run the B.C. Transportation Museum, and that was contributed as well. If you could provide me with the source of those figures, it would help me to reference back.
L. Stephens: Could the minister provide the committee with the areas where the operating subsidy was required? Which organizations?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is an operating subsidy of $1.3 million for the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. The corporate offices take a subsidy of $2 million. The ones that break even are B.C. Place Stadium, Bridge Studios, Robson Square Conference Centre and Tradex -- the Fraser Valley Trade and Exhibition Centre.
L. Stephens: Could you elaborate on the $2 million for corporate offices? Why is there a $2 million deficit there?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's office and executive costs for the overall corporation -- the things we can't farm out to the individual buildings. We try to push costs down to individual operations, but if the subsidy is not in one place, it may be in another. The overall point is that we're reducing the subsidies required. Quite frankly, given the state of the finances and the businesses when we took over, the direction from Treasury Board and myself was to reduce the reliance. I think we're making significant progress with respect to
[ Page 6452 ]
that. We're trying to consolidate space and make the overall corporate operation leaner, and we've made some progress on that. I'll try to get some figures to you on that specifically.
L. Stephens: Was the $1.3 million figure you mentioned what Tradex received as a subsidy? Whichever operation it was, could you elaborate a little bit more on where that went, and for what purpose?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is the difference between $11.3 million in costs and $10 million in revenues. So it's just a shortfall between the costs and revenues in operating the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. The reason we allow that subsidy is the benefits to the tourism industry, for example. It's generally considered that there's a terrific multiplier from that investment by government.
L. Stephens: Could you elaborate a little bit on the $1.42 million in capital subsidies. Where was it provided, and for what purposes?
[10:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give you the approximate figures. Seventy percent of that $1.42 million is to maintain the stadium, 15 percent is for upgrading the computer system, and the rest is generally for the fit and finish of the other facilities. The stadium, as you may know, has had a replacement of the turf... Sorry, I've just been corrected. It's not in this group; that will be next year. The turf was funded by some of the corporate sponsors, so we were able to get it in there in time for the Baseball Classic. Mostly it's stadium upgrade.
One of the things that is being debated between Treasury Board and the corporation is whether or not we've got sufficient inflow of capital to maintain the asset. We've been pushing pretty hard and we're really pleased that they found creative ways to enhance the amount spent to maintain the capital assets. You could always argue that there ought to be more, and we're saying we don't want it at the expense of the bottom line of the province. That's why we've required a reduction.
L. Stephens: What initiatives are being taken to wean the B.C. Pavilion Corporation from subsidies?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The administration will continue to get leaner. We're not sure how much more can be achieved there, but that is continuing. There's the booking of conventions seven years out -- there's a long lead time for conventions. You'll remember from the Clinton-Yeltsin summit that we hope to achieve, through aggressive international marketing, an even greater profile for the beach and some of the facilities we have. We're very active in attracting international conventions. By working on having a long-term supply of business, we should reduce the dependency. Also, we're looking for corporate sponsorships where people advertise or sell their goods in the stadium. They will put some of the capital up front. So where it makes business sense to do that we do it, because of the shortage of capital and the fact that our capital basically comes from the deficit. That's the approach, and I think we're making continued progress.
L. Stephens: According to the Peat Marwick report, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation had a contributed surplus of $155 million in government funds and it had no debt. Is this $155 million money that was used in the construction of the facilities that the corporation operates, or is it an actual account which the corporation holds?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: B.C. Enterprise Corporation contributed to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation in this corporate restructuring. The cost of the stadium was $140 million, so that was contributed and is an asset. The rest is fit-and-finish for other facilities. So it's $140 million of the $155 million. The other $15 million is capital that has been invested in other facilities.
L. Stephens: Just for clarification, the B.C. Enterprise Corporation provided the $155 million; $140 million of that was spent to build the stadium facilities, and the rest was spent on other capital investments.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: B.C. Place Ltd. was split into the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. In the process, this was basically a transfer of assets written off B.C. Place Ltd., and it became an asset of the Pavilion Corporation.
L. Stephens: What happens to the operating losses of the Pavilion Corporation? Do they come directly out of your budget? Where do they come out?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's a line item in our budget, in the blue book, and it's right there by itself.
L. Stephens: Where by itself? I'm on page 93 of the estimates book. Does it come under administration and support services?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It comes under administration and support services on page 93. It's part of the grants and contributions.
L. Stephens: What improvements have been made to the organizational structure of the corporation during the past year?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just getting confirmation of what I hope I already knew.
There was a reduction of two vice-presidents in the corporate structure. There was a reduction in the office operating deficit of the corporate structure. And there was an empowerment of the facility managers so that they are responsible for running their operations as entities, thereby reducing their requirement on the corporate whole for some subsidy of operation.
L. Stephens: Have there been any efficiencies made to the organizations that Pavco looks after: the stadium, Robson Square Media Centre, Bridge Studios,
[ Page 6453 ]
the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre and Tradex? Has there been any realignment of expectations that these will be a little more self-sufficient, particularly Tradex?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to recap, four of the five facilities are on a break-even basis. I am sure they will absorb any profits into capital improvements, or we may ask them to return those profits to us to reduce the overall operating deficit. On average, the attendance at consumer shows at both the stadium and Tradex has increased over 1992. The stadium alone showed a 7 percent increase in visitors to the consumer shows this year. Tradex is a two-year-old facility and it's just beginning to see repeat business. For example, the second annual Fraser Valley Boat and Sportsmen's Show in late March occupied nearly double the amount of space requirements, and there were some 4,000 more visitors than at the inaugural event last year. So we're encouraging them to continue to expand their business.
L. Fox: I want to get some breakdowns with respect to the individual corporations operating within the B.C. Pavilion corporation. With respect to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, if I understood you correctly, you had total operating costs of $11.3 million and a total income of $10 million, leaving a shortfall of $1.3 million. I'd like to know about a couple of items with respect to that. What size of marketing arm do we have? For instance, do we have independent marketing arms for that facility and B.C. Place, or does one marketing arm market both facilities and perhaps also the Tradex centre? How many people are in marketing, and what kind of dollars do we spend on it? As well, I'd like to know about the utilization of these facilities. How much prime time is available in these facilities for us to expand our revenues by marketing and encouraging conventions in Vancouver?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To begin answering your questions, 20 to 25 people are involved in marketing for the corporate whole, as a rule. So marketing is generally done as a centralized function, although we are moving toward each facility managing itself; but we haven't fully decentralized the marketing function. There is an overall corporate manager for marketing, the vice-president of marketing. With respect to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, we partner with Tourism Vancouver and other agencies to do some site-specific marketing. We don't have the exact utilization rates, but we'll try to get them for you. For fiscal '93, the marketing cost was $3.8 million for the corporation.
L. Fox: So as I understand it, you have a global marketing team who market all your facilities within the Pavilion Corp, and that is 25 people.
In talking earlier about proactive things the minister has done with respect to this particular corporation, he said that now we have two less vice-presidents, and he stated some other things. Can the minister tell me what is the status of the FTEs this year versus last year within the total corporation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll just confirm those figures; we'll dig them out.
There are approximately 120 FTEs. We think we're down about five from last year, so that's the direction. We'll try to get those figures for you.
L. Fox: I asked you about available prime time in the Trade and Convention Centre. But can you tell me what kind of utilization you're getting in B.C. Place and what kind of marketing approach you've taken in order to try to market the vacant time?
[10:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will try to get for you the exact utilization figures for all the facilities. Their general marketing approach is to get more longer-term contracts, so that the prime time is booked up long enough ahead with sufficient revenues to have some comfort that they are going to realize their expenditure objectives.
L. Fox: What I was trying to get to is whether or not the minister and his ministry were actively trying to encourage more utilization of these facilities, but I'm finding it rather difficult to approach that line of questioning since I can't find out their vacancy rates.
Let me ask a question about a subject that the minister touched on, I think. In terms of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation and each individual facility -- Tradex, B.C. Place and the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- can the minister tell me if there are any debt services reflected in this particular area of the budget with respect to the capital costs of these facilities?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The debt service costs are embodied in these figures.
L. Fox: So all the facilities, including Tradex, have been paid for by British Columbia. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.
Just on the marketing side, what are we doing to use up vacant space? As you know, you can't fill a major facility, but the actual utilization rate has gone up in the major facilities through aggressive marketing in conjunction with partners like Tourism Vancouver. It's in the interests of the hotels and other businesses in Vancouver to work together with us, so we're trying quite a bit of joint marketing there. We're trying to do more than we have done in the past. I think this corporation is working very aggressively. They report to me, not my ministry, but in the ministry budget we have to pick up any subsidy to the organizations. Our ministry is not directly involved in the marketing efforts. The board of directors are accountable to the government, and the president of the corporation reports to me on a regular basis. I attended one of their events just recently: the kickoff to this year's marketing. It was very creative, bringing in hundreds of people who might be users or promoters of the facility, and did, I think, an excellent job of promoting the facilities.
[ Page 6454 ]
L. Fox: I appreciate those comments. The minister earlier suggested that the actual government contribution this year has dropped something like $700,000 over the course of this budget versus last year's budget. Just how were those particular savings achieved? Through more utilization? Raising of fees for rent?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Essentially through cost-cutting measures within the corporation and better utilization. I don't think there has been any significant increase -- certainly no inordinate increase -- in fees that would be detrimental to the organization.
L. Fox: What were those cost-cutting measures?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've alluded to some of this before. We cut costs by working more closely with Tourism Vancouver. They share in some of the costs for the obvious benefits, and promote their events with us working with them to facilitate their agendas and marketing strategy. So we've reduced some of our marketing costs that way. We have reduced the administrative overhead through reducing the corporate executive. We have reduced staff by a total of about five. We have slowed down on some of the maintenance, very carefully trying to limit spending to assets that need to be maintained.
L. Fox: I hope, with all sincerity, that the maintenance part wasn't a huge cut. I think the last thing that we can afford to do with any of our facilities is reduce maintenance to any significant degree, because that only compounds itself and hurts us more later.
I have one final question. Before stating it, I want to say that I think we recognize the importance of tourism to British Columbia and the role that it plays in the economy of British Columbia. I recall watching a newscast out of the States 20 years ago. The mayor of New York suggested that tourism was going to be New York's number one economy at some point in time. I think it achieved that some ten years ago. This was foresight on the part of that mayor.
While it's very important that we recognize that the contribution of $4.71 million by the province has been repaid a thousand times over in terms of our economy, it's also important that we get the best bang for our buck and don't allow these kinds of things to get out of our control. I appreciate the moves that the minister has made with respect to reducing the staff and improving efficiency.
The one final question I have is with respect to B.C. Place. Given the significance of the baseball initiative this year, which interested many British Columbians, and given the fact that Toronto won the World Series last year and was going to play ball in Vancouver, what kind of proactive initiatives has B.C. Place taken in order to see if we can market ourselves as a full-time baseball stadium?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've taken a keen interest. Other than the regions of B.C., one of my interests is what Pavco can do for tourism in Vancouver and the economy of that region. The president of the Pavilion Corporation, Warren Buckley, is very active on the committee which is trying to get a major team here. As you know, there's talk about sharing a number of games, maybe as many as 14, with Seattle. I think the fact that we attracted 97,000 people to the games that weekend is indicative of the success that can be had in this field. Baseball is a major part of the corporate objectives that the Pavilion Corporation has established for itself. Part of this is due to the aggressive stance taken by the president of the corporation in trying to put some of the pieces together. We're quite proud of the efforts that are being made to attract baseball. I don't think we can say that we've sewn it up yet, but the hype and excitement around the baseball classic brought the focus to Vancouver, and hopefully recognition by the major league that Vancouver is indeed a place that will support baseball.
L. Fox: I have just one final question that I hadn't anticipated but which comes out of this. Given that experience, there were some negative statements made by some of the ball players about the status of the stadium and improvements that would have to be made. First, were they legitimate? Secondly, what is the cost of improving that facility so we could overcome those kinds of criticisms?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two fundamental criticisms. The blinders behind the backstop have been fixed at a small cost. As you know, we installed the turf. There were some criticisms about whether the sand was packed well enough at the bases. I was there watching it all and it was very interesting.
There was a time lag there. We had corrected the problem by the time the news media reported on it. I think there was one coach who got really upset because a player apparently re-strained a tendon. The truth of the matter was that that player had a problem; this didn't help it any, but it wasn't the sole cause. So there was a bit of bad publicity around that, and we made sure that we corrected the problems so that it won't happen again.
We got the turf installed by using corporate sponsorship, and provided a facility that I think is in the class necessary to attract baseball back.
L. Stephens: What kinds of savings were realized from the closing of the B.C. Transportation Museum? You mentioned that the costs of operating Pavco declined this year. Was it a result of the closure of the B.C. Transportation Museum? If so, how much? If not, aside from the cost-cutting and efficiencies that you mentioned, were there other programs that were cut?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The cost of running the transportation museum was $700,000 in fiscal '92, and this year the costs were $90,000. So we've reduced our costs considerably there.
L. Stephens: I'm confused. In '92 the cost of running the museum was $700,000, and the cost this year was $900,000? Would the minister please help me out here. I don't quite understand what he was saying.
[ Page 6455 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said it was $90,000 this year.
L. Stephens: Could you elaborate a little bit more on that $90,000.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It cost $90,000 to operate the Transportation Museum from April '92 to June '92, so that's approximately $30,000 a month.
L. Stephens: Do the cost savings of closing the museum account for the reduction in the total amount of subsidies that went to B.C. Pavilion Corporation this year, or were other areas cut?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In this fiscal year it accounted for $90,000 of the total savings. Of the total cost-savings of roughly $700,000 this year for the overall corporation operations, only $90,000 is attributable to the Transportation Museum.
L. Stephens: I'm asking where the other savings came in. You mentioned cost-cutting and efficiencies. I'm asking specifically where those cost-cutting and efficiencies were that make up the remainder of the amount.
[10:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's increased utilization, which accounted for more revenue. There were efficiencies gained in the overall operation by reducing the headquarters operating costs and by reducing some of the executive and staff. As well, our marketing and operating costs and event operating costs are down.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the lease costs were with the Federated Co-ops for the building that the Transportation Museum was housed in?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Most of the $90,000 that went to the operating cost was for the lease -- approximately $30,000 a month.
K. Jones: You say approximately $30,000 a month. You're talking about only three months of 1993. What was the total cost of that lease for the fiscal year 1992-93?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We had responsibility for April, May and June. After that the costs of operating the museum went to the Royal B.C. Museum.
K. Jones: Was that the same as the operating costs or lease arrangement that you had the previous year?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the costs were roughly the same. If there was any change in the amount of maintenance or events, then it would be up or down, but the base lease cost was essentially the same.
K. Jones: What you're telling us is that as of June 30, the Pavilion Corporation no longer had any responsibility for or anything to do with that site or any of the facilities or operations of the Transportation Museum.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is correct.
K. Jones: Could you tell us the cost of the person who was in charge of that facility up until that time? I believe that in the previous estimates it was claimed that the woman's salary was to be covered between this operation and the operation of the studio down on Lougheed. Could you tell us what happened with regard to that person's position and with regard to the related expenses?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: She's in charge of the film studio full-time now, so all her costs are being picked up under that unit's operation.
K. Jones: Could you tell us why those costs really weren't charged to that film studio in the previous years, since that's where most of her time was spent anyway?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That person had some operating responsibilities for management operations, so an appropriate amount was charged to the respective facilities.
K. Jones: So in addition to the $90,000 lease costs for January, February and March -- actually it went through to June of last year, so it would be April, May and June -- you also had the cost of her salary, and I think you had some staff people on board. Wasn't there a curator or a maintenance person responsible for looking after the vehicles and a warehouse located in Langley?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just trying to figure out where the member is going here. I know we provided considerable detail on the costing of this particular operation to people in the community and, I understand, to yourself. Just checking here, the $30,000 in operating costs wouldn't, for example, include the drawdown on bank balances, and so on, that they had. So this isn't the total cash flow. It's the net amount of a subsidy for the lease costs that are booked against this deficit of the Pavilion Corporation operation. There may be some other costs and incomes that were apportioned during that period of time. It might include the increased staffing for events which might have had an income. The net amount is $90,000 for the three months.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, that's not the question we asked. We asked: what were the total, detailed operating costs of the facility while you had responsibility for it? We didn't ask for a net-up.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll get that. In the meantime, perhaps I can answer a previous question about utilization rates and FTEs. The FTEs for the Pavilion Corporation last year were 234 people. This year we're down to 195, so there's a significant staffing reduction -- it's gone down from 234 to 195. On the utilization rates, the conference centre last year was 58 percent. The North American average for similar
[ Page 6456 ]
facilities is 43 percent. The target for this year is 63 percent. Obviously there's more revenue in prime time, and the prime time is mostly booked. It's the off-primes that try to do shoulder times, as it were. We're targeting a 5 percent increase this year. I have confidence that we'll realize that. In fact, revenues are up considerably in the first few months, so I feel confident about that. On the stadium, utilization is 70 percent, and the North American average is 58 percent. We're targeting 70 percent this year, the same as last year. On Bridge Studios, the film studios, the utilization is 74 percent. It's up from last year, but I don't have the exact figures for that. On Tradex, the utilization is 140 event days; that's how it's calculated at that facility. That's getting up there for a two-year-old facility.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for those numbers. What makes it more interesting and perhaps more predictable is that many of these dates are set up years in advance. You can predict utilization rates with some accuracy.
I just want to ask a question with respect to the B.C. Place number because it seems like phenomenal number. When we use and work out a percentage, do we do it between certain hours a day, or are we working on so many days a week? Just how is that 70 percent calculated?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The guaranteed way to get your utilization rates up is to make sure they stay in there a long time. So we actually book the time from the time they're in there to the time they leave, and they pay for that time. So there's an incentive for them to get in quickly for setup time and out quickly for takedown time. It's a percentage of the time. They occupy it overnight, so it does involve the time. If it's a two-day event, the full 48 hours is booked as utilization time.
L. Fox: I understand that. Let me ask the question another way. Does the 70 percent represent 365 days of the year, 24 hours a day?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes. As I understand it, it's 70 percent of the time that the facility sits there, which is full time.
H. Giesbrecht: I want to ask the minister a question on loan guarantees that was raised in a general sense yesterday. There is a proposal to build a paper mill at Onion Lake, about halfway between Terrace and Kitimat. The issue was raised by the member for Prince George-Omineca. If I understand his comments correctly, he said something to the effect that he had a real problem when it came to investing government or taxpayers' money directly into corporations that, in many cases, compete on the private investment market. I share that concern about loan guarantees.
I wanted to get the minister's response to something. Just the other day, in a newspaper article in the Kitimat News Advertiser, there was an article headlined "Orenda's Future Riding on Decision by Government." Just to clarify what I'm getting at here, I would like the minister eventually to respond to two specific quotes. One of them says -- and this is a quote from Frank Foster, Orenda executive vice-president and chief financial officer:
"Up until the last little while we've been able to do some work on the project, but now we're effectively stalled while the provincial government is making its decision.
"We really haven't had the loan issue dealt with yet. They're dealing with policy right now, something which they were supposed to have dealt with last month. The longer we wait, the rockier it gets.
"'There are projects right next door in Alberta that have been put together with far greater support from government than we're asking for, and much earlier on,' said Foster. `All such projects are really getting government support around the world. That is more the norm than projects going ahead without government support'."
I think I speak for a lot of people in the constituency when I say that it appears they have some notion that the government should be kick-starting this project, leading the investors and getting in as a primary investor in a loan guarantee. Indeed, there was a letter to the Premier recently from the mayors of both Terrace and Kitimat suggesting the same kind of thing. As I said, I've heard the comments from others.
Would the minister comment on the suggestion that the project depends on government getting into the investment act here, at the very beginning, with investment dollars and with taxpayers' dollars? Then would he comment on the suggestion that the government should kick-start the project -- and others like it -- with loan guarantees at the very beginning, before all the other investors are in place? I wonder if the minister would please comment.
[11:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to respond to that. First of all, we have had discussions with the proponents of this project. The government is always interested in receiving proposals from companies that may need some assistance either for infrastructure or for some kind of financial participation. But we are saying to people who are proponents of projects that we expect a major strategic partner in the private sector to contribute some financial backing. I think that's a general requirement by people who provide loans in the private sector, as well. They want to know that someone who is knowledgeable about the business and has capital to invest is there as a strategic partner. It's my understanding that this project is waiting for confirmation that strategic partners are available. The government, similarly, will not know.... In this case the figure of $100 million has been bandied about. It's not this government's way of doing business to say yea or nay to a specific amount before we know who the partners are in a project, and what the financial requirements are. That project may need a loan guarantee of $25,000. It may need some other kind of financial participation. We are clearly not the problem that is holding up this particular project.
We like to operate on a businesslike basis, which is that you negotiate requirements between the parties. In this case, we feel that the company, through some of its
[ Page 6457 ]
comments to local politicians, is trying to pressure the government into making what is in effect a subsidized contribution to the project to "kick-start" it. We don't say that there's a loan policy where we will put X amount up on any given project. It's far too early in the case of that project to determine what the needs are. In my view, that project is still waiting for a major strategic partner, which it needs before we can even do the due diligence necessary to determine its financial needs. But we have not ruled out a loan guarantee or some other form of financial participation. It would be folly for government to do that.
With respect to the comments about Alberta putting some money up front on a similar project, the record of the Alberta government on some of their recent loan guarantees and contributions has not been exactly admirable. In the heat of run-ups to election, some people like to put money on the table and say: "We're there." But most of these contributions, if you examine them, are contingent upon the feasibility of the project and subject to the due diligence. I reiterate that there have been cases in recent history in this province where a loan guarantee was offered early on, and it's no guarantee that the project will proceed.
To make it absolutely clear in this case, people in your community have to understand that strategic partners with some financial backing have got to be available so that we know who we're dealing with and that the requirements of the government are clearly understood.
L. Fox: I'll just follow up on that point, and then I understand that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has a few questions on the Pavilion Corporation.
The minister talks about what the Alberta government may or may not have done with respect to loan guarantees or grants. I would like to point out that five or six years ago Alberta was very successful in literally buying a pulp industry business and putting it in northern Alberta. I don't necessarily agree with that process -- I think it's short-term gain for long-term pain -- but it certainly did hinder some projects in B.C. because Alberta was prepared to buy that industry.
I wonder whether the minister has had any meetings with respective ministers in other provinces of Canada to discuss the issue of buying industries and competing against one another versus trying to build a strong economy for Canada by working together and being consistent from province to province. We're really all one constituency, and that constituency is Canada.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is correct in his general approach. Yes, we have had discussions among ministers. As you know, there is always the potential of the battle of the treasuries with respect to footloose industries. Most of these industries are not footloose; to operate, they need a place and they need fibre. There's sometimes a competitive advantage because of power costs, transportation costs or whatever.
In the Alberta example, we would like to see a levelling of the playing field in the sense that the dependency on the government treasuries is minimized. If one province decides to throw something into a project, then everybody has to consider whether they're prepared to book the amount of risk associated with that project on their bottom line, as we have said we would do in British Columbia. We don't rule out the possibility of projects that we consider strategic to regions or sectors of the economy -- say pulp -- being involved. The problem in the pulp industry now is that there would appear to be an overcapacity and deflated prices. Whether or not more capacity should come on in preparation for an upturn in the market is another question -- and at what cost to the provincial treasury? We have to be very careful about what we do to competitiveness in this industry.
A loan guarantee was provided to the Taylor pulp mill, because they had some start-up problems. Just the granting of some concessions through the Job Protection Commission and a loan guarantee is seen in some quarters as unfair competition. That pertains to almost every other project, and that's why we are proceeding very carefully, because most people who have investments in existing capacity in the pulp industry are very sensitive about government contributions.
As I said, we have not ruled out the possibility in some cases where it makes sense in a particular region. But we're not rushing in, because of the past experience where there was some short-term gain for, as you said, the long-term pain. It's the long-term pain that we worry about -- that if there is not a dramatic turnaround in the pulp industry, then anybody who is exposed through loan guarantees or infrastructure investments are in a difficult position to have to explain to their investors.
L. Fox: I'm not an expert on where the pulp market is going, but I have seen some charts with respect to the initiative in the Vanderhoof region that show that there is going to be an increased demand by 1998-99. Whether that forecast is right or wrong, I don't know.
I have one final question on this issue. Is the minister prepared to become proactive in trying to orchestrate a meeting of the minds among the economic development ministers across Canada to work on this very important issue? I think it is an important issue, because I think it's time that we had some unity among the provinces in our approach to economic development. I don't have the answers; I can only point out the concerns. I don't expect the minister to have the answers, but I strongly believe that the timing is right for some kind of initiative. Perhaps the minister is in a position to play a role in bringing that forward to discuss these common concerns with every province in Canada.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministers responsible for internal trade discuss these matters, as do the western economic development ministers. We see ourselves more and more as a trading region. We see ourselves as wanting to maintain as much east-west flow of the economic activity as we can -- without being foolish about it -- because it's important to the continued existence of the Canadian economic nation. We are trying to strengthen the western economy. Because it is a unit, the goods flow east and west to a large extent,
[ Page 6458 ]
and to try to prevent the flow, say, into the United States and across to the coast is something we work on. It's a complicated field, but I have raised it with the internal trade ministers. To get a protocol or some formal agreement where we're not going to get into bidding wars is extremely difficult.
With respect to the internal trade barriers, I have said publicly that we can't give up our rights -- for regional development purposes -- of wanting to get into some kind of incentive program to encourage the development. We say this because of the serious condition in which we find the resource-based industries and the communities that are dependent on that. There has to be an ability to use what policy and financial tools we have to encourage the existence of industries. As I said the other day when talking about the Cominco situation, it's very hard to make a business case for a smelter anywhere but on tidewater. These days we have to consider that it is very delicate to put forth security on a non-subsidized, non-countervailable basis.
As a rule, we deal with those issues. There are a lot of specific policies. If you're asking for an ironclad agreement that we won't get into bidding wars, I don't see a willingness to be forthcoming on that, although the deficit pressures on governments have really forced us into this situation. Clearly it's a judgment call as to whether we ought to be investing in industries so that we do get the economic growth that then helps us with our bottom line.
L. Fox: I keep saying one final question, but every time the minister stands up, I want to expand.
I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't be in the investment business. I was suggesting that there's a need to have some understanding as to the basis, the process and so on, and as to what the limits should be, so that we limit the opportunity of one buying an industry from the other. In my view, there's no question that we need to invest in new jobs for the province, just as any province needs to. But if there's some province-to-province consistency on what basis those decisions are made, then you would do away with a large part of the bidding wars. Those are the kinds of issues I would like to see the minister and his ministry address. It's not so much should we or should we not, but on what basis is it acceptable and what kind of socioeconomic data do we need to be consistent with other provinces. That's where I think we could do a lot of homework and have a lot of discussion.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member has opened up a big topic. I'm advised that there are no easy models for developing an approach that would be consistent across the country. I think the intent is clear. We always talk about trying to avoid the wars in the treasuries. On a project-by-project basis, this happens. The treasuries and the economic development ministers are in constant contact if a project is coming up. We generally find that there's a desire to tip the field in favour of the province that wants the project. But everybody wants to get in at the minimum cost. So a very delicate shuffling goes on, and there's no easy basis to establish that.
I'd be happy to consider your suggestions further. Maybe we can have a dialogue on it sometime. We don't have a formula in place for that, but I can say that on a project-by-project basis, an assessment of the least cost to the treasury goes on. There is an awful lot of pressure against somebody else jumping in, because once somebody jumps in, the next question is: is that industry then dependent on that contribution on a long-term basis? Usually the answer is that, yes, they do become dependent on it, and you do jeopardize the industry in the long run.
K. Jones: I'd like to return to the role of the Pavilion Corporation with regard to the Transportation Museum in Cloverdale and its former role. Could the minister please indicate who signed the lease on behalf of the province or on behalf of Pavco with regard to the site arrangements with Federated Co-ops?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The B.C. Building Corporation signed the existing lease. We'll have to check on who signed the original one.
[11:15]
We now have been able to get the figures to answer your question about the operating costs for the museum. For fiscal 1992-1993, the museum revenues were $20,000 and the operating costs were $130,000; the total loss was $110,000 for the whole year. The B.C. Pavilion contribution to those losses was $90,000. At the beginning of the year, the museum had cash balances, so they could absorb the remaining deficit of $20,000. The lease costs to the Federated Co-ops were approximately $14,000 a month.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of who would be responsible for the cleanup of the site that was leased, as you say, by B.C. Buildings Corporation but was operated by Pavilion Corp.?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The responsibility would be with BCBC.
K. Jones: Since there would be an operating cost involved to do the cleanup, did the Pavilion Corp. take any responsibility or make any arrangement with the B.C. Buildings Corporation to include money in their budget for the cleanup of this site?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Once it was transferred, the Royal B.C. Museum had all the responsibilities. So all the costs now rest with them, but that would depend a bit on their arrangement with BCBC. Because I'm no longer responsible, I don't have the details of the existing financial arrangement. But just to reiterate, the B.C. Museum has the ongoing responsibility. I can't enlighten you on whether in their contract BCBC picks up some costs. We'd be happy to try to get that for you, but it's another minister's responsibility and no longer the responsibility of the Pavilion Corporation, so we don't have the answers to that question.
K. Jones: If the transfer from the Pavilion Corporation to the B.C. Museum occurred as of June 30
[ Page 6459 ]
of last year, there must have been some transfer documentation. Could you table for us the documentation, the contract agreement that transferred responsibility?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We would be happy to table what we have on it, but quite often these transfers take place without necessarily any contractual responsibility. A government can transfer expenditures between different types of operations. So we'll provide you what we have on it.
K. Jones: I find that a totally unsatisfactory answer. You are supposed to be in charge of this ministry, and you're supposed to know whether you've got a contract or not to transfer liability and responsibility for an operation that comes under your ministry. Now surely you must know whether or not there's a contract. If there's no contract, tell us so. But if there's no contract, I believe that you have a continuing liability and responsibility for the site that your organization, the Pavilion Corporation, operated for two to three years. You have a responsibility for bringing what has been created on that site up to a safe standard that would be acceptable within our community.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our responsibility was to operate it. We had a contract to operate it. The contract expired. We no longer have a responsibility as the Pavilion Corporation to operate it. That responsibility now rests with the B.C. Museum. The minister legally accountable for what's going on now is the Minister of Culture.
K. Jones: So you had a contract which was allowed to expire. That contract was a written contract. Who was that contract with?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will get you that information. The contracting parties are a bit complicated because of the history of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. It inherited a number of legal obligations from predecessor organizations. The responsibility for those we will have to hand over to the previous government, who aren't here to stand and answer for it.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There appears to be an hon. member who would like to answer for the sins of the past with respect to this.
If the member has some specifics about a problem there, I'd be happy to communicate that to the minister responsible and ensure, if it's a safety matter, that somebody accepts responsibility.
K. Jones: The minister can't give away his responsibility for the actions that were generated while he was operating it just because of the transfer of the site operations. It wasn't really a transfer, because there was nothing left to transfer. The operations were shut down, so it was a holding operation which still stayed in your responsibility. Only the collection was transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, not the responsibility for the operations or the cleanup of the site. That still stays as your responsibility. I want to know what you've got in your budget to take on that responsibility.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My understanding is that BCBC now has the responsibility. We don't. We have nothing in our budget to take care of it. We have no ongoing responsibilities for the site.
K. Jones: I think we have to accept the fact that whenever any organization operates on a particular site in the province and leaves unsightly or toxic materials on that site, the responsibility stays with the people who operated, created and generated the problem. I am suggesting that you may have to look at that and come up with a budget item to handle the cost of cleanup. We in the community want to know when you're going to do it and how it's going to be done. We don't like the way it has been left right now.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The minister accountable is the minister who holds the lease. I directed you to a different minister, which is fair enough. My responsibilities no longer exist for that site. There was a transfer of arrangements. If there's a problem out there, tell us the problem.
K. Jones: The minister didn't listen to my last statement. I told him there was a problem on the site, and I told him exactly what the problem was. Perhaps he wasn't listening to that aspect before he responded. The fact of the matter is that the minister has to take responsibility for the way the place was operated. He has not told us that he's got an agreement that transfers responsibility for the cleanup of the site or the conditions of the site to any agency other than Pavilion Corporation, which was responsible for operating that site until June of last year, and continues to hold that liability.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It may well be that the government holds the responsibility for ongoing treatment of the site, but as a minister I don't hold the responsibility. I'm answering a lot of questions about a part of the government operations that I'm not responsible for.
K. Jones: One final item. I think that the minister has to realize that the minister is responsible and has to take some responsibility, if only he would.
L. Stephens: Before we leave administration and support services, I'd just like to ask from the supplement to the estimates. Professional services, which is under code 20 in administration and support services, was $1.4 million -- almost $1.5 million. Would the minister be able to tell us what professional services were used for that amount of money?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is a provision for things that come up. Just to give you some examples, we often
[ Page 6460 ]
contract out services for the preparation of publications, communications services, ministry training funds, audits of the government agent's revenue management system under the finance and admin branch. Value-for-money audits, for example, would come out of there if we contract them out. The Ottawa office has $90,000 there, and special projects needed to run the ministry efficiently are under management services. We've targeted some expenditure money on information systems, and we've potentially identified some employment equity special projects.
L. Stephens: There are a number of operations within the ministry that have some professional services attached to them. Were you talking specifically about the administration and support services amount, or were you including the amount for the investment office and for policy, planning and investment in industry? We will get to those at that time, but I'm asking specifically about administration and support services. You mentioned the Ottawa office. For example, what kind of professional services would be required there? You also mentioned advertising and publications, for which there is a separate line item. I'm asking specifically about category 20, which is professional services.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My answer is related to that particular division and that particular category; it was administrative support services, which includes the deputy minister's office. With respect to the Ottawa office, we had someone on contract trying to get federal government business -- contracts that they put out for procurement -- into British Columbia. It was a business consultant who could find a way around the procurement field there.
L. Stephens: I would like to move back to policy and planning, and we got down to trade. As I understand it, the trade policy branch provides policy advice and analysis on trade negotiations and trade dispute issues. The countervail question has been with us for some time and has been partially resolved. What kind of involvement did the ministry have in that? What was the budget? What were the costs involved with fighting the countervail?
[11:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This year we have budgeted approximately $500,000 for legal fees. The legal fees are quite onerous. You have to have the best in the field. As a matter of fact, we are in constant contact with our lawyers in Washington. This has been a very important case to us, and it's been a considerable sacrifice to the ministry's budget in this area. This is the major fight that we have on hand right now, and I think it will be precedent-setting. We are not at all sure that we can rest on the existing decision, because there is much more work to be done. So we have budgeted approximately that amount of money for lawyers' services.
L. Stephens: On page 93 of the estimates under policy and planning operating costs -- is this where this amount would fall? If so, it leaves about another million and a half. What kind of operating costs are we talking about there?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give you some of the items that make up that total. I've given you the $500,000 already on the countervail. On some international intergovernmental projects we budgeted $200,000; for corporate ministry planning we have budgeted $100,000; research and impact assessment is $160,000; policy development is $200,000; special projects out of the ADM's office is $111,000; other trade advisory projects is $88,000; trade policy is $50,000; and work being done in the telecommunications field is $160,000. So approximately one-third of our professional services costs are on the softwood countervail.
L. Stephens: Could you elaborate a little bit more on the $111,000 and what those special projects may be?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you can appreciate, there isn't an exact list at any given time. Some of these things come up and there has to be provision for a contingency. We are looking at some things, and we probably won't be able to do them all; it will depend on priorities. We have to do a review of some of the industry sector strategies. We have to review some of the regional adjustment case studies; so we have to do an evaluation where we've been involved in community and regional adjustment. There is consultancy support for some of the local or regional advisory committees that we've set up. We have a provision that if they've identified a particular project that has policy implications and needs some research, we have a capacity to respond. For example, that might include an examination of the economics of wood waste co-generation plants under the proposed new export policy.
Our study of regional development financing vehicles is looking at the provision of capital to communities and regions. Again, there are trade strategy studies. As you know, some of our Asian trading partners are nervous about fortress America. As a result, we have to look at trade policies that are more expansive than just for the North American continent. There is often legal advice that we have to provide on trade actions. We're not always sure who's going to initiate a trade action, so at least there's money reserved here to do that. Also, this is the place where we review program evaluation systems on an ongoing basis as part of the internal value-for-money audits that assist planning. We look at all our programs. For example, we look at the COED program and try to evaluate whether we're getting value for money there. This would be the agency to do that.
L. Stephens: In your opening remarks you made reference to a policy regime for water. I know the minister is aware that the NAFTA.... The water controversy has come under quite a lot of attack. In regard to water policy for British Columbia, there are three areas: the bulk water moratorium, which has been extended; interbasin water transfer; and the Columbia
[ Page 6461 ]
River downstream benefits, which begin to accrue to British Columbia in the not-too-distant future. I'd like first to ask the minister what the policies or studies regarding water have been in any of those three areas, perhaps starting with the interbasin water diversion.
B. Copping: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Copping: In the gallery today we have approximately 25 grade 10 students from Port Moody Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Meronuk and several other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are leading up to further policy statements with respect to water exports, which the Minister of Environment and I will be making in the near future. We have done all the studies and policy analysis in-house. We are fairly strong on the countervail and trade policy implications, and we have staff on hand who can advise us on trade policy matters with respect to interbasin transfers. Yes, we are looking at interbasin transfers. We feel fairly confident that the provincial responsibilities for resource management give us the sovereignty we need to manage interbasin transfers.
With respect to downstream benefits in the Columbia River Treaty, that is an international treaty and we are held to the responsibilities under that treaty. Any change in the water regimes or any differences in flow management have to be done under the terms of that treaty.
The other point was bulk water. We have examined the export of bulk water from both the interior and the coast, and we will, as I said, make the policy direction of the government known in the near future.
L. Stephens: The Columbia River downstream benefits that begin to accrue to British Columbia were what I was referring to when we were talking about the Columbia River. I understand that a steering committee is looking into what the best use would be of those downstream benefits, because the Kootenays are affected to a large degree by the current agreement. I know that a lot of regions around the province would like to see the benefits of our natural resources come back to them in some form. As far as the Kootenays and the Columbia River downstream benefits are concerned, will part of this symposium that's going to be held in the Kootenays discuss something like returning the benefits of natural resources to the regions?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What is not being negotiated right now is the treaty. The treaty exists. All that is being negotiated is what's going to happen with the benefits. As you may recall, some cash was put up by the Americans, which was invested in the dams. No benefits other than that will flow until 1997, I think is the date, when there has to be a flow of benefits back. In other words, the debt is paid and now we're getting some return for the diversion of water.
The symposium to be held in the Kootenays is an attempt to look at and understand the treaty. Part of that understanding has to be that the treaty itself is not being negotiated, so there is a steering committee that is negotiating the return of the downstream benefits. The symposium is an attempt to bring together representatives of the local government and interest groups, as well as the provincial government agencies that are responsible for anything to do with resource management in the Columbia area. We are trying to deal with the historical grievances people have about the negative impacts of the Columbia River Treaty, and talk about what could be done in the area to alleviate some of the problems. I'm quite sure people will want to talk about the flow regimes. However, that will be reviewed as a result of the overall operating systems review that B.C. Hydro and Energy and Mines will undertake. These things are somewhat separate, but they do come together. The symposium will provide some enlightenment on the relationships of what we can and cannot do.
With respect to the return of the downstream benefits, the amount and nature of the benefits are currently being negotiated between the two countries with the assistance of the federal government. It is an international treaty. B.C. is the primary Canadian party, so B.C. is at the table negotiating with the American interests.
L. Stephens: My question wasn't about the agreement itself; that is ongoing. I'm specifically focused on the downstream benefits that come back to British Columbia, that begin to accrue as a percentage in 1997 -- which is not all that far off. The government has a steering committee that is looking at what to do with those downstream benefits when they do begin to accrue and looking to set something up. The question of Hydro and the flow regimes is entirely separate, and one that I'm not even interested in at this point.
It goes back to the regionalization and what we were talking about earlier -- and I know it is a concept that is near and dear to the minister's heart -- regarding economic development in the regions. Many of the communities in the Kootenays feel that they have not benefited as much as they should have from the dams built for the Columbia River and from the development that went on at that time. They'd like to see their share of these downstream benefits accrue to them now in some form. You've indicated that that is going to be discussed at the symposium you are holding, and that resource management will be a part of it. Who's going to be attending this symposium -- stakeholders, communities, interest groups and so on?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The people attending the symposium will be on a list being negotiated between representatives of local government, the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities and the provincial government. We're suggesting who should be there, and it will be a mutually acceptable group of people including, I would imagine, the fish and wildlife
[ Page 6462 ]
clubs, the municipalities, chambers of commerce, local economic development groups, the tourism association and anybody who has a stake. There will be limits to the size, but it is really intended to be a thorough airing of the issues.
The Columbia River Treaty's downstream benefits are a provincial asset. As we consider the resources of all regions, they really belong to all the people of B.C. If there's a portion of those downstream benefits that can be directed to mitigation, that will be one of the things that comes up at the committee. But we haven't finalized the negotiations on the amount or the nature. We're trying to get input on what range of benefits they would like to have.
[11:45]
It's not true that there haven't been some benefits to the area. Obviously, the construction and ongoing operation of those facilities does benefit the area, and B.C Hydro has been involved in a number of areas. We will be putting those kinds of things on the table and trying to get a general feeling about what is acceptable. In the absence of an agreed-upon amount and nature, we are trying to keep some flexibility in the negotiations so as to have a number of options. Before we conclude the negotiations on the downstream benefits -- the amount and nature of them -- we hope to have this input from the Kootenay people through this agreed-upon, locally inspired process.
L. Stephens: Looking at the supplements, in policy and planning under section 20, which is professional services, we've got another amount of $1.5 million. Would the minister be able to tell the committee what that involves -- what those expenses are for?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I think those were the items that I alluded to before. There's a number of intergovernmental and international activities, projects: the trade advisory service, trade policy, telecommunications, general policy development and research and impact assessments. For example, socioeconomic impact assessments in some of the core regions could be funded out of this area. And then there is corporate planning. There will be outside contractors who come in to help the ministry plan its activities. Those are the categories and together those things are an item of $1.5 million. So that was the same list I gave you earlier.
L. Stephens: When we talked about administration and support services, I asked specifically if what you had mentioned involved just support and administration services. The total amount of the vote under section 20 for all of the divisions -- administration and support, the B.C. Investment Office, policy and planning, industry and investment, community and regional development and reserves -- is just over $8 million. What I specifically want to know is what professional services were paid for out of that $1.5 million that has been allocated to that particular policy and planning division alone.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I have your question correct, the policy and planning division has $1.5 million and the administration division, for example, has $1.4 million, and those all total $8.1 million. So each division of the ministry has some of its own contracting services. I hope that answers your question.
L. Stephens: Professional services were paid for in that $1.5 million. What kind of services were bought for $1.5 million in policy and planning?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They are all contracting services for professional services in those policy areas that I mentioned; some of them are corporate policy and some of them are impact assessments. That was the list of the type of things that I alluded to -- telecommunications, for example. We need assistance quite often to develop a response because there's federal legislation. If we don't have the expertise in-house, we contract it out.
The allocation at this point is notional, because we have to have it lumped together; we can't accurately predict all the policy areas that we have to respond to. For example, if there was a major bogging down of the NAFTA discussions, we might have to contract out a piece of that. As we're beginning to see, there are some very tough restrictions that the Americans want to put in, as we would like to see in the environment and labour conditions if this agreement goes ahead. Similarly, if we have a major problem on the lumber countervail, we may have to shift priorities, put telecommunications on the back burner and invest more in fighting the lumber countervail.
L. Stephens: Okay. I would like to talk briefly about the Pacific Northwest economic region. I know the minister is a representative on that Pacific Northwest economic region table. What role does the provincial government play within this structure, and what kind of participation and goals does the province have with regard to this?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's getting late. I'm going to answer this question, Mr. Chair.
The Pacific Northwest economic region is a cooperative agreement between five states and two provinces. We have a membership on the executive committee. There is actually some discussion about changing the constitution of it; that will be discussed at meetings later in June. The province is represented by the ministers of Environment, Government Services and myself. We're trying to get Tourism involved.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well I do; I attend the meetings. The problem is getting everybody who is involved together at any given time. To get four ministers at one conference is expensive, unnecessary and difficult.
So the priority areas for us are what's happening in the advanced manufacturing field in wood products and in the telecommunications field, and looking at coordination between the institutes of higher learning, to coordinate their research and library facilities.
[ Page 6463 ]
Transportation has become very important, with the injection of major amounts of capital by the U.S. government into what they see as north-south transportation routes. It is a bit threatening to our east-west linkages, so we're very interested in what goes on there.
There's some discussion about the further enhancement of the Cascadia economic region. We are saying very clearly to people that we are not discussing political union. If they're talking about removing barriers that are detrimental to the strength of the Canadian nation, we're very concerned to say that we're not interested. We do recognize that we are an economic region. We have a lot of north-south flows, and we can do some international marketing together, especially in tourism. We can work cooperatively with other industries, and in particular with the environmental industries. So those are the areas: forest products, environmental industries, tourism, research and development and library services in and around institutes of higher education.
L. Stephens: Just one more question in regard to the PNWER: has there been a marketing strategy put together yet? Has that been completed? Is there going to be a joint unified market strategy to put forward those areas that you've mentioned for the region?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On a preliminary basis, there have been discussions on marketing in tourism, and we're working on marketing in environmental industries. But they are very much in the formative stage.
So with that very complete answer, I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Chair, I'd like to pick up where we left off on Tuesday afternoon. At that time we were talking about the allocation of hunting licences on Vancouver Island, specifically as they relate to the elk harvest here on Vancouver Island. As I indicated at that time, I was pleased that the ministry had chosen to allocate a specific number of licences for aboriginal hunters, a certain number for guides and outfitters -- albeit very small -- and a number for the broader community.
I was also making the point at that time that I thought there had to be a common enforcement procedure; one that didn't deal differently with different groups in society, but had conservation officers enforcing those regulations for all British Columbians.
I'd like to ask the minister a bit more specifically about those allocations. If my memory serves me right, there were about 60 licences for aboriginal hunters, about half that many for the non-aboriginal community and I think three or so for outfitters. Perhaps I'll let the minister clarify those numbers, and then we can proceed from there.
Hon. J. Cashore: They are permits, not licences. I believe that the first nations have a role in the administration of how those permits are granted, and to whom. There are 49 aboriginal permits, out of a total of 150, in the area that the hon. member is referring to.
J. Weisgerber: I stand corrected. A third of the permits are allocated to the aboriginal hunters; two-thirds are then available by limited-entry draw. I assume that there are approximately a hundred that will be given by limited-entry draw.
[10:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct. They are limited entry -- the ones given to the non-aboriginals.
J. Weisgerber: I would also assume that the ministry has an idea of the success rate of hunters in that particular area. I assume the minister can project how many animals will be harvested out of those 100 limited-entry draws.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's compulsory reporting for the non-natives; and for the aboriginal people one of the conditions of the permit is an agreement that they will report back. So we believe that the process we're into now will actually enhance our ability to glean data from the aboriginal permits.
J. Weisgerber: My immediate interest is in the success rate of the non-aboriginal hunters on that hunt. My recollection of looking at the limited-entry information suggests success rates at various hunts. I wonder if the minister can advise us what the ministry projects
[ Page 6464 ]
the success rate for the 100 non-aboriginal hunters will be.
Hon. J. Cashore: We will have to get that information in terms of the results from this past year.
J. Weisgerber: Okay. Let me assume, then, that the success ratio is in the 20 to 25 percent range. I assume there is a limited number of animals in the area that are difficult to find and hunt, so I'm going to assume that the success ratio is about 25 percent.
Hon. J. Cashore: I will tentatively agree with that assumption. If we get further information on that, I will bring it back.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to now move into how the 49 aboriginal licences are allocated, because it seems to me that it is important to know whether there is a permit for the aboriginal community to harvest 49 animals as a community. If that's the case, then the chance of a harvest near 100 percent by the aboriginal community is enormously larger than the success ratio of the hunt by the non-aboriginal community.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we would have to have the names of the 49 people who received the permits, so that 49 people would potentially be out there hunting. They would have to have the permit in their possession if they were encountered by a conservation officer. My assumption, given that explanation, is that the statistic would certainly not be 100 percent. It is difficult for me to say off the top of my head whether it would be as low as 25 percent. Again, since we are into this new era of trying to make the interim guidelines work as part of the process to permanent guidelines, it is a little difficult to give that factually. But just let me say that there could well be a higher percentage among the aboriginal permits; I think that stands to reason.
J. Weisgerber: I don't have any argument with that. What I want to clarify is the fact that the 49 permits will be issued to individuals before they start to hunt, that they will be required in much the same way as other hunters to cut their tag or indicate by whatever process immediately after harvest, and that whatever success ratio they happen to enjoy is because of perhaps greater skills or greater knowledge of the community. But the difference in harvest ratio would be simply the difference in ability and in the time that the individual hunter spent in the field.
Hon. J. Cashore: The permits are often issued directly to the band, which then allocates the permits. At the present time it is my understanding that the individual aboriginal people who receive permits do not receive the tags. So they are not tagged, but they are required to report back in regard to their success. The hon. member is correct that there is a difference, in that they do not have the tags.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps I'm not as happy as I thought I was a second ago. Do I understand, then, that there is a ministry-issued form -- a permit -- 49 of which are allocated to the band for them to distribute to individuals and that no more than 49 individual band members during the hunting season could be out hunting?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes with regard to that particular species for which the permit is issued.
J. Weisgerber: Then again let me commend the minister and the ministry for an important step in the right direction. And so that I'm absolutely clear: if one of your conservation officers stopped an aboriginal hunter hunting that species or in possession of that species, he or she would have to have on their person a permit issued by the Ministry of Environment, marked to indicate the date and time of the harvest? Great. I would then just encourage the minister and his ministry to continue with that approach to the harvest because while, as I said the other day, there may well be some arguments about the numbers, at least then everyone understands the rules by which all the people in the field are operating. I think it's a good direction in which to go.
During the Ministry of Attorney General's estimates there was some discussion about interpretation of various court decisions affecting harvesting -- Sparrow, Delgam Uukw, Sioui -- a whole range of decisions that appear to be influencing enforcement decisions. Perhaps the minister could tell the committee what role his ministry plays in the interpretation of those decisions, and the role the minister plays in deciding when and under what circumstances charges should be laid. I'll stop at that.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, this question gives me an opportunity to correct something I said the other day: that we would gather information and lay charges, and then it would be up to the Attorney General's people to prosecute the charges. That's not entirely correct. We would gather and make that information available to the authorities under the Attorney General's department. Then they would decide whether or not to lay the charge. I want to clarify that.
With regard to the recent court decisions, I think the one that has the major impact on the administration of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is Delgam Uukw. The Delgam Uukw decision makes it clear that the Crown has a fiduciary obligation to first nations with regard to traditional uses and food for sustenance. So that recognizes that there is that primary obligation. As we discussed quite a bit in the last afternoon that we were in these estimates, it's very clear that in carrying out our responsibility we must recognize that obligation in the first instance in a way that also recognizes the rights of third parties. So the modus operandi in this brave new world and in these new circumstances is to recognize our legal obligations as made clear by the courts and to do so in a way that enlists the cooperative participation of all affected parties, so that we come out of it with the best possible
[ Page 6465 ]
allocation and result that support our fundamental principle of conservation of the resource.
Now that we have the interim guidelines in place, there is much greater clarity for conservation officers with regard to how to proceed. I don't have a copy of the guidelines with me, but there is a list of seven or eight points in those guidelines that very specifically outline the instances in which a conservation officer should clearly take action. I would also point out that there is information in those guidelines that indicates the nature of the consultation that needs to take place to help prepare the ground for us to effectively carry out those guidelines.
[10:30]
Some of those guidelines, for instance, relate to where a species is threatened. As I stated the other day, there are about three different categories of circumstances. One is where we have to stop hunting altogether because of the need to enable a species to replenish. In such an instance, if any individual is found hunting that species or in possession of that species, that would be grounds to proceed with laying information. The second instance would be where there needs to be very careful control of a species. That would be the situation where we have allocations of permits, as we were discussing a moment ago, and also a limited entry. The third instance is where the relative health, as deemed by a biologist, was in good shape, the normal procedures would obtain where again there was a need for licensing and permitting.
J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify the point that you clarified. As I understand it, if a conservation officer in the field he comes across an individual hunting when the season is closed, and that person were non-aboriginal, the conservation officer would lay a charge. He would look at the circumstances, lay a charge, and then the Attorney General would decide whether or not to prosecute that particular case. But, if I understand the minister correctly, the conservation officer would deal differently with an aboriginal person. He would look at the circumstances, go back to the Attorney General, decide whether or not charges might proceed and then go and lay a charge. Does that fundamental difference exist in the field?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to both aboriginals and non-aboriginals, there are instances where we would go and consult with the AG prior to proceeding with the laying of charges. There are instances in both cases, but under the present circumstances, we would be consulting with the AG in all instances with regard to aboriginals, and not in all instances with regard to non-aboriginals. So there is a difference there. If I missed part of your question, I'm sure you will come back.
J. Weisgerber: I think that was the point I was trying to make.
Let's go back to the example we talked a bit about earlier -- on Vancouver Island with the elk hunt. We now have in place a process for all British Columbians that requires that they have an authorization gained either through limited-entry hunt or through distribution from the band. Clearly if a non-aboriginal person were stopped from hunting or was in possession of an elk without a proper licence, a charge would be laid immediately. Probably his vehicle and his guns would be seized -- other things that have been common in the business for many years. Would the same action be taken with an aboriginal hunter? Having now laid out very carefully the regulations and the ground rules, would the conservation officer take the same action in those circumstances where the guidelines are now very clear on how it is to be dealt with?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, with regard to aboriginals, we would still consult prior to taking action. That is very clearly spelled out in the guidelines. In view of the fact that the hon. member is raising what is obviously a contentious point, this will be, I expect, subject to considerable discussion during the next six months or so as we are seeking to determine what we will bring forward as permanent guidelines. But that is the procedure that exists now.
J. Weisgerber: I think it's those kinds of differences that continue to cause conflict among the various parties. British Columbians are looking for one clear set of guidelines that apply to everybody and treat people fairly -- not necessarily equally. You can argue about how they got their allocation, whether that was fair and whether everybody had a fair opportunity, but once the allocation is received, I think most people stopped by a conservation officer would expect the conservation officer to be colour-blind, and expect that he would look at a person as a British Columbian either in possession of or without proper authority to hunt and harvest, and should be treated that way. I think that the sooner you can get there, the sooner you will find a solution to a very tough issue. It is a very controversial and sensitive issue. But I don't think we can find acceptance in the community until we are prepared to take those kinds of steps.
Hon. J. Cashore: I certainly agree that the essence of what the hon. member says is a desirable goal. But I have to reiterate, given the legal responsibility we have pursuant to a court decision, that we have some priority for reasonable sustenance use after conservation needs are met. That is a reality. Therefore, given that we have some priority after reasonable needs are met in the aboriginal community, our goal is to manage this as fairly as possible but also to recognize that there is a priority issue here which is a legal responsibility. That's part of the reality that we have to deal with in trying to manage this as fairly and as reasonably as we possibly can. I would say again that we are going to have greater success with this through effective consultation and firm enforcement than we will by avoiding consultation.
J. Weisgerber: Surely the consultation resulted in the allocations, and surely the example we are using is the example that most favours the ministry in examination. You have already decided on a preferential
[ Page 6466 ]
allocation system. You have a system in which permits are allocated to individual members. Then, having done those things, surely if you are going to -- to use your words -- "fairly and equally administer the law," anyone who breaks the law and hunts without a permit, regardless of who they are, should be charged, without any consideration of who they are, where they live in British Columbia, or their status as Indian people or non-Indian people.
I don't argue with you on your allocation. I might argue with you on the numbers, but I wouldn't argue with the principle of the allocation. But I do feel very strongly that, having come that far, you have fulfilled the obligations as most people would see them under Delgam Uukw. You have acknowledged the sustenance issue, you have given 49 permits for sustenance. By consultation, you have decided that this is an appropriate number, so anybody who goes out beyond that number surely should be dealt with by the law as evenhandedly and as fairly as they possibly can be.
I suspect we're in an area where we're not going to get much closer to an agreement. Let me just take from that this whole issue of interpretation of these decisions, because I think it's another important area. Interpretation of these court decisions is an interesting process. The one that gives me the clearest understanding of how this is working is the Sparrow decision. I recognize that it deals with federal fish, but it seems to me that in Sparrow, the Supreme Court ruled that aboriginal people -- particularly Ron Sparrow and the Musqueam in this case -- had the right to take fish for food, ceremonial and societal purposes. The Supreme Court judge went out of his way to note in his decision that he was not dealing with aboriginal commercial fishery. The aboriginal people decided that their interpretation of Sparrow was that it permitted a commercial fishery: salmon fishing. I believe that in this case the federal government had an obligation to examine the decision and decide that it in fact didn't deal with the issue of commercial fishing.
The point that I'm trying to make is that with every decision, unfortunately, there are interpretations of it. There are liberal interpretations of it and there are more conservative interpretations of the law. There are broader understandings and there are narrower interpretations. I think that when a decision like this comes down, it's natural that the aboriginal people would take the broadest interpretation of it. I think it's also reasonable that governments and enforcement agencies would take a narrower, more literal view of the decision.
If you can't agree, you've got to test them. I'm wondering whether or not the ministry is prepared to do that. Are you prepared to look at this series of decisions and interpret them as literally as you can, and then challenge and seek a ruling on them?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member describes the parameters very well in terms of identifying broadly and narrowly interpreting a court decision. I think another factor that has to be kept in mind in seeking to apply a lot of wisdom to how you handle that is recognizing that you could get into a circumstance of testing where you're getting into a situation, which could make it much more difficult, for instance, if it got to the point of being tested in the courts. Therefore, I still think that our primary tool and our primary consideration should be to try to develop through a cooperative process involving all parties a modus operandi that is going to work to achieve the primary goal, which is the conservation of the resource. But you are also correct that there has to be a limit or boundary in doing this. So some people would say we're on a tightrope here, trying to manage this thing well.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I am heartened by the response we have received from many sectors of the community on the interim guidelines we have put out. I recognize, as this member is saying, that there is still room for discussion and criticism. That will be a very important discussion and dialogue as the months ensue. But I think it's far better to be following the approach we are following.
The point was made about the federal government. While I feel we took a very long time to get to the point of having interim guidelines, the process we have followed has generated a more open and greater opportunity to deal with this in a nonconfrontational way than we've found with the other example that was given, with the federal government. I think that was becoming quite confrontational. It is true, with regard to the process prior to the interim guidelines, that we did have some instances that did generate a great deal of heat. I do recognize that. But by and large, given the circumstances, I think we've managed this well.
[10:45]
J. Weisgerber: I think your interim guidelines are headed in the right direction and I commend you on them. I have no argument with it.
I do think it is an important principle that government be the one that interprets the law, and until someone proves otherwise, that that interpretation of the law stands. I can't imagine myself getting stopped for a speeding ticket and saying to the policeman: "Well, my interpretation of this means that if you're driving a blue Buick Le Sabre, it doesn't count. The speed limit is ten miles an hour higher for us because that's the way I interpret the law." The policeman would say: "Nonsense. Here's a ticket. Go tell the judge about it." If I could make my argument in a court of law and convince someone that my interpretation was correct, I would succeed, and if I didn't, I'd pay the penalty for it.
I think there is a parallel with what happens with these decisions that come down. As I'm sure the minister is aware, we get decisions -- the Sparrow decision -- coming down, and it has a set of parameters which find themselves superimposed on a decision from Delgam Uukw. We find in Ontario the Sioui decision, which again starts to become part of the law of the land. We have Horseman, which starts to deal with treaty and the right to hunt commercially. All of these things come together. And I'm convinced government has an obligation to sit down and interpret those laws
[ Page 6467 ]
in a way that's logical and treats fairly all the people affected.
The minister is right: conservation is undoubtedly the first objective. But it goes beyond that. There are obviously other areas of significance -- in the fishery livelihoods, in all areas of interest of groups of people. So I don't know whether we're going to find a resolution, or whether I'm going to hear what I would like to hear. I'm not even expecting it, perhaps, rather than using this as an opportunity to make some statements on things I feel rather strongly about.
W. Hurd: I have just one additional question, to follow up on the questions from the Leader of the Third Party. In the past the ministry has asked aboriginal hunters for documentary evidence of band membership. Is that a requirement of the conservation officer when he is in the field, or it is just a recommended procedure?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is not listed in the guidelines, and in my opinion there is not a clear directive on that question. Therefore I think the question the hon. member is raising is an important one to be raised during the period of discussion that's ensuing pursuant to the interim guidelines. Obviously this is an important point that is being raised, but at the present time there is not a clear guideline on that. I would expect that in many instances the conservation officer would not proceed on that basis because it's not clearly stated in the guidelines.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that at one time this was a requirement -- or at least a suggested procedure -- followed by conservation officers? If indeed it was, can the minister offer an explanation as to why it might not be the current practice in the field?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is correct that this has been the standard practice, but during the destabilization that came about following the court decision, there has been some uncertainty with regard to how to proceed. In most instances, I would expect that a conservation officer would ask for some sort of proof with regard to aboriginal status, but what I am saying is that that's not clearly spelled out in the guidelines. So I think, again, that part of what is going to happen is that government will be asking internally with regard to how our conservation officers are proceeding on that issue, trying to ensure that there is uniformity. Again, I would expect that in most instances, now that we do have the guidelines in place, they would give them the security to be able to proceed with asking for that information. But I'm saying it is not clearly spelled out in the guidelines.
W. Hurd: It is my understanding that the court decisions involving the rights to aboriginal hunting for purposes of sustenance apply to treaty or status aboriginal people. I understand that when we are talking about the first nations of British Columbia, we are talking about aboriginal people who could in fact produce this kind of documentary evidence of band membership. Given the comments and the point made by the hon. member for Okanagan West in previous debate in this committee about the number of aboriginal people who live in urban areas in British Columbia and may not be able to furnish this kind of documentation, would it be the interpretation of the minister that in fact these non-status aboriginal people would occupy a different status when it comes to the rights to hunt and fish in recreation or Crown land in the province? Are we indeed dealing with two sets of parameters here?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my understanding that he would have to have a permit, or proof of his aboriginal status. And it is true that it applies both to treaty and non-treaty aboriginal people.
W. Hurd: Just on a point of clarification, given the fact that the court decisions may represent only a fraction of the aboriginal population of British Columbia -- i.e., those who have treaty status as defined by the federal government -- would it not be in the best interests of the ministry to require documentary evidence of band membership? Given that the ministry is contending that it is bound by the court decisions, which clearly affect only a minority of our aboriginal people, would it not be in the best interests -- if the ministry was determined to follow the legal parameters of those court decisions -- to require that conservation officers require documentary evidence of band membership whenever they encounter an aboriginal hunter in the field who may be hunting out of season?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.
W. Hurd: The next questions is obvious: why would that requirement not be part of the interim guidelines?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very good question. In my opinion, it should be. Obviously, within the ministry we need to very clearly communicate to our conservation officers that that should be the case.
J. Weisgerber: To pick up on a related issue, one of the concerns in the northeast -- in the area that I represent -- is Treaty 8 hunters from Alberta and as far away as Prince Albert, Saskatchewan coming in to hunt bison. I wonder if the minister can give us an indication of what his position is on non-resident aboriginal hunters. What does the conservation officer ask for when he stops a vehicle, for example, in the northeast with Saskatchewan licence plates on it, hunting in the area?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the non-treaty area, our rights and responsibilities are very clear. With regard to the non-treaty area, that is not all that clear. This comes under a federal process and therefore is a much more complex and a much more difficult and sticky part of this issue. Again, in the context of the interim
[ Page 6468 ]
guidelines, we are seeking to emerge with clarity on that issue.
On the specific question the hon. member is asking -- about somebody coming in from another province -- we do not have a clear definition in the Treaty 8 circumstance as to what the legal requirement is there.
J. Weisgerber: I wonder about a couple of things. First of all, in those circumstances, would a treaty status card be required? Clearly if the area of confusion is around the treaty, in my opinion it could only apply to members who are status or members of Treaty 8. I guess that's the first question. Is that quite clear?
The other part of the question I was working my way toward is whether the ministry has examined the enforcement that's going on in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That must be a problem with those jurisdictions and northeast British Columbia, with the movement and hunting on various sides of the border. In other words, can a British Columbia Treaty 8 member travel into Alberta or Saskatchewan and hunt with the same kind of enforcement or lack of it that would be found in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the status card, the answer is yes. One of the things that this discussion has served to say to me is that I think I need to arrange to send out a directive that makes it very clear to the conservation officers that that is what obtains. There definitely should be a status card in the instance of Treaty 8 hunting.
With regard to examining Alberta and Saskatchewan, it's my understanding that our officials do maintain a pretty lively interconnection. I don't know any specifics that I am able to give you at this time.
[11:00]
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps just to wind it up, if at some point the ministry or minister had that information on those other jurisdictions, I'd appreciate getting a copy of it.
W. Hurd: Just one final point of clarification: I'm led to understand then that in fact the requirement of documentary evidence for band membership will now be a requirement in the field on the part of conservation officers?
Hon. J. Cashore: That has been the standard prior to the interim guidelines. Because there has been a certain amount of uncertainty during this process subsequent to Delgam Uukw, I am going to arrange that that directive be made very clear, since it's not spelled out in the interim guidelines.
W. Hurd: I just wanted to change the focus of discussion if I could. I had a few questions about the Crown land special account. I wonder if the minister could explain to the committee the purpose of the special account, given the fact that there appears to be a sizable transfer from this account to general revenue during the course of a fiscal year. As I compare the estimates from '91-92 to '93-94, I notice that there is a significant change in the value of the special account and, thereby, an increase in the amount of money transferred to general revenues. Could the minister explain to the committee the reasons for the difference? What accounts for the increased revenues in the special account? Why does the special account exist at all, given that it seems to be transferring to general revenue every year?
Hon. J. Cashore: It was my understanding, based on discussions we had with the critics of the two opposition parties, that we would be getting onto this topic at a later date, and that we would be completing the Environment section of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. This, we had understood, would be canvassed during the Crown lands part of the discussion. We don't have the officials here at the present time who are in that area, but we're making a note of the question. We'll ensure that when we do get onto that part of the debate that we start off with it.
W. Hurd: As the hon. minister knows, the Environment critic is not able to be here today. Perhaps I can address some environmental questions, expecting that she may want to recanvass some of them at a later date. I was particularly interested in an issue I raised last year regarding the progress of the pulp mill effluent guidelines. As of July last year, I understand that the 25 or so pulp and paper mills in the province are required to furnish plans to the ministry as to how they are going to reach the revised guidelines for chlorinated organics in pulp mill effluent. Can the minister advise the committee of the status of those plans and whether they have changed, given the decision of Environment Canada to accept a somewhat higher level of chlorinated organics per metric tonne of pulp?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is no intent to change the standards that have been announced. All the mills in the province that use chlorinated organics have submitted plans with regard to phase one of our standard, which is to achieve 1.5 AOX by 1995. I am pleased to report that the industry is doing extremely well in that regard, and many of them will have achieved that prior to that date. So they have submitted plans relating to 1995. We are still involved in the negotiation process that involves the multi-stakeholder group -- including environmental groups and industry groups -- toward the longer-term goal of virtual zero by the year 2002.
C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, I had a couple of questions on the aboriginal hunting and fishing issue, and I'd like to ask those questions prior to leaving that subject. Is it government's intention to continue to expand the rights of status as well as non-status aboriginals with respect to the interim guidelines, or is it the intention of government to restrict the traditional hunting and fishing opportunities and extend them only to those who hold status cards?
[ Page 6469 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: It is the government's intent to ensure that there is fair allocation, recognizing our legal responsibilities.
C. Serwa: I think my question was fairly well put. There is obviously some concern with respect to the hows and whys and wherefores -- not only for the non-aboriginal people, but also for the aboriginal people. The minister is well aware that when a native woman married a non-native, she lost her standing with respect to aboriginal status. The other application was substantially different. If a native man married a non-native woman, he retained his status.
What we have in British Columbia is approximately 50 percent of our aboriginal population being status, as I understand it, and 50 percent being non-status. Nevertheless, the reality is that when we look at aboriginals, they are in fact aboriginal people. My question is clearly put: does the minister see the expansion from status recognition to non-status, as it seems to be inferred, or will he restrict that only to status aboriginal people?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that in some instances there are.... The M�tis association, for instance, have raised this question. The way I understand this, under the interim guidelines, is that if the M�tis wished to hunt in the traditional territory, they would seek the permission in writing of the officials of that first nation to hunt in that traditional territory. But they would be subject to the allocations that had been imposed through consultation involving our ministry and the first nation.
C. Serwa: With the distribution of non-status natives spread through many urban areas throughout the province -- and particularly, as I noted the other day, that approximately 50 percent of our status and non-status population lives in the greater Vancouver area -- how is this process going to unfold? Is it now the ministry's intention to treat not only two classes of British Columbians differently but to treat different classes of status and non-status differently with respect to the aboriginal question here -- the rights to hunting and fishing?
Hon. J. Cashore: This will unfold, as I have said, given the discussion that will result as we review the interim guidelines and gain experience on how this is working out in this new situation. We will be looking to the comments and input -- what we learn from a track record -- during this next several months, in that we intend to bring in the permanent guidelines early in the new year. I cannot say exactly how it is going to unfold. Obviously however it unfolds, conservation is going to be the fundamental bottom line that takes precedence over any other consideration. Part of what has been launched here is a process, and we will have to see how it unfolds, given that that process is underway.
C. Serwa: From every other ministry associated with this particularly pressing and important question -- whether it's Attorney General or whether it's Aboriginal Affairs -- there appears to be a consensus of opinion that all aboriginal people have to be treated with equity. I cannot see how the Ministry of Environment can tend to evade what appears to be a government sense of direction in the treatment of all aboriginal people.
Bearing in mind the concept of equitable treatment for all people of aboriginal origin, we can see that there will be a continued expansion from the status qualification to the non-status qualification. That leads to another question: at what point will government -- and it's not simply a responsibility of the Minister of Environment; it's obviously partially the responsibility of the Minister of Environment with environmental legislation -- come up with a definition of what constitutes aboriginal status that involves the historical and traditional rights of aboriginal people? Has the minister or his staff addressed this particular question? The minister did note the M�tis people -- of which we have a fairly significant population in British Columbia, some indigenous to the province; others who have moved here from other jurisdictions in Canada. What are their historical, traditional rights as well? It's a very large and perplexing question. I don't truthfully expect an absolute answer at this point in time, but I'm trying to impress the complexity of it upon the minister. Once we start on this path, we had better perhaps peruse some of the areas of definition.
Hon. J. Cashore: Given that there is a great deal of complexity in this, the process that we have launched is going to enable us to deal with many of those complex issues.
Is our ministry in consultation with other agencies and ministries? Yes, there is ongoing discussion about this. You are right that much of it has to do with certain legal interpretations. I believe that many of the salient issues are going to emerge in the context of the discussion that will be taking place in the province in the next six months or so. Beyond that, I am not able to give any more definition, which the hon. member is requesting, because these issues are complex. They are being addressed. We are addressing them together in a way that, hopefully, will enable us to stay out of the courts with regard to testing what is going on. I think that the processes that we work out by finding a common ground are best for all concerned. Part of the way to do this is to reiterate the importance of third parties in this process, because the bottom line is that the hon. member is very concerned about what might happen to the rights of non-aboriginal British Columbians who are out there. It behooves us as a ministry and as a government to ensure that non-aboriginals recognize that we are seeking to administer this in the most effective way possible in order to ensure conservation and fair allocation.
All these other circumstances -- status and non-status aboriginals, people from other provinces, urban aboriginal people -- are considerations that will be part and parcel of very extensive discussions that will take place over the next six months.
[11:15]
[ Page 6470 ]
D. Schreck: One of the things I find very interesting about this job as an MLA is the exposure to policy issues that are far more complex than any of us, before getting involved in debates like this, would ever appreciate. I can say that it is a real privilege to listen to two former ministers of a previous government, who are intimately involved in this complex issue, engage in debate with the current minister on one of the most complex policy issues facing our province. I have in my constituency approximately 1,000 people from the Squamish nation as well as fish and game clubs who are equally interested in this issue, and interested very much from an urban perspective. I think that the questions being brought up here would challenge the wisest of us to come up with instant solutions that would satisfy all of these parties.
I find when I listen to the debate, that to explain it to the majority of my constituents -- who are not intimately involved in a fish and game club or members of the Squamish nation -- is very challenging. I find in many of the policy areas that we discuss that those who are not directly connected with issues such as sharing the natural resources from a hunting or fishing point of view have no idea what these questions represent, and that to be able to review some of the history of how we got to these challenging questions is very useful when we are talking to three million British Columbians rather than just that subset who have their lives intimately woven around this type of policy debate.
When we use the jargon which we have become familiar with in the interim guidelines, could the minister explain and confirm for me -- these interim guidelines are a very recent invention -- the background on what problems and challenges we're facing in the ministry? So that we can perhaps all appreciate this problem, what is the history that led to these interim guidelines? This challenge is not one that came about a week ago, a month ago or a year ago, but is part of an ongoing evolution of how those whose lives are affected by this policy area are trying to unravel very complex webs.
Hon. J. Cashore: I just had a bit of information given to me on the history. It depends on how far back you want to go.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: If we go back to 1815, there was a critical point at which you could say it was realized that the resource is not infinite; it is finite and therefore there has to be management. I sometimes have some personal ethical problems over this question of management because it tends to place Homo sapiens as the highest order of life, and I'm not sure that that kind of arrogance always serves us well in terms of deciding on policy with regard to resources. However, the fact is that we are in a regime of management which recognizes that ultimately our species is the one that's calling the shots.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Starting in approximately 1914, it was recognized that there was an aboriginal right with regard to sustenance. The Wildlife Act came in after that to try to address the issue of the mutuality with regard to the resource. The recent history, of course, is a result of the decision that resulted from the Delgam Uukw case, which I believe came out in the spring of 1990. The Chief Justice at that time found that the Crown has a fiduciary responsibility toward first nations, and that this responsibility was in the context of the gathering of game for traditional ceremonial purposes and also for sustenance -- food purposes.
This resulted in a destabilizing of the way in which the province went about enforcing the rules of hunting, because it created a lack of clarity in our conservation officer service as to under what circumstances they should proceed to lay information. That resulted in a difficult period of a little more than a year, which culminated in some fairly dramatic episodes. One was the case that has been canvassed fairly widely here with regard to the elk on Vancouver Island; the other was kind of symbolic, the bighorn sheep near Salmo.
While those things were happening, we were in the process of developing these interim guidelines. The interim guidelines were introduced about two-and-a-half months ago. Subsequently, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs had a couple of significant opportunities to speak with first nations people, and I spoke to the Wildlife Federation. On these occasions we recognized that these are interim guidelines and that it's a process enabling a continuing dialogue and discussion, but because there are guidelines with regard to where the conservation officer should clearly be proceeding to lay information, these guidelines make it very clear that we would expect that during this period of time a track record would develop where there are effective prosecutions, and where the public could gain some confidence in knowing that this process is beginning to work effectively. The interim guidelines will lead to early this coming year, when we hope to bring in the permanent guidelines, which will have the benefit of a consultative process. Some of that consultative process will have the information that will emerge from the track record during that period of time.
C. Serwa: Going back to the area of status and non-status natives, the minister made a statement about non-status natives or even status natives living away from band land who belonged to a band, let's say, the Alkali Lake band near Williams Lake. If these individuals wanted to hunt with the traditional rights of access in traditional territory, then they would be constrained by the allocation to that particular band. Now let's say that there is a substantial percentage of the Alkali Lake band who do not live on band land. I presume the allocation, then, would be made with respect to the number of residents on the band land and status people at that particular point in time. So an allocation for moose or mule deer in that particular area would be made on that basis. Now we have a number of aboriginal people who have come back to band land, and we're having to divvy up the resource, so to speak,
[ Page 6471 ]
among more people. How does the minister see that some sort of accommodation or adjustment could be made with respect to allocation in that particular case? It is significant to note that 50 percent of the native people in British Columbia are non-status at the moment.
Hon. J. Cashore: Given that there is consultation in the background of all of this during that time, the allocation would be made on the basis of the local population -- not on the basis of the population throughout the province. There would be leeway within the administration of the local band as to how they would apportion that allocation. In other words, if a registered member of the Alkali Lake band came from the lower mainland, they would be subject to that allocation. There wouldn't be an over-and-above allocation or anything like that.
C. Serwa: The issue at hand at the moment is sustenance: the definition of that word, how expansive it is and whether it involves sustenance from the commercial use of wildlife, which I think could be one of the interpretations that aboriginal people and the government of the day might read into the definition of sustenance. It seems questionable that there would be much success with that particular strategy. The reality is that it would create a great deal of friction. I don't think we can evade that type of recognition. I'm trying to indicate that perhaps the proposal is fraught with complexities that must be addressed if this matter is to fly successfully.
I think the motivation is noble. I don't think you will find anyone who disagrees with the motivation or the initiative, but it becomes an increasing difficult problem to manage. First of all, we know that the management of the resource is the responsibility of the minister and the Ministry of Environment. You can't have too many bosses. If you're going to co-manage, who has the paramount management responsibility? I would assume the Ministry of Environment has that paramount responsibility with respect to fish and wildlife in the province. It seems that we run into the matter of a fair and balanced management of fish and game for aboriginal as well as non-aboriginal people in the province.
When we look at conservation -- and there's another word we've tossed back and forth -- there are a variety of meanings of the latitude of the word "conservation." What is a healthy population? What is an endangered population? At what point do we utilize that? Again, it's incumbent upon the minister and the Ministry of Environment to establish clearly the definition that is acceptable to all British Columbians.
[11:30]
In the end, I sometimes wonder if we wander down the road of good intentions and start to get into deeper and deeper water. We do recognize a historical and traditional right of aboriginal people to the fish and wildlife resource. But we look at all the complexities imposed upon the Ministry of Environment for the responsibility and management of our fish and wildlife resource. We recognize that in the eyes of the law we should treat all British Columbians equally, equitably and fairly -- and certainly that is one of the conclusions of the Delgam Uukw case, and Chief Justice McEachern spelled out clearly that that was one of the responsibilities government had. We look at the ongoing complexities -- and at the moment we've only visualized the very tip of the iceberg above the water. I wonder if this initiative and this particular goal cannot be achieved in some other fashion that would be fair and balanced for the aboriginal people of the province, that would take into consideration the rights of all British Columbians equally to access the particular resource.
The world has changed very dramatically in the past 100 or 150 years, and perhaps the historical wrongs will never be righted. The water has gone under the bridge. But the reality is: if we make more complexities in the present situation, are we righting anything? Are we doing something that is better? Or are we simply trying to appease the perhaps unrealistic expectations of people? In good efforts -- in noble efforts, with good incentive -- are we making the situation so complex, convoluted and complicated that there will be no resolution, just endless questions and bickering, so fairness and balance will not be achieved? I guess that is the real concern.
What are we doing with respect to the resource and the rights of all British Columbians? When we start talking about non-status people, at what percentage of the blood's constituency do we differentiate and say now you have lost any of the traditional rights of aboriginal peoples in the province? Who decides that? How is that decided? In our multicultural society here in British Columbia we have a tremendous variation of ethnic groups. We have mixed bloods of all peoples. Who is going to decide? The further you go into the issue, the more complex it becomes.
It is a problem without resolution unless you utilize something like the KISS principle, which keeps it simple, so we can all understand and live with it, and so there is a strong future because we treat all British Columbians equally. Surely in the end, after the ministry views this in depth, common sense and reason have to start to prevail, because it is wrong to treat British Columbians less than equally in their status as British Columbians. It is wrong to treat aboriginal people differently because some are status and some are non-status. It is wrong -- as we have recognized, and as the federal government has recognized -- to treat the children of what was once a status native woman as now non-status aboriginal people. There are so many wrongs, and rather than reducing the number of wrongs, we seem to get into muddier and muddier waters and expand those wrongs. So although the minister may not have required the debate this morning to raise his awareness of the complexities, the purpose of the debate is to raise the public profile and understanding of the complexities of this particular issue. In our zeal to try to resolve it, it seems to me that we are creating more and more problems. The complexities are so large that we will never resolve them. I don't think that's a legacy that either the
[ Page 6472 ]
minister or any of us in the opposition would like to leave for the people of British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: When you have complexities and you have a problem, you have to decide to deal with them. I want to say that I feel very supported in my role as minister, and also our province is well supported, by the work of people within the ministry who are seeking to address this issue under difficult circumstances. I want to put on the record that I'm very grateful for the wisdom and intelligence being applied in seeking to help us emerge from this with something that is beneficial to all British Columbians, that recognizes our legal responsibilities and that avoids being contentious as much as possible, through effectively finding a common ground and working out these things together.
Another point the hon. member made was about the commercial use of animals. Our interpretation of the court decision is that that is simply not the case: it is not for commercial use. We do not accept that.
I also want to point out that when I was responding to the hon. member for North Vancouver, I said that in 1914 we recognized that first nations people had a right. That was not the correct term to use. We recognized the need and allowed sustenance hunting at that time. The question of a right was not being dealt with in that context.
With that, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:36 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]