1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 1
[ Page 10577 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
G. Farrell-Collins: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I'd like the House to welcome 27 grade 11 students from Point Grey Secondary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Bailey. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is Jim McNeal, president of the British Columbia Real Estate Association, along with some other delegates from the Real Estate Association who have been in town for the last couple of days meeting with members of the Legislature about issues of concern to their members. I would like to ask all members to make them welcome.
C. Serwa: I'd like to welcome Ted Allen of Surrey to the precinct, and to thank him for the brief tour on his motorcycle on such a glorious British Columbia day. It was interesting to note that the Premier, who has been taking the taxpayers of British Columbia for a ride for the past two and a half years, had the tables reversed and was himself taken for a ride by the people of British Columbia. Would the House please join me in thanking our in-house cyclists and also the members of AIM and the B.C. motorcycle association for the positive opportunity extended to us today.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to introduce to the House two groups from my riding. One is a group of 40 grade 10 students from Earl Merriott Secondary School and their tour coordinator, Miss Marielle Haack. Also in the gallery today are three representatives of the legislative and public affairs committee of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board: Marcia McGaw, Richard Dolman and Ron Wall. Would the House make them most welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery today Bill Moore and Gerry Burch of the Junior Forest Wardens' Association of B.C. Mr. Moore is the president of that organization and Mr. Burch is the vice-president. The Junior Forest Wardens' Association is dedicated to teaching young British Columbians about the wise use of forests, and both these gentlemen have contributed countless hours of their time to this worthwhile cause. I'm sure members are also aware that Mr. Burch is the former chief forester of B.C. Forests Products and president of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. Mr. Moore is a resident of Winter Harbour, B.C., with a long association with logging in that area. He's well known in the B.C. forest industry for his interest in logging sports and logging safety and for his talent as a poet. For all those reasons, I'd ask the House to make both gentlemen very welcome.
K. Jones: I'd also like to extend a welcome to Bill Moore. It has been a long time since we've had the pleasure of his jazz concerts in the North Island.
I'd also like the House to recognize Jim Gammer, my fine representative from the real estate board in the Fraser Valley.
Also visiting with us today is a group of approximately 51 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Their teachers, Mrs. Sharon Douglas, Mrs. Diane Hamm and Mr. David Buzza, are escorting them on their Victoria adventure. Several parents have also joined this group. I would ask the House to extend them a warm welcome to these precincts and wish them a very eventful day in Victoria.
M. de Jong: Joining us in the precincts today are 45 grade 5 and 6 students from Terry Fox Elementary School in Matsqui and their teacher, Ms. Siefert. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Symons: Visiting us today is a group of students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in the riding of Richmond Centre. Approximately 45 grade 11 and 12 ESL students and their teacher, Miss Clare Winstanley, as well as parents, are in the precincts. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to us and wish them a beautiful day in Victoria.
K. Jones: I'd like to thank the minister of motorcycling and the member for Alberni for hosting a very fine ride around the precincts today. Best wishes to all of those who enjoy motorcycling and who bring an opportunity for a safer life for all motorcyclists.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have a statement on a matter that has just been before the Supreme Court of Canada. I think all members are aware of today's Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. It is a disappointment to all British Columbians. The decision is contrary to our province's view that a constitutional obligation exists on the part of Via Rail and the federal government to maintain and provide rail service on Vancouver Island.
In light of today's decision, I am calling on the federal government to utilize its regulatory powers to direct Via Rail to maintain the E&N service on Vancouver Island, notwithstanding this court decision. The previous Conservative government failed to stand up for British Columbia, and approved a Via Rail request to discontinue service. I expect the new federal government to indicate to regulators that it believes passenger service should continue and be available to residents of Vancouver Island. I note that during the last federal election campaign, federal Liberal candidates favoured the retention and upgrading of passenger service on the E&N Railway. I would expect them to now honour their election commitment. It is our view, given the growth and development on Vancouver Island, that passenger rail service is even more essential today than was the case in 1883. All residents of Vancouver Island are intuitively aware of the fact that passenger rail service is vital to meet our future transportation needs on Vancouver Island.
[2:15]
In recent months we have been witness to the federal government's lack of commitment to British Columbia. They have shut down TRIUMF-KAON. They are shutting down Royal Roads Military College. They have disbanded the Naden military band. They have closed the military base in Masset. They have denied this province its rightful share of seats in the House of Commons. They have refused to provide service and assistance to this province's ship-building industry. We in British Columbia say that enough is enough. There is no doubt in my mind that the E&N issue is another test of the Liberal federal government's commitment to British Columbia, and I trust that the Prime Minister and Revenue Minister David Anderson will defend British
[ Page 10578 ]
Columbia's interests and ensure future rail service on Vancouver Island.
I am sure that all members of the House will agree that we expect this commitment to British Columbia from the federal Liberal government in Ottawa.
D. Symons: In responding to the Premier's statement, I would tend to agree and say that the opposition will go along with the statement asking the federal government to continue the service on Vancouver Island. But I was somewhat interested in and almost amused by the way in which the Premier managed to change what was a federal court decision -- not a political decision -- into lambasting the federal government for all the other things they've done.
Now we may indeed find, as the Premier said, that it's this province's view that there's a constitutional obligation, but apparently the federal Supreme Court has said that's not the case. So I think what has to happen at this stage is that, instead of wishful thinking that some other government is going to take care of it....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Symons: Instead of the government trying to off-load this issue as a federal issue, they're now going to have to begin taking seriously their sincerity in believing there should be a rail service on Vancouver Island and to look into the alternatives if the federal government cares not to carry through with this obligation.
We may be in the state where the provincial government has to decide whether it will carry on and ask to purchase the rail right-of-way from the federal government or Canadian Pacific Railways and operate the passenger system as it has been. If British Columbia were to take on this task, I believe that we could do a much better marketing job than Via Rail has done on the Island railway. Indeed we could turn what has been a liability, as operated by Via, into an asset for this province. It just takes a government with a bit of vision to look into that way of dealing with this problem, rather than bashing Ottawa.
C. Serwa: May I have leave to respond to the ministerial statement?
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: The issue is ongoing and certainly very significant to the people on Vancouver Island. The precedent is certainly very important here and for all British Columbians. Before I get into the crux of the matter, I want to say that the message of the Premier is veneer-thin: "We are ready for an election. We're trying to lower the level of the Liberals in the polls, and then we'll spring the election." So that's clear.
Getting back to the matter in the ministerial statement, our government initiated the first battle with Via Rail, and we were successful in that particular battle. It was really important. It's clear that the service has to continue to be provided to the residents of Vancouver Island for environmental reasons -- certainly for energy conservation, public convenience and necessity. A lot of people are unable to afford cars yet have to travel up and down.
We know that the transportation system on Vancouver Island needs upgrading -- that's the Vancouver Island system. Via Rail and the E&N Railway can provide a continued link in that particular area. The service levels and the quality and standard of those service levels have to be improved. I'm most regretful, as well as the hon. Premier, of the fact that the federal Liberals have let us down once again.
G. Wilson: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave not granted.
M. Farnworth: Point of order. I would like to know if the Chair could tell me if there are two classes of member in this House: independents who are allowed to speak and independents who are not allowed to speak.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The standing orders are clear with respect to responding to ministerial statements. Members of recognized parties have that privilege. Those who do not, have to seek leave. Leave was granted in one instance and denied in the other.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just for the advice of the House, hon. Speaker, an agreement was made between the government Whip and the opposition that one member of the government, one member of the official opposition and one of the nine independents would be able to speak on ministerial statements.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has no knowledge of agreements between Whips.
G. Janssen: Other than use a term that is not allowed in this House.... No such agreement was reached.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what matter?
D. Mitchell: I rise on a point of order. We've witnessed something here today which emphasizes the rights of all members of the House. We have a standing order in our rule books that I'd like to refer to now. Under standing order 37, I would like to move that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast be now heard.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. members.
Regrettably, hon. member, standing order 37 is for a different purpose, not for when leave is being sought to make a statement.
The member rises on a further point of order.
D. Mitchell: In that case, I would like to ask leave to put the motion that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast be now heard.
The Speaker: That is an inappropriate motion, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: I'd just like to ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Leave was sought by the member and has been denied.
D. Mitchell: I believe a mistake may have been made on that. I'd just like to request leave.
[ Page 10579 ]
The Speaker: The Chair has ruled that the member does not have this privilege at this time, and your point of order is not well taken.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
F. Gingell: On April 22, 1994, when special prosecutor Richard Peck reported his findings with respect to the actions of the Attorney General, we received a press release from the ministry and the entire report of the special prosecutor. When charges were laid in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal yesterday, we received only the press release. Could the Attorney General please tell us why his ministry is not releasing the special prosecutor's report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I had assumed that all members knew this matter was before the courts, and that no further comments should be made by anybody.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?
F. Gingell: I'm not certain that I was asking a question about a subject that is before the courts. I thought I was asking a question about something that is not before the courts. The Attorney General's office released the Peck report due to the publicity and debate that the case received. The Nanaimo Commonwealth scandal has received the same publicity and debate, if not more. Why has the Attorney General chosen to hide the Henderson report from public scrutiny? It is not in front of the courts.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
F. Gingell: In his report, Richard Peck states: "It is important that the public know the process that was engaged in, how the process works, and how the conclusions were reached." This is also true here. The public has a right to know what took two years to discover, and two years to decide. Can the Attorney General please tell us what is more important, in his opinion, than public confidence in the justice system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That justice be done.
W. Hurd: Yesterday we learned that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has been charged under the Criminal Code. My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier feel that since present and past NDP members served as directors of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, they deserve the opportunity to have the cloud over them as a result of these recent revelations lifted? Will the Premier commit today to refer the conduct of any and all members involved in this affair to the select standing committee on ethical conduct in this House?
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: In May of '91, the member for Nanaimo, who has been investigated in the wrongdoings of the NCHS, stated in this House that previous Socred governments "had cast a bad light on all politicians, and we needed to clear the air." Why today does the Premier deny his colleagues the opportunity to remove themselves from the shadow of this controversy involving an NDP organization in Nanaimo?
The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: This government continually claims to have the highest moral and ethical standards. Why won't the Premier commit today to refer this matter to the select standing committee on ethical conduct in this House? What is he afraid of?
C. Serwa: My question today, too, is to the Premier. Thousands of volunteers give of themselves in charities each year to help the needy and the children in our province. Will the Premier now disclose how many of their dollars were lent or otherwise misappropriated by the party of social conscience, which he heads?
The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm not sure if the question is in or out of order, because you are asking about an entity outside the jurisdiction of the government, to my understanding. Perhaps you could repeat your question -- or proceed with your supplementary question.
C. Serwa: Again to the Premier. In view of this scandal and the diversion of federal tax credits to NDP municipal candidates in Surrey, will the Premier launch an inquiry, under the terms of the Inquiry Act, into NDP campaign funding in British Columbia?
The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.
C. Serwa: Can the Premier assure this House that none of his campaign funds or those of his cabinet colleagues came from charities?
M. de Jong: If the Premier is relying upon his own legal advice, I'd suggest he's got a fool for a client.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member has been cautioned in the past about coming close to unparliamentary expressions. If he's imputing any improper motives to any hon. member, I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his remark.
M. de Jong: I will withdraw the remark.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
M. de Jong: The search warrant documentation that was sworn in May 1993 includes allegations by Claire Van Dusen, a former member of the audit committee of the society in question, that she suspected charity funds had been used to pay NDP campaign debts. The Attorney General's refusal to release the special prosecutor's report, including the report to Crown counsel, casts a pall over the entire NDP government. Will the Premier, in the name of open and honest government, direct the AG to release that report?
[2:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to say two things. One, I want to remind members of the House that the matter members are asking about is before the courts, and no comments should be made by anyone in this House about a matter that is before the courts.
The second thing I want to say is with respect to the question asked by the member. The report referred to is not in the hands of the government. Even the Attorney General does not have that report, nor will I ever get that report, because of the procedures established as a result of the Owen report, which led to legislation in 1991. I urge members, as I
[ Page 10580 ]
have done many times in the past, to understand how this process works; if they don't, I urge them to take the time -- as I know two members of this House have done today -- to meet with senior officials of my ministry so that they can begin to understand how this process works.
M. de Jong: I can assure the Attorney General that at least one other member has looked into the matter. I would draw to his attention section 5 and 7 of the Crown Counsel Act and alert him to the fact that those lines of communication between himself and the author of the report certainly do exist.
Let's go to the Minister of Government Services. The search warrant I alluded to earlier also contains allegations by the RCMP concerning an officer's belief that the NDP Nanaimo centre association filed false documents with the public gaming branch. Will the Minister of Government Services commit to this House today to make public all of the gaming branch documents with respect to that NDP Nanaimo centre association?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The matter has been canvassed, and the Attorney General has indicated to the House that the issue is before the courts.
VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. On April 25, I asked the minister if there had been an internal study commissioned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation into the running of the Victoria-Seattle ferry. At that time he said: "I'd be delighted to share with the member, or any members, the marketing work that has been done for the Victoria-Seattle ferry service, which in fact showed that it was viable." In the study, which has now been provided to me, there is not a single sign of any financial documentation. All of it has been deleted. Can the minister tell us, in the sharing of this report, to what extent we're supposed to make some decision on the financial viability of this if we can't see the relevant figures?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly look into the question. Obviously the freedom-of-information officer for the Ferry Corporation interprets the act. Any appeals with respect to information that's not provided are appropriately provided to Mr. Flaherty, who's an officer of the Legislature and not an employee of the government. Any appeals regarding the interpretation of the act really should go to that independent officer of the Legislature; and in this case I might, frankly, support an appeal.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: To the same minister, in support of the appeal, would the minister tell us whether in the decision to set up an independent corporation to run this ferry service -- given that the subsidy to B.C. Ferries has been reduced, which has resulted in fare increases to people who are dependent on the ferry -- it was in fact the findings of this report that determined that a Crown corporation should run this new Victoria-Seattle run, rather than the already established B.C. Ferry Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure of the question, but let me try to do it. There was a separate corporation that was running the Princess Marguerite. That corporation, B.C. Steamship Company Ltd., still exists; we have now renamed it the Victoria Line corporation. It did have some assets, including a lease on property. The corporation's run.... The reason for a separate entity is really twofold. We want to make sure that there is no cross-subsidy from domestic passengers and the Ferry Corporation to this venture, which is largely to support tourism and economic development initiatives. And because of Canada Labour Code and Labour Code of B.C. problems with respect to an international route and infecting, if you will, the entire corporation by coming under federal jurisdiction...
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
Hon. G. Clark: ...if we ran this under the B.C. Ferry Corporation....
The Speaker: The member's final supplemental.
G. Wilson: This minister originally commissioned this report about the viability of B.C. Ferries. At a recent meeting in Powell River where matters around B.C. Ferry fare increases were raised, comments came from directors on the board of B.C. Ferries that tourism was not a relevant factor with respect to fare increases.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?
G. Wilson: Is the minister telling us that documents within this report determined that B.C. Ferries was not the viable entity, notwithstanding the tourism question? Or is the minister saying that, in fact, the reduced subsidy to B.C. Ferries is a product of their movement towards this ferry service?
Hon. G. Clark: In fact, the report demonstrates that B.C. Ferries could well have run the operation and that it was indeed viable, and that in some ways there is some attraction to having the expertise of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. But because of the concerns I mentioned a minute ago, we moved it to the existing corporation, B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. It will draw on and benefit from the B.C. Ferry Corporation's expertise, but it will not have any cross-subsidy; it will stand alone with respect to pursuing that alternative. And it will not have the Canada Labour Code, as it applies to the entire operations of B.C. Ferries.... It will be kept as a separate and discrete entity that we can test.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Farrell-Collins: Some interesting comments have been made by the government with regard to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in the last few days. In a search warrant issued by Corporal Forrester of the RCMP, the counts listed against the four societies that have been charged were also listed against former MP David Stupich. Those societies did not act on their own. They were acted upon at the direction of the directors of those corporations, of which Mr. Stupich was one. In keeping with Mr. Peck's recommendations, will the Attorney General release the report so that we can know why charges were not laid against Dave Stupich?
[ Page 10581 ]
The Speaker: A Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The search warrant contains numerous allegations by former members of the NCHS with respect to the role played by Mr. Stupich in the alleged misappropriation of funds. Why Dave Stupich has not been charged remains unclear, due to the stonewalling by both members opposite. Will the Attorney General instruct his Assistant Deputy Attorney General to discuss the release of this report and make it public so that the public knows why he was not charged?
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the Government House Leader.
Hon. G. Clark: It's a little ratty in here today, hon. Speaker.
Hon. G. Clark: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and in the House, I call continued committee debate on Bill 32.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.
On the amendment to section 4 (continued).
L. Fox: Just prior to the lunch break, I asked the minister a fairly lengthy question. Do I need to go through it all again?
Hon. A. Petter: I answered.
L. Fox: If you did, I didn't hear the answer. Perhaps the minister might answer it again.
Hon. A. Petter: That requires me to recall the lengthy question. In my recollection, the question had to do with what was intended by the inclusion of the words "to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures." As I indicated at the time, this government is intending through this initiative to ensure that the value generated from the forests and forest communities is returned and reinvested in the forests and forest communities, and that that be done in a way that respects the regions of the province and ensures there is equitability among those regions.
I think the member asked: was there a preconceived notion about particular forms of regions? The answer is no. From the Forest Service's point of view there are six regions in the province. But I think this notion of regional equitability is broader than that and embraces many of the notions the member himself referred to, in terms of equitability. As I recall, that was his question and that was my answer, but Hansard could provide a more direct and authentic rendition of our exchange prior to the break.
L. Fox: Perhaps I should have restated the question, because the minister answered the question of the speaker previous to me rather than the issue I was trying to deal with. The question was twofold.
One was the equitability question -- just what that was. I pointed out that presently there is some concern that there may not be equity in the charge presently being put forward for this initiative, and that the effects on the industry in the interior are going to be about $15 a cubic metre. The impact on coastal logging is going to be about $11 a cubic metre. In my view and certainly in the view of people in the interior, that's not total equity. There's that concern.
[2:45]
The other was around the number of regions. As I stated earlier this morning, I think I support this amendment. But I and the people of my constituency have to know that the regions are going to be something different than what we have in the two basic stumpage regions that exist in the province -- that we're going to have something that's more workable -- and that we can feel more comfortable in the fact that those moneys collected from the smaller regions in the province are going to be spent back in those same regions. That's the kind of assurance I'm looking for and I know the people within my constituency are looking for. I'm looking for the minister to give me those kinds of assurances and perhaps outline what he envisions in his mind to be a region, because I think that's germane to understanding what regionally equitable programs are.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for reminding me of some of the further details of his question. I'm not sure my answer is going to change all that much.
Prior to the break, I did say yes, there is a difference in the charges that flow from the stumpage system. But that difference is equitable, because it corresponds to the price and the value of the resource. If the price in the interior is higher than the price on the coast, the stumpage is higher; and if that changes through markets, then it will be lower. In that sense there is equitability. If you want to explore that further, member, perhaps I should say that under section 11 we could get into some more detail on the issues of valuation and stumpage formulas, etc.
On the question of equitability in the investments, I can tell you some sense of my notion. But it will be all of us who interpret this provision, through the various instruments of accountability provided in the legislation. I can certainly say that the way the ministry keeps statistics and references this -- the six basic forest regions -- provides a starting point for understanding regional equitability, from my point of view as Minister of Forests. I don't want to suggest that's all there is to it. I want to make it clear that this is my interpretation; others may have different interpretations. But my interpretation of regional equitability is that it's a rich concept and susceptible to testing and exploration in a number of ways. To me, it means much more than the coast and the interior; it means equitability of regions. We define regions differently, but from the Forest Service's point of view we would think of six regions. For me, that would be a starting point in assessing the equitability. Others might say that we should look even more closely at regions, and that there are more than six regions in the province.
L. Fox: That answer clarifies it somewhat in my mind. I have one follow-up question on the amendment. Is it intended that this amendment not only apply to the physical program of reforestation -- more intense silviculture, and so on -- but also apply the same kind of equitability to the training side of this legislation -- the retraining of workers, and so on -- so that the dollars that came out of, let's say, the Prince George region, for the sake of identifying an area,
[ Page 10582 ]
would go back into that region in training as well as in work carried out within intensive silviculture?
Hon. A. Petter: By referring to implementing a regionally equitable program of expenditures in order to carry out the purpose of the act, and remembering that the purpose of the act embraces all of the purposes that have been referred to in a previous section we've debated, and do include training, the answer is that the equitability would embrace all elements of the program.
I do want to remind the member about what I said earlier. The agency will no doubt want to make sure that the investment is expended in a way that makes the most sense in terms of return on investment, and therefore some components of the program may be directed to certain parts of the province and others may be directed elsewhere to maximize the benefit. But because of this amendment, we can be assured that the overall expenditures under the program must be carried out in a way that can be justified as being regionally equitable across the piece.
C. Serwa: Continuing with this "regionally equitable" amendment to section 4, it's certainly of very major concern. I am listening to the minister trying to define the regions in the province. I'm not very satisfied with the definition. It's entirely too loose and too ambiguous. We don't know if there are two major regions, although the minister indicated that in his view there are not. But he hasn't confirmed anything else, whether it's coastal or interior. I think the minister is fully aware that what is really important to resource communities throughout the province is the assurance that the moneys extracted -- whether from the regional district or from a specific forest district -- are returned in time, so that the money extracted for reforestation and silviculture purposes is returned to that area, and goes to the small resource communities; not so that it's simply available to some larger, more populated base, but that it has to go back into the hinterland from which it was extracted. When we talk about regional equitability and do not define regions, we leave the whole thing up in the air. It's very difficult for me -- and the people in all of those resource-based communities, I think -- to have confidence in the introduction of the intent without spelling out what opportunity they will have. For example, if you have large regions, then you can get a tremendous movement of funds from one area to another, and that's what you've said you're opposed to. But you haven't defined or constrained, nor even identified some means whereby confidence would be exhibited in the resource-based communities in all of the interior, and certainly along the coast.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't think we're going to resolve the issue of regionalism in this debate. What is significant here is that the government has indicated in word and in deed that it is committed to regional equity. That principle is proposed to be included in the bill. If people don't want it included in the bill, they can vote against it. But certainly we believe that it does provide some measure of clear direction and support to those who wish to ensure that the funding that is going to be invested through this program will be returned to communities on an equitable basis. I think that's an important principle. I regret if members opposite do not.
C. Serwa: I'll take the response, and we'll leave the question up in the air. I think it's a desirable goal. It sounds altruistic, but in actual fact there's no substance to the definition of the term.
But on establishing this, how will the public measure it? How will the public measure the revenue extracted from the forestry base in a given area? How will they be able to ascertain and define it? What financial method will be available so that those in the region know that the dollars extracted for reforestation and silviculture are being returned to that region in reforestation and silviculture?
Hon. A. Petter: There's only so many times I can answer essentially the same question -- albeit this question was not asked by this member previously; it was asked by another member this morning.
There are a number of ways in which that can and will be assessed. Let me just give the most obvious one, so as not to retread all the ground. A business plan will be prepared by the agency. That business plan will come before a legislative committee for scrutiny. I was asked this morning whether I would undertake that that information be provided to the legislative committee to assess the regional breakdown of those funds. I said that, to the extent that such numbers can be provided and I was able to influence their provision, I would do so, and I would provide that undertaking. That's just one of a number of ways in which this Legislature and the public will be able to assess the equitability of the expenditure program on a regional basis.
C. Serwa: Just a final question on that. In his willingness, would the minister be prepared to ask the newly created entity, the Crown corporation, to release stats or financial accounting to members of the public? Because not only is a standing legislative committee perhaps going to be involved -- that's subject to some question -- but surely the public has to be assured that figures will be compiled in a readily assimilable and understandable fashion so that they can have confidence that what the minister is proposing will in fact happen.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't need to provide that assurance, because the legislation does. If a requirement of the agency is to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures, then by law the agency, in order to justify that it has carried out its mandate, must be able to produce evidence of that. That evidence will be made available publicly through the business plan and through the scrutiny that will be shown by the legislative committee. So the answer is: sure, I can provide that assurance. But you have a better assurance than mine, hon. member, in that the legislation specifies, if you accept this amendment, that this is now a component of the mandate that the agency operates under.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to speak in favour of this and ask a question of the minister. This question came up in our region, the Cariboo, immediately after the tabling of the legislation. In meetings with the industry, there was concern about this. When I returned, I made the point known to the minister. Of course, I had assumed there would be regional equity. In fact, people had already pencilled out how much stumpage had been taken out of one region, expecting to see an appropriate measure of that going back. I'm glad to see that you've seen fit to bring in this amendment. It's important, and it will give assurance to people in the regions. But you know, in order to determine how we can do this best, I think we have to call upon the regions themselves, in some way, to offer advice on what the best proportion of the different envelopes is.
[ Page 10583 ]
A month and a half ago, the MLA for Cariboo North and myself put the challenge to people to organize around regional economic planning in order to do that. The region in our case could define itself quite well. It defines itself around the forest region. I think in some areas we'll see the forest region being the appropriate boundary; in other cases it might be amalgamations of them. I think we should listen to the people in the regions in terms of defining the boundaries.
I guess my question is really one of finding out whether or not there is a commitment on your part to listen to regions that have some organization. I know the Kootenays has one and the Cariboo has one, and they fully intend to advise you. Are you going to be prepared to listen?
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the hon. minister for his question. Absolutely -- this whole initiative, as I've tried to make clear, is a partnership. It will only work if we work in cooperation with local communities and regions. That means we must be respectful of those communities' aspirations and, indeed, of how they define themselves. I would point out that when we get to section 6(b) of the act, it is stipulated that each committee that will be advising the board on specific expenditures must advise the board on the regional targets as well, in order to achieve the maximum benefit and also to achieve equitability.
For that reason, not only I but I expect those committees will be listening to and interacting with the regions as to what their goals for expenditure are, and where they believe this initiative can best achieve the goals they have as regions. I believe that not only is there a commitment from the government, as evidenced by this amendment and by everything we've said, but the commitment runs through the legislation as well.
A. Warnke: Actually, I'd like to follow up on a bit of the reasoning of the member for Okanagan West. As a matter of fact, I think he puts forward a very reasonable set of concerns, from his vantage point, that the public must be reassured that the concept of regionally equitable boundaries is somehow being adhered to. I'd like to flip-side that.
Perhaps those who are responsible for the administration of Forest Renewal B.C. -- we'll probably end up with an acronym like FRBC -- also have to have some guidance. Usually it's in the form of some sort of established, set criteria so that a group knows whether it's embarking on the right direction to realize the concept of a regionally equitable program of expenditures. In order to realize that and in order to assess whether they've been successful at it, they have to have some sort of reassurance for themselves. They have to have some sort of measurement.
In this context, not only has the question put forward by the member for Okanagan West been appropriate, but perhaps the other side is as well. How will those who administer the program know they are embarking on the right direction? The only way I see that they will know is if they have some very clear, set, measurable way of making an assessment about whether they're on the right track in terms of the program of expenditures.
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I would harken back to the previous question, which I think indicates the best way in which the agency will know -- not the only way but the best way. That is by relating directly to those in the forest communities and in the regions and responding to them, not having some top-down, preconceived, centrist version of regional equity, but have a notion of regional equity that flows from the regions themselves, through interactions with the regions and through the partnerships that will evolve as a result of this agency. That is the best measure of regional equity, and that is exactly what is envisaged for this agency.
[3:00]
A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, that is another problem that's just evolved now in the debate we've had in the last few minutes. The Minister of Agriculture got up and made this kind of suggestion, reinforced by the Minister of Forests, that perhaps those people who are involved in the regions can define the criterion, or whatever. I will tell you what will happen. The so-called regions themselves, the people in the various regions, will be competing against one another. If anything, that will undermine what the amendment is presumably trying to achieve, and that is some form of equitability among the various regions. There will be that competition among the regions -- if not also all kinds of third-party interests, from environmentalists or whomever, providing that kind of input.
What I'm asking is very simple. In terms of trying to measure the direction and successful working of the program, there has to be some standard of program evaluation. That's essentially what's been put forward by at least a couple of members on this side. I'm not assured at all by their now being sort of loosey-goosey in terms of answering that the ultimate answer for what is a regionally equitable concept will lie in the various communities and regions. They'll listen to them, and from there on an articulation of this concept will be sort of bubbling up. I have no faith in that whatsoever. It's not a question of top-down; it's a question of articulating essentially what is meant by the phrase that's being proposed here for this amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: I think I'll try to make my final run at this. I know that the members of the official opposition have difficulty with principles. They voted against the legislation in principle, and I guess when you articulate a principle of regional equity, they have difficulty. If that's the case, I invite you to vote against the principle of regional equity, as you voted against the principle of this legislation. I think it's a good principle, and I think the people of British Columbia will see it as a good principle. I think it's important to articulate principles and then work from those principles to put them into practice.
I know the old game: when you articulate a principle, they attack it because it isn't specific; when you articulate the specifics, they attack it because it doesn't articulate the principle. We can go around in this nice circle as the members try to figure out how to dig themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves by voting against this bill in principle. But the principle of regional equity is a good principle. If the Liberal Party, through the official opposition, wishes to oppose that principle as well, I guess I just won't be surprised.
A. Warnke: It's obvious that the minister hasn't listened to a thing that is being asserted on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, I made it very clear in second reading what the principle should be in terms of its aspiration. When I first heard this amendment being put forward -- that we need some idea of reasonable equitability among the various regions -- at first, prima facie, it looked pretty good, because that's exactly what I said in this chamber on second reading.
However, aside from the principle, there is the other side: how do you evaluate it in a program? This is a reasonably equitable program of expenditures. It's very clear; it
[ Page 10584 ]
has nothing to do with philosophy or principles. It has everything to do with administration. Therefore I'm just asking a very simple question, following up on the member for Okanagan West. In order to give a very clear direction and to make a proper assessment and evaluation, there must be some sort of measurable means. I'm afraid that the minister's answer just leaves everything up in the air more than it was before.
W. Hurd: I've just been trying my best to follow the conversation involving all hon. members on this amendment from the government. We assume that $500 million to $600 million a year will be collected in stumpage, itself an inherently disparate system in the province. I'm sure the minister has gone to every corner of British Columbia and heard a complaint about the stumpage system and how it affects the individual regions involved.
He's going to take an inherently unfair system and plug it into a Crown corporation which has as its mandate the ability not just to invest in silviculture but also to invest in community development, whatever that might be, and job retraining, whatever that might be -- it might be tree-planting or another manufacturing plant; we have no idea. He's plugging all these different variables into a system of stumpage which itself is inequitable, and he has introduced an amendment that guarantees regional equity. I mean, if that isn't window dressing, I don't know what is.
But obviously the minister knows exactly of what he speaks. I'm glad he does, because I'm sure the board will have to come to him at every opportunity to ask exactly what he means by regional equity, given the fact that different programs will be occurring in different regions. The stumpage that might be collected from each region will obviously vary, so I guess a decision will have to be made to allocate equal dollars to six regions.
Obviously the amendment was introduced at the last minute by the government, perhaps in response to some of the amendments moved by the official opposition with respect to regional disparity. I have no idea.
It's important to summarize this debate by suggesting that we have not been able to define that elusive regional equity during the course of this debate. I have no illusions that as we move through this bill, we'll have any more success in defining it in upcoming clauses.
R. Neufeld: I'm not going to take a lot of time. I just want to relay to the minister that over the years my constituents have had a bad feeling about regional equitability -- especially in the natural gas industry, for instance. I'm just going to quote some numbers from the last budget. I think the minister knows that that industry is really booming in that part of the world, which is good to see. It's giving all kinds of money to the province; in fact, it gave $169 million more than was estimated last year. Last year, when that region asked for a bit of that money back to put in the infrastructure, to keep the infrastructure up -- much the same as we're talking about here, although it's the gas industry as opposed to the forest industry -- they were turned down flat.
I appreciate the fact that it's very difficult to lay out exactly what should happen in each region and what you're going to spend; it's almost impossible. I remember the eight regions that the previous government brought in, and every city and town was at one another's throats over that. So having six regions....
The minister is saying that we're going to try to spread the money as equitably as we can. I hope he takes that into account when the cabinet picks the members of the 15-member board. If they're all going to be from the lower mainland, I can see the northern region -- and especially my constituency -- feeling very nervous again that we're not going to get anything out of it. All we get to do is contribute to the pot constantly and just get dribs and drabs back. I wanted to get on the record my constituency's concerns about regional equitability and getting things back into the area when it contributes a lot to the revenue of the province.
Amendment approved.
On section 4 as amended.
W. Hurd: With respect to section 4(2), which talks about entering into contracts with individuals and first nations, I wonder if the minister could advise the committee how this particular provision might affect quota holders in the province who may come to Forest Renewal B.C. and seek to access funds in order to undertake their own intensive silvicultural projects and increase the long-term growth and yield on the land base. Would this particular section apply to quota holders, or would they be prohibited from applying for funding?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is absolutely not. This section provides, and is intended to provide, a vehicle to contract and come into arrangements with quota holders to engage in silvicultural activities and other activities, provided it's understood that those activities would go beyond their current obligations under licences and legislation. The intention of this initiative is not to displace existing obligations in any way; rather, it is to provide incentives through this investment strategy for quota holders and others, through the program that's developed by the agency, to improve upon the rates of growth and the return from the forest in any number of ways. Therefore I envisage that contracts with quota holders are a very likely possibility in order to achieve some of those advanced silvicultural initiatives.
W. Hurd: As the minister well knows, in the past, quota holders in the province have expressed an interest to the Ministry of Forests about the possibility of making those kinds of intensive silvicultural investments over a longer time frame in the recognition of some potential adjustment to tenure arrangements as far as the licence is concerned. Would the minister ever envisage a situation where the quota holder would be applying to Forest Renewal B.C. for funding for such a project at the same time as it might be presenting a report or proposal to the ministry to adjust the tenure system? Or is that something Forest Renewal B.C. would make recommendations on or deal with in its entirety?
Obviously the advantage to a quota holder of investing funds in an intensive silvicultural project is in the potential return beyond, say, the term of the licence. Without that assurance, it would appear to be a bit difficult to justify even applying for funds in the first place. Would there be any recognition of the ministry's role in looking at a quota holder's application with respect to adjusting tenure at the same time as funds from Forest Renewal B.C. were being used to undertake this intensive investment on the land base?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure quota holders will always make submissions regarding tenure. I think I have indicated that
[ Page 10585 ]
that issue is not dealt with in this initiative, but it's one that the government continues to have an interest in, and clearly many British Columbians have an interest in the need for tenure reform. That issue will not be addressed through Forest Renewal B.C. It is an issue that the government -- and I think any government -- must attend to and consider. I guess my final point would simply be that the fact that a quota holder is seeking tenure reform certainly doesn't preclude the quota holder from seeking investments under this initiative. I suspect that no quota holders would be eligible, because I don't think there is a quota holder or an individual in the province who doesn't have some ideas about tenure reform.
W. Hurd: I think the minister misses the point. He will be aware, through the operations of his ministry, that quota holders will approach the ministry with an offer to undertake those investments themselves in exchange for a recognition that that investment should be there to realize at some point in the future. I wonder why they would, on the one hand, apply to the ministry for that type of investment and, on the other hand, deal with Forest Renewal B.C. It seems to me that there's an opportunity. The minister has acknowledged that quota holders do have the right under this section to apply for funds to invest in those incremental silviculture projects that can increase growth and yield on a long-term basis. If they're willing to make that investment of private money in exchange for some sort of security as licence holders, would that not be a better option than having a short-term investment of public money by Forest Renewal B.C.?
Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that the Ministry of Forests -- through the licence agreements that it reaches and the activities that it undertakes -- will continue to try to ensure, when quotas or licences are granted, that we receive in return the maximum amount of investment. Those kinds of obligations will continue to run and will be sought.
[3:15]
This initiative allows for investments beyond those that might otherwise be sought as a condition of a licence. It allows those further investments to take place in a way that will further enhance the value of the forest even beyond those that are now obtainable through the negotiation of licence agreements.
D. Mitchell: Section 4 deals with the mandate of the new Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C. I know that yesterday we had a very wide-ranging discussion on section 2, the purpose of this bill. We really did touch on a number of issues in the purpose section that also relate to mandate. I don't want to revisit all of the issues that we reviewed yesterday, but I have one specific question about the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C.
The minister, through his amendment, has addressed one of the issues, which is the need for regional equity. I think that goes a little bit of the way towards trying to focus the mandate of the agency. Even though we haven't specified the boundaries of those regions, I think it helps to enshrine that principle in the mandate of the corporation.
One of the other issues that Forest Renewal B.C. is dealing with is renewing the timber supply. Yesterday we talked about some of the discrepancies between the act and the forest plan. On the bottom of page 7 of "British Columbia's Forest Renewal Plan," it says: "Nearly half the forest renewal plan investments will go towards...." -- and it lists three areas dealing with the timber supply of the province. One of them is improved reforestation and tending of forests, another is increasing the lands available for planting new trees and the third is silviculture research and development. The plan says very clearly that nearly half of the investments in this new agency will go towards those objectives.
Nowhere in the bill is there any indication that nearly half, or 50 percent, of the funds spent by Forest Renewal B.C. will go towards those objectives -- essentially, renewing the timber supply. I'd like to believe that that, of course, is the whole thrust of this agency. Should that not be listed in the mandate section? The minister's amendment has helped to clarify one aspect, the regional equity provision. Would it not be an improvement to the bill to give specific direction here in the mandate section to also talk about mandating that 50 percent, let's say, of the investments made by Forest Renewal B.C. will go towards the spending provisions in those specific envelopes?
Hon. A. Petter: The mandate obviously does, as I think the member indicated, relate back to the purpose, and the purpose of the bill is to enhance the productive capacity of forest lands as well as to renew the forest economy. But there was also a feeling on the part of those who participated in the process that led up to this plan that there had to be flexibility. Clearly there is a sense that the land is the major envelope, the major preoccupation, at this time. I would anticipate that that will remain the case.
But there is likely to be some change in the relative weightings of investments over time. For example, to the extent that some of the environmental cleanup work deals with past damage, once that past damage has been cleared up, that component of the envelope will either have to be redirected into other environmental initiatives, or it may influence the size of the envelope. Similarly, in the worker skills and training component, we have a major task to provide skills and training to workers in order to move into a new form of silviculture activity, which also relates to the land, incidentally. It isn't just the land envelope but the skills and training, and that may change over time. Similarly, value-added is also a very important component of this initiative, not only to enhance the productive capacity of the land, and through it the timber supply, but also to enhance our capacity to make more valuable products out of the timber on that land and to create more employment from it. We have a notion of the component that will initially flow from the fund towards that, but that, too, may change over time.
So the idea was to provide some indication as to the weightings of investments for the time being but also to understand that this agency, through the committees, is going to have to review that over time to maximize the benefit, through investment in the land, through value-added, through skills and training and through the other initiatives here. I suppose one could always say that it looks like we could tie this down in this way. But the feeling was to provide that flexibility and some indication, at least for now, of how we see the relative weightings being committed through this initiative.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister appreciates that it's our responsibility as legislators in this committee to remove any ambiguity that might exist in the legislation in order to make sure that the directors of this agency and future generations will not be tested in trying to interpret an act that is less than as specific as possible. At the same time, we don't wish to tie their hands behind their backs in their ability to manage the goals of the forest renewal plan.
[ Page 10586 ]
But let's look at the mandate section -- a very important section of the bill. The member for Surrey-White Rock referred to section (2)(a), which allows for the agency to enter into contracts with a variety of groups, and it states: "...within the purpose of this Act." That's an important phrase, because it prevents possible abuse. It prevents entering into contracts for purposes other than those within the purpose of this act.
Subsection (3) of the mandate clause causes me some concern, because it is not very specific. Subsection (3) says: "Forest Renewal BC must comply with any general or special direction, with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions, that is made by the order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." It strikes me that that's a very broad provision. It allows cabinet tremendous discretionary power to direct Forest Renewal B.C. to do things that perhaps are not within the purpose of this act.
I wonder if the minister might agree to just tack onto the end of subsection (3) the words "within the purpose of this act," to make sure the cabinet -- not only this cabinet but any future executive council of British Columbia -- will also not seek to go beyond the purposes of this act.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion and his concern. I think he is aware that when a regulatory or directive power is being interpreted by the courts, it's always interpreted that that power must be exercised within the ambit of the overall purposes of the act. I suggest to the member that if we included that language with respect to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's directive-making power, some creative lawyer might get up in court on another section of another bill that didn't have that and try to make something of the difference. So I think it's better to go with the general principle that when you provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to provide some specific direction to an agency of this kind, the courts will always infer that that direction must fall within the general ambit and purpose of the act. It has ever been thus, and if we don't tamper with this section, it will, hopefully, remain ever so.
L. Fox: We explored a bit of the issue that I'm going to address in the purposes section, but the minister advised me that section 4 would be the more appropriate area to discuss it, so I bring it back to his attention now. That is the issue of private lands and reforestation on private lands. The mandate in section (2)(a) suggests to me that virtually any group or individual within the province can enter into a contract with this new Crown corporation.
The minister in his statements, at least the way I read them, used the words "private lands," not "vacant Crown lands" or "reassumed Crown lands." The words that he used in his statements in the press were "private lands -- at least that's the way they were printed. I would like some clarification. Is the opportunity for individuals who own property to get involved in a long-term contract of growing trees part of the mandate?
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be fascinated to see the quote the member refers to, because I'm not sure what the context is.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, look for it. It may have been in the context of the Forest Practices Code. There have been a lot of questions about the application of the Forest Practices Code to private lands, and it's possible that that's where it arose.
This is a fund, an investment strategy, that will be created out of the revenues derived from a public resource: the public forests of the province. That investment strategy must be in accordance with enhancing the value of that public resource. That doesn't mean there are no potential linkages that this agency may want to pursue with those who hold private property. For example, there may be marginal agricultural lands that could be purchased in order to bring them back into forest production. Through some contractual relationship, some creative arrangement, some incentives may be provided to private owners to enhance the value of private land for growing trees for commercial use in exchange for some payback to the agency or to the Crown for that investment. I don't want to preclude that, but by and large we are talking about enhancing the value of the public resource from which the value comes. We are taking a value represented by the value of that public resource and returning it to that public resource, the public forests of the province, in order to ensure that the resource will be there for future generations and to ensure that it stabilizes and provides for the future economy of the province.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
I don't want to rule out the fact that applications or arrangements of some kind or another can be made with private property owners, but it certainly isn't the major preoccupation or focus of this initiative.
L. Fox: As I understand it, there may be an opportunity for individuals to enter into long-term arrangements -- anything is possible in terms of that. Given that in this same clause we're talking about first nations, would first nations lands be included? Is the same kind of initiative possible on first nations lands that we just spoke about on private property?
Hon. A. Petter: That's an interesting question. I think the agency would want to assure itself that any investment that was pursued resulted in some return. That would be a matter of consideration and negotiation. The greatest benefits in terms of first nations will come from the opportunities afforded for employment and participation in the forest sector in the form of joint ventures and employment on public lands. I have not personally turned my mind to the question of first nations lands. I would say generally that that is a federal responsibility, and we would not want to use this agency to relieve the federal government of its responsibility for the stewardship of those lands. I don't want to preclude the possibility if there were some way of making relations with first nations that would also be beneficial to the public at large with respect to lands that are not provincial, but clearly we wouldn't want to do it in a way that relieved the federal government of its primary responsibility, or indeed first nations governments of theirs.
K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: It is with pleasure that I'd like to introduce, in the gallery right at this moment, a group of 51 grade 5 students from the Pacific Academy, along with their teachers and escort parents. I wish the House to give them a warm welcome.
[ Page 10587 ]
L. Fox: I just wanted to do a little more follow-up on that line of questioning. One of the largest land use struggles over the course of the last number of years has been between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests on what should be dedicated forest land and what should be kept within Crown land management to be used for other purposes. It would seem to me that one of the issues here in terms of protecting the additional fibre that we might be enhancing through intensive forest practices would be to set aside or better clarify or delineate the land base on which we're working. But I don't see a lot within the mandate section -- or, for that matter, within the purposes section -- that deals with the land base issue. Perhaps the minister might want to expand on that part of it.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, this is one of those issues on which I agree that we need to better define and clarify and stabilize the land base in order to give a sense of security and promote this kind of investment. But you're right: that is not the function of this agency. Certainly, through the land use planning initiatives of this government -- LRMP, CORE and other initiatives -- it's essential that the land use plans that come out of that not only provide for long-term security with respect to components of the land base that might be set aside for protection, for example, but also provide long-term security and stability with respect to the component of the land base that is set aside for harvesting, for its timber values and for extraction. So I agree with the member on that point. It just doesn't happen to be within the mandate of this agency.
[3:30]
I would further agree that for this agency to succeed, it's important that we do achieve as great a measure of stability on our land base as we possibly can, so we know the investments we make today will produce returns tomorrow that can be realized because the land base in which we're investing will be there tomorrow, for example, for forestry activity. So that's important and related, but it doesn't happen to fall within the mandate of this agency.
L. Fox: I just have one follow-up question to that. If you have these agencies all over the place, all with different mandates and with no mechanism for working together in terms of some of these issues that are key and germane to the success of this program over the long term, is the minister not concerned that we're going to have a real mix-mash and clashing of these different groups, similar to what we've seen in some of the CORE processes, where it's almost impossible to come to a consensus? This particular initiative will see one area's interests; the LRMP process sees something different. In the meantime, we've got to do some planning so that we can get these initiatives up and running and underway to look after those opportunities that are there today. How does he envision all this coming together, where we can have some realistic forward movement with some measure of certainty that we are going to reap the benefits, as a province and as a workforce, in the future?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that I am not concerned that there are different initiatives addressing different problems, provided the mandates are clearly delineated and they are complementary. I believe that's the case here. Certainly I'm sure that this government -- I'm speaking personally, as the minister -- would have been very happy if some of these issues had been resolved prior to our term of office. Unfortunately, there are serious conflicts around land use that need to be addressed, and there is also the need for a major change in our approach to the forests from an investment point of view. I agree they're complementary, but I don't see the fact that there are different agencies with different mandates getting in the way. In fact, I think that's the way it must be. I certainly hope we can achieve a greater measure of securing the land base, because that will help this initiative. But I'm relieved, if anything, that that is not the mandate of this agency. This agency can get on with its work while those engaged in the land use planning get on with theirs. Through the two, we can produce a greater benefit than we could through either by themselves.
L. Fox: This is the last question. I would assume from reading section (2)(a) of the mandate section that this corporation is not going to have many direct employees, and certainly that the delivery of different services is going to be contracted out or put out to tender -- including, I guess, the educational and training services that are available under it. That begs a question: are there going to be any strings attached in terms of the salaries that will have to be paid or of the range of those salaries? Is it going to be a case where the person who meets the requirements in terms of the delivery of services, and who has the lowest contract, the best proposal, and so on, gets it? Are there going to be controls on the salaries paid for the services provided?
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the prefatory remarks made by the member in leading up to his question, because I think it is an important point that this agency is not designed to deliver the programs that it designs. It is intended to link up with existing institutions and agencies -- community colleges, for example, and current licence holders and others -- in order to ensure that the programs are delivered with a minimum of bureaucracy and a maximum of benefit and effect.
In terms of what terms and conditions might be built into contracts, I can't predict exactly what or where they might be. But clearly the agency will want to make sure the funds are directed in a way that maximizes the investment, that makes sure there is quality and that produces the stability for communities that is desirable. So I think it's going to have to be up to the agency, working in cooperation with local communities and others, to come to agreement around what terms and conditions will maximize the goals and functions that are set out in the purposes of the act.
W. Hurd: With respect to the mandate section of this bill, I want to address the issue of some of the other initiatives in the document which accompanied this bill and that the government refers to. I refer specifically to the ongoing timber supply reviews in the province. As the minister knows, the annual allowable harvest is being reduced in a number of timber supply areas in British Columbia as a result of those reviews. I wonder if the minister could advise whether there is a short-term provision under the mandate section of this bill to deal with the structural unemployment that is likely to occur. Is there any link between the direct loss of employment that we know will occur with the reduction in the annual allowable harvest, and the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C.?
I think it's a relevant question, because as we know, there is going to be a reduction in employment and perhaps the closure of some manufacturing facilities as a result of the harvest coming down -- immediately, in some cases. Is it the anticipation of the minister that this social and economic issue is likely to receive a higher priority over the initial years of this Crown corporation than the longer-term initiatives on the land base?
[ Page 10588 ]
Hon. A. Petter: Let me start off by saying that as a result of this initiative, it's anticipated that there will not be as great a reduction in timber supply over the course of time as would have occurred without this initiative. Indeed, as some of the material referred to by the member indicates, if we were not to make these investments, then the best projections are that the current available timber supply in excess of 70 million cubic metres would fall to just over 50 million cubic metres over the next 20 to 30 years.
Through this initiative, we believe that we can do much in order to ensure that that does not occur -- and therefore stabilize employment and the future of communities. However, the member is correct in noting that in the short term there will likely have to be some reduction in timber supplies. The timber supply review has indicated that that is the case, at least according to the status quo. If the member is asking if the intention is that those who would otherwise be dislocated would find opportunities for employment here, that is absolutely the intention. Particularly when we get to section 5, we will see that one of the committees is charged with coming up with objectives and proposals related to fostering forest employment opportunities and job training. Absolutely, we see this initiative as assisting in providing employment opportunities to those who might otherwise be denied those opportunities -- not in make-work projects per se, but in projects that represent real investments that will ensure that the jobs being displaced will come back through increased harvesting and other opportunities as a result of their efforts and this initiative.
W. Hurd: We continue to run into this difficulty, however, of examining the accompanying forest renewal plan document and the bill itself and reconciling some of the statements in the accompanying plan with what we see in the forest renewal bill. I look at a definition of the immediate strategy of the forest renewal plan. It indicates: "...because this is a long-term plan, the amount of funding spent on different areas will change over time. For example, forest communities will need to deal with change now, so more money will go to communities in the near future."
In light of the fact that this commitment to communities shows up as a commitment in the forest renewal plan explanatory document, and obviously not in the mandate section, perhaps the minister could then tell us exactly what he means by "more money will go to communities in the near future." Is that in alternative economic plans? Is it in new business formations? Is it necessarily tailored to the forest industry, for example? What do you mean by direct investments in communities?
Hon. A. Petter: I guess this is the game the opposition feels bent on playing. That is the old game of saying that because you put out an accompanying document that gives a fuller explanation of your immediate intent, then every element of that document should be in the legislation, or vice versa. However, that's fine.
Let me just point out to the member that if he were to go back to the purpose section, which I thought we had debated at some length, one of the purposes of this act is very explicitly indicated -- that being to "provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities." When we get to section 5, as I indicated, we'll see that one of the committees is charged with making recommendations that are relevant to "fostering forest employment opportunities and job training." All of that feeds in to the mandate of the agency, and therefore the legislation. Far from having any discrepancy with the accompanying documentation, it is entirely consistent.
W. Hurd: The accompanying document clearly indicates that there is going to be a higher level of investment in communities over the short term. The committee would certainly welcome a definition of what that means. Does it mean silvicultural projects and intensive forestry projects? What exactly does investing in communities mean? Clearly -- and this was alluded to earlier by members of the committee -- that invites the possibility of investing in communities that not only are affected by a timber supply review but might be politically sensitive areas for the government. It seems to be a wide-open investment that is really hard to pin down. If there was an assurance, for example, that the investments in the purpose section -- in silviculture, environmental values and training -- were going to be done in some sort of orderly manner, a percentage manner, that would be understandable. But clearly, the example used in the document is that forest communities will need to deal with change now. That indicates to me that they will have to deal with unemployment. What else would it mean? So more money will go to communities in the near future. Maybe we need to back up and ask the minister what he means by "change now" in forest-dependent communities in British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: As I indicated earlier in the debate, I think we are going through a major transformation. Hopefully, through this agency and this initiative and through the vision of this government and the partners who are going to be involved, it will be a transition that will strengthen us, not a transition that will lead to the decline that might otherwise occur in forest communities. It does mean that we're going to have to reorient ourselves. It means that if changes are not made in forest communities, there will be employment concerns, due to overcutting in the past. But if we make the investments now and change our orientation, we can get on a new track.
[3:45]
In this period of change, we're going to have to focus on those communities and provide the skills and training, for example, and the infrastructure necessary to make those changes. That is the commitment spoken about here. Communities that in many cases have been traumatized because of reductions in employment due to technological change over the last 20 years, and that are now doubly concerned because of timber supply shortages emerging due to policies of the past, are going to need special care and attention -- and that's not a regional matter; I think it's true across the province -- in order to ensure that they maintain their stability and employment. We can do that through this plan, because there will be opportunities for new employment in investing in the land, in restoring the environment, in value-added production and in skills and training. We're going to have to work with those communities to make sure that they can take full advantage of this program and assist in that change. That's what is referenced here.
W. Hurd: I have no wish to belabour the point as to what "change now" means, but it clearly implies that forest communities are going to have to deal with something over the very short term. The implication is that money will have to go from this plan to deal with those changes. There were certainly a lot of people gathered on the lawns of the Legislature at the opening of the session to express concerns about the fact that things were going to change now. The document that accompanies the bill makes reference to
[ Page 10589 ]
investing in communities rather than in silviculture or long-term intensive forest management -- thinning and spacing, and those kinds of activities that can only address the timber supply over time. The minister well knows that investments made today are not necessarily going to result in the creation of enough jobs to compensate for what is lost in short-term economics such as harvesting. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere, because it isn't in the bill. I can appreciate that the mandate section is perhaps unclear in that area.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I want to address one additional question with respect to the contracts entered into, which is something we may get into in section 10 -- the financing of Forest Renewal B.C. I want to ask the minister whether we're talking here about contracts that will extend beyond the five-year funding mandate of this Crown corporation. Are we dealing with long-term contracts here? The reason I ask is that silviculture is, by definition, almost something that stretches over a 15-year period. From the point of planting to fertilization and thinning, it's a long-term commitment to the land base that would go far beyond a five-year term. If the minister is more comfortable in dealing with this question under section 10, I'd defer until then. But I wonder if he can tell us what we're dealing with in the length of some of these contracts.
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I despair that the member would say there's a five-year mandate. There is no five-year mandate. The mandate for this agency is, as I've indicated numerous times, to look into the future well beyond five years. The five-year term has been used to illustrate the extent of the investment and what might be accomplished in that time frame.
But certainly the agency is going to have to look to the long term. It's going to have to act prudently, because as we indicated earlier, the agency does not have the power to incur debt. It therefore does have to ensure that it can maintain a steady investment pattern without incurring debt, and that means it will have to be prudent. Certainly that may include some longer-term contractual relationships; it may include some shorter ones. It's going to be up to the agency to determine what will produce the greatest benefit and return and won't compromise the mechanisms of funding, which -- I think the member is right -- we should discuss later on in the bill.
W. Hurd: So when the minister talks about the nature of the contracts that are entered into with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions and local governments, he's talking about contracts that may be re-awarded on an annual basis, that might be the result of.... I'm thinking of community forests, for example, where they may want to access funds over a long period of time for a variety of forest renewal purposes. Would it then be a requirement for them to apply on a project-by-project basis? Or are we dealing with a situation here where they could present to Forest Renewal B.C. a long-term sustainable plan for a community forest and have the project funded incrementally into the future?
Hon. A. Petter: As I think I indicated, the length of the contract will be what's appropriate to the circumstances, provided it's consistent with prudent management on the part of the agency. That will have to be determined in light of the circumstances. In some circumstances short-term contracts may achieve the desired purpose and be more effective. In other circumstances a longer-term contract may be justified and could be entered into, provided such a contract was done prudently.
R. Neufeld: Concerning section (2)(b), "subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee," to be perfectly honest, I have some great difficulties with that section in providing any type of grant, loan or guarantee.
I see it further explained in the plan that it's to assist value-added companies to start up and expand. The minister is certainly aware that right now many companies produce all kinds of value-added products and have expended a great amount of money in their research and marketing. I was on the committee that went around British Columbia, and I saw many of the small companies that had spent a lot of money in their start-up to build such things as doors, windows, spindles or whatever. We also have a major industry in the Canfors, MacMillan Bloedels and Weyerhaeusers that produce an awful lot of value-added products that people don't really know about.
I see this as kind of helping someone start from scratch to be in competition with somebody else who's already producing some of these items and has expended an awful lot of money. How is the minister going to offset that so we don't all of a sudden get three or four companies producing spindles? In the end, supply and demand will determine whether those companies continue operating or whether they all go down the tube. When we start giving grants and loans to private industry, that's the inherent danger -- along with not getting the investment back to the people of British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm tempted to say "To be or not to be," hon. Chair, but I won't do that.
With respect to (2)(b), I understand the member's concerns. I think the agency is clearly going to want to be prudent with the use of this power, and that is of course why there's the additional check with respect to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, I think there are some occasions that the agency -- remember, working in partnership with the business community, large and small -- will want to contemplate some grants and potentially some loans or loan guarantees.
One of the major complaints of the value-added sector is that since in many cases they don't have direct access to timber through licences, there's difficulty raising capital. It is possible -- through some cooperative relationship with financial institutions, for example -- that this agency could provide incentives to enable value-added opportunities to go ahead that otherwise would not. The member signals that he wants to make sure -- and I know those in the value-added sector will, through this initiative, want to make sure -- that that is not done in a way that creates a competitive advantage but rather creates new opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Grants can also promote particular areas of research and development that may be very useful to the industry as a whole -- for example, opportunities to develop more advanced disease control. If we can better control disease in our forests, we can substantially increase the volumes that are available in the future. So if some useful research could be done, a grant to an appropriate agency to undertake that research on behalf of the industry and the public as a whole would be altogether appropriate.
[ Page 10590 ]
This provision is enabling, and it does have some checks in it. I think the member's concerns will be shared by members of the agency and the partners. But this kind of opportunity is important to assist in overcoming some natural barriers the value-added sector might otherwise potentially have and to provide for the possibility of research and development and other initiatives that could assist the industry as a whole.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the research and development. That was going to lead to my second question, along with developing new markets. As I recall, some businesses that our committee visited were having difficulty accessing money because they didn't have direct access to timber. That certainly was there; I'm not going to deny that. But the biggest thing I came away with from that committee was about developing the markets. It's fine, you can make all the widgets in the world, but you have to sell them to somebody. It's certainly not a market where you're going to be selling everything within Canada; most of it is going to be overseas.
So research and development for disease, or whatever it happens to be in forestry, is actually a good move. But it would probably be better to put money into developing new markets than to try to borrow or give grants or guarantees to companies to compete with existing companies in those different areas.
Hon. A. Petter: I certainly agree with the member, and I think the documents released with the plan reinforce that market development and research around products to take advantage of those markets has to be a primary focus of our strategy to enhance our value-added sector.
As the member may be aware, there are some incredible opportunities opening up in Japan because of the fact that the housing stock in Japan is ready to be renewed, and there isn't the skilled workforce in Japan to undertake that renewal. That's an incredible market opportunity, but there are also some barriers in terms of the way in which housing in Japan is traditionally constructed, and in terms of the knowledge and technology of British Columbia companies to meet that market demand. So certainly assistance to do market research and engage in market and product development will be a primary focus, we believe, of the value-added component of this initiative. I think that is borne out in the material that was released, and therefore I certainly have no disagreement with the member's observations.
R. Neufeld: I have one more question with regard to this that the minister may not want to answer. One of the other issues around the small business starting up without funding is the high cost of labour. I think that is an issue with the value-added industry, and it's something that we have to look at, because we are competing with small industries that certainly cannot afford to pay the wages that the IWA does in some of the larger mills like MacMillan Bloedel or Weyerhaeuser.
[4:00]
I wonder how the minister is going to deal with those issues when they go about lending money to new companies. If they get money from the government to start a new industry, in competition with someone down the street, are they going to be compelled to pay union wages? That seems to be a trend with your government. We have seen that you have dictated that in other areas, especially in the health care field. I wonder if that will come through here, or are you going to let the marketplace declare what the wages and benefits are going to be?
Hon. A. Petter: I think it's clear that the agency, in providing its funding, is going to want to make sure that the value-added sector and other industry remains competitive. I've indicated that there is no preconception about the nature of this work or the way it is carried out. That is something that the agency is going to have to work out in partnership with the various actors.
I would just say that from the value-added sector's point of view, the one element the member didn't mention is the high cost of the material -- of the wood. That's a major barrier, perhaps even greater than labour costs, it seems to me, in discussion with the industry. One of the policy initiatives that the government will be pursuing, parallel to this legislation, is to ensure that there is greater access to that wood supply to bring down costs. So in all of these initiatives we and the agency are going to have to be sensitive to the question of maintaining a competitive industry in both value-added and other components of the industry.
L. Fox: Section 4(1)(a) says: "Forest Renewal BC must plan and implement a program of expenditures...."
Interjection.
L. Fox: Right, as amended. Okay.
When I read that and when I look at the next section, section 5(1), where it says that the board may establish committees, and so on, I start to wonder how long a process we are entering into here before they can actually start carrying out the mandate of delivering training and improvement in enhanced silviculture. Do we have to wait until all this structure is in place before the training for individuals who are currently unemployed can take place? If and when we're up and running, we could have some trained individuals to actually get out there and start doing the work.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the hon. member makes an excellent point. I must say that as I've travelled around the province in the last two weeks -- and I've seen a fair bit of the province in the last two weeks -- I'm impressed by just how much is already out there in terms of ideas and initiatives: people who have training programs they've been trying to expand for years; companies that have plans for commercial thinning or advanced silviculture that they have been trying to pursue and are ready to pursue. While it is true that it will take some time for the agency to become fully able to speak to all of the elements here and to look to the future in the way that we hope, I think that once the agency is established it will be able to act fairly quickly to ensure that some initial investments are made so there is some discernable and demonstrable sign of progress early on.
Frankly, I think that will be possible, because there is a pent-up desire by many to get on with proven programs and initiatives that simply have not had the support that this agency will be able to provide. I anticipate that there is going to be an opportunity for the agency to provide some pilot projects in the early stages and then build up or ramp up over time to provide a much fuller set of initiatives and programs consistent with the longer-term goals that are established in the legislation.
L. Fox: Just to follow up a bit, I saw, and I think many members saw, that when FRDA money first became available, we didn't have a number of trained individuals out there to spend and appropriate that money in a very effective way in the first year or so. We saw some wastes.
[ Page 10591 ]
Certainly the program was not extremely cost-productive or effective, at least in the initial year of that program. Is there a mechanism in place that would see us use existing silviculture programs being carried out under the Ministry of Forests that might start a training division or a training course? So when this Crown corporation does get on board and rolling, there would be some trained individuals there -- beyond what the needs are to deliver the regular program -- in order to carry out a cost-effective initial program within this particular act.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is yes. The ministry is already contemplating a major training program, in partnership with industry and workers, around the Forest Practices Code. There already is a capacity to provide training within the existing silviculture programs. There is the opportunity to hit the ground running.
I want to make a point, because the member has given me an opportunity to make a point in a way that perhaps I couldn't have made quite as convincingly before. The problem with the FRDA program when it was introduced was that the money had to be spent in that year. That's why money was badly spent. The advantage of having this agency with this mandate is that it can limit its expenditures to only those that do make sense and not worry that it won't be able to carry those funds over into the next year. It's a good illustration of the difficulty with the more traditional structures as opposed to this structure.
It's important that we have this structure not only so the agency can plan for the long term but so we don't have these unfortunate incentives that are placed upon some other programs or agencies to spend money unwisely. We don't want that to happen. We want to make sure the flow of funds is going to support programs that will be successful and workers who will be adequately trained. This agency will be able to calibrate its flow of expenditures without worrying that it will lose the opportunity to spend those funds in the future. That's a major assurance, I think, that we haven't seen in other programs in other agencies.
W. Hurd: I just have a couple of additional questions on this section. One refers, in 2(c), to agreements with the government of Canada. The minister has alluded to the forest resource development agreement with the federal government, which I assume wouldn't be the kind of contract he envisages in this section. Could the minister advise the committee of what this act envisages when we talk about agreements with the government of Canada? Would that be training initiatives? Obviously it wouldn't be forestry initiatives, because I know that one of the recommendations of the Charlottetown accord was that responsibility for all forest management and resource-based issues be returned to the provinces. I wonder if he could elaborate on what type of contracts he could envisage Forest Renewal B.C. signing with the government of Canada.
Hon. A. Petter: The federal government does maintain a forestry presence. Unless and until it's prepared to compensate the provinces for taking that over, I certainly anticipate that they should continue to do so. It's my expectation that this will not be yet another area in which the federal Liberal government starts to withdraw support and funding for British Columbia's number one resource. If that's what the member is suggesting is going to happen, I want the member to know that this government will fight very hard to resist it happening. And I hope the member, despite his associations with the Liberal Party, will join with us in that effort.
However, let me give an example. The federal government maintains a responsibility not only through its existing forest programs but for research and development generally. One of the participants on the Forest Sector Strategy Committee was a representative from the federal government, who contributed much in the way of advice on research and development the federal government has been pursuing. I could envisage some agreements with the federal government to pursue research and development on such issues as disease control, enhancing growth rates and improving forestry practices, because the federal government does have a considerable degree of expertise and investment in that area.
W. Hurd: I'm correct in assuming, then, that agreements with the government of Canada would not entail direct investments in the land base along the lines of the FRDA, and that he doesn't envisage participation.
There's a rationale for the question, because one of the concerns expressed by Forestry Canada was the state of forest management on reserve lands in British Columbia, and that there was a critical problem in such areas as backlog planting and intensive forest management. I just wondered whether Forest Renewal B.C., in defining an agreement with the government of Canada, would have in its mandate the ability to talk to the federal government about the possibility of direct investments on band lands in British Columbia which, along with other band lands in Canada, were identified as having a critical need for forestry investment. Would that necessarily be something Forest Renewal B.C. might be pursuing on behalf of first nations people in British Columbia who might want to address their own band lands?
Hon. A. Petter: Discussions with the federal government about those lands are certainly one thing the agency might pursue.
I just want to reinforce what I said earlier, though. The intent of this initiative is not to displace existing initiatives or obligations of this government, and certainly not of the federal government. We're all aware in this House that the federal government -- particularly this federal government -- is seeking every opportunity possible to pull back on its commitment to British Columbia. We are not going to allow this initiative to be used by the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities, be it on reserve land or any other aspect of their responsibility. I want to make that crystal-clear, lest the member think this may be an opportunity for his friends in Ottawa to divert funds for provincial coffers into federal responsibilities. We won't let that happen, even if he desires it so.
W. Hurd: Better to divert funds from Ottawa than from charities in Nanaimo.
I have one additional question with respect to subsection (3), and I think it was referred to earlier. Subsection (3) talks about the powers and functions being subject to a review by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet. Can the minister describe what ongoing cabinet approvals might be required under this section for contracts entered into under subsection (2)(a)? The minister has alluded to the fact that the contracts may be for longer periods of duration than the funding mechanism set up. What role will the cabinet have in looking at these contracts? Or will it just be done on an annual basis through the normal reporting mentioned in a later section of the bill?
[ Page 10592 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I fully understand the member's question. To the extent that I do, it seems to me that it relates to an earlier section, not to this section. It's quite clear under section 4(2): "...Forest Renewal BC may (a) enter into contracts with individuals, first nations...for the delivery of programs within the purpose of this Act." There's no reference in that paragraph to a direction from the government.
W. Hurd: Subsection (2)(b) specifically mentions the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for financial assistance by way of loans, grants or guarantees. It isn't specifically mentioned in connection with contracts. My question is: to what extent would cabinet be involved in reviewing contracts on an ongoing basis? Or would they be subject to a review by cabinet at the end of the fiscal year and then duly reported to the Legislature through the Select Standing Committee on Forests? Obviously the government has seen fit to subject a control mechanism to the approval of grants, loans or guarantees but not to contracts -- at least, it doesn't appear to be to contracts. That's the basis of my question.
Hon. A. Petter: I made it clear -- at least I thought I had -- in my response to earlier questions that it was felt necessary in (b), because of a sensitivity around financial assistance by way of grants, loans and guarantees, that there be an additional check upon the provision of such financial assistance by ensuring that there has to be prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, the agency will operate its programs through contracting generally; therefore there's not the necessity for the same specific provision.
[4:15]
J. Tyabji: I'm a little concerned about the language in section 4. The reason is that section 4(1) says: "Forest Renewal BC must...(b) do other things, consistent with this Act, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize." Then section 4(2) details other actions that Forest Renewal B.C. can take part in or initiate. The first question is: why do you need subsection (2) when you've already got authorization under subsection (1)(b) to do other things consistent with the act? Then you outline certain acts. By implication, then, because of the way the language is and because subsection (2) follows that, could the activities in subsection (2) be inconsistent with the act?
Hon. A. Petter: No. We talked about statutory interpretation earlier, and I don't want to revert to an earlier role. Let me assure the member that when the courts come to interpret this act -- if they ever do -- they will interpret the powers in subsection (2) as being implicitly limited to the purposes of the act. Subsection (2) really sets out a list of mechanisms that can be used by the agency in order to achieve the purposes, and that's why it's there. It provides for a very specific outline of the kinds of instruments that the agency will have at its disposal.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if I heard the minister correctly. Why do we need subsection (2) when we've got subsection (1)(b)? Is that just so that other members of the House have an understanding of what the government is planning to do to fulfil subsection (1)(b)?
Hon. A. Petter: I'll say it again. Subsection (2) is setting out the mechanisms that the agency can use to achieve the purposes that it seeks to achieve. Subsection (2) is doing something different from simply setting out the goals of the agency or its mandate in a general sense. It's more specifically identifying the instruments that the agency can use to fulfil that mandate, i.e., entering into contracts, providing financial assistance or entering into agreements.
J. Tyabji: What I understand is that subsection (2) outlines subsection (1)(b) more specifically. The minister has said that that will be the mechanism by which it will be implemented.
With that clarification in mind, I have a very serious problem with the act in that we have government appointees who "enter into contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local governments, groups and other organizations." Although it says "and," I'm assuming it means "or." It's not all of them together; it's any one of them individually.
We're saying that it could be individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions or local governments. I'm sure this minister will concede that if another government comes along -- even if he won't concede that his government will do it, although I'm not that confident.... The problem I have with this is that you would have government appointees to a Crown corporation entering directly into contracts with individuals for land. That land is there for the public's interest on things that.... Although they're within the purposes of this act, the purposes are very general and are subject to interpretation. It's really the person interpreting the purposes of the act and appointing the board of the Crown corporation who will be determining who is going to be making money off the forests of the province. Maybe the minister could say something to allay those fears. But if subsection (2) becomes the machinery by which the purpose of the act, which is very general and open to interpretation, is implemented, then how can we feel secure that the public's interest will be met in the event -- even if the minister won't concede that his government would fall vulnerable to this -- that the next government puts people in place who only have a financial interest in using up the forest resources?
Hon. A. Petter: One has to look at the full range of protections that are provided in the act -- first of all, in the purpose clause. As we get further into the act, we will see there are various mechanisms that provide for scrutiny and accountability around these decisions. Any agency of government, be it a ministry or an agency of this kind, will have instruments at its disposal to carry out its mandate. Government ministries contract on a regular basis, and this agency will have powers to contract as well.
The member should take some comfort from the fact that those instruments are specified in section 4(2). She should take further assurance in that there are some extraordinary mechanisms, which I'm sure we'll get to sooner or later, that provide a full opportunity for scrutiny of how those instruments are then deployed to carry out the purposes of the act and the mandate of the agency, all of which are limiting and defining components of the act.
J. Tyabji: Actually, I don't take any comfort in the specifics of section 4(2), because the specifics include individuals, groups or other organizations. I'm saying "or" even though it says "and." That's totally non-specific. We've got a government-appointed board directing the public's land through non-specific groups or individuals. That's not very comforting.
The minister has said that there is accountability built into the bill, but he recognizes that the accountability that
[ Page 10593 ]
comes with debate in this House is still subject to the vote of a majority government -- if there is a majority government, which is generally the case in B.C. So there might be accountability in terms of debate, but there's very little accountability in terms of how it operates.
Putting that aside, in the minister's amendment to section 4(1)(a) where he says, "plan and implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures...." how does that tie in with the government's 12 percent option for a protected areas strategy with respect to the forest lands of B.C.? When you're talking about regionally equitable within the Crown corporation, are you talking about all the lands or just the lands subject to cutting? Or are you talking about the land that doesn't include the protected areas strategy? I don't understand what regionally equitable means. Knowing that the protected areas strategy is not equitably distributed by region in the province, how does the Crown corporation address that?
Hon. A. Petter: We had a very full debate about regional equitability. While I appreciate the member's creative attempt to generate some debate on the protected areas strategy, it's really not germane. This refers to the program of expenditures in order to carry out the purposes of this act, and I think I'll just leave it at that.
J. Tyabji: I think the minister will recognize that the protected areas strategy happens to be part of the land base of the province. The reason I brought that up is that the protected areas strategy is not regionally equitable. In some areas of the province a disproportionate amount is not populated. Maybe this minister is not aware of that, because it's not in his portfolio. But if the Crown corporation is going to be regionally equitable in terms of the distribution of the purposes of it, which is enhancing the forests of the province.... In an area where the protected areas strategy has put aside, let's say, 20 percent of the land base for that region, will the minister automatically assume -- in governing the lands within this Crown corporation -- that the Crown corporation does not have to account for that because it's been taken care of in another portfolio?
Inherent in this bill is the problem that several ministries divide up the same pie. I don't think the minister can say: "Well, just because I'm responsible for the forestry pie...." It's the same pie; it's the same piece of land. In the north we've got 20 to 25 percent of a region set aside, depending on where you draw the boundaries. How is it accounted for in terms of section 4(1)? It's a fairly basic question, and it's separate from the debate that took place earlier.
Hon. A. Petter: I would suggest that it's only separate from the debate that took place earlier insofar as it is extraneous to that debate. The principle of regional equitability has to do with the fact that certain regions of the province will generate certain of the funds that are contributed to this initiative. In the disbursement of those funds, there will be equitable investment into the land and the other initiatives to ensure some correspondence between the value generated from a region and the reinvestment back into that region.
That protected areas strategy is a very significant issue, and I'd love to debate it some other time. But it really doesn't get in the way of that basic relationship spoken about here, which has to do with the flow of dollars both into and out of this agency.
J. Tyabji: The minister might not be understanding what I'm asking, but I'll leave that aside. The only comment I'll add is that in terms of the dollars going into an area, surely the minister can recognize that in a region.... I don't know how he is going to draw the regions, or how he's going to draw them as opposed to the way other ministers have drawn the regions of the province, because every minister has a different allocation of regions. When you're trying to have an equitable distribution of money, you're going to be doing that on the basis of activities taking place in the forest sector, obviously. So the land base is going to be affected by the percentage of protected areas. In some regions it will be zero percent; in some regions it will be as high as 20 percent. I was wondering how the minister was factoring it in, but he's saying it's not relevant. I happen to think it is, because on the one hand you've got the dollars, and on the other hand you've got the land base. You can't separate the two, in my opinion.
But leaving that aside, with regard to the program of expenditures that Forest Renewal B.C. is going to have -- and this may have been canvassed earlier -- to what extent is that part of the business plan that will come before the House? Is that an intrinsic part, or is that under the minister's purview?
Hon. A. Petter: No -- and I think it points to another potential misunderstanding the member has. This section deals with the mandate not of me as minister or the government but of the agency. Forest Renewal B.C. must plan and implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures in order to carry out the purpose of this act. It will be for the agency to make those determinations. If you ask about the program of expenditures, hon. member, that will indeed be the subject and, I suspect, very much the essence of the business plan. That, in turn, will be subject to scrutiny in ways that we are all looking forward to discussing, hopefully in the very near future.
C. Serwa: On section 4(2)(a). I was watching this on the monitor, but I may have missed some of the debate. If I ask questions that are redundant, would the minister just indicate. I'll pick it up in Hansard, and that's quite fine.
I wanted to ask a question with respect to contracting out. It means different things to different people. Am I safe in assuming that the contracting will be a tender-bid process with equal opportunity for all British Columbians to bid on the contract, or will there be some pre-qualifications with respect to that?
Hon. A. Petter: I think it will depend on the circumstances. For example, if a contract is to deliver a specific program to a specific local community to live up to the regional equitability goals, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to have a bidding process. Similarly, there may be some programs that are better delivered through existing licence holders, because they are already on the land and have the management capacity there. In other cases, where the agency can deliver a program without regard to the particular position of a community or a licence holder, for example, then a bid system would likely be the most advantageous and efficient.
C. Serwa: I appreciate the response. I think that obviously there are a diverse range of perspectives and opportunities, and the minister has elaborated on that. The basic reason for asking the question is that both the minister and the Premier have assured members of the IWA who will be displaced
[ Page 10594 ]
with the reduction in the annual allowable cut that there will be jobs in the forestry sector with respect to silviculture and tree-planting. These individuals, though, are well trained. They are generally equipment operators; hardly anyone is on the ground, either in the interior or on the coast, at the present time. So you've got truck drivers, skidder operators, cat operators, portable spar operators -- people that are well trained and well skilled in the industry, who have very high-paying jobs but who all of a sudden will not have jobs.
[4:30]
So the question in my mind is: how in this process of contracting out to individuals with respect to intensive silviculture as well as tree-planting work...? What sort of formula will the minister suggest would be appropriate to give an equal opportunity for high-priced IWA members to bid against, perhaps, university students working in a summer job?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is going to lie in the nature of the work. For the most part, I suspect the jobs that will be created will not be in tree-planting. Those are already, for the most part, pursued through existing initiatives. There may be some, and we talked earlier about marginal agricultural lands being brought into forest production, etc.
There's going to have to be some close cooperation with industry and with workers to ensure, as much as possible, a good match between those who have skills and the kinds of jobs that may be created. There must also be some sensitivity to the fact that older workers may not be able to make some of the transitions that are necessary. But in terms of road reclamation and some of the environmental cleanup, people with skills in operating cats, for example, may be well suited to that.
I also think that what we're going to see -- and this may take some time -- is a reorientation of work in the forests of a kind that is more common in other countries where this kind of forestry has been practised. We'll have a forestry worker who'll be more versatile and who can maintain continuous employment because of their versatility. That worker will be able, perhaps, to do traditional felling and harvesting for part of the year, do some reclamation work and environmental enhancement part of the year, do some of the advanced silviculture work of thinning and pruning part of the year, do commercial thinning and other kinds of silviculture and perhaps do some forest inventory work part of the year.
The one thing that I have said publicly, and I'm quite happy to restate it, is that as much as possible, it's our desire as a government and it's in the interests of communities that the jobs be permanent, full-time and community-based jobs that will enrich those communities and create greater stability. I think the way that is most likely to happen, therefore, is by providing full-time work, but work that may vary. That will require a shift in orientation of forest work over time.
Now, that will have to take place sensitively, because some workers may or may not be able to make that transition. We'll have to make sure, through this agency and in partnership with communities, that as much as possible we are matching the work to the skills that those in the industry now have or could obtain as well as providing opportunities for new workers. So it's going to be a complex, challenging process but one that I sense the partners who have come together around this initiative are prepared to undertake.
C. Serwa: This is just a final question on this particular area. Again, while I've listened to the minister, it seems to lead to more questions than answers.
Putting roads to bed, for example, can occur in some areas, in some types of terrain. But a lot of our coastal forests are on really vertical country, not like the interior plateau, and you're not going to put those roads to bed. A tremendous amount of rock has been blasted, and there are side-hill cuts. You're not going to be able to put them to bed, and that's the reality. There isn't enough money in the world to be able to put them to bed. On some of the flatter ground, where the terrain is....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Well, the minister indicates that it's not true and that anything can be done. But I can assure the minister that if you have the experience and you're on the ground, the cost-ineffectiveness of doing what you're saying can be done makes it impossible. I can assure you of that.
In any event, I again -- not to go into a debate mode -- have difficulty understanding that the wage structure of the IWA can be utilized in intensive silviculture. For example, in the mechanical thinning of trees and mechanical removal of weed species, be they aspen, alder or poplar, I just don't see that you can afford to pay the current wage rates to individuals who are going to do work like that, because you simply cannot be cost-effective at doing it at all.
In recognizing this and the different dimensions of the job, I'm confident that the people in the industry who are working in the milling operation or in actual forest harvesting, operating major pieces of equipment and having a great deal of responsibility, will consider that hack-and-squirt jobs are really Mickey Mouse-type jobs for themselves. I just don't see the excitement in it. Is the minister considering implementing the fair wage policy, and is he implying that there is a basic wage that everyone must conform to as far as the payroll requirements go?
Hon. A. Petter: I regret that the member doesn't find this exciting. I want him to know that many of these activities are not only exciting but also the kinds of activities that will ensure we have healthier, more productive and more valuable forests in the future. That is a lot more exciting than the picture we face today without these initiatives.
I believe that because there is an understanding on the part of industry and workers alike that the alternative to this investment and the employment it will generate is a reduction in employment, there is a preparedness and willingness to confront some of the challenges in partnership. Obviously unions and employers will have to negotiate around these jobs and this kind of work, as they do now. I hope those negotiations go well. I'm confident that they can.
Sure, there are some unanswered questions here, but this work is not unimportant. This is very valuable work in other jurisdictions. I have used Sweden as an example. One-quarter of the wood that is harvested in Sweden comes as a result of commercial thinning, and therefore that's a very significant component of the wood supply in that country. It may be that in British Columbia people do not view -- obviously the member doesn't -- advanced silviculture and restoration of roads, which.... I'd love to take him and show him some pretty steep slopes that are being restored right now and some more that desperately need restoration. I think that the people of British Columbia see this as very exciting. I think the workers of British
[ Page 10595 ]
Columbia will view this work enthusiastically and see that it can make a major contribution not only to today but also to future jobs and employment for other workers to come.
G. Wilson: The minister is probably correct when he says that anything can happen if you're prepared to pay enough money for it. Sure, you can restore any road, hire virtually everybody and come up with zero unemployment if you're prepared to put enough money into the pot. But that's not what I wanted to get into.
I'm having a bit of difficulty on section 4 specifically, and I'll take some direction and guidance on this. One of the problems with having to be in two places and going in and out of debate is that sometimes we duplicate discussion, and I don't want to do that. This is the first place in this bill that the question of first nations is specifically referred to, and it talks particularly about entering into contracts with first nations.
I'm very curious -- as I'm sure all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are -- to know first, the extent to which this bill is going to influence first nations forest activities; second, the extent to which the actions that this corporation undertakes with respect to first nations may be tied to joint-venture capital and land that will be set aside for eventual land claim. We might better canvass the third question, actually, under section 5, and I'd be prepared to if you think so: to what extent is the special direction that is alluded to under section 4(3) with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions going to be directed specifically toward first nations communities? Those are the three questions.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member may be aware that first nations in this province have not shared, even proportionately to their numbers, in the opportunities in the forest sector. This government established the First Nations Forestry Council more than a year ago, in which there has been work with industry representatives and first nations representatives. I think there are some tremendous opportunities to enhance the economic opportunities for first nations, working in a partnership relationship, that may involve some joint ventures. It may simply involve first nations getting some of the skills and training to then compete for jobs that are available throughout the forest industry. It's in everyone's interests to ensure that first nations citizens have greater opportunity to access the benefits of the forest economy.
We propose that that be done throughout the initiative -- not segregated or set apart, but done throughout the initiative. There will be opportunities for first nations and first nations citizens to participate in the skills component and in the silvicultural activities that may take place and, perhaps through some joint-venturing, to have a role in increased value-added opportunities -- to frankly address some longstanding economic problems of aboriginal communities through this umbrella and partnership arrangement. It's potentially very constructive and could enhance relations within the province among first nations and other citizens to a considerable extent.
G. Wilson: More specifically on that question, my question does anticipate somewhat, and I'm cautious not to get into section 5(3), which calls for increased participation. But with these contracts.... There already is a program established for the assistance of first nations. We have already seen, for example, in the Clayoquot, decisions being taken with respect to the provision of first nations' rights. We have seen in CORE an acknowledgement that where a claim overlaps set-aside areas and logging is deemed acceptable within the first nations model, they can proceed where non-aboriginals cannot. That's very specific in the CORE report on the Vancouver Island land strategy. Is the minister saying that this corporation is going to be setting up programs in addition to those existing programs? Or is this simply going to be a conduit through which money will flow into the existing programs? That's question one.
Let me ask question two, because they're related. Will the application for employment that comes out of these contracts be available on an equal basis to aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike? Or is it intended that these contracts are going to be set up specifically in an exclusionary manner that essentially would have eligibility requirements?
Hon. A. Petter: Dealing with the last question first, I indicated that the thrust of this initiative is not to set aside or segregate funds for first nations or first nations citizens but to generally provide the opportunities here to first nations and first nations citizens. The member probably recognizes that because skills and training in forestry activities have not been provided in the past to first nations, there may well be some justification for providing some skills and training programs directed at first nations.
The reference to existing programs.... Well, the First Nations Forestry Council is really there to provide policy advice to government; it doesn't deliver programs. Its advice will be very useful, I'm sure, in helping the agency to articulate how it will relate with first nations.
[4:45]
On the question of whether this is additional, if your question is if this is designed to replace the interim measures agreements or the treaty negotiation process, no, it is not. But I caution the member on this. One could make the same argument about any number of other sectors in society. There are licence holders right now. The member could stand up and say, "Does the minister really mean to suggest that because people currently hold licences, they will now get the additional benefits of this program?" and I guess the answer is yes, I do mean to suggest that. First nations, even though they have some other avenues, will have the advantage of the program. Yes, I do mean to suggest that. Communities have certain advantages that are provided through programs, funding and other initiatives of government, and they too will benefit from this program.
So I really hope the member isn't holding first nations to a different standard than other segments in society. Yes, this program is generally to be available to first nations to enhance their participation, which has not been fully representative of their numbers, but to do so in a way that does not segregate them or set them apart.
G. Wilson: It's not this member that's segregating or setting apart; the language of this bill under section 5(3) does that, and we'll get to that in due course.
In the second aspect of that, I again come back to the question of cost. I want to be very specific about the wording of section 4(2) with respect to entering into contracts with first nations. The reason I'm referring to this is that as we know, within the jurisdictions that currently exist.... Let's leave self-government aside for the time being, although that's a huge issue that we might want to discuss at another time. If this corporation is empowered to enter into contracts, can the minister tell us to what extent those contracts may be tempered by or aided by a federal government policy with respect to aboriginal training? Are we going to be entering into agreements with the
[ Page 10596 ]
Department of Indian Affairs on that question, and is there going to be some assistance for income? The reason I ask is that once you have a legally binding contract, once you have set up a job creation and job training program and have the expectations that come out of that job training program, in the event that there is a significant change in revenue -- and I think the one thing that this minister is being a little rosy-eyed about, if I can say that....
Hon. A. Petter: It's lack of sleep.
G. Wilson: The minister says it's lack of sleep; maybe so. I hope that wasn't the case during the drafting of this legislation. With some of it you might wonder if there was a little lack of sleep.
I suspect there will be a period within the next few years when there's going to be a serious economic downturn, and we're not going to have the kinds of revenues we enjoy right now, yet through this corporation we are going to be contractually obliged to deliver programs that we're not going to be able to fund. I don't think just the sheer hope and will of this minister, as positive as he sounds, is guarantee enough. What kinds of contracts are envisaged with respect to these programs on first nations? Will that also allow the federal government, which in subsection (c) is allowed to enter into...? Do you envisage that this is going to be a long-term program with federal dollars?
Hon. A. Petter: Three points are raised by the member's comments, and I'll try to deal with each of them. First of all, in answering a previous member's question, I made it clear that it's the view of the government, and I believe it will be the view of the agency, that the purpose of this is not to displace federal obligations or federal dollars. We will make sure that that is the case, and the agency will want to make sure that it is the case.
Secondly, what kinds of contracts do I envisage? Right now there are contracts with first nations agencies and organizations regarding silviculture, for example. As with a community college, I could envisage contracting with a first nations organization to provide training to first nations citizens for those kinds of opportunities to take place.
The third element about this notion of ups and downs speaks to why it is important that this agency functions as it is envisaged here. It can act as a countercyclical force. It can act as a stabilizing force by accumulating funds when prices are at the high end of the cycle and maintaining a steady flow of investment when prices are low. It can act as a force that will temper some of those ups and downs in the economy and maintain some consistency. In doing so, it's obviously going to have to be careful that it does not lock into long-term commitments that could compromise its ability to ensure that it delivers debt-free programs. That will be part of its mandate, because it does not have the power to borrow. Those of us who have participated in developing this program are confident that we can develop an agency that will be a stabilizing force on the economy and will produce some very real benefits to counter the concern the member has about the cyclical nature of this industry.
G. Wilson: One could really get into a long and protracted debate on that question. I'm not going to do that, because I probably wouldn't be permitted to by the Chair. I don't know of any other Crown corporation in North America that does what this minister thinks this one is going to do. This is going to require funds from this government, or subsequent governments, on an annual basis, and it's going to be a long-term debt developer for the people of British Columbia.
C. Serwa: It will hit the taxpayer again.
G. Wilson: And the taxpayers are going to have to finance this thing. Anyway, we'll get to that.
I think this minister is assuming that he can somehow put his hands out and calm the seas, and then all will be well. But I don't think that's going to happen.
I just have two quick questions on section 4(3), which says: "Forest Renewal BC must comply with any general or specific direction, with respect to the exercise of its powers...." Are we suggesting, then, that this is the section under which we should talk about what the minister has in mind with respect to extra powers or the limiting of powers that may be outside the terms of reference of this bill? When we get to talk about the powers of the corporation in a subsequent section, this bill will suggest that those that can be approved through this act can be simply overridden by a specific direction by government, through the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Those are pretty sweeping powers to the minister. If the minister could explain that, it would be useful.
Hon. A. Petter: The purpose of that section is to provide direction as to how to carry out the policies of the bill -- to require specific policy direction, direction on administrative policies, etc. -- to ensure accountability and consistency where necessary. As I made clear in answering earlier questions on this very point, subsection (3) cannot and will not be interpreted in a way that allows direction to be given that is somehow inconsistent with or abrogates the basic purposes of the act or the mandate of the agency. Rather, it allows direction to be given as to how to carry out the purposes and mandate in ways that will ensure some accountability.
G. Wilson: I have another question on this section. In response to the minister -- just so the record shows it -- the mandate is so broad and the powers virtually sweeping with respect to the establishment of this Crown corporation that it's hard to envisage what additional powers the minister might want to give. However, I think all British Columbians have some right to be concerned about the specific direction as to how they are to be exercised.
With respect to my final question on it, given that we have the provision of this contractual right for this company to enter into contracts and so on, to what extent is the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council anticipating that there can be contracts with government itself? Because it acts as an agent of government, it provides that it can make agreement with the government of the province. From an internal point of view with respect to the provision of the business plan and the ultimate accountability of that plan, I wonder to what extent this Crown corporation will effectively contract with other ministries -- particularly on matters around environment: environmental renewal, cleanup and all those kinds of things -- and B.C. 21 as a potential. To what extent are we going to see this being a massive government make-work project through this Crown corporation contracting with other Crown corporations and shuffling the taxpayers' dollars to maximize its employment benefit?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm always relieved to see the degree of creative thinking that can go on on the opposition benches.
[ Page 10597 ]
There may well be some contracting that goes on in accordance with the purposes of the act and determined by the partners who are going to be represented on this agency. But in my view at least, for the most part it will be on the delivery of programs. There may be some programs in which the Forest Service, for example, may have some expertise and could deliver components of those programs, or on the skills-training side there may be some other agency in the provincial government. What these mechanisms are all about is ensuring that programs and the dollars that flow to those programs are delivered in the most effective and efficient way possible. When a provincial agency has the ability to deliver those programs effectively and efficiently, then the agency may decide to employ that expertise. But I must say that the kind of mammoth shuffling of funds and stuff that the member has suggested hadn't even occurred to me up until this moment and is certainly not intended.
G. Wilson: This will be my final question. It was just that the minister enticed me with his mammoth circular. You don't have to think too far down the road to see how the contract with other government agencies is quite probable. If you look at much of the environmental aspect of rehabilitation -- stream management and habitat enhancement -- all those kinds of things could fall quite clearly under this mandate because there's such a close interaction between forest activity and stream enhancement, for example.
The minister was talking about putting roads to bed just a few minutes ago. Clearly some of them that will be used as public access roads into recreational areas may be used eventually to offset the costs of highway construction. There are many ways in which this could effectively become a conduit through which we have a massive government make-work project. If that's the case, I would only say that this is the tip of an iceberg. The minister shakes his head, but once this Crown corporation is established, it will provide the conduit through which massive amounts of public funds could be funnelled. My guess is that we'll create a dependency on the jobs created through this process from which this government will never be able to unshackle itself and which subsequent governments are going to have to finance. That's something the taxpayer should be concerned about.
C. Tanner: The exercise of answering questions that the minister has been going through on this bill is really because of the fear on this side of the House -- and we suspect outside of this House -- that this bill can do too much for too many people with no real restrictions as far as the minister or his department is concerned. It's emphasized not only by what the last speaker said about section 4(3) but is also brought home even more vividly in section 4(1)(b), where it says: "do other things." It can do other things. I don't recall ever seeing that expression anywhere in any legislation before. I just wonder whether it isn't a misprint, and if it shouldn't actually be saying "do anything." It just might as well say "do anything," because that's really what it's saying, particularly when you tie it in with the rest of the section. Would the minister perhaps -- even though he has given us some more assurance, even though he might have spoken to this -- tell me where he dreamed up that expression to "do other things," and to whom and how and how much?
Hon. A. Petter: The member has to fully read section 4(1)(b), which says: "do other things, consistent with this Act, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize." It is very common in legislation to provide, in addition to a specific power, an additional provision to provide some leeway. It wouldn't even be necessary, but in this case it's made clear that additional power must be exercised in such a way that those additional things are consistent with the act. That is where the member can take his comfort.
C. Tanner: I might take a little comfort if that was in isolation, but it isn't. Look at what the member who just spoke was talking about in the last subsection of this section: "Forest Renewal BC must comply with any general or special direction, with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions, that is made by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Here you're saying that it must, as a Crown corporation -- one wonders why you need a Crown corporation if you're going to give this sort of direction -- do what it's told by the government. Then over here it's saying that it can "do other things." If I'm wrong, would the minister agree to withdraw section 4(1)(b)?
Hon. A. Petter: I really wish the member had been here earlier, when we had this discussion. The way in which legislation is interpreted is that powers must be exercised in a way that is consistent with the purposes of the act. It's very common in legislation, having defined the purposes and mandate, to indicate that additional things might be done. The courts, even without a further directive, will interpret that as meaning that they must be done in a manner that is consistent with the specific mandate and the specific purposes. In this case, that is made additionally clear. Let me assure the member that in any basic statutory interpretation course, students will be told the first day that courts will define these clauses as being constrained by the mandate and the purposes that are set out in the act.
[5:00]
C. Tanner: And, of course, Mr. Chairman, the minister will now give me the absolute assurance that that also includes the regulations.
Section 4 as amended approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report exceedingly incredible progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section B, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
G. Wilson: I will defer back to the opposition critic. I did have a couple of questions for the minister, if the minister is
[ Page 10598 ]
ready, that relate specifically to waste management and the assessment of waste management with respect to Port Hardy. There has been considerable discussion with respect to the proposition of a waste management program there and an assessment of the waste management potential for the burial of municipal waste in the minesite. There are a number of municipalities in Powell River -- mine included. We went into a long discussion last time, and the minister endeared himself, hon. Chairman, to members of my community, I can assure you, with his comments last time.
I wonder if the minister can tell us what the latest update is. A number of municipalities have to make decisions with respect to their own waste management plans, and they are keen to know whether or not this is a serious proposition. Is it being looked at seriously? Is there going to be a serious environmental assessment and review? If the minister can tell us anything on that now, it would greatly assist those municipalities that are in a position of having to make some decisions that are going to cost their communities substantial sums of money.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. Right now there is just a lot of talk. There is no proposal and nothing before the ministry. There is a lot of dialogue and chatter out there in the community. I can understand that, but there's no proposal before the ministry.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
G. Wilson: Presumably, then, if there's a lot of chatter and talk, such a program would be subject to some fairly stringent environmental review. So it's safe to say, then, that under the current process for environmental assessment, clearly it would be unlikely or unrealistic to expect that municipal garbage will start flowing into Port Hardy within the next year or so.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, it's nice to see you in the chair.
I may say that it could take as much as a year just for the whole process to start up and come before us, so you're right in that regard.
C. Serwa: I have several questions with respect to environmental protection. I haven't quite concluded that aspect, and I would like to before we get into Fish and Wildlife, which is another important area in the Ministry of Environment. Perhaps the minister could advise me what is being planned about a disposal site for hazardous waste in British Columbia. In Alberta they have the Swan Hills area and a variety of means of disposing of hazardous waste. Here in British Columbia, we're storing millions of pounds of PCBs throughout the province. We have a continuing problem with that. There are methods of disposal now which are safe. Could the minister advise the Legislature what he is doing with respect to that?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. I actually answered that question the other day; I don't think you were here, obviously. Last November I met with the Alberta minister of natural resources, who is responsible for the environment, at a Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting. I encouraged him to open Swan Hills up to other provinces. They said that they would go through a public hearing process on transportation issues. As you can imagine, the stuff has to go through various communities. They have had their hearings, and I believe that they are more receptive than they were in November with regard to those materials being transferred to Swan Hills. I have also indicated that it is not our only option with regard to those materials, but it would seem to me that if the facility is there and we can negotiate an appropriate price, there may be some value in British Columbia looking at going in that direction.
C. Serwa: Actually, that option has been looked at for quite some time. We're seeing a resistance in many jurisdictions to looking after the hazardous wastes of other jurisdictions. I know that we tried to negotiate a reciprocal arrangement with the Alberta government some years ago, where we would look after, for example, surplus glass, tires, batteries and that sort of thing at our facilities and then exchange in that manner. The reality is that it appears that unless we develop our own site, even if we do make an agreement with the government of Alberta -- which I doubt, in view of the very strained relationship the current government of British Columbia has created with the good government of Alberta -- that deal is probably not possible.
What has the minister done to establish a suitable site in British Columbia for the disposal of hazardous waste? Failing that, what has the minister done to dispose of PCBs that are stored throughout the province and create many storage problems? We do have the technology to dispose of PCBs by high-temperature incineration, with virtually unmeasurable effects to the atmosphere.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can assure you that our relationship with the province of Alberta is better than you're suggesting it is, and I think it is on this issue. So that's an option, and I'm not going to take that option off the table. But I've also told Alberta that if we can't expedite a resolution of that issue, we will look at our own site. Okay? So that's where we are on that issue.
We have an inventory of PCBs in the province, as you know, that is done by the ministry. As you are also aware, regulations have been developed over the last while that speak to the handling of these. As I indicated the other day in the House, there is ongoing monitoring, so there is enforcement and compliance with the regulations that we've developed.
C. Serwa: A question with respect to disposal of household hazardous waste, particularly products such as paint. I know an effort was made for a voluntary type of program, where it goes back to a paint supply store. But there are a number of other hazardous wastes in households, and I know that a number of the depots have been shut down because perhaps they're not economically viable operations. What has the minister planned for that continuing problem with respect to household hazardous waste?
Hon. M. Sihota: First, we've recently received the Caddell report, an excellent report that lays out a plan of action for the government. In principle, I have indicated that I support the recommendations.
Second, we have started a system of paint recycling -- it's not voluntary -- that will kick into effect July 1. Seventy percent of the material that was being dropped off at our household hazardous waste depots was paint. Therefore we've captured the bulk of the market, if I can put it that way, by arriving at an agreement with the paint dealers' association to have the material dropped off at your local Color Your World, or whatever store. So that solves that aspect of the problem.
[ Page 10599 ]
I believe it's important that we encourage these kinds of solutions. I'm going to commend the paint dealers' association for agreeing to that. I also want to commend Canadian Tire for agreeing to accept batteries, tires and oil as part of a recycling project we had in Vancouver. It's good to see that kind of corporate support for our recycling programs.
With respect to the remaining 30 percent of materials, Ms. Caddell has recommended a phase-out plan in her report, and I am intending to follow that. Hopefully, the system of returns to retail outlets can be expanded to solvents and other material like that.
You're right that the depots were proven to be cost-ineffective. In this kind of system, the industry takes the product from cradle to grave. They sell it, and then they take it back. It is a system that we too, as consumers, are used to. We take our pop bottles back to the grocery store so that they get recycled. We're doing the same kind of thing with paint, and then we will slowly expand it beyond that.
C. Serwa: I have just one final question with respect to the proposals and what is happening with the expanded bottle deposit-return system. It's been underway for a number of years; I'm well aware of that. Would the minister enlighten me as to where that is at the present time?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure the hon. member had a hand in that issue as well. If I may, I should advise the hon. member that just yesterday or the day before, I think -- time does fly in this business -- I met with representatives from the industry and discussed their proposals with them. We also are working on some proposals.
At this point, I'm not in a position to announce what we will be doing. But I think it is fair to say that a determination will be made, at the outside, probably in six or eight months, and at the inside, probably within a month. That's the window I can see, given the amount of work that has gone on in the past.
D. Jarvis: In that same vein, what happens with places like up in Anahim Lake, where they have all these tires and everyone has to pay an extra $3 for the tires? They bring all the tires in, and then you find out that they go to the dump and are just burnt anyway. What is your ministry doing about those sorts of situations?
Hon. M. Sihota: We have a recycling program in place. We provide a truck that picks them all up and takes them to an area where the economies of scale make more sense.
D. Jarvis: Do you mean to say that they just take them to another place, and the Environment ministry allows them to burn after collecting the $3? That's what's happening up in that area.
Hon. M. Sihota: You've got it wrong. Let me put it to you this way. We're not allowing them to burn up there. If some individual wants to go and burn a tire, I guess there are ways in which people can do that. But let me be clear. We have a system whereby we send a truck up there to pick up those tires. People paid their levy, so we subsidize a vehicle to go up there, pick up the materials and take them to a central depot for recycling purposes. Out of that, we've spawned a whole industry in British Columbia that takes those tires and remanufactures them into patio blocks, tiles for roofs and material like that. You should see the stuff they produce; it's quite impressive.
But no, we don't say: "Okay, just because you are somewhat distantly located away from" -- let's say Prince George or Prince Rupert -- "it's okay to go ahead and burn." We actually charge the levy, and then we go up there and pick up the material.
D. Jarvis: Well, I'm not making a facetious statement on the thing. I'm saying the tires are being taken, by your little truck that picks them up, to the dump in the Anahim area. And they're setting a torch to them as soon as they get a big pile. If you're not aware of this, I think you should get up there. Perhaps the minister could make.... It would be a great photo opportunity for him, like he does with the rest of the situations in B.C.
[5:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I would never suggest that the hon. member is making a facetious comment. I'm sure he never really meant to suggest that I'd be looking for a photo op.
Having said that, if there's a problem in Anahim Lake, we'll look into it. But there is a system in place. We actually pick up the material and bring it back.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions under environmental protection -- a last few. I was particularly interested in the ministry's approach to municipal recycling. There's been a press release issued almost weekly for another grant for a local recycling project. As I reviewed them, I was struck by the number of grants that have been issued for pickup and storage. But I was wondering about the ministry's long-term strategy for identifying markets for recyclables and whether the ministry was satisfied with the current situation, which seems to emphasize storage more than marketing of recyclable materials.
Can the minister indicate to the committee whether he's satisfied that glass, plastics, newsprint and the myriad of materials picked up -- particularly at curbside recycling operations -- are not ending up being stored, as opposed to being marketed and sold? Can the minister sort of close the loop for the committee and advise us how much of that material is currently being marketed and how much is being stored -- perhaps even landfilled in some cases? There was certainly evidence in Surrey, for example, that some of the material collected in the curbside program was in fact being landfilled. I wonder if the minister could provide us with some direction on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, in response to that tire question, I've got a note here that I want to read to the hon. member, to put on the record so he knows what the program is and can encourage people to take advantage of it.
"Financial assistance is provided in the form of transportation credits, based on weight and distance hauled. End-use credits. In accordance with the ministry's Five R's strategy, recycling end-users receive up to $1.50 per tire, while energy recovery end-users receive up to 90 cents per tire for tire-derived fuel."
That's the rate of the subsidy. Prior to the start of the program, it was estimated that about 85 percent of scrap tires were being sent to landfills, and that's obviously been reduced.
With regard to the hon. member's question on marketing, we are working with the GVRD on a marketing option strategy. There are different ways that we can engage in marketing. I acknowledge that not all of this stuff is marketed and ends up in the places where it should. Therefore we're working with the GVRD -- which is, of
[ Page 10600 ]
course, the largest area in the province -- to better market our products. So that work is in hand.
I don't have figures with regard to total reduction. Recent studies show that since 1988 the country as a whole has achieved a 13 percent reduction in municipal solid waste being diverted from landfills or incinerators. The B.C. rate is 17.6 percent and the Ontario rate is 18.4 percent. Our objective is to reduce the amount of material that is collected in the waste stream to the 50 percent level by, I believe, the year 2000.
The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised issues about the pit in Port Hardy. I really want to emphasize my view: rather than simply trying to find another pit to drop garbage in, the focus has to be on recycling, a reduction of the amount of material that goes into the waste stream, and composting. I'm astonished as to how few people actually engage in composting; a miracle occurs there that we ought to be encouraging. I'm also astonished as to the lack of participation in recycling blue box materials. I'm surprised that a larger percentage of materials is not being collected by the blue box system. The participation rate by the public is not as great as it could be. So there's work on that end that we have to do as well. Those are really the areas that I intend to focus on.
W. Hurd: In attempting to follow the waste stream.... When someone participates in the blue box system, they place what they assume to be recyclable materials in a blue box. It is picked up and one assumes it is then stored. I'm questioning what handle the ministry has on the steps beyond the curbside. The public generally feels positive about the blue box program. They feel that when they put something into a blue box it will eventually be reinvented as some sort of recycled product, or that a market will be found for it. The minister has indicated that there has been a reduction of solid waste entering the landfills. What I'm asking for is some indication of how much of the material that is deposited in a blue box actually ends up being sold or stored? In other words, where does it go? I think the public is very confused about that. Does it end up being stored for an acceptable period of time and then go into the landfill?
Hon. M. Sihota: We do have a system that tracks the material, and we do have information on how much is stored and where it goes. I'm not too sure if we actually break it down to individual products. I may not be able to tell you exactly how much paper is stored, for example. We may not be able to break it down that finely. I don't have those numbers here. I'd be happy to secure them from my staff and provide you with that information later on in the estimates.
W. Hurd: In terms of government jurisdiction, when the material is picked up -- one would assume by a contractor, or by being contracted to the local government, regional district or municipality -- is it within the purview of the municipal government to determine how the material is dealt with on a weekly basis? Or does the provincial government mandate what has to happen to it within a foreseeable amount of time? I have a sneaking suspicion that our recycling efforts in British Columbia involve participation in the blue box system, which makes people feel very good on a weekly basis, but that the long term involves creative storage and then landfilling of the material.
If we have a success story on our hands that in fact the material being put into the blue boxes is being recycled, reused and sold at a rate of whatever, I think that information could contribute to encouraging participation in the blue box system. When people in Surrey read about their recyclables being stored in a warehouse somewhere and the pile of glass building up, it makes them a little cynical about going to the effort of washing their cans and bottles on a weekly basis, taking the labels off and engaging in some sort of preparation to separate their own waste stream, when there appears to be no check and balance at the other end. What role does the municipality play in ensuring that this material is not being landfilled?
Hon. M. Sihota: They do this to generate an economic return, not to store material. There's no economic return on storing material, so they design their programs to collect a sufficient quantum of material to generate a return on the product they're picking up and to get it to market in a recycled product. In Surrey or in other areas there may be some examples of storage, but that's not cost-effective, and it doesn't meet the objective of economic return. It is that principle of economic return that triggers the appropriate behaviour that avoids storage and encourages markets. It also has an impact on the other side of the coin in terms of the scope of materials that can be put into a blue box, because it may not be economic or marketable to have certain materials in the blue box. That's why we look at other options with regard to other products, and that's why I think the hon. member for Okanagan West asked the question on the beverage container issue, because that's a big component of the market that isn't being attended to at this point. I didn't sense that you were on top of that aspect of it.
The economic return principle is what is driving the system. There may be isolated examples like the one in Surrey, but they're not commonplace. The municipalities should be in a position to show their taxpayers the kind of economic return accruing to them on either a local or regional basis.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that his ministry is ambitiously providing grants to local towns and regional districts to manage their recycling. I note that a release dated February 11, 1994, provided a sum of $4,298 to the town of Princeton to help offset the cost of storage facilities and baling equipment, which I would assume would be for newsprint or paper. Is there any requirement tied to these grants? Is any business plan filed with the ministry to ensure that those grants are plugged into an efficient system of municipal recycling? Or does the town of Princeton, or any other municipality or regional district, simply make application, prove need for one portion of their program and receive the money? Where is the accountability for efficiency? The minister knows that these news releases on providing grants come out on a routine basis, and the opposition always endeavours to recycle the paper on which they come, but I just wonder where the accountability lies in the grants for municipal recycling.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: We provide assistance for education, and we provide assistance for capital costs. We may provide some assistance for storage, because in some of these communities it takes a while to build up the volume they need before somebody comes around to pick it up. I think that answers that question.
With regard to these press releases, you're right: we do provide funding on that basis. That gives some notification to the public that we are providing some contributions. However, that's exactly what it is: a contribution.
[ Page 10601 ]
That segues into the next point you were raising. It is a contribution, they have to provide a business plan, we have to know what they intend to do with the material and there are certain deliverables we demand, which are stipulated in the contract between us and the municipality in question. Then we obviously check from time to time to make sure that there's compliance with the contract. We don't just give them money without some contribution on their part and without some action being required by them under a contract that we've negotiated with them.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can enlighten me, then, as to what role the municipality has in sharing this information with their local taxpayers. I don't recall the business plan for a recycling venture ever showing up as a profit and loss statement. Is that information filed with the ministry? If the city of North Vancouver, or any other city, is earning revenue on the waste stream being generated from the blue box system, are they required to provide the ministry with that information on an annual basis -- or if they've decided to store the material, for an upswing in the market for glass or newsprint? The reason I ask the question is that it seems we're involved in somewhat of a scattergun approach to marketing this material. Does it require the local government to keep on top of prices? Could the minister describe what his ministry receives in the way of a business plan from a local government on its curbside recycling initiatives?
Hon. M. Sihota: You asked a number of questions there. It always amazes me.... A lot of good work gets done in the Ministry of Environment, as in other ministries. Sometimes you get a lot further with questions when you give credit to a ministry for the work they do. This is one area where the ministry deserves some credit. In any event, you asked to be informed, and I will inform you on the issues.
[5:30]
First of all, in terms of public process, you should know that municipalities have a public process with regard to the development of solid waste plans. They share with their residents the plan they have in place. Part of that requires them to produce a business plan with regard to the recycling system, which is shares with us. So if you're interested in Surrey, I think the information can be secured from the municipality of Surrey, which I'm sure can give you a breakdown in terms of how much their system costs and what revenue it generates. That information is usually available in the public processes that lead to the development of the solid waste management plan.
Yes, we meet regularly with their staff to discuss shortcomings, glitches and successes in particular programs, and we try to apply that to the improvement of subsequent contracts and agreements with municipalities.
W. Hurd: Then on the basis of the information that is filed, can the minister tell us how many blue box systems are in the black, in the red or breaking even -- or is that information really not of interest to the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have that information here, but it can be secured by simply writing to your municipality and getting the breakdowns in terms of data. We do enough monitoring to know that the system works, because there is an economic incentive built into the system to make it work; otherwise, municipalities wouldn't do it. If you want me to break it down, I guess I could ask staff to spend some of their time trying to get information to you. I'm not sure that in the overall scheme of things it is something that I really want my staff to spend a lot of time on, but if you want that information, I'll get staff to work on it -- phone around to all the municipalities, see if we can it through the UBCM and get it for you. To be honest with you, hon. member, I also have some pressures in terms of my budget and my staff, and I tend to think there are better things for staff to do in this area. But if you really insist and you tell me that it's that important to you, I'll get it for you.
But we know that the system works, and the one little story you read somewhere while you were catching a flight between Victoria and Vancouver, going back to your constituency to do your good work in your riding, ought not to be the only symbol in your mind of the recycling program. But if you want me to do it, I'll do it -- but understand that it's going to cost the taxpayers some time and money to get that information.
W. Hurd: I know the minister has lots of time and money, because we're spending -- what? -- however many hundred million of it in this set of estimates.
I just want to have it straight in my own mind that the ministry does provide generous grants to local governments to assist them with their curbside recycling programs. They don't know how many of them are successful, but they must be; otherwise, the municipalities would complain. I agree that there's a certain logic to that. But cost accountability? I'm not too sure.
If the ministry doesn't now receive reports from municipal governments, I would suggest that maybe it should. There might be marketing opportunities that the province could engage in on a larger scale that might make some sense for local governments, rather than having them all flooding the market at certain times with recyclable materials. I know there have been a number of options thrown out there -- even, heaven forbid, the idea of a marketing board. While I'm not necessarily advocating that, the principle of supply management would work just as well with recyclables as with eggs or any other type of produce, I'm sure.
I sense that what the minister is saying is that they will give the money to local governments to do what they have to do; it must be working, because they'd be complaining if it didn't. I think that's a somewhat haphazard approach to managing solid waste and curbside recycling. While I'm not demanding the statistics tomorrow or the next day or even at all, I would hope that the minister would be guided by this debate and might undertake, in the year ahead, to gather more information on curbside programs so that those little articles that show up in the newspaper about storage that's gone on for two or three years don't undermine public confidence in the blue box system.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think that hon. member has a bone in his body that would allow him to say anything good about the work that the Ministry of Environment does. And that's okay. One of the things I've noticed over the last while is that this rather ineffective opposition is becoming more and more negative. They criticize the forest renewal plan -- a remarkable plan that we brought forward. They can't see any good in any type of initiative. The Skills Now program is no good. The opposition always has to find something they can criticize. They seem to have lost the fact that occasionally you get far better credit with the public when you say: "Look; government's moving in the right direction." But I accept that, and we're seeing the opposition for what they are.
I know the hon. member would like to paint a particular picture, but he's wrong; he's painted the wrong picture. I'll
[ Page 10602 ]
tell the hon. member. Let me just go through it one more time. We sit down regularly and meet with regional districts and others that are involved in recycling. That allows us to work on strategies with respect to marketing. I agree with the hon. member that it is a critical component, because if marketing isn't occurring, then there's a problem. We enhance our marketing efforts based on the experience we're going through. The fact is that because we're meeting with regional districts right across the province, we have a pretty good idea of what's happening and what the options are on marketing.
Lo and behold, I thought I almost heard the hon. member say that we should have another agency do the marketing of recyclables. I think he was headed in that direction but reined himself in at the last second. I'm not persuaded that that's what needs to be done, but if it comes to that, I will let the hon. member know. I don't think we're there by any stretch of the imagination.
Regional districts have the responsibility for developing solid waste management plans. I thought the hon. member and his research staff, who would have prepared those questions, knew that. The hon. member should also know that when regional districts do that, they submit business plans. They are the accountable level of government. I'm sure the hon. member would not disagree with me that there is a need for local governments to be accountable for the solid waste management plans that they develop on a regional basis. They make their case at council with regard to the economics and the potential success of a program. When that's done, the voters or the directors in the area approve a particular plan. I don't go through and check every one to see if they're making money, but I'd be happy to do that, because the information is fairly easy to collect. We have an indication that the system is working. If we didn't, we would be getting far more salient questions from the opposition than we have been getting for the last half-hour.
W. Hurd: I'll ask the minister a very simple question. I hope I'll get a simple answer, but I'll ask it anyway. Can the minister tell us in round terms -- in reviewing the business plans and holding all of these meetings with regional districts and local governments -- how much material is being put into a blue box system, how much of it is being sold or marketed, how much of it is being stored and how much of it is landfilled? These are four rather important issues. If the minister were to come up with figures that were impressive, I'm sure he could go on the road with those figures and encourage everybody living in a town and a city throughout British Columbia that "These are the figures on the blue box system. This is why you should be participating in it." Who knows? There might even be more photo opportunities in communities and towns all over B.C.
I don't expect those figures immediately, but I hope the minister would recognize the wonderful marketing opportunities with this success story of the blue box system. I only hope, when he's asked these questions around the province, that he has more information than he's been able to share with the committee today.
L. Fox: I was listening in my office to the debate and felt compelled to come up and defend the interests of municipalities. What I heard over the course of the last 40 minutes from the Liberal opposition were questions as to whether municipalities were cost-effective or whether they looked at their programs in a cost-effective way. I would think that the leader of the Liberal Party, since he came out of the municipal end of government, would be extremely concerned about the opposition member questioning the cost-effectiveness of a municipality in judging whether or not it can deliver a program.
But I did at least want to get to the issue of reuse and recycle. Paramount to the municipalities' ability to do that is whether or not the packaging that's being allowed is recyclable or reusable. A lot of the packaging that we normally see really doesn't qualify for either, and it creates an additional problem in our landfills.
In my experience with municipal government and the regional districts, the other major issue for most rural communities to deal with is white metals. White metals are a real problem, because there presently isn't a market by which to get rid of them, so they end up in the landfills. They end by taking up most of the space in the landfills, especially in rural British Columbia. I have a couple of questions regarding that statement. What is the ministry doing with respect to coordinating with other jurisdictions across Canada that are selling into British Columbia to make sure that they comply with the reusable or recyclable principle in terms of packaging? What initiatives has the ministry taken in the course of the last year and what initiatives is it looking forward to taking over the course of the next year to deal with white metals, which are a real problem in the landfills?
Hon. M. Sihota: Those are good questions, and I'll answer them. First of all, let me say that I'm glad the hon. member took a few minutes to deliver his message to the members of the official opposition. I can tell you that it was overdue and much deserved, and I was glad that somebody other than myself was doing it. I agree with you wholeheartedly with regard to the ineffectiveness of the official opposition. I'm sure you would concur with me that British Columbians are seeing that more and more every day.
In any event, with regard to packaging, that's an excellent question. In my mind, it is a very frustrating public policy issue right now in Canada. My instinct is to move on my own with regard to packaging. The problem is that our market share in packaging is small relative to the rest of the country. If that weren't the case, I think I'd be far more aggressive on the packaging side than I have been. I guess I've been persuaded, in my own mind, that the best way to solve the packaging issue is to work nationwide, through a much slower process, with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We spent a lot of time at our meeting in Saskatoon in November going through the packaging issue, and we're meeting again in May to go through that issue. We're looking at harmonization of the various standards we have and at agreements with regard to reusing and recycling. I'm confident we will make some progress.
The problem, quite honestly, is discontinuity. Ministers get shuffled, or there are elections and changes occur. That really slows down the process.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I noticed that the Liberal opposition all of sudden woke up when I said that. They're in for a surprise after the next election. There are so many good things happening in B.C. these days that even they know it. They know that things like the forest renewal plan, which they opposed; the Skills Now program, which they opposed; the budget.... It has been amazing to be in this House.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll get back to that.
[ Page 10603 ]
For the first time in the history of this province -- certainly in anyone's recollective history -- the opposition didn't even ask one question in question period about the budget; that's how good it was. They couldn't stand up in this House and find any flaws with this budget. That's remarkable, when you think about it.
In any event, I was speaking of packaging.
[5:45]
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: That speech was packaged, but it would have been far more packaged if I said that jobs are up, the deficit is down and taxes are frozen.
An Hon. Member: It's your package, all right.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thought the members of the Reform Party, or whatever they are labelling themselves now, were on my side on this issue. If you guys settle down, I'll answer the rest of the question.
Because of the infrequency of meetings -- they happen twice a year -- and some of the changeovers, things don't move as quickly as they should. One of my observations at the last meeting -- and I was there for the first time myself -- was that because of the change at the federal level, the system kind of ground to a bit of a halt. A permanent secretariat and permanent staffing at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment allows for ongoing work. I can assure the hon. member that work will happen during the course of this year. I hope we will be able to conclude some agreements with regard to national standards.
Having said that, I said earlier that I have the instinct to proceed in British Columbia in any event. I want to do that, and we will do that in some of the package project areas -- for example, the whole area of glass juice containers. Some glass juice containers are recyclable and others aren't, and sometimes it's confusing to the consumer. You put some in; you pick up your blue box and it's still there, and all of the other material has been removed. I can forecast that during the course of this year those kinds of products will be dealt with one way or the other; either at the federal level or at the provincial level.
On the white metal issue, you're right. That is a real problem, and I don't think any adequate strategy has emerged in terms of how we can attend to that. We have farther to go in developing public policy on the white metal side than we do on some of the bottles and packaging.
L. Fox: I'm sure the minister will agree that the success or failure of a recycling program will largely depend on the ability to produce packaging that is conducive to that process and therefore can be cost-effectively handled and marketed. There was a protocol signed across Canada in 1990 on the packaging issue. What has happened to that? Can you give us some information with respect to that?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that question. Firstly, I agree with you on the first point that you raised. Secondly, with regard to the protocol agreement, it was a good protocol agreement between governments. Inasmuch as governments have agreed, there's been some tardiness on the part of industry to buy into those standards. If I may, so often these issues are really a matter of political will. Certainly one of the frustrations one has is that there's a greater political will on some of these issues on the part of some governments as opposed to others. I won't get into naming names, but that has certainly been my observation. Inasmuch as we have agreements, some governments are less willing to push industry to adopt the agreements than other governments.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: They are all Liberals.
Things like toothpaste; there's a lot that we can do in terms of recycling and reusing on the toothpaste side. There are standards, I believe, that we've now agreed to. I have images of seeing the slide on it at the meeting in Saskatoon, but that's my best recollection of it. There's a lot that can be done. The component parts of a toothpaste tube are such that you can do more in terms of reusables. There are other things you can do; that is, more efficient packaging. You don't necessarily, in my mind, need to put your toothpaste into a box in terms of the utilization of a resource. There are those kinds of things that we can do. I agree with you; we are clearly not moving fast enough.
I don't think that in the case of toothpaste, for example, it makes sense for the province to move on its own. I think that is the kind of thing you have to deal with on a national basis. But I do think that with items like juice boxes or containers -- milk containers, jugs and that kind of stuff, and perhaps bottles that hold spirits -- there are a number of things that we can do as a province that I'm prepared to move ahead on. Part of the allocations in this year's budget will allow that to occur.
C. Serwa: I just want to make a few comments, perhaps, in view of this particular debate. I had the honour of signing the packaging protocol on behalf of the province. The minister knows that the intent of the packaging protocol was to use the first R, which is reduce, on a variety of products. I recognize that the minister is quite correct when he speaks about different governments and, perhaps, different emphases, but the day-to-day responsibility for maintaining the direction of the protocol agreement that was signed basically lies with the various ministry staff who are charged with that responsibility. The things that were started in the former government are continuing in this government. Fundamentally, when we talk about environmental issues, we're talking about apolitical issues. I don't think anyone has a monopoly on caring about the environment and trying to maintain it.
The packaging protocol's goal was to establish the target of a 25 percent reduction of solid waste into the landfill by 1996 and a reduction of 50 percent by the year 2000. It is a good initiative, but it has to be supported and carried through. The minister is quite correct in maintaining that consecutive governments, whatever their political stripe, have to maintain a dedication to achieving that particular goal, and I recognize that it is a real challenge.
In view of that, it seems redundant, when we have that protocol, to have continuing discussions when ministers of environment from across Canada meet. It should be going ahead. I fail to understand at the moment why the current Minister of Environment is not maintaining that these things have to transpire, because otherwise there is no limitation on the type of packaging that the originators of the packaging will put onto the marketplace. Fundamentally, responsibility for packaging has to fall back on the shoulders of the originators of the packaging, depending on the type of materials or even the quantity of materials used. Perhaps the minister will just briefly respond to that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with a lot of what you have to say. In the areas where we have responsibilities as a province, we
[ Page 10604 ]
try to exercise them. You're familiar with the ministry. Many of the people who were there when you were there have continued their work on the policy side and have moved the process of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment along. We try to use efficiencies. I want you to have some comfort that it is.... In fact, most recently I just went to Ottawa. One of the reasons that I picked the dates I did was that some of my people at the staff level were in Ottawa meeting with other representatives to discuss the issues coming out of the CCME.
I also want to say that the greatest potential of the CCME, at least from my limited experience -- and we have another meeting in May -- is really in the area of packaging. There are no two ways about it. When I saw the initiatives on the packaging side, I saw more potential than perhaps in any other area. So there's a lot that can be achieved. Not all packaging issues necessarily fall within our purview, and we cannot control all of them, but the ones we do, we will.
The other point you made that I wanted to pick up on was this: I don't think these issues have to be fronted or paid for by the taxpayer. I think industry has a fundamental responsibility. They produce the products and they package the products. We're trying to encourage a regime of industry stewardship so that industry, rather than the taxpayers or the public sector, accepts responsibility for the products that they prepare and accepts responsibility for dealing with the products that they prepare.
When I got into this portfolio, one of the first things that came to my mind was that everybody I've ever met has a can of paint sitting at home that they've used seven-eighths of, and they don't know what to do with the other one-eighth. It's not surprising, therefore, that when we had our hazardous waste days, that was the big item -- 70 percent of the items -- that was returned. To try to attack the biggest part of the problem, we put a lot of effort into concluding a deal with the paint dealers' association to have this stuff returned to the shop that you buy it from. That's an example of what I'm trying to say in terms of industry stewardship. We're not paying for those depots anymore. We're not paying for the stuff to be just sort of dumped into the landfill. We're saying to the industry that they have to accept that responsibility in terms of product stewardship. That's the direction we're moving in.
I don't think that attends to all of the issues that you raise, but I think that gives an indication that you're right. The thought process that's driving this is the correct one. And it is one that carries across most political lines. I don't know where the Liberals are on it, but you know.... That probably depends on the hour.
And given what the hour is, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The committee met at 2:48 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I'd just like to carry on with the question I was about to ask when we broke earlier, and that was under the capital construction line. My question deals with STOB 99, which is recoveries external to government. My concern was with the $304 million that is coming from the Transportation Financing Authority; it's listed there, where it says: "Recoveries external to government." I would assume that the Transportation Financing Authority is an arm of the government and therefore should come under STOB 97. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain why it doesn't come under there. My concern here is to do with the fact that it seems to be government money in one sense, and this seems to be trying to put it at arm's length when I'm sure it's really not.
Hon. J. Pement: It's really a question for the comptroller general, who defines which STOB the estimates numbers go under.
D. Symons: Just a few questions dealing with the tracking document that was supplied a couple of days ago. I'm curious as to the movement of things either from one STOB within the ministry to another or from the ministry into another organization. If we look at note 1 in here -- interministry -- the first one I was concerned about was the $25 million support program transferred from highway construction to highway operations. I think we covered that when we were discussing it. But if it was needed in support, I'm curious as to why it ends up in operations.
You did explain the railway and the maintenance -- I follow that. I'll just go through the ones in that particular group. The railway and the maintenance -- I follow that. The electrical utilities and the maintenance.... We have one at the end, bridge inspection, which is also transferred from rehabilitation to maintenance. Is the inspection now just a maintenance one? Does it make a great deal of difference that you move one of these things from one STOB to another? That's what I'm wondering about.
Hon. J. Pement: I mentioned before that the idea is to put the program into the area that is really handling the issue. If you look at the bottom, the $225,000 for bridge inspection has been transferred from highway rehabilitation to highway maintenance. It's a maintenance issue to keep track of what needs to be done on a bridge through the inspection program. The idea is to put it in the program area that it really relates to.
[ Page 10605 ]
The $25.6 million for program support was transferred from highway capital construction to highway operations when we put the capital into the TFA. Support services went up into operations, because they supported the rehab and maintenance side as well, so we had to retain some of that background.
D. Symons: One other question -- and maybe it is my misinterpretation of the wording in the second-to-last line in note 1. It says that the $745,000 for "manager, maintenance" was transferred from highway operations to highway maintenance. I assume that "manager" does not mean an individual. I would be applying for the job if it did. Is it the management of that whole...?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, it is the whole program that we're trying to maintain.
D. Symons: I have just a few other questions relating to this interrelationship between the Transportation Financing Authority and the ministry. I have here a group of public notices from the newspaper, and I find them rather interesting. I'd like to read them into the record. The first one doesn't seem too bad. It's a notice for some rock work, slope-meshing and so forth on the Porteau bluffs, Squamish Highway. Anyway, it says: "Award of this contract is contingent upon the allocation of funds from the ministry specifically to this project." Down at the bottom it says: "This B.C. 21 project is managed by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways." Apparently, this rock work will only take place if B.C. 21 -- through, I guess, the Transportation Financing Authority -- gives the money to the ministry and that's approved.
Hon. J. Pement: This is actually rehabilitation work that will be funded through the ministry under the B.C. 21 process. What we're doing is looking at the criteria of B.C. 21: the distribution to the regions, local hire, equity scenarios and that sort of thing. It has a B.C. 21 aspect to it; that's the approach we're taking with these types of infrastructure projects.
D. Symons: I gather from the minister's answer that this is funded under normal procedures in the Highways ministry and is not really a B.C. 21 project -- other than that it has this facet: if you have a woman dangling on the rock and doing the scaling, it's a B.C. 21 project rather than a Highways project. That brings in some of the other questions I had. I'm curious because this "B.C. 21-managed" notation comes at the end of almost all the ads, and the B.C. 21 logo comes in there. Yet that B.C. 21 process was introduced as if this was going to be some great new thing to develop the province -- the implication being that these were going to be new projects. It seems that B.C. 21 has been putting on the usual run-of-the-mill things that were going on before, except that we might be hiring in slightly different ways. It's not necessarily new moneys or new projects to any extent. I find an ad, dated March 31 of this year, for armoured car service, daily pickup in the Merritt district to look after the toll booths on the Coquihalla Highway. This seems to be a B.C. 21 project. I wonder if these are Transportation Financing Authority or if they are job and district equity. If you're asking for somebody who is going to operate an armoured car service.... I don't know how this fits in with the philosophy of B.C. 21 that was espoused when that bill was passed last year.
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to remind the hon. member that the B.C. 21 program is in regard to not only funding. It is also in regard to a whole approach in government to hiring within projects and to recognizing regions of the province in terms of equal economic distribution; local hiring is one and equity is the other. In the area of equity, aboriginal groups would be part of that hiring process, as well as other groups that are not normally given the opportunity to work in this field. It is a case of providing opportunity. Therefore the B.C. 21 program is more than funding; it's funding plus a process of recognizing the diversity of British Columbia. This one with the toll booth is a program normally funded through our ministry. B.C. 21 is an excellent approach to working with capital projects and rehab projects within the province. We recognize that our province is inclusive rather than exclusive.
D. Symons: I'll just continue with two others; I'll lump them both together rather than doing them separately. One is painting -- cross-hatching -- traffic islands, and there was a public tender from the province on May 2. Another one is a floral display and general cleanup on the berm out near Langley on the Trans-Canada Highway.
[3:00]
I just don't see how, by putting a B.C. 21 logo on there, that the people that are going to be applying to give these services to the ministry are going to be very different than people applying a year before, or the year before that, for doing these services that were there. I wonder if this is more advertising -- trying to make something out of what was already there -- rather than a new initiative, because it's a certain type of business that would be qualified to do the cross-hatch painting and another to do the floral displays. You're not likely opening up new employment opportunities for that many people by sticking a B.C. 21 logo on the ads that go in for this.
Hon. J. Pement: It's an approach with a program, to look at the criteria, no matter what is being tendered out. We're saying there is opportunity for all. There are people who do not see the opportunity unless they understand that we are open and inclusive of all peoples. Also, it is a message being sent to those contracting companies that that's the type of approach we'd like to see in British Columbia. I think you'll find that once the program is rolling further along, we will be hiring more equitably within the province. Being more open to people coming in on unemployment and acquiring the skills is the other aspect, so that people can build on those skills as well.
D. Symons: Certainly I have no quarrel with that, but I do think the main criteria should be getting the best value for the dollar and having the most qualified person. When it is something at the entry level and you're training people, I would go along with what you've said.
One last thing in dealing with the financial aspects. We hear a great deal -- and I'm going to be moving into this and some other topics in a moment -- about our getting into a user-pay attitude within government: when people do things they have to pay. This has come up frequently in the press in the last few years to do with roads and highways when the trial balloon was floated on toll roads.
I did a little adding up here. In this fiscal year we've got the federal government contribution of $18.7 million toward highways. This is an extremely low number, considering the amount of money taken out of this province for fuel taxes. I'm sure the minister would agree that what is put back into the province is a pittance compared with what is taken out.
[ Page 10606 ]
Nevertheless, that's $18 million. The taxes for the government through B.C. fuel tax, including not only automobile but other fuel taxes, generate $636 million; motor vehicle licences and permits, $272 million; Coquihalla Highway tolls, $37 million. If we add all that up, we get $963.7 million in round figures.
What we find, though, if we take the vote for the minister's office and add in the vote for the ministry -- those two votes we're going to be discussing today and in the next few days in the House -- is that we get $684 million. What we seem to have is an excess of revenues from usage of the highways in this province of approximately $280 million. It seems, in a sense, that the people of British Columbia are already paying for their highways and that tolls and increased fuel taxes are adding more burden on the people.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, let's go back to B.C. 21 and the comment with regard to skills acquisition for those who are working on projects. Entry programs are definitely a way to start to work on the projects and develop skills; but also in B.C. 21, we have an aspect of apprenticeship training on many of the larger projects coming up, which allows all people who apply to have the opportunity to learn new skills as well, which is a real plus to the province and to the future of other projects coming up. I believe that's one portion we missed when we were talking about B.C. 21.
As for your numbers for the fuel tax and so on, I'm not clear as to whether you've included the federal tax in that overall number...
D. Symons: No.
Hon. J. Pement: ...and also whether you've included within highways the actual capital costs we're going to have through this TFA. There's also the $304 million coming up to add to highway construction and such. On the whole, the hon. member is well aware that these taxes, licences and fees go into general revenue and support the programs within the ministry and within licensing -- that sort of thing. They also support other ministries within government.
D. Symons: I took it that the Transportation Financing Authority was set up so those moneys were going to be recoverable, so I didn't include that $300 million in my figures. That's not counted into what I'll call the deficit -- that is, the moneys we're spending in Highways today. That counts as part of the expenditures of the whole government. The government keeps telling us that the $304 million are all recoverable moneys in the future and that we therefore don't have to worry about them. I left that figure out, because it's covered, but the other figure seems to be more than covered as well by the taxes taken in. The $300 million excess in revenues from things related to vehicles and transportation would seem to more than cover the expenses of operating those various activities out there. There is a problem.
Let's look at the Transportation Financing Authority, since we seem to be discussing it at this moment. I note that for the building of the Island Highway, we've increased a 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax as of last September. That's going to feed into the Transportation Financing Authority, plus $1.50 a day from car rentals. Could the minister give us an idea how much money that generates per year? It was in only for a short time during the last fiscal year.
Hon. J. Pement: The TFA is under the responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Investment. When it comes to actual financing, that would be a question to ask of that minister.
D. Symons: I thought that since the Island Highway was in your purview that you might know, and this is related to it. What I did was to take the $600 million collected from fuel taxes and divide it by 12 -- because that's roughly the B.C. fuel tax -- to get somewhere around $50 million. The figure that came out would probably be different than that, because the fuel tax comes from other sources as well. I calculate that it would barely pay the interest on the amount of money that's going to have to be borrowed to build the whole project. We would be in real trouble if we were going to depend upon a 1-cent-a-litre fuel tax to pay for the Island Highway. I predict that we would need 3 or 4 cents a litre once the whole highway is built to cover the $1 billion. We're going to have some real financial difficulties if the Transportation Financing Authority is going to end up doing a lot of the infrastructure work around the province.
That leads me to my next question. Has the ministry seriously considered private financing of capital construction projects in the province?
Hon. J. Pement: That is under the Minister of Employment and Investment, and the question can be broached when those estimates come up.
D. Symons: I want to ask about the bridge across Maple Ridge in the Langley-Albion area and the Lions Gate Bridge. Has the ministry been in any discussions on private financing to build, operate, transfer, etc? Is that within your purview?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, hon. member, it's a case where the actual financing of the capital construction comes under the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: The minister will have to excuse me for asking this, but I just want to make sure it's on the record so that when I ask the other minister these questions he doesn't say: "Well, you should have asked the Transportation minister that." As long as it's on the record, I can hold it up in front of him and say that he is responsible, because the Minister of Transportation and Highways said so. That's why I'm pushing this.
I do apologize to the minister, the deputy minister and staff for belabouring many of the questions on the estimates books. But this is a bit of a learning experience for me. I gain a better understanding of other things within the ministry if I can find out how those line items relate back to what we see out on the roads and bridges of British Columbia. I might spend a little more time than other members in going through those lines, but it gives me some feeling for how the ministry operates, and I appreciate your indulgence in going through them with me.
Carrying on -- and again, this may fall outside your purview -- I believe the ministry does the expropriation process in getting rights-of-way for highways, particularly the Island Highway, and the Transportation Financing Authority supplies the money once you've expropriated the land or gone through that process. Therefore it would be appropriate for me to ask questions on expropriation. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, that is correct.
[ Page 10607 ]
D. Symons: I have had some questions from people who are somewhat concerned about the expropriation process involving the Wain Road construction that is currently going on just outside Victoria. There seems to have been a bit of a rush on that job. People haven't been given a great deal of opportunity to think about what's taking place there, and they're being pushed a bit. This, of course, is causing them some real concerns. What have the time lines been on the Wain Road construction? Have there been some changes during the construction so that properties which were not being expropriated four months ago are now suddenly facing expropriation and being pressured into settling because of time lines in getting that construction finished?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the time lines have not changed. There were some changes to the alignment, but that was done in consultation with a liaison group and has worked well for both residents and the ministry with regard to that issue.
There are negotiations, but there is always a point at which we have to make the decision -- because of working towards completion of the project -- to do the expropriation. The process is to go into negotiations with people affected and to try to work it through before making a final decision.
D. Symons: I'm quickly looking for some references to Wain Road, which have got misplaced in my piles of paper. I might come back to it when it comes to the surface, so to speak. I'll move on to another one until I find that.
One thing that has also been brought to my attention by one of the people involved in the Island Highway is further north, in the Buckley Bay area. It was put to me that the ministry is purchasing much more land than just the portion that is needed for the highway. In fact, there are 78 acres that this particular woman owns up there, and the highway is going to go through more or less the middle of her property, following the hydro lines at that point. There is going to be a diamond interchange within her property and a snake-like road leading down to connect with the Denman Island ferry. My concern is that it doesn't take the whole 78 acres, but it seems that the ministry, or the person negotiating with her on behalf of the ministry, is implying that they want the whole thing.
[3:15]
She doesn't particularly want to move. She is a widow; she suffered a stroke a few years back and is slightly incapacitated. She feels that she and her veteran husband have done their bit for Canada, and they're being shoved off their land. That may not be the case; it might be her perception. But the way the case is being handled is giving her that feeling. Indeed, the first value she was offered for this piece of land would not buy a city lot with a reasonable house comparable to hers in the town of Courtenay not too far away. Picking on a person, which appears on the surface to be the case, and putting them into this situation indicates that somehow this expropriation process is not working well for the people who are affected out there, particularly people who have lived on the land a long time.
I can see being annoyed, as an expropriator, with somebody who has recently bought the property and wants to turn a profit at the province's expense. But these people have been on the land for quite a long time, and they simply want to stay there. The highway is going to affect their way of life in any case. Is there not a better way of handling this?
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize, in the case of expropriation and land taken for highway alignment or new highways, that it is a very sensitive issue and difficult for people at times. On this specific one, we're going to take the question on notice and get more details from you with regard to the actual situation, so that we can give you a good answer with all the facts.
The process is really driven, in the sense that an assessment is made and appraisals are done.... We will even help with funding the appraisals for people, to get it done themselves, but we look at market value so that a fair evaluation is done. If we pick up what seems to be more land than required, it's usually when the land that is left is not usable; it may be a very difficult portion that can't be sold on its own. We'll take a look at the case you've brought forward, if you would like to give us the specifics and put that part on notice.
D. Symons: I have spoken about that particular issue to ministry officials, and there doesn't seem to be any real satisfaction on the part of the person involved, because they are feeling this pressure. Indeed, it may be perceived or it may be real, but it is a problem.
In that case and, I think, three others that have come to my attention, there seems to be excess land, and you say they're picking up land that might not be usable. In some cases this land may not be usable in the usual sense. This particular woman's land happens to have trees on it that are harvestable. I could see that if the ministry bought it all, it could harvest the trees, or it could subdivide the land, particularly along the road that is going to lead down to the Denman Island ferry. That land would be very nice for recreational or residential property. What would happen, with the access of the highway, would be that the ministry could almost pay for the whole project through sale of the assets of the property once the highway has gone through. That would give me great concern, if that were the case.
What I'm really asking for is some guarantee that the ministry or the Transportation Financing Authority isn't basically going into the land development business. If they are, there could be a conflict of interest between proposing where a highway goes and where the highway might go to pay for itself. That might be detrimental to the people involved and to the people of British Columbia, in terms of putting the highway where it really should go rather than where we can make money off the deal.
Can you give me some assurances that when excess property is purchased, the original owner would have the opportunity to keep the land if there is to be some realization of profit from it, that the profit doesn't necessarily flow directly back to the province to pay for the highway, and that somehow this is not at the expense of someone who is giving up their land?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I will remind you that we value the land at market value. In other words, if the land has a particular asset value, whether it's trees or location, that value would be reflected in negotiation of the actual final sale price.
D. Symons: The property immediately adjacent to this lady's land happens to be held by MacMillan Bloedel. It seems to me, since her land is private property and she was not logging it, that it might have been appropriate for the ministry to put the roadway that's leading down to the intersection just a kilometre to one side of where they are currently putting it. In that way it might have been easier to deal with a corporation that's going to log it anyway and is not that interested in the land, rather than take somebody off
[ Page 10608 ]
the land who simply wants to live there. If there is an answer coming on that, I'll....
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of the design, the economics of the design and the flexibility the ministry has with regard to the actual grade we're working with. I think there's also a right-of-way there which to some degree causes a problem with regard to the design. We really tried to balance all those types of concerns and do the best we could with regard to design. But sometimes in British Columbia, because of our geography, we have to go with the better grades, and it's more economical as well.
D. Symons: I realize that the railway on her property may not end up being a problem, but it might be on the adjacent properties. I'd have to check the plans to see that.
Going back to the Island Highway, I'm reading from the Premier's news release of October 19, 1993, regarding the Island Highway. He says: "Six contracts for Island Highway work will be advertised over the next ten days. Fifty-seven engineering assignments and 15 construction contracts will be undertaken next spring." We've arrived at next spring, and more will proceed in the near future. I wonder how many of these 57 engineering assignments and 15 construction contracts the Premier spoke of have now been let.
Hon. J. Pement: Active construction contracts total 12: four on the Pat Bay Highway; one from Goldstream Park to Nanaimo; one on the Nanaimo Parkway; and six on the inland Island Highway. We're looking at a total of 40 contracts to be tendered in this budgeting time. I could break them down if you....
D. Symons: That would be engineering and construction.
Hon. J. Pement: These 40 are all construction.
D. Symons: I've canvassed that one before. I think that's coming up somewhere else.
The next question deals with the Transportation Financing Authority. You'll have to tell me which ones I will seek the answers for elsewhere. I notice that $304 million is supplied to the ministry for capital construction this year. Of that $304 million, what amount is budgeted this year for the Island Highway?
Hon. J. Pement: A total of $167,805,000 is budgeted this year for the Island Highway.
D. Symons: Then roughly half the moneys coming from the Transportation Financing Authority is going to the Island Highway. Could the minister supply the House with a list of the projects and the costs? Can you break it down into major areas that are being funded by the Transportation Financing Authority this year for the ministry -- group projects rather than small individual ones, such as adding curbs, culverts and that sort of thing? I suppose there might be 12 or 15 different major area projects. I will not ask for those now.
Hon. J. Pement: Was the question with regard to the Island Highway or to overall projects?
D. Symons: All of them. I'm simply asking for a list of the projects that will be tackled by the ministry this year. Most of the capital project funding seems to be coming from the Transportation Financing Authority.
Hon. J. Pement: In due course you'll have the full list.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might ask the minister to define "in due course."
Hon. J. Pement: There will be announcements made fairly quickly, and once we have our announcements, you will have the list.
D. Symons: I would gather from that reply that in due course means fairly soon. Thank you.
The Transportation Financing Authority borrowed 74.... I think you've answered that more or less, so let's leave that one off. Again, this one I won't even have to ask you; it will be for response by the Minister of Employment and Investment. You're lucky that most of these we're just crossing off the list as we go along here.
We're down to Highway Constructors Ltd. and the union-only agreement on the highway. Again, I'm not sure if the minister is the one to put these questions to, but I believe the minister sat in on the negotiations for that agreement, if we can call it an agreement. An article in the Vancouver Sun in April seemed to imply that there was some intimidation in the way that was carried out. There seemed to be a study on the labour options. There were four options put before the Transportation Financing Authority. One option was to have an open shop; price was fastened onto that. A second was a mix of union and non-union companies. A third one was to have the union only at the building trades' rates, and the fourth one was the contract that was signed. It was union-only, but at slightly reduced rates as set by Constructors Ltd. It seems somehow that the people of British Columbia are getting something that might not be in their best interests. We seem to have a situation here where a ministry that has operated through open bidding in the past now has a system where open bids are open only if you have union workers or are paying a definite wage rate. I'll carry on in a moment with some other questions related to this.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to say to the member that this falls under the Minister of Employment and Investment, with regard to the project agreement. As to the Vancouver Sun article, I think we know that we can't believe everything we read.
D. Symons: I assume the ministry received this report -- or indeed, it might have been the other ministry that received the report it instigated, so I don't know whether those four options.... Is the minister suggesting that those four options were not considered by the ministry, or by the ministries in this situation? That's all I said the Sun gave, and I will take it as factual, unless the minister would care to say it's not.
[3:30]
One thing that does concern me -- and I think the minister could respond -- is that whenever we criticize this, we keep getting thrown back at us that it's going to be built on time and on budget. And immediately held up to show that this has to be the case is the Coquihalla Highway. Could the minister -- through her deputy or those who were around at the time of building the Coquihalla -- tell me how many days were lost during the building of the Coquihalla due to labour disruptions or labour unrest?
Hon. J. Pement: I want to remind the member that the project agreement was developed to ensure that we build the highway on time and within budget. The project agreement includes an assurance of no strikes as we go through the
[ Page 10609 ]
process. If we have achieved that at the final stage of the highway, we're doing well.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
D. Symons: I would take from the minister's answer that there were no labour disruptions on the Coquihalla Highway. I asked about the Coquihalla, and you didn't answer that question. I'm assuming -- unless you care to contradict me -- that that means we did not have labour disruptions. The cost overruns -- and there were horrendous cost overruns in the building of that highway -- had nothing to do with strikes and labour unrest on the highway. Rather, those cost overruns had a great deal to do with political interference in the way that highway was built -- fast-tracking it and laying pavement in the winter months when it was unsuitable. I wonder if the minister might verify that whether it was union or non-union had nothing to do with the cost overruns, but had a lot more to do with government interference with the whole process of building the highway. It was mismanagement rather than whether or not it was unionized. Could the minister confirm that, please?
Hon. J. Pement: The project agreement fixes labour costs and also assures us of good labour relations throughout the building of the highway. What we're focusing on in building the Island Highway is assurance that we're going to get that building done. The Coquihalla was a cost overrun; we don't want to see that happen again. We want to see the Island Highway done on schedule with good labour relations and a fixed cost for labour. I think that's a great approach.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. From the manner in which the answer was given, I guess she was saying that what I had stated earlier about the Coquihalla Highway was correct. She didn't care to dispute my statements, which I think blows holes in the government's argument that the reason we had to have this contract was that it could be built on budget and on time. Neither of those factors seems to have been a cause of the difficulties -- and there were severe difficulties -- on the Coquihalla. I would certainly agree with the government on the fact that there were problems. But they weren't at all related to the reasons the government is saying we have to have this current labour arrangement for building the Island Highway. So the government is using spurious arguments to support their labour friends.
But we'll leave that particular topic. I can only assume from the answers given that at least your agreement....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I suppose we could debate this. "Spurious" may well be unparliamentary. It impugns motives and is not entirely appropriate. You may disagree with the decision, but impugning motives is not appropriate.
D. Symons: Well, I will heed the Chair's caution. I can't think of a better word. Unless the Chair can come up with one that would describe what the government is doing in this situation....
The Chair: Order, please.
D. Symons: If you can give me a synonym for spurious, I would consider using it. I prefer not to withdraw it unless I'm asked to withdraw it.
The Chair: I don't think that's my job. My job is to be sure that we're using a fair one. Take it under advisement.
D. Symons: I will take it under advisement. Thank you.
Moving on, then, to the Island Highway and leaving the other issues that come primarily under the other ministry's responsibility, I have a great many other questions dealing with the Transportation Financing Authority. I believe some other members of my caucus also have some concerns. I'm quite sure members of the other opposition parties will be going on at great length on that particular issue.
Let's move along a little to the Island Highway. The Colwood crawl concerns the Island Highway. I notice that the government recently let a contract of $4.4 million. I believe it was advertised on May 4 at $4.4 million. I have two questions on that. Is the design work now taking care of that? And is the design work under the Transportation Financing Authority or the ministry?
Hon. J. Pement: We let the contract, and the Transportation Financing Authority actually financed that contract.
Going back to the project agreement, don't forget that it is under the B.C. 21 criteria. We're also looking at local hiring and apprenticeship training. This is quite different from other projects and is something that bears scrutiny, because you're going to find good labour relations.
D. Symons: I have a Ministry of Transportation and Highways news release from January 19, 1993, about Highways restarting plans to ease the Colwood crawl. Toward the end, it says that before a decision is taken on proceeding to detailed design, the ministry will have the benefit of the recommendations from the Capital Regional District's transportation strategy work. I don't believe the Capital Regional District has submitted its final report yet. Is that the case? The ministry said a year ago that it would not proceed until it had the information, and we saw in a news release a few days ago that the design work is going ahead. We seem to be going ahead before the Capital Regional District has had its input.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the CRD and its transportation study, our ministry has been working closely with the CRD on that study and has worked closely with the chair and the committee on the Colwood crawl issue. As work has been progressing, it has been analyzed by that committee and its chair, and we have their full support in proceeding with the project.
D. Symons: Although the Capital Regional District transportation report hasn't come in yet, you have at least been privy to what has been going on, and there have been consultations. That's good to hear.
In Goldstream Park, there is a corner that since the fifties has been nicknamed Suicide Corner, and since 1985 there have been six fatal accidents in that general area. I'm wondering what is being done to make it a safer portion of highway so that it won't claim the number of lives it has claimed in the past.
Hon. J. Pement: I must mention that this portion is within the park. We are looking at options at this point for spot and localized safety improvements to try to improve that particular section.
[ Page 10610 ]
D. Symons: It's at the north end of the park, I believe. When various improvements are made, we're going to have a four-lane highway south of the park, a four-lane highway north of the park and a two-lane highway through the park. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: That is correct.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might not see some difficulties in four-laning down to two lanes and up to four lanes again. Has it been taken into account, when we're considering the whole Island Highway, that there is going to be a real bottleneck at that particular point? Are there plans for skirting the park or doing a bypass or eventually making it four lanes in the park?
In regard to my last statement, I'm reading a precis from a news broadcast of April 7 on CHEK TV, where the Minister of Environment says: "Don't look for improvements to the stretch of the Island Highway that runs through Goldstream Park." Then he says: "...preserving the park takes priority over changes that could make the road safer." There are no plans to improve the highway through Goldstream. It causes me concern when a minister of the Crown says that preserving the park takes priority over changes that could make the road safer. Does the minister share that opinion?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we're looking at a two- to three-kilometre section with only one access point. It's basically a flat section, so we feel that the bottleneck you are referring to is not really going to be that congested or that difficult.
Within the park, we have to remember it is a park, as is Stanley Park, and that we have to take those values into consideration. It is a compromise.
[3:45]
D. Symons: Well, I hope the minister's optimism on how well this is going to work is well founded. I note, though, that with the Wain Road extension, when it came to McDonald Park, it didn't seem to matter. Trees were taken down, and the road was put in where needed. In Goldstream Park there seem to be different criteria.
Hon. J. Pement: In that particular case, we did make arrangements to increase the park in other areas and do some trade-offs. Would the member suggest that we put a four-lane through Goldstream Park?
D. Symons: It's fortunate, being in opposition at this time. I believe you're going to have to consider what you're going to do in the future, because we are going to have problems. No doubt, once the new Island Highway is completed, we're going to have a lot more traffic around here, and somehow we're going to have to deal with the problem of that traffic. If Highway 1 is going to be the main thoroughfare, we're going to have to consider what's going to happen at that park now and either preserve land on one side or the other or make a decision that when the time comes we will do something in the park. That's my concern; one way or the other, we have to plan for the future.
Hon. J. Pement: We have to take a look at the geography that's involved. We have Saanich Inlet, Goldstream Park and the water district, so those are the choices we have with regard to moving one way or the other or widening. So we have to take into consideration what other factors are part of that situation.
D. Symons: Yes, I guess the other consideration is that you can do what's possibly going to happen in Stanley Park, where you're going to cut and cover, which had to be the only option left and a really expensive option at that point.
If we can move up the Island a little to the Malahat, there is some need for improvement, because we've seen accidents occur there as well. I believe the minister was there not long ago -- within the month -- and talked about safety improvements that are going to be made to the Malahat highway, following two fatal accidents just four weeks ago. My concern is: when will these improvements be made? You gave an indication that they would be made. Is that in the budget for this year?
Hon. J. Pement: We will start the improvements from the Malahat summit to Mill Bay in 1994.
D. Symons: Great.
I believe there is a new route proposed through the Malahat that's actually going to be higher than the current level. I have concerns about that, because in the winter months we quite often experience accidents there caused by black ice on the road, and moving up even a very small amount will increase the probability of that happening. Has the minister taken the problems of elevation and winter conditions into consideration when rerouting and working on that particular stretch of road?
Hon. J. Pement: We were looking at the rerouting along the rail grade. My understanding is that it's near the Malahat Chalet and hotels in through that area.
D. Symons: Would that involve a change in elevation? That was my concern because of the fact that it does have surface problems in the winter.
Hon. J. Pement: It's not much difference in terms of the grade. Actually, it is slightly higher, but the issue is that it is a flatter stretch. We can't make it any safer in that process in terms of road conditions.
D. Symons: So by making the road flatter, the black ice situation may not cause skidding and so forth. Let's hope so.
Moving up-Island a bit to Nanaimo, on February 18 the minister is quoted in the Nanaimo Free Press as stating that she would be prepared to reconsider and review -- and those are quotes around.... Oh, I'm sorry. That's one of the councillors speaking about what you had said, so it becomes a very convoluted quote. But the impression you left on city council was that the number of traffic lights going through Nanaimo would be reduced to six from the current 19. The original plans for the parkway called for grade-separated intersections, and now they are going to be traffic-light-controlled. Is this being reviewed? Are we going back to putting in some grade-separated crossings?
Hon. J. Pement: You're right, it wasn't a quote. When I visited Nanaimo I spoke with the council and went to some of the areas of concern. They would like to see the upgraded intersections in the design of the plan. I pointed out to council that in doing that we add to the cost of the highway, and that in the design we have reduced accesses, as you said, within the Nanaimo area. Wanting to ensure that the highway allows free-flow traffic, I told council I would review this. That does not mean the design has changed.
[ Page 10611 ]
D. Symons: There is concern about the inevitable growth that's going to take place in the Nanaimo area, which is growing quite rapidly already. With the increased traffic up and down the Island because of the new highway, it won't take very long until that parkway becomes fairly clogged. I suspect that within ten years there will be some real difficulties. If your ministry isn't able to see its way clear financially to put in grade-separated ones now, are you at least planning for the future so that land will be acquired for those intersections in order to have an even flow of traffic?
Hon. J. Pement: In foresight, and in terms of preliminary designs, we've looked at what would be required, so that we do have an understanding. It is too costly at this point, however, for our ministry to acquire land. We're trying to develop the highway within the budget we have. Future development is a concern with these communities all along the Island Highway, as are alternative modes of transportation. There is concern that the more highways we build, the less we'll get to those modes. That's another balance we have to look at. On the whole, we're trying to alleviate concerns now and in the near future, with an understanding of what some designing needs may be. We can ask council to look at zoning scenarios as well.
D. Symons: I'm glad the minister brought up the alternative modes, because this is something we're going to have to look into. I believe the comments on the E&N Railway made in the House earlier today will be considered. The innovative and efficient use of that line in the future may help some of the potential transportation problems in the Nanaimo area.
In the Times-Colonist on Tuesday, March 29, 1994, there was a headline: "Dispel Those Island Highway Misconceptions." The byline was the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- I was about to say the name, which is forbidden. The minister addressed four of these misconceptions in the column. One is the misconception that the highway is being constructed for real estate developers. I don't believe that the ministry, or the government, is constructing the highway for that. I don't believe the government is constructing the highway for real estate developers, knowing the political bent of this particular government. I would suggest that this is not the case, but I think it's going to happen. As you put in transportation systems, you'll find that development will follow. In spite of the fact that the government doesn't intend this, it is certainly going to be the outcome.
On the second one, that it will accelerate growth on the Island, the minister is totally wrong if she thinks that's a misconception. Once you put in good transportation systems to the northern part of the Island, I would venture to put money on the line that we're going to have population growth in those areas. It may be growth that the people who were demonstrating on the steps of the Legislature a few years ago have been promoting, in wanting that highway built, but they might have second thoughts about it once the Island Highway is put in because of the way it will change the social life of the area where they currently live. They are living there because of the ambience of the area, and it's going to change.
The minister's comments about an L.A.-style freeway are somewhat correct. What you're putting in doesn't really compare to Los Angeles; the traffic volumes wouldn't compare, although it may look that way in Nanaimo and Colwood at times. Still, that's only from people who haven't driven in Nanaimo. When people complain about the Colwood crawl on Vancouver Island, I would like to invite them to drive on the Trans-Canada Highway out of Vancouver during rush hour, heading to Coquitlam or somewhere in the valley; they would think their problems pale in comparison. These problems are relative to where you are, so I would go along with that one.
[4:00]
The other misconception, the hon. minister says, is that it's not promoting alternative transportation. In a sense, it does, because when you increase one, it lowers the necessity to carry through with the other. How you answer that, I don't know. I'm sure that whoever is in government is going to have that balance of one against the other, and I don't envy anybody in government who has to meet today's needs by trying to find alternative ways of doing it when people seem to be set on the automobile.
Hon. J. Pement: I'm not really promoting the other uses of transport. This highway design is unique in that it has recognized and preserved the Galloping Goose trail within it. That has not happened before in highway design. We are also working very diligently toward access for bicycles. There is definitely growth on the Island, on the lower mainland and through to the Okanagan, and it is causing concern with overall traffic congestion. At this point, as we're putting the Island Highway through, I don't feel that we're accelerating growth. Growth is going to happen; the thing is how that growth happens. Communities are struggling with the whole scenario, and trying to ensure that there are alternative modes for people in the future is part of the struggle.
This government is not against development; I don't understand that type of statement. I certainly support development, but planned development is the number one key. If you have the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, you will hear some exciting plans toward trying to recognize and manage that growth and to have planned growth. That's what the communities are struggling with.
This Island Highway is, number one, a safety issue. We're addressing our concern with accesses off and on a highway congested with traffic volume, as well as the economic linking of communities. I think it's a plus. Having this Island Highway done has been asked for for 30 years, and this government is doing it.
D. Symons: I appreciate the answer.
When I was asking questions about Wain Road earlier, I was having problems finding the information I wanted. Apparently, I jumped the gun on that, because I've now found it. I put it at the front rather than the end of these news clippings. A meeting was held there recently, and the clippings imply that there could be some people who object. It's difficult to know from news clippings exactly how many people there were when they just say that there were some objections to it from the people in the community. Often these things are expressed by a few people and get reported as if they were voiced by the majority of the people. The headline in the Times-Colonist on January 6 said: "Wain Road Overpass Gets Okay Despite Residents' Objections." I guess "residents" here refers to a small number.
There was a meeting held on March 15, 1994, on the Island Highway project with ministry officials, city councillors and a group of other people, and there was some discussion on the properties being expropriated. They were told that, under the Expropriation Act, the ministry could only expropriate what it actually needs for its own purpose. That will mean a part of each property will remain in the
[ Page 10612 ]
hands of the present owners, but another part will be purchased from them. A contingency plan is in place, should expropriation be the issue. In other words, rather than wait for that, the ministry is going to have a contingency plan. An interim route will be constructed to divert traffic around the two properties. These are the ones that are giving them problems, because they haven't settled with the ministry.
This indicates to me that the project up there is really on a fast track. We saw what happened with the Coquihalla Highway when they moved to a fast-track project. It didn't work out too well, because there were parts that had to be rebuilt, huge cost overruns and all the rest. I'm wondering if this rush on Wain Road might have something to do with the Commonwealth Games coming up. It might improve things a bit, but I wonder whether the problems concerned with fast-tracking it are worth the two weeks of the Commonwealth Games that we might have the thing in place for.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to fast-tracking the construction, the ministry was trying not to have construction during the Commonwealth Games, so we decided to do it either before or after the Games. Working with the residents, it was agreed that it could be achieved before. The particular road that you're talking about is just a local road, not the highway.
J. Dalton: It's nice to jump in here and give my colleague a rest -- but not the minister, of course. If we may, we'll move from the Island to the lower mainland. There are a few issues I would like to address, in particular -- as the minister might expect -- bridges, overpasses and things leading to the North Shore.
I happened to come in -- I guess fortuitously -- earlier this afternoon when the critic, the member for Richmond Centre, asked for a list of the TFA major projects. The minister kindly responded that "in due course" a list would be forthcoming. Perhaps I could ask: will the MLAs for the North Shore -- and I would include the government member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in that list -- see Westview on the major project list?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, I would say that these sorts of announcements will be made in due course.
D. Schreck: I hope that due course is sooner rather than later when it comes to the Westview interchange.
I am doing everything I can to appreciate that former governments have left this province with a backlog of $10 billion in transportation projects, largely due to needlessly throwing away money on things like the Coquihalla Highway and the most expensive rapid transit system in the world. If the money had been used properly, it would have been enough to have the Westview interchange, the Island Highway and a few other projects as well.
But that's in the past, and we have to deal with the backlog now and have each region fight for its own priorities. The message I would like to get across, together with my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi and, I'm sure, on the opposition bench my colleagues from West Vancouver-Capilano and North Vancouver-Seymour is that this is more than a regional issue for the North Shore; this is an issue for the entire lower mainland.
Just yesterday I was talking to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. Last week that hon. member missed a ferry at Horseshoe Bay because of a half-hour wait at the Westview interchange. The Westview interchange on the Trans-Canada Highway stands in the way of servicing a major ferry terminal and the major tourist destination and resort at Whistler, and it is an almost insurmountable barrier for people in North Vancouver. I initially thought that the Westview interchange was a problem just for those who lived in the neighbourhood of the interchange. So I sent out questionnaires, colour-coded by neighbourhood, to people around the interchange and to people in lower Lonsdale who, in all likelihood, rarely travel near the thing. White forms went to one neighbourhood and yellow forms to the other. I compared the answers to see if there was a significant difference. Regardless of how far they lived from the interchange, people in both neighbourhoods were unequivocal: they want the Westview interchange built "yesterday." It doesn't depend on where a person lives; anybody who has to travel on the North Shore joins in. It's clearly a very high priority.
[4:15]
So I would like the minister to provide for the record, if at all possible, some information on where we stand on this thing. I appreciate that my friends from the North Shore and I will someday share in the glory and be on a platform with the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Minister of Transportation and Highways to make a grand announcement. But in reality, projects of this size take place in bits and pieces. It would help me to communicate with the folks who are fed up after waiting 20 years for this interchange, if we could lay out the facts about where we are on each piece. I presume that in planning a project like this, there's a planning phase, design phase, property acquisition and various construction phases. Not being an engineer, I would like to hear from the ministry's perspective how you compartmentalize a project like the Westview interchange. And how far along are we on some of those various components?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, in terms of the stages of a project -- so that we're clear -- we have to identify the need, which you've done, not only on the community side but also the technical side, which is an area that's been worked on already.
There's a planning stage where the ministry works with a community to come up with an acceptable solution. There's a design stage, a property acquisition stage and the construction phase as well. There are five steps that we're looking at. On this project the ministry has completed the planning stage and has arrived at a concept for the interchange itself that is acceptable to the community as represented by the municipality. So far that design has been accepted through the municipality level. Subject, of course, to the approval of the TFA, we are ready to get on with the actual design of the area of the project. Some property acquisition has already taken place at this point.
The total cost of the project is $32.4 million, which has been identified to date, and those costs can change to a degree. The project itself will include widening of the Upper Levels Highway from four to six lanes. We're looking at construction of a highway overpass at Westview and modifications to Mosquito Creek Bridge. That's the scope of the project itself. Again, for your information, we have completed the planning stage, arrived at a concept for the interchange itself that is acceptable to the community, and some property acquisition has been done and requires approval on the funding side through the TFA.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to hear both the question and the response. It is encouraging to know that we have hard figures, and I appreciate that the minister is well aware of the
[ Page 10613 ]
concerns of all the users of the Upper Levels Highway. Certainly the point that my colleague from North Vancouver-Lonsdale made is well taken. This has been a nuisance for far too long. It's not just a nuisance; it's a traffic hazard and a safety problem. It's also a commercial hindrance. The Westview shopping centre, for example, is directly affected by the lack of access.
I would like to move a little further west, if I may, while we're on the Upper Levels, even though we managed to slowly get through the Westview intersection. I've had, in the past, correspondence with the previous Highways minister and regional officials in the Capilano highways maintenance office on the condition of the Upper Levels Highway immediately west of the Capilano bridge -- that's the Upper Levels Highway bridge that crosses the river.
Unfortunately -- and we don't want to get into issues before the courts -- there is a lawsuit pending before the courts, as I believe the minister is aware, involving a single-vehicle accident in 1992 when a driver was unfortunately rendered quadriplegic in a hydroplaning incident. I have spoken with the West Vancouver police just to reinforce the problem and to get a picture of the number of accidents they are aware of on that stretch of highway. In each of the last three years, they have informed me, there have been at least five major accidents involving suspected hydroplaning, and probably that is the cause.
I personally use that highway regularly. I know -- and this is what I'm getting to -- that maintenance work has been done on that stretch of highway in both directions. Recently I had occasion to drive through there in a rainstorm and I noticed that the problem still seemed to be there. I am personally aware of the problem, so I slow down. But many people don't, and unfortunately some of them come to grief. I'll get to my question in a moment.
I thank the minister for the letter of April 19, dealing with capital and rehabilitation projects within the riding. I see nothing on that list about Upper Levels Highway maintenance, so I would like to ask the minister if the identified problems on that stretch of highway have been corrected, as far as she's concerned. Or can we expect further rehabilitation of that notably dangerous stretch of road to continue?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, in any given area of highways within the province, we certainly look to keeping up maintenance. Where rehabilitation is required, we start working toward doing those priority areas. If the member has a particular area of concern, we can start looking at it with regard to that issue.
J. Dalton: I appreciate that response, and I'll certainly be happy to share with the minister some of the correspondence I have in my file. I think that's an excellent suggestion. I didn't expect to take up time here in dealing with that particular issue, and the point is well taken.
Let me move from there to a few points that I would like to put on record on the Lions Gate Bridge, which, of course, is a very topical, popular thing on both the North Shore and in the lower mainland. Last year the previous Highways minister announced a five-year time line whereby a public process would be conducted. We would eventually get to decision-making and then the construction of whatever had been decided upon. My first question would be: what stage are we at now as far as the public process is concerned?
Hon. J. Pement: We're really getting to a very significant phase of the public process, where we are looking at getting all the information the ministry has acquired to date out into the public.
J. Dalton: On January 30 of this year, my riding association conducted a public forum on this among other topics, but it was certainly the main topic of the morning discussion. Bill Weir, who is an engineer on one of the task forces advising the government on the Lions Gate Bridge crossing issue, said.... I can't quote him exactly, but I remember when he made this statement, and everyone in the audience was interested to hear it. He said that they expected a short list of options would be available in March or April of this year for public consideration. I would like the minister, if she can, to tell the committee whether that statement has gotten off the rails. We are now into May, and I don't see any evidence that we're at that very important stage in the decision-making process.
Hon. J. Pement: The focus group has been working diligently on some of the information put to them with regard to options, and it will come up with a shortlist. In the interim, the public has asked to see all the options that have been put forward, along with their implications. We are working hard to set up this process.
J. Dalton: I've heard the response. I'm not sure whether or not this process is on a regional time line, but I'm not going to belabour that point.
As the minister will be aware, test drilling is going on in the causeway of Stanley Park, with the idea of determining what is underneath the surface, presumably from the point of view of whether tunnelling or trenching may be available. That would lead one to believe that the shortlist of options -- once we get to them in the public process -- would indicate a rebuilding of the bridge or rehab or maybe tearing down the bridge and then using the causeway through a double-decking process, either above the surface or trenching through the current right-of-way. Is that perhaps the government's favourite choice? I say that in particular, because there is a lot of public interest and concern, particularly in North and West Vancouver, about the heritage concept of the current structure and whether it's feasible to retain the bridge in some form, or at least maintain its integrity. I wonder whether the current activity in the causeway would give us a snapshot and a preview of what we might expect to see coming out of the process.
Hon. J. Pement: Drilling is being done to have a look at what types of soils, compositions and such would be in that area and to help define potential options. It does not preclude anything at this point as to the decision, etc. It's just a case of having a look at the composition of the soil.
D. Schreck: I'd like to share with the minister -- for the sake of having it on the public record through Hansard -- comments that I made last Monday night at an in camera meeting of the councillors for the district of North Vancouver. These are the same comments I made on a Shaw Cable interview with respect to the bridge, which will be shown next week. I hope we all recognize, in facing the challenge of the Lions Gate Bridge, that this problem was not created in the most recent engineering report on the problems of maintenance and the need to upgrade or replace the bridge or else incur increasing maintenance costs. I think the work done by the focus group clearly documents that the political controversy surrounding the crossing has gone on since the building of the Lions Gate Bridge; there has been 50
[ Page 10614 ]
years of it. Those of us who have been around the lower mainland for the last couple of decades are probably painfully aware of the controversy that comes and goes on a third crossing or a tunnel or any other variation.
I have complimented the member for North Vancouver-Seymour for a recent ad in a special supplement of the North Shore News on the Lions Gate Bridge. In his advertisement, the member pointed out that in his opinion there is an obvious narrowing of current choices before the public, and that as much as people want a tunnel -- and let me say that somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of my constituents say they want a tunnel -- there are major cost problems. There are some significant engineering problems with the tunnel. There's a little difficulty about where the end points are going to be. If the end points are anywhere other than in existing traffic patterns, communities are destroyed and costs of rearranging traffic patterns are increased significantly.
The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said in his advertisement: let's get a little practical here and talk about what we can afford. The realistic range of options is to look at existing traffic patterns and existing rights-of-way and narrow the choices. I congratulate that member for those statements. I think this problem has to be faced on a non-partisan basis in the interests of everyone in the lower mainland and particularly in the interests of folks on the North Shore. Whether people are on the government side, as I am for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, or on the opposition side, as are members for the other three North Shore ridings, there has been a 50-year historical fight between Vancouver and the North Shore about this crossing. The traditional argument is reflected by a position recently taken by the city of Vancouver. They lay out criteria, which if met would mean that you could cut off the North Shore and let it drift into the Georgia Strait. It's just too bad if we want to get across town.
North Shore opinions on the options are very wide-ranging. As I said, 50 to 60 percent of my constituents want some form of tunnel; about 30 percent would be satisfied with some sort of new bridge or bridge replacement; and about 20 percent would like to maintain the status quo. I must say that I'm very sympathetic to the 20 percent, but I've been convinced that, as much as I would like to maintain the status quo, it's probably not a feasible option. I'm equally sympathetic to the 50 to 60 percent who want a tunnel, but I've accepted that we probably can't afford it. I don't know who is going to volunteer to have their neighbourhood sacrificed to build it.
[4:30]
So I concur with the leadership shown in the ad by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I want it clearly on the record that from my point of view, if we can work together on a non-partisan basis to view this as a regional transportation challenge and overcome 50 years of regional divisions irrespective of political parties, we are going to be wiser and better off. I hope my friend the member for West Vancouver-Capilano will join in that effort too. I certainly hope my friend the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will join in that effort. Perhaps we all can talk to our friends in Vancouver and overcome the problems that have plagued us for the past 50 years.
The appeal that I want to make to you, hon. minister, is this: please do what you can to get all the facts before the public in more than the print media only. A recent program on Shaw Cable, channel 4, laid out some excellent technical information that I have not seen elsewhere in the briefings in which I've been privileged to lay out information. For instance, I didn't know that one end of the Lions Gate Bridge doesn't have footings; it's sunk in gravel. Many engineering options that talk about putting more load structure on the existing bridge overlook the fact that it could sink into the ocean or fall over. There's a major engineering challenge because of the rather unusual absence of footings and the nature of the gravel at the north end of the bridge. The more information that gets out to the public, I think the better the public's understanding will be. Please do what you can to have more cable television programs with technical information everyone can understand. That will help narrow the options and get this onto a good commonsense basis.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern with regard to the public having full information concerning the different options and the implications of those options. The ministry is putting together a video that can be run on cable TV in the communities. We can use that process at meetings and also at the meetings we have had with ministry staff, different community groups and the councils going through all these options and their implications. I agree with you totally that the public needs to understand what each option means with regard to the costs, and the actual engineering design and structure of the bridge.
C. Tanner: I want to address two or three questions concerning the Pat Bay Highway, specifically the left-hand turns off that highway, which I consider some of the most dangerous I've ever seen anywhere. What plans does the ministry have with regard to an Island View overpass and the left-hand turns to Keating Cross Road and East Saanich Road?
Hon. J. Pement: The Island View interchange is part of the project on the Pat Bay section of the highway. Once that project is completed, we'll be looking at closing access off the highway to East Saanich Road and Keating Cross Road. We also have to wait on that portion for the CRD transportation study that is being developed right now.
C. Tanner: As I understand it, the work being done by the Capital Regional District consists of two things. First, it's putting into place the building blocks so that you can examine overpasses and so forth. They continued using that sort of highway knowledge in Vancouver, but they haven't here in Victoria since 1987, when regional planning was given away. As a consequence, we are five or six years behind Vancouver in the ability to make a judgment without the material being put in. That's one of the things that study is doing. I'm talking about computer work and things of that sort.
The second thing they're doing is an overall judgment as to whether we should be going for public transportation as opposed to cars or for other forms of transportation. It is my understanding that they're going to make the judgment on that. They are not going to address -- and I've heard this from a number of sources -- the interchange at Beacon Avenue in Sidney or the Island View overpass. My question to the minister is: when do you plan to do the Island View overpass?
Hon. J. Pement: The CRD transportation study is the beginning of a process of dialogue with the regional district and the municipalities involved. Once that study is complete -- and it's my understanding that the study is to be completed fairly soon -- then that dialogue can carry on through the different phases of the project, which are consultation with the communities, preliminary designs,
[ Page 10615 ]
designs and that sort of thing. So it does take a length of time to get to final completion.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister doesn't want to be specific. However, in this particular case, in my view and in the view of the present council in Central Saanich, which I think the minister has been informed of by letter, it is an extremely dangerous intersection. Anywhere you've got a volume of traffic movement at 80 miles an hour up a hill and other traffic going across it and where there's a judgment call both on the traffic coming up and the people trying to get across, it seems to be an extremely dangerous intersection and convergence of traffic. Would the minister give me the assurance that the priority, as far as her department is concerned, is that before anything else on the Pat Bay highway?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have to say that there is a process that is part of the issue. I recognize the concern the member has raised with regard to the particular intersection, but in that process there is consultation with the communities and the CRD. The municipality itself is working on that study, which is supposed to be in by next week, May 11.
C. Tanner: I must congratulate the new Minister of Transportation. She has quickly gained the ability to not answer a question but make me feel good about it. Thank you very much.
With regard to the Wain Road overpass, there are two properties in the process of being expropriated. At least, offers have been made on them that haven't been accepted, and there are some negotiations going on. I know that the minister might have some embarrassment in talking about it, because it is being negotiated right now. Can the minister confirm that if the department had their druthers, they would expropriate those two extra properties at Wain Road?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, with regard to any highway scenario, we try to work through the consultation process. When it comes to the actual acquisition of property, we're prefer a negotiation route, not expropriation. But that is the final part of the process if you really cannot come to agreement through negotiations.
C. Tanner: In actual fact, on this particular piece of property, a small piece of one of the larger lots is already acquired -- at least, an offer has been made on it. I think it has already been staked, and you are about to tear up the front of this person's garden and go ahead, which you are entitled to, I think, by law. And obviously you have to compensate them for it. But let me, if I may, give you my point of view on what has happened so far, and this is my last question.
It seems to me that in this circumstance, with the amount of land you're going to take over, you could quite easily accommodate the two families that are there, put your road through, put your subsidiary road through below it, redesign the land that is left -- and I think you have permission from North Saanich to do so -- and then divide it into what is probably five lots. I suspect you'd get your money back. It doesn't take a genius to work that out; if I can do it, your ministry can. I've looked it over, and I think that's what you can do. I've been advised by people in the business that you can. In the circumstances, I don't know why you're hanging tough on those two lots for a few thousand dollars. That's my comment, for what it's worth.
Hon. J. Pement: I understand the concern raised and will take it under advisement. We talked with the other member here about acquisition of land and the need for sensitivity in understanding the concern raised by people when we acquire land for a right-of-way. We know how difficult trying to set up a clearer process with some common sense within the whole negotiation scenario can be at times. I will take your comments into consideration.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, there is a regional study in the Okanagan that was due to report out in April, and I haven't heard anything yet. There was also a bridge condition survey; I understand the results are already in, and the minister should have seen that. I am wondering if there is an update on the bridge condition and/or the results of the regional study. If the regional study is ready, at what point will it become public?
[4:45]
Hon. J. Pement: The regional study, from my understanding, is in a draft situation right now, and the liaison group working on it is beginning to prepare how best to present it to the public. That process is still happening.
The bridge condition survey is in, but I have not personally seen the study yet. Staff are looking at it, reviewing it and analyzing it. They will be making recommendations to me, after which we will proceed to the public with it.
J. Tyabji: The last time the minister and I discussed the regional study, there was still some discussion about what the parameters of this study would be, what the mandate and final decision would be and what impact it would have. That obviously must have been developed during the course of the study. How important will the results of that study be, and how final? As I understood it, the regional study was to discuss the options for that corridor and to make a recommendation to the minister about the plan of action to be taken on that corridor. Is that still the mandate and, if so, to what extent? How specific will it be?
Hon. J. Pement: The study, I understand, is a fairly preliminary look at overall demands. The study itself was pretty broad in the sense of looking at existing problems and the demands of congestion, conditions and that sort of thing. I believe it still requires some coalition between the regional districts involved; we still need to get to the process where there are three regional districts involved. It's basically a preliminary look, with perhaps a concept of developing further consultation planning processes with the community and that sort of thing.
J. Tyabji: As I understand it, then, there will be some recommendations to the minister for preliminary discussion. Is that what I am to understand? Of course, this is the first time we've been in estimates with this minister, but with the previous minister the commitment was made a year ago to look at that transportation corridor with an eye to a solution. There is definitely a need for some concrete ideas. There is no question that no matter what decision is made, it will be controversial. There are going to be huge groups upset no matter what is done, but I think the worst thing would be not to have something concrete for discussion when that study comes out.
Having said that, the Westside Road -- which I know was one option for a transportation route -- has some safety hazards I want to bring to the minister's attention. I know there have been problems with expropriation of land, but
[ Page 10616 ]
there is an intersection at Browse Road and Westside Road that is a problem in terms of safety. I want to bring that to the minister's attention, because this minister is also responsible for ICBC. There have been a lot of problems on that road in the past, and it is also potentially a human safety problem.
While we're on the subject of ICBC, I understand that the minister has been approached by the Minister of Environment with regard to some funding for fencing in Winfield due to the wildlife problem. I'd like to know where that is at from this minister's mouth rather than the Minister of Environment's.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to fencing, again we're dealing with limited dollars with regard to how far we can go with those sorts of options. We've concentrated on the Coquihalla because of the density of wildlife and the volumes of traffic that go through. So a major amount of fencing was done in that area, not leaving much money for other areas. But there are two processes we can work on.
There are also the reflectors. I don't know if the member is aware of this type of reflector, particularly with regard to deer. At certain heights and angles the lights will hit the reflectors and the deer will be frightened off. Then, of course, there's the fencing itself. With the Ministry of Environment, we identify some of those critical areas and work through what we can do with the moneys we have. So far, at Winfield, we haven't worked on a plan at this point.
J. Tyabji: I've been doing quite a bit of work on this issue with the Minister of Environment. I want to let this minister know some of the background to that issue. There have been petitions delivered to the Minister of Environment and quite a few submissions from the growers.
There are two types of wildlife that are becoming a hazard, and there's urban encroachment interspersed with the orchards in Winfield and Crown lands on the other side of the orchard and the subdivisions. In addition to deer, there's now a problem with bear. Of course, with the subdivisions there, that becomes a very serious issue. The two ministries involved in this, in addition to this one, are the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.
What has happened in recent years, through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and in large part through this government's initiatives with the renovation of orchards, is a movement toward dwarf trees. They're juvenile dwarf trees funded by the Ministry of Agriculture through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. So we've got ten-acre blocks of new trees that the deer come into and strip absolutely clean. In some cases the losses to the orchardists are astronomical. Many of the growers have incurred personal liabilities in the tens of thousands of dollars trying to get rid of the deer. In addition to the potential problem with bear, the deer are a problem for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Environment is the one who, by statute, is supposed to be somehow preventing nuisance wildlife from impacting on commerce or residences. Shortly after the previous Minister of Environment took over when this government came in, the regional office of the Ministry of Environment ordered an extended hunting season in that area to try to address the overpopulation of deer, which had come about in large part because of the changes through the Ministry of Agriculture.
The hunters started trekking through people's backyards with dead deer, and there were young children around. They were also hunting at night, so there was an extremely large outcry and all kinds of problems. The shooting was going on 24 hours a day. They could access the Crown land only through the subdivisions and the orchards. When that was shut down by the previous Minister of Environment, the issue became one of the community being impacted in a number of ways. The nuisance wildlife have gotten more numerous and some of the farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. They're just trying to make a living, and they can't keep the deer out, and some of them can't afford a fence. There has been some fence construction.
The Minister of Environment is very aware of this problem and, I think, is well intentioned. Where ICBC comes in is in the fact that there have been accidents in that area with the deer. I don't know that the bears have been hit, but it's been close. There are petitions with the Minister of Environment; there's a lot of correspondence on this. I think it's a financial issue, it's an issue of economics for the farmers, and it's a safety issue for the community on a number of counts. I'd like to really emphasize to the minister that it would be very important to the people of that area to know that some action is being taken by all three ministries involved in it.
Hon. J. Pement: We have to remember that with Highways, the policy is directed to keeping wildlife off the road, not off the farmers' fields, unfortunately. I know that a lot of farmers would like us to fence their fields and keep other livestock off their land as well. Where we can identify that the wildlife is an extreme hazard -- or at least a high hazard -- in a given area, then we can start looking at it in terms of that scenario.
Again, we have been using these reflectors, which may not help in the situation you're talking about, because you're trying to keep them off the farmers' land and the orchards as well. The reflectors have proven to be pretty functional, and we've been putting up about 4,000 a year and identifying some of the critical areas. Where there's a high-density population of wildlife, we will look at fencing a portion.
R. Neufeld: I just want to go briefly through some of the areas of my constituency. The rehabilitation program and the road-resurfacing projects from Charlie Lake to Cache Creek -- I don't have any problems with that. The road upgrading is the part that I would like to question a little. What we have here is 18 miles or about 30 kilometres of road that's going to be reconstructed or rerouted. I'm not actually sure of the amount of gravel road in the constituency of Peace River North, but I think there's about 2,400 miles of it between Peace River North and Peace River South. I think the most gravel road in the whole province of British Columbia is in those two constituencies.
Both of those constituencies have experienced a tremendous increase in oil and gas activity over the last number of years. Last year it was becoming very evident that roadbeds, because of heavy rains.... I think that ministry staff are quite aware that you can let it go only so far, and then it's going to cost you an awful lot of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars came out of Peace River North and Peace River South, and in fact some $169 million of underestimated revenue by the province went toward reducing the deficit this year. I asked for a little of that money back into the infrastructure.
What I see in what was sent to me is that we're going to look at 30 kilometres of road, or 18 miles. We've got about 1,200 miles of road. I also see on the map that this activity is all going to take place around Fort St. John and nothing around Fort Nelson. Desan Road is a highway under your
[ Page 10617 ]
jurisdiction out of Fort Nelson to the Desan area, which is another area that's supplying an awful lot of dollars for the province. I wonder if there is any way we can get some money to start doing a little more work on those roads. I know this is probably a spend-day from the opposition, but I'm asking because we contribute a fair amount also. And if we let the roads continue to deteriorate, there's going to be nothing left to work on. In fact, in some cases, the corduroy is showing through on the Desan Road, and that's just ridiculous. When you think of the amount of equipment and the number of men and women that drive back and forth on those roads, it's dangerous; in fact, we're lucky we haven't killed a few because of it. I'd like to know if we have some plan in place as a ministry. Are we're going to start looking at some of this or are we just going to continue to let it deteriorate like it is now?
[5:00]
Hon. J. Pement: I was just adding up some of the road upgrades and such that we're doing in the area. I'm not sure if you've got more gravel road than I have.
R. Neufeld: I think I have you beat -- barely.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, but maybe you have more roads than I have in my constituency. Nevertheless, I recognize that particularly in the Peace area, the....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the number of roads in the Peace area that do access resources -- that is, how important they are to the area and also the agricultural side of it. To be able to keep up throughout the province is a constant concern of the ministry. We're looking at roadways going back years -- our main highways of the fifties and sixties -- and we're trying to maintain those as well. It's a struggle with dollars and with the fact that there are concerns and priorities within the different regions to try to upgrade and maintain. In the Fort Nelson area, the Sierra-Yoyo road.... Actually, 11 kilometres of it are really part of Highways; the rest is Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I gather we still do the maintenance on that road as well.
Don't forget, too, that we recognize some of the concerns in the Peace. The Beatton River crossing has just been announced. The five bridges to nowhere are now going somewhere. That's a $12 million project....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pement: I think that was a project that both the member and the communities had high on their priority list, and it was just recently announced. We are upgrading the Fellers Heights section of the Heritage Highway, which is another $4 million project to complete that gravel section with at least a seal-coat -- a hard surface, so that we can have better travelling conditions for the public. For North and South Peace rehab, to bring some of our roads up to condition, we have $6.6 million in total. I think we're doing fairly well in at least trying to get some of the dollars back up into the North and the South Peace. We recognize the amount of roads you have; nevertheless, we're doing the best we can with the dollars we have. I think we all recognize the economic constraints we're under.
R. Neufeld: I can recognize the restraints when your budget is continually being cut -- I guess the minister allows it to happen. I know she's a new minister, but I believe it was cut by a further $92 million last year. So it is difficult. Maybe we'll see an increase in your budget next year instead of a further $100 million decrease.
The $12 million for the road between the bridges to nowhere doesn't endear you at all when you're in Fort St. John and talking about a road to nowhere. I can tell you, Madam Minister, that that kind of statement -- a road to nowhere -- didn't get you any marks in Fort St. John. A road anywhere is a good road, but I have never called a road in your constituency a road to nowhere. In fact, I had quite a few people tell me that they didn't appreciate that remark. Three years after building the last of six bridges, your NDP administration is finally seeing the way clear to finishing the project.
We appreciate that, but it doesn't help us with those other gravel roads in the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson area. Desan Road has been a political football since its creation -- not just under your administration, but in previous ones -- and it gets kicked back and forth between the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Highways. That's no reflection on you; it's a reflection on the bureaucracies in both ministries. At some point in time somebody -- some ministry, some minister -- is going to have to take responsibility for that road, bring it up to grade and start looking after it. It just has to happen.
Liard Highway is another road that is deteriorating very badly in places. In fact, I drove over it recently, and some of the corduroy and the muskeg is coming up through that road in places. I'd just like to know whether any money is going to be expended on that portion of the road, other than for the brushing that I see listed in the information I received.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the five bridges, I have to say that the phrases were given to me from the community itself when I talked to the councils and the regional district people. I flew over the bridges to have a look at them because of the concern that the communities brought out. When I got into the helicopter, the pilot didn't seem to know where to go. We said, "Well, it's five bridges that have no roads connecting them," and he said: "Oh, the bridges to nowhere." So I think you've taken it in a different context than what was meant. Now we have bridges with the connections to the roads, and I think it's a real plus that we're able to do that in this ministry. If it offended anyone, I would certainly offer my apologies, but it was not meant in that way at all.
In terms of rehab, the total we have to deal with this year is actually more than for last year. I've just gone through the estimates with the critic from the Liberal opposition with regard to where the rehab moneys come from: through SHIP, my budget and major rehab projects within the TFA. In fact, I haven't had a reduction, albeit I'm a new minister; it has actually increased to about $191 million all told.
Back to the particular area you pointed out with regard to the Liard Highway, we really have the funding that we have put forward, as you have seen in the rehab budget for your area with the brushing. We can look at other priorities in the communities that you deal with. You can consult with those communities, and we can reallocate some dollars, but it's a case of community priorities that the region has set -- themselves, as ministry staff. I really feel that we are doing the best we can with the moneys we have. I do recognize that there are roads we need to get to work on, and if this is a particular priority in your constituency, we will take a very close look at it with regard to allocation of dollars.
R. Neufeld: It certainly has been a particular priority. In fact, I think it was last year when I wrote the ministers -- and
[ Page 10618 ]
you were one, along with the Minister of Finance -- regarding more money for upgrading the roads that we are presently pounding to nothing.
The $6.6 million rehab would include the bridge project, which will finish paying for the Taylor Bridge. What is the amount for that and for the road-resurfacing project from Charlie Lake to Cache Creek? Could you give me the amounts on those two separate items, please?
Hon. J. Pement: The Taylor Bridge comes to $2,207,000 for the painting, and the resurfacing is $300,000.
[5:15]
R. Neufeld: One of the other members who is not going to be here wants to ask a few questions. I have some other questions that I'll ask next week when we go back into estimates.
Just one observation. The next time you enter a helicopter in Fort St. John, remember that the airport is about ten miles -- maybe even five miles or three miles as the crow flies -- from where the bridges are. If the pilot says that he doesn't know where those bridges are, I would be very tempted to take my suitcase, get out of that helicopter and get into one where the pilot knows where he's going.
Hon. J. Pement: I would just like to remind the hon. member that when I made that visit, I made a promise to have a look at them. It was a bird's-eye view at the bridges that were involved. I get into a lot of aircraft, and I'm quite familiar with them. The pilot was actually quite capable.
R. Neufeld: He just didn't know the country.
Hon. J. Pement: He just didn't know quite where these bridges were until he identified them in his own mind, and then he knew exactly where he wanted to go. It wasn't a case of incompetency at all.
W. Hartley: I have a couple of questions about a project that has been on the front page of my local newspaper for several weeks, and I would like some clarification of where the ministry might be at with the project.
We had an earlier discussion about bridges to nowhere. My feeling about the area where I live is that we have no bridge to everywhere. The GVRD has the same impression, I think, because they've projected some growth rates that will certainly require major transportation projects on the north side of the Fraser in a very short time.
The Albion bridge project is a private bridge proposal. It would involve private funding to build a two-lane bridge -- one lane going north-south and one going south-north -- between Maple Ridge and Fort Langley. I'd like to know where this sits within the ministry's priorities, and then I have a couple of questions following that.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with regard to a private venture, that's a question for the Transportation Financing Authority. The Minister of Employment and Investment can give you a better feel for that concept. The issue concerning the crossing is definitely one of those priority areas which we are beginning to develop preliminary considerations for. Our ministry wants more details of the design that was submitted.
W. Hartley: As I understand it, the matter of private funding is in a different ministry; I'll pursue that there. That would include, I suppose, the whole question of tolls and those sorts of fees.
D. Symons: I tried asking, too; you got the same answer I did.
W. Hartley: Fine, I think that covers it.
H. De Jong: I suppose my first question would be regarding the overpass at No. 1 Road and Highway 401 at the eastern end of Sumas Prairie. A few years ago the Minister of Highways said that 401 was going to be a freeway. A number of overpasses were built by the previous administration. Since then, nothing has happened. We still have a dangerous crossing just west of the Vedder Canal. A couple of years ago I was led to believe that the design was all finished, and they were ready to put it out to contract, but nothing has happened. Could the minister elaborate as to why it's not happening? Then perhaps we can expect that something will happen.
Hon. J. Pement: There has been some preliminary design work done for that area. But in the case of priorities, there were two done: one immediately east of the Vedder Canal and one east of Chilliwack. Those two were considered priorities and have been done with that section in mind. This project is one we will look at in the whole mix of overall improvements on the 401.
H. De Jong: A further question. I thought that B.C. 21 was going to build a whole lot of these things. Is it possible that this project could be considered under B.C. 21? It sort of negates the whole idea of a freeway from Vancouver to Hope, because there is this stumbling block halfway. It's certainly a very dangerous intersection with quite a number of people living in that area who cross that highway day after day. Coming down the Vedder Canal bridge, there's not a whole lot of visibility. If you come from the west going east, you have a similar problem because it's around a slight bend. So it's a very dangerous situation, and I can't really see why this is being delayed and delayed.
Hon. J. Pement: Capital projects are handled within the Transportation Financing Authority, which is part of the B.C. 21 program. Any project considered capital would go through that process. As to the actual priority within the region, it is part of the considerations for the region. There may be a couple of others that are higher priorities at this time, in terms of some of the other areas that have higher volumes of traffic. However, this is one project that the region is aware of.
H. De Jong: Just a couple of questions in a different area. The previous Minister of Highways made quite a bit of noise last summer about having bridges built and operated by private enterprise in terms of tolls and so on. Is the minister still of the view that these bridges would be built by private enterprise? He was not too clear at that time as to which ones he had in mind. Are the tolls still being considered, in terms of the revenues generated in that fashion paying for those bridges? A further question on that. Would those private entrepreneurs be subject to the fair-wage policy if the minister proceeded, either through B.C. 21 or through the ministry itself, with contracting out those bridge works?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to actual financing of roads and highways and possible revenue streams, those questions would be best put to the Minister of Employment and Investment, who is responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority.
[ Page 10619 ]
H. De Jong: A further question, which is a rather simple one. Are those minor contracts that are now let by the Ministry of Highways, in terms of widening for traffic lights or whatever, subject to the fair-wage policy?
Hon. J. Pement: Any contracts of $250,000 or more are subject to the fair-wage policy.
H. De Jong: Is there an attempt made by the ministry to have the contracts go out in small portions to avoid the fair-wage policy?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to say that we develop projects and the tenders for those projects based on how we can best complete them. If a project comes in at an estimated $250,000, that's how that project will go out. If the project comes in at $40,000, then we'll look at a different type of tendering and labour situation.
H. De Jong: Generally, the highways maintenance contracts within the province.... I would assume that those contractors are not subject to the fair-wage policy. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumption, but given that situation, are those contractors allowed to bid on highway projects?
[5:30]
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with maintenance contracts, the work being done by their crews is a collective bargaining scenario; it's a different process. If that company then contracts for work on other projects outside of the maintenance contract, and if it's $250,000, the fair-wage policy will apply.
H. De Jong: Does the Ministry of Highways still have enough staff and equipment so that it could bid on small contracts? Does the ministry in fact bid on contracts that are let by the department itself?
Hon. J. Pement: No.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, in view of the fact that we've reached the usual hour of adjournment, I move that the committee rise, report remarkable progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]