[ Page 5401 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: We have with us today several representatives of various religious communities in British Columbia. Not all of them have attended in the gallery, but were with me and some other members in a very interesting discussion today. I would like to introduce those I recognize in the gallery today.

We have Kathleen Wallace-Deering from the Anglican diocese of New Westminster; Gian Garcha from the Sikh faith in Richmond; Nina Khajuria and Ramesh Khajuria from the Hindu temple in Vancouver; Rev. Phillip Hewett, minister emeritus of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver; Gerald Vandezande, with the Grace Christian Reform Church in Scarborough, Ontario, and public affairs director of Citizens for Public Justice; and Dr. Vern Heidebrecht, the senior pastor of Northview Community Church in Abbotsford. There may be others here; I apologize to those if I don't introduce them.

We had a very interesting and stimulating discussion about the role of religious leaders in the moral and ethical challenges facing government and public policy today.

I would ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.

L. Reid: I believe that all of us in this chamber have a high regard for the work of the local press -- our regional press in our own ridings. The Richmond MLAs are joined today by Mr. Barry Link, a reporter with the Richmond News, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: This is actually the first time I've had an opportunity to do this, so I welcome it. All of us in this Legislature take our strengths and our values and our roots from our family members. In the gallery today is the man who has been part of my life for almost 35 years and to whom I have been married for almost 32 years. So I would ask the House to make my husband Robert welcome.

T. Stevenson: I too would like to join in welcoming the religious leaders. It was a very exciting dialogue this morning that we had, particularly after listening to the keynote address by Dr. Gerald Vandezande. I would also like to particularly introduce Jim Angus, who is with the Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en and is a very active member with the United Church of Canada. Would all members please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: On behalf of one of my staff, B.G., aka Bernice Garrett, I would like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon some friends of hers: Vic and Dianne Endean. They have just finished up a trip across Canada with relatives from England, and have travelled from Chase, their home in the interior of B.C., and brought with them today Vic's aunt Ida Endean, visiting from Plymouth. Vic and Dianne are parents of two and grandparents of two. They were Citizens of the Year in 1994, and they continue to stay involved in their community.

Vic has a tire business in Chase, and I can remember, on a family vacation one year, on a hot August afternoon, receiving service from a Big O Tires store in Chase that helped me get my family on our way to camp at Shuswap Lake. The service was probably twice as much as I really needed, but it was well appreciated.

I beg the House's indulgence, because we have some folks here that are very active in their community. Vic has been active in the Kamloops Chiefs oldtimers hockey association and is past regional president and chair of the board of the Thompson-Nicola regional district. Dianne served as councillor for the village of Chase for ten years, for 18 years as secretary at Haldane Elementary School in Chase, and is currently president of the chamber of commerce.

As you can see, these folks are very well connected and active in their community. I bid the House make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I want to be very brief today. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources for pointing out my friends from the Shuswap, Vic and Dianne Endean. I had the pleasure to work many times with Vic when he was chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district and I was chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. I enjoyed working with Dianne as well. She has been president of the chamber of commerce, and I'd like to welcome them both from this side of the House.

E. Walsh: I take great pleasure in introducing, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ms. Pamela Nichol from Sutton, England. She is the mother of Bobbie Nichol, the assistant to the minister. Also accompanying her on the visit to Victoria is her granddaughter Fiona. I would ask that the House welcome both Fiona and Pamela Nichol to Victoria.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can extend my own greetings to Pastor Heidebrecht from the Northview Community Church. Since I was elected, Pastor Heidebrecht has reminded me on occasion that he and his congregation pray for all of the members regularly, and after watching proceedings here today I suspect they will redouble their efforts.

Hon. P. Priddy: As you get older you can't quite see all parts of the gallery, so as you check, you see more people. I'd like to introduce another friend of mine who's in the gallery today. My husband, who I introduced earlier, walked a very difficult journey with me for probably the last 32 years, but certainly in the last year and a half. But Tom Sigurdson, who is a very good friend of mine who lost his wife to breast cancer several years ago, also walked that journey with me last year, and I want to thank him for that support.

A. Sanders: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, Jennifer Byrnes. She is a two-time Iron Man finisher from the Canadian duathalon team and is the best physiotherapist in all of British Columbia. I would like everyone to make her welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is an old friend, Lee Loftus, the business manager of the Heat and Frost Insulators, Local 118. With him, and just mentioned, is Tom Sigurdson, who is working with the Heat and Frost Insulators on a leaky condo project. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: Joining us in the precincts today is a group of about 15 citizens from Denman Island who are here to explore with members of government the opportunities for developing a community forest on Denman Island.

B. Goodacre: I would also like to extend my welcome to Jim Angus, a constituent of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Also with us today is the mayor of Smithers, Brian Northup. In addition to serving Smithers for many, many years on the town council, 

[ Page 5402 ]

he has worked as many years and more with West Fraser, one of the major employers in the forest industry in our area. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

MINISTRY MANAGEMENT OF
CHILD PROTECTION

The process was bogged down in bureaucracy, incompetence and cover-up. Nine months later, not one position has been filled. Documents show that senior managers involved in the process pointed out that the ministry was doing exactly the opposite of what it said it would do. These managers were unanimous in their comment that the process "would severely damage the service delivery system and will place children at risk in their communities."

Can the minister tell us why her ministry is so dysfunctional that managers have spent nine months arguing with the ministry instead of focusing on protecting our children?

Hon. P. Priddy: If the group of people that the hon. member is referring to is the 20 senior directors in each region -- if that's what I understand him to say -- all of those regional directors have been in place since January. There was a transition team up until that time to look at what the overall structure would look like. The 20 senior people in the regions -- they're called regional operating officers -- have been in place since January.

One of the reasons they are there is that not only Judge Gove but the children's transition commissioner said that services have to be closer to where children and families are. You cannot continue to run a ministry like this out of Victoria. The closer you can bring it to children and families, the more likely you are to hear their voices and know what their needs are. All those managers are in place and continue to be. I met with them last week -- or the week before.

G. Campbell: I understand that these managers are temporary placements, but the minister told us in this House last April that she was going to spend more time listening to front-line workers. Let me quote from the notes of the meeting of these senior staff members on February 27, 1997:

"The managers were unanimous in their concern for the impact on field staff of this process, which alienated staff from managers at a time when staff needed all the support they could receive. This process is disruptive, breaks the continuity of relationships and serves no positive systemic purpose."

My question to the minister is: will the minister tell the House how she thinks this process, which is so dysfunctional, has helped her ministry protect children?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I understand the "temporary" comment by the hon. member. These are 20 full-time people, hired full-time in the regions. They are regional operating people who have just finished doing their budgets for every region. There's nothing temporary about their jobs whatsoever.

I don't know the memo that the member is referring to. I'll certainly look into that. It would concern me if we had 20 regional managers out there saying: "Gosh, we don't think any of this is going to work." People were told by me when we got into this ministry that this train was moving, and if people were not pleased with the direction of it, then that was certainly their opinion, but they needed to get on board anyway. I'd be surprised if that was from 20 regional managers. It may be. I'd have to check out the memo.

But it's helping. There will be a mandatory advisory committee for every single one of those 20 regions, where families and care providers and youth all have an opportunity to influence the services and how the budget is spent. Never before in the history of this country has that happened.

G. Campbell: We are referring to the regional manager, child protection position, which was advertised. I'm sure the minister knows that right now they are temporary or interim positions that are in place.

However, on February 27 of this year a number of senior managers from her ministry met with both Mr. Dawson and Mr. Green to discuss what had taken place. What those senior managers with many years of experience point out is that the process that has been entered into would severely damage service delivery systems and place children in communities at risk. This is exactly what happened with the Mavis Flanders case.

The question to the minister is: can the minister tell the House why the process that she initiated that was putting children at risk was left to go. . .instead of focusing on protecting those children day in and day out?

Hon. P. Priddy: When this ministry was formed on September 23, there were ten child protection consultants in this province. They all worked out of Vancouver, and then they flew to the rest of the province, depending on where someone needed them. What we have done is double the number of child protection consultants in this province and said that it makes more sense for those child protection consultants to work in the regions, with senior staff, closer to families and closer to service providers, as opposed to only in Vancouver, where you fly into a community and then leave again. You need to live in the region to know it and to work there.

M. Coell: In November 1996, 20 positions for regional child protection managers were posted by this government. Nine months later not one of these positions has been filled by a permanent manager. The mandate of these managers is to ensure that child protection services remain a priority while being coordinated and integrated with other child, youth and family services during the transition to the new ministry.

How can the minister repeatedly say that her ministry's top priority is protecting children when these most critical child protection positions remain unfilled today?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would be unable to provide the information about how many remain unfilled. It is not true that none are filled. I don't know how many remain unfilled.

[ Page 5403 ]

It's been very interesting what people have told us, though, as they've applied for this position: it becomes harder and harder to do this job when you continue to do it under a microscope. People find that a very difficult spot to be in.

M. Coell: Whenever we on this side of the House bring up problems in the Ministry for Children and Families, the minister stands up and says: "Don't worry. We're working hard to change the system. Be patient." The reality is that these essential positions remain unfilled today, through the chaos in this ministry.

Cynthia Morton said in her report on Mavis Flanders: "The case of Mavis Flanders and her son is strong evidence of the need to assess risk objectively, thoroughly and frequently." This is the job that these managers were supposed to do. How many other children have been placed at risk because these positions are not filled today?

Hon. P. Priddy: I certainly will go back and check Hansard to see if I ever said to anybody: "Don't worry about this ministry." I will certainly check that, because I worry about this ministry every waking hour of every single day. Believe me, I don't think I've ever said: "Don't worry about this ministry." And it's not, "Don't worry about this ministry"; it's worrying about the children and families of British Columbia.

Yes, we said that we are working on it. This is a ministry that took about 20 to 30 years to get into the position where Judge Gove wrote his report and Cynthia Morton wrote her report. Gove has said that it will take several years to make the kind of cultural and organizational change that is required. So to say that I ought not to say that we're working on it. . . . I guess I could say that we're not working on it or that it is fixed, but we will not fix it in ten months.

If the opposition objects to the fact that we've doubled the number of child protection consultants, then I suppose we might have a difference of opinion on that. In point of fact, the risk assessments are done by child protection social workers; they are given backup by the people they are referring to. The risk assessments are done by 1,300 people who have had information and training on that since September 23.

FOREST SECTOR JOBS FOR ABORIGINAL
AND OTHER NON-UNION WORKERS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to assure the member that this Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and this Minister of Forests have not turned their backs on aboriginal people who want to participate in the forest industry.

I'd be happy to provide the member with another copy of the jobs and timber accord, because it states very clearly that the priority for hiring for the 5,000 jobs that we expect FRBC to create will be to displaced forest workers, and displaced forest workers are union and non-union. That's our first priority. The second priority will be to local aboriginal people.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I'd be delighted to get the first copy of the jobs and timber accord. Perhaps it's in the mail. You can check with the Minister of Transportation and Highways; she'll tell you how the mail works. You stick it in the out-box, and it comes into my mailbox.

My question, then, to the Minister of Forests is: will the minister account for the jobs created for young aboriginal people, young non-status and Métis people? Will the minister account for the number of students whose jobs have been eliminated as a result of the artificial preferences that have been created by this government in its unseemly attempt to satisfy the demands of the IWA and the B.C. Federation of Labour?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member didn't see what we said about silviculture workers. The jobs and timber accord does not in any way touch the $150 million worth of basic silviculture that the companies are contracting. The jobs and timber accord doesn't affect that. That is the largest single source of employment for summer students and the part-time aboriginal workers that the member has mentioned.

TRANSFER OF
YOUTH PROBATION OFFICERS
TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

A retired Provincial Court judge, Cunliffe Barnett, has now joined his voice to others. He asks this question: "Why would any sensible person want to load more responsibility on a ministry that has longstanding problems already?"

Mr. Speaker, these are the voices of front-line workers and experienced members of the justice community. So my question is for the Attorney General: will he listen to these voices, and will he today promise to delay this transfer until its implications have been properly studied?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, Judge Gove recommended that these important services for children be provided under one umbrella and in an integrated fashion. The transition commissioner furthered those recommendations and indicated that that should be done. This is already being done in provinces like Quebec and Saskatchewan and is being done well. It's important that we proceed with this. We have prepared, by working with the Ministry for Children and Families, to deal with this issue in an appropriate fashion. I know that as we go through the transition, there will be difficulties, but we shall overcome.

G. Plant: Day after day in this House, we hear stories about the difficulty of constructing a Children and Families ministry that in fact serves all of those that it has to serve. And now we have yet another transfer into this ministry. Those who are on the front line, the front-line workers here, are saying that if this transfer takes place now, the caseloads will 

[ Page 5404 ]

increase, and untrained and inexperienced social workers will be monitoring and recommending treatment for criminals, including sex offenders. There are issues of public safety at stake.

The question is: if there is to be no review, as the Attorney General suggests, will he tell us how public safety will be enhanced by the move?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that one could notionally argue that there is an inherent conflict of interest in someone working to protect the interests of children and to protect public safety. But lawyers, judges and probation officers are officers of the court. They have been protecting public safety while working in the best interests of children for decades and decades in this system of justice. I have complete faith in the professionalism of probation officers, whether they work with the Ministry for Children and Families or with the Ministry of Attorney General. They will do a job that protects the interests of children and protects public safety.

[2:30]

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Cashore: I am tabling the 1997 annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission and the financial statements of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'll clarify that the report I have received from the B.C. Treaty Commission states "Annual Report, 1997."

Point of Privilege

In the course of his statement, the hon. member has referred the Chair to numerous precedents relating to breach of privilege that are presented in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, and I've carefully considered the cumulative effect of those decisions on the member's case.

It is my view that none of the precedents mentioned can be relied upon as an authority to assist the hon. member in establishing a prima facie breach of privilege for the case in hand. Indeed, what emerges from these precedents is that a premature release of government policy or proposed legislation to the press or the public prior to introduction in the House does not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt.

There is, however, a caveat running through these decisions which suggests that the disclosure of the details of legislation to outside parties prior to their introduction in the House may involve a question of propriety or a question of courtesy. For example, the Saskatchewan Journals of April 5, 1976, at page 63, record the observation of Mr. Speaker Brockelbank as follows: "I wish to stress to the assembly that although it is a courtesy to the assembly for a minister to release information in the assembly before releasing it to the press or the public, it is not a breach of the privileges or rules of the assembly if this does not happen."

Dealing now with the other matter raised by the hon. member when he referred the Chair to standing order 78a, the member quite correctly observed that this standing order enabled the Minister of Labour to refer Bill 44 to a select standing committee immediately after its introduction in the House.

A close examination of standing order 78a, however, makes it abundantly clear that the power of referral is permissive only, and in the Chair's view, the discretion for such a referral was intended to remain the prerogative of the minister in charge of a bill. The discretion is unrelated to the authority of the Chair.

In conclusion, then, and based on the authorities noted, the Chair is unable to find that the hon. member has, prima facie, established a case of breach of privilege.

Orders of the Day

I would like to call Committee of Supply in this chamber. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. And in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and of the Ministry of Environment.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: This morning we talked about the annual allowable cuts and the process that is in place today to determine what actually can happen on a land mass, be it in a TSA or a tree farm licence, with the objective to achieve an annual cut that will indeed guarantee the sustainability of the forests in British Columbia. I am not going to spend much more time on this, because -- considering that we have so many other issues that we have to discuss -- I only want to come back to one particular point that the minister mentioned this morning.

As the minister knows, in this estimate I have put most of my emphasis on the impact of the programs affecting the forest industry that the government has introduced over the last couple of years, and the impact on the social and economic well-being of the communities and people that depend on forest activities. When we talked about the social impact study that has to be done by the government when it comes to the timber supply areas, the minister also mentioned that for the tree farm licences there is a different requirement.

[ Page 5405 ]

Could the minister or his assistant maybe give me a bit of background on how detailed, then, the timber supply area impact study is, as far as the social and economic impact on the forest workers through job losses and on the communities through economic activity reductions? That's less disposable income in the communities.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reality is that with respect to TFLs, the company is responsible for preparing the management and working plans. They have to do at least a cursory analysis of the impacts -- employment before and employment after the management working plan. This is all information that the chief forester can take into account when he makes his determination.

T. Nebbeling: What I was focusing on was the statement by the minister that the assessments done by companies that work in tree farm licence areas have a lesser requirement compared to the other companies that work in a timber supply area which may be adjacent to that. It still affects the same companies. Why I'm asking this question. . . . It is still Crown land. It will still have an impact on the people working on that Crown land, be it under tree farm licence status or any other type. Why is there a difference? If I can get an answer on that, then most likely we can go on to another area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to make it clear, there isn't the same degree of analysis required of tree farm licences. It sounds to me like it's for historical reasons. But that's the way it is, nevertheless.

T. Nebbeling: That clearly was not the answer I was expecting, especially if we're going to include historical perspective in the situation. I have complimented this government from time to time, as well, when they've done things right. I certainly would not want to hang onto the historical background of how the forest industry managed the forest in the past -- in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies -- how they most likely also had different standards and how they dealt with their employees.

I think it is not a good answer in the nineties, when we have introduced a tremendous number of policies and regulations that impact on how a forest company works in order to achieve a healthy environment and a healthy forest, when the minister says: "At the same time, you know, as far as the environment is concerned, we really stand up, and we make sure that we show clear improvements over the old practices." I think it is recognized that the government, to a certain extent, has achieved that goal; I've always complimented them for that. I've not always complimented the means, but they have made a difference if we compare what happens in the forests today to the sixties and the seventies.

However, to not have at the same time a rational answer when it comes to the people who work in the forest, and to not have a rational explanation why the people in the forest today do not have more socially acceptable treatment and consideration when things change in the forest. . . . I don't think that can be answered with: "Historically, there was always a lesser need for analysis dealing with people." I'm really disappointed to hear that. If there is one thing that will ultimately bring peace to the forest, it is certainly the restructuring of the forest industry, the restructuring of how much timber will be available and how much timber will be there for future generations either to enjoy or to get a living off of. I would have expected that parallel with these objectives, these improvements, there would have been improvement incorporated into the way we deal with the people who have to live with the consequences of these changes.

[2:45]

What I would like to know is: when the chief forester announced the last round of annual allowable cuts in the B.C. forest, it was made clear at the time that yes, these cuts have a serious impact on the future allowable cuts. However, we have still not achieved the objective of a sustained forest. That is something that I've heard on a number of occasions. Considering that the government has indeed taken a large amount of timber from the existing forest inventory with one objective only -- and that was to achieve that objective of sustainability -- that particular claim surprises me a little. Maybe the minister can explain if this is because we are in transition to become a province with a sustainable forest -- or have there been miscalculations? I don't know.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are in a transition period, moving from a point where we were cutting more because there was an accumulation of mature forest, to a sustainable cut as we harvested the mature timber. So we are in a transition. The chief forester is instructed, as he adjusts to sustainable cuts, to take into account new practices and in so doing have the minimum impact that he thinks is possible. That's the most important instruction -- that there is a policy that the Minister of Forests has directed the chief forester to take into account, and that is to reduce the cut only if it's necessary to ensure long-term sustainability, if future productivity is not affected.

T. Nebbeling: I now understand a bit better, because of the statement that the province, as an overall strategy in general, still hasn't got the reduction of the AAC to a level where we can claim that we have a forest that is sustainable. Considering the work that has been done, the reductions we have seen and the impact that has already been imposed on communities, I'm happy to say, in a sense, that there is indeed a transition period -- rather than trying to achieve this all in one swoop. That would then have even more impact on communities and on people in the forests, so I accept that that is a positive element of the strategy.

This strategy of getting to that point where the sustainability is indeed a fixed thing -- would the minister share some of that strategy with me? I am asking this question particularly because I do get groups, from time to time, who want to meet with me, who are concerned about the environment, who still claim that we should immediately set aside a tremendous amount more forest to have the sustainable forest. Obviously they would prefer that to be old-growth forest. The whole case that they make is based on the fact that this province has that goal, that objective -- to have a sustainable forest. With all that has happened in the last six or seven years, it has not happened, and more should be set aside.

For me to deal with these groups and in a sense become an advocate for the government's approach -- how they came to the AAC that will ultimately achieve the objective -- would the minister share the strategy, especially when it comes to timing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A simple explanation of the strategy would be that every five years there is a new assessment 

[ Page 5406 ]

done, and every five years we have better information on growth and yield. The central focus of the strategy would be to get better growth and yield information -- just how much more is growing, how much is growing on the second growth -- and as we develop more data there, we're in a position to make more informed decisions on what the long-term cut can be.

T. Nebbeling: I'll leave this for now, because if I go into the practices that are used in the forest to guarantee that yield and that inventory of timber, then obviously I'm going into a whole different area. I'll ask the minister to consider that later on in the estimates, but not necessarily today. I will come back to the component of how we enrich the existing forests and how ultimately, with the strategy that the minister talked about, we'll have a strategy that will in principle allow us to have less forest mass but high yield from that mass, thereby a better annual allowable cut.

That discussion will still come. When I bring it forward, I hope the minister is not going to say, "Well, you had an opportunity, under the annual allowable cut discussion during the estimates, to ask these questions," because that's a whole different field. It is silviculture, it is land-based management, and I'd like to do it all in one go.

Another area that has an impact on what happens in our forests is the protected-areas strategy that was introduced last year in the province. As the minister is aware, the objective of setting aside a massive amount of land -- 12 percent of the land in the province -- is to guarantee that future generations will also have the benefit of our natural resources. Certain areas have achieved that goal; other areas are still working on this.

In the lower mainland, the Soo TSA and the Sunshine Coast -- that is one area -- the government has had almost two years' experience in putting together a plan that would reflect a land mass set-aside which represents all the forest and land values that we have in the lower mainland. The creation of this plan was not easy, particularly because not everybody agreed, in the end, that 12 percent was enough. Considering that we already have tremendous amounts of land set aside through our provincial park system -- to which the 12 percent is an add-on -- with that 12 percent protected-areas strategy initiative, we can indeed say that we now have a land mass that is there in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy.

What I would like to ask the minister about is the introduction of the plan in the lower mainland, the Soo TSA and the Sunshine Coast, the consequences of the introduction of the plan to these three areas and how some of the consequences that came with the introduction of the land being set aside have been monitored. If there have been problems in certain areas, maybe the minister can give me some background on that.

The first thing I would like to ask the minister is: what kind of monitoring was incorporated in the introduction of the protected-areas strategy at the time to make sure that not only would we achieve our goal by setting that variety of land aside, but even more importantly, that we'd also know what the expected consequences were going to be, be it the socioeconomic evaluation needs or the needs of other industries that were working on the same land mass that has been dedicated to park land now.

I know, at the time that the meeting was held in Vancouver -- I attended it -- that it was one of the subjects that was discussed -- that there was going to be a monitoring type of system that would from time to time give us a picture not only of achieving the objective but in what manner and whether the concerns about the impact, which were expressed at the time, were going to be addressed in such a manner as to alleviate most of these concerns.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Earlier in the debates, Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked questions about the amount of timbered forest land and so on. I just refer the member to what I said at that time. The impacts of what's actually inside a park properly goes to the Ministry of Environment estimates.

We won't know the full impact of the land withdrawals for the protected-areas strategy until the next round of the timber supply review has been conducted by the chief forester. He will then take into account. . . . He has the opportunity to add back to the forested land base from, say, non-productive lands or lands that have not been operable. There's a number of things that can be done.

The specific questions about the land use plan impacts, again, I would suggest can be appropriately directed to the Minister of Environment.

T. Nebbeling: I don't want to go to the Minister of Environment, because questions that I want to ask are based on. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I believe I have the floor. I will not go to the Minister of Environment, because the questions that I have, in particular, at this point are related to what the Minister of Forests at the time recognized as potential job loss. So again I'm talking about people -- the potential job loss related to the protected-areas strategy. At the time, it was identified as 90 to 110 direct jobs. There was an amount of money set aside within this strategy for dealing with job losses as a consequence of the protected-areas strategy.

So I don't think I have to go to the Minister of Environment to get answers in that section. That is, at that point, what I'm interested in. When it comes to other parts, when it comes to issues that are related to the environment and environmental objectives, sure. But I do not think that I should not have this question answered by the minister.

So the minister, being aware that some socioeconomic study was done as part of the introduction of the process. . . . At the time, it was definitely a question of the numbers that the socioeconomic impact reflected did hold water when it came to the test of whether this was right or wrong. One of the reasons is that the job ratio per thousand cubic metres of timber was an average of 0.42 person-years for these three areas. That's the information that is in the socioeconomic study -- or 0.42 to 0.51 years for jobs in the harvesting sector. Considering that in the rest of the industry we have a ratio that is 1.3, I mean. . . .

[3:00]

T. Nebbeling: No, no. It's just in case the minister wanted to hear the question. Can the minister give me an indication now, a year after the program was introduced, whether the jobs that were shown to be lost by the loss of land 

[ Page 5407 ]

have indeed materialized and if that is based still on that ratio of 0.42? Or does the ratio truly reflect the standard for the rest of the province, and that is 1.3 person-years per thousand cubic metres?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The impact has not occurred, because a reduction has not occurred.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question. What does the minister mean by: "The impact has not occurred, because a reduction has not occurred"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It requires the chief forester to make a determination to reduce. He has not done that yet. As I explained earlier, it would be part of the timber supply review. When he makes it, we will know what we're dealing with in terms of impact.

T. Nebbeling: The lands that are being selected by the resource group that created the package that made up 12 percent of our land. . . . The lands that were identified had, in part, harvesting rights or had. . . . Actually, as a matter of fact, I know that some of them did have timber licence allocations. Is the minister saying that because the chief forester has not yet included in his total deliberations the annual allowable cut reductions, there are still harvesting activities going on, on these lands?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were study areas, and harvesting was restricted on them. We avoided areas that were candidates for protection, and those areas that have been protected have some interim guidelines on them which don't allow harvesting. As we are in the process of creating some protected status, either through the Park Act or the land use act, we don't allow harvesting. So there is no harvesting in protected areas.

T. Nebbeling: So we are talking about tremendous amounts of land being set aside, which, under circumstances that did not include the protected-areas strategy, would have seen harvesting activities. That, I believe, I can come to the conclusion. . . .

Because there has been a study done and 12 percent has been identified to be included in a park or in a land designation that is park, which will prohibit harvesting, the district managers that are working in these areas are not allowing any permits to be issued on these lands, which would have happened if these lands had not been in the protected-areas strategy.

Therefore I say that the impact, although the chief forester has not included in his annual allowable cut reduction review these lands to be included in that annual allowable cut reduction. . . . The district managers are acting, I believe, as if these lands have been excluded from harvesting. There must be an impact because of that alone.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is nothing surprising in your conclusions or your statement of facts, except that the district managers would be finding alternative harvesting. If there's enough cut there for even half the cut for a hundred years, then there's 50 years at the full cut. So it can be found in the short term, but you can't go on avoiding areas forever. At some point the cut may have to be reduced.

Now, I've already said the chief forester will do that. In the meantime, it may well be a constraint on finding available timber because of the time it takes to do planning. It is getting tighter because the land base is not getting any larger and much of it has been cut over, so there is no surprise that it's difficult to find areas. There's a conflict. There are conflicts everywhere on the land base, and our officials are doing their best to eliminate those conflicts.

T. Nebbeling: I am not criticizing the officials; I'm not criticizing the minister. If I criticize the minister, it is that he says, "Well, there has been no impact yet because of the protected-areas strategy and because the chief forester has not included these park lands in the next round of annual allowable cut reductions," knowing full well -- if I can find out through asking -- that the lands that have been earmarked for park status are protected from any logging activity, so there is an impact. Then the minister says no, there is no impact because we have alternative land that these companies that are losing timber can go and harvest.

Can the minister explain to me if these companies that had timber rights in these areas were given some preferential treatment to enter new lands? Were they in a position when applying for licences to avoid having to deal with the complications that the Forest Practices Code has imposed on the industry? Or did they not have to go through the licence system at all and were just given timber?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that for the time being, the cut can be found and is found in alternative areas. Some of the areas, I'm told -- like Indian Arm, for example, which is now a park -- have been considered in the chief forester's determination already. So some, but not all of them, have been considered in the cut.

T. Nebbeling: Cuts can be found. Now we find a cut for a company or a logging operation, which has been removed from an area because of the protected-areas strategy, and a new cutblock is identified. The point I'm trying to get from the minister is: can the new cut be entered without the traditional requirements that are imposed on anybody when they apply for a harvesting licence, for a cutting licence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we still have to go through the operational planning process.

T. Nebbeling: That's the area where the problem then arises. That led me initially to ask the question: have there been any layoffs because of the protected-areas strategy? The reason is that if a logging operation had a cutblock approved by having gone through the whole process of application, analysis, public consultation -- a process that takes a long time -- and had that permit in the operator's pocket for the logger, then he or she could have gone on at length, and that would have been it. Now, because they have been given a new area to apply for -- I suppose they still have to apply for it -- they have to go through the whole process again.

The minister knows very well that since the introduction of the Forest Practices Code -- another initiative -- the process of applying for a timber licence has gone from four or five months to approximately 14 to 18 months. So any operator with a crew who thought to enter the land, and then was stopped from doing that because of the protected-areas strategy, was given an opportunity to apply for a new piece of land but had to basically tell his or her crew: "Listen, you guys go home for about 18 months because that is the time it's going to take for me to get these licences."

Has the minister considered that, and how has the minister accommodated these people and these operators in that 

[ Page 5408 ]

kind of a situation? If there's not been a consideration for it, then there has to be a record somewhere that a certain number of people who used to work in the forest industry are no longer working with that particular operator. Maybe they've found other work, but there must be a record of the action that happened.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is stating the obvious, and I will recognize the obvious. It would be wrong for me not to do that. The planning started a long time ago. Many of these areas were out of limits: there were log-arounds, and there were deferrals because they were controversial. So you have to go piece by piece, company by company, cutting permit by cutting permit.

The officials spend a lot of time making sure that we minimize, if not completely eliminate, the impact on specific operations. So yes, change has impact. But so does weather, so does market, so does a changing timber profile. Everything affects change. To pretend that there's some magic, static world out there that is unchanged by planning processes is really. . . . How can I say it most appropriately? I would be amazed that somebody wouldn't understand that planning is a dynamic exercise.

Those people are counted as best as possible. There are five-year development plans, and we've had years, not months, to get alternative harvesting plans approved. If there's a specific the member wants to talk about, give us the specific, give us the crew, and we'll go back and get the facts. Yes, it is taken into account, I assure you. It's a high priority for the Ministry of Forests and this minister to take it into account. I think it's offensive to suggest that we don't.

T. Nebbeling: I don't mind the minister getting heated because of things that I haven't said. I haven't said that things are not being taken into account. I'm asking what steps have been taken into account in remedial work to make sure that these operators are not getting the short end of the stick.

The minister says: "Hey, yes, we have an impact on it, and so does the weather, so does the rain." Well, the weather is an act of God, and so is the rain. The actions of this minister are definitely not those of a God-like person, although last week he called himself "on the side of the angels."

It is very simple. My first question, once more, is: the number of jobs that were identified in the study that could be lost or would be lost -- has that happened? I even named the numbers: 90 to 110 direct jobs. If the minister had said, (a) "We have no record of that," I wouldn't have been able to push forward, or (b) "We know some jobs have been lost," then I would have asked what happened with these people and how they were assisted, because assistance was promised, or (c) "We are finding alternative ways for them right now," my first question could have been answered immediately that way.

Now that we know that indeed there are people who have been impacted, now that we know there are operators that have lost their ability to put crews on certain sites because of the protected-areas initiatives, can the minister tell me what the work has been and what monitoring has been done to make sure that the people who, through no fault of theirs, have gotten into a position where they were stopped from earning a living? How were these people assisted under the guidelines of this plan to make sure that there was a new door open for them at the time that the doors closed with the protected-areas strategy?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The monitoring system, basically, is with the resources jobs commissioner for the region, and he follows what goes on in the district. The regional managers follow if there are crews that are down, and they try to get the crews working. The companies monitor and assist; and if there's a particular crew, they try to put them to work somewhere else.

The member might want to specify which document he's quoting from, and I'll see if I can dig it up and see what assistance was offered and whether or not there's been some assistance offered.

I think it's early in the term. I'm saying that the cut has not been reduced, and therefore there should be cut available. Resource managers were instructed to find alternative cutting, and then there may have to be a reduction when the chief forester makes a determination. So the numbers that were given at the time were theoretical, based on an extrapolation of the amount of timber to the number of jobs. It's no more complicated than that.

T. Nebbeling: One of the ways that the government committed to deal with people. . . . And that, by the way, is not in the study; that's a fact from people who have been interested in watching what's happening in the forest and in the industry and what's happening with the people who used to rely on a job in industry.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I really appreciate, after about 15 minutes, you telling me which fund you are talking about. You didn't name the fund. It's a worker transition fund, and it's calculated based on $50,000 per worker, available for 100 workers. That's how the $5 million was arrived at. It's a notional fund. It's there under FRBC's worker transition programs, administered by the resource jobs commissioner. I'd be more than happy. . . . It would have been so easy if you had said you wanted to question what happened under the $5 million fund. Give us a day. We'll ask our officials to put together the information we have. The resource jobs commissioner is assessing any individual who comes through the door, and yes, he's recording it, and he gives monthly reports. We can report specifically.

But the member didn't ask that, hon. Chair. Can I just suggest to him that if he's very specific about what he wants to do, then I would be very happy to try to provide that information. But that's where the tedium and boredom comes in, and the repetition. The member needs to be specific, and then I can give specific answers if we have them. But they are 

[ Page 5409 ]

very general, and they are very leading. I spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out what in particular the member is asking. I'm doing my best, with the officials that are here, to provide the answers. But you have to be specific.

I would suggest that perhaps that side could think a little about an orderly development -- not something that is six or eight weeks beyond any reason. This session we've already gone just about twice the time we've ever spent in estimates before in this House. It's unnecessary. If members would be organized and tell us when they want to discuss certain things, we could have the officials here. If you tell me you want to discuss the socioeconomic impacts of the lower mainland regional plan, I'll get the information and the officials. There's an amazing amount of detail that three or four officials don't have. We have people backed up trying to get the information. If you had any idea how many people scurry around because of your whims, you would be amazed. And the public would not tolerate. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the floor.

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister has the floor.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Chair: You asked for a point of order. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. All right. Point of order.

T. Nebbeling: Madam Chairman, we are not in an explanation of the inner workings of the Ministry of Forests. So can we stick to the estimates, please?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What that member doesn't seem to understand is that we would be happy to provide the information, but you can't ask the impossible. That side should really learn how it's done. . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .and give us some schedule of what orderly progress you want to have through the estimates.

The Chair: Hon. minister, a point of order has been raised.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a practice in this House -- to avoid the type of temper tantrum we've just seen -- that members address each other through the Chair. I would encourage the minister to do so.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, we're on vote 37. I would encourage all of us to talk about vote 37.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order.

The Chair: Point of order on the part of the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask that member to withdraw his comment about temper tantrums. It was a spirited response to a long line of questioning that was poorly, if at all, focused.

The Chair: Hon. members, I would encourage everyone to stay cool in terms of not only their frame of mind but also the language. Intemperate language is not helpful to any debate on either side at any point.

G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly if the member was offended by my interpretation of his ranting as a temper tantrum, I would be more than happy to withdraw that. However, I would just encourage the minister to make his comments through the Chair, and perhaps the debates would be less personal than the one the minister was just engaged in.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to spend much time reacting to that little outburst. I don't know if it was done in order to give some of the staff time to come up with the pertinent information. All I will say is that I started asking what system is used to monitor people who are losing jobs because of the protected-areas strategy. That was my question, if the minister had answered it. There is a fund set aside that will assist each and every one of these workers through the forest job commissioner's office. That would have been the answer. The minister knew the answer and could have avoided a rise in blood pressure -- not mine, because I'm cool as a cucumber. But the minister certainly needs some readjustment there.

I'm going to ask a very simple question. The three areas that are under the lower mainland strategy incorporated into the protected-areas strategy are the Soo TSA, the Chilliwack TSA and the Sunshine Coast TSA. Can the minister tell me what percentage of the 12 percent was allocated to each individual area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me.

T. Nebbeling: If I could get that information later, that would be helpful. When the protected-areas strategy was created, there were some guidelines. Can the minister give me a quick rundown of the objectives of the committee which was created to find the variety of lands that would represent the lower mainland's type of land mix?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That would have been the subject of last year's estimates and not this year's.

T. Nebbeling: I don't like to correct the minister time after time, but as he knows, at the time we had estimates last year, there was no definite selection made. At that time the committee was looking at a large number of areas that could have been considered. Ultimately, as a committee they had to select a group that represented the 12 percent which was the goal. Ultimately, it became 13 percent, but let's not split hairs here. This was definitely part of last year's estimate. Question one: how did the selection take place? And what kind of lands were set aside? But what I'm also looking for here is to see what the consequences have been of the lands that have been set aside as far as an impact on the jobs -- and how that is monitored. How are the people who had to lose their jobs because of the plans being taken care of?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member would provide those people who have had that impact, I'd be happy to get an individual story on each one of them, if I can.

T. Nebbeling: As the minister knows, I'm the one asking questions, and I'm the one asking for information. Ultimately, what we are discussing here is what actions this government has done in the last year dealing with our most treasured 

[ Page 5410 ]

natural resource, timber. It is for me, at the end of the day, to stand up when I'm asked if I can support the dealings and wheelings of the Ministry of Forests. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake here. So for me to say yes, I can approve the business plan, based on his past performance. . . . This has to allow me to ask certain questions.

Now, last year certain commitments were made by the government. At the same time, certain consequences were there because of these commitments. I'm trying to find out, through a simple process of asking questions and hoping for the right answers, if these commitments have been fulfilled -- particularly when it comes to the well-being of the people that have been affected. As I said earlier on, Madam Chair, I don't want to make speeches, but I constantly get these kinds of statements by the minister that drive up the blood pressure -- although not mine. Ultimately, I'm looking to find out whether we are managing our forest land in such a manner that indeed we can look for long-term sustainable forests with an environmental control that truly will protect all the other elements that are important in the forests and in our land masses. But that includes. . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, hon. Chair. That member has made something very similar to that statement at least ten times. He keeps repeating it, and I don't think it adds to the debate at all.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Minister, I would be happy not to have to repeat it. Statements made from your side are often such that my intent is not what I intend to do here. We were just exposed, and the gallery was just exposed, to another little tantrum, and that's not what I'm here for.

As I didn't get the answer on what type of lands have been set aside or the amount of land that has been set aside, for the protected-areas strategy in the three different areas, can the minister tell me if there have already been companies or logging operations through his office that were excluded from going into lands that they thought they had the right to harvest? How many of these companies have been to the Ministry of Forests to find alternative areas where they can continue to log, be it after a long process of getting permits?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that information here. We would have to talk to the three district managers to get the details. Since the member seems to be concerned about specific individual operations and may know of some, if he'd be happy to give us the names, we'll find out what happened to them.

T. Nebbeling: I'm happy the team is complete, so maybe we can move forward a little. If, for a moment, I can go away from the jobs that were -- or maybe still are, I don't know; I've asked the question, but I presume they were -- once available in these areas, which now have been designated for protected-areas strategy. . . . Can the minister tell me, as part of the creation of new opportunities for the communities that are dependent on these forest areas. . . ?

As part of the presentation, there was a direction towards recognizing some of the other activities besides logging that were going on on these landmasses. I'm talking about guiding activities and trapping activities. The minister can, of course, say that that is something for the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of Environment. So if he doesn't have the answer, I will understand that I have to find it somewhere else. But if he happens to have an answer on how the operations are still able to maintain their presence in the area and thereby still maintain some jobs, can he say if these operations are still allowed to operate in what is now parkland or if these operations have also ceased and desisted from operating?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, they're not allowed to operate in parklands; I answered that question.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Forests does not license or regulate in parks.

T. Nebbeling: It used to be the Ministry of Forests, and right now there is a transition of that particular activity to the. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin comes in, and he knows that the back-country operators were never licensed. It was a non-licensed industry, and only last year did the government introduce some legislation that would regulate the back-country operators. The Minister of Tourism was very much involved in putting that together, and they have now handed over that authority to Crown Lands -- so a little education for the member.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been listening with some care to the member opposite. We're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. He seems to be varying between the estimates of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture. I would ask the Chair to call the member to order and keep the debate focused on the estimates of this ministry.

The Chair: I think your point is well taken. I would remind all members about the point about relevancy and repetition. We're on vote 37, Ministry of Forests.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister is not well informed, that is the business of the minister, but he should have been in the debate on tourism where that type of tourism activity is no longer controlled by the Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture. And that's the way it is; it is Crown Lands that is responsible.

Now that we have gone through this whole process of the jobs, I would like to spend a little bit more time on the process that indeed the minister has identified as the alternative for 

[ Page 5411 ]

operators that can no longer go into the protected areas. The minister has given me assurances that he is not aware that any logging company or any logging operation has applied for an alternative site where they could have some logging activities, because they have been asked to vacate land that they thought they had under control. Can the minister, one more time, confirm that, now that his assistants are here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe I answered that, again. I said I would have to go to each district to find out if there were people who were displaced from park areas. I explained that, I think, very clearly.

T. Nebbeling: There are only three districts that we're talking about here: the Squamish district, the Chilliwack district and the Sunshine Coast district. That can't be too difficult for the ministry, as far as data is concerned, to find out. While the minister is doing that, maybe he can also give me the answer to one of my previous questions. That is, how much of the 12 percent, the total amount of acreage, has gone from the various districts? So if the minister is going to find out if anything has happened in these districts, then maybe I can also find out how much land would actually be taken out of the annual allowable cut for these three districts as well.

Obviously I'm going to wait for that answer. If it comes, it comes; and if it doesn't come, then I will get it in another form. But much has been said about what I thought was going to be a very simple process here, and that is how the monitoring was happening -- the monitoring of the impact of the land being set aside. The minister hasn't got many answers, and I'm not going to push it for now, although I hope he will get some of that information.

What I want to introduce is more applicable to the Squamish and Chilliwack districts, and that's the issue of the spotted owl. The minister, no doubt, has the information on the spotted owl. The issue started about five years ago, when spotted owls were heard and seen in the Chilliwack timber supply area. There were study groups going into the area to identify when the spotted owls were there.

Spotted owls really are not considered to seek this area -- the Fraser, the upper Fraser, the upper Lillooet and the Squamish timber supply area -- as their traditional habitats. It is getting too far north. The spotted owl habitats are in California, Oregon and a little in Washington. The spotted owl in these two timber supply areas has become a very serious threat to the forest workers, as far as having access to timber that should be available to them. Since that spotted owl issue raised its head, that has been denied.

Over time, there have been many more studies done. There have been many objectives sought to deal with it, and one of the objectives that was introduced during the time that the protected-areas strategy was discussed was that the percentage of land that would have to be set aside to accommodate the spotted owl was going to be part of the 12 percent of the protected-areas strategy. Can the minister confirm that that was indeed part of the objective and if that objective is still there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any areas that are protected are just that: they are protected. Any areas that are protected under the spotted owl strategy are in some kind of protection.

T. Nebbeling: To be 100 percent sure that a little while from now I'm not going to be told again that I keep asking questions in a manner that doesn't create the right answer, my question was: is the land that will be set aside to protect the spotted owl indeed included in the 12 percent, as it was supposed to be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be some confusion around, because the member uses a figure of 12 percent, which is a provincial average. It's 14 percent on the lower mainland. Any areas that are completely off limits to timber harvesting for purposes of spotted owl protection are in protected areas.

T. Nebbeling: Once again, to make sure we're not nitpicking: are these protected areas included in the protected-areas strategy, or are they protected areas under a different designation like, for example, spotted owl recovery areas, spotted owl protection areas or spotted owl conservation areas? I think the way that I've asked my question to the minister, my first question, was very fair. It was very straightforward.

The minister keeps complaining that my questions are not clear enough for him, so he cannot give me a clear answer. I'm sure my question was clear the first time. If the minister is trying to use the protected area as a label that will get him off the hook in answering the question of whether these protected areas are part of the 12, 13 or 14 percent of the protected-areas strategy in the lower mainland, I will ask him once again if that is indeed the case. Is it part of it, or is it not part of it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll say it again. Any of the areas that are protected for spotted owls are part of the provincial protected-areas strategy. The member was very confusing when he kept saying 12 percent. I don't know what 12 percent he was talking about, so I clarified that. It's 14 percent in the lower mainland. There's 14 percent in protected areas, and it includes those areas that are protected for the spotted owl.

T. Nebbeling: I indicated earlier on that I recognize that for the purpose of creating parkland for future generations to enjoy, the lower mainland has given up in land a higher percentage than other parts of the province -- or than most other parts of the province, because there have also been areas where they have given up even more than 12 percent.

The minister is very much aware that the provincial goal is 12 percent, so when I talk about the protected-areas strategy creating 12 percent, he should immediately tweak in that we're talking about the protected-areas strategy. If the spotted owl areas are included in that, then maybe the minister can explain to me how many special areas are set aside within the two timber supply areas that do have the designation of spotted owl special management area.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are no areas set aside, but there are 18 special resource management zones that will be managed in part for suitable owl habitat.

T. Nebbeling: On the special spotted owl management zone, can the minister give me the definition of what a zone represents?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is one of those things that was put out at the time in the press package. The basic information is available, and the definition is in there. That's why. . . . If the member has a line of questioning on some of these things, when basic definitions, which we put out at the time, are available to every grade 5 student that wants to look at the lower mainland. . . . I'll reiterate it to try to assist the debate, but this is what takes the time.

[ Page 5412 ]

Special management areas are areas that are available for resource harvesting. In these, one of the guidelines is for owl management. There are other special features that are planned for, and the guidelines are put out by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because we're aren't dealing with a uniform old-growth forest, we're not taking away two-thirds. It's only where there is remaining old growth that two-thirds of the old growth need to be maintained. That's defined as a hundred years, which is still a fairly young tree. So it's not like two-thirds of these areas have been removed from timber harvesting.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I heard it wrong, but did the minister say that it's not as clear-cut as that, because not all these spotted owl management areas have two-thirds old growth?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm saying that not all of the special management areas are covered with old growth; therefore, to suggest that two-thirds of the areas are removed is wrong. It's only that you have to maintain, in old-growth state, two-thirds of the areas that are of old growth -- that is, over a hundred years. Two-thirds of that has to be maintained -- not the rest of the land base.

T. Nebbeling: It's not for me to criticize the minister for having the wrong facts, but I believe that a minimum amount of two-thirds, representing a set land mass, is required by the biologist as the minimum land mass that a spotted owl can survive in. If it is in a couple or a pair, as they often live together, the land mass is still extended on that basis of the old growth. . . . Well, I'm not going to give you the definition, because all I'm asking you right now is just by memory, having studied that whole issue considerably.

Although I have more questions on this particular subject, the reason that I took this little side tour, when we were talking about the protected-areas strategy, is that when I was talking about the impact on people of seeing that land set aside, when I was talking about the impact on companies of seeing that land being set aside, the minister kept saying: "Well, you name them. You name companies, you name people, and I'll give you an answer."

The reason that I went to the spotted owl, if they are indeed included in the protected-areas strategy or the land, is that the minister is looking at permit applications right now. I think there are two from one company. They were caused by this particular company being taken out of a certain area where the protected spotted owl management status was in place, and it just did not leave enough harvestable timber in that particular cutblock to make it an economically viable proposition. I know that alternative land sites were identified, with the assistance of the district manager in Squamish. The company still had to go through. . . . I won't say a bidding system, but they still had to put in a bid that they were not 100 percent sure was going to be successful for them. However, I believe they succeeded in getting two alternative sites and are in the process of going through the whole permit application. That company, because of the protected-areas strategy and the spotted owl and the requirements that are set out under the guidelines, did lay off a number of people last year who were working for them directly. It did stop some truck loggers from having work. But more subtly than that, it also stopped one of the mills in Squamish -- because we are talking about the Squamish area. It shut down and laid off nine people, directly. And that was all because of the spotted owl and the protected-areas strategy. So when the minister is asking me why I'm so persistently asking about what has been done with people who have been displaced from working in the forests in these areas, that is just one example I have in mind.

I've spoken to the district manager about whether there is a way to fast-track this whole process for that individual. I don't mandate -- that's not my role -- but I've tried to find some ways of getting that particular company back in operation again. In a small community like Squamish, seeing a number of people like that being laid off has a serious impact on the social well-being and the economic well-being of these people and the community.

So I'm asking the minister again, now that I have illustrated one area where companies were not allowed to or could not economically harvest timber because of the regulations imposed through the protected-areas strategy or a component of the protected-areas strategy -- the spotted owl protected-area management strategy. . . . There must be more examples. Can the minister, maybe now that I've given an example, give me an idea whether there are other areas where the same type of problems have arisen -- be it in the Fraser. . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are many reasons why there might be a displaced forest worker, as I said in earlier commentary, so we don't have one monitoring system that is tracking for layoffs from a land use decision. I mean, the spotted owl is only one management consideration. There's watershed management and a whole lot of other things that are reasons why permits might not be granted. But you started your line of questioning around protected areas, and I said: "No, people are not allowed to operate in protected areas; we try to find alternatives." Yes, there are constraints, and I mentioned that, and the spotted owl is one of them. But let me say that we have letters from virtually every company that's affected by spotted owl management; they've accepted the strategy. They understood that without any mitigation, there could have been job loss, and we've found a plan where, for the short and long term, we won't see job loss because of the spotted owl decision.

Now, there may be individual troubles getting permits out, but that happens every day. As I said, it would be foolish to think we wouldn't have concerns and troubles getting permits out, because the alternatives have the landscape wide-open to log anywhere, anytime. Clearly there are constraints, and we're trying to manage them. And yes, district 

[ Page 5413 ]

managers. . . . I don't think you were listening when I gave you the answer about the monitoring. The district manager would watch what's going on and try, if there's any way legally possible, to fast-track permits. I'm sure that's happening; I know that's happening. They're under instructions to do that.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: In the gallery today we have five people from the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, of which Terrace is a major part. They are here meeting with various cabinet ministers in the next few days. We have present Andy Burton, who is the mayor of the district of Stewart; Rich McDaniel, a councillor of the city of Terrace and a director of the regional district; Jim Thom, a director from the district of Kitimat; and Les Watmough, a director from Thornhill. With them is staff member Andy Webber, who is the economic development officer, I believe. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: I would also like to add a welcome to the group on behalf of this side of the House. I have met with many of the representatives of the communities, and I know that they have a mission here in Victoria. I wish you all success, and I wish that you reach the objective you came here to find. Good luck.

Again, to the minister. The minister complained that. . . . No, I'm not going to start off like that, because then blood pressure will rise again. The minister explained earlier on that the information on these issues that comes to the ministry here in Victoria comes from the district via the district manager. This particular case has been going on for well over a year. I believe -- as a matter of fact, I know -- that the logging operation manager has been here in Victoria talking about this particular issue, as well.

When I asked if there were any operators who had to leave as a consequence of the spotted owl or the protected-areas strategy, which includes the spotted owl land management plan, I would have thought that the minister or his advisers would have been aware of these kinds of issues. If I know for sure about this particular one, how many others are there?

Maybe the minister can explain how the process works -- the process of getting feedback from the district managers or regional managers when it comes to these pretty serious situations where livelihoods are at stake. As I said before, I will always continue to push when that happens. Everytime a logger is out of work, out of a mill, the family suffers with that individual, and I will not just sit back and let it happen without fighting.

If the minister is relying on the information that comes from the district, can the minister please explain how the district communicates that information to him? Why is it that this particular issue, which has now been brought to the forefront by me, has been going on for well over a year? Let's say it's a year, and the issue is not known by the ministry's representative.

[4:00]

I would suggest that if there are any other districts where you want specific information, tell us. We'll phone, and we'll endeavour to have the information here so that we can expedite the debate. I did assure you that yes, there would be impacts from resource management decisions, and there are. Whether it's a community that doesn't want the watershed logged or it's somebody who has recently identified an endangered species, there are many reasons that there may be some disruption.

We do care. Our managers care; the ministry cares. The minister cares, as you say you care, about families that are thrown out of work, but if we don't do the land use planning and if we don't provide for things like the spotted owl, then there is potential that world opinion. . . . The purchasers of our goods would stop purchasing, and people would be out of work for other reasons. Then you would damn us. The opposition and the public would damn us for not taking action, for not being out ahead of it and doing land use planning.

I submit to you that the responsible thing, even though it means change and even though things can't go on as they were, forever the same. . . . We have reached limits. We have taken responsible action. I can assure the member that the spotted owl mitigation strategy, which results in no net loss of jobs, has been a wonderful example of how, by working with companies, unions and the ministries, we can actually accommodate a very smooth transition for what could have been a very dramatic change.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the minister's answer, in particular because it includes much of what I have done on behalf of this company in Squamish. I have communicated with the Ministry of Forests. I have been able to get appointments for these people at the time they were needed, so I have played my role. It was just that I was surprised that nobody in the ministry was aware of this particular situation, because of its uniqueness.

When it comes to my criticizing the Ministry of Forests because of what they do, the minister says: "Well, if we do this, we'll be damned; but if we do that, we'll be damned." Maybe always having that pendulum swing from one side to the other. . . . Maybe the minister should do what I would very much be doing if I were in his shoes, and that is finding a balance between the needs of the environment and the needs of the communities. That balance is what I would be looking for.

We seem to have that pendulum swing going on all the time, with three or four years of extreme protective regulations on the environment having led to serious, serious undermining of the viability of many communities, because of the implementation of all these rules and regulations that were very much focused on the environment and nothing else. Well, the pendulum seems to be going the other way. We now seem to be handing the whole industry over to the union, which is the other side. I wish that one day we could be talking here in the House and agree that between the two extremes, there is an area where we can find common ground, where we can prosper and where we do not have to have all this action based on trying to extinguish a fire here and a fire there.

[ Page 5414 ]

So no, I would not always be criticizing the minister, and I would not always be damning the government if there were more common sense and more direction toward a balanced solution for how we deal with the forest industry and, in particular, how we deal with the people who have earned a livelihood from the forest industry and who were counting on that as a future for their children as well. Going from left to right -- the swinging of that pendulum to the extremes -- has taken a lot of that certainty away.

That is my response to what the minister just said. But earlier on, the minister actually made a point. . . . No, before I go to that point, I would like to ask my colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca to take the floor for a little while.

P. Nettleton: What I would like to do, if I may, is conclude a series of questions that I commenced. . . . I was going to say "last night" but in fact, it was this morning at roughly 2:15 a.m. As I said, I have a series of brief questions dealing with the whole question of the auditor general's audit of the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests. The general concerns that had been raised. . . .

I should back up a step and say that I represent the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Some of the concerns that have been raised have been brought to my attention from people working in the field -- that is, with the ministry -- in Prince George-Omineca, which includes a number of the outlying communities.

Some of the general concerns that have been raised and that have been brought to my attention, and that I, in turn, bring to the attention of the minister -- hoping for some clarification -- include the mandatory control of transported and decked timber reconciliation, the improved cut or cruise comparisons, improving the cruising checks, documenting revenue risk or revenue risk management plans, off-hours field inspections, improving waste surveys, implementing load description slips, off-hours check scale and site inspections, and increased reconciliation of scale data.

The scaling program of revenue. . . . The responsibility for the majority of this new workload will fall on the shoulders of the scaling program, which is responsible for approximately $1.8 billion in stumpage fees and the resultant revenues to the ministry -- approximately $20 million to $60 million per person, depending on the region.

Some of the problems associated with this program that have been related to me are that, due to cutbacks and early retirement, the provincial scaling program stands at an approximate 25 percent vacancy rate, and apparently some regions are above that figure. The question which would flow from that, assuming that that is the case -- that in fact the program stands, as I say, at an approximate 25 percent vacancy rate, which seems incredibly high, and that some regions are above that. . . . Why are some positions not being filled? That would be my first question to the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not filling positions sometimes because. . . . From time to time we freeze hiring in order to stay within our budget so that the opposition doesn't criticize us for going over on our FTEs.

P. Nettleton: But in terms of the impact of not filling those vacancies, it seems to me that there are difficulties that arise in terms of doing the job. Perhaps the minister may wish to comment on the downside of not filling these positions, in terms of, as I say, assuring that the stumpage fees -- which are considerable, $1.8 billion -- are in fact correctly reported to the ministry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think the member should assume that because there's a vacancy, there's lost revenue. The scalers are doing checking, and the scaling is taking place. The audits we do, in fact, show very good performance.

There is in fact one competition going on to fill the positions. But I just want to say to the member that we do go through early retirements, and if you lose people, you replace them as soon as you can. The managers do the very best they can so that there is no loss of revenue.

In general terms, we're acting on every recommendation of the auditor general's report we can act on in order to try to attain the revenues for the province. It's a very easy argument to say: "Spend more money so that you earn more money." Well, you'd argue that government would be too big. So I just caution the member that there really needs to be some consistency.

We are managing to our budget. We're managing to the number of FTEs, and occasionally in some places we're short of staff. But even though we're short of staff, the managers are managing, and they're doing as good a job as they can.

P. Nettleton: It's been suggested as well that there's no support for people in these positions -- that's within the scaling program -- from the revenue branch. It's been further pointed out that scalers are the lowest-paid people in operations. In addition to that, there has been no effort to resolve a three-year classification issue. Could the minister comment upon that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to assure the member that the auditor general is pleased, having just gone through a review. I know the auditor general's report has gone through the Public Accounts Committee. It just finished this morning. The Public Accounts Committee, I understand, is pleased with the progress that's been made.

With respect to scaler pay levels, that is currently in arbitration right now. It's gone to arbitration. I've actually met with representative scalers; I know it's an issue. They feel that the public scalers have to have a decent wage or we'll lose people to the private sector. We certainly have to have good people working for the public sector. Having said that, we could make that argument about a number of public sector areas. But this is critical, and we will do everything we have to do to ensure that we get the return to the Crown.

P. Nettleton: It's also been suggested that. . . . I mentioned the classification issue, and I believe the minister responded to that. However, it has been suggested that the ministry is experiencing some difficulty attracting people to the positions when they are advertised as a result of the difficulties associated with the question of pay as well as with the classification issue.

Another result, apparently, that has been brought to my attention -- and perhaps the minister can comment on this -- is that when positions are filled they are quite often by unqualified or unlicensed persons. This seems to happen particularly in the north. The result, of course, would appear to be that the programs suffer -- as a result, as I say, of the positions being filled by unqualified or unlicensed personnel.

It has further been suggested that -- being a little more specific -- this may explain why revenue in the Mackenzie district was down $30 million in 1996, when stumpage went up. Perhaps the minister could comment on those specific examples of difficulties associated with this area.

[ Page 5415 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we are unaware of any scaler positions being filled by unqualified people. They are licensed; scalers have to be licensed. The pay scale is in arbitration. There are often disagreements between the advocacy ministry and the one that's doing the approving; that sometimes happens. It all has to do with overall cost control and responsibility to the taxpayer.

As for $30 million in revenue that we don't have, I don't know where that would be. I'm just unaware, and my officials are unaware, of where that might be.

P. Nettleton: I don't know -- perhaps the minister would have further comment after consulting with his deputies. But the information I have, as I say, is that the revenue in the Mackenzie district was down some $30 million when stumpage was up.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It could be just a matter of when it was scaled. I don't know -- maybe cut control, maybe market, maybe weather. But I'm unaware of a connection due to scaling, because our people do check-scaling. The scaling is done on contract, and it has to be scaled because it has to be billed. So the function of the government scalers is check-scaling.

I could look at it, but our officials are not aware that there was an anomaly there. It is not unusual that a district would have revenues down for some reason, but I don't think that it would be because of check-scaling -- because overall, the check scales just check to make sure that the scaling is correct. No billing is held up because of check-scaling.

[4:15]

A couple of questions, if I may, just in conclusion, in regards to this whole question of the auditor general and the audit of the revenue branch of the ministry. What was the director of the revenue branch doing visiting each targeted district -- telling them what to get ready before the auditor arrived?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My understanding is that it's totally normal and that it would be irresponsible not to be ready for an audit. You've got to prepare information to make the auditor's time effective, and I'm told it's normal procedure for this to happen.

P. Nettleton: Perhaps there is implicitly some suggestion that if the targeted district is told in advance what to get ready before the auditor arrives, there may be some opportunity to conceal difficulties if in fact there are difficulties. It seems to me that one of the objectives of an audit would be to assess if everything is as it should be. It seems to me that there are arguments to be made on both sides. But in any event, if, as you have suggested, that is standard practice, that is indeed the way it is.

One final question, if I may, in reference to the whole question of audits. I'm just wondering why so few people are responsible for the collection of so much revenue, in reference to the whole question of audits.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We collect all the revenue, except for 3 cents on every hundred dollars. So we haven't had a problem collecting the revenue. I mean, you can always be better, but it's not because we haven't got enough people.

It is standard practice that an audit plan is given in advance and is usually agreed upon. Audits are not surprises. When they're in a district office, they randomly select certain files to check.

P. Nettleton: Changing direction for a moment, a constituent has raised a concern with me in reference to a woodlot licence, and I'll just very briefly relay his concerns to the minister. Estimates does provide an opportunity to raise some of these individual concerns, and I would appreciate the opportunity to raise this gentleman's concern.

This is from a Mr. Tutte regarding woodlot licence 248. His letter to the minister indicates that he is protesting the current high stumpage rates and that he wishes to draw to the minister's attention that from his point of view, the stumpage rates have risen from 50 cents to $65 or more per cubic metre over the course of the past 15 years. Apparently, 15 years ago Forestry looked after silviculture, permits, roadbuilding, landings, cruising, inventory, etc. Obviously there was no Forest Practices Code to be interpreted. He also makes the point that we are much closer to utilization to adhere to. . .which is an extra added cost to the operator. He ends his comments by saying:

"I feel that some of the expenses could be saved by the ministry by providing blanket working and management plans and doing away with the cruise. Inventory could be done less often, and stumpage rates could be kept more current -- that is, one month should be sufficient to revise the rates."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm aware that that woodlot licensee has written, and I'm sure our staff has looked into it. I don't recall whether I replied to the letter or not. But yes, there has been a dramatic increase. I guess we've moved from the 50-cent wood days and away from subsidies to trying to run the ministry and do the stewardship and not having the taxpayers pick up the costs of other people making a living. The Forest Practices Code and the planning regime for woodlots will be changing dramatically. We will pass that legislation later this session. That will dramatically help those people who are planning their woodlots. It will require, for example, one plan, as opposed to many plans.

P. Nettleton: At this point I will defer to the questions of the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate my colleague coming in for ten minutes so that I could get some more information on the protected-areas strategy and the elements that are included, including the spotted owl, because I believe it is more serious than it may look on the surface.

One thing gave me great satisfaction, and that is that when we were talking about the need for communication between parties that feel that they are negatively affected by 

[ Page 5416 ]

the decision to set certain land matters aside for parks purposes. . . . The minister feels that if the ministry becomes aware of these cases through proper communications, then, as a ministry, there will be options to have some mitigating solutions to the problems. What I have seen so far -- maybe it is lack of communication; I don't know -- is that for the people I have dealt with, in order to get assigned in a new cutblock or have the opportunity to bid on a new timber licence, it has been less than a pleasant experience. So maybe the minister could give me a bit of an idea. . . . He said that once we know about this we can find some mitigating measures or take some mitigating steps to help these operators. Could he share with me what he has in mind when he speaks of mitigating measures?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, we may have to zero in on the specifics. But if a company doesn't have any tenure, then it is difficult. They then have to bid on sales, and sales may or may not be available in time. But mitigation would involve a district manager looking at alternative harvesting areas.

T. Nebbeling: To be a little bit more specific -- although I've already mentioned the situation -- what mitigating measures would the minister feel would be considered by the Ministry of Forests, be it through the manager or through the minister's office itself, when it finds out that a particular operator has the right to harvest in a certain area, then the spotted owl issue rears it head and decisions are made based on expectations of owls being in a certain area -- it is not necessarily proven. . . ? The moment an owl has been identified, heard or sighted, special status is given to the land mass. We were talking earlier about what size of land mass has to be set aside to accommodate the livability of an owl. I said 3,200 acres, but it is actually 3,200 hectares. So that is a significant amount of area for one bird. Taking that into consideration, if that land is in an area that was applied for through a timber licence, then we can see what hardship this is going to cause.

When a particular operator -- and I mentioned a situation earlier on -- faces a situation where four cutblocks that the logging company was intending to harvest. . . . Suddenly these owls cause that land to get spotted owl management status, thereby taking so much of the harvestable timber away that the financial viability of that whole exercise is no longer there and thereby basically causing the cutting permit to be lost. What kind of mitigating measures does the minister think would be in order under these circumstances? As the minister indicated earlier, that is part of the role of dealing with these problems. So here's a specific situation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I assume the member is talking about the spotted owl strategy, although from time to time he mentions protected areas.

There is an economic strategy being developed by government with the unions and companies to address the social and economic impacts from reductions in timber supply related to the management of the spotted owls in the Chilliwack and Squamish forest districts.

"The strategy will ensure that mitigating direct job loss is the focus of any initiatives, thereby minimizing indirect or induced job loss. Funding sources, such as Forest Renewal B.C. will play a fundamental role in the development of mitigation measures. . . ."

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much for that very detailed and clear explanation of what would be done for companies and forest workers who, through no fault of their own, are losing their way of making a living because of the protection standards that have been set by the government, be it on the basis of a study area or be it on the basis of a confirmed area. It's quite frightening for me to hear that the only mitigation the minister can talk about is a strategy committee, consisting of various groups, that is looking at this issue.

We should realize that the whole spotted owl issue has been around for about four or five years now. I think it started in 1994. I know the last SORT report -- the spotted owl recovery team report -- was in 1994. So the issue itself was around since 1992 or 1993. Since that time there has been a tremendous amount of land set aside. We're talking about land in the order of 230,000 hectares in the Upper Fraser, in the Chilliwack timber supply area, and in the Soo TSA. So we're talking about an enormous amount of land.

[4:30]

If we are going to come to a not unlikely situation, which is comparable to what happened in Oregon and in Washington. . . . Just to give the minister some logistics, 200 sawmills were closed down in Washington. Why? Because there was so much fibre that was designated as "protected while we study the matter" or was designated: "We know what's going on there, so therefore that fibre is no longer available" -- 200 sawmills in one state alone, only because there was no fibre available.

The minister must understand that that had an incredible impact on other communities. When I say Washington, it was Washington, Oregon, Idaho and northern California. So it was that land mass where the old forest -- and second-growth forest, actually -- formed habitat for the spotted owl. So whole towns actually disappeared, and we saw job losses of between 20,000 and 30,000 directly related to the spotted owl issue.

Well, here we are today: 18 special spotted owl management areas. Every time we hear an owl somewhere in the bush, I suppose we will see another area set aside, and every time we talk about that, there are potential losses of workers. At this time -- still, after all these years -- there is no clear mitigating package for companies that assures them that they do not have to face what this particular company that I talked about earlier on is facing. It took them an incredibly long time to get a commitment for timber. Then, having to go through the process, which delayed matters further, has caused a number of people to be unemployed, walking around the town of Squamish and the town of Pemberton. That's just one example.

I hope that the minister, when I come back later on tonight, can talk in a little bit more detail about these mitigating measures that are contemplated. If there's any way we can speed it up so that people out there who have to live with this process know that something is happening and that it is not, after five years, still up for discussion by a committee. . . .

[ Page 5417 ]

If the minister would like to respond to that, that's fine. But certainly, on behalf of hundreds of people who fear that they're going to lose their jobs, I urge the minister to start initiating some leadership and making sure that these people will get their jobs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member would suggest that the situation is somehow parallel to that in the United States, where whole towns are shut down. There won't be any whole towns shut down in British Columbia because of spotted owls. I wouldn't want the public to get some idea that there are any parallels whatsoever.

Five years is a long time -- but it isn't a long time, you know? Overcutting has been with us for a long time. The destruction of fish habitat has been with us for a long time. Logging at accelerated rates -- overcutting -- has been with us. Living with inadequate inventories has been with us for decades. In five or six short years, we've tried to bring these things to resolution. I'm pleased to say that we now have a spotted owl mitigation plan in place, which the companies bought into and the unions bought into. We have a land use plan on which the committee found consensus.

We don't have expressions of concern in the Chilliwack forest district. Apparently, on both the spotted owl and protected area, there aren't a lot of concerns. In Squamish, I don't believe I have one letter of concern about the spotted owl. And I don't think I've heard from the member about concerns. I just say to the member: if he had concerns over the last year or since the decision, why didn't he write about those concerns? Then you're doing your job, and we can get back to you. If you want to be specific, if it's Squamish sawmills that you want to talk about, we'd be happy to talk about that.

It's a little bit like shadow boxing to suggest that there are all these impacts here. Show us, tell us what they are, and we'll try to deal with the specific impacts. It could be logging in a watershed; it could be a lot of things. But I can tell you that the spotted owl strategy is a major accomplishment. It provides for development plans; it provides for a transition period. It provides plans for mitigation -- there are funds there for mitigation -- and I think it's been a good job. The government officials, the companies, the workers and the communities who worked on it have done a wonderful job trying to reconcile conflicting values.

T. Nebbeling: Before I hand over, just for the record, I want to make sure that I have been very specific on the spotted owl issue. I have been very specific in naming a company losing four licences because of the spotted owl. It happened. I don't understand why the minister keeps saying that the spotted owl has not played a role in this particular issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No one over here heard you say "four licences." You may have thought you said it, but you didn't say it.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member didn't say "four licences" -- okay? So let's make it absolutely clear that if you're talking about four licences, tell us the name of the company and we'll go looking for it. You said "nine jobs." I said: "Well, we'll go look and try to find where those nine jobs are."

I'm saying that to wait till the House. . . . I didn't say there wasn't any impact. I'm just saying no one has brought to my attention specific impacts. If they had, I would have been happy to chase it and find it. We've just phoned our district managers, and they're working on the problem.

The member suggested that there were impacts in the Chilliwack area. He also suggested that there were parallels, where they shut down whole towns. But that member should rest assured that there will not be any whole towns shut down because of the spotted owl. In fact, we have a mitigation strategy, which means the spotted owl won't create job loss. The companies and the unions agree to that and are working on that, and I think that's wonderful. So for the member to keep saying, time and time again. . . . He ad nauseam repeats the same rhetoric. It gets to be a tone that sounds very much like whining.

T. Nebbeling: No doubt the minister will check Hansard and see that I am not whining. I have explained that I have indeed been a mediator between a logging company that has lost its licences because it can no longer go into an area that has been given the status of spotted owl management area. . . . I indicated to the minister earlier on -- he may not have listened -- that I have been able to put the lines of communication in place so that the companies are talking with the ministry. I have been able to tell the minister that in the Chilliwack area, the largest amount of land for the spotted owl has been set aside. So if the minister had listened, he would have heard that.

I have not indicated in any way, shape or form that towns would be shut down. But I have said that if this government, after five years of facing this problem and not having done anything. . . . When I asked if there was a mitigation plan in place, it was still under study by various groups, according to the minister, and Hansard will show that. Only then did I make the point that if this government doesn't get its act together and start organizing what can go wrong, then we can face situations like we have seen in Washington and Oregon and other states in America, where, because of the spotted owl and land being designated as a protected area for the spotted owl, 20,000 to 30,000 jobs went astray. So that concern has been there since 1993, and that concern will continue to be there until this government sets up a firm plan -- not another interim plan, not an intent plan, but a firm plan -- saying: "This is how we're going to deal with it once and forever, and this is the amount of land we set aside" -- not every time an owl is heard, another piece of land goes aside, starting the whole process all over again.

So I'm not whining. My blood pressure is still where it ought to be. I suggest to the minister that he listen when I speak rather than being in conference with his assistants, because he seems to be missing a lot of information that may have helped speed this whole process up. The whole discussion came up as: what are the mitigating elements that are in place today to deal with logging companies that lose land and timber rights because of the spotted owl?

Having said that, I will happily yield to my colleague from Cariboo North.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let the record show that I didn't say it was under study. There is a plan. After five years, there's a spotted owl management plan. It is a plan. You can read the words; it's written. We have a plan, and part of it is to work on. . . . There is more work to be done. To think that there's a blueprint for every stick of wood that's going to be cut and every piece of land is naïve in the extreme.

So there are mitigation procedures. It is under development. But you can't develop mitigation strategies until you 

[ Page 5418 ]

have a plan. It is very elementary that you can't have a mitigation plan until you know what you want your mitigating for. I want the record to be absolutely clear.

J. Wilson: It's a pleasure to get up today and address some issues that have come to my attention. Quite a few problems have developed within the Ministry of Forests over the last few years, more so since the NDP government came to power. These problems are basically with small individuals -- small contractors. They feel that in some cases the ministry has not dealt fairly with their problems or their concerns. As a result, when they're handed a decision they can't live with, they keep on fighting. It would appear that quite a few of them are finally coming to a head, and we will perhaps see the end of it in the next year or so.

The first issue I have is with a small contractor who lives in the Prince George area. There was a series published by a writer for the Prince George Citizen by the name of Fred Gudmundson. He listed the problems this individual encountered in his dealings with the Minister of Forests and his desire to try and create employment for himself and other people, and to be able to carry on independently and create a living for himself. This gentleman's name is Bruce Bressette.

I have a few questions that are related to this. As I go through, I will probably ask the minister if he can answer some of these questions. I have no idea whether this information as it was printed in the Prince George Citizen is factual or not, but I assume it is, because most of these things have been documented at one point or another.

[4:45]

"Bruce Bressette is but one of many independent logging contractors, those whose entrepreneurial spirit, drive, skills, sweat and guts enriches the province and are all too often rewarded by arbitrary deeds of insular bureaucrats, seemingly bent on driving them out of business. Why? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly no one within the Ministry of Forests, right up to and including Forests Minister [at that time] Andrew Petter.

"By way of clarification, truly independent logging contractors refuse to make deals with the forest giants. They operate by way of bidding on timber sales periodically tendered by [the Ministry of Forests], harvest the timber, sort it by species and grade and sell it to whoever pays the highest price. To bid, a contractor must have a special licence issued by the ministry under its small business forest enterprise program (SBFEP). The SBFEP was established under the Socred regime to squelch criticism over concentration of control over B.C.'s forest industry by a decreasing number of increasingly powerful corporations.

"The SBFEP did nothing to dilute this power under either the Socreds or the NDP, and that's an interesting issue in itself. The SBFEP issues licences under two categories. Category 1 is for contractors who have no milling operations and intend only to harvest and sell to mills. . . . Category 2 is held by small, usually specialty mills using relatively small volumes with the balance sold to the big outfits.

"In the summer of 1993, Bressette used his SBFEP category 1 licence to bid for the right to harvest a block of timber designated as TSL A45809, located southeast of Valemount, in the Robson Valley forest district, with offices in McBride. He had an enviable track record: no infractions, no requests for extensions, no trespasses -- no violations of any kind. Until the fall of 1993 he was a tried, tested and proven manager of forest operations.

"Preparing a good bid costs money. Bressette was thorough, and guess what? He discovered large volumes of high-grade spruce and fir amidst the stand deemed by MOF to be infested with fir beetles, low-value hemlock and hollow cedar. Block A45809 was referred to as a 'salvage' operation by the ministry. Hence the ministry set an 'upset' (minimum) bid price at $12.96 per cubic metre, which was high enough for salvage timber, given market conditions in July of 1993, when tenders were advertised.

"A low upset bid underscores the ministry's assessment and invites low bonus bids. Bressette, having spent his own time and money doing his homework, ignored Forestry's assessment and submitted a bid based on his own findings. When the bids were opened on August 3, 1993, the lowest bid was $1.29 per cubic metre, followed by $5.54, $6.29, $8.60 and Bressette's winning bid of $30.40. This, coupled with Forestry's upset price, meant he would pay $43.46 per cubic metre for the right to harvest an estimated 17,811 cubic metres on timber sale A45809.

"What this means to taxpayers is illustrated by calculating the returns to the Crown. MOF's upset price would return $231,000; the second highest bid $340,000. Bressette's bid would pour $772,000 into public coffers from a 'salvage' operation on 39 hectares of fir-beetle-infested Crown land -- a whopping 335 percent increase over MOF expectation based on their own upset rate.

"Why was Bressette's bid so high? Simple. Aside from his knowledge of forest operations, he doodles away time on related matters. Among other things, he scans factors like interest rates, exchange rates, market conditions, lumber inventories, housing starts, projected construction needs and a host of subjects that good small businesses try to do and all the giants retain hordes of analysts to perform as a matter of routine. So when he prepared his bid for A45809 in July 1993, he knew, just as the multinationals knew, the price of forest products was about to soar. In short, he's an interloper infringing on the turf of the mighty, and he'd be made to pay.

"Bruce Bressette was in a hurry following his August 3 win, because work on the tender was to be completed by December 3, 1993. He deposited the $35,000 required by the ministry for security deposits and signed the timber sale licence, which included a comforter in clause 1:02: 'The term of this licence is for four months commencing August 3, 1993, provided, however, that the licensor or district manager may grant extensions on such terms as he may deem appropriate.' Comforters are important for those contending with vagaries of weather" -- as we'll see.

"Bruce Bressette needed clause 1:02 in the A45809 timber sale licence. Clause 1:02 stated: 'The term of this license is for four months commencing August 3, 1993, provided, however, that the licensor or district manager may grant extensions on such terms as he may deem appropriate.' The early and mid-summer of 1993 had been unseasonably wet. The MOF tender called for harvesting the estimated 17,811 cubic metres between August 3 and December 3. If the inclement weather continued, he'd require the extension provided via clause 1:02 so he could harvest the block responsibly in 1994, rather than irresponsibly in 1993. Bressette's reasoning requires elaboration.

"Ministry officials described the terrain on A45809 as benched and sloping down to the water. Therefore, they estimated that of the total 39 hectares, 18.7 could be logged conventionally, while 20.3 would require high-lead logging to reduce ground disturbance. This establishes prior knowledge by the MOF that logging A45809 was sensitive. Equally important are MOF's documents showing 1.5 kilometres of old road had to be rebuilt, and one kilometre of new road constructed. Building roads and logging is difficult and costly in wet conditions -- but it is possible. What is not possible is doing this sort of work in wet mud on the topography involved without risking serious damage to terrain.

"During August and early September, Bressette made several trips to A45809, located just south of the point where Dawson Creek empties into the east side of Kinbasket Lake. Dawson Creek is about 85 kilometres southeast of Valemount, and a bit south of Baker Creek. Remember Baker Creek. It would soon be the source of much anguish, adversely affecting, amongst others, Bell Pole. By late August it stopped raining in the area. The ground, however, was soaked and, as loggers know, it would remain soaked until the following summer. The forest canopy allows little sunlight to hit the ground level during the short, cool days of fall. Drying out the ground in the bush simply would not happen in 1993. Building forest roads and landings and denuding saturated soils by logging land that slopes down to the waterways invited disaster.

". . .the majority of loggers tend to be environmentalists first and loggers second. Bruce Bressette is no exception. He was felling timber at the age of 17, and worked his way up."

[ Page 5419 ]

"With the sun shining again in September, Bressette must have been tempted to push through the roads, build the landings, and log A45809. . . . With prices rising, he was besieged by log buyers. Orders had been signed guaranteeing him a return of $164,750 for the timber. . .even at the high end of the cost scale. Instead, he met with Robson Valley district manager Harry Barber, explained the situation to him, and requested an extension. Incredibly, Bressette received a double-registered letter dated September 14, 1993, wherein Barber ignored clause 1:02. Rather than granting an extension, he moved the date for completion forward from December 3 to October 31, threatening all the reprisals within his power should Bressette fail to comply with his decree."

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Normally a sale runs for the duration, but I would say that our district managers shouldn't be doing anything that's illegal. The particular case you raised has come to us, and I've met with the individual. We asked the regional manager to do a review of it, and I understand there's been some settlement with the individual. I don't have the ombuds report, but if you're reviewing the case, you may wish to ask the complainant to give you a copy of the ombuds report and then you'll see what has been done with respect to administrative fairness.

As I say, I understand that there has been a deposit returned in the case, although I'm not sure which sale. But that is a case well known to me, well known to the ministry, and all of these things go above and beyond. . . . Well, let's put it this way. We absorb enormous amounts of time to make sure that people have not been victimized by arbitrariness on the part of our officials. Our officials attempt to administer the law and regulations evenhandedly, and where they don't, we certainly want to know about it.

I think Mr. Bressette has had due process. We do know that he doesn't believe in the tenure system that we have for community stability; he'd like to see a free flow of logs. He has many criticisms of fundamental tenets of the policy, and everything falls out from there. They would rather not have our system. It's very ironic that he would bid in the freest part of the system, and then not be able to perform as was required.

That being said, I believe there's been lots of due process that has come the way of Mr. Bressette, but I don't have all the details here. But I would encourage the member to ask that complainant for a copy of the ombuds report.

J. Wilson: As a question I need an answer to, I will take it out of context, in this case. But if I am issued a timber sale licence under the small business enterprise program, can I be guaranteed that the duration of that contract is going to remain in place, or are there extenuating circumstances that no one may foresee that will allow a district manager to shorten the time frame of the contract? If so, what are the circumstances?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there probably are extenuating circumstances, such as trying to get beetle wood moved in time so that it doesn't continue to create infestation problems. So there are conditions under which district managers can change the conditions of licences.

J. Wilson: Other than a beetle infestation -- and in this case, it's a three-month contract anyway. . . . I can understand that if you had a one-year contract or perhaps a six-month contract and there was a massive outbreak in that block, there could be some pressure put on the contractor to get in there and remove it.

Other than that, what conditions could arise that would call for the shortening of the life of the tenure?

[5:00]

J. Wilson: I would like to carry on with this; there are two more parts to my saga here. It doesn't get any better. Unfortunately, I've had a meeting with this gentleman in the last little while, and his situation has not changed a whole lot in the interim.

This was the third in a series that appeared in the Prince George Citizen:

"Environment Canada records for the Kinbasket area show precipitation from May to the end of August, when it surpassed the 30-year norm by 165 percent. But the short, cool days of September were dry, at 14 percent of the usual precipitation. "So Prince George logging contractor Bruce Bressette had another logging contractor accompany him to his TSL A45809 site on September 4, 1993 to determine whether or not he would subcontract to log the area, using equipment specifically designed for wet conditions. Even with specialized machinery, the contractor was concerned about site degradation, ground disturbance and other unsound harvesting practices. The decision was made not to attempt this approach, so Bressette retained Eugene Runtz of E.P. Runtz and Associates to assess the feasibility of road construction and evaluate harvesting systems on A45809.

"Runtz is a highly respected forestry consultant with more than 20 years of field experience. His credentials and integrity are impeccable. Since 1989 he's practised as an independent consultant based in McBride. Nobody owns him, and you pay for his expertise, whether you like his recommendations or not.

"On September 22, 1993, Bressette chartered a helicopter to inspect, once again, TSL A45809, accompanied by Runtz, logger Pat Martin and Bob Elliot from the MOF office in McBride. Runtz's on-the-spot assessment figuratively chided Elliot and Bressette: 'It can't be done, boys, so don't be silly -- work with weather, not against it.' His written report drew attention to an MOF June 16, 1993, directive to all district and regional managers, entitled 'Forest Practices Engineering Services -- Interim', wherein the standards to be followed by MOF for preconstruction stipulate that ministry officials must comply with the following: 'For each forest road, select and field mark the optimum road location. Consider alignment, soil and rock types and construction options.' Runtz notes that the cover letter for the June 16 directive states: 'The term "interim" does not imply optional implementation of, or optional compliance with, the engineering practices. Effective July 15, 1993, the engineering practices applies to engineering development activities carried out by major licensees and by the ministry's own small business forest enterprise program.' Translation: effective July 15, 1993, those holding large forest tracts must have their own forest roads planned and approved prior to road construction or harvesting. For small business scales such as A45809, the ministry is responsible.

"Runtz plows on: 'The award date of this sale was August 3, 1993. . .approximately one and a half months after the engineering practices became effective. The engineering practices specified that the roads are to be field-located -- they were not. If they had been, the wet soil conditions would have been recognized. It is contrary to acceptable methods of engineering and layout in the Robson Valley forest district that the roads were not field-located.'

"Additional remarks in the Runtz report include: '. . .the quick harvest of this sale was not justified on an engineering, protection or salvage basis. The harvest period of four months 

[ Page 5420 ]

commencing on August 3, 1993, was not possible and could have been identified if the roads had been field-inspected as required by the engineering practices. . . . Improper placement of roads, or unsuitable harvesting system selection has the potential for considerable site disturbance on this timber sale. The request of an extension of harvesting time was the only avenue available for a responsible approach to harvesting this sale.'

"Ominously, Eugene Runtz made reference to logging underway north of Dawson Creek on blocks in the Baker Creek area. Remember Baker Creek. Since there's no mention of it in his report, one can only wonder, as the chopper passed over the area north of TSL A45809 on this clear autumn day, whether Eugene Runtz's keen mind considered the possibility that the slash piling up on TSL A44775 might become the source of frenzy within the McBride MOF office a year later.

"On October 29, Bressette formally requested an extension. [However,] the Robson Valley district forest manager denied the request by double-registered letter to Bressette, announcing he had cancelled TSL A45809, seized the $35,000 security deposit and disqualified him as a registrant in the small business forestry program for a full year."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll try to confirm the information. We've been seeking to get it, but I want to say that that is a due process issue of administrative fairness. It did go to the ombudsman -- and who's better than the ombuds to give an opinion on whether an individual was treated fairly?

J. Wilson: I'm almost through this. There are a few pages left. This is the fourth in the series.

"Bruce Bressette had good reason to scratch his head as he read Robson Valley district manager Harry Barber's letter dated November 4, 1993. He knew his own drive and initiative contributed almost $1 million to the provincial treasury in stumpage fees alone over a two-year period. On top of that, he'd taken extraordinary measures attempting to harvest TSL A45809 responsibly; he'd been in continuous contact with the Robson Valley MOF office, keeping officials apprised of the situation; and he'd secured the best professional forestry advice available in B.C. from Eugene Runtz, who told him that any attempt to build a transportation network and log the site would risk serious damage, and that his only responsible recourse was to press for an extension.

"Besides, he knew MOF unilaterally contravened the TSL A45809 agreement by compressing the time frame from four to three months, and that the Robson Valley forestry officials had defied ministry rules of July 15, 1993, which created the condition for which he was now being punished. Beyond all this, he knew Barber had granted a number of one-year extensions in the area -- all due to inclement weather -- during the year right up to July 26, 1993.

"But there's always a bright spot. . . . Harry Barber, having seized [and processed the] $35,000 security deposit, cancelled his timber sale and banished him from the registry of the small business forest enterprise program -- his means of livelihood -- kindly advised him he had the right to appeal his decision. Not only could he appeal Barber's decision to the Prince George regional manager, but if he lost that he could appeal the regional manager's decision to the chief forester of British Columbia, and if he lost that he could go all the way to an independent appeal board.

"His euphoria was short-lived. On December 20, 1993, regional manager Ken Collingwood heard Bressette's appeal. On every single point, the regional manager's January 5 written decision upheld Barber's decree. This included Barber's outlandish claim that the Robson Valley forest district -- although admitting it granted extensions in the past -- was firm that extensions would not be granted in the future.

"On March 7 and 8, an appeal of the decision was heard by the chief forester. On March 11, the chief forester's decision upholding the regional manager's decision was mailed to Bressette. On April 28 and 29, 1994, the 'independent' appeal board heard the appeal. For two days -- and why not, they were paid $500 each per day plus expenses -- they listened to Bressette's reasoned arguments and the expert testimony of Eugene Runtz, supported by the equally expert testimony of respected veteran Prince George logger Pat Martin: '. . .when it rained like that, you'd have to go home.' The appeal board upheld the position of the chief forester.

"To return to Barber's outlandish claim mentioned above, I refer to a letter dated August 21, 1995, wherein a McBride logger requested an extension to TSL A44034 due not to weather or anything so complicated, but to falling timber prices, which made logging at the price he had bid a loser. The district manager very generously granted the extension until March 27, 1997. In short, Barber's sworn testimony before the appeal board was, to put it mildly, a bit off the mark.

"It's been two years since the appeal board upheld MOF's ruling against Bruce Bressette. In their collective wisdom, Bressette should have thumbed his nose at the expertise of Eugene Runtz, veteran logger Pat Martin, and his own common sense and logged TSL A45809, regardless of the inevitable damage to the land. Moreover, Harry Barber was right to ignore the July 15, 1993 ministry rules regarding forest road engineering practices.

"On February 29, this column noted that Bressette's site was located south of Dawson Creek, with Baker Creek a short distance north of Dawson Creek. Harry Barber's triumph hinged on the logging underway, despite the rain, between Dawson Creek and Baker Creek. Those responsible for distinguishing responsible from irresponsible conduct viewed Barber's comparison of logging under such conditions as proof that Barber did the right thing by punishing Bressette.

"It's instructive at this juncture to compare the ministry's treatment of small operators with its treatment of itself. While the appeal board judged Bressette, the earth shook and the mountains roared as the land logged during the rain the year before slid down the slopes in what is now known as the Baker Creek slide.

"Subsequent reports prepared by independent consultants -- the Carr report -- retained by Bell Pole, whose plantation suffered major losses due to the slide, established that the slide didn't just happen. It was created by MOF malpractice. The Carr report focused on 'mass wasting, surface erosion, compaction and puddling, questionable road building and culverting practices' on small business blocks adjacent to Bell Pole that significantly altered the natural waterflow, which caused this massive slide -- all a consequence of practices Harry Barber punished Bressette for refusing to obey.

"Revealing as the Carr report was, the most damning evidence came in a July 19, 1994 internal memo from Robson Valley operations manager Norbert Kondla to McBride officials. 'The purpose of this memo,' Kondla begins, 'is to highlight what I believe to be the main lessons we should have learned from the Baker Creek small business blocks.' From there, Kondla cites, without mentioning TSL A45809, virtually every condition that induced Bressette to refuse to obey Barber's dictums. Kondla concludes: 'A recent overview of cutblocks revealed that the drainage and terrain stability situation experienced at Baker Creek is by no means an isolated case.' Within a month of Kondla's warning, McBride officials were faced with yet another crisis.

[5:15]

"Skip the details. Suffice to say that the district contravened ministry burning permits, ignored weather reports and fired up piles of slash that, by law, should have been burned by the major licensees who enjoyed the advantage of logging the block. By burning the slash, the district manager relieved the licensee of burning costs and liability, which was thereafter assumed by B.C. taxpayers. Fire G3-085 got out of control and burned 342 hectares. The ministry's estimated costs, excluding damages, was $1.5 million.

"The smoke hadn't cleared before Harry Barber ordered a review by a team he chose, which conducted the study under terms of reference he prepared. A key clause preceding the terms of reference stipulates: 'Every effort must be made to support and encourage our forest officers in the difficult task of managing the land.'

[ Page 5421 ]

"It would be nice if the ministry would accord the same courtesy to small business operators like Bruce Bressette, but as faller Teddy Richter says: 'Their job's to protect themselves first, an', time permittin', mebbe pay a bit of attention t' the trees.'

"The report, of course, was a whitewash: no blame, no penalties, one big happy family. On March 23, 1995, Forests minister Andrew Petter replied to a letter from Bressette concerning the appeal board. Petter's reply includes the following: '. . .the appeal board was comprised of independent experienced people with no connection to the ministry.'

"Why then did at least one member of the board receive $67,378 for MOF professional service contracts -- in addition to appeal board fees -- prior to Bressette's appeal? Why did the minister not mention this individual had sat on five previous appeals of which the ministry 'won' four, and even on the one they lost, he had supported the ministry?

"On April 4, 1995, Bressette wrote then-Premier Harcourt, attaching voluminous information -- much of which is used in this series. Harcourt's June 19 reply, rejecting cabinet support, included the following: '. . .I must conclude that you have been given every opportunity to state your position and have been treated in a fair and equitable manner.' "

My understanding is that since this happened, we now have a different appeal system in place. If this is the case, would the minister be willing to outline it for me and perhaps comment on it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was a problem, a perception that because the ministry ran the appeal process, there was a conflict of interest. We have worked with the ombuds and others and have come up with a process where we have independent panellists. We carefully check to make sure that people who sit on appeal procedures are not directly related to any of the parties. We still have to have knowledgable people, so we have a panel of people we pick from. We make sure that the panel is independent of the case and that it isn't the Ministry of Forests but is rather the Forest Appeals Commission that is actually doing it. It's an agency that is now separate from the Ministry of Forests.

The reason the situation was the way it was before was to save costs and to make sure that you had people who were knowledgable and that you had the system policing itself. We made these changes not because of this particular case but because a number of people had argued that they didn't feel the appeal procedure was entirely fair.

We have brought in some legislative amendments, but I won't go into those. They're in the Forests Statutes Amendments Act, and we'll get into those in the debates.

I want to inform the member that I have a letter dated December 27, 1996, to Mr. Bruce Bressette. It's the ombuds officer writing as a result of the investigation into TSL A45809. It says: ". . .the ombuds has determined that, having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint, this would be a reasonable solution to the complaint" -- and that is that the Ministry of Forests refund the deposit. I quote the letter in part. It says: "She" -- meaning the ombuds -- "has not made any formal findings against the ministry, nor would the ministry accept wrongdoing." We go along with the ombuds's recommendation where we can, where there are no legal implications for the taxpayers. We aren't jeopardizing taxpayers' dollars.

As for the comment that we could have clear direction, yes, there should be clear direction. For your information, it was my understanding at the time that there were other sales that the individual had. It was a determination made that, in all probability, we couldn't get the timber out in the time frame that was allotted. If I recall the circumstances correctly, there were mitigating factors there, and that was a judgment. . . . We expect our public servants to make those judgments from time to time. Sure, people disregard or don't like what the regulators do; that's common. I don't know where there's a fairer public service than in this country.

J. Wilson: The fact that you've returned the deposit is small consolation for what the individual has gone through in the last four years.

We get extenuating circumstances, and no doubt we will continue to. However, when it's something where you have a four-month sale like this, it would seem rather extenuating to have circumstances arise that could not be written into the agreement to begin with, that all parties would be aware of. Some movement should have been granted. It would have solved, no doubt, a huge bill to the taxpayer of this province.

I have another letter here, which I will get into in a minute.

Since 1993. . . . Does the minister have a tally, including the present year, of appeals that have gone right through to the appeal board and have been upheld all the way through? I'd like the total number and the number that the appeal board has overturned. This is only in relation to small business forest enterprise contractors, woodlot contractors -- this type of thing. Well, I shouldn't say that; I should include any contractor out there in the interior that has been charged with a trespass, or whatever the infraction that came up.

What I'd like to know is: the percentage. . . . I guess one way of deciding whether we have a fair system might be to look at the percentages. We know everyone isn't wrong. If the number of appeals that have been overturned by the appeal board and ruled in favour of the appellant. . . . Perhaps the system had some merit; but if it appears to have been a rubber-stamp process, then perhaps it didn't, and the changes were recognition that the system was not necessarily fair. Does the minister have these figures?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I don't have those figures here; we'll endeavour to get them. I would put out the caution, though, that I'm not sure how that information is collected. If it's reasonable to obtain that information, we certainly would.

J. Wilson: I assume that there are a lot of cases that are ongoing, and there is a considerable cost to the taxpayer in this province to carry on business this way. Does the minister have a figure on the number of current cases that presently exist, that the minister is dealing with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we would have to do some research to get that information for you.

J. Wilson: Would the minister be willing to provide that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, if it could be made available, I would. I caution the member that I was satisfied that in the interests of the appearance of fairness -- if not fairness itself -- we were prepared to amend the final appeal procedure. We have done that, and we've done it based on the appearances with respect to due process. We've taken corrective action, so I would not ask the officials to undertake an extensive and expensive process to. . . . If it's reasonably available, I'd be 

[ Page 5422 ]

happy to do that. Having already made adjustments to the appeal procedure, I'm not prepared to expend provincial funds, when we need to have people out there doing other work like getting the wood out. But if it is a reasonable question, we will do that.

As I say, the ombuds is always there -- in some cases, the ombuds finds in favour, and sometimes not. My experience has been that they find in favour of the ministry as often as they find in favour of others.

J. Wilson: Often where there is smoke, there is fire. When you look at what some of these people have undertaken, it is really a very intimidating undertaking that they've got into. When you tackle government, chances are you're going to lose; very few people win when they take on the government. Especially if you're a small entrepreneur, small business man or whatever -- a small company -- your chances are very slim. When you look at the determination with which some people pursue some of these actions, it's something that a lot of people in the public sit back and take a second look at, and say: "Maybe there is something to what these people are saying."

[5:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we'll endeavour to get the information for the member. But I'd like to say to him that it isn't how much you spend on individual cases, it's the precedent in law that's set. If the government rolled over every time somebody challenged on a serious case, there are implications. . . . You'd have to roll over in a lot of cases. Therefore bills for trespass and other kinds of things could be quite phenomenal. We have to have the force of law behind the way we administer, and it has to be done in a fair way. When somebody wants to challenge fairness, they have rights to do that.

There will be no budget for the amount of money we spend dealing with the ombuds. There will be no budget for the amount of money we spend on staff time preparing for appeals. There will be no budget in our ministry to deal with court cases; that will come out of the Attorney General's department. We'll endeavour to see if it's reasonably accessible -- how much we spend -- but if it was $1 million, you'd say that's a lot of money and that we shouldn't spend it, that we should roll over. Then I'd have to make the case back to you that there are millions and millions of dollars that wouldn't be collected or that people would get away with if we didn't have some kind of enforcement in line.

J. Wilson: This brings me to the second part of this correspondence I've got here. It's a letter to the Premier from Mr. Bressette dated May 17, 1997. Again I have no way to verify anything in here, except I do have some correspondence in a file that would back up some of the points that have been made. This has to deal with the minister's Hart problem -- Bob Hart that is.

"Dear Premier Clark:

"Last week rancher Bob Hart from Quesnel, who like me has had a longstanding dispute with the Ministry of Forests, showed me a package of documents generated from the ombudsman's investigation of his complaint. I was so outraged and astounded at what was in those documents that I accompanied Mr. Hart to Victoria and assisted him in making two presentations. On the afternoon of May 12, 1997, we met for one and a half hours with the ombudsman and deputy ombudsman, and on May 13, 1997 we met for one hour with Mr. Leadem, the executive director legal counsel in Mr. McArthur's office. My intention in those meetings was twofold: first, to help Mr. Hart explain his material and, second, to show how part of my story is reflected in his story.

"In late 1995 and early 1996, myself and four others were vigorously protesting our respective disputes with the Ministry of Forests across the province. In early July, 1996, Forests minister David Zirnhelt decided to try and resolve all five cases through the provincial ombudsman, as indicated in a letter dated August 1, 1996, which I believe everyone received. The letters contained a common statement, and this is excerpted from the one I received: 'The assistant deputy minister of operations, Janna Kumi, and I are both pleased that you have consented to have the ombudsman look into your allegation of unfair treatment concerning the cancellation of your timber licence TSL A45809.' This, then, is how I became involved with the ombudsman.

"April 1996. During a meeting. . .with assistant deputy minister Janna Kumi and Prince George regional manager Al Gorley, Ms. Kumi informed me that she had contacted the provincial ombudsman Dulcie McCallum and discussed initiating an investigation into my situation. According to Ms. Kumi, Ms. McCallum informed her that it would be a conflict of interest if the MOF initiated the investigation -- which is ultimately what transpired anyway -- and I would need to do so myself if that was what I desired. I informed Ms. Kumi that I had no desire to meet the ombudsman, because after what I had been through I distrusted anything and everything with any connection to the Ministry of Forests. Ms. Kumi informed me that she had little flexibility to do anything for me, but if the ombudsman recommend that she 'return my deposit,' she would be able to do so. So as far back as April 1996, long before any investigation, the ministry had determined how to get out from under it all and the limit of what they would be prepared to do. There was no further mention of the ombudsman until. . . .

"Thursday, July 4, 1996. I received a call from Bob Hart of Quesnel, and he informed me that Robin Junger, ombudsman officer, would be in Quesnel on the following day, July 5, and he, Mr. Junger, would be prepared to meet and discuss my dispute with the Ministry of Forests. I told Mr. Hart that I was not prepared to go to Quesnel and meet as part of a group, but would contact Mr. Junger and arrange a meeting at Prince George airport upon his arrival there.

"Friday, July 5, 1996. Mr. Junger and I met at Prince George airport for one-half hour prior to his leaving for Quesnel, and I related my story. He explained to me that initiating an investigation would require a formal written request, which I sent in later that day.

"Saturday, July 6, 1996. Mr. Junger called me from Vancouver Airport as he was awaiting an afternoon flight and pressed me for an amount respecting my losses on TSL A45809. He explained that he already had a meeting arranged with Mr. Zirnhelt on Monday, and he wanted to give him a 'ballpark 

[ Page 5423 ]

figure.' Apparently this meeting did transpire, because in Mr. Hart's documents a letter to him from the ombudsman dated July 10, 1996, states: 'At a meeting with Minister Zirnhelt earlier this week. . . .'

"Letter to me from the Hon. David Zirnhelt, Minister of Forests: 'Over the past few years you have raised a number of concerns with the Ministry of Forests, which I have been reviewing. The assistant deputy minister of operations, Janna Kumi, and I are both pleased that you have consented to have the ombudsman look into your allegation of unfair treatment concerning the cancellation of your timber licence TSL A45809.'

"August 19, 1996. I received a fax from Robin Junger advising me that due to the fact that I had an action filed against the Ministry of Forests, the Attorney General's department would withhold certain information and cite solicitor-client privilege. I did not want anything to hinder Mr. Junger's investigation and immediately withdrew the court challenge.

"December 27, 1996. I received a letter from Mr. Junger advising me that the Ministry of Forests would not accept any wrongdoing in respect of my dispute but was prepared to refund my timber sale deposit plus interest as a resolution to the matter, and the ombudsman viewed that as a reasonable resolution" -- as the minister has explained. "The ombudsman calls it a reasonable resolution, the Ministry of Forests calls it a reasonable resolution, but to me it's neither reasonable nor resolved -- not by a long shot."

"1. Letter dated July 29, 1996, to Mr. Hart from Mr. Zirnhelt: 'I am pleased that the ombudsman's office has agreed to review your concerns.'

"2. Letter dated August 1, 1996, to Mr. Hart from Minister Zirnhelt: 'The assistant deputy minister of operations, Janna Kumi, and I are both pleased that you have consented to have the ombudsman look into your allegation of unfair treatment concerning the deposit on your agricultural lease, as well as trespass charges.'

"3. Briefing note dated October 1, 1996, prepared by ADM Janna Kumi for Minister Zirnhelt: 'On September 9, 1996, the ombudsman provided the ministry with her preliminary findings regarding Bob Hart's complaints: the ministry was fair and had authority to require a licence to cut. . . . It is my tentative conclusion that the deposit should be released.'

"4. Briefing note prepared for the Attorney General, dated October 3, 1996: 'Issue: Rule 18A application by Bob Hart and ombudsman's report. "Key Points: The ombudsman's report finds that it was inappropriate for the Ministry of Forests to take action against Mr. Hart for trespass to Crown timber. This finding was based on the opinion of the ombudsman that the licence of occupation in this case did grant harvesting rights. The ombudsman's report also finds that it was not appropriate for the Ministry of Forests to collect the deposit on the licence to cut in this case and recommends that the deposit be returned.'

"5. Letter dated November 5, 1996, from the Ministry of Attorney General to Mr. Hart: 'Further to our telephone conversation of November 4, 1996, I have spoken with Robin Junger of the ombudsman's office, and he advised me that this investigation into your matter is still at the preliminary stage and, as such, no report or any other similar document has been prepared.'

"6. Ombudsman's report dated March 7, 1997: 'On balance, it is my conclusion that it would not be appropriate for me to recommend that the ministry release the deposit funds in the circumstances. . . .

On balance, it is my conclusion that the agricultural lease in question did not provide you with a right to "harvest" Crown timber.'

"Somewhere between the ombudsman's first report, which the Ministry of Attorney General referred to on October 3, 1996, and the second report on March 7, 1997, the ombudsman's determination underwent a remarkable reversal. In my mind, even more stunning and ironic implications arise from the statement on page 15 of the March 7 report -- that is: 'Although political interference was alleged regarding the issuance of the agriculture lease, this allegation could not be substantiated and such a conclusion was previously reached by this office in response to a separate complaint.' In the context of this whole situation, it borders on deception for the ombudsman to make that statement without adding that the complaint referred to was lodged in the early 1990s by none other than MLA David Zirnhelt. Mr. Hart has a series of newspaper clippings that tell the entire story.

"This is an example of the tone of the articles. . . ."

"'Cariboo MLA David Zirnhelt filed a "political interference" complaint with provincial ombudsman Stephen Owen over an agricultural lease granted to Evergreen Ranch of Quesnel. . . . He calls on Owen to review the entire application on three questions: "Is the illegal logging of non-arable land by the applicant in keeping with the objectives of the agricultural lease program. . . ?'

[5:45]

"Add to the above the revelation that Mr. Junger, the ombudsman's investigator assigned to investigate Mr. Hart's complaint and mine, failed to disclose to any of us that he had previously worked with Mr. Zirnhelt and knew him. So what we had was a situation where Mr. Zirnhelt judged Mr. Hart's activities in 1990, decided to give him a trial in 1996, but he -- Mr. Zirnhelt -- chose the jury and, as forest minister, reserved the right to accept or reject the jury's findings.

"Now back to Mr. Hart's documents and the deposit which the first report recommends the release of.

"7. Letter dated January 31, 1997, from Ministry of Attorney General to Mr. Hart, signed by William A. Pearce, QC: 'I also confirm that I am prepared to make a recommendation to the Ministry of Forests to send a letter to you releasing the deposit, and I confirm that if those instructions are received, you will abandon your present plan of action to subpoena David Zirnhelt, Gerry Armstrong and Janna Kumi for purposes of discovering those individuals in these proceedings. . . .'

"In a memorandum dated January 21, 1997, Janna Kumi, assistant deputy minister, operations, gave instructions to all regional managers and branch directors concerning applications for woodlot licences. Part of her memo was a description of 'conflict of interest,' and she wrote this: 'Government conflict-of-interest policy clearly identifies that if an action on the part of a public service employee is perceived by the public to be a conflict of interest, then the conflict exists. The perception of a conflict of interest, whether or not one actually exists, compromises the trust that the public places in the public service.'

"From the perspective of the Ministry of Forests, as long as the matter could be restricted to the ombudsman's office it would be under control. Regardless of whether or not he could shape the ombudsman's final decision, Mr. Zirnhelt would still have the final say on whether or not to agree with, and act on, her findings. If the ombudsman had stuck with the findings of the October 3 report that Mr. Hart was innocent of the timber trespass and forced to pay an improper deposit, what would Minister Zirnhelt do, agree with her finding and open himself up to a huge personal libel suit for the statements he had made in the past? Not likely.

"The ombudsman found on October 3, 1996, that Mr. Hart's deposit should be released. In my view, it was unfair and unethical for the office of the Attorney General to use that same deposit four months later as a lever to protect Mr. Zirnhelt from facing examination under oath in a pretrial discovery. That discovery was not going to be a veiled opportunity to harass the Forests minister, but an attempt to bring out answers which would ultimately be subjected to analysis under the penetrating gaze of a Supreme Court judge.

"The writer of the October 3, 1996, ombudsman's report which so definitively exonerated Mr. Hart was also a lawyer, but well before that the Forests lawyers could tell how this case would end. A trial is supposed to be a 'search for truth' -- that search would not be advanced by the manoeuvring of MOF counsel to use $50,000 to purchase a lease of silence for Forests minister Zirnhelt, the most central figure in the whole affair."

". . .they are more easily understood when one assesses the mind-boggling ramifications of the October 3 ombudsman's finding: 'The ombudsman's report finds that it was inappropriate for the Ministry of Forests to take action. . . .' "

[ Page 5424 ]

J. Wilson: Okay, my question at this point is to the. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, please take your seat.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I take it from the lengthy reading into the record that the member agrees with the views of the person there. Let me respond by saying that there have been at least two ombuds determinations or letters in there that found not in accordance with the allegations in there. I won't comment in any detail, except that the member should clarify for the House that he's opposed to the Ministry of Forests collecting stumpage on agricultural leases, because that's the implication of him supporting that. So he should read his views into the record, and I'd suggest that he will have an opportunity to do that after dinner. We wouldn't let the public misunderstand the minister's view. It is serious. What is in contention here, in fact, could be before the courts -- whether or not the Ministry of Forests has the right to control the cutting of trees on agricultural leases which are administered under the Land Act. And of course, virtually everyone understands that someone has to control the cutting and collect, not give away the timber that's on ag leases. So that's what would be the case before the courts.

I understand that on those matters raised in that letter about the ombuds, there was a final determination that suggested that there be a partial refund of the deposit. Again, the ministry was following any recommendations from the ombuds. The ombuds has closed the file and made a determination, and that wasn't sufficient for Mr. Hart. He has now decided to go a legal route. So there will be a process of going through discovery of some of the witnesses, and perhaps through that process information more pertinent to the case can be revealed.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report not 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. M. Farnworth: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

J. van Dongen: To pick up where I left off, maybe I'll just start out by reaffirming and clarifying the statements I made about the closure last winter. The district manager knows this, but I want to make sure that everyone understands that I did not disagree with the decision on the closure; I disagreed with the timing of the decision to reopen. The basis for that disagreement -- and I did discuss it at the time with the district highways manager -- was that it struck me as a very risk-averse decision. In other words, my sense was that the person making the decision was seeking near-perfect conditions before the highway was reopened. I just wanted to put that concern on the record.

It led to a question in my mind about the liability of the contractor. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for the record how the issue of liability is handled in terms of these private highway contracts. Who takes the ultimate responsibility for liability in the event, say, a decision was made to reopen and somebody has an accident? Is there an arrangement or a provision in the contract that legally puts the onus for liability on the ministry as opposed to the contractor?

Hon. L. Boone: The contractor has to have insurance that insures both the contractor and the ministry against liability. But I want to put on the record that I do not for one minute believe that any decisions that are made about the closure of highways are made with regard to concern about liability. They are made with concerns about protecting the safety of the public. As a minister, I cannot fault a ministry that may perhaps err on the side of caution. If they were to do otherwise, whether they would be liable or not in the face of law, the fact is that they would feel responsible for the death of somebody on a highway if they felt that they should have closed that road.

We have to respect that these individuals have some very tough decisions to make. Often they're not ones that are liked by people, because they want to get someplace. It interferes with plans; it interferes with businesses. But it is our responsibility and the responsibility of our staff to make sure that our roads are in a safe condition. I do not intend to second-guess them as to when a road should be opened or not.

J. van Dongen: I agree with the principle of the minister's comment, and I'm certainly not asking her to second-guess the decision. But I've watched a trend since -- I can't remember exactly the year that it happened -- the year there was a fairly major pile-up in a snowstorm in the Fraser Valley. I think it was in the late eighties. I've watched a trend since that time, where we've had increasing frequency and length of closures.

If this trend continues, then I think it's incumbent on the ministry to provide the necessary resources, in terms of equipment and whatever else it takes, to deal with snow clearing or ice problems -- whatever impediments to opening the highway there may be. Because if the current trend continues in terms of the reopening decision. . . . In this case, one side of the highway was closed for almost four days, I think. That is a very long time, and it was a long time from the time the wind stopped to when the highway was brought to a state where it could be reopened.

[2:45]

[ Page 5425 ]

I watched people using those back roads. The snow was cleared, but there was still a lot of ice there. The highway itself was much safer than the back roads. So I don't want to belabour it, but I do want the minister in the review -- which, if it hasn't been done, I hope will be done -- to consider methods to line up resources and have them available, on call, for such an event, so that once the conditions are such that the roads can be cleared, they can be cleared much more quickly than was the case in this particular situation.

I would assume that it's reasonable to expect a contractor, if he doesn't have the necessary equipment to deal with such an event, to have a line on other equipment in the event that such a situation occurs again. I'm wondering if there isn't a clause in the contract that would require him to bring in extra outside equipment to deal with those situations?

Hon. L. Boone: In fact, contractors do bring in other equipment, but in many cases, as I stated earlier, they are limited by the very nature of the fact that this is an occurrence that is not limited strictly to the highways. Therefore there are calls for that equipment by municipalities, by individual companies, by cities and by private companies. So there is a limit to the amount of machinery that they can have. I would be very reluctant to insist that a contractor actually purchase equipment to deal with a snowstorm that may or may not occur, thereby increasing the costs to that maintenance contractor and the cost to the taxpayer, as well.

I recognize that many of you who live down here are not used to being inconvenienced by snow, but certainly there are areas throughout this province where having roads closed off is nothing new. It is something that occurs on a yearly basis; they deal with it, and residents deal with it as well. You learn to stay off the roads when they are dangerous. I would suggest that we should not panic over this situation. I think the contractor did an extremely good job. I know that individuals there worked for long, long hours to make sure that they gave service. But often they are, as I said, limited by the availability of the necessary equipment. That's not just equipment that's available to us, but to everybody.

So having said that, I do want to point out that I did not advise. . . . The member keeps talking about a review. I did not tell you that I would be having a review. I have never said that. What I have said is that I will ask the district manager if he did a review and what the results of that review were, if he did have one.

J. van Dongen: I guess all I'm saying is that there should be a review done, and when it is, I'd like to have a look at it and what the plans are for the future.

Just a couple of general questions about the contracts. The Highways contracts: are they issued locally, or are they issued from Victoria? When you issue a new contract for a section of highway, is that managed from Victoria?

Hon. L. Boone: They're advertised out of Victoria, and they are bid on a provincewide basis.

J. van Dongen: In terms of measuring the performance of the private contractor vis-�-vis the terms of the contract, is that done in the highways district by the district manager, by local people, or is it done out of Victoria?

Hon. L. Boone: The area managers do that on a regular basis. If there are situations that are extreme, I may send in somebody from head office to review the situation.

J. van Dongen: I understand that the contracts are tending to go to a smaller and smaller number of private service providers -- that originally every contract went to one company, and now there are some companies that have two or three contracts.

Hon. L. Boone: You can't have more than three; any one company can't have more than three contracts. They are bid competitively and they do change around, and this year we saw some shifting of functions. Companies move from place to place, but any one company is limited to three contracts.

J. van Dongen: I know that at the time the privatization decision was made and subsequent to that, there were media reports that it ended up being quite a costly venture, and that there was, in the end, an additional 150 staff in the ministry to manage the contracts. I'm wondering: has there been any comprehensive review done of the whole issue of operating this service through private contractors, as opposed to the government operating this service? I ask that question coming from the perspective that in my experience in the business world, this is not an issue that you want to approach from a particular ideological point of view. There are times when it's more economical and more effective to operate through contractors; there are times when a company, or in this case the government, would be better off providing the service itself. In the end, the decision -- if it's going to be a good decision -- depends on a careful analysis of the options. With that in mind, I would simply like to ask the minister if there has been a comprehensive review done of the whole decision to privatize the maintenance of the highways.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there was a review done by Jackie Pement, the former minister. That review concluded that it did, in fact, cost more to do this through private contractors, but it also concluded that it would cost us too much money to get back into the business again. I make no bones about it. If I had my druthers, I'd sooner have this done in-house, but I don't have the money to purchase the equipment. Quite frankly, when we sat as opposition. . . . You have no idea how lucky you are having freedom of information, because we couldn't even get from the government of the day the price that they sold off the equipment for. That was not available to us. It was never given to us, and we were unable to ever get the information as to how much they actually sold the equipment for. The reality is that it would cost us far too much to ever purchase back that equipment and to bring it in-house. Therefore the decision to remain with the private contractors is one that was made by Minister Pement.

J. van Dongen: Did the review that was done by the previous minister explore options other than possibly the two sort of main options? For example, did it explore different ways to break down the contracts and that sort of thing, or different ways to design the contracts in terms of the various types of functions and services that the contractors are providing?

Hon. L. Boone: As a result of the report, there was a tripartite committee that sat down -- government, the union 

[ Page 5426 ]

and the contractors -- to find ways they could improve the delivery of services. They made 29 recommendations, and we implemented 28 of them.

J. van Dongen: Is a copy of that report available -- the review that was done?

Hon. L. Boone: The former critic, the member for Richmond Centre, actually has a copy of that report.

J. van Dongen: I just want to raise one other perspective on the issue of the highway contractors. This involves the Peace River district, and I know that the minister has been lobbied extensively by the two MLAs for Peace River. I was in that area myself ten days ago and certainly can attest to the very bad conditions of the roads there -- gravel roads, many of which are not passable by car and are barely passable by four-wheel-drive, in many cases. One of the comments that was made to me by the local farmers was that they felt the decision to privatize had something to do with the deterioration of the roads over time. They were not convinced, or they alleged -- and I'm simply raising it for the minster's information and comment -- that in the early years of the private contractors running the system, the normal kind of maintenance that should have been done was not done. That lack of performance, combined with a lot of bad weather that the Peace River, particularly, has had the last year and a half, are two of the major factors in the condition of the roads. I just raise that for the minister's information. It is certainly kind of hard to believe, when you come from the lower mainland, that roads up there are not passable by car -- but that was certainly the case, particularly with the weather conditions we've had.

I'm wondering if the minister would agree to a briefing sometime -- by some senior people or whoever she has who is knowledgable -- about the whole privatization initiative? I have an interest in exploring it further, and if the minister would make that possibility available to me, I would appreciate it. It would be sometime after the session ends.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the briefing is that you want about privatization. This was done two governments ago -- not even by our government. It's an issue that is not one that I see as being on the table today. What is the briefing that you wish to have? We can give you the reports and the review that was done, but I'm not quite sure what you want to be briefed on, hon. member.

[3:00]

Hon. L. Boone: We can make staff available to you to talk to you about those things.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that.

I just want to raise again a couple of local issues. One is the "Welcome to B.C." sign -- and I gather there are two signs, but this particular one is on the overpass at Sumas Way. This sign was originally installed during the Expo year, and it's a sign that welcomes people that are driving up from the U.S. border at Huntingdon. It's one of the first things they see. That sign involves a garden-type setup -- a flower bed and that sort of thing -- and some permanent fixtures.

That sign has been the subject of a fair bit of discussion within the ministry, and I have talked to the district manager about it. But it has not been maintained this summer. There was no budget apparently available for it, and there was some discussion back and forth with your staff in Victoria as to the future of it. It's really become a bit of an eyesore. It's not a very good statement by a province that prides itself on promoting tourism. In fact, it got to the point where one of our citizens in Abbotsford went out there with her family on the Canada Day weekend and cleaned it up and tidied it up. I had seen something in the paper about it, but I just got a phone call from her today complaining about it and wondering what is going to be done.

I think it's an example of two or three issues: signage along the freeway, this particular sign and probably the sani-dump issue, which we have along our freeway, also. Probably there needs to be better coordination and discussion with the Ministry of Tourism. I wonder if the minister could give me any sort of comment on the future of this "Welcome to B.C." sign I've described?

Hon. L. Boone: It seems incredible to me, but I guess we had to close the sani-dumps on a temporary basis because some private sector people -- some business people, etc., -- were dumping stuff in them. We didn't know what it was; some of it was toxic, so we closed them. We've now got the contractor to open them up and make sure that he monitors them as a. . . . I guess it's an unfortunate sign of the times that you have to do that, that you can't trust that people would leave your sani-dumps alone.

But on the issue of signage, from what you see here today -- and if you read the Blues from last night -- you will see the difficult decisions that have been made by the ministry. Last night we were, in fact, being attacked for putting too much money into flowers, etc. As was put so aptly by the member for Peace River North, that money could in fact go into the Peace River area to fill some gravel and help deal with some of those roads. We are making some difficult decisions, and several times those decisions have to be: do we fix the flowers, do we fix this area here, or do we divert some of that money into roads and fix some potholes? We get criticism from both sides: we get criticism if we do it, and we get criticism if we don't. We're doing the best we can.

J. van Dongen: Spending is always a question of priorities and planning and management. With respect to the sign, if the ministry, together with the Ministry of Tourism and the people in the tourist industry, decides that the sign is not cost-effective, then the decision should be to remove the flower bed and grass it over and mow it along with everything else. I guess my point is that it doesn't look like very good management and planning when we collectively -- and I include all of us in this: the B.C. government and the local chamber of commerce and private industry -- have a sign like that going to weeds, and we're still struggling with it getting well into the summer. I think that's my concern. I wouldn't have had any problem if the decision was to seed it over and mow it.

I think it has tourist value. I'm not convinced that it should be coming out of your budget. It may be a service that you deliver for either the Ministry of Tourism or the tourism industry. But I would like to see that issue dealt with and dealt with expeditiously, because it's just not a sign of good man-

[ Page 5427 ]

agement. It's not a sign of really promoting the tourist industry and promoting our province. I just wanted to raise it. I will call this individual back, and hopefully we can get it resolved.

On the sani-dump stations, I'm pleased about the decision to reopen them, and I have a letter coming to you to that effect. I think the idea to monitor and track who is using those facilities and the hours they use them and that sort of thing is a good one. I understand that the facility is open until Thanksgiving weekend, and then an evaluation will be made. I think they are an essential service. Certainly from the number of submissions that I've had, we need to simply find a way. . . . As I said in my letter to the minister, there should be a way to keep those facilities open. I certainly recognize that sometimes there are problems with vandalism or whatever. So again, just to reiterate, I'm pleased with the decision that has been made to reopen them temporarily, but we need to work with everybody to do some forward planning so that we don't have decision-making in a crisis mode again.

I want to finish with a comment about the minister's staff. I think he's a district manager -- his name is Barry Eastman, anyway. I have found him to be a very good individual, a good manager and someone who is honest, straightforward and confident and quite prepared to explain the difficult decisions he makes. I think he's a credit to the ministry in that the minister is being well served by him. I want to put that on the record, and I don't do that lightly. So with that, thank you to the minister.

I. Chong: Just following quickly on the heels of the member for Abbotsford, I would just like to remark as well that certainly here in Victoria we have a number of signs that were put up at the same time, in 1986, as a result of Expo. I suppose that we have an advantage in Victoria, being the capital city and with the Provincial Capital Commission being able to look after the beautification of the visual landscapes as people enter. We are not perhaps in the same state as other places throughout the province.

It is a shame that at the time that those were put in place -- and certainly I'm not laying blame on this government, because I recognize it was done by the former government in 1986 -- there was not a legacy of some sort set aside, a fund to ensure that those would continue. What planning is all about is ensuring that when something is developed and a program or project is in place, there will be some sort of continuity or an option for other municipalities or whatever to take part in the future.

I would like to talk about the signs issue. I also want to tell the minister that I recognize that this area was somewhat canvassed last night. I have been trying to get the Blues to see what questions were asked so I would not be repetitive. However, those have not yet come out and we only have the Blues up until 10 p.m. or 10:30 last night. So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. I would ask that the minister indulge me.

I have spent a fair bit of work looking at this. When we were canvassing the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, at that time the minister deferred a fair bit of her comments to this ministry. I said at that time that I wanted to give clear warning that I would bring it up again at this time, with a view to trying to establish where we are, where we're headed and what we may be able to do to alleviate a lot of the concerns that are out there.

I know that the minister has made comment. I know that she has replied in a letter to the Times Colonist regarding the issue of signs; therefore I do know her views on this. I recognize that this also goes back to prior to this government's time; it goes back to 1989, when the previous administration first had to deal with this. However, all through the previous administration, of the thirty-fifth parliament -- and I certainly have all the Hansards from every session, every time this issue was canvassed -- it seems clear that there was never a clear resolution. We're still at a crossroads at this point.

I think it would be helpful, once and for all, that we know where we are headed. Again, this comes down to good planning. If money is not available, as the minister advises on a fairly frequent basis, it's important that those stakeholders be prepared: know what opportunities they have and to budget accordingly. Decisions that are made in a unilateral way do not, in any way, benefit the small businesses that are affected. They have tried to hear the government saying that they're on the side of small business and that they want to deal with the ongoing viability of small business. But when unilateral decisions are made and passed down, certainly those small businesses have some concerns.

I also want to advise the minister that I am aware of a committee that was struck -- a citizens' committee that produced a report on March 1, 1994. There were a number of recommendations from a citizens' panel of, I believe, 29 people. The recommendations were presented to the Hon. Jackie Pement, the Minister of Transportation and Highways at the time, and to the Hon. Bill Barlee, who at that time was the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. So certainly I recognize that the two ministries have been very much linked and that if decisions should be made out of one ministry, then the other ministry should be consulted.

During our estimates debate, the Minister of Tourism did state that interministerial consultations occur on a frequent basis between her ministry and this ministry. If that is the case, I would like to have for the record if those interministerial meetings continue and who is allowed to participate in them.

So my first question would be: given that we are where we're at and that a press release was issued about a month ago due to the outcry of small business stating that there has been a deferral for a year, what is the ministry intending to do to deal with this issue before next year comes around? Will there be stakeholders involved so that people can present their views? Is there opportunity to work in some sort of a phase-in process so that people aren't going to be hit with a huge cost all at one time?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not going to get into detail with this, because I did go into it at great length. If you look into the Blues from later on -- probably around 1:30 a.m. or so -- you'll see that we talked at great length about this.

It's not deferred for a year; it's deferred on a temporary basis. We are working with all of the various tourism associations to get some ideas as to how we can refine the program so it doesn't have an impact on some of the smaller operators out there, and how we can also make sure that we try to get the revenue back to the ministry. As I stated to the operators when I met with them, with the Tourism Association, it's about $1 million -- our cost. If we don't get those dollars coming back in, then that's $1 million that I don't have to do other things, such as repair, gravel, repave or whatever it is. From my perspective, I need to make sure that that revenue comes back into the ministry.

But we're working with the associations. I gave the list of the associations; I gave the time frames; I gave all of the information as to how we are working with them. That's in the Blues from last night.

[3:15]

[ Page 5428 ]

However, I am still concerned with this, because there still seems to be some confusion. Can the minister advise, then. . . . The people that she's mentioned, the various groups: will there in fact be others involved with this? Will there be a citizens' panel, for example, as was struck back in 1994 or 1993, where there were just citizens involved, as opposed to associations and groups?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I have stated that we're not going to have individuals other than that, and I gave the list of all the individuals that are involved. All of the associations that represent all of the tourism people out there will be having a say and having input as to how we change or develop or refine the policy.

The Chair: The Chair needs to caution members in regard to repetition in these estimates.

I. Chong: Again, I do appreciate that. As I said, the issue was deferred several times when we were trying to canvass this during the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture estimates. Can the minister advise, though. . . ? With the signs, I understand that there is a cost. There would be no cost to those who wish to have a generic sign -- just saying "Food and Lodging," for example -- and directional signs, because this is, as we all know, information not necessarily advocating businesses, although some have taken advantage of that. But this is directional and informational -- information for tourists, business and industry -- and those who cannot afford that choose to go with a generic symbol.

If it became quite substantial, we would still be looking at a cost that would be borne by the ministry without necessarily cost recovery. Has that been considered? What, then, would be the views of the ministry if in fact cost recovery was not anticipated? Would you then go to taxing or charging a fee for the generic signs -- which, as clearly has been stated, was not the purpose or the intent?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

I. Chong: Therefore those who do wish to continue with the generic sign can feel fairly assured that they will not be looking at costs. I appreciate that confirmation.

In areas that would appear to be advertising their business but are, in fact, advertising a stadium, for example, or a softball field or an event where things like that happen, is the minister aware if that would that be considered a generic kind of advertising, or would that be considered specific to a business?

Hon. L. Boone: We do not advertise for ballparks. We do have special-event signs, and we do enable people to put up special-event signs. I would envision that we could probably have a charge for a special-event sign. But for a ballpark, there is no such. . . . We don't advertise those.

I. Chong: Just checking back to the Hansards of the fourth session of the thirty-fifth Parliament, dealing with this, there was a question at that time regarding highway signs for tourist interest areas and sport interest areas. At that time, what was mentioned was that those highway signs. . . . I have to apologize; I've not seen the signs that say, "Softball City," "Cloverdale Rodeo," major golf courses, things such as that. They're on the blue-and-whites, as well. They appear to advertise, as I say, the Cloverdale Rodeo, but in fact it's the only rodeo.

I guess my question with those is: because they're meant to advertise a large tourist attraction that tourists are specifically looking for, as opposed to just a gas station, would those be considered exempt? Or would they be considered specific to a business and therefore subject to charge?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess what we want to do is wait for the review to come through. The review is going to be looking at all kinds of different areas. It's been suggested to me that at some point we may want to look at some value-added ideas around some signs. We may want to look at allowing other individuals to get signs who have not been able to get signs. That may be a way that we can increase revenue and try to alleviate some of the costs on the other individuals there. I can't give you a specific there. I really need to wait till our review is done, so we can come back in the fall with some proposals that are going to recognize and hopefully alleviate some of the pressures on the smaller businesses there.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise me whether at this time the number and amount of signs that are currently on our highways is sufficient or -- again, subject to the review -- whether there is an intention to increase the number of signs and their availability? At this point, I understand, it's been difficult for those who wish one of the panels if there is no room for it. There are only so many signs that are on the highways. Would it be the intention, because it's on a cost-recovery basis, for the ministry now to look at this in a different light and therefore increase the number of highway signs that may be on our highways?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I just answered that. I said those are the things that we're going to do in the review. There are -- this was covered last night and is in the Blues from last night -- about 3,600 signs out there right now. We're hoping to come back with some ideas that would possibly increase the number of signs and possibly give us some other areas of revenue that would help us to then alleviate the pressures.

I. Chong: I again reiterate and, as I say, I apologize. If I could have gotten to the Blues and read those questions so that I wouldn't be repetitive, I would have. But I certainly appreciate that some of these answers and responses can be recorded in Hansard once again, because I -- particularly as critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- have been receiving a number of calls. With that, I will leave that issue for the moment.

Again, I do want to state that it is a bit of a disappointment that we did have a citizen's committee that did make recommendations at the time. I don't know if the minister has had that report made available to her. There was never any mention of cost; there was never any mention of fees.

The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that the signs came about back in 1989, to deal with the visual issue and to deal with public safety. There were a number of private signs on the highways. This was a way to get conformity and to ensure that tourists visiting our beautiful province would not have difficulty locating places they wished to visit and also that they would have proper directional signs.

One last thing, though: there was the issue of larger signs that were granted an exemption, due to expire in 1998. Can 

[ Page 5429 ]

the minister advise me whether she responded to that last evening? Or can she advise. . . ? She's nodding, so I will read those in the Blues. I appreciate the minister for her comments and her patience thus far.

The other issue that I would like to raise with the minister has to do with highway access on Highway 97. To be fair to the minister, this only came across my desk about two weeks ago. In particular, it has to do with a restaurant. That is due to, I guess, a misunderstanding up in Lac La Hache -- I'll be honest; I'm not clear where that is, as I have not gone that far up north -- where a restaurant and gas station facility has four accesses, four legal entrances to their property. Highways is now attempting to reconfigure that and perhaps have traffic flow a little better. It proposes to block two of those entrances. The people involved. . . . The name is Clancy Holdings Ltd. I don't know if the minister is aware of that. They have been writing to the ministry office at 100 Mile House, it seems, and they seem not to have gotten very far with this issue. I'm wondering if the minister could possibly share with me what update there is on this particular issue, if she's aware of that.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of that particular access, but we will look into that for you.

I. Chong: I will pass that information on.

Just to quickly advise the minister so I can have this on the record in Hansard, in fact the Highways people at 100 Mile House were under the impression that it was a safety issue. There were a number of letters and a petition that came in, but the petition was to lower the speed limit from 90 kilometres to 70 kilometres, and not to allow it to remain at 90 kilometres and also block the access to this particular facility. As I understand it, this facility serves a number of trucks and truckers who pull in. The four accesses were certainly, as this owner says, needed to enable a good traffic flow.

With the blockage of two of the entrances, there is a concern that there will in fact be a larger safety issue to be dealt with. The Ministry of Highways apparently had advised Mr. Cho, I think his name is, that there were six points of impact at an entrance and, if 200 cars a day were to come out of their business, a possible 1,200 points of impact at one entrance. Therefore it was clear to Mr. Cho and a number of his friends and residents around the area that the four entrances certainly would be better, to reduce the impacts of all these entrances.

If the minister is able to look further into this, the last time anything was corresponded about on this issue was back on May 2. At that time, the ministry office had basically said they were waiting to hear back. These people contacted me in June and said they've still not heard, so it's been quite some time. I understand that the highway in front of their business is in fact proceeding. There is work occurring. If it is concluded before this is resolved, it may be an irreversible situation.

Again, the issue of safety is of prime importance to not only this business owner but, I am sure, to the minister as well. So again I thank her for that. I will pass this information on. If she would be able to deal with it in fairly short order, I really certainly would be appreciative.

M. de Jong: When I heard a few moments ago that the debate had turned to sewage disposal, I rushed down here as quickly as I could, hon. Chair. I think we can deal with this in fairly short order, because I know we certainly want to see these debates expedited to the greatest extent possible.

The minister referred to the sani-dump stations. I just want to be clear on a couple of things. One of those facilities on Highway 1 is historically regarded or referred to as the Bradner Road sani-dump. I just want to confirm that it is amongst those that have been reopened along the lines of what the minister referred to earlier.

[3:30]

M. de Jong: I'm a bit unclear about the rationale that went into the initial closing of those facilities. I've heard the minister refer in the past in these estimates to the concern relating to dumping foreign substances into sani-dump facilities. In addition to that, I was led to believe as a local representative that there was also a financial component to this. If I am confused, I think there are others in the area who are also confused about what the rationale was. I wonder if the minister can lay out when that decision to close the facilities was made and what was in the minds of ministry officials when it was made.

Hon. L. Boone: It was made on the basis of the possible toxicity of the substance that was being dumped in there. The financial aspect would have been with regard to keeping it open all the time and having somebody in there to monitor it. That's why it's open on a one-shift-a-day basis.

M. de Jong: When was the decision made to close the facility? At the time the decision was made, the impression left locally was that it was a decision to close the facility permanently, and those who had relied upon it to that point would simply be responsible for finding an alternate site.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get the exact date as to when the decision was made to close it and get that exact information to you. As I said, the decision was not made on the basis that there wasn't enough money. There wasn't enough money to keep it open and have somebody there monitoring it all the time, so it was closed. Individuals may have talked about that as being the financial aspect. The decision was made in terms of keeping it open for one shift only.

M. de Jong: I think I understand the response. I'm still a bit unclear as to whether, when the decision was made to close it, it was contemplated to be a permanent closure.

Hon. L. Boone: It may have been perceived by local people to be a permanent closure, but as soon as the ministry executive became aware of it, the decision was made that we had to find a way and a means of keeping it open, even on a part-time basis. Therefore the decision was made to open it for one shift.

M. de Jong: I won't belabour this, but as I understand it, the chronology was as follows: there was a problem that was identified by the ministry -- that is, the dumping of deleterious substances into the dump -- there was a decision made that the ministry didn't have the resources necessary to monitor the facility on a basis that would allow for it to remain open; there was then a third decision taken as a result of those findings to close the facility. It's not really a question of what others may have perceived. When the decision was made to close, did the ministry make that decision with a view to it being a permanent closure?

Hon. L. Boone: It was never considered a permanent decision on the part of the executive of the ministry. The 

[ Page 5430 ]

closure took place at the district level, and some may have perceived that as a permanent closure. But the ministry executive made it clear that we had to work to find an alternative. The fourth stage that you talked about after the third stage was the decision to reopen it.

M. de Jong: Without trying to pin the minister down, I'm not sure approximately how long the facility was closed before the reopening, which I understood was official last week.

Hon. L. Boone: It was official last week. I don't know how long, because we'd have to find out when it was actually closed. So we need to find the closure date before I can tell you how long it was actually closed.

M. de Jong: I wasn't trying to pin the minister down to a day or even a week. If her staff are aware of the number of months that it was closed, it would be helpful if she has that information.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that information for you. I don't want to take a guess, because then you'd accuse me of misleading you later on. I would never do that. I will tell you that I don't know, hon. member, and I will get it for you.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm left speechless.

An Hon. Member: No, you're not. You're never speechless.

M. de Jong: Well, almost. I wonder, though. I'm intrigued by the process by which the decision was made. I don't want to try to stalk the minister through this exercise. There are some. . . .

An Hon. Member: That's illegal.

M. de Jong: It is illegal. Discourteous was a word that we heard last night in one of these debates.

There were some health repercussions, so I'm interested in how the decision was made to close the facility in the first place. It sounds like there was some dysfunction between the ministry -- and when the minister says the ministry, my sense is that she's referring to the Victoria operation -- and what was taking place at the regional or district level.

I wonder if the minister can tell me and the committee, when a decision like this is taken, what type of. . . . I don't want to use the word "study," because I don't want to suggest that there should have been some huge research project, but there were obviously repercussions that would flow from the closure of these facilities. I'm curious to know what efforts were undertaken by the ministry to consider the contingencies that might need to be in place or the impact the closure of these facilities would have. As we'll discover, if the minister doesn't already know it, there were some very negative impacts.

Hon. L. Boone: It was the public that brought to our attention that there were some foreign substances being dumped in these areas. The district manager is responsible for those areas and took a very cautionary approach and closed them down because, as I said, they did not have the dollars to monitor them on a 24-hour basis. It just wasn't possible to do. Once the executive of the ministry became aware that this closure had taken place, they asked the district staff to go back and review it in terms of finding a way to open them, at least on a part-time basis. That's what we've done.

We've come to an agreement that we are opening them for one shift only. That way we can monitor it; we can satisfy our own conscience in terms of making sure that the public safety is not at risk, that there are not substances being dumped there that are entirely inappropriate. We can also make sure that the public have a facility that they can use. It's a pretty straightforward process. It was closed because of the concern about the public. We asked the district staff to work to find a way to reopen it on a part-time basis. They did so, it's open, and now everybody should be happy.

M. de Jong: Well, it is sadly our lot in life on the opposition benches not to be nearly as happy as the minister would have us be, but we're working on it.

Again, I don't want to belabour the point, but I'm curious to know when the decision was made at the district level to close down this facility. The obvious question that would come to mind is: where are the vehicles that were formerly using this facility going to discharge their waste? I'm wondering what efforts were undertaken. It may have been a simple matter of posting signs at the site to explain where alternative sites were available. Did that happen? What efforts were undertaken by the ministry to ensure -- and I won't keep anyone in suspense -- that people weren't dumping in the ditches, which I am advised is what had ultimately begun to occur?

Hon. L. Boone: We've been going on with this for about a half hour; it seems that I'm saying the same thing. The district manager decided to close them. I don't know when. I'm going to have to get that information for you. Okay? I'll get the exact date for you.

A guy says: "There's a problem. I'm going to close them. I can't have people dumping toxic stuff there." After that, at the ministry executive meeting, the assistant deputy minister responsible said: "Where are people going to dump their things?" He was not convinced that we had a plan in place as to where it was going to be dumped. Therefore we asked the district staff to find ways and means of reopening that sani-dump. That's it. There is no big plot here. We closed them. We were concerned about the decision to close them. We asked staff to find a way to reopen them. We reopened them. That's it.

M. de Jong: Fine. I'm just suggesting to the minister that perhaps in adopting the course that the ministry adopted, they replaced one environmental hazard with another, insofar as the facility was closed down. I'm curious to know to what extent the ministry has been made aware of dumping problems into ditches and into streams in and around the facility and whether that played a role in the decision -- and I'm glad it was made -- to reopen. It seems to me that perhaps there was a better way than to simply put the padlock on the facility one day. There could have been some preventive measures taken to ensure that dumping of raw sewage wasn't taking place around this facility and in the neighbourhood, which is apparently what has happened. Perhaps the minister can confirm that for me. Maybe I was the only person who received complaints regarding the dumping of sewage, but I think not. I think that perhaps played a role in the ministry's decision to reopen it.

Hon. L. Boone: It's always easy for us to have hindsight and look at somebody and say: "Why did you do that? That 

[ Page 5431 ]

was a silly thing to do; you should have known that people were going to dump it in the ditches, which is illegal." A district staff person looks and says: "I've got a problem here. I don't want people dumping toxic stuff here. What can I do? I'm going to close it" -- never thinking that people are actually going to go out and break the law and dump into ditches. That may have shown a lack of insight into human nature, and it's unfortunate.

However, we are lucky that this well-seasoned assistant deputy minister knew human nature to such an extent that he said: "Go back and revisit this, because I'm sure that people are going to be dumping in those ditches." Lo and behold, they did; they dumped in those ditches. The wisdom of the assistant deputy minister proved once again to be so valuable, and we came forth with a decision to reopen them on a part-time basis.

[3:45]

She's shaking her head. It was either handled properly or it wasn't handled properly. She's saying that senior staff stepped in to take corrective action. "Thank goodness," she said, that her seasoned veteran to her left was there. I mean, not everyone is right. If it wasn't handled properly, then let the minister say so.

The question I have is: what steps has the ministry taken to assess the damage that has resulted in the immediate area with respect to illegal dumping of sewage?

Hon. L. Boone: I want to make it clear that I am not saying for one minute that the district staff did anything wrong. I don't think they did anything wrong. I think they saw a problem, and they acted on that problem. It is extremely unfortunate that human nature is such that the public chose to ignore the law and dump in areas that are not allowable, as they do at different times. They apparently do this in gravel pits throughout the province at different times. That is really unfortunate. But I am not saying that our district staff did anything wrong in terms of closing those sani-dumps down. That was the right thing to do. There was a toxic substance in them. We then had to work at trying to find an alternative means of providing a service to the public. We did so. I'll say this again: they did not do anything wrong.

M. de Jong: I think it's a bit of a silly answer, to be perfectly blunt, to suggest that somehow it was a novel thing that the public would dump illegally. You've got the problem because they are dumping deleterious substances into the sani-dump. They are already doing something illegal. I guess the fundamental question is: was it better to have an illegal problem that was contained and controlled, versus what became a problem of illegality that involved dumping who knows what, who knows where? For that decision to be made without offering any alternative to the literally thousands of vehicles that were using, in this case, those two facilities and, more particularly, the one in Bradner. . . .

Can the minister respond to that? You can't have it both ways, with all due respect. There was either an error, or there was something more that could be done. I'll let the minister be kind to her staff; I think it's worthwhile that she stands by her staff. But it strikes me that there was something more that could have been done. You had a problem, a contained problem, which became an uncontained problem with no alternative being made available for a period of time to the public. I think that there was something more that could have been done to at least control the problem of dumping that ultimately resulted.

Hon. L. Boone: I think on that note that I'll just allow the member to close this on the notion that he thinks there was something else that could have been done. I think my staff acted in a responsible manner. We could sit here and argue back and forth forever on this, but we're not getting very far. I believe they did the right thing. I think it was a responsible thing to do. It's always easy to look back in hindsight and say: "You should have done something else." But they did what they thought was the responsible thing and acted in the public's best interest. As it turned out, there was a problem with that. But I don't think at that particular time that they should have been able to second-guess everything that was going to happen there.

M. de Jong: I know that the ministry was made aware of the problem of illegal dumping. I have some letters. I have one from Mr. Peigel from Abbotsford, that went to the minister on April 9. There has been other correspondence that the minister has replied to. I think it's admirable that she would stand by her ministry; she's the captain of the team. But ultimately, I think the question that she needs to address is: if this happens again, would she have her ministry respond in precisely the same way? She seems to be saying that she would. If that is what she's saying, then I don't think the ministry has learned anything from this incident, and I think that's disturbing.

S. Hawkins: I don't want to cut off the member from Matsqui, and I don't want to belabour this point, but I think there's still a problem. There's a problem with sewage being dumped in ditches around this station. What the minister seems to be telling us is that this sani-dump is only open for one shift, so that does not negate the problem of sewage still being dumped. I'm truly trying to understand what the minister is trying to say in seeing this problem as settled, but I don't see it that way. This sani-dump, as I said, is only open one shift a day now. I understood it was accessed more than that before.

We're getting complaints now; as the Health critic, I'm getting complaints about health issues related to this. They're still dumping. Tour buses are dumping in the ditches, RVs are dumping in the ditches, and the residents around that area are concerned.

I'm concerned that this issue was raised by a constituent of the member for Matsqui back in April, and it's still continuing. I'm wondering if the minister, then, can go back to the district staff and perhaps advise that maybe signs should be put up, saying there are other stations that can be accessed on more than a one-shift-a-day basis so that these tour buses and RVs or whatever can find another place to dump. I mean, it's obviously a very uncomfortable situation for the folks in Bradner.

It's going to be even worse. I know we haven't had much of a summer till now. This is the information we're getting: it's kind of cold and rainy now, so it's kind of keeping the stench down, if you will. But once we get those hot summer days in the Fraser Valley, I think the ministry is probably going to get more than one or two letters or calls from residents.

[ Page 5432 ]

I'm wondering if -- and I'm sure this is what the member for Matsqui is asking for, too -- we can perhaps go back and revisit the situation and perhaps advise the staff to either post signs or find another solution so that the residents and constituents from that riding don't have to put up with raw sewage in the ditch and the obvious health hazards and risks that follow from that.

Hon. L. Boone: Staff is already looking at the issue of signage. I appreciate your comments there.

F. Gingell: The minister would be surprised at the change that's taken place in the community where she grew up in the very short number of years since she was a young girl at Delta Senior Secondary. There are real concerns in the community about growing traffic pressures. Prior to the Tsawwassen-Nanaimo run being brought in by B.C. Ferries, and prior to Deltaport opening, which happened late in June, the pressures were already unbearable for people trying to get out of the southwest corner of the mainland and to work in Richmond or in Vancouver during the morning rush hour.

The evening rush hour, one recognizes, isn't quite as much pressure. There has been a lot of talk about an east Delta bypass. In the election in October 1991, the Social Credit member at that time was swearing up and down that it was just about to commence construction. We've since discussed the issue in this past year, with the Nanaimo-Tsawwassen ferry experiment having been completed and having been judged to be successful, and with the commencement of fast ferry catamarans from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay, which will remove all of the truck traffic to the new terminal at Duke Point. The only access to the starting point of that trip is through the Tsawwassen terminal. I hear more about traffic issues from constituents, other than special interest groups that deal with specific issues, but the wide concerns of people living in the Ladner-Tsawwassen area are the problems with infrastructure. I just think that with the ferry situation and the Deltaport situation coming on stream, the situation is going to get more aggravated.

I'm wondering if the minister can advise the committee on what plans the ministry has for dealing with that issue, how high it is on your priority list and whether you put in any procedures to monitor the change that everyone believes is going to take place.

You know, the Vancouver Port Corporation says the majority of the containers going to Deltaport are going to come in by rail. I think that may well be true, but nevertheless, a large number of them destined for the local market are, instead of going into the port of Vancouver in Burrard Inlet, going to come to Delta and add additional pressures to these islands or on the George Massey Tunnel. These aren't a few more cars; these are a few more of these big container-carrying trucks, a few more of the big delivery units that deliver goods to mid-Island, which are going to make a pretty dramatic difference.

I was wondering if the minister could advise the committee on where we are and where you think we should be going.

Hon. L. Boone: Actually, this was dealt with. We didn't deal with the Delta stuff, but TFA was dealt with yesterday. In fact, all our information on TFA has gone. I had advice from the critic that I would take all TFA questions on notice, and then we'd get information to you as it came.

I can tell you right now, though, that there is nothing in the immediate plans for an east Delta bypass and that we're working on trying to alleviate problems throughout. But if you look at some of the pressures that we have on the Port Mann and some of the areas around, the doubling of the tunnel or increasing another lane somewhere through there would increase our public debt tremendously, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.

F. Gingell: I wasn't suggesting anything. I'm not the person who's a highways transportation planning expert. There's been a lot of work, a lot of planning done relative to the South Fraser perimeter road. I understand that the ministry has in past years determined that another two-lane tube could be laid next to the tunnel without engineering problems, but I'm not sure that that wouldn't just move the blockage up to the Oak Street Bridge. You know, these are issues that your ministry understands far better than I do. I just listen to the complaints.

[4:00]

I wonder if the minister would take this whole series of questions on notice, as it were, and respond to me in writing in the form of a document that I could perhaps make public, because I think a lot of the issues are concerns of citizens because they don't know enough. It would serve the government well and certainly serve my interests as representing those citizens if some public statement was made about how we're going to tackle the southwest quadrant problem.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know that I can give you information that you can make into a public document in terms of what the ministry's plans are for the future. Those are future plans, and they haven't been vetted by Treasury Board or cabinet or any of those things. The reality is that for the municipality, Nordel Way is their priority. That is the first thing they want to have done. Some of the issues you talk about would, in fact, be addressed with the south perimeter road, and that is a $400 million investment. We are currently alleviating some of the problems on the Alex Fraser Bridge at the northern interchange, and that is going to take some of the traffic away from the tunnel. So that will help a little bit.

Every area in the lower mainland is a unique area, with some river to go over or under. It is an incredible challenge to meet all of the transportation demands of the entire lower mainland, whether it be the North Shore or the eastern communities or the Fraser Valley or going up the North Shore to Whistler or the Richmond area. The infrastructure needs of the lower mainland are incredible. We are currently involved in discussions with the GVRD to deal with funding and governance of transportation. So some of those issues, hopefully, will be dealt with there.

Clearly we need to try and alleviate traffic as much as we can. We need to try and get people onto public transit, whether it be buses or rapid transit systems in other areas. But we need to get those vehicles off our roads. All the information I've seen says that we shouldn't be increasing traffic into the Vancouver area. That does not help the Vancouver situa-

[ Page 5433 ]

tion. As soon as you add a crossing, it gets filled up. We've seen that on the Alex Fraser Bridge. That bridge has only been in operation. . . . I remember when it was opened ten years ago or so, and it's already filled. It was filled almost immediately. So as soon as you create another lane, people fill it. If you build another road, people fill it. From my perspective, we need to find alternatives that get people out of their vehicles and into alternative forms of transportation.

F. Gingell: In the early 1990s, Delta municipality got together a citizens group that was concerned about traffic issues to look at the issues, to make recommendations and to identify priorities. My understanding is that this document is still valid and still current. I just want to mention it at this point to ensure that the government and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are aware of it.

I would like to suggest to you that the particular issues that are causing the traffic pressures in Delta are not of the citizens' making. The area in Tsawwassen hasn't grown. There's been some infilling. One tends to have smaller lots. Now you get maybe six to the acre rather than four, that kind of thing. But the pressures are coming from actions of the two senior levels of government.

They're coming from the Canadian federal government in the development of Deltaport. As the minister well knows, they have completed Deltaport Way, they've put an overpass over Arthur Drive, they've put one in for the Guichon farm and there's a level crossing down at 40th Street. That all now fits in very nicely to Highway 17. But there's still. . . . The pressures aren't on Deltaport Way; the pressures are up by the tunnel and around Highway 17. That's not the local citizens getting out of the buses and into their cars; that's a federal government exercise.

I would like to suggest that the biggest increase in traffic pressures comes from the increased capacities and the increased schedules of sailings by B.C. Ferries. That's not something that Delta's doing to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Those are pressures being brought onto our community from a provincial Crown corporation.

I think everybody agrees with the position that the ministry takes: get people out of their cars and onto public transit, use HOV lanes to encourage one car to go along there instead of three or four. We all support that. But these are pressures being created by the province, and it is the ferry system that is creating the biggest push. We're now into hourly sailings from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay; we're into every two and a half hours from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo. The government's made the decision that it's the Tsawwassen-Nanaimo that is going to be expanded and that they're going to move all the truck traffic out of Horseshoe Bay. I can understand that. You've got awful problems with the size of the Horseshoe Bay terminal. Where do you stack all of the trucks? But I would like to suggest that, budget issues aside, when the provincial government is creating these pressures, you can't just stop your concerns and your planning at the ferry terminal gates. You've got to realize what's happening to all that traffic. I don't know if there's a response, but I would be interested if there is one.

Hon. L. Boone: I would very much like to put budget issues aside. If we could put those issues aside and then just do what we want to do in terms of highways infrastructure, I'd be much happier. Certainly most of my caucus and the member for Peace River North would be much happier. But the reality is that we do have budget restrictions, and we have to live with those. So I'll certainly take your comments under consideration, and I appreciate them.

F. Gingell: If I may just have one last word, as we always seem to want. . . . Recognizing that things will happen when the funds are available, I think we who are facing this particular problem are concerned about priorities. We're interested to know where this item sits on the minister's priority list. I think that would be a very helpful statement, if the minister could make some public statement about the priority you give to this particular issue.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I would be very reluctant to give you a priority in terms of the entire province. But I can tell you right now that your council priority is for Nordel Way. As a ministry, when we look at Delta, we would like to see the south perimeter road developed. But we are very cognizant of the concerns of your council and of working with your council. So we have to try to figure out how we can accommodate their first priority and our first priority, which is the south perimeter road. Clearly there are priorities throughout this province that are extremely pressing.

F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to the minister that the Nordel Way issue, though it's not in my riding, is the completion of a project that that ministry took on, as you said earlier, ten years ago. That bridge was. . . . I forget when we walked across it, but it was something like 1987 or 1988, and the two extremities were not finished. It was before that, because I was still on the harbour commission, and we were quite involved in that -- but the two extremities haven't been finished.

Now you've dealt with the one on the north side, I understand. I haven't been to see the completion of the overpass. One naturally wants to complete the other end of that project, which is to get Nordel Way through to 120th Street and get that traffic through to Surrey. It may well be that the south perimeter road would be a major solution to the ferry, truck and Deltaport problems. That may well be all that is needed, and that may well be major.

I must admit that I was somewhat taken aback when I got my little package from the minister's office that talked about the R and Rs to be done in my riding. I didn't realize that some wiring repairs in the Deas Island tunnel -- or the George Massey Tunnel -- were the top priority. The only thing that I was advised is being done in Delta is replacing some worn-out wiring in the tunnel. I hope that happens, but I would suggest that it is your Crown corporation that is causing pressures, much more so than the people of Delta.

Hon. L. Boone: I can tell you that my colleague the Minister of Education actually laughed when he realized that the only thing he was getting done in his riding for rehab was to have some brushing by the side of the road about 100 kilometres north of Prince George. These are tight budget times, hon. member. The Nordel Way is about $15 million -- and it's $15 million that we don't have at this particular time. I've reiterated that to the mayor. She's been very strong in her demands for the completion of Nordel Way. We've indicated that we'll do it as soon as we have the dollars, but at this particular time it's not doable.

C. Hansen: I want to suggest an area that the minister might explore that may in fact save some precious dollars within the ministry. At least, I think on the surface it may be an opportunity to look at. I'd like to find out if the ministry has in fact looked at this. It's the subject of the stretch of South West Marine Drive that is considered a provincial road at the University of British Columbia. I have talked to members of the RCMP who are gravely concerned about the quality of that road and the fact that it is a safety hazard.

[ Page 5434 ]

I frequently ride my bike along that road, and I've had the chance to watch it from about three feet away and always worry that it might be about three inches away as I smash down on that blacktop surface, because of the quality -- even for a cyclist on the shoulder. It is my understanding that that particular stretch of provincial road is maintained from the closest works yard, which is in Burnaby, as I understand it, although I may be inaccurate on that -- the minister can correct me. I'm wondering if the ministry has looked at any other alternatives for the maintenance of that particular stretch of road.

[4:15]

C. Hansen: Listening to the questions and comments from the member for Peace River North, I appreciate that urban Vancouver doesn't have anywhere near the problems in that regard. This is certainly a very short stretch of road. I would be surprised if it is a high priority within the obligations of that works yard because it is such a small piece of road. In order to service that road, even to do patching work, it requires crews to travel what may not be a long distance in terms of mileage but is certainly a long distance in terms of trying to get through Vancouver city traffic. My question to the minister is: would it not be feasible to look at other contractors, who are perhaps closer, to deal with that stretch of road on a subcontract basis?

Hon. L. Boone: The contracts are given on a district basis. The contractor can subcontract to another person, if they so choose, but they still have to maintain the existing standards. Excuse me if it seems like a very foolish -- not foolish; that's not the word I mean. . .

C. Hansen: Ill-conceived?

Hon. L. Boone: . . .ill-conceived, that you would think that that's a long ways away, when you've got literally hundreds of kilometres that contractors are servicing in other regions. They do so on a regular basis. I know that they don't have to fight the traffic, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you would look to get another contractor in that very short span of time. You could walk across there, for gosh sakes, and service that area. It hardly seems like this is a long ways away.

C. Hansen: Has the ministry done any recent assessment of the quality of that particular stretch of road?

Hon. L. Boone: The area managers do the assessments of the various roads that are around. If you have a concern about a particular road, I would suggest that you contact the area manager in your area and ask him or her to actually check it out and get back to you with an evaluation as to where it stands. The area managers do the assessments of the roads.

C. Hansen: My concern is that this is a stretch that is so far out of the way. It is a short stretch, but it's travelled by 17,000 cars a day. It's an area that services the university. There is a very serious safety concern about the quality of the roadbed. In fact, as you travel along Southwest Marine Drive, you can tell exactly where the point is that provincial jurisdiction takes over because of the quality of the roadbed. It is an area that is worth looking at. It just strikes me that, perhaps through working with the city of Vancouver, there may be ways of having that particular stretch of road maintained in a more cost-effective way than is currently the case.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. We'll take your comments into consideration.

S. Hawkins: I'm the last speaker from this side for the Transportation people. I would be remiss if I didn't bring up two short issues from my riding. The member for Shuswap talked a little bit about rural roads. I want to bring this up here; I brought it up in the Municipal Affairs estimates as well. The minister is probably aware that the province is negotiating right now with the city of Kelowna with respect to rural roads that they maintained through an amalgamation agreement approximately 20 years ago. It's the feeling of those of us in my constituency that the province is actually walking away from an agreement that they made with the city 20-odd years ago. Maybe the minister can help me.

I don't know how many miles of rural roads there are, but it's going to be a significant cost for our city. It wasn't something that we were advised of. It was something that was basically mandated from the province, that the city would now be looking after these roads. It does seem a little unfair, and what I'm looking for from the minister is: is there an update as to what is happening with that? I understand that there are negotiations -- and, hopefully, fair negotiations -- because there are going to be significant costs for the city of Kelowna, somewhere around $30 million or more, to upgrade these roads and then maintain them. I must remind the minister, as well, if I didn't say it before, that the city of Kelowna was forced by the province to amalgamate 20 years ago. It wasn't something that they had done on their own. I wonder if the minister has any comments.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not walking away from anything. In fact, I met with the council a short time ago -- probably a month or so ago. Dan Doyle has already met with them, and we're trying to work out some arrangement around these things. We're negotiating on this right now.

S. Hawkins: Is there a time frame for these negotiations? Is the ministry, at this point then, maintaining those roads? How long do they foresee doing that before they expect the city to do so?

Hon. L. Boone: The roads are ours until May of 1998. We are currently working on this. As we speak, we're trying to set up meetings and continuing to negotiate.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the staff can advise how much the ministry pays right now to maintain those roads.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate that. If I have other questions, I'll certainly put them in writing to the minister. I just wanted to canvass that issue briefly.

The second issue I have is with respect to the budget for the regional area that services our constituency. I believe the office is run out of Penticton. I understand that the budget this 

[ Page 5435 ]

year is significantly reduced from last year. I wonder if the minister can advise me what the budget of the office for maintaining roads, highways, in the area was last year and what it has been reduced to this year.

Hon. L. Boone: Maintenance budgets have not gone down; if anything, they have gone up a little bit. Our administrative budgets have gone down throughout the province, as have our rehab budgets.

For Penticton-Kelowna the maintenance cost, as I was saying to you, has not gone down. It's $14.578 million -- that's the estimate for this year. The actual, last year, was $14.471 million. So our maintenance costs have not gone down.

As for the administrative costs. . . . We'll get the actual breakdown for that office as to the administrative costs, because we don't have those specific costs here today. I'll get those costs for you, if you wish.

S. Hawkins: My colleague here advises me that perhaps a better question to ask is what kind of costs the ministry is using for local budgets in the ministry. Does that make sense? I'll let him ask the question.

B. Barisoff: I think the question that we're getting at is probably. . . . The local Ministry of Highways offices used to have a certain amount of money for day labour or whatever. This has been reduced to such a point where the little projects within it that aren't covered by maintenance aren't being done. I think what my colleague from Okanagan West is looking for is what these figures were for the Okanagan or the south Okanagan and what took place there.

Hon. L. Boone: The total for day labour for this year is $604,400.

S. Hawkins: I just wonder if the minister has the figure from last year. I just want to know if it's increased or decreased and by how much from last year.

Hon. L. Boone: It was $567,000 last year, so it's a slight increase.

S. Hawkins: I probably don't have the right question in front of me, unfortunately, but there was a concern that there was a significant reduction in one of the budget numbers. I'll certainly get it for the minister. It went something like from $3 million down to $200,000, and this was widely reported in my riding. I'll get the item for the minister. Perhaps, again, I'll do that in writing.

That's it for me. I do want to thank the staff for being so helpful in assisting the minister with the answers. Again, I want to say how much I appreciate Ed Sanders and Geoff Freer in the office in Penticton, because they are very helpful.

[4:30]

That's why a lot of the small projects within. . . . I'm sure that this is the case throughout all the regions throughout the province. Some of the small projects that normally used to be done under this guise of day labour, where they could actually do some of these little projects, have disappeared because they just don't have the funds to do them. I'm sure that's what we were getting at.

I guess it goes back to -- not our argument with you about not spending money -- our argument with you about being more fiscally responsible in how we spend the money and get more money into. . . . That's not saying that the Ministry of Highways is not fiscally responsible. But I think government as a whole is not fiscally responsible. So if we could bring it all together, we could probably put more money into highways.

I have a couple of questions before we move on to the next topic. I was listening to the member for Abbotsford talking about the snowstorms and the feed trucks not getting through. That's not the only problem that a lot of the farming industry has.

It has been brought to my attention that, during road restrictions, if in my particular area you happen to have a feedlot that's on a side road a mile off the main highway, can't get the feed trucks there. Their feed trucks are coming from Alberta loaded, of course; they're not coming here with half-loads. They get to the turnoff. It shows a 70 percent road restriction. They can't get to the feedlot -- short of doing it illegally, the guy driving down and saying: "There's no MOT guys there to come out and nab you. Quickly come up, and once you're unloaded, you're all right."

I wonder if the ministry would indicate to me whether she could look into this whether there's a possibility in some cases such as this that we could accommodate places where it's directly involving the agricultural industry, where it's not conceivable that they can take part of a load off or do something of that nature -- to make sure that we're not sending trucks all the way from Alberta and then saying: "You can't go unless you're going to run illegally."

Hon. L. Boone: That's a really difficult situation. We've dealt with individuals who get to a site, and they've got cattle on and it's overloaded. I know I've talked to some of the ministry staff, and they say they may in fact ask them to unload it and get some other vehicle over to carry the extra animal over. If it's a situation where it looks like it's extreme heat and the animal is stressed, then they may allow that animal to go on.

It's a hard thing for us to try and ask staff to do, because, on the one hand, we're asking them to ensure that our roads are not abused by heavy truck traffic on them. So it's difficult for us to give another message that says, "However, under these circumstances we want you to ignore these rules, and we want you to allow vehicles on the roads," recognizing that they could do some damage to them and that this damage is stuff that is ongoing. It is a very difficult situation.

I'm trying to work with staff. Right now, of course, the MVB inspectors are moving over to ICBC. But I have been trying to work with them to try and get them to see if it's possible to work out some alternatives, to find some solutions for companies. I think the majority of staff will try to do that. But it's really difficult for government and for us to give mixed messages to staff that say: "On the one hand, we want you to enforce these rules. However, this is a time when we don't want you to enforce these rules."

So I think sometimes staff walk a very fine line and have a difficult job to do, to try to make sure that they keep our 

[ Page 5436 ]

public roads in good condition and at the same time recognize the concerns of the various industries out here, whether it be the dairy industry or those that have cattle or what have you. I would hope. . . . I've been trying to get them to do that. But as I said, this is going over to ICBC, so it will be under Minister Petter's jurisdiction now.

B. Barisoff: I can appreciate the minister's concern. Coming from that industry, I'm sure that once one went, there would be others that would say that it's part and parcel. But I do know that over the years, in this particular instance, they have accommodated. . . . At one point in time there used to be a packinghouse down that road, and they knew full well they couldn't have a truckload of fruit that was on its way to Winnipeg. . . to go half loaded or to pick up half or whatever. They accommodated half the load. I guess the gentleman that was bringing the complaint to me was seeing that go on and was wondering why they couldn't do the other half of the farming industry -- the cattle industry, basically -- to go the other half. Maybe that might be a good argument for the minister and all of us to look at actually lowering weights on all our roads in British Columbia.

With that, if we cut down the size of some of those loads. . . . I think I gave you an argument -- I can't remember when. It seems like such a long time ago, even though we've only been talking for a couple of days. That argument might hold water -- the fact that if we lowered that weight down throughout the entire province, our overall road system would be better, and sometimes we wouldn't have to put the restrictions on quite so soon.

With that, I think we've probably pretty well wrapped up your ministry's section of the budget. I know that I thought this was going to be done a lot sooner, but it wasn't. Under the circumstances, I guess we both got tied into things. I'd like to thank the ministry staff, particularly for last night, because I know how tired I am today, and I'm sure they're the same way. But of course, we get paid such huge sums of money to do these silly things like staying here throughout the night -- when I don't think a lot is accomplished. But I appreciate the fact that all your staff stayed, and most of them stayed awake. I noticed between my eyes closing and their eyes closing, that we all kind of caught a few zzz's, but I think it's an onerous task on all of us to get this done.

With that, I'd like to move on to MVB, and we can start on the merger. I don't know what time you want to break. Do you want to break now? Was it quarter to five that you wanted to break? If you want to break now, then we can reconvene whenever. It's up to you. I thought is was quarter to five.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. I think we have made some alterations, so it's not necessary for us to break. I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me: Claire Eraut and Mark Medgyesi.

S. Hawkins: We finished the last one on kind of a positive note, but unfortunately, I have an issue that is of great concern to constituents in my riding. I think the minister may recall that the government agent's office in Kelowna was closed earlier this year. The motor vehicle branch was then transferred to ICBC. My understanding. . . . I did canvass this with the Minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who is responsible for government agents' offices. Now I'm bringing it up in front of this minister, because my understanding was that there was a need to streamline services and cost-cut but that that service to British Columbians would not be altered or changed significantly.

It's getting to the point where people are writing letters. There are surveys done in the motor vehicle branch on Powick Road in Kelowna. And although the customers who are there recognize that the staff are doing the best they can, service is not good. The lineups are long; it's frustrating. People are going back day after day, getting very tired of lineups. I understand that sometimes it takes hours in a lineup, where before it only took 20 minutes, to get a driver's licence. Now people can expect to wait an hour and a half or more, two or three days in a row. I don't think that's being considerate to the folks there or in any way, shape or form improving service for these people. In fact, I would very clearly say that service has not improved. It's gotten worse. People are frustrated.

I understand that there are staff being hired for this office -- it's a very busy office. I'm sure it's frustrating for the staff as much as it is for the people who use it. I'm wondering what the motor vehicle branch is doing, how soon we can expect more staff for that office and if they monitor the number of people who come in and out. What level of service can these people expect to get? Is there going to be an improvement?

Hon. L. Boone: Unfortunately, this area here was transferred over to phase 1 of ICBC, so Minister Petter is responsible for that area of the motor vehicle branch.

B. Barisoff: So I guess that solves your problem.

S. Hawkins: Everybody passes the buck: "It's still in transition."

B. Barisoff: Yes, I guess it's pass the buck. It's in the transition stage, and I think that we'll probably have to canvass some of that somewhere else. I've got some housekeeping items that I'd like to clear up first. Could the minister confirm to me. . . ? Now I don't know whether this has been transferred over, but the traffic-related tickets that were issued over the past fiscal year. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: The issuance of traffic tickets is actually under the AG's responsibility, and the administration part of it is under ICBC.

B. Barisoff: I guess my concern lies with the fact that the motor vehicle branch should know how many tickets were issued and what they were issued for -- whether they were issued for speeding or different things. This leads up to some different questioning that I have.

Hon. L. Boone: ICBC would have the management information on that.

B. Barisoff: The money that's generated from fines -- is that going to general revenue? What pot does it funnel into when it finally gets settled out?

Hon. L. Boone: General revenue.

[4:45]

Hon. L. Boone: The most recent one was a doubling of the fines for construction zones, and that was instituted as a result of some. . . .

[ Page 5437 ]

Actually, I want to give credit to the MLA for Alberni who was relentless in his lobbying to have this implemented. It came about because of the danger to flag people and those who are working in construction zones. We've had four individuals die in those areas in the last three or four years, and some 48 others have been injured. So there are extreme costs. As a result of that, this takes place in some other jurisdictions. The member for Alberni brought this to our attention. We did investigate and look into it and discovered that, yes, it appeared like it was a working solution and one that was a good idea. So we implemented it to try and make sure that our people -- not just our people but all the people who are working on construction, whether they be in private companies or Highways people or WCB people or what have you -- in fact have some protection with the doubling of the fines.

So our logo there is: obey the sign or pay double the fine.

B. Barisoff: I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that in those construction zones a lot of people have definitely abused that, and I don't deny -- as long as it's well-signed prior to people getting into the construction zone -- that people are well aware of what's taking place and that there would be some concern.

I know that the minister introduced some other fines that dealt with brakes. Could the minister elaborate on just what took place with that announcement and the amounts for fines?

Hon. L. Boone: That took place as a result of the truck safety task force which brought back recommendations regarding truck safety after some pretty horrendous accidents that we had in the province. Initially, we were going to just increase the fine -- to some $500. But information came from the truck safety review, a task force. They were recommending that we charge $100 per brake for each brake that was not working properly and that if you had 50 percent or more of your brakes not functioning, you paid an additional $500 fine.

As I said, this came as a result of the work of the task force which was an extremely good task force. Some 17 members reviewed various truck safety issues and brought recommendations to us. I was very glad to see the recommendations that they brought forward, and I think that this fine issue has in fact been well received by the general public.

B. Barisoff: There's no doubt in my mind, and I expressed this to the minister, that truck safety is of the utmost importance. I think we're all concerned about that. We don't want trucks on the road that are unsafe or whatever.

My concern still lies with the fact that when we start fining some of these truckers -- who are ultimately trying to put food on the table -- that when they get up to $2,000 fines, if rather than always having a club, we wouldn't have been better to have a carrot in some way, forcing them into having those trucks better maintained. Rather than the huge fines, maybe tying that together with something that took them into shops and had them fixed would be better. Rather than putting that money back into the black hole that we have here in Victoria, maybe putting it back into the safety of the trucks so they wouldn't be going down the road in an unsafe manner. . . .

There's no doubt. . . . I know that the truck safety committee endorsed that proposal, and I hope that it works. But I hope also that there are some times when we can have some common sense and make sure that we put our efforts towards making safer trucks rather than just always looking at fines.

I just want to move onto the merger that's taking place at the present time between your ministry and the motor vehicle branch and ICBC. Could the minister indicate to me what the reduction in staff will be from motor vehicle branch to ICBC?

The Chair: Just a caution in regard to legislation being the subject of the estimates.

Hon. L. Boone: This is an issue that is legislation that's before the House, and therefore it's not a subject of debate here.

B. Barisoff: I would imagine, then, that a lot of these questions probably would be part of that legislation, even though it's. . . . There are questions I could raise under each section of the legislation, but maybe there are a few that. . . . What stage is the merger at? Have we gone beyond. . . ? Are we always jumping into legislation whenever we. . . ? I imagine that when we talk about any of this, we might be jumping into the legislation with the merger. Is that right?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, the subject of legislation is limited and should not go into the provisions of the bill, but certainly on general aspects of the administration of this aspect of the minister's estimates, it is fine.

B. Barisoff: I'm just trying to figure out the questions I would ask without touching on the legislation. When I look over my notes, a lot of them seem to fall within the jurisdiction of Bill 40, so it might be an easier time for the motor vehicle people than originally anticipated. One that probably would come to mind, though, is what the transfer costs would be. What are we looking at in transfer costs?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no cost to the actual transfer. The transfer is going over there, and then ICBC is assuming some responsibilities. They have costs, but they also get some funding for those things, so there is no cost to the actual transfer.

B. Barisoff: Bill 40 makes provision for appeals to the superintendent from decisions of ICBC. What rights of appeal on the decisions exist now?

Hon. L. Boone: Right now? I'm just trying to think. The appeal to the superintendent is on show-cause hearings, and the removal of a driver's licence on points and administrative reviews inside the office. Those are the only things that are currently reviewed by the superintendent.

B. Barisoff: What portion of the budget is remaining with the ministry from MVB? What portion of the budget would be left after the merger takes place?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be retaining $1.8 million and 20 FTEs.

B. Barisoff: What services, programs and expenditures will remain with MVB under the ministry's budget with that $1.8 million?

Hon. L. Boone: Appeals and hearings of certain ICBC licensing decisions, vehicle impoundment and administrative prohibition appeals, and driver medical and dangerous driver points programs.

[ Page 5438 ]

B. Barisoff: What kinds of motor vehicle MVB records, if any, will ICBC have access to that they didn't have before the merger?

Hon. L. Boone: This is in the legislation, and we would be covering that when we actually debate the legislation. You could go through it clause by clause to discover what was going to be in there.

B. Barisoff: When I do ask some of these questions, I beg the indulgence of the Chair for the fact that when I was preparing these, I wasn't anticipating that the legislation would be before us at the time. The sources of funding that come to the motor vehicle branch -- will these change at all?

Hon. L. Boone: It's just through our regular budget processes.

B. Barisoff: Will any of the motor vehicle branch offices actually close down because of the merger?

Hon. L. Boone: Just ICBC.

B. Barisoff: I'm wondering: how will the public face MVB and ICBC in the same office following the merger? Will a person go to the same offices for the same services?

Hon. L. Boone: I would say that probably, by and large, yes. There may be some efficiencies that ICBC will want to find in terms of combining offices to provide one-stop shopping. That would be up to ICBC to do. I can't guess what they would do on those.

B. Barisoff: I know that in smaller areas it will all be in one. Will the functions of employees who have transferred from MVB to ICBC change at all?

[5:00]

B. Barisoff: Probably a lot of these questions are going to be. Will MVB employees remain members of the BCGEU when they merge?

Hon. L. Boone: That's a decision by the Labour Relations Board.

B. Barisoff: When you indicate the Labour Relations Board, are you indicating to me, then, that the Labour Relations Board is going to decide whether they're going to become one separate union? Maybe a better question than that would be: what are the pay scales? Is there a difference in pay scales between ICBC employees and motor vehicle branch employees? If there is, how are we going to create this merger, and what's going to happen?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know if there is or not. I can tell you that the past merger went to the Labour Relations Board, and they ruled that they would be covered by the OPEIU office -- the Office and Professional Employees International Union -- because there wasn't an agreement between the two unions, the BCGEU people and the other union that represented ICBC. The Labour Relations Board ruled that the union with ICBC would cover the new staff that were coming over from MVB.

B. Barisoff: I understand that the wages for both union and non-union employees from the motor vehicle branch are lower than for ICBC employees. Would there be a substantial windfall, then? I'm sure they wouldn't stay at the lower rate. Will there be a windfall for the MVB people as they transfer from one to the other, and what kind of cost is that going to represent to us as taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: That's ICBC; that's not this minister's decision.

B. Barisoff: My concern is the fact that. . . . I know that it's going to ICBC and I know that ultimately the responsibility is falling with ICBC when the merger takes place, but we're in a transition period of time when we're transferring employees that are under your jurisdiction, and I think the legislation hasn't passed to date. My concern is that I'm led to believe that there is a substantial difference in pay scales from ICBC to the MVB. I'm just wondering whether the minister, in her wisdom, when she was considering the transfer -- MVB going to ICBC -- considered what kind of extra costs this was going to entail in actual increased costs and wages.

Hon. L. Boone: Phase 1 has already taken place, and that's last year's debate. The second phase is currently a bill before the Legislature. I can't guess what the costs are going to be there or what the various wages will be with ICBC.

B. Barisoff: I think the minister indicated that there would be a substantial savings when we created this amalgamation with the motor vehicle branch and ICBC. I can't remember the figure exactly, but I think it's probably in last year's estimates. Does the minister still feel that the merger will actually be creating a saving for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: That's ICBC's legislation -- phase 1 -- and phase 2 hasn't taken place.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure that probably the bulk of this is going to be either in Bill 40 or in ICBC, so maybe I should just check: is the merger going to create any office shutdowns throughout the province? Will we see any smaller communities that will lose offices because of this?

Hon. L. Boone: That's a management decision of ICBC.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure that we're probably lucky this isn't 2 o'clock in the morning, where we were last night, because I'm sure we would get testy. We've all had a little bit of sleep and. . . . All this preparation to find out that we're either in Bill 40 or we're into ICBC. . . .

I might as well, at this point in time, get a little bit on the record for the city of Greenwood. It's the small community in my riding that was losing its motor vehicle branch office because they couldn't get the camera to institute pictures there. I'm just wondering what the situation is and whether the minister has looked at a lot of the small communities throughout the province that are affected -- the same as Greenwood. Could we look at maybe servicing some of these smaller areas in rural British Columbia better?

Hon. L. Boone: That's ICBC, hon. member. But you got it on record.

B. Barisoff: That's probably where we're headed with most of these items. Looking over my notes and at where 

[ Page 5439 ]

we're headed, I suspect that. . . . I kind of feel bad, in a way, that we didn't deal with this prior to having these gentlemen sit through to 2:30 a.m. The bulk of this information is now either in legislation or in ICBC, which we're going to have to canvass in those areas. I know that they sat here until 2:30 a.m., waiting patiently for a ton of questions. We do have a lot of questions, but they're going to end up coming on Bill 40 or somewhere else in ICBC.

With that, I think we should probably move on to the Motor Carrier Commission. I guess I usually go through the housekeeping items first, and maybe I'll start with: what is the budget for the Motor Carrier Commission for this year and for last year?

Hon. L. Boone: It was $690,000 last year, and it's $617,000 this year.

B. Barisoff: What accounts for the $73,000 reduction? Could the minister indicate where the reduction is and what's happened?

Hon. L. Boone: There's a reduction in salaries and overtime, and it's $92,000; decreases in boards and commissions and courts of just small amounts, $1,600; a $1,600 decrease in travel; a $2,500 decrease in information systems operations; in information systems acquisitions, a decrease of $2,000; and furniture and equipment, a decrease of $414. There have been decreases, just small decreases, all over to try and bring the budget lower.

B. Barisoff: How many people are currently employed on the commission?

Hon. L. Boone: Five.

B. Barisoff: Did the minister say that there were five full-time employees on the commission right now?

Hon. L. Boone: That's the staff; that's not on the commission.

B. Barisoff: How many licences were issued last year, in 1996, by the commission? Could you give me 1995, also?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get back to you with that exact number.

B. Barisoff: When you are getting back to me with the licences, could you. . . ? I'm sure you won't have this, either, then: the breakdown of those licences and what they went out for -- what the individual licence is and what the conditions of the licence were.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you.

B. Barisoff: You might have this possibly: how many licences last year were lifted for safety violations or any other reasons that occurred?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you, as well.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure we're going to go down quite a list of information.

Can the minister outline for us how the commission grants licences and what the requirements are? I know that there's going to be some changes. I'm interested to know what's taking place, even though I was on the commission.

Hon. L. Boone: Applications are made. They are reviewed by staff, recommendations are made to the Motor Carrier Commission, and then they are adjudicated and decided on by the commission. A lot of it is dependent on recommendations from the staff who actually do the groundwork in terms of assessing the various requirements of the commission.

B. Barisoff: I appreciated the time sitting on the motor carrier review panel that went throughout the province. I know that deregulation is taking place effective January 1, 1998, and we made some recommendations to the minister to speed up this process. I'm wondering what will take place short of when the recommendations will take place. Excluding that on January 1, 1998, there will be a deregulation, what's the process that will take place then for applying for licences?

[5:15]

B. Barisoff: I know what that future policy would be if it takes place prior to January 1, 1998. On January 1, 1998, it will no longer be future policy; it will be a federal law that probably supersedes our law in B.C. for deregulation. My concern at this point in time is that come January 1, 1998 -- and I know that this could happen sooner -- what takes place then for the individual who phones up the Motor Carrier Commission and says: "I want to have a licence to do whatever." What is the process? Is he still going to need a licence at that point in time? To what extent are we going to disband the Motor Carrier Commission, I guess. . . ?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no changes until such time as it has been approved by cabinet, so I can't assume that there will be any changes made as of January 1. What we do know is that as of January 1, interprovincial carriers will be deregulated. As for how we will be responding to them, at this particular time that is not something I can even guess at. That would be future policy until such time as it is passed by cabinet.

B. Barisoff: I guess the minister is right in the legal sense of the word. Ultimately, being the group that travelled throughout the province and listening to our -- to say the least -- archaic Motor Carrier Commission and the way we've handled business throughout the province in the last number of years. . . . I think to say it's archaic would probably be kind to the Motor Carrier Commission as a whole, because it was probably even worse than archaic, considering that it was some 50 or 60 years ago when it was first established to create some continuity in the trucking industry in the province. In the interim there has been an endless number of calls that I have gotten -- and I'm sure the minister must get that many and more -- from people throughout the province who are wondering exactly what's going to happen. I know that it's on its way to cabinet or wherever, but the sooner this could 

[ Page 5440 ]

happen the better, probably -- in essence, to alleviate what might be either fears or expectations of what's going to take place in the industry in the next six months.

One of the other questions that the minister might be able to answer, which doesn't fall under the purview of "on its way to cabinet," would be about the number of carrier and safety audits that we've carried out in the province in this last year.

Hon. L. Boone: Unfortunately, we don't have those exact figures here. We'll get that information to you.

B. Barisoff: With that, how many inspectors do we presently have out in the field doing the safety audits?

Hon. L. Boone: We have 27 on-road inspectors, actually, in vehicles.

B. Barisoff: How does that compare to what we had last year, and is there an anticipated increase for this year? Or do we plan to stay about the same?

Hon. L. Boone: It's status quo for this year. As for next year, I don't know what it will be under ICBC's jurisdiction.

B. Barisoff: It's like a volley of playing tennis here. By listening to what's taking place, I'm wondering who's going to know who's doing what next year with the transfer from motor vehicles to ICBC and from one thing to the other.

Just moving on, I know that I've asked the minister on a few occasions about the taxicab industry in British Columbia. I appreciate what took place in the trucking industry, and I think that we will have ultimately created some positive change when this goes through cabinet. Sending a small committee throughout the province was probably money well spent. The fact that it was a small committee with both sides of the House was very positive in itself for getting a lot of things done.

I'm wondering, listening to some of the things I'm hearing on the news about the taxi industry, whether the minister is considering doing a review of -- I shouldn't say just taxis necessarily -- maybe the whole concept of moving people, another branch of the Motor Carrier Commission. Is the minister considering anything in that area?

Hon. L. Boone: The federal government is looking at all of its policies and laws regarding passenger vehicles. I know the member is really anxious to be involved in any kind of a review, but we haven't made up our minds as to how we will be responding to that. I want to tell you right now, and tell this committee, that I really appreciate the work that the critic did on this committee -- working with my parliamentary secretary and the member for Kootenay to bring forth some really good recommendations. I think it was handled in a very professional manner, and I really appreciate the work that he did on behalf of all British Columbians and the people in the industry.

As I said, we are looking at it. I haven't quite made up my mind on how we will be responding, but I will certainly keep your name under consideration, because I must say I was very impressed with the assistance that you gave us on that committee.

B. Barisoff: It's not that I'm that anxious. It's just that there are times when you feel that you actually accomplish something when you come here. That was one of the few times that I felt that satisfaction. I felt that with Aboriginal Affairs, also. I think you get that feeling of satisfaction that you're actually doing something for the people of B.C., and from that standpoint, I think that more of those committees should probably be established. I think there are a lot that maybe are established but just not put into effect.

More of that would probably alleviate the problems -- even to the point of when I look to canvass different sections of the Motor Carrier Commission. It became difficult, knowing full well that I knew a lot of the ins and outs. When you know how things work, it makes it a lot easier to understand why things happen. I think it would benefit a lot of people in a lot of areas of government, if we would do more of this.

Maybe just carrying on a little bit more with the taxis. I'm wondering how many cabs are currently licensed to operate in the province.

Hon. L. Boone: There are 325 licensees and 3,500 vehicles.

B. Barisoff: Maybe for the benefit of those that would be just reading Hansard, we could find out. . . . First of all, a better question would be: how many of these are in the lower mainland?

Hon. L. Boone: About 1,200 vehicles and about 25 companies.

B. Barisoff: At this point in time, not to override the minister, I notice that to her left is Colin Hanson, a member of the commission. I might add that not knowing Mr. Hanson prior to getting involved in the Motor Carrier Commission, it's becoming more than just a few times that I have had occasion to call him in dealing with different things -- in dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission. I might add that he has been very helpful in trying to give me both sides of a story. I usually get the one side, and he gets both sides. I would just like to thank him for the help he has been giving not only myself but my staff when we are trying to dig or find or whatever else is happening, because I'm sure we only get pieces of the information.

I'm glad to see that he's here today, because I've found him to be quite knowledgable on what takes place. Either that, or he knows which cases are usually in trouble, because he usually has the answers at the tip of his fingers when I make the call.

So he is keeping on top of things, particularly with the fact that the Motor Carrier Commission is not one that's well liked throughout the province. We found that abundantly clear in our travels. Aside from that, I'm just going back to the number of cabs in the lower mainland, or the number of companies versus the number of cabs.

When I get off the plane and ride to wherever I'm doing business in Vancouver, I usually take the front seat so that I can take time to chat with the cab driver about what's taking place. What concerns me a little bit is not only the cost when I get there -- when I look at the amount I usually pay, it seems like quite an amount -- but that they all indicate to me these huge numbers that they pay for licences. I'm just wondering how this equates to what's taking place. I hear numbers bandied about of $100,000 and $200,000. I'm wondering whether the minister knows: does this take place? Are the owners of these cab companies actually selling licences to drivers?

[ Page 5441 ]

[5:30]

B. Barisoff: I guess my concern lies with the fact that if we were. . . . I have the feeling that we're not on the gravy train as government. If licences are being sold or traded or whatever, whether it's by the city of Vancouver or by individuals, for in excess of $100,000. . . . I can't remember the number of licences, the number of cabs, in the Vancouver area, but that equates to quite a substantial amount of money. I am just wondering whether, if we looked at deregulation, it would bring down the cost of this. I'm seeing people almost gouging the system. In turn, if somebody is paying $100,000 or $200,000 for a licence to operate a cab in the city of Vancouver or wherever it might be in the lower mainland, ultimately those costs have to be borne by those riding in the cabs. I wonder whether the Motor Carrier Commission has looked at anything that might streamline this whole process. That would do two things. It would probably make the cost of being involved with those cabs less, and the cost to the traveller who is using the cab would also be less.

Hon. L. Boone: The value of the licence that people are actually talking about goes up and down as the economy goes up and down. When companies are making lots of money, the value of those licences goes up as well. As for what could happen in the future, I really can't comment on that because that would, of course, be future policy. If we did any review at all, we would look at some of those issues.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's probably why I'm anxious to be part of a committee that might be looking at doing something in that industry, where it would be better for not only the cab industry itself but also the users.

I noticed in the newspapers in the last little while -- not only the newspapers but all means of press media -- that the minister has instituted a number of snap inspections on cabs in the lower mainland. I just wonder whether the minister could indicate to me what the results of these inspections have borne out.

Hon. L. Boone: We have completed all the inspections, and they weren't just snap inspections. We did a thorough inspection of all of the lower mainland taxicabs: 866 passed and 391 failed. We are currently doing an analysis of the 391 that failed to determine if there was any relationship to the inspection facilities that they were dealing with. But we haven't completed that right now.

B. Barisoff: Are you indicating that all the cabs in Vancouver or the lower mainland were inspected then? We've basically covered every cab there?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: I think that's probably a very positive thing. I would hope that the minister would also maybe extend this throughout the entire province.

During our travels -- if it wasn't on Aboriginal Affairs, it was the Motor Carrier Commission -- we had opportunities to ride in cabs in different areas. I think I mentioned to your ministerial assistant about one of the cabs that we happened to get into. It happened to be in. . . . I don't think it was in the minister's riding in Prince George; I think it was in Terrace. "Of course not," she says. I think it happened to be in Terrace where the driver couldn't get in because you had to open the door from the inside. I don't think I've driven in much worse of a rattletrap of a vehicle for a long time, short of my younger days of ripping around through the bush where we used to go -- bush-buggies kind of thing. That's probably the best I can say for it.

I'm wondering whether the minister is going to extend this to the rest of the province, to make sure that some of these vehicles aren't still on the road.

Hon. L. Boone: We anticipate doing that as soon as we get through the analysis of the lower mainland stuff and get the lower mainland basically put behind us. Then we'll move on to the rest of the province.

B. Barisoff: Well, that's a good note to hear, particularly if you happen to be one of the travelling public.

How many inspection facilities exist in the province of B.C. right now?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 1,400.

B. Barisoff: Are the 1,400 spread out through the entire province? Is there a greater amount that happens to be in the lower mainland? When we look at granting inspection facilities, is it done on a by-region basis? What are the criteria to be an inspection facility? What kinds of criteria do we have?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: They are spread around the province, and they are determined on the equipment and the qualifications of the staff.

B. Barisoff: For the record, could the minister briefly outline -- it's not just for my benefit but for the benefit of all the people who might be reading Hansard -- what goes into the inspection of a taxicab? What's the basic. . . ? What are we looking at when we inspect a taxicab for the safety of the travelling public? What would be in an inspection report?

Hon. L. Boone: For taxis, we do try to focus on safety-related issues, so it's such things as lights, brakes, steering, tires, fuel systems. But the motor vehicle branch itemizes a whole list of things that should be covered in an inspection.

B. Barisoff: Is there an age requirement for a vehicle, or does it qualify to be a cab as long as it passes the test?

Hon. L. Boone: There is generally no age restriction. However, the commission can put in a restriction at the time that a new licence is given, indicating that they can be no more than eight years old or something like that. But generally speaking, there is no age restriction.

B. Barisoff: Is there is a fee attached to inspection for cabs?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is. It may vary from station to station, anywhere from $50 to $80.

[ Page 5442 ]

B. Barisoff: So that fee would be, I guess, a fee for service from the private inspection facility that's doing that. Do we have any government inspections that we do other than on the side of the road or whatever? Are these mostly private contractors doing these?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: I guess a concern that I have is that when I look at the figures that we have here -- 866 cabs passed, 391 failed -- roughly 30 to 31 percent actually failed. I guess my concern lies with the fact that if we've got this many cabs failing, is there any indication when we looked at the inspection failure rates. . . ? If it failed because one light happened to be out or because there happened to be a tear in the seat, I don't really put that in the same category as I do the cab that I rode in Terrace -- or a situation where the doors don't open or the tires are bald or the steering is gone or something like that. I don't put those all in the same category. When we look at the 391 that failed, is there any kind of breakdown? I know this happens in the trucking industry, where sometimes the figures don't really reveal exactly what's taking place. But the concern I would have, and the concern the general public would probably have, is that if 31 percent of the cabs are unsafe, chances are likely that when you walk out of the airport with a group, one in three of you is going to get one of these bad cabs. Is it at that stage of the game?

[5:45]

B. Barisoff: Just before I close, could I also get a copy of the breakdown of what takes place there? When you do that, could I see the breakdown of the 31 percent -- what they actually failed for and whether it went in a particular direction?

With that, I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

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