(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1996
Morning
Volume 2, Number 4
[ Page 893 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
F. Randall: I see in the gallery Mayor Lou Sekora from Coquitlam. I know that he's a real Canucks fan; I run into him at the Canucks hockey games. I just want to let him know that I'm not renewing my tickets this year. Would the House please make him welcome.
I. Waddell: I would also like to extend my welcome to His Worship. When I was a Member of Parliament for Port Moody-Coquitlam, Lou was -- and still is -- the mayor. Although sometimes we didn't agree on a lot of things, we always worked together, and I always enjoyed working with him. I just want to say hello. We'll still continue to work together, Lou.
Hon. L. Boone: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment -- for a short period of time, I hope. In this chamber here, I call committee stage on Bill 12.
The House in committee on Bill 12; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
J. Wilson: We have a number of concerns with this section. To begin with, I would like a definition from the Minister of Forests on exactly what he refers to in this bill as "forest workers."
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me begin by introducing Julian Paine, who is here with me. He's the director of policy and planning for Forest Renewal B.C., and he's here to assist me in explaining the bill to you.
To respond to the member for Cariboo North, as the bill implies and as I have stated, there will be consultation, broadly, with the forest sector. In fact, when we introduced it in the spring, we began the consultations. They've been ongoing, since it has been a policy of FRBC for some time to give priority to forest workers.
It can be a broad definition, but it's those who are directly, not indirectly, employed in the forest industry. We expect, through our consultations with the sector, to define who eligible workers are. They have to have some substantial employment in the industry, so it can't be somebody who just worked last week. There has to be some number of weeks and months of having worked in the industry recently. We expect that they will be people who are unemployed as a result of permanent closures, shift reductions or some major change that affects the amount of time that they're working. Forest workers are people who work in harvesting, manufacturing and on the stand-tending side, the silviculture side.
J. Wilson: Could the minister be a little more specific here? I guess my concern is that he now has taken all forest workers and put them into a basket here. Does he consider someone who is presently employed in silviculture, who could be experiencing a work shortage, to go and enter this program to be retrained to do more silviculture work? How do they lay
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A placement of somebody could be in new projects that come up. They could be FRBC projects. They could be projects that are a primary obligation of the industry. Industry has to do its primary basic silviculture and cover its own costs under its forest licences to get to the free-to-grow. There could be new programs. There could be federal programs -- federal-provincial programs if they're training.
This act in and of itself doesn't create the work. It doesn't create the training programs. It doesn't supplant all the rest of the work being done by FRBC. We're debating the intent here. This section says we want to give priority for those projects under Forest Renewal B.C. to existing forest workers who are having difficulty maintaining enough work to consider it gainful employment.
[10:15]
J. Wilson: When FRBC projects are brought into being, how are they distributed at this point? Who are they distributed to when they are made available?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, there are applications submitted by any one of the partners. It could be industry, first nations or a community. They apply and they're considered under the review process of FRBC. It's based on whether or not it fits with plans that are in place for the type of work. So the need is assessed as to whether or not it meets the objectives of Forest Renewal.
So I'm not sure what the member is getting at. This section, just to repeat, says that we bring into law the requirement that first priority be given to existing forest workers. Broadly defined in this legislation, the definition of who gets the work will be defined after the consultation. The criteria for selection could be put into regulation. That's what this act says in other sections, and that would give guidance to the decision-makers at Forest Renewal B.C. when they approve projects. So presumably those projects that give priority hiring to existing people will get priority.
J. Wilson: To go back to my original question, I asked for a definition of a forest worker. Under the Forest Act, there is no definition of a forest worker. I think it is very, very critical at this point that we do define what a forest worker is. Under the act there should be some actual job description. What I need from the minister is a clear, precise description of a forest worker -- not to take all aspects and say that these may be, and these may be, and these probably will be. Can we get it laid down in clear, decisive wording?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.
J. Wilson: At present, we have a reasonably well defined and developed silviculture organization out there that does work for licensees, and it does independent work. They will, to my knowledge, put in proposals. At present, they seem to be suffering from a lack of opportunity to find employment in the silviculture end of it. Is there a reason that these people are not being given FRBC contracts so that they can employ their crews?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have to bring the member back to the section we're debating. I'm quite happy to give some latitude
[ Page 894 ]
to facilitate debate. I gave you a very short answer to the last question; I'll elaborate a little bit more.
We don't put extensive decisions unnecessarily into legislation, because then you might be the first to come up and say: "Well, you forgot this definition." Let me give you an example. We may be trying to develop -- or somebody may be trying to develop -- a professional forest worker who may work in all phases of the industry. They might harvest for 100 days, and then they might do commercial thinning or some watershed restoration to round out their employment.
The notion of a broadly defined worker is something that has been talked about. I think it was one of the intents of Forest Renewal to try to get full and rounded-out employment around the seasons. One way of doing that might be to have multiphase contracts. But if we get into a rigid definition of what a forest worker is, we wouldn't be able to change that. We don't intend to give a blueprint here that crosses every t and dots every i, when we have said that there will be an extensive consultation, including with those people.
I'll answer your question: why aren't they working? One of the reasons why silviculture people aren't working is that there has been a reduction in the amount of the FRDA program, the federal-provincial program that puts money into basic silviculture. That has been wound down. We are catching up on a lot of the backlog reforestation, so some of the traditional work that silviculture workers have isn't funded as much. As you know, Forest Renewal B.C. has been designed to try to bring in incremental work to the basic silviculture, which is the responsibility of industry, under their licences.
We're now talking about something that's evolving. One of the reasons we wouldn't give it a detailed
With respect to the silviculture industry, I have met with their representatives, and I've told them that we will be continuing our dialogue. They have been invited, and funded, to come up with a definition of who they are, how many there are, where they come from, what kind of work they can do, what kind of work they want to do and what the state of their industry is, so we can take that information on what we know about their workforce and plan that into what we intend to do under this act, which is to give transition to existing forest workers.
Let me come back to what I've already got on the record, and that is that workers are people who regularly derive their livelihood by working in the forest industry, employed in harvesting, manufacturing, value-added or silviculture. Those are the basic categories that we have now. Within those, there are some subcategories, but we won't define those -- and that gets back to my answer -- in infinite detail in the act at this time. If further definition is necessary, it will come via regulation. We want to give the forest renewal agency some latitude in their consultations to come up with a definition. But there is no question that the intent of this legislation is to give priority to people who are working in the forest industry so that they can round out their employment or stay employed.
J. Wilson: Presently we have, I believe, a considerable amount of FRBC funds that have been made available to both the silviculture work that goes on and the retraining of forest workers. Can the minister give me a number for 1996-97 -- how much money has been allotted to the retraining of these people at present and through the various agencies out there which have put in for and got funding? I would also like to know how much money has gone to the Ministry of Forests to see that their programs, these silviculture programs or whatever -- inventories,
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm really reluctant to get into an estimates-type debate. I don't know how it's germane to the legislation. I would just ask the member to bear with us and confine the debate to the purposes of this legislation.
I can give you those figures, but I don't have them with me now. You would want them in some precision, and we can get those for you. They will be covered in the annual report and in the business plan, which should come out in the next few weeks. I'm happy to get into that. If you need that piece of information for a question about what this act says, what the law means in this case, I'd be happy to provide it for you. But I don't have that with me, and it would take some time to get it. But I just want to take you back to the purpose of this section, which is to say that there is a priority under Forest Renewal to hire existing forest workers.
J. Wilson: That's fair. I would like those figures as soon as possible. I don't expect you to have them at your fingertips today, hon. minister, but if you could provide me with those figures within the next two or three days, I would be grateful.
We are dealing with forest workers who have experienced or are facing work reductions. At this point, how many forest workers have experienced work reductions?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have a figure, but I can remind the member that there are some 100 people on training programs in southern Vancouver Island. There are potentially more who are laid off. We don't have the exact count on that, but the workforce committee of FRBC is trying to get a handle on that. In fact, one of the problems is that we have not experienced the kind of layoff that some people suggested, and so we haven't had a big transition problem. But it could well be coming, and it is coming for more reasons than just the Forest Practices Code or the land use plans. It has to do with overcutting in some areas. Where we know this might be coming, we have got Forest Renewal B.C. together with industry and communities and workers' organizations to try to plan a transition. So I would just say that anybody who is out of work or underemployed will be given priority. That's the purpose of this, and we're going to force that issue. If FRBC doesn't come up with a way to do it voluntarily, this act says that we will direct them on how to do it.
J. Wilson: My next question to the minister, then, would have to be: if there are very few forest workers who have been laid off at this time, how many will be facing work reductions or layoffs in the future?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to suggest to the member that we don't know exactly. We do know that a lot of the predictions are worst-case scenarios. Let me just take you to a situation that is well documented. Ten or so years ago the beetle-kill cut ended in your home community of Quesnel, and they reduced the allowable annual cut by 10 percent because it had a lift for the beetle-kill cut. At the end of the 10 percent reduction, 102 percent of the people were employed. That was made up by more people working in silviculture, planning and value-added areas. So you can predict a downfall on one side, and it can be taken up on another. The nature
[ Page 895 ]
of the forest economy is dynamic. We say that there are some 15,000 more people working in the industry now than in 1991. Before that, we say that there were 40,000 who were laid off. There could be thousands of forest workers -- and I'll use the term "thousands" -- who will face some adjustment or change. We're going to make that change as smooth as possible by virtue of this legislation.
In some locales, like the Kingcome timber supply unit in the northern part of Vancouver Island, there could be 500 jobs up and down the Island because of reductions. So we know that potentially 500 or so people are going to be looking for adjustments there. We know that a lot of people had their work year reduced; again, we don't know exactly how many. This has been one of the problems, and we've been working vigilantly through the FRBC workforce committee to get a handle on that so that we can put the plans in place. This act says that you shall give priority, so however many there are, they will be offered some kind of steering into a program or other type of work. We'll try to make sure that we match the training with the opportunities out there. Where there are people who are prepared to provide alternative employment, we'll try to steer it there. So I can't give the member a precise number, because I don't think anybody has one.
[10:30]
J. Wilson: When the minister says there could possibly be thousands who will be facing some type of work adjustment or layoff, I worry. Four years ago, if my memory serves me right, when we got into all these land use issues, we were told that we had to get some stability out there and sort out all the problems on the land base. We were told by the government at that time that there would not be any jobs lost in the forest industry. That's not what I'm hearing today. Now we are attempting to establish a structure that will create alternative paths for people to find employment, and we have no idea of how large an organization we're going to be asked to build. We have no idea whether it will be five people who can manage this or 500. This is very, very ambiguous in its nature. Could the minister lay out or give us some idea of how large an organization he is looking to establish under FRBC to carry these people on to further employment?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to get into that on debate on the next section, where we talk about the forest worker agency.
J. Weisgerber: I raised some concerns during second reading debate. Indeed, I was one of the few people who voted against this bill in second reading, because I believe it's fundamentally misguided.
Mr. Minister, I'd like to paint a scenario for you, and then perhaps you can tell me how this new legislation is going to work. I recently worked with an aboriginal group in my community to do an environmental enhancement proposal to FRBC. Part of what was particularly attractive about that proposal was that it focused on providing skills, training and employment for a group of people who are by far the most seriously hit with employment difficulties, that being young aboriginal and Métis people who live in the community of Dawson Creek. If I read this legislation, it indicates that they indeed aren't going to be given any kind of priority for employment on an application, proposal or project that is put forward by an organization that represents them.
Perhaps we can start with the minister confirming whether that would be the case. The words that are spelled out in section 1 say FRBC shall give first-priority hiring on Forest Renewal B.C. -- funded projects to eligible British Columbia forest workers. Young Métis and aboriginal people, perhaps looking for their first job, certainly aren't going to qualify for the definition of forest worker. So I'm going to have to assume, if this legislation is interpreted correctly and if the legislation says what it means, that in fact some other workers would have to be given priority on that project initiated, proposed and developed by a group of people specifically working in the community to provide training and employment for young aboriginal people.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I point out to the member -- and I appreciate the thoughtful question, because he did serve notice; and of course we are concerned about the employment of first nations people -- that if you go to section 5 of the existing act, the bill that we're amending, it states that in the course of carrying out its duties -- this is section 5(3) -- "each committee must take into account the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy." So with respect to your region, I would have to say that I don't expect there will be very many unemployed forest workers, people thrown out of work.
As you know, we have regional equity as one of the principles of funding, so there will be a flow of dollars into that region. As the dollars flow and employment is created under FRBC, if there are unemployed forest workers, they would be given
J. Weisgerber: Well, I'm sure that anyone in this chamber, listening to the debate, would believe that the minister talked in a complete circle. He started out by saying that there was a priority for forest workers, then went on to say that, really, there were other priorities. So at the midpoint in his argument, he seemed to be suggesting that there was going to be another priority, that being for aboriginal people. But then he wound up his comments by reaffirming the fact that there was going to be a first priority for forest workers. This seemed even to contradict the earlier parts of his own statement. Now, that's the problem. That's why I voted against this legislation: I think there are so many circumstances where it's inappropriate to give priority to forest workers.
I want to get on to some other areas of debate around that question of priority, but the minister raises an important question, and that is: how far abroad must the proponent look for unemployed forest workers? What obligations does the proponent have? Do you have to advertise provincially in order that these various forest workers know that there's an opportunity? What's the obligation? Do they have to go the union hiring hall? Is that the criterion? Do you have to circulate through the IWA and other unions representing forest workers? Is that what a proponent, such as an aboriginal proponent, would have to do in order to satisfy the minister and, more importantly, this legislation that in fact a priority
[ Page 896 ]
had been given, as required under this legislation, for forest workers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We certainly aren't going to ask them to go across the border to Alberta to advertise. We will give first priority to British Columbia forest workers, and that's what this legislation says. We will work out the criteria for eligibility through the consultations. I said in my earlier remarks that we don't intend to define it in blueprint detail until we've undertaken the consultations. But this is delivering on a commitment to the existing forest workers.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's right. And we don't intend that everybody who is working on an FRBC forest renewal project is going to be a displaced forest worker. We don't expect that magnitude of displacement, and there are going to be people who want to move and those who don't want to move. I wouldn't anticipate that every FRBC project, or many of them in your region, will have people from southern Vancouver Island moving up there.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, let my say that I fundamentally disagree. I think if there are FRBC projects where the money has been raised in the Peace region -- at this point, a very minimal amount of that trickles back in -- and we finally get some projects that are funded, what the minister is now telling me is that there is not going to be a local hiring priority. There's not going to be a priority for young workers who, with a more vigorous forest economy, might have obtained an entry-level job in forestry. Certainly, those people are going to have no priority. Young aboriginal people, who by far face the greatest challenges in employment, have no priority. Indeed, there is going to be a priority for forest workers wherever they might be in British Columbia.
So never mind that the money funding this project is at least, in theory, raised through stumpage from harvesting in the Peace region. We know that $4, $5, $6, or perhaps $10, for every $1 never comes back under FRBC, even though we were promised in this House by the former minister that it would. We know that's not happening. But when we do get approval for a project, I understand there is no guarantee that the people who should benefit -- the people of the Peace region, people facing
I'd like to extend that a little bit to something perhaps more regional, to this place. If, in fact, a link can be made -- and I think it can -- to reductions in the fishery because of forest practices, and if indeed there are proposals put forward for stream enhancement, habitat enhancement, etc., it seems patently unfair to me that the fishers, who should have an opportunity, an equal priority, with the people who, one might argue, were involved in the creation of the
The minister shakes his head. The fact of the matter is: can the minister confirm to me, to go back to the original question that I put to him, that there would be no requirement on the aboriginal group, which I worked with on an FRBC proposal, to advertise, to contact local hiring halls or to take any particularly proactive steps in order to find people to replace their own members on their project?
[10:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member made a bit of a speech, and I think it's preposterous. He is a member of the former Social Credit government that oversaw the destructive practices that ruined the fisheries.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He doesn't want the truth to be told to him. They ignored this problem for a lot of years, so to hear it coming back like this, as though he was unaware of the destruction that was going on in the Socred
There is no desperation. This bill was introduced in the spring and has been reintroduced today. It's here to deliver on a commitment to give priority hiring, and there are other objectives in the act -- training objectives and so on. If there is a training program that's designed for entry-level work, for technical work, I don't expect somebody who's nearing retirement in the forest industry to take that. I don't expect somebody with a house and a mortgage and a family in another region of British Columbia to go up there to take that. But if you're saying to me that we won't facilitate the movement between regions within the industry and within the sector, then I have to say to you that we may. We may well do that. It won't be done without consultations with the first nations partners, who are partners in forest renewal. Everything we do in terms of defining the criteria will be done through consultation.
J. Weisgerber: Well, whoever told the minister that the best defence was a good offence misled him. In fact, the best defence is to be able to stand up and rationalize the things that you're introducing, and I think it's a
Could the minister tell us how he would deal with and how he
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This legislation is a tool for transition, and if something is expected and
[ Page 897 ]
for example, there's going to be a cut reduction in the Kingcome -- it has been known for some time -- and, I expect, under those conditions people would develop projects. But it's not to say we will hold up projects if they're in the approval process, because sometimes they're a year out, and in the meantime we could be spending money on projects over the year.
One of the objectives of Forest Renewal is to facilitate transition in the industry, and the transition is for many reasons, most of them to do with rearranging cutting patterns. A lot of it has to do with technical change. There are many reasons why we would want to have a better idea of what we can do with people who are facing unemployment. So the detailed criteria as to who is eligible for projects, as I said, will be worked out in consultation with the groups.
J. Weisgerber: I guess the concerns that I have are pretty much straightforward. During second reading, I raised the
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No crisis; we don't only respond to a crisis. The purpose of the legislation is to make it absolutely clear that part of the mandate that the board of FRBC has is to give priority to laid-off people or to people who will be facing work reduction. It's as simple as that. Under the policy, we have a procedure underway of consulting with the partners as to how we're going to deliver on that, and they may well deliver it. But we're making it absolutely clear. We're saying that it is the law so that there's no question about the priority. To be out ahead of something, I think, is good policy. We're saying that the intent is clear.
T. Nebbeling: I want to come back to the minister about the definition of forest worker. I just cannot believe that the minister doesn't see the importance of having a very clear definition for future agencies to work with when determining when a person indeed qualifies as a forest worker. We know the intent of the bill, Madam Chair, and it is as the minister has described: a tool to keep jobs in place for forest workers. But there's a serious price to this particular initiative, and the price is that every time you do bring a forest worker in, be it silviculture, be it watershed restoration, be it any other activity, there is most likely another person who is going to be out of a job.
We have seen a fair number of silviculture workers, in particular, coming forward in the last couple of weeks, being very much concerned about the fact that their livelihood is totally undermined. I am really having a problem, first of all, that the well-being of the silviculture worker today -- and many of these people have been in the field for many years -- is totally ignored. There is no mention about how that person's role fits in this whole structure, as well.
However, where I'm really going to see the problem is in the fact that it will be an ongoing debate if we do not have a clear definition in this bill so that people who today rely on the job can say: "Okay, this does affect me" or "It doesn't affect me." I want to hear the minister say once more how he's going to address that at this point, or is he expecting this bill to become a judicial thing and that the court will have to decide from time to time if a worker is a forest worker or not? Somebody will challenge it. I would really like to hear how the minister is going to avoid that kind of conflict in the future.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member should understand that if you put a precise definition in at this point, before you finish the consultation, somebody would come back and challenge it, and say: "It's too narrow; it's not broad enough," or "I'm in that category" or "I'm not."
An Hon. Member: Why didn't you go consult first?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have been consulting, and we will continue the consultations. This bill is not about defining who a forest worker is. I think the best idea is to leave it flexible. It will be defined before the agency operates, and we expect that will happen in the months to come. The mentality that we put every last thing in legislation would mean we'd be here year-round. I've given you what may be there, and there's a number of categories. We will, if necessary, put into regulation any further definition to make it absolutely clear.
T. Nebbeling: The thing is that the minister is not willing to deal with the well-being of other people who do not necessarily have an IWA ticket. These are forest workers, in my opinion, and have been working in the forest for many years in silviculture programs, with companies that are doing silviculture programs in the forests in British Columbia. They are forest workers, as well, but I do not think that the minister includes that group of people within his definition. We have to get clarity here. My point is that there are many people working within the forest industry today, within the unionized forest industry, that do have tickets. I'll talk about firefighters. If a firefighter in the forest is displaced, will he or she be eligible under this bill to get one of these Forest Renewal B.C. -- funded projects? Simple question.
The Chair: Would you like to pursue another line of questioning? We are on section 1.
T. Nebbeling: We are still on section 1, and we're trying to find out what the minister means by the words "forest workers," what the definition is of that word, so that we do
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's workers who are directly employed in the forest industry. We've said that, and I don't know whether the member was in the
T. Nebbeling: Yes, I was.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said it may include, and the intent is to include, people who are in harvesting, manufacturing,
[ Page 898 ]
value-added and silviculture. He seems to pick up firefighters and silviculture -- and you can go on, the list is very long. To give a definitive list may exclude somebody before we finish the consultation. We would not hold up a piece of legislation like this to have every t crossed and every i dotted on the definitions.
We intend to define it, and if necessary, to give clarity, we'll put it in the regulation. The board will define, through policy, some criteria. We're just making it absolutely clear here that it's people who are currently working in the forest industry. If you could say a firefighter is currently working in the forest industry, the ambit of this bill is broad enough to take that into account. But I would be very cautious about singling out any particular group. You can't say silviculture workers are going to be disadvantaged because of a lack of definition in this, because, clearly, they can be included in the definition.
The Chair: Hon. members, it's getting a little repetitious, so be cautioned. We've heard a lot about definitions, so perhaps working on a new angle would be more productive.
T. Nebbeling: Okay, a new angle.
I didn't bring up the words "the board." He just mentioned in his defence that the board will make the decision on who is qualified under their jurisdiction to be considered as a forest worker. Who is the board?
The Chair: That's section 2. The agency is listed in section 2.
T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm sorry. The minister brings it up under section 1. I'll be talking about an agency later on, but the minister is right now mentioning that the board will make the decision on who, in his opinion, ultimately will be a forest worker. So I'm just asking a question on the statement the minister just made.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The board of FRBC will, by virtue of this act, establish an agency, and the agency will, in effect, be -- and this is another section -- a
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member from Peace River seems to be hollering out any time a whim comes his way. He'll get his chance in the debate, and I'd
[11:00]
The board of FRBC has the power under the legislation. If they don't resolve a definition, cabinet ultimately could direct them and bring in regulations to do that. We don't want to tie the board up so they can't achieve the objective of having a smooth transition for people in the industry to maintain employment. We expect to hear from the various groups out there that are being consulted on how they would like to see the definitions made. There is power under the act for the board of Forest Renewal B.C. to establish policy, and that's where I mentioned the criteria as to who is eligible.
T. Nebbeling: Part of the tradition of silviculture workers is that they're very often transient in regards
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's nothing in this section that speaks to that issue. But projects will be approved, and employment on the projects will have some criteria. There have been discussions with the silviculture industry -- if that's the one you're concerned about at this point. We know that there are people who are efficient, who will follow the seasons through the province, but we also know that there are people from some regions working in other regions. I think we're trying to find as much regional and local stability as we can, but we're also trying to achieve some scope across the province so that there can be some movement.
The member for Peace River South was speaking about priority for people in a region, and you seem to be speaking about the need to have priority within part of the forest sector. There are efficiencies, and then there are regionally specific objectives. These can be seen to be at cross-purposes, or we can try to smooth it out. The policy of FRBC will work out those problems, and we're in discussions now with people on that.
T. Nebbeling: Yes, I am certainly concerned about some stability for the region -- or more localized as well. But I'm as concerned about the fact that if indeed the contracts are going to be handed out piecemeal and given to displaced forest workers, we are going to lose a lot of expertise and a lot of effectiveness, because somebody who has been working in the silviculture industry for ten to 15 years most likely will be more productive in planting. That is not to say that the replacement worker is less of a good worker; it's just that you lose their experience by having people just come in, do the job and then that's it, they go to the next area. So are we seeing further funding needs for silviculture projects because the employment is less effective than we have experienced with the professional silviculture operations?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we're getting into a broad discussion here, but the member makes a good point in that we don't want to lose expertise. I think that's the point: we want to keep people who are committed to the forest industry in the industry and find some transition for them. But as tree-planters grow older, they like to get out, and they might like to get into some of the technical work of survey or management. So I fully expect that our discussions with that industry will reveal their workforce needs. Similarly, we don't expect somebody from a sawmill to go up and plant trees beside 17-year-old aboriginal people in the South Peace. We don't expect that to happen; we expect to do a better job of easing and pushing around the edges but facilitating as much continuity of employment as we can in the forest industry.
T. Nebbeling: I think we just identified another problem. If I take the Soo TSA, the average worker there is 39 years of age. Now, like you say, you expect that all the tree-planters will want to get out of that business. I don't think a logger who has been in the field for 20 years wants, at the age of 40, to be introduced into the new field of planting trees. That is exactly where I have concern that your approach, Mr. Minister, is most likely going to lead to a much less effective tree-
[ Page 899 ]
planting operation, thereby obviously undermining the objective of the whole silviculture process. It may well force the minister through the Forest Renewal board to channel more funds toward the silviculture objectives that have to be achieved in order to sustain our forest, which we all want to happen.
So I think it is important that we look at who the worker is who will replace that tree-planter, and whether their ability is indeed such that it will be as effective as what is in the field today. I personally have my doubts about it. I think it is something that the minister has to look at so as not to further erode what is already going to be a very damaging situation.
P. Reitsma: On a lighter note, I know the minister's looking for some R-and-R time, so I will just remind him that Sunday, of course, will be the bathtub race in Nanaimo. Don't hesitate to come down.
My question is on the priority given under the FRBC to displaced or unemployed forest workers. The angle I like to use -- and really to me, it's preferential
I'm advised by some of the workers up there that this particular seed orchard was established in order to provide local jobs for local people. However, the amount of hours has been cut back because unemployed, displaced forestry workers have been employed rather than the local people whom it was intended to serve. To me, that is really an opportunity for actually hiding the true number of forestry workers that are displaced or unemployed in order to fulfil their commitment that no job will be lost. I think that's really a deceitful attempt, in a way, to cover those up. My question is: what is the minister going to do about it? Will more funding be forthcoming in order to have the technology provided, and more seedlings and more planting done, so that the local people, as well as those that are displaced, will have an opportunity to gainfully work?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not familiar with the particular situation. Everybody could raise a case where they don't think the objectives of Forest Renewal are being met. This legislation is about trying to give priority to people who are displaced. Now, if you're telling me that there are some workers in a seed orchard who are being displaced, then they are people that we have to have some option for. I don't know the details that you're dealing with. I suspect if there's training involved, you have to have a training program. Forest Renewal B.C. is faced with a lot of problems, as the change in the industry is significant.
But I have to suggest that we're not going to just plant more trees, because there are tree-planters who are unemployed. If we don't need to plant any more trees, we're not going to do that. We have substantially caught up with the backlog in reforestation. So the big programs of tree-planting are gone, and I would expect that there are going to be people moving out of tree-planting and into something else. It's possible to facilitate that under Forest Renewal B.C., but not without a training plan, not without knowing where the employment is going to be. All the plans aren't in place. Clearly, that's why FRBC hasn't spent all the money that it was targeted to spend in the first three years.
P. Reitsma: The managers are clamouring for more money because there's work to be done. They're being told -- although the money obviously appears to be available, unless it's going to be used to balance the budget, I suppose -- that they need it for the technology, for the seedlings and for the planting that provides, of course, jobs. Could I get an undertaking from the minister that, in this particular example given, he will get back to me?
Secondly, just as a side comment, the use-it-or-lose-it syndrome is still in place. Apparently, I've been told, there was almost a $20,000 surplus in the budget up in my area. They bought some backhoe attachments and mowers in order to fulfil their budget, so that their budget wouldn't be cut next year. I've been told that a lot of that work can be done by hand, which, again, of course, provides employment. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that and also give me an undertaking that he will report back to us on the specific example I've given to him.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not going to take the time of the House to get into details like that. This bill has nothing to do with inappropriate spending under a particular project. But if it helps to facilitate debate and if you want to provide me with some details, of course we'll look into it. People shouldn't be wasting money, and I've talked many times in this House about the wise use of funds. The plans have to be there; the personnel have to be there; people need to know how to do the work. But they shouldn't be driven because there's going to be no loss of funds. If somebody can't justify the level of expenditure, clearly they won't get it the following year; and if it's an inappropriate use of the funds, it shouldn't happen. But if you want to provide the details, I suggest you do it in a letter to me, and I'll deal with it. That's my answer.
P. Reitsma: It's the last one, hon. Chair. I'm so happy that the minister is commenting on the appropriate use of funds under the FRBC. I hope he'll speak out and speak up when it comes to taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of that particular fund for inappropriate uses.
R. Neufeld: I want to deal just a bit with local hire and those issues as they apply to forest workers, or what are described as forest workers. In a hypothetical
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The act is silent on that. It may happen that they have to register or go to an agency if they have money under FRBC, and there is priority given to people in the industry. They may have to check a registry. That may be the way the agency is going to operate. As I say, that will only happen after consultation with the FRBC stakeholders.
R. Neufeld: That causes me great concern, because now we're talking about a company which operates in my constituency that may have to lay off people -- younger men and women -- who have lived in my constituency most of their lives just because the company secured an FRBC contract. I'm
[ Page 900 ]
afraid that what this is going to do in these areas, if this happens and they have to hire people from some agency, is that there are going to be fewer and fewer proponents, especially in the north or areas where people have a stable of workers who have worked for ten or 15 years for them in that company.
[11:15]
By this piece of legislation, this minister is saying to them that we have raised the money in your constituency or area -- I don't care how you want to put it -- but to be able to work for government, they're going to have to lay off the people they've hired for 15 years, put them on unemployment insurance and check through a hiring agency in Prince George. You may have to pay for bringing a person out of Quesnel, Williams Lake or maybe even the lower mainland to work on that job. I find that this is an awful break from the words I heard from the Premier of the day when he talked about the Vancouver Island Highway and local hire.
I think I could go back in Hansard and pick out probably dozens of places where the Premier of the province has stood in this House and consistently talked about local hire on the Vancouver Island Highway project. You did not hear any one of us, especially the Reform members, say that that was wrong. We should be hiring people locally. The people living in those areas who are accustomed to doing the work, and who have worked for that contractor for umpteen years, should have first opportunity at that work. I don't have a bit of problem with that.
This is a whole break from the philosophy that was put forward by this government just a short year ago about the Vancouver Island Highway, and I'd like the minister to rationalize. I know he doesn't have anything to do with the Vancouver Island Highway, but he certainly has a lot to do with the philosophy here about how you're going about hiring people for these jobs. Would you please explain to me how one day you can have one philosophy because it works for some friends in that area, and another time, you have another philosophy for another area that will actually negatively affect constituencies such as mine?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member has probably heard the saying that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The purpose of Forest Renewal is to renew the forests, and so we're going to spend the money in the forests. The example you used from your
It's clear that we're talking about a British Columbia priority. I don't expect that every job that's going to be in northern British Columbia will be filled by somebody from southern British Columbia, but it is possible that some people will move through the province, north and south. Similarly, we wouldn't want to discriminate against people from your constituency about employment that might happen on Vancouver Island.
R. Neufeld: You did.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm talking about within Forest Renewal. The Vancouver Island Highway was a regional project; Forest Renewal is a provincial program.
G. Wilson: Let me first of all preface my remarks by saying that I have been an avid supporter of Forest Renewal and have been very aggressive in getting dollars into Powell River-Sunshine Coast through that program, with some considerable success. I think that it's done a good deal of work in stream and water restoration projects, as well as a lot of silviculture projects in that area. It has been good for our area, so I'm certainly in no way going after the concept of what we're doing. I do think that the issues that have been raised with respect to local hire are critical. I don't know that in the minister putting forward this
I do think that we need to amend this section. What I propose to put forward is an amendment to the bill that would add, after the words "workers" the words "from within the local area where funds are to be applied" so that it doesn't in any way alter the intent of what's being put forward here. It essentially still gives first-priority hiring to eligible forest workers, but what it says is:
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I appreciate the spirit behind this amendment, and it may well work out that this is what the agency does. But it is contrary to the intent of the legislation, which is to facilitate unemployed forest workers getting employment on FRBC, and it also might facilitate some interregional movement. I'd have to say that this amendment is contrary to the intent of the legislation.
The Chair: Hon. members, in ruling on whether this amendment is in order, I see it as not being contradictory to what the intent of the section is, although it does restrict the intent of that section. Because it's in that grey area, I will let it flow as part of the debate for a while, and then we'll close it off. So I rule it is in order at this point.
I recognize the hon. member for Peace River South on the amendment.
[ Page 901 ]
On the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I commend you on your decision. I think any amendment, obviously, would constrict the intent of the bill to some degree or other, or it would be pointless. So I agree with you. I think the amendment's entirely in order.
I'm surprised to hear the minister say, though, that while he rejected the amendment, the agency may well adopt the intent of it. I found that very difficult to rationalize. If this legislation passes, one would assume that the agency, which we're going to discuss in a few minutes, would be absolutely bound by the words in section 1. Otherwise, what's the point of the exercise? If the ministry is going to create an agency and give it the latitude that the FRBC board has been exercising, and should be exercising, rather than being bound by legislation, that's one thing; but the minister seems to want to have both sides of this argument. He seems to want to say: "We need legislation, but if we need flexibility, then we'll look to this agency that's being created for the flexibility." I'd argue that that isn't possible. If you refuse the amendment, if you push ahead with section 1 of this bill, then you are going to tie the hands of FRBC, the agency, and most importantly, the proponents who are successful in getting funding from FRBC.
The reason that I and my colleague, a fellow Reformer from Peace River North, along with the member for Sunshine Coast, voted against this legislation was that the whole essence of this legislation is section 1. The whole essence of this bill is in section 1. This is what the legislation is all about. This is why I was amazed to see the Liberal opposition vote for it when they had spoken against it -- continue to speak against it. It leaves one confused, but that's an aside.
The fact of the matter is, in speaking to the amendment, I would argue and make a genuine attempt to convince the minister that if he doesn't accept this amendment, he ties the hands of the agency, FRBC, and again, most importantly, groups and agencies and contractors who are successful on projects funded by FRBC.
I want to go back to the point raised by my colleague from Peace River North. If a contractor is successful in getting a contract that has FRBC funding, they are bound by this section. The idea of a contractor who works in roadbuilding, a gas and oil production activity which is common in both our constituencies at
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to go back to the intent of the bill, which is clear. It is to facilitate adjustment in the forest sector. This is not to facilitate moving from oil and gas into forestry, back and forth. I hear what they say. They would like to have an employment agency that is government-funded, a project government-funded to facilitate employment between sectors. That is not the intent here. We are concentrating on the forest sector and we are leaving much latitude to define the criteria in the consultations.
So there would be no layoff. If the one you are talking about is a job that has been contracted and the job is for six months, it's an existing contract, then that person continues to work. If there's a new project that's bid on, it's not a matter of laying somebody off, it's a matter of a different job that's created under the contract. I think you're making it sound like there's going to be people unemployed.
[11:30]
Let me make it absolutely clear that when we target 21,000 more jobs over the next five years in the industry, we expect there to be ample jobs for the current workforce to find employment within the sector. They're going to need some employment.
They may have to move a little bit. Indeed, they might have to move through your region. Where do you go with "local"? This amendment is about local. It isn't defined here. We get a great debate about what local is. I suggest to you that the riding of Peace River South or Peace River North is local. In my view, Cariboo-Chilcotin is local, but in the view of the people in Williams Lake, Williams Lake is local. Or in Chetwynd, Chetwynd is local. I could argue that you could take this definition and get yourself nothing but embroiled in dispute as to who has the right to work in what particular locale.
I make the argument
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I think that the $200-odd million a year that comes out of gas and oil from one constituency already represents a substantial surcharge. We'll talk in another forum about an equitable way of returning a share of that to the producing region, much the same way that FRBC does or the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits do, but that's an argument for another day.
I want to seek some clarification from the minister on the question of contracted work. The minister says if there's a contract in place, then don't worry about it. If there's a new contract, that's a new deal. Will the minister confirm that if a contractor is successful in bidding on a project funded in whole or in part by FRBC, they will not be required to lay off one worker, one regular employee, in order to facilitate adding on a forest worker in that employee's place?
G. Wilson: I thought this would have been an entirely friendly amendment to this minister. It's not intended to do anything substantive in terms of changing the intent or purpose of what the bill is doing, except to say that what we're attempting to do is provide some protection to people who may be eligible to get benefit from the Forest Renewal money coming into their area, to make sure they have a first crack at the job. You know, this government has had a long history of a local-hiring policy. In fact, it's already been pointed out that in a number of projects, local hiring is something that this government has held as a priority.
It's strange now, and in fact, it lends credence to those cynics out there who said that this was essentially a sop prior to the election to pull in IWA votes -- if we're saying that we're really creating a central, lower mainland hiring hall in which we'll get a list of people and move them all around the province to give them jobs when those jobs are available. What it means is that you can get a finite number of workers who will go to do this job, then when they're finished that job
[ Page 902 ]
they'll move to the next job, and when they've finished that they'll move to the next one. There will be no net creation of new jobs in the local areas where the funds are being applied. That's what the minister is saying.
That's really unfortunate, because when the minister says there's no definition of "local" in the amendment, he is quite incorrect. The amendment says:
Furthermore, this no longer guarantees that people who are already working on FRBC projects, which are coming to completion in my area, will have any continuity of work at all, because this new hiring hall, not the local contractors, is going to determine who gets that work. That's the only reason I voted against this in second reading. Because this is such a critical issue, I'm hoping that we can have this amendment passed by the minister so we can all support this project.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered no to the previous question because I said we will honour the existing contracts. But if you develop the people he mentioned -- somebody who worked in the oil and gas industry and is now moving into the forest
I want to make it absolutely clear that this is a provincewide program, but there is no intention of moving people massively from one region to the other. We have had members enter the debate and say: "Where you have people already trained, why should you train new people to fill existing jobs?" It's because the need may be specific in Powell River-Sunshine Coast for some kind of silviculture worker and there's nobody there who is qualified. Are you going to stop the work and send local people to school? No, you'll fill the jobs and meet the needs.
We have to look at the needs of the region, the needs of the projects, the needs of the forest. You try to match people with the skills, and if they don't have them and they're currently employed, you would try to retrain them for something else. This bill facilitates that by creating an agency whose purpose is to plan, develop and facilitate the transition of workers within the sector in British Columbia.
G. Wilson: This is my last word on this, and then we will move to a division vote on it, because it's important. We just debated in this House, both in second reading and committee stage, a youth works bill, where we talked about creating opportunities for young people to be trained in jobs that would facilitate them to get work within the communities where they live. We had an opportunity through this bill to implement an amendment that would allow local area work to be done so that those people would have those training opportunities within that community and get access to that work.
FRBC is a good program that has generated enormous capital. That capital is probably the largest single amount of moneys that are available to government to move into job creation, job training and job programs in the foreseeable future. What this does now is allow a local hiring hall to have a finite number of forest workers that will be shifted from job site to job site and will block those youth training opportunities, because local hiring will no longer be a priority in the communities where those funds will be applied. For that reason, I think we have to vote this bill down if this amendment doesn't pass.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member assumes there's only going to be a finite, small number of jobs. Forest Renewal B.C. will create thousands of jobs. We've also said that in exchange for timber-cutting rights, we expect, through a jobs and timber accord, to create more jobs. We want to expand this industry so there will be ample opportunity for young people to take training and enter into the workforce. We don't expect massive layoffs; they haven't materialized where they were predicted.
I think the scenario you paint isn't going to happen, isn't going to materialize. In any event, we expect to understand where the workforce will develop and what kinds of jobs will be available. The workforce committee of FRBC is looking at all that information. Clearly we want to facilitate young people getting into the industry, so training is happening.
J. Wilson: This amendment is a band-aid approach to a bill that has a lot more holes in it than one. This will basically protect those forest workers that are displaced in the local area and allow them the opportunity for employment there, and at the same time allow them to displace another forest worker who already has a job in the area. For this reason, it does not go far enough to take care of all the problems that are associated with this bill. For that reason, I would not be able to support this.
[11:45]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| G. Wilson | Weisgerber | Neufeld | |
|
NAYS -- 69 | |||
| Priddy | Petter | Miller | |
| G. Clark | Dosanjh | MacPhail | |
| Sihota | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
| Hartley | Orcherton | Kasper | |
| Walsh | Giesbrecht | Goodacre | |
| Bowbrick | Stevenson | Pullinger | |
| Calendino | Waddell | Kwan | |
| Ramsey | Streifel | Hammell | |
| Boone | Cashore | Zirnhelt | |
| Evans | Dalton | Gingell | |
| Reid | Campbell | Farrell-Collins | |
| Hurd | Sanders | Plant | |
| Stephens | de Jong | Coell | |
| Anderson | Nebbeling | Whittred | |
| van Dongen | Thorpe | Barisoff | |
| Krueger | McKinnon | Masi | |
| Nettleton | Coleman | Chong | |
| Weisbeck | Jarvis | Abbott | |
| Symons | Hawkins | C. Clark | |
| Hansen | Reitsma | J. Wilson | |
[ Page 903 ]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Wilson: The business of matching eligible British Columbia forest workers with jobs could evolve into an extremely complicated and elaborate system that could require an endless number of avenues we would have to develop. We realize that everyone who works in the forest industry at present may not want to go into a field which would be a big percentage of what is coming up in the future for work: silviculture. If you're a 60-year-old employee and you're looking for a position, it's not going to be one within silviculture. The physical endurance required on the job would not allow that person to take that job on. Are we going to establish a set number of options for this employee, or are we going to retrain this employee to go out there and find another job that he perhaps thinks he would like to work at?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think that this will be the only way in which you can facilitate movement of somebody in the workforce. I'm sure that in some cases, if it's a 60-year-old employee, there may be some kind of pension-bridging that's negotiated with their employer. Nobody's going to try to force round pegs into square holes. There needs to be a broader adjustment strategy.
What we're finding is that what people want is some basic upgrading that's fundamental to any movement, especially if it's a movement toward something requiring new skill sets. They've got to have GED, for example. In the work we've done with the job commissioners around the province and in looking at workers' needs, we're finding that the most important thing, if somebody is faced with a layoff, is not to just let them sit on employment insurance for six months, then run out and start looking for something. They would get counselling and would get to look at the options that are available.
What this section says is that the skills of the workers would be assessed. We would try to match those skill sets with those required for employment under FRBC projects. But it way well be that there's another project or another job within that firm or within the region and, of course, we would try to facilitate that and training, if necessary. If the person doesn't want to take training, they won't be forced to take training. But if they happen to be unemployed, when their employment insurance runs out, they'll be out of luck if they don't take the help that's given. The whole idea is to assist people to make adjustments.
There needs to be a broader adjustment strategy for workers, and, as I said, some of that is as fundamental as basic education and upgrading. As we go into the areas where there are more highly skilled jobs, then considerable training will have to be undertaken. I know that in discussions, particularly on Vancouver Island, we're looking at providing training for up to two years, for people to move. I don't think we would do that with somebody who is 60 -- for them to take two years of training to work for three years, I suspect that wouldn't happen. We would look at some other alternative for the kind of person you're talking about.
J. Wilson: This brings me back to a question I asked previously; the minister deferred it to this section. What I would like the minister to do is define this agency: how many people will there be? How large is it? How involved is this agency going to become at this point? Does he have any idea of what he's building here? Or is it just a thought that we should have this, and we're going to allow this thing to grow and grow and grow?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will be as lean as possible. Clearly, we have a job to do here. Planning and delivering on adjustment is not an easy task. Our people who are working on this have looked across the line at the United States, where they have had some experience with this. I can't give you a number, but I can tell you that we don't want it any bigger than it absolutely has to be in order to get the job done. It will be designed after the consultations that are taking place with the partners of Forest Renewal: the workers, the companies and prospective employers in the forest industry. And, of course, we'll be discussing it with people who are experts in worker adjustment.
J. Wilson: Would the minister describe the actual function or job that this agency is going to perform?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a simple description in the bill that says the agency's purpose is "to establish a process to (a) match eligible B.C. forest workers with jobs on Forest Renewal BC projects, and (b) facilitate priority hiring for eligible British Columbia forest workers." The question is: what is the process? The agency will have to make sure that there are agreements with the various parties as to how this will happen. Much needs to be done. We don't want to describe it in any detail in the bill. We will, by
What it might look like -- and I could just say what it might look like based on some of the preliminary work done on Vancouver
It builds on the industrial adjustment. You may be familiar with that. There's been some in the Weldwood mill. It was very successful in Weldwood's operation in the Cariboo, where virtually no one was left without a job at the end of the adjustment. Some moved to Hinton, Alberta, but some stayed and moved to different sectors.
We will be asking the partners to use their own human resources policies to find employment within their industry, and where they can't, at least we're giving an option. The commitment that was given as we entered the land use planning is that we will
J. Wilson: Through the Employment ministry we have a list of available work that is kept reasonably up to date. Any
[ Page 904 ]
unemployment office will put this out to you -- you often hear it on the air. Jobs are advertised. They're available, and it is not a local thing. These jobs can be put up from anywhere in the province. Is there something wrong with the system we have today for advertising the positions that will be made available through FRBC funding -- to save ourselves the misery and cost of another bureaucracy, which we could very well do without?
[12:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Looking at the hour, I'll give a short answer. The federal government is walking away from its responsibilities in employment facilitation. Their Human Resources offices are being shut down all over the place. We know that it's essential to say that FRBC jobs have to give priority, and that narrows the field. It could well be that some of those agencies help in doing that. We will use them, and we've had discussions about using them, but they fall short. They can't provide the service that's required here, because they don't know the industry as intimately as we expect this agency will understand it.
With that explanation, I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Boone moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
On vote 27: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).
C. Clark: This morning I'd like to canvass some air quality issues. I'd like to first ask the minister about our targets for air quality. I know the government has made a firm commitment to have our air quality at 1990 levels by the year 2000, and CO2 emissions down to 1990 levels by the year 2000. I wonder if the minister could elaborate for us on where we are in terms of those targets this year and what the plan is for getting to those targets over the next four years.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is referring to this province's commitment to follow through on the commitments our country and this province made at the Rio summit some four years ago, when 179 countries, I think, signed on to some general principles on some major environmental issues. Among them, of course, was the whole issue of global warming and its relation to greenhouse gases, which are clearly causing climatic change.
For our part, we've been leading the way in Canada, I think, in saying that this is an issue where we can think globally but we have to act regionally and locally. A document, British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Action Plan, was released last November. It outlines, in great detail, 53 separate initiatives that need to be approached in dealing with the greenhouse gas emissions issue if we are to get anywhere near the 1990 targets. Currently, you could probably say we are roughly in the area of 10 to 13 percent above 1990 levels, so we have some major challenges in front of us.
We believe that if we follow through on all the actions in this plan, we will be able to narrow that gap considerably. But even with it, there may still be a gap, around 4 percent, that we are going to require some federal initiatives on. So one of the messages that I am going to be taking to the next Canadian Ministers of Environment conference is to really try to reanimate some of the federal action on this issue. As you know, at times they seem to have been trying to avoid some of the hard actions at the federal level. They recently signed at least two fuel-and-emission requirements for vehicles that this province led on. They finally recognized that we had some of the right answers, and they are going to follow along with us.
Clearly, on greenhouse gas we are going to have to do similar work. We have a very comprehensive approach to it within the province. We have done a lot of the technical work, but on a national level, we are going to need some further action among all provinces, led by the federal government.
C. Clark: I wonder if it is possible for the minister to be a little more specific about where we are. He mentioned that we are currently about 10 to 13 percent over our 1990 levels. I wonder if that represents an improvement on where we were when we made the commitment, or if what's happened over the last couple of years has actually had a deleterious effect on the quality on our air, particularly in the lower mainland airshed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am not sure I can quantify it in nice, specific terms. I'd love to be able to say that we're up two, down one, or whatever. I think the best I could say is that we are probably holding our own. We have taken a number of initiatives, as the member knows, through things like the clean vehicles and fuels program, moving away from gas-powered vehicles for buses, moving into cleaner-technology purchase options, and the AirCare improvements. We're working on transportation alternatives and energy efficiency, and a range of initiatives that we've undertaken. But that's countered, as the member knows, by the really incredible growth that the province has experienced. So I would say that per capita we're probably gaining, but we've got more capitas. It's sort of like jogging up the down escalator. I think we're holding our own. We're not slipping down, but we have to go even faster if we're going to reach the top.
C. Clark: The minister will know that out in my area we have had a second smog warning and that air quality out in the Fraser Valley is particularly bad now. It's a really urgent issue, not just today because a warning was issued, but on an
[ Page 905 ]
ongoing basis. It's something that we hear about from people, particularly people who have respiratory problems and health ailments, who are affected by the poor air quality out there. I'm sort of surprised to hear that the ministry doesn't seem to know what the quality of the air is on an ongoing basis and what kind of contaminants are in the air on an ongoing basis. I think it's important, if we make commitments that we are going to reduce the quantity of pollutants in our air by a certain percentage, that we know where we're going on an ongoing basis so we know what steps we need to take to catch up. It sounds to me like we're getting a little behind. I wonder if the minister could either come up with some specific numbers or explain why there aren't any.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member knows that through air monitoring we have an ongoing, continuous monitoring of air quality at a number of stations in the lower mainland, from downtown Vancouver right up the Fraser Valley. The stats for that are available for a number of years. I'm quite happy to provide them if the member wishes them.
C. Clark: That's terrific. I wonder if the minister could tell me, on a percentage basis, whether that's an improvement on where we were in 1992 or if we're doing worse than we were in 1992. What I'm interested in doing, and what I think the government should be interested in doing, is making sure that we meet the commitments that we made under Rio -- or the government should just say: "Well, we aren't going to meet them, and we're way behind, and we need to start thinking about new initiatives." What concerns me is that this may be a case where the government has made announcements, has gone and said: "We've made these commitments, and it's great, and we're so environmentally sensitive." I know the minister was in my riding yesterday at SFU talking about air quality and how important it
Interjection.
C. Clark: He was quoted in the paper as being at SFU.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Downtown.
C. Clark: Sorry, at the SFU downtown campus.
...and how they were going to improve it. I'll ask the minister again for some specific percentages on where we are today versus 1992 and, if we're not where we want to be, how we're going revise government policy or what new actions the government is going to undertake in order to meet the commitments under Rio. Or are we going to just scrap the whole commitment altogether?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat what I said. We have a considerable number of years of data on air quality in the lower mainland. I don't have that with me in the chamber. If the member wishes it, I can provide it to her.
C. Clark: I would be very interested. I thank the minister for that commitment to provide the information. I'm sure the ministry does have it; it's a matter of laying their hands on it. I know it would be impossible to live up to the commitments that the government has made if we don't know where we are in terms of air quality.
I wonder if the minister could outline for us if his ministry has identified the different producers of CO2 in the lower mainland airshed, and if he could outline for us how they intend to address each of those to help us meet our commitments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've actually got two issues here, technically. We can try and deal with them together, or we can try to pull them apart. The member asked about CO2. That's definitely linked to the greenhouse gas issue. That's really one set of issues, and this action plan is about some 50 specific actions, addressing various sources of CO2 emission.
The other issue the member was talking about was air quality. Largely, nitrous oxides are the cause of that, and then the compounds that form from the emission of nitrous oxides and their interaction with other elements in the environment. That's the main cause of the smog and the air alerts that we've had for the second time now this summer, and the warnings to people to please not use their car unless they have to, to leave their gas lawnmower in the garage, to consider using their oven rather than that barbecue, and a variety of other individual actions that we have to ask people to take in order to keep air quality under control.
On the greenhouse gas side -- because that's what the member was asking about: where are we in terms of our commitment at Rio? What does this action plan contain? Where are the sources of pollution that we're addressing? The ministry analysis says that the sources of greenhouse gases in B.C. break down into the following areas: transportation contributes about 34 percent -- so just as that's one of the major issues in air quality, related to smog and the health hazards of that, it's a major issue here in greenhouse gases as well; industry contributes 28 percent; the surprise for me as a new minister is that landfills contribute 20 percent, and this is why the work we're doing on solid waste reduction and management is so important; residential and commercial sectors contribute 18 percent -- you know, that's us in our individual homes, our individual businesses.
Those are the major sources. I'm not sure how much of this the member is going to ask me to read into the record. There are 50 different sets of actions proposed to deal with these sources, a substantial number for each of them. We can do that, but I think the member makes a good point that we have to be able to identify sources. I think the ministry is on track with doing that. We have to develop some action plans to address those sources, and we're on the way to doing that. The ministry is preparing a status report for me, for cabinet and for the public, this fall, to say where we are now. As I say, I'll be taking that action plan and other concerns to the national meeting of Ministers of Environment to push for stronger national action this fall.
[10:30]
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister reading that into the record. He's not only a new minister, but also I'm a new critic, so I appreciate him taking the time to do that.
I wonder if we could focus a little on transportation. In the Fraser Valley, where many people commute every day, transportation is obviously a major problem. But, of course, all the pollution that's produced by the people trying to get back and forth is a very major problem as well. So I have some specific questions about the reduction of car emissions that the ministry has undertaken. I wonder if the minister could first break the percentage out for us; I assume the ministry has done this. It was 34 percent -- I guess these are lower mainland stats, are they?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They're actually provincial stats.
[ Page 906 ]
C. Clark: I'm interested in the lower mainland airshed particularly, if the minister can provide that. On the transportation side, I would also be interested to know if the minister knows how much of that is from light-duty vehicles -- essentially, commuters -- as opposed to being pollution caused by trucks doing business and industrial uses like that. I'm thinking about the modes of transportation that would be affected by HOV lanes and improved by HOV lane usage.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The sort of study the member is referring to is available. It tries to break it down by commercial transport, mass transit and individual users of cars, vans, or whatever. We don't have that with us in the chamber. I understand that such studies do exist. The only thing I'd say about the provincial stats I just gave you is that the percentage of pollutants attributable to transportation is even higher than that in the lower mainland. If you look at all sources of air pollution -- both CO2 and nitrous oxide issue -- about 75 percent of the pollution in the Vancouver airshed is from transportation. So that is the main issue, and that's why initiatives like AirCare, clean fuels and vehicle emissions, natural gas buses, Ballard fuel cells, and all the other actions that we've been taking around transportation, have focused on that.
C. Clark: I'll just preface my next question by confirming with the minister that when he talks about emissions, that's emissions in general. We're talking about NOx, CO2, all the emissions that are out there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
C. Clark: On some of the specific initiatives that the ministry has undertaken, I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about the Scrap-It program that was announced by the previous minister and tell us how many cars have been turned in under the program. I understand 1,100 -- 1,000 in the lower mainland and 100 in Victoria -- was the ministry's target. I wonder if the ministry could tell us how many people have
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've exhausted a staff member -- the person responsible for administering the program isn't with us today -- so I can't provide you with an update of where we are on that target. I can get that for you.
C. Clark: I'd appreciate it if the minister would. I imagine he's probably reachable by phone, and it's a fairly straightforward question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: She.
C. Clark: Oh -- she is reachable by phone. It's a fairly straightforward question, so I'd appreciate getting that information while we're still in the estimates process, if that's possible.
The other question I had with that was: what percentage of them have been in Vancouver and what percentage of them have been in Victoria? I don't know if the minister intends to ask her to join us or if he wants to do this over the phone.
I wanted to ask,
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the difficulties with getting numbers that work, as the member knows, is that the operation of Burrard Thermal is sporadic. If you look at full operation, if it was blasting away absolutely at capacity, at that point you could say it's probably contributing around 6 percent of the GVRD CO2, which is substantial. I don't remember the nitrous oxide -- probably around 4 percent. The member makes the excellent point that this is a
C. Clark: I understand that that's older data. I think it might be 1990 data.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it is.
C. Clark: I wonder if the minister would confirm for us that that data is actually just CO2 emissions, not total emissions. My understanding is that 6 percent is the figure that the ministry usually uses to refer to all emissions in the lower mainland, but I guess the minister can confirm that that's just CO2. The reason I'm curious about this is that in 1993, for example, Energy Watch suggested that Burrard Thermal accounted for over 20 percent of the CO2 produced in the lower mainland, and that suggests that it's gotten a lot worse over the last few years. I wonder if the ministry has done any testing at all of Burrard Thermal in the interim, because the pollution between the ministry's estimate in 1990 and the Energy Watch estimate in 1993 seems to me to have been getting significantly worse. It strikes me, too, that as Burrard Thermal undergoes consideration of expanding its capacity even further, it seems really quite unbelievable that the ministry wouldn't have any idea of what level of pollution is being pumped out of Burrard Thermal or of whether it's getting worse or better, particularly since Burrard Thermal is on the verge, apparently, of expanding its capacity and potentially making an even larger contribution to the overall CO2 emissions in the lower mainland airshed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate, I think, that that is the 1990 emissions: 6 percent of GVRD CO2 emissions. On the NOx side, it's 4 percent of total emissions. That's also a 1990 figure. I don't know where that 20 percent figure comes from. It doesn't fit with the data I've seen. Of course, the other thing that happens, as the member knows, is that a lot of it depends on the operation of Burrard Thermal over the years. The pattern essentially goes like this: in 1990 it was around 8 percent or 9 percent of total hydro production. It dropped way down to around 1.5 percent in 1992. In the last two years it has been around 6 percent or 7 percent. So the level of production or operation shouldn't be greatly different from 1990 to 1995, for the hours of operation of Burrard Thermal, I wouldn't think.
The other thing that happens, of course, is that as they start to install the SCR units, the NOx cap drops rather dramatically. In 1994, before they installed any, the annual cap was around 2,600 tonnes. This year, 1996, with two installed, it dropped to 1,890. With full installation in the year 2000, it will
[ Page 907 ]
be 1,715. A reduction from 2,600 to 1,715 is a substantial drop. The other part of it is: does it produce more power? As the member and I discussed earlier, Hydro proposals to repower and increase production would be subject to environmental assessment if they're producing more than an additional 20 megawatts.
C. Clark: I would agree that Burrard Thermal is making a reasonable effort to reduce NOx emissions, and I think they've done a reasonably decent job of it. But what's sort of galling for us out there -- the people who live near it -- is that Hydro and the ministry always talk just about NOx emissions, which is the area where they're doing better, but almost always avoid talking about CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions are equally important. They're not just important for us in the lower mainland; they're also important for everyone in British Columbia and everybody globally. That's why I'm so surprised to find out that the ministry doesn't have any data fresher than from six years ago about what kind of CO2 production is coming out of Burrard Thermal, particularly since Burrard Thermal wants to expand and produce more CO2. They're going to reduce the amount of NOx, that's true, but they're going to be producing more CO2. How can the ministry propose to address the CO2 production of Burrard Thermal if it doesn't even know what's coming out the end of the pipe?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the reasons you don't have a whole lot of data from 1990 on is that the amount of CO2 per unit of energy is essentially the same. The installation of selective catalytic reduction doesn't substantially affect CO2 emissions. What would affect it substantially, of course, is if they went to the combined cycle turbines. If they installed those fully, you could expect a reduction in CO2 emissions of about 36 percent, which is one of the things to juggle as you look at the future of Burrard Thermal.
[10:45]
C. Clark: I have to admit that I'm still not really very satisfied with the monitoring of Burrard Thermal that seems to be going on on the part of the ministry. I really think it badly needs to be beefed up. Particularly, I think we need to know what Burrard Thermal is doing today, so that we can have some sort of baseline information for when Burrard Thermal undertakes all these changes, if the environmental assessment office says that's acceptable.
There are a couple of other issues with regard to Burrard Thermal, though, that I'm interested in. One of them is the issue of the SCRs that Burrard Thermal is installing. The minister will know that part of the SCRs means that Burrard Thermal needs to bring chlorine into the plant in order to operate the SCR technology. There hasn't been any environmental assessment of the impact that this would have on the environment. There hasn't been any environmental assessment of how this would affect the community should a disaster happen because we're transporting some very dangerous goods along the Ioco Road. There hasn't been any environmental assessment of what might happen, or whether this dangerous substance is leaching into the groundwater at Burrard Thermal. There hasn't been any environmental assessment of whether this substance is being spewed back into Burrard Inlet when Burrard Thermal puts the water through its system and sends it back out. I wonder if the minister could speak to that for a moment and tell us what consideration his ministry is giving to trying to address the issue of ammonia.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Ammonia or chlorine?
C. Clark: I'm sorry, I meant ammonia. Did I say chlorine?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
C. Clark: My apologies, I meant ammonia. I'm talking about ammonia in the SCR technology.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A couple of comments, then. Staff is working on the ammonia issue. Let me tell you a few things about air quality and chlorine.
First of all, I understand the member's concern about the issue. I've surely received a lot of data directly from the ministry about the emission concerns around Burrard Thermal, and the extensive data I've received suggests to me that we have a fairly good handle on what is being emitted. With their current technology, you can specify exactly how much CO2 is emitted per gigawatt of electricity produced, both on the CO2 side and the NOx side. You can do that for whatever technology you're installing. The calculation of exactly how much is emitted is by the multiplication of how many gigawatt-hours Burrard Thermal is producing at any one time. As the member and I have discussed, that depends on how many hours of operation a year Burrard Thermal undergoes. So that data is available in all sorts of formats. You can get a table that shows any configuration you want, actually.
The percentage of that compared to overall emissions in the Vancouver
On the cooling-water effluent issue, with
C. Clark: No, ammonia is what I'm interested in -- seepage.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, we'll do the chlorine and then I'll see if I can get you information on the ammonia side. We amended the permit for Burrard Thermal back in December of '95 after a consultation with the -- oh, not another acronym! -- BIEAP, the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program. It required the dechlorination of any further discharge of chlorinated cooling water, required the development of an optimization study, planned to minimize the use of chlorine and sulphur dioxide -- which is the proposed dechlorination chemical -- and required that the optimization plan be implemented by the end of the 1996 calendar year. It reduced the permitted level of chlorine from 100 parts per billion to 20 parts per billion in January '97, and a variety of other things. What I don't have is information on the ammonia issue. If the member could phrase the question again, we'll try it one more time.
C. Clark: I'd be happy to talk about the chlorine issue as well. I'm sorry I misspoke and mentioned chlorine and ammonia in the same sentence, but B.C. Hydro is bringing these new chemicals into our community all the time, and each of them poses a different problem and a different concern for the residents of my community.
The ammonia issue is one that's really been at the top of the agenda since BT started this idea of bringing in the SCRs,
[ Page 908 ]
because ammonia is something that is critical to running the SCRs on the plant, and they've put in a new storage area for it. They've got trucks going up and down Ioco Road. In fact, the city of Port Moody launched an appeal against the ministry -- although they later dropped it, I should add -- to try and stop them from allowing this dangerous substance to be moved along this road. I don't know if you've ever been to Port Moody and been up to Burrard Thermal, but Ioco Road is a windy little road, two lanes, and these trucks go up and down in the middle of the night. It's not the safest way to transport this chemical, particularly in a highly urbanized area.
My concern is that the environmental assessment that Burrard Thermal was forced to undergo, and which it passed, didn't include any consideration of the impact that the ammonia could potentially have in the environment or of the introduction of that new chemical into the environmental stew that they're cooking up over there at Burrard Thermal. I wonder if the minister could address that a little bit, and tell us why the whole issue of ammonia hasn't been considered in any environmental assessment process and why Burrard Thermal has been allowed to introduce this whole new chemical into the process without any comment or any concern being expressed on the part of government.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two issues here. First, the ministry clearly has responsibility for monitoring emissions of ammonia from any operation. We have no evidence that Burrard Thermal is failing in any way to meet provincial standards on that end of things.
The other issue that the member raises is transportation of this good through an urban corridor. The Ministry of Environment neither permits nor oversees that. That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and I would advise her that she should take that up in those estimates.
C. Clark: I intend to take that up with the appropriate minister in her estimates.
My concern is that they are shipping these goods down, and they've got a permit from the Ministry of Transportation to do so. It's clearly a dangerous good that they're rolling along Ioco Road there. But the issue for me with this ministry is that the environmental assessment process didn't consider the transportation of dangerous goods. It's my understanding that when new technology is introduced by an industry, environmental assessment processes are normally considered as part of the assessment. In this case, the transportation of dangerous goods and the introduction of ammonia weren't considered by the ministry. I wonder if the minister could confirm that that's normally the way they go about it and that normal procedures were deviated from in this case.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The critic is new in her job, the minister is new in his job, the Environmental Assessment Board are new in their jobs, and the Environmental Assessment Act is recent legislation in this province. The review that the member references did not take place under that act; it took place under BCUC auspices, under the Utilities Commission Act. To staff's knowledge, the review was conducted under that act and within the parameters that it set out.
If Burrard Thermal seeks to repower and produce more electricity, the triggering threshold is an additional 20 megawatts. B.C. Hydro and Burrard Thermal would be subject to a new review under the Environmental Assessment Act, and that would include many of the issues that the member is talking about. To our knowledge, the BCUC review in '92-93 under previous legislation did fit the terms of that legislation. One of the reasons why we have moved to introduce new environmental assessment legislation is concerns of precisely the kind that the member is bringing forward -- that there is a vehicle for significant changes or significant increases in industrial activity and that there is an opportunity to assess all environmental impacts of those. So we have a new regime there. If B.C. Hydro and Burrard Thermal increase capacity by the threshold amount, such an assessment would be triggered and would be undertaken.
C. Clark: I think in the last couple of days we have identified that B.C. Hydro is an environmental offender in British Columbia; I think we've come to an agreement that something needs to be done about that. The minister has undertaken to go back and revise B.C. Hydro's water licences in many cases and attach environmental and operating conditions to those water licences, in light of the fact that those water licences were issued under a different regime in a different public policy environment. I wonder, then, why the same principles don't apply to the Burrard Thermal issue. I think that making the argument that it was under previous legislation, so there's nothing we can do about it, really won't fly, when the minister is actually going back and revising, in cooperation with B.C. Hydro, water licences that B.C. Hydro had previously been issued. So I'd ask for a commitment from the minister to work cooperatively with B.C. Hydro, as they seem to be doing on the water licence issue, to undertake an environmental review of the introduction of ammonia to the operation of the plant at Burrard Thermal, and to make it subject to the same environmental regulations under the act today that it should have been subject to a couple of years ago.
[11:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've outlined in some detail the actions this ministry is undertaking with respect to Burrard Thermal and the outcome of the review that has taken place. We have discussed in some detail the steps that Burrard Thermal has taken to reduce some emissions and future steps that it might take.
On the specific issue of ammonia, the ministry has no indication that either emissions or storage of ammonia deviate at all from environmental standards that the ministry sets. They will look into that, and report to me if there is anything that we should look into further. The issue the member seems to be focused on, I think, is community concern about transportation of a hazardous good. While, in an ideal world, every time you change something you would have a brand-new assessment from the
C. Clark: As I said, I will raise it with the appropriate minister, because it's a very, very big concern. I'm sure the minister is aware of what a spillage of that kind of dangerous substance on the road would do to the community, to the houses lining the road and to the thousands of people who live in the immediate vicinity. I really can't express quite how strongly I feel about the fact that Burrard Thermal and B.C. Hydro were allowed to introduce this new, dangerous and toxic substance to the operation of the plant up there with no comment or concern expressed by government. I really don't think that government has approached this responsibly. I think it tells us again about the relationship that B.C. Hydro
[ Page 909 ]
has with the Ministry of Environment, and about who's where in the hierarchy.
The minister says the ministry has no indication, aside from the issue of transportation of dangerous goods, that in the storage and usage of this dangerous substance at the
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff will report to me on those issues, and I'll tell the member what my findings are. On the larger issue, though, I would again say that this ministry treats B.C. Hydro as it does any other industrial operator in the province: no more, no less. We seek to work with them to improve their environmental record, and I think the steps we've taken demonstrate that.
As for other issues, I understand the community's concern about the transportation of hazardous goods. I only say to the member that this is not unique either to Port Moody or to the operation of Burrard Thermal. Hazardous goods are transported through virtually every community in this province, every day of the week. I can show her transportation of hydrogen peroxide and chlorine in my community, which takes place on a regular basis right past all sorts of residential neighbourhoods. I can show her the industrial streets it goes on. I'm not sure they're greatly different from the road in Port Moody -- neither better nor worse. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has the responsibility of monitoring and permitting the transportation of hazardous goods. That is an issue everywhere, obviously. I think she should take that up with the appropriate minister.
I'd also advise the member that if she's through with this line of questioning, I have some information on the Scrap-It program that I could share with her.
C. Clark: I'm not quite finished, but I would appreciate the minister providing that information on the Scrap-It program. We can explore that in a few minutes, perhaps.
On the issue of the transportation of dangerous goods, though, I recognize clearly that dangerous goods are transported across this province and this country. In many cases it's a very necessary part of the operations of industry and government in our region. At the end of the day, however, sometimes it is more necessary than others. In the long run, Burrard Thermal probably isn't a necessary facility anyway. I think that's the way the Ministry of Environment should approach this. It should be saying: "We should be trying to limit the transport of dangerous goods as much as possible, and if we shut down Burrard Thermal, we wouldn't need to be transporting these dangerous goods anymore." That's a debate we can get to later.
I want to confirm with the minister that the ministry intends to do an analysis of the storage of ammonia at the Burrard Thermal site -- that it will try to confirm that it isn't impacting the environment, that there is no seepage of ammonia into the ground on the site and that it's not affecting the immediate environment or the community around it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member has accurately summarized the work which I am asking the ministry to undertake and report to me on. I think we have canvassed the issue fairly. Is that it?
C. Clark: Yes.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asked what the uptake had been on the Scrap-It program, which set a target of getting around 1,100 older, high-polluting vehicles off the road in the Vancouver and Victoria areas. The program offered $750 if the owner was purchasing a new vehicle from a participating dealer, $500 if the owner was purchasing a used vehicle from a dealer or a one-year B.C. Transit pass if the owner was simply getting it off the road. We've taken 119 vehicles off the road so far. This was announced on April 18, which is not bad; it's sort of getting going. Eight of them received the $500 rebate, 56 received the $750 rebate and 55 received transit passes.
C. Clark: I should just tell the minister that I do intend to go back to Burrard Thermal, but I'd be happy to focus on Scrap-It, because 119 is about 10 percent, and about a quarter of a year has passed since the introduction of the program. April, May, June, July -- that's four months, and yet only 10 percent of the target has been hit. I'd suspect that the ministry really needs to pick up its pace on this if it intends to meet its target. I wonder what the ministry is doing to accomplish that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's review some of the public interest in the program. There have been about 11,000 inquiries, 433 formal applications and 268 approvals to date. What I outlined for you is the actual end product. There are several more in the pipeline. I'd say it seems to be on track right now. I'll be monitoring it, obviously, to see what the uptake is as we go along.
C. Clark: I'd be interested to find out, too, how many of the 119 are in Vancouver and how many are in Victoria. Although we combine them into 1,100, I know there were separate targets for the two regions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have a breakdown of the actual initiatives taken. Of the 268 applications approved, 251 were from the lower mainland and 17 were from Victoria.
C. Clark: I'm interested in the 119 that have actually been taken up, not in the applications. It's my understanding that the technology to test the vehicles and to administer the program is actually located in the lower mainland. I'm wondering if the ministry has done anything about providing the service on the Island. I know that the applications are there, but in terms of actually getting approvals out the other end of the pipe, it's a different question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff don't have that information here. We'll get it for the member.
C. Clark: We on this side of the House are interested in ensuring that the ministry does a lot more than just make announcements and actually does follow-up on the outcomes from these programs, in terms of the improvement of our environment. So I would be interested in receiving that information, particularly for the Victoria area.
Back to Burrard Thermal, if I could, for a moment. I want to ask the minister if he would commit to doing a baseline study over the summer -- maybe not on the air side; well, even on the air side -- of Burrard Thermal's contribution to making our lower mainland a worse place to live. The reason I say that is that Burrard Thermal is quiet at the moment; there's nothing happening there. I think it would be important for the Ministry of Environment to do a study of the quality of the
[ Page 910 ]
water in Burrard Inlet, do a study of the biomass in Burrard Inlet, and get a sense of how that end of Burrard Inlet operates normally when Burrard Thermal isn't up and running -- and on the air side, too, to try to figure out what's not happening to our air when Burrard Thermal isn't running. This is going to be really critical information for the ministry to have when the environmental assessment for the combined-cycle technology is undertaken. We and the public are going to need to know what the normal situation is -- or normal minus Burrard Thermal -- so that we can monitor it on an ongoing basis and have a realistic understanding of what the impact would be should Burrard Thermal really crank it up and start increasing its emissions even further into our Vancouver airshed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have already shared with the member much of the baseline data on Burrard Thermal's contribution to it. That information is available. BIEAP, the new acronym that we both learned today, has the baseline data on the water side. So the information is there, and there is no need to commit to further study.
I can't let pass the member's assertion that this ministry and this government want to make announcements and not make serious changes in environmental quality. That is directly counter to the record of this government and this ministry over the last four years. This has been the most active environmental ministry in the country. This province is recognized as an environmental leader in taking steps to improve the quality of our air and water, and in taking steps to make sure we pass on that sustainable environment to our children and to their children.
I find the assertion rather strange, considering that many of the initiatives that this ministry and this government have taken were done over the screaming objections of the party to which she belongs. That's the party that said AOX restrictions should be reviewed. That's the party that said we should mine the hell out of the Tat. That's the party that said the first thing they'd do would be tear up regulation authorities in the forest and environmental sectors. That's the party that said they wanted to review the air emissions standards that my predecessor announced. For this member to stand up and say that this ministry and this government are not interested in improving environmental quality is so contrary to the record of this government and this ministry, and so at odds with her own party's record on environmental issues, that it's hard to fathom.
C. Clark: That was a gross misrepresentation of the facts in terms of the Liberal Party's position on environmental issues, and I think the minister is aware of that. But he should be aware that we on this side of the House have taken notice of the fact that a lot of announcements have been produced by his ministry. There hasn't been a lot of follow-up, and the reason we know that -- and this is something we established in this estimates process -- is that the
The thing that was really striking was the beginning of our discussion, when we talked about B.C. Hydro and its impact on fish, and the minister said: "Well, we don't really have any idea what the impact of B.C. Hydro on fish is yet, but we hope to get it; we don't know where we are in terms of our commitments to Rio; we don't know where we are compared to 1992." I don't know how the ministry can live up to its commitments if it doesn't have any of these numbers or any of these basic measurements.
[11:15]
Rather than just the rhetorical comments back and forth, I would like to focus on Burrard Thermal, which is a real issue that affects real people. I'd like to ask the minister what he's referring to when he talks about the study that was done on the water. I want to ask the minister what study he's referring to, because I'm aware of only one study that was done. It was done by B.C. Hydro itself, and there's been a great many questions about the quality of information on which that study was based.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a fascinating allegation that this ministry and this government have been talking rather than acting. We set a goal of protecting 12 percent of the biodiversity of the province. We have increased park size by 50 percent, and we have established 200 new parks. That's a pretty clear measure of where we're getting to on that one. We said we needed to reduce the solid waste stream; we set a target of 50 percent reduction by the turn of the century. We recently issued a report measuring our progress there. State-of-the-environment reports on the status of environmental issues and progress that has been made are issued regularly by this ministry on a wide range of issues.
Whether it's the tire reduction program -- which one member of the Liberal opposition said didn't seem to have done anything to recycle tires, totally contrary to the fact that even in the first 12 months of the program some 90 percent of used tires were being recycled and reused rather than landfilled -- or the Scrap-It program -- on which the member earlier asserted that nothing was being done, that it was all announcement and no substance -- they have clearly been shown to be at odds with the facts. The Liberal assertions that we are not interested in action simply don't bear up to the scrutiny. It simply doesn't reflect the wealth of information that's available to that member and to her colleagues if she wishes to read the publications that the staff and the ministry put out at regular intervals. I would urge her to look at some of those, because there is a lot of information there.
The information which the member references about water in Burrard Inlet has been produced by BIEAP, Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program, which is a joint federal-provincial-Vancouver Port initiative. Their office is in North Van. They have done a thorough study of all water issues in Burrard Inlet. It's public information. The member is more than welcome to access it and review it.
C. Clark: I know that it is a public study, and I am aware of it. My concern is that it's not a very thorough study of the impact that Burrard Thermal has on aquatic life. My concern about this ministry -- and, in fact, government in general, but particularly this ministry because of the very critical function it performs -- is that without the proper data for measurement, we don't know where we are. We don't necessarily know if we are doing a good job or a bad job. It's my interest, and I know it's the minister's interest, to see that the ministry does a good job. The minister referenced the biodiversity of our parks and how we want ecologically representative areas, and when we were in the interim supply debate, the minister wasn't able to tell me how much of the new park that had been created was created for recreational purposes and how much was considered to be biologically representative of unique ecosystems and was preserved for that reason.
[ Page 911 ]
The minister talks about how they are living up to their commitments, but again, we are left without any way to measure except the minister's words. We could take the government at its word, but members of the opposition and -- I think, increasingly -- members of the public are asking for a lot more than that. We are asking for real data, real methods of measurement to hold government to in the long term, so that it's more than just words. I think that's really been the problem in the long term, undermining the public's confidence in government.
In terms of measurement, I am asking the minister if he would commit to having his ministry do a thorough assessment, before Burrard Thermal gets fired up again, of the impact that the plant has on the aquatic life and the life cycle in Burrard Inlet. He will be aware that, for example, when Burrard Thermal sucks in the water that it
In some of the consultants' reports that the ministry has, which I assume the minister is referring to, their response on this issue is: "We think plankton grow back really fast." I don't think that's really the way we should be approaching these issues. I'm asking the minister if he will commit to doing a very full and thorough baseline study this summer, before Burrard Thermal gets fired up again, of the impact that the plant has on the aquatic environment in Burrard Inlet.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No further study will be done. All that data was completely gathered in order to do the changes to the permit that we discussed around the chlorine issue. The information is there. If the member wishes to get it, we can provide as much as her briefcase will hold.
C. Clark: So I will just ask finally: can the minister confirm, then, that he believes that all the studies that have been done on the impact of Burrard Thermal on the aquatic environment are adequate and are all that will be required? I assume that if they're so good, they're all that will be required in order to do a thorough assessment, when the time comes, on a combined-cycle.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A combined-cycle would require a much larger water discharge, and further work would need to be done at that point. The baseline data is there.
C. Clark: I just want to ask the minister again if he would confirm for us that he believes that the baseline data that's there is perfectly adequate and covers all the issues that need to be covered, and that's the baseline data the ministry intends to use in order to make their assessment when they do it for the application for a combined-cycle. Is it an adequate report, in the minister's view? Does it fully canvass all the issues with regard to the marine environment in Burrard Inlet?
Hon. P. Ramsey: My professional staff have advised me, and I have no reason to believe that they have any interest in misleading either me or the member. From a professional environmental assessment stance, the baseline data that has been gathered is adequate. Clearly, if Hydro applied for the new technology that we've discussed and went through an environmental assessment, further work would need to be done, because Hydro would have to demonstrate what the impact of higher outflows would be.
C. Clark: With respect to the minister, the data that the ministry has, as far I understand, is woefully inadequate and won't provide proper baseline data. I'm really very concerned that the
I wonder, then, if the minister would commit to doing a baseline study on the air side while Burrard Thermal is non-operational. Or does he have baseline data from 1990 that he considers adequate to use for the environmental assessment process when it arises?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As I referenced earlier, this ministry has data for emissions into the airshed. You can slice it and dice it however you wish. Over the entire period from 1990 on, that's more than enough baseline data to measure what happens when Burrard Thermal is operating and when it's not. We have already discussed the ability to quantify the emissions of Burrard Thermal, which we can do.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that this member would say, "Let's do another study," when the information on the water side is already there. This is absolutely remarkable. Here we are, debating the estimates of a budget which was targeted by the Liberal opposition during the recent campaign for drastic slashes and drastic cuts, and here they are now, in estimates, saying they want more of this and more of that and more of the other thing. Truly remarkable.
Hon. Chair, we've had a thorough thrash at Burrard Thermal. I know it's an issue in the member's riding, but I think we're really at an end of the issues we can canvass on that matter.
C. Clark: Well, you know what they say: partisanship is the last refuge, in many cases. I'll finish with this topic by just expressing my really strong disappointment that the ministry is refusing to produce any baseline data based on the current activities of Burrard Thermal, particularly now that they have introduced ammonia into the whole process. This is a completely new agent that has been introduced into the environment there. We can assume that it's probably having some impact on the marine environment, and the ministry is just flatly refusing to do any further study on it. This is clearly the best time.
My question -- and the question of the many environmentalists around the province, not just in Port Moody, who are interested in the issue of Burrard Thermal -- is: what is Hydro trying to hide? And I think that's a natural reaction. We talked before about secrecy, what secrecy does to a community and the kinds of suspicions that arise out of secrecy, and I really think it's the wrong way for the ministry to be approaching this issue.
We really need to be open about it. We need to provide the community with as much information as possible, particularly because it's about their health and the health of their families. I think the ministry really needs to be proactive in holding B.C. Hydro and Burrard Thermal to account and ensuring that they are a good environmental citizen in this province. It is a government agency, and that is the first responsibility of the government.
Rather than end this with a question, I think I will give someone else an opportunity to ask a question, because they've indicated that they have some for the minister.
P. Reitsma: It's a fairly light question, as a matter of fact, and before I ask the
[ Page 912 ]
always looks for R and R, and may I remind him of our Bathtub Days coming up this Sunday in Nanaimo -- for some people the only time they see a bathtub all year, but that's another story, of course.
The dedication of parks is exemplary. The minister, as I can recall, has always been able to receive and ask for examples, input and suggestions in terms of what area could be considered for a park dedication or as a candidate for parks. Is that still the case?
[11:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, the Vancouver Island land use plan has been in the works for some time, to identify appropriate protected areas. Goal 1 has been implemented. Goal 2 has been announced and has identified very clearly where we intend to take further action to protect the diversity of land on Vancouver Island. I'm not quite sure what else the member is referring to. Those have been major initiatives of this government in establishing protected areas on the Island.
P. Reitsma: Mr. Chairman, I have an absolutely simple question, no hidden agenda. I'm certain that the minister would still say yes, because he would always ask in the ministry for suggestions and input in terms of what areas would be a candidate for a park. What I'm referring to and asking him to very seriously consider is the establishment of provincial marine parks, and that relates to lighthouses. There are a couple of examples of marine parks that come to mind. One is Ogden Point, and the other is Race Rocks. These areas allow recreational sightseeing and diving under the proviso "Look but don't touch." The harvesting of crab, abalone and scallops is prohibited, and so is spearfishing. Interpretive markers are located at various points underwater along the breakwater, and so it could be with Point Atkinson, Cape Scott, Trial Islands, etc.
In advance, I ask that we leave the politics out of this because of the delicate process of destaffing the lighthouses. The very nature and the raison d'�tre of lighthouses put them in very unusual locales. You have the rugged scenery, they're isolated, and they encompass the type of grandeur that's depicted in the Beautiful B.C. magazine. The very locales that make these landmarks hazards to navigation also place them in areas where there's a high degree of biodiversity at play: rapid currents, intertidal areas, rocky outcroppings, pockets of lands subject to heavy fog, etc.
These delicate ecosystems, although invisible to the majority of people, make them every bit as much of a candidate for parks as locales such as Goldstream, Gowlland Range, etc. The lighthouse stations and encompassing lands within a designated radius should be declared a provincial marine park, with stations maintaining present staffing levels in order to deal with a select group of ecotourists visiting them. And again, would the minister give serious consideration to the possibility of declaring and designating those lighthouse stations, in consultation with a whole number of groups, as future marine parks?
Hon. P. Ramsey: My initial response was not in any way meant to say: "Hey, don't give me any ideas." What I was pointing to was that on Vancouver Island proper we have sought not to have ideas flow from the top down, but to have community involvement at a very broad level as far as identifying protected areas to act on. The issue that the member raises, I think, is a fascinating one. Clearly the lighthouse stations of the coast are in many cases little ecological jewels, and this ministry is working with other ministries and with our federal counterparts to examine exactly the issues the member is talking about. Some preliminary work is underway, and I think the member is right that if we can find some ways to preserve some of these for parks, there is an opportunity there for us to pursue.
P. Reitsma: I am encouraged by that and somewhat comforted, I suppose, because I believe in the public and private partnership, of course, as well.
The conclusion that we can draw is that if those sites are declared a provincial marine park, it fosters the need for continued occupation in marine environmental studies, and to offset the cost of staffing, the private sector would be invited to participate in a green industry: tourism in the wilderness -- ecotourism. The province could very well -- and must really -- assume a leadership role in facilitating a multi-usage, multidisciplinary environment that can become a model for our eastern provinces which are facing a similar situation.
B.C., and certainly the government, has an opportunity to be at the fore by integrating the resources available to us. The lighthouse marine park chain will utilize the energies of ecotourism, education, and community and corporate sponsorship in an effort to make our coast safer. The lighthouses can exceed their role as monitors and thus take a leadership approach in our marine environment.
Once again, I hope -- maybe the minister can comfort us -- that he will undertake a serious attempt to see that those lighthouses become a serious candidate for potential parks.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just to reference formally a couple of the initiatives that the ministry is involved in, which touch on the issue of lighthouse stations and their consideration for future
Second, there is the marine protected areas strategy. In 1994, this government and the Canadian government agreed to cooperatively develop this strategy for the Pacific coast, and we convened a multi-stakeholder forum last December, really establishing that network of marine protected areas that the member is talking about, seeing if lighthouses could be part of it. That work is ongoing. The lighthouse issue is under consideration through those initiatives. We remain interested in community partnerships for the operation of such parks, and we hope for acquisition and operation of such parks. We hope to be doing further work on this as the years go on.
P. Reitsma: The last question. Just an answer from the minister, either from himself or from the ministry, on the priority list: how high is the priority for considering making those lighthouses candidates for parks?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think there's one answer that fits all. Some have considerably high priority -- for instance, Race Rocks. Pearson College has evidenced an interest in partnering in doing some protection around that site. There are others in the southern Gulf Islands that fall under the legacy program that we talked about. There are others that may not be of interest, so there's not a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on what the stakeholders feel about the importance of these stations in the areas that we're working on.
[ Page 913 ]
D. Symons: Just a few questions, I think, can take us into lunch-hour very nicely here. The first question revolves around AirCare and the use of alternative fuels. In 1992, this government introduced Bill 8, and one of the portions in Bill 8 brought in a phasing-out of a fuel tax incentive for people to move their vehicles to alternative fuels, particularly propane and natural gas. That incentive was a tax relief on those fuels and was to be completely phased out by 1997. So it's just about done.
This government seems to be committed to improving the environment and reducing emissions from vehicles, particularly, but it seems that the action taken at that time was a retrograde step. Indeed, you're trying to move now to zero emissions in vehicles, but in the meantime you could have had a lot more low-emission vehicles on the road. Those vehicles are properly not the fuel versions but particularly dedicated to a given fuel. They're much more efficient than the current gasoline engines.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member probably knows, the legislation was introduced at the time when government was seeking not so much to improve the air quality side of things but to reduce dependence on petroleum products for powering vehicles. It did have, I hope, some beneficial side effects. There are some advisory committees to the ministry and the minister that are working on the whole issue of alternative fuels. They will be advising me, and I will be working with the Minister of Finance on what steps we should take as we look at the sunsetting of this particular piece of legislation. I am not ruling out extension of it; I am not saying that it will be extended.
D. Symons: I am puzzled by the minister's response, because if you are trying to look after conservation of our resources, particularly gasoline, it seems that to have people moving to natural gas would be a way of achieving that goal. What you were doing was basically discouraging people from moving to natural gas from gasoline. So your answer seems at odds with what you were saying your aims were.
Another concern I have is electric vehicles. Certainly this ministry seems, over the last few years and through the previous minister, to be highly in favour of having a certain percentage of the automobiles sold in this province being electric vehicles and zero-emission vehicles. I think the electric are the only ones that currently meet that goal. I am wondering, then, if you might be able to tell me if any top management officials -- your deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers etc. -- are supplied with a company car. And if they are, how many of those are zero-emission vehicles?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are looking at a clean purchase strategy for government vehicles, not just by this ministry but by others. I have taken some steps toward those goals, and there is more to be done.
At this point, hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.