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)
MONDAY, MAY 9, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 3
[ Page 10637 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
U. Dosanjh: I am delighted to introduce five visitors to the House today. Three of them met at college about three decades ago in the village of my grandfather. I was delighted to meet them on the ferry on their way to Victoria today. Kesar and Jangbir Bhatti, Pritam and Pritam Kaur Dhindsa, and Mehnga Singh Rasida are in the gallery. Would the House please welcome them.
G. Janssen: Visiting us from the salmon capital of the world, beautiful Port Alberni, are 30 high school students from Alberni District Secondary School. Accompanying them is their teacher, Frank Holm. Please make them welcome.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
F. Gingell: On April 22, 1994, when special prosecutor Richard Peck reported his findings on the actions of the Attorney General, we received both a press release and the entire report of the special prosecutor explaining why no charges had been laid. To any member of this cabinet willing to answer the question, I ask: why has the Attorney General and this government not made public the portion of the special prosecutor's report that explains why no charges have been laid against directors in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal?
The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?
F. Gingell: This whole matter casts a shadow of suspicion over the members of this government and the funding of their election campaigns. My question is to the Deputy House Leader. Will she, as the person in charge today, having reconsidered this matter over the weekend, agree today to refer the matter to the special committee on ethical conduct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Last week the Attorney General gave the answer to all these questions: the matter is before the courts.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT
G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In view of the environment of mistrust that has been created around this government's appalling ethical standards, a number of concerns have been raised with regard to the Island Highway agreement which she helped to negotiate, whereby $2.1 million has been allocated for government-approved unions. Can the minister inform this House how the people of British Columbia can be sure that their tax dollars will not be laundered and kicked back to the NDP?
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: Thank you for that informative response, hon. minister.
It's interesting that when we look at the Island Highway agreement, we see that most unions receive 15 cents per hour as a contribution to their advancement funds; the ironworkers' union, on the other hand, receives 25 cents per hour. I notice that one of the ministers who negotiated this agreement used to work for the iron-ministers -- they will be called iron-ministers in the future, I'm sure.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Campbell: Can the Minister of Transportation inform this House why she negotiated a special agreement with the ironworkers and what the additional ten cents will be used for?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd just inform the member that I'm the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and with regard to the issue of the project agreement, that is under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment.
The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I was aware that the minister is actually responsible for transportation and highways, but in view of how few highways are being built in British Columbia, I thought she had left that out of her portfolio.
The minister was evidently at the meetings. All the minutes from the meetings suggest that she was there, so she must have participated. Again, can the minister tell this House and the people of British Columbia how they can be sure that their tax dollars are not going to be laundered and kicked back to the NDP?
NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last week the hon. minister in Ottawa, Ron Irwin, suggested that a bill to enact a self-government agreement for Yukon natives, which will be put in place in Ottawa, will have a clause that says that the Charter must apply in that agreement. Will the minister confirm that any agreements in British Columbia with respect to self-government will have a clause that is similar to that?
Hon. J. Cashore: I will not confirm that at this time. We continue to follow through with the process to discuss self-government in the context of treaty negotiations, and it will be in that process and in that context that any such confirmation will be made.
[2:15]
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?
G. Wilson: The minister, Ron Irwin, has also suggested that where self-government is being put in place across Canada, the position of the government of Canada is that a referendum would be held on native reserves. Will the minister confirm that any self-government enactment in the province would have such a referendum?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think the people of British Columbia want to see a treaty that's crafted in British Columbia voted on by people in Newfoundland.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: I have no idea why the minister would have an idea that people living on a reserve in British Columbia
[ Page 10638 ]
would vote in Newfoundland. Would the minister confirm, then, that he would be prepared to put, by way of a referendum to the people of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, any agreements with respect to self-government in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Discussions continue with third parties and with first nations. It's in that context that these deliberations will be carried forward, so I will not be making any further statements on that at this time.
COMPENSATION FOR CHILDREN ABUSED WHILE IN GOVERNMENT CARE
V. Anderson: Unbelievably, the Minister of Social Services recently stated that her ministry is not liable for children who have been abused while in government care. Yet while the minister, by her statement, has no liability or moral responsibility, the government has compensated some former foster children who were abused. To the Minister of Social Services: what real responsibility does her ministry accept for the abuses suffered by children while they are under the care of the government?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was our government that first gave recognition to historical abuse of children while they were in the care of previous governments by instituting the residential historical abuse program. We have had many former children in care take advantage of that program, all of which is funded by our government. Our government also recognizes that former children in care have the right to proceed to court on these matters.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: We have heard many tragic histories of abuse and neglect by this province's Social Services ministry. James Hale, for one, has reported being beaten, demeaned, abused and drugged while a ward of the state. Yet it's been suggested that abused individuals who have pursued therapy through the residential historical abuse program are less likely to receive compensation from the government because they have attended that program. This is an inhuman way to save costs. Will the Minister of Social Services assure this House that those seeking therapy through the RHAP will not be penalized in seeking further compensation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that these are difficult issues facing us. This residential historical abuse program, for the first time ever, is meeting the needs of some of these former children in care. That program has been well funded by our government and will continue to be funded. In the meantime, as the hon. member opposite knows, there are opportunities whereby former children in care can seek compensation through the courts.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: As the Minister of Social Services well knows, those people who have been abused have very grave difficulties, financially and otherwise, going through the courts when they cannot get support from Social Services. They need support in being able to undertake that process. We need only to be reminded of young Matthew Vaudreuil to confirm the facts of abuse.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
CALL FOR REVIEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY
V. Anderson: The Minister of Social Services has been asked repeatedly for an independent review of her ministry. Now I ask the Minister of Social Services exactly which part of her ministry does not need an independent review.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that the system failed Matthew Vaudreuil, and there is no one more than I who wants to get to the bottom of the reasons why that occurred. I have promised members of this House the results of our internal inquiry. That will be the first step. Following that, I will be discussing further actions with my cabinet that we need to take to ensure that the system does not once again fail a child. That may, and probably will, include changes to the law. I expect your support on those changes.
SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Social Services as well. The tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil was a shocking and brutal demonstration of government neglect. First of all, we need to know who was responsible. How could that child, having been in the custody of the sister at one time, have been returned to its mother -- with 60 telephone calls from one neighbour? We need to know that this can never happen again, but I want to know if the minister conducted an internal review immediately following Matthew's death. If there was an internal review, will the minister agree to table it today?
Hon. J. MacPhail: When the criminal investigation into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil was completed, our ministry started an internal investigation. I have committed to you and every member of the House that I will make the complete results of that internal inquiry available. That will be the first step into ensuring that this never happens again.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: It's incredible that the ministry would sit for almost two years while a criminal investigation was taking place. Can the minister tell me that no investigation was done in the time between Matthew's death and when a criminal conviction was obtained? Does the minister say that nothing happened within the ministry to ensure that other children would be protected from the kind of neglect that was responsible for his death?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have committed that all details of our involvement and the system's involvement with Matthew Vaudreuil and his family -- in the incidents leading up to the death of Matthew and during the time of the criminal investigation -- will be made available to each and every one of us in this House. You will have an opportunity to review that and join with me in determining what other actions are necessary. In the meantime, our government will be considering and taking further action to deal with the fact that this should never happen again.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: The answers demonstrate why British Columbians are clamouring for an independent review of
[ Page 10639 ]
this incident and others in the ministry. Will the minister confirm and commit today to launching an independent review of all the circumstances leading up to Matthew's death?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I find it difficult to stand up and take these questions from the hon. member opposite, who spent the majority of time in his government slashing and cutting services to families such as that of Matthew Vaudreuil. The first step will be the tabling of the internal inquiry. Our government will take whatever steps are necessary after the internal inquiry to get to the bottom of why this horrible incident occurred.
PRIORITIES IN CORRECTIONS SYSTEM
J. Dalton: In the absence of those who should be accountable for this issue, I will direct it to the Government House Leader. Two federal prisoners just this weekend have been arrested for armed robbery in Oregon, and they're implicated in a Seattle murder. Provincial offenders walk out of minimum-security facilities. Clearly public confidence in both the corrections system and the justice system has been eroded. My question to the Government House Leader is: will you take to your colleagues that in the entire issue, and public confidence and safety must be placed first and not the placement and reassignment of inmates?
Hon. G. Clark: As tempted as I am to talk about problems in federal correctional institutions, I'll take that question on notice on behalf of the Attorney General.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Marketing Board for the year ending March 31, 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, in Section A the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and in Section B the Ministry of Environment.
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).
W. Hurd: I have a series of questions this afternoon on the government's commercial back-country recreation policy. I think it's important to engage the minister in a discussion about his philosophy on increasing the number of such ventures in the province. He'll be aware that considerable attention has been devoted to the tenure Issue and the importance of writing into the licence arrangement some sort of longer-term commitment in order for ski operators, heliski operators, wilderness adventure tour operators and so on to make the kind of investments in their ventures that are needed to provide employment. Could the minister tell us whether he agrees that the type of licence arrangements that the Crown may enter into is of vital importance to these tourism operators in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I do think that it is a matter of vital interest to the tourism industry of British Columbia to have knowledge of the back-country policy as it is being considered by government. It is vital for them to have input, and that's exactly what we've been doing.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what progress his ministry has made towards a proper and recognized back-country recreation policy for the province? As the minister knows, it has been in the works for quite some time and has been part of the CORE table discussions in the province, however briefly. Can he tell us when he expects a policy to be available for those individuals and companies who want to make long-term investments in tourism ventures in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: The process of consultation went through a phase where I had considered that perhaps the whole policy development did not require further consultation. As the hon. member indicates, consultation has been going on for quite some time. On reflection last week, as I looked at the options that government was considering, I decided to meet with some of the representatives -- particularly from the tourism side -- to discuss their concerns further. In particular, Mr. Corbett, representing the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, has expressed a number of what I think are legitimate concerns. On the basis of that, I want to engage in more discussion with the industry sectors that have an interest in this matter.
[2:30]
I also want to take this opportunity to thank some representatives of government, in particular the minister from Cariboo South and the representatives from Burnaby-Willingdon and Nelson-Creston, who have been trying to work through this issue with me. I must say that their contribution has been much appreciated.
W. Hurd: I am certainly delighted to learn that the minister is agreeing to meet with some of the tour operators and associations. As the minister knows, they are very concerned about a confidential cabinet submission document which makes a number of recommendations with respect to tourism issues in the province, particularly the tenure issue. In reviewing this document, it's important to focus on one of the recommendations. It says: "All licence tenure agreements will contain clauses specifying that the tenure be revoked by the Crown without compensation, upon 90 days' notification, to address either the public interest or first nations interests that were not identified in the consultation process prior to tenuring." It further says: "Before granting the tenure documents, the potential tenure holder will be advised of such clauses so that there is no misunderstanding."
I have a series of questions with respect to this confidential cabinet submission. I wonder if I could ask the minister first whether he agrees that revoking a tenure upon 90 days' notification is the best way to encourage long-term investments in this emerging sector of the provincial economy.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if 90 days is the best answer or the only answer. You're right that a proposed cabinet document -- I think that's the way it has been labelled -- has been made available to the industry. I don't have a major problem with the input I've been getting since that document found its way out. But it's just that, hon. member: a draft document. No definitive decisions have been made. Whether or not we conclude to have a 90-day provision or a
[ Page 10640 ]
longer provision remains to be seen. As I said earlier, that's why I'm engaging in a degree of consultation with the industry and its representatives.
W. Hurd: I must confess to being very troubled by the answer from the minister. He knows that there is tremendous potential for back-country wilderness ventures in British Columbia and that there is investment available for these types of ventures. Why in the world would he allow a document to go out to the tourism industry that addresses the issue of compensation in a major way -- not in a minor way -- and suggests that it is important for the Crown not to increase the potential for compensation? How does he expect people to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an industry when, according to this submission, the Crown is looking for ways to decrease compensation in the event that the Crown or the government has to eliminate the tenured licence agreements? Why would a document like that be placed in the hands of the industry if it doesn't represent government policy with respect to compensation for these types of licence agreements?
Hon. M. Sihota: The matter relates to the document. If you're worried about why the document would reflect those concerns, maybe you should ask the people who released it. We're in a process of consultation with the industry. I surely wouldn't want the hon. member to get worked up in a lather by thinking that something is happening which may or may not happen. Let us work through these policy issues.
There are a number of competing tensions. On the one hand, industry wants some certainty, because investment is predicated on certainty; I understand that. Secondly, there needs to be some provision to deal with the environmental degradation that occurs when competing groups go into the back country; I understand that. In addition to that, it seems to me that there are some trespass issues that relate to Crown lands; I understand that. And it seems to me that some issues deal with aboriginal matters and the rights of aboriginal people to access some of these areas as well; I understand that. I also understand there are the competing interests of guide-outfitters, on one side of the coin, and packers, on the other side of the coin.
It seems to me that the hon. member doesn't understand all the competing tensions. Any time you are developing policy, you try to strike an appropriate balance between all those competing tensions. That's why we engage in consultation, and that's why staff prepare discussion papers. That's why we sit down and discuss those issues among ourselves and with the industry. That's why I've said that I want to talk to Mr. Corbett and others, and that's why I've encouraged the involvement of members of my caucus who have a special interest and expertise in this area. And that's why I'm confident that at the end of the day we will arrive at a policy which makes sense. Just relax, take it easy and ask your questions. I will try to answer them the best I can. But please understand, hon. member, that I'm going to engage in further discussions with the parties affected, so that we can achieve the right balance with regard to these policies.
W. Hurd: Those are very reassuring words, except that I keep looking at this cabinet submission and seeing language that would hardly induce anyone to rush out and mortgage the family farm in order to engage in a tourism venture in the province. I note another phrase here: "Where a lease is requested -- for example, to build a lodge -- that is dependent on a Crown licence for business viability, the lease document shall contain a clause specifying that possession of the lease does not guarantee access to that adjacent licensed tenure." Why in the world would he be responsible for pushing these kinds of draconian ideas out there to the tourism industry, which is busy at the present time trying to arrange financing and going to banks to talk about the security of its licence agreements? That, after all, is all it has when it comes to financing these ventures. I ask the minister again: why would he allow this type of restrictive language -- 90-day cancellation of tenures -- to go out there when this industry is in the state that it's in now and is looking for long-term financing not only from British Columbia but from abroad?
A sizable amount of foreign investment could flow to this province if the government were to send out any kind of positive signal with respect to licence agreements in the tourism field. Instead, we have a cabinet submission with draconian language, restrictive covenants and lease-breaking arrangements as to how the Crown can get out of its commitments. Will the minister stand in these estimates today and say that this document does not in fact reflect the position of his government? As the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, will he at least stand and say: "This is a document that does not represent the philosophy of my government"?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that there are a number of tensions and conflicting issues -- which I alluded to a few minutes ago -- that we have to reconcile in the development of a particular policy. That's why I'm engaged in a process of discussion and consultation with the affected parties. You may not like to hear that; you may want to know what the final policy is. But I'm not in a position to announce the final policy, because I haven't concluded the discussions that I need to have with the parties that are affected. Yes, I understand that there are some who are going to come and argue for more than 90 days; I'm sure that there are going to be some who are going to argue for tenure for more than a five-year period. I'll hear them out, and I will make a judicious decision with regard to these matters -- as we're supposed to do and as we inevitably will.
One of the benefits of engaging in this discussion in estimates is that we get a sense of how poorly researched the opposition can be. I think the hon. member is confusing this policy with other major capital investments that occur in British Columbia. If someone wants to invest in a ski hill on Crown land, there is a different process than that which you are referring to in the document you have in your possession, hon. member. You may know -- you may not know, but either way you'll know now -- that we make provisions for long-term investments, for example, in the skiing industry on Crown lands. We negotiate long-term agreements with the ski industry, for example. We have a different process with regard to the utilization of Crown lands for heliskiing. If people want to make a major capital investment, then they make it through the process that's established. We also have a different process for guide-outfitters who want to make investments and engage in economic activity. From the questions you're asking, it seems to me that you aren't differentiating between those large capital investments such as ski hills or the problems and solutions we've developed with regard to heliskiing and the regime that we have in place for guide-outfitters, which are distinct from the commercial back-country operation that we're talking about under the document that you've got. Anyway, I wish to inform you of that.
[ Page 10641 ]
In addition to that, let me also take the opportunity to deal with your argument that somehow the absence of this policy is frustrating economic development in British Columbia. The hon. member should know that one-third of all the new jobs created in Canada last year were created in B.C. This province is the place of choice for people to move, and we have the most buoyant economy in Canada. These things are happening because this government has created an atmosphere conducive to investment and economic growth. In fact, if you take a look at the statistics from StatsCan last month, a full one-third of all the new jobs in Canada were created right here in Victoria. Hon. member, I want you to know that this government is doing an outstanding job of creating the kind of atmosphere needed for investment and growth. It's occurring in every sector, including the tourism sector, and I think that's witnessed in part by the growth here in Victoria.
So, first of all, let's understand that there are different processes for those large capital investments. Second, let's understand that we're talking about something different with regard to commercial back-country recreation. Third, let's understand that we're engaged in consulting with the industry with regard to some of these issues that are giving them some frustration. Fourth, let's put to rest your view that somehow this is impeding development in British Columbia. We have the best economy in Canada, and I can assure the hon. member that if he wants to know what my philosophy is, it's to encourage that to occur in the future. Fifth, and again, you've demonstrated that perhaps you folks haven't done the research you need to do.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can then give voice to some of the operators who have reviewed this confidential cabinet submission and do not share the minister's rosy view of its contents or meaning. He talked about the snowcat heliskiing and helihiking operators in the province. With respect to this cabinet submission, I'm just lucky enough to have a letter addressed to the Premier, which expresses grave concerns about a confidential document entitled "Cabinet Submission on the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation."
"We are commenting on this paper on behalf of the snowcat skiing, heliskiing, helihiking and back-country hut operators and the mountain guides' associations of the commercial back-country recreation industry. The members of these associations...generated $43 million in revenues and directly employed 300 persons full-time and another 500 people on a seasonal basis."
The letter goes on to say:
"We participated for two years in a consultation process on the proposed commercial back-country recreation policy diligently and in good faith. Throughout this process, we were kept informed by the officials of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on how the policy was evolving. We were further advised there would be a 12-month review period giving all stakeholders a chance to examine the provisions of the new policy during actual implementation thereof and then comment further on it. In the end, we were satisfied that the concerns of all stakeholders were addressed in a satisfactory manner."
Then they go on to say, referring to this cabinet decision:
"The document before us in no way reflects the consensus achieved among the stakeholders during the consultation process. We have to conclude that your government chose to ignore the input provided by all stakeholders during the last two years as well as the advice of the officials of the policy branch in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks."
Many organizations have clearly indicated in a letter to the Premier that this cabinet submission, far from being an innocuous document, will affect their ability to go out and finance some of the ventures that they want to finance. All the committee is asking the minister to do today is to stand up and say that this confidential cabinet submission, which has been roundly condemned and rejected by the recreation proposal groups in the province, in no way reflects the position of the government and that releasing it was a mistake. That's all that's being asked for. The minister is skating on this. I have letters here from a wide variety of groups and organizations that are concerned about this particular document, particularly the tenure arrangement. It's important to read some of them into the record. The Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia talks about the tenure issue. This council represents just about every major tourist and campground association in the province, who see that if this document is allowed to remain unchallenged by the government, it will discourage people and companies from making long-term investment. I would settle for the minister standing today in this set of estimates and roundly rejecting this cabinet recommendation that talks about revoking tenures, with no compensation after 90 days. Will he at least stand and do that, given the opportunity?
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the opportunity. First of all, he asked me to indicate whether or not it reflects government policy. I think I have said it, but if it hasn't been said clearly enough, let me just say it to him again right now: it does not reflect government policy. After all, there is no government policy in place. That's why we're engaged in consultation, and that's why I'm meeting with the groups that are affected.
Yes, I understand that some of the groups have "grave concerns. That's why I'm going to meet with some of the groups that are affected. That's why, as I said earlier on, I'm going to meet with Mr. Corbett in particular. Other groups will have the opportunity to meet with the appropriate staff within the ministry. Yes, there was a process which resulted in some consensus. It's my understanding that apart from the tenure issues, that consensus still stands. We have taken very a difficult and complex policy issue, engaged in two years of discussions with the public and narrowed it down to probably a couple of issues that need to be refined. I have said that I'll sit down and meet with the groups that are affected. I think that's what they expect from a minister, so that's what's going to happen.
You have some kind of document there that expresses certain views, and that's fair enough. I don't have a big problem with staff putting out discussion papers or circulating drafts; there are dozens of drafts that go around in government. The hon. member should look at it from that perspective. It's one of many drafts that are out there and it does not reflect policy, because there is no policy as of yet.
W. Hurd: As the minister knows, this particular cabinet submission was distributed widely at the CORE table discussions in the Kootenays. I find it absolutely astonishing, given the sensitive state that this industry is in and the need to attract capital investment, that the minister would brook a document going out that says -- and here's another classic: "...it should be noted that if the tenure can run its full term, there is no need for compensation, since the contractual arrangement provides that the improvements return to the Crown at end of term."
Mr. Chair, can you imagine allowing a document like that out? It suggests going ahead and borrowing a few million dollars to put up a ski lodge or anything else. At the end of the contractual term it will revert to the Crown anyway, so
[ Page 10642 ]
we don't have to worry about compensation. This minister should be on his feet, distancing himself from this disgraceful document which, if allowed to stand, is going to discourage operators from investing anything. These are draconian measures of compensation and recognition of tenure. They are measures that this government should be.... I'm astonished they would allow a document like this to be circulated. That mistake having been committed, I'm equally astonished that the minister is not on his feet today suggesting that this document is in error, that it's wrong and that it does not represent his beliefs. But we have not heard the minister distance himself at all in the last 15 minutes from these recommendations. He says that it's under review, and that it's under discussion. How do you discuss a recommendation that says: "We're going to take your licence away after 90 days"? What's to discuss? That type of arrangement would kill investment in this industry, and for it even to be circulated is extremely....
An Hon. Member: Shame!
W. Hurd: Well, it is shameful. I give the minister another opportunity to stand up and advise the committee and the people of the province that this confidential cabinet submission, which is entitled "Summary of the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation," does not represent the policy of this government; furthermore, to stand and say it's a document that he and his government do not support; and to apologize for the kind of anxiety this document has caused people who, in good faith, want to provide an employment opportunity and an alternative industry for British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: If anybody should be apologizing, it's the opposition for again either not doing their homework or not adequately understanding an issue. The hon. member asked why somebody would make an investment of millions of dollars in a ski lodge, only to have it revoked and have those assets returned to the Crown in a 90-day time frame. The hon. member does not understand the proposal of the policy; he obviously hasn't even read the document with the care he should have.
Read my lips, hon. member. It does not apply to multimillion-dollar ski lodges on ski hills in British Columbia. When we have a Whistler or a Big White, it doesn't apply to those kinds of situations. People are invited by this administration to make those kinds of investments. Indeed, most recently I met with the Canadian ski association to discuss ways in which we could enhance the industry in places like Silver Star, Big White and the new facility on Tod Mountain.
If there are any apologies to be made, they're to be made by the hon. member, who just does not seem to understand that these do not apply to ski lodges and those kinds of multimillion-dollar investments. It's a different proposal -- sorry, it's a different process for that; it's not even a proposal. We've worked out some financing issues with the industry on those, when we're off and running. So you've got it wrong, hon. member.
That gets me to the next point, when you refer to anxiety: if anybody is causing any false anxiety, it's the hon. member, to whom I give a ten out of ten for his acting in the House today. You know, you've got to understand what I've said, hon. member.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I understand there are some concerns and that some even call them grave concerns. So I've said: "That's great!" I'll sit down, talk to people, deal with those issues and try to work them through with individuals so that we can arrive at some kind of resolution which serves the industry well. I realize that tourism has a role to play in land use matters in British Columbia. We want to encourage that. I wish the hon. member would realize that tourism is doing well in British Columbia, given the kind of atmosphere we've provided.
I know there are people who have taken some umbrage with that document, and I'm not worried about that. It just says to me that there's an opportunity here to sit down with those people and try to work through those issues. And that, hon. member, is precisely what we were going to do. But you have to understand there is a limited application in this policy. It does not apply to those multimillion-dollar ski lodges that you're standing up trying to defend in the House.
W. Hurd: The document specifically refers to lodges: "Where a lease is requested -- e.g., to build a lodge...." As the minister well knows, it doesn't have to be a ski lodge; it can be a hunting or fishing lodge, or whatever.
This particular document talks about compensation avoidance. That's the purpose of this document: how do we get out of having to pay compensation if we decide to yank a licence? That's the thrust of the document. It is important that the Crown not increase the potential for compensation. The policy provides for compensation avoidance in a number of specific ways. Perhaps the minister can tell us, first of all, if he has read the document and if he agrees that there is a situation in the province that requires compensation avoidance on the part of his ministry when it comes to dealing with back-country recreation ventures. Is dealing with compensation avoidance issues the most important function of his ministry in fostering the growth in this sector of our economy?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think there were three questions there. The first question was whether or not I've read the document the hon. member has in his hand. I don't know; I haven't seen it. If he tables it, I can let him know. As I have said, there have been dozens of drafts, so I don't know which one he has there. The second question that the hon. member asked related to compensation avoidance, as he called it. Yes, it seems to me that government has to put its mind to potential liability in compensation issues. We have to at least have a discussion about those. I don't think the hon. member should be too surprised at that. Governments get into situations all the time -- which we're criticized for -- where there is liability and exposure on the part of government. I think it is only fair that staff have discussions around those. That's reflected in this -- and let me emphasize the word -- draft document.
Third, if someone comes to this province and makes a proposal to build a multimillion-dollar facility in British Columbia, I fully understand that they require some security of tenure in order to finance that project. Because that is required, then obviously we have to deal with those needs, and we have a process in place that deals with those needs. If the hon. member hasn't got it yet, let me say it clearly: there is no policy on the part of government, and we are still in the throes of discussion with the industry with regard to the policy.
W. Hurd: Again with respect to the confidential cabinet submission, I'm sure the minister has had an opportunity to
[ Page 10643 ]
review it. I'll be happy to table it when this discussion is over. There's a recommendation to recover the cost for managing tenures with an annual management fee increase in the range of $300 to $750. The minister will note that the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. has been particularly concerned about that.
Can the minister tell us whether he has built the assumption of a fee increase ranging from $300 to $750, to recover the costs of managing these tenures, whatever they might be, into this set of estimates? First of all, perhaps he can elaborate on the costs of managing the tenure, and then on whether or not his ministry has built that fee increase into this set of estimates for the granting of these types of tenure.
Hon. M. Sihota: That set of questions just demonstrates the degree to which the Liberals, after two years of being in opposition, just don't understand the processes and procedures of this House; they ask questions that they haven't thought through. But again, I'll go beyond my scope and answer the question. First of all, the hon. member should know that we're dealing here with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. We deal with issues of expenditures on the part of the Ministry of Environment in our budget. The appropriate place to ask about revenues is during debate of the estimates of the Minister of Finance, because that's when revenue issues and other like matters come up. It's also appropriate for hon. members to raise those issues during debate on the budget.
[3:00]
It just amazes me that after two years with this opposition, we get these questions. I can understand it in the first year, but I can't understand it in the third year. In any event, now that the hon. member knows what the rules of the House are, and knowing the charity of the Chair, let me say that no provision has been made for revenue.
W. Hurd: Then perhaps the minister would care to explain. I'm sure he must have read the document, knowing how well prepared he has been for other items of discussion in this set of estimates. He must have seen the cabinet submission that talks about recovering costs for managing tenures -- obviously a part of the discussion document that was released at the CORE table. If it's the total responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, perhaps he can explain how it found its way into a document prepared by his ministry or under the direction of his ministry, one would assume, that calls for this kind of increase in the management fee. Why is it there if it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance? It's another issue that has come to the attention of the Council of Tourism Associations, and they expressed concern about it.
Fees can be increased up to 150 percent, and administration fees can be levied up to $750 per year, per tenure. After 1998, rental fees will be based on an unknown adjusted percentage of the gross revenues. These are issues that these people, these companies, need to be apprised of before they can go out to the bank and borrow money for these kinds of investments.
Again, I find it troubling and astonishing that the minister, having admitted that this document is a mistake.... It has to be a mistake. I mean, no government would attempt to foster investment in the tourism industry by suggesting that they're going to take a licence away, with 90 days' compensation. No government would do that, would they? They wouldn't. The costs of managing tenures and the fee is specifically mentioned in this document.
The minister may choose to blame the Ministry of Finance; that's his option. But the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia and other people that have to deal with this ministry are concerned about this provision for fee increases. For their benefit, not for the opposition -- they are writing letters to the Premier, to this minister and to the opposition -- will he stand today and say that at least the fee structure is under review and is not going to be adjusted 150 percent in the coming fiscal year?
Hon. M. Sihota: I enjoy these questions, because I've got to tell you, they just reinforce the ineptitude of the opposition, which just doesn't seem to understand how the system works. For people who would aspire to government, you would think they would understand how the system works.
On the first issue that you raised, which was that if Finance makes these decisions, why is it an Environment document, let me again give you a lesson in Government 101. The ministries responsible, such as mine, put proposals for revenue forward, and they go to Finance. Finance deals with them. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to you that the draft document that you've got makes some reference to those issues. Secondly, I have said on several occasions that I agree with you that there are industry representatives out there who have some concerns about this, and I will meet with them to discuss their concerns.
I honestly believe, just from watching the flow of the discussion, that you came in here hoping to be able to say, "Will you meet with them?" and when I said that right off the bat, you had to fill in the time by asking this different line of questions. Obviously what you would expect when people have written the kinds of letters they have is that I would meet with them and the staff would meet with others, and that's exactly what will happen with regard to this situation.
Finally, let me emphasize again that there is no government policy in place, and because there's no government policy in place, what you've got there is exactly what it says it is: it's a draft discussion paper. We will deal with the industry on these kinds of issues, whether they be revenue, tenure or scope, so as to arrive at some kind of resolution on these matters. I will give you my assurance that I will sit down with the appropriate people and have those discussions, and staff will sit down with others and have discussions with them.
W. Hurd: We've been attempting to get the minister to at least concede that if the document circulated by his government is allowed to go unchallenged, it will cause some serious reservations on the part of potential investors. The minister talked earlier about ski resort owners. I have another letter here from the Canada West Ski Areas Association, which says:
"I am in receipt of a document entitled 'Cabinet Submission on the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation.' It is marked 'confidential'; however, it was circulated freely at a CORE meeting in Cranbrook on April 19. It is difficult to understand how such a high-level confidential document arrived at a comparatively open meeting.
"The ski-area industry is at a loss to understand the enormous variation between this document and the final draft of the back-country recreation policy issued some 18 months ago.... In fact, it bears no relationship whatsoever to the consensus reached and perhaps emphasizes the huge waste of time, money and effort with such a process.
"The document as it stands, if implemented, will without doubt destroy the majority of the operations involved, with resulting loss of jobs and large tourism and tax dollars for the province."
[ Page 10644 ]
I agree that the minister has very little regard for the opposition; that's his right -- he's in government and I expect that. This minister spends hours every year on the ski slopes. We understand that he even flies there in a government jet sometimes -- at least he did before they were sold. You would think that for the benefit of the Canada West Ski Areas Association he would at least be willing to stand in the assembly today and say that this cabinet submission, which was circulated at the CORE table either by error or by accident, in no way reflects the position of the government. He should be telling them that he likes to ski; instead, he's skating and saying that it's still a matter of discussion. Again I ask the minister: how do you discuss taking away a licence without compensation? What is there to discuss about that? Don't respond to the opposition; respond to the Canada West Ski Areas Association. Who knows? He might want to ski somewhere besides Mount Washington in the future. They would really appreciate some input from the minister to the effect that this confidential submission is just a watered-down document, that it was released by accident and that it does not represent his philosophy as a skier in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, this has nothing to do with ski hills. Secondly, you're right: I spend a lot of time skiing. But I never seem to spend enough time skiing. Thirdly, it seems to me the hon. member should know that I will extend a courtesy to the appropriate people to meet with us and discuss this policy, so that these issues can be resolved. That's why I've responded to Mr. Corbett in the fashion I have. In addition to that, once the policy is concluded by cabinet, you would have to extend the same opportunity to members of the opposition.
D. Jarvis: I was surprised to hear the member for Surrey-White Rock mention that document. The word is out there, even though it's not supposed to be. The minister says that he is talking to people and that it's only a submission, that there are many submissions out there and that this is not what it's going to be. He told us that he was going to give the Liberals a message on economics. I think he needs a lesson in Politics 101. The job of government is to create some confidence so that people will invest in this province. It seems to me that he is making every effort to offend and demoralize the business sector throughout British Columbia with the draconian rules in the operation of his Environment ministry.
I happened to be up in the Fort St. John area a couple of weeks ago, and it was obvious that this was a point of question. Hotelmen and outfitters were all concerned about the fact that they were possibly going to lose their tenure after 90 days. So there's no confidence-building out there by this minister.
It seems to me that the minister derives enjoyment from contrasts.
I was talking to you some days ago about your zeal for publicity through photo ops. I wonder if we can revisit some other situations. For example, I had mentioned to you the photo op at Britannia Beach. The next day I turned on a news broadcast and you were flashing across the screen with your photo op up in Mackenzie -- I think it was in the Donna Creek area -- where one of the logging companies had caused some damage to the roadway over two years ago.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Two years ago.
We all appreciate that in the past logging companies have created damage -- on purpose or by accident -- resulting in situations where the government would have to come down with stronger laws regarding the environment. I was wondering why the minister would take a situation -- for example at Three Mile Creek, where the logging road had been built back in '85, the last logging had been completed back in 1986 and trees were planted in 1987 -- then seven years later say on TV that he's going to sue the logging company because of a slide that occurred which he wasn't aware of. But the company had gone to the Environment ministry and the Fisheries ministry back in February '91 and reported the slide -- prior to your election. They fixed it all up and revisited it. It was all fixed and approved in '93; then in '94 you get on TV again and say that you're going to take them to court and sue them.
I had talked to you before about the fact that your department should be using this, and I had mentioned that the Environment ministry should be using its instruments as a shield rather than a sword. The people out there were saying: "Here they come again, trying to find something wrong with the environment." They were offending and demoralizing the business sector -- who knew what was going to happen? I wanted to ask the minister why, with something like Three Mile Creek and Donna Creek -- one of which happened over seven years ago and was repaired over three years ago -- he'd all of a sudden get up and say that he was going to fine the company, in his zeal for publicity. What good did that do the people out there in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: I know the hon. member knows that I can't speak on a matter that is before the courts. Charges have been laid in the Three Mile case, so any comments I make from here on in will be more generalities. But before I do that, I should also say that staff did explain that at the press conference, and the hon. member wasn't there.
The hon. member makes the following argument. He says: "Why are you offending and demoralizing the business sector by taking action on the environment?" This is 1994.
An Hon. Member: Not on the opposition side it isn't.
Hon. M. Sihota: On the opposition side I guess it's still 1954. I've got to tell you, hon. Chair, that British Columbians want to change the way we manage our forests. They want the government to be tough on enforcement. They've had enough of the forest practices of the past, and they've had enough of the headspace that allowed people to simply take our forests for granted.
[3:15]
I make absolutely no apologies whatsoever for being tough on enforcement in the forest sector. I want the hon. member to know that last September there were nine investigations underway by this ministry with regard to forest-related activities. That has increased to 47 since I've been Minister of Environment. And these are serious investigations. The number of serious investigations that are going on in the province will increase over time, hon. member. It is our intention in the Ministry of Environment to be tough on polluters, to make polluters pay for their violation of the environment and to say to that industry what we said with pulp mill standards. We said we would introduce the toughest effluent-discharge pulp mill standards in North America. That's what we did, and we make no apologies for it.
We will continue to issue the compliance list in British Columbia to make it very clear which companies are behaving and which aren't. We will encourage an increase in
[ Page 10645 ]
the amount of fines that can be paid by companies when they engage in polluting our environment.
I've got to tell you, hon. member, that I am sickened to hear that there are members of the opposition who still think that that is not the way to go, who do not pay enough respect to the environment and who believe this outdated attitude that it somehow demoralizes businesses if we take them to court for environmental wrongs. If people pollute in British Columbia, they are subject to fines. If our laws are insufficient, they will be changed to be efficient. If enforcement is lacking, it will be beefed up. That, hon. member, is the approach that this minister and this government are taking and that this ministry will take.
I thank you very much for the comments you just made, because I think they demonstrate, in ways better than I ever could, the difference between us on this side of the House, who advocate for the environment, and those on the other side of the House, the Liberals, who stand for the rich and the powerful in society.
D. Jarvis: He forgot the hungry.
The minister obviously has not been listening to us, because we said that we were aware that there were abuses in the past. There will probably be abuses in the future. Hopefully not, but mistakes and accidents are made. There was one where the logging was finished in 1986. What benefit would there be, after it had been finished for three or four years, for him to come on TV and say: "I am the hero for the environment"? All he's doing is creating a situation out there that is not one of confidence. Everyone is aware that the environment is probably the most obvious thing that's going to be detrimental to our society if it's not looked after.
An Hon. Member: The environment is detrimental to our society?
D. Jarvis: Perhaps I'm not as eloquent as some other members in the House. Nevertheless, the point is that the minister says, for example, that there are another 40-odd investigations coming up. Will he not publish them and let us know what it is now, or can we expect him to be on TV every time he lays charges on them? That seems to be his bent. He likes to be on TV to tell people how strong his department is. Everyone knows how strong they are; everyone agrees that he should have strong rules. But the fact is that he is creating a bad environment out there. It is not a good situation.
For example, he got on TV with the Britannia Beach situation. The minister knows full well that there are no moneys in Copper Beach Estates. It's broke; it's a company that cannot pay the fine. Yet he's taking them to court. He's standing out there demanding this and that, and it can't be done. Nothing can be done. The government will probably have to come in unless we can find another investor. But investors will be very reticent about coming in to take over Copper Beach Estates when they hear the minister on TV all the time saying: "We're going to sue the hell out of them." The minister obviously is not aware of the situation with Copper Beach, or he wouldn't have gone up and made as silly a statement as he did on TV.
The other aspect, which I've brought up before, is Mount Washington. Here we go again. It's his favourite mountain. He sidesteps down and looks at the mine from this big steep hill he has been on. He knows the mine quite well. He told this House that they would try to do something. Then the next day he says that it's going to cost too much money. Here is an environmental problem that the government has accepted responsibility for. It's their position to do it, and yet they're not going to look after the acid drainage because it's going to cost them too much money. Yet at the same time, he's prepared to turn around and do another photo opportunity with a company that's completely broke. It has no moneys whatsoever. Where is the value there? What confidence is he building in this province? I ask the minister: will he commit his government to looking after the acid drainage situation on Mount Washington?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that I've already provided the hon. member with an answer to that last question, and it's in Hansard.
Secondly, let me say that I wish to thank him for his eloquence. He demonstrated the difference between the values that his party represents and the values that this side of the House believes in. He sees it as his responsibility to defend Copper Beach Estates and somehow suggests that it is a disincentive to investment if we say that a former mine operator has to clean up its mine. Material was leaking through the creek into the water in that case, and it required action. We came through with a directive, an order and a time period that required action. It may trouble the hon. member that we did that, but I can tell him that I consider it our responsibility to take appropriate action in instances like this. It's clear to me that he considers it his responsibility to defend the large corporations and the rich and powerful in society. That's fair enough. He comes from that value base; I come from a different value base. I guess that's what politics is all about.
I make no apologies, hon. member, for standing up and being tough on enforcement and for insisting on more fines and actions from those who pollute. I make no apologies for advocating the polluter-pay principle, nor should you or members of your party make any apologies for defending the rich and powerful, the large corporations and those kinds of interests. You should not make any apologies, because it's part of your value system to suggest that environmental issues should take a back seat. To quote you: "...to be a shield rather than a sword." To quote you: "...to avoid situations which demoralize the business sector." That's your prerogative. It shows British Columbians very clearly where you, your leader and your party are coming from. I'll tell you, hon. member, you're out of touch.
D. Jarvis: I would just like to say to the minister -- and I mentioned it to him once before -- that my family has six generations born in this province. We have just as much, if not more, invested in this province and in the environment as you have. So don't try to tell everyone in the country that the Liberals aren't aware of the environmental situation or that they're not environmentalists. We are just as concerned as you are; however, we're going to take a different approach. We're not going to try to scare business and investment out of this province. This economy is falling completely apart as far as investment and development in the resource areas of this province are concerned, because they don't know how to look after it. They use the environment as a sword and try to attack everyone there is.
The minister and his government are responsible for Mount Washington. They have assumed responsibility. It's going to cost somewhere in the area of $20 million to $30 million or $40 million. Seeing that his party is the only party in the world that's interested in the environment, will he take the initiative and commit to looking after the acid drainage problem at Mount Washington -- yes or no?
[ Page 10646 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I have sat through about 12 hours of debate on Environment estimates to date. I have listened with care to what the members of the Liberal Party have had to say, and it is becoming evident to anyone engaged in this debate that the environmental ethic is not to be found anywhere within that Liberal caucus. It is clear to me that the Liberal Party has no environmental policies for this province. It is amazing to have sat through 12 hours of debate and witnessed three things. First of all, the two leading spokespeople for the Liberal Party on the Environment estimates have been the member who is their Mines critic and the member who is their Forests critic. During the course of this debate it was interesting to note that the Mines critic, who speaks on environmental matters on behalf of his political party, said that we ought not to take action on the environment, we ought not to be tough on polluters, and we ought not to be tough on industry that violates our environment because it would "offend and demoralize the business sector." That shows very clearly which side the Liberal Party is on, and it shows very clearly that the Liberal Party has no environmental ethic.
The other day the Forests critic, who has been leading the debate on environmental matters for the Liberal Party, stood up in this House and, as he has been, conducted the debate. He was quoted in this morning's Vancouver Sun, saying that it was a publicity stunt for this ministry to put out a list of non-compliance on pollution concerns. Every six months this government puts out a list of British Columbia's worst polluters, and we tell those individuals that they are violating our environment. We tell them that they had better develop a plan to clean up the environment with regard to damage they are causing, and that even if they do, they may face some fines, penalties and litigation. In some instances, people like Lilydale -- who have been on the worst-polluters list over and over again -- find themselves in court notwithstanding that they have taken steps to solve the problem. In other cases they don't. In some cases people face fines and penalties. But the point is that we decided very consciously as a government that there is a value in putting out a list of British Columbia's worst polluters. And the Forests critic, who has been leading the debate on the Environment estimates in this House, said in this morning's paper that that was a publicity stunt.
I want hon. members in this House to know that approximately 170 to 190 different operations have appeared on the list since its inception in July of 1990 -- a total of eight lists in that time period. About 140 of these operations have come into compliance over the same period because of the list that we put out. Some may wish to call it a publicity stunt. Some may say that we ought not to do it because it demoralizes the business sector in British Columbia. But you know, hon. member, it has its effect: 140 of those have now come into compliance; approximately 50 percent of the non-compliance operations solved their problems between publications of the list. Many of the current permittees on the list are implementing long-term compliance involving large capital plans.
This initiative on the part of our government to list British Columbia's worst polluters gets those polluters to clean up their act. And if it means getting them to make the capital investments that are required, the fact that their name is on the list gets them to do it. Alcan, Cominco, Skeena Cellulose and Eurocan have all engaged in significant capital improvements to their operations so that they come into compliance with our pollution regulations. The Liberal Party opposite would suggest that somehow that's a publicity stunt and something that we should avoid because it "demoralizes the business sector."
In response to a questionnaire put out by this ministry, most permittees indicated the list as an important factor in them coming into compliance. Think about that. We as a government said that we were going to name the worst polluters in British Columbia. We named them, and 140 out of the 170 to 190 that were on the list fell into compliance. When we asked them why, they said that one of the most important factors was the fact that they were on this list. In addition to that, many of them, because they appeared on the list, were prepared to make the appropriate capital investments.
[3:30]
We've got the mining critic speaking during the Environment estimates -- and yes, to his credit, he has spent a lot of time raising these issues -- saying that this government ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution, because it would "demoralize the business sector"; that we ought not to make the polluter pay, because it would "demoralize the business sector." That says a lot about the values of the Liberal Party, and it says a lot about the absence of an environmental ethic on the part of members opposite. It also says a lot that the Forests critic would dismiss the list that we put out twice a year on the basis that it is a publicity stunt and overlook the effect it has. Again, that speaks volumes with regard to the lack of environmental consciousness on the part of the Liberal Party and says very clearly whose side they're on, which is the side of the rich and the powerful.
I have sat through 12 hours of debate in the estimates, and I'm quite prepared to sit for as long as it takes, obviously, to pass these estimates; that's not my problem. But the third point I want to make is that in all those 12 hours, the Environment critic for the Liberal Party has spent approximately one hour raising three different issues in debate. What does that tell you? That tells you that forestry and mining take priority. That tells you that what the mining critic for the Liberal Party said is true: it's their attitude that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution and be tough on polluters because it would "demoralize the business sector." It is abundantly clear to all members of this House that the Liberal Party stands for the rich and the powerful, for the corporations, and does not have one bit of environmental consciousness.
The Environment critic, as I said a few minutes ago, has yet to stand up in this House and raise any significant environmental issues; in 12 hours he has participated for approximately one hour of debate. I find myself wondering why the Liberal Party is lacking so significantly with regard to environmental policy. It occurs to me as I speak that the reason for it is self-evident. The now-leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition, prior to taking over that office, said that his first environmental priority would be to get rid of overregulation, to get rid of environmental regulation. That would be his highest priority. He said that in a quote in the Vancouver Sun, I believe, on February 1. So it's evident there is no....
R. Chisholm: Point of order.
Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, now we get to points of order, because they can't take the heat.
The Chair: Excuse me, minister. I must take the point of order when it's raised.
[ Page 10647 ]
R. Chisholm: I'd just like to bring up a point of order. Standing order 43 is called "Irrelevance and repetition in debate," and the hon. minister has been irrelevant for about 12 hours. If he answered the questions -- he's had three hours' worth -- we wouldn't still be standing here. If he got relevant, maybe we'd do something here.
The Chair: All right. Member, I just caution you that if we were to enforce the relevancy rule in any serious way, we would likely reduce estimates by a factor of about 90 percent. I have to give you that caution. Having said that, of course I will ask all members to be guided by the principle of relevance.
Hon. M. Sihota: That is the reason: it is the stated intention of the Leader of the Opposition that it would be his first priority to get rid of environmental regulations. The only thing that hasn't been exposed yet during the course of this debate is which regulations.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
We take pride on this side of the House that we brought forward British Columbia's toughest pulp mill discharge standards. Would he prefer that we get rid of those AOX standards? We on this side of the House take great pride in the fact that we have brought in the toughest CFC standards in British Columbia. We have put in the strictest guidelines and time frames to get rid of those CFCs that cause a problem to the ozone level in British Columbia. Are those the regulations that the leader of the Liberal Party would like to see us remove? Or is it the provisions that we've brought in with regard to the Forest Practices Code? The toughest standards are in B.C.'s first Forest Practices Code, which we proposed and brought forward in this House to change the way we manage our forests and to be tough in enforcement. Are those the standards that the Leader of the Opposition would like to see us eliminate? Mining in parks. The hon. member, as one of the lead spokespeople for the environment on the side of the Liberal Party, has said that we should allow mining in parks. Is it the stated intention of the Liberal Party that we will have mining in the Tatshenshini should there be a change in government? These are the kinds of questions British Columbians are asking in light of what the Leader of the Opposition has said.
It was my view originally, when looking at that statement, that perhaps it was made without appropriate care. But as I watch this debate, the Mines critic says: "Do not engage in environmental prosecution, because it's demoralizing." The Forests critic says that we ought not to print our list of British Columbia's worst polluters. The Environment critic is not participating in debate on environmental policy here in this House. It becomes evident to me that the statements by the Leader of the Opposition were not made in a cavalier fashion; they were made with great intention. Now I'm glad that he said that, because this debate, coupled with his statements, makes it very clear whose side the Liberal Party is on. One thing is abundantly clear: they are not on the side of the environment.
D. Jarvis: We have just heard a diatribe from the petulant little Minister of Environment. He gets up there and he talks about his being in Environment estimates for 12 long hours. Well, he may be here for another 12 or 36 hours, until such time as we may get some answers from him. The minister has sat there and done nothing but try to be evasive and tear down the Liberal Party on the premise that they are not environmentalists or do not believe in the environment, which we all know -- and he knows himself -- is completely erroneous. The minister talks about me being the critic for Mines, and because I am, he says I shouldn't be asking questions on the environment. However, I have said that having been in the mining industry, I'm quite aware of a few situations where there are environmental problems. Everyone is an environmentalist in this province, and we all would like to see all the companies in full compliance. We all agree that they will not all be in full compliance, because some people will cheat or make errors. We're trying to tell the minister that that is no way to proceed with his environmental sword that he feels so big with. When you give a little man a big weapon, then you see all these bad things start to happen.
I also want to ask the minister.... We started off here.... I guess I've been here for an hour, because he says that I've been talking to him for an hour. Can we get any answers out of him? Will he answer? Mount Washington is his responsibility. He has assumed responsibility; the government has assumed responsibility. There is environmental damage being caused at Mount Washington. He's afraid to get up, because he can't get a photo opportunity standing in front of Mount Washington, which he has assumed the responsibility for.
He told me on the side that he's aware of Mount Washington and of how much money it's going to cost; yet he's prepared to get up for a photo opportunity and criticize the small businesses, big businesses and municipalities like Britannia Beach. He criticizes them left and right. They have no more money; they can't do anything. Yet he will not get up and commit his government to look after the acid drainage problem at Mount Washington.
He has suggested that perhaps I would start mining in parks when we become government. I'm going to give him an answer, but I wish his government would call an election right now so we'd have an opportunity to do that right away, because they would no longer be the government. He, of anyone, is so disliked out there for the way that he and his staff handle the Environment ministry -- walking into everywhere with their sword, creating nothing but demoralization for the business sector, as I said before. That's exactly what they're doing all the time. If they called an election, we would end up in government. I will tell you, there is now a mine in a park....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. A point of order has been raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: As entertaining as this is, it's difficult for those of us who have questions on the environment to actually get into debate. I wonder if we can get back to the issue of relevance in these debates, because some of us have to divide our attention between two Houses, and it's difficult to do so. If we could get down to the issue of environment rather than debating the outcome of the next election, we might get further ahead.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I would remind all members of the House that we are on Environment estimates and that questions pertinent to environment matters would be most appreciated.
D. Jarvis: I would just say to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the PDA party has two members,
[ Page 10648 ]
so one could be in one House and one could be in the other House. If I don't get my questions answered here, I'll be another 12 hours, and the member of the PDA party can sit where he wants to sit, in this House or the next House. He waits his turn.
The minister said that I am the opposition critic for Energy and Mines, and he suggested that if we were in power, we would be mining in parks. I want to remind the minister that there already is a mine in a park. It's doing very well, and no one's complaining about it. We would consider a mine in the Tatshenshini provided that they could comply with the environmental laws that are set up through the mine development assessment process.
What we said, and what we say again to the minister, is that there was a process set up by his government, and his government did not comply with that process. They went outside it, and that's why we're talking about it. With everything that we suggest to him is a problem, he says: "We're going to be talking to the people. There's no problem." But we know they do not stand by their word. When a situation arises, they do what they darned well feel like. They go outside the process and outside the law. That's what the law was at the time. If you wanted to have a mine in this province, no matter where it was, the rules were that you had to go through the mine development assessment process. This government did not go through that process.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to tell the minister that the Liberal Party is an environmentalist party just as much as the NDP is. However, more people in this province support the Liberal Party than the New Democratic Party, and the polls are showing that. When we get to the other parties, like the PDA party, when they have 0.004 percent.... Never mind.
Would the minister please answer two questions. First, Copper Beach Estates at Britannia Beach is broke. There will be no buyers forthcoming, it is quite obvious, to assume Copper Beach Estates' indebtedness. Therefore they will not be able to deal with the environmental problem that was created by the previous mines. Therefore it appears that the government must be responsible. If the government isn't responsible, who is? How does he expect the environmental problem at Britannia Beach to be solved? Will he kick all the people off, as his hydro company tried to do over a week ago? There were 400 people, and they wanted to cut the power off. That was probably one of the last acts of Mr. Eliesen, and fortunately he agreed to turn it back on again.
[3:45]
Second, would the minister please answer the question regarding the Mount Washington situation. They have an environmental acid drainage problem in the area. He has committed his government to looking after it. Will he commit right now to solving the problem as soon as possible?
J. Pullinger: I'm sitting here, minding my own business and listening to this debate. I hadn't intended to stand up to participate in it; however, I can't resist. What I'm listening to, first of all, is this debate between the mining critic in the opposition party and our Minister of Environment. Now we have the environmentalists....
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Environment a question during estimates, and we're not getting a reply from the minister. Could you please tell me why he has to have a member from Nanaimo, one of the charity organizations....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! Hon. member, you asked a question. I turned to recognize the next speaker, who is the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. The Chair can only recognize speakers in the order in which they stand to speak, so I ask the member to please bear that in mind. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith continues.
J. Pullinger: As I was saying, it's fascinating to stand here in this chamber and watch the Liberal mining critic engage in debate in estimates with the minister. What's even more fascinating is to listen to the Liberals, who claim to be environmentalists, reiterate their commitment to look at mining in the Tatshenshini. The decision of this government to protect that world-class river has been hailed around the world. The Liberals are making it very clear that they want to mine the Tatshenshini and that mining is okay in the parks. That's their environmental stand. It's absolutely amazing. I guess, given that kind of stand on the environment, it's entirely appropriate that the Liberals should put up their mining critic to engage in and take the lead on Environment estimates.
What's really fascinating here is that we have heard the Liberals, in every instance -- on every issue, when it comes to environment or forestry or any of these things -- argue the case for the rich and the powerful. They take the part of the big corporations in every instance. We see them objecting to the Forest Practices Code. We see the Leader of the Opposition....
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe, if the Chair consults the rules, the point of estimates is to examine the spending estimates of the Minister of Environment. I encourage the member either to ask a question of the minister or to sit down.
The Chair: On the point of order, all members, the purpose of estimates is to ask questions. But within that, members often have been allowed some latitude in stating their questions. I'm quite sure that the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has a question that she will be asking. I just ask all members to bear that in mind.
J. Pullinger: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm amazed how the saviours of democracy across the way are okay with whatever goes on as long as they're doing it.
Anyway, I find it fascinating, as I say, to watch the Liberals perform on this issue. Their leader has stood up and said publicly that the first thing he, the leader of the Liberals, would do if they were elected government would be to get rid of all that nasty environmental legislation: "Let them go; let them do it." Where are these people? How can they say that they would in any way represent or protect the interests of the environment? What about pulp mill standards? What about fish and wildlife guidelines? These people have voted and spoken against every piece of environmental legislation this government has brought in.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: We've seen the Liberals object.... And I am speaking on the issue of the environment. I'm certainly
[ Page 10649 ]
getting to it -- just about the same place where your questions are.
We see the Liberals get up there and represent their big buddies on Howe Street on every issue. This one is no different. The Liberal member is asking whether the government will protect Copper Beach Estates and relieve them of their responsibility to clean up their act and the damage they have done. They're saying that the taxpayers should pick that up, instead of the company that created the mess. But that's not surprising, because, after all, these people held up our environmental review legislation last year; they wouldn't let it happen. We need to understand, and I want to be on the record as making you understand, that these people are representing Howe Street and the corporate elite. In every single instance they want to make sure that those people, their buddies who fund their elections, are looked after. We see them voting against the forest renewal plan. The first time in history we've had a government that's going to look after workers, the environment and our forests in a constructive and creative way, and they all voted against it. We have a Liberal Party that is objecting to our AOX guidelines, objecting to the Forest Practices Code, objecting to the CFC standards here, which are some of the highest around....
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: As interesting as this discussion is, with one party slamming the other one, I think it's a huge waste of taxpayers' dollars. What we should be doing is addressing the issues of the Environment....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! The hon. member is rising on a point of order, and I would ask all members in the House to let that member speak so the Chair may hear the point of order.
L. Fox: As I said, as interesting as it is to hear the parties hammer back and forth at one another, there are some very important issues in the Ministry of Environment that some of the members would like to address. I would encourage the Chair and all members to deal with the subject at hand, which is the Environment estimates.
The Chair: The Chair is going to recognize the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, but the Chair would ask that if the member speaking has a question, now would be a good time to state it.
J. Pullinger: I'll by happy to continue, and I'll get to my question as the others have.
For instance, I want to ask of the minister: will he ensure that we retain our AOX guidelines? Will he ensure that our CFC standards remain high? Will he adhere to the polluter-pay principle and not listen to the Liberal opposition, which is demanding that he look after the corporations and, because they've run out of money, make the taxpayers clean up the pollution that they've created for years? I'm asking the minister to ensure that the Environmental Assessment Act, which the Liberals objected to last year, goes through this year -- and if they object again, to keep us here until it does.
I'm asking the minister to make sure that this government continues to represent the average person, that this government continues to protect the environmental interests of British Columbians and that his ministry continues to ignore the Liberal opposition in their demand that we look after their corporate interests and their well-paid friends. I would really like to hear from the minister that he's committed to keeping intact all those good environmental programs that his ministry has brought in.
D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me first because I was standing first. You just finished saying that....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair has not recognized anybody yet. The Chair will do that momentarily.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Environment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to thank the hon. member for the question. Let me make this clear. This is the most significant and telling debate that we have had in this House since the now-Leader of the Opposition became the leader of the Liberal Party. I know that British Columbians are interested in this issue, and I'm sure members of the press gallery are as well, because for the first time we're seeing the Liberal Party opposite in full retreat in this House. For the first time we are seeing a party fully exposed -- naked -- on environmental issues.
I stood up in this House a few minutes ago and talked about the Liberal Party. Who got up and responded? Not the Environment critic for the Liberal Party, who has yet to engage in debate for more than one hour in the 12 hours that we've spent, but the mining critic. The mining critic for the Liberal Party -- and I know they don't like hearing this now -- stood up and said that this government ought not to make polluters pay, because it is demoralizing to business for us to be tough on polluters. The leader of the Liberal Party said that it would be his first priority....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the debate and would like to take this opportunity to remind everybody that we are on estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
An Hon. Member: Tell the minister.
The Chair: Hon. member, I called for order. I would remind all members that the debate, while it has been wide-ranging, is now straying far past the latitude that the Chair has allowed. I would ask members to rein it in a little and remember that we are on Environment, Lands and Parks estimates.
Hon. M. Sihota: The leader of the Liberal Party said that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. I want to know which regulations. Is it going to be those tough pulp mill discharge regulations, the AOX standards...?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the Mines critic saying: "All of those regulations will be gone." Under the Liberal Party, the toughest CFC standards in North America that we brought in to protect our ozone level would be gone. The Forest Practices Code, which changes the way we manage our forests -- the first forest practices code in British Columbia's history, backed up with tough enforcement -- would be gone under the Liberal Party.
[ Page 10650 ]
The more I listen to this debate, the more it becomes obvious that the new Liberals are simply old Socreds. That's what we're saying in this House. For the first time in debate in this House, we are witnessing a party in full retreat, demonstrating exactly whose side it's on. It's on the side of the rich and powerful, it stands up for the corporate interest and it has no environmental ethic. I have yet to hear the Liberal opposition critic for the environment stand up in this House and say: "It is an error on our part to suggest that the first priority of the Liberal Party would be to get rid of environmental regulation." That's what the Leader of the Opposition said. This forum provides an opportunity for members opposite to show that he was wrong when he said that. It is abundantly clear that not one member of that Liberal Party has the strength, fortitude or courage to stand up in this House and say that their leader was wrong when he suggested that they ought to get rid of environmental regulation; that their Mines critic was wrong when he said in this House that we ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution because it would demoralize the industry; that the Forests critic was wrong when he stood up in this House and said that we ought not to put forward the noncompliance list.
This is an opportunity for members opposite to show very clearly whose side they are on. Not one of them has demonstrated at any time during the course of debate that they have any sensitivity for the environment. In fact, they've done exactly the opposite: they have stood up in this House and shown their values; they have said whose side they're on. They say, very honestly, that they don't want environmental regulation.
[4:00]
As a result of these comments, the Leader of the Opposition is finally sliding into this House. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to stand up in this House and say that he was wrong when he said that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. I challenge him to say that he was wrong when he said that to the Vancouver Sun on February 1, I believe it was. This is the opportunity for the Liberal Party to demonstrate that once and for all. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, who is now in the House, to say that his Mines critic -- and I want him to hear this -- was wrong when he said that it was wrong for this government to engage in environmental prosecution because it would demoralize business. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to set the record straight and tell us that his Mines critic is wrong. I ask him to explain, before he leaves this House, why his Environment critic hasn't engaged in debate in this House about environmental issues.
The Leader of the Opposition walked into this House, listened to what I had to say and walked out, which shows the extent of the resolve on the part of the Liberal Party in terms of standing up for the environment. It's not there. I say shame on the Leader of the Opposition, who walked into this House and then walked out without for one moment explaining and defending the environmental policies of the opposition.
G. Farrell-Collins: We've just witnessed probably the most disgraceful display of testosterone gone wild and of grandstanding by the Minister of Environment that this House has ever seen. Mind you, I wasn't here during the disgraceful period when he sat in opposition. I find this very interesting, because I had the opportunity to sit opposite that member when he was Minister of Labour, before he was demoted. He went through a similar barrage of ridiculous comments, a tirade, to try to cover up the fact that he did not understand what was going on in his Ministry of Labour. We went through a similar estimates debate, which went on for some 12 hours, when he was asked questions about a number of areas and made comments that were subsequently found to be false. The minister's credibility comes into question when those things take place.
What we've just seen is a minister who is addicted to the narcotic of media coverage and has found that he has been unable to get any for the last little while. He has engaged in a debate in this House, and every two seconds he looks up to the press gallery in the hope that somebody is coming in to pay attention to him and to cover his ranting and his tirade. It wouldn't be so bad -- it would be humorous more than anything -- if the effect of what the minister said, and this character flaw that he has, didn't affect the jobs of average working British Columbians. It does affect them.
The first thing this minister did when he took over his portfolio was hold a luncheon with, I believe, the Langford Chamber of Commerce in his own riding, where he stood up and berated his own government and previous governments for their dismal environmental record in the forest industry. That statement was put on the wire services, and it hit Germany and England within the half-hour. Now we're seeing a full boycott of forest products from this province, primarily because of the irresponsible comments of the Minister of Environment.
One has to ask how much of what the minister is saying is pure pomp, how much is because he hasn't had enough media coverage lately and how much is because he's really indignant about something. We heard these speeches by this minister in his previous portfolio, and now we're hearing them in his current portfolio. It is no different from what this minister has done in the past; he's doing it exactly the same now.
His comments with regard to the Liberal opposition are erroneous -- he knows that. The Leader of the Official Opposition did not make the comment that the first thing the Liberal opposition would do if it formed the government would be to get rid of all environmental regulations. He knows that, as does everybody else in this House. He is misrepresenting the facts and misleading this House with regard to what was stated by the Leader of the Opposition. I think the minister should just relax a bit, maybe take a Valium and come back into the House when he's a little calmer and when he's ready to answer the legitimate questions being put forward by members of the opposition. We've asked a number of very specific questions, and the minister has not answered them.
We could go through his estimates very quickly. The Environment critic from the Liberal opposition would be able to get up and ask the minister reasonable questions if he would grant reasonable answers. But once again we see that this minister has a profound character flaw: he doesn't understand the issues, and he is incapable of administering a ministry responsibly, as he proved in his last ministry. As compensation for that, he brings out all of this bluster, all of this loudness, all of this vociferous denunciation of the opposition. He forgets that he's not in opposition anymore; he's in government. In government you have to answer the questions of the public; in opposition you ask them. He should be aware of that. He should understand how that process works. If he would act in a slightly more mature manner, perhaps we could get through his estimates in a reasonable fashion. If he would please answer the questions that are put forward by members of the opposition, we would progress at a much better rate.
[ Page 10651 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of points. I want to emphasize that we are now watching an opposition in retreat, and I want to make that really clear to all members in this House. It's not me who said that it would demoralize the business sector if we engaged in environmental prosecutions; the mining critic for the Liberal Party stood up during Environment estimates and said that it would demoralize the business sector. It wasn't me who said that we should not publish the non-compliance list each year because it's a publicity stunt; that was the opposition forestry critic. It wasn't me who said that we should have mining in parks; that was the mining critic for the Liberal Party. I must say that it wasn't me who said that it would be my first priority to get rid of environmental regulations; that was the Leader of the Opposition. In a quote that I will be happy to provide the hon. member in a few minutes, he said in the Vancouver Sun that that would be his first priority.
In response to that, the Leader of the Opposition could have stood up and said: "No, hang on." When he walked into this House during the course of this debate, he could have said: "No, it isn't my first priority to get rid of environmental regulations," and "No, I don't think they should be mining in parks," and "Yes, I support B.C.'s Forest Practices Code," and "Yes, we were wrong when we opposed the forest renewal plan," and "Yes, my Environment critic should be engaged in this debate." He had the opportunity when he walked into the House; he didn't do that. That's fine; that's his prerogative. The response from the members opposite was to engage in some kind of personality attack or a kind of psychological profile, rather than stand up and say: "This is our policy."
All I'm saying is that during the course of these estimates, it has not become evident that the Liberals have any policies on environmental matters. Rather, it has become abundantly evident that there is no environmental policy or platform on the part of the Liberal Party, unless it's one which defends business interests, one which is best demonstrated by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who said that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution, because it would "demoralize the business sector."
All I'm pointing out during the course of this debate is that this is a debate about values. We have witnessed, in a way that we haven't witnessed before in this House, an indication of the kinds of values that form the basis of the thinking of the opposition. It's a value system which does not put a priority on environmental matters. That's known, that's evident, that's on the record, and British Columbians will come to hear of it more and more. I want hon. members to know that these exchanges -- I'll be honest with you -- will obviously make their way throughout the environmental community and throughout communities in British Columbia...
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: ...and to assist my colleague over there, even during the campaign, so that British Columbians fully understand that the new Liberals are just old Socreds.
M. de Jong: To preface my remarks and my question, I'd like to say that I'm pleased no end that the hon. member has missed me and my participation in the debate so much that he lies awake at night wondering where Her Majesty's Environment critic is. That pleases me. Yes, I'm here; I've been listening with great interest to some of the answers, vague as they may be, that the hon. minister has given. It doesn't surprise me that the minister would be unhappy to answer questions from the previous Environment critic, who is now the Forests critic, because individuals who have something to hide, who don't appreciate close scrutiny and who don't feel that they or their operations will withstand close scrutiny usually are reluctant when someone in a position to present that close scrutiny steps forward and begins asking questions. That clearly is the case with respect to this minister and the questions that he has faced from my colleagues, including the Energy and Mines critic.
It also speaks volumes, I think, about the way this minister approaches government, which is to compartmentalize everything. If one is involved in the mining sector or in the forest sector, presumably this minister believes that that precludes them -- notwithstanding that only five weeks ago, one of them was the Environment critic -- from participating in the debate in any meaningful or significant way. That doesn't surprise me, because clearly this minister has that compartmentalized view of government, that oversimplified view of administering to the needs of the state that precludes cooperation and coordination among the various ministries. I'm not surprised that that would be his view.
I'm also not surprised that the minister would expect the Environment critic to launch into debate with him ill-equipped to deal with many areas of the ministry, because surely that is the way he approaches matters of state and of governing. Quite frankly, having listened to this minister now for some hours during this debate, my approach of seeking information about the Environment ministry elsewhere was, I think, the sound one. It appears that this minister is the last person you would approach to obtain valid and accurate information about the Environment ministry. So if the minister finds fault with one who would seek information elsewhere, who would seek to become properly advised about some of the very important issues that are facing the province and who would want to be well informed and offer sound and valid criticism and questioning, so be it. I stand guilty of those charges, certainly, and if the minister believes that that is an irresponsible way to proceed in these debates, so be it. I'm not surprised, because it certainly demonstrates and is consistent with the manner in which he addresses and approaches matters within his ministry.
[4:15]
I listened earlier in the debate today when the minister made reference to some prosecutions that had been initiated with respect to companies, corporations and individuals that appeared on a non-compliance list. He indicated fairly, I think, that in a number of cases names published on that list had subsequently come off the list when they brought their operation into compliance with the guidelines set up by the ministry. He also indicated accurately that prosecutions had taken place in certain instances, and in other instances prosecutions for past misdemeanours had not taken place. The minister will appreciate, I think, that all of us seek some degree of certainty in the law.
My question to him is: what criteria is his ministry applying in determining whether or not prosecutions will proceed following compliance by companies who have, in the ministry's view, formerly been non-complying? What criteria is being approached, so that these people will know in advance whether they stand to run afoul of the law or be prosecuted?
Hon. M. Sihota: The process is as follows: we put out a warning letter, and we identify a problem. We sit down with them and discuss possible solutions through mitigation actions that can be taken, and we will develop a time plan
[ Page 10652 ]
with them. If there is not compliance, the matter will be turned over to Crown counsel, who will then make a determination.
M. de Jong: I may not have understood the minister's earlier response, but the impression I was left with was that the ministry or minister was exercising some discretion at some point. He mentioned the Lilydale incident. I understand that that is presently before the courts as a result of a decision that was taken somewhere. The minister indicated earlier that some discretionary authority was being exercised within the ministry. Is that discretionary authority being exercised at the stage when it is referred to Crown counsel, or after that or before that?
Hon. M. Sihota: The discretion is exercised, I suppose, in a number of places. First of all, let's say a conservation officer is out in the field. He or she may notice a particular problem and may discuss it with the offender. Secondly, it may be a matter of insufficient evidence, in which case a conservation officer would not proceed with it. Some discretion is exercised there. Thirdly, there may be some discretion with regard to discussions that they have with Crown counsel.
M. de Jong: Perhaps I'm not articulating clearly enough the issue I wish to have addressed. Companies are told they are not complying with the Environment ministry's regulations, and they are put on notice. I take no issue with the minister's comments up to that point. Presumably, they then make a decision to bring their operation within the regulations set by the ministry. In at least a number of cases, subsequent to so doing and spending a significant amount of dollars on capital improvements, the ministry then opts to prosecute pursuant to regulations. Are such companies told of that in advance? That is a significant factor for them to take into consideration, to the extent that the fines being levied by the ministry are now very significant. I'm not quarrelling with the minister in that respect. But presumably this is something that the companies involved -- or individuals, in some instances -- would want to know and have before them, insofar as it may affect their decision whether or not to carry on operations.
Hon. M. Sihota: If they're not in compliance and they're being investigated and get a warning letter, they know full well they're facing the prospect of litigation. That in itself may get people to comply. So if I understand the hon. member's question correctly, yes, in that context people do have some understanding that litigation may be an option.
In the preface to his question, the hon. member indicated that perhaps he wasn't making the matter clear, and I'm not too sure if I clearly understand his concern. But to assist him -- and again, I thought his research staff would have this -- we put out a publication that lists the steps, the degree of discretion that's exercised and the options available to various polluters. That's to assist them and to make it clear where the ministry is at. I'd be happy to provide the hon. member with a copy of that information.
M. de Jong: One further question on this point. The essence of the issue is that polluters, or entities that the ministry labels as polluters, subsequently make the necessary correction to their operation and, after spending that money -- sometimes six, eight, 12, 16 or 18 months after the fact -- find themselves before the court with newly launched legal proceedings. Some do, some don't. It's a question of equity for those operators. Where is the equity when, after having made the necessary repairs or installations, some are being prosecuted and some aren't? That's the nub of the issue. Where is the equity there?
Hon. M. Sihota: Equity is dealt with in a number of ways. It may be dealt with through amendments to the permit; it may be dealt with through the office of Crown counsel.
M. de Jong: Actually, I have no idea following today's proceedings whether we're still anywhere near the schedule that was originally set when these debates began. I have some questions about lands and water. I don't know if we're there yet or where we are in these proceedings.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's why I was hoping you'd be sitting through the estimates and why we agreed to a schedule with your people. It was at your request that we agreed to compartmentalize things in that fashion. Having said that, if you have questions on lands and water, I'd be happy to entertain those at this point.
M. de Jong: I have some questions for the minister regarding the groundwater situation in the eastern part of the Fraser Valley. Specifically, the reports I have seen suggest that 60 percent of the sampled wells in the Abbotsford aquifer show nitrate levels that exceed acceptable standards. That report, I believe, was some two years old and showed that there was no prospect of that situation improving. Does the minister have information he can offer regarding the groundwater situation in the eastern Fraser Valley?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. I see the member from Vanderhoof smiling, and I know exactly why he's smiling. You may have been watching the last few days in question period. We, as a ministry, have prepared a discussion paper on water stewardship, and obviously we're looking at some policy options in that regard. We have not concluded our policy discussions on that point, but it emphasizes the nature of the problem throughout British Columbia. As I said on Prince George radio the other day, I'm not persuaded there's a problem in Prince George.
But there's clearly a problem in the Fraser Valley, one that you allude to. We have to find a solution to that. When we do that in the Fraser Valley, that triggers all sorts of legitimate concerns in the interior of the province with regard to the permitting of wells and dealing with the groundwater in the interior. The trick is for us to develop a policy option which deals with the legitimate concerns in the Fraser Valley around environmental and health matters, without instilling the kind of fear, concern and anxiety that we're seeing in the interior of the province. I'm not sure if we've yet resolved that issue, but I can tell the hon. member that we are very actively working on it and hope to resolve it in the immediate future.
M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's comments that his ministry is in the policy formulation stage. Perhaps he would give us some indication when he would expect some tangible results that could be presented for examination and discussion.
He will know that to some degree at least, the groundwater difficulties that exist in the eastern Fraser Valley have been attributed to certain agricultural operations. Could he indicate whether the study is being undertaken and whether the recommendations, which he indicates may be tabled, will include recommendations that will assist the agricultural sector in a meaningful way? Again
[ Page 10653 ]
I return to the comment I made earlier, that in this field, as in any other, certainty is a key. If we are going to expect members of the agricultural sector to adhere to certain guidelines, they had best be prepared in a way that they can understand and that will be applied equitably and consistently. My question for the minister is whether those areas will be addressed in the activities being undertaken.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I don't know who does your research, but those discussions are underway. There's wide-ranging consultation, and it does include the agriculture industry.
R. Chisholm: I've been a while getting to my feet, with the tirades going on around here. I would like to ask a few questions from the agricultural point of view and the fisheries point of view. Hopefully, we can get some answers.
As for being environmentalists, hon. minister, if you recall, there's a bill on ethanol that's been before this House for the last two years and that I've put forward. It has yet to be debated. We have had debates on ethanol itself and on hog fuel and how they could be used to clean up the environment. They have yet to be debated.... Maybe if we debated some of those things, this government wouldn't be in such dire straits.
[4:30]
One area I'd like to talk about is air quality. Let's talk about B.C. Hydro. In the last four years they've had a $1.4 billion profit, but they have yet to clean up their stacks. It costs approximately $270 million to do that. In the four years they've obviously had the money to do it. My question to the minister is: why did it take so long? How come we were signing long-term contracts to sell power to the Americans, but yet we had still not cleaned up the effluent coming out of the stacks at Burrard? Like I've said, when B.C. Hydro has shown that kind of a profit there's absolutely no reason that that couldn't have been started four years ago. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that one.
Hon. M. Sihota: Again I don't know exactly where you get your information from. But it's my understanding that B.C. Hydro has made the commitment to comply with the standards that have been laid out for it to clean up its Burrard Thermal operation.
Secondly, your questions didn't seem to quite make sense. But remember that this is Burrard Thermal, which is not in use at all times. Burrard Thermal is a backup plant to meet the electrical demands of the province. Having said that, and even if you do understand that, you should understand that they have made the commitment to start doing the appropriate work.
R. Chisholm: This is eventually leading up to ethanol, but the point is that these are your facts from your B.C. Hydro reports. These are facts from the Vancouver Sun and the Province, and it goes on and on. Basically, they come out of your own statistics. My point is that when you have that kind of profit in a Crown corporation, you should have started the job four years earlier. We are now talking about doing that.
My point is that we have had some solutions for cleaning up the effluent in the atmosphere throughout the Fraser Valley and into the rest of the province, and one of those happens to be ethanol. I know your ministry has studied Dr. Paszner's theories about ethanol and how he could use hog fuel to produce ethanol. And you know as well as I do that ethanol will decrease tailpipe emissions of various chemicals and gases up to 40 percent.
Ethanol is on the green plan federally, and I am wondering why this ministry hasn't gone out of its way to promote ethanol, considering you are trying to get to a zero-emission vehicle. When you take into account that ethanol could be produced from grains in the Fort St. John area where the grain growers are practically bankrupt, here is a way to put them back in business. And it would be cleaning up our environment. I have yet to see any movement on the part of this government to try to do that.
I mentioned Dr. Paszner's theories about hog fuel. I have yet to see you do anything constructive to put that into practice. Yet that would decrease the effluent from tailpipe emissions by up to 40 percent, and that would definitely help some of the pollution problems in the Fraser Valley. You've had the facilities, equipment and resources with the Burrard Thermal plant, but you have yet to take care of the problem. You've had four years on that one, and I'm just wondering if it's going to take four, eight, ten or 12 years. What is it going to take to look at ethanol and possibly put it into your system to help clean up our environment?
The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, given that this House seems to have a kind of fragile civility on occasion and we get into some wrangles that I don't think any of us really want, can I advise members to be guided very much by one rule of the chamber, namely that we go through the Chair. And that means we don't point the finger at the person across the way and say "you." Rather, we go through the Chair.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know where the member's research gets done. Let me just go through the points he raised.
First of all, a new permit has been issued by the GVRD with regard to Burrard Thermal, and it requires a series of steps to occur with regard to air emissions from Burrard Thermal. And hear this carefully: it requires that there be a faster upgrade schedule for the six units that are involved; it requires an immediate decrease in the allowable nitrogen oxide emissions; it says that modelling studies are required for nitrogen oxides and ammonia; it insists upon an evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation options; and it insists on compliance with federal, provincial and regional strategies. The permit will make Burrard Thermal the cleanest facility of its type in North America. We have given the opposition a lot of funding for research. But that's the background of Burrard Thermal, and I don't understand the basis of the question.
Second, with regard to the issues you raise about methanol and ethanol, I agree there is an appropriate use for methanol and ethanol with regard to gas. Yes, I've looked at your bill with some interest, but I would leave it up to the House Leaders. I encourage you to talk to your House Leader about how and whether it is to be debated in the House.
Third, with regard to the hog fuel problem, some time ago we as a ministry established a schedule to bring beehive burners in British Columbia to an end. We are saying to industry that we see all sorts of potential uses for hog fuel. We have encouraged West Fraser, for example, to take a look at using wood by-products to power vehicles. I know that they have been doing some innovative work in that regard, and they deserve a lot of credit. In other areas, we're looking at independent power production.
[ Page 10654 ]
R. Chisholm: I guess that the point I'm trying to make to the minister about B.C. Hydro is that you're at the top of that list of polluters in this province. B.C. Hydro happens to be a Crown corporation. It has been polluting this province for a number of years, and it has had the profits to be able to clean up its stacks. My point goes back to: you're at the top of the list, and here are solutions to clean up the environment. Yet you're not reacting to them. It would be nice if this government would react to some of these solutions that are brought forward. It doesn't matter if it comes from the PDA, a Liberal, the NDP, a Socred or a Reformer. If it's a solution, look seriously at it. If it comes from outside of this chamber, look at it seriously, too. Dr. Paszner has never professed to be affiliated with any of those parties.
My next question to the minister comes from the B.C. Shellfish Growers' Association. They're having a bit of a problem. I will just read the question exactly the way they've phrased it, because they've had some problems with this ministry and a couple of others:
"The B.C. shellfish farming industry is over 60 years old, producing high-quality oysters, clams and scallops. Our farming methods are 100 percent environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and generate significant export revenues.
"Given these facts, we cannot understand why our industry continues to suffer a moratorium on new tenures, initiated without justification, by the former Minister of Lands, the Hon. Dave Parker, in 1990. Shellfish farming in general, and more recently clam farming in particular, has proven itself as a viable industry. This has been recognized by the Hon. David Zirnhelt, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MLAs Leonard Krog and Margaret Lord, and the managers that regulate our industry. Why have we been unsuccessful in our requests for a meeting with the Hon. Moe Sihota, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, or Ms. Lynn Kennedy, director of the land programs branch, for answers to these questions?"
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a couple of points. First of all, in terms of meetings, I will certainly meet with people when there is a need to meet with them. In this instance, should that need arise, we will meet. I should say that we are working on that issue, and I know that the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the member for Comox Valley have been very diligent in pursuing the matter with us. I would hope that we could provide some satisfaction in a relatively short time period.
R. Chisholm: Maybe he can help them in another area where they're having problems. Specifically, it comes under the Health ministry, but the Environment minister might be able to persuade the Health ministry to look into it.
"The second issue is of equal or greater concern, in that while we cannot obtain new farmland to grow, we are losing farmland to pollution closures. For example, just recently 400 acres of prime shellfish lands were closed in the Baynes Sound area, south of Courtenay, due to leaking septic tanks from the upland homes. At a public meeting recently held in Courtenay, which included both federal and provincial government representatives and MLA Margaret Lord, the finger-pointing was disgraceful, with no ministry accepting responsibility for cleanup. The local health inspector, who is supposed to oversee the septic systems in the area, didn't even bother to show up."
The question goes on to the hon. minister, Paul Ramsey, but the same question is for the minister....
The Chair: Member, I'm sorry to interrupt you. If you'd take your seat for a moment, I just want to caution you that names are verboten in this chamber. Always refer to members by their ridings even when you're quoting correspondence. Given that there may be some other names, I thought I'd draw that to your attention now. Please proceed.
R. Chisholm: Considering this is a quotation from a letter addressed from the people, I wanted it to be accurate so the minister knows who to talk to.
The Chair: I'm sorry, member. I just told you the rule of the chamber. Even if you are quoting something, you are not allowed to render it in the name of the person. That's the House rule. Please don't argue the point; just accept it. Carry on.
R. Chisholm: "We are told that the Upper Island health unit has different septic regulations from the other Island areas" -- e.g., 50- and 100-foot setbacks. The problem is that these septic systems are polluting the area and polluting these fishing establishments. It doesn't seem as though other ministries have been able to look into it, and it being an environmental situation, I would ask that the minister himself talk to the other minister and possibly find a solution for these industries before they are damaged beyond repair.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be happy to talk to the Minister of Health about that.
On the question you asked previously with regard to a meeting with the organization, perhaps I didn't answer it with the kind of clarity that I should have. I just want to make it a little more clear. I've got some sympathy with what they're saying, and certainly the representatives for Parksville-Qualicum and Courtenay have been very aggressive in terms of getting us to make some changes. I think we are closer to a resolution than we were, let's say, in December. We are working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and DFO in a far more diligent and determined way than perhaps the author of that letter would conclude. I think that augurs well for them.
R. Chisholm: The British Columbia farming association has had some problems with burning regulations. They've asked the B.C. Minister of Environment to raise the exemption for permits from ten cubic metres to 40 cubic metres per burn. They've also asked that the permit's requirement be streamlined among the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests and local governments so that only one inspection and one permit are required. Do you have any comments that something positive might be coming from this?
Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I don't know who is doing your research, but we have streamlined it with the Ministry of Forests, and they now do the permitting process. I don't know if that's the policy of your party, or if it's just simply an effort on your part to read a letter into the record. I'd be most interested in knowing what your policies are with regard to open burning.
R. Chisholm: I hate to tell the minister that he's in government, and we're here to ask questions. When we become government, we'll tell you exactly what our policies are. In the meantime, you'll see them firsthand when the election comes.
My next question to the minister is with reference to ungulates. We have a problem in the Okanagan and different areas where wild animals are devastating some of the
[ Page 10655 ]
agricultural crops. The BCFA has approached this ministry before about what sort of policy you're going to put in place to handle this problem -- whether there's going to be compensation for the problem, whether you're going to assist in fencing or what, exactly, you are going to do.
As for the questions, hon. minister, they come from the resolutions out of the BCFA annual general meeting just a couple of months back. As for the research, it's as up to date as you get, and they're as aggravated as you get at times too. So maybe you could answer the question, and they won't be as aggravated as they were at that annual general meeting.
Hon. M. Sihota: We are working on a solution to that problem. One of the best suggestions I heard was a contribution from ICBC with regard to some of those issues. Deer find their way onto the road as well, and that causes all sorts of problems. At this point I'm not in a position to indicate a determination, but I do want to thank the member for Okanagan West and the member for Okanagan East for having raised that issue with me on several occasions in the past. This is the first time I've heard it from the hon. member, but on several occasions the two members from the Okanagan have raised that with me when I've gone to Kelowna.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, if you had been here last year -- and you were the Minister of Environment at that point in time -- you would have heard exactly the same questions coming from me. This is two years later, and we still haven't heard any answers from either your ministry or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The problem still exists.
[4:45]
The next question to the minister is going into fisheries a little bit. I want to talk about the poor returns of steelhead trout in the Fraser River. This is raising some serious concerns, and it's raising serious concerns right in your own ministry. I quote Dave Narver, the director of the B.C. Environment ministry's fisheries branch. He says that there's a general steelhead conservation concern, but:
"...we don't have as good information as we need to scientifically declare we have a conservation problem. We got caught off-balance a little bit, to be honest, on this opening this weekend, because we had late notice of the intention of that fishery."
The article goes on:
"But the province will meet today" -- and that was February 3 -- "with federal and native officials in Kamloops to discuss future openings...."
I'm just wondering if this problem has been settled. It could be devastating to this fishery if we have any more of these mistakes, where we have openings and people fish when they should not. I just wonder if that has been cleared up between the DFO and the aboriginal peoples.
Hon. M. Sihota: The aboriginal fish strategy, as you are aware, is a federal policy. Secondly, I'm sure that if you phone Mr. Narver, he'll be happy to tell you that things have improved immeasurably in the Ministry of Environment.
R. Chisholm: That should be very satisfying to the people who are concerned about this industry.
I'll go on to another problem that people have in this province, hon. minister. You've evaded that one, too. I'll quote right from the letter, and maybe you'll take notice of it this time, seeing that you haven't in the last number of years.
The Chair: Member, will you sit down for just a moment, please. I'm going to try this once more. I would ask the member to please listen to the point I'm making -- and his colleague, who could also learn from this. The reason the rule is there is simply to prevent rancour and hard feelings between members. That's why we use the Chair as an intermediary. Therefore one doesn't say "you," pointing at the minister, and the minister doesn't say "you," pointing at the questioner; rather we talk about "the member" or "the minister." I want to ask members to please really pay close attention to that rule and recognize that it's there for a very good reason: it's not to impede the flow of debate but to simply protect us against the debate getting out of control and becoming personalized and hostile when it needn't be so.
Having given that caution -- I hope to both sides of the chamber -- I now ask the member for Chilliwack to continue and to try to avoid that particular pitfall, please.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. Through you to the minister, I'll quote from the letter to the minister:
"I, the undersigned, am taking this opportunity to express my disgust with our government's complete lack of responsibility in refusing funding of any kind for diking the flood-prone Chilliwack River in order to protect the homes and people of the Chilliwack River valley.
"We have been informed that the next flood holds the very real and imminent threat of the loss of over 200 homes plus a large stretch of highway. This would cost the provincial disaster fund considerably more money than the amount needed to prevent the disaster. Why not investigate removing gravel and debris taken from the river by a private company, for the price of the gravel taken, as was done behind CFB Chilliwack at Vedder Crossing late last summer, or approach the military heavy-equipment school of operators for a hands-on work project, which could give their operators experience as well as be minimal-cost efficient to the government? They have the equipment and the manpower, so why not put it to use?"
I have to agree with the originator of this letter, hon. minister. If you could negotiate a deal with the federal government, it could be used as a training exercise, and it could help these homeowners immensely and possibly save the 200 homes they're talking about. After all, it's just a matter of some cooperation between the two levels of government. They have to do their training, and this could possibly be one way of doing that and being constructive in the area in which they live. People who are liable to lose their homes would benefit, and the province would benefit, of course, by not having to pay out when these floods occur. After all, in the time that you have been minister, you have seen that these floods occur every couple of years. We pay out more and more money every year. When the big floods finally come, they're going to cost us a lot more. This would seem to be a constructive measure, if you can negotiate it with your federal counterpart and possibly organize some training exercise that would help everyone.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your question. The MLA for Abbotsford raised similar issues, so I've already provided an answer to those questions on the record. I should also say that I haven't seen any interest at the federal level on the issue, but I guess that could always change.
A couple of days ago the member for Abbotsford -- who I see is now in the House -- asked me about the Chilliwack River hazardous management study. There was a concern expressed on his part about why there were changes to the terms of reference. He believed that there had been a change in the direction of the study. That is not the case; nothing
[ Page 10656 ]
changed in the terms of reference given to Hay and Co., the consulting firm engaged to carry out the study. I just want to put that on the record because that hon. member is here and it's in relation to the question the hon. member just asked.
M. Farnworth: My question actually comes from a couple of constituents who contacted me and want to know the status of some land. Mike Gates and John Keryluk, longtime residents in the Port Coquitlam area, are very much concerned about the Colony Farm lands, of which 333 acres lie in Port Coquitlam and some 250 acres in Coquitlam.
In 1983 the former Social Credit government sold Colony Farm, which used to supply Riverview with a lot of food and vegetables. Since that time, the land has been sitting idle and has been the subject of much speculation as to what is going to happen to it. Councils in the area have been approached by all sorts of quick-buck artists who want to put condos or industry there. Many of us, myself included, called for a land use plan -- during the last election, for example. We felt that was needed, with a great deal of citizen input. I was criticized for that by my Liberal opponent. One of the things I rejected was a PNE racetrack at the Colony Farm site. I maintained that a land use study was what was needed.
These constituents of mine want to know what's happening there. I wonder if the hon. minister could enlighten them as to what our government is doing in terms of Colony Farm.
Hon. M. Sihota: In answer to the hon. member, it's a good question, and I know that it is an issue of great concern. I know that my predecessor, the former Minister of Environment, spent a fair bit of time lobbying on behalf of his constituents with regard to this issue, as had Mark Rose.
Since the change in government, we have completed a number of initiatives. The first is that a study to develop a comprehensive land use plan for Colony Farm is now underway. The property owner, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, is working with us and indeed has appointed a team to work on an appropriate land use strategy. That has been long overdue but is now occurring.
There was also a Colony Farm steering committee formed back in December 1993. I know the hon. member played a role in assisting the provincial government with the variety of concerns regarding that site. Those are agricultural and environmental concerns, native concerns, recreational needs, government needs and a whole number of issues. As a consequence, the steering committee consists of people from the local native band, my ministry, citizens' groups, Colony Farm, the ratepayers' association, people involved with Burke Mountain, and the B.C. Buildings Corporation.
The committee is looking at initiatives that we can bring forward to ensure that all opportunities are taken into account. It is creating an appropriate inventory of present and potential agricultural and environmental concerns and uses of the property, forming a range of land use options that will be consistent with the interests of the community and some of the divergent views in the region. Again, I would give the hon. member a fair bit of credit in making sure that the land use study occurred and that those kinds of initiatives are occurring. We are, of course, interested in some of the adjacent land uses and opportunities which may exist for acquisition through Crown lands. Again, as a result of your and others' input, the Minister of Employment and Investment and I have had some discussions in that regard.
There will be a number of phases in the study that we will be doing. The first is the initial consultation and collection of resource information. That will be followed by a discussion of land use options, where we will lay out the preliminary options and assess the options with the public. Our third phase is to develop a land use plan, then move towards final land use and seek land use approval, which will of course require meetings with the Agricultural Land Commission and municipalities.
So there are many opportunities for the public to get involved. Of course, hon. member, I would encourage your constituents not only to have these types of questions asked in the House but to be involved in the land use planning, because their participation is essential to the success of any land use study. So I would hope that people would attend the public workshops. If my memory serves me right, there's a workshop on Thursday in Coquitlam, in a facility on North Road. The public can also have input to the Colony Farm land use steering committee, which, I believe, is meeting on May 24 and 25. I think most of your constituents would be well advised to submit their ideas in writing to the steering committee.
So I thank you for the question, and I hope that attends to most of your concerns.
G. Wilson: This minister has repeatedly said this afternoon that members should go on record as to where they stand on issues. I think the minister is absolutely correct on that. I think all members need to stand on these issues and let people know precisely where they're coming from. So it will be no surprise to this minister that when it comes to the Kemano completion project, this member, and in fact members of the Alliance, have stood strongly in opposition to it. We believe it's the wrong thing to do. We believe it will have a catastrophic environmental impact on the Nechako and Fraser River systems. Could the minister tell us his position and that of his government with respect to the Kemano completion project?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that question. Actually I've already answered it. In brief, I will be awaiting the results of the B.C. Utilities Commission report before government makes a final determination. During the election campaign of 1991 we indicated that there would be hearings. The Premier followed through on that and, as a result of the Rankin report, initiated hearings of the B.C. Utilities Commission. I think that the change in government at the federal level has helped. I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Mr. Tobin at the federal level, whom I have a lot of respect for and who has taken considerable measures to make the information available to the public -- that is, the information from scientists who gave evidence. I am most interested what that evidence is, and only after that time will we as a government be able to determine the next course of action.
G. Wilson: I have endeavoured to read the Blues, and I don't know that this area has been canvassed thoroughly. Although the minister is nodding it has, I don't know when in the 12 hours it was canvassed thoroughly. I wonder if the minister might tell us whether he believes that the current Utilities Commission hearings constitute a comprehensive environmental review of downstream impact.
[5:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll listen to the evidence and see how comprehensive it is before I prejudge it. It is not correct for me to prejudge the evidence. I'll wait to see what the scientists and others have to say, and wait to see the degree to which and how the Utilities Commission exercises its terms of reference.
[ Page 10657 ]
G. Wilson: All members should be familiar with the terms of reference of these hearings, and they are extremely narrow. I would argue that they do not constitute broad enough parameters within which any kind of comprehensive environmental review could be done. Further, the minister will recognize that most of the environmental work done on the Kemano completion project has been specific to the fishery. Very little has been done with respect to downstream water impact, especially on questions of turbidity and other questions with respect to the diluting effect on industrial waste and municipal sewage that is being pumped into the lower Fraser system.
Given that no comprehensive water studies have been done recently, and none have been provided to the Utilities Commission with respect to the impact that the completion of Kemano 2 would have downstream, can the minister tell us whether he has money in the budget this year to do some comprehensive water research with respect to matters of turbidity and questions about diluent effect as a result of loss of water flow?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll tell you what I'm committed to. First of all, I am committed to allowing the B.C. Utilities Commission to do its job. Second, you may describe the terms of reference as narrow, and I know many have, but it's also fair to say that the scope of the evidence now being presented is perhaps wider than what many would have thought would be the case. Third, as I understand it, the Utilities Commission has the power to call for those studies if they feel it's necessary to their work. I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying that. I am not trying to signal one thing or the other, and I don't want my comments to be interpreted that way. But I think it underscores the point that I can't be in a position to prejudge what they might do or to read down their terms of reference, or read them up. Those are determinations they have to make. Once they've made those determinations, we'll assess the strengths and weaknesses of their report.
G. Wilson: With all respect to the minister, hon. Chair, this minister has grilled members of the opposition for not taking a strong and definitive position on a question and for talking about process rather than about a position on a particular question. This member has no difficulty in taking issue with the Kemano completion project, certainly in terms of the background work and research that's been done. Many will know that my academic background would allow me to have some view outside of the political view of this question.
Surely the minister can tell us whether those municipalities -- those communities dependent upon the lower Fraser and the Nechako systems -- can have some confidence in knowing that this ministry has committed some moneys, in the event or certainty of completion of the hearing process not being definitive on the question of downstream effect. It clearly is not spelled out in the mandate of the Utilities Commission whether this ministry is prepared to put the necessary money together to do the necessary environmental review that would cause British Columbians to have comfort in the decision that may be taken, and failing that, whether the government is prepared to commit today to notify the Alcan group that if the Utilities Commission hearing is not comprehensive and does not come up with a definite statement on downstream effect, this government will take a position that it must be done, even at their cost.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me go through the points you raised. First, with regard to my comments about the Leader of the Opposition, I thought that you would have joined me in making those comments. I think you agree with me that there is no environment ethic in that caucus and that it's disturbing to hear members say we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution because it will demoralize the business sector. Knowing your background, I think that would disturb you as much as it disturbs me. It should disturb all hon. members, if that's the belief of the Liberal caucus.
Second, with regard to your comments about studies on the Fraser and Nechako Rivers with regard to turbidity and other impacts in terms of water quality, I want to make it clear that the hearings are divided into a series of technical phases which include hydrology, fisheries and impact on communities. I want to see what they do on fisheries and hydrology -- and I think that directly relates to the question you had -- before I say anything more definitive than that. You're correct in that at this stage of the evidence there is wider scope for you to offer opinion than there is for me. I may have to make some determinations afterwards, and I think it wrong for me to prejudge the conclusion of the Utilities Commission hearings. I don't know what studies they're going to order. I don't know how narrowly or broadly they interpret their mandate with regard to hydrology or with regard to the fourth phase, which deals with communities and impact on communities. Out of fairness, I have to allow them to conclude that work before I offer comment on the work they're currently doing or indicate a bias one way or the other. You know as well as I know that some could take comments that I make as a reason to frustrate some of the good work that's occurring.
G. Wilson: I certainly don't take issue with concerns that the minister expresses. I, for one, have called for that kind of environmental review, and I think we have to take the hard decisions that are necessary. I recognize that a number of jobs are involved in the completion of that project. I recognize that there are northern communities that believe there is going to be a benefit with respect to net job creation, but I think the minister's earlier points are well taken with respect to putting in place the necessary regulation and the necessary law to protect our environment. It is reasonably evident that if we start to look at matters of downstream effect, there are two sides to the question: those who would argue on behalf of the fishery, water quality and downstream impact; and those who would argue on behalf of industry the need for the hydroelectric potential for the production of aluminum -- and, I suspect, much more specifically for the export of hydroelectric power, which I think is really where we're headed in this situation.
Maybe the minister can tell us then, with respect to the policy of the Ministry of Environment, or of this government in a more general aspect -- and we'll try very hard not to compromise this minister with respect to this particular project -- what the ministry's position is vis-a-vis environmental reviews on either water diversion or the use of a hydroelectric facility for the production of power that is destined for export? Is it this minister's view that every such project should undergo a full and thorough environmental review in terms of the downstream effect and its mitigation, and of the impact on downstream users with respect to communities that have input of material into that river, as well as communities that may have an output, using the river water as a source?
[ Page 10658 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for the question. As you are aware, we have just brought in environmental assessment legislation which would require a proposal such as a hydroelectric project to go through a full environmental assessment study. I'm a little reluctant to talk about legislation, because it's out of order, but I guess that the point I'm trying to make is that environmental assessment would cover off that kind of situation.
G. Wilson: We do run into a grey area with respect to the rules. We'll anxiously get into debate on Bill 29 when the time is right and look at some of the consequential amendments affecting the Water Act, which affect exactly what the minister's talking about. Just by way of digression, it's interesting that Bill 29 has, for the first time, a consequential amendment amending the very act we're passing, which is an unusual thing. Without getting into that debate, it clearly impacts on the Water Act and provisions with respect to studies that may be undertaken with respect to this. The members of the Alliance party are most curious as to why the government chose to go that route. We'll raise that again when we get into the appropriate forum.
I think there are many communities that want to hear from this minister that the province is going to take a lead role on this question, outside of the rather constrained position of the hearings. Those communities reflect fishers, people whose livelihood is dependent on an active and vibrant fishery -- especially the sockeye runs. They are aboriginal communities along the Nechako and Fraser and therefore have a long and traditional dependency on the river as a resource to support their way of life. These communities have use of the Fraser River system both in industrial terms and traditionally as a depository for a lot of effluent.
I push on this issue not to put this minister on the spot -- although I don't have a particular problem doing that -- but because the studies we're looking at, that were done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, are pretty definitive on the question of this project's potential downstream impact, which is now the subject of these utility hearings. The minister is now saying that the reports are going to be released by the new federal Minister of Fisheries Oceans -- and thankfully so. People want to know that the government will take a lead role on this question and will be prepared to take the rather controversial route, should it be required, and say that this project cannot be completed -- notwithstanding the potential litigation or whatever may result from that. The people who use that river want to know that this government is prepared to do just exactly what this minister said earlier in today's debate, and that was: go after the polluters, fine the polluters, enforce the laws and look after the environment as a paramount concern.
Here's an opportunity for this minister to deliver on those words and tell us today, in light of the fact that the Utilities Commission hearings are narrow and that there are already documented reports that place high suspicion on the environmental viability of this project, that he does have an ace up his sleeve by virtue of having some commitment set aside in this year's budget to do the kind of in-depth research that would give comfort to the people who live on that river system. That would include everybody, right through to the lower mainland and Vancouver and people in the neighbouring areas that may be affected by the outflow of the Fraser River system.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for the question. Let me go through the points that you raised. We are quite happy to seize the opportunity to deal with the wide range of issues that impact on the Kemano project. If you listened to the hon. member, you would come to the conclusion that this government hasn't done anything. Let's not forget the following sequence of events:
1. In 1991, as part of the election campaign, we said that we would have a review.
2. Shortly after we formed the government, we had a study, initiated by Mr. Rankin, with regard to legal liability, mitigation and other matters. That was unprecedented.
3. As a result of that review, we called for a hearing. That was the fulfilment of an election commitment.
4. Because of the hearings that occurred, scientific evidence which was not otherwise available has now become available.
5. As a result of the initiatives taken by this administration, pressure was put on the federal government to release its information. We now have that information available.
6. We indicated right from the beginning that all of our Environment officials were available to that commission, if it required them, for any examination or cross-examination which may occur. Again, unlike other governments, there was no gag order in our ministry. We're upfront in that regard.
Next, let me also say, as I said earlier on, that the Utilities Commission has the ability to do studies that it thinks are appropriate, and we will see what those studies are. Let me follow that by saying that if they're deficient, we may have to do further work.
[5:15]
At this point I am not going to speculate as to what the commission will do. I'm just going to assure the member that given the way we've behaved in the past around this issue -- it's actually quite a remarkable record of activity -- there is no reason for any British Columbian, including the hon. member, to doubt the sincerity of our government's desire to deal with the issue to the extent that we logically can.
G. Wilson: I will try to conclude on this section. I have many very specific questions on matters of the environment as well as lands and a whole series of other areas -- not to forget that this member is also responsible for matters of human rights, which I want to get into in some depth and detail. I hope we can get to that at some point.
I have two last questions. Can the minister give comfort to the people who are hearing or may read his words today that notwithstanding the narrow constraints of that commission.... Let me say that I have the utmost respect for the members sitting on that commission. I know them. I gave a presentation to them. I believe them to be honourable people who are going to weigh the facts and try to come up with a proper decision. Notwithstanding that fact, many people in British Columbia believe that multimillions of dollars invested over the years, with a potential threat of lawsuits hanging over the head of whichever decision-maker may curtail or stop this project, will be enough to override what may be very clearly defined limits to the ability of that project to continue or arguments that it shouldn't continue at all.
The people want to hear from this minister that no amount of money invested or put forward in terms of project cost to date will weigh more heavily in the minds of those decision-makers. This minister is in charge of this environment and therefore has control over the long-term viability of the Nechako and Fraser systems. The people want to hear this minister say that no amount of dollars will militate against the making of a correct and proper decision
[ Page 10659 ]
for the long-term viability of those river systems, for future generations of British Columbians and for all aspects of the ecosystem that are dependent upon an unconstrained, unrestricted and unpolluted Nechako and Fraser. We need to hear that from this minister today.
Hon. M. Sihota: The reason we have a process in place and hearings of the B.C. Utilities Commission -- which have been well-advertised, well-attended and well-informed -- is to make sure that they deal with the issues that fall within their terms of reference, and that's what they'll do. We are all aware that Alcan has made some investment in the project; we can't ignore that. We're also well aware that there is quite a debate around the environmental and secondary effects of that project. That's what the commission is there for. I have every comfort that the commission will do its job responsibly, won't be influenced by any one variable to the detriment of another and will make a judicious decision.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might tell us, because I know there are British Columbians who are confused about why the minister would back away and take such a.... Let me rephrase, because I don't want to be unkind or inaccurately state the minister's position. This minister is saying that a process is there to make some form of objective decision rather than take a subjective position on this question. Through that objectivity in the process, the welfare of two of the major rivers in this province will be dealt with.
This is the same government that didn't allow any of that process to take place with respect to the proposed Windy Craggy mine. When there are volumes of information that talk about the potential threat to the Nechako and the Fraser River systems, people are confused as to why this government seems slow to act. Yet when there was virtually no documented evidence on the question of whether Windy Craggy was a right or wrong decision, this government was prepared to act immediately. Perhaps the minister could explain why the government has seemingly taken two completely different positions with respect to process, when the impact in the Windy Craggy situation on the Tatshenshini River was far less than evident, even to geologists and hydrologists in that area, yet the impact on the Nechako and the Fraser is pretty evident to anybody who has read the material.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm quite happy to get into this debate. Don't take my comments the wrong way, but you have to understand that those decisions were made before I arrived in this portfolio, both in terms of the process of the B.C. Utilities Commission and the decision about mining in the Tatshenshini. Having said that, let me now deal with the issues. You have to understand that there are some rules around here in terms of what ministers are supposed to be dealing with during estimates, and I think you crossed the line on that point.
We, as a government, don't believe that there should be mining in parks. We don't think there should be a mine in the Tatshenshini; we made that decision. I know, a couple of hours ago I was fairly angry, and I'm still angry about it. I'm really offended by the comments of the Liberal critic for mining, who says that he has no difficulty with mining in parks, that he would like to see mining in parks and that he considers it wrong for us to engage in environmental prosecution because it demoralizes the business sector, in particular the mining sector. I have to tell you, I'm deeply disturbed by those comments. I think it shows very clearly the different value systems between us on this side of the House and members of the Liberal Party.
On the B.C. Utilities Commission, we made a decision to allow a process to continue. Let us not forget that that process has had a number of benefits. First of all, it has provided a forum for people to express their concerns. I know that people are concerned about the terms of reference; I'm not blind to that. Secondly, it has allowed for evidence to come out that would not otherwise have ever come out. Thirdly, it has successfully put pressure on the federal government -- appropriately, to my mind -- so as to ensure that the gag orders on scientists at the federal level have been lifted and the evidence is forthcoming.
I don't underestimate the ability of the B.C. Utilities Commission to deal adequately with that evidence and to speak to it in an appropriate way. Nor do I underestimate the ability of the public to speak to that issue, as it has been doing over the last while. But I'm going to allow that process to continue. I make no apologies for our decision to create a park in the Tatshenshini, and I make no apologies for our government's decision to establish a process to deal with the Kemano 2 project, because there has been benefit out of both -- benefit in terms of an internationally recognized park in the Tatshenshini, and benefit in terms of evidence not otherwise available to the provincial government that has now come out through those hearings.
G. Wilson: I have a last question along this particular line, and then I'll yield to another member.
I think we've established through this set of questions that the Utilities Commission is a review process that has benefit -- no question about that -- and that the government did undertake to hold the hearings and has lived up to that commitment. I think we have to congratulate the government for taking that stand. But we also have to be aware that the Utilities Commission hearings are clearly not a comprehensive environmental review. I have reviewed virtually all of the submissions over time. Notwithstanding the amount of material and the latitude with which this commission is allowing it to come forward, it's clear that comprehensive detailed work has not been done with respect to the downstream effects of this particular project outside of the work done on the fishery. I would acknowledge that the fishery work has been pretty substantive.
My last question, then, is this: upon completion of the review, what does the minister envisage as the process beyond that? I'm not asking the minister to prejudge what the commission may rule, but a ruling will come forward. If there are citizens who, for whatever reason, believe that that process does not address their concerns or comes up with a decision that is going to have a negative effect, to what extent is this minister committing his resources and the resources of his portfolio to providing additional detailed material with respect to environmental viability?
Hon. M. Sihota: The question really is: what kind of process are we envisioning after the report? The report goes to cabinet, and I can't speak for cabinet as a whole. The member knows that and knows that it's out of order to ask questions based on future policy. But that's okay. I'll ignore that, hon. Chair, because I know that you have shown great flexibility to hon. members during this debate. Let me simply say this: I cannot, at this point, advise the hon. member as to what the process will be after the report, other than to say that the report will go to cabinet.
[ Page 10660 ]
D. Mitchell: I have a specific question for the minister regarding a site known as Britannia Beach, which is in the constituency I represent. It is a fairly unique community of renters on private land. The minister made a visit to the site earlier this year. It was a very welcome visit for members of that community because of some environmental problems with acid mine drainage going back many years at the site. To the knowledge of the community, there hasn't been a specific follow-up to the minister's visit. I wonder if the minister could provide to the committee today a brief update as to the intent of his ministry with respect to addressing the problems at the Britannia Beach site.
Hon. M. Sihota: By the way, I have the information with regard to the other set of questions that the hon. member wanted to pursue. We could pursue that too if he wishes.
On Britannia Beach, I believe I visited that site in November and issued an order that they had to have the pipe in by the end of January. That pipe is in, so that work has been done. Secondly, a more long-term plan was required of the company, and that had to be prepared by July 31. We, as a ministry, are.... I hate to use the word "monitoring" because it sort of rolls off the tongue, but I can't think of a better word. But we're working on that issue, knowing full well that that's the time period involved.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that update. There's nothing wrong with monitoring. I'm hopeful that the ministry is, in fact, monitoring the situation. It is a source of concern to many people in that whole corridor, which extends along the Sea to Sky corridor.
Can the minister tell me whether or not his ministry is prepared to take the leadership role, which I think he indicated he was prepared to take, and address some of the problems at this site. It's a complex community of some 400 citizens that has somehow fallen through the cracks in recent years because of its unique situation, being on private land. A number of governmental agencies are involved with the problems there. The Ministry of Environment has come through with this specific problem. But is the ministry prepared to take a leadership role in coordinating some of the other problems on the site, that fall within environmental land use issues primarily but go beyond the acid drainage issue specifically?
Hon. M. Sihota: We have mapped out a strategy to deal with events and issues after July 31. I don't think it wise for me to tip my hand in terms of what we may do in that regard, because obviously there are some discussions to be had either with the company, the trustee in bankruptcy or any prospective buyers. I'm being candid with you. For that reason, I'd feel uncomfortable talking about what may arise. I will extend this: I will be happy to give the hon. member the courtesy of a private meeting so that he may have a better idea of what we're thinking about and he's vested with that knowledge. But I don't think it wise, when one is assessing various options and putting pressure on parties, to talk about what options we're considering, because that then defines certain behaviour on their part.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's commitment. I will follow up with him on this issue. I only seek the continued commitment of his ministry that beyond July 31 there will be some active involvement with this site and the cleanup that is going to be required, regardless of the ownership of the property.
[5:30]
The minister has indicated that he is also willing at this point to address another issue that affects the constituency I represent: the spotted owl issue. The proposed spotted owl conservation areas affect much of the southern part of British Columbia, but I'm most concerned about how they impact on the Soo timber supply area. The minister's predecessor was certainly very much involved in the establishment of the spotted owl conservation areas, and the minister knows that that has put a prohibition on the harvesting of timber throughout a wide area of southern British Columbia.
I wonder if the minister can tell us how his ministry is coordinating the ongoing study into efforts to protect this endangered species. In particular, who in government is in charge of the spotted owl conservation strategy? There's some confusion in the community as to whether it's the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment. I know that a coordinating role is played by both ministries, but there's a continuing concern in the community as to who is in charge. Is the Ministry of Environment drawing up the strategy? If so, could you explain where we are in terms of defining the interim guidelines put in place last year, which have never been finalized?
Hon. M. Sihota: In this case, it's not the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment; it's both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. There's a joint initiative on the part of both ministries. I've had occasion to canvass this issue, albeit briefly, with the Minister of Forests. We are, of course, conducting certain surveys, and when they are complete there will be recommendations made to a joint Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment committee.
D. Mitchell: While we're on the spotted owl issue, I'd like to continue with a couple more questions for clarification. Last year, during the review of estimates with this minister's predecessor, we went over this in some detail. I don't intend to go over this in detail again, but we were told last year that it was under review. We were told that there was scientific work being done to determine how many spotted owls were in British Columbia, how much land was required, etc. I have a memo in front of me, signed jointly by the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, that says that the Canadian spotted owl recovery team's options will be presented to cabinet in November 1993, and a decision from government was anticipated by early 1994. This memo was written in August 1993.
Well, here we are, almost halfway through 1994, and the uncertainty in the community and in the forest industry has been prolonged. In fact, the spotted owl conservation area boundaries keep changing, to the point where the forest industry is being told to stop harvesting in areas where they have commenced harvesting certain cutblocks, because the spotted owl boundaries have changed. So we have these dynamic boundaries that are changing on the industry, and we still don't know whether or not this has been presented to cabinet and whether or not a final decision is forthcoming sooner or later. Just for the sake of clarification, can the minister tell us where we are in the process? It seems to have gone on much longer than planned.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is right. The issue has gone on for some time; there have been delays. You're right about the statements that were made in this House last year and about where we are on that issue. I understand full well the impact of uncertainty on communities like Squamish, which you represent, and that's a legitimate concern. There
[ Page 10661 ]
is no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever, and it is appropriate for the hon. member to ask the question. But there have been delays, and there's nothing that I can do about them -- that happens sometimes in this business. We are in the process of completing some socioeconomic work, and I would hope that the work will be done before the summer is over. I want to acknowledge the point the hon. member makes. He's correct, and I hope we will be able to finish that work within the time period I have just referred to.
D. Mitchell: I have one last question on this for now. I know that this issue is not going to go away. The whole issue of the spotted owl and protecting endangered species will never go away. It will be an ongoing issue as long as the human species is alive in this province and on this planet. I know the minister must be concerned about the forest industry and its viability, although from time to time he tends to express greater concern for nonindustrial issues. The forest industry depends on secure knowledge of the land base they have to work with. What is the working forest and what areas will not be included in the working forest?
This ministry is engaged in defining a protected areas strategy for the province. Can the minister make a commitment today in this committee that whatever spotted owl conservation areas are finally determined -- and hopefully that will be by the end of the summer, as the minister indicates -- they will not be in addition to any land base set aside under the protected areas strategy, but will be a part of the protected area strategy? Not over and above protected areas, but part of the protected areas strategy, so that we won't see any doubling up on the kind of land base that has been withdrawn from the working forest in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: There was a delay in my response, and there's a reason for that. I'm sensitive to what you said about the concerns of the industry, and I also know the emotion that's attached to this issue. Having said that, let me say that we will endeavour to deal with it in the context of the protected areas strategy and have the areas fall within the protected areas as much as possible.
D. Mitchell: Just so I understand the minister on this. I'm not sure what kind of commitment he just made to the committee. I think it's well known in the province that his ministry is attempting to define a protected areas strategy for the entire province. Some 12 percent of the land base is going to be preserved for its environmental values and will not be subject to exploitation for resource development or what have you. Will the spotted owl conservation areas that we are attempting to define -- and which are not very well defined yet -- be part of the protected areas strategy? I'm not quite sure I understood what commitment the minister was willing to make there.
The reason I think it's important that we have a clear definition of this is that the industry does not want to see a protected areas strategy of 12 percent for the entire land base of the province and on top of that have spotted owl conservation areas, regionally significant lands, and other categories on top, to the point where it's not 12 percent but 18 or 21 percent or something higher. The industry needs a commitment that spotted owl conservation areas will be completely incorporated within the protected areas strategy; not half in or half out. Could the minister be a little clearer on that? I wasn't sure I understood his previous answer.
Hon. M. Sihota: The studies aren't complete. I guess once the studies are complete, you'll have a better idea of the areas that are in contention and the degree of overlap between a protected area and the area for the spotted owl. Right now that information isn't complete; therefore we don't have an idea as to the degree of overlap. I understand what you're saying. You're saying to minimize that overlap. In fact, eliminate the overlap is what you're saying. So it's not as if I missed your point. I'm just a little reluctant....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Do you want a candid answer, or do you want me to duck it? I'm telling you straight out what I'm thinking. The hon. member who was formerly a member of your party is asking a good question here. Certainly the quality of the questions coming from the independents is superior to the questions being asked by the Liberals, and I'm sure the independent member will put that in the mailing that he does on this issue, if he does one.
In any event, we have to see through the studies. I understand precisely what the hon. member is asking, I understand precisely what the wish of the community is, and I know precisely what the environmental issues are here. You have to allow us to complete those studies so we can ascertain the degree of the overlap and determine how minimal it is.
L. Fox: Just for the record, I've been listening to the discussion between the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the minister with respect to the Kemano completion project. Given the complexity and the sensitivity and certainly the emotion around this particular initiative, I want to say that I appreciate and support the answers that the minister provided. I respect the fact that that is the role he should be taking.
With respect, though, to one question that was asked by the member in terms of the downriver effects of water quality, can the minister give us any idea as to the work of the Fraser basin management committee, if that's the official name, which to my understanding is a federal-provincial-municipal structure? How is that particular work going, which was designed around a plan to deal with water quality along the Fraser River?
Hon. M. Sihota: There has been a lot of consultation, and the work is proceeding quite well. I know that if they're asked to give evidence, we won't deny them the opportunity to come and speak. I'm sure that Ms. Copps would agree, given that Mr. Tobin has taken the view that there should be no limitation on the evidence provided.
L. Fox: I have one further question. Will there be any significant findings prior to the conclusion of the public process under the Utilities Commission on Kemano completion? Will the Fraser River management committee be in a position to provide any evidence prior to the conclusion of those hearings?
[5:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: It is a joint federal-provincial entity, and they set their own schedules. So I don't know precisely what their work plans provide, but they have that option.
I'll entertain another question, but we're probably going to wrap up in about five minutes or so.
F. Gingell: I wonder if in these last few minutes today we could turn to the issue of the proposed Enviro Desorption
[ Page 10662 ]
plant in Delta. My understanding of its current status is that a committee has been set up. But I'm sure the minister will recognize that the originally proposed site hardly fits the criteria agreed to by provincial ministers of Environment with respect to this type of plant, in that it sits very close to a major river system -- in fact, the most important salmon-bearing river in the world. Perhaps this discussion could commence with the minister speaking to the issue of the site location.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if I fully understood the question, but if it is with regard to the site, we suspended their licence -- as you know. We have established a committee that is looking at the whole issue of monitoring the impact of that site, and that's where it sits. I don't know if you're asking me whether or not the outcome will be that the plant remains on that site. If that's what you're asking, I don't want to prejudge that. I'll take another question, and we can pick this up tomorrow.
F. Gingell: I understand that the current catch-22 is that the committee or the powers that be want air-quality modelling done and that the company is prepared to proceed with that, but the ministry does not seem willing to give the criteria that are necessary for that modelling to take place. I wonder if you could comment on that problem.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's up to the company to provide us with their proposal and for us to then comment on what they are proposing in terms of the appropriate modelling. That's what the company is obliged to do.
F. Gingell: The problem, as I have been given to understand it, is that the company has been looking for the ministry to set the criteria for the way in which the modelling is to be done and the type of results that are to be measured. But from the minister's response, I take it that what the company should do is go ahead, do their modelling based on volumes, temperatures and the quality of the hydrocarbon-polluted material that is going to be treated, and advise ministry officials what this type of material with this type of plant will result in. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it's up to the company to do that. I understand what you're saying. I take it the catch-22 you're referring to is that they're waiting for us and we're waiting for them. I'll try to get more information on that before we pick up tomorrow morning.
F. Gingell: One more question deals with the Huestis report. Have the findings of that report changed any of the practices, processes and agreements between the ministry and regional districts that may have responsibility for air quality issues? Has the report caused any changes in current practices to take place?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, and we have drafted some regulations which are currently going through the legal checks.
F. Gingell: My last question comes back to my first one. If the site doesn't meet the criteria that was agreed to by all the provincial ministers of Environment relative to the siting of these types of plants, is there any point in going through another exercise of this plant in this location? If the site doesn't meet the criteria -- which is the wrong word.... There was an agreement between the ministers of Environment as to the siting of these plants. Wouldn't it be better for the ministry to decide that this is an inappropriate site? Unquestionably, the province needs to have some facility that will work well to deal with these problems, so wouldn't it be better to look for a more appropriate location?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not prepared to prejudge what the process concludes. As you may know, there are some regulations established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on these types of sites, and there's some issue as to whether or not it's captured by those regulations.
With that said, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick 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 5:52 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I'm fairly sure I know where I left off on Thursday. I was going to get into tolls and that sort of thing. I'm not sure where this fits in with the Transportation Financing Authority, but the minister can put me off to that minister. I notice the Transportation Financing Authority currently has a 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax that won't begin to finance necessary work around the province that's not being funded through general revenue.
I'm wondering if we can look at a few projects so you could tell me what's in the works for these and if they are ones which could be considered for tolls. One is the twinning of the Pitt River Bridge, or another crossing of the Pitt River. Is there anything in the works for that?
Hon. J. Pement: Maybe I could get you to be more specific. Are you asking if this project should proceed or if this is a project for tolls?
[ Page 10663 ]
D. Symons: In a sense, both, hon. minister. Is the Pitt River Bridge going to be twinned in the near future? Is the ministry considering tolls to pay for its capital cost?
Hon. J. Pement: In the Pitt River project, we're looking at possible use of a counterflow process.
As far as tolls go, that is under the purview of the TFA and the Minister of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: If you're considering counterflow, that means there is no current plan to add another river crossing.
If we could move to the Okanagan for a moment, there has been a great deal of talk from another member of the Legislature about the twinning of the Okanagan Lake Bridge. It seems that a study was done by the ministry a short while ago, where various options came up. One of the options was adding another lane to it at a cost of $25 million and adding a new crossing at a cost of about $130 million. I'm just wondering if the ministry, that report having come down, has made any plans regarding that structure.
[2:45]
Hon. J. Pement: There was a study done on the Okanagan Lake Bridge. There's still much more to do in terms of recognizing the best way and the best design -- geotechnical studies and that sort of thing. Also, there is further work with regional districts on the full integration of transportation in that area. We've involved the city on the signalization to make better operational improvements.
D. Symons: Tied in with the Okanagan Lake Bridge are some other possibilities as well. There has been talk by one of the government members of a road that would connect the Okanagan Lake Bridge through Kelowna and into the Kootenays. I'm wondering if the minister might give us an idea of whether the government is seriously considering that or whether it's just a trial balloon being floated by that member.
Another member has been suggesting a connection on the west side of Okanagan Lake joining the Coquihalla Highway and leading up to Vernon on the west side of the lake. Are either of those options being taken seriously by the government and likely to be brought into effect over the next few years?
Hon. J. Pement: The west-side issue is part of the whole integrated transportation plan that has to be looked at. The Kootenay side was an option put forward as a future consideration.
D. Symons: I'm also curious as to whether the ministry has done much in the way of studies relating to high-tech methods of collecting tolls, because if they're going to be considered, we certainly don't want to put tolls in. They were alluded to by the previous minister and also by the minister responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority. Has the ministry done some studies into the techniques? We certainly don't want tollgates where people stop and pay tolls as we had in the past and as we do for the ferries. We need supermarket scanners and that type of thing. Has the ministry done studies on them and reached any conclusions from those studies?
Hon. J. Pement: We are certainly aware of the different methods that have been used in other jurisdictions.
D. Symons: I didn't get any response as to whether any of them are being considered. You've looked at them, but.... Okay, I'll leave it at that.
Going back again to the Pitt River Bridge, there has been some concern expressed by people on the north shore of the Fraser that when commuter rail is put in, it might cut down the possibility of any early improvement to the road system along that shore. I'm wondering if the minister can assure us that commuter rail will not slow down or impede in any way the need for the highway upgrades along there, replacing parts of it and another crossing of the Pitt River.
Hon. J. Pement: Just to remind the member, we're always aware of the concerns and priorities within every region with regard to different issues. If there is roadwork to be done, we'll be there in terms of the planning process. Also, when we plan we look at coordinating with Transit at any given time, so that we can have a good harmony of transportation between Highways and Transit.
D. Symons: I think it's important that we have the harmony, but I would caution the minister that we certainly don't want to see one lose out to the other. They have to be carried on simultaneously in order to meet the growing population needs of that part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
If we could carry on with trying to get traffic moving.... There are now a few places where we have bus-only lanes in Vancouver. I'm not too sure if we have any HOV lanes yet. We might consider some of these bus lanes -- one running through Richmond -- going from the tunnel up to the Oak Street Bridge. It seems to me, by the number of buses I've seen in the bus lane, that we could make those into HOV lanes without impeding the speed with which the buses could still access the lane and get to the head of the queue. Having a high-occupancy-vehicle lane there would cut down on traffic and alleviate some of the problems in that area.
We also have a bus lane from Harris Road leading to the Pitt River Bridge, which is another area for experimenting with HOV lanes, to see whether traffic problems at this bottleneck might be alleviated. Would the minister consider that as an experiment?
Hon. J. Pement: We are in discussions right now with Transit regarding bus lanes and the possibility of making some of them HOV lanes.
D. Symons: The original four-lane Barnet-Hastings highway project was scaled down. A lane designated HOV is being added, but I'm not sure if it's a bus lane now. Will the remaining lanes be built soon, and will that lane, when completed, be bus only, or will it also be HOV?
Hon. J. Pement: The People-Moving Project is definitely a four-lane one, in different stages, and HOV lanes will certainly be part of that project.
D. Symons: Could the minister give me a tentative date when that lane will be open and the project completed at that stage?
Hon. J. Pement: It's definitely a priority for the region. We're trying to get the project finished by 1996-97.
D. Symons: I was under the impression that that project had begun a couple of years ago and that those HOV lanes,
[ Page 10664 ]
or bus lanes, would be running by this year. Has there been a postponement of the work? What caused that?
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of ensuring that we have the financing. We're working with the TFA to ensure that we get the project going as quickly as we can.
D. Symons: I gather from that answer that the project was shelved or postponed until the TFA was set up, because when that project began, I don't believe the TFA existed. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: It definitely was not shelved. The work on it continues. It's a case of ensuring that we have the financing for completion.
D. Symons: I'll move on to something else, although I don't think I'm totally satisfied with the answers. If it's not going to be completed until 1996, the time frame that I initially heard about for that project seems to be considerably stretched.
The Lions Gate Bridge is another project that seems to be going slowly, and time is running out on it. The Buckland report indicated that the current cost of maintaining the bridge deck will be about $10 million required in the next five years, with $30 million already spent over past years. It would seem to me that the more quickly we can move on this decision about the bridge, the more we can save on its yearly maintenance. I wonder what has caused this delay.
The other thing is that there was to be public involvement on this. I note that when the original statements were made last May, we had the then-Minister of Highways announcing a process by which public involvement would be sought on opinions for the North Shore crossing. He is quoted as saying: "We need to maintain a strict timetable if we are to have a new or revitalized transportation link in place within the next five years.... The ministry will be involving local governments this summer, and the public this fall, in order to review the viable options."
This summer was last summer, and this fall was last fall. I'm not sure whether the public ones have taken place, and I believe we're now just moving into the local government one. What has the timetable been on that compared to the timetables we were given a year ago?
Hon. J. Pement: The process we have involved ourselves in is all-encompassing for getting public input, and that's the important part in an issue that is of great concern to the city of Vancouver and different Vancouver and North Shore residents and groups. Our consultation process is somewhat broader than what was expected when the information was first put out. We are now getting into broader public involvement. There are some ads coming up regarding public forums in May, and I think you'll see a good healthy discussion on the issue. Maintenance is being done on the bridge in the interim, but it really requires not only public input but also the geotechnical studies required to ensure that the design finally decided upon is sufficient.
D. Symons: I have some concerns on the maintenance ones; I'll get to the other in a moment. I notice that a news release on August 12, 1993, said that there's $363,000 for Lions Gate Bridge rehabilitation, and another, on March 10, 1994, just two months ago, said that $397,960 was provided for Lions Gate Bridge deck reinforcement. All these moneys spent on bridge rehabilitation and upkeep would be better spent on the new structure if we could move things along a little faster. I'm concerned that things seem to be slowing down from the timetable given a year ago as far as public involvement is concerned.
[3:00]
Again, I read from another news release of July 23, 1993, in which the minister is quoted as saying: "This marks the start of the public involvement and information process so that community perspectives can be taken into account before the final decision is made." He's referring, in that case, to the... I'll find the terminology for the group here. I'm not finding it.
The process is made up of four components: (1) a public information centre, which I and others have visited, although I don't think it's in the right place, being in downtown Vancouver where people have to go up in a building and look for it; (2) an agency liaison group to provide technical input; (3) direct consultation with the Squamish nation and those municipalities who may be impacted by the final decision; and (4) later this year, the public involvement portion.
It's that public involvement portion that seems to have been somewhat delayed. I know the good member sitting at my right-hand side has had a public forum meeting in his community, but certainly not one that was organized by the ministry. There was a very good turnout there, and good representation from experts in the field giving their interpretations and evaluations of the various processes and options facing us. But that public process, I think, has lacked a great deal up to this point. I believe the ministry is sponsoring one on June 1 in the North Shore, and I commend the ministry for getting around to doing it. I hope it will be more than just putting up diagrams of the various options and letting people write down their comments or sit there and discuss. I think we really need more input than just simply saying: "Here are your options; respond to them." We want some give-and-take and discussion of the whole thing in a full public forum.
The minister also commented in that news release that community focus groups will provide feedback on a range of realistic choices available for the crossing. We've seen most of these now, and I'm wondering how they have gathered the information up to this point. What information has been gathered, and how has this information been disseminated to the groups out there that want to give input to these public forums?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, as for the money spent on maintenance to the Lions Gate Bridge, I hope the member is not suggesting that I not maintain the bridge in the interim during decision-making. Those moneys are spent because they are necessary for the safety of the travelling public, so I hope he would agree that money should be spent to maintain the bridge.
With regard to public information, there are three public forums coming up. The first coming up on May 25 is what we are calling a proponents' showcase, which will show all the different designs and concepts with regard to a possible upgrade or replacement of the bridge. It will allow the public to listen to the proponents, question them and get information with regard to the different designs that have been submitted for that focus group to take a look at.
Also, information on the technical side of it is now available at the information office in the Denman mall. Just for the member's information, when I became minister I felt that the one on Howe Street was not too accessible, so we moved it to the Denman mall.
The other two meetings that have been set up -- these are like a round-table forum with the public participating -- are
[ Page 10665 ]
for June 1 and June 8. I believe the one on June 1 is on the North Shore and the one on June 8 is in Vancouver.
D. Symons: The minister did say that the proponents' showcase on May 25 is open to the general public. That's great. My concern wasn't that you shouldn't be doing the maintenance and rehabilitation that are needed on the bridge; I was concerned, from the news releases of a year ago, that there seems to be delay. I am reading from that same news release about wider public involvement being sought and that: "The ministry anticipates a decision on the crossing in early 1994" -- which is basically now -- "to meet a five-year target for planning, design and construction." We seem to be into early 1994 and getting into mid-1994, and we're about to have public meetings that were originally scheduled for last fall. So the whole thing seems to be going slower than anticipated. I hope that the judgments will be wise ones and that the delay will not cost the taxpayer more money in the long run.
One concern shown in the process is that when one of the reports was put out, there seemed to be an opinion given -- the press certainly reported it that way -- that the ministry seems to have settled on the five-lane-bridge option. The public forums and all the rest might be redundant if, as many people have suggested, the five-lane option has already been decided on. I'm wondering if the minister can verify that there have been no decisions made and that the five-lane bridge is not the preferred option at this time, but rather that there might be three or four that are equally viable in the minds of the ministry as far as a suitable crossing is concerned.
Hon. J. Pement: Public involvement is definitely a very important part. We are ensuring that the public is going to have the opportunity to discuss, listen and get the information, and also to give us their opinions on the project. I can assure the member that we will be working diligently with the public to come up with the best design.
D. Symons: Some of the civic leaders, particularly in the city of Vancouver, had some real concerns about some of the options, one of them being the five-lane option. Their concern was that it didn't seem that the studies that were released really took into account how the city was going to address the fact of putting more lanes into Vancouver -- to Stanley Park or to the West End. As far as they could see, there didn't seem to be any real study of what was going to alleviate the problems of the additional traffic into Vancouver, how that was going to be handled and where the Ministry of Highways might be fitting Vancouver's street-planning and cost-sharing on all of that. Is that being studied by the ministry? Will there be some assistance to ensure that with whatever model is chosen for the crossing, the city will have some help in dealing with the added traffic problem?
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely. I've been meeting personally with Vancouver council because of the concern with regard to traffic flows and what design is finally chosen. We recognize that we have to work with the council to ensure that the traffic flows are addressed as a design is developed. Therefore we have agreed to participate in a traffic study with Vancouver council with regard to this project.
D. Symons: Just one final Lions Gate question that deals with the geotechnical survey that is being done in Stanley Park. Has that study been completed? Do any of the test holes that have been drilled indicate that it may not be possible for some of the plans -- either a tunnel or a cut-and-cover-type approach -- to deal with the traffic through Stanley Park? Have there been any discoveries made through that testing survey that might indicate that some of those options are not really options?
Hon. J. Pement: The final analysis of those studies has not been completed yet. We're looking forward to getting that data.
D. Symons: We'll move into a different field of discussion. On the federal-provincial programs, there was a strategic capital investment initiative set up recently which, I think, in all due respect, is a rather modest program in that the provincial government is contributing $30 million over a number of years to be matched by the federal government. Where do these projects show up in the estimates? Is that budgeted in the estimates? Does only B.C.'s part show in there? Or is some of that federal money -- I think it was $18 million -- accounted for in the estimates as well?
Hon. J. Pement: This is money recoverable to our ministry, and it will also come in through the TFA. It is about $12 million to date. I believe there were projects announced last year with regard to this fund.
D. Symons: I have a joint news release from the province of British Columbia and the federal government dated August 17 last year, and it outlines the capital investment initiative and gives a construction schedule. We had three projects that were to start in '93-94 and carry over to '94-95. Others were to be finished in '93-94, and some of them will be going into the '95-96 year. We also have some capital projects. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me if all the projects outlined in that are going ahead on schedule. Rather than reading each one off individually, I'd rather ask about the whole set. Are they being carried forth as initially outlined a year ago?
Hon. J. Pement: Delays have been minor. If you look over the length of time we have for working with the funding, we've spent about one-fifth of a five-year program, and the schedule hasn't changed.
D. Symons: There's also an Infrastructure Works agreement with the federal government, and I'm wondering about the number of projects in this program that might be involved through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Are any of them being funded through the Transportation Financing Authority, or are these coming through municipal programs? How is that program working?
[3:15]
Hon. J. Pement: The infrastructure projects are through the Employment and Investment ministry. The responsibility of the Highways ministry is to assist in defining and prioritizing, and then working with communities putting in their applications.
F. Garden: I want to thank the other member, who has been on the floor most of the time, for his cooperation in my asking this question. I need to get back to my place in the other House, but I'd be remiss if I didn't ask the minister the status of the north-south bypass project that's been ongoing for some time in the Quesnel area. One of the previous Ministers of Transportation and Highways, Rita Johnston, was in Quesnel in 1988, and she stated at a public meeting
[ Page 10666 ]
that the way we were going with the increase in transportation, we were going to run into gridlock in the area. The prediction then was that the increase was at 5 percent a year, and that was in 1988. You can do your own math as to where we figure we should be, if that's true. One of the things I'd like to point out is that the present north-south route for all traffic going to either Prince George or Vancouver is through downtown Quesnel. It passes by three old-people's homes and a hospital. In the last couple of years there have been minor incidents that could have been major dangerous cargo incidents, and it was only the driver's presence of mind that prevented them from becoming major. There was one incident in front of each of the residences. It's fortunate that with the slowing-down of the beetle kill in our area, the logging truck traffic has diminished a bit, but there's still awful congestion on Front Street. There's a major piece of redevelopment going on there by the city of Quesnel, but it's being hampered by this cloud of dust that all the traffic brings to the area. The whole community is behind the relocation. I've been in office both as an alderman and as an MLA, and I haven't had one businessman opposed to the thought of a north-south bypass. It's been some time now, and I'd like to ask the minister where the plan sits.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern the member has brought forward in regard to the traffic through Quesnel, having been a traveller through that section a number of times from the south to the north in order to access my constituency. I recognize the concern that the citizens of Quesnel feel with regard to the traffic coming through. It is definitely a high priority within the region and the ministry to get this project on goal and look at the financing so that when an announcement is made, there are the dollars to ensure the completion of the project. At this point, I'll say to the member that it is a high priority in the region.
D. Symons: Having been along the highway in Quesnel, the disadvantage of putting in a bypass there is that there is a beautiful little park as the highway makes a left turn going south. It would be a shame for people to miss that beautiful part of Quesnel, because it's right on the river with a bridge you can walk across to the other shore. It's a very attractive area, and bypass routes sometimes bypass some of the beauty of the area, and people just get too busy. I do realize what he's saying, and I agree with the concept of a bypass for traffic that is going through, but sometimes we don't smell the flowers with the rush we're in in this world.
If I can move back to mundane things, like financing and all the rest, I was talking about the Infrastructure Works program -- and we did that.
There's a bit of concern about the Trans-Canada Highway. I believe the minister has met with her federal counterpart to discuss the Trans-Canada Highway. I'm wondering if the minister might give us a little flavour for when these meetings were and what the results of these meetings might have been.
Hon. J. Pement: It was unfortunate that I was unable to meet with the federal Minister of Transport, but there is a meeting arranged in the next two weeks with regard to this issue.
D. Symons: I was reading from a news release of April 8, 1994, that you will be discussing this with the feds, so I just assumed that the meeting had taken place.
In the Revelstoke area, just to stay on the Trans-Canada Highway for awhile, there has been a great deal of concern about the Three Valley Gap part of the highway and the fact that there is a pressing need for that upgrade to take place. I believe that snowsheds and a few other things are all in the works. Actually, I was in the Revelstoke ministry office a couple of years ago, and I saw that they had posted on the wall the options for correcting some of the problems at Three Valley Gap, yet those plans have never materialized beyond the conceptual plans they had there. Can the minister give us some idea -- and is that going to be pending your meeting with the federal government -- as to whether there is any hope of that upgrading taking place there? There are a couple of other places along the Trans-Canada Highway I want to discuss as well.
Hon. J. Pement: These are some of the projects I will talk to the minister about regarding the Trans-Canada Highway. It shows that we need the national highway program in place so that we can do more with our dollars -- with regard to both provincial and federal moneys. It's definitely a concern and there are -- since I think you've seen the designs on the walls -- more options being looked at with regard to possible projects and the economic considerations.
D. Symons: I thought that you might discuss these when you meet with your federal counterparts. I hope that the minister would impress upon our federal counterparts that they collect $500 million to $600 million in fuel taxes in British Columbia every year, yet they return less than 10 percent of that to this province in the way of highway infrastructure improvements. Somehow we have to get the federal government to realize its obligation to the provinces from which they collect these moneys, so that they put back at least 50 percent into the particular provinces in the way of highway improvements, new highways, rehabilitation, or whatever. If the minister could make sure that the federal government is aware of those obligations and do whatever she can, I think we'll be well served. Maybe some of these Trans-Canada projects, through having a federal transportation agency, will then get addressed.
We have another area that is of real concern. I know that the minister commented in a January news release that she feels the Trans-Canada, from Kamloops to the border, is a priority. One definite priority is the highway from Golden to the border. Some very serious accidents and many deaths have occurred there. One involved a school bus with children. The load shifted on a transport loaded with pipes, and some skewered some children. This sort of thing has to be addressed. I don't know if we can wait for Ottawa to act. There comes a time when we have to say: we'll try to collect later, but that killer highway can't remain the way it is. Has the government any plans this year to improve that particular part of the highway so we can cut down the carnage?
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely. Some minor work is being done with regard to some improvements in the area. Also, some very preliminary design work is being done with regard to that whole section of highway. Again, the process of developing a major project takes quite a bit of time in terms of planning and design and consulting with the municipalities and citizens of the area. Within the next two weeks, we will have a meeting in regard to some very preliminary design on that section.
D. Symons: That's great -- just a few weeks. I gather the first phase of a Golden bypass of $160 million was announced a while back. Is that now beyond the conceptual
[ Page 10667 ]
and planning stage? Is a physical project actually taking place?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, looking at the stages of highway development, this was not a case of a public announcement; it was a case of the public taking a look at designs and the possible costs of a typical project. At this point, that project is not on the go.
D. Symons: I guess I was given some misinformation. I thought it was something I was going to be able to compliment the government on doing, because I had the impression it was in the works. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
This isn't really the appropriate forum for this, but I have here a petition that's been signed by 1,000 people; I mentally checked the number of signatures on one page, multiplied by the number of pages, and indeed it seems to be that. The majority of these people are truckers who go through the Trans-Canada Highway, through Kicking Horse Pass and the canyon area into Golden. They've been asked in Golden -- maybe at a truck stop -- to sign this, and a good number have.
Unfortunately, it doesn't fit what I was given to be the requirements for a petition, but I would like to pass it on to the minister as information only, just to show the degree of concern that people who use that highway have about it. I find that people from Calgary, Winnipeg, Red Deer, as well as people from B.C. and one from Ontario, are signatories to this; so there are a good number. I don't know what the proper procedure is at the table, but I'll just pass it on informally, if I may.
The Chair: Hon. member, the procedure would be that you ask leave to table the document.
D. Symons: I didn't know if I wanted to make it a formal tabling. Can I just informally give it to the minister and do it that way?
The Chair: Fine, sure.
D. Symons: The reason I'm doing it this way is that I don't think it will meet the requirements of a tabled document. This way I can get it to the minister without having it rejected for that reason. She can take it under advisement if nothing else. I appreciate that.
If we might take a look at the Trans-Canada Highway locally, we have some concerns about the greater Vancouver area as well. A ministry report dated November 28, 1992, on the Lions Gate Bridge and Trans-Canada Highway gives some long- and short-term goals for the highway. On the short-term goals, this document says:
"The current poor and deteriorating level of service along the highway cannot be ignored.
"It is the ministry's intent to assess such short-term improvements. No detailed design or construction would be initiated without further interaction with Transport 2021 and adjacent municipalities."
The Transport 2021 study has now come down and it says:
"Currently, the ministry is reviewing feasible options and will be preparing the terms of reference for the evaluation of short-term improvements. Ministry staff will be pleased to discuss this work program with the Transport 2021 working committee and adjacent municipalities. We anticipate conclusion of this work by early summer 1993."
I wonder if the minister can confirm that the study, at least that portion of it, has been concluded and maybe give us a flavour of what some of those conclusions were.
[3:30]
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the 2021 study is still not finalized. One has to recognize that the study is out to the municipalities for their input. They have identified certain areas. The study that was done prior to that looked at different sections and projects. We're still in the process of analyzing the first study. Now we're into the 2021 study, on which we need some input from the communities involved.
D. Symons: I wonder if we could move on to some other topics. I'd like to look at seismic retrofitting. A study done by the ministry indicates that $600 million is needed to retrofit the province's earthquake-sensitive bridges and highways. Some of them were given a fairly high priority. The Queensborough Bridge and the Oak Street Bridge in Richmond are two. I wonder if the minister can give me an idea of how much is being spent or budgeted each year on seismic retrofitting for our bridges and highways.
Hon. J. Pement: Work on the Oak Street Bridge and the Queensborough Bridge has stemmed from a complete look at the bridges throughout the province with regard to seismic upgrading. These two bridges have been given priority.
D. Symons: Have the contracts been let for the seismic upgrading of the Oak Street Bridge?
Hon. J. Pement: We have done some preliminary work on letting contracts.
D. Symons: I understand that some of the contracts for strengthening the piers have been let. Yet these contracts seem to have been let before the studies on testing the techniques used for strengthening those piers have been completed. I believe there were originally six tests done on mockup versions -- smaller versions built out of concrete and tested to see at what forces they break and whether they will stand the force of an earthquake. There were six of these -- I believe that has been downsized to five tests -- but only two have actually been done. The contracts seem to have been let for doing work based on tests that haven't yet been completed.
Hon. J. Pement: We have done some work on the damaged caps and beams; that is what the work was done on.
D. Symons: The tests I was referring to are with regard to cross members that support the bridge deck. It seems those tests haven't been completed yet. They have done two of the original six -- now five -- and it seems to me that contracts are let before the method of strengthening is determined.
We can move on to another topic that's a perennial one, particularly as the tourist season arrives: the signage along the sides of highways. As I drive in on Monday and drive from the Legislature on Friday to the Swartz Bay terminal, I pass a number of billboards. I think they're erected on a reserve, because they seem to be in a very concentrated area. Yet the ministry passed rules a few years back that limit the number of private signs that can be put up in public thoroughfares, and this seems to have caused some real problems, particularly in more rural areas. The only way they can really get out their message that there's a
[ Page 10668 ]
bed-and-breakfast, a craft shop or something of that sort is to put a sign up along the highway. They may not be a suitable business for the Highways ministry to put up one of their identification signs. I'm wondering if the ministry has softened its position somewhat to leave them on less-travelled roads where they probably wouldn't be a hazard. If there could be some regulation as to the size of signs, they wouldn't necessarily be eyesores. It would help these businesses, particularly out of the lower mainland in heavy traffic areas.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with regard to signage on reserves, that's a federal jurisdiction. Also, those signs in particular are off highway rights-of-way and therefore fall within a different category.
With regard to the bed-and-breakfast signage, it has definitely been an ongoing issue to get those signs in an area where one can see the directory. We've had a study done, and 29 recommendations have come from a committee that has been working on signage. We're looking at those recommendations, some of which the member has expressed. But again, on road rights-of-way, we are trying to ensure consistent signage that is easily read with not too many signs on the side of the road.
D. Symons: I can certainly agree with the intent of the ministry, because we have had a proliferation of signs in the past, and they do become an eyesore, and possibly a traffic hazard when people try to read all these signs.
You mentioned that they're off the highway rights-of-way. I thought the ministry had jurisdiction over something like 800 feet back from the highway centre line, which would give it a fair amount of control over private land and how that land might be used. If you don't, many people on farmland would be approached by businesses to put up signs to match what we see along the Pat Bay Highway. Is that not the case?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, to remind the member, those signs involve federal jurisdiction with regard to being put up in that particular area. Also, there are now municipal levels of jurisdiction with regard to signage.
D. Symons: But for other lands that aren't under federal control -- under the Indian Act or whatever -- does the ministry have control over signs going up? We don't see them on farms and all the rest. There are quite a few stretches along that highway where I would suspect billboard companies would be delighted to put up signs if they could approach the landowner for the right to do so. Does the ministry have some control to stop that, even though it might be back from the highway on private land?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we do have jurisdiction with regard to safety issues, particularly if signs are put up in such a way that they block traffic or cause a safety hazard. That's where we come in as a ministry. On the aesthetic side, it becomes an issue for local government as well.
D. Symons: That's interesting; I'm surprised, then, that we don't see more signs up there if, as you say, you don't have authority over the aesthetic side. As I mentioned before regarding the Pat Bay, I suspect the signs aren't a safety problem but more of an aesthetic one. I'm surprised that we don't see more signs on lands other than native lands doing the same sort of thing. I was under the impression that the ministry did have some jurisdiction over those lands; but apparently not. I must commend the people who own those lands, then; they must have good sense in looking after public sensibilities.
I wonder if we can move on to another study that was done a while back, the study on windshield damage. I believe the study came down, and then last fall the minister indicated they would try a slightly smaller granular size. I find it difficult calling things that are up to nine millimetres in size, sand; to me that's gravel, but it's the sort of thing that's on the road. I wonder if the changes have been made, whether that study was done this winter and what the results of that study were on the size of aggregate used on roads for sanding in the winter.
Hon. J. Pement: We have done two studies in the Prince George and Kootenay areas, and we looked at three-eighths size. We're just waiting for the analysis of those studies. We'll be able to report back after that.
D. Symons: I would appreciate it if the minister would give me a copy of that analysis, or at least the executive summary. Those studies have been going on quite awhile, and I have heard from people with concerns about windshields, headlights and so on that have been knocked out. I think we should be looking very strongly at anything that can cut that down and cut the cost to ICBC while still providing safety on the roads.
Another concern that came to my attention awhile ago was about a bridge that was being replaced in the Savona area on the Thompson River, and it fell into the water. One of the places I phoned for information was the Ministry of Environment to inquire into what their involvement would be regarding something that fell into a salmon stream. To my surprise, they hadn't been informed about the event, and this was close to ten days after it had taken place. It seems I was the first one to have notified them.
I'm curious about two things. One is that it was left that long -- it was two weeks between the time the accident took place and the time the contractor got around to removing it from the river. And two, wouldn't there be an immediate tie-in between the ministry and the Environment ministry to let them know this had happened, so they could evaluate whether there should be any special precautions taken to protect the salmon in the stream?
Hon. J. Pement: The bridge was at Savona, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was on site as soon as the mishap happened.
D. Symons: It seems, then, that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn't talk to their provincial counterparts, because obviously that didn't take place. We hope there might be better coordination and liaison between them. Is there any cost to the ministry regarding that, or was this going to be covered by the contractor that's removing the old span? Was the mishap his responsibility?
[3:45]
Okay. I take the nod to mean yes.
Moving on to the report on the inland ferries, I'm very pleased to note there was a new report done, after the one of a year and a half prior to it, which indicated that there were some serious problems. The report indicated that the inland ferries were passing with flying colours, and I think that's great. There were some changes made, but by and large it was a very good report. I have a few questions regarding the original report done in 1992 on the status of these particular things. One of the recommendations made at the time was that the ministry should review the recommendations of the
[ Page 10669 ]
report on management structure and should consult with affected staff and prepare some specific options for the minister. These were to be presented to the minister by February 15, 1993. Has the part on the ministry's reorganization of the marine area and the staff involvement been done?
Hon. J. Pement: There definitely has been a restructuring in the chain of command within the marine division and the department. We are also looking at training for that level of command.
D. Symons: There was also a committee recommendation that policies and procedures are required for the safe loading and passage of the physically challenged. The ministry was to be working on these proposed actions in a pilot project on the Kootenay Lake run, which includes some innovative lifesaving equipment. The remainder of the fleet would be modified according to lessons learned from the pilot project, and this was to be finished by December 1993. Has that been carried out, and are all the boats now properly equipped?
Hon. J. Pement: The Kootenay project was completed and was quite successful, and we're working through the other vessels to ensure that access and the safety issues are defined well.
D. Symons: Another recommendation was that an effective public address system for passenger control would be required at the wheelhouse of all vessels. The proposed ministry action was that ferries be supplied with hand-held megaphones, and the three cable vessels and the one motor vessel that do not have a public address system would have them installed. The scheduled date for that was the end of 1993. Has that been completed?
Hon. J. Pement: It has been completed.
D. Symons: Another recommendation was that communications and personnel relations could be improved, with regular meetings of marine personnel to discuss ministry policy and programs. There's a little bit more, saying that the ministry agrees with the approach that is being suggested and will take action to ensure that communications and personnel relations are improved. That was put down as an ongoing schedule, and the minister answered that earlier as part of one of my other questions.
I'll move to the last one in this particular list, and it was that senior captains and masters should ensure that comments or initiatives made by the crew receive a decent review and proper response. I suspect that this is something I've heard regarding B.C. Ferries as well. There are concerns about issues that come up at the deck level and never seem to get high enough up to be acted upon. In the response of the ministry, it was suggested that the ministry would ensure that regular crew meetings occur at which this two-way communication can be facilitated and that crew comments would be given a fair hearing. There was also an ongoing schedule.
I will make a suggestion and ask the minister's reaction to it. We may also need a system where the crew can have a suggestion box -- maybe not even on their own boat -- so they could put in suggestions and not be identified. It might be critical of a senior officer on the ship, and there may be some fear of reaction. They would have a chance to put in suggestions for safety or better personnel relations without necessarily doing it in a public forum where they might be identified. Is there a technique where members can do that and not suffer any repercussions if personalities happen to enter into the area of concern?
Hon. J. Pement: With the structuring of the marine branch, with the flow of command and also with the consultation with the crews that is being done, I think many of their concerns are now being worked out in a better way. Morale seems to be up. I've talked personally with crews and deckhands who don't seem to be shy at all about telling me what they feel with regard to their vessel. They're always very proud of the vessels they run and of the work they do on them. Suggestion boxes in most work situations are one way to go, and I will take that idea to them.
D. Symons: We're moving along quite quickly. I have a huge stack of papers that is moving from this side to that side quite rapidly, because I have a lot of notes and reports buried in there.
I'd like to ask questions -- and I'll lump them all together to speed things up a bit -- on new technologies in blacktopping. In the United States some federally funded projects are insisting that at least 5 percent of recycled rubber -- primarily from tires -- now go into the blacktop mix. Has the B.C. government done any studies to see how effective this is and how long it will give us a good surface? Are you contemplating following the United States example?
Hon. J. Pement: I have had a number of inquiries with regard to rubber being added, and it's something we're looking at. Also, the Minister of Environment has discussed it with regard to some studies being done. We're certainly open to having a look at it and to the possibility of adding it to our mix after considering the results of the studies that have been done.
D. Symons: I believe there is a fee of $3 collected when each new tire is sold that goes toward recycling those tires, but most of that $3 really doesn't get used so the tires are still piling up. This would be one way. If we could put them into the road, we would have rubber hitting rubber rather than rubber hitting road. That might be a good idea as long as the rubber content in there gives a road surface that will endure. I suppose that's the real test here and maybe only time will tell, but we should look into that.
Another area, too, is in the recycling business. At one of the AVIM meetings I was at two years ago, almost every community on Vancouver Island indicated that they had no market for their glass, but they could sell most other stuff that they recycled. If ground up into smaller particles, glass could also be mixed into the road mix or be put into the roadbed, and it would be a good way of getting rid of a surplus recycling product. Glass being basically a silicate, as compared with rubber, it would have a lasting quality in the roadbed, because it's basically the same as sand. I'm wondering if that has been experimented with at all that the minister is aware of, and whether its use is being contemplated in B.C. -- and maybe even making it mandatory that a certain percentage go into road mixes.
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has been taking a look at the possibility, but there is concern that it is an abrasive that can cause some problems. A portion is being used in centre-line paint.
[ Page 10670 ]
D. Symons: I guess that portion would be just a very small part of the glass that ends up in recycling bins across the province. Depending on the size it is ground into, I don't think there is a problem with the sharpness of the edge; it does wear down very quickly. You'll notice that at the beach, bottles washed around a bit get rounded edges quite quickly. I don't think that would necessarily be a problem if it's properly treated.
The use of recycled asphalt in roadbuilding, either as the base or putting it into the new mix, is one way of doing it now. I noticed that on the Pat Bay Highway today the Arc Asphalt company had its hot-in-place train there ready to do some resurfacing. Besides that, there are many roads where the asphalt is torn right up or where some asphalt is actually removed and put back into garden space again. This happened at the McKenzie interchange where the asphalt was totally removed and put back into garden space.
Is there any requirement that all that go back into roads? Does it sit in a pile somewhere or is it just discarded? We are going to run short of gravel in this province not too long from now. We don't have an inexhaustible supply of that particular material. I think we should be doing everything we can now to postpone the day when we're going to have a real shortage of that type of building material by using every opportunity we have of using materials that are currently there rather than just discarding them. Does the ministry have any plans to bring in a recycled asphalt requirement in roadbuilding?
Hon. J. Pement: It is a priority of Highways that we recycle asphalt as much as possible. Many of the municipalities are benefiting from this as well.
D. Symons: I would like to do not as much as I have in past years. I'll refer to this year as a road tour.
[4:00]
Areas of particular interest to people have come up, and I would like to get some feedback on one nearby. The Beecher Bay band council is in dispute with the government, particularly the Ministry of Highways, over land and access roads -- the Speyside Lane that the band wants to put in to a housing development, I believe. Apparently some roads have been resurfaced on either side of it, but the council indicates that the road leading into their band is in pretty sorry condition. The ministry has looked into the problem; supposedly there is a report. Would the minister share the main findings of that report with this committee so that the band will know where it stands?
Hon. J. Pement: I will get back to you with a full report on that issue.
D. Symons: I believe that a year and a half ago the ministry signed an agreement with the Islands Trust that modified road standards for some Gulf Islands roadways. I think that's a valuable approach to the uniqueness of our Gulf Islands. I would like to compliment the ministry on that.
I have one concern, however, about the attitude of the ministry to the islands, regarding a subdivision that somebody is putting in on Saturna Island. Apparently the subdivision is on an old farm that has a mountain range behind it. There is a plateau -- or a benchland -- with water on one side and a mountain range on the other, and this side of the mountain is where the highway goes. To join houses -- it's going to be water access only -- the subdivision will have to put in a mile or so of road to join the highway leading down to the water access. It will not join into any of the highways on the island; it will be strictly for servicing the houses there. The ministry is apparently insisting that this be built to subdivision standards, as if it were going to join in like other ones that do join into the regular highway system. This means, in effect, doing a little more ecological damage than the people there would care to do -- putting a lot of fill in some areas and trenching and filling to four feet in some locations. I'm wondering if the leniency that was shown in these Islands Trust agreement modifications could not also extend to special circumstances like these.
Hon. J. Pement: In the Islands Trust issue, it was a case of less road width. It has also been used in other road subdivisions within the islands. So with regard to this issue, it's a possibility; we'll have a look at it.
D. Symons: Another plus for the ministry is that in the Comox area it cooperated with B.C. Tel and B.C. Hydro in removing some poles from alongside the highway for aesthetic and other reasons. There are many other places in the province that might also profit from that sort of approach, where they can get agreement among the Ministry of Highways, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Tel and so forth to remove those things from the highway area.
I have a lot of questions that move into specific areas, but I'll defer to one of the other members here who probably has specific local questions.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to get in. I don't have many questions, but mine are specific to my riding, Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Having read the Blues of this debate, I've noticed how the distinction has been made between the Ministry of Employment and Investment, B.C. 21 and the capital funding that is being put through that. By way of very slight digression, I think that the once-proud Ministry of Transportation and Highways has sort of been relegated....
However, with respect to Powell River-Sunshine Coast, we have four substantive problems. One is on the Powell River side, from the Saltery Bay terminal into Powell River, where we have a section of highway clearly in need of resurfacing, line-painting and general upgrading of safety standards. There was some provision in last year's budget for doing that. I wonder if the minister might comment on the amount of money allocated this year and how much is anticipated can be done for that amount of money. I also wonder whether the minister has recently visited that section of highway to see just how bad it is.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the Ministry of Highways still proudly does its work with regard to its mandate of developing designs and working on projects. The TFA does the financing of those projects, and it's a case of us ensuring that we meet the needs of the province. So I think it's a little ego-sensitive to say that it was once proud; I think the ministry is very proud of the work it does and will continue to do.
As to the area the member has requested information on, we are not doing any repaving of that particular highway. I have to say that I have not travelled it at this point. I am trying to do tours within the province and will look at doing a tour in his constituency as well.
G. Wilson: My earlier reference was just that I can recall when the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was second in power only to the deity himself in this province, and that has changed somewhat.
[ Page 10671 ]
The people of Powell River-Sunshine Coast are going to be extremely disappointed in what they've just heard this minister say. Indeed, I would argue that they're going to be quite angry. The people have been waiting for many years for that section of highway to be completed. It is, after all, a major highway in the province of British Columbia. It is carrying 1990s traffic, and it dates back some 30 years in terms of its last major realignment. Clearly it is a danger; there are accidents and lives lost on that highway. The reason is that the highway is inadequate for the needs of the people who drive it.
Reducing speed on it is not the issue. It is extremely badly lit in sections where there is any lighting. Secondly, it is not adequately lined; the shoulders on the side of that highway are inadequate. There are drop-offs on either shoulder, and a lot of erosion has occurred as a result of inadequate drainage. In short, that highway is a disaster. I would urge the minister to travel it at her first convenience, because the people of Powell River deserve to have a highway that is at least up to adequate standards, and that one clearly is not. If there is any opportunity for reconsideration of the rehab budget, I hope it would be a top priority for this minister. It is clearly a substandard highway by anybody's measure.
I want to talk about the proposition with respect to the Gibsons bypass, and I know that project is under the Ministry of Employment and Investment in terms of major capital financing. So I'm anxious to know whether or not we have any money to actually do any work on it. That has been financed through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways up to and including this year in terms of the rehab portion as well as past capital construction. Since we have a highway that is not connected to anything usable, can the minister tell us how much money the government has spent on that section of road to date?
Hon. J. Pement: We would have to get those figures for you and report back to you once we've done so.
G. Wilson: We'll await anxiously. I'm told it's in the many millions of dollars. The people are curious to know how one can spend many millions of dollars on a highway that doesn't connect to anything, which would lead us to believe that in the wisdom of this government, they're going to connect it -- we're hoping -- at least to something that would make it usable. We hope, in fact, that it will be a capital project that will see its full completion. Can the minister tell us to what extent this ministry is involved in the decision with respect to phases one, two and three of that project? To what extent is active consideration being given to bypass the original terminus to take it up to the Pen hotel? Is that survey work under way and is the ministry currently conducting land acquisition for that purpose?
Hon. J. Pement: I can assure the member that we have been actively involved in looking at the design and the phases of the project. I sit as vice-chair on the TFA, and I certainly bring these projects forward as priorities for the region.
G. Wilson: Is the minister able to shed any light at all on what we can expect with respect to moneys toward that project? Clearly the lower Sunshine Coast is one of the faster growing communities in British Columbia. I think the minister will know -- if not, I would invite the minister to tour this riding -- that as you come off the ferry, the lower road, the Hopkins Landing Road, is not acceptable for commercial traffic, especially large truck traffic. Again, it is very dangerous; again, there have been fatalities on that section of road. Clearly, the existing bypass is no bypass at all. Is the minister prepared to commit today to at least a ballpark figure as to how much we can expect for that highway?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, this is under the TFA and would be a question to ask the Minister of Employment and Investment.
G. Wilson: Let me not try and pursue something for which I'm not going to get any satisfaction. Let's move on to Rat Portage Hill. For the information of the minister, Rat Portage Hill is a section of road between Roberts Creek and Sechelt. It is an area where there have been a number of serious car accidents and, again, fatalities. To my knowledge, it has been on the list of priorities for at least seven years. It was moving closer to the top and, in some way, it seems to have slid to the bottom again. I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of expectation we might have through a rehab budget. I don't believe it would take a large capital expenditure for Rat Portage Hill to be widened and for adequate sight lines and a proper passing lane to be completed within the near future.
[4:15]
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern expressed. Again, it's not in the rehab program, but we'll be looking to try to get that into the capital program.
G. Wilson: I'm a little surprised by that. Maybe, with inflation, the price has gone up, or maybe there is a plan to do a bigger project than I thought.
An Hon. Member: They're trying to balance the budget.
G. Wilson: Or maybe, as the member says, they're trying to balance the budget.
Let me move on again. I speak now about an issue that this minister needs to address. It's not only particular to the case which I'm about to cite, but there are many instances around the province, and I want just to raise this one.
Texada Island is an area where a series of lots were developed at a time when proper surveying was not conducted. A number of people -- in fact, 12 lot-holders -- are involved in this particular project and have now constructed on rights-of-way and across rights-of-way, and houses straddle property lines. The nature of Texada Island settlement over the years is build-where-you-can because the terrain is not always conducive to building where a map might demonstrate you should. As a result, we've got a very serious problem there. The Ministry of Highways has taken the position that in this case houses will have to be moved, lot lines redrawn and rights-of-way either taken out of service or removed. Through the intervention of the district manager, myself and others, I think we've come to a point where there is potential for some compromise with the position -- not a hard-line position but that the rules would dictate what needs to be done. I think that's the fair way to put it.
I wonder if the minister could tell us to what extent there is an active review of mapped rights-of-way and highway access routes that in fact are fictional because they simply cannot be constructed except at enormous cost to people who have built according to the constraints of terrain. Could the minister tell us whether or not there is now an active program of the surveyor general with respect to what could
[ Page 10672 ]
be done? Is the ministry prepared to pick up a portion of the cost of resurveying?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to policy in these instances, we try to find flexibility within policies in accommodating the concerns of people. However, the ministry would not be prepared to pick up the costs of surveying lots.
G. Wilson: So it puts the property owners in an unenviable position. Many of them have purchased properties in good faith -- and I recognize caveat emptor, or buyer beware, which means to make sure you do your own survey before you buy the property. In some instances that has not happened; in other instances properties have been inherited. We've got a situation where the disruption is enormous. I would argue that it is in the interests of the Ministry of Highways to see that resolution is reached in all cases. Is that an area the minister might want to review with respect to assisting those people? Given that highway construction may be required at some point, access has to be provided. By regulation, I think, you need to have access to your lot, unless it's a water-access lot. The minister might undertake to find out if there are ways in which some assistance can be provided. These are not rich people.
Hon. J. Pement: We look to policies for ways we can accommodate people in situations that affect them unduly. In the case of picking up the costs of surveys, the ministry would not do that. As minister, I'm always open to looking at cases and issues, and to looking for ways we can accommodate within policies.
G. Wilson: Let me move on to the last section before I yield to my colleague for Peace River South. My riding includes an enormous section of the province that is coastal and without access by road -- containing areas accessible only by boat or aircraft if the weather is conducive. However, there are many people settled in the Broughton Archipelago and areas around Simoom Sound, Knight Inlet and Kingcome Inlet. Many of these are aboriginal settlements but many are not. This is something I raised with the minister earlier. A case in point is in Echo Bay, where a property owner did a normal subdivision to create three different lots, and the houses that were constructed were on the water. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Highways took a very rigid position for a number of years that in order for the sale to be completed, the proper subdivision regulations had to be complied with and the road had to be roughed in or built, dedicated and so on, as per the subdivision requirements of the ministry. I don't take issue with the need for the dedication of roads. Clearly, if you don't do it when subdivision occurs, you can't do it, as I've just alluded to in the Texada case.
But in this particular instance, what was being requested was not only impractical, it was virtually impossible. It actually took my initiative to take Mr. Hunter -- who was a most willing participant, I would point out -- and fly him to the site to do a site inspection for him to understand the complexity of the subdivision. What I'm arguing for is whether or not it might be time for the ministry to look at a policy review with respect to some of these areas. I have Nelson Island in my riding, where road dedication and construction and easements are simply not functioning properly in many instances.
There is the area north, which I've just talked about, in terms of Knight Inlet, Bute Inlet, the Broughton region, Simoom Sound and Echo Bay. These areas simply cannot meet a hard-and-fast set of guidelines that may apply to Delta, Surrey, Richmond or some other area where there is reasonably accessible and developable terrain.
My question to the minister is: would the minister be prepared to undertake a review with respect to subdivision in remote coastal regions where three things could be looked at? One is the need in instances where subdivision is undertaken for an on-site survey prior to any kind of review being done. That is something that has to happen. I believe that inspectors who look at that are going to see that when you're dedicating a road through a 50-foot vertical cliff, you're not going to build the road. That's fairly obvious.
The second thing is that dedication can occur, but it might not necessarily require actual construction of the road if there is no wheeled vehicular traffic on the island. In many instances there isn't. You go in by boat or floatplane, and when you're on the island, you walk.
The third issue is with respect to looking at that review as part of policy, so that we don't have to treat every application as if it's a unique and individual one. Maybe the minister could comment on that, because my office is receiving a number of these applications as we go through.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the development of lots, it is up to the developer to take a look at the dedication of road rights-of-way, etc. That is an issue we seem to grapple with sometimes. I really feel that developers should be looking at providing dedication of access, and that's not always done in the development of lots. I think that's something that should be understood.
We can take a look at it with regard to the type of terrain that you're talking about. Also, you should remember that when Highways is talking about access, we're talking about not only the fact that people want to get from A to B, but also about emergency vehicles and that sort of thing gaining access into lots. I will take a look at it in terms of a review of policies with regard to that type of coastal scenario.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to take this opportunity to get some information around rehabilitation questions, particularly those in South Peace. I also hope, at some appropriate time, to come back to the question of 16-wide trailers and their application in British Columbia, and also to discuss the Rocky Mountain doubles trailer configuration, which I know the minister is familiar with.
I'd like to start by thanking the minister for sending me the information on rehab programs for South Peace and to compliment the minister for the decision on the three road-resurfacing projects. I think they were all appropriate for the community and will be well received. For the benefit of readers of Hansard and people who are interested, perhaps the minister can give us a bit more of a sense of what is anticipated for the unpaved section of the road between Tumbler Ridge and Dawson Creek. I know it's not a paved surface; it's referred to here as a seal-coat. Could the minister give me a sense of what that will look like and drive like? Will there be painted centre lines? Will it be, in essence, a first coating for pavement? Is that the intent?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the base of that road is going to be upgraded; that's really imperative for the wear of the seal-coat that is being put on. The seal-coat itself is a one-and-a-half-inch hard surface -- what is called a double lift.
[4:30]
As for when it will be paved further down the road, we're looking at a surface that has a good ability for wear for about a ten-year span, depending on weather conditions, volume
[ Page 10673 ]
of traffic and that sort of thing. The important part of the upgrading of this section is bringing the base up so that the seal-coat will wear better. We've had some good results in other parts of the province, particularly on Highway 37, with regard to seal-coat and the ability to have a good surface.
J. Weisgerber: I was out in Tumbler Ridge over the weekend, and I know people are looking forward to it. Many of us will watch with a good deal of interest, and we hope that the surface is satisfactory.
In the road-upgrading projects, one of them is identified as the annual regravelling in the South Peace grid-road system. That's an issue I've talked to every Minister of Transportation and Highways about either in estimates or some other venue since I was elected, and it goes back.... I recall a conversation in 1987 or 1988 with Stan Gladysz, who was then the district manager. In order to maintain the rural grid-road system, which, as you know, is very similar to those you would find in the Prairies -- one mile by two miles, most of it gravelled.... Stan had done a lot of work. He and I spent a lot of time looking at the grid-road system, and he believed that the ministry had to spend at least $1 million a year for five successive years in order to bring the system to the point where it was going to be maintained. We came close. One year we actually committed and, I believe, spent $750,000 on gravelling and upgrading the grid-road system. That was the South Peace, and the same figure applied for the North. This document you sent to me doesn't have any figures on it. Perhaps the minister could tell me how much the annual regravelling budget for the South Peace region is estimated at this year.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize that the grid-road system within the Peace is much like the Prairies. I also recognize that the soil composition in the Peace is very difficult with regard to gravel, upgrades and such. We have a total of $12 million in capital this year. With regard to gravelling the grid roads, it's $190,000.
J. Weisgerber: I suppose that $190,000 is better than nothing, but the reality is that this system is deteriorating. I travel around the constituency a lot -- and have been for longer than the current government has been in office -- and I'm quite honestly amazed that people are satisfied with the amount of gravel and the quality of roads, particularly when it's wet. I wonder whether the ministry has any plans down the road. I really believe that we've got to spend, over a reasonably compressed period of time, $7 million in today's dollars over the next five-year period -- or over a five-year period in the very near future -- in order to bring those roads up to the point where they can then be maintained with a reasonable continued expenditure. Most of the gravel is now in the ditch on most of the roads. There needs to be a significant amount of money put into it. I recognize that the chances of that happening this year beyond the $190,000 is pretty slim. But can the minister give me any sense of the priority she sees for this particular undertaking in the Peace?
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the ongoing concerns in all parts of the province with regard to rehab work being done. We have to again talk about balancing budgets and limited dollars. It's a case of prioritization within the region. Again, looking at the overall work that the region has to do, I would suggest to the member that he sit down with the new regional manager and district manager of the particular area with regard to the priorities of that region. It's well worth sitting with the MLA and going over some of the dollars in rehab. I am open to looking at those priorities within the amount of dollars we have to spend.
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to deviate a bit from the questions, because the point the minister raised about sitting down with the district manager is a legitimate one, and one that I probably engage in more often than the district manager wishes I did. His office is right across the street from mine, so I'm sure he'll be interested to know I have your encouragement to visit him.
It makes me wonder about the regional transportation planning process which was in place a few years ago, because of all the regional processes; I thought the transportation planning section of it was probably as effective as any I saw. We sat down together with representatives of different communities and groups in the northeast region, which I was aware of, and in the Nechako region, which you might know I was involved in. I was quite honestly impressed with the kind of focus they came out with in identifying transportation priorities and goals. It seemed to me that they weren't nearly as parochial or as selfish as many of us thought they initially might be. It was probably a useful exercise, and I'm wondering if the ministry has any plans, either independently or in conjunction with some other process in government, to carry that forward and to duplicate or to re-establish in some way this genuine input on transportation priorities from a broad cross-section of people.
Hon. J. Pement: The work done by the regional transportation committees was definitely excellent in prioritizing different areas and making the dollars stretch to ensure that we have a schedule going. Both the ministries within their regions have pretty well adhered to the plans the committees put together, with the ministry input, in the discussions.
On the subject of sitting down and talking to the district manager about prioritization, the managers will be looking at those plans and at the technical and safety aspects of how the priorities are made. One must never forget that aspect of how we decide to spend the money.
As to the ministry looking at future committees of that sort, I'm very open to the concept and am looking at possible regional committees being set up again.
J. Weisgerber: One of the issues I discussed with the regional manager as he was preparing his wish list for the estimates, and one I thought was a high priority for the region, was about dust control and other things on two roads that have become de facto highways even though they are rural roads. They are referred to as Braden Road and Semple Road, and they effectively allow large trucks to take a shortcut coming from Chetwynd toward Fort St. John. Rather than going into Dawson Creek and back up the Alaska Highway, they cut across. The first opportunity is on Braden Road, which is probably 25 or 30 kilometres in length. The other one is Semple Road, which is shorter.
The traffic on those roads is truly incredible. We've had vehicle counts on them. We've been out on site inspections and a number of other things. I note that there is a plan for dust suppression or, at least, an upgrade on Semple Road. In a copy of a more recent letter sent to me, there's an indication that there is a plan this year to do dust suppression.
I want to bring to the minister's attention one of a series of letters I've received from constituents regarding Braden Road in the Sunset Prairie area. This letter is from a Mrs. Potter. She says that due to the high volume of trucks, this
[ Page 10674 ]
road is very rough and extremely dusty. At many times, dust brings the visibility down to a very dangerous level -- about 50 feet. These conditions are present at school bus times and pose a very real danger to small children. They were asking for some assistance in dust suppression. There was a response from the Dawson Creek office of the ministry saying: "Your assessment of the dust problem is quite accurate; unfortunately, we don't have any money to deal with it." If indeed there is a significant safety factor, if it does involve children and school buses and if it is in fact confirmed by the ministry, then it causes me some real concern. If you haven't seen the letter, I'll be sure you get a copy. The minister says that this is a high priority for the district, but there aren't funds available, and it's not anticipated that there will be this year or next. I'm wondering if perhaps the minister would be good enough to have the ministry take another look at that issue and make sure that we're not compromising beyond reasonable safety levels on that particular road.
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely we'll take a closer look with regard to the safety factor. With school bus runs, we place those runs at a fairly high priority. We'll have a look at that concern.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to take a few minutes now and talk about the Peat Marwick report with regard to rehabilitation. I would again like to acknowledge that the ministry was very good about providing me with information that was supplied to Peat Marwick in 1992 with regard to the ministry and some of the issues we're facing. I'm concerned about this because I think the information -- as I read it, and from the little experience I have in this area -- was probably very appropriate and accurate in identifying the need to fund rehabilitation on an ongoing basis at a level that won't see the road system deteriorate. The number mentioned a number of times in this report suggests that the ministry would have to spend at least $250 million a year in 1992 dollars in order to maintain the road system at a flat level.
[4:45]
The report goes on to identify some pretty serious consequences if these expenditures aren't made. I have no reason to argue with the content of the report, which suggests that if this kind of expenditure is not made, as much as a third of our highway system could deteriorate to the point where it simply was no longer rebuildable and would have to be completely rebuilt. The additional cost is estimated to be as high as $1.4 billion in 1992 dollars. Therefore it was with some interest that I noted that this year's rehabilitation budget had actually fallen for probably the third or fourth year in a row and was at $139 million, slightly more than half of what was identified in 1992. I think this is a serious issue.
Let me start by saying that, first of all, I know the minister has had an opportunity to examine this 1992 report. Is she still confident that the projections in this report from 1992 are accurate and that they were essentially laying out the problem facing government in 1992? Does she see any errors in this report?
Hon. J. Pement: The report definitely outlined a problem with regard to the total number of top dollars we need to spend on rehabilitation to the system. The thing is that our road system goes back to the fifties and sixties. In some cases, particularly our northern roads, they weren't built on a particularly good base. That's one of the reasons why we're looking at some major rehabilitation being done throughout the province.
All told, with our budget this year, we're looking at $191 million in rehab, inclusive of the overall rehab dollars shown in the budget, the SHIP and some major rehabilitation projects that we have submitted to the Transportation Financing Authority. That total still doesn't meet the number shown in the report, which is $250 million. But under the financial considerations we have today, I think it's fairly significant.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to suggest that the problem has just magically appeared; it's been there. But an examination of the estimates of the ministry suggests that rather than increasing funding annually at least enough to cover inflation, there is a very disturbing trend that sees it growing quite progressively in the other direction. I think we're going to come to the point of a real crisis in transportation infrastructure. I just don't believe that our roads are being rehabilitated as quickly as they are being worn down, and I recognize that the larger configurations do in fact put an additional toll on the roads. I'm not going to take the argument the next step and say that therefore we shouldn't have bigger trucks. That's not to suggest that if we didn't have cars, we wouldn't have to spend $139 million a year on rehab. We could just let the road system shut down. Those are realities.
The transportation system really should be one of those things that has priority. I think there should be dedicated funding. I don't think that any of the gasoline road tax that's collected should go anywhere but back into the highway system. I believe, quite honestly, that the tax collected on the sale of vehicles should be dedicated to highway construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. Funds collected in terms of licence fees for vehicles should be dedicated to road construction. We need to have a base line for the Ministry of Transportation that is dedicated funding coming out of specific fees that are clearly identified as charges for transportation, and I am concerned that we're not going to keep that commitment.
I'm also concerned and puzzled a little to think that we're now going to start financing rehabilitation work. I haven't accepted the argument that we should finance through B.C. 21 and capitalize new highway construction; I haven't bought that argument yet. As I recall, the argument suggests that if you're going to build a new road infrastructure that has a 20-, 30- or 40-year lifespan and if you want to charge tolls on it -- and you may want to do this or do that -- then there would be a rationale for capital financing. But I'll tell you, not having accepted that argument, that I am doubly concerned to think we're now going to start putting off paying for rehabilitation works for ten or 20 years -- or financing them -- rather than taking the funds directly out of budget, which would be the case if that rehabilitation work showed up in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
Can the minister give us a sense of the kind of rehabilitation work that is included in the larger figure she noted but not in the one that shows in the ministry estimates?
Hon. J. Pement: We're looking at rehab work that is in some cases major construction. It is difficult to define where it becomes a capital project in itself.
J. Weisgerber: Again, I'm not sure I could accept.... Perhaps if I had an example of one of those projects.... But if we're simply talking about widening the shoulders and putting on a couple of lifts of pavement, I don't know where
[ Page 10675 ]
rehabilitation stops and capital construction begins. I'm not sure where the $250 million figure that was given to Peat Marwick came from, or how far into the capital projects that anticipated spending went as well. Perhaps the minister could give us a sense of what that expenditure was and whether it was the same kind referred to in Peat Marwick.
Hon. J. Pement: Obviously one doesn't think of major work as widening a shoulder or realigning a corner. It would be a case of major realignment and that sort of thing. It would be a project that has structures involved -- major construction within the road system itself but not a new roadway.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps, then, the minister could describe for me the largest project that is being considered as rehab and financed under the Transportation Financing Authority.
Hon. J. Pement: An example of that type of work might be a major upgrading but not a replacement of the Lions Gate Bridge.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to start haranguing the minister, but the minister said the budget showed $139 million for rehab, when in fact the real figure was $191 million because of these other programs. I would like to know from the minister what, in that $60 million, the largest rehabilitation project is that was funded through the Transportation Financing Authority. Not examples -- I just want to know which was the biggest one, where it was and how many dollars were involved.
Hon. J. Pement: Questions regarding projects within the Transportation Financing Authority are for the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
J. Weisgerber: At some point, one hopes that you're here for a really genuine exchange of information. If the minister is going to stand up and say, "Hey, we're doing more than my figures show we're doing," we would want to be told how. That would seem like a normal completion of a dialogue.
I ask the minister to look back at the questions I have asked and to consider sending me a note, given her answer to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the role of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with regard to its input and involvement in those items being financed through the Transportation Financing Authority, telling me that once she has an opportunity to look, she'll find that there is no good reason not to share this information. I'll leave it at that.
I asked the minister whether or not she agreed with the statements in the Peat Marwick report. I didn't get a confirmation or a denial. I'm not sure how to interpret that. In the section under "lurking expenditures," there is a reference not only to the potential additional expenditure of $1.4 billion but also to the potential for liability for court actions around unsafe highways.
The reports refers to a recent claim involving falling rock and goes on to say: "It is expected that in future more claims will be made against the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for alleged failure to keep the highways safe." I wonder if the minister could tell me if she still shares the concern expressed here and whether or not, since 1992, there have been any other claims laid against the ministry for the alleged unsafe conditions of the highways.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with regard to the rehab dollars in the TFA, it wasn't a case of not giving you the specific project. It's a case of that being part of the TFA business plan; therefore the question has to be asked of the minister responsible.
[5:00]
With regard to liability and safety, we are always looking at the safety issues within the highways system and trying to prioritize those and meet the needs. Cases that have come up with regard to charges being laid have been operational, not with regard to the actual system.
J. Weisgerber: To go back to this Transportation Financing Authority.... Do I understand that the Transportation Financing Authority, not the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, is identifying the rehab projects and that somebody other than the minister is saying: "We're going to fix up this road and we're going to fix up that road, and I think we need to spend a few million dollars in this area"? The answer to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast gave me the clear impression that this money was being managed by and that these decisions were coming from the ministry. Perhaps the minister could clarify that for me.
Hon. J. Pement: We go to the Transportation Financing Authority for funding for our projects. We identify the projects; we work with the authority to prioritize those projects identified by the ministry through the regions. It's similar to the ministry going to Treasury Board when it had the capital envelope for funding its priorities and projects.
J. Weisgerber: I'm sure there's some very good logical reason why the minister is reluctant to tell me what is the largest project identified by her ministry for rehabilitation financed by the Transportation Financing Authority. If I don't get a letter back, I will assume that there is some logical reason that we're going around and around on this issue. There always is a good reason when I don't get an answer.
Finally, I'd like to go to page 17 of the report that was done for Peat Marwick. Under item 20.2, there is a recommendation which says:
"The ministry would like capital expenditures to be capitalized and shown on the province's balance sheet. An appropriate amount of depreciation should be expensed each year so the costs of construction and rehabilitation are spread over the life of the project."
It seems like a very reasonable recommendation, but obviously not one that's been adopted yet. I wonder if the minister could tell us her view. Does she support this recommendation or does she have a view contrary to the one that's expressed in this report?
Hon. J. Pement: If you look at the mandate of the TFA, you will see that the capitalization suggestion has been taken up by government.
J. Weisgerber: Is the minister suggesting that through the Transportation Financing Authority, capitalized projects are shown on the balance sheet and depreciation is expensed each year?
Hon. J. Pement: That will be on the accounts of the TFA through the Minister of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: I think the member raises some interesting questions. You may remember I asked a number of questions last Thursday dealing with the interrelationship between your ministry and the Transportation Financing Authority.
[ Page 10676 ]
An answer you gave to the hon. member raised some further questions for me. So I'd like to deviate from my other questions for a moment and follow this for a minute.
You mention that there is a fine line between major rehabilitations and capital projects. I wonder if that line has now been crossed. As we found out from the Peat Marwick report, over the years there have been some postponements past the critical time to get the least-lifetime costs out of a highway. There have been postponements of rehab work. Now you're talking about major rehabs that constitute almost capital costs. Could the minister give us some indication that we've let roads go too long and now we're paying the piper for that?
Hon. J. Pement: If it is the case that money has not been put into the roads in the past, we are paying for it. We're trying to catch up on a situation that has developed over a number of years, certainly not in the last two years or even the last three years. If the member would look back, I did mention to him at that time that we are looking at a couple of major projects that are rehab.
D. Symons: Yes, but I would challenge the minister's words that we're "catching up." I think "slowing down the rate of getting behind" might be a better term if you're putting more money in, but certainly we couldn't call that catching up. It's sort of like the government using the words "reducing the rate of increase of the deficit." It's a good play on words, but it doesn't describe what's actually happening. You're not putting it up in there, even if we count that extra $60 million that seems to be somewhat hidden in the Transportation Financing Authority.
I have some real concerns about the answer you gave the member for Peace River South when he asked what the major project is. When I read these little ads in the paper that often have moneys or projects being put through the Transportation Financing Authority, I see somewhere around the bottom of the ad that this project is managed by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It would strike me that if the ministry is going to manage those, these moneys are budgeted -- you gave us a figure for it, so obviously they're somewhere on the books -- and the ministry must know what projects it's going to be managing through the Transportation Financing Authority. If the ministry knows, then it would be quite possible for the minister to simply give an answer.
What is one of the major projects that's going to be financed through the Transportation Financing Authority and counts as one of these rehabs that's almost a capital construction? You must be able to name one other than the airy-fairy one you gave of the Lions Gate Bridge. I've read the figure for rehab this year, and it's nowhere near that figure of $60 million. That's not a big one, so there must be some project you can name that's being financed that way, because your ministry is responsible for carrying them out.
Hon. J. Pement: The minister responsible for financing those projects is responsible for answering to that budgetary line, and that's the Minister of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: I still have great difficulty with that answer, because we seem to be getting basically a shell game. Under which shell is the minister responsible for answering questions dealing with the Ministry of Highways? If your ministry is doing a rehabilitation project, regardless of whose pocket the money is coming out of -- because eventually it's coming out of the taxpayers' pocket -- it seems that you could at least tell us what project your ministry is responsible for. The minister is unwilling to do that, obviously.
I'm looking at some figures that are generated from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the total figure I've got here for 1994-95 is roughly $1.004 billion. That's adding in all the moneys that are being spent on highways, including the money coming from the Transportation Financing Authority and what's budgeted there. These figures are headed "Ministry of Transportation and Highways."
If we carry along to the other side of this, it gives a lot of other things: total capital construction budget, net capital, etc., and the final figure is the total ministry staffing -- FTEs. I note that in 1991-92 that figure was 2,741; in '92-93, it was 2,741; in '93-94, it was 2,572 and in '94-95 -- what is apparently being budgeted this year -- it is 3,748. That's a rather dramatic increase over the last two years in the number of full-time employees. Yet at the same time, what I've been getting from the minister during questioning last week is the fact that they're closing down some things because they're moving over to the Transportation Financing Authority. Indeed, we've taken the planning and some other aspects out of there, and that particular ministry is now looking after those aspects of what was previously done in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I'm curious as to why we have this dramatic increase in employees when the responsibilities of the ministry seem to be decreasing.
Hon. J. Pement: On the issue of FTEs, don't forget that we brought the motor vehicles branch into the ministry as well.
With regard to the other areas, if you look back at the contracted positions, particularly in the systems area, when we had the Korbin commission we took back into the ministry many of the employment positions that were in a contract situation.
D. Symons: We did discuss those figures the other day, and I somehow can't imagine that the numbers we're dealing with would add up to the difference in here. We have approximately 1,000 more employees now; in fact, it's 1,007 more employees than we had three years ago. I don't know whether the Korbinization and the other responsibilities that have been added into this ministry -- ICBC, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Motor Carrier Act -- account for the difference in staffing.
I will leave that and move back to where I was before. I think we had removed some poles near Comox. I would like to move to the subject of Surrey and ask a question regarding the South Fraser perimeter road. This is being pushed a great deal by the city of Surrey, and I believe the minister has met with the mayor and council to discuss this road, because they have a great interest in seeing it go ahead. It will of course fit into Delta as well. It's a good route for industrial traffic. It will serve Roberts Bank and help the industrial parks along the way, and it will also give commuter traffic a way of moving north-south from the ferry terminal up to Highway 1. It will interconnect the four Fraser River crossings, and there seems to be a lot to be said for it.
[5:15]
I know that Surrey is seeking federal money through the infrastructure program for this particular project. Since it is not only in Surrey but in Delta as well, I'm wondering whether that particular project would be eligible under the guidelines for federal funding. Secondly, whether the federal money comes through or not, what are the minister's intentions in doing this? If there is no federal cost-sharing
[ Page 10677 ]
under the infrastructure program, will the ministry see the importance of this and undertake to do it itself?
Hon. J. Pement: Going back to the FTEs before dealing with this last question, I just want to remind the member that motor vehicles alone brought in 785 FTEs, which is a sizable chunk. We had 136 through the Korbin scenario, and then there were 106 more FTEs that were what they call D manual conversions; these are positions that were never recognized but are now recognized as FTEs. There are increases in some categories, but the brunt of those numbers comes to 989 FTEs. Oh, I beg your pardon, an increase of 62 FTEs for the Vancouver Island project is projected as well.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pement: That will come as 989.
D. Symons: Is that under the Ministry of Employment?
Hon. J. Pement: No, that's not under the TFA. Again, we have to do the construction work, and we have to manage the project; so in the total for the ministry there are extra people for the project. It's a sizable project, as the member would recognize.
Back to the Surrey-Delta-South Fraser perimeter road, it's definitely one that the ministry is looking at. This type of system would be eligible for infrastructure money, although the municipalities would have to look at a sizable amount. Again, it's a situation where two municipalities are dealing with the project and the issue, and it requires consultation between those two communities as well.
D. Symons: Just to go back to the FTEs for a moment, I do remember asking the previous minister about staffing -- I think it was after his first year in office -- and the reason he seemed to be giving for the fact that they had pretty well cut out all the capital projects was that they were keeping staff on because they didn't want to lose the expertise they had. Yet your answer indicates that the Island Highway is going to need more expertise than you hung onto. I thought most of the staff you kept would have been the ones you would have been able to dedicate to that particular project.
Also, possibly tied in with the perimeter road in Delta, I believe the ministry put a truck ban on 72nd Avenue over to Highway 91. It's a two-lane street that is eventually going to need four lanes, because it's a major feeder onto Highway 91. I'm wondering if the ministry is doing anything to prepare for the future needs of that particular route onto Highway 91. Are you purchasing properties in order to upgrade it to four lanes?
Hon. J. Pement: That particular route was designated at the request of the municipality involved. There was also an agreement made between the ministry and the municipality to analyze that particular route over a five-year period. In the interim, the municipality was to look at the development within its own communities to identify their concerns and to find out where they would like to see the development done.
D. Symons: I hope Delta didn't ask for that moratorium on the basis that they think the traffic is going to go away in the five-year interim period.
In the same general area, I'll move on to an intersection on the King George Highway at 24th Avenue that really does need upgrading. I believe the ministry has been made aware of that and has discussed it, and I'm just wondering what stage that project is at.
I have a letter signed by the minister to somebody in the riding who wrote in. The minister says: "I am committed to the upgrading of this intersection. I am presently formulating my 1994-95 budget." Then further on she says that this "will be seriously considered." Again, I guess it deals with finances. Can you tell me how seriously it was considered and whether there is financing to do the project this year?
Hon. J. Pement: It's not in this year's program, but we will be looking at it in the next go-round.
D. Symons: If we can move a little into the Fraser Valley to the Mount Lehman interchange, we get out near Abbotsford. There's an off ramp from Highway 1 that leads up to Mount Lehman. At that point, when you get to the edge of the overpass, you can make a left or right turn onto the overpass roadway. If you make a right turn, you're not too badly off. If you make a left turn, you have to cross the traffic that has come over the overpass. Because of the construction of the bridge and the fact that you're coming up a hill at that point, you really can't see very well. The ministry has changed the railing for 50 feet or so and put it at a bit of an angle, so at least the driver can see the car before it hits them. At the speed cars are moving, it hasn't been enough to overcome the real traffic concerns of that particular configuration at the bridge.
There are also problems on the north side of that overpass. We now have an auto mall there, which has made it considerably more congested on that side of the bridge as well. The whole design of that particular interchange needs redesigning to meet today's standards and needs for the type of traffic there. By the way, that is where most traffic turns off to go to the Abbotsford Air Show every year, which puts horrendous pressure on it for that particular week. But there are a lot of problems throughout the year. The configuration of the thing doesn't lend itself to being a safe interchange at all. Has the ministry looked further into that, and where is the possibility of doing a project in its priorities?
Hon. J. Pement: We recognize that it is a concern, and we are working toward giving it some priority in the next budget. That is a big project, and you're looking at a figure of around $42 million for that interchange. Again, it's a case of looking at the traffic flows and at what we can best come up with in the interim, and going from there.
D. Symons: The lay of the land as well as what's already there does create some problems in the area. I'm fairly familiar with that portion of the valley.
The member for Chilliwack had a suggestion from one of his constituents, which he passed along to me. I thought I'd pass it along to the minister, because I thought it was a rather interesting suggestion. Her suggestion was that you plant trees along the sides of Highway 1 between Chilliwack and Abbotsford. These would beautify the area. In the winter we have quite strong winds blowing across the highway there with snowdrifts and all the rest. As a matter of fact, one Christmas season I was in one of the cloverleafs coming onto there, and we took turns pushing cars through the cloverleaf to get them onto the highway. The drifts had built up at that point. I happened to have a one-week-old baby in my car, so we were somewhat concerned that we were going to get stuck. Everybody else got stuck; we got through all right. There is a problem of drifting snow in the winter, and I don't
[ Page 10678 ]
know if having rows of trees along there would assist in that. They put up snow fences periodically, but I think this might be a permanent solution rather than a temporary solution. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of positioning. With the snow fences, you usually put them further out into a field. The snow comes up over the fence and by the road. If you put trees close to the road, you get the reverse of what you want: the snow comes up over the trees onto the road. They don't really work as a snow fence because of their proximity to the road itself.
D. Symons: I'll have to think about that next time I'm through there in the winter to see which way the snow is drifting. I'll look into that; I hope I'm not caught in a situation where I have to look at it too carefully.
I would like to hit a little on some questions that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asked. I had further down on my list some questions about the Gibsons bypass, and I don't think I'm asking quite the same ones he was asking. If I do, you may cut me off, as I notice you did not do with the member for Peace River South, by saying: "We canvassed that before." I appreciated the fact that you went through his questions carefully with him, so maybe you can be a little indulgent with me on this.
There is an intersection at Highway 101 in the Langdale ferry area that was in the final design stage in 1992 and that was postponed going into actual construction. I'm wondering when construction will begin on the intersection leading off the ferry dock and onto the new Gibsons bypass.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, that is part of the Gibsons bypass project. As I told the member, it is a priority in the area, and we'll be looking into it accordingly.
D. Symons: I'll lump the next two together. Phase one was scheduled for completion in October 1992. Is phase one completed, blacktopped and all? Phase two design work was done in 1992. Has property acquisition taken place, and is there a schedule for the actual construction of phase two?
Hon. J. Pement: Phase one has what is called the bottom lift; it still needs a top lift and a pavement on it. The other two phases need completion of the project; they haven't started yet.
D. Symons: I'll finish off with one more set of questions. Further up the Fraser Valley, on the Fraser bridge construction at Hope, the original plan was to do the approaches first and then reinforce the substructure. It seems that they reversed that order last year and did the substructure. I'm curious as to why there was a change in the order for the original plan of the Hope bridge reconstruction.
[5:30]
Hon. J. Pement: Looking at the funding available for this particular project, it was decided to do the piers and foundations of the bridge.
D. Symons: I gather from that answer that you chose the lesser of the two costs. Will the ministry be doing the approaches this year? And what about the timing? It seems that if they are going to be doing this project this year or whatever year, the time to start it would have been better in March, since the contracts for the year haven't been let yet. If they are let later on, you're going to be doing the work when employment is higher, and it would be better to have people hired when the unemployment rates are a bit higher. You are also going to have major work going on when the tourist season is at its height. It seems better to start these projects in February or March and let them go through so that a good amount of the disruptive work is completed before the heavy traffic of the summer tourist season. You might answer both of those. Are we going to be doing the approaches this year and, secondly, can we somehow rearrange the timing better so it fits in with employment cycles and avoids the tourist season?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, concerning the foundations that were done, I would say that it wasn't a case of less money; it was a matter of foundations being very important to a bridge. We will be looking at this project as a priority in the region and at funding it through the Transportation Financing Authority.
D. Symons: I notice in the answer that you're looking to the Transportation Financing Authority again. I have some concern that the Transportation Financing Authority does not seem to have its act together as far as being able to identify what moneys it's going to be raising for this year and what projects the ministry could carry out. It seems a very poor way of doing things if you don't know partway into the fiscal year what projects you're working on are actually going to be funded.
The last question I have relating to that area deals with the Laidlaw bluffs. I have a compliment to pay the ministry in that they finally improved an area that had difficulties -- and fatalities, as a matter of fact -- by putting in lights, widening the lanes and doing other things there. I have to say that it's really too bad that the delay in attacking that problem cost a life, because the number of slides that have gone on there has been known for years. I believe the ministry is involved in a lawsuit involving an accident where a truck was washed down to the railway tracks.
Unless the minister has a response on that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:34 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]