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)
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 23
[ Page 6935 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Hon. J. Cashore: This week has been proclaimed Environment Week in British Columbia. Therefore I would like to invite all members of the House to join me in welcoming and warmly congratulating nine individuals and organizations whose outstanding contributions to the environment are being recognized this year through the 1993 minister's environmental awards. These award recipients will be guests of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor at a special awards ceremony at Government House this evening.
Ms. Marjorie McGee and Ms. Glenna Cheesman are here on behalf of the late Gayle McGee of Nanaimo, who is being honoured with a posthumous award in the individual citizen category. Ms. Laurie MacBride of Gabriola Island is also the recipient of an award in the individual citizen category. Ms. Leba Rubinoff and Ms. Rina MacKillop are from the Environmental Youth Alliance, which is receiving the youth group award. Ms. Ruth Foster, Mr. Rod MacVicar and Mr. Jim Mattson represent the Centennial School salmon project of Coquitlam -- that's in my riding -- which is also receiving a youth group award. Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon from the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society of Maple Ridge are being recognized in the organization category.
Mayor Anne Fiddick and Councillor Dan Rye represent the village of Gold River, which has achieved a 65 percent reduction in solid waste going to landfill; they're receiving an award in the community or municipality category. Mr. Jerry MacDonald and Ms. Sharon Lamontagne-MacDonald are here from the Cariboo Observer of Quesnel for the media award. Not present this afternoon but also receiving awards are Ballard Power Systems Inc. of North Vancouver in the business or industry category, and Dr. Milt McClaren of Kelowna for his contribution to environmental education in British Columbia. These citizens reflect the high level of environmental awareness and commitment of citizens throughout the province. In concluding, I would like to inform the House that tomorrow is Clean Air Day in British Columbia, and there will be exhibits and activities on the front lawn of the legislative buildings.
I ask the House to join me in applauding and warmly congratulating the winners of these awards.
F. Gingell: I rise not to make a response to the ministerial statement that has just been made but rather to introduce to the House Brian Wallace, treasurer of the Law Society of B.C.; Rob Gourley, president of the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association; Mr. Jack Webster, one of the laymembers of the board; and other members of the board. I would ask this House to please make them welcome.
J. Pement: I rise today to ask the House to bid welcome three classes from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers that are in Victoria to learn about the Legislature. They travelled over 800 miles to get here, which really says something for the teachers, the schools and the fundraising that was done to get them here. I ask you to bid them welcome.
L. Reid: I'd ask the House to please welcome 50 students from R.C. Palmer Junior Secondary School in my riding. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Larry Nelson.
Hon. G. Clark: When there is someone in the chamber who is unauthorized, we say there's a stranger in the House. What do we say when there's a bencher in the press gallery?
I'm delighted today to introduce a visiting tax delegation from Taiwan -- I apologize for my pronunciation, if it's incorrect -- Mr. Teh Fu Tseng, Mr. Mau-kong Lee, Sheng-tau Lin, Chieh-chih Lin, Ying-chu Lee and Der-yang Horng. This delegation has been meeting with Ministry of Finance officials for some time, and we know it has been mutually beneficial. I'd ask all members to welcome them here today.
W. Hartley: I'd like to take an opportunity to extend the Minister of Environment's speech this afternoon by welcoming a couple of members of my constituency. I do so because of the tremendous impact they've had in the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows area for over ten years. Their commitment and service to the environment has been outstanding. They've been leaders for government not only at the municipal and regional levels but also at the provincial level. The public education and hands-on work that they've done for recycling in the province needs to be commended. Again, please welcome Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon.
F. Garden: I would also like to join the Minister of Environment in further congratulating constituents of mine who are in the gallery: Jerry MacDonald and his wife. It's not often that a politician gets a chance to say good things about a newspaper editor, but Jerry is just an exemplary volunteer in our community. He works hard with young people on ice-skating. They are great supporters of the Billy Barker Days. If you get up there this year you might see Mrs. MacDonald as part of the cancan troupe. We bid them welcome. Also in the precincts is Helen Kuhn, another constituent of mine. Give them a very hearty welcome today.
D. Streifel: I ride on with the warm greeting from my colleague from Pitt Meadows in welcoming and thanking Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon. The reason I do this is that their influence on recycling spreads far beyond Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. In fact, they are the reason why the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District is already well on the way to recycling 50 percent of its solid wastes, which is within the minister's goal. We're at 25 percent out there, colleagues; we're way ahead of the rest of the province. Thank you, Kelli Speirs and Candace Gordon.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like the House to send congratulations to Brent Carver, who was born in
[ Page 6936 ]
Cranbrook. He has performed throughout this province for many years. Last weekend he won a Tony, the most prestigious acting award on Broadway, for his work in the Canadian-produced musical, Kiss of the Spider Woman. Would the House send that congratulation to him.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 36 proposes a variety of amendments to the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, the Financial Information Act, the Home Purchase Assistance Act, the Hospital District Finance Act, the Real Estate Act, the School District Capital Finance Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act. Many of the proposed amendments to these statutes are housekeeping or administrative in nature. However, some substantive measures are proposed for the taxation statutes to maintain equity and assist in the collection of taxes due to the Crown.
As well, the amendments to the Real Estate Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to directly appoint members-at-large to the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and public governors to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, respectively. Additional provisions establish the necessary authority for the funding of the recently commissioned inquiry into the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its market participants.
Hon. Speaker, I move this bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
B.C. TRADE DEVELOPMENT FINDER'S FEE
F. Gingell: A question today for the Premier. Small entrepreneurs in British Columbia who are interested in international trading opportunities are becoming increasingly concerned about the B.C. Trade Development Corporation -- is it friend or foe? Is the Premier at all concerned that B.C. Trade Development is becoming a top-heavy bureaucracy that is doing nothing for small entrepreneurs?
[2:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I'm not. I'd like to know what the next two questions are from the Leader of the Opposition, so I can see what his point is. So far the point is very elusive.
F. Gingell: Then can the Premier explain why B.C. Trade Development is charging a non-refundable finder's fee to entrepreneurial companies merely to guarantee bank loans? What kind of incentive would a small business firm have for even bothering with B.C. Trade? They all claim that all B.C. Trade is doing is acting as a broker for loans from major banks.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I got the gist of that question. It requires a thorough response, so I will take it on notice.
MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS
L. Hanson: I have a question for the Attorney General. As the minister responsible for the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, is it the Attorney General's understanding of the act that a confidentiality agreement involving a member does not exempt that individual from disclosing any gifts or gratuities received by him or her?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Rather than try to answer that question off the top of my head, I will take it on notice.
COMPENSATION FOR HEMOPHILIACS
L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. Three provinces have now taken action with regard to individuals who have contracted AIDS.... The province of Alberta, in the throes of an election, has reached a just decision. What is this government's reason for continued inaction?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Health is not here today. I'll take that question on notice for her.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, a question taken on notice cannot have a supplemental.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. On July 27, 1990, in a discussion in this House regarding freedom of speech, the Premier indicated that the opposition wanted to preserve freedom of speech, and I quote: "We made it very clear that it's fundamental to a democracy." Does the Premier still affirm that this is the position of the then-opposition, which is now government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member is referring to the amendments to the Human Rights Act that were tabled yesterday, we are going to have a chance to fully debate that issue. But yes, this government does support freedom of speech. This government supports the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which preserves that right to free speech, but that right has limits on it in that you cannot harm other people. That's why we have libel and slander laws, that's why we have hatred laws,
[ Page 6937 ]
and that's why we have laws that say you can't stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!"
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: I refer the Premier to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b). To remind you just exactly what it is, it talks about the fundamental freedoms of "thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Does the Premier affirm that our government stands behind that charter declaration?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the member knows, this government is governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which preserves the basic rights of freedom of expression, of a free press and of assembly. But I say again that those rights have limits so that you do not harm other citizens by promoting racial hatred, or through libel, slander or other irresponsible acts.
REPORT ON CHANGES TO EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that he has received Mark Thompson's report on the expedited changes to the Employment Standards Act, and can he further confirm that Mr. Thompson's report deals with the repeal of section 2(2) of the act?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to confirm that I officially received Mr. Thompson's report on Friday. As the hon. member knows, the terms of reference attached to Mr. Thompson's work required him to make a determination with regard to section 2(2) on an expedited basis. He has complied with those terms of reference.
The Speaker: Supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: I think it's no surprise that we will be seeing legislation dealing with that in the near future. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to table the report in the Legislature today, to give all interested British Columbians an opportunity to examine the report and study it in anticipation of legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would be happy to table the report, but I will not do so today. The report was just received by me on Friday. The ministry has not had an opportunity to review it nor, quite frankly, have I had time to review it, and there are other organs within government which must review it. It will ultimately be tabled, and I'll be happy to do it. I suspect that it will happen before this session is through.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: I have no doubt that Ken Georgetti has already had a look at it. You should extend that same courtesy to other affected British Columbians. The minister, I'm sure, doesn't anticipate changing the report. If you're going to table it in the future, why not stand up today, table the report and give everybody an opportunity to look at the recommendations?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can appreciate the fact that the opposition may be anxious to see the report. I would anticipate that the opposition shares the same concern the government has with regard to those unions and other agreements that fall below the floor established in the Employment Standards Act. I would hope that the opposition is supportive of any changes which make sure that working men and women in British Columbia have rights which are more than the provisions in the Employment Standards Act.
FORESTRY OFFICE RELOCATION
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier advise us how much money his government is saving by moving 150 employees from leased space in Burnaby to a brand-new building on land which this government will have to acquire in the NDP stronghold of Nanaimo?
The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock.
W. Hurd: A supplemental question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour confirm that under terms of the employees' contract with the Ministry of Forests in Burnaby, the government is required to pay the full moving costs of all employees because the move is more than 16 kilometres from Burnaby? Is it a policy of this government to pay those moving costs?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question on behalf of the Minister of Forests. The member is correct that we are moving the forestry office from Burnaby to Nanaimo. I know members opposite are concerned about relocating government offices into regions where the work is done. We know that the cost to government of renting space in Nanaimo is generally cheaper than the cost of renting space in Burnaby. All in, the cost difference is zero; it nets out at zero. We're doing something which we said we would do when we got elected -- moving services closer to the regions. I think the people in Nanaimo are proud of the fact that we're relocating forestry workers into that community and contributing to economic development at no net cost to the taxpayer.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the opposition and the people of the province why so many employees of this particular office of the ministry are calling the opposition to advise us that their client base is in the lower mainland and that they can't rationalize why their workload is being shifted to Nanaimo?
[ Page 6938 ]
Hon. G. Clark: You can rely on the opposition to stand up every day and defend the status quo. They stand up and say, "No, we're not moving services into communities like Nanaimo," even though land is cheaper and economic development is critical in those regions. We know that members of the opposition will stand up and defend the status quo, even though it makes more sense to move bureaucrats out of Victoria and the lower mainland and put the services into the regions that need them.
AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE
A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Mr. Troy Marshall, president of the Automotive Technicians Association, suggested a way to get the stations back to work during the AirCare strike, saying that the repair facilities have lost a lot of money and that the technicians would carry out the same test as the AirCare centres. What is the Attorney General doing to avoid the making of a mess and perhaps respond to this request?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I saw a report earlier today which indicated that the association might contact me in ten days if the strike hadn't ended. I look forward to their communicating with me.
A. Warnke: My supplemental is also for the Attorney General. With the backlog of more than 80,000 vehicles that has built up over two months, and given that over $1 million has been lost, where is the minister headed, and what is he likely to do to deal with this situation before it becomes a tremendous mess, which is where it's headed?
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that is a very broad question and a hypothetical one, and it cannot be allowed in question period.
A final supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: What steps are being taken by the Attorney General to deal with this situation with regard to the AirCare strike, which is getting out of hand?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A number of initiatives are underway. The parties have been engaged -- and I understand are still engaged -- in direct talks to try to resolve the dispute. In addition, senior officials within the Ministry of Attorney General have been assessing the issue and working to ensure that the public interest is preserved in this matter.
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO A-G MINISTRY
C. Serwa: My question today is directed to the Attorney General. Tim Agg is a former NDP regional executive member and a longtime personal friend of the minister. His $5,000-a-month contract with the ministry was supposed to have expired last August. Can the Attorney General confirm that he worked beyond that date and is, in fact, still working full-time on contract with the ministry?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can confirm that Mr. Tim Agg continues on contract to the ministry. I do not believe it's full-time. In fact it's a part-time contract for services. Mr. Agg is working on the question of legal aid initiatives that may well flow from the report he did for me and for government last year. That work continues.
C. Serwa: I guess I have some confusion in my mind as to what is determined with full-time and what is part-time, because I know that the Attorney General indicated that he considered full-time service contracts illegal. Perhaps the minister can explain why he entered into a contractual agreement that the minister himself believes is illegal.
[2:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I think the reference to contracts that are illegal is when you have full-time government employees working as contractors rather than public servants. That's the situation that Revenue Canada identified as a significant problem. Mr. Agg is the executive director of an organization in the lower mainland called PLEA. He continues in that position. He is on contract to provide a particular service to help the government deal with the legal aid issue, which, as members know, is a matter of serious concern not only to members of the government but also to taxpayers in this province -- given the escalation in costs that were faced and given a number of problems that we inherited. Mr. Agg produced an excellent report, which has been made public. That report is being assessed and is being considered. Mr. Agg is playing a very valuable role in that process.
Hon. B. Barlee tabled the annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for 1992-93.
The Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library for 1992.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would advise members of the House that Committee A will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the Douglas Fir Room. I also wish to advise that the House will be sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. B. Barlee: This bill amends two existing statutes: the Animal Disease Control Act and the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act. I move the bill be read a second time.
The Animal Disease Control Act establishes an inspection and quarantine system to protect British Columbia domestic animals and wildlife from communicable diseases. The proposed amendments
[ Page 6939 ]
improve and strengthen that system by empowering government, by regulation, to extend the coverage of the act to new animals. This change will ensure that if a new disease threat arises, government is able to respond quickly and effectively to that particular threat.
The Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act establishes the framework for the regulated marketing and supply management of British Columbia agricultural products. British Columbia led the way for all of Canada when it established legislation in the 1920s and 1930s for the regulated marketing of agricultural products. Since that time, the act has enabled British Columbia's producers to cooperate to ensure that all British Columbians will have access to a stable supply of high-quality agricultural products, and that producers will receive an equitable return for their labour. The regulated marketing and supply management systems have come under a great deal of pressure from external sources in recent years.
I am supporting these amendments to address concerns raised by producers, concentrating on the appeal and enforcement provisions of the act. The British Columbia Marketing Board, which is the supervisory and appeal board for all marketing boards and commissions, fully supports these amendments. The amendments will improve the efficiency and fairness of the appeal and enforcement components of the act, giving producers greater confidence in the regulated marketing and supply management systems.
These amendments are basically to ensure that marketing boards and commissions have the right to be a party to court appeals from decisions of the British Columbia Marketing Board. Having them as parties to an appeal will ensure that a court receives full information on each and every issue. It also authorizes the British Columbia Marketing Board to extend the deadline for producers to file appeals from the decisions of marketing boards and to order parties to appeals to provide the board with documents relevant to that appeal. These changes will make the rules fairer for all involved in the appeals.
It also establishes filing fees for commencing appeals and authorizes the British Columbia Marketing Board to award costs on appeal hearings. This change will promote accountability in the system. Finally, it updates penalties for noncompliance with the act and regulations. That change will respond to producers' requests and will promote respect for and compliance with the regulated marketing system.
R. Chisholm: We are not overly opposed to this bill. In effect, this bill corrects some issues in the present legislation and updates to the 1990s what needs to be updated. But there are things in this bill that will need to be clarified in committee stage, such as: what the penalties might be, how the ministry came up with the figures they arrived at, how it will be applied to individual farmers, and whether these regulations will encourage single farmers and organizations to come before these marketing boards or whether it's going to scare them away. At this point we are backing this bill in principle, along with the government.
H. De Jong: I really have no great problem with this bill. The minister has given a fairly good explanation about what it will do. However, I'd like to address a couple of concerns at this point in time, dealing with the timing after a marketing board has made a decision or issued an order -- not necessarily dealing with one farmer who may be aggrieved but with the commodity group. Quite often these decisions are not really comprehended in short order by the agricultural community or commodity groups. I have some difficulty with the 30 days for receiving notice of that. The minister might want to give some thought to that particular section before we get into third reading.
The other area that concerns me is the level of fines that have been introduced -- up to $20,000 for contravention of this act. If we go back 30 or 40 years to when most of the marketing boards were established -- sometime in the fifties and sixties -- we are talking about a change from $100 to $500 to $20,000. Even if the times had changed that much in terms of climbing prices -- which they haven't -- a thing that cost $100 in those days, back in the fifties, does not cost $20,000 today. I know it's the upper limit that's being set in the bill. However, it's a concern to me, because when there is an upper limit, the upper limit can be used and may be used. Again, I have some concern, too, on the filing fees, but I think I will further research that area at third reading. All in all, I think that it's a reasonably good bill, with the exceptions that I have noticed.
Bill 24, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 25.
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill contains urgently needed measures to improve the administration and operation of the activities of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks throughout the province. The bill amends five separate acts: the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Land Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act.
The Commercial River Rafting Safety Act has been in effect since 1988 and has accomplished its goal of enhancing the safety of commercial river rafting in this province. However, experience in administering this act has shown that a few minor amendments are necessary to clarify certain sections of the legislation. These amendments will clarify the intent of the act by defining the type of vessel we wish to regulate. The diversity of vessels used in commercial rafting has caused confusion both to the rafting industry and to enforcement agencies. By clearly specifying the types of vessels that fall under the act and providing a means of exempting certain vessels, we can better regulate the industry. We will also amend the act to simplify the
[ Page 6940 ]
permitting process and minimize administrative costs. The present wording of the act requires a separate permit for each river that a rafting company operates on. The amendment will allow operators to receive multiple-river licences. These are minor amendments that are required to better administer this act. The rafting industry has been consulted and supports these amendments.
The bill also includes two important amendments to the Land Act. First, it will provide a statutory basis for the Crown land registry. This amendment will ensure that a single record of Crown land administered by the government is maintained and that there is a reliable inventory of Crown land. Second, the bill will increase penalties and improve enforcement for trespass on Crown land. The current act does not provide effective mechanisms to handle trespass issues or sufficient penalties to deter trespass. The amendment will introduce a scheme of administrative penalties that will assist in the more efficient enforcement of trespass offences. In addition, the Land Act is being amended to give my ministry the authority to distribute and set fees for the sale of land-related information, such as maps and air photos. The bill will also clarify the granting of Crown land to Crown corporations and other government bodies and provide the authority to amend the Crown grants where it is in the public interest.
Since 1982 the Waste Management Act has been the primary legislation used for the protection of the environment in this province. These amendments clarify and improve several areas of the act. The amendments will eliminate confusing language within the act, allow regional managers to issue pollution prevention orders and provide for the delegation of the administration of proposed underground storage tank regulations to local governments.
The use of pollution prevention orders will give regional managers the much-needed authority to protect the environment before pollution occurs. At present, a regional manager can only issue an abatement order after pollution has occurred. To ensure that these orders are not abused, the bill requires that an order against a municipality be made by the minister. In addition, no order may be issued where a person is acting in compliance with the authorization under the act or regulations.
[2:45]
The proposed underground storage tank regulations are being drafted in accordance with a national code which has been developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The efficient administration of these regulations requires that those municipalities that are willing and able to do so be given the statutory authority to take on this responsibility. The amendment reflects extensive consultation with municipalities. It provides local government with the authority to collect fees and enforce the regulations. In addition, the amendment will give liability protection to any municipality that volunteers to take on this important task.
The Water Act amendment will continue the process of decentralization that we started last year under the Water Amendment Act, 1992. At present, the holder of a water licence must given notice of abandonment of that licence to the comptroller of water rights in Victoria. The public is more accustomed to dealing with regional staff for water licensing matters, and their decision to abandon a licence often arises from their communications with one of our regional offices. This amendment will convenience the public by giving the regional water manager the authority to accept these notices.
Finally, the bill includes an amendment to the Wildlife Act. In a recent judicial review decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that the ministry could not hold a disciplinary hearing against any guide-outfitters who have allowed their licence to expire. This decision would allow guide-outfitters to break the law and leave the government with no recourse against the guide-outfitter certificates. Guide-outfitters hold certificates which give them the exclusive authority to act as hunting guides in designated areas of the province. These certificates are of great value and are issued for a ten-year period. In addition, the guide-outfitter needs an annual licence to guide resident and non-resident hunters. This amendment will remedy this problem by giving the ministry the specific authority to take action against the certificate. The amendment will have a significant impact on guide-outfitters who break the law and will improve the image of the industry in the eyes of both the visiting public and residents of the province.
In conclusion, this bill reflects this government's continued commitment to create a modern and responsible framework for the management of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
J. Tyabji: I appreciate the housekeeping aspects of this bill, but I also want to flag, for those following the debate, some significant changes that this bill will represent. Most particularly, there will be a change with regard to jurisdiction over Crown lands, potential public access and punitive action against those who seek public access to public lands. There are also some potentially problematic aspects of the housekeeping when we look at inventories of existing maps and cross-referencing with regional records.
Under one section of this, where you talk about granting of Crown lands.... There is always a concern from the opposition benches about public accounting of disposition, methods of disposition and the rationale behind it. With the passage of Bill 3 in the Legislature this spring -- B.C. 21 or the Build BC Act -- there is a lot of concern from the opposition benches that the aspect of this bill regarding the granting of Crown land could allow Crown land grants to the new Crown corporations through the Ministry of Finance. As we saw in Bill 3, there could then be some sort of capital projects planned for Crown lands with no real public accountability for the disposition of the lands, for the strategizing of the disposition of those lands or for the public's role with regard to public lands. That's a very serious concern.
When we look at the section about trespassing on Crown land, we see that there are now some direct punitive measures that the minister may impose on those who are perceived to be committing an offence
[ Page 6941 ]
under section 57. We see a section, for example, that removes any rights or privileges of individuals to any Crown land, rather than it being specific to the site where the incident occurred. I think that there should be an amendment proposed to that section of the bill. Obviously that will come forward in committee stage. That goes straight through all of section 10 of the bill where we talk about lawful authority in both the original act and in this act. We see that the minister has a great degree of discretion under section 10 of the act. How lawful authority will be interpreted by the courts remains to be seen. That causes some concern, particularly if we start to get cynical as to the timing of this bill, in recognition of the impending civil disobedience protests against the Clayoquot decision.
In section 10 of the bill we see reference to the abandonment of private property. The minister can take action against that. It is a serious concern that the minister's interpretation of abandonment may not be consistent with the interpretation by those whose private property it is. That's a potential problem in principle.
When we talk about liability for contraventions of section 57 of the original act, there is a very serious concern from the opposition. To some extent, loss or damage may be defined by the minister. The minister's resources for defining loss or damage in the courts would be significantly higher than the resources of those who may be defending themselves against the ministry. There could be significant punitive action taken by the ministry to the detriment of the public who may be seeking access to public lands. We definitely distinguish between illegal activities, such as tree-spiking which may take place on public land, and legal activities. Obviously, illegal activities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, there may be an arbitrary determination by the minister of loss or damage caused by an offence under section 57. That could then be taken to the courts, with the significant resources of the ministry on one side and what would be -- no doubt -- limited resources on the other side. This, I think, causes a great deal concern in terms of the public having some comfort to protest on public lands.
In section 11 there is a substantial change in the potential punitive impact of the bill. The fact that we have a $300 fine increased to $20,000 gets back to the cynicism of the timing of this bill with regard to potential civil disobedience. There is a great concern with regard to the definitions that the minister may place on this. The ultimate ruling of the courts may be in favour of the defendant, but the minister may choose to take action against a member of the public who is protesting on public lands. Although the ministry might not win that case, just the potential fine of $20,000 and legal costs in winning that case would be a significant deterrent for a lot of people who may have legitimate reasons to protest against the government, and who may want to do so in a very peaceful and currently legal manner.
When we look at waste management and pollution prevention orders in the bill.... I would like to encourage the minister on the pollution prevention orders. I think that they are fairly straightforward. We will look at that in committee to determine more clearly the opposition's position with regard to each different section of the pollution prevention act. I do appreciate that the minister is now going to be more able to take action against a municipality. I hope that when that occurs, there will be prior consultation and some weighing of the intent of the municipality, so that we don't end up -- as we saw last year in the Waste Management Amendment Act -- with a great degree of downloading of the Ministry of Environment onto municipal and regional districts, which basically resulted in a cash cow for the ministry. The ministry's penalties came in before the infrastructure of municipalities could be changed significantly, so that on the one hand, the ministry was using the stick to get the infrastructure changed, and on the other hand, was getting significant money for it. So I'm hoping that this section -- with regard to the minister's power on municipal pollution -- will not be implemented as we saw last year, but that there will be some prior consultation with the municipalities, and the minister will only act on this section when the intent can be proven, or when there is bad faith being exercised by the municipality.
I'm happy to see some talk about the underground storage areas and legislation with regard to underground storage of gas. I think it's encouraging to see the Wildlife Act tightened up to take in certificates as well as licences. So that gives a general overview with regard to the opposition's perspective.
Now that I've given a general overview, I want to return to the sections of the bill that are most problematic in principle to the opposition -- as we are dealing in principle. I want to preface that by saying that I made reference earlier to the cynicism with which one might view this bill in terms of the timing. I'm very interested to hear the minister's closing remarks on this bill, because certainly in this day and age, we see many sectors of the population -- many people and groups within the public; not even collectives or interest groups per se, but disparate members of the citizenry -- rising up and trying desperately to be heard by the government. When one sees the kind of heavy stick that's being wielded in this bill, one can only feel a little bit cynical, perhaps, in anticipation of some major acts of civil disobedience -- or demonstrations in the form of rallies, peaceful walks or peaceful parades, or banners or leaflets.
We see public access to public lands potentially being restricted by this bill. We see a $300 fine going up to $20,000 for a potential offence -- and I'm not talking about serious cases of vandalism, but a potential offence under the act. We see that the minister has a fair amount of discretion in terms of the interpretation of the bill; there's no question that the minister has more than enough resources to bring against members of the public who choose to act in a peaceful way to bring to the minister's attention some very strong feelings they may have on specific issues. Of course, the minister knows that I'm talking about Clayoquot Sound in this connection. There are other issues coming up, and a dangerous precedent is being set here. We may be
[ Page 6942 ]
restricting public access to public lands, not only in a real sense, but in terms of the kind of perception that gives out. I think it's very unfortunate when we see that many people have moved to British Columbia for the very purpose of having access to public lands.
I know that the minister will stand up at the end of this and say: "It's not the intention of the minister to deny a hiker access to hiking trail." But we also know that when we debated the labour bill last fall, it was not the intention of that minister to allow that to be interpreted the way it has been. So there's very little public confidence in this government. We have no idea what direction its agenda is going in. It's with great trepidation that the opposition looks at the tendencies of this act to restrict access, to wield a large stick, to be punitive against the people who may be either seeking access to public lands, which is a longstanding tradition in British Columbia, or may be trying to stage some kind of protest on public lands. Section 10 on trespass on Crown land makes me very nervous. We will explore it piece by piece at committee stage, but I get extremely nervous when I read something like, "If a person does...offence," then they may "cancel any lease, right of way, easement, license...permit, or other disposition held by the person under this act."
Let's say a person decided that they had a reason to protest against this government in civil disobedience on Clayoquot Sound. Let's say that the government took action in a collective manner against the protesters because one or two of them got out of hand, and let's say that one of the people within that collective had an interest, lease, permit or anything under the act somewhere else. This section says that this minister can yank it. I hope that that is not the intent of the bill. If that is the intent of the bill, then we will leave it there and we can argue about that in committee stage. If it's not, we may want to amend that in committee stage so that it would be only as it relates to the specific incident and/or the specific site.
[3:00]
How can we feel any comfort at all if we are not sure how this will be interpreted? I am sure that this minister isn't going to say that he will not allow public protest on public lands. If he won't allow it, I would like to hear that from him. But if he's saying, "No, in principle, I accept that the public may protest on public lands," I want to hear that as well. If the minister is going to say no to that.... We know that precedents have been set in the courts whereby any attempt to remove or restrict public access to public lands is going to end up being ultra vires and ultimately ruled out. From this perspective, section 10 may be deliberately nebulous so that it will only be the threat and the potential interpretation that will be a deterrent and/or a penalty to the people who choose to protest.
Section 7 deals with the grants of Crown lands to Crown corporations and other government bodies. I look forward to debate on this as it pertains to B.C. 21. I didn't hear the minister say anything about that in his opening comments, but we know from the debate that we had on Build B.C. and B.C. 21 -- Bill 3 basically -- and the fundamental change that that represented to our financial institutions, that Crown land can now be granted without public accountability and public knowledge of this happening. I can see no reporting procedure as to how that would be interpreted in B.C. 21. We can then have disposition of those assets in B.C. 21, as we know, through lease, sale or giveaway. We know that Bill 3 allowed sweeping disposition of the assets, and that it allowed expropriation -- and any method of disbursement of lands that had been expropriated, given or sold to B.C. 21.
We have here in section 7: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, Crown land may...as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers advisable, be disposed of by Crown grant under this act, free or otherwise, to a Crown corporation...." Crown corporation is number one on the list. What a surprise! B.C. 21 happens to be a Crown corporation. I'd like to know if this government is going to reveal whether or not section 7 of this bill has anything to do with B.C. 21. I'd like assurances that it doesn't, or -- if this government is intending to have some reference to B.C. 21 -- that there's a public accounting procedure and a reporting process, which I don't see.
Let's put B.C. 21 aside for a second. Where is the public reporting process here? I don't see it. We know from the Environment estimates that there is no proper inventory of B.C.'s lands yet. We know that Lands and Parks are trying very hard to update the maps and to get inventories in place. But if we don't have an inventory of what we've got now, how are we going to know where it's all going? This minister has got to have a feeling that the public has a bit of anxiety. In this age of financial hardship, the one thing that we do have is our Crown land, which is an asset. There should be some measure of knowing where it's going.
One reason I bring this up is that we know that in Tod Mountain, and some other developments around the province, there has been Crown land disbursement at below market value, with no public accounting process and no tender. That falls under this minister's purview. I guess this minister doesn't feel that this is a very serious issue. It might be one reason why the public isn't feeling confident with this government's management of their lands.
In principle, we have great difficulty with section 7. There's no public accounting process, there's no avenue for debate whatsoever, and we don't know if the Crown corporation it is going to go into is B.C. 21.
Section 6 is with regard to the Crown land registry. I'm very curious to know if this minister is going to allow some retroactive expropriation -- if we end up with regional maps that are in conflict with the provincial inventory that this is attempting to put together. I know we'll canvass it in some detail in committee stage. But, in principle, there should be some recognition here.
If, for example, a third- or fourth-generation landowner or homesteader -- somebody who ended up locating in an area -- said: "Gee, I just can't remember where the deed to the property is, but it was with the regional office...." The way I'm reading this bill, it looks like the regional office's records are not as important as the provincial registry. This minister knows that we had a problem with the Beaver Lodge
[ Page 6943 ]
lands; we know that the records aren't perfect. So what happens in a case where private property was duly bought and paid for, was on a regional map, and that regional map is in conflict with the provincial archives? According to the way it reads here, it would be too bad for the person who is relying on the regional records. In principle, that's something the opposition is going to have great difficulty with.
The rest, I think, are some housekeeping things. We definitely have some concerns for committee stage. I am concerned, as well, that we see regional water managers gaining more power again. We canvassed the potential problems that may arise from that fairly extensively last year, when the minister brought in his amendments to the water management act.
With that in mind, I'd like to put on record that while the opposition understands the housekeeping aspects in principle, we have grave reservations about the disbursement of Crown land and about the potential arbitrary decision-making with regard to trespassing on Crown land. We are not sure how the punitive measures being proposed here are going to be implemented by this government. If we had found this to be a credible government that kept its word, we might have a lot less discomfort with this bill. But basically, although I think this minister has good intentions, one can only be cynical about a bill like this coming out in anticipation of civil disobedience against a decision that was very bad in the first place and that will no doubt precipitate a widespread civil uprising by disparate groups within the public. That's something we can canvass more in committee stage when we hear this minister's perspective on the potential legal interpretations of some sections in this bill. I hope we will have some of our concerns allayed. At this stage, I look forward to the rest of the debate.
C. Serwa: I won't be too long on this in second reading. [Applause.] It's nice to have that type of support.
Normally a bill such as this could be explored in a fuller context in Committee of the Whole, section by section. I pretty well appreciate that particular factor. As the minister indicated, there are five statutes here. On the whole, I can see that the amendments to the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Land Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act are fundamentally housekeeping matters.
The area that really concerns me is with regard to amendments to the Land Act. There is a substantial amount of concern, as has been voiced by the hon. member for Okanagan East, with respect to the agenda on the amendments to the Land Act. We can stand here and speculate a great deal about the agenda -- the hidden agenda -- and perhaps we will find monsters in the closet. But at this point it's very difficult to understand the rationale for a number of the amendments to the Land Act.
When we look at the section on trespass on Crown lands, there is a reason for concern. My concern is not so much with the individual's right of access to Crown land. The government of the day is just as aware as I am of the rights of citizens in this province to have access to Crown lands, rivers and lakes. I think they would guard that with care and caution, as a fundamental right of a citizen in British Columbia.
Nevertheless there are some concerns -- whether it has to do with a commercial violation or a commune-type violation that the minister is perhaps concerned about, or maybe the utilization of Crown lands for which an individual does not in fact have title. I recognize that when the minister is talking about Crown lands, he is indicating all lands that come under the Ministry of Lands and not Crown lands that are under the purview of the Minister of Forests. Crown Lands, fundamentally, has the mandate and domain over all alienated and surveyed blocks of land, not over all of the unoccupied Crown land in the province. I think it's important to emphasize that particular fact at this time.
The concerns I have with respect to the philosophy and principles here have to do with drawing out, during the course of Committee of the Whole, the reason for the concern with trespass on alienated Crown lands and the concerns under the sections dealing with offences and why they are listed, and what challenges or problems developed for the ministry that caused the need for this particular legislation. On the whole, that takes care of my particular concerns in second reading. As I said, we'll canvass the various amendments section by section far more fully in Committee of the Whole.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise today in debate on second reading of Bill 25, the Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993. As with so many omnibus bills that change statutes in a variety of areas governing the people of British Columbia, we have to be extremely careful to go through each section and understand exactly what its underlying principle involves. We recognize that one of the primary bases of a strong, free and open democracy such as we enjoy in British Columbia is the protection of public assets: our Crown lands and those public assets that the Crown lands support -- our forests, waterways, lakes and so on.
I rise specifically to deal with section 10 of Bill 25, although there are other areas that I'm sure my hon. colleague from Okanagan East, the Liberal Environment critic, has already commented on. I rise with respect to section 10 because second reading is supposed to be on the principle of a bill, and I have some sincere and rather grave concerns about what this government is attempting to do under this section. We are repealing sections 56 to 58 of the existing act and replacing those with a new section on trespass on Crown land -- i.e., we are now going to put greater restrictions on public access to and public activity on Crown lands. That is a fundamental principle that I and the Liberal opposition have some concerns about, notwithstanding the need for protection against those who would engage in criminal activity on Crown lands.
We all understand that right now we have a heightened awareness of those people who would like to access Crown lands to engage in criminal activities: blockading duly constituted and licensed activities,
[ Page 6944 ]
particularly in the logging industry; tree-spiking; or establishing temporary settlements on Crown land. We understand that all of this is going to be looked at and dealt with rather severely by this ministry. Quite frankly, in light of what I think all of us would recognize as the public interest, those who engage in criminal activities on Crown land should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I don't think any of us would argue that those who perpetrate criminal acts should not be dealt with harshly.
[3:15]
But there is another side to this whole question. It has to do with two aspects of this bill that we need to deal with in principle. The first is the traditional use of and public access to Crown lands that will come under increasing restriction through this bill. Referring to the particular powers the minister will have, it suggests that if a person does anything that is an offence under section 57(a) to 57(g).... That's spelled out in this act under "Offence," which says: "...(a) occupies or possesses Crown land without lawful authority" -- I think we can recognize that occupation of Crown land needs to be defined -- "(b) uses Crown land without lawful authority, (c) being the holder of a lease, right of way, easement...." -- and so on; those kinds of activities. We have to understand that there is an attempt here to change the nature of public access to those lands. We also don't want to have those people who would be guilty of any default on a lease, right-of-way or easement, who construct buildings or structures or in any way try to perform activities...abandon vehicles, and so on.... All of those are offences under this act. Then it says that you cannot have anything that unlawfully interferes with or removes a sign erected by or on behalf of the minister, and so on.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do regret interrupting the member, but all of us need to recognize that second reading debate should be on the principle of the bill and references to specific sections are better handled in committee. I would just remind the hon. member of that.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that direction, hon. Speaker, because it will allow me to go much further afield than I had originally intended.
We recognize that the regulations as spelled out with respect to this bill are going to put impediments on public access to public land. As legislators, we have to be very cautious about the extent to which we put those impediments in place. All of us in this House know that there are likely to be areas of great conflict in B.C. this summer because of opposing points of view. There are those who feel that public lands forested by old growth or in areas with unique watershed or vegetation should be protected. Activities undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Forests by companies licensed by the Ministry of Forests will come under scrutiny. In some instances there may be acts of civil disobedience.
We believe that this bill is being put in place largely to allow this government and this minister to be able to deal -- and deal harshly -- with those who engage in civil disobedience. I've said before that none of us would allow illegal activity to impede legal activity. However, we also have to recognize the fundamental principle that the public has a right to access an asset in the public domain and the public trust. It has the right to speak on it and to engage in honest debate and discussion, even the right of direct public access in order to confront a situation that they feel is offensive.
All of us in this province have to understand that this resource, which we have long taken for granted and exploited in order to generate wealth in our economy and our society, is in a diminished state. The great forests of this province are quickly being taken from underneath us as we go further afield and take species of increased diversity and smaller and small diameter. There are those who are alarmed by that activity and wish to engage in honest and open discussion and debate with the government. In the opening days of this session we witnessed the frustration of people who wanted to demonstrate their concern.
This bill says that in principle the government should allow itself powers to invoke closure on public lands. My difficulty with this is not that there shouldn't be a legitimate way to say that you cannot impede access but to recognize that there will be increasing pressure to keep people off Crown land because it is slated for forestry activity. If we are going to avoid confrontation, which is certainly my desire -- and the desire, I hope, of all rational British Columbians -- the way to do it is not by putting in place a punitive bill whereby the minister can invoke a fine of up to $20,000 for unlawful -- in the eyes of the minister -- access to Crown land. The way to do it is to enter into a more meaningful and long-lasting dialogue so that we can resolve those conflicts before they get to the stage where they're likely to be this summer.
Similarly, we recognize that in the protection of this public asset there are those who have a long tradition of accessing public land for recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking -- for all kinds of recreational activities.
In this province there has been an ongoing battle between those companies that have licence to cut, to close roads -- often built under the Forest Act, which provides for public access and provides that those roads should be open to the public on days when there is no ongoing logging activity underway.... There is an ongoing fight within this province to keep those roads open to the public. It is, after all, a public asset. As a result of that, we have to be very clear, in our attempt to bring about a legal definition of what constitutes an illegal act on Crown land, that we do not overstep the bounds and say that we are now going to become restrictive of access to the resource in itself.
Similarly, we have to be careful, in our haste to increase fines so that they can act as a deterrent to the activity that exists there, that we do not put powers in the hands of this minister, albeit that this minister may be compassionate and wise. Not all ministers of the Crown may be as compassionate and wise as this Minister of Environment may like to think himself to be. To allow a minister to invoke those kinds of fines, without due process and legal recourse, is a travesty of individual liberty and justice in British Columbia.
[ Page 6945 ]
We know that this government is moving us closer toward the removal of individual liberties. We witnessed that in the provision of another act that was brought down yesterday, which obviously is not the subject of this debate. But in the interests of the principle of this debate, I think it can be discussed. In looking at the provision of legislation to remove one's individual liberties -- freedom for discussion, freedom for debate, freedom to be able to state one's opinion -- it is not much different in principle than saying we are going to invoke legislation that will remove one's right to access what is essentially a public asset: Crown land. When we invoke this kind of legislation we have to be extremely careful that we do not unnecessarily infringe upon those kinds of civil liberties. When we invoke fines against illegal activities we also have to make sure those fines are reasonable and are applied in a manner that is fair under the laws of British Columbia and, most importantly, provides the right of appeal.
Right now in the province we are witnessing something called a SLAP suit. These are lawsuits that are being brought against "environmentalists" because of activities that companies have deemed to be counter to their interests. That is one small part of the road down which this bill is taking us. One can argue the merits of those suits in another forum and another debate at a time when it's more appropriate, but they provide tremendous powers and protection for companies that have access to Crown land. They provide virtually no protection for people who are subjugated to those suits. And I would welcome any minister of the Crown, the Speaker, or any member to take a look at the actions of those suits.
We understand that we have to maintain a working forest; it is critical in British Columbia. We understand that we have to have a guaranteed supply if companies are to succeed with longevity -- that's critical. We also have to have laws that are fairly applied to both the corporate sector and to those that are considered the environmental sector, in order to provide fair protection for both sides when disputes arise over the use of public assets on Crown land. I'm not sure this bill does that. In that section I think it provides powers to the minister to exercise authority and jurisdiction over access to Crown land which, one could argue, has to be looked at in a manner that is going to be negative to those who have had a traditional use of that land.
There are hikers in my own riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, active hiking groups in Powell River who have had outings for many years. There is a senior citizens' group that likes to hike, get onto the logging roads and go up into the meadowland, which is a tremendously beautiful part of the Powell River region. Those British Columbians who haven't been there should go. That is my advertisement for Powell River, a truly remarkable part of this province. That meadowland is only accessed through roads that were put there through logging activity. It crosses Crown land. Some of those roads are under active logging. There is a tendency and desire by companies to close those roads off. There are other roads that are being closed by order of the ministry, because they don't want access onto that Crown land.
We have to recognize that the legal use of Crown land is something that can be determined by the minister from time to time. This says that unauthorized occupation, possession or use is a contravention. I know we can't speak to the actual language of the bill, but that's what it says. I suggest to you that in this section the powers provided to the minister are extensive, in light of the kind of land use conflicts that we witness in the province; and those powers are going to be exercised not in the interests of the public good, but largely in the interests of the corporate sector, which has for many years desired much greater closure and less openness on lands to which they have licence and access.
In the interest of fairness, I would say that when we get to this section in third reading, we're going to want to hear from the minister. The minister is going to have to defend this section of the bill. We anticipate that Bill 25 is going to be the removal of yet one more civil liberty that we have in this province: the free and open access to lands which essentially are public assets. It's a fundamental principle -- one that we have provided for many years. I can recall that a great Premier of this province -- one I did not always agree with politically, W.A.C. Bennett -- made it very clear in the granting of licences in occupation of Crown land that when those roads were put forward, it was a policy that they must be deeded to the public when they were completed. We have to maintain and protect that; we have to make sure that those roads will allow us public access to those lands which are deemed in the public trust. This bill is step one in the removal of those kinds of access provisions. What is happening is that the conflict over the use of those lands is ever increasing and ever greater.
[3:30]
In conclusion, let me simply summarize this bill by saying that as an omnibus bill there are some things in this that we like. Not all of this bill is bad; there are some things in this bill that are good. The Crown land registry is good -- although we would think that in principle not only do we need a Crown land registry, we need a comprehensive inventory of resources in this province. We've been saying that for many years in this province, and for the last couple of years as opposition. We're hoping that sooner or later it will sink through to the government.
There is much in the section on waste management with the special waste and disposal facilities that has merit. Therefore we would not necessarily argue against that. But we also recognize that the minister's power respecting municipal pollution in this section of the bill needs a lot of thought and work, because the municipal section under administration of storage tanks.... I can tell you that in my own riding, Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- one I try to represent to the best of my abilities -- there are matters that are going to be of great significance in terms of cost, location and maintenance. There is a real financial consequence to what is going on here. We can't lose sight of that, even though in principle we would say we're moving in the right direction.
[ Page 6946 ]
As you can see, underneath this omnibus guise, there are some things that are good; there are some things that are not so good; there are some things that in principle we have some serious difficulties with. It's a little bit like a smorgasbord at a Chinese take-out: there are some things that you like to dwell on, feast on and say is very good; there are some things that you simply don't feel are to your palate. In general terms, I think that the principle of this bill needs to be looked at in terms of the question of public access to public land. It is a fundamental right of British Columbians to access their land. It is a fundamental right of British Columbians to make sure that government does not provide unnecessary impediments to the access to and use of Crown lands, especially once there has been access or licence provided to other users or companies to extract the resources and open up that land.
When we get to the committee stage this minister must be prepared to defend that section, because we will be vigilant in making sure that every line of that section is questioned. In his defence of section 10 on trespass on Crown lands, and of the sections on offences and on the enforcement and payment of penalties -- sections 57 and 58 -- the minister will need to give some words of comfort to British Columbians, who want to make sure that this minister is not providing himself with powers that ought not to rest with the Minister of Environment but rather ought to be seen through the litigation process in the courts, under statutes that provide for the prosecution of criminal activity.
I look forward to entering into third reading debate. I hope that through the committee stage we will be able to provide some amendments that will make the people of British Columbia somewhat more comfortable than the language of this particular act makes them feel today.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 25. I must say that after the last speaker I chose to reread sections of the bill, because his interpretation of it is certainly much different than mine. I see nothing in this particular bill that reduces or restricts the utilization of forest roads or the natural resources that we all enjoy for recreational purposes. I do see, however, the authorization for the ministry to police and restrict unauthorized buildings and unsightly areas. If the member who just spoke came into some of my area of the province, he would see the vacant vehicles and the refuse that has been left behind, and would recognize that there has to be some way of dealing with those kinds of concerns.
Further to that, I hope this particular bill will allow the ministry to deal with all of those who trespass, irrespective of race or creed. I am well aware of cabins that are being built all over the northern regions of the province without authorization, and I hope that we're not going to see another form of discrimination whereby this will be enforced on one segment of the province and not on others. That is a concern to me, and perhaps the minister will deal with that issue at third reading.
I speak in favour of the bill, hon. Speaker, and see nothing contained within it that the previous member spoke of. I believe there's a need to control the misuse of our wilderness in a way that protects the natural state but still respects the fact that we must have a working forest. We must have the jobs and opportunities, but we must be able to control the environment at the same time.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the comments of all hon. members and during committee stage will be responding to specific points that have been made. Just in a general sense, I would say that the concerns expressed by the members for Okanagan East and Powell River-Sunshine Coast reflect absolutely no intent within the bill. There are no correct assumptions in any of the comments that they have made with regard to their projections about the land aspect of the bill. I would also say that I very much appreciate the comments of the members for Prince George-Omineca and Okanagan West, who made all the comments that I would want to make in trying to respond to some of those points at second reading stage. I will simply acknowledge the points they have made, which more than adequately respond to second reading debate.
With that, hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 25, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 26.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. J. Cashore: This amendment to the Waste Management Act reflects a thorough reform of the way that contaminated sites will be managed and regulated in British Columbia. This bill introduces many innovative features that will make B.C. a national leader in the identification and cleanup of these sites. The bill is the result of several years of consultation with interested parties, both inside and outside government. The issues addressed by this bill have also been the subject of much deliberation by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The result of this consultation is represented in this modern, well-thought-out approach to the administration of contaminated sites.
The proposed amendments will maintain the principle that the polluter pays, but introduce fair and consistent administrative processes. This will ensure that innocent persons and government, to the greatest extent possible, do not have to bear the costs and
[ Page 6947 ]
liability associated with the identification and remediation of these sites.
The bill provides for the identification of contaminated sites in a number of ways. Site information reporting will be required as part of the municipal approval process on applications for subdivision and rezoning. Vendors will be required to disclose information about a site when selling land which has been used for commercial or industrial ventures. Information will also be required whenever a mine or petroleum or natural gas well is closed or abandoned. Finally, the ministry may require information, reporting by order, whenever there is good reason to suspect that contamination has occurred at any site.
An important feature of this bill is that it establishes an orderly process for the assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites. There are a series of stages in the process. Basic site information is acquired through a site profile. If the site profile indicates the necessity, this is followed by a detailed site investigation. Responsible persons for remediating sites are identified in this process. If remediation is required, a site remediation plan is prepared to determine the most effective and responsible way of cleaning the site up.
The bill spells out that a broad range of factors need to be considered when determining appropriate remediation options. These factors include the potential for adverse affects on human health or the environment, technical feasibility, risks, remediation costs and economic benefits and costs of the various remediation options. There is provision for public consultation to ensure that interested persons have an opportunity to comment on the plan. Finally, there is the actual cleanup or remediation process. When this is completed, the ministry will issue certification of satisfactory cleanup.
Another important innovation is the establishment of a site registry. There is an increasing need for various persons to have information about contamination or absence of contamination of specific pieces of land. This information is routinely requested by purchasers of property. At present there is no effective method of making such information available to persons who need it. The new registry will remedy this. It will record information about the condition of each individual site that has been investigated and the status of the remediation process. Most importantly, it will provide for public and legal access to a summary of the information on file with the registry. This is in keeping with our commitment to open government.
The amendment establishes rules and principles that define responsible persons and govern the liability provisions for site cleanup. "Responsible persons" means anyone responsible for the contamination of a site and can include site owners or operators and, under certain conditions, producers or transporters of substances that have contaminated a site. Many exemptions have been included in the bill to protect innocent parties and limit the liability of certain lenders, trustees and receivers. Where a person has contributed in only a minor way to the contamination of a site, there is provision for limiting that person's contribution to the remediation process. In circumstances where there is a dispute over who should be held liable, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is available to avoid costly court actions.
These amendments introduced consistency and fairness of process, which does not currently exist in the act. Those persons who are responsible for the contamination will be held absolutely liable for the cost of cleanup and remediation. The liability is retroactive, and all responsible persons are jointly and severally liable. In this regard the bill maintains the liability principles of the existing pollution-abatement provisions of the act. However, these amendments focus the requirements to ensure that liability is directed at only those persons responsible for contaminating sites. These tough provisions give meaning to the term "polluter pays" and will ensure that the taxpayer is not left holding the bag for the activities of polluters past and present.
Other changes have been incorporated into the bill in a variety of areas. Where it is mutually agreeable, we will be able to delegate certain parts of the administration of the legislation to municipalities. Furthermore, to ensure efficiency in government regulatory processes the bill will enable delegation of certain functions to other ministries. The ability to charge fees is available to defray the cost of administration. There are also provisions to encourage voluntary and independent remediation of contaminated sites by responsible parties. Contaminated soil relocation has become a complicated and difficult issue, with many municipalities establishing controls in the absence of provincial legislation in this area. The bill provides for a mechanism to re-establish some consistency of requirements for dealing safely with contaminated soil movement.
Finally, the bill includes provisions that will allow the minister to carry out remediation activities where necessary and to recover the cost from the responsible parties. The bill also enables the minister to undertake remediation of high-risk orphan sites, in which case costs are shared on a fifty-fifty basis with the federal government.
Since the bill received first reading, my ministry has been in consultation with major industry organizations, including those representing lenders, developers and municipalities. As a result of these discussions, I will be making several amendments to the bill during committee debate, which will clarify some aspects and make the legislation more effective in implementing the principle of fairness. After the bill is approved, a significant regulation package will have to be developed to implement the contaminated sites management system. Development of these regulations is expected to occur over the next several months and include consultation with affected parties.
[3:45]
The innovations and refinements contained in these amendments reflect the commitment of this government to clean up historical contamination in the province and ensure that those who have caused the contamination will pay the bill. A modern and progressive regulatory approach to contaminated sites will give British Columbians the most cost-effective and
[ Page 6948 ]
comprehensive cleanup and remediation system in Canada.
I now move second reading of the bill.
J. Tyabji: I am happy to rise to speak to a bill of this magnitude coming before the House. All of us can support the principle of the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the excellent initiatives in this bill are the panel where they will be discussing contaminated sites and the contaminated-site registry. I am happy to see the contaminated-site registry being put in place, and I am assuming that it will be cross-referenced with the other land maps and inventories that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will do. I think it will be extremely useful for the people of the province to have access to that kind of inventory resource.
There are a lot of problems in principle with this bill, and we will canvass them in the committee stage to hopefully allay the concerns. Some of the things that come up immediately when reading this bill are jurisdiction, due diligence and who defines due diligence and to what extent aboriginal land claims are going to affect the jurisdiction of this provincial legislation when we take into account the sections on potential migration and downstream effects of contaminated sites.
We know that in this bill there are references to responsibilities being put aside in the event of an act of God being deemed to be the cause of the contamination, yet we don't know how widely that will be defined and whether or not lawyers might argue that a farmer who has a factory farm -- by the act of God with regard to the activities of those farm animals -- is going to end up with downstream contamination.
I think the question of who pays is at the root of the contaminated-site legislation. Although it is extremely important that the government act very quickly in the areas where potential impacts of contaminated sites are imminent and where there is a degree of imminence and urgency, I think the delegation of responsibility will probably provide a lot of work for a lot of lawyers, and possibly incur a lot of costs for people who may have acted in good faith in the past. I am thinking most specifically of farmers and people in the Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan.
We know that throughout the years there have been examples of government legislation and regulations allowing things to occur in agricultural areas where afterwards it is found that the activities have resulted in some harm to the environment. I can think of examples like DDT or 2,4-D. They were acceptable at one point and then afterwards they were not acceptable, yet the farmers were acting in good faith, acting within the laws that were brought forward by the government. One could almost argue that since it's the responsibility of government to licence and regulate things like pesticides, perhaps it is the government that has been negligent in the licensing and regulating of pesticides. When individuals who have acted in good faith used these products within the law, it is grossly unfair for them to be retroactively penalized by regulation through legislation such as this. That's a very important concern.
We know that this is an enabling bill and is not the final word on how it will be implemented. It is setting up the structure through which the regulations will be brought in. How will we reconcile the enabling bill before us with the new jurisdictions that will be set up by this government on aboriginal lands? When we start to deal with aboriginal jurisdiction in the part of the bill regarding potential downstream contamination or the migration of the contamination downstream, will this legislation apply? We don't know. When I was talking to the ministry staff, they didn't have an answer, because we know that the ongoing negotiations for jurisdiction on aboriginal lands is outside of this ministry and outside of any third-party input or negotiation.
Although we have good legislation and regulations on the books, we could end up with a situation where we can't enforce them on non-provincial or aboriginal lands. So we may be sitting on non-aboriginal land and receiving contamination from aboriginal sites. This legislation might be on the books, but it won't have any application. That's a serious concern, especially when we go to the question of who pays. If it is argued by those who have jurisdiction over the aboriginal lands that the contaminated site was there prior to their getting title, or if it is argued that under the provincial legislation on non-aboriginal lands that downstream contamination is an important issue for the government, then we could have a situation, through this enabling bill and the migration aspects in this bill, where the aboriginal peoples could file for the government to pay for the cleanup of the site, yet this government would not be able to regulate what's going on on the site. Because it doesn't deal with jurisdiction, and because we don't know what we'll be left with and what the map will look like at the end of the land claims, I think we can have a lot of concerns about the implementation of the regulations and legislation before us.
I think that intent is extremely important when we talk about who pays. This government will be setting up a panel and to some extent the minister will have discretion as far as defining due diligence, who is responsible and what was the intent of the person who is ultimately responsible for the site. There is a lot of concern about how we define intent and what the limitations of intent are. When you talk about due diligence, if somebody acting in good faith and within the letter of the law still obviously intentionally used the products that ended in the contamination, is that person then liable for the cost of the cleanup? We don't know that yet. The regulations that accompany this legislation are not even in draft form yet. In previous sessions, we have had discussion papers and accompanying potential regulations coming out with bills like this. Really, we don't know how this bill will be implemented or what kind of regulations we can expect. So we can't really feel a lot of comfort with regard to the definition of due diligence and how that will be interpreted.
It's interesting that we see an immunity clause within this bill. The immunity clause is something that is for governments, municipalities and officers of government. It basically says that these bodies and
[ Page 6949 ]
people are exempt unless they've acted in bad faith. I think that's a real double standard. We know that government bodies are protected by this bill unless it can be proven that they've acted in bad faith. In a different section of the bill, an individual has to prove that they weren't acting in bad faith. It's a complete double standard. We have government legislation protecting government and hitting individuals really hard. To me that seems completely unfair. We ought to have the same presumption for individuals and governments, either acting in bad faith, or the presumption used throughout the courts of innocence until proven guilty.
We have an ultra vires clause in this bill -- just as we did last year in the Waste Management Amendment Act. This bill says that the burden of proof is on individuals to show that they were not responsible. This minister has seen to it that municipalities, regional districts, other bodies of government and their employees are saved from the same responsibilities for contaminated sites that every other individual in the province is saddled with. It's pretty obvious to see why. We know that government wants to pay the minimum amount of money. Municipalities and regional districts are saying that they don't want to be saddled with the costs of cleanup when they are acting in good faith. There would be downstream implications with regard to taxation. Private industry is going to want the same provisions. A forestry company, a farming company or any group that is outside of government is going to say that if they were acting in good faith then they don't think that they should automatically be saddled with the cleanup of the site. I know that no matter what, when one is dealing with contaminated-site legislation and regulation, one is always walking a tightrope, because somebody has to pay for it. But when prioritizing which contaminated sites within the contaminated-site registry will be cleaned up first, I hope that the imminence of the contamination's migration would play a larger role than what we'd call political expediency or a public relations game, so that sites within the registry where the cleanup would not have immediate impacts on any group or community would be left to the very end and there would be provisions for a long-term cleanup plan.
We find too often that in a rush of good intentions we end up passing on unnecessarily high capital costs to industry without a financing structure in place that would allow for a slightly more affordable way of dealing with contamination. Because we haven't seen the regulations that will accompany this, it's very difficult for us to know if there will be that prioritizing of contaminated sites, if there will be an allowance for long-term financing for sites that are not imminently hazardous and if there will be a great deal of cooperation and consultation with the various groups that will be affected by this.
We have to be very cautious when we look at retroactive legislation. For example, we could have somebody purchasing a site in the faith that all contaminated-site inventories have cleared the site and then find out afterward to the contrary -- that the site is contaminated and they will have to pay for cleanup. In the end, the previous owner has passed on the responsibility to that person, who bought it in good faith.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I'm sure the minister can understand that there are a lot of companies outside the country who might say British Columbia is not a good avenue for investment if they don't feel confident that they can purchase a property without being held culpable for contamination that occurred before. So that's a major concern. Not being able to see the regulations that will accompany this, we're almost flying blind in terms of the ultimate intent of this bill. Given that the corporate capital tax and other initiatives with regard to industry have proven this government hostile in the past, there's no guarantee and no comfort for the opposition benches that the same attitude won't be taken toward forestry or mining companies that have acted in good faith within the existing legislation and who now, with good intentions, are going to try to meet the new legislation but who are not going to have the opportunity to do so in a time frame where they can adjust and continue to be competitive and viable in the international marketplace.
[4:00]
We know that the precautionary principle has been one of the fundamental tenets of this Minister of Environment. We know that if the regulations that will accompany this bill are based on the precautionary principle, as we saw applied to the Capital Regional District and the AOX emissions, we won't be able to implement this bill without being very punitive. Industry, having subscribed to the best available scientific knowledge at the time and acted within the existing legislation and regulations, may end up being hit with regulations that will retroactively penalize them for something that wasn't scientifically proven to be a problem. That's a real problem in terms of future investment for the province and where the province is going to develop.
I think that all of us agree we must have responsible environmental legislation. We must have legislation that will take into account the critical need to recognize where our contaminated sites are and try to define where the responsibility belongs. When we look through this bill and see some of the issues about who pays, there's a great deal of concern. In trying to deal with some of the various agencies, municipalities and regional districts, and with the role of the aboriginal people.... I don't see the word "aboriginal" in here at all. I don't see any reference to aboriginal lands, which I think is kind of interesting. Certainly aboriginal lands are part of the map of British Columbia. Although we've seen immunities extended to local governments, I think it's unfortunate that we don't know what the final role will be for what this government has chosen to call the third order of government.
When we talk about who pays in public consultations, are we going to define who pays based on whom the public perceives to be the culprit? For example, in a small town that has relied on one industry
[ Page 6950 ]
or one plant... We can look at Celgar in the Kootenays. None of us would advocate pollution. With hindsight we can see that pollution was a natural spinoff for some of those industries, because they weren't properly regulated. That was a major problem. We can see that those cities and towns are dependent on those industries, yet if we overly regulate the industries and lose them, the town will shut down. So we would end up with a net loss. We might even end up losing the ability to clean up the contaminated site. If the industry that's responsible shuts down and leaves, who is going to end up paying for it? Ultimately the government would end up paying for it. But the local people would end up being out of jobs.
We've seen small-town shutdowns because of prior legislation. We've seen the government bring in legislation with good intentions and the right objectives, but the manner in which it was brought in was not sensitive to the very fragile economies of the outlying regions. We know that environmental regulation is an area where we can be progressive and set a lot of trends, and we can prioritize which areas have to be dealt with first. But if we don't do it in a manner that takes into account the fragile economy of the outlying regions and that recognizes good faith but instead do it in a manner in which the political will to have those objectives achieved and prioritized and to have a long-term strategy in place supersedes the public response through consultation, there's a real danger of ending up with an almost hysterical approach to contaminated-sites legislation, which in the long run would be very detrimental to the public.
I have concerns with a few things. How is it going to impact resource industries when due diligence is not properly defined? How are we going to deal with investor confidence when they see this bill added to others? I'm not advocating for a second that we should negate our environmental responsibilities for the sake of capital investment -- quite the contrary. We must recognize that we have to be environmentally responsible in a manner that allows for capital investment to come in with some comfort.
Open-ended liability is something we have to be concerned about. Basically signing a blank cheque that doesn't adequately tie into due diligence or jurisdiction is a problem for the opposition. We are extremely concerned that this bill may end up not being worth a lot if the jurisdiction is limited to areas that are only non-aboriginal. When we look at the way the government is dealing with the final jurisdiction on aboriginal land claims, which may have nothing at all to do with the provincial government.... That is something the opposition is very much opposed to.
As I say, there are some problems with this in principle. The double standard with regard to local governments versus individuals is a major one. The problem with open-ended liability is major. I can certainly see that this bill will be extremely good for the lawyers. This bill could not possibly have been written to be less friendly to lawyers. Maybe this is a tax-generating initiative for the Ministry of Environment, with the new 7 percent legal tax, so that we can bring in some extra revenue.
Having said that, I look forward to committee stage of this bill. An enabling bill that is this far-reaching and takes so many different aspects of contaminated sites into account in a very open-ended way can lead to a lot of anxiety and, unfortunately, not be as conducive to a very conciliatory approach to contaminated site cleanup as the minister may wish.
D. Mitchell: I ask leave to introduce some guests.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: We have in our public galleries and in the precincts today a group of grade 7 students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver. It's a large group of about 90 students; they are accompanied by some teachers and several adults. I wonder if the members of the House would welcome these students.
I'd like to add some comments to second reading stage of Bill 26, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993. This is a big bill; it's an important bill. When I say it's big, it's about 40 pages long. It's quite technical. The minister has made his comments on the second reading stage, but many of his comments are going to have to be addressed in far greater detail when we get to the committee stage of this bill because of the broad-ranging nature of this legislation. As the minister has stated, the general purpose of the bill is to improve regulation and cleanup of contaminated sites in British Columbia. Of course, we can support that in general. In principle, we all believe that improved regulation for the cleanup of contaminated sites is something that can be supported.
The major change in this legislation is that it eliminates one section of the existing Waste Management Act, which was a small half-page section of the original statute. It replaces it with a new, 15-page section, 3.1. It makes a very significant change to one small portion of the existing statute that it seeks to amend here.
A number of questions and issues arise as a result of Bill 26. I'd like to refer to just a few of the more important ones, as I see them, during the second reading stage. There are a number of issues relating to the liability of British Columbians; there are a number of issues relating to increased bureaucracy, which I think we should all be concerned about in this Legislature. One of the questions arises with respect to site profiles. The bill itself doesn't really tell us what's involved in a site profile report, but by reading the part of the bill that deals with site profiles, we're led to believe that when a private homeowner wants to make a change to their home and seeks a building permit to build an addition onto their home or for zoning approval for a private residence, apparently ordinary homeowners will be required to provide site profiles and pay for municipal assessment of the site profile. One wonders about that change and the paperwork burden that's going to be added to ordinary citizens under this legislation. Certainly we'd like to get more detail from the minister as to what is involved in a site profile report when we get to committee stage. It seems like it's going to be more red tape. We should be
[ Page 6951 ]
concerned about that, because the ordinary citizens of British Columbia want less, not more, red tape.
There is another issue here relating to the site registry that the bill refers to. A new site registry is to be established. One wonders if we really need a new site registry. Almost every piece of legislation that the NDP government brings in refers to some new administrative unit, registry or part of a department that is going to employ more bureaucrats and be costly to the taxpayers -- more government, more red tape. Here we have it again: section 20.21 refers to a new site registry. Why couldn't the new site registry under this act be incorporated into the existing land registries so that when an ordinary purchaser is unaware of a contaminated status of a property they are purchasing, the information would be contained within the land registry during the normal conveyancing process? One wonders why we need a separate land registry under the minister's department or whether this is just a burgeoning empire for the Minister of Environment. That's an issue we need to understand more clearly before we can approve this bill.
There are a number of other issues, including liability for remediation. In particular, this legislation provides for retroactive liability for contamination, even if the substance was legal at the time of introduction to the site. So a person who purchased property many years after the original site was used for some purpose is now going to be liable because of the retroactivity, in terms of liability for remediation. Even if the permits, plans or certificates of waste were authorized under the law of the day, the state can go backward in time. There are concerns about that in terms of fairness. Although clearly there has to be some liability, and this amendment to the act is trying to decide who is liable, there has to be a concern about what is or is not excessive under the bill.
An allocation panel can be established under section 20.51 of the bill. That allocation panel can perform work, and that work is to "be paid for by the person who requests the opinion." Yet under that section of the bill, the manager of the ministry is not bound by the opinion of any allocation panel. One wonders about the powers or authority of this panel that can be established -- and whether or not it's useful, because the bureaucrat within the ministry is not bound by the work of the panel in any event. What is the real benefit of that?
One other area that I'd like to refer to very briefly is the section of the bill dealing with voluntary remediation agreements -- section 20.61, which we'll deal with in much more detail in committee. I find this interesting. I wonder if the government has any recognition for how business is conducted in the province, because this bill certainly seems to be an attempt to change how we do business in British Columbia -- or how parties transact business with one another. Under this section of the bill, a party entering into a voluntary agreement is not protected from further actions under either this legislation or under common law. A party entering into voluntary agreement requires written consent of the manager in order to dispose of any assets that reduce the capacity to comply with the terms of the voluntary agreement. In short, I wonder if there is a potential to interfere too much in the ordinary course of business transactions as a result of this bill.
A number of other areas in the bill that we'll deal with in committee include contaminated soil relocation, delegation to municipalities and cost recovery. There are actually some good points in this bill -- points that we can and should support.
One final section I'd like to refer to with respect to the ongoing liability provisions is section 20.95, the "right to take further action." This could be considered excessive in terms of the powers given to the state in this area. Again, the manager within the Ministry of Environment has broad powers to reinstitute proceedings against an owner who was cleared in the past based upon any new information that arises -- any new standards, any new site usages, etc. One wonders whether or not this ongoing liability under the act isn't excessive.
[4:15]
Mr. Speaker, we can support the general principle that is put forward by the minister in his comments with respect to this bill. But these are some of the concerns that I think we're going to have to address before we can approve it in committee stage. I think the broad issue is increased bureaucracy, with a new registry and new red tape. We don't support that. That's something that British Columbians want to see less of. This bill seems to provide more red tape, more bureaucracy and more cost to the taxpayers. Couldn't we get the job done with less, not more? Through using our hard heads and our best business minds, couldn't we achieve the goals of this bill with less bureaucracy, not more?
Of course, the other broad issue is the retroactivity, both for cost recovery and the ability to take further actions based upon any standards or information that didn't exist -- even if the party met all of the government's requirements at the time. That retroactivity surely is the heavy hand of the state reaching back in time. That's unfair, or at least there's the potential for unfairness against ordinary citizens in British Columbia, whether it be for industrial use, or whether they be private property owners or homeowners seeking building permits for their homes.
Those are some concerns I'd like to raise in second reading. I look forward to the committee stage, where we'll be able to get into much more detail, and I think that's where the major debate will likely take place on Bill 26.
C. Serwa: Bill 26 is a detailed and technical bill. It's the type of bill that is difficult to speak to on its philosophy and principles, but there are a number of unsettling areas. Certainly the objective of identifying and cleaning up contaminated sites is necessary, but is the bill being responsible? The bill develops some of the parameters, but without the regulations it does not give us a clear determination of where the minister and the government are going. The bill has implications that I think are potentially threatening and at the very least time-consuming and expensive to the people of B.C. and that may or may not achieve the results the minister
[ Page 6952 ]
is hoping for. The bill is vague; the language is ambiguous and not clearly defined. While it creates a general framework for waste management, the real meat of the bill will be, as I said earlier, in the regulations that have to accompany it.
I see a number of problems with the bill. Certainly there is a dual standard. That's clearly evident where it applies to non-native British Columbians and not to native British Columbians with respect to federal private lands. That causes me concern on the basis of fairness and balance. If we're concerned about pollution, we are well aware that whether it's radioactivity or contaminants such as PCBs, between air currents and water currents they're carried over widespread locations, and contaminants can be spread through groundwater. There is concern about the application of standards and whether it's the intent of the ministry to apply them to only some British Columbians, or even, if this current government has a choice in water, how they do it.
One of the strengths or weaknesses of the bill will be the ability to impress all British Columbians with its necessity. There is also a difference in the way individuals are treated. The creation of additional bureaucracies is something that I think the people of B.C. will find hard to tolerate. In the past two years over 2,000 new jobs have been created in the province's civil service. It seems to be a dedicated effort for re-election. The current government is creating all sorts of bureaucracies to employ more people who will join the BCGEU and vote for them in the next election. They have an opportunity to employ unemployed socialists across Canada who can contest the next federal election. That may be part and parcel of this bill.
The challenges of the bill are in such things as the definition of a contaminated site: "an area of land in which the soil or any groundwater lying beneath it, or the water or the underlying sediment, contains (a) a special waste, or (b) another prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed criteria, standards or conditions...." Let's take a look at the Fraser River delta. Several years ago there were reports of lesions and cancerous tissues on a lot of the bottom fish. Several weeks ago the minister came out with a state-of-the-environment report that indicated -- with the tougher pulp mill regulations and the other concerns that had been addressed -- that the river was being cleaned up and that we were making good progress and moving in the right direction. The reality underlying that is contaminated strata on an annual basis. Who is responsible for the cleaning up of that contaminated strata? How does one identify who is guilty in that particular situation? We are starting to run into areas where this legislation indicates that the government determines who should be responsible for the cleanup. The magnitude of that job would be unaffordable by anyone.
There are contaminated sites around pulp mills, which for years have had emissions that contaminated certain site areas, and we're well aware of that. Nevertheless, these contaminated areas now underlie strata that is cleaner, because of more stringent pulp mill regulations, and are not causing the types of problems they formerly were. Is the pulp mill responsible for the removal of that strata? It can clearly be identified.
As has been mentioned in the Legislature, to have an assessment done on the property creates a number of questions for people in British Columbia who apply for a building permit or subdivision approval. On what basis? Is there a suspicion that this is a contaminated site? Will this be a standard rule of thumb that everyone who applies for a building permit to add on a porch, for example, will now have to have their property assessed?
Then you get into the realm of concentrations. A former homeowner in downtown Vancouver may have been a handyman and when he changed his oil he dumped it on the soil. The new owner has applied for a building permit, and over a period of time there had been a gallon or two of oil dumped on the lot. To what degree does that determine a contaminated site? There are no parameters and no discussion in this bill with respect to concentrations, and there are a great deal of concerns on the part of the property owners. There is a clear bias against property owners, and that's not surprising from a government that doesn't believe anyone has the right to own property, so I can understand that particular bias.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Someone says it's not true, but they have been consistent in opposing property ownership as part of the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Even property owners who are innocent are deemed guilty. They will have to pay the cost of the whole process. They will be forced to pay court costs to try to obtain compensation from previous owners. This is not an obligation of the government but something imposed on an innocent property owner. Again, Orwellian is the word that always comes into context when the government delivers a bill. A number of potentials within this bill are truly frightening. They can only be taken away with more realistic regulations and a responsible application of the legislation. Nevertheless, there is a concern in this particular bill that the ministry has awesome powers of enforcement.
The concern is that assessment costs have to be billed to property owners whether or not they were involved in the contamination of the site. The cleanup of the property has to be borne by the current owners whether or not they were involvedt in it simply because they are the property owners. I can assure you, for example, that once the water supply of an area is contaminated, the cost of cleanup would exceed the budget of the provincial government.
The Expo lands are perhaps a good case in point of a historical type of pollution where the ultimate obligation rests on the Crown for the cleanup. It was part and parcel of the acquisition costs of the land, and it's still an ongoing responsibility of the provincial government. But that really goes back beyond the turn of the century. It would be exceedingly difficult to get any property owner to assume that type of an
[ Page 6953 ]
obligation, especially when there was no knowledge of the types of industries that occurred on a particular site in the previous 90 to 100 years. Clearly there has to be a responsible nature on the part of government to recognize some sort of a time factor variability. They cannot evade the reality, the logistics and the costs and impose all of those on a current property owner. It may happen to residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural property. Nitrate poisoning is, I presume, a form of contamination. It would be a concern if we found, for example, that nitrates in the soil through fertilizers qualify as a contaminated site because of the concentration. How can this in fact be cleaned up? How can it be cost effective? It's one thing to draw up regulations; it's another thing to draw up legislation; it's a third thing to make them practical and enforceable. I am confident that the minister would like to make them practical and enforceable, but this particular package of legislation doesn't lend validity to my belief.
Generally, I think that the bill tends to hold a fairness and balance throughout with respect to rights. Although, as I said earlier, it is very heavy on the rights of property owners. It's entirely correct to collect from polluters but far and away, before we get to that area, our concern at the present time has to be with eliminating the forms of pollution that we're now acutely aware of: contaminated ground, air and groundwater. That has to be first and foremost, because prevention is certainly the least expensive and most cost effective route to go on.
[4:30]
The great debate on this bill will be during Committee of the Whole. The debate will continue when the regulations are actually put into place. That's where the majority of the public debate will start to ensue because for the first time the public impact of this Waste Management Amendment Act will be seen. At that time it will perhaps be a little bit late to do very much. All I can say is that during committee stage of this bill we will try to go through it extensively, section by section, asking questions of the minister and, I am confident, getting good responses. Hopefully we will make the public aware of the magnitude of the implications of the bill, and perhaps we will get the minister to answer specific questions that each section brings forward.
In general, I think the bill is a good idea. My concern is that it's written in a fashion that is particularly heavy and onerous on property owners. It's particularly favourable to government and perhaps to the ministry, but on the whole I don't think it has the total balance and responsibility, recognizing the length of time and recognizing that concentrations are not taken into consideration.
We will be looking forward to debating this bill further in Committee of the Whole.
R. Chisholm: I rise today with some concerns over this bill. One concern is retroactive legislation -- I'm not exactly in favour of that. How far does retroactive legislation go? When a chemical such as DDT was an authorized chemical to use on farmlands, we started talking about the determination of contaminated sites. Those chemicals are still there. What are we going to do about cleaning these up? Will a farmer, who is barely making a living at best nowadays because they are being taxed to death, have to remove the topsoil? The farmer, who is barely making ends meet, can ill afford to take the loam off the top of the earth and move it to some other site because of past agriculture practices which were the norm of the day. We are punishing farmers who may have been there for the last 30 or 40 years, and what he did then was the technology of the day and was perfectly appropriate. With this bill it won't be appropriate, and somebody will order him to remove the topsoil and have the area cleaned up. My problem is: where does the farmer then go? Does he just go out of business, or is there some sort of government agency where he can go to discuss his problem?
An Hon. Member: Or she.
R. Chisholm: Or she; pardon me.
What facility is available for this farmer to address this problem? They can ill afford to remove the topsoil, they are being taxed to death by this government's taxation policies and they are barely making ends meet. We already have our problems with GATT and all the rest of it. Now we are going to tell them that if they have too high a level of nitrates -- which may come from manure if they are a cattle operation and they were going by past practices -- that they have now contaminated the water supply. How does the farmer afford to clean this up? What happens? Does he just put up a going-out-of-business sign, go bankrupt and give up the farm or turn it over to the state? What happens here? As I said, these practices were the norm at the time. Now what does the farmer do?
Let's talk about fishing and aquaculture. This government has decided where they will put fish farms. There is contamination from such farms. What is going to happen when the farms that are starting up now have contaminated sites? Who is going to clean up the mess? A government agent will order that this mess be cleaned up by the individual, but the individual was following all the guidelines that the same government implemented two or three years ago. When the Social Credit government was in power they tried to fast-track the aquaculture industry and made a mess of it. Now these organizations are going to have to clean it up, but those were the rules of the day. Who's going to clean up the ones that have gone bankrupt? There are bankrupt contaminated fish farms that are a mess. Who's going to clean those up? Are they going to try to find the previous owners? These people are already bankrupt and don't have the money to clean it up. Who is going to clean up these areas?
This is a result of the disaster of the previous government and of what this government is doing now. How can they bring in regulations like this when they promised a moratorium on aquaculture? And they still haven't enacted the moratorium. They don't even know what they're talking about. These are some very basic principles. We have to start crawling before we walk, and then walk before we run. We seem to jump into the game halfway through and expect to run, but we're not
[ Page 6954 ]
capable, because we haven't done the background work. We haven't done the moratoriums, we haven't done the studies and we don't even know who is responsible anymore. If we do find out, they don't have the capability to clean up the mess that was created through their regulation.
Think about farmers and the taxation policies of this government. A cattle ranch of 300 head is down by 19 percent on income, barely making ends meet. Farmers are going off the farm to keep it viable, and they're being taxed by the Finance minister for doing it, as a matter of fact. We are going to tell this individual that he's been using the wrong kind of fertilizer and will now have to remove 100 acres of topsoil. How can he afford that? Are we trying to tell these industries to put up the going-out-of-business sign and that we'll buy from out of the country? If we go along with this type of policy and regulation, we may as well go out of agriculture. The farmers of this province cannot afford to do what this bill will require them to do, whether it's nitrates from manure or fertilizers, or pesticides and herbicides. They were all authorized by the regulations of previous governments, and now they're going to be penalized.
As I say, they may as well put up a going-out-of-business sign. I'll address these problems more in the committee stage.
G. Wilson: In rising to debate Bill 26, let me say that in principle any bill that seeks to put in place a waste management process to protect our environment and the areas surrounding our communities is a welcome one. But we have to recognize that when we do this, there are some realities that need to be addressed and some issues that need to be discussed. I think the minister wants to think about some of the issues raised by my colleagues in the Liberal opposition.
Interestingly enough, one of the first parts of Bill 26 is Part 3.1, contaminated site remediation. When you want to decide whether a bill is a good bill or a bad bill, you look to definitions. If you go back to section 20.1 of the Waste Management Act, 1982, the contaminated site remediation process that is being replaced by this act, and look at this in terms of the overall principles involved, it's interesting to see that the government is attempting to address the philosophical question of who should be responsible for the contamination, cleanup and damage of sites. We've gone through a very lengthy bill here to try to bring that down.
Let's take a look at the concept of a contaminated site. A contaminated site "means an area of land in which the soil or any groundwater lying beneath it, or the water or the underlying sediment, contains (a) a special waste, or (b) another prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed criteria, standards or conditions...." That's a pretty wide definition. There's one major contaminated site in B.C., and that's the harbour of Vancouver. Vancouver harbour is about as contaminated a site as any you would want to find. The industrial development that has taken place over the years around Vancouver has put leachate, heavy metals and toxins of every description into the water and the sediments below the water in Vancouver harbour. Given that the municipality is now responsible, I would assume that every time there's a development in or around that harbour facility, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, West Vancouver, Vancouver proper and all of the other communities that touch on Vancouver harbour are going to be subjected to site examination processes under "Identification of Contaminated Sites."
I will wager that you will not find a more contaminated site in British Columbia than the harbour of Vancouver, save and except, possibly, those ocean dumping sites, where this government regularly permits the harbour to be dredged, put on a barge, taken out to communities such as my own and dumped into Howe Sound.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I hear the members opposite saying "Shame, shame." It is a shame that we still, even today in 1993, have contaminated sites not only as a result of past activity but also identified on maps, where permits are provided by the federal government, in full compliance with this provincial government, to allow dredged heavy metals to be taken out of Inner Harbour and dumped into Howe Sound and the Georgia strait. Hon. Speaker, if we want to look at contaminated sites, let's look at those ocean dumping sites. Let's look at what this government regularly permits, and let us recognize that there is a little hypocrisy that's at work here if this government will continually permit materials that are taken out of areas identified for the purposes of this bill to be simply put on a barge, taken out and dropped into Howe Sound and the Georgia strait.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs groaning that I'm a negative Nellie and I shouldn't be so disapproving of this situation. I'm delighted that the minister is here, because clearly the people who are looking at the Bamberton development are saying that it is a possible contaminated site. Given this bill, which is such a good idea, maybe we ought to have this Minister of Environment put in place all the regulations in terms of identification, site study, site analysis, all other site investigations, site registry, determination of contaminants in the site and liabilities that may be assessed against those developing -- we could go on and on -- prior to final subdivision of that property, zoning and development. Hon. Speaker, all of us in British Columbia would salute this government if it recognized that the environmental assessment be done before land which is currently under the definition of a community settlement plan is rezoned to permit the densities of development that are being proposed in that area. I'm sure the minister wouldn't think me a negative Nellie if I said that; it would be a very responsible thing to do under this kind of site legislation.
[ Page 6955 ]
Let's assume that if we are going to say, as this bill says in principle, that the contaminants that have occurred are the responsibility of those who essentially provided them, clearly we have to ask how we go back and seek retribution against people who are no longer in business or no longer there. Or even worse, and more difficult and complex, how do we deal with site contaminations where there is a past or possible jurisdictional dispute over land ownership or levels of government -- municipal, regional district, possibly provincial and federal? Where and how do we start to assess the cost of the overall cleanup of the contaminated sites in terms of liability?
[4:45]
Hon. Speaker, this is not an entirely bad bill. Let me not be seen to be totally negative about what is being put forward here. But clearly the bottom line is that somebody somewhere has to pick up the cost of doing the rehabilitation that this bill requires. The best example of an on-land contaminated site in British Columbia is the Expo land site. The site was contaminated; it was known to be contaminated prior to the government of the day selling it off to buyers at a bargain basement price, which had, as part of that sale, ongoing public liability for the cleanup costs that are required, which have now escalated into millions of dollars. If that was not a test, it clearly has to be seen as one good example of how we need to very clearly draw the lines with respect to the liability portions under section 3 of this particular bill.
Let us say that there has clearly been a change in our assessment of what is acceptable industrial behaviour today, in 1993, from what was acceptable before.
My hon. colleague for Chilliwack, the Agriculture critic for the opposition, points out an interesting case with respect to agricultural activity. Application of certain herbicides and pesticides has in the past been accepted practice in farming, but the systemic problems with that application have now created a toxic or contaminated site. At the time, science said that was the best thing to do; at the time, we said that was okay. DDT was used. I can recall in my own youth, growing up in East Africa, where something called FLIT, which was DDT in liquid form, was pumped into the air in a very liberal manner -- small "l," please -- to try to get rid of virtually every flying and crawling insect in the vicinity. We were fearful that something might at some point bite us and cause some terminal illness. We don't do that anymore, and it's good that we don't do that anymore. We recognize the application of those kinds of toxins does create systemic contamination problems.
Similarly, with the disposal of waste products -- oil as a classic example -- we no longer find it acceptable to simply bury this material in sites designated for such disposal, and that is good. The bill has to recognize a time period, through which land zoning has occurred, in which liability on the assessed damage may legitimately be assigned to those that have been responsible. There has to be some historic or grandfathering clause in here that recognizes that liability cannot always be assessed against the user or the perpetrator, because those perpetrators may no longer even be around.
In that instance, I look to the municipal section and the responsibility the municipalities have under this bill, and I have some serious concerns. I can tell you that one of the most difficult problems we face in British Columbia outside of the lower mainland.... I know it's difficult sometimes for this government to think beyond the lower mainland. They tend to think the sun rises in Surrey and sets somewhere just west of Victoria. But there are many communities in the province that have previously involved themselves in industrial activity and are now facing rehabilitation of contaminated sites but have nowhere to take that material. It's all very well to say we are going to look at the involvement of municipalities in reclamation or look at how they should go after those that have developed and have been essentially responsible. But authority has to be divided among the provincial government, the municipal governments and those in the private sector in such a manner that compliance doesn't make development activity impossible and that the compliance of municipalities isn't impossible by virtue of restrictions such as this bill would put on them.
Let me talk about the waste management question in my own community, the Sunshine Coast. It was only two years ago, under the previous government -- and this government has been slow to pick up on this particular problem.... We know that there are sites contaminated from the disposal of PCBs. We know there are materials that have been deposited over a long period of time. Yet there is no safe way for us to get rid of that without taking it either by open barge or through some form of public transport system on B.C. Ferries. So we have to ask ourselves: what are we doing in these isolated communities to provide a means of dealing with this contaminated material? It's all very well to say we clean up the site, but where do we take that material?
I come back to what I said in the beginning: one of the most contaminated sites in the province of British Columbia is Vancouver harbour. This government continues, even today, to permit dredging of material out of that inner harbour, putting it on barges, hauling it out to sites off Point Grey, in Howe Sound and in Georgia strait, where that material is systematically disposed of into contaminated sites. So we haven't solved the problem. While this bill, the Waste Management Amendment Act, certainly starts to address the problem, it doesn't solve the issue of looking at the provisions that need to be put in place to stop the production of these materials in the first place and the disposal of them.
In principle, I think all of us in the opposition would clearly argue that we need to have sound and sensible legislation for the protection and maintenance of our environment. But we have to be realistic in terms of cost and in terms of a prescription in a bill that requires somebody to take action; failing taking action, they will suffer liabilities. We have to be cognizant of the difficulties we will have actually doing the work that this bill requires. It isn't just a question of clearing up one contaminated site; it's a question of what you do with it. Where does it go? How do we dispose of it? Not
[ Page 6956 ]
only is it a question of the cost of doing it, which this bill attempts to address, but it is also a question of the long-term impact of site maintenance, location and development for the management of hazardous waste generally. This bill clearly does not address that.
In principle this bill is a good first attempt at trying to deal with something that, quite frankly, we think is problematic for the province. But we have some serious concerns in the area of cost, in the realistic nature of some of the prescriptions in this bill for us to have to adhere to and, thirdly and lastly, with the fact that, in principle, this does not address the root cause of the problem. It's not only the cleaning up of contaminated sites; it's also a proactive movement to make sure that we do not simply create additional contaminated sites in an attempt to comply with this bill.
I put a question to this minister in estimates last year, and I hope to put it to him in estimates again to see what he has done. It's a question that this minister has to address. You must not and cannot.... The Liberal opposition will not condone the continued dumping of toxic materials, be they soils or inner harbour dredge, into the Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound, which is the principal way we have been disposing of heavy leads and metals, which are the contaminant materials coming out of the present hazardous sites. Hon. Speaker, in this bill let us take a look at those hazardous sites and let us prohibit and stop, once and for all, the disposal of that material into our water systems.
L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 26. On one side I find myself being supportive and on the other side being extremely concerned. The minister will know that I have approached him on several occasions about contaminated soils in one of the municipalities in my riding. That particular site was contaminated by previous owners, and the existing owner has been unable to sell the site because of a lack of regulations or a definition as to what a contaminated site is.
One of my major concerns is that while I recognize the need to have legislation which provides for the removal of such soils, and obviously a definition of what defines a contaminated site, the other side of the argument, and what I see contained in this bill that concerns me, is retroactivity. When you look at an old service station site, there was usually only one owner, an oil company. But throughout the process there have been many lessees. These individuals quite often lived within the regulation and licensing of the day. Through this legislation, we could see the government going back on individuals who may have inhabited that site up to 30 or 40 years ago.
That is a concern to me, because I believe that we need regulation which allows for better definition. I am a bit concerned about overreaction. When I talk about overreaction, I look to the way we reacted to the asbestos scare. We spent millions of dollars in this province and billions throughout Canada on removing asbestos from buildings -- many of them government buildings -- only to find that we had overreacted and that we could have lessened the impact a whole lot cheaper than we did.
The other concern I have that is not contained within this bill is how we are going to clean these sites and what we are going to do with the soil. There is a very lengthy discussion presently taking place between the Ministry of Environment and the regional districts that control most of the landfill sites in the province. The regional districts do not want to accept this contaminated soil in their landfills, yet within this bill we are asking that they supervise and regulate the process.
There are several aspects along those lines that I would like to address during committee stage. In his opening statements, the minister suggested that after talking to industry and other stakeholders in the process he had some amendments. One of those amendments may very well be to deal with the retroactivity of this bill. I certainly hope so.
As I said in the beginning, I welcome the principle of cleaning up and defining these contaminated sites, but I am concerned about the mechanism that is contained within the bill to do so.
Hon. J. Cashore: A number of the comments relate to specific sections of the bill, and I think the purpose of the House would be best served by addressing them at the time we deal with those sections. The member for Okanagan West commented that this was some kind of doctrinaire approach that favoured his view of our traditional supporters. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is consistent with forward-looking legislation that seeks to protect taxpayers and enable the opportunity for land to be free of the kind of encumbrance visited upon it when there are problems with the question of contamination.
[5:00]
I therefore want to make it very clear, before we leave second reading, that we have very strong support from the municipalities of British Columbia. We have support from a number of industries. One piece of land in Port Coquitlam was tied up for five years because of the unresolved question of liability. That prevented the economy from being part the consideration with regard to that land in Port Coquitlam.
It should be very clear that this legislation is neither right nor left. This legislation is supported by a wide range of interests, and it seeks to protect the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I think that that can be appreciated.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 26, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
[ Page 6957 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
G. Wilson: A point that I raised earlier in the estimates, when I questioned personnel from the Ministry of Lands, had to do with the proposition of tenure over the top of artificial reefs that had been sunk. At that time, I understood applications were already on file with respect to those land tenures. Having researched that proposition with the Artificial Reef Society, my understanding now is that no such tenures are underway, and the surface of the water is going to be protected in a manner consistent with other land use policies. I think it is important to correct the record on that. Given that there are those who believe that artificial reefs are less than desirable -- although I understand they are a minority -- it's important that I don't leave the impression that the surface of the water is somehow under any application for tenure with the minister responsible for Crown lands. If, in fact, that wrongful impression was left, I would like to correct it.
Having said that, I understand that the minister is aware that there is currently a policy being developed under his ministry with respect to potential park status for artificial reefs. I wonder if the minister can provide some assurance of consultation that might be taking place with the Artificial Reef Society and those who are proponents of these activities. In terms of consultation to develop policy, I think it's important that there be no misunderstanding of the nature and the types of issues that might be the subject of such policy. Could the minister give us some assurance that that consultation is underway?
Hon. J. Cashore: That consultation is underway. We're just at the early stages of developing a policy, and that will be based on consultation with all interested groups.
G. Wilson: I understand that a relatively junior staff member has been assigned the task of drafting such a policy. Once that draft policy has been put forward, what will the procedure be with respect to the implementation of something more binding on the parties involved in this activity?
Hon. J. Cashore: The individual who is handling that is the director of land policy, certainly not a junior staff person by any stretch of the imagination. He will complete his work, based on the consultation that I referred to previously, and report to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks executive committee. The members of the executive of the ministry will then review the findings and recommendations and report to me. I will then decide how to proceed based on the information available to me.
G. Wilson: That is good news. There was some concern that that policy was being developed in isolation. I'm sure that all interested parties will be interested to know that there is going to be a full and open consultation process, and they'll look forward to hearing from your ministry.
If we could move to a second issue, concerning a matter in my own riding.... It has to do with the Caren Range. I believe the Ministry of Environment is well aware of this particular area. It has been the subject of a number of studies, one of which is ongoing with respect to the marbled murrelet and the possible nesting sites of that particular species. I understand that the Ministry of Forests is now taking action with respect to logging activity despite the fact that studies are still underway. Is the minister aware of any actions being taken with respect to the Caren Range on the Sunshine Coast, or what kind of activity may be undertaken by the Ministry of Forests prior to those environmental studies being completed?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is being reviewed. It's part of the protected-areas strategy. I will seek to get a more thorough response to that question. We don't at the moment have the staff person present who is able to do that.
G. Wilson: If it's under the protected-areas strategy, is it then the minister's understanding that that area would not be subject to logging this summer? Clearly, there's a conflict within my own community as to whether or not logging is desirable. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Forests has already taken action with respect to existing cutting permits. Does the minister expect that would take place this summer?
Hon. J. Cashore: As part of the protected-areas strategy, it would be subject to interim guidelines. The first approach would be to seek an option that is mutually agreeable. If you cannot find an option, then other action has to be considered. But again, with regard to the specifics of the Caren Range, we would seek to get a more thorough answer than that for the hon. member.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might undertake to do that with some urgency, and I say that with the greatest respect in my request, because the urgency demonstrated to me by constituents is their concern that cutting is imminent. I understand that there are already plans for blockades and confrontation on that site. That's something we don't wish to have on the Sunshine Coast, or anywhere else in the province, for that matter. So there is some urgency with respect to that question.
Turning to another matter on my list of items to deal with, I pointed out moments ago, in speaking to the Waste Management Act, that our ongoing concern on the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, in most communities bordering Georgia strait is the dumping of toxic materials in Georgia strait and Howe Sound. These sites are licensed by Environment Canada, but the permits are processed by the provincial Ministry of Environment. What is the minister's thinking with respect to the longevity of those sites and this ongoing practice, given
[ Page 6958 ]
that there has been a great deal of rhetoric around preventing the continuation of that kind of activity?
Hon. J. Cashore: I know that we canvassed this last year, and I heard some of the comments that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made during an earlier debate. At one point he said that we were involved in permitting. Later he corrected that and said that the federal government issues the permits or licences with our concurrence. As I said last time, and as I'm saying again now, the information I have from my officials is that by any definition, this is not contaminated soil. In many instances the material is dredgeate licensed by Environment Canada to be dumped in certain areas of the ocean. I do acknowledge that there was a time not too many years ago when this was indeed happening.
If the hon. member has information and can state very clearly, with evidence, that contaminated soils as defined in the Waste Management Act are being dumped with the compliance of the provincial government, it would not be my role in that instance to seek to make some kind of political hay out of it, but to try to deal with it. Without definitive information to demonstrate that what the member said a year ago and is saying now is in fact true, then I'm in the extremely frustrating situation of being the subject of this accusation without being able to cite chapter and verse.
G. Wilson: Last year I provided this minister with photocopied documents, signed materials from his own ministry that provided the permits for dredged material full of heavy metals that had created lesions in fish in the inner harbour. In fact, the very definition of those sites was that toxic material was disposed of there. The reason given by Environment Canada for continuing to dump that heavily contaminated material there was that those sites were already contaminated. It is my understanding that this practice continues. Last year I gave the ministry signed material, photocopied evidence and research support documents that detailed not only all 27 or 28 of the Georgia strait sites and a couple of sites in the Howe Sound area, but exactly what contaminated materials were in those dumping activities. I would be happy to do that again, if the minister will act on it this time.
[5:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: It's frustrating to be in a situation where you feel like you're fighting with ghosts. My recollection, from the documents the hon. member is referring to, is that when you examine those, you're dealing with dates that support what I said a moment ago. There was a circumstance occurring at the time of Expo 86, and prior, that we were all very concerned about. It's also my understanding that since that time Environment Canada has ended that practice. If the hon. member has documents dated during the time I have been in government which allege the continuation of the practice of dumping contaminated soils, as defined under the Waste Management Act, by all means.... My recollection of anything that hon. member has sent to me is that it in fact failed to confirm the statement he is making.
G. Wilson: I won't belabour the point here; I'll simply provide the minister with the material. One would think that with the staff he has, he would be more knowledgeable about this particular situation. I would suggest that there continues to be material dumped into Howe Sound and the Strait of Georgia. While those sites may be federally constituted, they certainly fall within the purview of the Ministry of Environment. I think it's appalling that this minister would try to blame this member because his own ministry fails to be vigilant enough with respect to this ridiculous proposition of dump sites in the Strait of Georgia.
Having said that, I wonder if I could just turn to the last item I'd like to discuss and that's the environmental assessment of the Bamberton development. Many people in the Bamberton area are concerned about the watershed being proposed as a source of water supply. People are also concerned about the potential environmental impact of the density of development being proposed in that area. It is not uncommon for municipalities, regional districts or indeed the provincial government to request environmental assessments of areas prior to the rezoning of land taking place.
I find it interesting that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment find it such an amusing topic. It perhaps will not be as amusing over the weeks to come if we do not have some kind of responsible action with respect to the environmental assessment being requested by the citizens of Mill Bay.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to Bamberton, I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast respects due process. There is a due process underway. At the present time that process is under the aegis of the Cowichan Valley Regional District. Once that part of the process has been completed, consistent with the Municipal Act and the statutory requirements relating to that act, it would then, under their coordination, become an issue that is subject to a land use decision.
At that time the land use decision would deal with matters that relate to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The issues that would be most pertinent to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks would be waste management and water access. At that stage those issues would be subject to an appropriate public review. Those steps would be taken one step at a time and one day at a time, and they would be carried out appropriately, in the interest of covering all the important aspects. There could be a decision at the CVRD stage to proceed or not to proceed. There could be a decision at the other stages I have outlined as well. So this has a long way to go.
G. Wilson: I can tell the minister that not only do I respect due process, I understand it, having been elected to a regional district for five years. I know -- and this minister should know if he doesn't -- that in
[ Page 6959 ]
the process of rezoning land, particularly when it counters the existing settlement plan or community plan, it is usual for a regional district to make some kind of referral to agencies that may have some interest in the potential effect of such rezoning. At a public hearing stage, it is the normal process for people to make representation to the level of government that is going to change the land use zoning. It doesn't happen after third reading; it happens before that. In the normal process, such a regional district would, in my judgment -- and it is the due process that is followed all over British Columbia -- make representation to have this minister look at the environmental impact of such rezoning before the rezoning takes place.
Can the minister tell us what good it is to do an environmental impact study on land that is currently under a settlement plan that prohibits the density of development being proposed? If he allows for this rezoning to take place -- as will be signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- once that rezoning has taken place, what good will it do to do the environmental impact study with respect to the density that is now being approved or not approved by the municipality? It is normal for this process to take place where referrals are sent out, and ministry agencies will do the work prior to the rezoning being given. That is the due process.
I am asking this minister to acknowledge that in the Bamberton case, because of the unusual density, the unusual development and the most unusual concept of this development, it is responsible to do the environmental impact work before you rezone the land, rather than after it.
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member would just calm down and try not to be so dramatic, I will try to answer his questions to the best of my ability.
First of all, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, not the estimates of the process under the Municipal Act that the hon. member is referring to. I have outlined what our role would be if a certain stage was to kick in. If that approval stage kicked in, we would then have responsibility to address it in a public process with regard to the aspects of waste, waste water and water sources. If and when it gets to that point, we will certainly -- as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- be fulfilling our responsibility.
G. Wilson: Can this minister tell us whether his ministry -- or he, as the minister -- has received a request from any of the citizens of Mill Bay to do an environmental impact assessment on the water supply that is being targeted for this development?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have received several letters from Mill Bay people, a number of them requesting environmental impact assessments.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us whether or not his ministry is prepared to take action with respect to these requests, given that the water supply demand is of a relatively shallow and small source of water? It's normal that there would be some assessment done prior to granting such licences. It is clearly normal to request that the environmental work be completed before land use rezoning that would permit such development takes place.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I've already answered that question.
G. Wilson: I'm hearing the minister say that this is the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and not Municipal Affairs. We'll have an opportunity to go at the Minister of Municipal Affairs in those estimates -- trust me on that. I'm asking him whether or not the request that has been received by this minister will be acted on, and if not, why this minister would not undertake to do the work that has been requested by the residents of Mill Bay, insofar as the settlement plan of Mill Bay was developed on the basis of geotechnical data that tells this minister, as Minister of Environment, that there is a severe environmental impact potential in the proposed development.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, if the process gets to the point where it behooves us to carry out further studies and public review, we will do so at the appropriate time.
J. Tyabji: And now for something completely different. I'd like to move on to some of the issues in the Environment estimates, specifically with regard to wildlife control in the Oyama area, just slightly north of Kelowna. The issue I'd like to deal with is an ongoing one that the minister is aware of from last year: the persistent problems that they have had in Oyama -- particularly the growers, but to some extent the residents who have had homes built up the hillsides -- with the deer coming into the orchards and widespread crop losses.
I have in front of me a memo from Dawn and Allan Claridge of Oyama. I'm sure the ministry officials who have been dealing with wildlife are used to receiving correspondence from them, Penny Gamble and some of the other fruit growers in that area. I just want to read out a couple of things here. The question from the growers, who have taken responsible steps to prevent damage, is: when will the Ministry of Environment do the same?
In this enclosure there's a photocopy from volume 4 of a Ministry of Environment policy manual, "Problem Wildlife Management," section 7(4.01). On page 1 of the two pages it says:
"It is the policy of the ministry (1) to control wildlife which threatens or causes significant damage or harm to man or his property" -- I'm assuming that's going to be gender-neutral language at some point, but it isn't now -- "(2) to use control practices which are directed at individual problem animals or groups actually or potentially causing the damage or harm; (3) to ensure precautions are taken to prevent unreasonable harm to non-targeted individuals or groups of the same species...."
The definition of problem wildlife is: "...individuals of any wildlife species which pose hazards to human
[ Page 6960 ]
health or safety or which damage or threaten to damage property of personal or commercial value." Clearly, orchards qualify as property of commercial value and as human property. Given the repeated problems that have occurred with deer coming on to that property and the ongoing discussions of ministry wildlife officials with the growers, there should be a solution coming forward.
I want to read from the May-June, 1993, B.C. Fruit Growers' Association newsletter for the minister. On page 11, we have the report of the wildlife committee. They have some recommendations that I would like to bring to the minister's attention directly, rather than through the mail or through various staff. It's important to note that the local growers have tried every possible avenue they can think of to try and alter the situation -- and every legal means as well, including a few that aren't legal, in which case they've been penalized. The main points are: "...(1) build a Coquihalla-style fence with one-way gates and Texas gates on roadways along the boundary between Crown land and private land in the severe problem areas; (2) expand the length of the hunting season and the limit in problem areas of management units; (3) increase ALDA funding for fencing which is now available for 1993, but which ran out last fall."
It's also interesting to note that in the same committee report they say: "A study was conducted last winter using bags of dog hair, one per tree. The treated area was adjacent to a control area and, after a two-month period from December to February, proved to have 75 percent to 85 percent less damage from deer than the control area."
[5:30]
These are what you'd call deer-friendly alternatives that the orchardists, on their own initiative, are trying out. Certainly, given the amount of wildlife resources that have already been put into trying to solve this situation, the growers should be encouraged in all of these experiments. So I'd like to know from the minister if the Ministry of Environment's wildlife branch is any closer to implementing its own policy with regard to deer encroachment in the Oyama fruit growers' orchards.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think everybody would recognize that this is a very difficult issue, having to do with the interface between wildlife and people making their living in the orchard industry. I compliment our ministry staff for the way in which they try for their own part to address the issue with wisdom and patience.
First of all, we are, of course, following ministry policy in addressing this. We tried last year to have a special season in order to deal with the problem wildlife, but there were so many concerns expressed about the safety of people in the area that we had to stop that. As a ministry, we cannot afford to be going out there building fences; we simply aren't able to do that. I know that one day the Liberal opposition is saying spend, spend, spend, and then the next day they're saying the opposite. We can't do that, but we're willing to investigate any alternative and any suggestion that people come up with; indeed, we have investigated a number of alternatives. It continues to be a difficult issue.
I'm sure the hon. member is aware that since there's been a transition from the larger fruit trees, where the fruit was less accessible to wildlife, the smaller trees are now one of the factors. It's a difficult issue and I don't pretend to have a simple solution to it, but I do commend our wildlife staff and others within the ministry for their attention to it.
J. Tyabji: The minister makes reference to the attempt in the fall of '91, when ministry staff extended the hunting season. We had serious problems with hunters coming from around the province, traipsing through private property, shooting deer in people's back yards and dragging them through their back yards. Clearly that wasn't a viable solution, and there should have been a little bit more attention paid to the parameters of the hunt. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any concrete action that has been taken after that hunt was called off. It was rightly called off, because we had all kinds of potential safety problems. There should have been proper access through Crown lands. When the ministry came out with the extended season, it should have been very clearly designated Crown lands only, rather than the way it was done, where people went through subdivisions and orchards and accessed the Crown lands through private property, which is not acceptable. But that's only one solution. If the minister is going to say that we can't afford fences, if you look at the global budget of the government and at how much it's going to cost the government, because of reduced revenues and because the fruit growers....
It's true that some of the problems have been exacerbated by the renovations of the orchards. The problems that the minister refers to with regard to orchard renovation are a direct result of the policies coming out of the Ministry of Agriculture. We know that the Ministry of Agriculture has actually moved further in that direction. You can't have two ministries where, on the one hand, the Ministry of Environment states very clearly in their policy that they are going to be responsible for controlling harmful wildlife -- which includes wildlife that is causing serious damage to the orchards -- and on the other hand, the Ministry of Agriculture is promoting renovations of orchards, and grants and subsidies to growers to move in that direction, and when they do, their orchards are decimated. It doesn't make any sense. Surely the right hand is talking to the left hand, and there is going to be some coordination of policy.
We know that there are all kinds of other areas with regard to urban encroachment and a lowering in the amount of deer hunting, but basically there are some questions that need to be addressed by this minister as to what concrete action is planned. It is becoming a more explosive situation now than it was in the fall of 1991. The growers are financially desperate. The urban encroachment is continuing and getting worse.
I am hoping that this minister is conducting interministerial discussions to ensure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and
[ Page 6961 ]
this minister are discussing development and agricultural renovation issues like this that directly impact the Ministry of Environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: We continue to consult broadly with other agencies of government and with the various parties involved, and we continue to seek to find a solution to a thorny problem.
J. Tyabji: My last question is very specific: what alternatives to the extended hunting season are wildlife officials looking at right now, and what concrete action is the ministry taking right now to help the growers in that area?
Hon. J. Cashore: Efforts are being made to try to reduce the number of deer in those areas and to remove them to safe areas. But, again, that is a difficult situation.
I heard the hon. member read several pages of some document. If she has a specific suggestion as to a time-honoured method that she's aware of and that she's sure will work, please, by all means put that into the record, and we will give it very serious consideration. We welcome your suggestions. In the midst of all of those points you read from that piece of paper, we would like to hear what one you would recommend.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask a few questions of the minister regarding the habitat conservation fund. As you would know, Mr. Chairman, the fund is contributed to by fishermen, hunters and trappers as part of the licensing process. The concern I have is that there seems to be a trend developing to expend less money on an annual basis than is contributed to this fund. It's clearly designated funding. The funds are contributed by users for the enhancement of habitat. But unfortunately, for one reason or another, the government is not funding to the extent that funds are being collected. I wonder if the minister could give us some insight into the thoughts behind the funding for the habitat conservation fund.
Hon. J. Cashore: It was $2.7 million this year, and that's a reduction of $180,000 from the year before. The fact is that these moneys continue to be designated funds. The fact that the total amount was reduced by that fairly small amount means that that money is still available for use in future years.
J. Weisgerber: My concern is that there's about $1.5 million to $1.6 million accumulated in the fund which would -- and I believe should -- be available for habitat conservation and enhancement projects. I also suspect very strongly that there's a waiting list of projects -- that there's no shortage of projects on which to expend the money. At a time when we see wildlife and fish resources under more and more strain and competition, particularly in British Columbia -- the expansion of aboriginal harvesting, for example -- it seems to me appropriate for government to spend the resources it has already collected on habitat conservation and enhancement. I'm disappointed that this amount of money, which has been collected from users and for which there is a wide range of projects to fund, sits in the government treasury.
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the hon. member that a great many projects certainly could be added to the total number currently underway. I agree that it would be excellent if we were able to move forward on a lot more of the projects. However, we're very pleased with what we are accomplishing with the projects that are underway. As the hon. member knows, there's a tremendous amount of support from the people involved in fish and wildlife activities to assist with identifying many of these projects.
I'm willing to take a look at the amount of money that's held back. The hon. member mentioned $1.6 million. I would have to verify that amount. I don't have the exact figure with me. Certainly that's the type of thing we have to review. In my role I do agree that there are a number of projects out there that we want to enable.
J. Weisgerber: In January of this year I wrote to the minister expressing concerns about this particular issue. I was writing in response to correspondence I had received from Phil Hallinan, president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. I received, by way of response -- which was appropriate -- a copy of a letter that the minister had directed to Mr. Hallinan. He said, in part, in the letter.... Let me just check. The minister talks in the letter about the savings from funding on each HCF project: "These savings are used...." Let me see. I'm sorry, hon. Chair, it will take me a second to find my spot here. The essence of the letter was that the projects were being short-funded in order to reduce the government's need for borrowing. From that, I took that what was happening was that the government, the Ministry of Finance, was borrowing from the habitat conservation fund, at no interest, moneys contributed by fishermen, trappers and hunters and using this fund to reduce the government's borrowing. That seemed particularly inappropriate to me. If there was a rationale for not using all of the money, it certainly should be a better one than the need to reduce government's borrowing.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we don't have a copy of that letter in front of us. But I would stand by what I said a few moments ago: the funds are designated funds. The member is absolutely correct about that. It's slightly down this year. We have to take a look at the amount of funds that are held back and ensure that we are funding as much as possible those projects that are in need.
J. Weisgerber: Just for the minister's information, the letter was signed by himself, addressed to Phil Hallinan. It's not dated, although I received it around March 8, 1993. In the fourth paragraph the minister says: "HCF is part of the provincial account structure, and as such, reduced expenditures under the fund helped balance the provincial budget." I don't accept that. Reduced expenditures under the fund may well reduce the government's need to borrow elsewhere by
[ Page 6962 ]
essentially borrowing money from the fund, at no interest, for other purposes. But I can't accept the notion that spending only part of designated funds somehow helped the province balance its budget.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would also point out to the hon. member that the funds that are held back do bear interest, which is also funding that is dedicated to the projects. As I said before, with regard to the habitat conservation fund, we have to take a look at that and what's allocated on a year-by-year basis. I think he makes a valid point that we need to be trying to maintain at least the level that was there before.
[5:45]
J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to carry this on ad nauseam. However, the funds that are coming in are quite predictable, given the receipts over the period of time since the fund was established in 1982. It seems to me that within very few dollars you could predict the revenues for that fund. We know that there are a number of projects waiting. We also know that there is a surplus of $1.5 million. I would expect the minister to make a commitment not only to spend the funds that are available, but also to balance expenditures with revenues on an ongoing basis.
Hon. J. Cashore: We will certainly consider that, but I'm not able to give any definitive answer at this time.
J. Tyabji: It appears that the member for Okanagan West would like to ask some questions. I'll defer.
C. Serwa: I thank the member for Okanagan East. I have another question on the habitat conservation fund. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, which represents a large number of the population that hunts and fishes throughout the province, are substantial contributors through this $5 surcharge. They have expressed concern that more and more of the funds are being utilized for purposes other than that for which they were originally designated. While they have no particular problems with them, as conservationists they recognize a responsibility -- I think rightfully so -- to the entire ecosystem. They really feel that they are being asked to pick up a larger and larger percentage of that particular cost through a variety of projects. They expressed the concern that they would like the opportunity for greater representation on the board or committee that adjudicates the disbursement of this particular fund. Would the minister consider giving members of the Wildlife Federation -- substantial contributors to the fund -- an opportunity to be more effective as participants in the choice of direction?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, I will consider that. I am advised that there are some other aspects I need to take into consideration, so I am not saying that I will do it, but I will consider it.
With that, I move the commitee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:40 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 58: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
F. Gingell: We were having a discussion on the financial results when we adjourned. I was wondering if the minister has any more information for me regarding why 1992-93 is not quite as good as one had expected, and what the budget is for 1993-94.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The figures are complicated. I apologize for the delay. Again, these are best estimates as we stand. These are now differences from '91-92 to '92-93. The operating revenues and grants increased by some $27 million. Operating expenses increased by some $37 million, for a net difference of about $10.6 million. That $10.6 million difference is made up primarily of an increase in net interest on borrowing of about $5.3 million; an increase of about $4.2 million in the depreciation of new ships and terminal assets put into service that year; and an increase of about $8.5 million on the wage and benefits side due to increases in service delivery related, again, to new facilities.
When you add those up quickly, you will see that that is somewhat in excess of the $10 million. We had an overall increase in revenue of about $13.9 million, and an increase in the operating grant of $13.2 million, and then a whole number of increases in expenses, several of which I have mentioned to you. One additional expense is the wage increase from the new collective
[ Page 6963 ]
agreement. If you recall, that was a 2 percent increase, which amounted to about $10.2 million.
[2:45]
F. Gingell: That's in addition to the $8.5 million.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes. Looking down the list, there were some increased fuel costs of $3.4 million resulting from improved service delivery and miscellaneous cost increases of $6.1 million. Looking at it another way, we had increases on the revenue side of about $27.1 million, and we had increases on the expense side of about $37 million; again, that brings you back to the net $10.6 million deficit.
F. Gingell: B.C. Ferries in the year 1992-93 had increased fares of just under $l4 million and increased expenses of $37 million. Now I'm not arguing about whether that's right or wrong, I just think we are going off in the wrong direction. If we think of the subsidization of B.C. Ferries by taxpayers, that increase amounts to $13.2 million in revenues. I appreciate that there were substantial cost increases, but the government, the minister and ourselves have to recognize that B.C. Ferries' operating results in that last year were some $23 million or $24 million worse than the previous year. When one goes back over the financial statements of previous years, we see that the operating subsidy has gone from $13 million to $28 million, and now to $41 million. We really do seem to be going in the wrong direction, and I'd hate to see B.C. Ferries, which has such a fine reputation for quality of service, become another drag around the taxpayers' neck and have the kind of financial problems that B.C. Transit has. Can the minister give us any sense of comfort about the direction that B.C. Ferries is going?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you look at the performance of the corporation over a period of years, I'm advised that in the early eighties typically the recovery from the tariff was in the 70 percent range. The recovery factor now is running around the 85 percent range, so generally speaking we're trending in the right direction. There may be year-to-year variations due to new services coming on and the new burden that that puts on the corporation -- a new capital financing burden, in particular. What is called for is what we're doing -- increases in fare and revisions of fare structures to reflect the service provided, and increased controls on the expenditure side in terms of the operating plan of the corporation -- to change the system as necessary to end up with the most efficient operation. That refers back to the map model of the system I referred to this morning.
It is also fair to say, however, that there is a proper place for a subsidy. We certainly do not want to see that subsidy growing endlessly as a percentage, even in absolute terms. If we could cap it, that would be fine. But we must recognize that to give British Columbians access to transportation that is needed for many for business, work, emergency, school and a wide variety of reasons, our smaller runs they run at a substantial deficit. We subsidize that deficit on those runs in two ways. There is an internal cross-subsidy from the more profitable runs such as the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay, hence a cross-subsidy from other users of the ferry system, and secondly, a subsidy from the taxpayer as a whole.
That does not trouble me directly. I would not want to see the cross-subsidy aggravated too much. I'd try to hold that, try to hold or cap the general subsidy, and work at realizing a substantial decrease on the expense side through rationalization of the system but maintaining the essential services to the smaller islands.
F. Gingell: Do you believe that the subsidy presently paid by the taxpayers is greater or less than the losses incurred on the smaller runs?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The cross-subsidy within the corporation is in the order of $60 million; the general subsidy is $40 million.
F. Gingell: Can you tell us how much money B.C. Ferries borrowed last year and how much you anticipate it borrowing in 1993-94?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Having just spoken to my banker, I can advise the member opposite that it was about $150 million in fiscal 1992, and it will be, by coincidence, very close to $150 million in 1993.
F. Gingell: Can you tell us what the original budget plan for borrowings in 1992-93 was?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total quantum has not changed significantly -- by $2 million, perhaps. There has been a shift in the structure of the debt -- long versus short -- but the total was $148 million, and it changed to about $150 million.
F. Gingell: At the end of March 31, 1992, you were operating on a pretty thin basis, in my opinion. You had current liabilities of some $70 million and current assets of only $31 million, which the previous year had been relatively balanced: $61 million in current assets and $60 million in current debt. So you were able to delay borrowing in 1992 by just running the bank account down a bit, but in 1992-93 you suddenly incurred a loss that was substantially greater than you had expected. Having already run the bank accounts down the previous year,was this made up in the short-term borrowings? Are the short-term borrowings suddenly much greater?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The funds needed for operation were obtained through borrowings within the $150 million that I have. Yes, the corporation runs fairly close to the line -- much closer to the line than a private corporation could -- in the sense that the corporation does not want a lot of borrowed money sitting in the cupboard unnecessarily. We will run it near the line and borrow when we need to.
[ Page 6964 ]
F. Gingell: I will leave that subject now and wait for the financial statements to come out. Perhaps we can revisit it privately.
After we had adjourned, I spoke to you briefly about the problems of truckers. I talked with a group of truckers on my first trip on your beautiful new Spirit of British Columbia. They brought up issues about communications, which they thought had improved, but at that particular time they thought concern had fallen off again. They were also pressing for a 6 a.m. sailing. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there have been 6 a.m. sailings from Tsawwassen in previous years. It allows them to get in a full day and not go over some Workers' Compensation Board requirement for hours of driving straight off. The third issue, and this really goes back to the first one, is that they feel that B.C. Ferries pays more attention to and charges less money in fares to recreational vehicles than it does to transport trucks. I wonder if you could respond to those items.
[3:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was a consultation meeting with the truckers' association on May 5, wherein various issues were aired. I'm pleased to report that relations between the corporation and the truckers are quite good.
Making some schedule changes this year and adding a reservation system for truckers on the overnight run -- giving them some priority on the Mid-Island Express -- met most of their concerns. The capacity issue still remains from time to time, and priority unloading remains an issue from time to time. We've been trying to juggle issues of encouraging the Tsawwassen-Departure Bay route because the access into Tswawwassen is safer -- on the level rather than down a major hill -- and trucks leaving the terminal do not disturb the neighbourhood as much.
On all of those things we have had consultation with the industry. We perhaps cannot do everything all of the time that they would like, but I think they have a good appreciation of why we have made certain changes. In the broad sense, I think they concur with those changes.
On the vehicle fare issue, there has been some cross-subsidization by vehicle type, and that continues. We've been trying to reduce that particular cross-subsidization. It is decreasing; it has been brought down, and we are looking to a tariff equity, vehicle type to vehicle type, within three to five years. We're not there right now.
As for the 6 a.m. issue, by and large we recognize that that may be a benefit to the truckers for the reasons they are able to state. What it causes for the corporation, however, is a need to extend the service period to l8 hours or so, and that gets us past two shifts. There are some significant cost implications on staffing. Hence the decision to not have the 6 a.m. sailings generally.
F. Gingell: I love that term "cross-subsidization." What you're really saying is that you're sticking it to one class of customer to pay for another class of customer.
Can you please just bring me up to date on the current status of all-night sailings from all locations?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The late night and early morning sailings now occur exclusively on the Tsawwassen to Departure Bay route. There is no longer the overnight schedule between Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay; we've switched it. Your colleague indicates a certain degree of gratitude for that.
An Hon. Member: Semicolleague.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Semicolleague. [Laughter.] Like a semitrailer, there's a semicolleague.
We now have sailings from both Tsawwassen and Departure Bay at ll p.m., from Tsawwassen at midnight, from Departure Bay at 4:30 a.m. and from either end at 5:30 a.m. On all four of those sailings we have the tariff reduction during the high season.
We have reservations available on those four sailings, and 20 or 25 transport vehicles can be accommodated. In consultation with the industry, we found that the reservation system -- giving them the surety of sailing at a specific time -- was a major factor for them, and is one reason, I believe, they have accepted the new arrangements.
F. Gingell: I was listening to all the sailings you listed. I think I've got it right. They are all Tsawwassen to Nanaimo.
I was interested in the minister's response to the question of road access. He mentioned specifically Horseshoe Bay, and I guess he can see what's coming next. I'd like to talk for a brief moment about the east Ladner bypass, not as it applies to highways -- we'll deal with that later -- but as it applies to B.C. Ferries. Without question -- and if you lived there like I do you'd just know the way it works -- the congestion at Highway 10 and Highway 17 is caused by the ferries. The congestion is such that you can look at your watch and know if the ferry is late or early. Has any thought been given to increasing the amount of the fare by 50 cents, say, or a dollar for trucks and 50 cents for automobiles, and having that money specifically set on one side for Highways or the municipality of Delta to build an east Ladner bypass, which would help alleviate the traffic tie-up caused by the ferries?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The location of a terminal has an impact on each of the host communities. That differs from community to community, but it does put certain demands on the road systems of all those communities. I hesitate to get into a cross-subsidization issue between B.C. Ferries on the one hand and these various municipalities on the other, because it is not just Ladner.
I think the issues should be dealt with one at a time under the Ministry of Transportation estimates, where we can discuss the Ladner bypass. I am delighted to note -- and it will be writ large -- that the member opposite supports the general notion of user-pay.
F. Gingell: I certainly would support being a user of an east Ladner bypass, I can assure you that.
[ Page 6965 ]
I'd like to suggest that the highway situation in Horseshoe Bay is relatively looked after. There is a great big highway there and it has all kinds of capacity.
The question of Departure Bay is still up in the air; you haven't made a decision about it. At Tsawwassen, you have built what must be the world's largest ferry terminal -- I bet it isn't far off being the world's largest -- with the tiniest little vein of a road, because you can't call it an artery, connecting it to the rest of the world. If you were to make the decision to move out of Departure Bay to some other location on the Island, you would include the planning of proper access and the ability to move traffic. I really would like to suggest that you put it up to the top of your priority list, because it is a B.C. Ferries issue. If B.C. Ferries were not coming into Tsawwassen with the volumes that they have now, we wouldn't have the problems that are extant there.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will accept the comments in the vein that they were meant; to do otherwise would be vain.
But I would submit that a lot of the congestion on Highway 99 north, Highway 17 and Highway 10 is also related to residential growth in that area, and the ferry traffic certainly exacerbates that.
I have dealt on the highway side -- the land side -- with the mayors of all of the major host communities, and will continue to work with them to resolve the problems.
You are correct. We do not know at this point whether the Nanaimo terminal will stay in Departure Bay or not. Believe me, with respect to all of them, with the congestion at times and the way the traffic backs up, even the large highway in your semicolleague's riding is quite severe. We take all of the problems to be serious and are trying to deal with them all.
F. Gingell: Thank you. I appreciate the response from the minister.
You have been having a trial run of credit cards at Swartz Bay, but only at Swartz Bay. It has been going on for quite a while now. If it is a success, are you going to allow credit card purchase at other ferry tollbooths?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Curiously, there was a substantial demand for credit cards, but when it was put into place only about 15 percent used cards. Ironically, it has impaired service in that we don't have the electronic systems in place to quickly handle the cards, and they in fact cause delays. We're working on the electronic side to improve that. In order to make it commercially attractive, we have to get up to something like 50 percent usage. We're aware of the benefit that this would be as a convenience to travellers, and we would like to go that way.
F. Gingell: Is that 15 percent of the passengers going through the tollbooths at Swartz Bay or 15 percent of all the passengers?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just at Swartz Bay itself.
F. Gingell: I just have one last.... Actually, it's not a question. I just want B.C. Ferries people to know that they've reached some sort of fame. It's always nice in life to create an acronym that is widely used. In the accounting profession we have two very well-known ones: LIFO and FIFO. They're methods of valuing inventories: last in, first out, and first in, first out. B.C. Ferries should know that they have created one that's used by members of the Legislature all the time. It's FOLO, and it stands for first on, last off.
[3:15]
D. Symons: On the question my hon. colleague brought up regarding the use of credit cards, I believe truckers can pay in advance so that they don't have to carry cash when they're using the ferries. So there must be some electronic system available so that you can deduct the amount. How does that work, and could that not be extended in one sense to credit card usage by non-industrial users?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there is a commercial travel card that can be used at the ferry terminal and at the Coquihalla tollbooth, and a commercial vehicle can pay in advance and take advantage of that service. With a relatively small number of vehicles using it, it is not an inconvenience. There's no time consequence to using it because there are so few users. I think what you're getting at is that we have a credit card system that is not necessarily the same as the commercial travel card, which is prepaid, but which could be used efficiently. When we have the electronics in place to generate the necessary accounting information, yes.
D. Symons: I'm assuming, then, that the truckers' ones aren't on some electronic system; they're more or less the same as the cards we use that are handled primarily manually. What I was after there was the possibility that if there was something in place for them, it could be expanded. But I gather from the answer that it's done manually, since there aren't that many.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is an electronic system, but the system is set up for a relatively small number of transactions. To take that system and work it up to handle the general credit card system would not work, I'm advised. We'd have to invest more money in it than it's worth. We are pursuing other alternatives for the use of general credit cards.
D. Mitchell: The minister, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition this morning, described in a brief way the relationship between the corporation and the Crown corporations secretariat. I'd like to ask for some clarification on that. The minister indicated that B.C. Ferries would be paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 this year for services from the Crown corporations secretariat. In terms of the services provided for that amount of money, he indicated that some special projects were undertaken: some strategic planning and
[ Page 6966 ]
some engaging of external consultants for and on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'm wondering about the value for money -- in the opinion of the corporation -- that is received for those benefits, and why these services are not provided within the corporation itself. Is it because the relationship between the corporation and the Crown corporations secretariat is somewhat akin to a subsidiary company and a parent corporation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: By no means. If you have general questions about the Crown corporations secretariat, then of course you should direct those questions to the Minister of Finance. With respect to this corporation, we find that we derive benefit easily in excess of the fee that we are charged for the various work that the Crown corporations secretariat has carried out on behalf of or in partnership with the corporation.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the usage of external consultants on behalf of the Crown corporation, the issue has been canvassed about all-night ferry sailings. There was a report done on the benefits and costs of all-night ferry sailings at Horseshoe Bay by a consulting firm by the name of RSMI. Would that consultant's report have been contracted directly by B.C. Ferries, or would that have been through the Crown corporations secretariat?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That was contracted directly by the corporation.
D. Mitchell: Would the minister be able to inform the committee why that evaluation of the costs and benefits of all-night ferry sailings at the Horseshoe ferry terminal wasn't simply conducted internally by the B.C. Ferry Corporation's own researchers? Could he also indicate what the cost of the consultant's report might have been?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All of the Crown corporations, as well as ministries and most private companies, find that from time to time they benefit from some external advice. The research staff that the corporation has is small, and serves mainly to coordinate work being done, perhaps, by consultants or by others if such work needs to be done. As to the amount, I'll have to take that on notice and provide you later with the exact number.
D. Mitchell: I certainly don't quarrel with the use of external consultants when that can be a cost-effective way of getting the job done. My only reason for asking this question was that I had a chance to review the RSMI report on the 24-hour experiment at Horseshoe Bay. It puzzles me that an external consultant was engaged to conduct that particular study, when in my view the researchers within the corporation could have done that job relatively easily.
One component of the report is a public opinion survey, however, and perhaps that's the reason they were engaged. Even so, the mandate of the report goes well beyond a survey of public opinion. It talks about the cost and the benefits, and surely the corporation staff could have provided that. So I wonder about the cost, and I thank the minister for undertaking to get that to me.
Could the minister also provide some information about the background of this particular consulting firm and what their bona fides are? Why were they particularly well suited to do this report? Have they done work previously for the corporation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm advised that the firm involved has done other work for the corporation, including a public consultation process on the Tsawwassen facility.
The reason for going outside can, of course, also be -- and in this instance was -- for objectivity and to obtain an opinion that others would see as not tainted by any internal objectives of the corporation. I think that's a fair enough purpose as well.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister that, for reasons of objectivity, sometimes it is useful to go outside the corporation and use somebody who is state-of-the-art in assessing public opinion.
In this case, my interpretation of the report is that the experiment in 24-hour sailings from Horseshoe Bay was a failure. Financially, it didn't work out for the corporation. That's not to say that I oppose 24-hour ferry sailings; I actually applaud the initiative. I just don't think it's suitable from the Horseshoe Bay terminal. It's not well suited for 24-hour sailings; in fact, it could be argued that the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal itself needs to be reassessed in terms of its relationship to the community of Horseshoe Bay. It's much more than a ferry terminal.
If, in fact, one was going outside the corporation, then presumably RSMI would have done work for more than the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The minister has indicated that this particular consulting firm has worked on a number of occasions for the corporation. Is it possible to tell us who else they have worked for in order to indicate what expertise they have? If their only contracts have been with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that's not exactly going outside for objective sources of information.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To our knowledge, they have worked for other corporations. But for your information, we will obtain from the consultant whatever they have in terms of their list of clients and provide that to you.
D. Mitchell: While we're on the topic of all-night ferry sailings from Horseshoe Bay, I take it that the corporation has decided not to proceed with the experiment in 24-hour ferry sailings from Horseshoe Bay. Could the minister indicate whether that's a definitive decision for once and all time, or is that simply for the foreseeable future? In terms of the longer-range strategic planning for the corporation, where do all-night ferry sailings fit in? Has Horseshoe Bay now been unequivocally ruled out of any future plans for all-night ferry sailings?
[ Page 6967 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could the member gives me a closer definition of "for once and all time"?
D. Mitchell: I'm not sure how far the strategic plan for the B.C. Ferry Corporation goes into the future. But if any long-range planning over five, ten, 15 or 20 years exists, can the minister indicate whether or not all-night ferry sailings from Horseshoe Bay fit into any of those long-range plans?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, going back a question or two, something that I had meant to say is that I would not describe the experiment in overnight sailings as a failure. The corporation was being pressed to expand its view, to try alternatives, to look at the margins of its operation and to look at the assets that remain idle overnight. They responded with a very worthwhile experiment that we learned a lot of things from. Some of them are negative in terms of the impact on communities, and some are very positive in that, obviously, the citizens thought it was great. They lined up to take advantage of those sailings. Some of them -- both truckers and recreational vehicle users -- did it for purposes of convenience. Some did it because they wanted to be in Vancouver for the evening and still get back home that night, saving themselves the expense of a hotel room -- or it permitted them to make the trip in the first place, knowing that they could get back home. So for a whole bunch of reasons it was also a very positive experiment.
We have learned from the negative impacts and the noise, and how to try to control that noise and how to not make it quite as attractive as we made it. With that knowledge, we have now launched another experiment. But in neither instance would I restrict or attempt to restrict either myself or any future minister from keeping all of the options open. We have a billion dollars' worth of assets that we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to keep in operation as much as possible. We have a responsibility to deliver to the travellers and the taxpayers of British Columbia a good, sound, solid service, and that's what we'll strive for.
D. Mitchell: How about in the foreseeable future?
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member. Thank you.
D. Mitchell: I can appreciate what the minister has indicated to the committee and that he is unable -- and understandably so -- to give a definitive once-and-for-all-time response to that question. But the interpretation of the corporation's statement -- when it discontinued the experiment and indicated that this summer there would be no all-night sailings -- in the community is that there are no plans in the foreseeable future to continue with this practice. Could the minister confirm that?
[3:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no intention by the corporation to operate overnight, late night, or early morning sailings out of Horseshoe Bay this year. But if the member opposite is urging me to reconsider that, I'd be more than pleased to.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that consideration, and I can assure him that that is not the case. In case he is confused, no, I am not asking him to reconsider. I will repeat that one more time: in case he is confused, I am not asking him to reconsider. I applaud the movement of the corporation to discontinue that in response to the negative response from the community.
In that vein, I wonder if the minister can indicate to the committee today where the plans for the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal fit into the long-range plans of the corporation. Surely, with increased traffic between the mainland and Vancouver Island, alternatives are being looked at. In this review of his estimates, the minister had previously discussed some of the options that are being looked at for the Tsawwassen ferry terminal to Vancouver Island route. Can he indicate where the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal fits in? Some assets there are very important for the corporation. The community is growing up. Horseshoe Bay is quite different and distinct from Tsawwassen, in the sense that it's not just a ferry terminal, it is a community. Communities don't like being experimented on -- we learned that with the all-night ferry sailings experiment. Does the Horseshoe Bay terminal fit into the long-range plans of the corporation, or are alternatives being looked at? Are there studies being conducted to look at alternatives?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no plans of the corporation, short-term or long-term -- but I would not say for once and all time -- to relocate the terminal at Horseshoe Bay, if that is what the member is getting at. It is a vitally important terminal in the system and serves three different routes. We have improvements at the terminal as a relatively high priority, but no plans to relocate.
D. Mitchell: I take it that what the minister is saying is that the terminal at Horseshoe Bay will continue for the foreseeable future. Are there any plans within the corporation to look at the routing that is currently flowing through that terminal, in terms of any changes in the routing or reducing the routing that goes through that terminal? That would be interesting to know from the community standpoint because of the increased volume of traffic that goes through there. It is of interest to the Highways side of the minister's portfolio as well, with the backups that occur on the highway.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We certainly have been looking at trying to move some of the users of the Horseshoe Bay terminal, hence the discontinuance for the time being of the overnight sailings; the creation, of route 30, the Mid-Island Express, to start with, which was to alleviate pressure on the Horseshoe Bay terminal; the addition of the reservation system for transport vehicles on the Mid-Island; and the imposition of a 10 percent surcharge on overheight and overlength vehicles on the weekends at Horseshoe Bay in order to move that traffic over to the Mid-Island
[ Page 6968 ]
terminal. So there have been numerous initiatives addressed to reshape the user mix at Horseshoe Bay. On the other hand, as you would be aware, we have moved up to Horseshoe Bay one of the vessels displaced by the S-class ferry that has gone in on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run, and that has substantially alleviated some of the congestion occurring both on the Nanaimo side and on the Horseshoe Bay side through a substantial increase in capacity on that run.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. The only thing I would ask is if the minister could exert whatever efforts he can to ensure that the Crown corporation puts extra effort, wherever possible, into being accountable to the communities where it operates. I think that's important. We would expect it from any company operating in the private sector in British Columbia; we should expect it doubly so from a publicly owned corporation. A small community like Horseshoe Bay is obviously extremely attached to the terminal, because it is the largest enterprise of any kind in that community. As we saw with the all-night ferry sailings, consultation is required.
The minister has indicated that the corporation is contemplating improvements at this particular terminal. If any of those improvements have an impact directly or indirectly on the community, hopefully there will be some consultation. I think that would be appreciated, and that's a direction we should be heading in with all Crown corporations in our province.
I want to change the topic and move to a different question. On one of the small runs that operates out of Horseshoe Bay to Bowen Island, an issue has come up that we canvassed last year during estimates. Nothing has occurred on it since then, so I thought I would ask the new minister responsible. It relates to bicycles on ferries.
The question has come up over time and, to my knowledge, it started on the Bowen Island run, but I think it has come up on other runs as well. Why aren't bicycles allowed on the ferries for free? It would reduce the traffic flow of automobiles, which causes some real congestion at terminals. It would also reduce traffic on some of the smaller islands on the routes that are serviced by B.C. Ferries. There appears to be space available on the ferries to store bicycles relatively easily. It would encourage environmentally friendly transportation and would seem to fit into the mandate of the minister on the other side of his responsibilities in the ministry. Is any consideration being given to allow bicycles, either on small routes such as the Bowen Island run or on any of the other routes, to go on tariff-free?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the first part of your comments, you referred to the consultation processes that the corporation might reasonably engage in. I agree with you and would point out that the corporation has been exemplary in that regard. I have met personally with the mayors of the host cities of the major terminals. We have consultation going on individually with them with respect to issues at their terminals. On the Island we have the mid-island strategy, a committee of mayors chaired by the MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill, and a tremendous amount of community effort there. As well, we are meeting with communities on service strategies on the northern Gulf Islands. We deal also with aboriginal people and their needs, and with remote coastal people and their needs -- all of those. The corporation does a very good job of that.
With respect to the bicycle issue, I too would like to see encouragement of cycling throughout our transportation system. The issue is one of space, of course. If we get large numbers of bikes on board, even 25 or 30, they occupy the space of several cars. The fare charged on a bicycle is nominal -- a dollar and a half -- and I really don't think that would be much of a disincentive. That aside, we do encourage the use of bicycles, both on the highway side through our interim cycling policy and on the ferries.
The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: Don't say that with such surprise.
The Chair: The surprise, hon. member, is that I'm actually remembering the constituencies of the elected members. Carry on.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to be here today. As I get into discussions on the ferry, I'd like to recount how much I enjoyed the scenic route this morning -- a pod of killer whales, which we enjoyed watching for an hour and a half before we left the Tsawwassen terminal; and the dolphins that we saw a little later as we had to delay going through the pass because of oncoming ferries. Not that this was a typical day, recognizing that once in a while we do get semitrailer trucks stuck between the ramp and the ferry, and it does cause unusual delays. That was unfortunate; however, we did enjoy the scenery.
I want to talk about ferries in three sections. The first one I would like to deal with has to do primarily with scheduling, the second one has to do with safety, and the third one has to do with service. I know I'm going to be called into debate in the big House on another bill, so I'm going to -- much to the relief of everybody on this committee, I'm sure -- be brief.
On the first one with respect to scheduling, the minister will not be surprised to hear that the people of Powell River are anxiously awaiting the final declaration on the moving of the ferry from Comox to Powell River, and having a terminal point there so that the ferry can be berthed in that community. I know that this was something agreed to by the Premier of the province during the election, and we're waiting to find out when the Premier is going to acknowledge that. The minister will be able to come to a celebration that I will be happy to arrange on his behalf in Powell River to announce that the ferry will indeed be docked there permanently. So could the minister comment on that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To my knowledge, the Premier said that in the long run, as traffic built up, we would see there that would be a ferry home base on
[ Page 6969 ]
either side. I cannot recall any pledge to move the single ferry. Indeed, to do so would cost some $8 million to $10 million to build the overnighting facilities in Powell River. In times when we have the fiscal problems that we do, that would not seem to be a very responsible move, and I certainly would not propose it or allow it.
G. Wilson: I hate to predict it, but I think the minister is going to regret that, with a response -- if Hansard should ever make its way, and I don't know how it would, to the Bring Our Ferry Home committee -- which is going to bring out scads of information on where the Premier actually did make that commitment. In fact, I think they've even got it on audiotape, which they play from time to time just to keep their spirits up. They know this is a difficult time for the government because they don't have much money, and clearly we are looking for that to come back.
I wonder if the minister might want to talk, then, about the service between Powell River and the Comox region in terms of the number of sailings per day. This is of concern, given the philosophy -- with which we hopefully all agree -- that it is a natural extension of the highway, and therefore it is really a principal link between Powell River and many services which they can't have. So I wonder if the minister could comment on the service that currently exists, especially the midday service, and if he might want to explain, in terms of the distance travelled and the rate that's been charged, why the mainland-to-Island crossing is a differential rate, unlike that for the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo and the Tsawwassen-Saltery Bay crossings.
[3:45]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not certain that I got the correct question. So I'll give an answer, and if it isn't the correct answer then let's go back to the question again.
We're speaking here of Earls Cove-Saltery Bay. In order to have....
G. Wilson: No, no. We're talking about Powell River-Comox.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members, for the benefit of Hansard.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hear the member saying that it was the Powell River to Comox crossing he's making reference to. But you spoke of a differential fare, and that is causing a bit of confusion. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by differential fare.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't mean to be obtuse; I'll try not to be. If the minister could tell us: what is the fare between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, and between Powell River and Comox?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we are now onto the question: if you choose to go from Horseshoe Bay to Comox by going across to Nanaimo and driving up the Island, the fare is the same as going from Tsawwassen to the Island. If you choose to go to Powell River by using the ferry system up to the Sunshine Coast, and then carry on and use the ferry system from Powell River to Comox, you would pay the cost of two ferries, and hence there is a differential in the fare from the mainland to the Island. Again, if I've missed what you're getting at, perhaps you can clarify.
G. Wilson: Let's take the mystery out of this. What I'm getting at is that unless something is changed, the fare you pay to go from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo is the same as from Powell River to Comox. Am I correct? However, the distance between Powell River and Comox is substantially less; I believe it's about one-third of the distance you travel between Horseshoe Bay and Comox. Therefore, on a per unit basis, you are paying much more to travel from Powell River to Comox than you are from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo. My question is: why is there a differential? Why do you pay the same to go less?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The fares are set partially on the basis of costs. Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo makes money; Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay makes money. In fact, those two generate an internal surplus of about $30 million. The run from Powell River to Comox loses money. It is subsidized to the amount of about $3 million per year even at the fare rate structure we are using. Furthermore, at Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay or Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay the utilization of the vessels is quite high. The year-round capacity utilization of the vessel between Powell River and Comox is only 4l percent. So in view of those facts, in view of the additional costs related to a smaller base of users, we are charging the same fare. But even at the same fare, it is a bargain for the users going from Powell River to Comox because they are subsidized by other ferry users or the general taxpayer to the tune of $3 million a year.
G. Wilson: Well, I know this minister to have some background in economics -- at least I think he does. You know that this whole question of elasticity is important. There is a sort of threshold that beyond which you charge, you would have a diminishing return as utilization diminishes. Simply by way of comparison, let's use the restaurant services here, where this government jacked the prices up because they weren't making enough money. When they did, fewer people used it, so in fact the actual net income went down. Therefore they had to reduce the prices to get people back utilizing it again.
The same argument can be made for this ferry run. This isn't a bargain. We're not talking about bargain rides on a Ferris wheel at a fair; we're talking about the natural extension of the highway. We're talking about the only link that people have to get from Powell River to Comox. We need to have it both affordable to the people and have an accessible number of sailings, which will not only provide a greater link between Powell River and the Island but will make it a much more attractive proposition for people travelling north on the Island to come over to Powell River and recognize that the distance they're travelling is going to
[ Page 6970 ]
be charged on a per-kilometre basis in a manner comparable to what you would find on other runs.
In light of the fact that the people of Powell River are very sensitive over this issue -- and I know that you have some staff with you who know how sensitive the people on the Sunshine Coast are about their ferry service -- I think that the minister might want to rethink this notion of a bargain because we're subsidized by runs that happen to generate profit. We're not interested so much in that kind of a notion as in the provision of adequate and proper service to two communities -- Powell River and Comox. Could the minister comment?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member is proposing that the Ferry Corporation receive a reduced income from fares, I presume that at the same time the member opposite will suggest where fares or taxes could be increased. It is my view that the fare from the mainland to the Island, whether it's at Powell River, Horseshoe Bay or Tsawwassen, is a reasonable fare. If you compare it with Washington State Ferries, for example, you'll see that our fares are lower than theirs. Of those three runs, the best bargain is for the people moving between Powell River and Comox.
If we were to in fact reflect in fare structure the cost of the service on that particular run -- length, fuel and everything else considered -- the fares out of Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay and the fares from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay would be dramatically lower and the fares from Powell River to Comox would be dramatically higher. The fares for the Gulf Islands -- the southern and northern, the coastal fares -- would all be dramatically higher. If you are suggesting that we ought to operate the system in accordance with economic principles -- public policy aside -- then make that suggestion. I don't think that it would be good public policy. and I do think that subsidization and cross-subsidization is fair and proper. The subsidization of the Powell River-Comox run to the level of $3 million a year represents fair policy and gives a bargain to the travellers between those points compared to what you would have if we were to follow your advice and use strict economic procedures.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker -- or Mr. Chairman; this jumping from House to committee is sometimes confusing.
There is one other point of economic principle that the minister seems to have overlooked in this proposition. If you in fact reduce the tariff, what you are likely to do -- particularly if you have a reduction in tariff sustained over a longer period of time and marketed in a manner that we've seen with respect to Southwest Tourism's attempt at the Circle Tour -- is to enhance the amount of money that is coming into a service because you have reduced the fare, thus making it more attractive for people to access that, especially during high tourism periods. What we're seeing with that fare, in my judgment -- not that we're seeking to try to take advantage of any one particular area.... Those of us who look at the situation would say that this is a natural extension of the highway, and as a result of it there are going to be some areas in the province where highways are more costly to build and maintain than other areas of the province, where the highway may be less expensive on a per capita basis.
We can get into all of the economic theories around transportation. I'd be happy to have a lengthy intellectual debate on that some other time. I can tell you that there are only two ways in which a network is developed: one is the least cost to users, and the other is the highest cost to users. What we're finding is that we're shifting toward the latter in the B.C. Ferries service. We're moving to the highest cost to the user and a user-pay system with subsidization inside the corporation. The smaller communities find that their dependency on that ferry is essentially putting them at a disadvantage economically, and it puts them at a disadvantage socially in terms of being able to get to various events and so on. They are disadvantaged both by a reduction or a restriction in the number of sailings that occur and by the per capita cost per travel unit that is assessed against them.
That's my point in the Powell River case. Insofar as we're not going to get delivery of the promise made by the Premier that we would have the ferry docked in Powell River, which is part of the waterfront development proposal -- I don't know if the minister has seen this, but we'll get into it in just a moment -- it would seem to me that the next thing we need to look at is equity in the system with respect to the people who are dependent on that service as an extension of the highway. Clearly we are not seeing that in this particular case.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Apparently the member believes that there is a kind of perfect price elasticity in this service; I don't believe there is. We're testing elasticity a little bit. If the member uses the ferry from Powell River to Comox next winter, he'll be able to take advantage of the first fare reduction, as I recall, there has ever been on B.C. ferries. We will see whether that generates a little more traffic through the winter months. We are looking at that. Generally speaking, with summer fares, when people are travelling for other reasons -- they have their vacation plans or their business plans, and they're travelling -- there is not as much elasticity. The indication is that as fares have increased in the summer period over the last several years, so has the volume. I cannot agree that we could somehow reduce the overall subsidization of this corporation by cutting fares across the board; we couldn't do so.
[4:00]
With respect to trying to price in accordance with distance travelled -- for example, the length of a route -- if one were to look at that philosophy on the northern coastal run and on the Queen Charlottes run, of course it would be priced right out of the capability of most local people to travel. We have to find a mix of using some market principles in some places and using cross-subsidies and subsidization in others.
[ Page 6971 ]
G. Wilson: If I heard the minister correctly, I understand that we can look forward to fare reductions next winter in the Powell River run.
D. Symons: Seasonal.
G. Wilson: Seasonal reductions next winter. That would be a step in the right direction. I think the people of Powell River will be anxious to know that there are seasonal reductions.
I wonder, since the minister is talking about some innovative ways of looking at fare structures, if the minister might agree with me that the people who live on Texada Island -- I'm sure the minister knows where Texada Island is; it's off Powell River -- have to access that island by yet another ferry. When the people who live on Texada Island travel from the island to Powell River, they then have to get a ferry back to Texada and have to pay fares from the island to Powell River and from Powell River to Texada. We have long been advocating that they should be able to buy a ticket on Vancouver Island to Texada at a reduced fare, given the fact that they have to go past their destination in order to get another ferry to go halfway back to where they want to go. It would seem to us that we should either set up a route system that allows the ferry to pull into Texada so they can get off, as is done in other Gulf Islands, or, if that's not feasible or practical, then at least they should have a fairer structure that allows them an opportunity to have one fare that takes them from the Island to home.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have a large number of situations with the northern and southern Gulf Islands where in order to get to a specific island, a fare has to be paid to Vancouver Island and then back to whatever island is in question. On the one hand, one could not simply cancel the fares to the Island or have zero fares to the Island -- we could not afford it.
The Texada ferry is currently subsidized by other ferry users and by the general taxpayer to about $3.6 million a year. That run, Powell River to Texada, looses $3.6 million a year as it is -- in addition to the $3 million loss on the Powell River to Comox run. What I believe I hear the member saying is that we should increase the loss on that run and make it up by either increasing other fares or by increasing general taxation. I don't know that I can agree.
What we have done is look at the possibility of some future technology: a ship that could put into Texada on the way between Powell River and Comox. If it was a fast ferry, for example -- and I'm not saying that's what it will end up as -- one might be able to meet the requirements that you've set out -- that if somebody is travelling from Comox to Texada they can be dropped off there on the way and do no have to pay the additional shot of going by and then coming back.
G. Wilson: I'm not ascribing any direction to the minister in his response to suggest that when he goes back and reads Hansard, he'll see that somehow I'm advocating that my region should have some subsidy greater than any other area because it is losing so much money on these runs. Let's be clear. Texada is not some little island paradise where people go and have a home and spend a couple of weeks in the summer. Texada Island is an operating mining community that puts an enormous amount into the treasury of this province. This is an industrial island and it's an island that requires service in order to move industrial machinery and equipment, as well as a workforce, to and from that island. The minister has to recognize that the people of Texada hear all the time that somehow it's subsidized and therefore it costs money, and therefore we shouldn't be asking for a greater subsidy. They ask me all the time -- and this gives me an opportunity to ask the minister -- why we have free ferries in the interior but not on the Island. That is something I am asked all the time. If we can have free ferries in the interior, then why not have some kind of recognition that the ferries are an extension of the highways? Maybe the minister can give me an answer so I can tell my constituents.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, as I have said several times today, the subsidization of certain routes is good public policy, and I certainly never have pointed at either the residents of Texada or any other island and somehow hung this on them. It is fair; it is good public policy to subsidize. All I'm pointing out is that if subsidies or costs are increased any place, it has to be picked up some place else. If we're going to give better service anywhere, we either have to cut service some place else, increase fare some place else, or increase general taxation to cover the general subsidization. We cannot have it all ways.
With respect to the interior ferries, you must keep in mind that most of those ferries have a single person aboard in order to move across a river. There are some that have a staff of three or four perhaps in the summer months, but a lot of them -- probably half -- are single-person operations, the operating cost of which is extremely low. There is a subsidy that flows to them, of course, as the general user of the highway system.
There are also some avoided costs, which I don't mean to indicate would be the fundamental reason for not doing it. But if we were to institute some kind of fee ticketing collection system on those interior ferries, we would have to put in place all of the structure necessary to sell the tickets, to collect the money, to provide security on the funds and everything else. It would not all be gravy, so to speak. There would be other costs. But, fundamentally, I come back to the point that the inland ferries cost relatively little to run compared to the coastal ferries.
G. Wilson: I don't want to delay, because we've got some material to get through here, but it's my understanding that when the B.C. Ferries were chartered, they were chartered largely to provide service from the mainland to the islands. At that time, the distinguishing difference was that the interior ferries were Ministry of Transport ferries. The ferries connecting mainland to mainland were free and ferries connecting the mainland to islands were assessed a levy. I understood that this was in fact part of the original charter, and I'm keeping in mind that the Black Ball Ferries used to run
[ Page 6972 ]
the operation between Horseshoe Bay and Gibsons which, of course, is mainland to mainland. Indeed, if that is the original charter, and if those are the provisions under which that could be done, the minister might want to examine the fact that the runs from Horseshoe Bay to Gibsons and from Earls Cove to Saltery Bay are mainland to mainland, so that entire run should be free, which would be a great service to the people of the Sunshine Coast, and not unlike the ones you would find in the interior.
The minister might want to examine that, because it would be a wonderful thing to announce to the people of the Sunshine Coast. I'm sure they would be quite delighted, although some might argue that this would create an influx of people coming into the community, which might be a negative thing.
I want to talk about some specifics that have to do with services on the runs within the ridings. One has to do with the commuter tickets. Is there a reason why commuter tickets are not available for the people of Powell River on the Powell River-Comox run? Why can't they buy a book like you can in any other circuit run?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The idea of the ticket books generally relates to the smaller islands where people are doing a daily commute to work, or where schoolchildren are being carried daily by the ferries to their schools. The books are done on a discount basis in order to give some small break to people who must use the ferries to commute to work. We have not had -- nor is there being contemplated -- discount books or books of tickets for any of the major runs to the Island or the run to Langdale.
G. Wilson: There are commuter books to Langdale; you can buy commuter books from Gibsons to Langdale. As a matter of fact, I did so until I was elected, when the Ferry Corporation graciously provided me with one of those little cards that gives me assured loading, providing I'm there exactly 20 minutes before sailing and not a second later -- which I found out on a number of occasions; however, I've been very careful not to run over anybody in the process of trying to get on board.
Having said that, I would like the minister to look into commuter books, because there is a growing number of people commuting from Powell River to the Island. A number of students attending Malaspina College are finding that, as a portion of their studies, they have to travel to the Island to North Island College and also down to Nanaimo. There is no proposal for a student rate or student fare on those runs, and that's something my constituents have asked me to raise with the minister, and I am doing that. I would very much like that to be examined. I don't think the cost to the corporation would be onerous, and it would be a service that would be well received by people who have to deal with that process on a daily basis. I don't know if the minister would like to make some favourable comment to that effect which I could pass on.
[4:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I stand corrected on the Langdale run; I didn't realize that we had discount books to Langdale. I'm glad we're able to offer that service.
With respect to the number of people who commute to work on a regular daily basis from Powell River to the Island, we were not aware that a significant number of people did that.
With respect to discounts for students, it is a possibility. If we were to institute that, it should probably be instituted on all runs. The cost of doing so has to be picked up by the subsidies in the end, so I would just point that out.
G. Wilson: That's something we should do, because obviously there are many more students commuting in the lower runs, which would therefore provide greater subsidy to those of us who live in the hinterlands, so to speak. So that would be useful.
I wonder if we might talk now about the Earls Cove-Saltery Bay sailing -- in particular, the midday sailings -- and establishing a fixed number of sailings. I'd also like to talk about the somewhat successful -- at least I'm told it's very successful -- introduction of a late-night sailing on the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale run, albeit a limited one. Constituents in those regions would very much like to see those summer additions maintained throughout the winter, because there is a growing population. In fact, the Sunshine Coast has one of the fastest-growing populations outside the municipality of Surrey. As a result of that, I think it's time those additional runs were maintained in order to adequately service that community.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Taking the Langdale issue first, that's another of the service experiments that we're carrying out. I understand the late Friday sailing has been well received. We don't know whether we're making or losing money on it yet -- probably losing. It matters in that somebody has to pay the piper someplace, but it is something that we will continue, certainly through this year. Then, as we do with other experiments that we're trying, we'll evaluate the overall benefits and look at the overall costs as well, and then take a determination as to whether we'll make it permanent.
With respect to Earls Cove-Saltery Bay, it's a time issue. In order to give some service and to put two standard shifts on in the early morning and in the later evening, it leaves us with the necessity of a gap -- 18 or 20 hours -- in the middle. Now I have been told that the traffic volume in the middle is very low. To extend one or both of the morning or afternoon shifts to cover that gap, we would be looking at a substantial cost for very limited revenues. Hence, at least for this year, the schedule will remain as it is with the midday gap.
G. Wilson: Unfortunately, I see I have to be called into debate on another bill. I wonder if I could just close then with one last comment, something with respect to a simple safety provision. It has to do with the new superferry, the Spirit of British Columbia, an excellent vessel certainly providing a great deal of comfort and
[ Page 6973 ]
enjoyment to travellers. Something I passed on to the CEO -- which is, I guess, the best way to get things done in this corporation -- has to do with the children's play area. A number of those facilities that you ride upon are not fastened to the floor. They have extremely sharp edges and young children crawling can get fingers underneath, and if a larger child sits on them, it could be a liability, to say nothing of a serious injury to children. I would suggest that they be fastened as they are on other vessels.
Another very short point, and I don't mean to make light of this but I've raised this over the last five years. I want to congratulate the B.C. Ferry Corporation on the Spirit of British Columbia finally recognizing "guide dogs" not "dog guides." On virtually every other vessel the recording says that dog guides are allowed above deck, and one envisages these people that are sort of wandering around pulling these dogs. They are in fact guide dogs and I think on the Spirit of British Columbia you've finally got it right. I want to congratulate you on that, because it has annoyed me for 15 years, and I am just delighted that we are finally recognizing that that's the way it is.
The last one has to do with a hazardous cargo sailing from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale. We have growing industrial activity there. We do not have a hazardous cargo registry. It is something that I have raised many times to the corporation and I raise it again. We are putting in place the Hillside industrial development site that is going to encourage industrial growth and development. Given the number of hazardous materials that are now on the restricted list, I would like the minister to seriously consider the implementation of a hazardous cargo sailing from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale. If he has some comment as to whether or not we can expect that, I would like that before I have to go and enter into debate on Bill 26.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Taking your issues from the top, first, the corporation appreciates the call you made with regard to the safety issue in the children's play area. The president acted on that immediately and issued instructions for the hazard to be corrected. We do not know as we stand here today whether or not the work has been done, but if not, it is certainly under way.
With respect to the guide dogs, I'll also make note of that. We're going to check back over the records of the corporation to see how many letters advising us of your irritation you sent us over that 15 year period, such that we could have dealt with it at an earlier point.
On the hazardous goods cargo routes, my understanding is that a private sector service is doing that now between Horseshoe Bay and Langdale. That being the case, if the needs are being met, I would be cautious about extending into it. But I can take the question on advisement and answer you by letter if you prefer.
D. Symons: I thought that by about this time we would be ending up questions on B.C. Ferries, but there are still more to go, unfortunately. These other people have canvassed some ideas very thoroughly.
I did have one question. I'd like to go back to some that our leader was asking regarding some funds or moneys, and this would be regarding administrative costs. I notice that in 1991 the administrative costs for B.C. Ferries were about $6.2 million. In '91-92 it went up to just about $7.1 million, a 12 percent increase. I'm wondering what the administrative costs are for the '92-93 year that's just completed. And maybe at the same time you might be able to tell me what is budgeted for administrative costs in '93-94.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to your latter point -- what the figures would be for '93-94 -- I'll have to take the question on notice. The figures we have here are not broken down in that manner, but we can advise you.
With respect to the increase in administrative costs between '91-92 and '92-93, the increases were primarily the result of five or six factors. We had some increased travel expenditures, reflecting increased community and training activity -- the community consultation processes we put in place -- of about $215,000. We had a substantial increase in training expenditures -- those arose from the recommendations of the operation and safety review -- of about $200,000. We had an increase in personal and property loss claims, mainly due to the Nanaimo accident, of about half a million dollars. The corporate capital tax, which applies to public and private corporations, was about $850,000. We increased grants in lieu of taxes by some $60,000. And there's one other item, a book recovery of $350,000 for the motor vehicle Queen of the Islands, which normally would have fallen into this '92-93 fiscal year, was actually taken in during the '91-92 fiscal year. So that reallocation from year to year left, in terms of the administration costs item, a $350,000 cost this year. That is to say, it's a write-off that would have occurred. It was planned to occur this year and in fact was accomplished last year. Then there was a variety of other items adding up to $125,000. The total of those figures was about $2.3 million, which represents a 45 percent increase due for the most part to one-time-only increases.
D. Symons: That's the figure, I think, in the third quarterly report of administrative costs. I noticed that 45 percent increase, so it's pretty well held through in the fourth quarter as well. That's where that question was leading.
I wonder if we might move on to the new superferries. When the proposal to build the S-class ferries was brought out, in looking back in Hansard I found that quite a few members of your party spoke quite solidly against these larger ferries and pushed for smaller, faster ferries when they were in opposition. During the commissioning ceremony a few months back, I noticed the Premier apparently taking credit with great pride for these superferries; he was certainly very supportive of them. Now that you've had a bit of experience with the ferries, I wonder if there might be a re-evaluation of the comments that were made by your members before the ferries were actually on line. Has the previous government now been vindicated in the
[ Page 6974 ]
program they followed by building the superferries, or are you just stuck with what they've left for you?
The Chair: Hon. minister, again within the parameters of the administrative capacity of your office, which at this time does not speak for the opposition in a past Legislature.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With that in mind -- and I would never presume to speak on how they might have thought or might think now -- the reality is that a superferry was built, and a good job was done of it. All the workers in the shipyards of British Columbia and the designers can take pride in what they have been able to produce. The compliments about the superferry from the travelling public and the lineups of passengers choosing to take the superferry attest to that. Once the commitment for one had been obtained, then there was a need to look to the balance of having the superferries cross each other on the route and match up capacity, and to carry on with the second.
[4:30]
I think we do need to look at the mix of ships we have and the technology we have. It might well be that we want some concentration in the future of passenger fast ferries and the possibility of vehicle-carrying fast ferries as well. There are many places where the capacity of the ship we have there right now does not match the service volume required. I will look forward to a report from the corporation, which should come to me this fall, on what our capital requirements are. Furthermore, I'll be discussing on an ongoing basis with the president and board of B.C. Ferries the desire of this government to look to a mix of vessels and a mix of service.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, because we mentioned earlier that some of our ships are getting a bit older and will need replacing. I was wondering if there was a possibility that this government would now be considering the larger ferries rather than the smaller ferries as replacements on the Nanaimo run, if they do go into a shipbuilding program during their mandate. I guess I was leading up to that.
To be honest, I will say that before the superferries were built, I tended to think toward the smaller, faster ferries, and I favoured more ferries covering the distance more quickly. But having ridden on the superferry, it does a beautiful job of giving a blend between a cruise ship and a ferry. You certainly get the feeling that you're on a much more luxurious boat when you're riding that one than you do on the other ferries, so I could quite imagine people waiting their turn to be on the ferry.
There does, however, seem to be one problem that has developed in regard to the Spirit of British Columbia, and that is in fact the name. There apparently was a 42-foot wooden fish packer that had the name -- and I believe had the name registered -- prior to the naming of the Spirit of British Columbia. The boat has since disappeared, and I'm not sure in most recent times if it has been found, but I believe there was a legal dispute over the use of the name Spirit of British Columbia. Can you tell me what the outcome of that dispute has been?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To our knowledge there is no dispute. The name was accepted and confirmed by the registry of shipping.
D. Symons: I guess it's just the previous owner whose nose is out of joint over having, one, lost the name of his boat, and two, lost the boat.
A few months ago we had the case of a former employee winning a $400,000 suit against B.C. Ferries for wrongful dismissal. It involved a purported bribe of goods worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of $360 that were mixed in with a purchase order. Was there an overreaction in dealing with this perceived bribe, so that it ended up going to court and ended up costing B.C. Ferries a considerable amount of money?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It would be inappropriate to make any comment on this matter, as it has been appealed.
D. Symons: I applaud the corporation for trying to make sure that all of its employees and all of their dealings are aboveboard. But it seems that for the amount that was involved in that particular case, the punishment that prompted the suit might have been out of line -- at least the lawyers seemed to think that was the case.
Leaving this case aside, maybe you could just tell me what sort of safeguards are there so you can make sure that someone does not use their position within the corporation to benefit themselves.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The corporation has complete, conventional, normal sorts of controls on the financial side. All staff of the corporation are presumed to act within the appropriate signing authorities and the appropriate controls. It does not absolutely exclude all possibilities, but the corporation has in place an array of policies and tools comparable to those of any other corporation.
D. Symons: Beyond the sort of deck employees of the company, I wonder if the salaried employees possibly sign some sort of agreement to the effect that any sort of wrongful action on their part would lead to immediate dismissal. Is there any sort of written agreement which the management side of B.C. Ferries signs in regard to that sort of action?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is an area where common law prevails. It would be almost perverse to have in a contract something that says that as an officer of the company I oblige myself to obey the law. It would be most unusual. We would expect that all of them would -- at all levels -- and if any didn't, and we became aware of it, we would use the court system to correct it.
D. Symons: The question was leading to the situation that you seem to have gotten yourselves into
[ Page 6975 ]
here -- where there may have been perceived wrong-doing or something. If you had a signed statement, I would accept that there would be immediate dismissal in the event of that taking place.
As a matter of fact, I was part of the working out of the contract between the Vancouver School Board and the Vancouver Teachers' Federation in their first contract, and one of the conditions the board had put in there was just exactly that sort of phrasing -- that any theft on the part of an employee was grounds for immediate dismissal. I just thought that if that sort of thing had been in a written agreement with each employee, you might preclude the legal action being open to the person to use against the corporation.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is an area that I believe should not be discussed. It is before the courts.
D. Symons: Thank you. We'll move on to another topic then.
This involves the Saturna Island dock and some reconstruction that was taking place there just a short while ago. I guess we could call it reconstruction of the reconstruction, because I gather they were putting some rather large steel plates in the docking facilities there, and after they got them nicely in place, they then removed them and put them back in again. There seemed to be some double work going on at that point. Did they misplace it the first time? I'm not quite sure. Could the minister explain a little of what this placing and replacing procedure was, and whether there was indeed a mistake by the people putting it in? Who is picking up the tab for any redoing of work at that dock?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The work was done under contract. It was brought in on budget and on time, but in the process of carrying out the budget, contractors can of course do whatever they like. It was a fixed-sum contract. What they might well have been doing was preliminary placing for purposes of fitting and then taking them down to put them back up permanently. I don't know, but from the viewpoint of the corporation, the contract was carried out on schedule and on time.
D. Symons: It was sheet piling that was apparently pile-driven in and then it was too narrow for the ferry to fit its nose properly between these, and it had to be removed and redone. The words I didn't hear at the end of your comment were "done on price." Was it done and there was no extra cost to the corporation? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The contract came in on target, on budget, on price. Whatever construction difficulties there were is a consequence to the contractor, not to the corporation.
D. Symons: Good. I thank the minister for that answer.
Another area I would like to canvass for just a moment is the Victoria-Seattle run. I do remember the Minister of Tourism, being quoted in the paper back in December as saying that there was no way that B.C. Ferries was going to be involved in that run, that they had these other two companies bidding at the time. When those bids did not turn out to be satisfactory, that job was given over to at least a discussion of the feasibility of B.C. Ferries taking on that run. I would gather that that study has been done for the next tourist season. It's almost time now for advertising and all the rest to start in order for us to make that a viable operation for the summer of 1994. Could you give us an update on exactly what the relationship of B.C. Ferries to that particular possible run may be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you go back and check the record, you will not find that the Minister of Tourism ever indicated that she did not want B.C. Ferries involved in that. There may be a misunderstanding or a misquote involved here. At the present time, the study of the potential of that run is underway. I expect it to be completed in a month or so, then it will be reported to the corporation and to myself and a timely decision will be made. If there is an opportunity here for the corporation, we'll pursue it.
D. Symons: I am concerned that there is a great deal of delay in deciding not to accept the bids that were put in by the other companies on that particular run. If there is a great deal of delay in the response as to whether B.C. Ferries is going to take on that responsibility, it can end up endangering the success of it as a venture that will not cost the corporation more money. So I am somewhat concerned that it's going to be a few more months until the report comes in, then it will be studied and then a decision will be made. What time frame are we looking at before we say yea or nay? Enough time is needed so that the advertising and all the other materials that will have to go along with promoting that will have a chance to be in place, so that the tour-sellers and everybody else that's going to be involved in this are up and running so that it will be a successful operation next summer.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm fully aware of the time constraints on this. If there is going be a launch, certain things need to be done in the prelaunch period. I am fully cognizant of that. The report will be forthcoming, as I've said, in about a month. After it has moved through the corporation, I'll take a decision.
[4:45]
D. Symons: I'd like to move on to a slightly different aspect now which involves the problem regarding the bidding process on contracts for work for B.C. Ferries. Indeed, some of the problems I am about to address have come up not specifically with B.C. Ferries but with other contracts that government agencies seem to be letting out. I gather that the Independent Contractors' and Businesses Association have actually asked conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes to investigate the awarding of two contracts to union firms working on the construction of the terminal building at Swartz Bay. It was quite a while ago -- actually it's months back -- that the request was made.
[ Page 6976 ]
Has Mr. Hughes made a ruling on that? Maybe you could give us a bit of the background before I continue with other questions on that line.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The complaint that you've made mention of -- and the investigation carried out by Mr. Hughes -- was from the construction association, and the report went back to the complainant. It was not submitted to the corporation. We have recently been informed directly by Mr. Hughes that he found no difficulty with our policy. You could obtain further information, perhaps, either from the complainant or from Mr. Hughes.
D. Symons: Some of the complaints levelled at the corporation involve what is referred to as the non-fulfilment of legal contracts and to contract bid documents being altered to suit a particular company -- usually to benefit a union firm, as a matter of fact. Apparently the group that made a complaint is a non-union organization. There is some concern that companies that can't really afford the security or a bid bond are being given preference over well-established competitors. One of the places where some of this might show up is the slip building at Tsawwassen. I believe Peter Kiewit Sons was the initial bidder on that project, and even though theirs was the low bid, in one way they were asked not to carry on and to simply become consultants for the operation of that construction. I'm wondering if you would elaborate on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With reference to the series of statements or allegations you made about the situation at Swartz Bay, I repeat that the indication from Mr. Hughes was that there was no conflict or policy difficulty. What happened at the Tsawwassen site was that all tenders came in above price, so it was cancelled and retendered.
D. Symons: As I understood the Tsawwassen situation, it wasn't a case of retendering. I understood that when they came in under bid, there was another way of going about it, and it wasn't really a total retendering process under the same conditions that the first tenders were made. I gather that's incorrect.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're correct: it was not retendered. It was rescoped, and the quantity of work and the size of the project was taken down from about $1.5 million to $900,000. Then Peter Kiewit was contacted as the low bidder to determine if they would like to be the prime contractor on the job, and the condition was put on that they would use the next two or three low bids as subcontractors. So all the bidders on the original contract were offered a piece of the work.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
D. Symons: That describes it as I understand it, but it doesn't seem like a fair bidding process when you change the scope of it and then offer part of the action to the company that apparently had the best bid to begin with, but they don't get a chance to rebid on the newly scoped project. They were denied that opportunity, as I understand it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In these circumstances, as in many circumstances in private and public business, time is of the essence. There was not sufficient time available to do a retendering of the whole rescoped project. The corporation chose a method not of retendering but of offering all of the low bidders a piece of the contract.
D. Symons: I gather that this would cause a great deal of concern among people putting tenders in for government projects, because they're not quite sure whether the bid they are going to put in is going to be accepted. If it is the low bid, they still might have something changed in the initial one, and therefore they are not going to be given an opportunity to meet those changes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this particular topic, that was the concern that came to me from parts other than ferries.
The same sort of situation seems to be developing where there's a change in the requirements of the initial bid and then, at that time, it isn't open to bidding again. There's a unilateral decision made as to how it's going to go from that point on. The initial bids almost seem, in a sense, to be a farce. This is not fair to the contractors and to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We don't have a fair and open bidding system on all contracts.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member has questions about specific information or details of projects under other ministries, he should raise those in the estimates of those ministries. With respect to this ministry and this corporation, there are many hundreds of tenders every year that we receive great interest in from the private sector. I'm sure that will continue to be the case.
We have a responsibility to the taxpayer. We have a responsibility to deliver projects within budget and within the time frame required. In this one instance, because of a time consideration, it was not possible to retender. So we took the legitimate shortcut of offering a share of the project to the lowest bidders from the previous tender. I think that was reasonable. It gave each of them something, and we got the project done on time, on budget, and saved the taxpayers some money in the process.
D. Symons: If you're going to give them a job, it still seems to me that the lowest bidder should have had the opportunity rather than all three. I suppose some of the concerns are to do with union and non-union firms. Indeed, one of the concerns was raised -- and this has to do with the Tsawwassen terminal contract -- in a letter that was sent to the Ferry Corporation from the International Union of Operating Engineers, which states: "We have just received the bid results of the tender call for the above-mentioned project."
[ Page 6977 ]
My first question is: is it common that the bid results are simply mailed out? How would the International Union of Operating Engineers receive the bid results?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is an open tender process, so once the tenders are opened and all of the bids are known, they become public property.
D. Symons: The letter goes on to say: "We would like to point out that the low bid price has been submitted by a firm who is not a signatory to any of the legitimate building trade unions as recognized by the industrial relations commission of B.C." This is in the very first paragraph addressed to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It would seem that this particular organization is trying to make a very strong point to the Ferry Corporation: you should not accept this particular bid on the basis of whether they're union or non-union. I believe that we have a fair wage policy in the province and that that should not be a consideration. It would seem that some really heavy pressure is being put on the government here by friends of the government. "Also, we would like to bring to your attention the matter of the minister responsible for the Ferry Corporation commitment that 'all work' performed for the Ferry Corporation would be performed by a legitimate union contractor." It says that in the letter. I wonder if you might comment on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The letter you're quoting from is the letter that was referred to Mr. Hughes. I've indicated back to you that Mr. Hughes has concluded that he has no problem with the policies involved. Also, I assure you that over the term of this government the work from the corporation has gone to both union and non-union firms. As well, I would remind you that any corporation, any group of individuals or any individual has the right to write in to any of our Crowns and express whatever opinions they wish. We receive opinions from people saying it should have been done this or that way all the time. I do not have to defend in any sense what this organization wrote. It is their perfect right to lobby, to put on pressure, however they see fit for their own purposes. I will only be responsible for the response of the Crown to the pressure.
D. Symons: Indeed, the pressure is quite severe here: "In closing, we are confident the correct decision will be made in the award of this project, and we would thank you for consideration and time to ensure that a fair employer, B.C. owned and operated" -- since they happen to be the union firms that put in the contract -- "will be given the opportunity to perform the work in question." Indeed, from friends of the government, they're coming on pretty heavy.
[5:00]
I'll move to another document here. I'm looking at the B.C. Ferry Corporation terms of reference regarding the Swartz Bay ferry terminal control tower. In section 4.2, "Proponent's Responsibilities," it says: "The proponent's responsibilities will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following" -- and I'll just simply skip down to item 8 rather than read the other seven -- "...employ workers who are members of the B.C./Yukon trade council." I gather that that item was taken out. It also occurs on the next page under item 10: "...employ subtrades who are members of the B.C./Yukon trade council and, where applicable, members of the appropriate governing association for that trade." Maybe the minister would like to comment about those particular lines in an official Ferry Corporation document or terms of reference for tendering.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I believe you have been informed on other occasions, the tender document you have in front of you was in error. There was whatever mixup for whatever reason, but it was wrong. As soon as it was discovered that it was wrong, it was withdrawn and a proper tender document prepared.
D. Symons: Well, what I'd think an organization as large and as responsible as B.C. Ferries.... It would seem that in a tender document -- and these documents have been used for years -- if that line appeared in there, somehow somebody thought it belonged in there. Granted, maybe after the fact, they decided to change their mind on it, particularly when there was a public outcry. But the very fact that that got out to the public -- I've got a copy in my hand here -- sent a message to the people in the province who are putting in bids. Again, this may affect the value that the taxpayers of the province will be getting from contracts here. One way or the other, the message seems to be going out that we want union contractors. Granted, you say it was wrong. But items 8 and 10 didn't get in there by accident. The computer didn't simply write it in by itself, or some clerk didn't type it in accidentally. People don't write contracts that way. I think the message was being sent out somewhere along the line, and that's not the way to do business in British Columbia.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps there were gremlins; I don't know exactly. I do know that I have an eraser on the end of my pencil, because sometimes I change my mind about the things I write down and take them out. There are delete keys on keyboards. I wonder whether or not the member himself might have written something in a draft of any document and then, upon looking at it, decided that it was wrong, changed his mind or couldn't figure out how it got there. As you have been informed directly by the corporation, the tender document was wrong. It was in error, and it was withdrawn immediately.
D. Symons: Thank you for that answer. I will readily admit that I do indeed make the odd mistake; in fact, I make quite a few odd mistakes. But in a document -- a paper for the university or whatever I am doing that is going beyond me -- I generally have somebody else proofread it and look it over. If it's very important, I will often give it to two or three people. When the corporation is making up documents of that sort, I can't imagine that they don't even have their lawyers look it over. So I'm surprised that the mistake
[ Page 6978 ]
that came in by gremlins or whatever wasn't caught by somebody somewhere along the process, long before it got out to the public. But such as it may be, I will accept your answer on that.
I gather that the Horseshoe Bay terminal had some design fees of approximately $2 million, but that the plans still haven't been done. I'm not quite sure -- I can't make out my writing here -- exactly what those design ones were, so maybe you could fill me in on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are numerous problems at the Horseshoe Bay terminal and the need for a lot of work to be done there, and over the past several years a variety of studies have been carried out. There are a number of engineering, geotechnical and seismic problems. We have safety issues, parking issues and many things to address. It will lead to capital investments of $40 million or $50 million. Some preliminary design work has been done, and it will pay off. It is part of an ongoing investigation involving problem identification and definition of the existing problem.
D. Symons: The minister will be very pleased to know that I'm getting very near the end of my questions. One concern drawn to my attention is that the Swartz Bay terminal arrangement currently is not passenger-proofed. Apparently people are able to get in free to the Gulf Islands through the employee parking lot. They simply go into that area and from there, they can get into the passenger zone without going through and paying their fare. I'm just alerting you to this situation so that this can be corrected, and we can get our full fares from that area.
Just going back to the Saturna dock, I've been given some information that the Saturna dock was 15 feet too long. Was that in the design? Or did the contractor give you more than was required?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the Saturna dock, I'm advised that we simply got more than we paid for; and if the contractor wishes to offer, we'll take it. It did not cost the taxpayer any money.
With respect to your earlier comment, if people are willing to be dishonest, to swim, to scale or climb under fences, or to dig tunnels, there's probably a whole variety of ways they could get into our terminals at all of our locations. We can't stop that kind of thing. From time to time it will happen. We use reasonable security measures and, by and large, count on people to be honest.
D. Symons: I would gather from the information I was given -- and I'll check this out when I go home this weekend -- that it wasn't a case of climbing fences, swimming, or anything else; it was a case of walking through a pathway for employees, but it was very easy for non-employees to use that same route and simply gain access to the ferry terminal in that way. So I'm wondering if you would care to check that out.
Just a couple more questions. One deals with the mid-Island transportation task force you set up recently, and I applaud the minister for doing this. You've got a task force now that can gather information from the communities involved on the possible relocation and servicing by B.C. Ferries for the portion of the Island that's Nanaimo and north.
I'm just wondering if there are any plans for a North Shore transportation task force. I'm sure that when the night sailings were put on last year, the North Shore mayors and other people in that area would have liked to have been informed. Maybe it would be an idea to build a task force up for that area as well so that any future plans for terminal changes at Horseshoe Bay -- or anything at all of that sort -- would have some community input. Maybe while we're at it, we could do a South Delta task force to deal with the problems around the Tsawwassen terminal. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain why we have one task force. I realize there's a problem of relocating the ferry terminal at Nanaimo, but certainly these other communities that are heavily affected by the B.C. Ferry Corporation could have something of that sort set up, so there would be a nice way for information to flow back and forth.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a substantial impact on one community in Horseshoe Bay, and we have had much consultation and interchange of views with that community, with the mayor and council. The same thing applies with respect to the Tsawwassen terminal and, for the most part, the Swartz Bay terminal. But when it comes to the mid-range of the Island, we have a situation where we're contemplating moving a major terminal. The new terminal could be anywhere from Nanoose Bay down to Cowichan. We are impacting on many separate communities: the impact could be profound and the magnitude of the eventual investment will be enormous. For something of that magnitude, I think that it's reasonable to strike a task force of all of the communities, as represented by their mayors -- that is where that has come from.
Casting back to an earlier question with regard to folks not paying their fares, we are aware of the so-called Kristianson effect and we don't treat it lightly.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
D. Symons: I thought that was my last question, but I did find one concern that has been brought up in the Prince Rupert area, dealing with the Digby Island airport ferry. Is that a B.C. Ferry Corporation ferry or is that operated by somebody else?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: That service is operated by the municipality.
K. Jones: This is a fairly simple one, so you won't have to worry. A recommendation was made -- on the recommendation of the ferry staff -- with regard to a suggestion that lap-sized napkins be made available in the cafeteria. By the way, these are already available in the buffet area. When can we see that implemented on the ferries?
[ Page 6979 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that I will strike a cross-party napkin committee here and we can look at the design, the texture, the size and the colour of napkins. We can strike this committee quickly, and I will receive nominations from the member opposite if he is interested.
[5:15]
K. Jones: Perhaps the Chair could ask the minister to be a little more forthcoming in response to the question -- a very serious question -- rather than.... He may not have taken it seriously.
The Chair: Hon member, the Chair has no power to solicit an answer from the minister. You may ask, and the minister may answer.
K. Jones: I will ask him once again. It was a legitimate recommendation; it has been acknowledged by the ferry authority. I'd like to ask, since the napkins are already available on board the ferries: why aren't they available in the cafeteria when they are in the buffet, creating -- if they were placed in the cafeteria -- a considerable saving in wastage that occurs? The small napkins there are totally inadequate for staying on a person's lap, and therefore end up on the floor. Then persons have to take two or three, and I've observed a lot of this occurring. It's really a serious problem that they have, and there's been no action taken on it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This serious concern, I am told, has been placed in the capable hands of the superintendent of catering, and we can expect a resolution in the not-distant future.
K. Jones: That's good. It probably only takes a directive from the catering administration to get it there; it may be a few extra boxes of them made available on board each ferry. I hope that gets resolved.
Could the minister tell us why the 7 o'clock sailing seems to be regularly leaving the dock in Tsawwassen well after the appropriate sailing time -- at times as much as 15 to 20 minutes after? Also, could the minister address the fact that yesterday the 11 o'clock sailing sat at the dock until 11:30, or close to that? The 12 o'clock sailing sat in the dock until almost 12:30. Is there some work stoppage or slowdown or something that is causing this purposeful delay?
Could the minister address this question? We have assured-loading people in the lineup who, because they got there maybe five minutes or three minutes or two minutes or, as the member from Sunshine Coast mentioned previously, as little as one minute or one second after that 20-minute lead time, are not allowed on the ferry -- even though the ferry sits there and waits for 20 minutes or a half-hour past the scheduled sailing time.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The 7 a.m. sailing has been late getting out of the blocks mainly as a result of transport trucks. We've had a large number of transport trucks using that sailing, and it requires repositioning of the ramps once or twice in the process. It's being addressed by trying to start the process a little earlier in order to try to get away from the slip on time.
With respect to some of the delays, sometimes these are simply beyond the control of the corporation. Yesterday, I am told, there was a medical emergency that resulted in some late departures. Today an auto-carrier transport jammed in the loading ramp and caused a serious delay. Once a delay has occurred, of course, you get a cascade effect and a number of additional sailings on both sides then occur. In all reality, there's not too much we can do about the ones that are beyond our control. We try to recover the schedule as quickly as possible, but our schedule in that two-hour period -- with the hour-and-40-minute sailing time -- is tight, so it takes quite a few sailings to get it back on schedule.
With respect to the first morning sailing, if we can address the loading mechanism and start earlier in order to correct it, we will do so.
K. Jones: With regard to the 7 o'clock sailing, one of the keys things you could do to rectify that, and also to stop the fact that on almost every sailing -- on Monday, at least -- there is an overload situation where the public is left behind and forced to take the 8 o'clock or a later ferry.... If you were to implement a truck ferry operation on Monday mornings and get those trucks on that ferry, you'd probably be able to eliminate the problem of all the people being left on the dock. I've talked to people who were there at six or 6:30 a.m. and had to wait until the 8 o'clock ferry to get out. There's a serious problem there that needs to be addressed.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: What the member says is correct: there is a serious problem there. There's also serious money involved. A truck ferry falls off the tongue quite lightly as a phrase. If you've got $30 million to $35 million to build that truck ferry and the funds to operate it, by all means tell us where. We would like to be able to move more transports more efficiently, and some aspects of that are being investigated. But you cannot just snap the fingers and create a $35 million ferry in order to alleviate what would be a ten- or 20-minute delay from time to time.
With repect to your earlier question on assured loading, which I forgot to mention, having a 20-minute deadline before the scheduled sailing time is a reasonable cutoff. The people at the gates don't know when the sailing will occur in order to work backward from that time. As a responsible minister, if I arrive there a minute or two late and they direct me into the standard lineup, I go to the standard lineup. I know what the rules are. If I want to be on as assured loading, I arrive before 20 minutes before sailing, and I suggest you do the same.
K. Jones: It's very appropriate for the minister, who flies down to Victoria every weekend and back and forth, to make that type of proposal. Maybe if he put away his plane trips and started riding on the ferries regularly, he'd have more appreciation of the seriousness of the problem.
[ Page 6980 ]
I'd like to address the 12 o'clock ferry sailing yesterday, which came in on schedule at the regular unloading time and still left at 12:30. Why?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are 42 ships in our system, moving 22 million people and eight million vehicles. If you would like to provide me with the details of that incident, if you will allow me to take it on notice, that the 12 o'clock sailing from -- where...?
K. Jones: From Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: ...from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay was late, I will advise you of the cause of it.
The Chair: Hon. members, I would bring the committee to order and bring your attention to the standing orders that require all debate through the Chair. The side talk does not get recorded; it does not carry out the mandate of examining ministers' estimates. So would you address your remarks through the Chair, please, hon. member.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister why there is a difference between the salary paid to the president and chief executive officer of B.C. Rail and the salary paid to the chief executive officer and president of B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries' president and CEO was paid $120,000 plus benefits in 1992. The figure for B.C. Rail was $229,000 -- that's a $100,000-plus difference. B.C. Rail's operating revenues were $320 million and B.C. Ferries' were $279 million, and expenses were $242 million for B.C. Rail and $281 million for B.C. Ferries. Considering that the operating budgets of both were almost similar, could you tell us why the B.C. Rail president is paid so much over the going market price for the work that is having to be done -- as shown by the amount that you're paying the president of B.C. Ferries?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amounts of remuneration paid to the CEOs of all of the Crown corporations are set by or negotiated by, and approved by the chairs and the boards of those corporations. You are referring to agreements that were -- in the instance of B.C. Rail -- entered into by a previous board under a previous government and that we continue to honour.
K. Jones: If that's the case, has the minister made up the discrepancy between the price of the payment made to the B.C. Rail president and CEO...to bring the costs of that operation into a little more reasonable.... The rest of the CEOs of Crown corporations range from $108,000 at B.C. Buildings and $109,000 at B.C. Systems to maybe $175,000 for the chairman and CEO of B.C. Hydro -- probably the biggest of the Crown corporations. There seems to be a great discrepancy between the various levels; certainly the payment to the B.C. Rail president is way out of line. Has the minister taken control of this out-of-line situation in his budget and his responsibility area and corrected that problem?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would point out in passing that the questions related to B.C. Rail should have been posed by the member during the time that the estimates for B.C. Rail were being reviewed. The overall issue of compensation to staff -- officers of Crown corporations as well as throughout the government -- has been looked into by the Korbin commission, and that commission will be reporting out shortly.
K. Jones: Could the minister please provide to this House, as we had requested, the complete current salary and benefits package details with regard to B.C. Rail. And also those for B.C. Ferries for this year, and ICBC -- which was covered yesterday, but I'm sure you can find the figures for that today.
[5:30]
I would like to just go over one other item. I'd like to ask the minister about the coin-operated games on the ferries. Have the minister and the CEO of the ferry authority observed that the games portray street violence, female degradation, including bondage, monster attacks, flippers in inappropriate places of the women's anatomy, violence that is portraying mythical characters, and reckless race driving and shooting at other cars with cannons mounted on the cars? Is the minister also aware that pinball machines -- which I understand would be limited in a regular land-based operation as to the age of the persons who could use them -- are actually being operated, in my observation, by people as young as seven? Is the minister also aware that from time to time there has been money-gambling on the floor of the upper lounge? Does the minister or the CEO of the ferry authority receive reports of complaints as reported to the captains? Are reports of any complaints that are reported on board the ferries made to the CEO by the captains?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is a complaint registry, and those complaints are received by the corporation. Attention is paid to the video games that are available, and we generally try to choose the better ones from what is available in the marketplace. With respect to alleged gambling, I hope that the member is not seriously suggesting that we should put card police on the ferries and check out passengers who are playing bridge or whist or what have you to determine whether or not they are gambling. Surely there comes a point here where we have to leave people's private business, as to what they are doing on the ferries -- whether they are gambling a bit or not, I don't know -- and draw a line someplace where the responsibilities of government do not go past.
K. Jones: I think the minister has failed to recognize the fact -- and he knew full well we were not talking about bridge -- that we were talking about gaming for money. I said -- and maybe he didn't hear it too clearly -- that there was money, and dice were being thrown on the floor. I want to know whether the staff on board the ferries have a responsibility to inform the captain of illegal actions occurring on board the vessels. Is it not their responsibility to monitor the activities of their
[ Page 6981 ]
passengers in regard to anything that is of an illegal or improper nature? If not, then a whole realm of possibilities could occur on board our ferries which would make them very uncomfortable to travel on. I am very disappointed that the minister has taken such a frivolous attitude toward this.
With regard to your response to the games, the games are very seriously violence-oriented. They are not the best available, and they promote violence, bad driving habits and the degradation of women. Is that the kind of thing you like to trivialize?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I never trivialize abuse and violence in any form. On the other hand, I do not expect the ferry staff to act as some kind of moral cops and determine what reading material is appropriate, exactly which games are appropriate or whether passengers should play bridge for a penny a point. What e are concerned with is the safety and the convenience of the other passengers and to make certain that what people are doing is not interfering with or causing any discomfort or hazard to other passengers. We will do those sorts of things. But in terms of the kind of policing that I think you are asking for, our staff is not trained for it, nor do we intend to get into that training at this time.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:35 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]