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)
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 4
[ Page 10679 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome a group of grade 8 students from Yakima Adventist Junior Academy in the state of Washington, who are visiting here today with their teacher Mr. Munson. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in welcoming all these people.
F. Garden: In the gallery today are two very important people from my neck of the woods in the Cariboo: Carol Price, who is the president of the Quesnel District Teachers' Association; and Susan Palmer, who is the president of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers' Association and who made sure that I said Cariboo-Chilcotin and not just Williams Lake. Would you please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: On behalf of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Bev Gess and Carol Whitewell of the Vernon Teachers' Association. They are visiting the House today.
COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Financial Services Act.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce today the Community Financial Services Act. The act will address the lack of adequate banking services available to residents of the downtown east side of Vancouver, which is one of the poorest urban neighbourhoods in all of Canada. In recent years the area's population has grown, and despite an increase in the need for banking services, several bank closures in the area have resulted in a deterioration in the level of these services available to the community.
The new act creates the B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation. Although the corporation is a government body, it has been structured to be regulated in a manner which is consistent with other private financial institutions operating in the province. This is important to ensure that the socially responsible objectives of the corporation and the needs of the community it is intended to serve are met in a fiscally responsible manner. This statute and the establishment of a new financial institution in Vancouver's downtown east side will fill a recognized need and foster social and economic development in the community.
Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
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, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
D. Mitchell: Yesterday, during review of the Environment estimates, the minister answered some questions affecting my constituency. Because I thought the minister did a very good job in answering my questions, I was prepared at that point, from my own point of view, to let the Environment portion of the estimates pass. But something has come up in today's press that I think I should get some further clarification on from the minister, and I think the minister owes this to the committee. It's on a position that has been expressed in this committee by the official opposition.
I note in the press this morning that the comments made by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour with respect to the Tatshenshini wilderness area -- and whether mining should be allowed in the park that the provincial government has designated -- have been questioned by other members of the official opposition. I have reviewed the estimates and the Blues of the estimates very carefully in trying to determine where we are on this important issue. I'm not sure who the official opposition critic is for this minister; whether it's the member for North Vancouver-Seymour -- and I respect the position that he very clearly outlined yesterday in this committee -- whether it's the new member for Matsqui or whether it's the new Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. In the press this morning there seems to be some confusion on this issue. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if he is aware of who the official opposition critic is and whether he doesn't have a responsibility to help us find out what their position is on this. Surely the minister must have some responsibility in this area.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister on that question, I would suggest that we are probably moving a little far afield from the matter of the estimates of this ministry by commenting on the official opposition's role. With that caution, I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond.
[10:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll try to assist in resolving this issue. First of all, as we start estimates, I notice again that the official Liberal Environment critic is not in the House. That's not surprising in light of the fact that in, I think, about 14 hours of debate, he has participated for about an hour and a half. That speaks volumes about the degree of interest on the part of the Liberals with regard to the environment. In addition to that, leading the debate on environmental matters for the last 14 hours for the Liberals in this House have been the member responsible as the Mines critic and the member responsible as the Forests critic.
In order to assist, let me recap some of what we've heard from the opposition to date. Through their Mines critic, the opposition has indicated that the government ought not to enforce the law, ought not to engage in environmental prosecution because it "demoralizes business." We have laws in British Columbia that we try to enforce. When polluters
[ Page 10680 ]
violate the integrity of our environment, we endeavour to take action against those who do so.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm trying to make my point here.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: If members would settle down, I would finish.
Secondly....
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, members. Can I ask the minister to take his seat for just a moment, please.
I responded as I did to the comment and question from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi precisely because of this. We are now facing the prospect of having a debate that is, quite frankly, only tangentially connected to the estimates. I would only caution all members that what one side does simply allows the other side, automatically and fairly, to respond. Like begets like -- that's the unofficial rule of this chamber. I caution everybody that we can have an estimates debate of this kind, or we can have an estimates debate that's focused very much on the estimates. But what one side does, the other side is allowed. So I would ask everybody, please, to be cognizant of that simple rule and fact and to comport themselves accordingly.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, let me simply say this for the record. The Mines critic for the Liberal Party stood up in this House and said that we should not engage in environmental prosecution because it will "demoralize business" in British Columbia. I think it should be noted that he said that, because it reflects the kind of value system the opposition brings to this House, in the sense that they stand up for the rich and powerful in society.
Secondly, the Forests critic stood up in this House -- he was quoted in, I think, the Vancouver Sun yesterday -- and said that the government ought not to publish the annual list of British Columbia's worst polluters, because that was "a publicity stunt." Even the Socreds knew that there was a value in publishing the list of B.C.'s worst polluters. It just reinforces the point that these new Liberals are worse on the environment than the old Socreds were. We know that there are enormous benefits in publishing the list. Some 170 to 190 companies found their names on that list, and 140 names came off in short order. The majority of them tell us that the reason they did that was that their names were on the list. Nonetheless, we have an official opposition in British Columbia that says that we should not put forward the list of B.C.'s worst polluters. Fair enough.
We have the Environment critic -- who is now in the House -- who hasn't participated in debate around the environment. We have the Leader of the Opposition, who says that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulations. He thinks there's too much regulation on the environment in British Columbia. That fits in with the value system we've seen from the opposition: don't prosecute, because it demoralizes business; don't publish a list of B.C.'s worst polluters, because it embarrasses business; and we'll get rid of all environmental regulations.
I note that in this morning's Sun there's a story that says:
"British Columbians are fairly green in their views. More than three-quarters, 76 percent" -- in a recent poll -- "disagreed with the statement that 'B.C. has too many environmental laws and too much government intervention already, and we don't need a forest practices code'."
The results of that poll show the degree to which the Leader of the Opposition is out of touch with the views of British Columbians around environmental regulation. People want us to be tough on polluters, and they want us to engage in tough enforcement. That's why this government has brought forward legislation that increases fines and makes it easier to prosecute, and that's why in the next few days we will bring forward a new forest practices code that will change the way in which we manage our forests. These kinds of initiatives are long overdue.
I thank the hon. member for asking the question, because it very clearly shows that the opposition in British Columbia is environmentally deficient.
J. Tyabji: I've been observing the Environment debate for some time now.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear from the Liberal opposition that all I've been doing is observing -- that's true. I've been waiting for some organization in these estimates. I want to tell the minister that I'm appalled by the lack of organization. I wish the minister had shown some leadership in terms of the Environment estimates. Perhaps he would have some commentary on this, because I don't know where to start. I'm waiting to get in. I've got about four separate files that have to be canvassed. There are a lot of issues. I have yet to see any real issues be brought forward, except for a few that the members for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and Powell River-Sunshine Coast have canvassed. When are we going to see some organization so the staff will know when they should be here? In previous years we've known where we are in the estimates portfolio by the staff who are here, and I have no idea right now.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's an excellent point on the part of the hon. member, because I must confess that we had tried to establish a structure. We had discussed a particular structure with the opposition and arranged for staff to come in at appropriate times so that we could have an orderly and, hopefully, constructive debate. At the outset of these estimates, I encouraged the opposition to put forward constructive points, and we would accommodate them. To date, I haven't heard anything that has either been constructive or has warranted a reconsideration of policy.
I note that the member from the Reform Party -- I'm sorry that I can't remember your riding off the top of my head, but the member representing Dawson Creek -- stood up in this House and made a number of constructive comments with regard to the way in which we're dealing with a problem associated with Louisiana-Pacific. I thought he made some points that were valid. As a consequence, I made a commitment to him that we would deal with the air emission problems in that part of the province in a way that perhaps is different from the way we normally would.
I talked briefly about the comments the hon. member made with regard to the deer problems in Oyama. I know the hon. member wasn't in the House, but I did take the time to indicate my appreciation for the fact that a number of constructive proposals, particularly with regard to ICBC, have been put forward. I'm pursuing those, and I want to pursue those vigorously.
[ Page 10681 ]
I appreciate the comments that were made by the independent member with regard to Britannia Beach and the need for us to move on. I told him that I appreciated the validity of his questions. Inasmuch as I didn't think it tactically correct for me to point out what the government's game plan was post July 31 of this year, I told him that I would meet with him privately so that he could have the benefit of the government's thinking with regard to that matter.
We have tried to provide some structure, hon. member, and we try to deal with these issues in a constructive way. I'm quite open to taking ideas, because I know that there is intelligence on all sides of the House with regard to environmental matters.
But I must confess that I have heard nothing from the opposition other than requests to allow for mining in parks. I want to make it abundantly clear that that's not on. This government will not allow mining in parks, and I find it disturbing that the opposition in British Columbia takes the view that we should have mining in parks. I find it disturbing that the opposition says that we ought not to prosecute those who violate our environment because it's demoralizing for business. I find it disturbing that members of the opposition have stood up in this House and said we ought not to put forward the list of B.C.'s worst polluters because it's only a publicity stunt. They obviously don't appreciate the impact it has. I find it disturbing that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated outside of this House that we need less environmental rules and regulations in the province when most British Columbians want more.
It says very clearly that those developers and people on Howe Street who paid handsomely to elect the Leader of the Opposition and provide support for the opposition are seeing a return on their investment. It's disturbing, and British Columbians should know that. Yesterday I was fairly vocal in this House about the degree to which those things disturb me, and I want all hon. members to know that I will continue to be fairly outspoken with regard to the positions on the environment put forward by the Liberal Party, and I want them to know that British Columbians will know. I intend to spend a fair bit of time sharing with British Columbians the views put forward by the opposition. Where members offer constructive ideas, we will incorporate those into policy.
Hon. member, you indicated that you had three or four areas that you wanted to canvass, and given the way in which the opposition has allowed these estimates to unfold and their somewhat helter-skelter approach to it, that's not surprising. Normally you have your critic quarterback the debate. The Liberal Environment critic has only been here for about two hours out of the 14 or 15 hours that we've spent. So you should feel free to raise the issues that you want to raise, and I'll attend to them as best I can. If I need appropriate staff, I will make arrangements to have them come in later on.
J. Tyabji: I'm sure the minister can answer my questions with regard to deer fencing without further staff here.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to start with that issue, as the minister has raised it. I understand it was a subject of debate yesterday, which I couldn't be at primarily because I was at a rally of many of the growers who are facing this issue. In some cases, as the minister is aware, the Minister of Agriculture helped to fund the renovations of the orchards which are being devastated by the deer. In some cases, the investments, which work out to about $10,000 an acre, have been completely wiped out by deer. We have three portfolios impacted by this. Even though nuisance wildlife falls under the Minister of Environment, the issue arises in the Minister of Agriculture's portfolio, and the financing structure may arise with the Minister of Transportation and Highways.
Just so the minister is aware, I canvassed the issue of ICBC funding with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I would recommend that the minister review Hansard on that. There was a lot of talk on the minister's part about deer reflectors, which really wouldn't be helpful at all. I did point out to her that bears are also an issue in this area. ICBC is currently incurring a number of costs because of encounters with wildlife. I see that we are joined by a staff person who can help with this issue. Because we have urban interface in this area, the issue is a bit more complicated than something that could be served by deer reflectors. Has the minister managed to make any progress? Has the minister approached the Minister of Agriculture for some possible funding through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which financed the renovations in the first place?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I was in Kelowna opening an air monitoring station in the early part of March, if memory serves me correctly. At that point I met with a number of people who shared this concern. For the record, I should bring you up to date with regard to initiatives on this front.
[10:30]
Firstly, I want the hon. member to know that I have discussed this issue with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I had that discussion with them, because it seems to me that no one agency alone is going to be able to resolve these issues. Let's be candid with one another: there are significant costs involved. I think there is a role to be played by ICBC.
Secondly, there's clearly a role to be played by the Ministry of Agriculture, and I've had occasion to discuss the matter briefly with that ministry. Similarly, I've discussed the issue with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It seems to me that the only way we're going to ultimately deal with this problem is to take a number of initiatives.
We as a ministry may be able to deal with the hunting season and look at some amendments that we may want to make with regard to the length and the scope of the season.
We also have to overcome another problem that relates to fences. We have to grapple with the whole issue of deer migration routes to winter ranges. It's not as simple as just putting up one extended fence, and we have to grapple with that issue. I don't think we're at a point where we can resolve that adequately. It's very hard to keep all points of access closed, but even if you were to have a fence, there are some problems in terms of whether or not we've captured all of the appropriate areas. Add to that, of course, that there is a cost associated with this.
It seems to me that there are a number of solutions. We can look at the hunting season, and we can discuss this with ICBC and with the Ministry of Agriculture to resolve these conflicting uses of land both for farmers and for the migratory patterns of deer. I don't have an answer for you yet in terms of an alternate solution, but I want you to know that I'm not immune to the pressure that you and others have been exerting on this issue. I think we've moved a lot further along, from where we were last March to where we are now in May, and all I can say is that we'll continue to work on the issue.
[ Page 10682 ]
J. Tyabji: With regard to the minister's opening of the air monitoring station, it was quite a coincidence that the growers happened to be there and raised this issue, putting more pressure on the minister. I don't know how they found out that he was going to be there.
With regard to ICBC, I would hope the Minister of Transportation and Highways has been briefed on the discussions the Minister of Environment has had, and I would refer the minister to Thursday's Hansard on that issue.
The expanded hunting season was tried in 1991. The minister, I hope, has been briefed on the disastrous effects of that. Perhaps there will be a change in the implementation of the expanded hunting season so that we don't have a recurrence. I can assure the minister that as it stands today, that suggestion would not be well-received in the community; on the contrary, it would be very poorly received after the experience of 1991.
The minister raised the points of access. I'm sure the minister realizes that the proposed fence would be on Crown land at its interface with private property, and if there were a point of access -- for example, a road that needed to access the Crown land -- a simple cattleguard would take care of the deer situation without having an impact on the effectiveness of the fence.
The last question is: what is the time frame in which the minister believes he will have an answer? As the minister can understand, the situation is very desperate for the growers, and it's getting worse every day. The spring budding season has also led to devastation in the orchards. As I'm sure the minister is aware, the trees were replanted, through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, with funding from this government. The minister should know that $1 million more has been provided to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority in this current budget to help with the renovations. But the money to plant dwarf trees is going to be completely wasted if the trees that are planted become deer food. That doesn't make any sense.
I'm sure the minister recognizes that the growers out there would like some logical progression. They would rather have the cash to replant and not have to replant than go to the trouble of putting out their labour replanting, with the idea of a four-year return, and then having the entire orchard wiped out by deer. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not even an advocate of hunting -- I happen to be a Bambi advocate, if anything -- but I'd still say that the deer are a serious nuisance to the lives and livelihood of the people of Oyama. That's not something I say lightly. It has accrued in the tens of thousands of dollars for the people who live there at a time when growers have no extra money. They're financed to the hilt as it is.
So I'm sure the minister recognizes that it doesn't make any sense to put good money into the orchards and have it completely wasted. If there's $1 million more in the OVTFA, and if ICBC isn't going to come through with the money, then some of that money should be put into deer fencing or into some solution. I don't think hunting is a solution that will work. If the minister thinks otherwise, that's fine. But these are points of caution: if the hunting season is expanded, it should be done very specifically on Crown land and not accessed through private property, as was the expanded hunting season of 1991; and people should not still be hunting after dark, which also happened in 1991.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to ask the House to welcome about 45 grade 10 students from Walnut Grove Secondary School in my riding, about a half-block from my home. I've had the opportunity to be a guest at their school a number of times. It's a wonderful school. It's increasing in portables every day -- which isn't one of its attributes, but we all know what that problem is. They have also been gracious enough to let me use their basketball court from time to time. So I'd ask the House to give me the opportunity to make them welcome in this House.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me go through the points that the hon. member made with regard to this issue. First of all, you can't necessarily have it both ways. You can't say "no hunting" on the one hand, and then on the other hand say that we have to solve it entirely with fencing. I think there needs....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, fine. The hon. member says that she's not, and that's fair enough. We recognize that the preference there in terms of hunting is on Crown lands, and I'll grant you that. On that point, that's what we are endeavouring to achieve.
I will confirm to you that I will talk to both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transportation and Highways tomorrow about the issue. I have not had in-depth discussions with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In fact, I think I said that briefly to you a few minutes ago, but I will see both of them in cabinet tomorrow, and I will discuss the issue with them. That's not to say that it will be resolved tomorrow, but I think that gives you an indication that I'm prepared to try to work this thing through because I see the problems.
I will also encourage you to meet with my staff to get an overview in terms of what our ministry is doing and of some of the tensions that our ministry sees in trying to resolve this issue so that you have a broader overview of what's happening. I think I can make those three commitments to you. Hopefully, that will get us on the way towards resolving this issue.
J. Tyabji: For the record, I think the minister should be aware that the people in that riding do recognize that his intentions on this issue are sincere. I think that came out when he was there opening the air monitoring station.
On a related issue with regard to issuing wildlife licences, could the minister let me know if the change in procedure has been brought to his attention with regard to the impact on retail outlets? If not, I would like to provide him with a summary.
Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member could amplify on the point. We do have dealings with the retail outlets from time to time. I'm just not too sure which concern is at the forefront of her mind. Could she just elaborate?
J. Tyabji: Seminars have been provided to a number of retail outlets. I have a letter in front of me from Benshona Custom Rods. It's one of the letters from these outlets that I have received in my riding. Bill Lynch is the author of this letter. Basically, the seminar that is being provided by the government agent's office is with regard to the issuing of wildlife licences, which now requires a huge workload increase for retailers with virtually no vendor's commission. I'll just read one of the paragraphs here, where the author is
[ Page 10683 ]
referring to annual, angling, one-day, eight-day, disabled, steelhead or non-resident Canadian wildlife licences:
"...if I sell one of each of the above licences, taking the steps outlined in the 50-page manual, it would take approximately five to seven minutes per licence. If we used the arbitrary figure of six minutes per licence, it would take 42 minutes. In those 42 minutes I would be earning $4.69 for my labour."
He says that this unwieldy system, if it were passed on to the government agent's office, would probably result in about 5,000 anglers appearing at the government agent's office over a weekend. Maybe the minister could make a comment. I have further questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, we as a ministry are exploring a different system -- almost like a plastic card with a coded magnetic strip on the back -- and a new way of dealing with these licences. I have seen a test model of the idea, and it is attractive. It would consolidate what we're doing; everything would be down to one card with a magnetic strip, so the work would be performed on a far more efficient basis. It has some real attractions for the ministry.
Remember that this information is vital for us to be able to track who is out there and engaged in what kinds of activity. In terms of wildlife, part of our ability to track what's happening to wildlife is predicated on the kind of information that hunters and people who fish provide us with.
J. Tyabji: My first question is: would these plastic cards be the wildlife licence, or would they be identification cards that every B.C. resident would have and would then use to purchase the licence?
Further to that, I want to read another paragraph from this letter into the record. The author says:
"With the new, improved system, the consensus at the meeting" -- that being the briefing meeting that they had with the ministry -- "was that the time commitment will now be horrendous. Can you imagine a busy store on a Friday afternoon, with several customers buying fishing tackle" -- which are the things they make their living from -- "and a huge lineup of people waiting to buy a fishing licence, and we now have to check for residency by asking for deeds, rent receipts, driver's licence, etc. Every licence is now required to have our sub-issuer number on it, plus a very explicit method of addressing."
So it's extremely cumbersome and actually would result in a net loss to the retailer to have to be issuing these licences.
If the minister could expand on his magnetic strip idea.... And if there is going to be something like that, who would be purchasing equipment for the retail outlets if equipment would be necessary for it?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are about 1,300 of these issuers throughout British Columbia. We're trying to issue one card instead of the five different cards that people have to fill out. So this would deal with hunting; it would deal with fishing; and we're trying to coordinate it with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans so that it deals with the DFO requirements as well. That would eliminate all of the handwritten work that people have to do and all of the different forms that they have to fill out. They would just run it through on a magnetic strip. This is not unprecedented. It exists in Ontario, and we're examining what they've done in Ontario.
It would be issued to anyone who's engaged in sporting activity. Whether you hunt or fish, you get a card. So you won't have two cards for those: one if you hunt and a different card for fishing. It would be one card, the strip would go through and that would give us the data that is so vital to us when we engage in tracking what's happening out there in the field.
I can tell you this: it won't happen this year. I'm hoping that it will be done by next year. And I know that it will be well received.
I've seen a sample of what's being proposed in my ministry. If the hon. member wishes, she can go down to the wildlife component of the ministry, on Blanshard Street, and I'm sure Mr. Halladay or others would be happy to show her what we've got there. It's very simple; it just punches like a credit card.
[10:45]
In terms of the cost of the machinery to the retail outlet, I suppose that would be a matter of discussion with the retail outlet and us. Obviously I know what every retail outlet is going to say at first blush. They're going to say: "Well, the government should pick up those costs." And I know what government is going to say: "Well, maybe we should negotiate." Rather than make a firm commitment one way or the other at this point, I know that that's a matter we have to deal with. Certainly by the time we've got the program running, we will have attended to that matter as well.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the cost of the equipment, I recommend to the minister -- if the objective is to monitor the inventory of wildlife and the level of resource extraction, and if we're referring to wildlife as resources, and the wildlife licences are to monitor extraction -- that the corporate inventory initiative might be a financing body by which you could buy the equipment for the retail outlets. Then the equipment would be owned by the provincial government, with the information modemed in to provide direct monitoring of the resources.
Further to this issue, it seems like we are discussing two issues here. On the one hand, we're discussing the government's need to monitor resource extraction, which is a very important issue, and I would commend the government for pursuing the corporate inventory initiative and for monitoring resource extraction. The issue I am bringing to the minister right now that is of concern to retailers is that small and medium-sized businesses are having a very difficult time meeting all of the different demands of government, whether they are regulatory or tax demands, and now they have these licences. There is a net loss to the retailer for issuing the licences, but those are services that the retailer provides to bring people into the outlet. That, I'm sure, was the original intention and it's an excellent compromise: the government gets the service and the retail outlet gets the customers.
The problem is that it's now becoming so cumbersome. The magnetic cards aside -- which, as the minister says, would be a year or a year and a half off and are probably an excellent idea -- right now a retailer may be faced with 100 customers at a time and has to ask for deeds to property or some certificate of residency before he issues a wildlife licence. If the government agent wants to have some certificate of residency that the person can present before they go there, that makes some kind of sense. But for a retailer to become a gatekeeper to determine residency and to provide the paperwork to the government to prove that they've done that is extremely cumbersome.
I've received a number of letters on this. The biggest problem faced right now is that the method is in its trial stages, and the government may not understand the implications of it. The manual provided to the retailers contains 50 pages of requirements that they have to meet just to issue a wildlife licence.
[ Page 10684 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a number of points. First of all, I think it's valid to say that the corporate resource inventory would be one way that we could look at funding. Second, you should know that the cost of these machines could be up to about $600 a machine, so it's a fair bit on both sides, whether it's government or the retail outlet. I'm just giving you that number so you know what kind of dollars we're talking about, multiplied by about 1,300 users in the province. Third, with regard to the pressures on small business, in a broad way that's why we as a government -- through the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- have issued a set of materials to business in terms of what steps were taken to make life more efficient and less onerous on them. Fourth, part of that is the initiative with regard to the plastic card that I talked about.
With regard to the residency requirements on hunters, that's a relatively simple procedure. We require them to be able to demonstrate that with regard to.... Every hunter, whether foreign or a resident of British Columbia, has to go through a course and is then given a number, so it's very easy to process and to provide evidence on the hunting side. On the fishing side, I agree that more paperwork is required. But on the hunting side, I think we've got it down to a relatively efficient system.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the roughly $600 per machine, I recognize that it's in the preliminary stages. I am pursuing this debate not to discourage the minister from that initiative but to point out that $600 per retail outlet would be a horrendous amount of money, even if there were a portion of that.... I note that in the estimates this year we have over $11 million in the corporate resource inventory initiative. If each of 1,300 retail outlets had a $600 machine, it would come to less than $800,000 -- by my math, and I hope my math is still good enough for me to churn that out. In that case, it would be a fraction of the budget currently put into that, and that is the purpose of those machines. I do think it's not fair to.... I mean, it's very valuable information for the government, but to put that on the retailer would be most unfortunate. So I'd like to pursue that argument with that in mind.
With regard to fishing licences and requiring that residency be determined by the retailer, does the minister think there could be an option? Is the ministry in receipt of a number of letters from retail outlets that are encountering the same problem I'm having in my riding? They're saying that the workload is enormous and doesn't justify the return to the retailer.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we do get letters, and we're trying to respond to these concerns. We're listening to what people out in the field have to say, and we're responding to it. That's our job as the Ministry of Environment. So on that point, yes. The plasticized card system that I talked about earlier on would also deal with the residence requirements of those who fish, so that would solve that problem.
I'm aware of what you're saying about the cost of the machine, and obviously we have to weigh that in terms of what options may be available to us. I guess all I'm saying to you is that that's the number, and somehow we have to work through the problems. The variable that you laid out is obviously part of the equation and part of the solution.
J. Tyabji: So the minister is confirming that consideration is given to the letters and the submissions from the public that they've been receiving on the new method of applying for wildlife licences. Is that correct? Is there some potential for changing the requirements for retail operators?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, in terms of us responding to the letters; yes, in terms of us dealing with the plasticized card to make it more efficient. But the requirements are information that we need, so we still have to be able to collect that information. We're trying to take it from a situation where you have from five to as many as 16 different cards down to something that's far more efficient. In other words, we acknowledge the comments of the retailers in their correspondence, and we're working on a solution that we hope to have in place by next year.
J. Tyabji: As a final point on that, perhaps the minister could be slightly lenient with some of those requirements and consider this an interim period before implementing these new magnetic cards, keeping in mind that retail outlets are providing a service that would be a horrendous cost to the government if the government had to provide it directly.
On a similar issue with regard to wildlife licences, will the minister confirm that the Ministry of Environment is planning to auction hunting licences for rams in the Kootenays?
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
J. Tyabji: Does the minister mean no, he won't confirm it, or no, there is no auction planned for the wildlife licence? More specifically, is there a plan for auctioning licences in the United States that would not be accessible to Canadian hunters?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, we're not considering it.
J. Tyabji: I have a file in front of me dealing almost exclusively with the issue of wildlife licences and poaching bighorn sheep in the Kootenays. Also, a licence or a permit was sold for $300,000 to $400,000, so that a trophy Rocky Mountain ram could be shot in the Salmo area. Could the minister explain to me...? My information is that the Ministry of Environment is planning to have such an auction. I brought this issue up two years ago with the former Minister of Environment, and the plans were shut down, largely as a result of the debates, I believe. Is the minister saying that there will be no auctioning off of trophy Rocky Mountain rams in the Kootenay area?
Hon. M. Sihota: We get asked every year, and the answer for this year is no.
J. Tyabji: Is the minister going to be pursuing some policy with regard to recommendations by the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Guide-Outfitters' Association -- I don't have the file in front of me, but I think it was that association -- to change the way that the ministry regulates wildlife licences?
[F. Garden in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: We have an excellent relationship with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. In fact, I had the privilege of speaking at their convention in Courtenay and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. They're great people, and they do an outstanding job of representing the concerns of their groups. I also had the opportunity to speak the next week to the guide-outfitters. That is quite an industry in British Columbia.
I'm not aware what recommendations they have made. I didn't think they made any this year, as we discussed here a
[ Page 10685 ]
minute ago. In any event, as always, given our respect for the organization, we will take a look at what they've got to say. We tend to work through issues with them reasonably well, and I know we have a good relationship there. If they've got some valid points, we will obviously incorporate them in the development of public policy.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to advise the minister that I will be coming back with a file with further questions on this, but now I concede to members of the Reform Party.
H. De Jong: I would just like to make it clear that I am not a member of the Reform Party, but you never know what may happen.
I have a couple of questions to follow up on what I touched on last week. I suppose the minister has read Friday's Province very well with regard to the Chilliwack River valley situation. I will touch on that a little later.
Throughout the lower mainland, a certain number of restrictions have been placed on the floodplain areas -- those that are diked as well as the unprotected areas. They differ somewhat, but there are still a number of regulations. For instance, in the district of Matsqui as well as in Sumas Prairie, which are both diked areas, the requirement is that the bottom floor of a house must be at the level of the top of the dikes, or very close to it. In order to accommodate that in many cases, you would either require a tremendous amount of fill or have to build a house on stilts. Most people choose the avenue of additional fill. At the same time, these people have a problem getting septic tank approval, which is also an environmental problem, although it's administered by the Minister of Health.
[11:00]
There seems to be a contradiction in the application of regulations. On the one hand, the person is required to raise the house up to safeguard it from flooding. In my opinion, that would also provide a solution to the septic problems. However, the Ministry of Health seems to interpret that soil brought in as not natural soil. They interpret natural soil as being that placed there by nature, not by a machine, a truck or anything like that. Could the minister elaborate on the fact that there is a conflict there and whether he is prepared to do anything to resolve that conflict?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have staff here this morning to deal with wildlife issues. I can speak in generalities, and I have no difficulty doing that on this issue. But I am reluctant to do that, because I want to give the member the courtesy of as much information as I possibly can.
I want to make the following suggestion. I will ask staff to have the appropriate information on the Chilliwack situation here at two. That is one option. If the member wishes, I would have no difficulty instructing staff to get the regional people on the phone, so that he could have a discussion with them to try to clarify that issue right now. I don't have any problem whatsoever in doing that.
I thought the understanding was that we were going to be dealing generally with fish and wildlife issues. If there were broader issues that hon. members wanted to raise, I would have been quite happy to deal with them in a broader way. That question is so specific, and I'm not going to give you a glib answer -- that's where I'm coming from. I'd rather either have the appropriate staff here or have staff arrange it so that they could talk to you between now and the noonhour and we can get to the bottom of your concern. On the face of it, I agree that it appears as if something doesn't make sense here. If that's the case, let's try to get to the bottom of it, so that you're better informed and I'm better informed.
H. De Jong: I want to thank the minister for the answer. If we can be assured that the appropriate staff will be here this afternoon regarding those issues, I will continue my line of questioning at that time.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll have staff here right after question period.
J. Weisgerber: While we have wildlife staff here, I'd like to follow up a little on the discussion started by the member for Okanagan East regarding auctioning special licences. I happen to hold the view that there is a great deal of public benefit to be had from auctioning one or two specific licences, for example, and that would allow for the money to be put back into wildlife conservation and habitat improvement. The information I've seen from various states indicates that it's a marvellous opportunity for people interested in hunting, who are also interested in the enhancement of wildlife habitat and the expansion of hunting opportunities, to pay enormous amounts for licences that would be issued in any event and that provide the government with a lot of the much-needed income to deal with those issues. I hope the minister hasn't completely closed the door on that avenue.
I've seen example after example, particularly in the western states, of the enormous contributions being made to habitat conservation and improvement through that auctioning process. I don't believe you would find a lot of resistance from resident users or other licence applicants if it's used judiciously -- if we're talking about a very finite number of licences, and if the selling price adds significantly to the government's ability to improve habitat or to the ability of groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the sheep and goat associations to work on habitat enhancement independently of government. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to share with us some of his thoughts and some of the ministry's thoughts on that issue.
Hon. M. Sihota: The debate this morning outlines the different issues one has to deal with in trying to resolve this issue. Although the member for Okanagan East did not lay out the case for the other side in detail, I think we have a pretty good sense of where she was coming from. The two opinions offered by members of the opposition are both interesting, and obviously we have to make a determination at the end of the day. I note that I said that there was no decision made, so the answer for this year is no. If I may amplify on that, we are always open to analyzing this issue every year; we do it on a year-by-year basis.
We acknowledge that there is some benefit to looking generally at the pricing system in order to enhance the wildlife. As you may know, this year -- for the first time ever, I think -- we allocated all of the money from the fishing licences to the habitat conservation fund as a reflection of our desire to deal with conservation issues. I don't overlook the point the hon. member makes in his submission with regard to the benefit that would accrue to the fund. But for this year the answer is no. We will review it for future years, as we do each year.
J. Weisgerber: I don't deny that it's a complex issue and that there are competing interests. I was concerned that the debate that was on the record might discourage those people in various associations who are interested in pursuing what I think is an outstanding opportunity. I didn't want the brevity of the debate to suggest to anyone reading Hansard that the door is closed on that issue. I'm reassured, at least to
[ Page 10686 ]
some degree, that there is a willingness to examine. I would like to suggest to the minister that in situations like this where there are competing interests, one has an opportunity -- perhaps even on a onetime basis, a one-species basis or a one-year basis -- to see what results there are and give people an opportunity to comment on them, because I do believe there probably are good arguments to be heard on both sides of this issue.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I agree. That's why I've said that it's for this year only.
J. Weisgerber: During the debate the minister mentioned that all of the money from hunting licences this year was in fact allocated for habitat improvement.
Hon. M. Sihota: Fishing.
J. Weisgerber: Oh, okay -- the minister now says fishing licences. There has been considerable concern that a reserve has been building in the habitat conservation fund, or that the government has been building a reserve and releasing limited amounts to the habitat conservation fund. For the record, could the minister clarify that at least in this year, all of the revenues from hunting, fishing and trapping licences that are collected for the purposes of habitat conservation and enhancement have in fact been used?
Hon. M. Sihota: There might be a surplus this year, but clearly what's happening.... You are right, in the past there were surpluses. Those have been building up, but there are increasing demands on that fund. If you look at the numbers provided in the budget, there is about a 20 percent increase in calls on the $3.2 million in that budget item. So you can see that the demand is now beginning to catch up. Although there may be some surplus this year, the 20 percent figure speaks for itself.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could suggest whether he believes that these surpluses will all be expended in the foreseeable future; that the fund will receive, on an annual basis, those fees which are collected specifically for habitat conservation.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't tell you exactly when that will occur, but we are trying to do this in a rational way. As I said, there is about a 20 percent increase this year, which is substantial. But I'm not going to start approving projects willy-nilly so as to eat up the surplus. We have to look at the legitimacy of the projects being requested. Hence we can digest about a 20 percent increase this year, and we'll do that. With that kind of rational approach, we will be able to hit an equilibrium with regard to the fund.
J. Weisgerber: My experience with the fund and the members that sit on the board that direct the fund suggests that they've always had lots of projects, and that it has never been a lack of good projects that has held back the expenditures but government's unwillingness to release the money necessary to fund those projects.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I know there are a lot of projects out there in British Columbia. Some decisions have to be made within government with regard to the expenditure of that fund, and I'm prepared to have discussions with Treasury Board on that.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we'll just change gears slightly. I'd like to get some sense from the minister of what is planned in the current year for hunting in the northeast region, particularly with the Pink Mountain bison herd. Has the minister decided to have a season this year? Will there be a limited-entry draw? What is the plan for the current year with regard to the Pink Mountain bison herd?
Hon. M. Sihota: We have not finalized our determination of that issue. We expect to do that by the middle of June.
J. Weisgerber: Could the minister give me some idea of what steps he's been able to take with regard to aboriginal hunting of that bison herd? This is a real concern to me, insomuch as it's not necessarily resident aboriginal people. We had reports last year of Treaty 8 members coming from as far away as Saskatchewan to hunt the bison at Pink Mountain without licences, claiming their aboriginal right to hunt. I believe there were also about four individuals from Prince George who had taken a very large number of bison. It was very clearly a commercial hunting operation that was going on there. Can the minister tell us what plans he has to deal with that issue and whether or not a season this year affects aboriginal hunting rights? I was concerned, and have been for some years, that once a hunting season was opened on those buffalo, it would send a signal to aboriginal people that it was fair game, if you like -- that there was now an opportunity to hunt that herd year-round. I don't think it will survive very long, particularly with winter hunting and baiting and the kinds of things that take place up there.
[11:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that there has been consultation with aboriginal groups with regard to hunting in the area. Second, let me say that we realize that we need better enforcement with regard to the issue that the hon. member has raised. We will be doing that this year; there will be a change in enforcement. People may as well know that now. Third, you know as well as I do that there are constitutional issues here. Even if there's not a hunting season, natives will probably be able to hunt for their own purposes. Given your background, you know full well that there has been some litigation on those kinds of issues. I think that answers all the points you raised.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, that was one of the concerns I had with the original decision to open a hunting season. Because it seemed to me that up until the time that the first hunting season was declared on those bison, there was some real question as to whether or not they were going to be considered as game animals or as domestic animals at large, which they in fact were originally. So it was a rather significant decision to open the initial hunting season last year.
It also raises, though, the question that I think is particularly germane in the Peace River region, and that is around the right of aboriginal people from outside the province to hunt. I'm not at all convinced, with the knowledge and background that I have around this question, that aboriginal people from another province have some treaty right which would extend across the border. Perhaps we're not taking a firm enough stand on this. I'm not aware of any litigation that has dealt with aboriginal peoples' rights to cross borders. Clearly someone from northern Saskatchewan is not hunting in traditional territory when they're hunting in the B.C. Peace region. I just can't be convinced that there was ever that kind of travelling for hunting. It's one of those things where it's easy to sit back
[ Page 10687 ]
and suggest that perhaps court decisions have covered it. The province has a responsibility, where questions exist, to take a position that not only protects British Columbia hunters but also protects aboriginal people in British Columbia from over hunting by neighbouring individuals. We certainly wouldn't encourage or allow non-aboriginal people from neighbouring provinces to claim some kind of rights in British Columbia. We should be very careful with aboriginal people in that area.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a couple of points. First of all, we've determined that people must hunt in the territory within the province that they are a part of. That's the first point, and I guess there's a precedent there. Secondly, I've said that we would be doing more enforcement this year. I'll come back to that in a minute. Third -- because this is a treaty area, which is different from the rest of the province -- if people were to come from other jurisdictions to hunt in those treaty areas and engage in wanton waste, they would be charged. Fourth, if they came into the treaty area and did not engage in wanton waste but did engage in hunting, that is the unresolved issue. If, through our additional enforcement, we laid a charge, we'd have to make a determination as to whether or not we wish to proceed on that charge. Those are the four scenarios. Three of them we've got covered off, and in the fourth one, that determination will really have to be made by us in consultation with the Aboriginal Affairs and Attorney General ministries.
J. Weisgerber: I think the bison present a number of particularly interesting issues. In the winter, as the minister probably knows, it's reasonably easy to set out hay bales and then come back a few weeks later when there is no regular hunting season. When the animals have been pushed down into the valleys by the depth of the snow, they're pretty easy to hunt around the hay bales. Indeed, with the market that exists for bison carcasses, there's a real temptation not for sustenance hunting but for commercial hunting. I think there is also a real temptation for aboriginal people to come from outside the traditional territory and outside the province and turn that into a commercial hunting venture. I really would encourage the minister to be somewhat proactive in ensuring that those kinds of activities don't happen.
Perhaps while the minister is responding to that, could the minister clarify for us the process that enforcement officers now go through -- and I understand that there have been a number of changes -- when they come across someone who is hunting in a manner that's not permitted for non-aboriginal people? They could be hunting out of season or hunting a species that there isn't a current season on, for example. When people are stopped and they claim an aboriginal right to hunt, what kinds of identification do enforcement officers require in order to satisfy themselves that people are exercising a legitimate aboriginal right?
Hon. M. Sihota: We ask people to either produce a status card or a letter from the band. That is usually the identification that we use. We acknowledge that there are some deficiencies in that system as well.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure from the minister's answer what happens if a group of individuals are stopped. I'm reminded of a case -- I think a year or so ago -- where out of a group of four, one individual who clearly was a non-aboriginal person was charged; the other three who were accompanying him were not. But if people fail to produce some clear identification, are charges laid? Are warning tickets given? What happened to me on at least one occasion was that I was stopped and didn't have my driver's licence with me because I'd run out to the grocery store, and the policeman gave me a ticket and said: "Show up within 24 hours with your driver's licence, or a charge will be laid." Is there some mechanism like that that ensures that folks comply with the rules as we all understand them?
Hon. M. Sihota: In those kinds of instances, the discretion is entirely in the hands of the conservation officer. He may decide to issue a warning ticket or to charge; if the person is obviously aboriginal, he may not do anything. The discretion is invested in the hands of the conservation officer.
J. Weisgerber: That's contrary to a lot of the information that I've been given or led to believe. Will the minister then give me assurance that there is not a policy in place within the conservation branch that charges not be laid? I have been led to believe, by people who are active in those areas, that instructions have been given to conservation officers not to lay charges against aboriginal people found in what might appear to be infractions, and what might even be obvious infractions, of the law. Can the minister confirm for me that that is not the case?
Hon. M. Sihota: An individual, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, who is stopped by a conservation officer will be charged in instances that involve wanton waste, safety violations, conservation and endangered species. A conservation officer has discretion in dealing with issues that fall outside those situations. The ministry has no stated policy that says: "Don't take any action against aboriginals." I hope that clarifies the hon. member's concern.
J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to get a sense of what the minister is telling me -- which I obviously have no reason to doubt -- and balance it with comments that are common in the field. Conservation officers and the RCMP say quite openly that their instructions are not to lay charges, because the Crown simply won't proceed with them. For example, in cases where there appears to be an unwillingness by people to provide identity, and when, on being stopped, they claim aboriginal status and challenge the enforcement officers to lay a charge or do something about it, the information I'm given is that officers routinely walk away in frustration because they don't believe they'll get the support of the ministry or the Attorney General in pursuing charges. Can the minister tell me that that's not the case and, more importantly, tell enforcement officers around the province that that's not the case?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: That's not the policy. Some determinations made by the Attorney General's ministry are beyond my scope. I don't want to be seen to be commenting on that during the course of this discussion. I have no difficulty with telling conservation officers what the policy is and what my attitude is about the issue.
Having said that, let's go back a bit and take a look at the bigger picture. There are a number of very difficult constitutional issues, and these things are litigated. You and I know that some determinations may be made by the Attorney General's ministry that are beyond my ability to manage.
[ Page 10688 ]
J. Weisgerber: In finishing off this topic -- because I'm not sure that it's going to benefit anyone to prolong it beyond this -- I believe that the decisions made by the ministry over the last couple of years to clarify questions, like restrictions on aboriginal people to hunt within their traditional territories and other kinds of constraints brought in over the last couple years, have improved immensely the relationships of all the people using the resource. I don't believe that lax enforcement of the rules -- whatever rules we determine -- works in the interests of any of the parties. It's important to have a set of rules, for everybody to understand what the rules are, and for those rules to then be enforced. That improves relationships between competing users of the resource and improves relationships in the community.
[11:30]
So I encourage the minister and the ministry to continue on the path that I believe has been started. I do believe that there have been some strides and some gains made in that respect, and they're useful and worthwhile. The rules tend to allow people to get along more comfortably together and to trust each other when they are clear, enforced and clearly seen to be enforced.
With that, probably we will want to move on to some new topic. I hope someone will stand up and assist me while we're awaiting the return of the minister, who just had to step out very briefly. As he returns now, I think we can wind up at least my part in this debate. I thank the minister for his answers.
L. Fox: I have a few specific questions with respect to my riding. The first one I'd like to address is Tweedsmuir Park. The park has been virtually taken over by the pine beetle, to the point that it's now having a tremendous influence on the wood just outside the park. Recently, in terms of managing the beetle outside the park, Forestry let a contract to a horse logger, and they actually logged in order to control the beetle. I'm wondering if the ministry has any plans to manage the beetle problem in Tweedsmuir Park?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have the staff here to answer that question about Tweedsmuir Park. I can have staff in here after lunch to deal with that issue.
L. Fox: I will leave that for a later time.
I understand that a new policy is in formation which basically rules out using used oil burners or furnaces. It's my understanding that there will be a policy coming down very shortly. I know you are not going to comment on future policy, but I'm looking for the position of the ministry with respect to used oil furnaces. Many efficient models have proven to be technically sound. Now that we're no longer into leaded gas, their emissions are below the emissions of automobiles. What is the ministry's present policy on used oil furnaces?
Hon. M. Sihota: Normally I can answer a lot of these questions, but on that one I can't. In the order that we've established, I will have staff here able to handle that. I take note of the question and will try to get you an answer as soon as I can.
D. Mitchell: With the staff that he has, I wonder if the minister would be able to respond to questions about a survey that was done by his ministry on wilderness issues in British Columbia. These are the preliminary results of a 1993 provincewide survey of British Columbia households on wilderness issues in the province. It's important to note that this survey was commissioned in July 1991, prior to the election. It was initiated under the previous administration, but it was completed in April 1993. Three thousand B.C. households received a very extensive questionnaire dealing with wilderness issues in the province. More than half of them actually returned the survey, so there was a very good response rate, although no regional breakdown is provided. The results of the survey were provided to me under freedom-of-information last year, when I obtained some public opinion research that the government was conducting.
It's interesting that this ministry conducted this research, because the results are quite revealing and relate to some of the comments the minister has already put on the record during the defence of his spending estimates. I wonder if the minister has done any further work since 1993 to get an update on this, because a general concern about the environment is reflected in this survey. Nearly four in 10 respondents, however, were either somewhat or very satisfied with the condition of the environment in B.C. That fairly high satisfaction index surprised me, actually, and it would be interesting to know how that has changed since 1993.
More significant than that, though, is the general question about concerns with setting aside more wilderness areas in British Columbia. I think this is the key part of the survey. Some very serious concerns were listed by respondents to this random survey, a very wide sampling of opinion. Almost 80 percent, for instance, were very concerned about the loss of jobs in resource industries due to setting aside wilderness areas. Seventy-five percent were concerned that it might contribute to slower growth in the provincial economy. I'm not going to numerate all of the other responses, as I think the minister may be familiar with this.
Can the minister tell us whether a significant public opinion survey such as this has played a role in guiding ministry policy, for instance, in terms of the protected areas strategy or other policies dealing with wilderness issues in the province? And since completion of the survey, has the minister conducted further surveys to get an update on changing public attitudes toward this very important issue?
Hon. M. Sihota: We're always trying to respond to public concerns; that's part of what the ministry does. In that regard, I can tell all hon. members that we try to take into account where the public is at, and on that basis we try to make policy changes. I don't think any of the information in the material that the hon. member just shared is in any way surprising. People legitimately have those concerns, and that's why governments try to respond to those concerns -- for example, under the forest renewal plan, to make sure that the legitimate anxiety is being attended to. That's why we've announced a $2 billion program to create 6,000 new jobs. That's why the Premier has said that not one worker in the forest sector will lose their job because of any decision we make on land use planning in British Columbia.
I regret that the members of the Liberal Party have voted against the forest renewal plan. It shocks and dismays me that they would vote against a plan that has the support of unions, industry and environmentalists. It's a further indication of their lack of interest in these environmental matters. I note that there is only one member of the Liberal Party here in the House. They haven't engaged in any debate this morning, and we've been at it for an hour and forty minutes. As I said earlier on, they are environmentally deficient. They argue that we should not lay charges and prosecute polluters, because it would "demoralize business." They ask us not to put out the list of B.C.'s worst polluters,
[ Page 10689 ]
because they think it's a publicity stunt, yet even the Socreds were able to put that information out with some success. Their leader argues that we don't need any more environmental regulations, when polls show that 76 percent of British Columbians want more environmental regulations to improve the quality of our environment. They argue that we should have mining in parks, which, of course, is an activity that's incompatible with parks.
Hon. Chair, with that said, I'd like to call the vote.
Vote 30 approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: On the Speaker's behalf, I'd like to introduce to the Legislature approximately 26 grade 6 students. They're from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, in the United States, and I believe they're accompanied by Ms. Taylor, their teacher. I'd just ask the House to make them welcome at this time.
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 11:45 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 10:21 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I have a question regarding B.C. Rail, which had a net profit of $51 million in 1992. I notice that dropped last year to $3.5 million, and I expect that most of that was due to the prolonged strike we had. What was the corporation's net loss due to that strike?
Hon. J. Pement: I would first like to introduce who is here with B.C. Rail today: Paul McElligott, president of B.C. Rail; and Roger Clarke, vice-president, finance.
In answer to the question, we had a net profit of $3.4 million this year. The loss with the strikes involved was $30 million net income.
D. Symons: I'll move on to the strike. For much of the time during the strike, the negotiators differed by less than half a cent. If we lost $30 million net income on it, I'm wondering whether the difference between what the union was asking and what the company was offering -- and the length of time, first in rotating strikes, then later on the full-blown strike for five weeks -- was worth it to either the company or the union.
Hon. J. Pement: The dispute was actually over a COLA article within the negotiations.
D. Symons: It was with some other things as well, I gather, and some of it did also vary on the hourly rate, I understand. I believe the COLA clause was not included in the final agreement; therefore that part was won by the company.
Last June we saw the beginning of a month of rotating work stoppages. On July 19 the unions went on full strike. On August 25 they were ordered back to work for a 90-day cooling-off period, and at that time Mr. Breckenridge recommended a 2.05, 2.2 and 2.2 settlement over a three-year period. The final settlement was very close to that, so we seem to have had a lot of time spent over very small amounts.
You mentioned the COLA clause, which the unions did back down on. However, during this dispute the Labour minister insisted, when we were asking questions in the House, that the government would not interfere in the process of free collective bargaining. He said it was up to the union and the employer. I really have a problem with that, because in a sense the government is the employer, since B.C. Rail is a Crown corporation. In spite of the Labour minister's insistence that they were not going to get involved, when he ordered them back to work they did get involved. The government allowed this strike to drag on for that length of time so that B.C. Rail's image was affected as far as certainty of supply was concerned. Again, it seems that the government's way of handling that was very poor; it could have been done better.
The Chair: Did the member have a question?
D. Symons: I was hoping for a response on that rather than....
Another part of the strike involved cabooses; there seemed to be a $10 million deal in the settlement that related to removing the cabooses from freight trains. I'm wondering exactly what that arrangement was, now that cabooses are no longer part of the trains.
Hon. J. Pement: Actually, the caboose issue is not part of this round of negotiations. It is a separate issue being handled through arbitration, and hearings will be held shortly.
D. Symons: Am I to understand, then, that the caboose issue is not settled at this time?
[ Page 10690 ]
Hon. J. Pement: You're right.
D. Symons: Roger Clarke was quoted in the Vancouver Province on May 4 of this year as saying that there is a $10 million one-time charge set aside, arising from the removal of cabooses on freight trains. I'm just curious about what this is. If it's not settled, why has this $10 million been set aside?
Hon. J. Pement: The caboose issue is coming up at hearings in June. Therefore moneys were set aside to deal with the changeover that will occur in this next go-round. All other railroads have already dealt with this issue, and in some cases they have spent up to a billion dollars.
[10:30]
D. Symons: By taking a car off, I gather that there wouldn't be increased expense in the operating of the freight train and that there must be some agreement with the UTU. This must be some way of basically buying off the union employees for not having the car there, because taking a car off the train shouldn't increase costs. So that $10 million is going to be some sort of pay-out to the union.
Hon. J. Pement: The moneys are set aside not specifically because a car is taken off, but because there likely will be awards made through arbitration dealt with as recommendations by the board.
D. Symons: I wonder how many employees belong to the UTU. If we divide the number of employees into the $10 million, it would give each employee that amount of money. I know it doesn't quite work that way. Nevertheless, the amount of money set aside compared to the number of individuals employed seems to be rather large.
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of the overall costs of both the employee situation with regard to the awards that would be made through arbitration and the new system with regard to any new equipment required by safety inspection -- that kind of scenario.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me a ballpark figure on the number of employees that would be involved in this aspect of the rail operation.
Hon. J. Pement: Approximately 82 employees would be affected in the caboose issue.
D. Symons: On a new topic, the railway transferred ownership of its freight cars and locomotives to Vancouver Wharves leasing. I wonder if the sale of this rolling stock is a way of propping up the books of B.C. Rail. What prompted the move of the rolling stock to Vancouver Wharves leasing?
Hon. J. Pement: It has no impact at all on the consolidated financial results.
D. Symons: I was under the impression that they had been moved over at fair market value. I'm not quite sure what that means. Is it just a straight bookkeeping entry from one to the other? Some suggestions were that they could determine that because they would be leasing back the rolling stock from Vancouver Wharves Ltd.; therefore they would be using their rolling stock in a more economical way. If Vancouver Wharves Ltd. could do it, I'm not quite sure why B.C. Rail couldn't do it.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case where the stock was sold to Vancouver Wharves Ltd. It's a commercial venture in terms of creating a leasing identity with a mandate to extend into other leasing opportunities. It was at market value, and it is part of B.C. Rail holdings.
D. Symons: I'm still not sure, but I'm not a financier. I'm not following the reasons why this is a wise move. Maybe I could venture the opposite of what I suggested a moment ago. Vancouver Wharves had a rather large debt load when it was purchased. Is this possibly a way that you can create income, by having Vancouver Wharves charge leasing fees which make its books look better?
Hon. J. Pement: The leasing identity still brings in an income for Vancouver Wharves. Even without that income, Vancouver Wharves had a profit anyway.
D. Symons: There might be some motive for this arrangement so as to help Vancouver Wharves, which was recently bought by B.C. Rail. Wouldn't this purchase of B.C. Rail rolling stock at fair market value through Vancouver Wharves increase the already heavy debt Vancouver Wharves had?
Hon. J. Pement: There's no doubt that it does increase the overall debt. However, there is a leaseback to B.C. Rail which will provide the income stream.
D. Symons: I believe Vancouver Wharves was planning an expansion of its facility to handle white potash. The market for shipping white potash is not all that great, so it's unlikely that that particular expansion will carry forward. What has been the overall change in tonnage handled by Vancouver Wharves over the last fiscal year? I'll take in anything that goes through Vancouver Wharves, not just the potash.
Hon. J. Pement: We would have to get back to you to supply exact figures. Sulphur and potash are both reduced tonnages because of market conditions, and pulp and methanol are up.
D. Symons: On the ratio between the ones that are reduced and the ones that are up, I'm wondering whether the overall operation of Vancouver Wharves has improved economically. What has been the economic state of Vancouver Wharves in the first year of operation under B.C. Rail?
Hon. J. Pement: The overall tonnage and throughput were down; however, the Wharves did make a profit.
D. Symons: There was a net profit, then, this year. Would that be better or a bit lower than the previous year's operation?
Hon. J. Pement: The net profit was actually better. As in most companies, the immediate operations have a loss; however, now we're into a profit.
D. Symons: When you're discussing profit and loss and so forth, I gather that these include the debt-servicing charges, as there is a rather heavy debt there. I'm taking your nod as being a yes, so I'll move to the next one.
You mentioned that we've had reduced sulphur and potash shipments through Vancouver Wharves. Have we
[ Page 10691 ]
reduced the rates to attract more business or have they stayed the same? What have the rates been? Also, how are the rates on pulp and methanol? Are we making more on what's going through there or is profit being reduced to attract and build more business?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of a company being competitive. The rates are competitive, and it's in the interest of the company to increase the throughput -- the tonnage. As a company we'll work with the other companies they are servicing to come up with the best rate in a competitive situation.
D. Symons: I gather from what you're saying that we have adjusted rates to meet the market needs out there, which may be a reduction in order to maintain the tonnage you had going through there.
Just one last thing. You mentioned earlier that you would give me some figures. I wonder if I could have a balance sheet for Vancouver Wharves that would show these; maybe that would be the best way.
Hon. J. Pement: The company doesn't publish separate financial statements. They are done through the consolidated financing of the overall company and through the annual report.
D. Symons: Then would those figures eventually come out in some government publication?
Hon. J. Pement: The consolidated report will be out within the next couple of weeks, and there will not be a separate page for that financial sheet.
[10:45]
R. Neufeld: I have a few questions from my constituency, but the Liberal critic asked about the removal of cabooses. I was a little confused by some of the answers, but maybe I wasn't listening carefully enough. I understand it's going to be a one-time cost of $10 million, and it affects 80 employees. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: There is a one-time cost, and it will affect up to 82 employees.
R. Neufeld: Just for my benefit, could the minister explain the $10 million? Why is it anticipated to cost $10 million?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I did give the other member a bit of a breakdown with regard to how the costs are derived. First of all, there was a ruling that the company did have the right to have a cabooseless train. Now the rulings that are coming up are on the issue of compensation to the employees involved. Some of that $10 million is toward compensation costs to the employees and also, as I mentioned before, with regard to other types of equipment such as monitors and with regard to safety inspections every 60 miles.
R. Neufeld: Some compensation and other types of equipment.... Can the minister break down that $10 million a little more, please -- just in a ballpark area?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, on the issue of compensation, that still has to be decided upon; that decision will be made in the next two go-rounds with the arbitrator. The monitors are an end-of-unit scenario for getting air through the train. There's also the refurbishment of the locomotive with regard to technology needed for the use of the train.
R. Neufeld: It should be easy enough to give me a number on the monitors and on the equipment needed for the trains. This is not brand-new; you've been looking at it for quite a while. So what is the cost of the monitors, and what's going to take place to do away with the cabooses?
Hon. J. Pement: I would have to get back to the member with a list of those specific amounts.
F. Gingell: It's not often that one has the opportunity to put the phone down, then come and have a minister captive on a particular subject -- not a happy one, as I really am looking for some help. The minister will remember that we've had some discussions recently with regard to the issue of moving large farm equipment on highways in Delta and through Richmond. I was really pleased that the minister was able to help. I need some more help.
This morning, owners of custom farm fertilizer spreaders were advised by ICBC that their vehicles cannot be licensed for on-highway use. Suddenly ICBC has withdrawn its insurance after farmers have for many years been driving these self-propelled vehicles over the roads. And they are right in the most important week of work. I can see by the minister's nods that she was aware of this before I was, so I wonder if the minister could respond.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern the member has brought up. Our office is working to alleviate the situation, and I'll be able to get back to him in a couple of hours with regard to the issue.
F. Gingell: Thank you, Madam Minister. I will now leave and make some phone calls.
R. Neufeld: Could I request of the minister, at her earliest convenience, to give me the numbers for what it's going to cost to put monitors on the trains instead of cabooses. I find it amazing that we don't have a ballpark figure for that, because they've been talking about the removal of cabooses for quite a while.
Also, regarding those 80 employees that would be affected by this, are they going to be integrated into the rest of the B.C. Rail system? Will they have their pensions topped up and be pensioned off? What will happen there?
Hon. J. Pement: We'll definitely get the specifics the hon. member has been asking for with regard to the monitors, etc., to him as soon as possible.
With regard to employees, I have to say that this issue is before a hearing. We hope the hearings will be finished by the end of June, in which case the awards will be recommended by the arbitrator at that time. Before talking about specifics, we really do have to wait for the final part of that hearing.
R. Neufeld: B.C. Rail is subject to the corporate capital tax. Can you tell me how much B.C. Rail paid last year?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, B.C. Rail is subject to the corporate capital tax and paid approximately $4 million.
R. Neufeld: On to my constituency. The first issue is grain cars. Can the minister tell me how many grain cars B.C. Rail has on lease?
[ Page 10692 ]
Hon. J. Pement: We do not lease any grain cars through BCR. The business is actually a very small portion of the overall business of B.C. Rail.
R. Neufeld: I thought we would have had some on lease. Can the minister explain how BCR goes about moving our grain from Peace River to either Prince Rupert or Vancouver?
Hon. J. Pement: It is a small portion of the business at this point; we would like to see it increase. We pool cars from other provinces and do have a small number of grain cars, but I would have to get back to the member as to the exact number.
R. Neufeld: There was a good harvest last fall in the Peace country, and we experienced some real problems moving the grain from the Peace country to port. We weren't the only ones; it was the same all across western Canada, so it wasn't specific to B.C. Rail. Is there any plan in the foreseeable future, maybe this year or next, to do something that could head off that problem? If the grain industry keeps growing, as it has in the Fort St. John and Dawson Creek area, we're going to need more grain cars. I wonder what the railway has in mind.
Hon. J. Pement: B.C. Rail has worked with producers -- their marketing staff particularly -- to look at ways of increasing this market to B.C. Rail and providing the services needed. A number of studies have looked at the viability of these services. It's according to market need, which I'm sure the member can recognize. We see this as a potential future growth area for moving these goods.
[11:00]
R. Neufeld: For the benefit of the B.C. Rail people who are here, there is a lady in Prince George whom I called last year -- I can't remember her last name; her first name was Linda -- who was really helpful. You should know that. The people out there who work in your system obviously do a good job, and she did a very good job in locating cars and getting on this right away.
I want to get to the Fort Nelson railyard. As I understood it, a fairly large maintenance program was going to take place last year in the Fort Nelson yards. All of a sudden they called one day and told me that it was totally cancelled. Could the minister confirm if that happened and why?
Hon. J. Pement: I'm going to take the member's question on notice so that I can give him the full briefing in regard to that issue.
R. Neufeld: Okay. Thank you.
The other question is about the line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. As I understood it from the previous minister responsible for B.C. Rail, a study was being done on the extension. I wonder if that study is completed and if it's available for the public or for myself to look at?
Hon. J. Pement: The study on the Fort Nelson extension -- or subdivision; I gather they would prefer us to say subdivision when it comes to that particular service -- was completed and is being analyzed. The issue is really that BCR is still very committed to subsidizing that route, and it is through the company that the costs are absorbed. I think it's an important subdivision to our system and will continue to be.
R. Neufeld: The Fort Nelson subdivision -- you corrected me there, and I have been told that they like it to be called that; in fact, the last minister responsible told me that. There is no move underfoot.... The fear of the people in Fort Nelson -- especially with the new OSB plant coming on line that is probably going to employ another 250 to a maximum of 300 people -- is that these industries would all of a sudden see trucking as the only alternative. I totally disagree with that. To be honest, I think we should keep the trucking industries off our highways, because it's really hard on them, and keep those heavy loads on rail. I thank the minister for recommitting her government to keeping the Fort Nelson subdivision operating in the future.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, the commitment is there, and it's only a plus if we can get these other companies up and going -- OSB being one. B.C. Rail has been working with potential producers regarding land use, etc. It's a plus to the area, and a plus to the rail as well.
D. Symons: Did B.C. Rail make a contribution to general revenue last year, as they have done in previous years? And how much?
Hon. J. Pement: It's not a contribution that B.C. Rail makes as a dividend to government. I believe it was around $10 million. I can get the exact figure for the member later, but it's in that area. Also, do not forget that B.C. Rail does pay provincial taxes.
D. Symons: On the question from the member for Peace River North, I noticed that you said a contribution of $4.5 million for what we call the corporation capital tax. Does B.C. Rail pay the same provincial diesel fuel tax as automobile drivers pay? Is it the same for rail as for rubber?
Hon. J. Pement: B.C. Rail certainly does pay B.C. fuel tax, just the same as other railroad systems do. As to the comparison to the rubber-tired traffic, we will have to find those figures for you.
D. Symons: I'll get them on notice, then.
You said they pay a diesel fuel tax in the same way as in other provinces. I'm wondering how the tax that they pay on diesel fuel for the locomotives in B.C. compares with the taxes in other provinces in Canada. Are we paying roughly the same tax for the use of diesel in our locomotives as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario?
Hon. J. Pement: I said that BCR pays diesel fuel tax, as do the other rail systems within the province. If you want comparable taxation rates between provinces, we could pull that data for you.
D. Symons: The Canadian Pacific Railway have expressed some concerns that the taxation, both provincially and federally, is rather difficult on railroads. I'm just trying to get a feeling for whether B.C. Rail is also facing the same problems that our national railways are facing.
After the strike last year the Japanese steel mills expressed real concern over the stability of supply. I'm just wondering about that, and the tourist industry as well. When I took the railroad tour on a passenger train last summer, a good number of people got off partway to board buses going through the Rockies. The tour companies seem to have quite an interesting setup there. Because of the strike, I'm wondering whether there could be an effect on this year's
[ Page 10693 ]
traffic on that route and also on the freight traffic. They found other routes during the strike; they're now using trucking.
Has B.C. Rail worked out the overall long-term effect of the cost of that strike? You gave a figure earlier, I think, of $30 million for the strike, but there are also long-term effects. It could have a downturn on the economy of the railway in the sense that some people won't take the passenger trip this summer. Companies in other parts of North America have not arranged tours there, being unsure whether they would be able to carry through with them. It's the same with shipping. People will be shipping by truck, because they're not quite sure whether they are going to be able to get through by rail.
Hon. J. Pement: A strike situation does definitely affect business, and no one will deny that with regard to the strike of B.C. Rail. But I think, importantly, that the tour business and tourism in general have bounced right back. From my understanding, they have actually had to turn down some tours because of overcapacity.
As to the supply and the producers using the freight, it's not significant. That has resolved itself, and the company has worked really well with the producers to alleviate some of that concern and has had ongoing discussions with them.
D. Symons: I'm glad to hear that there may not be long-term effects. At least the strike was beneficial to the trucking industry in British Columbia. I'm wondering in what way the BCR trucking arm was affected by this strike. Were they still operating during the strike and therefore able to pick up some of the business that resulted from the fact that the trains weren't running? Did you lose on one but make on the other, or was the trucking arm down also when the rail was down?
Hon. J. Pement: The trucking arm definitely did not benefit from the strike in any way.
D. Symons: While we're trucking about, I asked a question last year dealing with B.C. Rail doing some wood chip hauling at Williams Lake to the Northwest Energy plant. I'm wondering if we might have some figures on whether that particular contract has worked out. Is it a money-losing or money-making venture? There seems to be some real concern expressed by other trucking people around there that B.C. Rail had underbid what was economical. If that's the case, that would seem to be unfair competition from a rather large corporation.
[11:15]
Hon. J. Pement: The trucking arm in this scenario has developed contracts, has bid in the fair market with everyone else and has shown a profit in this particular contract.
D. Symons: Would it be possible to obtain the books or balance sheet for that particular operation and for the hauling contract that goes with it, just to have figures that might substantiate your statement?
Hon. J. Pement: It's difficult for the trucking arm of B.C. Rail to provide information on contracts and information that really takes them out of the competitive aspect with other private ventures. This a case where a contract is developed on a competitive basis in fair, open competition.
D. Symons: I guess there are some concerns, because it's difficult for others to know whether it is a fair, competitive bid in the sense that B.C. Rail doesn't seem to have to show that in any way. If you're saying that we can't see the figures on that contract to see whether they're making something, how are we to know that that particular contract isn't being subsidized by some of the other earnings either through trucking or through B.C. Rail itself? I'll leave that particular topic, but I do have some concerns that if we can't see the figures, we have no way of knowing whether we've got a fair bidding market going on out there.
To change topics entirely, is B.C. Rail involved in any joint ventures or in an advisory capacity with China's Ministry of Railways? I notice that China was quite interested in our rail system and was quite flattering to the operation of B.C. Rail. They wanted to use it as a model for updating their particular one. Are we in a contractual arrangement to assist them in that?
Hon. J. Pement: No, there are no joint ventures. What we have is a formal invitation by the government of China to look at joint-venture opportunities.
D. Symons: In the future -- possibly.
How did B.C. Rail manage to negotiate a $10,000-per-month reduction in hydro for its electrified northern service? I'm curious; I haven't been able to negotiate a reduction of my hydro bill. How did you manage to reduce that particular expenditure?
Hon. J. Pement: Looking at cost overheads, B.C. Rail has put in monitoring equipment and has been able to manage the demand, which has allowed for the reduction of hydro costs.
D. Symons: I'm not quite following the answer, so I'll rephrase the question. Have you managed to get this reduction by cutting down on kilowatt-hours consumed, or have you negotiated a lower rate on the kilowatt-hours?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it has been a reduction of use of energy through this demand-monitoring system. As to a special or a lower rate, I can get back to the member. I'll have to go back and check on that.
D. Symons: Moving on to another topic, coal counts for about 40 percent of the tonnage but only 22 percent of the revenues for B.C. Rail, whereas 60 percent of the revenues come from forest products. I believe the coal rates have been renegotiated downward a couple of times over the past three years. Is coal a revenue producer, or are the forest products helping to carry coal so we can keep the market, and keep business open, while hoping for better days? What's the connection there? Is coal paying its way, or is it being subsidized?
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of coal being more economical to move in terms of operation of the railway, but there have been difficulties in the coal industry, particularly in the northeast sector. B.C. Rail has already put in the infrastructure and the capital costs, which in some way offset the rate that the coal sector gets at this point. We're looking at a difficult market for coal.
D. Symons: I gather from the answer, or the lack thereof, that we are not making money on the coal aspect of this, and that the infrastructure that was put in certainly isn't being
[ Page 10694 ]
recouped at all. Both the federal and the provincial governments sunk a lot of money into putting that rail line in to service northeast coal, and it's unfortunate, with the markets in the world the way they are, that we aren't able to recoup the money that's been spent on that.
Moving to another area, I gather that Westel has had a dispute with Call-Net, and there's a lawsuit involved. I wonder if that's been settled and what the outcome was?
Hon. J. Pement: This is before the courts, and I cannot comment on the issue.
D. Symons: BHP Rail Products was supplying B.C. Rail with steel rail ties, and it appears they ended up developing cracks -- much like the one in my voice here. I'm wondering if that has been settled in or out of court and, for my own information, whether steel ties are an option. Are steel ties not satisfactory, or is it just this particular producer that's producing faulty ties?
Hon. J. Pement: It was a case of defective rail ties at this particular time. We are looking at the steel tie. There has been a settlement out of court with regard to this issue. The company in question has provided 75,000 ties, an amount of money of $2 million and a monitoring system to ensure that these ties are effective.
D. Symons: So obviously not all but just some of the ties were defective, if you're still getting ties from the same company as a settlement.
Over the last while there have been some blockades of rail lines by native people. I'm wondering whether these rail lines are trespassing on reserve lands, whether they're on disputed lands, or indeed, whether these people are just blockading the railway as a method of pressuring the government into taking other land claims into consideration. That is the first part. I'll lump them all together to move on here. How are the blockades handled by your ministry and what are, or have been, the economic consequences of the blockades as far as B.C. Rail is concerned?
Hon. J. Pement: B.C. Rail, in these situations, owns the land on a fee simple basis. We try to find what the concerns are and then resolve the blockades using a problem-solving approach. These concerns may not, in some cases, be directed to B.C. Rail. Other issues may occur. The government's position is that once the blockades are up, negotiations cease until they are down.
D. Symons: The last part of the question was whether there have been some economic consequences. We had some Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en blockades last summer -- until recently. Has that had an economic effect on B.C. Rail and on some of the lumber producers that depend on B.C. Rail in that area?
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely there are economic considerations, particularly for producers not getting their supply out as they had hoped and, of course, also for the railway.
D. Symons: Some other questions I have here deal with some oil spills. There was an oil spill in mid-July at Squamish for which B.C. Rail had to pay a $15,000 fine. Also, there is some concern in Fort St. John over what's going to be called an "oil waste farm," where biological techniques are used to reduce the oil to non-pollutants. People in Fort St. John don't seem to like this idea. What has been the outcome? Is B.C. Rail going to find some other way of dealing with its oil waste, and how is it working to minimize oil spills like the one that happened in Squamish?
[11:30]
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the oil spill, first of all, an audit was done and a fine paid -- you're correct. Recommendations were made for handling used oil. The company is working closely with the Ministry of Environment to ensure that used oil is disposed of in a proper way. We will consult with the community in this regard, should there be any difficulties.
D. Symons: B.C. Rail is also involved in land development. There are some concerns in the municipality of West Vancouver over the Gleneagles Ridge housing proposal in that area. I wonder how B.C. Rail handles these concerns. It seems to most of us that a rail company is a rail company. When you get into development of this sort, it creates a great deal of concern in the communities as to how B.C. Rail is using its weight and its rights-of-way to develop land and to go into housing and other ventures of that sort.
Hon. J. Pement: When it comes to land development, it's part of the diversity of the company. There are lands involved, and development of market value of those lands is important. With regard to the process, B.C. Rail has the same process as any other developer in regard to the rules and regulations of development. In the Gleneagles scenario, B.C. Rail used that municipal process to put in its application.
R. Neufeld: I want to pick up a little on the land the railway owns in both Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. I've been approached by a number of business people who would like to purchase some of the land -- not specifically right beside the railroad. They understand that there have to be rights-of-way, but the railroad does own an awful lot of property in Fort St. John. Some people would like to purchase it for agriculture or for development of their own small hobby farms. It would be a way that BCR could get rid of some of its excess land.
In Fort Nelson I've been approached by one person who wanted to buy a business, but because the business was located on BCR property in the industrial park, he was having a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a loan. I think you're aware that that happens, and it's probably not specific just to Fort Nelson; it happens just about anywhere in the province. Is there some way that we could, as a Crown corporation, look at selling some of the land? What kind of process do we have to go through to do that? Is there a possibility of it, or are these people to be told no?
Hon. J. Pement: I'll explain that there is a portfolio of strategic rail lands that are specific to the operations of the rail service, and those particular lands would not be looked at for resale. In some cases, leasing situations are the far better process the railway would like to work with. There are other lands, however, that could possibly be looked at for purchase within fair market value, and it would be more of a case-by-case scenario with the railway as to which ones would be sold or kept as part of the strategy.
R. Neufeld: One case that comes to mind is the gentleman in Fort St. John who now leases some land from the BCR; he would like to purchase it and a little bit more that is not in the strategic part of the BCR properties. How would that person go about it? Who would be the contact person within
[ Page 10695 ]
B.C. Rail I could tell this gentleman to get hold of, so he would know where to start?
Hon. J. Pement: I would suggest that the constituent could contact Mr. McElligott with regard to the issue.
D. Symons: I want to delve into a bit of a touchy issue on taxes. It seems that the federal national railways contribute grants in lieu of taxes to communities. B.C. Rail doesn't seem to do that, and if we tie this in with the Gleneagles Ridge area in West Vancouver, I believe this is a railway right-of-way that's now being contemplated as a housing development. Has B.C. Rail paid municipal taxes on the land it had? Somebody else would have had to pay taxes. If it wasn't owned by B.C. Rail, they would have had to pay tax on the land while they were waiting for the market to be right to develop it. Once they go into development, they have been paying taxes all those years. What's the relationship with B.C. Rail and communities as far as taxes or grants in lieu of taxes go?
Hon. J. Pement: Lessees of properties owned by B.C. Rail in different areas pay their taxes to the municipalities. The Gleneagles property was leased by the city of West Vancouver. I don't know if the city pays taxes to itself.
D. Symons: Does B.C. Rail lease property to Vancouver Wharves or is Vancouver Wharves separate from B.C. Rail as far as taxes go? Do the Vancouver Wharves operations pay taxes? Do the various trucking parts of B.C. Rail that operate throughout the province pay taxes on the land and the buildings they're occupying?
Hon. J. Pement: B.C. Rail leases to Vancouver Wharves, and they pay taxes to North Vancouver.
D. Symons: Do the trucking portions of B.C. Rail throughout the province also pay taxes on the properties that they occupy, or are they exempt from taxes because they're part of B.C. Rail?
Hon. J. Pement: They are exempt.
D. Symons: To go back to the contract issue, if they don't have to pay taxes on property, it seems they would have an economic edge in bidding, whereas a private corporation would have to pay taxes.
Could we move on to something else in the remaining few minutes? The E&N Railway is not a B.C. Rail responsibility, at least not yet. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the federal government doesn't have an obligation to continue the operation of the E&N. In the event that there can't be a mutual agreement between the province and the federal government on continuing that operation.... I'll just ask the minister whether there are some economic possibilities of B.C. Rail picking it up and operating it, as it has done with a rather good passenger service out of Vancouver and North Van. Are there prospects for the E&N, in your view?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to this issue, I think the decision is really unfortunate. I would prefer to see it operated under the existing rail system that has been providing that service. Again, as far as B.C. Rail goes, they would have to make a good, close study of the economic viability of that system.
The Chair: Noticing the time, I would entertain a motion to rise and report.
D. Symons: I have one more question, and we will be finished.
R. Neufeld: I've got another one.
D. Symons: Two questions. If we can finish, I'm game to go on a moment or two longer.
I have just one last question. Could the minister tell me whether some of the upper echelon in the corporation of B.C. Rail are eligible for -- or have -- interest-free loans? My concern here would be that the people on the lower salary scale might benefit more by an interest-free loan, but I gather that these have been made available in the past. Are there any interest-free loans out and what do they amount to?
Hon. J. Pement: There is definitely one such case with the CEO; that is the only negotiation of such a consideration.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]