1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 20, Number 18
[ Page 14905 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
N. Lortie: In my continuing effort to set a record for the most schools introduced in one session, I have another group of fine young people from my constituency of Delta North. There are 40 or more grade 10 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in North Delta, accompanied by several adults and led by their teacher Mr. Westlake. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young man. Anyone here may know him, because he has worked in many small cities across the province. He has also worked as a coalminer, which gave him all the appropriate experience to become my executive assistant. Neil Cook is in the gallery today with another person of great experience, Chris Rawsin, who is my ministerial assistant. Please make them both feel very welcome today.
G. Campbell: It's my privilege today to introduce Mr. Fred Beruschi and his son Adrian, who are visiting us from Revelstoke. Fred is president of the B.C. Hotels Association. I would like the Legislature to make him welcome.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: Bill 33 proposes amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. Some of these amendments are housekeeping or administrative in nature, and they are designed to clarify and strengthen the legislative basis for existing tax applications and to maintain the existing tax base. More substantive amendments are also proposed to the Tobacco Tax Act to support the various operational and legislative initiatives introduced over the past year, which are directed at curtailing revenue losses from tobacco smuggling activities.
I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 33 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.
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this bill makes amendments to the Cooperative Association Act to close a loophole in the current wording of the act, to ensure that housing cooperatives that received public subsidies continue to operate as non-profit housing cooperatives and are prevented during their existence or on dissolution from distributing their assets to their members. The amendments, which will be retroactive to June 1988, apply to any housing cooperative that has a non-profit provision in any of its constitutional documents that prohibits the distribution of its assets to its members upon dissolution, except those that have already dissolved or commenced dissolving under section 293 or 297 of the Company Act prior to today's date. The amendments specifically apply to housing cooperatives that have not yet dissolved but have altered their constitutional documents to remove the non-profit provision that prevents the cooperative from distributing its assets to its members upon dissolution. The amendments restore this provision.
I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 46 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.
DROPPING OF CHARGES AGAINST UPPER NICOLA INDIAN BAND MEMBERS
prosecutor in Merritt has dropped charges that were laid against members of the Upper Nicola band at Douglas Lake. British Columbians have a right to know that there is one law that applies to all of us in this province. Can the Attorney General tell this House why the charges were dropped?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.
Deputy Speaker: A supplementary, Leader of the Opposition. I'm sorry -- a new question.
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
G. Campbell: I think this is an example of the pathetic performance by this Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be aware of this, but all over British Columbia people are asking themselves whether there is one law that's applicable to everyone.
Consistently, we have been told by this government that private property was not on the negotiating table. My question to the Attorney General is: does he intend to maintain that position of this government -- that private property will not be on the negotiating table and that private property rights of British Columbians will be protected, regardless of illegal actions which may be taken by any British Columbian anywhere in the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The government, in many ways, including many public statements by the Premier, has made it very clear that private land is not on the table.
[ Page 14906 ]
PROVINCIAL FUNDING OF UPPER NICOLA INDIAN BAND
M. de Jong: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Over the past weekend, the federal NDP member for Kamloops, Nelson Riis, recommended that all government funding be withheld from any aboriginal band engaged in illegal activities. My question to the minister is: does he agree with Mr. Riis? Does he intend to recommend to his federal counterpart that all funding to the Upper Nicola band be cut off until such time as the illegal blockade has been removed?
[2:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: The member knows that's a federal issue. That's an issue with regard to the administration of the federal Indian Act.
We diligently are working in the area of securing modern treaties that bring certainty. The fact is that the vast majority of the aboriginal people of British Columbia have entered into the treaty-making process because they want negotiated settlements. With regard to this area, where sovereigntist nations are taking a type of action that cannot be condoned, we are going to diligently seek where we can to assist in resolving these issues. But clearly, the federal government has the responsibility in the area the member is asking about.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Well, let's deal with a provincial issue, then, if the minister wants to characterize it that way. The most recent set of public accounts for the province shows that the Upper Nicola band also receive funding directly from the provincial government. Not only is the band showing contempt for the laws of British Columbia, it appears to be engaging in that illegal activity on the backs of British Columbia taxpayers. While the Attorney General sits paralyzed, can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs confirm that he, at least, has taken action to stop the flow of provincial funds to the Upper Nicola band while this illegal activity proceeds?
Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, there is no flow of provincial government funds to the Upper Nicola band -- no flow of funds whatsoever. The hon. member may have been referring to some project-specific funding; I will undertake to find that out. But I would caution, as I have before, members of opposition parties against taking the approach of seeking to inflame, when that is simply not in the interest of the people of British Columbia or of the resolution of these disputes.
DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. The Douglas Lake standoff is a demonstration and sorry indictment of this government's policy of reverse racism, with special rights for native people at the expense of equality for all British Columbians. Indeed, this government has led militant bands to believe they are above the law, while denying non-natives the protection they are legally entitled to. Will the government admit that their policy of appeasement has been a sorry, sorry failure -- as demonstrated at Apex and as demonstrated again at Douglas Lake? Will the minister admit today that their policy has been a failure in both of those cases?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's important to not answer the nonsense contained in the question, and to make it clear that police forces in British Columbia, both RCMP and municipal, deal with all civil disobedience in precisely the same way, with the same approach and under the same policy. In every single case of civil disobedience, the police make every effort to achieve obedience to the law by way of discussion and negotiation between the police and the people who are in violation of the law. That has been their consistent pattern in all the time we have been government, and it was their pattern when that member was in government. That policy has not changed whatsoever in this case.
Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
J. Weisgerber: The events of the last ten days give lie to the minister's statement. Indeed, there has not been equality; there has not been equal application of the law. Will the minister not recognize that British Columbians want land claims resolved, but not at the threat of violence, not at the risk of dual standards for British Columbians? Why doesn't the minister go down to Douglas Lake and tell the people at the blockades that he's going to apply those laws equally and fairly? Indeed, why doesn't the minister go to all native people...
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.
J. Weisgerber: ...make a personal appeal to them, and explain exactly what he said today: one set of standards across this province...?
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Upper Nicola band is interested in joining the treaty negotiations process, the Treaty Commission is available to them, as it is to all other bands in this province.
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH TRAINING VIDEO
J. Dalton: A question for the Attorney General. We've obtained a copy of a video starring John Nieuwenburg, the general manager of the liquor distribution branch. This video is part of a customer-service training program, and it has been distributed to hundreds of liquor stores in the province. The video stars Nieuwenburg and shows him driving to work in a red BMW, drinking coffee and fumbling through a stack of ties, deciding which one to wear that day, all to the sound track of "Mission Impossible." Why did the LDB spend $45,000 on this acting debut of the general manager?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unlike the member, I haven't had an opportunity to see the....
An Hon. Member: What do you do?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, could we allow the Attorney to answer the question.
[ Page 14907 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd advise the member from Fort Langley to accompany me on one of my days, if he's interested.
I don't know what's in the video. I've heard reports of it. What I do know is that the LDB is embarked on a program to improve the management skills of their managers so they can provide more effective public relations to consumers. As far as the video goes, I can't give any specific response to it. If it's appropriate or inappropriate, I don't know at this point.
Deputy Speaker: Do you have another question, member for West Vancouver-Capilano?
J. Dalton: I guess it's fair to say that the Attorney General doesn't know where Douglas Lake is, either.
This video, among other things, shows shots of Nieuwenburg chanting to himself: "Every day, in every way, I will be a better general manager." Maybe we can get a better Attorney General, too.
Can the Attorney General tell the House when the NDP decided that implementing New Age practices would result in more efficient management of the LDB?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it might be more useful for all members if I were to come back to the House following an opportunity to have a discussion with the general manager.
OFFICE SPACE FOR CHRIS CHILTON
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that Chris Chilton is not working out of Health ministry offices? More specifically, can he advise us where Chris Chilton's new office is located?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Mr. Chilton has office space at cabinet planning secretariat.
Deputy Speaker: The member continues.
R. Neufeld: A question to the Minister of Government Services. Can the Minister of Government Services confirm that, in fact, extensive renovations are presently underway to accommodate Mr. Chilton within the present cabinet secretariat offices, and can he tell us how much it's costing B.C. taxpayers for Mr. Chilton's new digs in the Premier's office?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, Mr. Chilton is occupying space within the Ministry of Government Services, but that space is being charged back to the Ministry of Health. Secondly, there is no new construction that took place to accommodate Mr. Chilton. Some renovations took place to remove a couple of walls to make space available for Mr. Chilton to work in. I understand that the total cost of those renovations is to the tune of about $2,500, but I can get back to you on that.
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH TRAINING VIDEO
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General, and it is regarding the video which he has yet to see but which am I'm sure he will see shortly. As the minister might be aware, there are many companies out there that supply standard customer-service training videos and programs for a variety of companies, many of which, I'm sure, are produced in British Columbia. Yet Mr. Nieuwenburg chose to spend $45,000 for an original production, of which more than half is purely a comedy sketch starring himself. Does the minister think that this ego trip for Mr. Nieuwenburg was worth $45,000 of taxpayers' money?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wasn't listening when I answered the question from his colleague, indicating that I would get back to members of the House as soon as I can.
LAW SOCIETY SUSPENSION OF FORMER ENVIRONMENT MINISTER
W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. As a member of the bar himself, does the Premier accept the principle that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin should remain out of cabinet for the duration of his suspension by the Law Society of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Once again the Liberal research lives down to our expectations. I can tell you that I have raised my reputation considerably; I am no longer a member of the bar.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Supplemental, hon. member.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members. It's extremely difficult to hear the questions, because both sides are making too much noise.
W. Hurd: The Law Society has more sense than I thought.
The oath of office sworn by each member of the executive council says: "I will, to the best of my abilities, fulfil the responsibilities and the trust granted to me." Since responsibility and trust are at the heart of the disciplinary decision of the Law Society, will the Premier agree that the member should stay out of cabinet for the duration of his 18-month suspension by the Law Society of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a very serious matter. The member realized that it was. He accepted the decision of the Law Society's disciplinary committee and offered his resignation. I have accepted his resignation, and that's where the matter stands.
NEW CEO OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING AUTHORITY
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority. Pursuant to order-in-council No. 637, dated June 1, the Minister of Employment and Investment appointed Mr. Blair Redlin as chief executive officer of B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Would the minister tell this House what qualifications pertaining to transportation Mr. Redlin holds that would elevate him to this position?
[ Page 14908 ]
Hon. G. Clark: More qualifications than the opposition critic on the question of transportation. We're delighted to have Mr. Redlin as the CEO of the TFA. I can say that I know that Mr. Redlin supports the commuter rail project, unlike the Liberals across the way. I know he supports more investment in rapid transit, unlike the Liberals across the way. I know he supports the Island Highway and has worked on that, unlike the members across the way. And I know that he believes, as we in government do, that transportation is a critical ingredient to the government's jobs and investment strategy. Over the next few weeks, we'll have more announcements which I know the Liberals will oppose but the people of B.C. support.
Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House today I call second reading of Bill 18.
FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
[2:30]
F. Randall: I would like leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 42 grade 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School. They're accompanied by Ms. Taylor, their teacher. Of course, the school is located in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: It's a great pleasure for me to rise for second reading of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995. As members will recall, last year this government introduced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, which was passed by this House.
The Forest Practices Code is a key component of this government's plan to invest in our future by renewing our forest resources and sustaining them for future generations, and along with them the quality jobs and vibrant communities they support. The code embodies a commitment to better environmental stewardship that will secure our forest economy and our international markets for the long term.
In April of this year, after extensive consultation and review, we proclaimed the regulations required to complete the code's legal structure. This month the code will become law.
The code is a major piece of legislation that I think this assembly can be proud of. It is the cornerstone for a new forest management framework for this province and a cornerstone for an investment strategy in the health of our forest resources. I hope members of this House will agree with me that investing in the future, particularly in respect of forest resources, is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that our forests remain the vibrant centre of our economy as well as an ecologically sustainable resource.
The code has several benefits for British Columbians which go beyond the obvious ones, however. For industry, for example, the code will level the playing field by providing all forest operators with a clear and coherent set of rules to work by. This means that many forest operators who have been practising responsible forestry -- indeed, as the majority have -- will no longer be placed in the position of being at a competitive disadvantage to the few who have not. For all those managing provincial forests, both in and outside government, it means greater certainty through the replacement of a confusing system of legislation, contractual arrangements, policies and guidelines with a workable and legally enforceable code of conduct. For forest workers, renewing and protecting our forests will ensure jobs today and, more importantly, will ensure that there is a resource to provide jobs tomorrow. For the general public, the code means a restoration of confidence in forest management. Confidence is absolutely essential to ensure that this resource continues to thrive and prosper.
I think some of the actions of the past that were taken in the name of trying to improve short-term economic situations for the forest industry caused tremendous long-term damage, because they undermined public confidence. Initiatives such as sympathetic administration undermined long-term public confidence, which has made it difficult in recent years for the forest industry to gain the support it needs to continue to make the investments and to have the jobs that we all rely upon in the forest sector. In addition, that lack of confidence has enabled those who may not have our best interests at heart to launch campaigns against the forest industry abroad, and has made it more difficult for the forest industry to maintain and broaden its markets overseas.
So the code is a crucial part not only of an investment strategy, but of a strategy to ensure that public confidence at home and abroad is restored in our forest sector. I can tell you, from my own visits with international customers in other jurisdictions, as well as from the experience of the Premier and others, that the code is absolutely crucial in this initiative. The code is starting to regain -- indeed, is making significant inroads in regaining -- public confidence both at home and abroad, which in turn, I think, produces the kind of environment in which the forest industry can thrive and grow, in which our markets are made secure and in which we can gain additional customers internationally.
The bill we are dealing with today proposes minor changes and improvements to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, based on some of the consultation and review that has taken place since the passage of the code last summer. When we reach committee stage, I'll be introducing a few further floor amendments to reflect additional comments that have been received from the industry and other stakeholders since the bill was introduced.
There are essentially four categories of changes introduced by this legislation. First, Bill 18 introduces changes to clarify the application of certain code requirements. The bill makes changes to the definition of community watershed under section 41 of the act, for example. These changes will streamline and clarify the intention of the section and ensure that areas which do not require the special protection inferred
[ Page 14909 ]
by this designation are excluded while, at the same time, also permitting community watersheds that have an area of more than 500 square kilometres and require special protection to be included within that designation.
The bill establishes necessary powers to ensure that tree farm licence holders compile and submit inventory information that is needed for the code, such as wildlife and cultural heritage inventory information. That kind of information is absolutely essential to ensure that we manage our forests to protect all the values that are represented by the forest resource; and that information is, of course, as essential with respect to tree farm licence holdings as it is with respect to other forms of forest tenure.
The bill ensures that the holders of pulpwood agreements, similar to other major licensees, are required to prepare and obtain approval of forest development plans before commencing timber harvesting. The bill also includes amendments to clarify the legal status and operational plans approved before the code came into force.
That's the first category of changes. The second category of changes is intended to protect the financial interest of government with regard to reforestation responsibilities on non-replaceable forest tenures. Reforestation responsibilities on non-replaceable forest tenures often extend well beyond the life of those tenures and of the licences, and they represent a substantial long-term financial liability for small and medium-sized firms. What the proposed amendments will do is increase government security with regard to these obligations. They allow government, in certain circumstances, to assume responsibility for the obligations and to carry out the necessary silvicultural work that is so essential to ensuring that we will have a future forest resource in the decades and, hopefully, the centuries ahead. In exchange, the licensee will be required to pay a levy to government to cover silvicultural costs where the government does assume those obligations.
The third category of changes attempts to reduce the administrative burden of the code on stakeholders. Some of these changes include amendments to clarify code requirements on private lands regulated through range tenures and woodlot licences. This is not the category of the privately managed forest lands that are the subject of one particular section of the code, but rather private lands that are already included within the ambit of the code by virtue of their association with woodlot licences or tree farm licences.
The fourth and final category is a category of housekeeping amendments to correct some minor oversights and to improve the drafting of the legislation.
The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia was a major step toward correcting many of the problems of the past in our forests and setting a framework in which our forest industry can continue to grow and thrive, and the public can be assured that that growth is not at the expense of environmental values. The amendments that are proposed in Bill 18 will help to clarify and refine that legislation. I therefore move that the bill be read for a second time now.
W. Hurd: It's always a privilege to rise in the assembly to speak to any bill, particularly one as important as Bill 18, the Forest Practices Code Amendment Act. As the minister has indicated, we are coming up to an anniversary of the application of the code in B.C.'s forests, and when the code was introduced, it was fully supported by all parties in the House, despite some statements from government members to the contrary. The notion that we should simplify the 800 or so regulations that existed previously and reduce them to a series of Forest Practices Code principles that everyone could understand and apply was a generally accepted wisdom in the forest industry. Everyone from the professional foresters to the major licensees, from the communities to people in government, has argued for some time in favour of a Forest Practices Code that provides a clear set of guidelines and a clear and level playing field, as the minister has indicated.
I guess the question then becomes how we have performed during the last year with the application of the Forest Practices Code. It's interesting to recall that when the bill was introduced in the assembly a year ago, the minister introduced 83 consequential amendments to the bill in second reading and committee stage, which, in the parliamentary practice of this assembly, is almost without precedent -- that number of amendments that the House had to plow through in committee. We also know that during the last year there's been a considerable delay in proclaiming a number of the regulations and standards of this particular act. Clearly, the Forest Practices Code proved to be far more complex in the field than perhaps the government had anticipated. Certainly the volume of paperwork in the ministry offices has mushroomed. You know, that comes from many district managers who are struggling to cope with the changes that have been thrust upon them.
One of the key errors made from the very beginning was that there was no overriding training module for the Forest Practices Code. That, I think, should have applied across the board to not only the registered professional foresters in the ministry but also those in the private sector. From the very outset of the application of the code, those two jurisdictions went their separate ways. I know there were those in the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters who felt strongly that we needed one master module. That would ensure that ministry personnel and those professional foresters and woodlands managers in the private sector who have to submit their plans to the ministry were indeed operating off the same common level of understanding. This is something we'll be able to get into in committee stage on this bill, but my perception is that we still have a gap in knowledge between some individuals in the private sector. Indeed, in some cases the major licensees have been able to catch up and pass the ministry, I think, in terms of their knowledge and application of the code.
As we know, the code has resulted in a major adjustment upward of the amount of paper that flows into the ministry offices. Most plans that were currently on the books will have to be, or are in the process of being, reworked and resubmitted to the ministry. I note, with respect to this Bill 18, that again there's a requirement that more information be forwarded from licensees. We have to remember that when more information is required, it's not just the licensees that have to produce it and incur the time and expense. It's also the ministry, which has to struggle to deal with those forest development plans and harvesting plans.
As we know, under the code there are considerable administrative penalties -- fines -- for plans that are submitted that may not meet the requirements of the code. So I have some empathy with the ministry regional offices, which have a tremendous new responsibility on their hands to receive this
[ Page 14910 ]
information, turn it over in a timely manner and sign off on it, recognizing that a mistake or error in any way can result in major administrative penalties for the licensee.
[2:45]
It's also significant, you know, to note at this time -- since we are talking about the Forest Practices Code in general principle -- that the Ministry of Forests itself is the largest holder of cutting rights in the province. As one of its forest sector strategies, the ministry has elected to increase the volume of timber harvested under the small business enterprise program. As we know, the ministry itself is responsible for all the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, the harvest plans, the wildlife management studies -- the whole gamut of studies now required under the Forest Practices Code. I can honestly say I think that requirement has been a tremendous burden for the ministry's professional foresters. One of the issues I'm sure we'll be canvassing with the minister in his estimates is the level of harvest in the small business enterprise program. The reports that it has been undercut this year, because of the difficulty the ministry has in dealing with the provisions of the code for those areas of harvest, is an issue we will want to explore with the minister during his estimates.
So I think the ride over the last year has been a bumpy one. I suppose it was not entirely unexpected, given the major changes that have been applied to the land base. We know that the ministry has not gone through any major increase in staffing levels to deal with the code. It leads those of us on this side of the House to suspect that what indeed is happening is that there has been a reallocation of manpower and resources to pursue these provisions in the code. Some of the work done previously, including on-site audits or inspections -- the kinds of things the ministry perhaps had more time to do in the past -- may have been sacrificed in some of the district offices in recognition of the fact that the plans and studies in connection with the Forest Practices Code have to be turned over in a timely fashion.
There are a number of issues with respect to Bill 18 that we will definitely want to pursue with the ministry in committee. Improving the chief forester's authority to request inventory information from tree farm licence holders is a requirement we think would normally have come under revisions to the actual Forest Act. This is an area we want to question the minister on: why has another obligation been placed on the chief forester within the Forest Practices Code Amendment Act.
Another area we'll be wanting some answers on will be the government assuming silviculture responsibilities for non-replaceable forest licences. That seems to us to imply some new level of commitment under the small business program, and that's another area that we'll be wanting to clarify in committee.
I think, in general, the opposition supported the Forest Practices Code in principle. Any bill which seeks to bring in some reasoned revisions and amendments after a period of a year of application in the field is to be welcomed. We'll be attempting to discern from the minister in committee exactly what the nature of the improvements will be, and whether there have been specific problems in the field that some of these amendments are designed to alleviate. So with those brief remarks, the opposition supports the revision to the Forest Practices Code in principle, and welcomes the opportunity to explore with the minister in committee some of the more specific aspects of this legislation.
R. Neufeld: To speak briefly on the principles of the bill, the Reform caucus generally supports most of the changes that are in the bill. There are many of them, and we know that they're going to be specifically discussed during the committee stage -- each one of them to their total extent, I should say. Basically, we'll be keeping most of our remarks till that time.
As the critic for the Liberal Party did, I want to confirm that Reformers supported the Forest Practices Code when it was passed last year. We had some reservations about the Forest Practices Code and we still do. I think it's indicative of what has been said so far that industry and government, the people who are trying to apply the code, are having some real difficulties in some areas. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. That should be expected in a code that was brought together from many different statutes that were in place before. Hopefully, it will lead to better stewardship of our forest resource in the province.
Basically, what we've seen is a clear movement within government to increase by a dramatic amount the number of people to enforce the code. We're seeing private industry having to do the same thing. There's no doubt that some poor forestry practices were carried out in some areas, and that would require more people to look at what the goals really are. But rather than being specific on what would happen with each action, site-specific to different places, the Reform Party would rather have seen a document that outlined a set of goals and objectives that industry could meet; instead of trying to document in one Forest Practices Code that this is the way it will happen all over the province, so that industry, with its own way of doing things.... There are all kinds of equipment and procedures the forestry industry has developed over the years to enhance the forest, and the environment within the forest. I think that is something all British Columbians actually support in a big way. We would rather have seen a document that listed some goals and objectives, and let the industry figure out just exactly how they are going to meet them.
When I talk about administration and the number of people it is going to take to enforce the code, I know that in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for instance, 14 new positions are in place to enforce the Forest Practices Code within that ministry. During all the years I spent in the energy field, specifically in the north, I don't recall a large problem with the oil and gas industry and forest practices, or with the kinds of issues that would require that many people to look after them. Mining is almost extinct in of British Columbia. In fact, it has occupied site-specific areas for many years, so there's not really a lot of work being done all over the province in mining.
I can't imagine where all these people are being used, but obviously there is a tremendous amount of paper being generated by the Forest Practices Code. And in the field, when there are all kinds of reports and paper being generated, when it reaches the office someone has to take it, look at it and decide what they should do with it and where they should file it. I think that's part of the problem with the Forest Practices Code, and if there is some way we can alleviate this problem for industry and government, and therefore for the people of British Columbia, we would all be better served.
It's interesting to note that some of the changes in Bill 18 are changes and amendments proposed by the opposition parties when we were discussing the Forest Practices Code
[ Page 14911 ]
last year. In fact, if I remember correctly, we were in this chamber until 4 o'clock in the morning, trying to get through some of those amendments, which the minister just absolutely refused to even listen to. And now, this year, where are we? We're back into 64 sections, most of them dealing with changes to the Forest Practices Code. I think the minister would have been well served to listen a year ago to some of the amendments put forward by all members in the House, other than government members, on the Forest Practices Code, and maybe we wouldn't be where we're at today -- back in the Legislature discussing Bill 18, which is a rewrite of many sections of the Forest Practices Code.
But in principle we support Bill 18, and we look forward to committee stage, where we can deal with it section by section, deal with them individually and bring forward amendments if we feel they are needed.
G. Wilson: Bill 18 is an interesting bill, because it actually seeks to implement in some instances what we tried to get the government to implement when it initially brought the bill in. They refused, but now, having had the opportunity for sober second thought, they obviously see the wisdom of some of the words that have come from these quarters. But it tends to amend the bill in a manner which, I think, we would have a difficult time supporting, and we look forward to the minister's defence in a number of these areas.
This is by no means a minor amendment or housekeeping; there have been some substantial changes to the Forest Practices Code, and I think the minister is going to have to stand the test of some considerable and gruelling debate, hopefully, on this matter when we get into committee stage. People are going to want to know why, for example, there have been amendments to the five-year plan proposal, and what the minister sees as the reason for that. Similarly, I think that the minister is going to have deal with an area that is very near and dear to my heart -- and I know to the members of the Alliance -- and that is the amendments which have been brought in with respect to the community watershed provisions. These are matters that are critical -- absolutely critical -- to the livelihood of many communities. They are areas, quite clearly, where there are going to be considerable conflicts as communities expand, as residential demands increase, and as we start to look at the notion of a watershed under the Water Act in more ways than perhaps the broader definition under the Water Act may provide, with respect to the definitions of water purposes and waterworks purposes.
To bring it home, I know that that's something very clear and near and dear to the hearts of the people on the Sunshine Coast, who have just seen a protected-area strategy put in place for the Tetrahedron area. But it's ambiguous as to whether or not that really is going to protect watershed, or whether or not we're looking at park status, and whether or not we're looking at -- with respect to the 100 percent protection -- protection for the purpose of recreation development and use, or whether or not we're actually looking at a working and viable operational watershed in that area. With the amendments to this act, keeping in mind that that is an area currently under some review -- and Mount Elphinstone as a plan is also under active review -- these clearly are going to be questions that I know the minister is going to want to address.
In principle, we have to ask ourselves some of the hard questions about why the government has moved in this direction at this time, what precipitated this move, and why there wasn't an opportunity for the government -- in this initial tabling of the code and in the discussions previously -- to have seen that this might have been the direction to take.
More specifically, I think we need to ask very hard questions about why we're dealing with matters in terms of a downstream definition, as opposed to that of the upstream or broader watershed basin or catchment area. I think that when we get into the details of this particular section of the act, the people of British Columbia are going to want to know why the government, in particular, started to look at the definitions as they have provided them with respect to the provisions of the Water Act and the way they are interpreted in this one -- particularly on the language, in terms of commencement of action on the points of diversion, that deals with an area that is "all or part of the drainage area above the most downstream point of diversion," which, of course, is in section 14(10)(b). I think that's an area which we're going to want to address in some detail with the minister.
I'd point out also that there is a significant controversy over the whole question of roads and road closures and the process by which we deactivate roads. This is something that's very important for us to get a handle on, and I'm surprised that.... In fact, maybe they have and just opted not to address it. But clearly, as one opposition member and as the leader of the Alliance, I can tell you that this is one of the areas that we hear most frequently about, in terms of making sure there is some consistent plan put in place with respect to those roads that will be deactivated -- those roads that will be closed. There has to be local input, and there has to be a consistent program put forward in which people at the local level will be able to have some determination with respect to road closure.
It's also important -- as we determine which roads should and which should not be deactivated -- that the contracting and the provision for such deactivation be done in a manner that is consistent with an established set of rules and guidelines, and that the local forest service be provided an opportunity to make sure that adequate inspection is done and that the work is carried out in a proper way. Because, as the minister knows, in those areas.... And we have had a number of examples where, in fact, this has not been done effectively. If that work is not done to an established standard, there can be more damage, more harm, more erosion to that area than if the road was left in its original state.
[3:00]
We might also talk about the section with respect to silviculture prescriptions for non-replacement licences. This is an area that philosophically, obviously, we're most committed to, because we do want to provide the maximum opportunity for the silviculture prescription in order to provide from as broad a base as possible the opportunity within local areas for local employment to get that work done -- and to get it done effectively and efficiently as soon as practicable after harvest has taken place. So we have to ask the minister -- with respect to the notice provisions that are being put in here and the movement for authorization of the district manager in terms of the assuming of these responsibilities -- how, in fact, that improves the nature of this particular act. I understand that there are two sides to that debate. I've heard both sides of it, and I understand, by virtue of what he has written in his bill, that clearly the minister has opted to go in this direction.
[ Page 14912 ]
However, I would say that as the people of British Columbia start to look at this matter of silviculture, we have to understand that the whole question of notice and the provision of notice and the responsibility in terms of carrying out the silviculture prescription is something that we are going to want to look at, especially as we now start to examine the types of non-replacement licences that this bill affords. So as we get into committee stage, that's an area, again, that we're going to push this minister on in some detail.
The whole notion, if we deal with it in terms of philosophy.... I think it's hard to deal with the philosophical question of a bill such as this, because it really is an amendment to a much broader act and deals with a whole series of very specific and very detailed kinds of amendments. Clearly, I think that what we have to measure with respect to the Forest Practices Code is the extent to which the implementation of this code has improved logging practice in the province of British Columbia. When we first addressed this question -- when this bill first came before the House -- we expressed some serious concerns about some areas with respect to the procedure and whether or not, in fact, this was going to be a practical approach that companies actively involved in logging in British Columbia would be able to accommodate within the somewhat narrow profit margins they may have from time to time as the cyclical nature of this economy tends to go from a rather buoyant economy, as it has been, to the inevitable downturn, which we are likely to see.
When we start to look at the latter provisions of this bill and get into the whole question of division 5, which is on timber-sale licences, licences to cut, free-use permits and that notion, one of the things we like about this bill is the fact that it tends to create a greater degree of flexibility. We do find that there is an opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of some flexibility with respect to those provisions that have been removed from the existing act and the substitutions that have come in in terms of management's own objectives and, in particular, the sensitive-area objectives that are provided for within the act. As we get into that detail, I think that the minister will have our support in that section of this bill, because it has provided us an opportunity to address some of those local concerns.
I guess the only thing we would want to take a look at, then, with respect to this bill is the omissions, those things we would have liked to have seen with respect to this bill. Clearly, when we deal with it as a matter of principle, we want to not only include a fairly thorough discussion as to what is included in the bill but also ask questions as to what is not included in the bill. Clearly, one of the areas that we would have liked to have seen included and far more detail provided for is the whole question of salvage and the matters around salvage, which this ministry has done a great deal of research and work on with respect to the provisions of new standards and new procedures. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the minister for availing his staff to me and to others within the Alliance Party and, of course, my companion MLA, to enable us to understand what was proposed there. This is going to be, I think the minister would agree, as we start to look at the transition period from the old forest practice to the new forest practice, a source of substantial revenue for local mill operators, for local foresters and for people who are looking to maintain local employment.
So I guess one of the things we would have liked to have seen within Bill 18 is an inclusion of that whole procedure as a part of the Forest Practices Code, so that we could in fact have much firmer guidelines with respect to what is and what is not permitted, so that we could have provided, particularly within certain licence areas, a greater degree of security of tenure for those salvage operators who are going in behind the larger logging companies to pick up material that is dead and down or perhaps diseased, or into areas where clearly the marketability of the timber is seen to be marginal, and that timber is left. That's a huge area we'd like to hear from the minister on, because notwithstanding the new regulations that have come down and notwithstanding the procedures toward that end, I think the code has to have something more to say about this. There has to be a question of procedure that can provide maximum flexibility with respect to salvage operations.
Having said that, we are able to outline in broad terms -- and certainly that's been my role, and I will yield later on in this debate to my colleague from Okanagan East, who will deal in specifics with some of the more particular areas in which there is some concern.... But generally speaking, the Forest Practices Code was overdue in this province. I think that all members, both those in the forest industry and those within communities that are affected by the forest industry, would have agreed that we needed a new code -- never mind a new code, we needed a code -- that everybody could buy into. I have already said that I congratulate this government for having the foresight to see that and to put it in place. Whether we now have a workable code or not is another matter entirely. And whether or not that code is going to be subject to further amendment is something that we will know only after a thorough discussion in the committee stage of this bill.
As I said at the outset, many of the inclusions in this bill are something that I and others called for initially. We have serious concerns with some of what is included here, which we will not be able to support unless the minister, in his usual articulate and informed way, can somehow change our minds -- which we would look forward to, if that's possible. Always having an open mind, of course, anything is possible. But we do have some serious concerns, especially with respect to the community watershed provisions. I think there are some errors there. The minister said that there will be some amendments from the floor, and I'm hoping that those might be areas where those amendments will be forthcoming.
Having said that, we can approve of the code in principle. We approve of some of what is in here, but I can tell you that we will be voting against some of the sections of this bill unless there are substantive amendments in committee stage.
A. Warnke: Some of the main points have been covered by the previous speakers, and I do not want to repeat or belabour them. I want to focus on two aspects. The first one -- and I do not think it can be emphasized enough, despite the fact that some members have made reference to it -- of trying to put to rest once and for all that the.... Several times, I believe, I have heard the Minister of Forests and certainly the Minister of Employment and Investment say, and I've heard other members saying over and over again, how the Liberal opposition and, in fact, all of the opposition -- and it implies all parties -- oppose the Forest Practices Code. "Well, here goes the Minister of Employment and Investment saying the same thing. It must be true."
The fact is that it's not. The fact is that if those ministers and those members across the way take a look at the record
[ Page 14913 ]
they will find that the opposition -- especially the Liberal opposition and the Reform opposition, and the PDA and the independent opposition -- supported the Forest Practices Code. So it's extremely important to put it on the record once again, considering that those government members over and over again repeat this position that the opposition is against the Forest Practices Code. It is worthwhile to point out that in fact that's not correct. For the record, those government ministers have simply got it all wrong.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Well, here's point two that I really wanted to raise, because the Minister of Forests said: "I wasn't here." I think the Minister of Forests ought to check the record. One thing that really.... I suppose I can use the word "gall," because I well recall in the summary remarks of the Minister of Forests that he was galled by one particular member, and I know who he was referring to: he was referring to me. He was particularly galled by the one member -- namely me -- who would even bring up issues involving inventories. The fact is that I did raise the problem with regard to inventories. The Minister of Forests at the time was galled that there was even some problem here -- "What's going on?" and all the rest of it. Now all of a sudden, guess what, hon. Speaker. What do we see? Section 2 reads: "Section 9 is repealed and the following substituted." Indeed, in the opening remarks of the Minister of Forests, guess what he talked about. "We need to take a look at assessing inventory information, which is essential to protecting the forest industry in general and tree farm licensing." The fact is that that is exactly the point that I remember making in the original debate involving the Forest Practices Code. Here's the Forests minister coming down a year later and saying: "Well, maybe this is a problem that has to be readdressed." So I'm really looking forward to hearing what galls him this year.
Those are two points that I think it is extremely important to raise for the record. Firstly, contrary to what has often been said in this House and in public, the opposition supported the Forest Practices Code in principle; we supported it in terms of voting for it. Secondly, today we hear a number of opposition members once again stating their reservations about certain areas; but in the last analysis, we acknowledge the need for a Forest Practices Code. We pointed out a year ago that there were going to be problems. I'll bet you that we'll be right back where we started.
The Forests minister comes in here today and says, "We're going ahead, and we're presenting some corrections and changes," as though it were a logical extension, some sort of planned idea about the future. "We're going to bring in an amendment code somewhere in the future." The fact is that that wasn't planned. I really want to put it to rest once and for all: as members here have pointed out today, we have supported and will support the Forest Practices Code; we support it in principle. There are problems that are now acknowledged by the Minister of Forests. There were problems a year ago that have to be corrected. There are probably problems, as I see it, that still exist, but at least we're moving in the right direction.
I remember that I raised this point about inventories and what not, and then I was surprised to hear the Forests minister, over the winter and earlier this year, actually saying in public -- it didn't gall him then, I suppose -- that this is an area to be re-examined, and that he would be doing something about inventories. I'm glad that the Forests minister has recognized that. He's moving in the right direction. I just wanted to make those two points.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to say a few words on Bill 18, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995. Following my friend the member for Richmond-Steveston, I can only say that thank goodness he seems to be vindicated for something or other. What it is, none of us can be sure; but if he feels good about it, then I think we can move on.
[3:15]
Any observer of the debates in this House can be excused for being confused about the position of the Liberal opposition on forestry matters. In the last session of the Legislature we dealt with the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- what I have kindly referred to as the revolution in forestry that's been going on in our province. It comes to my mind that the Liberal opposition seemed to be opposed to virtually every initiative brought forward by the government in this area. They didn't always vote against every initiative brought forward, but they certainly spoke against them. Whether you speak against it or vote against it, it's hard to tell sometimes what the correlation is with members of the Liberal opposition. The member for Richmond-Steveston tried to clarify some of the confusion about the voting record and the speaking record of the Liberal opposition in the House. I'll leave it to others to review Hansard to determine whether or not he really has set the record straight.
The Forest Practices Code is important. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced by this government in the life of this parliament, and the fact that the Minister of Forests is bringing forward amendments to that act in the first session following its introduction is not a surprise. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the Forest Practices Code -- a very complex piece of legislation -- will likely need continual refining over the years ahead. That will result, hopefully, from continuing consultation with the various stakeholders in the industry and in the province who are affected by a new Forest Practices Code. It is rather all-encompassing.
The Minister of Forests needs to be really firm in ensuring that the Forest Practices Code takes precedence over every other form of regulation or legislation dealing with the forest industry. The reason he needs to do so -- and I'm not sure that Bill 18 really addresses this issue -- is that just last week we had an example where the Forest Practices Code was brought into question when the Clayoquot Sound scientific panel issued its report on a number of issues relating to forestry practices in the Clayoquot region. There has been some controversy based on media reports as to whether clearcuts, or what are referred to as clearcuts, are going to be continuing as a standard forestry practice in the province.
We all know that according to the Forest Practices Code, small clearcuts up to a maximum of 40 hectares in size are allowed. After the Clayoquot Sound scientific panel came out last week, there were some groups saying that this signalled the end to clearcuts in British Columbia. This might have signalled an end to terminological certainty over what a clearcut actually is, but the minister really needs to reiterate that the Forest Practices Code takes precedence over all aspects of
[ Page 14914 ]
the regulatory regime affecting the forest industry in the province. Bill 18 doesn't seek to do that, but Bill 18 does bring in some important amendments.
It seems to me that the Minister of Forests has probably been listening to a number of groups by bringing in Bill 18. It seems obvious he's been listening to ranchers, to environmental groups and to participants in the small business enterprise program, but he hasn't been listening to everyone. It would seem to me that he probably hasn't been listening to major licensees in the forest industry, who are clearly affected by the Forest Practices Code, but whether any concerns they have about the implementation of this new law have been heard is not evident in Bill 18.
I know it's pretty easy for this government to beat up on large companies and large operators, and I suppose that includes forest licensees, but I think it's most unwise to ignore deliberately the major employers in our forest industry, the people who are providing jobs. We want them to be able to sustain that employment base on a perpetual basis. Yet, have the concerns of the major licensees been taken into account in this first run of amendments to the Forest Practices Code? I hope the minister is going to be able to address that when he closes debate on second reading. When we get to committee stage we will certainly have a chance to ask him some specific questions about who he has been listening to and whose lobbying efforts have been successful with this bill, as a first start on refinements to the Forest Practices Code.
I would like to make a couple of notes about the Forest Practices Code, because I note that the minister made some comments about the timber supply review process being extended to the end of 1996.
An Hon. Member: The next bill.
D. Mitchell: In the next bill, we're going to be dealing with that, in fact.
An Hon. Member: Bad research.
D. Mitchell: We will be addressing that in the next bill, but it relates as well to this bill, and that's why I'm flagging it now. Thank you very much for that. It relates to this bill as well, because we have a number of AACs in the timber supply process that have not yet been reviewed. Which version of the Forest Practices Code is going to apply?
An Hon. Member: Two-thirds.
D. Mitchell: Two-thirds of the annual allowable cuts in the timber supply review have yet to be determined. We have a Forest Practices Code that's in place. The first version of the Forest Practices Code has applied to 18 AACs, which have now been determined. Now, with the refinements and amendments to the Forest Practices Code, is that going to have any impact? Are we going to have to go back retroactively and look at those AACs? Is there any correlation there?
The minister is shaking his head, negative. I hope he's right, but there is a question in the industry as to whether there is going to be any impact on those. I don't want to wait until the next bill to address this.
An Hon. Member: Neither do British Columbians.
D. Mitchell: British Columbians don't want to have to wait, either. That's right. Who knows when we'll get to the next bill? Who knows if we'll get to the next bill? When the minister introduced Bill 18 in the House, he said that for the first time ever, sustainable forestry practices were made legally enforceable, backed up by tough penalties for non-compliance and ensuring that public confidence would continue to build in the forest industry. Yet with Bill 18 he's changing the penalties that apply to one particular set of circumstances under the forest practices bill.
I'll just refer to this now. In committee stage I'll be able to ask the minister more. I'm wondering why this change to section 38, which removes section 102(1) of the original bill to a different section. The original fine and penalty that was being proposed was $100,000 -- this is for people who are engaged in roadbuilding or trail-building activities; now we're reducing the scale or scope of the penalty to $5,000 maximum.
It seems that someone has been very successful in lobbying the minister. But some people have been more successful than others. I wonder if the minister will be able to explain why this group -- trail-builders -- has been successful in ensuring that any penalties they incur won't be $100,000 -- they'll be only $5,000. Has he been listening to major licensees about some of their roadbuilding concerns and some of their concerns as well? Are the fines that were initially proposed under the Forest Practices Code continuing to be reviewed by the minister and by his ministry, as they should be?
There are a number of issues that this bill really seeks to address; there's no one simple, underlying philosophy. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about concerns under section 14 dealing with community watersheds. I would just note that I too have a question about the definition of a community watershed as is proposed under Bill 18. I think that section 2 -- management plans -- which the member for Richmond-Steveston highlighted, is a very important change. The minister should not be modest about these amendments to the Forest Practices Code; I think they're very significant indeed.
One of the things I would note is that when the minister brought in the original act one year ago -- the new Forest Practices Code -- his ministry offered briefings to members of the Legislature in advance of the bill coming forward. They were very useful briefings. They didn't answer all of our questions, but they were extremely useful to members of this House. I wonder why, with Bill 18 -- a very significant package of amendments to the bill -- similar briefings were not made available to members of this House. Before we get to committee stage -- I hope there's no hurry on this -- I think such an offer from the minister would be helpful indeed: to go through some of the technical amendments to the code that are being proposed here.
With those few suggestions, I look forward to seeing what the minister is going to say when he closes debate.
J. Tyabji: When the government came out with the Forest Practices Code and some of the amendments to the Forest Act last year, we followed it with great interest and certainly commended the government when they were taking a step in the right direction. I think it's important to recognize that one year later, many of these amendments are a step in the wrong direction and that some of the amendments we see coming forward are going to curtail the ability to hold people account-
[ Page 14915 ]
able -- not the responsible people who are making use of the common forest resources, the resources owned by the people of the province, but those who have chosen to step over the line and create difficulties in the forest sector.
I think one of the biggest problems we're going to have as we get into debate is the changes with respect to road permits and the reconstruction of the natural environment that was originally provided for in the Forest Practices Code. It's interesting that last year, the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance called for community-based input in the decision about whether or not roads which were put in place to access forest resources would be reconstructed, rehabilitated or left for the use of the community. What we see is that we have neither option available here. In fact, what we're doing here is removing the accountability in legislation. We're not putting in place a provision for local government to have some input about what will or will not stay, and we're putting the decision-making power in the hands of either the regional manager or the representative of the Crown.
I think that as we get into this, we will probably talk at some length about the community watershed provisions and whether or not they will be adequate. Obviously we recognize that some changes need to be made for the purposes of grazing on Crown land, but we do have some concerns that the changes that have been made here are going to leave people open to the same problems that have been occurring in the past. I would think, for example, that Naramata is one excellent example of why we need to have some accountability in the Forest Practices Code; even though there may be a grazing schedule, where there is undue disturbance of the natural environment, particularly the water systems, the community has an avenue to pursue that under the Forest Practices Code. If there is one comment that was repeatedly coming out of small communities like that, which had their own domestic water use interfered with by range cattle and by disturbance of the streambed, it is that they appreciate that the Forest Practices Code provided them some protection, and that there would not be the same kind of siltation or pollution of their water system because of an inability to plan for the movement of cattle. We noticed that with the changes made in this act to the Forest Practices Code, range use plans are exempted, in fact, from being forced to cease and desist an operational plan if they disturb the natural environment or a water system, and that's a big concern.
We're also concerned because there seems to be a movement away from a rigid silviculture schedule. If there was one progressive move the government made in the Forest Practices Code, it was that we would finally have a prescription for five-year specific silviculture plans, a prescription for each area, and that if the prescription was not adhered to by the people who were using that logging plan, then there would be a very specific measure that it would be held up against. We could say: "Here is a prescription for that area; this is the way in which that prescription has been violated, and here are the methods of accountability or redress for the people who would like to make sure that it's followed."
In this act, we've taken out the five-year silviculture plans; we've taken out the provision for protecting the disturbed portion of the area, specifically other than in accordance with regulations and standards; we've taken out the provision for rehabilitation of an area if there has been a disturbed portion. I would say that it appears the government has found the Forest Practices Code's progressive steps to be too much for some people -- the squeaky wheels -- to bear, and that because those people are very active and effective at lobbying the government, the government has taken a big step backwards by taking out of the public arena the protections that have been put in place.
I do think it's ironic that at a time when we talk about ending the war in the woods, we may in fact be stirring the pot again by removing some of the protections that were a limited first step in the right direction. Although we should say that the Forest Practices Code was a good step forward and there are many positive aspects, I think we'll find out, especially in committee stage, that these are not the amendments that should be made, and that in fact, as we move away from road permits, rehabilitation steps or plans, the people of the province will not think it is a direction they should be going in, especially as we see erosion problems occurring. We see communities wanting greater control of their watersheds and greater input into siltation levels or disturbance of streambeds.
I would hope the minister will take constructive input in committee stage about some of the amendments that have come forward, or at least reveal to us some of the specific plans he has in place to pick up the slack that he's taking out of the legislation, and put into regulation some prescriptions for silviculture plans specific to each particular area, so that we will not be so concerned.
[3:30]
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Forests, whose remarks will close second reading debate.
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the comments of members opposite, and I'm certainly gratified to know that there is general support, even from the official opposition, for this bill. I do feel a need, based on the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston and the member for Surrey-White Rock, to clarify my understanding, at least, of the opposition's position. It is sometimes difficult, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggested, to keep straight which initiative the official opposition are opposing, because they've opposed so many changes to forest practices over the past two years.
My recollection, just to go through the list, is that the official opposition has opposed the forest renewal plan to reinvest in our forest. They have opposed the forest land reserve to provide a stable forest land base. They've certainly opposed the land use planning process and the Vancouver Island land use plan, including the protection of 13 percent of Vancouver Island. I know that they have opposed an awful lot, but let me assure the members opposite: I've never said that they opposed the Forest Practices Code in total. What they did was oppose and vote against the enforcement provisions of the Forest Practices Code and try to deny the public access to the Forest Practices Board. I suppose that's a little -- this being bike-to-work day, I'll use a bicycle example -- like saying that you support bicycles but you're against spokes. You know: "Yes, we certainly support the Forest Practices Code, provided there's no effective enforcement provision." If members opposite take some comfort and wish to characterize that position as support of the code, well, more power to them.
I will continue to inform the public that in virtually every change that this government has instituted to bring about a
[ Page 14916 ]
more stable and sustainable base for forestry, the official opposition in particular -- in some cases supported by other opposition members -- has tried to stand in the way of those changes. Perhaps they've now come to some repentance as they start to see that, in fact, these changes are having a positive effect. I hope that's the case.
I do want to say that it preys on my conscience that the member for Richmond-Steveston has been harbouring this resentment for the past year that, as he saw it, his concerns around inventory weren't adequately heard. Let me assure him that I've always been concerned about having adequate inventory. If it does provide him some comfort that there are further changes with respect to inventory, well, I'm pleased that he can take that comfort. Particularly given his party's position on forest reform, he needs whatever comfort he can get, wherever he can get it.
A. Warnke: I feel better already.
Hon. A. Petter: There you go.
With respect to other comments made, these changes are part of a living process. This is a major new undertaking. I think it is, frankly, unfortunate that this province didn't have a Forest Practices Code many years ago. It is really unforgivable, for a province whose primary resource is forestry, that we didn't have a code. Any major new initiative of this kind will necessarily require thinking and rethinking. We shouldn't be afraid to take.... I think it was W.A.C. Bennett who used to talk about taking that sober second look and not being afraid to look. We're going to have to, with this legislation, do that not just in this session but in future sessions. We're going to have to be prepared to consider and reconsider, because this is a living document that, if it is going to succeed, is going to have to build upon the input and experience that we gain. These changes are very much a reflection of the input from all sectors that we have received over the past year -- as, indeed, are the regulations that have been announced.
Let me just hit a few specifics, and I'm sure we can deal with the others in committee stage. The member for Surrey-White Rock referred to training modules. The Ministry of Forests has been pioneering training modules in conjunction with industry and other forest users. They have become the basis for Forest Practices Code training.
In terms of staffing, I was somewhat confused because the member for Surrey-White Rock indicated that there was no additional staffing for the Forest Practices Code, and then the next member to stand up, the member for Peace River North, got up and lamented the fact that there was too much additional staffing. I guess those parties aren't coordinating their efforts as much as I had assumed they were. Perhaps they could sit down and mediate their differences, and then I would be happy to respond.
The reality is that, yes, there are additional staff targeted at Forest Practices Code enforcement. About 200 of them, however, are due to the fact that we've done a major reorganization within the Ministry of Forests to make our operations more efficient and to lessen our administrative component in order to provide more resources in the field. There have been additional resources provided and additional staff beyond that, but the reality is that much of the new resources being targeted at the code have been achieved within existing financial resources because of a very successful, albeit a difficult, reorganization for a major ministry to undertake.
The member for Peace River North referred to the need to have flexibility and not one single set of rules, and I agree with him. If he looks at the regulations, he will find that the regulations recognize the need for regional variation, flexibility and judgment on the ground. Good forestry must be sensitive to the site; it must be sensitive to local conditions. This code is certainly there to support the judgment of professionals in the field to make those key calls not to get in the way. So I hope he will look at the code and regulations again in that light, because I think, in fact, they very much reflect his concerns on the need for flexibility.
I've already dealt with some of the concerns of the member for Richmond-Steveston. Some of the concerns of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.... We can talk in some detail about road deactivation. Suffice it to say that the code's provisions for road access development plans are going to very much increase accountability. They require licence holders to put forward an entire road development plan, including deactivation plans, ahead of time, in which the public can get -- through a single window -- the kind of information they haven't been able to get. So the input of the guide-outfitter or others who want to see roads maintained for recreation use, or of a company that wants to see roads maintained for silvicultural use, can be factored in at a far earlier stage.
I appreciated, among many of his excellent comments, the member's comments on salvage policy. Members should be aware, if they're not, that the ministry has been undertaking a major initiative to review salvage policy. That is being circulated now for public input. There are some recommendations for changes in legislation. But I say to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the more likely forum for those legislative changes is not the code, which can accommodate salvage quite easily, but the Forest Act itself, to give incentives to ensure that salvage timber is taken and that it's taken in a way that increases jobs. It's more likely to come in the Forest Act, but following a period of some public consideration of these changes, because we are very much committed to ensuring that the public is fully involved in all of these changes. So the paper, I believe, is now being circulated for input. He has my commitment that we will move as quickly as possible on all aspects of encouraging better and greater utilization of the forest resource through salvage, once we have the public input from that paper. That may necessitate some changes in the next legislative session.
I won't go into any more of the specific detail, but let me say generally to the member for Okanagan East that the changes here are based upon consideration of input from communities about their watersheds. The changes in terms of size of watersheds reflect particular concerns of communities that felt their watersheds would not be well protected if those changes weren't made. I'd be happy to provide more details later on when we get to that stage of debate.
With respect to the comments from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, of course the Forest Practices Code must take precedence, but of course the code must also be a document that is flexible and that accommodates different needs on different parts of the land base. For that reason the code has in it a provision for higher-level plans, to ensure that the management on the ground corresponds with the objec-
[ Page 14917 ]
tives set for the particular land, whether it's special management, highly intensive forestry or whatever it may be. So it's a matter of ensuring that whatever we do is within the code but that the code is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the particular component of the land.
Have we listened to major licensees? Absolutely. We've listened to all forest stakeholders in making these changes and the regulatory changes that were made. I sometimes worry that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and other members perhaps listen too much to major licensees, to the exclusion of others. Maybe that's why he doesn't think we've listened enough. In fact, we've listened to all the input we've received. In particular, the input from major licensees has been very helpful and useful not only in these changes but in the regulations that have been brought about. I'd be happy to address any specific concerns he might have on their behalf that he may raise at a later stage, when we get to that part of the debate.
With that, I once again move that Bill 18 be read for a second time now.
Motion approved.
Bill 18, Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 42.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. A. Petter: Bill 42 introduces amendments to the Forest Act that reflect this government's commitment, again, to improve forest management, to diversify our forest economy and to protect the economic base of forest-dependent communities. In that way, these changes -- along with those we just debated -- reflect our plan to increase investment in the forest sector by strengthening our forest base and ensuring that there are jobs for today and jobs for the future.
These amendments will affect forest management in four areas. First, Bill 42 includes two amendments that relate to the chief forester's ability to determine annual allowable cuts. And I will say that in both cases they're amendments the chief forester has requested to enable him to carry out his responsibilities. Members, if they look to the Forest Act, will see that section 7 of the Forest Act requires the chief forester to determine the annual allowable cut for every timber supply area and tree farm licence area before December 31, 1995, and at least once every five years after the area's last determination.
One of the amendments that is in this act will relieve the chief forester of the obligation to set an annual allowable cut for a tree farm licence if the licence holder fails to provide the information needed to make that determination. Last year we dealt with changes that would affect those licence holders who did not comply and provide adequate information, and allowed the chief forester to take action in respect of those licence holders. Clearly, however, while awaiting that information, the chief forester is not in a position to go ahead and make a cut determination, and therefore this further change has been requested by the chief forester to accompany the earlier changes that were made to ensure that it is only upon receiving that adequate information that a final cut determination is made.
The other amendment extends the deadline for the annual allowable cut determinations under section 7 from December 31, 1995, to December 31, 1996. This original deadline was a very ambitious one. Certainly it reflected the urgent need to get on with the job of getting the adequate inventory information needed under the timber supply analysis, and that ambitious schedule has been the road map that the chief forester has tried to use to proceed with his reviews.
However, the fact is that he has determined he cannot complete the job within that time frame. He needs some additional time -- happily, not a lot -- and he therefore has indicated to me, and through me to the Legislature, that he would request an amendment be made to facilitate the additional time necessary in order for him to make the kinds of decisions that I think the public expects of him -- decisions that will involve public input and take adequate account of the forest resource.
So the amendment provided will give the additional time requested by the chief forester to consider the results of the timber supply review and make well-informed AAC determinations. It will ensure that we continue to provide communities with the information and that the chief forester has time to consider that information before making any final cut determinations.
The second area addressed by Bill 42 facilitates the expansion of the woodlot licence program. Legislation passed in 1993 allowed the government to expand the size of woodlot licences or to make minor boundary changes when licences come up for replacement. This legislation was not brought into force until October 1994, however, for administrative reasons, and the amendment is intended to allow several woodlot licences which have come up for replacement since 1993 to take advantage of this new provision.
I might say that this also complements the government's initiative to double woodlot licences and provide greater opportunity for small operators to gain access to the public forest resource through woodlot licences, an initiative that I think is extremely positive and has found a large measure of public support.
The third area included in Bill 42 is amendments to help implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates conducted by Dr. Brian Scarfe. Members may recall that when the forest renewal plan was introduced a year ago, along with stumpage rate increases, there were increases announced in respect of royalty rates. Those caused some controversy, and as a result of that controversy, we agreed to undertake an independent review of royalty rates under the auspices of Dr. Brian Scarfe.
Dr. Scarfe was commissioned to undertake that review in October 1994. He concluded that review recently, and his report was released in late February. It contained ten main recommendations, and the government at that time announced it would implement those recommendations. The main recommendation of Dr. Scarfe's report was that royalty rates be adjusted over time so that the differences between royalty rates and stumpage rates are eliminated over a period of years. These amendments help to implement this recommendation, as well as other recommendations relating to appraisal methodologies and timber pricing.
[ Page 14918 ]
[3:45]
The government will continue to consult with industry on the phase-in period for royalty rates, although in this legislation we have committed.... I should correct that; the government has consulted with industry on the phase-in period for royalty rates. Based on that consultation, under this legislation the phase-in period that's provided is one of six years, which was the period recommended by Dr. Scarfe as the appropriate period to eliminate the discrepancy between royalty and stumpage rates.
The final area included in Bill 42 proposes a one-time amendment to facilitate an exchange of harvesting rights needed to implement the Vancouver Island land use plan, ensuring that that land use plan provides not only for the long-term sustainability of the forest resource in an environmental sense but also its long-term sustainability in an economic sense. Considerable consultations were undertaken with affected communities, particularly in the Strathcona timber supply area. As a result, some changes were contemplated, and this amendment will enable us to bring about those changes.
In particular, the amendment will help to ensure community stability in Tahsis, Gold River and Zeballos through an exchange of harvesting rights between Doman Forest Products Ltd. and the government. Doman Forest Products Ltd. has agreed to exchange harvesting rights associated with their existing forest licence in the Strathcona timber supply area and to forgo those harvesting rights in exchange for harvesting rights within tree farm licence No. 6, which is held by Western Forest Products Ltd., which in turn is wholly owned by Doman Forest Products Ltd. This has produced a happy outcome for the communities in the Strathcona timber supply area, because it provides additional harvesting-right opportunities that can now be reallocated to ensure the stability of those communities. During my recent visit to those communities this announcement was greeted with considerable support, and I think has gone a long way towards alleviating some of the concerns those communities would have otherwise had as a result of the land use plan.
In these ways, these amendments will help to improve forest management to implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates and ensure community stability. As such, it is part of this government's overall commitment to invest in our land and resource base to ensure that that base continues to provide a stable future for us -- a future which we can count on in both environmental and economic terms. For that reason I would be happy to move that Bill 42 be read for a second time now.
W. Hurd: It's a feast or a famine in forest legislation in this assembly. We get two important pieces of legislation on the same day, and I don't believe for a minute that they are companion pieces. Bill 42 contains some important changes to the Forest Act, and I think it deserves a great deal of debate in this assembly.
Specifically, the first section, -- which deals with the extension of the time frame for the chief forester to complete his review of the 38 timber supply areas in the province, has been a development of considerable controversy in the province. There are those that suspect the time frame of December 31, 1996, has a lot more to do with an election date in British Columbia than with a genuine effort to complete a commitment that the government made to develop a proper inventory of all 38 timber supply areas in the province. As we know, this has been a controversial issue, one of great concern to the communities. I know that the minister will claim that the time allowance was requested by the chief forester, but there are those who continue to be suspicious as to the timing. The fact of the matter is that some of the most contentious and controversial timber supply reviews in the province will be held in abeyance as a result of this adjustment until after the next election, and the timing is remarkable in its coincidence. I am sure that the minister will get up and re-emphasize the independent nature of the chief forester in the province and how he alone dictates how these timber supply reviews should progress. But we note on this side of the House that when the government was elected, in their first year they stood up in the assembly and committed to the people of the province that the 38 timber supply areas in the province would be thoroughly reviewed, an inventory analysis would be completed, and the communities would know how far down the annual allowable cut would have to be ratcheted in order for the timber supply management area to be sustainable. Well, we've seen so many overlapping initiatives from the government in land use planning: the effects of the Forest Practices Code, for example, on the annual allowable harvest -- again, an area of considerable disagreement within the ministry. The minister has said publicly that it could be 4 to 6 percent. There are others with licences who suggest that the reduction in the harvest level will be much higher.
So I think that this is another development under Bill 42 that increases the level of uncertainty for those forest-dependent communities. They will now see some major decisions on inventory -- which would normally guide them and the government in an annual allowable harvest for that region -- held in abeyance until after the next election, when damage control will not be affected by the results of a campaign. I think it's troubling that that kind of controversy exists. Certainly we'll receive assurances from the minister when he closes debate that in fact this isn't the case. But, again, the timing is a concern.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Some of the other aspects of this bill.... The conversion of royalties to stumpage is an issue that affects some of the longstanding tenure holders in the province. I really think that that gets us into a discussion about the whole tenure reform issue and why it was that these original licences were set up with a royalty system in place. I have no problem with the decision of the government to convert royalties to stumpage. Stumpage, after all, is a market-sensitive device that goes up and down based on the price of the produce, and it's understandable that the Crown would seek to recover as much revenue as possible during a time when the markets are up. But you know, hon. Speaker, the original royalties set on those tenures recognize the fact that there was a sizeable incremental investment that could, or should, be made on those tenures, which was recognized by the lower rate of royalty as opposed to stumpage.
Clearly the government, over the years it's been in power, has made no effort to deal with the tenure reform issue. The minister indicated that it is his intention to increase the number of woodlots in the province, which does, I suppose, equate in some way to tenure reform, to the extent that more forest land will theoretically be in an enhanced management regime.
[ Page 14919 ]
But clearly the tree farm licences in the province continue to be underutilized as a potential for increasing the annual allowable harvest. I only hope, when we look at the application of some forest renewal dollars, that in fact there will be an effort made to identify some of the opportunities in those tree farm licences now that the stumpage rate on them will probably more approximately equate with other forms of forest licences in British Columbia. I think it's important to get that into the record.
With respect to the other major portion of this bill, which is the exchange of forest licences to allow for the implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan, I think it can be honestly said on this side of the House that the government's handling of that issue was abysmal in the extreme. As the minister well knows, there was a well-documented leak that indicated that cabinet was considering a draconian measure on the north Island that would have rendered those communities almost insolvent. The minister is shaking his head, but I know that he spent a lot of time up there at meetings with the residents to assure them that option B, as it was called, was not the one that the government was actively considering.
The other issue that was addressed in that confidential cabinet discussion document was the entire issue of compensation, which continues to be an unknown factor with respect to the implementation of not only the Vancouver Island land use plan but also other land use plans in the province. The minister at that time indicated that the compensation bill might be as high as $500 million. That was the amount that was contained in the government's own internal memo -- cabinet submission -- and, of course, the minister subsequently denied that it would in fact be that high. The issue continues to languish. What kind of resources, what kinds of money, is the province going to have to pay to implement these land use plans? I think it's an issue that really hasn't been addressed in connection with the implementation of the plan, and although it doesn't specifically relate, necessarily, to the exchange of timber in Bill 42 which will allow the communities of Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos to survive, it is still an issue that either this government or a future government will have to address. The costs, again, are unknown; it may well be one of those issues that is decided by the courts to the disadvantage of the Crown.
I would hope that during the course of the debates about land use in the province and the implementation of the land use plans in the Kootenays, the Cariboo and the north Island, some honesty will be forthcoming from the government on exactly what kind of compensation bill is anticipated. I'm glad to see that the Minister of Employment and Investment is here, because he had a lot to say about the compensation figure to Doman Industries Ltd. for the loss of a forest licence on South Moresby, I believe. I think he called it, and other issues brought forth at the time, shocking and appalling. I think the compensation figure at that time was in the range of $40 million to $50 million....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: It's $60 million; I stand corrected.
As I recall, the minister vowed that never again in the province would we see that kind of compensation figure available.
Again, we still have no idea of exactly what kinds of costs the Crown will accrue for these land use plans, and of the alienation of forest licences and reduction in harvest that will inevitably occur. It continues to be an unknown variable out there, and it's one that all members of this assembly -- and certainly the province -- should be concerned about.
This is not a bill of what I would call inconsequential amendments. Certainly in committee stage, the opposition will be closely questioning the minister with respect to the decision to not meet stated targets on the timber supply reviews in the province. Clearly that's a major issue.
It doesn't specifically come up for mention in the bill, but during second reading debate, when we're dealing with philosophy and principles, it really is important to again emphasize the importance of arriving at a sustainable level of harvest in the province. I know that as the chief forester has undertaken these timber supply reviews throughout the province, the entire initiative has been designed to produce a sustainable level of harvest off public lands in the province. Currently, the rate fluctuates between 71 million and 75 million cubic metres off public lands. I've had the opportunity to listen to two submissions by the chief forester, who is projecting that we may in fact see a reduction in the harvest levels to around 61 million cubic metres, which in the opinion of the chief forester would be a sustainable level of harvest in British Columbia. That translates into thousands of lost jobs in the province. A reduction of 10 million cubic metres of harvest, with an incremental reduction of around 1,000 jobs, I believe, for every 1 percent reduction, means we're talking about significant dislocation in the province.
It's interesting to note that with respect to the annual allowable harvest in British Columbia, the International Woodworkers of America -- the IWA, of all people -- have come out with a suggestion that there be a target rate of 71 million cubic metres in the province. It is a dramatic change in position for the union, which, I think, really speaks well of their concern about where we're heading in British Columbia.
[4:00]
I know that the government is fond of listening to unions to a greater degree than some other stakeholders -- at least, that has been my impression. I would hope that the minister would give careful consideration to the position being taken by the IWA with respect to setting a target rate of 71 million cubic metres off public lands, which will sustain, in turn, a level of employment and investment in the industry. With the delay of the chief forester's inventory review until after the next election, it may not be possible to address that fundamental issue.
As I travel the province, I am often asked where we are headed in terms of an annual allowable harvest in the province. What is it going to be? The chief forester has cautiously suggested that it might be 61 to 63 million cubic metres. Others will tell the minister -- and I'm sure they have -- that if we were prepared to initiate serious tenure reform, we wouldn't have to deal with that kind of major reduction in harvest levels.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of information that the inventory analysis might have been able to provide us. It's regrettable that the delay has occurred and that those answers will not be available, not only to the opposition but also to the people who live in forest-dependent communities. They have
[ Page 14920 ]
been living under a cloud for the last three years. I can tell the minister that the people who live in Zeballos, Gold River and Tahsis are but a small example of the kind of uncertainty that continues to exist out there.
One of the issues that is starting to gather steam in the province is a real desire on the part of communities to have a greater say in the allocation of their resource. The minister received a submission from a group of major stakeholders in the Queen Charlottes -- village governments, first nations and major licensees -- who pointed out to him that there's only one remaining family sawmill in the entire Queen Charlottes, and it has been an on-again, off-again operation. So the collective resource, the harvest, leaves the Queen Charlottes every year. They see it going by their doors on barges, yet the community has no input into how the resource is allocated.
I was up in Fort St. John the weekend before last, and the same kind of issue is up there. Communities see the resource leaving their community; there appears to be no input and no ability on their part to control or have any say over how the resource is being allocated. That's a building trend in the province as communities are no longer willing to stand aside and allow the forces of major licensees and, to a greater extent, the government and big unions to dictate where the resource goes and how it's allocated.
I have some difficulty with this bill. I understand the fact that since we are dealing with a delay in the inventory review, some form of legislation is required to deal with it. We'll certainly be questioning the government closely in committee stage on the nature of the delay and the consequences. We'll be exploring at length the transfer of timber on the North Island, particularly the Strathcona TSA, and how it will have an impact on those communities, which have expressed their concern to the opposition on many occasions. We will welcome that debate in committee stage. Based on the information we receive then, we will undoubtedly make a decision as to what segments of this bill we can support.
With those few remarks, I look forward to listening to other members of the assembly speak on their assessment of Bill 42, and I look forward to the minister's remarks upon closing debate.
N. Lortie: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to introduce a group of students and their teacher from Westside Christian School in Yakima, Washington. Our neighbours to the south are led by their teacher Mr. Braun. Would the members of this House please make them very welcome.
G. Wilson: I don't know if it's just me or if it's a product of our breakdown with Bonneville Power that the heat in this facility is so lacking today. If anybody within the sound of my voice can do something about it, it would be useful. Mind you, it might speed up debate. Who knows? If we keep us in a refrigerated state, it might manage to get this thing through a little faster.
With respect to Bill 42, I reflect back to 1985 as somebody who lectured in resource economics and was actively involved in watching a former administration stumble along in trying to manage the forest resource. I was strongly advocating, at that time, from a non-partisan -- indeed, non-political, because it was prior to throwing my hat into the political ring at this level.... What the province absolutely desperately needed was a comprehensive land inventory of resources. I found it difficult to understand how the chief forester could make a rational assessment of annual allowable cut if he did not have at his disposal -- in this case a he -- an opportunity to review an accurate and adequate inventory of what our resources were. At that time, as an economist and a resource economist, I was standing there saying -- actually, an economic geographer, to be more specific -- that what we had to do was put in place this comprehensive land inventory.
One of things we wanted to do was to more than simply count trees and species of trees and talk about densities of particular vegetation growth; we wanted to put in place an inventory that would provide a proper assessment of soils, of watersheds -- of all of those kinds of things that were needed to understand how we were going to maintain a viable, workable forest. That was the second thing we needed to do. Having set in place an inventory, we needed to set aside a designated working forest within which licence to cut would be provided. We argued strongly that we needed to somehow bring together royalty and stumpage rates. Somehow we had to bring those into sync, because it made no sense whatsoever for us not to do so.
On the one hand, I can say that I am pleased that at least one of the two things we argued for has been accomplished here in 1995, some ten years later. But the other is still woefully lacking. We still do not have a comprehensive working inventory of our resource base. It's no wonder that the chief forester finds it difficult to make these difficult decisions. Although I concur, quite frankly, with the member for Surrey-White Rock when he suggests that it is so coincidentally timed to the next provincial election that one at least has to be careful not to allow the cynicism that's within one to sort of percolate over here.
An Hon. Member: Not too careful.
G. Wilson: But not too careful, as the member says.
Quite clearly, there are a number of very critical issues that have to be addressed with respect to this provision. First of all, I think it's important to understand that there are some legitimate reasons why an adequate assessment cannot be made and why the hands of the chief forester are somewhat tied. I understand that, and I've been arguing for an amendment to this for at least ten years. I still think that we have not come to grips with it, even though we may be moving in that direction.
The other thing I find interesting with respect to the provisions is that whenever you have an amendment to an act which essentially amends obligations that were put in place by this regime, one has to argue: What went wrong? If it was okay for us to look at it in terms of a commitment for 1995, why do we now have to wait the additional year? We need to ask the minister that, and we will be asking the minister that when we come to committee stage.
But recognize also, I think, that there are a number of other very critical issues that are going to come into play. We are steaming ahead, like it or not, with a whole series of commitments that are being made in terms of joint steward-
[ Page 14921 ]
ship agreements with first nations people. We're talking about.... Certainly, as we see in the Nisga'a agreement, there has been a commitment for an annual allowable cut outside the general area in which the Nisga'a have a comprehensive claim, and that's within that tenure. That's obviously going to have implications. Clearly, members of the IWA who I talk to on a reasonably frequent basis are concerned that there has to be some long-term plan for security for their employees, for people working in the forests, and they want to have some kind of guaranteed fibre supply. They want to know what those allowable cuts are. In the more general sense of the term, the comprehensive nature of the land claim in British Columbia right now is going to demand, I think, that this government come forward and put in place the parameters with respect to timber available to those conventional licence holders and timber which is going to be set aside or somehow otherwise alienated as a result of land negotiations with the first nations people.
So this is a very important issue, and the fact that it is delayed through to December 1996 tells us that that's going to be a problem for whoever forms government after the next election -- because one thing that we do know is that there will be a new government. It may be of the same political stripe, or it may not be -- it may be of a different political stripe -- but it will be a new body of government in place by that date, and it's going to make it difficult, if we're going to somehow substantively change the manner by which we govern our forests, if that restriction is in place.
So I think it's unfortunate that we have this amendment in front of us right now. I would have liked to have thought that we could have proceeded without that amendment in place, and I would have hoped that by now, certainly through the introduction of the CORE process, that process would have provided at least the opportunity to be able to come out with the general guidelines and figures, whatever they may have been, in terms of the amount of annual allowable cut to be announced by the chief forester. So the annual cut review being postponed is of serious concern, and I think it's something that we can't take lightly.
The second area is something I've mentioned before, and that is the bringing together of the royalty and stumpage rates. I think this makes some sense, but clearly we have to be very careful as we do that to recognize that this government has embarked upon a rather ambitious forest renewal strategy that is a job creation strategy. It is a strategy that in very large measure is dependent upon long-term revenue coming in off the forest industry for reinvestment in forestry, and I think that is something that everybody is looking towards in terms of maintenance of jobs in the woods, especially in this period of transition as we move from the old system of forestry into the new.
We have to be very careful, as we start to make the amendments with respect to these rates, that we don't have government driving those rates for agendas that are beyond those driven by the market. I would be cautious, because I think that the people in this business have to be very, very aware that it is in the government's financial interests at this point to make sure that those rates are maintained at a high level. As I mentioned earlier on, there is a notion of the cyclical nature of this particular industry that requires that there be some provision with respect to the flexibility of the setting of those rates.
So the minister has to be aware that while I support in principle what is being proposed here, because I think it makes some sense, I think that there are some very real concerns with respect to the actual numbers that will be assigned to those rates as we look to the provision of the rates in certain areas of the province, also recognizing the provision of the different rates which are provided for in the amendments included in this particular bill.
Let me say also that I find it interesting to look at the transitional section -- section 18 -- in this bill, because I think that as we start to look at this section, what we recognize here, or what we start to see, is that the government is effectively now giving us a date, April 1, 1995, with respect to amended royalty rate regulation, and it gives us a proposition for how we're going to proceed beyond that. I think that as we get into committee stage there are some obvious questions that the minister is going to be asked about that in terms of how this transitional period is going to affect certain operations that are currently underway. There are some concerns out there in industry, which I'm sure the minister has heard of -- I have, and I'm sure that if I have, the minister has also -- that those dates established there and the procedure from those dates are going to have to be explained, particularly in the light of some variable applications that have come forward and are currently in the approval process.
[4:15]
Having said that, the last area that I wanted to comment on with respect to section 19 of this bill is with respect to the Strathcona timber supply area. The minister has indicated that this is something that has had considerable community input and discussion, and I don't think anybody would deny that there has been a lot of discussion. What we have to know is that the minister has heard what has been said in those resource-dependent communities: that there has to be a proposition for some kind of long-term security in terms of timber supply in those areas. It is not enough for us to look in isolation at the Commission on Resources and Environment and its processes, at the establishment of the protected-areas strategy -- for all its value and worth -- in terms of how that's going to function and at the notion of the Strathcona timber supply area as it has been affected by those two processes without also understanding that there is another component, and that is the settlement of first nations' demands with respect to the resource. The minister not only has to address that concern with respect to the Strathcona timber supply area, but he's going to have to address that in the broader question, which is with respect to the availability of the resource within British Columbia.
The minister should know -- notwithstanding my cynicism about the dates with respect to the soon-to-be-amended time lines for the chief forester -- that the public, the average British Columbia citizen, is very, very concerned about the delays that will take place with respect to securing that timber. There are many, many communities that are absolutely dependent on it. Furthermore, our livelihood as British Columbians is dependent on the long-term security provided by the establishment of a working forest, by the long-term tenure implications that that working forest is going to provide and by some knowledge that the rates that are set are sustainable. In order for us to be able to be sure that that's the case, there must be a comprehensive inventory that we can go
[ Page 14922 ]
to and do a check on; there must be some baseline that we can work from so that we know exactly how we're affecting our resource.
With those comments made, I look forward to committee stage, and I especially look forward to discussions around the delay and what the implications of that delay may be.
R. Neufeld: We would like to put some remarks on the record on Bill 42. The extension of time for the chief forester to conduct and complete the timber supply review to one year from now -- instead of December 1995 it will be December, 1996.... Going along with what the other two members spoke about earlier, it almost seems to coincide with what has been said about an election and those issues. Getting back to what I think it really is, it's very difficult to put together all those projections; in fact, it's a monumental task. Possibly the minister was correct when he stated that it's a goal that is tough to get to. Obviously they're not going to be able to get to it. I hope we will be working that way when it comes to timber supply: taking the time that is necessary to conduct a good review and come up with a supply that industry and the government and ultimately the people of British Columbia can live with.
For as long as my colleague for Prince George-Omineca and I have been in the House, we've asked that an area be set aside for forestry purposes, much the same as the agricultural land reserve, and that that area be left for forestry purposes and infringed on only in extreme conditions, so industry and government can plan. Collectively, whether we like it or not, industry and government have to plan what revenues we're going to receive in the future, and what's sustainable and what isn't sustainable.
Those are large issues that British Columbia is trying to deal with. I hope they will be completed by the fall of 1996. Obviously, it's very difficult for those communities that are still in a process of land use planning -- a process of trying to decide what areas are going to be used for what and what's going to happen with the environment.
There is an awful lot of uncertainty in the province about jobs, and that's something that affects each and every one of us. Maybe it affects people in the north, the interior and the Kootenays much more than it does people in Vancouver, although the people in Vancouver should know that one in every five jobs in Vancouver depends heavily on the forest industry in one way or another. If we continue to lose jobs within the forest industry -- and they are very well-paying jobs.... They're the kinds of jobs that we need in British Columbia if we're going to continue to enjoy what we enjoy today. So I can understand that some areas in the province are really concerned and would like to see the previous date of 1995 met. But if we cannot put together a proper inventory and the proper information that is needed to do that, then obviously we will have to wait until 1996.
Secondly, the Scarfe review that was completed in January of this year to do with the change of royalty to stumpage rates on privately held lands.... I believe the largest portion of those lands are on Vancouver Island. I can't remember, but I think there are some around Vancouver, most of it in the lower mainland. I want to read into the record a few paragraphs of the Scarfe report that deal with the time period. The government has elected to go to a six-year time period, and for their own political reasons or whatever, that's their prerogative.
"The 12-year phase-in period also has the beauty of removing the royalty concession just within a 100-year time span for the last of the old temporary tenures that were issued in 1907. In fact, the 12-year phase-in period, which is no better or worse on average for timber licence holders than the provincial government's 80 percent fallback benchmark, finally removes the two-price system for B.C. timber on April 1, 2007. In my view, this is the longest phase-in period which should be allowed for establishment of royalty rates to stumpage price equivalency."
We know that there has to be some amalgamation of those processes. I don't think the Reform Party has any problem with that. I think we do have a bit of a problem with the time frame.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Exactly.
"The alternative six-year phase-in period, whose present value implications are given in column 4 of appendix table C5, is clearly more draconian for timber licence holders and more revenue-enhancing for the provincial government than the 12-year phase-in period."
That's very interesting, and I read that into the record.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I know that the minister is saying, "Read the recommendation," and that's correct. The Scarfe report recommends the six years. What I'm saying is that this government doesn't always take every report it gets and say: "Yes, we're going to live up to that report." We are saying that they should possibly have extended the time to 12 years, because they will normally be finished in that period of time, and most of them will be finished about 2004 to 2005.
I have a few more paragraphs I'll read into the record.
"Legal issues may possibly be of some concern in this regard. It should be noted that a very substantial portion of outstanding timber licences have expiry dates which fall within the six- to 12-year time frame. Indeed, virtually all timber licences that are contained within the tree farm licence area expire between 2001 and 2007, with heavy concentration near 2004 to 2005."
So we wonder why the hurry for the government and the recommendation to go to six years, knowing that it's going to leave some issues on the table. There's no doubt that it's going to leave some tenure on the table -- something that's going to have to be dealt with at a later time.
The final issue that we think Bill 42 deals with is the Tahsis-Gold River issue, which the minister spoke of in his opening remarks -- the exchange of cutting rights and the cost of possible compensation for those land use claims. I guess it dovetails with my earlier remarks about land use plans, what's going to happen and the fear in the province. It's interesting that we have a land use plan for Vancouver Island. Certainly the people who were looking at land use on Vancouver Island were very aware of what was going to happen in Tahsis and Gold River. They depend fully on forestry. But the government went ahead and now, on an ad hoc basis, brings forward legislation to take care of a situation that arises in Tahsis and Gold River.
Regardless of the outcome, we wonder if this is the government's recipe for any area in the province that depends heavily on one industry. A land use plan comes in, and all of a sudden we're going to pop in some new legislation and change the direction we're going, just to accommodate certain
[ Page 14923 ]
areas. I know that the area of Tahsis and Gold River had to be looked at seriously, especially after the leaked cabinet document that stated it would cost about $500 million. Those are the jobs that people are concerned about. That's why we believe that in the land use process more consideration has to be given at that particular time to what you're going to do, what's going to happen to the jobs that are in place and what effect it's going to have on the economy in those communities.
That's why communities around the province -- and, I know, in my constituency -- are really concerned about some of the land use plans: because of the effect they're going to have on their local economy. They seem to think they are driven by the lower mainland. Those ideas are coming across in land use plans, and the communities that depend heavily on the resource industry are going to be left.
This is another example of where this comes into play, that people in the province are really concerned about jobs and the economy. The provincial government should also be very concerned about the economy. As we continue to cut back the timber supply for the whole province, we continue to lose well-paying jobs.
So we look forward to the committee stage, when we'll deal with each section in more detail and bring forward some of our amendments or recommendations that we think the minister should be looking at seriously. With that, I take my place and wait for the other....
D. Mitchell: I'd just like to add a few words to the debate on Bill 42, the Forest Amendment Act. I don't want to prolong the debate. Some of the concerns I've had have been mentioned already by members who've spoken.
But I would like to ask and plead with the minister to please answer some of the charges that have come forward about the timing of the extension of the review of the timber supply areas. Two-thirds of the TSAs have not been set yet by the chief forester. There's been an extension granted with this amendment to the Forest Act. There have been suggestions of politics entering into this extension, perhaps timed to coincide with the period after or following the next provincial election so that the government won't have to be criticized for the inevitable backlash against the reduced amount of timber available to the forest industry.
I'd like to plead with the minister to say it isn't so. Say it isn't so -- that it's not politics driving this -- because we can't have that. We know what's happened in the past, going back to the famous Sommers affair in British Columbia, where a former Minister of Forests was sent to jail for a cosy relationship with the forest industry. Just say it isn't so. I'd like to ask the minister, when he closes debate, to please tell us that politics isn't entering into the management and administration of the forest industry again today in 1995. I for one don't want to believe it's so.
[4:30]
On the other issues related to the bill, I'd just like to address one. It's the issue dealing with the change of tenure from the old timber licences, which are being rolled into tree farm licences, and the change of tenure that will also see a change from a royalty system to a stumpage system. This is a very significant change, and I think it highlights for all of us the need for tenure reform in the province of British Columbia today. I wonder if everyone is really aware what we're doing here, what these old timber licences are all about. These timber licences -- and there aren't many of them left, but there are still quite a few in the coastal areas of British Columbia -- are really a form of forest tenure that perhaps the government does want to see phased out. Maybe the industry has been willing to cooperate with that in the revolution that has being going on in the woods since this government has come to power. But these forest licences, or timber licences as they are called, are a very special form of tenure. They're about the closest that we come in the province to something that is akin to private ownership of forest land. Yet they've been administered by individuals, by companies and by enterprises on behalf of the Crown because it is Crown-owned timber.
Timber licences outside of tree farm licences were, until recently, subject to property taxation, but that was something that was eliminated back, I believe, in 1987 by the previous government. The rationale at the time was that the moneys collected from the few remaining timber licences outside of TFLs did not equal the cost of collection. The taxation didn't equal the cost of collection, so the government waived the property tax on timber harvested from timber licences, once they were incorporated into TFLs, in exchange for the licensee's agreement to constraints in the management of the TFL. I think it's important to understand that, because these timber licences, previously, could have been sold without provincial approval. In fact, most of the current operators on the coast who hold timber licences -- and that would include companies such as TimberWest, Doman Forest Products, Canadian Forest Products, MacMillan Bloedel and others -- would have acquired their timber licences through private acquisitions, through transactions that were made privately without the government really being directly involved. In fact, they were sold without provincial approval.
There's always been the issue of compensation for expropriation. I think that's something that this government has faced time and time again in its resource policies. It's a controversial area. But when a timber licensee is entitled to compensation under the Forest Act for expropriation of interest in the land, that happens in much the same manner as for fee simple land owners when they're entitled to such compensation, I would argue. So I have to ask the minister: in these changes that we're making to the Forest Act with Bill 42, are we really talking about examples that remind us of the recent expropriation of MacMillan Bloedel's timber licences in the proposed park reserve on south Moresby Island -- because that was certainly subject to compensation?
One other issue: a timber licence is transferable. The minister says it's equivalent to rent perhaps. But timber licences are transferable. We know that as well. Subject to certain limitations under the Forest Act, timber licences are transferable, and the licensee may choose to dispose of a timber licence. Indeed, most licences, as I indicated, were obtained through private acquisitions. It might be argued that this change under sections 9 and 10 of Bill 42 might represent a breaking of faith with those participants in the forest industry who hold or held timber licences and who have supported the government's initiatives up to this point in time.
But I take a look at the proposals here to rationalize stumpage and royalties, and I think there is a need to rationalize stumpage and royalties and have it all rolled into one system. I wonder, if we take a look at what sections 9 and 10 of this bill do, if we say that.... I know that this is pursuant to Dr. Scarfe's report and his recommendations, which the minis-
[ Page 14924 ]
ter has referred to in his comments on this bill so far. A few years ago there were encouragements by the government to move these timber licences into TFLs. As a result, there were restrictions on the liquidations of these timber licences. I wonder if the minister would agree that historical understandings, well entrenched in the forest industry in British Columbia, are being broken as the result of this, because although certain companies have managed these licences in good faith over a number of years, investments as a result of being able to hold this form of tenure have been made as well. Investments have been made on the basis of holding these licences.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Dr. Scarfe deals with this somewhat, but not all of Dr. Scarfe's recommendations are incorporated into the bill, either. I think the minister would agree with that.
These timber licences, as I've said, are the closest thing we have to private ownership of forest land in British Columbia when it comes to Crown lands, and it's incumbent upon the government to play fair with those operators and to move very cautiously here and go slowly.
I'd like to make one suggestion: if ever there was a time for provisions in a bill brought forward in this Legislature to go to a select standing committee of the House to allow those holders of timber licences to come forward and make representation, and to allow other interested parties in the forest industry or observers of the forest industry to come forward and make recommendations, this would be the time -- and I'll tell you why. There's a crying need for tenure reform in the province. I think the minister has acknowledged that in previous debates in the House. There's a need to reform and review the manner by which people have access to the timber resource of the province. If the government had not been in a hurry with Bill 42, and if we could have enjoyed the luxury of time to refer Bill 42 -- or at least the sections of Bill 42 dealing with the liquidation of these old timber licences and the rationalization from royalties to stumpage -- to a select standing committee, and allowed that committee to have representation from the general public and from operators in the forest industry, maybe that could have been a good step towards the kind of tenure reform our province is crying out for right now.
I wonder if the minister would agree that this suggestion, which is offered constructively, might work: we could take sections 9 and 10 of this bill alone and refer them to a select standing committee for the remainder of this session. There's no need to hesitate; we could get on with this. We could hear the representation that's needed, and we might get some good ideas from the industry and elsewhere for the kind of direction the government should be pursuing when it comes to a major review of what regulations that holders of the forest land, of the Crown land that holds productive timber, should have. The complex TFLs, forest licences and other forms of tenure that exist need to be rationalized. Perhaps these timber licences are a form that should be relegated to the past, but by rolling them over in this way without moving as cautiously and slowly as we might want, without allowing legislators from all sides of this House to have input and without allowing the Legislative Assembly or a committee of this House to receive the representation that might be useful, I think we're making a mistake.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, I recognize the Minister of Forests, whose comments will close the debate.
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciated the input from members opposite and their suggestions on each of the three major components of this bill. I'll just briefly review each of those three components, and I'd be happy to respond to the more specific suggestions in committee stage.
First, with respect to the timber supply review, I think it's really important to understand what this review is about and what it entails, because as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast so eloquently said, what we have desperately needed in this province is a comprehensive inventory. It has been to our tremendous shame as a province that prior to the last election, the Forestry Service itself had to acknowledge that it did not have an adequate inventory of forest resources to be confident that the cut level in the province was sustainable. It was for that reason, in the absence of that kind of inventory, that a timber supply review was undertaken and given an expedited timetable -- expedited even according to the provisions for the future of this bill itself. What the bill said when the timber supply review was brought in by the previous minister was that in the normal course, we should be able to update our inventory over five years -- update what is a good inventory over five years -- but that because the need was so desperate, we should try, in the absence of a good base, to get the initial cut, the initial information, in place in only three years.
I understand why the minister of the day and the officials who advised him set that target -- because the need was so great. The need was desperate, because for years governments had not made investments in the forest land base, and at the same time had not done the accounting that was necessary to calculate what the costs of failing to make those investments were in downward pressure on timber supply. I'm tempted.... In fact, I think I should read to the House an account from the 1980s. This is from an article by Rob Kyle, a well-known professional forester. In a recent article, he wrote:
"The report was an indictment of Social Credit forest policy. Prepared by the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters in the early 1980s, the analysis showed reductions in provincial forestry funding commitments of up to 70 percent. This at a time when government foresters were warning of severe future timber shortages unless forest management budgets were increased."
Instead of increasing them, they decreased them. Back in the early eighties they slashed them. Then he goes on to report a conversation with a reporter for a major Vancouver newspaper, who in turn related a conversation with a senior official in Bill Bennett's office of the day. I quote again from the article:
"Asked why the government was slashing forestry budgets so drastically, this official replied that forestry was thought of by the government as a sunset industry. 'Besides,' he said 'people don't care about forestry; there's no votes in it'."
In light of that history, I can understand why some of the members across the way -- or more naturally, members of the Social Credit Party -- have sought cover under other party labels, such as Liberal or Reform. That is the sad history we're dealing with: a complete neglect of our forest resource in terms of investment and, of course, a failure to put in place the inventory that would document that failure in the form of an inventory. So we as a government said that that, along with other aspects, had to be corrected. And that's why the timber supply review was put in place and this very ambitious schedule was set.
[ Page 14925 ]
I want to urge members opposite to be very careful in their rather cynical suggestions about this timing issue. First of all, their arguments don't make sense. This timber supply review is documenting the consequences of that past failure by previous governments. This timber supply review process and the downward pressures that result from it are based on status quo practices. For the most part, they don't take account of changes that this government has made. They may start to now, but for the most part they're documenting the consequence of failing to invest over the years. So those consequences don't reflect badly on this government; they reflect badly on those who failed to make the investments in the past. The Social Credit governments of the early 1980s are the real villains of this piece. So that doesn't make sense in that sense.
Second, no one is delaying the chief forester in doing his function. The chief forester is working diligently. Indeed, I can tell you that he is working well beyond the normal capabilities you'd expect of an official of that kind in order to try to get this job done. Timber supply reviews are continuing to be conducted, public discussions are continuing to take place, and annual allowable cut determinations are continuing to be made on a monthly basis. All that's happened is that the chief forester has said publicly -- and to me and to members of the media who are perhaps even more cynical than members of the opposition -- that he needs some more time to finish the job.
We could have pretended that that wasn't the case, and come back and repaired this in the session next year and not faced this issue publicly. But I preferred to come here and be open about it, and say that the chief forester has told me, as he's told the public, that he needs some more time. This isn't going to delay anything from a political point of view. The process will continue. The AAC calculations will continue, and the news that flows from them will continue to be made public. I hope the public will read that information in light of the history I have talked about today. But for members to suggest that this is somehow politically motivated is a disservice to the chief forester and the statements that he has made, and it simply doesn't make sense. So that's the timber supply review.
The timber supply review is absolutely a critical process. We've got to do it right, we've got to make sure the public is involved, and we've got to do it in as timely a way as possible. The chief forester is committed to that, but he has said that he needs a few more months to complete it. It will still go on, but it will have a bit of an extension as a result of his recommendations.
[4:45]
With respect to royalties in the Scarfe report, I urge members to read the Scarfe report. I appreciated the quotes that were made from the report, indicating that some members have done so. But that report was a product of very careful deliberation by this government. When we instituted the forest renewal plan and came to an understanding that to fund that plan there would be an increase in stumpage rates, we understood there would also have to be an increase in royalty rates, to be fair and equitable. And the rates that we announced at that time, we thought, reflected a fair understanding at the time.
But some disagreed. And so we agreed, out of fairness and out of the very concerns that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi states -- those of fair play and the need to proceed cautiously -- to reduce the proposed rate and to have in the interceding period an independent review done by a respected expert in the field, Dr. Scarfe. That was done with the full involvement of the forest industry and others who made submissions. The recommendation that came back from Dr. Scarfe fully canvassed the issues that members have considered here, and it recommended that we bring the royalties into line with stumpage and that we do it over a six-year time period. I acknowledge that there were other alternatives looked at, like a 12-year period, but it was recommended on a six-year time period.
The member for Peace River North asked: why did we go with a six-year time period? Did we just accept it blindly because it was the recommendation? The answer is no. We said we were prepared to consult further on the phase-in period; we did so. And I'll tell you, some licence holders said that six years was too long, that it should take place tomorrow or within two years. Others said six years was too short, that it should be well beyond that. And at the end of the day, therefore, having consulted very broadly, we decided that Dr. Scarfe's recommendation should be adopted, because he had had the opportunity to consult with those same licence holders, and our consultation didn't lead us to a different conclusion.
So I really want to urge members that this report, I think, has been an example of this government consulting and listening and taking a very deliberative approach. There were some misunderstandings, I think. The member for Surrey-White Rock doesn't seem to understand that royalties apply to timber licences, something I think, from his remarks, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi understands. They don't apply to tree farm licences, except for timber licences located within tree farm licences; that seemed to be an element of misunderstanding. But we have proceeded very carefully, very cautiously and in full consultation here. There has been no breach of faith with anyone. In fact, we have, I think, moved to ensure that all points of view were fairly and fully considered.
Now, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi says: "Well, what about all the other issues of tenure reform?" I'll have to quote back to him my favourite quote: "The best is the enemy of the good." Sure, we should be dealing -- and will be dealing in the future, I hope -- with larger issues of tenure reform. But let's not let that best goal impede what is good about this bill: namely, that we are going to move forward on this important issue on the basis of Dr. Scarfe's recommendation.
The final issue, that of the land use plan.... I must say, I really have difficulty in accepting the position on this issue of the member for Surrey-White Rock, who mouths those platitudes about communities and community stability, when it was he and his party that took a document that was leaked and ran with it to try to create ferment and instability in the very communities they now say they're so concerned about -- took a document and used it very selectively to whip up fears in the community.
When I met members of the community at a time when those fears were in full flight, I noticed that the member for Surrey-White Rock and the Leader of the Opposition showed up. They always show up when there's trouble, to whip up some more. But when I went back to those communities to respond to their concerns and to produce the solutions that are now reflected in this bill, they were notable by their
[ Page 14926 ]
absence. I think that speaks volumes about the depth of the official opposition's true concern for community stability.
Indeed, what we are moving towards, in response to a number of comments made by various members, is a situation in which we have land use stability, in which there is greater community involvement. In this case, the community will be involved both through a community resource board and through some direct community ownership of a forest licence, a community tenure, so that we build toward more community stability. And for the members of the official opposition, who have been out there not only trying to whip up instability and foment around land use issues, but then, to add insult to injury, also opposing an incremental increase in investment in our forest land base through the forest renewal program -- taking us back to the past when government basically said, oh, there's no votes in it, so let's ignore it -- I think is not a particularly credible position for them to take.
The member talks about targets, and I'd be very happy to send him a speech I delivered a few months ago about the need to establish targets and how we should move forward to do so. Let me tell the member for Surrey-White Rock and the opposition party that we won't achieve targets if we ditch the forest renewal plan, such as he and the Leader of the Opposition argue. If we do away with Forest Renewal B.C., then any hope of achieving targets of increased timber supply in the future is out the window. That's why we have worked so hard as a government to make sure that we have stability in the land base, a commitment to timber supply and a forest renewal plan. Rather than mouthing platitudes and trying to undermine those initiatives, it would be refreshing if the members of the official opposition, in particular, would get on board with this agenda and start working with us -- and with communities, instead of against them.
With those remarks, I move second reading of Bill 42.
Motion approved.
Bill 42, Forest Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 45.
VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: This bill makes amendments to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, which the government announced last October in response to the Matkin report. It complements Bill 44, which deals with the B.C. Securities Commission.
These particular amendments are intended to improve public confidence in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and to make it absolutely clear that the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors must operate, first and foremost, in the public interest. These amendments strengthen the independence of the VSE's governors, and the independence of the governors from the VSE membership in general, by requiring that one-third of the VSE governors be public governors, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
This is consistent with the government's policy with respect to the proportion of non-members that are appointed to self-regulatory organizations. To further strengthen public confidence in the integrity of the VSE's regulatory decisions, the VSE board of governors will now be required to elect one of the public governors as its chair.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
The important role which the VSE itself can and does play in the provincial economy is also reflected in a new provision which states that the purpose of the VSE is to contribute to the provincial economy by operating as a stock exchange in the pursuit of its objectives. The exchange not only is a source of funds for growing businesses, but also can help to create new and sustainable jobs. In recognition of this contribution, the VSE will be required to submit an annual report, which will be tabled in this Legislature -- and thus before all British Columbians -- outlining the manner in which it has fulfilled its purpose and objectives.
Public confidence in the VSE and a well-functioning securities market are central to the healthier investment climate this government is committed to building. These amendments are a key part of the policy and legislative steps we have taken, and are taking, to increase overall public confidence in the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
F. Gingell: I think that June 5 is an important day, because we're going to deal with second reading, I hope, of both Bill 45 and Bill 44. I think it's true to say that government in the past -- for its own reasons, which we sometimes fail to understand -- has not dealt in a sensible, thoughtful and responsible manner with both the B.C. Securities Commission and the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
I'm really pleased that this government has seen fit to take actions that I believe are long overdue, actions that I think -- and I'm sure the minister thinks -- will have positive consequences for the economy of British Columbia. Obviously the minister does, because the minister required a change in the preamble to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act that clearly enunciates that.
When you're in opposition you don't always necessarily understand all of the nuances that go into the particular decisions that are made. The one area that I tried to encourage the minister to follow was to increase the number of public governors to more than one-third, because I believe that this is a factor and a visible sign that will cause the investors who invest in securities listed on the VSE to have a greater degree of comfort with the operation of the exchange. The Vancouver Stock Exchange is a little different from other self-regulating bodies, because it not only regulates its members but actually operates the market. That doesn't happen in the case of the real estate industry or the insurance industry, where there is separation between brokers and insurers. It is somewhat different than the professional bodies that are self-regulating.
The move to have one-third of the governors as public governors and to have them all appointed by order-in-council is a move that I support. I must admit that I support it more than I might have done otherwise because this minister has made a commitment that the appointments will be made from a slate of individuals who are recommended to the minister by the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors and by the business community.
[ Page 14927 ]
I don't see where that is legislated. If it comes in through regulation, I'm not quite sure.... I note that the appointments I have seen this particular minister make to bodies have all been, in my opinion, good, responsible appointments. If the means by which the slate is chosen is not regulated in some manner, then it concerns me what Minister of Finance may come along in the future. Certainly the process by which the minister has made appointments, not under this act but under the act that we will probably deal with next, which has set up a securities public policy advisory committee -- I'm not sure that's quite the right term for it -- is a very good process. The appointments that the minister has made to that committee speak for themselves.
There is one item that I'd like the minister to consider. There may not be a solution. But when the public governors make up one-third, and a vacancy or two appears, they are going to be filled by order-in-council, because that's the process by which they were appointed in the first place. If the process is of picking them from the slate, and there's no slate existing at that time because the members on the previous slate have been appointed or are no longer available, I would be most uncomfortable if there was some time gap between the vacancy occurring and a new appointment taking place. The minister will know well the slowness by which orders-in-council go through on occasion. So that is a matter that I'd like the minister to consider.
I look forward to committee stage debate, and I think that perhaps at that time, it might be appropriate for the minister to be prepared to discuss what others matters might be in this report that, under section 10.01, will be required to be filed. With those few words, I give this bill my support.
[5:00]
J. Weisgerber: My comments will be brief as well. This is fairly straightforward legislation that sets out to define the number of members of the board of the VSE to be appointed by the cabinet. It sets out, as the minister indicated, that the chair is to be elected from those appointees. It's interesting, given the exercise the government involved itself in, along with the VSE and the Matkin report -- of which we haven't seen much yet.... As I looked at Matkin's recommendations, his thoughts on this subject were quite different from the government's and are not at all reflective of the action taken here.
Matkin said: "The commission concludes that public governors should not be unilaterally appointed by cabinet. The present number of public governors is adequate for public representation. The present system represents the highest proportion of public governors in North America." Matkin goes on to say: "It is equally important, however, that public governors command the investment community's confidence and respect."
The minister has indicated that the government will look to the VSE and other interested groups for nominations. But it is also quite glaring, in this very limited piece of legislation -- very short piece of legislation -- that there is no formula; there is no legislated commitment. There is, indeed, nothing to stop a minister and a cabinet from simply going ahead and making any appointments they see fit. I find it curious that while the minister would assure us that there will be consultation, for some reason or other those drafting the legislation were instructed not to include any specific reference to that in the legislation itself.
The action taken by the government.... Again, I think it's heading in the right direction. I point out the obvious differences with Matkin particularly because of this government's initiative in the whole Matkin report and the lack of action that's been taken there.
The VSE board seemed much more in tune with the legislation that's being tabled now.... I look at their recommendation No. 4, which suggests that 60 percent of the VSE should be brokers and the balance come from a host of interests, including professional organizations such as accounting associations, the Law Society, the Association of Professional Engineers, geoscientists, the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the board of trade, the bankers' association, etc. Again, I find it curious that the minister hasn't decided to set out in the legislation the specific process for recommendations for public appointees. Both groups -- both Jim Matkin and the VSE board of governors -- seem to be very much of one mind: the people appointed to represent the public interest need to have the confidence of the other members of the board of the VSE itself and of the people who trade on the VSE. There needs to be a level of confidence that.... My only real criticism of this legislation is that it doesn't define the process. I don't think it provides the kind of confidence that some might look for. It's fine for us to say that the minister goes into these undertakings well-intentioned, that we're confident the minister is determined or has decided to follow a particular pattern and that the minister has a formula and a process in place, but we know that ministers in this portfolio and others come and go. Indeed, it will happen again. Legislation can't be drafted where one has to say: "Well, I have confidence that the minister will act responsibly in this area." The legislation should be drafted more precisely. The legislation should more clearly define the process and should more clearly define who should put forward nominations and the formula for doing that.
Having said that, I think there need to be changes. There need to be ongoing changes to the makeup of the VSE, and there need to be changes to enhance the reputation of the VSE both here in British Columbia and across North America. Strides have been taken; improvements have been made. I'm confident that in the general sense of the word, this bit of legislation helps move it along the way. Again, my only criticism is the lack of definition in the process and the formula by which one-third of the governors are going to be appointed to represent the so-called public interest.
H. Lali: I beg leave to make an introduction on behalf of the Speaker.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: Visiting us today in the Legislature are 35 grade 6 students with their teacher Ms. N. Baldocchi, from Evergreen School in Edmonds, Washington. Would the House please give them a warm British Columbia welcome.
G. Wilson: As we seem to be lulled into a sort of quietness in passage of bills this afternoon, let me say, with respect to Bill 45, that if this government has ever broken the promise it made not just to the people of British Columbia but particularly to its members, this has got to be one of those broken promises.
In the 1980s this government, when it sat in opposition, promised it was going to clean up the VSE. It promised that it
[ Page 14928 ]
was going to make changes with respect to the BCSC. And what it has done is bring in a cosmetic, watered-down, totally useless set of amendments. The people who supported this government have got to be wondering whatever happened to that fire-and-brimstone opposition that said we have got to clean up the VSE. Whatever happened to this opposition that said: "Look, we've got a situation here in this province with a self-regulatory authority that needs to have those self-regulatory powers removed, that needs to put the provision for public trustees in place and that needs to start to clean up its act in favour of those people who are investors"? That went out the window in 1994. It has come forward with a group of recommendations that, frankly, are worthless. No wonder there is no opposition to these particular bills, because I can tell you that there must be those who are rubbing their hands in glee, knowing who is financing the official opposition in this province today, who are going to sit down and suggest....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I can see that the member for Delta South finds that I push a very hot button, and a hot button it should be indeed. Because it's going to be that party -- if we can believe what we hear coming out of the ranks of these people -- that is going to be in government and that is going to be advancing, from a slate of names of people recommended by the VSE and business, who is going to take over that exchange. Well, that gives me no confidence, I can tell you, and it surely shouldn't give anybody else who's an investor at the VSE any confidence, knowing where the financial backing is of that particular organization today.
What we have to have, and what this government regrettably has not brought in place, is a strong and aggressive measure by which we can clean up the VSE. What was intended in the two main planks of the Matkin report were the removal of the VSE's self-regulatory powers, and the replacement of this passive and rather reactive BCSC with a much more aggressive and proactive senior regulator. That is not in either of these bills, Bills 45 and 44. It's unfortunate that the minister hasn't gone that route.
The member for Peace River South points to a very important point, and that is that nowhere does this bill tell us how the process is going to be followed for the appointment of these so-called public trustees, only one-third of whom are going to sit on the board. Useless!
That's not what we wanted from this government. That's not what we expected, having read in Hansard, as we have.... I'm not going to embarrass them by reading it out today, but we can do that when we get into committee stage, if we have to. We'll go through Hansard to see what they said when they were in opposition and what they committed to -- not just to the people of British Columbia but, more specifically, to the very people that elected them to government. While recognizing that that was a minority -- a sizeable one, nevertheless -- they expected to have something with some teeth, and they didn't get it.
The member for Delta South makes a very important point -- in fact, a critically important point -- and that is that this is different from other professional bodies. He's quite correct when he says that, because it operates the market. That's why the majority should be public trustees. That's why, when we start to look at how this proposition is put in place in terms of the Securities Commission, we need to have a very aggressive and proactive senior regulator in place. That's why we needed to take steps to clean it up, and we didn't do it. This government had an opportunity to do it, and for whatever its reasons may be -- and I'll leave it to this minister to explain what those reasons may be -- it went back on a strong commitment and a promise to the people of British Columbia. It's shameful.
I don't expect that our proposition that this bill not proceed is going to get much support from the ranks of the opposition, especially the official opposition, which is heavily financed by the very interests that will benefit by this bill proceeding as it is. You can't expect that you're going to get much opposition from those ranks. I would expect that members of the Reform opposition -- most of whom come from the interior and many of whom come out of the resource sector, where people's livelihood is dependent upon sound and honest and proper investment in the resource sector -- would stand up and recognize the need for the VSE to be a sound and sensible investment body that allows opportunities for the very things that the minister suggests are going to be here by somehow requiring that this VSE become part of a job creation authority within the province.
In order to secure that, we should all be quite comfortable, because we're going to make it file an annual report. Well, my goodness me, how many annual reports are filed in this chamber that very rarely get read? They gather dust, and when you do read what's in them, you find that the information is less than sufficient or helpful anyway. How can we take comfort in that?
I expect to see opposition from the rank and file of the Reform Party. I recognize that the former Liberal Party, whatever it is now -- a shadow of what it was; in fact, I believe it is fraudulent to call it liberal -- is going to back this bill, because they're the very interests that would like to see it come forward just as it's drafted here.
We're strongly opposed to it. We believe that it falls far short of the mark with respect to the promise that was made by this government to the people of British Columbia, particularly to their membership, when they stood in opposition, time after time.... If you look at Hansard, Hansard is clear on it: over and over again they hammered away at the former Social Credit government, saying: "The VSE needs to be cleaned up, and we're going to clean it up. Give us a chance to get in, and we'll do it." They had a chance, and they didn't do it at all. So from our point of view, and in principle, we believe that this bill is ill-founded. We do not believe it serves the public interest; neither do we believe that it is a sensible attempt at putting in place a commitment that this government made to the people of British Columbia when it ran for office in 1991. We'll be voting against it.
[5:15]
Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Finance closes debate.
Hon. E. Cull: It's always interesting to listen to various members from the opposition when they're speaking to a bill. As we are starting to debate some of these matters that are in front of us, it's funny to see what politics does to common sense. Maybe I'll go a bit in reverse order on this particular bill.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has, in a very passionate manner, talked about cleaning up the VSE
[ Page 14929 ]
and his great disappointment in the steps that we've put forward. He referenced the Matkin commission and said that the two main planks of the Matkin commission were ignored in our response. One of them was to turn the self-regulatory body -- the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- over to some new "member reg co," as it was called, that the Investment Dealers' Association was supposed to be setting up. That was one of the recommendations that we did not pursue, and that would have taken away the independent self-regulatory nature of the VSE. The reason we didn't do that one is because the body doesn't exist, the IDA still hasn't figured out how to get it to exist, and no other securities regulator across the country has put its support behind making it exist. So it's a great idea, but it could not be implemented in reality.
It's actually the second recommendation -- or the second so-called plank that the member says we didn't implement -- that really concerns me. It makes me believe that everything that he has been saying here is purely political posturing and not real concern about the VSE. The one place where this government parted company with Mr. Matkin, in terms of his recommendation, was that Mr. Matkin's main restructuring recommendation for the Securities Commission -- and this is the bill we're going to be debating next -- was to essentially turn the watching of the chickens over to the foxes. His particular model would have taken all of the players who have a conflict of interest when it comes to regulating the securities industry in this province and say that if you put all of the conflicts of interest onto one board together, somehow they'll balance each other out, and that by balancing each other out we will have a better system. We rejected that. The restructuring and regulation of the Securities Commission by putting all of the players onto the Securities Commission and in some way hoping that would balance out the conflicts of interest was flawed. Most of the people who looked at it said it was flawed. They said it would put it outside the overall securities regulation in Canada and the United States. For that reason, we had to reject that particular recommendation.
Even having said that, when we released our response to the Matkin report, Mr. Matkin joined me at the announcement and said that while we did not implement every recommendation entirely as he had put it forward, it was 98 percent of what he had recommended in terms of its intent. So Mr. Matkin himself, who has been a very able critic of securities regulation in British Columbia, at that point said that he accepted the changes that we've had to make in order to make this actually work in the regime that we're in today.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I take all the third party comments with a grain of salt, because the member who was speaking -- the Leader of the Third Party -- had ample time while he was a member of government to take the cleanup initiatives that he has urged on our government and did nothing for the entire time frame that he had the opportunity.
The former Minister of Finance appointed Jim Matkin to take a look at the securities industry and regulation in British Columbia. The report was completed and we went through an extensive consultation process. Shortly after that consultation process was concluded we released our response to Mr. Matkin's report. As opposed to having done nothing since the report was released in October, we have actually done a number of things with respect to implementing Matkin's recommendations, because not all of them are legislative. We have two bills in front of us right now plus the bill that was already passed earlier this year, giving financial autonomy to the Securities Commission, which together make up the legislative portion of our response to how to clean up the securities business in British Columbia.
But not everything can be accomplished by legislation. Some of the aspects had to be accomplished by providing some funding to the RCMP so that we could establish a securities fraud office, which is being established right now. Some of the matters that are part and parcel of this are simply administrative or regulatory, and those have been forthcoming over the last number of months. In fact, I think one of the more progressive changes that has been made has been to structure the Securities Policy Advisory Committee, putting on that committee some of the very strongest critics of securities regulation in British Columbia and giving them some authority to work with the Securities Commission and the VSE to bring about these changes. Overall, these aspects -- regulatory, legislative, non-regulatory and financial -- are coming together to implement the recommendations of Mr. Matkin's report.
Beyond that, we have said that we will make periodic and regular announcements as to what progress is being made with respect to implementing the recommendations. A few weeks ago, I tabled a report that outlined all of the recommendations from the Matkin report and indicated what progress had been made on them and what steps still remain to be done. I have committed to doing that every six months, monitoring it very closely. I have put all parties of the securities industry on notice that if we are not making sufficient progress with the steps we've announced, then we will take further steps to continue to tighten up on the regulation.
I am glad to have the support of the official opposition on this matter. It shows that they have done their homework in talking to the various people who've had a role in bringing these recommendations before our government.
The appointments process we will discuss during committee stage. I will advise members right now that the members who are being appointed -- the public governors who are being appointed to the VSE -- are not simply being nominated from the VSE board of governors, as some have suggested, or from the business community. They include the treasurer of the Law Society, the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the executive director and the chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade, plus the president and vice-chair of the VSE. Together, those individuals have a fair knowledge and a fair representation of the interests of investors and the industry -- to put the names in front of our government for appointment as the public governors. The rest of the concerns, with respect to the proportion of public governors and the like, I think would all be better dealt with in committee stage.
So with that, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
[ Page 14930 ]
Second reading of Bill 45 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 45 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Pement |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Kasper |
|
Hammell |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Cull |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Jackson |
Weisgerber |
Stephens |
|
Gingell |
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Reid |
Warnke |
Dalton |
|
Tanner |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
de Jong |
|
Neufeld |
Hartley |
Lali |
|
Schreck |
Copping |
Brewin |
|
NAYS -- 3 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Mitchell |
[5:30]
Bill 45, Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 44.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: These amendments to the Securities Act implement the majority of the legislative component of the government's response to the Matkin commission. These important amendments are part of the framework that the government believes is necessary to effectively regulate the provincial securities sector and strengthen public confidence in the VSE and its regulation. As I said when we were debating Bill 45, these are complementary to the legislative amendments that are being made under Bill 45 to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but they also complement the non-legislative component of our response to the Matkin commission. Anyone who is looking at the legislation really should take the time to go back and read the government's response to the Matkin commission, because it places in context that legislation is only a part of the response and that there are a number of things that have to be done which do not have a legislative component to them.
To help ensure that British Columbia's Securities Commission has the most effective and appropriate regulatory tools, this bill provides it with the power to pass rules which have the same effect and force of law as regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The commission's rule-making powers will be subject to safeguards to reflect that the commission is not an elected body. These powers and safeguards are consistent with recent legislation in other jurisdictions and will enable the commission to respond rapidly and effectively to market conditions and developments. The commission will also have the power to seek the court-ordered forfeiture of ill-gotten gains.
To further enhance the British Columbia Securities Commission regulatory policy process, and to ensure that the commission has the broadest possible range of expertise, the commission will be increased from nine to 11 members, with a provision for a second vice-chair. The bill also provides statutory authority for the appointment of the recently established B.C. Securities Commission Securities Policy Advisory Committee. The mandate of this broadly based and expert committee is to advise the commission on administrative, legislative and regulatory matters related to securities regulation and the securities industry.
In addition, the B.C. Securities Commission has been given stronger oversight authority through amendments which authorize it to conduct on-site regulatory audits of self-regulatory organizations and exchanges, and on-site compliance audits of the registrants. Other amendments regulate investor relations activity and promoters. These amendments regulate this activity more explicitly. The Matkin commission found this activity to be essential in the venture capital market but particularly vulnerable to abuse, so these amendments will enable the commission to take regulatory action to deal with market abuses related to promotion or investor relations activity.
The bill also contains a number of miscellaneous amendments required to reflect new development in the securities industry. Among other things, the bill implements an ombudsman's recommendation to prohibit the sale of short-term promissory notes and commercial paper to individuals, enables the electronic filing of documents, and updates regulation-making powers in order to enable effective and harmonized regulation of mutual funds.
As we committed last October, we provided an opportunity for public comment on these amendments before they were finalized for introduction today. The amendments in this bill reflect the benefits of that public consultation. We believe these amendments form a cornerstone of the best possible legal framework for the venture capital marketplace, and for the securities market as a whole. Together with the other steps we have undertaken, the amendments offer a new basis for all players in the Vancouver market to move forward towards improving confidence in this important and vital market, and ultimately towards the growth and vitality of the British Columbia economy.
Again, I must say -- as I said with respect to the last bill -- our commitment is to improving public confidence and cleaning up the abuses in the securities industry in British Columbia. If the steps we have taken -- legislative, financial and otherwise -- prove to be insufficient, we are fully prepared to take further steps to make sure that there is public confidence in securities regulation in British Columbia.
F. Gingell: This particular bill has to be read in concert with the changes to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act and the changes to the special accounts that were made earlier this year. You must not look at one by itself, in isolation. As I stated when I spoke to Bill 45, I believe that the government is going in the right direction.
I'm surprised at the attack I received by the member from the Sunshine Coast. I believe that we must be very careful that
[ Page 14931 ]
we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater but that we do ensure that we get rid of the scum floating on top of it.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Well, I borrowed that from a member earlier -- from that member.
There are a whole series of actions. In this bill we deal with the new role of the British Columbia Securities Commission in the regulation and discipline of broker members. That's a subject that the member brought up in criticizing that it hadn't been removed from the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Well, it hasn't been removed; I would presume that that is because it is that organization which these individual brokers are members of, so it's appropriate for them to be involved. But we have got to bring more discipline in, and we have got to ensure that the Vancouver Stock Exchange takes action when it's appropriate.
That's why I support the role Bill 44 gives to the British Columbia Securities Commission in that function. If it doesn't work, then perhaps the IDA can be encouraged to bring in the regulatory independent body that they have been discussing but not coming to any conclusions on for some years.
I'm also pleased to see that this bill, for the first time, brings in the regulation of promoters. It gives the British Columbia Securities Commission a proactive role in dealing with overseeing the activities of promoters and the regulation and registration of promoters. I'm pleased that there is a requirement for all listed companies to advise the Securities Commission concerning which individuals are empowered to fulfil those roles on their behalf.
The way the Vancouver Stock Exchange is going to get cleaned up -- if that is the right term -- is clearly through the actions of the British Columbia Securities Commission. I was pleased that another major recommendation that Mr. Matkin made of setting up an independent administrative law commission, or a sort of SEB, was not accepted by the government. The promoters of companies and the lawyers and accountants and other people that advise them are very quick and very able to change the way in which things are done, to change the way in which deals are structured, to change the wording in the various contracts that are required to be entered into in the promotion of companies and to quickly get around policy and rule changes brought in by the Securities Commission. It is important for the Securities Commission, sitting and adjudicating particular cases, to be able to create policy and rules in the adjudication process. By their process of making rulings, they are able to break new ground.
That's got to be subject to judicial review. Instead of going to a special administrative law commission, as was proposed in the Matkin report, with rule changes and policy changes being the prerogative of that body, I support it being left with the commission as they sit in hearings, with the ability of people who disagree with the rulings to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal for changes.
This bill, I think, deserves our support because it requires the Securities Commission to more clearly focus on their responsibilities. Their responsibilities have been expanded, and the changes that we went through in the earlier bill -- which got rid of the special account and allowed the revenues of the Securities Commission to be available to pay for additional activities of the Securities Commission -- allows them and gives them the opportunity to prove their worth. Those additional funds, I know, will be partially used in funding the special fraud squad that has been set up with the RCMP.
I believe that the government has brought into place all of the necessary pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to enable a fairer, more open and honest securities industry to grow and prosper in British Columbia. If they don't -- and the jury will be out for some time -- take the reins in their hands and drive the buggy in the right direction, then I'm sure this government, or any government that succeeds them, will take those steps that are necessary to ensure that more changes are made.
But I support the changes that have been made to this point, and I intend doing so in second reading. This is a complex piece of legislation, and I look forward to more detailed discussion at the committee stage.
[5:45]
J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to this Securities Amendment Act. It seems to me this bill has made some rather sweeping changes that have the potential for some controversy, for some debate. Indeed, when we look at some of the areas, they seem fairly straightforward. The increase in the size of the commission -- statutory authority for an advisory committee that doesn't seem to be very well defined beyond that -- seems to be an area that leaves an enormous amount of discretion to the minister. The rules and the provisions for regulatory powers seem to be the most controversial elements of this bill. We see now that rather than the Lieutenant-Governor, on advice from the government, making regulations, the BCSC itself will be able to put forward regulations that will ultimately become law in British Columbia. I think one must think very carefully about the implications of adding that authority to any board other than elected representatives themselves.
I welcome the greater regulation of promoters. It seem to me that there are some definitions for investor relations, activities and representations. But I suppose the thing that most concerns me today, given the number of bills on the order paper, is that I am at a loss to understand why the government is calling forward a bill that it just tabled. It seems to me that there is an opportunity for us to debate a number of bills, not only to provide a more reasoned kind of approach to this debate by members of the Legislature but, more importantly, to give investors and people who are actively involved with the commission and the VSE an opportunity to examine the legislation, to comment and to provide some kind of a reaction. Indeed, one of Jim Matkin's recommendations was that the board provide interested persons with the opportunity to make representations for at least 60 days before changes are adopted.
I'm not sure what process others, besides the members of the VSE and the commission themselves, have had to look at this legislation. I'm not sure how the general public has had an opportunity to examine this legislation. If, indeed, we're talking about protecting investors, if we're talking about raising the profile and the credibility of the VSE, and improving and increasing the authorities and powers of the commission, why would the government be in such a rush to bring forward this legislation? If it has indeed run through its legislative calendar and was only able to table the bill last week, and we're looking at getting out of here in the next few days, I guess that might be an answer; but I don't think that's the case.
[ Page 14932 ]
Perhaps the minister will advise us as to why she is in such an all-fired hurry to get this particular piece of legislation through. Why has she not provided all interested parties.... I know that from time to time the government thinks it's kind of cute to bring something in one day and call it up for second reading the next day, understanding that people who might want to do a detailed analysis of the bill won't have an opportunity to do so.
I'm particularly concerned about people directly affected by this legislation who may well be far more prepared a week or two from now to comment on either the things the bill does or those it fails to do. It seems to me that things like section 14, which allows the commission to have enormous variations in applying the act, may well cause people who invest on the VSE to want to examine the implications of the very, very sweeping powers and enormous loopholes that can be created under this section. I expect that the bill might have received better consideration had those people with a very close and intimate financial stake in what happens there had an opportunity for this kind of comment.
Section 42 deals more with the powers of the commission as it relates to members of the board, but the broad powers to investigate and search in offices is something that I think needs to be considered. We want to see tightening up, but an appreciation for the appropriate process and protection is always needed.
I'm concerned that with section 44, we're supposed to keep fees out of the commission's regulatory powers. This section, by its own powers, would allow the commission to levy fines or other financial demands. And we don't have the confidence that the commission's need for funding may not from time to time drive the size of the financial demands put on violators. It seems to us that there is a real potential for conflict here.
Indeed, we find ourselves having to respond to this bill on pretty short notice. The desire to turn the Securities Commission into a more effective regulatory body seems a sensible one to me. I know people who have been dedicated members of the commission who have been very genuine in their desire to see the regulation of the VSE improved, and I think the people there probably bring a lot of experience, a lot of knowledge and a lot of commitment with them. So my inclination is to be supportive of this. But I'm very uncomfortable with the haste with which the government seems to be pushing through this legislation. I am concerned that the government appears to be discouraging public debate and public comment before the legislation is brought in. It may well be that the minister is going to tell us that there will be a significant period of time between second and third reading. The minister may well commit to leaving the bill on the order paper at second reading for a period of two or three weeks before moving to committee stage. That may give people the opportunity for comment.
With that, I will listen with interest to further comments and to the response from the minister.
G. Wilson: I think that the member for Delta South is quite correct when he says that you have to look at Bills 44 and 45 together. I don't think you can look at them in isolation, and I think that as a package....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member says he's surprised at the attack. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that that was not a personal attack toward the member for Delta South. It was more a statement of how disappointed the members are -- from this caucus, anyway. Those of us who had expected that we would see some meaningful reforms coming forward in this legislation simply didn't get anything meaningful. In our judgment, most of what we're seeing here is, in large measure, cosmetic. It's not totally cosmetic; there are some things in here which will provide amendments, and some of those are going to be, I think, positive.
I don't want to be seen as simply slamming this legislation for the purposes of political gain -- which the minister opposite suggested, and I take exception to. Because we don't agree -- because we strongly disagree -- doesn't mean that we haven't done our homework on this side; we clearly have. We've read what the objections are with respect to Matkin from both sides: from those who say that he hasn't gone far enough and others who say that he has gone too far. We've read what the government response is -- I have that document here -- in terms of strengthening the Securities Commission in British Columbia. We've gone through that; we know what that document says. We've also seen the analysis of deficiencies in the Matkin report. We've gone through that document; we understand what that is. And we've talked to investors and to people who are actively involved as members in the VSE. When we bring forward an opinion, it isn't for the purposes of political expedience that we say this; it's because we fundamentally believe that the government has gone back on a commitment. It's a strong commitment that they made to the people of British Columbia that they would move and move definitively on this question.
The minister talks about the Vancouver Stock Exchange and about the fact that the other markets across Canada and the United States don't have the same kind of public involvement I'm calling for in this one. I can tell you that markets across Canada haven't got the reputation -- unfortunate as it is -- that the Vancouver Stock Exchange has, either. We seem to have attracted.... I won't use the colourful language first quoted by the member for Mission-Kent and then referred to by the member for Delta South as to who these people are. But clearly we have attracted some unsavoury players; let me put it that way. I think it's in everybody's interest, especially the long-term interest of British Columbians and the economy here, that we move and move definitively to clean it up.
I also agree with the member for Delta South when he says that this particular bill -- Bill 44 -- is a complex piece of legislation. It is complex. I can tell you that this is not an area in which I profess to have expertise, so I do go outside to find as much information and to get as much advice as I possibly can from people who do profess to have an expertise and who have, in fact, a record of advice on these matters. And clearly, you get a different message from different people, depending on who you talk to.
But there is one message that I get consistently. That is that there was a need for a strong, aggressive and -- in this case lacking, unfortunately -- proactive senior regulator here. We didn't get it. There was not a need to move toward a self-regulatory position or status. That, unfortunately, is what we have got. This bill, when you start to look at it, opens the door for a great deal of problems with respect to how this bill is
[ Page 14933 ]
going to be implemented. When I say that, I say that because I believe that this government had a commitment, and it has failed on it.
Now, I understand and know only too well that we're supposed to be dealing with the philosophical direction of this. But in terms of the establishment of the policy advisory committee in section 9 of this bill, with the powers to the minister whereby she may establish this policy advisory committee, I can tell you that several people have come to me -- there aren't many who perhaps follow it as closely -- who have serious concerns about how that's going to work. It is clearly going to be important, if we're to put in place something the public has confidence in, that such an advisory committee will have some form of broad representation. That will allow an opportunity for regulatory and legislative matters relating to the trading of securities and the securities industry to be effectively governed by somebody other than those in the ministry.
I have to tell you, and I don't say this without some trepidation, that I have less fear of that minister than I might have of a political party -- and I know that the member for Delta South takes exception when I say it -- that's heavily financed by the very players we're trying to clean up here. The very players we're trying to deal with here are poised, if we can believe the rhetoric coming out of the Liberal opposition, to take power here. You talk about the fox going into the henhouse. My goodness, this is an entire pack going into the henhouse! The foxes will outnumber the hens if that crowd ever get in here and take over this proposition. So yes, we have some concerns. There are some very real concerns with respect to how that's going to work.
[6:00]
The other thing is with respect to the proposition of the suspension of salesperson registration. Now, that's something else we have had people tell us they have some concerns about. So it's quite clear that when we talk about it.... They suggest here that these are housekeeping changes. Well, that's what not what we're hearing.
When we get into committee stage, I hope the minister will take what we say in the spirit in which it's offered -- and that is as a constructive criticism of what we believe is an extremely complex and very important piece of legislation. We're not simply here to play politics, although the temptation is there, I have to confess.
Let me say also that with respect to disclosure of investor relations activities in section 22, section 36.1 of the act, we have some very serious concerns about what the implementation of that section is going to mean, how it's going to be maintained and what kind of regulatory authorities are going to be there.
I can tell you, similarly, on the mutual funds section in this bill, section 38 -- which essentially goes to section 108.1 of the act -- we have some concerns about the management with respect to the standard of care and how that's going to be working. We recognize this is modelled after -- or it says so in the bill, anyway -- the Ontario Securities Act. I can tell you that those people who provide advice on this matter suggest that there are some serious concerns here.
I really take exception when the minister stands up and says: "Well, because the Liberal opposition is quietly applauding...." For all the world, it sounded like the former Finance minister, Mel Couvelier, when he was giving his speech. It's just an amazing thing for me to witness that government opposite sounding so much like the government that they replaced, and this official opposition -- which is heavily financed by the very players who can't wait to get into the henhouse, given that they are indeed the foxes -- quietly applauds that. I have some serious concerns. When I suggest that it means this government has gone back on its commitment, I think that it's true because I think it falls short of what their objectives were.
Let me say that we are equally opposed in principle to Bill 44 because it does not put in place a senior regulator, which is what we would like to have seen. It does not provide that. It does provide for self-regulatory powers, which we have serious concerns about.
I simply disagree with the minister when she suggests that the Matkin report was going to be unworkable. I'm not sure those are her words -- I don't want to put words in her mouth -- but essentially she said she had to take away from those recommendations. I disagree. I think there could have been some amendments and reforms to what Matkin was proposing, but I think you could have gone a lot further toward public control.
For the same reasons -- and I will defer to my speech from the former bill -- we cannot support this, because we did call for and go to division on that, and because the debate has gone almost parallel to that on Bill 45. Shame on the Reform Party, of all parties. Shame on these people who are resource-based.... Terrible thing. I would say that we will oppose this on division.
A. Warnke: I'm not going to go on at length on the particular subject, and certainly I'm not.... It is also very tempting to get kind of political as well, but.... It's all a surprise to me to know that I'm being heavily financed; on the other hand, I'm not expecting any surprises.
Hon. Speaker, I just noticed the lateness of the hour. Before I go any further, I would like to move to adjourn the debate until later today.
A. Warnke moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. E. Cull: I move that the House at its rising recess until 6:30 this evening.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
[ Page 14934 ]
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
K. Jones: It's good to start on such a beautiful day. We should be outside instead of inside with these sessions.
D. Streifel: Sit down, and we'll pass it right now.
K. Jones: It's not quite that easy; there is work to be done. I thought maybe we could take the work outside and do it there more pleasurably.
Could the minister elaborate on the conversation we had earlier about signage? Is there some policy that says signs are not desirable because they are a sort of sight pollution, or anything along that line?
Hon. J. Pement: We have a signage policy, which we spoke about last session. Basically, what we have done is look for uniformity in signs -- colour, symbols, certain distances, advertising different types of facilities and that type of thing in order to get away from different signage being put on the right-of-way of any given road. So yes, we have gotten away from allowing other types of signs -- homemade signs or even signs that businesses have done up -- on the road right-of-way.
K. Jones: That's also with regard to billboards that are advertising signs. Do they have to be a certain distance away from the highway? Can they be in farm fields and things like that?
Hon. J. Pement: Billboard signs cannot be on a right-of-way; they have to be off a right-of-way.
K. Jones: My question was: can they also be controlled a certain distance off the right-of-way?
Hon. J. Pement: Signage that is off the road rights-of-way becomes a municipal-regional district jurisdiction.
K. Jones: Under what regulation or format is the control of the signage listed? Could you tell us what section of the legislation you control signage under?
Hon. J. Pement: We will have to get the information for the member with regard to exactly which part of the Highway Act it is under.
K. Jones: Could I expect to get that in the next day or two?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. minister. That will help us get a better understanding. We hear concerns from people about the billboard signs and what they can and can't have. I've had some difficulty trying to locate what regulations control them, and that's why I'm asking the question.
I'd like to ask the minister about a new replacement head for traffic lights, which is operated with a battery backup and has an LED form of lighting. I understand that some trial units are being put in place, and I was wondering if the minister could tell us the status of that trial and what locations are being used.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe the member is talking about the advance flashers....
D. Symons: Smart Lite.
Hon. J. Pement: No? Maybe you can be more specific...?
K. Jones: I'm referring to a Novax Industries product, out of Annacis Island, called the Smart Lite, and it's a UPS -- or uninterrupted power supply -- signal head. It has a gel-cell battery unit that replaces the existing incandescent lamp in the head of the traffic light at a low cost, because it has a low electrical draw. It also provides, I think, up to six hours of uninterrupted battery power in the case of a power failure. It's particularly of importance, as we've had several deaths on Highway 15 and 176th Street. There are many other intersections where there have been serious injuries and deaths as a result of accidents in which the power to the traffic lights has been interrupted and there is no means of providing any traffic control at that location. The result is that some people have gone through what they thought was not a traffic intersection.
[2:45]
Hon. J. Pement: I believe the member is talking about the advanced flashers.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pement: No? Then perhaps he can be more specific.
As for the type of light that the member is talking about, we have as a ministry decided not to put that type of light in. We would have to apply it across the province as a uniform light in the case of failure.
What we have done is put in the advanced flasher I was talking about, which is under the UPS system. To remind the member, when an intersection light does go out, it then becomes subject to the rules of the road, which is a four-way stop.
K. Jones: I would like to believe that the rules of the road did, in fact, apply to the case that it is an automatic four-way stop. But that's not, according to law, the case. There was a case of death at 176th Street and 16th Avenue, or Highway 15 and 16th Avenue, where the truck driver who went through that intersection was charged and then released as not guilty because there was no stop sign there. There has to be an actual stop sign or light to be able to make it a rule of the road that there is a stop required, according to the courts.
It is a serious problem, hon. minister. The advance warning signs do not provide much in the way of assistance at those corners under those emergency conditions. They are a minimal warning situation and are very expensive. These
[ Page 14935 ]
heads run between $1,000 and $1,500 apiece. The advance warning with big battery power requirements put into it cost $10,000-plus, including very expensive cabinetry and wiring, and this could be reduced considerably. As well, the general operating costs of these lights are much reduced because they use less electricity at the intersection.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern the member is raising, but again, you're looking at a significant number of these lights to go in if we have to do it provincewide. Really, when it comes to intersections, if there's no light, the concept is to stop and then proceed with caution. I have experienced that myself, in coming off through to the airport. In one of the main intersections the light did go out. It was interesting to see how well the traffic was proceeding with regard to the four-way stop. I was quite interested to see that people were very courteous and allowed the traffic to go, and there was an extreme amount of traffic from the ferry as well as from the airport.
K. Jones: I also have had an experience similar to that at the corner of 8th Avenue and Highway 15. I was stopped at the intersection with no traffic light operating. People were proceeding across in a fairly orderly fashion, except that the truck driver coming northbound in the lane next to me went sailing right through without even batting an eyelash, almost crashing into a car coming through the intersection at the time. This is a very serious problem. There is no legal basis for a person having to stop at those lights, according to the courts. Therefore, unless there is a light there or a stop sign, it means nothing; it's an unmarked intersection. That's the way the courts have ruled on it, hon. minister.
So we have to get something established. The liability is in the ministry's hands and the government's hands. The cost of putting in a trial, which is what I was asking about, is minimal, but at least it would prove the viability of this equipment and would allow us to get some of our intersections that are very dangerous and have great potential for another death with some protection.... It's a very feasible way of approaching it, and it's in the hands of your electrical engineering department at the present time. I was assured that they were proceeding with it last spring, well before this session started. I've been waiting for a response from that department as to what was happening. Actually, it was your district traffic engineer. His office was supposed to get back to me on it, but I have not received anything further.
Hon. J. Pement: From my understanding, these lights are not used in other jurisdictions throughout North America. I think, however, that we were looking at the advanced system. I believe it has 700 lights. We will arrange for you to meet with our district manager on the signage issue. If you can bring some information on the court case you are referring to, perhaps we can have a look at it.
D. Symons: Following through on this, the minister made a comment about the fact that if they installed one, they would have to install them all across the province. I'm curious to know whether this is because the format of the sign is different and you must have standardized signs or because there is a safety plus for this one and every other district would insist that they have the same safety feature built into their lights.
Hon. J. Pement: It would be the expectation that if this was at one intersection, it would be at all intersections.
D. Symons: What the minister seems to be saying is that this system has a plus feature to it that would be advantageous and that the ministry is not going to do a pilot project. If it did, it might be expensive to install throughout the province something that might be a lifesaver.
Hon. J. Pement: We have looked at these lights. We have chosen the route of the advanced system. Again, we're looking at a number of intersections across the province -- not only provincially. We would also have to look at intersections municipally with regard to standardization, and that's the issue.
K. Jones: I just want to follow up on this a little farther, hon. minister. I would like to sit down with your senior people who are making this policy decision to try to give them a better understanding of what's going on. If the ministry is going to go on the advanced warning, I think it is a most expensive and most inadequate form of providing backup in the case of power failure. I must warn you that they are the minimum possible protection, and they do not assist anyone going in the opposite direction from where those lights are. There is no notice that there is a stop for the traffic going east to west when they're placed on the north-south route; therefore it doesn't work very well. So if we could arrange a meeting in the very near future, I would appreciate being able to sit down and explain this more clearly to them.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we can set up a meeting for the member. But I would remind the member that the ministry does look at new types of lighting, paint on road surfaces, etc. If we can find a better system, we will use it, as long as it is functional and we are able to afford it.
[3:00]
K. Jones: Could the minister confirm that this particular system was reviewed by your administration and rejected?
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has certainly reviewed and analyzed this system.
F. Gingell: The minister receives quite a bit of correspondence about the quality of lighting in the Deas Island tunnel. The lighting seems to improve, but then problems seem to come back. I think it has to do with the amount of lighting that is on when the days are sunny and the amount that is on when the days are dark. We don't seem to get it right all the time. I was wondering if the ministry has laid down specific guidelines or standards about the number of lights that should be on at the entrance and exit of the tunnel, based on the brightness of the light outside.
Hon. J. Pement: There is a light meter at the entrance of the tunnel. If it's a bright day, the lights in the tunnel will be brighter so that your eyes don't have to adjust. Conversely, if it's darker outside, then the lights in the tunnel will be darker.
F. Gingell: Is there a requirement in the contract with Mainroad Contracting Ltd., whom I presume would be responsible, for making sure that the light meter is working and that it's checked on a regular basis?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
[ Page 14936 ]
F. Gingell: We're doing all the right things, but we're not getting the right results. I wonder whether the minister could consider having staff review the whole process, because it isn't just one single individual who complains. I get quite a few complaints; I get five or six during the year. We always know there are a lot more people concerned than those who complain.
I think another issue that perhaps should be looked at is if there's an inexpensive coating that could be put on the walls to make them lighter. I know you go through and power-wash them every so often, and when they are washed it's a fairly dramatic improvement, but you still have the problem of doing it. Maybe some other type of paint or something could be used that could reduce the pressure-washing required.
The other issue is: I wonder whether you have the power to require the drivers to turn on their lights going through the tunnel. At the moment it is recommended, although the sign doesn't indicate that it is perhaps obligatory.
Hon. J. Pement: We certainly can have our engineers test the light meter to ensure that it's working well. It is my understanding that we did have the surfaces of the walls painted. However, it's an extremely expensive procedure.
With regard to enforcement of vehicles going through having their headlights on, it would require legislation through motor vehicles to do that. It would be an enforcement issue at that point. Many of the newer cars, of course, have the running lights, which is at least better than no lights.
D. Symons: I'd like to begin by doing a rehash of a few topics I raised last time we met. I mentioned lawsuits then, and I just now found the materials I couldn't find at that time. I note that a motorist got somewhere around $3.5 million in an out-of-court settlement. It was a woman who suffered brain damage in a rock slide on the Hope-Princeton Highway. I believe this was back on March 30, 1991. That is one of these things I was asking for a total of. Two or three of them, I note, are out-of-court settlements, and I'm wondering if these out-of-court settlements might also indicate that the ministry is accepting liability in some way. If it's an out-of-court settlement, it seems that you don't want it to go to trial.
I'll just quickly thumb through all three. If I can do all three at once, then it would save a bit of time so we can go more quickly. There's another one where $300,000 was awarded in a plunging-car suit off the Squamish Highway on June 28, 1990. That one was settled for $300,000, also out of court.
There's a third one here: B.C. taxpayers lose $1 million in a business suit. This was really a case of a breach of contract, but again it fits in with the suits I was referring to. It was a lowest-bidder breach of contract. The contract was for, I believe, installing culverts on Whatshan Falls Upper Bridge. The job went out to tender, and then it was not given to the lowest tender. There was a breach of contract there, and I believe that was a $1 million suit to the government.
I'm just wondering, as I asked last day, how many suits there have been and what the results of them have been. It seems that we're looking at some fairly excessive numbers.
Hon. J. Pement: Last time I think what we were trying to say was that to have the specific information on a specific suit, we may be able to look back for you. Again, these issues are handled through the Ministry of Attorney General. Our issue of responsibility in the ministry when one of these cases happens is to ensure that our policy is either strong or can be strengthened.
D. Symons: I really wasn't asking for specifics; I named the three specifics then. Rather, I'm sure the ministry knows when there has been an accident and the ministry is being sued, and in that way, they would be able to tell me how many times the ministry has been a partner in a lawsuit against it, even though it might be the Ministry of Finance or some other ministry responsible -- the Attorney General -- for the actual conduct of the case. I'm just asking for the total number of suits that have been brought against the ministry over the past few years and maybe the cost value of those suits that have been settled to date, if that could be given to us.
There's another one that's a little more interesting. It was a fairly recent charge against the ministry -- and I believe it came to court just recently -- regarding pollution due to leakage from a storage site at Heffley Creek. The people in that area had to go to bottled water because of this leakage. I think that went to court on April 28, so it's a fairly recent court case. Would the minister know something of the results of that court case?
The other side of this question is: why did the ministry or the government allow the ministry to store fairly dangerous chemicals that close to a creek so that this accident did occur?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with overall lawsuits, I believe that in our last session we said we would get that information for the member, and we will.
With regard to the Heffley Creek issue, this issue is before the courts at this time. However, the issue was salt, not a toxic chemical, and there is mitigation being done.
D. Symons: As I read further, I saw "salts and chlorides," which, in large quantities, would be toxic, but not in this case, I suppose.
Going on to the seal-coating, I found the figures I was trying to find the last day, as well. Apparently the study done by the roadbuilders -- who aren't unbiased in doing this -- showed, in looking at a job done by the ministry near Williams Lake on Highway 20, that the ministry's costs, which they got through FOI, came to $1.74 per square metre, whereas a private contractor on a similar project had done seal-coating at a cost of 50 cents per square metre -- approximately one-third of what the ministry costs were. Just giving you that information so you'll know what to look up; I don't know if you want to respond at this time on that. I asked for a response to their study last Thursday.
Hon. J. Pement: If you recall our discussion last time around, we did talk about the ability within the ministry to ensure a quality product. That is one issue of extreme importance in terms of the wear and tear on highways, with the traffic we have these days. The report refers to one example. Certainly we will analyze that report and take it into consideration.
D. Symons: Thank you. I don't know if the minister is suggesting that the private sector is not doing the same
[ Page 14937 ]
quality work as the ministry people. I would gather and would hope that if they are supplying you with material and information on a study and are saying that these studies are similar, that indeed the quality of the work would be similar. If there is a such a price difference, I would suggest that the ministry look very carefully at how the seal-coating is being done.
I would like to go back to when I was talking about lawsuits. I mentioned Whatshan Falls Upper. The other lawsuit involved Tercon Contractors Ltd. of Kamloops. It was over a breach of contract concerning some culverts at French Creek and Whiskey Creek on Vancouver Island. That was the one where there was a problem in the low bid.
[3:15]
The one I want to refer to now -- Whatshan Falls Upper Bridge -- was over a contract that had been let out to tender. The tenders closed on December 20, 1994, and some time in March they were cancelled. Many people had gone to the work of putting together a tender in good faith. They had expected that at least one of them would get the contract, but nobody did. I gather that the reason given was that there wasn't any funding for the project. Could the minister give me an idea of how many things go to tender when the funding stream is not in place? In such cases, people are not only bidding blind and against each other, but.... When a contract is not awarded in such circumstances, is there any compensation for the bidders for their time and effort in putting forth bids? Dollars and cents came out of their pockets to do that. Could you give me an idea of how many jobs go out to tender but are not awarded?
Hon. J. Pement: On every advertisement of a tender there will be a notice saying that no bid or no tender may be approved. Overall, it's very unusual for a tender to go out and not have the funding.
D. Symons: I do notice a caveat, I guess we can call it, at the bottom of many of these ads, which says "subject to financing," which might be a bit of an out for the ministry. It would seem that before you put something out to tender and ask people to put in bids, assuming that the bidder has committed a reasonable amount compared to what the ministry thinks the project would cost, that there is some certainty that that tender would be awarded. That seems not always to be the case.
Could we just move to another topic we touched on the other day involving delays because of the work going to be done on the Oak Street Bridge? You had some nice ads over the last week in the Richmond papers, and I notice you give six alternative routes that might be used. I hardly think the people of Richmond are going to use the Port Mann or the Patullo Bridges as alternatives. Indeed, I have actually used the Queensborough Bridge when the old Fraser Bridge was out of commission years ago, after it got hit by a barge. But those others, particularly the Port Mann, are a pretty far stretch of choices. What you had, I suppose, was a fixed ad for the whole community south of the Fraser, just giving them something, and you ran it in all the papers in that area.
The part that I was really concerned about wasn't that ad but another in the paper telling people that on Highway 99 southbound, Westminster Highway to Steveston Highway, there will be traffic delays June 10 to June 26.
The other paving job on the Oak Street Bridge starts June 10 to September 4. I wonder why the ministry didn't coordinate the paving job on Highway 99 through Richmond with the partial closure of the Oak Street Bridge. It would seem that traffic along Highway 99 would be considerably less while the work's being done on the Oak Street Bridge because you've been advertising some other routes to take here, and only one lane over the bridge is going to be open. Why didn't you do the paving on Highway 99 at the same time? By delaying the paving one week there, you would have been doing it at the time that traffic along 99 would have been considerably less.
Hon. J. Pement: We'll have to get back to you with the actual schedule of paving for the project so that we have the proper information for you.
D. Symons: I guess I was asking basically a question of logistics. The scheduling I gave.... But we'll await your answer on that one. Could we move on to another topic I haven't canvassed before?
I believe there are two projects currently in progress with design-build: the Westview interchange and the Johnson-Mariner overpass. I've heard that there's likely to be a third. I wonder if the ministry might at least say that they are seriously contemplating a third being Duke Point. Could the minister give us some idea as to whether there would be another design-build project in the works?
Hon. J. Pement: There is no decision being made at this point.
D. Symons: Just carrying on with design-build, I noticed there are some mandatory elements that are parts of the contracts they sign. They have hiring quotas built into them. I suspect those will definitely add a cost to the project in that the taxpayer will be picking up these programs that are built into it.
Would a company that finds its equity employees -- which by this they're required to have -- unsuitable or lazy or accident-prone.... For some reason or other, these employees are part of this equity policy that's part of your Westview interchange and Johnson Mariner contracts. I have draft five of it, but I assume it's carried on. In the event that they do follow through with the equity policy and hire somebody, and this person or these people are unsuitable and are laid off, does the company get penalized? It seems that when you're using an equity program, you may not be getting the best person suited for the job, and there may be the necessity of laying them off.
I notice in the equity program that the companies have to put down an actual written commitment to a harassment-free workplace, which I agree with. You have to designate a qualified person to handle equity or harassment-related incidents in the workplace, which I agree with. You have to develop an employment equity program, which may include, but is not limited to, the following: a hiring plan targeted toward qualified designated group members; a plan to recruit designated group members into apprenticeship or training programs; and the assignment of an employment equity facilitator to the project for the equivalent of one day per week or more to be available for off-site consultations. They are also to be involved in diversity training for all supervisory staff on site for more than ten days.
[ Page 14938 ]
That's quite a bit of extra responsibility beyond simply the task that people are bidding on. I wonder if the minister might comment.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, if the member thinks back, we have criteria through B.C. 21 that we have asked contractors to consider, whether for design-build or other types of projects. There is no quota. Definitely, there's no quota even mentioned.
Also, if the member recalls -- as he read through the list -- we were talking about qualified people. We also look to apprenticeship training and skills development where we can. It's a case of encouraging youths to ensure that these contracts are inclusive of all British Columbians.
D. Symons: I note that there are two sections to this: a mandatory element, which has general elements; and an equity policy, which sounds like it is laid on. Then they have optional initiatives. In the optional initiatives, they have carried through with various possibilities: "a proponent who proposes a program to meet the above criteria" -- and then it mentions a lot of criteria -- "scores one point." Later on, you have some other things, but they don't really tally all the time as to how many points you get for all the other criteria. Later on, they score one point here, and they have a bonus point there. Is it a total of three points? How does this point system work, I wonder?
The problem is how you balance the points system for these optional initiatives, which are not related to the expertise for which the company is being hired to build a bridge, overpass or highway. How do you balance the point system for these other social benefits in relation to the quality of the company that is going to do the work? They score high on points, but might not be a top-quality company as far as work on the project goes. How do you balance those?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I think I was fairly clear. We talked about qualifications, skills, training and apprenticeship opportunities, whether in design, building or other construction work. There is no quota. In these cases, companies bid on a contract, made proposals, were able to develop a program within the overall workforce and were able to do so without too much difficulty.
D. Symons: I guess the places in there that say "mandatory" got me thinking that maybe that had to be done, and equity was one of the mandatory parts of that statement or agreement.
Moving on to a different topic, I believe the ministry has been working on a value engineering sort of project, where they can write into the contracts that if a contract has been given and the contractor can come up with some innovative ways to reduce the cost of the project and yet keep the quality of it, then somehow the ministry and the contractor can share in the savings they might be able to introduce. I'm wondering if the minister might give me some flavour for how this value engineering will work and how well the pilot project you're using.... I'm not sure what you are doing in that regard.
Hon. J. Pement: We have looked at the Mount Washington project, and we've just put it out to tender. We haven't had the experience of it as yet.
D. Symons: This has absolutely nothing to do with the foregoing; it just happens to be on the same sheet that I was reading from. There's a little statement down at the bottom that might be valuable to have recorded in Hansard for all of us involved in government. It says: "In the good old days, people who saved money were considered to be misers. Now they're considered to be miracle workers." I guess that's the problem of both government and opposition: how can we end up being miracle workers today?
Moving on from that aside, my other comment is that the government opened a state-of-the-art -- as described by the minister of the day -- highway sign headquarters in Kamloops fairly recently, and we did have a contracted one out in Victoria. I'm wondering about the employees who were working in the sign factory, a good number of whom came from the ministry's one before. If they were redundant to the needs of the Victoria firm, were they given first chance on the jobs at the Kamloops plant?
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry offered previous employees the option of going to Kamloops and some went.
D. Symons: What I'm hearing you say is that the employees working for this Victoria firm who previously had been working for the ministry were given a chance to carry on. But people doing highways signs who began working for the Victoria firm after their business expanded -- when they got that particular contract -- weren't given that option. So only one portion of their employees was given the option?
Hon. J. Pement: Our obligation was to the previous employees.
[3:30]
D. Symons: It's not quite the same thing, but I'm thinking of some legislation we passed a short while ago that talked about if a business was sold or went out of business and was rebought at some future date. There was a clause that basically said that the contract goes along with the business. It seems that the business has moved from one area to another and that the contract for those employees -- not just the ones that were previously government employees, but the ones who became de facto government employees because they were doing signs for the government.... I'm surprised that the ministry doesn't seem to have any feeling of obligation to those particular employees.
Hon. J. Pement: There was no successorship in this case. It was a case of us no longer buying signs from that particular shop.
D. Symons: In a sense, I was referring to the concept of successorship. It wasn't because the sign shop is still working here. The workload of the shop changed considerably from the moment they received the contract. I suspect that many of the employees who were working on signs at that shop were not previously employees of the ministry, because those employees would have gone their different ways when it was moved to Victoria. There seemed to be a group of employees who were basically shunted aside, I would suspect, by the employer, who no longer had jobs for them. It seemed that they were also shunted aside by this ministry, which didn't give them a chance to carry on with the skills they had learned in the new plant.
D. Schreck: Isn't that kind of like what the Liberal leader says he's going to do in dumping 15 percent of the public sector?
[ Page 14939 ]
D. Symons: We're learning it from this government. It's setting the example.
I wonder if we can move to another topic, since I guess we've explored that one. Let's go to the Peace River area, where the problem of the 16-foot-wides came in. A pilot project was announced, but because of a great deal of confusion and concern, both for and against, it was put on the shelf for a while. It has been reintroduced. I'll ask a whole pile of questions relating to this, and we can deal with them all at once. Is this project currently going on as a pilot project? In the event that the pilot project shows that there are no problems with moving 16-foot-wides on the highway there, will it be expanded to other areas in the Peace River area? Will it be possible for 16-foot-wides to get up to Fort St. John and other areas in the Peace, rather than almost to Dawson Creek?
Hon. J. Pement: There is a pilot project being done at this point. We will evaluate the project and make decisions once the project is finished.
J. Weisgerber: One of the issues I wanted to raise with the minister was the question of 16-wides, so it's appropriate to carry on with these questions. The pilot project is underway, and I understand that it has been quite well received. There seems to be a lot of activity around 16-wide. Dealers have brought them in, sales have been made, etc. I wonder if the minister could outline the process that the ministry will go through in evaluating the pilot project. Can the minister tell us what kinds of measurements and tests the pilot project will be subjected to as part of the ministry's review? We hope the project will move forward.
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has looked at each unit that has been moved. It has looked at the full range of safety issues -- the movement of the unit, where exactly it has gone and under what circumstances. The data will be brought forward once the project has been completed.
J. Weisgerber: If I understand, then, the criteria for examining and the rationale for extending the pilot project beyond a pilot project will be made solely on the basis of safety factors, reports from people in the motor vehicle branch.... I think Howard Emslie and his group there are directly involved. The minister's answer would lead me to believe that it was simply a series of reviews on individual moves and a decision was then based....
I guess I have a number of concerns. First of all, is there an ongoing review being made so that at the end of the pilot project we're not going to be thrown into six or eight months, or even two months, of limbo while the project is analyzed? If the process proves to be as safe as other jurisdictions have found it to be, and as people in the Peace believe it to be, is it reasonable to expect that the project will be put into a more permanent mode, that the government -- and the ministry, particularly -- will be able to act quickly at the end of the six-month project and that we're not going to find ourselves in limbo again for a period of time while decisions are made and reconsidered?
Hon. J. Pement: Safety issues are definitely, of course, paramount. Other types of criteria will include whether the units have tied up traffic and inconvenienced the public -- all that type of data going in. It is an ongoing process, for certain. At the end of any process, I think there is a point of consultation where we talk to the people of the area. Also, we will work in a timely manner.
J. Weisgerber: What I would like, if possible, is to know the criteria. I think the people of the Peace have the right to know on what merits that whole process is being judged. I think it would be nice if we knew when there were concerns raised around a particular issue, while the pilot project was ongoing. It would be most desirable if the ministry could do a rolling analysis of the project so that by the end of the six-month period, there could be a decision or perhaps some extension of the pilot project until such time as a final decision is made.
I think it would be most unfortunate if we were to go for six months and wait while the ministry analyzed the information and then came back and told people the project was on or was on some limited basis. Perhaps I could get some kind of commitment from the minister in that respect, and then we could move on to talking about what happens beyond that.
Hon. J. Pement: We can certainly send you full information on the types of criteria that we're looking at. We can do that in letter form if the member would agree to that.
I've been fairly clear that we will analyze that project in as timely a manner as we can to see what the results of the project are.
J. Weisgerber: If the project turns out to be as compatible on the roads in the test area as I believe it will be, what are the options that the ministry is looking at? Are we looking at extending the movement of 16-wides into the Peace region? That was where I started out two and a half years ago with a request to the ministry saying that the highway conditions, the housing conditions and the geographical conditions in the area east of the Rockies are substantially different than in the rest of British Columbia. The movement of 16-wides from Alberta is an ongoing fact. So if the pilot project gets passing marks -- if it indeed proves in this six-month period of time to have been a successful test -- what, then, are the possibilities the ministry is considering?
Surely to goodness, after two and a half or three years of listening to lobbies for 16-wides in the Peace region and to the debates that went on around the pilot project and reading the report of the consultant.... I must say that the report has more loopholes and more omissions in it than solid recommendations, and I mean that as a very blunt criticism of the whole consultant's report. I think it was very poorly done by people who, quite honestly, I don't think had the experience in the area to have done an appropriate report.
Nonetheless, I would like to know whether the ministry and the government are considering, on the basis of this pilot project, extending 16-wides provincewide. Is the ministry considering only allowing 16-wides into the area described as the Peace region or the area described as the Peace River Regional District and Fort Nelson-Liard Regional District? Is the ministry considering extending them simply to the South Peace or to the test area? Where does the government see itself going under the various bits of information?
This is a big undertaking. It has involved an enormous amount of community energy directed toward ensuring that 16-wides become accepted with the kinds of conditions laid
[ Page 14940 ]
down in the successful pilot project and that the movement of those be extended at least within the area broadly defined as the Peace River region. Can the minister give us some sense of where we're going with this?
Hon. J. Pement: I know the importance of the pilot project to the communities -- I've certainly heard from the communities and heard well. We did our consulting with the industry as well and heard the concerns the manufactured home industry brought forward. From there, we made the decision with quite a bit of information pulled together. I have to say to the member that this is a pilot project, and we want to have a good clear look at that project. We want to do our analysis, and we will make decisions with regard to the overall completion of the project at the point when we feel it is important to do so.
[3:45]
I'm sure the member is aware that there are certain highway systems that these particular trailers -- I beg your pardon, manufactured units -- cannot be accommodated on. However, I think what's important right now is the project and the fact that we are doing the data collection to go to the project, and analysis will be done on completion.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, it seems to me that anyone who looks at the various highway configurations in British Columbia would recognize that in some parts of the province the movement of 16-wides is going to be a very, very challenging thing to accommodate. Indeed, it was on that basis two and a half or three years ago that we first started a movement to have authority granted to move 16-wides within the Peace River region. Let me again say to the minister, and to the people who worked on the project in the ministry staff, that I think that the conditions set down for the movement of 16-wides, particularly in the pilot project, are appropriate. No one ever suggested through this whole process that we should simply say: "Go ahead and move 16-wides at your will." We said that there should be conditions laid out, and I think the ministry has done a good job of setting out some pretty tough but achievable standards.
In these projects, though, people start to plan on the basis of the expectations that arise through a pilot project, and I'm sure the minister understood that when she agreed to embark on this. I wouldn't for a minute suggest that you should have a pilot project, call it such, and then, having embarked upon it, say that there's no way you cannot continue. That wouldn't be realistic and would suggest that it was something other than a pilot project. The challenge now for everyone involved is to be able to gauge the success of the project with as little disruption as possible to the people who are ultimately going to be the beneficiaries of 16-wides, either the people who are making investments to stock them within the province and in Dawson Creek, or the people wanting to make a major purchase -- and the purchase of a 16-wide is indeed a major purchase -- in British Columbia.
What I'm looking for is some plan to move beyond the six months. Perhaps we could say, on the basis of the information gathered in the six-month pilot project announced, that we are going to make a decision but will continue to allow the movement of these 16-wides in the same geographic area while the analysis is being made if it can't be made immediately at the end of the six months. That way, if the decision is to go ahead and expand the authority for 16-wides, there won't be an interruption of two, three or four months.
I say it because I think it's the right way to do it; it's the right administrative approach. I say it because I know that if there's an interruption, then my phone will be ringing, and I will find myself back on the issue. The minister and ministry staff will find themselves back involved in the same kind of turmoil that existed before the go-ahead was given.
I'm looking for some kind of assurance from the minister on a couple of areas, one being the plans to avoid an interruption while the analysis is completed. I would also really like to get a sense -- and, surely, having gone as far as we've gone on this project, the ministry and the minister must have a pretty clear idea -- of where the project is going to go if it's successful. Surely one wouldn't get three months into a six-month pilot project without having put some pretty serious planning into place to accommodate the next logical step if the pilot project turns out to be safe and not unduly disruptive of traffic and if it meets all the criteria I look forward to seeing. Surely to goodness there must be a thought of where we go from here.
Hon. J. Pement: I remind the member again that this is a pilot project and that we did make the conditions of permit fairly stringent with regard to some of the concerns we had. We now have the opportunity to see how that projects works, and on analysis, we'll make a decision as to whether to continue or discontinue at the end of the project. We will do that in a timely matter.
J. Weisgerber: Having been around here a while, I get the sense when I'm not going to get an answer, and I got a real clear sense that I'm not getting an answer today. Again, if the planning is not started, let me urge the minister to start planning for what comes after the expiration of the pilot project. The minister may be able to confirm for me that it was a six-month pilot project that got started in February. Arithmetic suggests to me that sometime in the middle of August the period of time will expire. I think the minister wants to start thinking about how you deal with the expiration of the pilot project.
What do you do, for example, with folks who have ordered a 16-wide and made a commitment to purchase it, but -- as is the case sometimes with an automobile that is ordered from the manufacturer -- it isn't ready? The unit hasn't been built at the end of that project. I think you have to start thinking about what happens. It's fine to announce the project, but there then has to be a way of deciding what you do to deal with the information in a way that's constructive and shows some continuity.
Let me say again that I have no doubt, when the information is compiled and the analysis is done, that there will be a decision to move forward with it. I genuinely hope the next step is to expand the authority within the geographic area known as the northeast or the Peace-Fort Nelson region, and then for another year or two to monitor, perhaps not as closely, the success of that expanded project.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we'll take the member's comments into consideration as we analyze the project as it goes on.
D. Symons: Moving on to some different topics here, I noticed there's a gentleman up near Quesnel, who owns mining rights in a volcano. The ministry, I believe, has been doing
[ Page 14941 ]
some experimenting with the volcanic ash that he's producing with the idea of using it on the roads in place of the gravel and sand that we currently use in the winter. I believe the ministry has tested that. This man is willing to sell it, and I know there's a great shortage of sand and gravel -- of aggregate -- now developing in the province. I'm wondering if this might be an out for that -- if we don't spread it on the highways, but rather use the aggregate where we need it, in construction processes, and use this lava, which, according to his interpretation of it, is extremely suitable for that particular purpose and has a lot of advantages. Plus, it's light for transporting around. I wonder if you might give us an idea of how that project went and where it might go.
Hon. J. Pement: The member mentioned that it was light to transport, and that's exactly the problem with the material. The material is quite light and blows off the road. Therefore we haven't been considering that particular material.
D. Symons: So this isn't going to erupt into a new business for this gentleman, I gather.
The minister put out a news release just a few weeks ago, calling for national highway improvements. Indeed, I met with the western assistant to the federal Transport minister on Friday and discussed this item with him. The questioning was rather interesting because the Minister of Finance was also at this meeting, and I was pushing them on the amount of fuel tax they take out of British Columbia and the pittance they give back to highway construction in the province, and also the failure of introducing a national highway policy. What seemed to come out in discussing it with them -- and the interesting part for me -- were almost the same answers I sometimes hear from the government side of the House when we're asking about projects: "Well, which projects shall we not finance then? If we're going to give this money we're taking out of B.C. for highways, don't you want us to put money back into the province for hospitals, etc.?" I was hearing the same arguments we get here when we discuss which schools or hospital beds shall close. The same sort of response was coming from the feds, so it seems to be a standard political answer.
I noticed in this news release, toward the end, that the minister made some comments that I found rather interesting:
"B.C. needs a balanced range of transportation options to ensure safe, continuous, competitive and environmentally friendly shipping of its resources and products. Closing rail lines increases freight traffic on public roads and uses more energy. Railways must make a profit to survive, and I have urged my federal counterpart to re-examine the regulations and tax structures in order to make Canada's railways more competitive. British Columbia is committed to continued and increased use of rail."
What I notice is that British Columbia has one of the most onerous tax policies on railway property of any province in Canada. I'm not sure whether it applies to B.C. Rail; I will find this out tomorrow when we discuss B.C. Rail. So I do hope that in urging the federal government to be more considerate of the needs and expenses of taxes and the effects on the interprovincial railway companies, they will also consider their own taxation policies in relationship to that.
In fact, I gather that B.C. is the only province in Canada that really taxes the infrastructure on its value rather than on the kilometres of rail. So in British Columbia where you have a good number of bridges, taxing the structure and the value of that bridge is considerably more expensive than taxing the per-kilometre of the rails going across the prairie provinces. Since the minister is so obviously committed to the idea that rail sometimes is better than rubber on the road for moving goods, is she also working on our provincial ministries to make sure that those views are being heard there, as well?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly all provinces have committed to look at taxation issues with regard to rail services. This issue falls under ministries other than mine. It's an issue that I have brought forward.
D. Symons: I only raised the issue because I happened to notice your quotes in a news release from this ministry.
[4:00]
One other thing that does fall in this ministry is the issue of inland ferries. This comes up quite frequently and more from people on the Gulf Islands, I suspect, and the salt water here, who basically say: "We're paying for ferry services, whereas if we lived inland somewhere and used a ferry service there, it's provided free through the Highways ministry." There seems to be a problem -- or a jealousy, I suspect -- on the part of people on the coast here regarding the free ferry system inland. I know the ministry did a study just recently about possibly privatizing some of those inland ferry routes, with the idea of keeping the ones that we can call essentially transportation routes that are needed because there aren't alternatives and possibly privatizing the ones where they are more convenient but not necessarily necessities.
Hon. J. Pement: This administration has not looked at privatizing the inland route. Those studies were done by the previous administration, as I recall quite vividly. Recognize, too, that for many of these ferries -- I believe there are 19 -- there are no alternative routes for them to use.
D. Symons: I note that the province of Ontario, being a cash-starved provincial government looking for ways of doing things, is looking seriously at the idea. As matter of fact, I believe that at the end of June there will be no more free ferries in that province. B.C. is still leaving them free. Are there any thoughts on the part of this province, possibly, to go to a user-pay service on the inland ferries?
Hon. J. Pement: I don't know if the member is advocating that we put fees and tolls on the inland ferry systems, but at this time we certainly are not considering that.
D. Symons: No, I was simply asking the government's intentions. It's an interesting topic. The people on the Gulf Islands have one opinion, and, of course, the people inland have quite a different opinion. Since, as the minister mentioned earlier, none of the ferries are what we can call nice, but are necessities, that does change the picture. I thought it was possible in most cases to get around by a circular route without using the ferries, but maybe not.
In the next topic I want to look at, I am going to start moving around the province -- as you know, from past experience. We're on a provincial tour for a little while, highlighting certain projects. Right in the Victoria area there was some
[ Page 14942 ]
problem with Highway 117 and the fact that it goes right around the Sooke reservoir, which is a main source of drinking water. Has that been resolved, and are we keeping that water pristine for our use?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly it's an issue that has been raised. There have been ongoing discussions with the water district with regard to this particular road. At this point, a route has been identified.
D. Symons: Will the Greater Victoria Water District be paying a portion of relocating this highway? Will it be a Highways expense, all the water district's or a combination of both?
Hon. J. Pement: Those issues are still under discussion.
D. Symons: Moving into Metchosin, a couple of years back, I asked this question of your predecessor, and I'm just wondering if there's been any change on it. They were asking for a flashing school sign in the district in one of the areas. I'd have to read further into the letter here to find out the exact location of it. Their concern was that drivers often ignored the signs or didn't notice them. They thought if there was a larger flashing sign that would indicate a school zone ahead, it would add more safety at that crossing. At the time, the minister responded to my question by basically saying that that sort of thing wasn't one of the standard road signs used, and therefore they weren't considering it at that time. It seems to me that it might be possible to do something to these as an experiment to see whether it would indeed add a safety factor. It could eventually be expanded to other areas if it seemed successful.
What made me look at this particular question was a meeting a couple of years ago with some parents who had concerns about Highway 97 going past the elementary school in Winfield. They pointed out to me, I think quite rightly, that it would be quite possible with the hill coming up as you're heading south toward the intersection where the school crossing is, and where the school sign sits at the bottom of that -- the usual rectangular sign with little children crossing on a blue background -- if there was a truck on the curb side and a car in the shadow of that truck, that at the speeds they were going the driver of the car wouldn't know they were entering a school zone. Somehow having larger signs or an overhead sign or something of that sort in situations where that could be the case might be advantageous and might save children's lives.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pement: Again, on the flashing school sign, the first instance was the case of a standard and really how significant it would be in assuring safe passage for the children. We have a program for getting to school safely called safe way to get to school. We work with the kids with regard to avoiding some of the obstacles out there.
Concerning the Winfield one, we recognize the hill issue that you pointed out with regard to large trucks coming through, and it would be one that we certainly can review.
D. Symons: Just one last kick at the can, so to speak, on the Port Renfrew bridge. I guess my concern was raised because one of your members said soon after that accident that indeed there would be penalties for the people who caused the delay in supplying the materials for it. I would like to know whether any penalty clauses were written into the contract to the suppliers. I gather that the suppliers for materials were contracted out by the ministry and not the contractor for the project. Could you clarify the issue? Apparently one of your members implied that there would be penalties on those who caused the delay, and I gather that this was not the case.
Hon. J. Pement: No penalties were given. At this point we're having a complete review of the project.
D. Symons: Moving on from Port Renfrew to the Gulf Islands, it's a question I also asked, and I wonder if there has been a change in the policy. On Saturna Island, apparently on the west and southwest shore, there is a mountain ridge. This side isn't really accessible from the rest of the island but has a very nice flat area that I believe is now being developed. They wanted to build a road to service the lots they're opening up for development in their subdivision. Apparently the ministry required that a 16-foot-wide road be put in, slashing through the island, when basically a nice little trail would be all that was required. I believe there was some sort of agreement that there was to be a more flexible policy in regard to the Gulf Islands, but it didn't seem to apply on Saturna Island.
Hon. J. Pement: An agreement was made, and this is part of the standards.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister could clarify if the agreement is somewhat different from the normal highway standards, so it's not the 66-foot highway requirements initially proposed there. I've got pictures of it here, and these imply that it is. I wonder if there has been an agreement that there would be something less. The Gulf Islands generally have a much more rural type of road system than the norm in the rest of the province.
Hon. J. Pement: Sixty-six feet is inclusive of the right-of-way. Usually we build them less on the Gulf Islands.
D. Symons: In the picture here, the width of the road seems to be not just the allowance on the sides, but the width of the road seems more than adequate. It looks to be at least three lanes, if not four lanes, wide. I hope that wouldn't be required for the short distance. I gather that this particular area at this particular time is not tied into the road system on the rest of the island, so these cars will have to be ferried in and driven approximately a kilometre or two in either direction. That will be the limit of traversing that particular area by vehicle, because there's nowhere else for them to go.
To move on to Ganges, a lady outside Ganges, Lois Johnson, had some concerns where a dip in the road in front of her property was filled in. Of course, that changed the entrance to her property, and it seems that she still has difficulties with the runoff, with places she can park her car and with access from the roadway down into her property. I'm wondering if there's any latest update on whether her concerns are going to be addressed.
Hon. J. Pement: We will have to get back to you with regard to the specifics on that.
[ Page 14943 ]
D. Symons: The comment in her letter that concerns me is: "I've found one of the most infuriating things about this whole affair is the offhand way my complaints have been heard and the fact that it took many calls and letters" -- and she names a person here -- "to get any response, let alone results." I guess there might be a better way of handling concerns and issues that people have, possibly a more consumer-friendly approach.
[4:15]
Moving into Powell River, I'm wondering if the minister might outline the new highway improvements funding supposedly announced earlier this year from Saltery Bay to Powell River. I'm wondering what particular portion of the moneys that have been identified for that project are going to spent this year and what will be done this year.
Hon. J. Pement: There are various upgrades being done, including property acquisition, horizontal and vertical realignments, shoulder-widening, intersection upgrades and resurfacing.
D. Symons: Perhaps we could move on to the Gibsons bypass, which I think this government sort of stopped in midstream, so to speak, after it was started by the previous administration. It sat there for a couple of years, and the information I have is that basically the project is going to cost us a few million dollars more partly because of the delay. The delay has caused some deterioration of the gravel that wasn't blacktopped as it sat there unfinished for a couple of years. I'm wondering what is planned this year. It's already a few years behind schedule. Phase two was to be done in the spring of 1993. Where is phase two now? Has it been completed, and if not, when will it be completed? Can you give us some feeling for the extra amount over the original estimate of this project and what its current costs are likely to be?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the gravel surface, we had put a light coat on it to keep it from deteriorating last year. This year we are working to do completion of construction of phase two, and it's in the area of $5.3 million. We have not spent more money on it than was planned.
D. Symons: The estimate a few years ago was $6 million, so the minister is staying within the range for phase two. The total project was estimated to be $14 million, so I'm wondering if that's all the phases of it. I'm wondering if the minister can confirm that she will be within budget. Did I hear her say that phase two is being done this year and will be completed this year?
Hon. J. Pement: We have kept within budget. We are completing phase two this year, and there is much discussion yet with regard to the next phase.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to raise a few questions that are quite local in nature. They deal with the Peace River South constituency and, perhaps to a bit broader degree, the Peace region. There may well be some provincial implications, particularly in the area of highway transport regulations. My belief is that there should be the opportunity for regional variations in motor transport regulations. It's one of those areas I have been a proponent of for as long as I've served in this Legislature, and one that I have, so far, been unable to convince Ministers of Highways or ministers responsible for motor vehicle regulations in the Motor Vehicle Act to comply with, consider or agree to.
It seems to me that the Peace region represents a classic example of an area where the geography and road construction are different. There are far greater similarities between the geography and road configurations in Alberta than there might be with the rest of British Columbia. There is an enormous amount of commerce between the Peace region and Alberta. The oil and gas exploration and the drilling activity in the B.C. region are the result of equipment that is moved regularly back and forth between the two jurisdictions. It seems to me to make sense to accept some variations on motor transportation regulation regionwide for the northeast. There may be arguments in other regions of the province for similar variations to accommodate local situations. In some parts of the province, an argument may be made for more restrictive regulations because of road configurations, safety problems, density of traffic, etc. I'm not suggesting that the variations should always be a broadening of the regulations. It seems to me that in a province like ours, with its tremendous variety and genuine differences in road transport, this is an area that should be considered.
The 16-wide mobile homes are one example, but there are a lot of others. Truckers bringing in oil equipment from Alberta routinely find themselves at the infamous Pouce Coupe weigh scales with a load configuration that is legal in Alberta and that they are used to working with, but which is illegal here. They find themselves having to reload, bring more trailers in and incur significant extra costs. At the end of the day, I believe this affects the province of British Columbia and British Columbians. If it costs more to move drilling equipment into British Columbia, then the amount that drilling companies, developers and producers are willing to pay for rights will be, and I believe are, reduced by a corresponding amount. If it's going to cost you more to do business here, you simply factor those costs into your overall assessment, and we in British Columbia wind up getting less in terms of royalties or bonus bids for land sales. This is a direct result of our different regulations.
I know that there has been a lot of work done to harmonize highway regulations and standards across the country. This should be a consideration, particularly in regions of the province that are adjacent to other jurisdictions. If, for example, 90 percent of a given style of traffic involves movement between a region of British Columbia and Alberta, then it makes sense that there would be an attempt to make those regulations sympathetic with the neighbouring jurisdiction. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the ministry is committed to looking at ways to achieve that. Has it simply decided that this is far too complex and difficult to enforce and thus dismissed the idea as unworkable? Does the minister see an opportunity here for differential regulations, particularly if they might improve the traffic flow between neighbouring jurisdictions and be of benefit to British Columbians by way of lower shipping costs?
Hon. J. Pement: The motor vehicle branch, particularly, has worked with other jurisdictions in terms of harmonizing and improving the flow of traffic between one province and the next. I think there has been improvement in some areas because of those discussions. Motor vehicles staff are not with us today. There are still marked differences of opinion in
[ Page 14944 ]
regard to the length and size of certain vehicles, etc. Those decisions are not made arbitrarily. They're made after looking at many jurisdictions and studies, etc., with regard to traffic safety and road conditions. Those discussions are ongoing. We have viewed many different jurisdictions with regard to some of the regulations that we have.
J. Weisgerber: It seems to me the question is: are we in British Columbia...? If we're going to apply one set of standards provincewide, then we have to establish standards that meet the most challenging road traffic conditions in the province, wherever they might be. The variation to that is to say that we can accommodate, in regions where conditions are significantly different, variations within our own intraprovincial standards -- within the standards we set in British Columbia.
Could the minister tell me whether, philosophically, the minister or the branch simply believes it's too cumbersome to try to enforce various regulations within the province? Is there a belief that it's too complex to look at -- that the idea of having special trailer configurations for lengths, widths and heights for one region of the province is simply too difficult to enforce, and we're not going to entertain it? Or is there a willingness to say that it's possible we could have two or three different sets of transport regulations within British Columbia on a regional basis?
In other words, a trailer configuration may be acceptable in certain parts of the province and not acceptable in others. Width, height and weight restrictions might vary from one region of the province to another, etc. Is the branch willing to examine that with the idea of implementing changes or, quite honestly -- and, I hope, candidly -- have they simply decided it's not workable and there is, as is the case now, going to be essentially one set of standards provincewide and anyone coming in from outside will have to conform?
Hon. J. Pement: We've been open to looking at different consideration brought forward by, for example, the trucking industry. We do look, as I said, to other jurisdictions to see how workable some of the different regulations are. However, at this point we have definitely said that we are looking at a regulation for the province as a whole. The industry can expect that it will be the same regulation from one region to another.
J. Weisgerber: The gas and oil industry provides a classic example of the difficulty with that policy. They rarely have any desire to move anywhere in British Columbia other than into the northeast region. There is a lot of interprovincial transport; indeed, drilling rigs move back and forth, sometimes two or three times in a season. And there are significant differences now in the way that they can be moved in the two provinces. So let me conclude this particular area by making a plea to you, hon. minister, to look at this again with the idea of accommodating differentials within regions of the province. We've established some geographic regions in the province. I believe the current government still recognizes those regions, and areas like 16- wides are one way to move into that kind of variation of regulation.
The other issue which I know the minister would be most disappointed if I didn't raise would be the question of Rocky Mountain doubles and the application of them within the Dawson Creek-Grand Prairie corridor or the Highway 2 corridor. Without belabouring that issue, again, an example of where road conditions, circumstances, commerce, geography -- all those things -- suggest that if we were to recognize these differences within British Columbia....
It's not so much our differences from other jurisdictions that are the problem here; it's our unwillingness to come to grips with the fact that we have a tremendously diverse province, and we want to deal with it on a postage-stamp basis. The postage-stamp thing always applies if concentrations of population are the beneficiaries of it. I've always noticed that the postage-stamp theory tends to be seen as somewhat ineffective when it benefits those in the outlying regions or tends to advantage them over larger groups.
[4:30]
Rocky Mountain doubles should be considered. I think that in anticipation of some broader policy, it would be wise for the ministry to consider selected projects such as the Rocky Mountain doubles. Perhaps the minister could bring me up to date on that, and then I'll try to move on to some more local issues.
Hon. J. Pement: I would have been disappointed had you not brought up that particular issue. I've heard the arguments and recognized the concerns as outlined. However, it's still an issue within British Columbia as to the size of that unit in terms of the travelling public, etc., and the decision remains.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move on, if I could, to the rural grid system in the Peace. The minister is probably aware, again, that in the Peace region the road system is very much like you'd find in the prairies -- roads running east and west and north and south on a very regimented grid, one mile by two miles in most cases. There are literally thousands and thousands of miles of rural roads within the Peace region -- within my own constituency.
At one time Stan Gladysz, who was the district manager, now retired.... I know that part of his lobby of me as the MLA had indicated that he believed there needed to be $1 million a year for at least five years in succession just to bring the gravel up to an acceptable level on the grid road system without dealing with road improvements on major arterial roads, etc. Can the minister tell us what projections they see, what needs they see and what the plans are to address those particular needs?
Hon. J. Pement: As I recall, the member brought this issue up last year in estimates. I also had the opportunity to look at the highway system and the side-road system. In consultation with the now district manager, we did augment the budget by $1 million.
J. Weisgerber: Just so I understand, there is $1 million this year going into gravel on the grid road system in the North and South Peace districts combined, or in South Peace itself?
Hon. J. Pement: The $1 million is for gravel surfaces for the South Peace.
J. Weisgerber: Could the minister tell us, on the basis of 1995 dollars, how many millions of dollars the ministry projects it would take to bring the grid road system up to stan-
[ Page 14945 ]
dard today? Six or seven years ago the projection was that it would cost $5 million, and I expect that with inflation that cost is now significantly higher, so is it a six- or seven-year project? What will it take to bring those roads up to an acceptable condition?
Hon. J. Pement: We can get those figures for the member. I want to say again, however, that through our district staff, we are working with communities to prioritize which roads should be focused on first, and we are hopefully meeting some of the immediate needs.
J. Weisgerber: Let me extend thanks from the constituency for that commitment. It's something for which a lot of lobbying has been done, and we're grateful. It's an important element in the region. I often wonder that we all don't get more concern raised when I travel around the constituency and see how much need there is simply for regraveling.
Perhaps the minister could clarify for me -- and perhaps, more importantly, for the people who might read Hansard and be curious -- the relationship with the maintenance contractors and their obligations to do regraveling or to add gravel. Where does the responsibility fall? Can the minister give me a sense of when it's the responsibility of the maintenance contractor and when it's the responsibility of the minister?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pement: I will remind the member that the maintenance program is done on an annual basis through the maintenance contract and its funding, and that this $1 million is for rehabilitation. We try to coordinate the schedule done by the maintenance contractor and the work that we are doing in adding to the surface as well.
J. Weisgerber: I guess what I'm trying to get at is when someone feels that the level of gravel on the roads they travel on is inadequate, or if there is a spot on the road where the gravel does not seem to meet standards, how does the person know whether they should look to the local maintenance contractor to rectify the situation or whether they should come to the local Highways office or MLA's office? Is there a rule of thumb? Is there some way to be able to gauge the group responsible?
Hon. J. Pement: You have basically outlined it yourself. If it is a small patch that needs to be done, then it's the maintenance contractor. If it's a length of roadway that needs to be worked on, then it would be through the district office.
J. Weisgerber: To move in a similar area, I know that questions of dust suppression and dust control are also issues the minister is aware of. I'll start by acknowledging that the commitment on Braden Road and Mason-Semple Road are appreciated by the people who are directly affected. There are similar conditions that continue to develop in other parts of the constituency, the Bessborough Road being one of them. I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that Bessborough, because of some changing regional landfill sites, has a lot more traffic developing. I've had a number of calls from people along the road looking for some relief in that area.
Perhaps in responding the minister could give me a sense of the longer-term plans for both Braden and Bessborough roads, and perhaps -- saving me getting up again -- also give me an update on the highway going north from Dawson Creek through Rolla and out to the bridge, the Don Phillips Bridge.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe that in 1994-95 we had a nine-kilometre section upgraded on Braden Road. Currently, we're looking at a six-kilometre section of base preparation, and seal-coat is scheduled for 1995-96.
On the issue of the road through Dawson, we're going to have to get back to you. We don't have that data here at this point, or for the other road that you mentioned.
D. Symons: Since we're on the Peace, I'll just ask a few questions I had relating to that area as well. Apparently Highway 29 going toward Hudson's Hope had some seal-coating and paving along there. I think the ministry either put aside, is spending or has spent $1 million on it. Can you tell me whether the work on that highway has been completed or what work is planned for this year on Highway 29 to Hudson's Hope?
Hon. J. Pement: We're applying seal-coat south of Chetwynd to restore and maintain the surface for 75 kilometres.
D. Symons: That's the only work planned for this highway this summer season.
I'll just ask about another area while you're looking that up. This deals with Milligan Creek Road out of Fort St. John. Apparently that road is used a great deal by the people in the oil patch. The oil patch basically contributes a hefty amount of money to B.C.'s economy, but the road to service the weight of the vehicles needed for oil exploration really isn't up to scratch. I guess there's a great deal of concern on the part of the oil companies exploring there that the roads really don't meet their needs. I realize the ministry is concerned about upgrading a road where the oil patch can be a bit of a fleeting industry, but the people do bring a lot of money when they find something there. So it might be well worthwhile considering putting that amount of money into the economy to do what we can to make sure that the roads they are using are in good enough condition that they don't get into trouble on them.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, we will be doing some road surface improvements on Milligan Creek Road.
C. Tanner: I'd like to talk about Highway 17 and two specific areas. The first one is the Island View-Keating Cross Road connector. Where are we on that? The last thing I heard was that it has been delayed again. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to the citizens in that part of my constituency when they could expect action on what I and many people in Central Saanich consider an extremely hazardous left-hand turn.
Hon. J. Pement: We have deferred this particular connector in the last recent announcements with regard to scope of work. However, we have acquired land to protect the corridor, and we are meeting with the communities involved with regard to looking at interim considerations.
[ Page 14946 ]
C. Tanner: When the minister talks about a deferment, is she talking months or five years? What are we looking at?
Hon. J. Pement: We haven't given it a time line at this point. What we've done is acquire the land, as I've mentioned, and we are meeting with the communities with regard to interim mitigation.
C. Tanner: Madam minister, is your department aware of the number of accidents at that corner, the turnoff to Keating Cross Road, as compared to other parts of the highway?
Hon. J. Pement: We are putting some data together for our meeting with the communities in regard to analysis. That hasn't been completed yet, but my understanding is that it's not an abnormal situation in terms of overall traffic accidents.
C. Tanner: Could the minister keep my office posted as to when they get that information together? If they think there's any merit in it, I would be quite happy to attend those meetings. Should the minister and the Minister of Health want me to, I would make myself available.
My second question concerns a letter, a copy of which I gave to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to give to the minister. I hope she has it. It's primarily a response to the second Delcan report on the Beacon Avenue-Highway 17 situation. The minister must be well aware that several things are happening at that intersection besides the mere fact that it's virtually in the middle of Sidney and that there are propositions for the development of the airport land. I saw in my local paper that there is a proposition for a hotel somewhere in that area. This concerns everybody. There has also been a suggestion that some of the airport land should be used for a high-traffic, high-volume retail store. All of those things, together with the situation that presently exists, must make it difficult for the ministry to plan ahead. How close are the minister's plans for that particular intersection, and what are they?
Hon. J. Pement: There has definitely been analysis of the reports, which look specifically at Beacon Avenue at McTavish Road and the Costco possibility -- what kinds of overloads could happen there. I probably don't have to tell the member that we're looking at overloads on the system. What we're looking at, basically, is the need for a full Highway 17 corridor planning study, with mid- and long-term strategies for the Saanich Peninsula. That's basically its status at this point. We will have to look for funding to do that study.
C. Tanner: Can I read into the minister's remarks that there won't be any more short-term fixes -- not on McTavish, but on the Beacon Avenue-Highway 17 interchange -- and that the next major change will have long-term repercussions?
Hon. J. Pement: We're trying to take a look at a strategy concept. We will do a full strategy with those corridors in mind, rather than enter litigation at this point.
C. Tanner: I'm sure that your ministry is well aware of some of the plans the federal government has for the airport. It's an international airport, and they want to maximize their income from their property. I, for one, wouldn't have an argument with that as long as it doesn't have too much impact on the little town that I live in -- Sidney. The airport sits in the middle of it. Some of the suggestions that I've seen for those airport lands would have a horrendous impact on that interchange, not the least of which I've already told you about: the Costco store and the suggested -- it's only a vague suggestion -- hotel. That intersection is more and more.... All the traffic through Sidney is focused on Beacon Avenue and has to go through that interchange, too.
Are you getting cooperation from the airport and Sidney? I know you have had disagreements with Sidney in the past through successive councils, but do you feel that you're now getting to the point where you're getting cooperation and working together?
Hon. J. Pement: Just in the sense of the importance of the areas, as the member has outlined, with regard to possible impacts on the transportation system there, we could only do a strategy if we include the airport interest and the community's interest as well. Therefore the consultation process has to be within the overall development of that strategy.
C. Tanner: I'm moving up the road a little further, closer to the terminal now. I have expressed in the past, in writing and to the minister, my concern about what happened with the Wain Road intersection, where the department spent $7.2 million for what doesn't appear to me to be the ideal solution. I came to that conclusion for the simple reason that no sooner were the roads built than they had to put in those "beware" signs because the turns are so sharp, for whatever reason -- because the department needed to save money or the park confined the way you had to design it. It worries me if that is the type of thing we're going to see on Beacon Avenue, where the impact will be horrendous should we take a short-term view rather than a long-term view, particularly for the town of Sidney but also for the traffic travelling up and down the highway and for North Saanich.
[5:00]
I guess I can only emphasize again that I consider it absolutely essential that a great deal of thought go into any other changes that are made at the Beacon Avenue intersection before anything happens again. If the airport lands develop, as I suspect they are going to, there's going to be a lot more traffic generated. The buildup that I see in Sidney now is such that with everything funnelled onto Beacon and then having to get out to the highway that way -- unless they go up to McTavish, which is not that good along the waterfront anyway -- we've got serious problems for the town of Sidney, North Saanich and the highways department. I would hope that you would consider very carefully before you make any major changes.
Hon. J. Pement: I certainly hear what the member has to say, and I agree that when there are developments that impact on transportation systems, we need to consider and strategize and work with the communities on those land use issues around the right type of transportation systems. So it's certainly geared to what you have to say.
D. Symons: We'll stay on the Island for a few minutes, specifically the Island Highway. Is the Island Highway given the same environmental scrutiny that non-highway projects
[ Page 14947 ]
must go through? And just to finish the question off, does the environmental appeal process apply and does the Environmental Assessment Board have the jurisdiction to review individual projects along the Island Highway?
Hon. J. Pement: The Island Highway is not going through the environmental assessment process. However, we still have to meet the environmental requirements on that highway in order to get permitting and permission to do the work that we do. We also do significant environmental studies for the highway prior to any work being done.
D. Symons: Those are studies that the ministry would initiate prior to a project, I suspect. But I'm curious about the environment assessment. Built into the act that we passed not long ago are all sorts of avenues where people can question or appeal a decision that's been made by the body that's promoting the project. Is there any appeal process that people who are not ministry or Environment ministry employees or part of those government agencies...? Is there any way that other agencies, groups or individuals can appeal a decision made on the environmental aspects or impacts of the highway that's being constructed?
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely. We work very closely with those agencies that will be concerned with any given environmental situation. It's through those agencies that individuals or groups can certainly appeal and raise issues.
D. Symons: I know the Island Highway was already at least underway, when the Environmental Assessment Act was passed. But I believe Westview and newer projects were not envisioned, or at least planned to any degree at that stage. So I am wondering whether these projects or any projects the ministry is now looking at -- the projects the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands was asking about -- come under the Environmental Assessment Act.
Hon. J. Pement: Certain projects do require environmental assessment, and it's basically triggered by the length of the project.
D. Symons: I'm not sure if I really heard the minister's answer in the way that she meant it. I'm sure that all projects require environmental assessment. I'm asking whether these come under the Environmental Assessment Board's jurisdiction and are covered by the Environmental Assessment Act that we passed a session ago in this Legislature. So are they subject to that? The Island Highway, as you answered earlier and I believe is correct, is not subject to that act. Will all future highway projects be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act?
Hon. J. Pement: Whether it's through the Environmental Assessment Act depends on the length of the project. But I have to point out to the member that we still go through the permitting process and work with agencies -- for example, the Department of Fisheries if waterways are involved and ALC if particular agricultural lands are involved. Therefore we have to work with a number of agencies on any given project.
D. Symons: I was thinking of something other than agencies, with the view that for other types of projects an outside environmental group, such as the Sierra Club, could challenge the validity of the assessment done by the ministry, by another ministry, or of a project that's been done by a private contractor or private firm putting in some sort of construction. I wonder whether the conditions laid out in the Environmental Assessment Act require projects around the province to be evaluated that way, where a third party can challenge the results and ask for further studies, or indeed bring up again the question of whether the Highways ministry is subject to those same uncertainties of how far you can go before you might be challenged.
I think the Environmental Assessment Act allows that sort of thing to happen to somebody who might have second thoughts about developing a project in the province of British Columbia because they're not sure that once they get it passed by the Environment ministry, it could still be held up because of the Assessment Act. Do the same things that apply to the private sector also apply to the public sector in the Highways projects we're doing in the province?
Hon. J. Pement: Depending on the size of the projects, some will go through that assessment. Again, it's a case of requirements of the Environment ministry, other ministries and agencies. We still have to do the proper lead-up work to get permits and permission for certain types of work throughout the province.
D. Symons: I'm looking at an advertisement from the Times Colonist dated January 28. The heading is: "Your Tax Dollars at Work: Island Highway Project, B.C. 21...." I believe this particular ad outlines the whole project. No mention at all is made of downsizing the project, so it seems that somewhere between this advertisement in January and the time that it looked like there wasn't going to be a spring election, some decision was made to downsize the project. Could you tell me at what time it was decided that the project would be scaled down in order to stay within budget?
Hon. J. Pement: The key to the question is to stay within budget. If you look at the timing, you will see it is during the budget cycle that decisions are made.
D. Symons: I gather that as each portion of the highway moves on and each project and contract comes up and is worked on and paid, you do a rolling evaluation of the costs on the highway. I'm sure that a year ago you would have had an idea that some of the cost pressures you addressed, most recently at the end of March, would already have been known to the ministry as potentially developing in that direction a year ago or six months ago or even last Christmas or at the time the ad was going in. Those indications should have been there; they may not be the full scope of what should have been there. I wonder if you could give me a feeling for when you began to be concerned about what was happening and how you were going to address the concerns. When did you start the discussions on the aspect that eventually led up to the late-March decision to re-scope the project?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's the full financial picture that one is part of as a ministry, and it's through the budgeting process that one recognizes there are X number of dollars to deal with and costs are evaluated. As we indicated in our information to the public, we looked at land costs and other costs that were involved. Therefore we made a decision to defer portions of the project and stay within budget.
[ Page 14948 ]
D. Symons: I wonder if we might look for a moment at the Helmcken interchange. I gather there were some difficulties with the interchange and the connector road between West Burnside and Helmcken-Chancellor. I think the ministry discovered that it wasn't all in View Royal; part of it was in Saanich and part of it was under the agricultural land reserve. I'm wondering how many other oversights there were and what you did about that problem? Has it been sorted out between the two communities?
Hon. J. Pement: This particular road did have an ALR component to it. It was the Agricultural Land Commission that did not contact the community involved. Then, once that oversight was recognized, they worked with the community and confirmed the particular route that was originally decided upon. There has also been a socioeconomic study done with regard to that area. We are looking at some identified routes.
D. Symons: I was asking whether that's come to resolution, whether it's all been solved and whether there's been enough consultation. I gather from your last comment that it's ongoing. The same sort of thing might be true of the Millstream Road connector. From reading clippings and so forth going back pretty well from early fall last year through to this year, I gather that there seems to have been concern among people as to the amount of consultation that had been done about the connector road. I realize that you had an open house there earlier this year, but I guess the open house should have taken place earlier for people to have had more chance to have input before what was gathered back in September, October, November and so forth. There were concerns in the city councils there about Jacklin Road and all the other possibilities that they thought the ministry was overlooking.
After the public meetings you have had -- or the open houses, because I guess those are different than public meetings -- I'm wondering if you can give us an idea now if that particular project and the connector roads have been finalized?
Hon. J. Pement: There really have been a number of community meetings, and I also met personally with the councils. A liaison committee of community members and council members has been struck, and I understand that at the last open house, a thousand people came to look at the different routes. The Millstream connector was chosen.
[5:15]
D. Symons: I'm glad to hear that that particular intersection and the connector have now pretty well been agreed to. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea whether there are any properties that remain to be purchased to complete that project. Has all the property acquisition been done for that particular project?
Hon. J. Pement: A number of properties must be acquired. Basically we have reached the decision now on the design and what properties are needed.
D. Symons: I raise the question because I think one of the factors driving the rescoping of the Island Highway was the fact that property prices have gone up. I suppose the longer we leave the acquisition of properties, the more likely it is that the price will be even higher in the future. So that could create more cost pressures, and possibly even more need for downsizing if we're going to stay within budget. I'll get to that topic a little later on, as well.
I wonder if we can move on to my next particular part, where I really get up to Nanaimo now -- we're really moving along quite quickly on the Island Highway. Again, it's the bypass there. I gather that Nanaimo council had some concerns about some intersections, and I guess the main concern they've had most recently is that it is now intersections rather than interchanges. I believe we're down to two interchanges -- a north and a south -- and the remaining ones will be intersections between them. I'm curious whether I'm correct on the current status. Second, the minister might tell me where the intersections are -- rather than the interchanges that were originally envisioned on this parkway -- and whether the land is being purchased now where the intersections are so that it can eventually be turned into interchanges. Once this highway goes in, land prices are going to go up. So it will be much more expensive at some time in the future to change intersections into interchanges if we don't plan for that now.
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of final designs and such, the ministry has worked with the community to identify preliminary designs, designs that are significant enough to identify some of the lands that are needed. The council will work to ensure that the land use there is protected.
With regard to the interchanges, there were not a number of them planned. There is one and the rest are intersections or at-grade.
D. Symons: I guess my concern is that in the future those at-grade ones, if that highway is to do what it is built to do, which is to move the traffic along smoothly through Nanaimo.... We'll find in a few years that the local traffic, along with the through traffic, is going to clog that highway up at the intersections. Some time in the future we're probably going to consider changing some of the interchanges. That will require, as I said, property acquisition in order to have that property ready. Your answer seems to imply that the city will somehow protect it. I think that happened in Maple Ridge with the cottonwood corridor, where the courts basically came down and said: "You can't do that. You can't just tell people that their property is in limbo while we decide whether we're going to do something with this. You must have a firm commitment."
My question, again, was: are you actually looking, where interchanges will be required in the future, to protecting that property so that the Nanaimo Parkway will indeed do what it was designed to do -- move traffic quickly around and through Nanaimo?
I'd like to point out that I think there are hidden costs to the intersections that we must consider. Part of the reason for changing interchanges to intersections was the fact that they are very expensive to put in. But if we have accidents because we have an intersection rather than an interchange, and that raises the likelihood of car accidents there, we'll have ICBC claims, policing involved at intersections that wouldn't be quite the same for an interchange and medical expenses resulting from the accidents that occur there. Those are all
[ Page 14949 ]
pressures on government funding as well. So although we might say that on one hand we're saving money by not putting in an interchange and just putting in an intersection, I suspect there will be other costs attached to that decision that might mitigate some of the extra expense of putting in the interchange.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to this specific corridor, the intentions of the road decisions are basically made, whereas with the cottonwood corridor, it's still a case of future funding. There is a difference with regard to what the community can protect in that area.
With regard to the intersections themselves, there was no plan to make all those intersections into interchanges. In the future there may be some areas that will require a larger facility, but at this point we have one interchange and it will accommodate the traffic.
D. Symons: I would like to ask a question about the Fifth Street interchange. I guess the city has preferred to move the Fifth Street down to Nanaimo Lakes Road.... There was some concern about splitting up Malaspina College and the DND lands, and about the future use of those particular lands. Is the ministry still fixed in its decision to use the Fifth Street interchange as a southern interchange?
Hon. J. Pement: The interchange that has been decided upon is just south of Malaspina College. The decision was based on traffic volumes and traffic patterns.
D. Symons: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]