[ Page 5381 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: I think this bodes well for a productive day -- very clearly, right?

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: Last night I finished my part of the evening when we were discussing with the minister the inventory of backlog in the small business forest enterprise program. We had a lengthy debate on how much actually was in the inventory that could be used, in part, to become part of the inventory that would create new jobs in reman, manufacturing or in the small business forest enterprise program as a whole. After we established that indeed the backlog was 3.1 million. . . . That was based on the information from a presentation made to the small business sector in April 22, 1997. At that meeting the inventory was identified as substantial -- 3.1 million cubic metres. The minister, who in the end admitted that indeed that was the number that had been presented to this group, then also went on to say that since that meeting the 3.1 million has actually become two million. Could the minister tell me how, in such a short period of time, the 3.1 million officially became two million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, by selling a million cubic metres since then. Approximately a million was sold. And 3.1 million minus one million is 2.1 million, and we rounded it to two million.

T. Nebbeling: Could the minister tell me if on April 22, when this meeting was held with all the stakeholders, was it known that indeed the process was already in progress to sell a million cubic metres?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When we met with the stakeholders toward the end of April, we were expressing the problem and indicating that we were taking steps to address the problem.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister maybe tell me what the process is of putting timber that is in a backlog inventory. . . ? How does that timber get into the market?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In one of two ways. We either develop the sales ourselves as timber licences, timber sales; or, in the case of Prince George, we put an amount up on a non-replaceable-licence basis.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I should have added another component to it. What is the normal time frame that this process takes, from putting out the tenders to the awarding of the bids?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It can take a month to prepare the advertisements and the sale; it can take two months of advertising time and one month for public review once the bids are in; and it can take two to three months for evaluation and final awarding of the licence. So it can take six months.

T. Nebbeling: I'd add it up to seven months. However, the point I'm trying to make or what I'm trying to identify is that if on April 22, 1997, the minister's representatives attended a meeting with the stakeholders where, as part of an overall change in the strategy of how small business forest enterprise programs will be run in the future, for discussion purposes there were certain facts presented to these stakeholders, and one of the facts was that there is an inventory, an accumulated backlog, of 3.1 million, why at that time would that number be used if the minister knew that a million of that 3.1 million backlog was already in the process of being honoured through a bidding system?

[10:15]

I'd suggest this is getting into the area of splitting hairs. It would be interesting to know where you're going with this. Is the assumption that there isn't enough to create these jobs? If that's the case, let's talk about how we create jobs. The particular table was told that we'd already advertised sales in the Kingcome. So if the member is suggesting that we're misleading or whatever, fine, but this tedious cross-examination. . . . I'm prepared to develop information for you, provided it's taken in the context and used to get to some point. This is exactly what's taken the time. At this rate you suggest you want two months of time, and I suggest to you that we can get to the point. Let's do that.

K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, it has come to my attention that there are not enough members in this House to constitute a quorum, so we would request that you remedy that, please.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Chair: Hon. members, there now being a quorum, we can proceed.

The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members, please.

I recognize the opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I move that the amount allocated in the 1997-98 estimates to the office of the Minister of Forests be reduced by $1.

[ Page 5382 ]

The Chair: I will read the motion.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, a motion has been presented. I will read it, and then I will call the vote: "That the amount allocated in the 1997-98 estimates to the office of the Minister of Forests, $433,000, be reduced by $1."

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 30
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Plant
Sanders	de Jong	Coell
Anderson	Nebbeling	Whittred
van Dongen	Thorpe	Penner
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Symons	Hawkins
Abbott	Jarvis	Weisbeck
Chong	Coleman	Nettleton
Masi	Krueger	Barisoff
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

T. Nebbeling: We are back to where we were before this little interlude.

My question to the minister was quite simple, and he didn't give me an answer. What he did was start to go sideways, and that's fine with me. I've tried from the moment we started this morning to be short in my questioning to show that we can do that, if indeed the other side cooperates with the answers. However, again we get into the same situation, where I ask a very straightforward question. The minister starts giving an answer that has nothing to do with the question, but tries to put some statements onto the record that I have to respond to.

When the minister said that it was not clear where I was going to go with this, and if I'm trying to nitpick and be difficult, then he was not responding to the question I asked him. So I'm not going to walk into the trap this time, but if the minister wants long questions and long answers to make sure that I cover everything the minister says before he comes to the point -- that he answers the questions and answers the questions correctly -- then it will be so.

So I will do it one more time. Can the minister answer the question I asked him in the first place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've been doing my best for 30 to 40 hours to answer your questions directly. Yes, I do appreciate that they're short. Would you mind telling me which question you want answered now?

T. Nebbeling: The last one.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered that question.

[10:30]

At the time, according to the minister, that one million cubic metres of the 3.1 million was already in the tender system and was being evaluated for being honoured as bids, why is it that on April 22 the stakeholders were still being presented with numbers that reflected a much higher inventory -- being 3.1 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I assume you mean 3.1 million cubic metres.

At the point that the paper was presented, approximately 900,000 were in the process of being advertised at one stage or another. These things are never static. I've tried to make that point to the member. The paper was sent out a little bit ahead of time, so there is no exact cutoff. We were expressing an order of magnitude of undercut, which was three million, and 900,000 of that was in the process of being advertised. The residual amount that was therefore left was in the order of two million.

T. Nebbeling: I made that calculation already. If only last night, when we talked about the inventory of backlog, I had been able to get that number of two million immediately on the floor, then much of what happened last night -- that in part created an excitement in this House that led to us sitting till 3 o'clock in the morning -- could have been avoided by just getting the facts on the table.

Having said that, would the minister be able to give me a rundown of the companies that have indeed been in that process of pursuing timber out of the backlog inventory, and how many bids were actually tendered?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand the question -- what is the process for companies to get access to timber that's offered under the small business program? -- it's through competitive bid.

T. Nebbeling: My question was: if the 900,000 cubic metres that the minister was talking about was in the process of being tendered, what kind of tenders were out there? How many tenders or how many sales were estimated? If, indeed, these bids have been honoured, where were they honoured?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just remind the member that this is how we get into tedium. There is a complex process. There are 

[ Page 5383 ]

43 districts. On which day were which sales in which stage of the process? It doesn't run the same on a clock. There are 43 districts that have different demands, different needs, different availability of timber, and they're in different stages of the planning process. So I'll go back at this time, and if you really want us to spend taxpayers' dollars to find out exactly where sales were in the process on April 22, we're happy to do that.

Suffice it to say that what we really should be debating is whether or not we are going to create jobs with the small business undercut. Can we do it? I really think this is how we got into the jam, how we're going beyond 40 hours.

I gave you an answer, saying that there were some sales that were in the process of being advertised, and if you want to know which sales were available, we'll try to get that information for you. We don't carry that; we have to go back to the districts. I've said that before to the member for Cariboo North: for how much was undersold in each district and how much has gone back, we have to go through a very laborious process. I would suggest it's better that we allow our officials to get the undercut out and sold, rather than spend time coming up with numbers that probably don't mean anything.

T. Nebbeling: It's okay with me if the minister wants to go this route. I have no problem coming back to the same question time after time after time. It's very simple, and the officials are here.

In the last two months, out of that 3.1 million cubic metres of inventory, 900,000 has gone. That leaves us with 2.2 million -- and it may be 2.1; I don't want to be picky on the number. But it's there. And I'm just asking: in the last two months, how many sales were made to create the sale of 900,000 cubic metres? Now, if that is a problem for the ministry, then maybe I begin to identify. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, that's exactly what I asked for. That was the very first question: how many sales were made to create these sales in the last two months? If that is a problem for the minister and for the officials, then maybe I'm tapping into one of the real problems of how the small business forest enterprise program has been run. I think that the people in that industry are looking for transparency, and if these 900,000 are sold and the minister doesn't know it and his staff doesn't know it, how do people in the industry know if these bids are indeed done or not?

That then leads to the question: are these tenders honoured on the basis of "Will it create new jobs?" or "Are existing operations just getting more timber?" I mean, these are straightforward questions, and a straightforward answer would have already brought us into the next stage of the estimates. But as long as the minister is trying to give swings to this and twists to this and trying to pretend that I'm responsible for the lengthy debate on the Forests estimates, I'm very sorry. Go through the Hansard, and you will see that what I asked for in the first place took maybe 30 minutes, 45 minutes to get to. So if we could avoid that, then we would have no problem here whatsoever. If the minister can answer the question straightforwardly, then it is on record.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just remind the member that the commitment that we've made is to deal with the backlog over the term of the accord, and we've started. We actually started dealing with the backlog before we had the accord signed off -- but after the Premier announced that he wanted to negotiate the accord.

If you're asking about the three sales that we spoke about here -- two in the Kingcome and one in Prince George -- they have been awarded. But that wasn't your question. You asked: "What's the process?" So I told you what the process is. You didn't say: "What's the outcome of the process?" So I'd suggest that you use the English language properly to ask a precise question, and I will give you as precise an answer as I can give you. With respect to the Prince George sale, which is the other one I spoke of, it hasn't been awarded yet. You shrug your shoulders, but if you read Hansard, I mentioned Kingcome and Prince George.

T. Nebbeling: I'm really in a dilemma here. I came in this morning to try to move forward. Every answer I require the minister has countered with a little diversion, trying to make me look bad or not able to use the English language as it should be used. My question was not to express or explain the process. My question was: how much time does it take to go through the process, from calling for tenders to honouring the bids? The minister gave that answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered the question, "How much time does it take?"

T. Nebbeling: I'm happy the minister recognizes that, because that was the only question I asked. Since then -- 10, 15 minutes ago -- the minister has been going around not dealing with it. Now we know how long it takes; the minister told me. Fine. Now we know where the bids were going -- Kingcome and Prince George. I didn't know that. Does that make up the total 900,000 cubic metres that has now been allocated under the bid system?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Kingcome sale was done earlier, and it precedes the three million. After we identified the three million, we offered 900,000 in the Prince George sale, and that left 2.1 million. So we rounded it to three million that was left; we subtracted 900,000; that leaves 2.1 million. The way we will deal with the 2.1 million -- which has been rounded to two million for ease of communication -- is that it will be decided in each district after the situation has been evaluated. Over the life of the accord the 2.1 million will be sold, depending on the need and demand of the small business program in each district.

T. Nebbeling: We're moving forward. If I got that correctly, the Kingcome sale was not part of that original 3.1 million cubic metre inventory. A number of times today the minister has said that Kingcome was originally part of it. That's why I wanted to get clarification as to exactly what is happening. So Kingcome was not part of it. The minister says, then, that Prince George was the only sale that made up that 900,000-cubic-metre sale done recently.

Can the minister tell me: are the 900,000 cubic metres that were sold to Prince George going to create new jobs, or are they just going to be handed to companies that are already in the forest? How are we assured that indeed the new jobs and timber accord requirements apply to these 900,000 cubic metres?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We won't know the answer to that question until we know who bids. If it's a company that already had another source of timber and this is a substitute, 

[ Page 5384 ]

there will be no new jobs; jobs will be maintained. The timber they were using would still be available in an allocation and then would be advertised. This is incremental new wood.

Suffice it to say that when you put additional wood on the market, you create additional jobs. When we talk about backlog, it's timber that was not previously sold, so the total amount being sold is more than it was before. We can't tell until we find out who bids. That's why I've said repeatedly that sometimes you save jobs and sometimes you create jobs. Sometimes you lose them, but in net we intend to increase the number of jobs by selling more fibre.

T. Nebbeling: That's why earlier on I made the point that we need transparency in how these transactions take place, so not only can we here in Victoria see what's happening with the timber and how that timber is going to be part of creating these 21,000 new jobs, but also the people working in the industry, who will want to make sure that that objective is going to be met, can see it. If that timber is sold under the condition of new jobs, then it had better create new jobs.

[10:45]

Having said that, I will go on to another area that is of major importance in developing the forest industry. I don't know if the minister wants to respond to what I've said, to conclude the small business forest enterprise program.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I encourage you to use some precision, because it helps me be precise. You said: "Has the 900,000 been allocated?" I could give you an answer of, "Yes, it's been allocated," if by allocated you mean that it's been apportioned. If the question is, "Has it been awarded?" the answer is no, and I've answered that question.

T. Nebbeling: That is exactly what I wanted to hear. It has been allocated, but it will still be split up into smaller portions. I hope there is transparency in the ministry so that people can see where that wood is going to go and if indeed it is going to achieve the objectives that the minister, in his jobs and timber accord, announced is the reason for the disbursement of that timber.

Like I said, I want to move on. The minister keeps coming back to it, unfortunately. I would like to talk about the timber supply review system, the whole process, and again, the objectives that the timber supply review will lead to. I don't know if the minister needs anybody else here. You do?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will call for the appropriate officials. If you wish to ask general questions, we'll be happy to answer them.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, as long as asking some general questions is not going to be seen as an attempt by me to delay the process, which I'm getting accused of time after time after time. I certainly have some very pointed questions.

While we wait for the officials to arrive, maybe the minister can give me some general background: how the annual allowable cut objectives were created, not in the last couple of years but starting some time ago, and how the approach towards controlling the yield of timber on a given piece of land in a given area has already shown some improvements in obtaining that goal of sustainability in the forest.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If there's a general goal of sustainability, then the timber supply review has been examining, through its analyses, how much timber is available, how much is in each age class, and how much is available given current of timber management practices. The goal of sustainability is being approached. Progress is being shown on it in that the chief forester, where he has additional supply that hasn't been harvested, has made that available in his determinations. Where there has been overcutting and the rate is therefore unsustainable, he has taken steps to gradually reduce it. He takes different steps at different times.

There have been some timber suppliers who have been reduced by a third and may need further reductions. But through the first series of timber supply reviews that has taken place, the net result is a less than 1 percent change. So by adding to the areas of harvestability and operability and by bringing in some new timber types, particularly deciduous, he's been able to maintain or increase the cut in some other areas.

T. Nebbeling: Is the official now here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not yet.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe we can have a couple of minutes' recess, because the way the minister is now giving answers is really getting me into more detail. If the Chair doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then hopefully the minister can give me the information I need to assess if indeed the timber supply review is not only effective but also respects some of the areas that need consideration: the socioeconomic impact of the decisions; how the chief forester, when he looks at an area, incorporates other restrictive measures that apply to a certain land lease; how that is going to be evaluated and how that is going to be incorporated. Or is it incorporated? There are so many questions that go into detail that I'm sure the minister wants to have his experts at his side. But if the Chair prefers me to carry on, then I can do that, as well.

Can the minister maybe start off by telling me how many areas there are that have been subject to the AAC overview, be it districts or be it tree farm licences?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's 37 timber supply areas and 34 tree farm licences.

T. Nebbeling: When was the first round of the annual allowable cuts review initiated?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Tree farm licences had been reviewed every five years for some time. The TSAs started in 1992 and ended on December 19, 1996. He met his mandate under the Forest Act by releasing the final allowable annual cut determination under the first round of the timber supply review.

T. Nebbeling: Before the first round of annual allowable cut review, there must have been a system in place that looked at how much a given area could produce without undermining what I believe at that time were considered to be sustain-

[ Page 5385 ]

able numbers. It may not have been correct; hence the start in 1992. What methodology was used prior to the 1992 review to establish what could be happening? That is the question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're unsure what you mean by methodology. Let me say that similar methodologies for determinations were used, although some of the factors and information changed. It was consistent on tree farm licences, meaning a five-year review, and on the timber supply areas it was sporadic at best.

T. Nebbeling: That's one of the things -- the difference between a set target period and a sporadic analysis of an area, obviously part of the methodology -- that I was looking for.

Prior to 1992, obviously there had been assessments done in certain areas that led the ministry to reduce certain district areas or certain timber supply areas and no doubt certain tree farm licence areas as well. The impact of the cuts prior to 1992 when the chief forester started his very well-modelled analysis for the province as a whole. . . . How was the impact on the social and economic situations of communities that relied on jobs from these areas incorporated into the '92 to '96 analysis? Or was there any consideration?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From '92 on, the socioeconomic analysis was a technical document that examined employment, government revenue, and forest industry, community and broad environmental implications of different harvest levels.

T. Nebbeling: These are still general questions. Is the official that we are waiting for now available?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He's on his way.

T. Nebbeling: I hope that my just asking some questions now is not going to be construed again as filibustering, because that's not what I'm doing. But I think the minister needs his official, as he indicated.

In the situation that we just discussed this morning, the Kingcome, for example, had a fair reduction in annual allowable cut dictated by the chief forester. The timber that comes out of the bidding process that has been allocated, for example, to the Kingcome recently: would that be within the AAC, or is that in addition to the AAC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the case of the Kingcome, we're working off undercut that was fully accounted for in the five-year determination that the chief forester made.

T. Nebbeling: That whole region, I believe. . . . Under what region does the Kingcome fall, when I look at the different regions: Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Nelson, Kamloops, Cariboo. . . ?

[11:00]

T. Nebbeling: When the chief forester looks at the amount of timber that can be taken from the lands, how does he assess the amount? Is it so many trees per acre or per hectare? Is there a formula that applies to the province as a whole? Or are there variations from region to region?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The allowable annual cut is a determination, not a calculation. So there's no exact formula that you plug information into and get a number out the other end. The chief forester has to consider a variety of factors, which includes the rate of timber production that may be sustained from the area, taking into account the composition of the forest, the time required to re-establish the forest, silviculture treatments -- including reforestation -- standards of timber utilization, constraints on the amount of timber produced from the area for purposes other than timber production, and any other information that relates to the capability of the area to produce timber. That's all in a public information document that lays out how he makes his determinations. I'd be happy to provide the minister with a copy -- or the member, sorry.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe we have a momentary vision of what happens in the future, when the minister calls me the minister. I'm not looking for a job yet, believe me.

Once the determination has been made, obviously there's the process where the communities get notified. Are there any public meetings in the whole process that allow the communities to look at the reasons the chief forester uses to determine that? We'll get into the reasons later when your expert is in the House. How does the public get proactively informed on what is in the making, as far as the future of the forest in that particular area is concerned?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is usual practice for the chief forester to issue a press release. Before he does that, he will often meet with the stakeholders in the communities and ask representatives to come to a meeting, where he will go through a full explanation of what his determination is.

Leading up to the determination, there is opportunity for public input in writing. It varies as to whether there is a need or not to hold a public meeting. But the public input process is based on the issuance of background information and reports, usually containing a number of options. People can examine the options and send the chief forester comments.

T. Nebbeling: Then when we have a situation. . . . I recall that last year, I think it was, the chief forester had determined the cut in a particular district -- in this case, it was the Fraser timber supply area. After the whole process had taken place and everybody in the district was made aware that there was going to be a reduction, the chief forester revisited that area briefly for whatever reason and came up with a whole new determination that threw all that previous work out the window. He came in with a determination that had much more impact than the one that was first announced.

How is the system working? Once the determination is done for a five-year period, isn't that it, then, for the time, and the next round will be five years later? How is the door opened for the chief forester to change his mind midstream, so to say, if that happened there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester at any time, and certainly during the timber supply determination, can assess the adequacy of the information. In the case of the Fraser, he determined that there was an inadequate quality of the inventory information, and he had more work done. So the most recent information that is available, which is the information report on inventory, will be available when he makes his next determination. He can choose to advance the timing of a determination if he thinks it's important to achieve the goals of sustainability. So he has that freedom to begin another determination if at any point there's new information that comes available.

T. Nebbeling: So if I get the minister right, that means that the certainty that the whole system was supposed to 

[ Page 5386 ]

create by a five-year cycle of review. . . . That whole system is actually not a security blanket at all, to give at least the companies in these timber supply areas a chance to plan for five years, because of what the chief forester has determined to be a viable harvesting level for that area.

So if that situation can just change overnight shortly after the original estimate, what is in place, then, so that these companies still do have a level of certainty that once the chief forester has done his work on an area, has made his determination and has made his announcement -- that is essential -- they know what they can do for the next five years and can plan for it -- and bring some certainty to the communities that rely on the jobs that depend on the determinations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be completely normal to expect it as a usual circumstance, where there is a total inaccuracy because of the lack of attention by a previous government. It's not unusual that to get a handle on it, more work needs to be done.

The history in the Fraser is that it was done by then-chief forester Cuthbert in '93. It was done again in '95. You have to have a determination to work with what is as accurate as possible. But based on very recent and extensive inventory work, it was decided to start again on August 1, 1996, and to try to get to resolution by June 3, 1998. So from '93 to '98 you would have had one more in between. That reflected the information he had at the time. But the responsible thing to do is to get the work. It's not possible and wasn't possible in the first five years to have all the inventory data they needed to have. He had to be sure, so that if there are impacts from reductions, they are only what they have to be and do not hurt long-term sustainability

So I think, on the whole, the system is providing much more certainty than we had before. I think there will be even more certainty after the second series, because it will incorporate more decisions, more information.

T. Nebbeling: Before I go on, can the minister explain what he meant by previous governments? Is he talking about the previous government of '91 to '96? Or is he talking about governments before this government became government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm talking about the Social Credit government that, in my view, neglected timber supply reviews and led to a lot of the uncertainty. It was our government that brought in a regular timber supply review of the timber supply areas. That will lead, and has led, to more certainty.

T. Nebbeling: I don't understand that comment, because we are talking about the first five-year timber supply review period. In that period indeed there was a different chief forester, Cuthbert. Since 1992 this process has been underway. The evaluations, I believe, that have to be used to consider what's happening in the forest are the evaluations of the information that was available from the last six years, which was this government's term.

Why I'm concerned about trying to go back again to the Socred period in the eighties. . . . That really has very little to do with it, because they didn't use this system. They didn't use the data that was collected by this government in the nineties.

That's why I'm saying that if we are talking about an annual allowable cut review that is based on a five-year period in order to give companies certainty that once the review is over and done with and the chief forester has indeed made his determinations and his decision, the companies can say: "Okay, we can now put in a five-year harvesting plan based on that information." If the chief forester comes forward with a determination and then changes the conditions of the cut within a year, that will obviously have an impact on companies, communities and community members. Blaming the Socreds is something that worked for a couple of years, but we're now dealing with a government that is in its second term, in its sixth year of government, and within that six years, a five-year determination did happen.

I just happened to mention the Fraser while we were waiting for the expert to come in. There was a situation where, once the determination happened, it changed again within a year. It was based, as the minister just said, on the quality of timber. Why was that quality of timber not established in the five-year period that made the chief forester reduce the annual allowable cut in the first place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't want to be oversimplistic, but you don't arrive in 1991 and have perfect information. It's a rolling series of analyses. There's only so much staff to do so much work. The history there is simply that in the normal course of events, '93 was one of the first determinations that was made. It was asked for because they knew it was one of the areas that had to be dealt with. It was a high priority.

Based on the information collected and assessed over two years -- which isn't a long period of time to get adequate inventory information -- there was a determination made. That was in '93. It was known at the time that there were some inadequacies, so more data were collected, and when in '95 a second determination was made, the chief forester still was not happy with the amount of inventory and asked that more be done. Then in '96 the inventory concluded.

There had been two years. After the '93 determination, when it was known that there were some problems with the inventory data, an analysis was started. It took about two years -- it started in '94 and ended in '96 -- and when that information was made available, the chief forester decided he had better do yet another determination to get certainty. He started that in August '96 and is hurrying that through. He will have a determination finished according to schedule, if he can stay on schedule, by June 3, 1998.

T. Nebbeling: We may come back to this one a little later, when we look at the various regions. What I would now like to ask the minister is: once the total review took place and all the timber supply areas and tree farm licence areas were given a determination of what could happen on these lands, which area became the one that had the most impact from the determination? By impact, I don't mean the increase in timber, but areas that had the highest amount of timber removed from a particular region.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Vancouver region had the largest. It was a negative -- minus 6.3 percent. . . . Pardon me, it had 6.3 percent. It was the largest in terms of actual volume, but not as large in percentage as the Nelson region, which was a negative -- minus 9.3 percent.

[11:15]

[ Page 5387 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Prince Rupert, up 1.4 percent; Prince George, up 5.6 percent; Kamloops, up 6.3 percent; and Cariboo, down, minus 0.4 percent; for an overall total in British Columbia of minus 0.5 percent.

T. Nebbeling: When these announcements are made, I have heard that the chief forester goes into the areas once they've done the work and comes up with certain announcements to the community that they can look forward to a reduction or an increase. Once these announcements are made -- and that is through the district managers, I take it -- how are the communities being tested, if that's the right word? How is the analysis done to see what the job impact of these determinations actually is in all these regions? I understand that when there is an up, there may be more jobs available than when there's a down. Who does the job determination? Is it based on the ratio that we talked about before -- the thousand cubic metres -- or are there other factors?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two parts to the process. When the timber supply review is done, there's an economic analysis of the various scenarios. One scenario or some variation on a scenario is then usually picked by the chief forester. When the determination is made, as I've said earlier, there's usually a meeting with stakeholders. As a rule, the district manager meets with stakeholders in the area, usually involving community leaders but including a broad group of stakeholders, and he explains the determination and the impacts. It is generally in the form of so many cubic metres equalling so many jobs and so much revenue, etc.

T. Nebbeling: To make sure I understand, in the package of deliberation in every area that has been analyzed, there has been a socioeconomic study done parallel with an assessment of the timber available in that area.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it's a good time for me to get into the debate and discussion on forestry issues, particularly in the constituency of Mission-Kent. It is affected by the timber supply review in the Fraser and the certainty that happens on a year-by-year basis when government enters into a policy and an initiative that in fact would determine for a period of time in the future what the resource base is for the operators to count on.

On weekends and whenever I can get out, I spend a great deal of my time working with the operators, the mill owners -- large and smaller -- the contract loggers and the silviculture contractors at work within our area. Mission, having had a tree farm licence since 1952, was the first community in the province to have a tree farm licence with an annual allowable cut of 46,000 cubic metres. That cut is made up of about 43,000 coniferous and about 3,000 to 4,000 deciduous trees. I want to focus on the value of reviewing the timber supply in given areas, focusing on the work around hardwoods and deciduous trees.

I just recently toured a mill in Fort Langley that concentrates solely on cutting deciduous trees, primarily maple and alder, for the export market. The maple is cut for instrument manufacturing. This operation is an aboriginal partnership with a mill owner, and they have carved out a very tight, very profitable niche in this part of the forest industry that hasn't ever really been focused on in B.C. in the past, other than in a sporadic manner.

It throws a fairly bright spotlight on a particular sector within the forest industry that will allow some growth and some job creation. We can only move forward in this manner, with a focus on deciduous, when we understand and review exactly the volume, the inventory of trees and what the wood basket looks like in these areas where we grow substantial stands of alder and maple. It's an undervalued species, in my opinion. I believe it has historically been pushed aside as a weed tree and used to heat the homes, cottages and chalets of those folks that still view an alder stand or maple or birch in the manner of a weed or a throwaway tree.

But in my area we have a number of operators who are coveting the deciduous tree for dimensional lumber, for furniture, for instruments and for a very high value-added use of this wood. I would like some assurances, actually, from my colleague the Minister of Forests that as we move forward in our extended use of the forests available to us and as we are moved to achieve more jobs from every cubic metre, we won't leave the deciduous cutters behind -- that we will evaluate them for their worth within the overall forest industry and the value they bring to communities when they bring on many new, high-paid jobs and a very good export product. If I could have my colleague address that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To start with the question from the member opposite, he asked about whether an economic analysis is done for every area. We do it for each timber supply area. The tree farm licences are responsible for doing their own analyses. They don't do the socioeconomic analysis to the same detail as the government does on the timber supply areas.

In response to my colleague on this side of the House, I can give him assurances that we are interested. Deciduous are not forgotten species. We recently awarded four deciduous licences. In fact, he may know that there are pulpwood agreements in the northeast that in time may be considered as part of the managed yield. But I think that more and more, as the timber supply shrinks, we certainly have to look at deciduous as one way to mitigate the effects of reductions in particular.

The Chair: The member continues.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the words of the. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I think I should reintroduce you as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: For the record. [Applause.] It's overwhelming -- the standing ovations I receive in this House. Thank you to the hon. member.

Actually, it's interesting that the member for Mission-Kent brought up the whole deciduous tree situation and how it already has an impact on the existing annual allowable cut in this province. I am actually quite happy that the member talks about the values that are derived or that can potentially be derived from deciduous trees. They have in the past been labelled a low-value tree and, for that reason, as not producing the wealth that a tree that produces a sawlog does.

I, like the member opposite, also believe that deciduous trees have a future here and that there has to be more emphasis on almost farming these types of trees. They don't take the growth period, and there are many opportunities to create jobs by using these types of trees. So I'm happy with this part of the debate, and I will come back to that a little later as well. But can the minister maybe tell me that he recognizes that to label deciduous trees low-income producers, low-value trees, is maybe not the right way for the forest industry to look at that type of tree?

[ Page 5388 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The stumpage is a 50 cent minimum across the province for deciduous, and you might conclude it's therefore of low value in terms of a return to the Crown. As competition develops for it, it could be that the price will go up as people are prepared to pay more for it.

T. Nebbeling: Are there any plans within the ministry to entice rangeland holders, for example -- the land that is not being used for range any longer -- to start looking at planting that type of tree and having long-term yields in the form of deciduous tree farms?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is interest and there is some examination of marginal farmlands being planted back, but not specifically to poplar. But there has recently, last year, been a determination that poplar is an agricultural crop, so it can be assessed as farmland. It's fast-growing, and, rather than a long rotation, it's a very short rotation, more akin to farming. FRBC is considering a private land program and is in discussions with the forest land reserve and other parties about that. But it's a long way from any conclusion.

T. Nebbeling: What would the percentage of deciduous trees be today in the total allowable cut of the province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The total deciduous is now 3,144,760. It's gone up 34 percent during the period of timber supply review. That's 3.14 million over 70.8 million, so it's roughly 4 or 4.5 percent.

[11:30]

So I think it is an important component, and it actually causes me to have another question. Some of the districts that you named earlier, like Prince George and Prince Rupert, were actually up in their allowable cut. Do these areas have deciduous trees that are actually part of the cut allowed, which are thereby replacing or increasing the allowable cut? That may not be needed with what we would think would traditionally be the case, and that is the better-type logs like sawlogs. Can the minister give me a rundown of where these 3.14 million cubic metres are coming from?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These were all reports published; this has all been public information. I'm reiterating: these are in the reports that the chief forester issued. I'm reiterating what is already on the public record. For the sake of debate, in the case of Prince George, the AAC has gone up 5.6 percent, but the conventional harvest has gone down 0.3 percent, whereas the deciduous has gone up 31.9 percent.

In the case of the Cariboo, the conventional has gone down 1.1 percent, and the deciduous has gone down 46.7 percent. I'm told that in one of the units there, it's become part of the conventional cut because, I believe, its OSB is established as a conventional use now. So as deciduous becomes conventional, it becomes part of the conventional cut.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I'm pursuing this a little bit longer than the minister may like me to is that I was talking about the socioeconomic impact of the determinations made by the chief forester. Because of the little interlude by the member for Mission-Kent, focusing on the deciduous trees and what they can in the long term provide in opportunities. . . . At this stage, I believe that the jobs related to deciduous trees are considerably lower in number than the jobs related to the coniferous trees. So the better types of trees that produce log-tree opportunities. . . .

From a socioeconomic perspective, there's obviously a link here, and there must be a consideration. That's why earlier on I asked the minister: when the chief forester makes his determination, when the numbers are set by the chief forester, are all these components included in how much timber can be taken out of an area? I think the socioeconomic impact has so often been ignored when we determine government initiatives. Very little consideration was given at the time we talked about the protected-areas strategy. There was practically no socioeconomic consideration given at the time we started to talk about the spotted owl. These are all elements that have an impact on the people living in these areas where the chief forester comes in, as well.

But what I actually want to find out from the minister -- and there may be a public document available, but I haven't got it -- is that when the environmental organizations talk about protection of land for what they believe to be the right agenda, often the statement is made: "Well, we are there to fight for the species, or we are there to fight for the forest; we are not here to fight for the loggers or for the families behind the loggers." That has always been a considerable hurdle for me to overcome: to find sympathy with the environmental movement when they make that statement. I think that whatever we do in the forest, the people that have traditionally been living off that forest through jobs and other activities have to be part of the consideration.

Does the chief forester, when he looks at all the elements, include the socioeconomic values that the reduction or the increase will represent, based on data that is already available? And can he be persuaded, for example, to allow a higher cut if he goes with what he or she may think is needed? That will indeed have very serious consequences as far as the people living and working in the forest-dependent communities are concerned.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester takes that very much into account, and that's why he wanted better inventory information in the Fraser -- because the indications were that there was going to be a drastic reduction, in order to not impair the long-term future of the communities. So the chief forester considers the impact. As long as he isn't significantly impairing the long-term productivity of the forest to produce future forests and sustainable levels of cut, then he can step down the cut accordingly. So he is under instruction to take into account the social and economic views of the province -- which are stable communities.

By inference, we don't want drastic adjustments that communities can't absorb. We know they are changing all the time and have, with technical change and so on. . . . And in order to mitigate it, the chief forester will look at everything, from bringing previously inoperable land in or previous species that were not economic to bringing anything in to help mitigate the socioeconomic effects of changes to the cut levels.

[ Page 5389 ]

T. Nebbeling: Clearly I'm very happy to hear that. I think, as I stated before, that the well-being of the people that depend on income from the forest has not been given much consideration in other areas.

Can the minister, then, with the help of his helper. . . ? I don't know the role of the individual. He hasn't been introduced, but he is knowledgable about the timber supply review. The chief forester makes a decision that: "Okay, in order to achieve my objectives, considering the quality of wood, the amount of timber on a hectare, here is the number that I think can be taken out of that area without losing the sustainable objective." Now, if that determination is made, only then can the chief forester look at the socioeconomic impact of that decision. It may cost 100 jobs, it may cost 300 jobs, or it may cost 50 jobs. I'm not naming a number as a firm thing. Then, I take it, the chief forester revisits the decision that he made. How does the process work so that when he ultimately makes a decision, with this consideration, he still keeps his sustainable objectives in mind?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester looks at the various impacts as he's doing his analysis, and when he makes the determination, he has considered the economic impacts. In terms of explaining the impacts, when the district manager makes his reporting out to the community of the documentation of the decision, quite often economic expertise is there to assist the community to understand what the impacts might be.

I apologize; I've been remiss in not introducing some of the officials that are here. On this topic, we have Gary Townsend, who is the director of the timber supply branch, and Bob Friesen, the executive director of operations. We have had with us Messrs. Allan, the deputy minister, and Powell, the ADM of human resources and finance.

T. Nebbeling: He forgets the best man in the back, who has been sitting there faithfully supplying information and being a bit of a gofer. He's really been doing more work than we have been doing together. I have noticed you, in case the minister hasn't. I appreciate you coming to the rescue by getting the information we need.

Thanks to the minister for giving me a bit of an explanation. What I would like to spend a little bit of time on -- not much -- is that socioeconomic study. Is it done by outside consultants? Is it done on a regional basis? Is it done town by town? The reason I'm asking this is that in the Soo TSA -- I'm getting away from the Fraser TSA; I'm going to the next one -- and in tree farm licence 38 there are tremendous changes happening, not unlike the Fraser, as well.

There are many elements involved today in determining how much timber can come out of the timber supply and the tree farm licence areas. There is one thing that I have missed very much, and so have the people of the communities that rely on that timber supply area, such as Squamish, Pemberton, Birken, D'Arcy, Devine -- I'm sure I'm forgetting some other ones as well -- and Britannia. These communities are extremely dissatisfied about having their life consequences related to the annual allowable cuts not being totally analyzed. From time to time small studies were done, and a quick number was pulled out of a hat, often very much unrelated to what really was happening.

In spite of the good intentions that the chief forester has had in the past -- and prior to Mr. Pedersen, the chief forester Cuthbert -- there have been dramatic losses in these communities, in part because of other initiatives and other considerations that were given to these forests, such as the protected-areas strategy, the spotted owl and the Forest Practices Code. All these elements combined to reduce enormous amounts of timber from these tree farm licences and from the timber supply area.

Can the minister give me a bit of a rundown on how he believes these concerns that I just expressed impact on non-chief forester-dictated reductions, and how that is being dealt with? I have not been able to see a real solution to how that impact has been analyzed and how it has been dealt with.

[11:45]

I think the member is getting at a very localized development of impacts. As I said, the impact analyses have been done on a timber supply area-wide basis. The impacts will often depend on what's done to mitigate it. Timber may move within the timber supply area, and a company may have ways of dealing with its community -- indeed, through its economic planning.

You have to consider that this is an imprecise art, that the creation of protected areas and maintaining good recreation areas through land use planning can have an economic up side. But the biggest devastating effect on communities has been overcutting, where we haven't got on top and adjusted the cuts to a sustainable level. I would suggest that there are devastating impacts that would happen and can happen if our land use practices don't meet the standard of people who are purchasing products. You have to look at how bad the potential impact is if we don't get on top of a more integrated view of managing the forest, and we feel we've done that.

Yes, we are unhappy. Whenever there's a reduction in economic activity for whatever reason, we're unhappy -- whether it's through agriculture or tech change or timber supply analysis. For whatever reason, it's unfortunate; we recognize that. That is the whole purpose of stimulating local economic development.

What is done with the determination is that any community can take it, see for themselves what it means. The chambers of commerce, the city council, the district forest office can look at it. Everybody has a responsibility to pull together in order to mitigate effects.

T. Nebbeling: I know that I went a little bit more local than the minister would like me to go, but then again, the member for Mission-Kent went very local when he expressed his support for deciduous trees and the opportunities that they, in the long run, may create to secure some jobs that otherwise would be lost because of other activities that are happening in the forest. What I was really trying to find out was how the chief forester works the formula. Once he has done his own homework and determined the need for a reduction, then and only then can the chief forester decide what other remedial steps have to be taken to avoid the job losses that would automatically happen if the only determination was the sustainability of the forest.

There must be a second process, then, within the ministry, within the chief forester's office, that says, for example: "Okay, here we have a growth site of 60 years. If we save so much annually, then we can have trees in perpetuity in that area." 

[ Page 5390 ]

Now, if you cannot reach that level of cut because of the other factors that we have discussed, then what kind of manoeuvring, what kind of elements are brought into the formula to still have the sustainable objective in mind and in place, but at the same time take care of the other needs and the other values as well?

Maybe the minister can give me a bit of a rundown, with the help of the assistant, to give me a feeling for how indeed that certainty for the people working in the forest is being achieved. It's not by just saying: "Well, this year we do a 12 percent reduction, and maybe next year or in five years from now we do another ten." There must be something in the formula to determine if indeed the other values are being considered. There must be something in the formula that maybe allows the chief forester leeway. I don't know. There must be something in the formula to say: "Okay, we cannot do exactly what we should do if the only value was the timber and its sustainability; but the other considerations are there, and here are some of the steps we can take." That's what I would like.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When it comes to making the determination, it's governed by the Forest Act. It's not a calculation; therefore there is no formula. There may be a formula for growth and yield of a particular species. Definitely there are maps and definitely there are assessments.

Under section 8(7) of the Forest Act, the chief forester has to look at a number of things: the rate of timber production, sustainability. . . . That wasn't what you were asking about. In addition, he has to look at the short- and long-term implications to the province of alternative rates of timber harvesting from an area. He has to also look at -- this is subsection (d) of section 8(7) -- the economic and social objectives of the Crown for the area, the region and the province, as expressed by the Minister of Forests. He has to take in other things: the abnormal insect or disease infestations in an area and salvage programs. So he has to take into account all those things when he makes his determination. It is a blend of science and art; it really is.

T. Nebbeling: The minister is actually getting into the area that I was going to go into myself -- that is, when there are certain harvesting needs not necessarily because of the healthiness of the timber but because, for example, a serious beetle infestation determines that an emergency harvesting plan has to be incorporated in a particular area to get rid of that infested timber. How does that work, then, with that AAC? Is that additional, or is that timber that comes out for reasons that are not really determined by the quality of the wood but more by the quality of the environment? Is that going to be on top of it, or is it within the AAC, which would mean that more healthy timber remains? Is that a way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In some cases, the AAC is larger than it normally would be, as in the case of some of the Cariboo TSAs or other areas of the province where there has been beetle infestation and it's epidemic. That's why I said abnormal insect or disease infestations. It could be taken out of the Forest Service reserve, if it's a small amount. If it's a large amount and the long-term productivity of the forest would be affected if it wasn't harvested, then he recommends a higher than normal rate of cut. Bearing in mind that it is additional fibre that then sustains economic activity and it will end inevitably, that will have an impact -- short-term benefits.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report not very much 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. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

V. Anderson: I was wondering if the minister might take a moment and talk about what's happening in the area of multiculturalism within her ministry. The last report that we have is '94-95, and I'm wondering if the minster could give us an update on what's happening at the current time in her ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry has a number of direct activities in support of multiculturalism. The motor vehicle branch provides testing in four languages and can provide translators if required -- although not for the heavy industry, the trucking industry, as you know. We have been ensuring that public consultation takes into account the various ethnic communities that would come under the scope of a project. As well, our communications staff, especially those in the lower mainland, have been active in ensuring contact with the ethnic media.

V. Anderson: Does the minister currently have training programs for staff in multicultural awareness and competence?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we do have some of those orientation sessions taking place.

V. Anderson: Are you able to give me a brief outline of what those programs are and how extensive they are within the staff training?

Hon. L. Boone: There have been a variety of sessions that have taken place in the past few years in the ministry. 

[ Page 5391 ]

For example, some of the district staff have brought in the aboriginal community to make staff aware of their concerns and to develop some sensitivities around their issues. There has been training, and there will be some training coming up, in sensitivities on diversities and diversification, and understanding of the problems of various ethnic communities and new people who come to Canada who have some language difficulties. In the motor vehicle branch there has been some training to assist people in understanding their cultures and, again, to assist them with language problems they may have in terms of doing the test.

[10:15]

Hon. L. Boone: We have a multiculturalism action plan and we'll give you a copy of that.

V. Anderson: Does your ministry have a representative on the multicultural advisory committee, the Interministerial Committee on Multiculturalism, and who might that be at this point?

Hon. L. Boone: Har is the representative on the employment equity committee, but we do not have a representative on the other committee you spoke of.

V. Anderson: That surprises me. Might I ask why there is not a representative on that committee, since it is one of the requirements of the Multiculturalism Act that each group be represented on the advisory committee? I know they meet regularly, every few months. So I'm surprised and I wonder why you may not be represented.

Hon. L. Boone: The requirement of the Multiculturalism Act is to have an internal committee, and we have an internal committee, but we are not part of a governmentwide committee.

V. Anderson: I'll be interested to follow up on that, because that's certainly not my understanding. I know all the ministries. . . . It was clearly my understanding that all the ministries were involved. I will follow up with that again.

I'll ask my other question now -- until we see whether we're adjourning or not. Is the minister aware of and is the ministry using the multicultural, multifaith calendar?

The Chair: Excuse me, members. That was a quorum call in the House for those that are interested.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the multifaith calendar and if it is used within the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that calendar has been distributed throughout the ministry.

V. Anderson: Those were my questions. No, I would like to ask. . . . In the report of 1994-95, the statistics were given as to the percentage of various groupings that were represented: women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. I've been wondering if there has been any change in those percentages since 1994-95. Could you give us the current representation?

Hon. L. Boone: The figures in the report you were talking from were based on a governmentwide survey, and there hasn't been a governmentwide survey since that time. I guess we don't have accurate percentages, because in the past year we've done some downsizing and that has adjusted a lot of the percentages. We are striving, of course, to continue to get representation from ethnic and minority groups and from women. We continue to improve our upper management abilities for women and ethnic groups, but we don't have the percentages available right now.

The Chair: Members, there's a division in Committee B, so we'll reconvene immediately following that division.

The committee recessed from 10:21 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: I wonder if the ministry might be willing to give me a copy of their multicultural plan for this coming year.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we will.

V. Anderson: I'd like to commend the minister and thank her for her concern and present her with a copy of the multifaith calendar, so that she can make sure that they don't infringe any of the special days of the multicultural and multi-ethnic communities.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you.

B. Barisoff: Just a question that was brought to my attention this morning regarding Highway 20, the Bella Coola Highway. Apparently just before where the highway crosses the Fraser, a stretch of shoulder has fallen away. The highway is only one way, and repairs haven't been finished. I'm just wondering when the road repairs can be finished. I understand that it's in Mr. Zirnhelt's riding -- he's quite tied up with. . . . We're just trying to help him out in his riding to make sure that things are going, because he'll be tied up for a while yet.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I thank you for your concern, and I'm sure Minister Zirnhelt thanks you for the concern, as well. We are starting immediately on repairs to that road, and they will be finished just as soon as they can.

B. Barisoff: Speaking of this twigged my memory of one that happens to be in the member for Yale-Lillooet's riding. On the stretch of road between Princeton and Coalmont, the whole road caved in there. I'm just wondering what the status of that is. It's been quite a. . . . I've actually had a number of calls that came to my riding, wondering what was happening with the safety of the school buses that travel from Coalmont to Princeton and back.

Hon. L. Boone: Current flooding and the high water table is just subsiding, but that's made it difficult for us to get solutions there. We are proceeding with geotechnical design, and work is in progress. We are continuing to monitor it, and we will be repairing it as soon as it's practical.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's not the only section of the road. There's a huge section, too, just as you come out of Princeton 

[ Page 5392 ]

on Highway 3A where it looks like the whole section has fallen down towards the river. We're down to three, I think. There's two on one side and one on the other, but it keeps moving across. I wonder what the status of that is.

Hon. L. Boone: The same status as the other one. I think it's fair to say that we've got a number of different areas in the province -- in the Kootenays, up around Quesnel and close to my area there. . . . Due to the heavy snow we had last winter and the wet spring, we've had a lot of damage done by slides. Mother Nature has not been very kind to us this year, unfortunately, so we're doing what we can. Hopefully, she will look more favourably on us next year.

B. Barisoff: I know that I brought this up in TFA, the section of road between Midway and Greenwood. I'm just wondering whether that might be. . . . There are some corners there that might be minor projects that could be handled by the ministry rather than handled under TFA.

Hon. L. Boone: No work is planned for that area this year.

B. Barisoff: I know that no work is planned, but it is a real concern, particularly to the loggers that work in the Midway mill and travel that road day and night. There are some really vicious corners on there, and a lot of people have lost their lives. So if the minister could make an undertaking to have a good look at that section of road, it would be well appreciated.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll make that undertaking.

D. Symons: Just a few very quick questions. The minister may remember that I wrote her back in April of this year regarding the inland ferries and buses. I think it related to a situation that happened in the winter when the Salmo-Creston highway was closed due to snow conditions and a Greyhound bus was attempting to get on the inland ferry. Your response indicated that the basis of loading is simply first-come. I'm wondering if there has been a revision within the ministry or if you're considering revising the policy. The buses and possibly even farm animals, I think, are something other. . . . Often waiting can be very stressful to people, so is there a possibility of revising the policy on that so that things like buses and possibly farm animals get priority?

Hon. L. Boone: The policy deals with emergency vehicles first. If there are some sensitivities around some farm animals, we would consider that. But other than that, we haven't revised the policy. I think the residents there that were in passenger vehicles would be a little upset if they suddenly found themselves pushed down to the end of the line or unable to make a ferry because a bus and some other vehicles were always given priority. There is priority for emergencies, and then we attempt to deal with the sensitivities around animals.

D. Symons: I know that B.C. Ferries does give buses priority, and many are pleased they do, because it's one way of encouraging people to use public transit rather than a single-occupancy vehicle.

Speaking of single-occupancy vehicles, you are opening some HOV lanes around the lower mainland. I think Hastings-Barnet now has the two or more to be eligible for the HOV lane. I'm concerned about Highway 99, and I've asked this question for pretty well the six years I've been asking questions of the Minister of Highways. A few years back, I had a heads-up on an issue where they were going to allow three or more HOV lanes along Highway 99 through Richmond. I found out that the date when that announcement was to be made was postponed. It wasn't made, and eventually a month later, they came out with van pooling being six or more.

I'm wondering why you're saying it's two or more in one place, but on that particular stretch of highway and through Delta you're insisting that it must be a van pooling of six or more. As far as I can see, the reason given in the past was that where they do the merging of the HOV lane into the other, there would be problems because of backup. I've watched the traffic along that particular route, and that backup simply will not happen. Right now, with the van pool, you're lucky to get one vehicle a minute going past you during rush hour. I've stood on the overpass watching the vehicles go underneath, and that lane is virtually empty. And you can see there are a lot of single vehicles in the other lanes. There are people who could access that, and it would be an encouragement to people to look for one or two other people to join them in the car to cut down the vehicles there.

Currently we have a situation where if you're a single occupant in a vehicle, you are not going to be able to find five or six other people to ride with you. You're going to find a lot of difficulty in doing that. But you might find one or two other people at the same job as you are and in the same general district that you can double up with.

While we're at it, there's another issue dealing with HOV lanes through Richmond and elsewhere in the province. There are areas now that allow motorcycles -- it's too bad your member from Alberni isn't here -- to use HOV lanes to move them out of the general run of the traffic, as a safety measure for both the motorcyclist and the automobile user. So I'm wondering if those two things are under consideration and if anything is going to be done about it.

Hon. L. Boone: Motorcycles can use the HOV lanes. That is already within the. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that is already there. The concern we have in expanding it to the lanes there -- in terms of the three-plus vehicles rather than the multi-passenger six-plus -- is, as we've said, narrowing down into the lanes to go through the tunnel. I've always said I'll never say never, so I don't mind looking at it and taking a second look at that.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that. I'm just wondering if we can take a look at the Hastings-Barnet people-moving project, as it was called when it was initiated, and know whether traffic counts were done before and after, and what the difference may be along that particular corridor. How much has that assisted in moving traffic? I know from reports I've had that people are happy; they're now moving much quicker into the Vancouver area than they used to. Some of them cut the time in half to travel from the Port Moody area into Vancouver. Have you done traffic counts as well? So besides things moving faster, are we moving more cars? Has it decreased, because we have the commuter rail that's in a sense competing? Just what has the completion of that particular project done to traffic in that area?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we do have a report on that. HOV travel times have improved by 12.8 minutes. HOV travellers 

[ Page 5393 ]

experience a time savings of 4.3 minutes over general purpose lanes for morning westbound and 2.4 minutes in the afternoon eastbound. General purpose travel times have improved by 8.5 minutes. We have a report that's done and I'd be happy to get that report to you, if you're interested.

D. Symons: Thank you. I'd be interested in that because I think it's one of the things that we look at -- the use of HOV lanes and adding more lanes. What we need is the data to show that that's the way to go to deal with transportation problems in the lower mainland. So I would be very interested in seeing that.

One other thing that was suggested a few years ago -- and I'm just wondering what happened to it -- is the possibility of opening for the lower mainland something called a traffic management centre, where basically you'd be able to monitor very quickly the movement of traffic around the lower mainland. If there was a major accident in a given area and a foul-up there, you could immediately communicate that information through overhead signs, etc., to the various traffic nodes around the city -- to have people adjust their traffic so that they could avoid those areas rather than, as now, waiting for news broadcasts to alert people to it.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not looking at putting in a large centre. We're looking at trying to do some pilots and we are proceeding with the whole program. It's one that I support very highly. I think it's a way that we can try to relieve congestion and make traffic flow more smoothly. So we are working towards that. In some of the construction sites that we've already done, we are putting in the necessary technology. . .we are building that in so that we are prepared to get on with this.

But there are some costs involved here. So we're moving towards it, but it has to be done in a phased-in process because of the costs involved. It's certainly one that we as a ministry support, and as minister, I'm very supportive of it.

D. Symons: Just to continue on, would that include -- as I think the initial proposal did -- video monitoring cameras at various locations in order to feed that into the traffic management centre? They could watch it and then immediately respond to those build-ups or traffic congestions that occur. I don't mean the video monitoring we do for traffic fines and speeding. Is that included?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is, as well as making sure that there's synchronization of lights so that traffic flows faster and people aren't stopped with lights and that.

G. Abbott: I would like to briefly discuss with the Minister of Transportation and Highways an issue which we could characterize, depending on whether we're charitable or uncharitable, as the declassification or downloading of secondary provincial highways.

First of all, I would like to get an update on where that issue sits, as far as the ministry is concerned at this point -- what the status of it is.

Hon. L. Boone: The secondary highway program has been eliminated. That was eliminated in this budget. We're not actually downloading anything, because we were actually assisting municipalities in doing something with their roads. So we are not actually downloading to them; we're just not offering assistance to them. There's nobody that's been left out of this because no grants had been approved to anybody. That has already taken place.

[10:45]

Hon. L. Boone: No. The secondary highways were where we assisted municipalities with incorporation grants to upgrade the secondary roads that were within their jurisdiction. You are talking about the arterial roads. The arterial roads -- we withdrew that.

We have completed a review by all our district managers who went out to the municipalities and talked to them about the various roads that were to be declassified to them. I've got their concerns. We're bringing back that information to the UBCM joint committee. Staff of the UBCM and the ministry are reviewing the information that was gathered by the district staff, and we will be putting together some criteria for establishing true arterial roads. I think that as a result of that we will come down. . . . There's no doubt in my mind that there will be some roads that will not be declassified. From the information that I've seen, there's an indication that those roads don't. . .you can't say they are municipal responsibilities.

We will also come back with some clear understanding that there are some roads out there that clearly do not have a provincial responsibility. They do not contribute to the provincial highway system and, therefore, they legitimately should be under the jurisdiction of the municipality. So that review will be conducted this summer and, hopefully, we'll get some information by the fall.

G. Abbott: I apologize to the minister for my confusion over the terms. I'm not quite as sharp today as I normally am. I apologize for that. I don't know why but I'm just not quite as sharp as usual.

I'm pleased that the province is reviewing their decision to declassify at least some of the roads. Certainly I have seen from some municipalities some very powerful arguments against the declassification of roads, and I'm pleased that the ministry is reconsidering the point in at least some of those cases. I want to bring up in a little while here a couple of those cases to see whether in fact those are examples of ones where the ministry is reconsidering.

The minister made reference to a joint committee. Would I be correct in assuming that that is the joint council of UBCM and the representatives of the provincial cabinet?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, except for those in the GVRD -- the GVRD is separate. The GVRD funding and governance issues are being discussed separately because of some issues around transit, etc.

[ Page 5394 ]

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline briefly what elements entered into the decision of the ministry not to proceed with the date of January 1, 1997, and to provide that stay of execution until January 1, 1998? What factors entered into the ministry's decision-making with respect to that?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I guess we took the sober second look that people talk about. When we did, we discovered that there were some roads that municipalities had a legitimate cause to be concerned about, and so we wanted to alleviate their concerns -- to check them out, and to see how we could address them. There are two roads in my riding, for example, that my mayor agrees totally should be under the municipality's jurisdiction. I'm sure there are others throughout that municipalities will agree: "Yes, this is legitimately a municipal road, and should be there." But there are others that, when I looked at them, I said: "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and we should develop some criteria."

We'd also had our first meeting with the joint council, and at that meeting, under the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, myself and Gillian Trumper, it was agreed that we would review this, recognizing that we wanted this joint council to work and that we wanted to work cooperatively with the municipalities. Therefore we took that second look that they asked us to do.

G. Abbott: I want to thank the minister for, I think, a frank and forthright answer to the question I posed. It's refreshing to have a response like that, rather than an attempt to rewrite history and reinterpret what I think was fundamentally a hasty, precipitous decision. So I'm pleased that the government has looked beyond that and is now taking what I think is a responsible second look at this. Hopefully, the right decisions come out of this in the end.

The next question I have is whether. . . . This is a question that I posed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was generous enough to suggest that I bring it along to you, and I'm sure that you'll wish that he had attempted to deal with it himself. It revolves around the issue of the legal authority of municipalities to take on roads. Now, as the minister knows, when the initial direction came down from the Minister of Transportation and Highways that there was going to be some rapid declassification of roads, the Union of B.C. Municipalities secured a legal opinion, which suggested that because municipalities had to undertake things by bylaw, the province could not unilaterally declassify roads which would become the responsibility of the municipalities. And I think they used that legal decision to suggest that this was something that the municipality had to concur with before it could happen. Does the ministry have the same legal guidance with respect to that issue? Or does the ministry consider that there are other factors at play, in legal terms?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we have a different legal opinion on the arterials, and we're actually changing the law with regard to the secondaries. But I think one of the things that one should recognize is that when we met with the UBCM joint council about the arterial roads, they expressed a concern about some of their inabilities to finance some of these things and to deal with some of the issues that have been brought to them. As a result of that, I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs made sure that some of their concerns around the Municipal Act were addressed, to enable them to respond to some of the pressures that are coming down. So we are revising things. I know the Premier has talked about possibly giving them some other sources of funding, and we're looking at a number of those different areas.

From my perspective, I think the joint council's working well. I think we're working cooperatively, and we're putting in place the necessary things to enable municipalities to function better, and to respond to the concerns that they had about devolution of the arterial roads.

[H. Lali in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I think the minister may have made reference to this in her initial answer, and I just ask it again because I don't recall exactly what she said. Am I to understand that the deadline which was in place -- the second deadline of January 1, 1998 -- is now no longer a deadline, and that, in fact, this is an issue which the joint council is seized of, and a decision with respect to devolution of roads will be forthcoming after it makes it way through the joint council process? Or is there still a fixed deadline date in place? As I say, I think the minister made mention of this earlier on, but I missed it.

Hon. L. Boone: There is still a fixed deadline in place, and we are putting the proposals in place and reviewing all the options that are being brought to us. We'll have some information by this fall.

G. Abbott: Could the minister provide to me some comment about how the situation will be resolved if there is not some concurrence between UBCM and the province with respect to the devolution of roads? If that does not occur, does the province intend to move on January 1, 1998, regardless?

Hon. L. Boone: We do intend to move on January 1, 1998. We are establishing the criteria that clearly point out what are arterial roads. I think that once that is done, then it shouldn't be too difficult for us to actually proceed and make decisions with regard to whether a road is an arterial road and should be under municipal jurisdiction, or whether it is a provincial highway and has a true provincial interest.

G. Abbott: The minister -- candidly and honestly, I think -- noted earlier that some of the portions of roads which were proposed for declassification in December of 1996 didn't appear, on sober second thought, to make a lot of sense. I want to explore a couple of examples of that, and perhaps the minister can advise me of more instances which might bring comfort to some municipalities around the province.

The one case that I found particularly striking when the decision was made to declassify roads was the case of the village of Sayward. According to the mayor, who was kind enough to send me a letter explaining their position, Sayward has a population of 444, and they currently have three kilometres of municipal roadway. The original proposal that was put forward by the provincial government was to download or declassify an additional 4.4 kilometres -- in or adjacent to the village of Sayward, I guess. Of course, the village of Sayward is very concerned about this, as one might imagine with a population of 444. They don't have spectacular assessments, and they don't have spectacular resources to deal with the management of roadways. The mayor notes, for example, that they have neither the resources nor the specialized equipment that are necessary to accomplish this task. In my view, from the different situations that I've seen and heard about around the province, the village of Sayward would be, I think, perhaps the most striking example of where the original decision was ill-conceived. It needs not only a second look, but removal from the list of roads to be declassified. Would the minister share my view that the particular features of this case -- 

[ Page 5395 ]

the small size of the population, the limited roadway that they have currently, the limited resources and the limited equipment -- are factors which would also lead the ministry to conclude a similar point that I have with respect to Sayward?

Hon. L. Boone: Nice try, but it's not a slam dunk. I'm not going to second-guess this. We've got in place a procedure to develop the criteria. The criteria will be developed and then we will be able to apply them. But I can't second-guess or pre-guess what the criteria will be. I think we'll have to wait for the committee to review and bring that information to us.

[11:00]

The other case that struck me as particularly interesting -- and the minister may not want to respond directly to this -- is an issue involving the district of Elkford, I think it was. I'm sure the minister is well aware of this one; in fact, I know she is. I think the issue here is that the roadway that was proposed for declassification is -- at least according to the argument of the municipality, and it sounds like they have a pretty good argument -- very much a resource highway as well as a roadway through the community. I think I can pose this question in a way which won't put the minister in the uncomfortable position of dealing with Elkford specifically. Would one of the criteria which the ministry would use to measure whether it should be declassified to municipal status be whether a piece of roadway is also a road to resources?

Hon. L. Boone: Again, I'm not sure. It could possibly. We'll have to look and see exactly what comes down as a result of the review that's taking place. The criteria will be established by the joint committee, and we'll work very closely with them. I'm sure they've got representations from some of the communities similar to what you just advised me of.

G. Abbott: The next question I was going to ask is probably redundant now. I was going to ask what the technical basis for reclassification or declassification was going to be. I surmise from the minister's responses that the criteria with respect to whether a road should be declassified have not really been sorted out yet, that there may be ideas out there that are being bounced around in the joint council, but in terms of a process where declassification would be approved or not approved, the criteria are still being developed at this point in time and will be firmed up later in the year. Is that a correct surmise?

Hon. L. Boone: There were criteria that were used originally, but those criteria have changed. If the member wishes, I can tell you what the criteria were when we originally made the decisions: highways within municipalities which are not providing a provincial function, such as a numbered and trunk highway carrying traffic on to another major centre. The second point was: highways within municipalities which are at the end of the road for a trunk or numbered highway, such as Tofino. The arterial section upon entering the municipality would be devolved right through the community, even if there were smaller communities beyond, or on minor non-trunk and non-numbered routes. The third one was: highways within municipalities where there are alternative provincial highways available, such as Highway 5 in Kamloops permitting the devolution of Highway 5A.

So those were the original criteria. We're hoping to refine this, and I think we'll probably find some other criteria that are coming down which we will be able to use. But these were the original criteria. They are not the criteria that will be used at the end of the day. Hopefully, we will have some criteria that are recognized by both municipalities and ourselves as being the true arterial highways.

G. Abbott: That outline of criteria is useful. I'm not feeling quarrelsome enough today to try to debate what has been used in the past.

Again, I am very supportive of the joint council process that has been undertaken, not only on this issue, but on a range of other issues which involve both the province and the municipalities and regional districts in the province. I think it's an excellent improvement in the relationship between local government and the provincial government. I really look forward to seeing the process work well with respect to this issue, as I think it will work well with respect to other issues. I think that in the broadest sense we have learned a good deal from the past year or two, and hopefully, everyone makes this joint council process work and work well -- and I hope it will work well in this case, also.

Just a final couple of questions. Would it be safe to assume that given the experience of the ministry with respect to this particular issue, at the end of the joint council process we should not expect that there would be any arterial highways added to the list that were not there when the list was released last December -- that in fact the list is likely to be shorter rather than the same or longer?

Hon. L. Boone: I would say it's unlikely, because I don't want you coming back at me later on if we find that the definition brings one other road in. If it truly is a road that should be devolved, and if the definition in the criteria clearly directs that, then I think the member would recognize that we should be doing so. But it's unlikely that it would happen.

G. Abbott: I think that's all the questions I have with respect to the declassification of roads. Again, I appreciate the candour of the minister with respect to this issue. I hope that we have all learned from what I think were some quite grievous errors in the conduct of relations between the province and its municipalities in the last several months, and I look forward to hearing a successful resolution of the issues surrounding declassification of roads in the months ahead.

G. Wilson: I am pleased to jump into this debate. We've heard a lot this morning about sober second thought, which kind of makes you wonder what was happening in the first instance. I want to ask questions more specifically about half a dozen projects that we might be able to get updates on.

The first question relates to the Gibsons bypass. I don't know the extent to which the minister is even willing or able to answer this, but I would like an update on what has happened with the dispute that existed between the funding 

[ Page 5396 ]

and payment on phases 1, 2 and 3. Has that gone before the court, is it about to go before the court or is the dispute now resolved? Exactly what is the status?

Hon. L. Boone: That's before the courts.

G. Wilson: Fair enough. Let's leave it there if that's the situation.

Keeping on the theme of the Gibsons bypass, I know that there has been some considerable discussion already about TFA and the funding proposals. My question is not so much about the allocation of dollars, but about what kind of realistic expectations we can have for the completion of that project. It's my understanding that property acquisition is required, and that some redrafting is necessary because of the new terminus that has been decided on in its junction with Highway 101. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on what the people of the Sunshine Coast could realistically expect in terms of a completion on that project.

Hon. L. Boone: The member is probably not aware that the TFA section ended yesterday, and all the books and staff and what have you have since gone back to do real work. I cannot really give you a definitive answer as to what's happening there. We're still doing a review of that whole situation. I cannot give you the whole answer as to what's taking place on the Sunshine Coast. If you have specific TFA questions -- if you'd like to get them on the record here, as we did yesterday -- we can get the answers for you. I'll get them back to you in written form later on, if that's okay.

G. Wilson: The minister will appreciate. . . . Being only one member of a one-person caucus, it's difficult in these estimates, when they're split between Committees A and B, to pull oneself away from the brilliant and scintillating debate that takes place -- to be able to come forward and get involved in all aspects of questioning. Suffice it to say, I would ask the minister if I could have an update on what is proposed.

I think that there is an expectation in the community that there may be some property purchase, either in the latter part of this year or next year, with commencement of construction again in '99. I think that that's something that may be realistic and I would hope that we could start to focus in on getting that project completed, so that as we get closer to the end of this mandate people could be actively working on that road. That was just by way of a light suggestion.

Let me move on to a second project. I notice that Rat Portage Hill was not a capital project or in the labour contract work. But Rat Portage Hill has been announced as part of an infrastructure grant program, which we're very thankful for, and I think that's excellent. However, I'm not certain how the funding on that program is now going to be administered, given that the infrastructure program is jointly financed by the federal and provincial governments. I wonder if the minister might just clarify how that program is to be funded, when the commencement is to occur, and how it will be tendered.

Hon. L. Boone: It's cost-sharing with the federal government -- administered through us.

G. Wilson: Does the minister, then, have a tendering date, so that we might know when this work is likely to commence and what kind of expectation for completion to have? I understand that if it's an infrastructure grant, it has a finite time, and it has to be completed within the terms or we lose the money.

Hon. L. Boone: It will be tendered very shortly, and it does have to be finished and completed by March 31. Those are the deadlines that were put on by the federal government when the program was initially announced.

G. Wilson: That's good news, and I think everybody is. . . . In fact, there's a general feeling of goodwill toward this ministry right now, given the projects that have been announced over the last little while.

The next question has to do with local hire. As the minister knows, there are a number of contractors who need work and who are on a roster for hiring. In the tendering process on Rat Portage Hill and other such projects, will there be a commitment to use the roster and can people expect to have local hiring?

Hon. L. Boone: Because of the time constraints that we have, in that area we are seriously looking at doing it through day labour, which would be on a local-hire basis.

[11:15]

If we can continue to travel up the riding from Gibsons through Rat Portage, which is in Roberts Creek, and now we're going to continue to travel up. . . . There are a number of secondary roads in the Pender Harbour area. The concern that we have is that those roads are very quickly now falling into decay. They exist within the regional district; therefore they are Highways roads. I wonder if the minister might outline what kind of plan is in place for just resurfacing and upgrading roads that are secondary, and whether or not there is a realistic opportunity to get in and look for some dollars. We're not talking about huge sums of money. Much of this is just patching work; some of it is on corners and blasting where rock has fallen, and so on. My question is whether or not there are additional dollars. Or is that expected to be picked up by the contractor who, in this case, is operating in that area?

Hon. L. Boone: I should have a number of things: standard response Nos. 1, 2, 3. We're well aware of the concerns; I know because I travelled those roads with you, hon. member. There are a number of roads throughout the province -- not just in your riding, in every area -- that require seal-coating, upgrading, repaving, regravelling. . . . We're doing what we can within the dollars that we have as a ministry, but it's not on the agenda for this year. Next year we'll assess our budget and see where we're at and try to do whatever is necessary -- spreading our money, as we can, evenly throughout the province to try to address the needs of everybody.

G. Wilson: With respect to that, I can say that the community appreciated the fact that the minister did come into the riding. The minister is welcome at any time. Obviously, the regional district does have a transportation committee which is trying to establish priorities for funding. My questions are more directed so that they have some written record as to what the realistic opportunities are with respect to this funding.

[ Page 5397 ]

As I ask these questions, I have the famous Willie Nelson tune in my head -- "On the Road Again," here we go -- because this minister has standard answers. I have some standard questions which I seem to ask every estimate.

I did a cursory check of the Blues and I don't see any really specific comment -- but that may just be that I've missed it -- with respect to the signage policy. I want to talk about signage. You may have already done this and if so, I'm not going to repeat it. I do draw to the minister's attention, however, the issue with respect to the invoice for service and attraction signs, and the letters that have gone to the minister from Kent's Beach Resort in Powell River. The minister probably doesn't have a copy of this letter right here -- and I don't expect her to. However, this invoice for service seems to have a significantly high fee with respect to lodgings: $535, as a result of three lodgings to have one sign. I wonder if the minister might first describe the rationale for the policy. And secondly, what was the rationale for structuring the fee on a per-unit basis, a per-lodging basis? Clearly, if you've got one or 100, the effect of the sign is going to be the same. So it would seem to me that amortizing it over a number of a buildings at one rate is something that isn't worthwhile. . . . I'm certainly prepared to share this document if staff would like to see it.

Hon. L. Boone: By now the Blues will have been printed from last night, but I think probably around 2 o'clock or 1:30, we spent almost half an hour on the signage issue. We did canvass this extensively. I would appreciate it if you would check that.

I'll just say that in determining how we were going to get some funds to actually pay for this whole program, we reviewed what took place in other jurisdictions. Every other province and every area throughout the United States, in fact, pays for their signage and charges for the signs. So that is what determined us to move towards a charge for the signs, because it costs us about $1 million per year to do that. We were just trying to cost-recover our dollars from that, so that we could then turn around and put those dollars into paving and doing the things we really think are our responsibility.

As a result of the outcry, I guess you could call it, from the smaller operators. . . . And I want to make clear here that there's been no outcry from the larger ones -- McDonald's or Ramada Inns or whatever. They clearly understand that it's to their advantage to have this and that it's a business expense that is tax-deductible and everything, so it's not a problem to them. In fact, many of them have come to us and indicated that they liked this by requesting more signs. It's the small fishing villages, it's the small campgrounds, it's the small operators out there throughout British Columbia -- and many of them are in rural British Columbia -- that see this as an impediment to their business.

That's why we sent out a second letter advising them to hold off on payment and also advising them that we've asked the various tourism associations to work with us to try to refine the policy so that we can come back with something that recognizes the needs of the smaller groups out there but still brings some dollars in to pay for some of the signs. I'm very hopeful. I think we've got some good ideas coming forth now, and probably by the fall we'll have some of these areas refined. But, as I say, to save some time here, if you check the Blues, you can see that this was extensively canvassed last night.

G. Wilson: I confess that I had gone home. While I was flipping between the legislative channel and Jay Leno, who was featuring the uniqueness of some of the animals from the San Diego Zoo, I wasn't certain which was the more enlightening program. [Laughter.]

Let me just say that I'm pleased that there is a review, and I will indeed check the Blues. I'm certain that the Kent's Beach Resort owners are going to be most anxious to see what the review brings forward, especially if that review provides an opportunity for a more unique and more colourful signage on the highway so that people who have unique small businesses can have that featured in their advertising, as well.

I just have a couple of other questions, and I wonder if the minister might indulge me. One actually has to do with aspects of RV transportation. I'm sorry if I'm jumping around, but it has come to my attention -- once again I don't know if the official opposition critic has brought this forward -- that there is considerable concern because of highway regulation or restriction of recreation vehicles, with respect to requirements now for those vehicles to have their own braking systems activated from within motor homes. I just ask this question because a number of letters have come forward from people with motor homes who traditionally have come in from the United States and Alberta to take advantage of camping facilities in my riding. These people have cancelled as a result of this new regulation, which they claim is B.C.-only -- it does not exist anywhere else between Mexico and Alaska.

Hon. L. Boone: We have altered that, and we are now in sync with other jurisdictions.

G. Wilson: The minister is just ahead of me at every step here, and that's great. The last question has to do with letters that came forward, once again, from outside my own particular riding; but I owe this individual a response. It has to do with the Jumbo Pass proposal, which I'm sure the minister is aware of. I wonder if the minister might give me an update on what is happening with this proposal and the extent to which the Ministry of Highways is now actively involved with the environmental review and how that's progressing.

Hon. L. Boone: There is no partnership there. The only involvement we have is in advising on the standards of roads; but we're not building anything or anything like that.

G. Wilson: Just by way of clarification, it's my understanding, though, that with respect to the permitting of the road, the Ministry of Highways will have the jurisdiction on that. If that is not the case, then I would like that clarified.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's what I said. We're involved in establishing the standards and permitting, but we're not actually constructing and we're not involved in terms of contributing anything to the financing of it in any way.

G. Wilson: I understand that. However, for those people who are opposed to this because of what they claim is going to happen with the environment, obviously they recognize that the Ministry of Transportation is a referral agency that has the authority to say yes or no to the project, or to require modification of the project so that it would be less environmentally contentious. I wonder if the ministry is involved in that review or not, and if so, to what extent.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we would be supporting the environmental assessment.

[ Page 5398 ]

G. Wilson: So as I understand it, then, the ministry has taken a non-proactive position until such time as the environmental assessment reports out on the merits of the project. Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions, and I thank the official opposition critic for letting me jump in at this time.

J. van Dongen: I just want to raise with the minister some of the issues we've corresponded about in the past year and follow up on those, which are mainly in my riding. Starting with the bad winter weather we had and the resultant road closures and some of the difficult decisions that were made surrounding that, as I recall, there was going to be a review done. I think the minister or maybe one of the regional managers asked for a review of all of the issues surrounding road closures during winter weather conditions, and I'm wondering what the status of that review is.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't believe I ever asked for a review. I think you asked for a review, but I don't think I ever asked for a review.

J. van Dongen: It was my understanding that there was going to be a review done. In fact, I was involved in one meeting involving the mayors of Chilliwack and Abbotsford and some of the local agribusinesses. We did meet with one of the minister's senior staff in the area, so I'm wondering if the minister could check with her officials and see if there has been any follow-up on that. It was my understanding that the district highways manager, if I'm not mistaken, had been asked by a regional person, possibly in Burnaby, to do a review of all of the issues.

[11:30]

J. van Dongen: Certainly the minister is aware of our concerns, and I appreciate that. There is a specific concern about agriculture, agribusiness and service industry, but I think there was also a broader concern dealing with rerouting of traffic in bad weather conditions. I think there is also a need to do a comprehensive review there and have a better plan in place in the future. That's why, in that one meeting that we did have, I took the initiative in fighting the mayors. One of the more significant problems and, I think, great public risks that we had, both specifically with respect to agricultural traffic -- i.e., milk trucks and feed trucks -- and also in general, was that when Highway 1 was closed, people who were totally unfamiliar with local roads and local conditions started to use side roads and back roads through Sumas Prairie to get around the freeway closure. We had situations where we had milk and feed trucks caught amongst a bunch of cars, which was a great risk to the drivers of those trucks and to the people themselves.

While it's an event that may not happen often, I think the lesson for all of us was that we need a better plan in place in the future, in terms of a general procedure on highway closures, which would involve coordination between the Highways staff and both local governments, and their emergency planning and their management of local road closures and traffic management. I had, I guess mistakenly, assumed that this whole review was taking place. I think it's critical that it be done. It's critical that we know we have a better procedure in place and contacts in place in the future. I'm wondering, then, if the minister would agree to review what's been done to date and try and have a better plan in place. I'm interested in a written plan. I'm interested myself, as the MLA for the area, in knowing that we have a plan, that we have the key contacts in place and that we have a system to deal with a similar situation in the future. I think that that should apply not just in snowstorm situations but also in flood situations; we also have those risks. I think it's very, very critical.

I should just mention the snowstorms. I mean, people have no idea about the conditions in Sumas Prairie when it starts snowing and the wind starts blowing. With the windchill factor it's minus 40 degrees. It's really very serious, and it's a very high risk. It's a bit of a minor miracle that things weren't worse than they were in terms of people getting caught in snowdrifts, etc. So I think it's critical that we do this. We have people, for example, who were there from my area, which has the same weather, from Medicine Hat and other places on the prairies, that said: "We've never seen anything like this." I don't think that I would want the minister or her staff to underestimate the seriousness of that situation when it happens, even if it doesn't happen very often. I'm wondering if the minister could just confirm that there will be the kind of review done that I've talked about and that we can work together to ensure that that's in place in the future.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I'll ask the district staff to see. Our memories -- we're getting a little older here every day, night by night, hour by hour -- may be failing us at this particular time. I'll ask them if there was a review done, and we'll get back to you. And certainly we'd be happy to work cooperatively with all local governments to make sure that if there are problems, they're ironed out, and that we can deal with emergency situations in the best way possible -- recognizing that sometimes the best-laid plans don't work, or they go askew, if there are some difficulties. I'll ask the district manager whether there's been a review done and see if we can get that to you.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that. Certainly it's true that plans are never perfect, but in asking the questions at the time, I was surprised by the lack of contact and coordination. It was certainly my impression that, say, 15 to 20 years ago, there was more coordination between some of the key players. And my sense was that -- what with reduced staff levels and the various pressures, and possibly not the same critical need or the same types of weather events -- those contacts had over the years gone by the wayside. It's important that we try and renew those.

Just to follow up, I want to ask some questions about the whole highways privatization move. I think there are some questions I could ask in terms of this winter weather situation. I know that the final decision on closures, subject to advice from the highway contractor, is made by the ministry staff. I have no difficulty with that. I think that's appropriate, as near as I can tell.

[ Page 5399 ]

I wanted to ask a bit about the role of highway contractors and how they are compensated, in terms of their contract and the additional duties that they would have when you have an unforeseen event such as this. I know we had a little bit of discussion about that at the time, but I don't think we ever really canvassed it very extensively. The kind of additional work that is generated by a snowstorm, for example -- does the contractor get extra compensation for that, or is all of the risk related to weather events. . . ? Is that all at the risk of the contractor?

Hon. L. Boone: Generally speaking, in issues such as snow removal, the responsibility and the costs are completely the maintenance contractor's. If there are circumstances such as slides, then there's a percentage. . . . Up to a certain point, it is the maintenance contractor's responsibility, and then the province will assume some responsibility for that as well.

J. van Dongen: So in this particular case, the event in the Fraser Valley, which involved a lot of blowing snow and not necessarily huge drifts that had to be removed, that was all the contractor's responsibility. Was there no possibility of any incremental charges by the contractor to the government in that specific snowstorm?

Hon. L. Boone: Not to our knowledge.

J. van Dongen: How, then, are the performance requirements determined for the contractor? Are there any clauses in the contract that set out specific requirements of the contractor in terms of the timing -- how much time they have to, say, remove snowdrifts, that kind of thing? Are there any definitive performance requirements in the contract?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there are provincewide standards that are written into the contracts established by the ministry. In fairness to the contractors, we have to recognize that not all contractors are equally prepared to deal with some of the situations. Given the situation that happened in the lower mainland and in Victoria, all emergency vehicles would have been out. I know that on the Island, for example, they were using every loader and every heavy vehicle that they could to help clear the highways and keep the main arteries clear.

But in really extenuating circumstances such as the snowstorms that you had here, there simply wouldn't be the equipment available, even if they were to hire it from other jurisdictions. So I think you have to recognize that some areas and some companies would be far more prepared, given the fact that there would be more equipment available. The equipment throughout the lower mainland and Victoria areas was being used by every jurisdiction around: municipal jurisdictions, the highways, private companies. Everybody had their bid out for that equipment. And there's just not as much of it around as there is in areas such as mine.

J. van Dongen: First of all, I just want to say that I don't want to seen to be picking on the contractor. I think that probably some of the people, including the contractor, were concerned about my comments. I'm simply trying to get to what the facts are in terms of the arrangements. I think that I speak with some knowledge, because I spent quite a lot of time out there on the highway at the time; that can be confirmed. And I speak from personal observation and knowledge of other snowstorms and that situation.

So I just want to make it clear that I'm not picking on the contractor. I'm not criticizing his staff or the individuals who were operating equipment. I'm simply asking questions that I think need to be asked on behalf of not only my constituents but a whole lot of British Columbians who depend on that section of road for a lot of our commerce -- particularly truck traffic, which supplies everything from groceries to a whole lot of other things that are essential at any time. So I just want to make that point.

The second point I want to make is that if we were to compare the snowstorm situation in the Fraser Valley with the situation in Victoria, there was a lot less snow, in terms of volume of snow, in the Fraser Valley than there was in Victoria. The big difference in the Fraser Valley was that the snow was blowing. But the actual amount of snow on the freeway was in no way comparable to the volume of snow that we received here in Victoria. So that's another point.

[11:45]

I just received a note, hon. Chair, that we need to adjourn. So I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, if that's the appropriate motion.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada