(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 7, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 6, Number 14
Part 3
[ Page 5331 ]
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 37: minister's office, $433,000 (continued).
P. Reitsma: As I promised, I won't be talking about the third week. It's got nothing to do with the estimates, and I realize that, of course. I would like to say, though, that I heard some comments from the other side about how this opposition would dare to ask frivolous questions; it's expensive for the taxpayer. With their indulgence, I suppose, what about the staff that's kept here? They're probably from Vancouver. Who knows where they're from? I think some consideration should be given to staff as well.
Now, I'm waiting for an answer, any answer for that matter, from -- I'm just going to say -- almost any minister, but the Forests minister would do. I know he's busy at the moment. I wish he could answer for what he has been appointed, actually, by the Premier -- to be a Forests minister.
Certainly a Forests minister -- leading up slowly, but definitely to the next question
But be as it may, I'm going to have to go back in my MLA's report -- of which I will send a copy to the people in Alberni, of course, as well, because they hardly get any correspondence or any notification from their member. As a matter of fact, it's like the minister of explicit approval. I'm getting more and more questions from the Ladysmith and Cowichan areas as well.
Turning back straight on a one-way street, back to the question that is about to be popped in terms of relating to the forestry industry, again let me assure you that I'm quite disappointed. In fact, we're all very disappointed with the inability of the minister to complete and utter even one sentence pertaining to his ministry -- a syllable and an answer, a sentence, a book volume, if you like, that I could be proud of. I could send it to my constituents in Parksville-Qualicum, Lantzville for that matter, north Nanaimo -- lots of forests there. Some don't see the forest for the trees, but that's a whole other story, of course.
The question -- and we're talking about forests
Since I didn't get an answer on that particular question, I would assume that it is
Hon. Chair, we generally adjourn at 10 o'clock. It looks like something -- certainly not backgammon -- is being played. I'm pretty good at it, actually. I am even better at volleyball because of my height, for that matter, but
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, one of our
P. Reitsma: Having the floor, I'm almost down on my knees, I suppose. However, I don't want to start over again, as I mentioned. I am quite disappointed, of course. I don't think the deafening silence of the Minister of Forests is stimulating to business as a whole. Being in the tourism industry
I'll give the answer anyway. Many forest-related industries are a tourist attraction in themselves, as well. Go to Alberni -- the member for Alberni is here -- or the interior and the Kootenays. At many of the saw operations, many bus tour operators from within B.C., Canada, the States and Europe bring in lots of people to look at the forestry-related activities. They come over to see the trees here and to see how things are done, which is good.
I was going to ask, if the minister could answer in simple terms, who the people are that are part of the office of the chief forester.
K. Whittred: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this particular vote. I must say I'm very disappointed that the minister is not here, and I don't think I will have my question satisfactorily answered.
As the House may appreciate, the constituency that I represent has a port area that is, I believe, the third-largest port in North America. Out of this port go the products of our forests, and it's to this end that I really want to address my questions. I recently had the privilege of touring a number of the sites on the waterfront in my constituency, and I was most impressed with the quality of the lumber that is produced in British Columbia.
I was particularly curious about one particular kind of lumber -- and I believe it's called J-grade lumber -- that appears to be shipped in vast quantities. I understand that the J-grade applies to Japan. One of the questions I did want to ask the minister is: is that lumber particularly milled just for Japan? Does any of it go to Korea or Singapore? What exactly is the meaning of that particular grade of lumber?
Hon. G. Clark: This is an excellent question, and it could easily be answered by staff in any kind of briefing, which we can arrange for the members. It's clearly a waste of the House's time and the taxpayers' time
Some Hon. Members: Order!
Hon. G. Clark: This is an excellent question that could easily be answered by staff in any kind of briefing, which we could arrange for the members. It's clearly a waste of the House's time and the taxpayers' time to educate the member in the chamber during estimates. Nevertheless, if the member wants to ask a question, we'd be delighted to just
[ Page 5332 ]
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. Premier, a point of order has been raised.
M. de Jong: I'm baffled, and as much as I enjoy hearing from the Premier
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I think we all enjoy the Premier's infrequent interjections in these debates, hon. Chair, but I'm not sure on what point he was rising. If he has replaced his Minister of Forests, I can say that the only person more disappointed than I am is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who thinks that that seat is reserved for him.
The Chair: Thank you for your point, hon. member.
Hon. G. Clark: In case the members didn't know -- maybe they don't -- any member of the executive council can answer a question on behalf of the minister, and
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark:
If members wish to do that, then that's fine, and we'll make sure they're all answered in due course. But if the member would really like to know, we could arrange a full briefing of staff rather than waste the taxpayers' time and money here answering these questions.
Filibustering the Forests estimates is kind of hilarious, and the members think they're winning. They could carry on. It's no problem for the government side, but as anybody watching would see, it's clearly a waste of taxpayers' money. Clearly, all of these questions can be answered by staff. If from time to time the members would care to read the standing orders to understand what estimates debate is all about, it might be helpful.
We're delighted, if the members want to carry on
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. Premier.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to reassure members that all of their questions will be answered, and so we'd be happy to take notes. The staff are here. We'll make sure they're all answered.
G. Farrell-Collins: I love to hear those kinds of assurances by the Premier that all the questions will be answered and that any member can answer the questions. The Premier said that year after year after year, when he was a minister. Other ministers have done the same. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who's been bounced in and out of cabinet more like a tennis ball than anything else, has also offered those same assurances.
The problem is that nobody believes anything the Premier says, and nobody believes anything that the government says, so there's no way that we can take the assurances of the Premier when he makes those kinds of comments. Quite frankly, I don't believe what he says.
So when the Premier gets up and whines that his poor minister has been asked detailed questions on forestry, I'm shocked that he would be upset about that. I'm shocked that he would be upset that his minister has been asked detailed questions about forestry. The reality is that the government is once again doing what this government does so well, which is to abuse this House for its own purposes, something I know that the Premier, when he was in opposition, used to have some concerns about. It's amazing how quickly he changed his spots when he became a member of the government.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see the Premier getting testy, hon. Chair.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Order, order!
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members
G. Farrell-Collins: I would just ask that the
The Chair: Will the hon. member please take his seat.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, please come to order. No one can hear anything in this kind of a din.
G. Farrell-Collins: One down and 37 to go.
The Chair: On vote 37, hon. member, which is the Forests estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think I said half a sentence. I don't know how the Chair could possibly have determined what my question was when all I said was half a sentence.
I find it shocking that the Premier would be upset that the Minister of Forests has been asked detailed questions about his ministry. If the Premier wants to participate in estimates, I would encourage him to come to the other House -- or we can do it in this House -- and we can call the Hydro estimates. We can ask the Premier about the truth with regard to the Raiwind scandal and the deceptions that took place there. We can ask him about the criminal investigation that's ongoing presently. We can ask the Premier about the Securities Commission investigation that's ongoing.
[10:45]
The Chair: Hon. member, this has nothing to do with the Forests estimates, so please come to the point.Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members on both sides of the House, please come to order. As has been done in the main House, the
[ Page 5333 ]
Chair is quite prepared to start naming names. So let's just stay cool, everybody. We've got a discussion that we want to have. Let's get on with the discussion.
G. Farrell-Collins: I move that the Chair do now leave the chair.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 26 | |||
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Sanders | |
| Stephens | de Jong | Coell | |
| Anderson | Whittred | Thorpe | |
| J. Wilson | Reitsma | Symons | |
| Hawkins | Abbott | Jarvis | |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Coleman | |
| Nettleton | Masi | Krueger | |
| Barisoff | Neufeld | ||
| NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Pullinger | Farnworth | Kwan | |
| Waddell | Calendino | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Cashore | Ramsey | |
| Sihota | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Smallwood | Janssen | |
The Chair: I recognize the member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, the member for Matsqui has the floor. [Applause.] And as a reminder, hon. members
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I won't push my luck.
The Chair:
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I'm thrilled that the minister is now able to participate in this debate. He was a shadow of his former self just a few moments ago. I see that he's in fine form now.
I wanted to canvass with him
I want to preface my questions to the minister with a few remarks to place them properly in context. That will be helpful to the minister, as he deals with these questions. One of the things we heard right across the province was the frustration that aboriginal peoples feel -- be they young or old, people who in the past have been involved or other younger folks who hope to be involved in the forestry sector -- because their opportunities are severely limited. They contrast that with the rather healthy participation rate that has existed for aboriginal peoples in an industry like the commercial fishing industry, where the history of that involvement is longstanding, and it remains strong. When you contrast that with what is taking place in the forestry sector, the comparison does not lead to very favourable results.
One of the things that we heard is the difficulty that aboriginal people -- be they individuals or groups of aboriginals who come together and may incorporate -- have in attracting capital. That is as a result of a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty they have in attracting capital by reason of the inability of lenders to properly secure against chattels and land. I know that is something that the government -- that both sides of the House -- are committed to try to resolve via treaty negotiations. Quite frankly, our ability to do that is going to be somewhat compromised if the treaty that results at the end of the day doesn't provide the mechanisms that are necessary to achieve and secure that venture capital.
We heard from companies, from individuals, who drew this comparison, who said to us: "You will talk about joint ventures, you will talk about allowing aboriginal peoples to participate in the forestry sector, but what you're really talking about is non-aboriginal-controlled companies that may be employing a few more aboriginal peoples. What we are talking about, as aboriginal peoples, are true joint ventures, true partnerships."
One of the disturbing bits of information that we received during the course of our travels was this notion from aboriginal peoples that their ability to secure those true partnerships existed to a far better degree when they were dealing with American firms than when they were dealing with Canadian firms. The minister can offer some examples of Canadian companies, British Columbia companies, that have entered into true joint ventures, but they are few and far between. It is legitimate for us to query the minister in these estimates debates -- because I know a portion of his ministry has been dedicated to this task -- and to ask him the question: what steps is he taking and what steps is his ministry taking to ensure that these partnerships, indeed today but particularly in the post-treaty era, will exist, will come to fruition, will develop further, and will be true partnerships representing a true link between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples? This is the minister's opportunity in these estimates debates, in my view, to expand upon the initiatives that have been made -- the successes, if there are some, that have taken place -- but, more particularly, to provide this House with some notion of what his objective is as minister insofar as the future is concerned in realizing greater partnerships with aboriginal peoples in the forestry sector. This is his opportunity in these estimates debates to do that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's a great report, many good suggestions, and we're going to try to implement as many as we can.
M. de Jong: That's a good answer. I'm pleased to hear it. I would have thought that that kind of response would have come from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs before it came from the Minister of Forests. But be that as it may, I wonder if
[ Page 5334 ]
the minister is as familiar with the report as he appears to be, insofar as he has now characterized it as a great report. I wonder if he could indicate to the House which portions of that report -- particularly those sections dealing with forestry matters -- he felt best lent themselves to action by his government. He apparently is very familiar with the contents of the report.
[11:00]
It was not my intention, in any way, to try to entrap the minister. I merely pointed him to the existence of a report. I certainly didn't ask him to comment on which of the recommendations -- 72 in the main body of the report, and a number of others in the minority opinionI will say this. Notwithstanding the banter that takes place in this House, there are aboriginal peoples watching who take this issue very, very seriously. They're watching tonight, and they're going to read the Hansard. This is the opportunity
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Does a drive-by shooting sound familiar?
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure I understand what the Government House Leader is referring to by a "drive-by shooting." Maybe she'd like to clarify that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, byplay does not help the currency of the debate.
G. Abbott: Well, I think the comment with respect to drive-by shootings was most unparliamentary, and the House Leader should withdraw it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: According to a comment put on the record by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no, I won't. Hon. Chair, I'm actually repeating a comment that was made to me, that was put in writing by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. It was read to me as a letter written on behalf of and concerning aboriginal matters -- that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano wrote. So I'm just quoting from correspondence from the caucus. It's actually on the public record.
G. Abbott: Perhaps the House Leader would like to clarify this more, but my understanding of the rules of the House is that if an unparliamentary comment is made and a request for its withdrawal is made, that that should be done.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I was actually quoting from correspondence. It's on the public record. So I don't think it's unparliamentary.
Some Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Hon. J. MacPhail: If indeed the opposition thinks that that language is unparliamentary and out of order, I will be most happy to withdraw, because the comment came from their side. So I'd be most happy to withdraw.
G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, the comment was made. A withdrawal was requested. I would like a ruling from the Chair as to whether the minister should withdraw or not.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I did.
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Honestly, hon. Chair, if the opposition feels that that language is unparliamentary
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm trying to clarify what it is I'm withdrawing. If the opposition thinks that that language is unparliamentary, I am more than happy to withdraw those remarks.
The Chair: Government House Leader, the Chair would request that you make an unconditional withdrawal of your comments.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, on the basis of those remarks being unparliamentary, I absolutely withdraw.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members, I accept what the Government House Leader's comments are, and that shall be the end of it. No more comments on that topic.
Vote 37 now.
M. de Jong: Well, I feel better. It is a burden lifted from my shoulders, for which I will be eternally grateful.
Let me return to the issue before I was interrupted -- that is, to the Minister of Forests. The point is this: these are the Forests estimates. To my knowledge, we have not canvassed directly in these estimates the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Forests ministry to involve aboriginal peoples to a greater extent, to foster the training that would be necessary -- which they have called for -- to take away some of those obstacles to facilitating that involvement.
The people for whom this is a great issue, I know, would prefer to be watching this debate at another hour, but they are watching it now. And if they're not watching it now, they will review the tapes and review the Hansard at another time to see what this minister in this government said about an issue that affects them in a most profound way, an issue to which this
[ Page 5335 ]
government has devoted a great deal of resources, some of them in the Forests ministry, some in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and some of them in other ministries throughout the government.
I know that this minister will not want to stand silent -- or, in this case, sit silent -- while we canvass what for these individuals is a fundamentally important issue. Let him now say to this House and to those people who are watching and interested in this point what his government has done, what it intends to do for the fiscal year coming and what resources he is prepared to devote to encouraging joint partnerships and the involvement of aboriginal peoples in the forestry sector, so that those people may have some idea and so that we, when we stand here again next year, can query this minister about whether or not he has met those objectives or whether the government has fallen short yet again.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have made progress on all the items you talk about: training, first nations participation in harvesting, access to timber and involvement in land use planning. We'd be happy to provide you with a detailed briefing so that you can participate intelligently in the debates.
M. de Jong: Well, we're getting somewhere.
I know that the minister and the government would not have embarked upon a comprehensive training program for aboriginal peoples without allocating a portion of the budget that would be finite, that would be fixed and that would be known. Maybe we can start there, and his staff can assist him in alerting this House as to what that figure has been and what it's projected to be next year. Because oftentimes, as we've learned from other ministries, these budgets will come from various STOBs within the ministry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The money spent on aboriginal training is FRBC dollars, and there was an arrangement whereby we would focus all FRBC discussion. But after some 40 hours of debate, we couldn't even get to FRBC, because that side of the House couldn't organize its questions and be disciplined about asking them.
M. de Jong: If the minister is frustrated by the course a particular debate has followed, then he knows the feeling that this side of the House experiences almost on a daily basis with regard to the manner in which this government conducts its business.
With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, the minister doesn't answer the question. We're dealing with this now. If he is suggesting that this is an unimportant topic that is not worthy of his reply, then let him say so. Let him say to the aboriginal people in the Cariboo, in the Chilcotin and in the Kootenays, and let him say to the aboriginal people in Prince George, in the Nass Valley, for that matter, that he doesn't think this is an important issue worthy of his time. That's what his answers and actions here indicate, Madam Chair.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't say that; I resent the member trying to put words in my mouth.
I said that there was an agreement that when we talked about FRBC, which funds training
M. de Jong: I will return to the question, which heretofore we haven't got an answer for.
The minister, I'm sure, would have this information at his fingertips, certainly with the assistance of staff sitting here with him today. He assures this House that it is an important topic, a fundamentally important topic. As far as he goes, I share that sentiment with him. Yet he seems reluctant to provide the actual information that's being requested. I'd ask him to reflect on how many of those 40 hours we could have saved if the minister weren't trying to be so coy and would simply provide an answer to the question -- which is, I presume, a fixed dollar amount.
With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, I think the minister condemns himself by his silence. He really does. The signal he is sending, in spite of a committee that spent almost a half million dollars travelling the province, eliciting the opinions of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people
I don't think these are unfair questions. The minister may be tired, and I don't doubt that. He may be short-tempered; I don't doubt that. He may be frustrated; I don't doubt that.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: Well, the Deputy Premier thinks the minister is confused. Those are his words, not mine.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Well, maybe the Deputy Premier is confused. I think the questioning has by no means been sterling, but I think it
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Sterling or stirring. But the hour is late, and I think it begs the point: let's keep it simple.
If the minister thinks a line of questioning designed to extract from this government, his ministry, an indication of what it is doing, what it intends to do, what in the way of resources it intends to devote to the question of participation in forestry by aboriginal peoples
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is what's been happening all through these estimates. The members don't listen to the answers. There was an arrangement
An Hon. Member: There were no answers.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were. There were full answers and repeated answers. As a matter of fact, what I said was that
[ Page 5336 ]
there's nothing spent on training in this ministry's estimates. FRBC does spend money on training, and the arrangement was that when we talked about this important topic I would have the officials here for that. That was the arrangement we made. Those officials are not here now.
[11:15]
Interjections.M. de Jong: Well, I hear members wanting to learn more about my trip. I'm happy to share that travel information with them. I think the minister has better things on his mind than my trip, but I very much appreciate the request and
Hon. J. MacPhail: Did your caucus support your being in the top 100?
M. de Jong: The Government House Leader's spirits soared when she learned of my inclusion in a particular list. That fact alone will sustain me through the rest of this week.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Well, I'm almost overwhelmed, but back to the point at hand, which now almost escapes me.
The minister addresses training funds, says there are none within his ministry, but I am informed that within his ministry and particularly in the various regional offices there is a form of liaison officers that are at work. It's unclear to me from my travels around the province to what extent their duties relate exclusively to aboriginal liaison work, whether they have shared duties or whether they are assigned on a full-time basis to particular bands. It's unclear to me to what extent those are dedicated personnel to the task of aboriginal liaison, and I'm sure that the minister would want to clarify that ambiguity here during these debates.
I'm unclear, hon. Chair. Do you usually have to call upon the minister before he's obligated to
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Oh, I see. There is a line of communication between the Chair and the minister that I am not familiar with.
The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair's role is to acknowledge the speaker as the speaker rises. That's the role that the Chair plays in all of this. So if no speaker rises, then I could, in this case, call the question: shall vote 37 pass? And then you rise, and I acknowledge that you have risen and say: "Hon. member for Matsqui, you have the floor."
M. de Jong: Well, it works, doesn't it, hon. Chair?
Let me ask the hon. minister this: if he is unprepared even to acknowledge whether or not his ministry includes aboriginal liaison officers, if he's unprepared to acknowledge that, either because he doesn't know or doesn't want to admit it
Again, what is the signal he is sending to the aboriginal bands around the Williams Lake area and in Terrace, where these joint partnerships are being negotiated? I heard from these bands that there was supposedly some relationship between the ministry and the band councils and the first nations governments. If that is not the case, then I'm mistaken. Again, we can make this as difficult or as easy as possible.
I don't think that these are unfair questions. I don't think that asking about an issue that is as fundamentally important to aboriginal peoples as this is is unfair or illegitimate. The minister by his silence suggests that somehow there is a lack of importance attached to this subject by him, by his government. I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would differ. Here's his chance. Tell the House and me and British Columbians to what extent within his ministry he has dedicated personnel whose duties include the facilitation of joint ventures in the forestry sector.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In some districts we have aboriginal liaison officers whose job it is to improve the relationship between the ministry and all its aspects and first nations people. If it's so important to the opposition, why didn't they raise it in the first 40 hours of debate?
M. de Jong: I'm pleased that we seem to be making some progress. With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, it escapes me why the minister would be so reluctant to share that information. Is he embarrassed? Is he embarrassed at the lack of progress? Is he upset? Has he, like one of his colleagues, received false information from his staff about some aspect of what is going on with these liaison officers? Maybe he's concerned about saying something that will land him in hot water later, when facts ultimately become known. I don't think any of that is the case. I don't think any of that is true. But by virtue of his reluctance to engage meaningfully in a debate that has so much importance for so many people in the province, all of these questions arise. The minister obviously knows about the existence of these liaison officers. It's now taken about 20 minutes for him to admit that fact, but let's go a little further. Let's ask the minister whether he can indicate the number of officers there are of the sort that he has described and whether that number will be increasing or decreasing from the last fiscal year to the new fiscal year.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Approximately 31 and stable, and no plans to increase.
M. de Jong: I'm sorry. I was momentarily distracted, and I apologize to the minister for that. I thought he said that the number is stable and won't be increasing. Was that the reply that he gave?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: We really are
The number is stable, but the part of the answer that I still missed, and I apologize to the minister, is: what was the number that, as we now know, is remaining stable?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's interesting that he would tell me which answers he heard, but not the one that he didn't hear, until the end. It's 31.
Interjections.
[ Page 5337 ]
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The hour is late and we're not
M. de Jong: Now that we have established some rudimentary facts surrounding the ministry's involvement in this all-important component of the forestry industry, I wonder if I can move momentarily to the question of mandate development, in particular insofar as it applies to treaty negotiations. We know from our hearings and from our discussions with the provincial negotiating team that they rely very heavily upon the Ministry of Forests for the receipt of information regarding annual allowable cut, the inventories that exist and where they exist, timber harvest and timber supply. Can the minister provide us with an indication as to how he has organized his ministry?
I will say to him quite candidly that one of the concerns we heard time and time again -- mostly, I would say, from aboriginal groups -- was a frustration with their ability to access information from government -- for example, mining information, but also forestry information. It wasn't clear to me in all instances why that frustration arose, what the difficulty was with respect to obtaining that information. But the minister will know that one of the recommendations in the report tabled by the select standing committee was an improvement in the manner in which government in general, and his ministry in particular, transmit information for the benefit of all parties at the treaty negotiating table.
Let me say it again, hon. Chair: the minister may not be aware of this, but a number of members of this House -- 12 in total, I think; seven from the government side, five from the opposition side -- sat on a committee that spent six months travelling around the province and spent upwards of $500,000, almost half a million dollars. I'm not trying to unfairly pigeonhole the minister into endorsing, accepting or rejecting any one of those recommendations, but the minister knows
Hon. D. Miller: Pigeonhole?
M. de Jong: That's a big word, like chocolate milkshake, Deputy Premier. I'll explain it to you later.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Isn't it "buttonhole?"
M. de Jong: Not where I come from, House Leader.
The minister will know that this has been an area of complaint. I know that his staff are aware of that. I know his staff who are with him have an answer to the question of how he has endeavoured to reorganize his ministry to take account of the frustrations expressed by aboriginal peoples in accessing information regarding timber harvest. Surely that is an issue
So my question again, in case he misunderstood or didn't hear the first time, is: can he provide the House with an indication of how his ministry has reorganized itself to facilitate the better dissemination of technical information to people at the treaty table regarding forestry-related matters?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a question of the ministry reorganizing itself; it hasn't and probably won't need to. It's a question of whether or not we take the data that is available in paper form and create it in digitized systems, and that is very expensive. As funds are available, we will try to do that.
M. de Jong: Well, we're getting somewhere. Do I take it from that response that the minister acknowledges at least that there has been a difficulty in the past?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The same difficulty exists for anybody who wants digitized information who could only get paper information. It's the same problem.
M. de Jong: I very much appreciate the minister's candour and full disclosure on this information. It's very helpful to those who are participating in this process. We now have some 50 tables involved in treaty negotiations. It undoubtedly is putting a burden on not just his ministry but other ministries.
One of the criticisms we heard from aboriginal peoples was the cost involved in obtaining this information. I won't presume to be an expert on anything, let alone timber supply data and annual allowable cut information. But the concern that has been brought to our attention is that information that is available to the government side of the table is only available to aboriginal negotiators at a cost. I'm not sure what that cost is and how it is calculated -- on an hourly rate, on a fixed rate or on some sort of a tariff. But it does occur to me that where these negotiations are taking place, technical information of that sort that is available to one side could logically be made available to the other so that everyone's dealing with the same information.
We have been told that insofar as my information and forest-related information is concerned, there is oftentimes a cost or a charge involved with first nations accessing that information. Can the minister indicate whether that is on some sort of a tariff? How are those fees calculated?
[11:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're happy to answer all your questions, and we'll take them down and provide full and detailed answers.M. de Jong: I suspect we are now getting to the most productive part of the debate. [Laughter.] What I would like to do, hon. Chair, in order to speed things up, in order to expedite matters
Interjections.
M. de Jong: No, no, I think hon. members are getting tired, and I'd like to move this process along as best I can.
Hon. Chair, I will suggest to the minister that from here on in, I will try to phrase my questions in a way that he can indicate his agreement with my position simply by nodding. He won't have to answer, and you won't have to acknowledge him.
For example, I am going to suggest to the minister that, in fact, in many instances, information that is otherwise available to government of British Columbia negotiators within the realm of forestry statistics and technical information is only available to aboriginal negotiators at a hefty cost, and that in some cases those aboriginal bands are without the means to purchase that information. Therefore they are placed, in their view -- and I think legitimately -- at a disadvantage at the negotiating table.
[ Page 5338 ]
The negotiations hit an obstacle, they don't move forward, the costs continue to mount, lawyers get rich, and negotiators get rich. But we don't move any closer to certainty, we don't move any closer to finality, and we don't move any closer to attracting the investment dollars that will undoubtedly flow once these issues have been settled. All of that comes to a grinding halt simply because the minister and the government are stuck on a policy that operates in a disadvantaged way to aboriginal negotiators. If the minister agrees with all of that, hon. Chair, maybe he could simply nod.
Interjections.
The Chair: The member continues.
M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to the minister for that answer.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I think the House Leader said "intently," and I'm flattered, again.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: If the hon. Government House Leader doesn't understand the shotgun approach to House humour, then I'm not going to explain it to her.
I want to again turn my attention to the Minister of Forests, who seems to be nodding off.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: There, he's come back. I think he's back with us, if only in spirit -- a shadow of his former self.
Let me ask the hon. Forests minister this. We canvassed very briefly this notion of training, which the hon. Forests minister indicated was properly the responsibility of the Forest Renewal B.C. organization. But we were able to ascertain and confirm that there are Ministry of Forests liaison officers out there doing something. The minister was very vague, but I know he will clear up that vagueness here shortly. I know that he will want to do that.
My concern, based on what I've heard, is that these liaison officers, these particular staff members -- and I think he said that there were 31 of them -- have a very vague notion of what their duty is, of what their job entails, and in some cases that has led to duplication. It has led to inefficiency, and it has led, really, to a wasting of scarce governmental resources.
Those are submissions on my part. I know that the minister will tell me so if I'm not correct, or if I am correct -- that these individuals have not been provided with a full mandate, a full job description, full terms of reference -- the minister can simply nod to indicate his agreement with those submissions.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister could repeat that. I didn't hear that.
One of the submissions we heard during the course of our travels across the province came from a young lady. She was from New Aiyansh, but I think she made her submissions to the committee in Prince Rupert. I think it affected a lot of committee members rather profoundly, insofar as she described the frustration she felt as a young aboriginal person. I think she was in her late twenties, early thirties. She described a situation where she and her significant other wished to purchase a home. The cost of the home was, in relative terms, quite low -- I think about $30,000.
She described the frustration that she and her husband felt, going from bank to bank trying to secure the financing necessary to purchase that home. Both of them were employed, both of them earned a reasonable income, and yet the difficulty they faced was an unwillingness on the part of lending institutions to extend the security that they required, partially because of their inability to attach to the land, which fell within a reserve.
You can take that issue and apply it to the difficulties that exist at a corporate commercial level, where legitimate business ventures are trying to attract the kind of investment capital that they need to employ aboriginal and, indeed, non-aboriginal peoples. The point I would like to make to the minister
Interjections.
M. de Jong: It always intrigues me how the Minister of Agriculture is able to provide these witty lines when he's got someone to feed them to him. He's sitting in the minister's chair. If he'd like to enter the debate, maybe he could ask the minister to move over one, and he can participate in a really meaningful way.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: If the Agriculture minister wants to jump in and provide an answer, I'm happy to listen to it. At this point, I'm happy to listen to just about anything from that side of the House.
I was told that the practice, when a minister has to leave the House to relieve himself, is to continue until he comes back.
The Chair: Hon. members, as you know, the rules suggest that the speakers have 15 minutes, and so you're entitled to 15 minutes to make speeches. There are no rules that say anyone has to answer the questions.
M. de Jong: Every day I wake up, and I ask myself: "What will I learn today?" Today I learned, thanks to you -- with the greatest respect -- that even though I get to ask questions, the ministers don't have to answer. So I've learned something today. That's tremendous.
But I think that the young lady I was describing, who lives in New Aiyansh and is wondering why she and her spouse can't buy a home, would expect an answer. I think the hundreds, if not thousands, of aboriginal people who are looking to the future with some hope, who are asking themselves whether all of the agony they are enduring as part of this treaty negotiation exercise is going to be worthwhile -- whether the difficulties they have experienced in the past, the inequalities that they legitimately feel that they've endured and the hope that they are expressing, time and time and time
[ Page 5339 ]
again, to put that behind them and move into the mainstream of Canadian society
It's almost getting time for me to join the minister, wherever he may be, hon. Chair. I hope the buildings are connected to sewer.
Let me say this. We will undoubtedly return to this topic, because I think it is one that is important. But the people that will review these transcripts -- and there won't be many -- will be centrally concerned with the issue that we are endeavouring to discuss. They will see that when the opposition side of the House raised legitimate questions about their future, about the vision or lack of vision that this government may have with respect to how their future is going to be affected by their involvement in the forestry sector
Forever, from this day forward, when any member of this government or this government's back bench stands up and tries to tell the people of British Columbia that they care about the plight of first nations, we will know that it's not true. We will point to this day, when this minister turned his back on aboriginal peoples right across this province.
[11:45]
He's got one more chance to correct that fact, which is more than an impression tonight -- it is a fact that this government doesn't care. Let the minister stand up now and address this very important issue if he dares, if he now has the courage.G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to ask some specific questions about forestry in the Shuswap riding. This has obviously been a subject of great concern to me. Forestry is the dominant industry in the Shuswap. The industry in the Shuswap faces a variety of challenges, and I'm looking forward to this opportunity to discuss these issues with the minister. I'm pleased that we have a good deal of time to do that. I certainly have a lot of thoughts, concerns and questions with respect to forestry in the Shuswap, and I look forward to this opportunity to discuss them with the minister.
I think the difficulties of forestry in the Shuswap, and indeed in other areas in the Shuswap, became very much evident -- as you know, hon. Chair -- last fall with the crisis at Evans Forest Products in Malakwa and Golden. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is here, and he is certainly very well aware of the difficulties that Evans Forest Products faced in his riding. The other side of Evans Forest Products is their cedar operation at Malakwa, which is in my riding. The plight of Evans Forest Products last fall and winter was and is of very great concern to me.
What I'd like to begin with here are some questions with respect to Evans Forest Products and how they have fared in the months since the restructuring agreement was concluded last December. Given that it's now six months, I'm very much interested in -- as I'm sure the workers at Evans Forest Products and certainly the communities of Golden, Revelstoke, Malakwa, Sicamous and other areas of the Shuswap are very much concerned with -- how Evans have fared since the restructuring agreement.
I'd like to begin by asking the minister how Evans have done. Have they met the objectives which were posed in the business plan? Have those objectives been met to date?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, the committee knows that I will take note of all questions relevant to estimates and will reply fully in due course.
G. Abbott: With all due respect to the Government House Leader, I don't believe that this is a topic where you write the question down on a piece of paper and get a satisfactory answer back on paper. I think this is an issue which very much demands the personal attention of the minister. It is certainly something that occupied much of my time for months last fall, and it's very important to me personally, as I have many friends who work at Evans Forest Products. I want to know how they are doing. I don't expect that putting the questions down on paper and receiving the answers on paper is a satisfactory way to deal with that at all.
If the minister is not available or is unprepared to field my questions with respect to Evans Forest Products, one thing I'm certainly prepared to do is to have -- as I believe is permissable under the rules of the House -- the staff that are available here from the Ministry of Forests address those questions which are of a technical nature and respond directly to me with the answers. I certainly would not pose questions of a political nature to them, but I think it would be entirely appropriate if the staff that are present could respond directly to my questions. I would be pleased to receive answers to some of my questions on that basis.
Hon. Chair, I wonder if you could advise me whether we could have, from the government side, some indication of whether they are prepared to let the questions be fielded directly by the staff that are present.
The Chair: As I understand the particular resolution under which we function
My ruling would be that in seeing this is Section B and that it also says that a minister may defer to a "deputy," that's the way it would have to work, and that only works in Section A, not in Section B. In this House the minister is the individual who responds, or a member of the executive council.
G. Abbott: You'll have to forgive me, because I'm a relatively new member of this chamber. Could you please explain to me this Section A and Section B difference? I don't understand that, frankly. Just for clarification, I'd appreciate a brief explanation of the difference between Section A and Section B.
The Chair: The motion was passed by this House on April 16, 1997, and there was a previous one passed in the last session which explained all the differences and the rules that apply to each of the two sections in which estimates and Committee of Supply take place. I am sure the member is aware of all of those.
[ Page 5340 ]
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that clarification.
If I can continue, then, with the questions with respect to Evans Forest Products. In the period between late September -- when, I believe, the severe problems at Evans Forest Products became evident -- and December 6, I believe it was, when the restructuring plan received at least approval in principle, a whole range of concerns were identified with respect to Evans Forest Products and how the arrangements under which they operated would have to be changed by the province in order to make the firm work on a long-term and sustainable basis.
Among those many issues which were raised -- very forcefully, I think -- by workers, management and professional foresters during that period
What I'd like to have the minister comment on, if he would, with respect to this issue of high fibre-extraction costs, is: first and foremost, what has been done since the restructuring agreement of December? What actions have been undertaken by the provincial government to ensure that extraction costs in the Golden TSA are brought to a viable level?
I guess, like the member for Matsqui, I'm rather puzzled about how we can deal with issues of this serious a nature in this House without any kind of answer from the government side. Again, what we're going through here is some kind of ridiculous head-butting exercise. We certainly would rather be doing other things; perhaps government members would be, as well. But if we're going to be here into the foreseeable future, as a member of this Legislature, I certainly would like to see my very serious questions answered with respect to Evans Forest Products.
These are the Forests estimates. Evans Forest Products' crisis and subsequent restructuring is probably the most important issue that the Ministry of Forests faced over the past 12 months. The situation more recently with Skeena Cellulose and Repap is certainly along the same lines. These are very serious and very fundamental issues that the Minister of Forests ought to be responding to me about. Frankly, if we're going to be here, I would like to see either the minister or his designate or staff respond to the very important questions that I pose. Any member of the executive council can respond.
I think it's unfortunate, in many ways, that the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is not in the cabinet, because I'm sure that he would be pleased to respond to my questions on Evans Forest Products if he had the opportunity. I think these are two important issues that need to be addressed. I don't think it's acceptable for the government to deal with important issues on this basis.
At any rate, since the minister is unprepared to respond to my question about the high cost of extracting fibre in the Golden TSA, let me simply conclude on that particular point -- that in fact the high extraction cost of fibre in the Golden TSA was and is the leading challenge to the economic health and viability of Evans Forest Products. Obviously, Evans Forest Products -- particularly in the Golden TSA -- operates in an environment that is probably the most challenging of all the TSAs in British Columbia. Perhaps some would argue that point, but I think that when we take into account the kind of majestic, rugged scenery that has prompted a number of national parks in the Golden area, it's not surprising that there are high fibre-extraction costs in the Golden TSA.
The problem with high extraction costs involves a number of things. Certainly the application of the Forest Practices Code to the Golden TSA is one where the difficulties with the Forest Practices Code that the government has now acknowledged are taken into account. Obviously the cost of doing business is beyond the viable range. One of the statistics that I recall about the Golden TSA that I thought particularly put the issue into perspective was that some 80 percent of logging in the Golden TSA had to be done by either high-lead logging or helicopter logging, both of which are substantially higher cost methods of extraction than conventional skid logging.
Perhaps this is a good question for the minister. The Minister of Employment and Investment is here; maybe he can answer the question. Could the minister -- or indeed any minister on that side of the House -- advise what the comparison is between conventional skid logging and the cost of high-lead or helicopter logging, particularly in the Golden TSA? Could the minister advise of that, please?
[12:00]
Interjections.G. Abbott: Sorry, hon. Chair. I heard some "ayes." I was just curious as to what
Interjections.
G. Abbott: Oh, I see. There's some trickery involved here -- great.
This is really a useful dialogue I'm having with myself here, and I'm looking forward to continuing it. I've never actually been greeted with so much unanimity on the government side to suggestions that I have to make, and that's good. One gets so few opportunities, really, in the course of a parliamentary career to thrust an idea forward and to have it greeted with a resounding dead sound. That's the special opportunity I have here, and I obviously cherish this opportunity to continue it.
Just to continue this incisive line of questioning with respect to Evans Forest Products, I'm sure the minister and perhaps his associates on the other side can assist me on some of these questions. If not, as I've said, it would be great if staff could answer these questions directly, because some of these are of a technical nature and staff would be most useful in satisfying my concerns with respect to them.
As I've noted, there were a number of challenges that faced Evans Forest Products prior to its restructuring last December. I really would have liked to have known, as my first question that wasn't answered indicated, if the restructuring had in fact been achieving its objectives or not achieving its objectives. Unfortunately, we don't know that, because, for whatever reason, the minister has not chosen to answer any of my questions.
An Hon. Member: Except with his silence.
G. Abbott: Except with his silence. But there is a range of issues that contributed to the difficulties at Evans Forest Products.
Interjection.
[ Page 5341 ]
G. Abbott: The minister being primary amongst them? Perhaps. I would ask him that question if he were here.
The Chair: Hon. member, I have to draw your attention to the time. The 15 minutes seem to run consecutively.
G. Abbott: I was very surprised that I had gone on for 15 minutes. It seemed like 15 seconds to me, but sometimes time does fly.
Interjections.
G. Abbott: I sensed I was in a red-light district there for a minute. I was actually quite alarmed, hon. Chair, that I might have fallen into such a disreputable part of the world.
S. Hawkins: I think Hansard is falling asleep up there.
G. Abbott: Hansard is quite gripped by this discussion, as you can tell.
The folks at home are probably wondering -- when the camera panned up the wall above me here -- what it was. I suspect it's maybe just a moment's letdown on the part of the Hansard camera operator. I'm sure it could happen even when the Minister for Employment and Investment is speaking, at times. I personally have never actually encountered
You'd like me to get back on the topic, wouldn't you, hon. Chair? Well, I'm pleased to do that. For a moment there I was distracted by some of the catcalls coming from the other side of the House, but now I'm going to return straight to the point.
As I was noting, one of the challenges facing Evans Forest Products was the high cost of extracting fibre. Another, which was identified, I think, early on in the process
One of the areas that the company forcefully identified as a problem early on in the process was the stumpage rate which it faced, particularly the stumpage on pulp logs. Pulp logs certainly are at a minimum rate, as I think everyone knows. Nevertheless, under the old model of stumpage which existed in British Columbia, I believe there was more of an allowance for stumpage loss where a company was in particularly unproductive operating areas, and there was absolutely no possibility of a forest company making ends meet in that particular operating environment.
The company argued that another look needed to be taken at stumpage rates that the company faced in the Golden TSA. I believe they argued that it was not fair for Golden to have to deal with the same stumpage environment that was throughout the rest of the interior, because, as I have noted previously, they faced particular challenges in the Golden TSA with respect to the extraction of timber.
The next question, I guess -- and perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment can comment on it, in addition to the minister -- would be
I guess the Minister of Employment and Investment hasn't gone into that area as much as he'd like to and perhaps doesn't feel comfortable answering the question. That's fair enough; I don't question that. It's just that I'd welcome an answer from anyone right now; but we'll continue.
The issue of stumpage. I sense that we're going to have some difficulty resolving here tonight whether the government continues to feel that stumpage wasn't as big an issue as the company felt it was, at least initially. I think this whole area of stumpage is a fascinating one which, in this particular discussion, would be very, very useful to have more information on. Certainly, at any point, if any member on the government side can leap in and make a contribution with respect to this whole issue of stumpage and its effect on the industry, I would welcome it.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
I see we have a new hon. Chair here. This is good -- welcome. I hope you enjoy the debate as much as the previous hon. Chair did. She was actually held in quite rapt fascination by me during much of my remarks. There's a lot of interesting stuff we've been discussing here. Perhaps you've been watching it on television when you didn't have an opportunity to be directly in the House. If you want me to actually recap any portions of the discussions to date, I'd be prepared to do that, hon. Chair, but I suspect you've probably been watching it on television. I know that thousands and thousands of British Columbians are tuned in now at 11 minutes after midnight to engage with the minister from Shuswap and the hon. minister of
An Hon. Member: Minister from Shuswap?
G. Abbott: Did I call myself the minister from Shuswap? Hon. Chair, I'm so embarrassed. I referred to myself as the minister from Shuswap. I hope you see the colour coming up in my cheeks. I'm so embarrassed to have done that. I suspect that it was because I, as a member, had been asking questions of the minister and then, as a result of sort of a dead sound coming from the other side, actually responding to the questions, as well. I suspect that what I have done is inadvertently actually promote myself to being the minister for Shuswap, as opposed to the member.
An Hon. Member: Ask me the questions. I'll answer them.
G. Abbott: Well, that's a possibility. I don't know what the Chair would think about that, but that might be a possibility.
At any rate, to return to Evans Forest Products and this very useful discussion that we're having here
The one issue which I think ties into the serious situation at Evans Forest Products is the application of the Forest Practices Code. It certainly entered into the high extraction cost, I think, to some extent. One of the leading arguments that was
[ Page 5342 ]
made -- not only by the company but by the unions as well -- was that the difficult operating environment and the application of the Forest Practices Code needed to be reflected in some recognition in the kind of stumpage rate which was paid by Evans through the Golden timber supply area.
What I'd like to ask the minister next, if I may, is whether the Forest Practices Code has in any way, informally or formally, been relaxed for the Golden TSA to take account of the very difficult operating environment which exists there.
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
G. Abbott: I actually have a lot more questions yet. But I guess, as has been mentioned a number of times here, the minister is under no obligation to answer questions and is under no obligation to actually even be here in a physical form. That's fair enough.
Interjection.
G. Abbott: There is a form other than the physical, and that is the metaphysical. The metaphysical form is the second form
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Yes, it is. I have a very profound sense of the metaphysical at times. As I used to say: "When I was a lad, and old Shep was a pup, through the hills and meadows we'd run. Just a boy and his dog, we were both full of fun. We grew up together that way." A particularly touching moment, I think, hon. Chair. I hope you'll excuse this quite unparliamentary lapse into an emotional event from my childhood, when I was a lad.
That's probably about as metaphysical and profound as I can get -- a reflection on old Shep.
[12:15]
An Hon. Member: I wish I had a dog.G. Abbott: Everybody would like to have a dog. Sometimes I think I've had too many dogs. I know that not everyone shares that view, but, being man's best friend and all that, it is important to acknowledge the importance of the dog in the life of humans.
The Chair: Hon. member, now back to vote 37.
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that timely intervention. I am at times led astray by members on the other side, and I appreciate your timely intervention to bring me back into line.
I think we just really scratched the surface here in terms of the implications of the Forest Practices Code on the situation at Evans Forest Products. I found it interesting and kind of gratifying that in very recent weeks the Premier, the Minister of Forests and, I suppose by extension, the entire government have in effect admitted that there were very serious problems with the way in which the Forest Practices Code was structured and implemented in British Columbia. Certainly we've seen this come up as a very important theme in the jobs and timber accord. It's a theme that we hear rather frequently, particularly from the Premier but also, at times, from the Minister of Forests.
I think it's good, given the difficulties that Evans Forest Products faced, that there is now officially an acknowledgment from government that the Forest Practices Code did play a role in the difficulties that were imposed on the forest industry in British Columbia generally. I think, given all of the components in the difficulties at Evans Forest Products that I have outlined, that the application of the Forest Practices Code -- the problems with it -- would be particularly acute there because of the difficulties which are imposed by the operating terrain.
One of the things, for example, that is frequently noted is the very difficult costs for roadbuilding, particularly in the Golden TSA. Again, hon. Chair, as I'm sure you know from your many visits through the Golden area, the terrain is of a very steep nature. When you have very steep terrain, it's necessary, in order to keep grades down, that far more road is required. And in many cases, far more culverts and preparatory work are necessary than what one would certainly find in an area with less severe terrain. Again, that reflects on the argument that was made, I think very persuasively, by Evans Forest Products about the difficulties of facing a stumpage regime which is similar to the rest of the interior wet belt.
I think, given the relative brevity of the answers I've been receiving
S. Hawkins: The non-existence of answers.
G. Abbott: Well, I don't want to say non-existent, because I think the Government House Leader did assure me at one point that my words were not falling on deaf ears or were not being cast like pearls before swine -- or some metaphorical extravagance like that.
I think I was assured by the Government House Leader that they were making copious notes of my questions and that there would be similar thorough responses to the questions at some point. So it's not entirely that the answers have been non-existent. They have been perhaps disappointing, perhaps rather brief
S. Hawkins: Inconsiderate.
G. Abbott:
Nevertheless, there are also some issues with respect to Evans Forest Products surrounding the annual allowable cut. I think there are some very intriguing questions here. I don't know if the minister is going to be able to come back in and respond to any of these.
I think that one of the really central features I want to explore about the Evans restructuring arrangement is the new provisions for harvesting. My understanding is that with respect to Evans Forest Products, the province has put into place for the treatment of the Golden TSA annual allowable cut a model which I think is referred to as the TIPSY model. I'm not sure what TIPSY stands for. Maybe I could ask the minister what TIPSY stands for before I proceed.
I thought perhaps one of the ministers might know what TIPSY actually stood for. I don't think it's any sort of disparaging reference to the sobriety of the model, the minister or indeed the member asking the questions. I suspect, rather, that TIPSY is one of those acronyms, like the RAT team.
We could speculate here on what TIPSY might be. I see the Government House Leader is doing that now, but I'm not going to fall into the trap of getting off track.
Interjection.
[ Page 5343 ]
G. Abbott: Well, sometimes I think I can.
The Chair: Hon. members, on vote 37.
G. Abbott: Yes, hon. Chair. I'm not going to fall into that trap of getting into speculation about what the TIPSY model might be, but I am making a serious point about the TIPSY model. The TIPSY model replaces the old model for the level of greenup that has to be achieved before a forest can be cut. It has great implications for Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA. I suspect that as the TIPSY model is extended to other parts of the province
The issue, though, was that it has an enormous impact on the amount of fibre which is going to be available on an annual basis to Evans Forest Products. If we have an annual allowable cut of 200,000 cubic metres and if we bring in a model which permits the cutting of timber at different stages of growth, that annual allowable cut might be expanded to 300,000 square metres, for example, because of the fundamental implications of the model on cutting in the TSA.
In the case of Evans Forest Products, again reviewing the sundry challenges which Golden faced, one of the major problems that led, in most recent years, to a reduction in productivity at Evans Forest Products was the inability of the company to achieve its annual allowable cut. In the case of Evans Forest Products, as I recall -- and perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- the annual allowable cut was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350,000 cubic metres. That was the government-approved annual allowable cut.
However, due to the sundry challenges -- which I hope I've identified in recent minutes here -- in 1996, I believe, Evans Forest Products was only harvesting something like 180,000 cubic metres. There were a whole range of problems associated with the industry that needed to be resolved in order to make the proposition at Evans Forest Products work. Clearly among those was ensuring that there was an annual allowable cut which was sustainable in the long term.
Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could advise me whether there is a sufficient quorum in the House at present.
The Chair: There appears to be.
G. Abbott: How many members are present in the chamber, and how many are required under the rules, hon. Chair?
The bells were ordered to be rung.
The Chair: There appears to be a quorum present. Shall vote 37 pass?
Interjections.
The Chair: The hon. member carries on.
G. Abbott: I appreciate that very much, hon. Chair. It's always good to know that the arguments and the propositions which one is making are achieving if not rapt attention at least the general appreciation of a sufficient number of members in the House.
Please come in. This is great. This is probably as fascinating a debate as you'll ever enjoy in this House, so come on in. If you ask me nicely I might even sing "Old Shep" for you. That's been quite a hit in here tonight.
The Chair: Order, please, member. On vote 37.
G. Abbott: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I'm sorry. Again I digress, and I apologize for that.
The point I was making, I think, at the time at which I alertly noted that there perhaps wasn't a sufficient number of members in the House to deal with it, was with respect to the annual allowable cut and the very critical importance assigned to having a sufficient annual allowable cut for the industry to maintain itself on a long-term basis. It was clear, because this is one of the elements that was key to the business plan -- that Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA be assured a cutting level in excess of 300,000 cubic metres per year.
[12:30]
My next question to the minister, or any member of the House which the minister so designates, is: what will the long-term annual allowable cut committed to Evans Forest Products and the Golden TSA be?There are a broad range of questions which surround Evans Forest Products and the difficulties which they experienced last year. I don't want to go on for hours about it. It is, however, certainly a very serious situation, I think, for the several hundred men and women who work in the forest industry in Golden and Malakwa. This was just about as serious an issue as one could ever be confronted with. Certainly that was the view in Golden and Malakwa when I visited those communities on a number of occasions last fall. They were absolutely sick about the prospect of losing their jobs in the future -- and quite rightly. They hoped to see some addressing of the many problems surrounding the economic difficulties of Evans Forest Products. Certainly everyone was very pleased when those difficulties were at least temporarily resolved through the restructuring plan for Evans Forest Products, which was endorsed in December of last year.
I don't want to confine my remarks entirely to Evans Forest Products; it is not the only forestry firm in the Shuswap. There are probably a dozen others -- mills of large and small size -- and they have problems which I'm sure the minister would be pleased
I see that the Premier is here now, and the Minister of Employment and Investment. Perhaps one of them would like to respond to some of the questions that are posed, too.
Could the minister advise of the amount of not satisfactorily restocked area in the Salmon Arm forest district?
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
Interjections.
G. Abbott: I hate to see the members on the other side wearing out their vocal cords by shouting "aye" constantly. I'm quite prepared to get up again without being asked to do so, but it is appreciated.
I don't think I got quite the answer that I had hoped for to the question about NSR lands in the Salmon Arm forest district. This is, I think, an important issue -- certainly one that I
[ Page 5344 ]
think is important. We can, I think
One of the questions that has recently been quite prominent in the newspapers in the Shuswap is the question of some selective or other logging in the Mount Ida area of Salmon Arm. I understand from the newspapers that the Ministry of Forests has undertaken a particular public process to assist it in determining whether that selective or
Is that for a cabinet meeting or
The Chair: Hon. member, carry on.
G. Abbott: Thanks very much, hon. Chair. I just
Interjections.
G. Abbott: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I was just sharing a moment of mirth with my fellow members across the floor. I appreciate the challenge you face as Chair in maintaining order amidst the kind of joyous mirth that occasionally jumps up. I'm sure that if this hon. member were to share the piece of paper with you, you'd understand completely why it had become the object of mirth. Perhaps he'll do that for you.
The question I was asking at the time I was so rudely interrupted by those bells, whatever they meant -- cabinet or whatever it happened to be -- and the point I was closing in on at the time I was interrupted was what public process has been devised by the Ministry of Forests to deal with the proposed logging of Mount Ida. I would like to pose that to the minister, or in his metaphysicality, to any other member of the cabinet who chooses to respond to it.
The Chair: The member continues.
G. Abbott: I thought the Minister of Agriculture was perhaps pinch-hitting for the Minister of Forests. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, as a minister, is very knowledgable in the area of logging, timber extraction and that kind of thing. Actually, if it's okay with the Minister of Agriculture, he could pinch-hit for the Minister of Forests on some of these questions. That would be great. I'd be really delighted.
Hon. C. Evans: I'm just here to heckle.
G. Abbott: Just here to heckle. Well, even that would actually be an improvement on the
I will continue with some of the issues faced by the various forestry companies in the Shuswap. I appreciate the time that the government and the minister have taken to respond to these questions, because they are important to me and to my constituents. I do appreciate the time and attention the government is giving to me here.
I've pretty much had an unrestricted opportunity to ask questions. They've never even interrupted me with answers, and I have to say I really appreciate that. It's rare that one has this opportunity, in a very unrestricted way, to ask questions and not have to have the bother of those troublesome, pesky answers in the middle of the questions. It's pretty special.
I see my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs has arrived now, too. He and I had a remarkable exchange in Municipal Affairs estimates, and I'm just about to ask another question. I see that you're again going to be strictly enforcing that relevancy rule again, so I'm onto my next issue, hon. Chair, and I think this is a very important one. I see now that the former Minister of Forests is here, so there is no shortage of qualified ministers here to answer my question.
The issue I'd like to address next, if I may, is the whole issue of pulp and how the industry is going to deal with it. During the periods when pulp prices were high, when the market for pulp was very good and the costs of newsprint and cardboard were rising every day, it actually paid forest companies to harvest pulp. Everybody was pretty happy. But of course, as the Minister of Employment and Investment explained in the House very persuasively the other day, the price of pulp fluctuates with the market. Sometimes the price of pulp is going to be down.
Perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment could comment on the question I have. As I say, I found his explanation for this very persuasive the other day. Would it be a good idea when the price of pulp is low to in some way
Would this have the effect, artificially or otherwise, of limiting the flow of pulp into the market? Would that have the effect of raising pulp prices? In turn, if the artificial reduction in the volume of pulp leads to higher prices and makes the harvesting of pulp viable again, at that point -- artificially or otherwise -- you could expand the volume of pulpwood that the companies could deal with.
This is an issue, and I must confess I don't have the background or the expertise to form any conclusions about whether that is even theoretically a viable proposition. Given the importance that pulp plays in the economics of forest companies and given the obvious importance that forest companies play in the province, would such a proposition be worth considering? I wonder if I could pose that question to the Minister of Employment and Investment to see whether he has any thoughts he might share in that regard.
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
The hon. member continues.
G. Abbott: Well, thank you hon. Chair. You know, I find ice water is so refreshing. It rejuvenates not only the body but the soul. I don't think I'll burst into
An Hon. Member: Song?
G. Abbott: I don't think I'll burst into song again. I try to restrict that to basically one song usually per legislative outing. Did I sing more than once in Municipal Affairs estimates? I'm not going to sing again, no matter how many people ask me to do it.
An Hon. Member: They're imploring you. Look, they're begging. They're on their knees.
[ Page 5345 ]
G. Abbott: I know they are, but I don't think that would be right. I think I've probably tested the relevancy rule far too many times already this evening, and I'm certainly not going to test it again. I'm going to stick on point, on question, and make sure that we get these very important issues underway and out of the way.
We thoroughly discussed the proposal for Mount Ida, and I think we pretty well canvassed to the limit the issue of the NSR lands in the Salmon Arm forest district. I really wish we could get more discussion going with respect to the proposition that I made about the elasticity of pulp production in a weak pulp market. I think that has some potential. I'm sure that there must be some very good arguments as to why that proposition has never been endorsed by government. I'm sure there is a very good explanation for it; I just wish someone on the government side could share it with me. I'm trying not to be a difficult person; I try to look at the facts and assess those facts and draw appropriate conclusions from the facts that have been put before me. I think that I would certainly do that with respect to the issue of pulp prices and pulp supply, as well.
[12:45]
I think it's an important issue, because in the Evans case, it was one of those issues which I think contributed, in a very substantial way, to the economic difficulties they faced in the fall of 1996. Just to use this as an example of this very important issue, as I recall, Evans Forests Products were losing substantial amounts of money on their pulp logs prior to the difficulties they experienced last fall. With pulp prices depressed and with the particularly difficult operating environment that the company was working in, it cost them a lot more to extract and to ship, and so on, all of the pulp logs than was the case elsewhere in the interior wetbelt -- and indeed elsewhere in the province of British Columbia. Because of the high cost of extraction, the high cost of the Forest Practices Code, a stumpage rate that was no different than folks in easier operating environments faced, it all contributed to compounding the problem of dealing with the pulp component in the annual allowable cut of Evans Forest Products.So I think it is a very important issue. If, for example, there had been, for Evans Forest Products, an elasticity in the way that they dealt with pulp logs, perhaps it would in some measure have assisted them in overcoming the difficulties that they faced. Again, everyone is just happy as heck to cut down and ship and process pulp logs when the price of pulp is good. When the price of pulp is depressed, people get depressed as well. The market is depressed, and the producers are depressed. They can't possibly make money on pulp logs in that kind of situation.
So would an elasticity in cut help that? I think it might. I'm sure there is a range -- a battery, perhaps -- of arguments to suggest that that's not a good idea. Perhaps it's related to employment; perhaps it's related to other issues. I don't know. I've invited the minister and/or any member of the government -- even if someone from the gallery were to shout down and answer me, or if there were some divine intervention to alert me to the reasons why
S. Hawkins: Lightning didn't quite strike that side on Saturday.
G. Abbott: Even if lightning struck me and rendered me mute, I would be happy. I would be satisfied that at least some response to my question had been achieved.
Unfortunately, that hasn't
Turning our sights elsewhere, then, having discussed pulp for a brief time
S. Hawkins: You've just enthralled us; we're just captivated.
G. Abbott: All of my colleagues around me are reassuring me that, in fact, it feels like moments to them as well.
S. Hawkins: More, more.
G. Abbott: "More, more," they shout. They beg me, they implore me: "More, more."
Okay, I will continue. [Applause.] Thank you very much. I'm very much appreciative of that resounding applause, that thunderous applause which was accorded me for my brief efforts here.
What I'd like to turn to now, if I might, is to ask the minister, or in his physical absence, perhaps his metaphysical
Interjection.
G. Abbott: I hear a protestation from the other side.
An Hon. Member: Prostration.
G. Abbott: Prostration?
The Chair: Hon. member, on vote 37.
G. Abbott: Oh yes, pardon me. I was temporarily distracted by a minister, actually, on the other side who was trying to draw me into an unparliamentary exchange, but I'm pleased to return to vote 37 and to pose this question to the minister.
Could the minister advise what implications there are, if any, to the annual allowable cut of the licensees in the Shuswap forest district?
Perhaps I posed the question in a particularly difficult fashion, and perhaps what I should do is try to rephrase it in a way in which simplicity rather than precision is the essence. So what I'll ask here
I think we did get closer to the heart of the matter by rephrasing the question. Certainly I sensed that there was a far clearer understanding of the question the second time on the
[ Page 5346 ]
government side. I don't know, I suppose I could rephrase it again and try it in a way, where the issue was even more forcefully outlined for the benefit of the minister, but I don't intend to do that. I don't intend to waste the time of the minister. Obviously he's a very busy man. He is so busy, in fact, that his metaphysical side has to be frequently emergent here in the House.
An Hon. Member: He's sawing logs.
G. Abbott: The minister is sawing logs. Well, this is one way to put it. That may be true, but I wouldn't know that.
S. Hawkins: He's a shadow of his former self.
G. Abbott: He may be a shadow of his former self.
The implication, I think, of the jobs and timber accord for mills in the Salmon Arm forest district is an important one. The companies and indeed their workers, who obviously depend on annual allowable cut just the same as the companies do, are very much concerned with preserving the annual allowable cut that they have in the Shuswap. If the annual allowable cut is diminished, it means that there is less wood to process, that there is less wood to export, that there are fewer jobs.
Now, if the jobs and timber accord is going to -- as I hope it will -- provide some additional fibre to the value-added sector, particularly the value-added sector in the Shuswap, I think that's good. That's commendable. But does that come with a cost? If it does come with a cost, what would that cost be? I hope I put that succinctly, so that the government can appreciate what I'm saying here. Is this a win-win situation? Is it a win-lose situation? Or -- hopefully, this is not the case -- is it a lose-lose situation? I'm, again, just very simply asking.
Even the Government House Leader acknowledging that at some point I'll receive a written response to this would be welcome at this point, because I haven't heard anything from that side for some time. I'd like to know whether the jobs and timber accord has had an effect on the annual allowable cut of the licensees in the Salmon Arm forest district.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll make note, of course, of all the questions that are relevant to estimates debate and respond in due course.
G. Abbott: I appreciate that frank disclosure on the part of the Government House Leader. It's good to have that kind of exchange and feedback on the important issues being raised here. Certainly we'll look forward to that response to the question about the jobs and timber accord, because it is an important one to my constituency. I will leave that particular question for now. I suspect others may ask the same question for their constituencies. It would, I think, be useful to have a rather more forthright response from the minister to that question. But I guess, in the absence of that, it's important to ask the question and hope that at some point the government and the minister deem it appropriate to respond in written form to the question.
The other question I want to
S. Hawkins: There's no line of answering coming from over there.
G. Abbott: No, I'm not troubled with a line of answers, so this is a pure line of questioning.
There's a whole range of questions which I have for the minister surrounding silviculture in the Shuswap. Silviculture is obviously very important to me in the Shuswap, as it is, I'm sure, for the hon. member for Okanagan West or the members for Saanich North and the Islands, Vancouver-Quilchena, Okanagan-Vernon and Langley. All of us are very much concerned about silviculture and the future of our forest industry.
Clearly, without good silviculture we can't have a strong, vibrant, healthy, sustainable forest industry for our grandchildren as well as our children. So it's very important, I think, that the government make the right decisions about the direction it wants to take silviculture in this province, to ensure that we make the right decisions that are going to provide us with trees in abundance in the decades and hopefully centuries ahead.
So the first question I have for the minister is: could the minister outline for me -- briefly, perhaps -- what strategy the government is pursuing with respect to intensive forest management in the Shuswap?
[1:00]
The Chair: The hon. member continues, and I'd just like to remind the member to deal specifically with vote 37.G. Abbott: Sure. Perhaps you can advise me, hon. Chair. As you know, I'm one of the last members to ever challenge or in any way, you know, puzzle about the rules of the House. Would silviculture and the role of silviculture not be an appropriate topic to canvass under vote 37, hon. Chair?
The Chair: Hon. member, carry on.
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will carry on, because as I understand it, forestry is all about silviculture. I think the strategy which is adopted by the government with respect to intensive silviculture is very much at the heart of a strong and viable forest industry in the future. The minister didn't provide even a brief outline of the strategy for intensive forest management, which he is proposing to pursue. There are, as you know, a range of options with respect to intensive forest management, which the government might wish to pursue in its pursuit of intensive forest management.
For example, pruning is something which is periodically done. I'm not sure if
[ Page 5347 ]
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass? The hon. member carries on.
S. Hawkins: It's like those "Carry On" movies -- carry on, George.
G. Abbott: Yes -- "Carry On, Member."
I find pruning, actually, probably as fascinating as the minister does. It's an interesting thing. It's fascinating to discuss. I'm sure that in another time, in another venue that maybe the minister would find more appropriate than this House, we could talk about it. Does pruning actually contribute in a measurable way to enhancing tree growth? That kind of thing -- you know, I've always thought this House might be a good place to discuss those kinds of issues. But apparently that view is not unanimously shared, so we'll move along.
The other strategies or activities which might be part of an intensive forest management strategy are thinning and fertilizing. Thinning, I think
My next question is whether thinning is part of the tool chest that the government uses in this pursuit.
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back; I enjoyed the brief break. I do want to take this opportunity to welcome the
The third element in intensive forest management, or intensive silviculture, which I've always been fascinated with -- and I know the member for Yale-Lillooet has always been fascinated with it, as well; at times he talks incessantly about this -- is the use of fertilizer on trees. As some members of the House have noted, there is a certain amount of natural fertilization that occurs in the woods. For example, some species of wildlife contribute in immeasurable ways to the fertilization of the woods.
There's a very hilarious joke about some animals in the woods that I'd love to share with you, but I guess I do need to observe that rule on relevancy, so I'll save that for another time.
An Hon. Member: You're blushing.
G. Abbott: How can you tell? Maybe it's a reflection off you. I think it's mere reflection off you, hon. member.
I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I digress once again, and I thank you for returning me to order. At times, hon. Chair, I do fall into these unparliamentary exchanges with members on the other side. I lose control and I lapse into unparliamentary bursts which, I think, are most uncharacteristic of me generally. It's to remind us that we should all strive harder to try to truly reflect the rules of this House. [Applause.]
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
G. Abbott: I want to thank the member for Okanagan West for that resounding round of
I was just getting to the issue of fertilizing, hon. Chair, and I do want to welcome you back. It seems like only moments ago that you left, but apparently, people tell me, it's actually been around an hour. That's quite amazing to me.
S. Hawkins: It seems like just five minutes ago.
G. Abbott: It seems like just five minutes ago that you departed. It seemed like actually a rather hasty return, but I do appreciate your return.
I'm not going to recapitulate the many issues that we've canvassed in your absence. I know that you've been following the events, probably very closely, on the legislative channel, along with tens of thousands of other British Columbians. So I'll just very crisply move on to the next point that I propose to make, and that is: to what extent has commercial fertilization of the forest been a tool in the government's tool chest of intensive silviculture management in British Columbia?
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
G. Abbott: I just have a few hours more of questions before we move along. I appreciate the latitude which has been shown towards the issues that I've raised. There are so many things to talk about, but I don't really want to monopolize this debate.
S. Hawkins: More, more. Look, Yale-Lillooet is begging you.
G. Abbott: They're begging me on the other side of the House, hon. Chair, to continue on for hours. Actually, given that in a few hours I'll have thoroughly canvassed all of the forest issues in Shuswap, I could then turn my attention to Yale-Lillooet.
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Yes, sir, you're absolutely right; there's plenty more to come from Shuswap yet. But I've always felt a kind of -- what's the term? -- affinity, kinship, powerful bond, attraction to Yale-Lillooet.
S. Hawkins: It's a fatal attraction.
G. Abbott: Fetal attraction. There has always been that attraction. I would be delighted, actually, to raise issues for or with the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet. I know he has concerns. Actually, I'd be glad to yield to him anytime that he wants to
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Milfoil? We could talk about that, but I suspect that I'd offend the rule of relevancy if I did that.
An Hon. Member: You can use it as fertilizer.
G. Abbott: I'm not even going to rise to that bait at all, hon. Chair. When people offend the rule of relevancy by
[ Page 5348 ]
dealing with things like Eurasian milfoil under Forests estimates, I'd be upset. I don't blame the Minister of Municipal Affairs for feeling the same way. I think he has every right to feel that way, and that's why I'm going to be very careful to observe the relevancy rule in this business.
There's another area, or another line of questioning, that I want to pursue. The last line of questioning was productive; it was good. It was a pure line of questioning, again, because
S. Hawkins: There was no line of answering.
G. Abbott:
S. Hawkins: Sluggish answers.
G. Abbott:
If we can proceed, hon. Chair, there are a couple of other questions that I want to ask with respect to community forests, in particular. The community forest is a relatively new concept, I think, in British Columbia. At least, it is as far as I know. I'm sure the minister will correct me on the point if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, community forests are a relatively new concept. The one community forest that I know a little bit about is the Revelstoke community forest. Beyond that, apart from knowing that there are a few other community forests in the province, I'm really not that familiar with them.
What I'd like to ask the minister first, with respect to community forests, is: could the minister advise of the number of community forests which are currently in place in British Columbia?
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
G. Abbott: If the minister's answers were a picnic basket, we'd be quite hungry by now, if I may use that bold metaphor.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd say a lot of blubber
G. Abbott: A lot of which?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Blubber.
S. Hawkins: I think I would take offence to that.
G. Abbott: I think you might want to ask the minister to withdraw that.
The Chair: Hon. members. I think the Minister of Health might wish to withdraw that comment.
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're setting a new standard for unparliamentary language that will come back to haunt them. But I'm more than happy to withdraw the term "blubber."
Interjections.
G. Abbott: Oh, not at all. I'm just absolutely
[1:15]
Perhaps we can put that issue aside for now. I'm sure that there are no hard feelings on any side with respect to that. I'm happy to continue on with the purer line of questioning I'm currently undertaking. May I reaffirm that I'd be delighted to see my purer line of questioning interrupted at any point by a line of answering, if anyone on the government side chose to answer the important questions that I'm posing.The next question I have with respect to community forests is: could the minister advise how many community forests applications are currently under consideration?
I appreciate this opportunity to continue the line of questioning. The issue is an important one, and I see the government treating it with the same respect and gravity that they've treated every other discussion here with -- which is zero. I guess we've come to accept that as the way we're going to do business here tonight. I'm certainly happy to continue for a few more hours, outlining the various concerns we have in the Shuswap with provincial forest policies.
The other issue respecting community forests is important, because obviously community forests are, potentially at least, a bold new direction in British Columbia with respect to the management of our forests. For decades we have had a particular operating style with respect to our forests, where major licensees were very much dominant and often had exclusive rights to timber. Now, through small business sales and other mechanisms and the relatively new mechanism of the community forest, some different models are being pursued in British Columbia. I think it's certainly important to
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was having difficulty hearing myself think for a moment there.
The important point I was trying to project over the din of the voices on the other side was with respect to community forests. Again, the important point I'm attempting to make is that we have adopted new models of forest management in recent years that we haven't seen in the past. The issue of community forests as a new model for forestry management in British Columbia is an important one. I would invite the minister to advise me: what are the parameters
I'll just wait until I can get the Minister of Forests' attention.
I'm exploring the concept of the community forest and its application as a model for the future of forestry in British Columbia. Could the minister advise what parameters or considerations are utilized by his ministry in assessing applications for community forests in British Columbia?
I'm sorry. There appears to be a bit of miscommunication here between myself and the minister. We'll just try it again.
[ Page 5349 ]
What I have been pursuing here is the issue of community forests. As I explained, my experience with community forests is quite limited. The one example I know a little bit about is the Revelstoke Community Forest Corp. and its role in the community of Revelstoke. The issue is an important one, because the community forest does offer a new model of forest management in British Columbia. As I have previously discussed, the traditional model involving major licensees and a small amount of small business wood and so on certainly still continues to be the case. It appears to me that the community forest concept is one that is growing in British Columbia. My question to the minister was: what parameters and considerations does the Ministry of Forests use in assessing applications by communities for community forests?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Metaphysically speaking, there are no parameters.
G. Abbott: If there are no parameters in terms of the ministry's consideration of a request from a community for a community forest, could the minister advise on what basis a decision would be made with respect to the allocation of a community forest or the determination of whether a community forest would be agreed to by the minister?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have already answered that question about 20 hours back in estimates.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether there are any community forest applications under consideration in the Shuswap constituency? Perhaps a better way to put it would be the Salmon Arm forest district.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.
G. Abbott: The issue which is very important in the Shuswap right now, which I don't think I got a satisfactory answer to earlier on, is the question surrounding the public process on Mount Ida. There is a proposal to do some logging. I'm not sure whether clearcut or selective logging is proposed in the area of Mount Ida near Salmon Arm. Could the minister outline the public process which the ministry proposes in assessing that proposal?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We duly noted all your previous questions, including that one, and we'll prepare an answer.
G. Abbott: I missed the minister's answer.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm aware that you asked that question earlier, and the undertaking was to get answers to all the questions that were asked previously.
G. Abbott: I think the issue of mechanization in mills is an important one, as well. Could the minister advise whether the level of mechanization in mills today is something which the government hopes to see reversed to some extent through the jobs and timber accord? Or are they prepared to happily accept higher mechanization, in the hope that production will continue to grown and, as a consequence, the employment base will grow as well?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.
G. Abbott: I think that pretty well sums up the various issues which I wanted to address in my discussion tonight. I think it's unfortunate that a lot of the questions I wanted to raise didn't get the kind of attention that I think they should have. There is a range of issues surrounding forestry in the Shuswap which I think need to be addressed in a serious way. It's pretty obvious that those issues aren't going to get the kind of attention they deserve tonight. But it certainly has been enlightening to be up here for whatever length of time it's been and to at least ask questions on this issue.
With that, I yield my place to Okanagan-Vernon.
A. Sanders: It's a pleasure to rise and address the Minister of Forests at 1:30 in the morning.
The member for Yale-Lillooet has said that we need to talk about trees, so I would be very, very happy to do exactly that.
I would like to address a number of issues with the minister, specifically integrated pest management measures. I'd like to canvass the area of somatic embryo transplants in some species-specific studies, specifically polygenic resistance studies that are done in white pine, and maybe some phenotypic characteristics for trees that are potentially resistant to pine weevil. So yes, to the member for Yale-Lillooet, it would be very interesting to canvass these areas with the minister in terms of trees.
One of the organisms I am quite interested in is the mountain pine beetle. This is something that will be of very much interest to the Minister of Forests in his capacity as a logger himself. I'm interested in how much area, how many hectares above and beyond the allowable cuts, we now have in British Columbia that are involved in the mountain pine beetle logging provisions.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me. I'll be happy to get it.
[1:30]
A. Sanders: I'm interested, in terms of Dendroctonus ponderosae, which is the name of the mountain pine beetleHon. D. Zirnhelt: The strategies are updated annually, and I'd be happy to provide that information in some detail.
Interjection.
A. Sanders: You fry them up. No, you can't fry them up, hon. member, they are there for the picking.
In terms of the area on the Hope-Princeton, what are we doing in terms of suppressing infestation of lodgepole with mountain pine beetle?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll be happy to provide the details to the member.
A. Sanders: In terms of suppressing losses from mountain pine beetle, especially in the lodgepole species, are we using any specific system for rating susceptibility and risk
[ Page 5350 ]
factors for lodgepole pine, in terms of looking at entire stands and how those stands would rate in terms of potential for infestation? Do we have any kind of index or system within the ministry in order to deal with this very specific problem?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The more mature, the more susceptible.
A. Sanders: That's an interesting concept in that for very many of us, the more mature, the more susceptible we are. I'm glad to see that pine beetles follow the human species in terms of that.
In British Columbia, within the Ministry of Forests, do we have an integrated pest management strategy in terms of looking at mountain pine beetle infestation and what we're going to be doing with respect to this particular organism?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we'll get back to you with the details.
A. Sanders: In terms of looking at speciation and infestation, lodgepole and ponderosa are two of the very significant species that are problematic with Dendroctonus ponderosae. Unfortunately, Engelmann and white spruce are also a problem; and, again unfortunately, Douglas fir is another group of our harvest that really has a significant problem. These problems will be reflected very, very greatly in timber loss, but they are also reflected in problems with watershed, with fish habitat. There's always the cultural and heritage loss as well as the recreational loss in terms of this particular organism.
When we look at British Columbia, the areas that have the problem will be a very significant area, specifically Smithers in the northeast, all the way to the Kootenays and south to the border, across that whole block that includes the Okanagan -- again, my riding -- and certainly the riding of the Minister of Forests as well as many of the
Basically we're looking at a circumstance where you have your initial infestation, and then three years after the attack, you have a very large stand of trees that were scheduled for harvest but are completely defoliated.
In terms of looking at speciation, this is probably one of the most critical organisms that is doing damage in my riding in terms of old, larger-diameter pine trees that could be available for harvest. In terms of the mountain pine beetle, are we in a situation where we have any integrated forest practices or integrated pest management practices to deal specifically with this organism?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes.
A. Sanders: Could the minister please outline, for the benefit of this member, what those would be?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While I'm aware that we have some, I'll have to get back to you about the details. When I became aware of the impact of speciation, it was long before I was minister. I've actually hung a few pheromones on trees to help out.
A. Sanders: Another thing that the minister and I share in common is that we've both been involved in pheromone studies. I've certainly done my share in terms of pheromone studies with the codling moth, trapping way back in the seventies in the Okanagan. As the minister has made us aware, there are some pheromone trapping projects being done through Dr. John Borden at Simon Fraser University.
He is professor emeritus in the study of pest management and works cooperatively both with Summerland Research Station and with the Ministry of Forests, looking at an integrated status in new and innovative ways to deal with this very important pest in the British Columbia forest industry. Specifically in terms of the mountain pine beetle, I'm interested in what areas of British Columbia at this point are facing the most loss, in terms of harvest, from Dendroctonus ponderosae.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get those figures for you.
A. Sanders: Looking around the chamber, I realize we don't have a quorum. I would ask that the Chair call a quorum.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hon. members. I appreciate the point that is made by the hon. member, but I believe a similar call was made not so long ago, and therefore I decline to ring the bells.
A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Langley for bringing up a very important point about a very important subject.
Interjections.
A. Sanders: I'm here for the benefit of government to provide an education on the 360 species of pests that are being integrated within the process of the Forestry ministry and being dealt with in the ridings of almost every member of the government as well as the official opposition.
Another organism that is very important in terms of
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is within some parts of the Cariboo and, in particular, in the Williams Lake and Chilcotin timber supply areas but less so in the Quesnel area.
A. Sanders: What is the strategy for those areas? My understanding, from being in a circumstance where I was primarily involved with individuals who were doing the actual logging in these areas, is that the acceleration of logging in that area was primarily due to the beetle infestation. Once this is curtailed and that cut is no longer available, what local impact will this have on the areas the minister and I are very familiar with?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The areas will be reforested, but when the cut ends, there will be a reduction in the cut.
A. Sanders: What percentile reduction are we talking about in terms of reduction in the cut following beetle infestation?
[ Page 5351 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the Williams Lake and Chilcotin timber supply areas, it is approximately 30 percent.
A. Sanders: Thirty percent is a tremendous figure in terms of the minister's own riding and the area I am concerned about. What kinds of long-term economic strategies are being planned for a delivery of a cut of 30 percent in terms of available timber harvest?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There will not be a 30 percent effect on employment, because a lot of the cut is actually a marginal shift arrangement. They actually take fewer people than the average to run the extra volume through, so the reduction won't be 30 percent, and the jobs and timber accord provides an opportunity for more employment.
A. Sanders: Are the Cariboo-Chilcotin ridings, areas or constituencies -- whatever the format will be in future, at that time -- aware of the dynamics of this significance in terms of change?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they are.
A. Sanders: What is the projected time line for that change? Are we, for example, looking at this change to occur after the next provincial election? Would it be prior to or during the next provincial election?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is provision for five years and possibly longer, depending on the availability of the beetle-killed fibre. It will depend solely on the economic viability of the fibre itself.
A. Sanders: That's a very important statistic in terms of our Minister of Forests looking at re-election in his own area. I will be very interested to see what happens with that significant figure.
I would now like to look at the Kitwanga-Kitimat-Nass Valley area. Specifically in that area of British Columbia, you've got very significant problems with regeneration of Sitka spruce. The most serious pest in that area is the Pissodes strobi, the weevil, which is like to the weevil you see in common food products -- the long-snouted type of hard-bodied insect.
In that area, you have young Sitka spruce plantations that suffer from really very significant infestation and weevil damage that kills the apical crooks of the trees. That often causes stunted and deformed trees that have no real marketable value because of the very significant contortions and distortions that occur from the effect of the weevil on the apical growth.
Sitka in this area is most definitely a very valuable lumber crop, and we would be very, very fortunate to develop genus types that would be resistant to weevil infestation. In the research and development branch of the Ministry of Forests, are we looking for phenotypic characteristics to develop and promote trees potentially resistant to Pissodes strobi?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe we are, but I'd have to check and make sure.
[1:45]
A. Sanders: Could the minister give me some guidelines as to which experimental forests or experimental research stations are doing the work on the weevil?Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me. I'd be happy to get it and provide it to you.
A. Sanders: This is a little bit of a hobby of mine. I'm actually quite interested, and yet I also feel that the genetic specification, in terms of looking at a number of these cash crops, specifically Sitka spruce in this area, and specifically Sitka spruce plantation
In terms of looking at Sitka spruce for the Nass Valley-Kitwanga-Kitimat area, we would do very well to develop some kind of resistance index that would provide people doing plantation and reforestation with an index base so we can look at the physiology, the biochemical resistance factors and the morphological properties that promote resistance, and do selective breeding programs.
One of the areas besides the Nass Valley that would do very well in terms of weevil would be the coastal hemlock biogeoclimatic area, as well as those areas with Douglas fir and western hemlock. I'm interested in the research and development done by the Ministry of Forests. Are we doing any resistant-typing on monoterpenes?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm unfamiliar with that particular detail. I'd be happy to get back to the member with the information.
A. Sanders: For the minister's information, there are a number of chemotypes in resistant trees. Specifically they have a terpene. A terpene is a chemical like a turpentine. This particular terpene does, from a chemical point of view, present a noxious aroma to weevils, and as a result of that noxious aroma, that particular chemotype from that tree will be resistant to the infestation of weevils in the apical growth area. And as a result of that, the weevils will not predilect that tree to form crooks and problems with growths, so they do have a marketable value. In fact, the weevils will be precluded from infestation of that tree because of the noxious aroma and characteristics of the monoterpenes that that tree produces. As a result of that, you'll develop in your so-called plantation, if we're talking about Sitka spruce, a resistance factor for which you could develop a resistance index. We could actually index these trees on a scale of 1 to 10, for example, in terms of monoterpene production. As a result of that, we could look at developing a scale of trees that we would put, for example, in a coastal western hemlock biogeoclimatic zone that has a high monoterpene index, at which point we would have feeding deterrence from the weevils in addition to high monoterpene composition.
So for the benefit of the minister -- and the minister is a very knowledgable man, and a very nice man
I'd like to look at one of my favourite areas, and this is Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, which is, of course, as the minister will know, the Douglas fir beetles. I would imagine that the minister in his own occupation is very, very familiar with Douglas fir beetles. These are very similar to other bark beetles, but it's bark thickness that is the important factor here.
[ Page 5352 ]
Quite often the bark thickness of Douglas fir will be the one singular factor that will interpret whether infestation can occur. Commonly the infestation will occur on trees that are already logged; trees that are infested will often be those that are downed or drowned or windfall. I'm interested in what measures the Ministry of Forests has brought in to combat the infestation of Douglas fir beetle.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We on this side of the House direct the ministry to take a strategy which is the preclusion of infestation. That's our strategy with Douglas firs as well.
A. Sanders: Does the minister favour single-tree removal in terms of infestation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, provided the bugs stay with that one tree, but if they attack a group we would probably select the group. [Laughter.]
A. Sanders: You know, hon. Chair, there are many things in my life that I've done at two in the morning, and this is not one of them, so I'm feeling
An Hon. Member: But this is the most enjoyable.
A. Sanders: Well, through the Chair to the Premier, I wouldn't say that, either. But again, this is not a member for personification.
In terms of hauling and milling restrictions for Douglas fir for Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, could the minister outline what restrictions are in place through the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to think on my feet on this. They're not allowed to haul during the time the beetles are flying.
A. Sanders: I'm hoping the minister is thinking on his feet and not with his feet. Basically just from an anatomical point of view, I hope that's not the case. I was reading in the early spring about an area that was to be either hauled or burned. I can't remember where the area was, but I was hoping the minister could inform me about that specific situation and what occurred there.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The trees that are attacked and infested have to be hauled or burned or milled before they fly again, so there's a very narrow window.
A. Sanders: Is the minister familiar with the story that I'm thinking about from the earlier part of the year? There was quite a controversy, with respect to environmentalists, about burning this very large area of beetle infestation as opposed to hauling it out.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it's economical to haul, it's always encouraged to save the fibre rather than burn it in large amounts.
A. Sanders: I'm trying to remember specifically where that was, in the earlier part of January, February. In what actual geographic location in British Columbia was there a significant controversy in terms of environmentalists not wanting the area to be burned and government feeling that burning was the appropriate way to deal with the issue at that time?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe it was in one of the large parks, Tweedsmuir Park.
A. Sanders: What was the final decision in Tweedsmuir Park? Was the area logged, or was it burned?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was no logging in the park, as logging isn't acceptable in parks. My recollection is that it was burned.
A. Sanders: From an environmental point of view -- and I'm hoping this is appropriate for the Minister of Forests -- what kind of follow-up do we do in terms of looking at climatic and environmental changes that occur with burning that large a hectare area, as opposed to hauling and milling?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it would be different in a park. You would have to ask the Minister of Environment what post-burning management strategy they have.
A. Sanders: I will do that with the Minister of Environment. I'm sure she'll be very, very familiar with that issue.
Do we have a hazard rating for Dendroctonus pseudotsugae in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get that information for you.
A. Sanders: With that information, I'd be very interested in the minister providing me with the indices by which that ratio is derived, what the index ratings are and if there is an index rating as to when hauling cannot occur because the indices are too high, as opposed to lower ratings and whether hauling and milling can be done when the restrictions are not in place. I would be very interested in the minister providing that.
In terms of a hazard rating for Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, does this rating vary with biogeoclimatic zones in British Columbia, or is it one index for the entire province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know that. I'll have to get that information for you.
A. Sanders: I'd be interested in what that is in terms of the different geoclimatic zones, looking at the interior versus the coastal rain forest type of area. In terms of sanitation harvesting, I was wondering if the minister could tell me a bit about how that occurs in B.C.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll get that information for you.
[2:00]
A. Sanders: When we're looking at[ Page 5353 ]
anticipated, thus inducing quite significant costs in terms of forestry and the roadbuilding concept. Also, timber killed by beetles can often exceed harvesting significantly. Logging can be increased over planned areas to deal with beetles, but then that reduces future harvest.
On that particular point, again in terms of the Cariboo-Chilcotin especially, what are the long-term plans in the areas, especially for mountain pine beetle? What are the areas in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in terms of looking for how to deal with future reduced harvests? What kinds of plans are now in place for those areas, especially in the minister's riding and the riding north of him, to deal with what will be markedly reduced harvest in the five-year plan down the road?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The primary strategy is to move into problem forest types.
A. Sanders: Could the minister delineate or explain a little bit more about what that means, for my education?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Problem forest types are those trees that have not been commercial to harvest in the past and which are available in reasonable abundance.
A. Sanders: Can the minister give me a specific example of this?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the predominant example is the small-diameter pine.
A. Sanders: So is the minister saying that long-term management practices would be aimed at reducing bark beetle by primarily introducing species that either had decreased susceptibility or decreased interest from a pest point of view?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The overall management strategy would be to have a vigorous young growth that is not susceptible to pine beetle.
A. Sanders: Again, for the education of this member, what would be a specific type of example that would be resistant or not interesting specifically to the pine beetle?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The more vigorous young growth stems.
A. Sanders: So is the minister talking about differences in speciation or differences in the age distribution?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Age distribution.
A. Sanders: Could the minister give me a brief outline, specifically with pine beetle, of what is being done in terms of sanitation logging?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get that information for the member.
A. Sanders: In terms of the short-term strategy in discussing and looking at any of the specific bark beetle species, what are we doing in terms of outbreaks to monitor and to project areas where we will be getting into significant problems in the forest industry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Every year there are aerial surveys done and then on-the-ground probes, which inform the strategies to direct harvest.
A. Sanders: Are these done in a cooperative way between the independent forest companies and the ministry? Or are these on the initiative and onus of the ministry alone?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the most part, they're done by the ministry.
A. Sanders: Through what part of the operating budget are those funds procured for this particular activity?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be ministry operations.
A. Sanders: What would be the dollar figure in terms of doing the surveys, the logging capabilities and the aerial projects to ascertain areas of potential beetle kill or beetle outbreak?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It varies with the outbreaks during the season, but I'll get that number.
A. Sanders: I think the importance of bark beetle in the British Columbia economy in terms of forestry cannot be underestimated. It causes tremendous loss of harvestable material in the industry. The minister has been talking about the difference between biodiversity and speciation as opposed to having younger trees. This again will very much point towards restoration silviculture, where we have a lot of planting done.
Again, I'm thinking, for example, of the Nakusp area, where there's a large area for beetle kill. It has caused increased harvest over the last ten years in the Cariboo. Is this area under accelerated reforestation at this time in order to compensate for the increased harvest due to beetle kill?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the reasons to harvest a beetle kill is to get some economic return and thus be able to afford to reforest. So reforestation follows very shortly after the harvesting.
A. Sanders: In those areas, are we up to par on the reforestation aspect? Are we keeping abreast of providing the necessary reforestation for those communities to provide them with future crop?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we are keeping up.
A. Sanders: Are these funds for reforestation through FRBC?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would depend on who does the harvesting. If industry does the harvesting, they would pay reforestation costs. If government does the harvesting through the small business program, it would be government that pays the costs.
A. Sanders: I'm interested again in the Nazco area, having spent a very considerable amount of time in that area. If we look historically at areas in the Cariboo, such as Quesnel as the epicentre, individuals who've been harvesting there for a number of years used to drive on their rig maybe half an hour to their forested site, where they would be hauling logs. Now they're driving three or four hours, as the epicentre stays the same and the logs move farther and farther away. The days are longer and longer. Specifically, what we're finding in many
[ Page 5354 ]
of those communities is that people who used to live at home are now living in the bush because of the very protracted amount of time in order to get to where the logs are harvested.
In these areas, does the minister feel that we are, from a chronological point of view, keeping up with the amount of harvesting that has been done due to the acceleration of that harvest through beetle kill?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For that particular area, I'll have to get that information for the member.
A. Sanders: The minister and I are going to be spending some long hours together discussing this information, as there will be quite a bit for us to go over.
In terms of the Kootenays, one of the problems there that's very significant has been the larch casebearer in terms of deforestation of the larch, which has been an important species for that area. What is the situation or status of the defoliation of native larch trees in the areas of Trail, Needles and so forth in the Kootenays?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll be happy to get that information for you. I don't have it here.
A. Sanders: I'd be interested in terms of
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me, but I'd be happy to get it.
A. Sanders: I've just a bit of a potpourri, before I turn the debate over to the member for Prince George-Omineca, and just a couple of questions in general regarding this very important issue of parasitology and integrated pest management in the forest industry. There have been a number of hormonal studies that have been very effective and influential in looking at the harvestable crop that we have, specifically western larch and a number of the other larch species.
One of the things that has been done quite well here has been the gibberellic acid studies. More important than how many, where are the locations of our experimental forests that are producing innovative results for the forest industry in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get that information and provide it to you.
A. Sanders: I would be interested in that, especially in terms of promotion of cone and seed production in western hemlock. This is one of the areas where gibberellic acid and other adjunct cultural treatments have been very effective. My understanding is that in British Columbia we actually are doing some of the leading work in this area. Are we in British Columbia doing any silviculture work with respect to changes in cone production in our large species?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll have to get that information for the member.
A. Sanders: While the minister is at it, I would also be interested in looking at the enhancement of shoot-elongation in Douglas fir through gibberellic acid use and the hormonal relationship of that in terms of flowering mechanisms. Again, I believe we're doing some leading work in British Columbia in this area.
In terms of somatic embryo transplant, what work are we doing in the British Columbia experimental forests with respect to this very important concept?
[2:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, I'd be happy to get that information from the appropriate officials and provide it to the member.A. Sanders: With that information, I would be interested if the minister would provide me with the opportunity to visit one of the experimental or research forests that is doing the somatic embryo transplants.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll see if it's possible to arrange that.
A. Sanders: On that note, I will discontinue my line of questioning. I thank the minister for his indulgence on a very important area in which I have a very large personal interest. I look forward to the information the minister will provide me, at which point there may be, from that information, other questions that the minister and I or his staff can discuss at a future date.
On that note I will turn the questioning over to the member for Prince George-Omineca.
P. Nettleton: Thank you very much to the minister, who's patiently answering questions. I have a few questions of my own. The thought came to mind, as I was sitting here
My first job was with Crown Zellerbach, which, as you know, sold out some time later to Fletcher Challenge. I recall catching the bus early in the morning from the offices up into the bush, and from there going out to the side hills, fighting bugs at times and standing, at least on one occasion, on the side hill, soaking wet from snow which had melted in my rubber boots. I recall looking out over the side hill, overlooking the town of Ladysmith, and thinking, "There's got to be a line of work that's a little more pleasant than this" -- that is, being subject to the elements and so forth. But it's on a night like tonight that I really question if I made the right career move. On a night like tonight, I think that perhaps I should have stuck it out in the forests.
In any event, it's just one of those things that passes through one's mind. I'm sure that the Deputy Premier has had many similar experiences in terms of his years of experience at the pulp mill working as a millwright. Having worked as a millwright's helper in the past in a pulp mill, I have some familiarity with that line of work, as well. Again, it certainly was my experience that I quite enjoyed tagging along and learning things, and learning what there was to learn about repairing and maintaining equipment. One grows accustomed to the smells, the noises and all those kinds of things.
[ Page 5355 ]
For many people in our province, that's a way of life -- working in the forest industry in one sector or another, whether it's in a sawmill
It's a different way of life for people who live in those forest-dependent communities, be it Prince George, Fort St. James or even here on Vancouver Island. Increasingly what has happened here on Vancouver Island is that the timber supply becomes less accessible, and there is a shortage in terms of fibre. It's not the mainstay that it once was for people here on the Island. Certainly in the interior, in my community of Fort St. James and in the Prince George region, it is still very much the mainstay in terms of providing well-paid jobs and family-supporting jobs.
When I moved up to the north part of British Columbia
We in this House could learn a thing or two from the residents of these northern communities in terms of working together and pulling together and sharing a common objective, a common goal, and getting beyond the differences that we all have. As we get to know one another, we discover that there are differences, oftentimes fundamental differences, but clearly it's important to get beyond that in order to work towards common goals and objectives.
One of the things I'd like to do, if I may, is ask the minister a few questions about some concerns that were relayed to our office in Prince George -- representing, as I do, the office of Prince George-Omineca. This is tied into the auditor general audit of the revenue branch, Ministry of Forests. I'm certain that some of the general concerns are concerns that the minister is somewhat familiar with. I'll list a number of them, and the minister can comment on some of these concerns, if he will: mandatory control of transported and decked timber, improving cut-cruise comparisons, improving cruising checks, documenting revenue risk or revenue risk management plans, off-hours field inspections, improving waste surveys, implementing load description slips, off-hours check scale and site inspections, and increased reconciliation of scale data.
Apparently, as I understand it, these are some of the concerns that were addressed in an audit done earlier with the Ministry of Forests. Could the minister perhaps comment on the nature of that audit or on some of the concerns that were to be addressed in that audit?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We canvassed virtually all of those the other day, and I realize that they've been canvassed in the Public Accounts Committee as well. I can provide a little more information in written form.
P. Nettleton: In the scaling program of revenue, it's my understanding that the majority of this new workload responsibility will fall on the scaling program's shoulders. Could the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered that question earlier.
P. Nettleton: I'm sorry, minister, I was distracted momentarily. Perhaps the minister could repeat that answer.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said I answered that question earlier in the estimates.
P. Nettleton: There was much of the estimates that I missed. In any event, I appreciate the patience of the minister.
One of the other questions that I would like to raise
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I answered that question and many more related questions on that same topic earlier.
P. Nettleton: Another question which falls within the scaling program of revenue would be that it's my understanding that approximately $20 million to $60 million per person is spent, depending on the region. Is that the case?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure where that fact came from, but as I heard it, it's $20 million to $60 million per person scaling. I can't verify that figure.
P. Nettleton: Again, I had raised a number of general concerns that had been addressed, or were at least to be addressed, by way of the audit of the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests. In addition to those general concerns, apparently there are some specific problems that were tied into the audit. Perhaps the minister could comment.
The first problem that was brought to my attention in my office in Prince George was that due to the cutbacks and early retirement, the provincial scaling programs stand at an approximate 25 percent vacancy rate, and some regions are above that. Could the minister comment on that?
The Chair: Shall vote 37 pass?
[2:30]
P. Nettleton: I have a few more questions, if I may, please.Had the minister responded to my question in regard to the 25 percent vacancy rate in some regions? Is that, or is that not the case?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can get the numbers.
P. Nettleton: Any information that you can give me in reference to these questions would be greatly appreciated. As
[ Page 5356 ]
I say, they were concerns that were raised within my constituency office, so perhaps I could have a commitment from the minister.
Interjections.
P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. minister, for your patience. Have a great sleep.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the Chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 2:34 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
Hon. L. Boone: Obviously, they
I'll certainly be taking your arguments and the arguments of the member for Peace River South with regard to economic development and accessibility to health care and educational facilities, and all of those things. I'll be making all of those arguments next year when it comes time for budgets. But this year my budget is set, and I have to live within this budget. I don't have any alternatives other than what I've done, which is try to allocate some dollars to you. So I'll be making those arguments next year, and hopefully the economy is improved and the situation is better and we will in fact be able to get more money. But right now I don't have any.
R. Neufeld: I have a summary here from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in North Peace, and I'm going to quote from that. The minister commented on the fact that she hopes the economy has increased. I think it's time that government took a trip to the north to find out that the economy has increased dramatically, and it's not just me saying this. So I'm going to quote out of the ministry's own executive summary of what's been happening on the roads that are in the North Peace.
"The North Peace district is the largest service area in the province, consisting of 860 lane-kilometres of asphalt-surfaced roads, 4,042 lane-kilometres of gravel-surfaced roads and 106 [bridge] structures. There has been an increase of over 200 percent in traffic volumes in the past two years on some major collector routes. More than 85 percent of the roads in the North Peace district have a surface of gravel."So I don't think we have to
I appreciate the extra money that the minister brought forward, but the resource dollars to look after these roads or to attempt to bring them back to the condition that they should be in are just not there. I think that all of the information I've been given so far and that I can gather from being a resident and talking to most of the people in North Peace would say that economic activity has increased dramatically, and that would mean more revenue for government. I think all the people are asking for is for some of that back so that we can fix those roads.
I want to go a bit to maintenance. When we changed maintenance contractors this past year, it went to YRB. The previous manager in Fort St. John had informed me that the contract was going to be changed so that there were some actual teeth in the document. If work wasn't being done, the district manager could actually take some dramatic action to have it done. Can the minister tell me whether the contract wording was actually changed from the previous one? If so, are you exercising that right, assuming that the teeth have been put into the contract?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there was a change in the contract which allowed the district manager to hold back money if they felt that a job wasn't being done -- for example, if the roads weren't being cleared, then they could actually hold back some money from the contractor.
R. Neufeld: And that could be done by a complete decision of only the district manager. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, the district manager can do it, and then it is appealable to the assistant deputy minister.
R. Neufeld: To the minister's knowledge, has anything like that taken place in the district of North Peace? Not that I'm saying it should; I'm just wondering if it has at all.
Hon. L. Boone: We don't recall that it has there. That's not to say that it hasn't, but we don't believe it has there. It has happened in other parts of the province.
[ Page 5357 ]
R. Neufeld: Were the conditions for the new contractor that were laid out in the new contract as to the level of maintenance required on all the roads the same as they were for Northland Road Services Ltd.?
Hon. L. Boone: There might have been some small changes, but for most purposes they were the same.
R. Neufeld: Then I can that assume if there have been some roads in the North Peace that
Hon. L. Boone: Generally speaking, the roads should have been graded by now. If you've got any specific complaints about a specific road, you should take those to the district manager.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. I will talk to the district manager again, and I'm going to relate to the district manager
Hon. L. Boone: We don't do mowing. We have cut back on mowing in trying to save dollars. I've seen some of the pictures of similar ones. The grain producers brought those to me when I was in Dawson Creek and showed me some of the pictures with the willows, etc., in the ditches there. I understand their concern is that that caused the ditches to overflow, and that had it been cut back, it wouldn't have been at that stage. I know that the district manager was at the same meeting I was at and was going to look into that whole issue around the contractor. But I know that provincially, we've cut back; we haven't eliminated it. There are some there that look like they've been eliminated, and I think they should be looked into.
R. Neufeld: I think the ministry is quite well aware of the problems in the north, especially with leaving heavy grass and even some willows growing in the side of the ditches. There are some problems with visibility, but there's also a huge problem with the grass holding moisture. It keeps the roadsides very soft for a long time into the year, unless you have a dry year.
I would think that what we've seen in the North Peace over a trial of not mowing ditches on a regular basis -- and it should have become apparent by now -- is that we should get back to the process. I would hope that on the main roads we would start mowing at least the backslope of the road so that we can start drying the roads out a little bit sooner. In the long run, what it costs you to not mow shows up dramatically in the condition of the surface of the road and the shoulders. Maybe it's not just the farmers from the South Peace; I know a lot of people from the North Peace have said that we should start doing this again. I guess I'd like a comment on that.
Also, I notice in the lower mainland that we mow grass. I just wonder: is it because we're in Vancouver and Victoria that we mow grass for aesthetic purposes? Most of the roads, especially on the Island, are built on rock, so I can't imagine that being a problem. But we do mow grass around here, and yet up north where it would be beneficial, we seem to leave it.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we haven't stopped mowing grass; we've just reduced it. We do mow grass throughout, but there are some areas in your area that clearly look like they have not been mowed at all. I've seen those, and I know that the district manager saw those as well and is going to look into it.
[10:45]
The assistant deputy minister points out that in order to remove the moisture, you actually have to remove the sod from the side; it's not just a matter of mowing the grass. Your points are well taken by us, and we'll certainly look into those areas up there in the Peace that I think should be looked into.R. Neufeld: I'm not going to belabour it any longer, but I can tell the minister that from my experience -- and I drive my constituency pretty steadily -- there are a lot of kilometres of road that haven't seen a mower for quite a long time. So if they are mowed on some kind of a time frame, I suggest that it's longer than a year in many places.
The second part of my question -- and maybe the minister can answer it along with my other one -- is: why do we continue to mow in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island when we quit mowing in the north? I'm not talking about the rest of B.C.; I'm not sure about it. Why do we do that?
Secondly, the issue about the blue signs. I know the minister had responded to a question from my colleague from Peace River South. I've read some articles where the minister was talking about a committee that's looking into the cost of it and those kinds of things. I just want to know: are you still anticipating doing something about with charging for signs?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we are still going to be keeping on with the program. We're looking at ways of refining the program to deal with some of the smaller companies -- you know, the fishing lodges, etc. We're looking at that. We've got the tourist industry involved in trying to help us come up with other ways we can refine it better.
The Chair: Members, that's a division in Committee B. We'll have to reconvene after the division.
The committee recessed from 10:47 p.m. to 10:56 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: A few more questions about the issue of signs. I'm thinking specifically of those along the Alaska Highway. The minister may not be aware, but I'm sure her staff is aware of the difficulties that we experienced when the "no personal sign" project was put into place. Ministry staff were actually sent from Fort St. John all the way up the Alaska Highway -- some 600 miles one way -- to cut down signs that people had erected at their business sites. They hauled them into two sites, those being Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. It caused a awful lot of disturbance.
I think the minister should also be aware that the Alaska Highway has the only right-of-way in British Columbia, I
[ Page 5358 ]
believe, that is 300 feet wide. Most of it is Crown land, other than the land that the lodges or stopping places sit on. So for them to be able to go out and purchase someplace to rent to put their sign out on is impossible, because there is no private land to rent sign space on. The Crown won't give them any property to put signs on. On top of that, in most places it can be 200 feet from the side of the road, so nobody's going to see it anyhow. The major part of it is all heavily bushed.
It becomes very difficult for those individuals to have their own private signs, other than the ones they have exactly in front of their lodges. Some of their lodges, in fact, encroach on the highway right-of-way; they were built during the war. I guess nobody at that time paid much attention to exactly where highway rights-of-way were. They just wanted the lodges as close to the highway as possible. So we've gone through that process of putting up the blue signs because they are on a major highway. What was done was that there were four signs, in most cases, put at each stopping place. There was one that said that within three or five kilometres there's a stopping place, and then right close to the stopping place driveway there was another sign depicting what services were available there.
When the minister looks at charging for these signs, I wonder if she's taking into account the hard feelings that are already there with those lodges along the Alaska Highway that have had their signs cut down. These were in fact some pretty expensive signs, and they were hauled away. How much of a problem is that going to be to now say: "We're going to charge you for four signs that we erected, because we didn't like the signs you had that we cut down"? I wonder how we're going to deal with that issue.
I know it's not just in my constituency; I can tell you that on Highway 37 -- and I've travelled Highway 37 -- they have some signs that are on the highway right-of-way that didn't get cut down, because the people that owned the signs were a little bit more demanding than the people along the Alaska Highway. By that I mean forceful; nobody would go in and cut them down. So I just wonder how you're going to apply charging people fairly, and how we're going to deal with the issue that some people still have their own signs and some people don't.
[11:00]
Hon. L. Boone: Well, I don't want to be held responsible for what that uncaring government did in the past, the uncaring government that you were originally elected to represent. I'm just joking on this. I supported the policy of the previous government when it came out, and I still think it's a good policy. But I recognize that there are some bad feelings out there, and that's making this more difficult to achieve.The reality is that there is a number of
So it's not going to be an easy thing to do. I think we have to deal with it more sensitively than we did. I don't think we handled it very sensitively at all. We have to deal with it in a manner that tries to recognize the concerns of the little guys out there. The Ramada Inns, the Holiday Inns -- all of those guys -- are not concerned with this, and I think they will see this as an opportunity for them. We're trying to figure out ways that we can still get some dollars out to help defray the million dollar cost per year and look at other alternatives. It's been suggested that we may want to look at expanding the program to other individuals, perhaps some value-added things, putting additional signs up someplace. But we're open to suggestions from the industry as to how we can do this in a way that recognizes that there are different types of businesses around, different levels of businesses. Certainly it's not going to be easy for those areas that felt that they were not handled properly in the past. I must say that I don't think we handled this as well as we could have when we initially announced it.
R. Neufeld: I was given to believe that there was a committee struck to look at the issue surrounding the signs. The minister nods yes. I wonder: where does the representation come from on that committee? Is it within government itself, or are we looking at people that are actually going to end up having to pay for the signs?
I know it's late, and I know the minister likes to chide us a little bit about a previous government that was so uncaring -- in fact, if I go back to the words, it was "uncaring" that she used about the previous government that she supposes cut the signs down. Well, Madam Minister, you should know, if you don't, that it was your government; it was the NDP government. It was under a different minister, but it was your government that was in power when the signs were cut down, when the direction came from the previous minister, Mr. Art Charbonneau. It would have been in 1992-93, well into the term of the NDP, that the signs were cut down. So I don't need to be told that I was part of the party that went and cut those signs down when I'm standing here telling you that that was wrong.
I agree with you; it was terrible. It was the wrong thing to do, and your government shouldn't have done it. That's why you're right, even the second time around. You didn't learn by the first time.
Now we're going back out to tell them we're going to charge them for the signs. That's what I'm trying to get to. There's going to be a problem, because people are still angry at your government for cutting down the private signs along the Alaska Highway in the first place.
The Chair: Members, address your comments through the Chair, please.
Hon. L. Boone: The committee that I spoke of consists of representatives from the tourist associations: John Allen, president of the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association; Jim Mann, president of the Council of Tourism Associations; Michael Campbell, president of the Council of Regional Tourism Associations; Kevin Walker, president of the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association; Evan Penner, president of the Western Canadian Bed and Breakfast Innkeepers Association; Naomi Yamamoto, chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Don Monsour, president of the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C.; Suromitra Sanatani, Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Sandra White, First Host Aboriginal Tourism Group; Dale Brown, Guide-Outfitters Association. The last two did not attend the meeting that we had, but we are hopeful that they will attend. Not attending but represented by the BCMCRA is Sandra Miller, president of the B.C.
[ Page 5359 ]
Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association and the B.C. Guest Ranchers Association. We are looking to have input from those people. They've indicated to me that summertime is their busy time, so they're not anxious to meet with us at this point in time. We will be doing so in the fall.
R. Neufeld: Would it be safe to say that the addresses for almost all of those people would be in Vancouver or the lower mainland?
Hon. L. Boone: Most of them are, but there are a few here that do not have Vancouver numbers.
R. Neufeld: Would the minister care to tell me how many are not Vancouver numbers or addresses, compared to ones that are?
Hon. L. Boone: I've got phone numbers here. The situation is, though, that they represent people throughout the
R. Neufeld: Would the minister provide me with a list of the names and addresses, so that I can write some of those people? I would bet that there is probably no one north of 100 Mile House that knows what's really going on with charging for signs, unless they've read some of the lower mainland papers. I know that, simply because I would have heard about it by now from people that I represent along the Alaska Highway. There should be a file in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways office, probably about that thick, of letters going back and forth from the ministry to lodge owners, when Mr. Charbonneau initiated the cutdown of the signs up north. I would appreciate that those people, at least, be able to have some say in what happens. I know the whole world surrounds Vancouver and Victoria when it comes to tourism, but there's a good part of the north that has a lot of tourism, too.
Secondly, I'd like to know whether the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will be paying the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for their signs.
Hon. L. Boone: No. That would be a little bit like just shifting dollars from one pocket to the other.
Each and every individual who has written to me received a letter back from me, indicating the various associations that are involved in the review of this policy and asking them to contact their association to give them input. But I'd be happy to give you a list with names and addresses of these people that we are dealing with, so that you can write to them if you so choose.
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that. I will, when I receive that, write a letter to the people that were concerned before, when their signs were cut down in 1992, so that they can have their input. I know that it's always said that this person in Vancouver represents someone across the whole province, and it doesn't always quite work that way. It seems to get forgotten quite often.
The other issue I'd like to talk a bit about -- we started the other day, but the minister said that she would like to do it in the Highways estimates -- has to do with seal-coating on Highway 37 and the amount of seal-coating that's being taken up on Highway 37. I know that there is a fair amount of seal-coating -- at least, I'm told by the information I've been given -- to be done in both South Peace and North Peace this coming year. In fact, thanks again to the minister for the $3 million excess money that she sent to the north.
But I'm under the impression, or I've been told, that the seal-coat on Highway 37 -- the piece that is being torn up -- was put on in the early eighties. I'm also told that every three to five years, depending on the amount of heavy traffic and the roadbase, you should be adding one to two inches to that seal-coat to reseal it. I'm also told that on Highway 37, we have not been able to get back on it for eight years. So we've gone almost twice as long as we should, and I think that's probably one of the reasons why we're tearing up the seal-coat on Highway 37. It's not the only reason; I appreciate that the road base was probably not in good shape to start with.
I guess what I'm trying to get on the record is that we make sure, if we're going to put seal-coat in North and South Peace, that we have a program in place to properly maintain it, so that in five or eight years' time we're not tearing it up because it's fallen apart. With the money that's been allocated to put the seal-coat on, is there now a strategic plan for the future, that we're going to maintain the seal-coat that's supposedly being put on this year in the manner it's supposed to be, so that we don't end up tearing it up?
[11:15]
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we're very hopeful, and we certainly intend to maintain the seal-coating that you do up there. It is my understanding that the base for this area that was seal-coated was very poor. This section of road is seven years old; therefore it's in very bad condition. It's cheaper for us to actually remove that. It will be replaced with crushed gravel and calcium chloride at intermittent stretches between Glacier Creek and Tatogga Lake.It is a section that was not done very well. It was put on a base that was not adequate -- according to what I believe, anyway -- and therefore it's not in good condition.
R. Neufeld: I certainly don't want to get into a debate about Highway 37. I just want to make sure that we have a maintenance program in place for the North Peace after we do put some seal-coating down -- that it's looked after.
The next issue that I want to deal with is the district manager in North Peace. First off, I want to say that Bruce Mackay does a great job. I have no problems with Bruce. He does his work well; he's a competent person. There's no doubt about it. But the area of the province that Bruce has to cover is huge, and the minister knows it.
I think I read into the record that the North Peace district alone is the largest service area in the province. I'm not too sure that the South Peace couldn't be close to second. If that's the case, the gentleman has a tremendous amount of highway and area to look after. It's got to be a bit taxing. I also don't think that the proper amount of time, unless you expect a fellow to work a tremendous amount of overtime, can be rightfully put to the job. Again, I'm not saying that Bruce isn't doing a good job, because Bruce is doing a good job. I have no problem with that.
I am, I guess, putting in my oar for someone to manage the North Peace. I think it's very difficult for Bruce to be in Fort St. John for a couple of days and in Dawson Creek for a
[ Page 5360 ]
couple of days, and then there's Fort Nelson. Let's remember that the district has an awful lot of kilometres of highway, either pavement or gravel.
I want to go back to a conversation I had with the regional manager, Kathleen Miller from Prince George, in early November of 1996, when she confirmed that the position would be filled. I was actually after her about why it hadn't been filled already, because we had lost our previous manager, I believe, in August. One that was supposed to be there for a long time, as I understood at that time, was transferred to Kamloops. I have been under the impression since then that we were going to have a district manager in North Peace, and in fact she confirmed that the position would be filled.
I'd asked her why we didn't fill it with people from within the district, whether they work for Highways or not. We have had a bit of difficulty keeping highways managers in Fort St. John, and the minister is quite well aware of that. Her comment to that was that there were a lot of people being laid off in Highways, and there were going to be some people looking for a place to land. I'm wondering what the rationale is for leaving two of the largest districts in the province with one manager to look after a huge area. Just to put it in perspective, my area is the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island, and that's just North Peace; that doesn't even include South Peace. That's left up to one person.
Hon. L. Boone: I was trying to catch that, when you said you were talking to Kathleen Miller. The reality is that we had several cutbacks last year, reductions in staff, and we were faced with the situation of trying to do the best that we could. My instructions to the ministry were to try and keep as many people on the ground working, as compared to in management. I stand by that decision. I know it's difficult for Bruce, and I understand your desires there. But I really pushed the ministry hard to make cuts at the administrative level, at the regional level.
Victoria took some massive cuts so that we could keep the workers at the ground level in the districts. Those are the reasons why we are trying to cope with one district manager there. We may find that it doesn't work, and we may have to revisit that. We're trying really hard to manage with that one position so that we can keep staff at the other end of the spectrum.
R. Neufeld: When I look at the number of positions that were impacted in the North Peace, there were five -- five people laid off out of the district. I look at many of the others in the northwest region: two, three. Vancouver Island region: three, three, one, four. I see some of the members here: South Island district, Saanich, lost three; central Island district lost three; central Island suboffice lost one; South Okanagan, two; Kootenay-Boundary suboffice, one; and so on and so forth.
I see that actually we were right up there with most of them, other than the regional centres, and that doesn't include district managers. So on top of that
Again, I say that I think it's unfair to expect one person to cover one-third of British Columbia, with some of the highest-use gravel roads in the province. It just doesn't make sense to expect one person to be able to travel all that road -- well, he or she wouldn't have to travel all that road, but travel around to make sure that the work is being done. Earlier in estimates the minister said that the district manager does spot checks on the contractors. Well, I can tell you, this fellow doesn't have a chance to do any spot checks on anybody. He can't even keep up with the paperwork that has to be done.
Hon. L. Boone: It's the area manager that does the spot checks on the contractors, not the district manager.
I just want to say that I'm not quite sure where you got your figures from there, because I've got FTE reductions here by geographic location, and it shows Victoria, 90; south coast, 37; Thompson-Okanagan, 37; Kootenays, 24; central northeast, 30; northwest, 11; Vancouver Island, 14. If you look into our region as to the numbers in the central northeast, in Prince George there were eight; Williams Lake, three; Quesnel, three. Then the Fort George area was five; the little town of McBride, two; Dawson Creek, three; Fort St. John, three; Vanderhoof, three.
There was no dire plot to reduce the staff in the Peace; every area took hits. In fact, one of the hardest hit, and I certainly heard this from my colleague, was Nelson in the Kootenays, which took a hit of ten. Kamloops, in the Thompson-Okanagan, took ten, and 100 Mile House took 12. So there were considerable reductions throughout the province, and your community didn't do any worse than anywhere else.
R. Neufeld: I just want the minister to know that I'm quoting off the fact sheet from your ministry, headed: "Regional Restructuring of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways." So when I saw the heading "Fact Sheet," I thought that that's what it was -- fact. It came out of your ministry to my office, listing the positions that were going to be vacated.
I did qualify, when I said earlier, that the regional centres all took a fair hit. I wasn't comparing those; I was comparing different regions of the province. But I read on the fact sheet: North Peace, five; South Peace, five. So I guess the fact sheet that I was sent is a little bit different than the fact sheet that the minister has. I don't know if that should surprise me or if it was changed afterwards. I'm not exactly sure. But I can only go by the information that the ministry sends me.
I'm not going to belabour it any longer. The fact remains that, whether it was five or whether it was ten, to look after one-third of the province with one body is just a bit difficult when you're talking about the kilometres of gravel and pavement and the number of bridges that have to be looked after.
I'm going to go on to gravel availability and the difficulty that the ministry is having with obtaining gravel. I'm told that there is not enough gravel in the North Peace and the South Peace combined to put two inches of gravel on all the North and South Peace roads that are now presently gravel. Not enough gravel. Again, that comes from the ministry; that's not something that I dreamt up. I don't have a fact sheet for it, but I've been told by ministry people that there's not enough. If there were, it would take approximately $30 million to $40 million to do that.
We all know that there has been some gravel applied to the highways in the North Peace in the last number of years, but not nearly the two inches of gravel that they are talking about here. Some of the difficulty is with the Ministry of
[ Page 5361 ]
ing the removal of gravel from all sites below floodplain. Well, in the northeast we don't have a lot of mountains to crush for gravel. Most of our gravel is below the highest flood that we've ever had. It's in the river bottoms. That's where all our gravel is. In fact, Fort Nelson has just had some permits removed. I think there's only one person left with a gravel permit in Fort Nelson, and there's a lot of gravel road in that area.
So I don't know what we're going to do, but I would like the minister to maybe tell me how we're going to go about doing the work on the roads that we plan. Somehow we're going to plan on doing some pavement, some seal-coating. How are we going to do it with no gravel?
Hon. L. Boone: I discussed the gravel situation when I was in the Peace, and I know the ministry is still trying to work with the Ministry of Environment to try and get the necessary permits to get the gravel from the river beds. But that's not easy to do; I know that. In addition to that, we are trying to find some alternatives to use as base stabilization, and we've been bringing products from all around to use, to try and see if in fact they work. We are getting some success out of some products. Hopefully, we can find an alternative so that we aren't dependent upon the gravel from wherever, because it is very expensive up there.
R. Neufeld: Another issue is a press release that was put out by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on March 24 of this year. It is: "Truck Safety Phone Line Up and Running, Minister Announces." I guess it's a toll-free number that people can call to report trucks with defective lights and reflectors, defective brakes, insecure loads, overloaded vehicles, bald or poorly conditioned tires and suspension problems.
[11:30]
I don't have any problem with what the minister has put forward here; I think it's probably a good idea that people have a number to phone. But having driven a truck for a number of years, and having had to drive on our North Peace roads, I can tell the minister that it's not always easy to keep reflectors and lights on a truck when you're driving on some of the roads, like I showed the minister in the pictures that were given to me. So when people reach the weigh scales and receive tickets for some lights out, it makes it difficult.I will just relate to the minister about one fellow that called me. He had three brake lights on each side of the back of the trailer. We don't require three. I think one is required on each corner. One light was burnt out on one side on the trailer brakes, and a phone call had been made to the line about this truck with back lights out. He still had five brake lights working -- one out -- and got a ticket for it. I take exception to that, because I don't think it's fair.
Secondly, I'm not too sure we shouldn't set up a 1-800 number for defective vehicles, not just for heavy trucks. When I drive around this city or Vancouver or some of the other areas of the province, boy, I see some vehicles -- pickups and cars -- that look terrible and that probably shouldn't be on the road. I just wonder if maybe
Hon. L. Boone: I haven't really thought of it, but I'll take that under advisement. I'll tell you that one of the intents of this was
It's working. It's still in its infant stages. There might be ways that we can refine it. I share your concerns about people who ticket for a broken tail-light. That's nitpicking, and it's obviously not something that I think should happen on a regular basis. A warning ticket or something like that would do just as well to make somebody aware that they've got a problem and they should get it fixed.
Having said that, we have people out there that are working and enforcing the law, and you can't really tell them not to enforce it.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. As I said, I agree with the program, and I also agree that those folks that would fire someone for not taking a vehicle out because it had poor brakes should probably have their CSA sticker taken away, or something to that effect that the province can deal with quite readily. There is absolutely no room in British Columbia or in the trucking industry
I have another issue in relation to a private road. I know there are a lot of definitions around private road, but briefly, it's at mile 206 of the Alaska Highway. The Alaska Highway was changed dramatically through that section quite a number of years ago. In fact, Forestry went in on the old Alaska Highway about four miles from mile 206 and built a campsite, which they have now apparently abandoned because of cutbacks and no funding. Another nine miles down the road -- so actually 14 miles from the Alaska Highway -- there is a family that's been living there for many, many years. He's a guide and outfitter, and he also does some ranching to make a living. The difficulty he has is that he maintains the last nine miles of the road. You should remember that part of it is the old Alaska Highway and part of it isn't. Hunters and people that probably shouldn't be in there go in, usually when it's raining, and dig it all up.
Now that the Ministry of Forests has abandoned their campsite four miles in, this gentleman is wondering if he can put a gate at the beginning of the road so that when he
[ Page 5362 ]
maintains the road to his residence -- he's the only one that really should be going in and out of there -- he doesn't have to do it for every hunter who wants to go in there and crank through the mud and do those kinds of things. He's told that it's a public road and that he can't do that. He says that he maintains it -- and that's got to be fairly expensive. It certainly wouldn't be maintained to Highways' standards, but at least he keeps the ruts out of it and the culverts cleaned out and keeps the water running so that he can continue to use the road. But he finds it difficult that he has to ride horseback back and forth to the highway sometimes and leave a vehicle out at the highway just because someone wants to enjoy hunting.
I just wonder if there's something we can do for this gentleman to help him block off the road, or something to that effect, so that he can maintain it and at least keep it for a while.
Hon. L. Boone: This is further complicated, because as you know, the Alaska Highway is federal jurisdiction. So even if we were to close off that road, we'd have to deal with the feds. I think the best thing to do is for me to request that you get us the information. We can look into the various jurisdictional issues around this and either get back to your constituent or get back to your constituent through you, and deal with it that way. It's kind of difficult to deal with it at this point in time, not knowing all the jurisdictional things and what legal obligations there are.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. The highway was rerouted enough years ago. I don't know the term, but it's been de-gazetted or whatever the process is -- the right-of-way has been returned to the province from the federal government. To my knowledge, unless something is still there, it's under the purview of the province as Crown land, I would assume, for all intents and purposes. But I'll get some more information on that and get back to the minister.
I have one other question when we talk about land. Does the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have quite a bit of land within the ministry? By that I mean within different districts that could have been used for maintenance yards or those kinds of things? I'm not talking about highway rights-of-way; I'm talking about actual commercial land, much the same as the BCR, which could possibly be sold.
Hon. L. Boone: The yards that you're talking about, etc., are owned by BCBC. Our gravel sites and that are leased from Crown lands. There are some other access areas where we do have property, but the yards that you're talking about are BCBC property.
R. Neufeld: Okay. I was just wondering if we had some land we could sell and put that into roads, by any chance -- something similar to BCR, which actually holds quite a bit of land.
I just want to refer back to the pictures that I showed the minister earlier and get a bit of a response from her as to what she thinks of those pictures as an integral part of the road system in Peace River North -- just a comment on what she thinks of their condition, taking into account that they were taken in April.
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I already told you that they're not good, and I'm not proud of the situation that's there. Because I saw similar pictures to these when I was up in the community of Dawson Creek and was shown a video by the grain growers association, it prompted me to come back and say that we need to direct some more dollars up there. Obviously these are not appropriate for our highways.
R. Neufeld: Just so the minister knows, that's the construction part of the Milligan Creek Road this spring. That's a road that's been rebuilt, and I believe about $173,000 per kilometre has already been expended on those portions of the road. It's ten kilometres long. It started in the summer of 1995, continued through 1996, and now there are plans to spend another $1.4 million this year.
At either end of that ten kilometres of road we have signs saying "Building for the Future," and they've been there since 1995. I know the ministry has responded by doing a report as to value for money on the Milligan Creek Road. I'm not satisfied that we've got value for money, and I don't think after looking at the picture, just a cursory glance, that the minister can be happy that we've got value for dollars spent.
[11:45]
When dollars are hard to come by and we want to stretch them as far as we can, I would hope that we would try to do that. But when I see pictures like that, and when I drive those roads in the springtime -- and I do -- and we've spent, as I say, $173,000 per kilometre to get to that stage, I don't think we're ever going to get through the number of roads we've got to do in Peace River North.There has to be a better way to do it. I'm not going to stand here and say that I know there's a better way to do it. I have some ideas. But to spend that kind of money and still have that kind of road is difficult for the folks up north to understand. They appreciate the money that's coming, but they tell me that that's what they've had to drive over since 1995. In fact, those pictures are better than 1996 pictures, because these are 1997. That's this spring, in April. So 1996 was worse than that, and the way the road was left in 1995 was worse than that yet. And that's after spending that kind of money.
There was a letter to the editor in the paper. It said: "Tax dollars spent repairing Milligan Creek Road wasted." This is signed by "a curious, concerned, disappointed taxpayer." He says that he's a full-time class 1 driver who drives the road constantly. There's a whole letter here of the difficulties that that person has in accepting the number of dollars we're spending and still not having a road to travel on. So when I look at some of the information in what was supposed to be an independent review of the Milligan Creek Road, it states that there are 60 heavy vehicles -- that can be anything from B trains to five axles to six axles -- per hour. That's 60 vehicles per hour -- and that's by ministry count -- across that piece of road, which stretches a lot further than ten kilometres.
I guess I'm a little disappointed, to say the least, and so are people in the north. They realize as well as the minister does and I do that dollars are hard to come by, but at least when we get some dollars, we'd like to see a decent roadbed built. But maybe the minister would like to comment on that. I'll just ask one other question. In the plans to start with, the road was proposed to be ten metres wide, and now we've narrowed it to 9.2. It was supposed to have asphalt concrete when it was first planned, and I understand that it's now a seal-coat.
Could the minister explain to me what we're really doing there? Are we going to end up having a piece of road like Highway 37, where in no time we're going to be tearing it up? When we've already spent those kinds of dollars, it's hard to
[ Page 5363 ]
fathom. Those are two very specific questions from people that drive that road on a daily basis: men and women, going back and forth to work and back and forth to home, in whatever kinds of work they do and with whatever kinds of loads they haul, or taking people back and forth to hospitals. Ambulances travel that kind of road, and it's a bit deplorable after spending $173,000 a kilometre.
Hon. L. Boone: The information I have is that it will be gravelled and it will be seal-coated, and Dan Doyle assures you that it's going to be a good road. So we are working on this. I understand your concern around this road here, but it is a fairly solid base, and we will be putting the gravel on top of it and seal-coating it, and people will have a substantially better road than they had at this time last year.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister promising on behalf of the assistant deputy minister. I didn't see the commitment coming from her, but it's at least nice that Dan has assured us that the road, when it's finally finished, will be done to a good quality. I bring this forward at this time, again, just to stress that when the dollars are short, when there's not very many dollars around, people like to be able to see a product for the dollars that are spent. When they see the amount of money that's been spent on that piece of road and what they still have to drive, it doesn't lead to a lot of confidence in what we're doing.
Just a couple more questions dealing with roads. Are there different types
Hon. L. Boone: There are about nine different classes of maintenance roads.
R. Neufeld: Would that be nine different classifications in the constituency of Peace River North?
Hon. L. Boone: We would have to look at the detail with regard to that, but across the province there are nine different classifications.
R. Neufeld: Could I ask the minister if her staff would send me
I look at the Pat Bay Highway when I drive into town from the airport all the time. I see all the roses planted along there, and I think: "It must cost quite a bit to maintain the flowers, let alone the highway." When we're talking about that issue and when dollars are scarce -- and as the minister has said right from the outset, dollars are very scarce -- can we justify giving that level of service to one area of the province, and in a lot of cases ignoring some other places in the province that may not have the tourist traffic but have a lot of the traffic that is the bread and butter?
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: The class is determined by the volume of traffic, so yes, there are roads
I'm sorry, I missed your other question there. Would you like to repeat it? There was another question you had, and I've forgotten what it was. Was it something about roses?
R. Neufeld: Yes. With scarce dollars, why do we expend so much on those kinds of things
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
Hon. L. Boone: Well, the maintenance dollars are per region, I guess. Those flowers that you see along the highway have been there a fair length of time -- well, before my time. It's not that they are putting them in there right now. There's not a whole lot of work that goes into that right now.
R. Neufeld: I can tell that the hour is getting late, but what I want to say is on the volume of traffic. Is that per vehicle? Do you count volume of traffic per vehicle or by heavy traffic? Just how is it done? Is that broken down? I don't know if that's clear enough, but maybe the minister could
Hon. L. Boone: It's by vehicle, but the classifications are pretty wide there. Highway 5 is about 3,000 vehicles a day, and Highway 1 in Vancouver is maybe 50,000, but they're still classified as level 1 because they're major highways.
R. Neufeld: When I listen to that response
When you take that in relationship to -- I think the minister said -- 3,000 vehicles per day on the Pat Bay Highway, is there some kind of rationale that you use? A heavy vehicle is going to take a lot more toll on a road than a car will. There must be some way that the ministry can measure that. I don't think we can just put counters out on the highway and say: "This many vehicles went by here in a day." What you have to do is look at what kind of traffic it is. If it's 60 heavy vehicles per hour, that could mean a thousand cars going by on the same road, when we're talking about impact on the road surface.
Hon. L. Boone: The maintenance standards would determine that level of service. If the road is getting beaten up or is deteriorating as a result of heavy traffic, it would be determined that it was in bad shape. The maintenance contractor would have to go in and repair that, regardless of the number of vehicles that went over it.
[12:00]
R. Neufeld: I want to once more touch briefly on the amount of money that's spent, specifically around Victoria, on aesthetics and those kinds of things. I notice that we mow the grass here; I've watched that. We plant flowers. In fact, the member just stated there were 15,000 plants along the Pat Bay Highway. That was in time for the Commonwealth Games, which weren't that long ago. I've driven up the Island Highway and had a look at the quality of construction. Just for the[ Page 5364 ]
lamp standards and those kinds of things, the intricate rock work -- all that kind of work is expensive. You don't get that done for just a few dollars.
What I'm saying is that that's happening while you are minister. When we talk about dollars being very scarce, I would think that we should be looking at saying: "Well, if they're that scarce, and we can't afford to look after some of the really basic issues on some of the highways around the province, we should be redirecting some of that money." Maybe there shouldn't be lawns planted between the two lanes going each way on the Vancouver Island Highway. Maybe it should just be left as rock, because that's what's there now. Maybe we shouldn't be planting grass that has to be mowed, or putting in all the fancy light standards and all those kinds of things.
Maybe we should be redirecting some of that money, even to Prince George, and working on some of the highways around there or on Pine Pass, between Prince George and Fort St. John. I don't know if the minister would be in favour of doing some of those things and looking at maybe expending the money in a little fairer fashion around the province. If there's less of a pie, then let's be fair about how we distribute it. Let's not say that we're going to be doing everything to the best standard we can in Victoria and Vancouver, and we're going to go somewhere on down from there in the rest of the province. That's more of a comment than a question, but maybe the minister would like to respond to it.
My last question. I'd like to know how many kilometres of highway in British Columbia the minister drives yearly.
Hon. L. Boone: This year I've driven lots. Last year I drove Highway 16, went up to Cassiar, Stewart, went to Whitehorse, actually, drove along the Alaska Highway and came down through your riding. I've been down there again and back up to Dawson Creek. I've been to Kamloops. I've been down to Vancouver. We've been along the Sunshine Coast and then the Island. I haven't been into the Kootenays yet.
An Hon. Member: You've been everywhere.
Hon. L. Boone: Yeah, I've been everywhere.
I've been through an awful lot of roads in this last
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. I'm happy to hear that she went up Highway 37 and drove down through my constituency. You will have no doubt noticed the quality of the construction on the federal portion of the Alaska Highway from the B.C. border all the way down to mile 87, where the federal government looks after it.
I'd just like to invite the minister the next time she happens to drive through Fort St. John to not just stay on the main highway but to maybe take a bit of extra time. Your parliamentary secretary went with me on a bit of a trip around the constituency, so that she has a better appreciation -- it's hard to explain or even show in pictures sometimes -- of just some of the roads that we've been talking about tonight and the traffic on them. I think it makes it much easier to understand what people are trying to say. So maybe the next time the minister comes through the constituency -- I'll send a card over so she has my phone number -- she can give me a call. Not only would I be happy to take you out and drive you on some of the roads, I'll even buy you supper. We can work on that. Okay? That's all the questions I have of the minister.
D. Symons: There are a few questions that came to mind from the questions that the member for Peace River North was asking. Just maybe a suggestion, because you were talking quite awhile ago now
As a matter of fact, I have some quotes here from the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who said:
"The Attorney General acts as if this debate is about the logical way of doing the government's business, as if this five-minute recess and then carrying on this evening" -- they're talking about stopping at 6 o'clock and carrying on in the evening -- "last evening, however many evenings we've got coming ahead of us, is a logical way to go about doing business. That, of course, is not what's happening here. This is a government that is in so much chaos it can't even manage the agenda for the Legislature."The Chair: May I caution the member, please, that we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Keep your comments to that ministry, please.
D. Symons: Well, I see nobody cautioned the member then for making those statements, but I will take the Chair's statement
Interjection.
D. Symons: Yes, it's interesting.
Anyway, there was talk about the broken tail-light there, and I'd just make a suggestion that I know this is done in some other jurisdictions. Basically, a ticket is given. It is not a ticket that's a fine -- as the member mentioned happened to somebody he was aware of -- but rather a ticket that you have a time limit in which you have to have that repair done, have it signed by the repair agency that did it, and then you return the ticket. If you do it within a certain time period, there's no fine; if you don't, you get fined. So it's just a suggestion. It's a way of getting the repair done, which is the main object, I think -- making sure that the vehicles on the road are in good safety repair. It's not the fine, I would hope, that the government is after but rather the safe vehicles on the road. It's just a comment on something that could be done in that respect.
There were some other questions, too, dealing with seal-coating in the north and some concern that maybe there was seal-coating done where maybe a more permanent sort of job was done on the roads. Can the minister tell me how many lane-kilometres -- I think they're called -- were done in seal-coating in
Hon. L. Boone: There is one ministry seal-coat team, and we'll get the information for you on the kilometres.
D. Symons: I gather from that, then, that there are no private contractors doing seal-coating this year.
[ Page 5365 ]
Hon. L. Boone: That's correct.
B. Barisoff: Mentioning seal-coating, I'd just like to ask: you say that there are no private contractors out there doing seal-coating this year?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
B. Barisoff: Is that because they're not being hired to do it, or is it because they're just not around?
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have the volume of work this year, so we're doing it ourselves, in-house.
B. Barisoff: How does the cost of the ministry's seal-coating compare to the cost of the private seal-coating bids that were there last year?
Hon. L. Boone: We expect that this year it should be within the same vicinity, around the same price as the private contractor.
B. Barisoff: What is budgeted for seal-coating this year?
Hon. L. Boone: It's in the $3-4 million range.
B. Barisoff: When you say it's in the vicinity, can you give me some exact figures on what the cost for the ministry is? I have some of the exact figures in my office, which seem to be substantially less than the figures we've been quoted before.
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that for you.
B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering, when you say there's not enough to do
Hon. L. Boone: We have the in-house capacity. Earlier you were questioning me as to why we were contracting out so many things when we could do them in-house, and now you're questioning why we're doing it in-house when we should be contracting it out. We're trying to keep it in-house here; we're trying to keep our employees doing the job.
B. Barisoff: I only question keeping it in-house or outside the ministry when the costs don't relate to each other. I think that goes back to a lot of statements that have been made over the past months about fiscal management and how we spend money -- that we could get more done. The member for Peace River North is complaining about roads; there are roads all over the province. If we're going to pay more money to do roads, it's the same fiscal irresponsibility that we've been talking about. The fact that
Hon. L. Boone: The figures you've got are from past years. We've challenged our staff, and they're bringing the figures down, as I said, within range of the private contractors. So no, we will be doing this in-house, and we will be using our own people.
B. Barisoff: So what the minister is telling me is that we're going to actually pay more and get less done, because we do know that it is actually costing us more money to do it in-house.
Hon. L. Boone: You ought to listen to the answer. I said that we've challenged the ministry staff, and they've brought their costs down so they will be within the same range as the private contractors.
B. Barisoff: So we can see
Hon. L. Boone: Well, we will show you the costs. They're not documents, because we don't have contracts drawn up on these things. We've already stated to the private contractors that we will in fact sit down at the end of the year and show them our costs. But we will be doing this in-house.
D. Symons: I gather that those costs will be per lane-kilometre or something of that sort. Is that how you compare one to another?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
D. Symons: I wonder if you might give me an idea of how much is budgeted for hot-in-place and how many lane-kilometres are being budgeted for in this particular fiscal year.
[12:15]
Hon. L. Boone: We have $3 million allocated, and the amount of kilometres will be determined by the contracts we're able to negotiate to see just how many kilometres we can get out of that $3 million.D. Symons: I'm just surprised at the answer in the sense that this is July and you have not let the contracts for some of this yet, I'm gathering from your answer.
Hon. L. Boone: Some, but not all of them.
D. Symons: In B.C., where summers are short, and much shorter this year
Rehab. Now, I notice in the estimates book that rehab spending is down considerably, like 50 percent from last year. And last year was roughly 50 percent of what the "Good Roads Cost Less" book said should be spent each year in British Columbia on rehabilitation in order that we don't lose infrastructure year by year. I'd like to spend a little time on that, because I notice that the operating costs for rehab have gone from $54 million to $22 million this particular year. I wonder if the minister might give us an idea of
Hon. L. Boone: In actual fact, we have slightly more because we have $15 million that comes from the TFA. So we
[ Page 5366 ]
actually have slightly more money in rehab than what has been talked about. We went through the rehab budget extensively with the critic, so I would ask the member to check the Hansard tomorrow and look at these things, because we did go through the rehab budget extensively with him and with the members from North Peace and South Peace.
D. Symons: Yes, I am checking with our critic for Highways. I think I may be treading on similar ground but not with exactly the same question, so I will continue if I can. There was an article about a year ago in the paper, where the Premier was endorsing a campaign for federal road funding. This would be the federal infrastructure program, I suppose. Part of the article says: "A road that is repaved and repaired when it is 12 years old costs $80,000 per lane-kilometre and will last another ten to 12 years before needing major repairs. If no repairs are done on the same road until it is 15 years old" -- that is only three years further -- "the repair costs jump to $250,000 per lane-kilometre." In other words, it triples the cost of doing that rehab work if you leave it those extra three years.
I note that the average pavement age for 40 percent of the roads In British Columbia is 15-plus years. So we are letting more and more highway get to the stage where the costs of rehabilitating that highway -- bringing it back to snuff -- are going to triple, quadruple or even more. Some of the roads have a 25-year time span since they were last rehabbed. So I'm just wondering whether it's good sense to cut back in the budgeting you have in the ministry year by year since this government has been in office. Cutbacks in highway rehabilitation have been disastrous to the life expectancy of the highways, and the costs to bring them back up are going to be astronomical.
Hon. L. Boone: I dealt with this earlier.
The Chair: I caution the member again about repetition.
D. Symons: I don't know about repetition. When they're running two Houses, it's very difficult to be able to know
The Chair: The Chair may not be challenged.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might indeed comment, then, on the Premier's campaign to get federal funding. Was it not based on the fact that we have a problem with the highways in this province? Currently this government is contributing to that problem by not putting enough money into the rehab of roads.
Interjections.
D. Symons: You want comments? Well, I'll continue commenting about the government's irresponsibility, if we can call it that. We have a large number of highways in this province that have not been properly looked after in the time that this government has been in power. Every year since 1992, I've got up and asked the question about the reduction in the spending on rehab for the highways in this province. Year after year, the minister looks at you and says: "Well
You've sunk a lot of money into the Island Highway, a project that needed doing. It's gone from four lanes to two lanes in places, so you can stay on budget and say you're on budget -- but you're not on budget according to the original project. You spent a lot of money there, and you've got the HCL going to build this highway, but the money is not going to other highways. The member for Peace River North was asking questions about his highway, on Milligan Road. There are highways up there that are basically falling apart, and you're seal-coating them to do a patch-up quilt on them. It's not the way to look after the highways of this province.
I'm asking the minister very simply: what is the game plan for this government to see that we don't lose more highways?
Hon. L. Boone: Check the Blues, hon. member. I've talked about this with you, with the member for Okanagan and with the members for Peace River South and Peace River North.
The Chair: The member has been cautioned that this area has been thoroughly canvassed.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might look at highway planning and major projects, then. I see that asset acquisition has gone up 300 percent this year from last year. What would have contributed to that particular increase?
Hon. L. Boone: I dealt with that earlier.
D. Symons: Let's take a look at highway operations. I note that the operating costs have gone from $14 million last year, and you're only spending $9 million this year. It sounds great that you're spending less, but indeed this is the infrastructure of this province, and we're dependent upon that infrastructure. If the minister might explain those savings
Hon. L. Boone: Could you please clarify what budget figures you are quoting from and what you are talking about, please?
D. Symons: It's in the budget booklet this year. It's page 223, and I'm looking under highway operations. I suppose we'll find it in the estimates here, in the supplement. In operations, we find that
Hon. L. Boone: It's just that we have been challenging our staff to be as efficient as they can and to find ways of saving dollars, and obviously they've done so.
D. Symons: I suspect that what you are doing is keeping staff on when the job isn't there to be done, but we'll have to see whether that's the case.
[ Page 5367 ]
There was a real concern on the part of the UBCM earlier in the year, because there was an attempt by the ministry to sort of off-load some of the expense of highways maintenance onto the municipalities. At that time, there was a backtracking by the ministry, I believe, to step aside or to not do it for the moment. But there was no guarantee that that wouldn't come back. I gather, also, that the UBCM suggested that really the government at that time was breaking its own law as far as the fact that it had to be also agreed to by the municipalities and brought in as a bylaw agreement when they were going to take highways responsibilities on. So I wonder if the minister might, after
The Chair: There's a quorum call in section B. We'll take a short recess and come back.
The committee recessed from 12:28 a.m. to 12:34 a.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: The arterial roads
D. Symons: I note that we don't seem to have a quorum, so I would call for a quorum.
The Chair: Member, I'm not going to call for a quorum, because it amounts to an obstructionist motion.
D. Symons: I am afraid we don't have a quorum here.
The Chair: Member, if you understood the standing orders and if you read the standing orders, you'd realize that the Chair has the option.
D. Symons: I would not sustain the Chair, and I ask that the Chair be removed.
The Chair: That motion is in order.
Interjections.
The Chair: Members, a division is about to be taken. Before putting the question to the committee, I wish to remind all hon. members that it is understood, pursuant to the sessional order establishing Section A, that members who are voting and who are not permanent members of Section A have received the permission of their Whip to substitute for the permanent member for the purposes of this division and that independent members have received permission from the permanent independent member assigned to Section A to substitute for them for the purposes of this division.
Members, the question is that the Chairperson leave the chair.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 7 | |||
| Symons | Barisoff | Coleman | |
| Masi | Krueger | Dalton | |
| Reitsma | |||
| NAYS -- 10 | |||
| Stevenson | Boone | Robertson | |
| Janssen | Randall | Kwan | |
| Gillespie | Giesbrecht | Waddell | |
| G. Clark | |||
D. Symons: I was afraid, for a while, that we might win.
I wonder if we might move to a different topic, one that hasn't been canvassed with the minister by anybody, and that's the subject of the inland ferries. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me, because I can't find it separated out
Hon. L. Boone: It is $16.5 million.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might break that down into the operating costs. That would be salaries, benefits, other operating costs -- fuel, maintenance -- and any capital costs that might be budgeted during this year.
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get back to you with those details.
D. Symons: I'd appreciate that. I wonder if you might be able to break out, then, the cost of the Adams Lake
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that for you.
D. Symons: Along that same line, I wonder if you might be able to get the to-date from the time that the Adams Lake ferry was put in -- whether it be barging or now the cable one. Can you also get the total cost that the Highways ministry has spent on that particular issue, as well?
I have some concerns that indeed the ferry was put in to deal with another problem that has nothing to do with the need for a ferry there. It has to do with some aboriginal claims or concerns in that particular area. I'm wondering if it just might not have been easier to have dealt with those concerns rather than circumventing them by putting a ferry in and leaving us with the debt or the expenses that built up over the years from providing a ferry service. I'm not sure how many buildings are affected in that area, but the minister might give us a little bit of a rundown on that particular situation, please.
[12:45]
Hon. L. Boone: You should talk to the MLA from that area, who spent a considerable amount of time actually complimenting the ministry and the assistant deputy minister for the work that they've done in working with him, the aboriginal community and the individuals who live there, to bring about some resolution to the problems there. Rather than[ Page 5368 ]
being something that he considered as too costly, he thinks that we've done a good job there, and he appreciates the work that the ministry has done.
D. Symons: I'm gathering from the minister's answer that when she said "bringing some resolution," the resolution is that things will stay the way they are, and then there will be a permanent ferry system in place. Is that the long-term plan, then, for that particular service?
Hon. L. Boone: No. We're continuing to work with everybody around there to deal with the very difficult and very sensitive situation that we have. Obviously we'd like to see the bridge rebuilt, but we have to work with the communities.
D. Symons: The minister didn't answer one thing. I was curious -- and I don't know the answer to this; I'm not being facetious in spending time asking -- how many people are affected by the particular lack of road transport into the community, in very rough figures.
Hon. L. Boone: Thirty to 50.
D. Symons: I want to move to a different area, and that's the Gibsons area on the Sunshine Coast. There was some delay in finishing off the Gibsons bypass and the road up to Payne Road, but that's all been completed. It was '95 when they finished off phase 2. In the planning, there are other stretches of that particular road that are in bad shape. Rat Portage hill -- that particular area -- is quite poor. Some of it's very nice. There have been sections in there that
Hon. L. Boone: I know that the municipality has put in for some federal-provincial infrastructure dollars. Those moneys, as you know, have not been approved by Minister Anderson yet. In addition to that, there is resurfacing of Highway 101, Saltery Bay to Powell River; electrical projects on Highway 101 at Wharf and Dolphin streets, Sechelt; safety projects on Highway 101, Southview to Sturt roads, north of Powell River -- that's highway design and realignment -- and at Chapman Creek, north of Gibsons -- northbound design and southbound bridge flares. In addition to that, they have a cycling network project.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. That is what's in the projects -- capital and rehab and what not -- for this particular fiscal year, I believe. What I was also after
Hon. L. Boone: That's the TFA, and that was canvassed earlier.
D. Symons: I seem to be hearing that actually this particular project was not asked about during the TFA, so I'm wondering if I might ask again. It's on a particular one, not the general TFA, but if it's coming from the TFA, that's great. What planning is being done for the Sunshine Coast for the future?
Hon. L. Boone: By agreement with the critic, we have completed the TFA, and the staff from TFA have in fact left. We don't have all the information here. As I said, by agreement with the critic
D. Symons: I thought we had an agreement about closing down the Legislature at 10 o'clock, as well. It seems that agreements don't always hold, so I would appreciate it if that information could come.
An Hon. Member: We had no agreement.
D. Symons: No agreement whatsoever. Well, possibly an understanding, but it doesn't seem that that's true, anyway. At least you're giving us an idea of what your modus operandi is.
I wonder if we could move on to another topic, and that has to do with the Malahat highway. There was some concern by a citizen in that particular area -- in the Oaks area, I believe -- about Okotoks Road. There's some real concern about a potential accident happening there. In fact, they have had quite a number of accidents. They think the idea of the bypass for that particular area is good, but it's in the design-only stage -- and that was as of last year. I think part of the Island Highway project will include a bypass for that particular area. Can you tell me where that's at?
Hon. L. Boone: That's also under the TFA, and we've finished that section of this
D. Symons: So obviously if it's under the TFA, then, it has not come to Highways as a project that's being done this year. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: We're not doing it this year. The critic has the list of all the projects that are being done this year.
D. Symons: We're not going to get to ask about TFA things, then -- which is really unfortunate.
How about HCL? I should go back awhile, I guess. Can the minister inform me
Hon. L. Boone: It was '94-95.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister is familiar with the Financial Information Act, which says in section 2:
"(1) Within six months after the end of its fiscal year, a corporation must prepare a statement of financial information for that fiscal year in a form and containing information prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.I will remind the minister that the beginning part says that it shall happen within six months of the ending of the(2) A statement
. . . must include all of the following: (a) a statement of assets and liabilities; (b) an operational statement; (c) a schedule of debts; (d) a schedule of guarantee and indemnity agreements; (e) a schedule showing (i) in respect of each employee earning more than a prescribed amount, the total remuneration paid to the employee and total amount paid for the employee's expenses; and (ii) a consolidated total of all remuneration paid to all other employees; (f) a schedule showing (i) the total amount paid to each supplier of goods and services during the fiscal year that is greater than a prescribed amount, and (ii) a consolidated total of all other payments made to suppliers of goods or services during that fiscal year."
[ Page 5369 ]
fiscal year. How many months is it since the last annual report? Well past six months from that time, so why is the minister sitting on that report? Is the ministry negligent in following this particular act that says it must be done within six months?
Hon. L. Boone: You mention corporations; nonetheless, we will be working hard to get that report done.
D. Symons: The minister, then, is admitting that they are in contravention of the Financial Information Act. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: No. I just stated that you mentioned at the beginning when you read that thing that it's corporations. We are not a corporation; we are a ministry, and that said corporations.
D. Symons: Is HCL a corporation, then?
Hon. L. Boone: We've tabled the TFA reports already.
D. Symons: I'm wondering when the minister might be bringing down the annual report for the Ministry of Highways.
Hon. L. Boone: As soon as we can.
D. Symons: I would love to direct a question to the Premier, but I guess I can't. If the corporations are required to do it in six months and have it done -- I suppose that there's a period of time when they look at it before it's tabled -- can't the ministry do the same?
There are some highways around the province that have some problems inherent in them. One of them happens to be at the edge of my riding in Richmond, where it is an on-ramp to Highway 99, leading on from Westminster Highway. Basically, there's an overpass at that particular point where cars coming over the overpass can make a left turn across the eastbound traffic onto the 99 approach, and there are cars coming that are going
Hon. L. Boone: We're not aware of any large number of accidents there, but we'll look into it.
D. Symons: Thank you.
At the other end of the Deas Tunnel -- or I guess Massey Tunnel would be correct -- a semitrailer approaching that on Highway 99 also turned over, and in that particular case people were trapped in a car not that long ago. I'm wondering if that has been examined and whether it's the fault of the road and if the road could be improved to prevent that from happening again. It's the same situation as I was describing in Richmond.
Hon. L. Boone: We've checked it out and the design is within specifications, but we have put up some signs to warn trucks about going around that curve.
D. Symons: This one might be for the member for Alberni. There's been some suggestion raised on the Island Highway, I believe, that motorcyclists are concerned and at risk because of the cat's-eye reflectors that are used on local highways. They think that the indentation of the road where these reflectors are set in is just about the width of a wheel and can cause a bike to go out of control. It was reported in the Parksville-Qualicum News on May 6 of this year.
Has the minister looked into that? Is there some justification to that? And maybe our motorcyclist there might be able to advise the minister on it.
G. Janssen: I've never had a problem.
Hon. L. Boone: The member from Port Alberni doesn't have a problem, so I don't see a problem.
D. Symons: I certainly hope that the minister doesn't take that as her responsibility for looking for things -- to use his opinion. But she's on record: that's how she makes decisions. We'll know that, at approximately 1 o'clock, she makes decisions by turning to the member for Alberni and deciding whether he's had trouble on that road. I'm curious as to whether he has had, because there are
[1:00]
An Hon. Member: You drive a motorcycle?D. Symons: No, I'm on a bicycle. The motorcycle is not my vehicle.
The next issue deals with the Island Highway. I believe that on the north side of Goldstream Park, you've now got it four-laned. There's been upgrading, anyway, from two lanes to four lanes, and I believe on the south side of Goldstream Park we've now got four lanes. What is the situation through Goldstream Park?
Hon. L. Boone: That's the TFA.
D. Symons: Well, the TFA is part of the ministry.
The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. The member may want to review Hansard in the morning, but you'll find that we did come to the end of the TFA estimates and agreed to go into Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.
D. Symons: They might have. I didn't agree to it; I wasn't here. I was in the other House.
But anyway, I have a statement here by a person who said that the plan to build a bridge over the Fraser River near Pitt Meadows was a silly plan, and I note that awhile ago
[ Page 5370 ]
TFA -- is looking at public-private partnerships in these suggestions that people brought forward for that, or for the south perimeter road or for all the other projects that are out there just waiting to happen if this government can get a handle on dealing with public-private partnerships.
Hon. L. Boone: I dealt with that earlier.
B. Barisoff: Just moving on to the service and attraction signs that the ministry had gone out on a limb for, can the minister tell me when she first announced that she was going to go after this extra amount of money and how much it was?
Hon. L. Boone: May 1, 1997.
B. Barisoff: And the amount of money that this recovery was supposed to gain back to the government coffers?
Hon. L. Boone: It's $1 million.
B. Barisoff: How long had this been going on free of charge before we got into this?
Hon. L. Boone: I believe it was 1987 when it originally started. It was '88 -- sorry, I was one off.
B. Barisoff: Would this money be going into consolidated revenue or into the ministry funds?
Hon. L. Boone: Consolidated revenue.
B. Barisoff: What was the original installation fee or cost that the ministry had proposed for fabricating these signs?
Hon. L. Boone: It was a $200 fee for fabricating and installing and a $250 annual fee.
B. Barisoff: As I understand it, the ministry has put the collection of these fees on hold. Can the minister outline why this has happened?
Hon. L. Boone: As I was telling the member for Peace River North, when we originally made the decision to do this, we did so with the knowledge that every other jurisdiction in Canada and in the United States was in fact charging for their signs, so we implemented it. We then had considerable concern being raised by a number of the smaller operations out there, so we put it on hold to enable us to have a process of consultation with them to see if we could come up with some ways of refining the costs so that the smaller guiding and fishing operations are not affected detrimentally.
B. Barisoff: I'm really curious to know why the minister hadn't consulted the businesses before we got into sending out these bills to individual businesses throughout the province.
Hon. L. Boone: It was a failure on my part. I asked the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism what they felt the impact would be. As a result of that, we actually withdrew the fee for the bed-and-breakfasts and for the artisans. However, I guess we just didn't anticipate that the opposition would be this high to it, given the fact that other jurisdictions have such a high fee. So it was just overlooked on my part.
B. Barisoff: What would the fee be that you would now charge each individual business, if they were to be charged?
Hon. L. Boone: We haven't determined that. The fees are currently on hold. We are working with the tourism industry. There is a list of all the tourism operators around that are working with us to try and find ways that we can refine the charges or change them in some way so that they don't affect the smaller operators.
B. Barisoff: So the original set of fees have been scrapped, and we're now going to, in consultation with the businesses, redetermine the amount that's going to be charged on a per-sign or per-business basis.
Hon. L. Boone: They haven't been scrapped; they're on hold while we work to find ways that we can refine them.
B. Barisoff: I think I remember during the election campaign that the Premier said that there would be no new taxes. I'm just wondering whether the minister looks at this as a new tax or a new fee. How does she look at affecting businesses when we're taking money out of their pockets, whether you call it a tax or whatever you might call it? How does she look at this as not being a tax?
Hon. L. Boone: It's a fee for service.
B. Barisoff: I guess you can call it whatever you want, whether it's a fee for service
How many such businesses would be affected by this fee?
Hon. L. Boone: There are 3,598.
B. Barisoff: That's 3,598 businesses times at least two signs per business. What does that equate to in dollars and cents?
Hon. L. Boone: Those are signs.
B. Barisoff: So that is 3,500 signs that are out there. How many businesses does that affect? Have we calculated the number of businesses that we have hit up for extra money?
Hon. L. Boone: It's closer to 3,600. They all have two signs, so about half would give you the number of businesses.
B. Barisoff: I understand that a lot of invoices were sent out to a number of businesses throughout the province. Have we got what it cost the ministry to send out all those invoices?
Hon. L. Boone: Just the cost of a stamp and operating a printer. It's not a substantial amount of money.
B. Barisoff: When did this happen? When did we send out all these bills to the particular individuals?
Hon. L. Boone: The beginning of May.
B. Barisoff: Has the ministry received or cashed any payments on any invoices to date?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we have. If necessary, we'll adjust it later if there is any change to the fees.
B. Barisoff: How many, and how much does that total in dollars and cents?
[ Page 5371 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I can get that information for you.
B. Barisoff: On the money that we collected from people throughout the province
Hon. L. Boone: If there's a change in the pricing policy and they were to get money back, we would pay the standard interest on that, which is government policy.
B. Barisoff: Does the ministry have in its possession any cheques that have not been cashed, where we're just holding on to the cheques in anticipation of what's going to take place?
Hon. L. Boone: No, we're not holding on to any cheques.
B. Barisoff: So I have been led to believe that we cashed any cheques that came in, and we didn't return any cheques. We just made sure that we cashed them all.
Hon. L. Boone: If we didn't cash them, we returned them.
B. Barisoff: I think we're both getting tired, because I thought I just heard a second ago that we didn't return any cheques.
Hon. L. Boone: We didn't hold on to any cheques.
B. Barisoff: Oh, you didn't hold on to any cheques. Okay -- a little semantics there.
When is the decision going to be made, and what's going to take place with this program? Is it a next-week decision, a next-month decision, or are we going to wait until next year? Is there any time frame for when this is going to happen?
Hon. L. Boone: Mid-September.
B. Barisoff: You indicated that you were going to consult with different groups about what's going to happen. Could the minister indicate which groups the minister would be consulting with before she makes her final decision in mid-September?
Hon. L. Boone: I've done that already.
P. Reitsma: Just before I go to questions, the minister said on the last question that she had done that already. Does she mean she had given the names of the associations already? Is that true?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. Check Hansard tomorrow.
P. Reitsma: Thank you very much. That takes care of one question.
Before we go into questions, it might be prudent if I give some background for those who are interested in the background and for those who are avid readers of Hansard. In 1988, when the service and attraction signage policy was first piloted, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was concerned over the numbers of permitted and non-permitted signs that were posted along the highways. The proliferation of advertising signs had been allowed to spread unchecked, as MOTH only enforced their permitting policy when they received a complaint -- and I don't think too many complaints were actually received.
[1:15]
The tourism industry -- which is dear to my heart and which I've been involved in for some 30 years -- including the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association, was approached -- and I'm going back to about 1988 -- by both the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to support the implementation of a service-and-attraction signage policy, which I think was quite a step in the right direction, actually. This support was given, contingent on the directional signage program being free to businesses, since they would be obliged to remove their existing paid advertising signage and adopt a name-only directional sign. And for the benefit of the member for Alberni, I'll come back to that later.In addition, many businesses, due to their locations did not qualify for a service-and-attraction directional sign, and the removal of the highway sign would mean a loss of business. To recognize this, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways allowed businesses with signs greater than three square metres, and with a significant dollar investment, to maintain these signs, and they were given a permit which expires no later than November 13 of next year. The question I will pose later, of course, is: what will these businesses do after that date?
Given that the signs were directional and provided free to campgrounds, motels and resorts that met certain criteria, the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association supported the move to a uniform, clear and consistent signage program to help motorists find accommodation and attraction facilities. I should mention that since 1988 we've been operating a motel ourselves on the highway, for which signs are, of course, extremely important.
In a press announcement -- and I'll come back to that later -- on May 1 by this minister, she stated that these signs are basically just private advertising. In fact, that's a complete reversal of the nine-year stated and written policy of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture that the service and attraction signs are directional and not intended to promote any particular service or business.
Why are they now being considered advertising? In the opinion of this particular organization, the reason is to justify an annual fee. While they appreciate that there is a cost attached to producing, erecting and maintaining the signs, the implementation of such a high fee will cost most small businesses at least $500 per annum, because they have two signs, one in either direction. That flies in the face of the original policy set down by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Tourism ministry in 1988.
Small businesses are the backbone of this province. If the government doesn't start paying attention to the high costs associated with running a small business, the B.C. economy will suffer. Tourism businesses are often seasonal, with revenues being earned from May to September, increasingly -- although May and September are shoulder seasons -- with more in the ten-week period from the beginning of July until about the first week or ten days of September.
Rates are set a year in advance, and unlike the government, a business owner cannot raise prices at the drop of a hat
[ Page 5372 ]
to cover costs. Market conditions and consumers dictate the price. Certainly from this particular organization, their great concern is that since the NDP government was elected in B.C., tourism businesses have experienced huge fee increases: the introduction of health permits for restaurants, swimming pools and hot tubs; dock fees; increases in Crown leases; licence and angling fees -- fortunately, they have been cut for now; and, of course, as I canvassed in the other ministry, they did anticipate a huge listing fee increase from Tourism B.C.
My first question is: given that a permit was given to those businesses with more than three square metres, which represents a significant dollar investment
Hon. L. Boone: They will have the ability to have the same tourist attraction signs that everybody else has.
P. Reitsma: My second question to the minister: why are the signs now being considered advertising, which is quite a complete reversal of the policy that was enacted nine years ago and adopted for eight or nine years? Why is it now being considered advertising?
Hon. L. Boone: The only advertising are the ones that have logos on them. The strictly directional ones are still free -- the very simple signs that just give the name of the hotel or motel. But those signs that have logos on them -- McDonald's or whatever it is -- are obviously advertising for that particular company. We've had a number of companies actually come to us indicating that they're very interested in participating in this project and would like to purchase signs. They didn't have signs in the past, but they would now like to purchase signs.
I've stated quite clearly that it's not the large operations that I'm concerned about right now. It's the small operations that I'm looking at, trying to figure out how we can address their concerns and still recognize our need to have our costs covered. I think that most people would recognize that it shouldn't be government's obligation to provide signage with logos on them for most people. Clearly we can continue doing the directional signs, but businesses with signs that have the logos on them, I think, should be paying something towards those costs.
P. Reitsma: Again, the philosophy that really was the reason for the 1980 accord, I think, was quite admirable: that was the proliferation of signs -- all kinds of signs at all kinds of locations. I think it was a very honest and genuine attempt to have some uniformity with all signs -- the pleasant, the recognizable. People look for that, I know that; it's in my own business, as well.
However, clearly, since 1988, it was not considered to be advertising. I'm not here to chastise, but I must take exception to the minister's statements in terms of: "Well, we've looked at other jurisdictions." I guess the ministry had a kind of cure and now they are looking for a disease for that particular cure. Other jurisdictions, no doubt, may have certain fee schedules, but you cannot always base your policies on what other jurisdictions do. If that's the case, one has to be consistent, and I would refer the government to some of the provinces that do have a balanced budget. You cannot have one policy that's to your liking and not be consistent with others.
I canvassed this quite a bit when we had the Tourism ministry estimates. Most of the time, I was referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, but we did get in a fair amount of questions. It very much affects the tourism industry, which, of course, has been part of
My hon. colleague asked earlier, in terms of
Have attempts been made to clarify and hand-deliver an additional notice saying that the whole fee structure, the signage cost and the implementation, as was laid out on May 1, have been put on hold? Has the ministry done the same thing -- been fast on the draw and on its feet or with a courier service -- for all those businesses that were so upset by receiving a hand-delivered notice that they had to pay, or else? Were there attempts made to say to those businesses that they did not have to pay until further notice?
Hon. L. Boone: All businesses received a letter from us indicating that the program was on hold. They've also received letters from us indicating that there are various tourism associations that are involved in trying to assist us in reviewing the program to find ways that we can refine how we are going to be implementing it. They've been asked to pass on their concerns and their ideas to their associations, so that they can represent them when we meet with them.
P. Reitsma: The last question on that: were any of those second notices -- if the minister knows -- hand-delivered? Because I know that quite a number of notices to pay up were hand-delivered, and I would assume that the ministry would be fast in sending another notice: pay later or don't pay yet.
Hon. L. Boone: No, we didn't hand-deliver them.
P. Reitsma: I find it quite curious that when it's pay-up time, almost no expenses are spared, even to the extent of hand-delivering onto somebody's premises. When it is on hold, it's in the mail, I suppose, or whatever.
I must say -- and I'll read into the record and mention for the record later that I'm certainly a small business person myself, particularly in the tourism industry
[1:30]
The minister has mentioned -- and I appreciate that, the candidness and the forthrightness of that[ Page 5373 ]
particularly appreciated, that the Ministry of Tourism would have been right in there with the process, making its point in terms of the potential devastation and effect on that industry. What was the breakdown? What happened?
Hon. L. Boone: There was no breakdown. I just made an error.
P. Reitsma: The release on May 1 -- coming from the minister's office, of course -- was: "Province Implements a Cost-Recovery Program for Highways Service and Attraction Signs." I don't want to go on too much on that, but it was pretty stern and direct: "Effective today, government will begin recovering costs for service-and-attraction business name signs on British Columbia highways, [the minister] said today" -- and they do it for cost recovery, of course.
Again, on behalf of my various colleagues and myself, I've received just literally dozens and dozens of phone calls, letters, faxes. Some of the organizations, representing hundreds of small businesses, particularly in the tourism industry, have, of course, relayed their concern. I am appreciative that at least belatedly
The B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association -- of which I think we are a member, actually -- sent a letter on May 16 to me, because I had asked them about their concern. I appreciated the letter that they sent to me expressing their concern, and I won't quote them verbatim. It was signed by John Allen, who is the president. It's a memo from Joss Penny, who is the executive director, who basically
I think they stated it quite clearly: the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association supports a uniform service-and-attraction highway sign policy and has done so since 1988. There were actually a number of stakeholders present at the formulation of those policies. However, this support for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was given based on the directional signage program being free to businesses, since they were obliged to remove their existing paid, unique advertising signs.
The introduction of the annual $250 business-name panel advertising fee is really just a tax on small business. As we've mentioned earlier, because most streets are not one way but are both ways, of course, you need two signs in opposite directions to advertise one's premises. So for most of the businesses, it will be at least $500. This will cause serious hardship to the small campgrounds and lodges in rural British Columbia that have already set their rates for 1997.
I think it's extremely important to know that the association represents literally hundreds -- I think about 800 -- businesses. As an association, we are not against paying a one-time charge to have a business-name panel fabricated and installed, but we do protest the payment of a $250 annual advertising fee per sign. True advertising signs have the unique features of a business, whereas the business-name panels the government is classifying as advertising only allow a business name to advertise the location of the business to motorists on the highway.
They're not the only business organization. They do not object, and I as a small business person don't object, to paying for the actual cost of the sign fabrication and installation, because they did so in the past, before the uniform policy of 1988 was adopted. Business does not have a problem with it, but they have a heck of a problem paying $250 per sign in perpetuity. We don't know how long this policy is good for -- although it might only be good for three or four years, for obvious reasons.
My question to the minister is: has the minister received from the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I have, and I met with them, along with the other tourism association people.
The Chair: The Chair would like to suggest that this debate has become fairly repetitious.
P. Reitsma: With no disrespect, I'm here on behalf of constituents representing an industry that is extremely important and dear to me.
I. Waddell: You're filibustering; that's what you're doing.
P. Reitsma: If you want to stand up, why don't you ask for the floor and make a worthwhile contribution?
I think it's important, hon. Chair, for this ministry to go on record answering some concerns. And I appreciate what you're saying.
The Chair: Member, I ask you to take your chair, please. The Chair has suggested that it's repetitious debate. I wasn't asking the member for a response to my suggestion. I can only reiterate that this is repetitious; I have heard the same debate in other estimates, as well. I would suggest that the member may want to pursue another line of questioning.
P. Reitsma: I will keep it reasonably short, then. Whilst it may have been mentioned in the estimates of another ministry, I should also mention that in the estimates of the other ministry, many a time I was told: "That is not part of my ministry; talk to the Minister of Transportation and Highays."
For the record, I would just like to read correspondence from the Tourism Association of British Columbia. The essence of their letter, which I think is important -- it's written to the minister, as well -- is that they do not object to paying a one-time fee, an actual cost, but they do object to a perpetual fee, unknown, for an indeterminate number of years.
I have a letter here from the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association. In fact, I have a couple of letters. This one is to the minister, dated May 21. In terms of the cost recovery for highway signage and attraction signs, again they state their displeasure, not necessarily opposing a fee to be paid for actual cost and installation but very much objecting to an annual fee.
[ Page 5374 ]
On this particular undertaking, could I ask the minister
Since the minister is temporarily unable, I move a ten-minute recess.
The Chair: Member, I believe your question is being considered. The deputy is able to answer it, if the minister allows it.
Hon. C. Evans: Cost recovery, hon. Chair.
P. Reitsma: So that I know, has the minister that answered been given permission to, or has the deputy, or can simply any other member of the executive answer questions?
The Chair: It's a general debate, member.
P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Chair. As we both come from the municipal scene, I've never shied away from learning something every day -- which we do, of course, and which is good.
On the same subject, what did the government see as the challenges for this particular program?
Hon. C. Evans: To be fair in the cost-recovery process.
P. Reitsma: That's a good answer. Fairness is always something that we hope to achieve -- we don't necessarily always do it.
Having a moratorium until we've had some input from the eight or ten organizations that now, finally, have been asked to participate and have some consultation and communication
The long-term goals of this government are, of course, to
[1:45]
Hon. C. Evans: I'd say that the goals of the government are social democracy and to bring about the New Jerusalem.P. Reitsma: Just a side question, and I'll check in Hansard on it. When is the government going to charge for the signs? I know they're on hold, but on hold until when?
Hon. C. Evans: That's repetitious. We answered that question earlier.
The Chair: The Chair again would like to remind the member that we are really into a prolonged, repetitious debate.
P. Reitsma: Of course, the government is always results-oriented. Over the years that this program has been in place, have there been any strategic priorities and goals? And how have successes been measured?
I really didn't hear the answer, but I guess I can check in Hansard tomorrow, which is fine.
Interjection.
P. Reitsma: Well, at least the question came.
The actual revenues that we canvassed earlier, the direct revenues
I. Waddell: You should send flowers to the Hansard reporters.
P. Reitsma: If you want a flower, why don't you just ask for it? Otherwise you'd be mocked with it.
The actual revenues. Are there any additional revenues or
Hon. C. Evans: There are only direct revenues.
P. Reitsma: I notice that over the years
Hon. C. Evans: In 1993 there was a review. Two ministries and an advisory group reviewed the program, and some changes were made.
P. Reitsma: Some changes were made. What changes were made?
Hon. C. Evans: Artisans and bed-and-breakfasts were included after the review.
P. Reitsma: Last time, of course, I read into the record, and -- at the risk of being told I'm being repetitious again -- certainly those people that have written to me
For the record, I certainly wish to mention a couple of people and businesses that have written to me and to my colleagues -- and they'll probably do it themselves -- strongly objecting to the government signs. They are mostly tourism facilities. I know that some of the wineries that might be canvassed later have, of course, been affected, as well.
Again, what people really objected to -- businesses, actually -- was the fact that no consultation took place. This particular one, the Fir Crest Resort, was copied to COTA and the Cariboo Tourist Association. In this particular one, owner Jim Wilson objected to the arbitrary implementation of the $250 per sign. There is Dave's RV Park. Lots of RVs and RV parks are, of course, affected, as well. There is David Friesen from Vanderhoof, and certainly the Riverside Resort, and Brandon and Helen O'Keefe in the Qualicum Beach area, which is, of course, my area
[ Page 5375 ]
Again, many of the businesses -- in fact, all of them -- object to the hidden tax increase, the fee increase. Again, as I mentioned earlier, it is not the one-time charge; it is a charge, of course, that will be done perpetually, and the good Lord only knows for how long. I've just got a couple more, that's all: the Cherry Grove Motel in Oliver and Barry Dewar -- quite incensed, as a matter of fact; and Rose Stenberg of the Kokanee Bay Resort. The reason I mention those is simply because they come from all over British Columbia.
Again, could the minister or the representative tell me how much and what kind of correspondence -- phone calls, faxes, letters -- the ministry has received from those opposing the arbitrary implementation of the signage? Has the ministry kept track of phone calls, letters and faxes? And if so, how many were there?
Hon. C. Evans: I will supply the hon. member with that answer.
R. Thorpe: With respect to STOB 40, which represents advertising expenditures, could you please outline the main thrusts of the $1.255 million in advertising?
Hon. C. Evans: We advertise contracts when we are looking for contractors; we advertise road restrictions when we have road closures -- that sort of thing. It's just basically for keeping the business community and the general public aware of what opportunities or legal changes are on the roadways.
R. Thorpe: Is it STOB 40 funding that you use for that, or would that be STOB 42, which would be statutory advertising?
Hon. C. Evans: The member is right. The answer I gave to the previous question is from STOB 42.
R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister and staff for correcting that. If we go back to the first question on STOB 40, the $1.255 million, what is that advertising used for?
Hon. C. Evans: Safety advertising, advertising the activities of the ministry, the Island Highway -- that sort of thing.
R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister would commit to a detailed answer. Not that I don't appreciate his answer -- it seemed to come very quickly while staff continued to go through the papers -- but could I ask for and be provided with the detailed numbers on that advertising? That will be my first question.
Hon. C. Evans: Sure.
R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could advise how many people in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways work in administering the advertising -- in total here in excess of $2 million. How many people work on that within the ministry?
Hon. C. Evans: We'll supply that information.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister give us some indication if in fact there are any staff within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways who administer those funds, or are those funds and programs administered through Cupcakes?
Hon. C. Evans: The public affairs branch has 20 people in it.
R. Thorpe: Is the minister saying that there are 20 people administering an advertising budget of $1.255 million?
Hon. C. Evans: They engage in lots of different things, all having to do with communications. They do graphics work, they do design work, and they answer letters and stuff like that.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister, then, quantify what the actual salary and benefit costs are of those 20 people?
[2:00]
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.R. Thorpe: My question was: how much, in dollars and cents? Maybe if we had a little sense, we could get the dollars. The 20 people who are connected to communications -- how much in salaries and benefits does it cost the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?
Hon. C. Evans: Approximately $1 million.
R. Thorpe: Just so I understand now, we have a $1 million cost centre and 20 FTEs administering a budget of $1.255 million. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: They do other things: graphics, correspondence, the print shop. There are a number of different things that they do.
R. Thorpe: What would be the total budget that these 20 staff in communications do administer, then?
Hon. L. Boone: It's $2.8 million.
R. Thorpe: Since we've identified $1.255 million in nonstatutory advertising and $995,000 in statutory advertising, what would make up the other approximately $600,000? What STOB would that be under?
Hon. L. Boone: Professional services, telephones, data operations, consulting services, office and business expenses, employee training information, advertising, materials and supplies, data and word processing systems, office furniture and equipment, machinery equipment and vehicles, grants and contributions, print shop.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister please undertake to provide the detailed breakdown to us at a later date?
Hon. L. Boone: Of the information that I just read there?
R. Thorpe: Yes. You read a number of categories, and it would be nice to have the financial details that go with each one of those lines. You said there is a total budget of $2.8 million, costing $1 million in salaries, to look after it. If you could provide that in line-by-line comprehensive detail, that would be appreciated.
Hon. L. Boone: Okay.
R. Thorpe: Switching gears completely here
[ Page 5376 ]
Peachland, the minister is probably aware that there have been serious safety issues there with respect to deer. Can the minister advise
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: If you listen, you'll learn something.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: We're reluctant to guess at this. We could say that we're putting up deer reflectors, but we're going to get back to you with that answer.
R. Thorpe: I would appreciate it. Apparently your assistant area manager has been advising people that they're considering setting up fencing along Highway 97, although it could be difficult.
I heard the minister say earlier how conscious they are of saving money and doing cost-effective things. There were over 600 accidents last year with an average cost $1,700 per accident, with costs in excess of $1 million. So I would very much appreciate a very prompt answer to my question, as would the people who travel that highway.
R. Coleman: I would like to canvass a couple of corridor studies that have been conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. First of all, I'd like to deal with the southern freeway corridor study on the lower mainland. I'd like to preface my discussion this evening first of all with the fact that the lower mainland has had a number of studies done with regard to traffic.
There's the "Serpentine Freeway Corridor Feasibility Study," the "North-South Connector Corridor Study" and the "Southern Freeway Corridor Study." These three studies were all conducted in the area of March 1993. Since that time I would imagine there has been some ongoing process with regards to them. The reason I bring them up this evening is that, first of all, the area of Fort Langley-Aldergrove, which is my riding
This is largely due to an inversion that is caused by pollution that comes from the traffic corridors of the lower mainland of British Columbia which is a result of the corridors not being able to move the traffic well enough, and therefore you have congestion -- cars sitting for a long period of time. That particular pollution, which comes from the corridors closer in to Vancouver, causes an inversion with the winds that come off the ocean and traps the pollution above the Fraser Valley.
The concern in the Fraser Valley, of course, is how we deal with this particular issue, considering the fact that we have an area of the province that is very rapidly growing in size, very rapidly growing in its need to control traffic. A number of studies have been done. I want to canvass the studies with the minister tonight just to know what their status is and where these particular studies might be going.
The first one is the "Southern Corridor Freeway Study." My understanding is that the freeway study was conducted in 1993 with the idea of picking the routes that would allow for traffic to flow on the lower mainland from the area of Bradner Road near Mount Lehman in Abbotsford, along south of Aldergrove, along the corridor along 20th Avenue, which would break between Campbell Valley Park and the southern portion of Brookswood, and curve up and connect into Highway 99, the King George Highway. I wonder if the minister could give me an update as to the status of those particular reports and that particular corridor.
Hon. L. Boone: The report that you talk about actually has
R. Coleman: Could the minister, then, tell me what the recommended routes were in that particular report for that particular freeway corridor? This report in 1993 referred to the existing Highway 10, which was experiencing significant congestion at that time, and made the statement that Highway 10 wouldn't be adequate in the long term to carry any traffic demand. It also dealt with the unsuitability of 16th Avenue. Although it could be widened, it would not be suitable for a provincial highway, and an alternative route parallel to 16th Avenue needed to be considered. It also dealt with the projected population growth which
Hon. L. Boone: As was agreed with the critic, the TFA section of this ministry was dealt with earlier. If you would like to give us the questions you want answered, we will endeavour to get that information to you at a later date.
R. Coleman: When I made some inquiries of the ministry as to when I would talk about the planning portion of highways in my particular area -- I was trying to save time before estimates -- I was told that would come under the ministry, not the Transportation Financing Authority, because the Transportation Financing Authority dealt with capital projects. These weren't capital projects; these were philosophical discussions about the planning of highways. I was told it would be dealt with by the ministry and not by the TFA. Now you're telling me the TFA is where I should have asked these questions with regard to these particular projects.
Maybe the minister could tell me if there is at least an idea at the ministry level
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, if you want to put these questions on the record, we will get this information to you later.
R. Coleman: I will gladly do so.
The next question would be whether there's any long-term desire to upgrade the transportation links between the
[ Page 5377 ]
Abbotsford International Airport and the Vancouver International Airport to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal. Are there any plans to do that?
Hon. L. Boone: If you just go through them and put them on the record, we'll get that information for you.
R. Coleman: The "Goals and Objectives" for the southern freeway corridor said: "To account for the many issues and potentially conflicting points of view, a set of goals is set out for the project. The goals and the individual objectives for each goal form the frame of reference for evaluation of alternative routes
"Are these still the goals of the ministry with regard to this particular corridor?. . . provide route connectivity between the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 99; connections to existing and proposed north-south highways; an appropriate level of service in the 30-year planning horizon and beyond; connection to the Abbotsford airport, the Douglas truck border crossing and the 264th Street border crossing; for future extension eastward to the Mission Bridge; transportation links between the proposed lower Fraser Valley communities, including south Surrey, Ocean Park, Crescent Beach, White Rock, Rosemary Heights, Grandview Heights, Fernridge, the area designated as industrial in south Surrey, Aldergrove, Clearbrook and Abbotsford; positive guidance for motorists and a pleasant travel experience for the highway user."
The other goals and objectives of this particular route were to minimize the changes to the existing travel patterns on arterial roads, the number of interchanges to maintain the capacity of the highway, and the highway's use for short trips. There is also: "
I'm just wondering if the ministry would
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you.
[2:15]
Hon. G. Clark: I'm interested in Highway 1. As the minister knows, I had previous responsibility for this. There's a lot of preloading, and a lot of my constituents are now asking: "When is it going to be paved?" It's a very simple question. I know that there isInterjections.
Hon. G. Clark: The second question related to that is paving. There are sections of it that are not preloaded -- not very many, but there are several blocks in there. I'm interested in when the plans were for tendering the major work to pave the highway -- to pave the third lane each way -- and why certain sections of it had not been preloaded.
Interjections.
Hon. L. Boone: There's no more money, Mr. Premier. [Laughter.] It is out for tender right now. I cannot give you more favouritism than I have the opposition. But I must tell you that the TFA has been dealt with previously, so I will get that information for you.
R. Coleman: Getting back to the east-west, southern corridor and freeway questions, I'm putting these on record for the minister to give me the information.
I have just one comment before I go ahead. We in the Fraser Valley look at the HOV lanes on the other side of the Port Mann Bridge kind of like they're a mistake. We can't figure out why you would put HOV lanes on the other side of a four-lane bridge where everybody is just going to come to a stop at the end of the HOV lanes and congestion will just build up on the other side in a more rapid manner. With all the other traffic corridor problems in the Fraser Valley, we really don't know how this by itself is going to help us out.
There were some other environmental goals and objectives within this particular report, and I ask if they are going to be met. One objective was to minimize the impacts on agricultural land and farming operations. I found that rather interesting, considering that in this particular study, we were going to carve an entire new corridor along 20th Avenue and South Aldergrove--South Langley, across Surrey right through farmland. Yet we were doing that.
It also was going to minimize the impact on fisheries habitat and replace habitat as appropriate, yet this particular corridor also cuts across a number of streams in a sensitive area near Campbell Valley Park. It impacts on wildlife, changes stormwater patterns and flood levels and has adverse impacts on water resources, erosion and siltation resulting from increasing runoffs. I'd like to know if those objectives have been met in the new plan that we're dealing with in particular.
Hon. L. Boone: As before, we'll get that information for you.
R. Coleman: Just moving on with regard to this particular corridor, there was some information collection process with this report, and I would like to ask the minister if she could provide me with that. There are five other reports that were done that form part of this report, and those will soon be incorporated into the reports that the TFA is dealing with now.
One was "District of Abbotsford and Matsqui Transportation Study," 1992. Others were "Trans-Canada Highway #1 Mt. Lehman Interchange Report," December 1991; "Aldergrove Transportation Study," March 1991 -- I have that one, so I don't need that particular report; "South Surrey Interchange Study," September 1990; and Freedom to Move "Mainland-Southwest-Region 2, Summary of Transportation Committee Recommendations," 1989.
These particular reports seem to have formed the basis of this particular outline for the southern corridor freeway. I'm wondering if they have been used in your reports with regard to this and whether this particular report itself was incorporated in your studies with regard to the southern corridor freeway.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: I've looked at the route analysis that was dealt with in this report, and it is fairly comprehensive. I wonder if the minister could tell me what a report like this one is worth. How much does it cost us to have a report like that done? It was done for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in March 1993. What would something like this cost us -- to have it produced, with all the work that's gone into it, and then to come forward and do another report later on to do the same particular job?
[ Page 5378 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I cannot even guess as to what it would have cost in 1993. That was long, long, long before me. We'd have to try and see if we could find that information for you.
R. Coleman: I look forward to receiving a copy of your report with regards to the southern freeway corridor. I'd like to move on to another corridor to see if perhaps you could tell me, first of all: have you done an additional study and report with regards to the Serpentine freeway corridor, which affects a different part of this particular area of the lower mainland?
Hon. L. Boone: That's part of the south coast system corridor.
R. Coleman: The south coast system corridor, then, would also include the corridors which are outlined
Hon. L. Boone: The south coast system plan hasn't been released yet. It's still in the works.
R. Coleman: Would the minister be able to tell me when she anticipates that report being completed and available for release? A lot of people are relying on these old reports. In particular, municipalities where I serve as an MLA presently are showing me these reports when I go in to discuss options within these communities right now. When I go to the township of Langley and other areas within my particular riding to discuss highways and what have you, these are the reports they're working from. They seem to be thinking that there's something written here that makes some sense to them, because you find them in every one of their planning offices. I'm just wondering what the time frame would be for these to be replaced with something that's more pertinent.
Hon. L. Boone: We would have to take the report to cabinet, and then it would be released whenever cabinet chose to do so.
R. Coleman: Does the minister have any idea when the report is scheduled to be finished internally, before it goes to cabinet? I know the time frame to cabinet can depend on the agenda of cabinet. But the internal report itself, the draft report -- when do you anticipate that report might be completed?
Hon. L. Boone: It's done. It just has to go through the various processes now.
R. Coleman: Do those processes involve any public hearings or public processes with the communities involved? Or are those processes completed at this point in time and the report just has to come to the ministry and go to cabinet?
Hon. L. Boone: This is a staff-level report; it just brings forward some options. It's not a decision
R. Coleman: Are the municipalities being asked to do any public process with the report or just to get feedback from their planning and engineering departments and other staff levels and councils?
Hon. L. Boone: We haven't planned a public process. This is technical information, so it would be working with the technical people to get their technical information. It's not a matter of finding out what people would rather have, and all their desires and that. This is to find out what technical work is required and what the technical people believe is in the best interests there.
R. Coleman: Obviously you can't tell me the routes, because the report hasn't been released yet. I would assume that some of them take into account some of the work that's been done in the past. When you go through this process, do you do some partial soil testing as you go through your planning process to determine whether you're actually going to be able to take the load of a highway in a particular area that you're planning some of these corridors in?
Hon. L. Boone: I had to listen very carefully. I thought you said "soul testing." At this time of night
No, we wouldn't be doing any soil testing. This is a conceptual idea, but it's not actually doing the engineering. When we got into the actual engineering, then we'd be doing the soil testing.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
R. Coleman: When you do this sort of planning, obviously soils is going to be one of the conditions that's going to affect your eventual ability to actually build a highway in a particular location. But I guess more so than that, when you do this preliminary planning
Obviously these things are not going to be built overnight. For some of them it's a very expensive proposition. But how do you determine whether you could actually put something there, as far as being able to acquire the land -- what kind of subdivision area you're going through and what kind of land base you're going through? How do you reconcile that with the agricultural use and the ALR and all the rest of it, as you're going through your planning process?
Hon. L. Boone: It's considered, but only in a very small degree. That is usually done in the next stage, when they actually get into designs, etc.
R. Coleman: Could the minister tell me, just out of curiosity, why these feasibility studies weren't used, why they have now been replaced with other studies? Although there seems to have been a tremendous amount of work and study gone into these, and the corridors seem to have been well thought out by, as far as I can see, some fairly reputable engineering firms and people in this particular industry, I wonder if the minister could tell me what the motivation was for these two studies to be replaced by additional studies in a different regard.
[ Page 5379 ]
Hon. L. Boone: They've been incorporated sometimes; we've taken some of that information. But what was felt and what I think is generally agreed upon is that we needed some overall plan that looked at the whole area, rather than having ad hoc corridors going in and then finding later on that something else was taking place in another municipality or another area that didn't work together. So we needed to look at incorporating all the various corridors into a systems plan for the south coast that recognized the needs of all municipalities, the GVRD and everything. It's not necessarily saying we've abandoned those. We've incorporated those things.
R. Coleman: That's actually refreshing, because when I looked at some of these plans, there were some concerns that I saw with regards to them. I don't know whether it was the Serpentine freeway corridor or whether it was the north-south freeway corridor.
The first question I would ask is: is the north-south connector also incorporated in this coastal plan? There are three studies here that I've been reviewing. The north-south one deals with the bridge across from Maple Ridge that comes down, I think, 216th in Langley, then connects around 80th Avenue and across to a different freeway. I'm just wondering if these are also incorporated into the same overall plan.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they are.
I move that we rise, report
[2:30]
The Chair: The House Leader has to make the motion. So if you just want to carry on for a few minutes, I think that's in progress.R. Coleman: One thing I noticed in one of the plans that I found kind of humorous was in the township of Langley, there's an area called Willoughby, which is slated as the next growth area in the community. They're supposed to be putting 25,000 people on the hillside, going down the hill into Langley. One of these plans actually showed a freeway going through the middle of it and splitting the residential area in half. I found that rather humorous. I thought: "Who has got their planning objectives a little backwards here?" Noting that yours was in 1993, and their growth and planning study took place later on, I was concerned as to who got what wrong. It was more out of interest to me to find that out.
It's important from our perspective, both for the community and for me as an MLA, to be able to discuss these traffic corridors with my community in such a way that I can know how they're handled and how they're being dealt with. I think it's important, because when we get into discussions like my colleague did with regard to another area in my community, which I promised I would not canvass because of some consideration the ministry gave me, which I appreciated
I think we can help a great deal that way. I know that when I dealt with some of the issues within my community and my neighbouring community, these traffic studies were the reference material for their decisions and their planning, although they probably had some people within their departments who may have had some communication with the Ministry of Highways. So I think it would be very much appreciated if I could have that study as soon as it is available, so I can canvass it with my own local officials and make sure everybody is on the same page, so that we can handle the corridors in our particular area to your advantage and to ours.
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that to you just as soon as it is released.
I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 2:33 a.m.