[ Page 7979 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it is a very special day for me. I am joined by four people who are very important in my life: my two nieces, Alexis and Erika, my sister Judy and my mother, Mary MacPhail. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: It's an almost equally exciting day for me, hon. Speaker. I'm happy to welcome to the chamber for the first time my brother Rick, my lifelong friend. He's visiting with a business associate of his, Iain Sutherland. I hope the House will make them both welcome.

G. Plant: I was privileged to have lunch with two teachers from Charles E. London Secondary School in Richmond, Mrs. Fran Regan and Mrs. Karen Shigeno, and with four visitors from Wakayama, Japan: Mr. Tsunada, Mr. Yamamoto, Mrs. Kitagawa and Mrs. Naruse. They are all teachers or principals at Charles E. London's sister school in Wakayama. I hope the House will please make these visitors welcome.

E. Gillespie: It appears to be family day today in the House. I'm pleased to introduce to the House friends and relatives who have travelled from near and far: my cousin Susan Anderson, visiting from Vancouver, and my cousins visiting from England, Major Jack Smart and Mrs. Ruby Smart from Sawtry, Cambridgeshire. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Wilson: Travelling all the way from Sydney, Australia, is Mr. Brian Woolmer. I wonder if the House would join me in wishing him g'day.

Hon. C. Evans: Tracey Morrison, who is the manager of communications and public affairs for the Western Brewers Association, is visiting us here today. Would the House please make Tracey welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, upon reviewing the tapes from yesterday's question period, it's obvious that I repeatedly failed to attentively follow the instructions that you were giving me with respect to the time allocated for questions. For that, with my respect for you and for the chamber, I wish to apologize to you and to all members of the House.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

I now recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: No.

The Speaker: I'm sorry -- the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not even applying for the job, hon. Speaker.

Yesterday, obviously, there was some controversy in the chamber, and I made a comment to you directly. I wish to apologize to you for that comment. We've had our other discussions, and we'll leave the matter at that.

The Speaker: I want to thank you, hon. member, very much for those comments.

I will leave all of you with just one comment, and it's a quote from the seventeenth century. It's by Sir Thomas More: "Without freedom of speech, there can be no wide debate. Without order, there can be no debate at all." I also accept some responsibility for what happened yesterday.

I want to thank all of you for your words today and. . . . Let's go!

Oral Questions

ROLE OF B.C. TREATY COMMISSION

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify. First, Mr. Robertson was not told that he would be reappointed; he was told, rather, that a recommendation would be made to cabinet. Mr. Robertson's term of appointment was not extended. I want to clarify what is happening with the treaty process.

The province, as members of this chamber are well aware, is committed to working actively with Canada and first nations in order to improve and streamline the treaty process. As I have said before, we have reached a rough patch on that particular road. The discussions, however, are ongoing. The province believes now that it would be more efficient, in fact, to consider the appointment of a chief commissioner once the new directions for the Treaty Commission and for our tripartite process have indeed been established. That's the answer.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston, first supplementary.

G. Plant: On April 22 Kathleen Keating, I am told, was appointed as the province's representative on the B.C. Treaty Commission. On the one hand, it looks like the province is appointing someone to the Treaty Commission, but weeks later it looks like the province has no interest in appointing a new chief of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is this: is he deliberately trying to sabotage the treaty process, or is he just hopelessly inept?

Hon. D. Lovick: Given what I understand happened in the chamber yesterday, hon. Speaker, I shall restrain myself. It's difficult, however, to hear a question from the opposite side about anybody trying to sabotage the treaty process, given that they are as on record as demanding extinguishment, demanding cede, release and surrender, demanding cash up front and demanding a referendum -- all of which would doom the treaty process to extinction, very clearly.

The short answer to the question is that what happened -- and if the member had listened more closely, he would have heard -- is, as I have said publicly, that we reached a rough patch. We thought we had an agreement with the other two parties in negotiation. That did not work as we had hoped. It therefore strikes us, frankly, as imprudent and --

[ Page 7980 ]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The minister says we've reached a rough patch. Let's examine how rough the patch is. Today the former chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission says this: "Precisely at the time when the need for continuity, stability and impartial leadership by the Treaty Commission has never been greater, the province has chosen to decapitate the Treaty Commission." The question for the minister is: is there anything left of the B.C. Treaty Commission during this rather rough patch, or has he decided to abandon it altogether?

[2:15]

What we are attempting to do is work out a process whereby we can streamline that long, difficult and complex circumstance of negotiating modern treaties in this province. If we were to carry on with the approach that has been taken thus far and taken historically, we would probably, at a conservative estimate, still be negotiating a hundred years from now. Also, we would bankrupt the province in the process. Thus the three parties have agreed to try and streamline the process. That arrangement didn't work, but we're bound and determined to find a new one expeditiously.

M. de Jong: Let's make sure we're clear on what the former chief of that tripartite organization is saying about the government. He's saying that this provincial government has "shown so little respect for the role of the Treaty Commission, has so casually undermined its effectiveness and has sent such a cynical message to the other principals and to the public regarding the province's commitment to revitalizing the B.C. Treaty Commission process. . . ." Those are the words of the former head of that tripartite commission.

My question to the minister is: in light of this unprecedented indictment of his government's politicization of the Treaty Commission process, how can anyone in this province -- aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- have any faith in this government's commitment to effectively settle the aboriginal claims issue in this province?

Hon. D. Lovick: The former head the member refers to is the person who has just lost the job. That letter that he quotes from may therefore well be regarded through somewhat more -- dare I say? -- skeptical lenses, rather than being taken as an absolute, incontestable truth about what the process involves. That's point 1.

Point 2 is that it is absolutely ludicrous, as well as illogical, to suggest that what has happened here and what has been explained to members opposite can in any way be construed as the "politicization" of the process. That is absolutely a foolish argument, with all due respect to the members opposite. We are committed to making the process work. We are going to do what is called in the trade a bilateral process: namely, the government of B.C. will meet with the First Nations Summit and will separately meet with the federal government. Then, once we work out a new modus vivendi, we will meet with the Treaty Commission -- a newly revised one.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Isn't it ironic, hon. Speaker, that the individual whom the minister is now so prepared to dismiss as an angry former employee was himself encouraged by this government to seek the position only a few short weeks ago? I notice that very few members on that side of the House see anything worth celebrating. More particularly, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville must be absolutely horrified by what he has seen happen with respect to this Treaty Commission process. My question, again, to the minister responsible is: in light of his treatment of the former head of this Treaty Commission, in light of what he said only a few short weeks ago about a bankrupting of the process, a bankrupting of the province, is there anyone left in the province that he hasn't offended sufficiently? Can he again tell this House how he can command any respect in moving forward on a settlement of aboriginal treaty negotiations?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm at a disadvantage, I guess, hon. Speaker. I'm one who is mindful of the rules of this chamber, and I find that silliness like that is, quite frankly, not worth my time in answering.

LANGDALE FERRY SERVICE

Hon. D. Miller: I won't take the question on notice, although I will endeavour to get more detail to the member with respect to the particular incident. But let me say that B.C. Ferries has a mandate to serve the travelling public, and they clearly need the resources to be able to do that. It's interesting that there has been some controversy with respect to the operating and capital budget of B.C. Ferries, and I look forward to that member's support when these kinds of issues come up and we look at enhancing the ability of B.C. Ferries to serve the constituents of the member.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: The minister will certainly have my support if he's finally going to get down to a reasonable way of financing the ferries so that we can have them as an extension of our highways.

Clearly, the Queen of Esquimalt was necessarily brought in to pick up this overload. That's how serious the congestion was. Will the minister, in his investigation, commit to seeing if

[ Page 7981 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly we are prepared to look at any and all opportunities or avenues with respect to dealing with the service quality issues that the member raises.

FRBC FUNDING AND HIRING FOR LILLOOET RIVER PROJECT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the member's information, no one is told that they have to hire through a union hiring hall. New Forest Opportunities is the employer, and they have a collective agreement which sets fair rates and hiring priorities. For the member's information, the project itself -- the sponsor, the Lillooet Watershed Committee -- and New Forest Opportunities have similar hiring priorities.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: We have correspondence which indicates very clearly that unless the Lillooet River Watershed Society will buy into the New Forest Opportunities concept, the FRBC funding for their project simply won't be there for years 4 and 5. In fact, the watershed society has been waiting now for two months for approval for their project, and because of this government's insistence on a union-only policy, the aboriginal band in this case has bowed out and withdrawn its support for the project. Why on earth does this government insist that in order to access FRBC funds, this society must go through New Forest Opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would caution the member on the other side, who's also the Forests critic, to check his facts a little more closely. This project was given an exemption to do timely work. They were offered an opportunity to start that part of the project that had to start -- an exemption from going through New Forest Opportunities. When the New Forest Opportunities collective agreement was signed, they were then told that they would abide by the policy. The policy was agreed upon by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Summit. That policy is that on those projects that have traditionally gone to first nations, the hiring priority will be as follows: first nations first, displaced forest workers second, and others afterwards. Now, those. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .are the facts, hon. Speaker.

C. Clark: The Lillooet watershed restoration society is picking up the pieces from this government's disastrous forest policies. They are hiring local displaced forest workers, aboriginal people and local students for this job. And now, as a result of this government's insistence on unionization, the aboriginal band has walked away from the table, and the restoration society is not going to be doing its work this year. My question is this: where are the minister's priorities? Is he so determined that this job be unionized that he's prepared to let them shut down, rather than let a single non-unionized employee plant a single tree in the Lillooet watershed?

The Speaker: The Minister of Forests, briefly.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The trees that the member refers to are cottonwood whips to stabilize streams. This is not like reforesting, with those obligations. Just so we're clear, this is a very unique project and a good project. As I said to the former questioner, they should check their facts. The truth is that after two weeks of repeatedly phoning the sponsor of the project and two weeks of being stonewalled by the project sponsors, they have this morning finally phoned back to ask: "Can we talk?" So the door has been open. Their hiring priorities are identical. They can get the exemptions they need, and it can carry on under a NFO-sponsored employer.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?

G. Wilson: I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:30]

[ Page 7982 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
(continued)

J. van Dongen: Before we broke for lunch I think we were talking about Baynes Sound and the broad-based committee that's been working there to improve the water quality. I have some familiarity with that, having talked to some of the staff in Courtenay. I just want to ask one quick question first about some of the staff in Courtenay that were involved in Fisheries issues. Would it be correct to assume that they will continue to operate out of that same office, working on Fisheries issues, or will they be separated from that office to another location?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I think that's important, because from what I've seen, they've done some good work there. There's one thing I want to ask the minister, though. It seemed to me when discussing it some time ago that they had reached a stage where the solutions to further improvements in water quality required some efforts that were maybe a little bit more proactive, particularly with respect to on-site sewage disposal. I'm wondering whether the minister could tell us if any of those types of solutions are being pursued with the Ministry of Health and possibly with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. My understanding is that there are quite a number of on-site sewage situations that technically need upgrading, but that they do involve expenditure by homeowners. I'm wondering if there has been any thought given to further proactive solutions in that area.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is a MELP jurisdiction, and there's a process in place. We are working through our round table in an advisory capacity to MELP on this point-source identification of pollutions.

J. van Dongen: My response to the minister is that given the fact that it is a constraint on the industry, it is appropriate that the Ministry of Fisheries be proactive, support the industry and work with the other agencies like MELP and the Ministry of Health to try and find those solutions. I think there's been, as I said, a lot of good work done. It's been on a cooperative basis so far, but it may require a little more proactive effort.

The Coopers and Lybrand report makes reference to a program they describe as the shellfish 2000 development program, and I'm not familiar with that program. I'm wondering if the minister has any information on it. It's possibly a federal program; I don't know. Maybe the minister and his staff can tell us something about it.

Hon. D. Streifel: Just for the member's information, it merely references the title of an internal document that's helping to direct where we are moving. That's all it is. It's not any broad-based program, external or public; it's just some internal work that we're doing. Some of these things get a title on them, and that's the way they're identified.

J. van Dongen: In the next sentence, the report does make reference to an internal provincial government policy paper dealing with government-related constraints. Since this report was written about a year ago -- I'm talking about the Coopers and Lybrand report -- I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us as to the purposes and intent of that internal policy paper and what results have emanated from that internal paper.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's just part of the internal work that's going on. There's no conclusion yet, and it's part of the process where we bring information forward to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and share information and documentation. This happens to be the title of it. It's ongoing; there is nothing complete yet.

J. van Dongen: Well, if it warranted mention in this report, then I think it should warrant some more discussion. I'm wondering if the minister could be more specific. Is this an initiative that has since been completed? Is it something that's up in the air? I'm looking at this from an accountability perspective, looking back on the past year. As I said, if it warranted mention in this report, I'm wondering why we don't have something more specific in terms of what it was, what it was intended to do and what results were accomplished.

Hon. D. Streifel: The problem with trying to answer questions from the critics in the opposition -- giving partial answers -- is the danger that we get into now, where the member wants to examine an advisory process that forms future policy. We step into the area where it's completely out of order to examine future policy within the bounds of the examination of these estimates. I have tried to be open with the member and inclusive by saying that this is just an internal communication process, and we are not going to share an internal communication process before we have some validity -- something to work with. In my opinion, that makes this completely out of order for examination in detail.

J. van Dongen: Well, I'm not going to pursue the specific issue any longer, other than to say that I think that part of the estimates process is to achieve some accountability in a review of the past year, with a view to establishing goals and objectives and performance standards for the future. So I certainly consider a review of the past year as legitimate discussion in these estimates.

Page 15 of the report also makes reference to a program of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which involves a classification system being developed for sites. This is an overall. . . . It involves building a computerized, digitized map database for potential sites and provides capability ratings for those sites. I would just like to get an update from the minister on the status of that. First, is that process complete? And second, will that work be used in terms of future efforts to increase the sites available for the industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: This becomes increasingly difficult, hon. Chair. I'm trying not to be picky with the member opposite, but ownership of the report that the member references does not fall to the Ministry of Fisheries, nor did it fall to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It's a report commissioned, as I understand, by the western diversification fund to examine some things. In their report there is reference to some work ongoing with this ministry. If we could reference those items under the estimates of this minister, stay strictly within the bounds of order and examine those items under the ministry, as opposed to what may be referenced, almost in abstract, in a report that we don't own. . . .

I'm not responsible for the report. It was the western diversification fund that sponsored that report. I know that

[ Page 7983 ]

In fact, we have done work. Almost the whole coast has been surveyed or assessed for shellfish stock. But under our estimates it would be a different application of answers and questions than under an abstract reference in the Coopers and Lybrand report. I would prefer not to examine someone else's work. I don't have ownership of it.

J. van Dongen: With all due respect to the minister. . . . Yes, I'm quoting from the Western Economic Diversification report. It makes a direct reference to a study that was done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I'll read the quote from this report:

"A classification system has been developed for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by Cross and Kingzett (1992), which rates sites according to four classifications: high, medium, low and not advisable. The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is engaged in a program to apply this classification system to the entire coast of B.C. It is in the process of building a computerized, digitized map database of sites which describes their capability rating and area in hectares."

[2:45]

But I would again caution: if you could find this referenced in the estimates of this ministry this year, it would be appropriate for examination; if it is not, it is out of order.

J. van Dongen: Well, then, I'm asking the minister to confirm -- in his discussions and in the ministry's discussions with the Ministry of Environment in an effort to expedite and facilitate new sites. . . . Is this information going to be used?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I can appreciate the minister's frustration, but it's critical that we not just engage in generalities but that we talk about specifics. That's why I'm raising some of these things. It's not good enough to take a hit-and-miss approach to what are some essential ingredients to expanding the shellfish industry.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the degree of labour intensity of the shellfish industry. Clearly there are tremendous employment opportunities. It is not a capital-intensive industry. Does the minister have any figures with respect to the multiplier effect, particularly from the labour perspective, for employment in shellfish as opposed to some of the other fishing sectors?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would actually prefer to debate whether we should be in generalities or specifics. As I understand the rules of estimates, it's very specific: under the jurisdiction of the minister's office and under the estimates of the ministry.

In this case, the information that we have for the member is that, depending upon the size of the operation, the kind of shellfish that are grown, the location -- where it's at, whether you live on site or you don't live on site -- and all these other factors, it appears that the job possibilities are approximately two per shellfish farm.

The Chair: Excuse me, member; the Chair would like to make an observation with regard to the estimates. If you could just take your seat. . . .

There is a requirement to deal specifically with the vote of the ministry in estimates. However, we're dealing with the first vote of the minister's office, which has a more far-ranging realm of debate and which I believe that we're following quite nicely. I haven't heard anything disorderly.

J. van Dongen: With respect to the issue of new sites, I know that the industry has been concerned about the issue of establishing additional sites for existing operations versus the concept of new sites and brand-new operations. Can the minister tell us what his ministry's priority will be in terms of new auctions of shellfish farming sites?

Hon. D. Streifel: As we move to diversify coastal communities and other things, we're now treading again into areas of future policy. We need to be more specific under the auspices of this office when we come forward and bring about economic opportunity within shellfish. There would be considerations for first nations, for existing farmers, for expansion of what's there and for future expansion -- keeping in mind that the tenuring of these sites is within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. van Dongen: Will the Ministry of Fisheries not have any input into that process of priority -- how the auctions will be held and that kind of thing?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we'll have input.

J. van Dongen: I think that there's an ongoing difficulty here, hon. Chair, and I apologize if it's my doing.

I would think that the minister would have a lot of input. We see the number of letters here -- all to the Minister of Fisheries. I have one letter from the Community Fisheries Development Centre; this is an initiative that's attempting to provide training and job opportunities for people looking for shellfish tenures. We have other letters from individuals. We have letters from the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association. I would think that the minister would be taking a very proactive role in the whole issue of tenures and priorities and when and how auctions are held.

I want to ask the minister about one of these letters; it's a letter dated May 11 from the Shellfish Growers Association. It deals with an initiative involving a Nanaimo native band in a shellfish farming interim measure, which is attempting to get native communities involved in shellfish -- which I think is a good thing. It's certainly supported in principle by the Shellfish Growers Association. But I think the question that they're asking is: will there be similar opportunities available to non-native residents?

Hon. D. Streifel: For clarification, tenuring is the responsibility of the B.C. Lands branch of Environment, Lands and

[ Page 7984 ]

I'm trying to be cooperative here, but I'm not going to set policy and give answers for a colleague minister on issues such as this. We've already indicated that we're working with Environment, Lands and Parks, with our input, to move this process along. We indicated prior to the lunch break that in fact we did have some movement: one of our staffers was assigned for 12 months to help facilitate 30 new sites.

We continually tread down a road that is out of my jurisdiction. It would be really helpful if we worked within the line numbers in my estimates. Keep it rigid, or otherwise we'll be viewing, philosophizing and supposing all day.

J. van Dongen: Maybe I could ask this question: does the Ministry of Fisheries have an established policy with respect to the issuance of tenures? Do they have any established policy with respect to that issue that the staff of the ministry are charged with pursuing on behalf of the industry and the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's frustrating, hon. Chair. We don't issue tenure.

J. van Dongen: Well, maybe the way to sum this up is for me to ask the minister what specific functions are included within the Ministry of Fisheries with respect to shellfish. I guess I would ask it this way: what will be the size of the staff component in the Ministry of Fisheries in the budget estimates of 1998-99 that will be devoted to the shellfish industry, and what will those staff be doing?

[3:00]

J. van Dongen: Are there any other issues besides tenuring -- which are any responsibilities with respect to the shellfish industry -- that are part of the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would recommend that the question go to Environment, Lands and Parks, because I don't have full knowledge of where they are. I would think that environmental impact would be one of the major ones, and parts we've already examined where there's some crossover jurisdiction provincially and federally with Environment in, you know, monitoring of pollution and stuff. But it gets far too dangerous to begin those answers, as we go somewhere that I don't belong.

J. van Dongen: Well, again I want to express a concern, hon. Chair, to you and the minister, that it is important to have some clarity about responsibility. It creates great difficulties for the industry, inefficiencies for government and difficulties for staff. It creates difficulties for achieving accountability when we're not clear about who is responsible for what. I have a real problem with that in an era when we are trying to achieve better accountability within government operations.

Now, I know that in previous discussions with the minister and his staff we've talked about the efforts that I think are going on right now between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment to develop some form of single-window monitoring and regulatory processes at the regional level. I want to ask the minister if these discussions also involve the regulation of the shellfish industry. Is there going to be some joint regulatory, single-window monitoring efforts with the Ministry of Environment in the shellfish industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, it's work in progress. It's one of the primary functions of this government, to reduce duplication and to identify areas where there is duplication and overlap and eliminate them wherever possible. As I say, we are working towards that goal and are constantly identifying areas where we do, they do or whichever could do, so that we don't both do it. I think, from our perspective and this ministry's perspective, that at this time my areas of jurisdiction are extremely clear under licensing and that.

J. van Dongen: I want to turn now to the issue of the environmental assessment office's work on the salmon aquaculture review. This was, I think, the first major project that this office carried out. It was a very major project, spanning almost two years in terms of the time it took to achieve this 1,800-page report. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what stage the government is at in terms of considering this report.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're in the final stages of developing a response to aquaculture, based on the 49 recommendations from the environmental assessment office's review. It was extensive. It has set us in motion to have a viable finfish aquaculture industry on the coast and to bring that industry about under very, very rigid environmental regulations so that we can have economic activity while still respecting the environment. We intend to move forward under the direction of that review. At this time, that's where we're at -- in the intention-to-move-forward stage. There is no final decision yet. There are a few other things yet that we have to move beyond in order to effect, I guess, the movement in this industry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As Minister of Education it's a real pleasure to welcome to these chambers some visitors from the United States. We're joined in the gallery by some 31 students in grades 7 to 10 from New Frontiers Secondary School in Silverdale, Washington. They're here to look at some com

[ Page 7985 ]

J. van Dongen: Could the minister tell this House what the approximate cost was of the environmental review of the salmon aquaculture industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Welcome to our friends from Silverdale, Washington. I happen to live next door to Silverdale, British Columbia. We got some of your mail one time.

The Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food contribution to the environmental office assessment on aquaculture was $180,000.

J. van Dongen: Does the minister know what the total cost of the study was? I realize it's not his jurisdiction, but I wonder if he could tell us that.

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

J. van Dongen: Is the government currently engaged in consultations with stakeholders in terms of reviewing the report at all? Have there been any outside consultations?

Hon. D. Streifel: The question was: are we currently involved? No, it's done.

J. van Dongen: The report makes reference to an aquaculture industry advisory committee, minister. Is that committee still operating? If so, is it being consulted on this report?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, that aspect of aquaculture in the review was actually superseded by the review we did and the stakeholder consultation. As I believe or understand, it is one of the 49 recommendations. We have stated publicly that we will be accepting all 49 recommendations of the environmental assessment office's review of aquaculture -- a very extensive review. That will become part of the future relationship of aquaculture and the British Columbia public.

J. van Dongen: So if the minister is saying that the government is accepting the 49 recommendations, does that mean it intends to lift the moratorium on new tenures this coming year?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's future policy.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Chair, I assume that I'm in order to question the minister on the evaluation of the report, which will involve Ministry of Fisheries staff time.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what involvement the Ministry of Fisheries has with respect to finfish aquaculture tenures. I think we'll probably end up in the same discussion we had here with respect to the Minister of Environment. Nevertheless, there is a very serious issue with respect to salmon farms, and that is that there are a lot of tenure licences coming up for renewal. I would expect that the ministry staff are involved in that issue. Can the minister tell us what is being done at the present time with respect to all of those renewals that are coming up? They're a great concern to the salmon farmers.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, there is an issue and concern around tenuring. It's still under the office of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. van Dongen: That doesn't give me a very complete answer. This is the Ministry of Fisheries; these are salmon farms. I would expect that the minister would have more involvement than what was indicated by his answer.

I'm going to ask him about a specific salmon farm whose lease did expire. It's the Pacific National Group's farm, which was moved to a temporary site. What is the ministry doing with respect to that operation, in trying to find a permanent home for that particular farm?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member seems to keep wishing a broader jurisdiction onto this ministry. The member may note that if wishes were fishes, we wouldn't have a crisis on the coast this year. I would caution the member that a tenure review or a tenure resiting or a tenure application or anything to do with tenure is with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Whether or not I have involvement beyond the description that I've already given -- working cooperatively with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to resolve some of these issues. . . . That's my involvement. I don't have authoritative jurisdiction.

But I will say that if an agreed replacement site cannot be identified, B.C. Fisheries will accept applications by the company to meet production requirements through its existing farm sites under the new regulatory management regime expected in the coming announcements. There we move into future policy again. In an attempt to answer the member's questions. . . . Hon. Chair, you'll be calling me out of order if I don't stay within the bounds of my estimates, stay away from future policy and stay the heck out of somebody else's ministry.

[3:15]

I want to ask the minister: in terms of the tenure issues, are there discussions taking place with the Ministry of Environment to try to achieve a more timely process to deal with the expiry of a number of fish farm leases? Is there going to be some attempt made by this ministry in its representations to the Minister of Environment, which I understand has the authority to make the decisions? I accept that. But are there going to be representations made by this ministry, in the course of carrying out its duties in the next 12 months, that will involve some responsibility on the part of the Ministry of

[ Page 7986 ]

The Chair: Perhaps the member could pursue another line of questioning.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister comment on his view on the debate which surrounds salmon aquaculture in terms of the potential impacts on the wild fishery and in terms of the possibility for maintaining an environmentally sound operation of fish farms versus the wild salmon runs?

Hon. D. Streifel: That was well looked at under the environmental assessment office's review. I've already stated that we're accepting the 49 recommendations a result of that review, and I refer the member to that document for answers to his questions on interrelations between farmed and wild fish.

J. van Dongen: When the minister says that he is accepting all 49 recommendations, is he saying that all of those will be implemented as recommended in the report?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's future policy.

J. van Dongen: Has the Ministry of Fisheries engaged -- or will they in the next 12 months -- in a review of existing tenures so that you know when these tenures will expire? Has that work been done?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks does tenure. I am not getting to my feet to discuss tenure again. We have been canvassing it since before lunch; we're into it now. The member is trying to slip it in the back door. Get within the bounds of my ministry, hon. member. Get within the lines of the estimates of this ministry, or we're not going anywhere today.

The Chair: The Chair would like to offer advice to the member that he take the minister's word on this matter and perhaps pursue another line of questioning.

J. van Dongen: I want to turn now to the issue of the aboriginal fisheries strategy. This is another fairly controversial issue, which I note was addressed in the Copes report. It can be considered an equity issue. It can be described as an allocation issue, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of commercial fishermen in this province are very concerned about that federal policy. I am wondering if the minister could record for this House why the provincial government has never challenged that policy by the federal government.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: We're right back to someone else's jurisdiction. I would recommend very strongly that if the Liberal caucus, the Leader of the Opposition or this member -- part of that Liberal caucus -- doesn't like what the federal Liberal minister is doing, they should communicate with the issues under that minister's jurisdiction. This is not the jurisdiction of this ministry. There is no line item in my estimates for the aboriginal fisheries strategy. The question is out of order. End it. Get into the ministry, or we won't get through it.

J. van Dongen: So the minister is saying that the Ministry of Fisheries, his ministry, has no interest in that issue. Is that what the minister is saying: that they have no interest and no involvement in that issue?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's a tremendous difference between interest and input. It is a policy of the federal government; it is their policy. If the member doesn't like it, contact David Anderson.

J. van Dongen: Does the ministry have any concerns that the AFS policy of the government -- the aboriginal fisheries strategy -- will have an impact or create a threat to certain stocks of salmon species? Steelhead, for example -- does the ministry have any concerns about that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I am going to try this and only this. It is a federal policy. It is a policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal Fisheries minister. Our input to that minister and that ministry has been consistent for a number of years -- whether we've been Ag, Fish and Food or the Ministry of Fisheries. I will continue to hold the federal government accountable to the principles of conservation, consultation, compensation and certainty. That's the end of our involvement in this. I recommend the member move on to another topic, or we'll get nowhere today.

The Chair: Would the member be seated for a moment, please. I'd like to suggest that the estimates of the ministry are now under consideration. Possibly some of these matters are under federal jurisdiction and the line of questioning should be directed more towards issues that are under the minister's purview.

J. van Dongen: I fail to see the difficulty that the minister has. I look at the estimates book, where there is a description of vote 43, ministry operations. Under (b), it says "Fisheries Policy, Strategic Planning and Liaison." That's pretty broad, and it includes a lot of the things we're talking about. Then it talks about "Fisheries Programs and Operations." We have staff in this ministry working on these issues. We have a report done by Parzival Copes, which I understand was paid for in 1998-99 dollars by the Ministry of Fisheries. The report talks about aboriginal fishing rights.

I don't see what the minister's problem is; I really have some difficulty here. I don't claim to be an expert on what is technically within the scope of estimates and what is not. But I have attended enough estimates in the last three years to know that these kinds of issues are discussed. There has been a tremendous amount of involvement by ministry staff on issues that involve the federal government and other ministries. Just about everything this ministry does involves other agencies. I don't understand the minister's difficulty in talking about these issues.

I'm going to ask the minister: is the ministry monitoring the impact of the aboriginal fisheries strategy on fish stocks?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's irrelevant to the debate in this House whether the member thinks I should have jurisdiction or not. It's expedient and necessary to the process of examining the estimates. The member referred to the estimates book. If the member will find a line item in that book that says federal aboriginal fisheries strategy, I'd be pleased to debate it. It's not the jurisdiction of this ministry; it's irrelevant what the member wishes.

J. van Dongen: Well, this issue is of concern to a lot of commercial fishermen. If I may quote the Copes report, it

[ Page 7987 ]

The minister persists in saying that it's not an issue of concern to his ministry. I just fail to understand that. I'm going to ask the minister to comment. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. May I interject for a moment please, when you sit down?

The Chair has already indicated to the member the rules of relevance within the House. The member is straying well off what was originally suggested, and I suggest that you bring your comments back into line with questions specifically to the ministry under consideration.

J. van Dongen: Well, I apologize if I misunderstood your earlier direction.

Let me ask the minister this: under vote 43, which is part of this Ministry of Fisheries policy, what is planned in the coming fiscal year in terms of Fisheries policy? What activities will the staff of the ministry be engaged in under that heading, "Fisheries Policy, Strategic Planning and Liaison"?

[3:30]

It's the development of a strategic plan or a mandate: priorities, the mission statement, performance measures, full enforcement and involvement of the Canada-British Columbia agreement on fisheries, community development and diversification. As we go through it, that's what our priorities are for this year. If I were to be asked for the number one priority for this year, it's the Canada-British Columbia agreement.

J. van Dongen: The blue book talks about the development and coordination of federal-provincial policy initiatives relating to the management of the fishery resource and habitat. And then it talks about consultation with first nations and stakeholders. Would the minister not agree that the aboriginal fisheries strategy, a federal initiative, falls within the ambit of the Canada-B.C. agreement? Can the minister confirm that ministry staff do spend time writing briefing notes for the aboriginal fisheries strategy?

B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you, members. It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a grade 5 history and government class from Greendale Elementary School. There are about 27 students and, I believe, ten parents, in addition to the teacher, Ms. Minato, who are present in the gallery, looking down upon us and watching the work that we are doing here. I can report to the members that I was just grilled outside the Legislature with such difficult questions as: "What is the value of the copper in the 33 domes on top of the Legislature? What is the approximate cost or value of the gold that makes up the statue of Capt. George Vancouver that sits atop the Legislature? What is the value of the electricity that is used to illuminate the building at night?" These are all difficult questions which I'll attempt to answer on behalf of the Legislature, hon. members. Would the House please make these very fine students welcome.

J. van Dongen: I also want to refer the minister to Fisheries programs and operations. This subvote provides for planning, management, protection, conservation and regulation of freshwater, marine and anadromous fisheries under the Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canada-B.C. agreement that he talked about and the management of the Pacific salmon fisheries issues. But secondly, it includes the technical review of applications for tenure and licences for the licensing and enforcement of regulations as required under the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act.

Now the minister. . . . I just have great difficulty. I'm going to wind up my questions, as the minister would prefer to see. That's fine. I'm not going to pursue a line of questioning the minister does not want to respond to. But I reiterate my view that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of the mandate of this ministry and what it's intended to do and what its role is -- a clearer definition -- within this government. I really don't see a lot of point in having a freestanding Ministry of Fisheries within this government if the minister and the ministry are not going to address the range of issues that impact the whole of the fishing sector. I think that the minister, by his response today, has indicated a very, very narrow area of interest in terms of this ministry.

If the ministry and the minister cannot talk from a policy perspective about what is important, what the priorities are, what the goals are for each of these subsectors within the ministry, then I fear for the future of the ministry. I don't know what the purpose is, but I thought that the intent of government was to bring together within this ministry certainly all of the resources or a major part of the resources of government -- particularly knowledgable staff -- that are focused on the policy development, the industry development and the regulation of the whole fishing sector. I have to say candidly that I'm disappointed at the lack of discussion on issues that impact all of the sectors. I will continue to make an effort to engage in dialogue on these issues, but I have to say I'm very, very disappointed in the lack of response by the minister.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $19,533,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Streifel: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, the committee reports resolution under Fisheries and asks leave to sit again.

The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

[ Page 7988 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, is there to be another set of estimates to be discussed?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not House Leader; I don't know. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me.

The Speaker: I'm going to suggest that the motion might be that the committee might continue to meet now.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thought we were going into legislation.

The Speaker: Sorry. I accept your position and the motion that you've made.

The committee reported resolutions.

The Speaker: I have to ask the House to. . . .

V. Anderson: Point of order.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara on a point of order.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I don't think we can act. There is not a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Thank you for pointing that out. We can do a quorum call.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Speaker: There has been a quorum call. A quorum now being present in the House, I will call on the Government House Leader for the next order of business.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 20.

STATUTE REVISION CORRECTION AND
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
(second reading)

[3:45]

The Speaker: Seeing that there's been no debate, I think we will just move to the motion on second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee on Bill 14.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

Hon. D. Lovick: Before we begin, I think we ought to establish what are usually referred to as the ground rules for debate. We've had some discussions with the official opposition, and I understand that those have been productive and worthwhile discussions and technical briefings. The first point I want to establish is that the first 15 sections of this bill are in fact consequential amendments to the Workers Compensation Act, and they come at this part of the bill only because that is the recommendation of legislative counsel. They are, however, consequential to all of the other things we're about to pass in the main part of the bill. Accordingly, what I propose -- and I believe we suggested this to the opposition; I don't think there's a problem -- is that we simply stand down those first 15 sections and then come back to them and deal with them after we have gone through the greater part of the bill, if that's acceptable, Mr. Chair.

C. Hansen: I was not aware of this proposal, and I certainly have some concerns about the significance of this bill. It is a piece of legislation that will have far-reaching effects. I think it will affect a lot of workplaces in ways that. . . . Daily I'm learning of some new consequences of this piece of legislation. I know that the point was made by others on the government side that this is a discussion that has been going on for six years and that it's time that we got on with this legislation. In fact, the discussion on the regulations has been going on for six years, but the regulations that were introduced and that came into effect on April 15 were done after significant consultation and after those regulations had been in the public domain with an opportunity to examine them for a considerable amount of time.

As a result, we have before us a piece of legislation that is far-reaching and that nobody had a chance to review prior to about two and a half weeks ago or so, I guess, when this legislation was first tabled in this House. As a result, I am anxious that we do our due diligence on this legislation and

[ Page 7989 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I think there's some misunderstanding. If we have not explained adequately on our part, I apologize most sincerely. We're not for a moment suggesting that we don't discuss the definitions section. Clearly that's what section 15, section 106 is. The point I'm making is that sections 1 to 15 of the bill that we have before us are consequential amendments. They don't exist, in fact, until we get through the other parts of the bill. We'd be dwelling simply on the hypothetical. Those things have life if and only if -- when and only when -- we have dealt with the bill, starting at section 15, section 106, "Definitions."

I want to clarify that we're not for a moment retreating from our commitment to have a full and wide-ranging debate on the definitions. It's just that those first parts are in front of this bill only because legislative counsel advises us we must do it that way. We will certainly have an opportunity to consider anything that might be raised there, but the principal issue of the bill is to be found commencing in section 106. I understood that that matter was raised at the technical briefing. Again, I apologize if there was some confusion or some error on our part in terms of not explaining that adequately. I hope that explains matters and that, therefore, we can go directly to section 15, section 106.

[4:00]

I think the point is that as legislation comes into this chamber. . . . We have some legislation that is obviously housekeeping. I think we had the example of Bill 20, which was dealt with prior to this. Certainly, because of the nature of that piece of legislation, we recognized that it's not of great consequence and we could deal with it quickly, particularly in the second reading stage.

This is a piece of legislation that has enormous consequences. To say that we're going to start pushing sections of this bill through after so little opportunity for the general public to review the provisions of it gives me some consternation. I think that's the reason why. . . . Part 3, the new sections that are going to be entrenched into the legislation, is going to be in a form that we're going to have to live with for some time. That's why I'm anxious that we deal with them in an orderly fashion, based on the inputs we've got. If we do proceed to section 106 of the new part, there may be a lot of issues that we could canvass in that one section, and perhaps we could deal with a lot of the issues that may affect other subsequent sections that will be coming up. I would be prepared to do that, but there may be some latitude necessary on the part of the Chair to deal with some of those broader ranges under the discussion on section 15, section 106, if the minister is agreeable to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me try again. I fear that I've lost my ability to articulate or something. Consequential amendment, by definition, is something that results from, is the consequence of, doing something else. The something else in this case is the bill, starting at section 15, section 106. There is nothing to debate in sections 1 through 15 of this, because we haven't passed any legislation. It's a purely technical matter, and we're here as a result of legislative counsel's advice to us that we have no choice but to proceed in this matter. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps. . . . I hoped I wouldn't have to do this, but perhaps the only way to solve this is to simply raise it as a point of order. I'm sure the Chair would make it very clear that. . . . A consequential amendment, to be sure, is normally at the end of legislation, but in this case, because of legal advice, we're told that it must come before. But the principle still obtains that you can't discuss a consequential amendment until you've done something to produce the consequence. I'm sorry -- I don't think I can explain it more clearly than that, and I hope I have explained it adequately. Dare I say that I think we're having a debate at the moment for no good purpose.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you could give us clarification if we require it.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, not to take away from your rendering your judgment here, it would seem to me that this minister states that in fact an agreement has been reached as to how we will proceed with this bill. That is not the case. That was not a discussion that was raised with either the critic or with me, as someone who is keenly interested in the issues of workers compensation. I would simply ask the minister why he would be opposed to proceeding as the bill is laid out. That would seem to be the most prudent exercise. Indeed, no agreement has been reached. Why would he be opposed to proceeding as the bill is laid out? The original point that the minister attempted to make was that an agreement had indeed been reached. In the absence of any such agreement, we would simply choose to proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know whether the Opposition House Leader has heard what's happened thus far, but I think he has some experience with these matters and could clarify it for his colleagues. To be very brief, Mr. Chairman, legislative counsel advises that for reasons that are very much arcane and esoteric -- as only legislative counsel can present them -- the consequential amendments to this bill must come before the substantive sections of the bill. I don't pretend to understand why that's the case; I am simply told that that is the case. What I have recommended to my colleagues across the way -- and I thought we had indeed explained it to them in the technical briefing; I am advised that the matter was raised at a technical briefing -- is that we would simply stand down the consequential amendments until we deal with the bill and create the issues that the consequential amendments speak to. It's a purely technical matter; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance. All of the issues to be debated are still to be debated. The only question is: at what point -- all right? That's the position. Again, I would ask the other side to perhaps consult with the Opposition House Leader, who will, I hope, clarify it.

[ Page 7990 ]

The committee recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: It appears that there is an understanding of the minister that wasn't an understanding of the opposition members. The minister may have thought that that was conveyed to the members at a technical briefing. Apparently, according to them, it was not, or they weren't clear on that. However, they're willing to stand down those sections and proceed with the "Definitions" and "Purposes" sections until we arrive at the other ones later. It's always better if we get these things sorted out before we come into the House.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the Opposition House Leader for his intervention. Again, my apologies if there was some misunderstanding. I am advised that there was a technical briefing and that this matter had been raised. But apparently it didn't get communicated, so I'm sorry that didn't happen.

What we're doing, of course, in the first section. . . .

The Chair: Hon. minister, just one second, please. They've told us they've agreed to stand down sections 1 to 14.

On section 15.

Hon. D. Lovick: Section 15 begins the new part, I believe. It's "Division 1 -- Interpretation and Purposes." We are now on section 106, "Definitions." We are well and truly launched.

Let me, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just talk very briefly about the division, simply to give everybody some clarification. What we have here is simply a setting-out of the general purpose of the legislation.

I'm sorry. Rather than doing that, why don't we go directly to section 106, "Definitions," rather than going beyond it into the purposes section, given that I think that definitions are something that members opposite are especially concerned with? I think most of the definitions read fairly clearly, but let me offer just a couple of brief clarifications that may speed up or otherwise facilitate the process.

First of all, "appeal tribunal" is defined to mean the appeal division of the Workers Compensation Board. Understandably, there can be some ambiguity there.

Second, the definition of "employer" as presented here is consistent with the definition that is used for compensation purposes in part 1. But it has been expanded to include others who have been deemed to be employers, in accordance with part 1 or the regulations. The owner and the master of a fishing vessel have also been added.

The next definition I would just draw your attention to is "work related." With respect to occupational health and safety, which is what part 3 is about, "work related" is defined as "arising from or in connection with work activities." While that is not explicitly defined in part 1, the phrase used for compensation purposes is: "arising out of and in the course of employment." That particular definition is too limiting for occupational health and safety purposes. Thus we have a definition presented here.

The last definition I would simply present now with a view to clarifying matters is the definition of "worker." This is also consistent with the definition we use in part 1 for compensation purposes, but it has been expanded to include those deemed to be workers under part 1 or the regulations. I recognize that's rather convoluted and complicated; I apologize to everybody -- including me -- for that fact. But when you're amending legislation and you're marrying together a couple of different parts, I'm afraid there's no other way around it but to have that rather convoluted definition. So I hope that's some help to members opposite.

C. Hansen: I was just wondering if the minister is going to accept his apology to himself on that.

What we'll do is deal specifically with definitions under section 106 and perhaps not necessarily start in alphabetic order but jump around somewhat, if you don't mind. I'd like to start with the definition of "union" that we have here. If you go back to the. . . . Actually, one of the consequential amendments, as we discussed earlier in section 5, was the deletion of sections 70 to 72 of the existing Workers Compensation Act. Section 72(5) of the existing act gives us a definition of "union"; it is fairly specific. In this section -- and this is the existing wording of the Workers Compensation Act -- it says:

"In this section 'union' means,

(a) where the workers in the place of employment being inspected are all, or substantially all, one bargaining unit certified under the Labour Relations Code, the union certified as the bargaining agent for that bargaining unit; or
(b) where the workers in the place of employment are not substantially all in one bargaining unit, or where there is no union certified for that bargaining unit, the union selected by the officer of the board, having regard to the union that appears to the officer to have the greatest number of members at the place of employment being inspected, and the union that appears to the officer to have members with the greatest exposure to hazard."

[4:15]

Now, under the consequential amendment, we have to delete that existing definition and replace it with the new definition that is proposed for the new part 3. It defines union simply as meaning "an organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers." I would like to ask the minister to explain: why the shift? Why the change from unions being those that are certified under the Labour Relations Code to what I feel is a very vague, very broad definition of the word union?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, the Workers Compensation Act from which the member quotes is very old. The language, as he correctly identifies, is rather convoluted and hard to decipher. The purpose of the change here is pre-eminently to simplify, to make it understandable. The wording for the definition that we are using in this legislation comes from the Human Rights Code. We simply felt that it is certainly satisfactory to our purposes and a great deal more simple. There's nothing more complicated than that to explain it.

C. Hansen: Certainly I can see where a broad definition like this may work in the Human Rights Act, although I don't pretend to be an expert on that act, needless to say. But in this particular bill, in part 3 of this Workers Compensation Act, the

[ Page 7991 ]

I would like to ask the minister to describe for us what the implications are for an organization that might be defined as a union under this definition but that would not be certified as a union under the Labour Relations Code.

Hon. D. Lovick: My sense of things, frankly, is that there will be no implications. This is the Workers Compensation Act dealing with occupational health and safety and using a definition, as I said, with a view to simplify and make more clear. It doesn't have anything to do with certification or jurisdiction or anything of that sort, which is what the Labour Relations Code definitions are all about. So it would seem to me there is no necessary connection. That's why, in fact, frequently you'll discover in legislation that we have definitions that apply in one piece of legislation that aren't necessarily equivalent or equal in other pieces of legislation. That's why most bills that I've ever seen always start with a definitions section.

C. Hansen: Certainly I understand the need for a definitions section, because it's what drives the interpretation of the act throughout. That's why I think the definitions section is probably the most important section of any piece of legislation that comes before this chamber.

Let me give the minister an example of an organization that meets this definition. I would like his reaction to it. He may feel that this is a somewhat frivolous example, but it's not, because it meets this definition. This is an association of workers in a workplace who basically come together to plan a Christmas party, and they put together rules in terms of, let's say, drinking and driving. What we have is a body, an organization that comes together to establish regulations. Part of what they do is to establish regulations involving the relationship between workers and employees. That's an organization that clearly meets this definition of a union. That's why I feel quite strongly that this is a definition that is just not going to serve our purposes in this piece of legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would suggest to the member that a better illustration would be to take a particular section of the bill that talks about a union and how a structure might work, and find out if it works there. I think he'll discover that it works perfectly fine.

It would seem to me that the group he described, if indeed he meant employers rather than employees in his last statement -- which I think he did. . . . I don't think it's problematic if the group that had that purpose want to call themselves a union based on that definition, as far as compensation and occupational health and safety are concerned. As I say, this isn't talking about certification; this isn't about, you know, your right to represent as opposed to another group claiming the same right. This is within a workplace -- people who, as the definition says, effectively are an organization formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employees -- employers, sorry; I made the same mistake.

C. Hansen: I can see that we both may be making those kinds of slips during this discussion. I take the minister's challenge; I just grabbed one reference at random. In section 15, section 128, we're talking about the selection of workers' representatives to sit on joint committees. Subsection 128(1)(c) says: ". . .if some of the workers are represented by one or more unions and some are not represented by a union, the worker representatives are to be selected in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) in equitable proportion to their relative numbers and relative risks to health and safety." Now, this is an obligation that this legislation is putting on employers to make sure that the terms of this are fulfilled. Then we wind up. . . . The more clarity, the better we are in terms of making sure that this legislation works for those who are meant to be served by it. Here we have this vague, broad definition of a union, which could result in some very subjective decisions as to what does or does not constitute a union and therefore puts some very subjective criteria on the obligations of employers or others who have responsibilities under this legislation.

I would like to ask the minister why this definition of a union would not be driven by unions as they are certified under the Labour Relations Code, which is what I think most people in the labour relations community in British Columbia would see as a logical driver for the definition of what constitutes a union in this province.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, with all due deference, I don't see the problem. Even in the example, I don't see the problem. To answer this specific question, however, I believe there are various organizations that call themselves unions today that don't come under the Labour Relations Code. The issue is the reality of the workplace, and workplaces are certified or they are not certified. And if they aren't certified, or if there's a certification covering some workers and another certification covering others, then the problem is solved for us, essentially, because those people will be clearly defined. Otherwise it's a matter of a group of people who simply choose, in a non-union environment, to say: "We will work together to set up a joint safety committee or something." Again, this is a very interesting discussion, but I don't see it as problematic -- or I don't see there being a problem with that particular definition. Rather, I think it's chosen because it works, it's simple and it's straightforward. It's broad, but I don't think it's vague; I think it's just broad.

C. Hansen: I guess I don't understand why it has to be so broad. Clearly we've got provisions throughout this legislation that provide for the responsibilities of an employer in situations where there is not a union. So to say that we would come back to a definition of union that is driven by the Labour Relations Code means that we have clarity for employers in terms of what their responsibilities are. If we wind up adopting this particular definition, there will be no clarity.

You know, it may take years of decisions by the board. It may take years of companies being assessed penalties, which are obviously substantive under this new legislation, before we wind up with some operating manual and definitions in terms of interpretation. I would like the minister to explain why we cannot fall back on the provisions that are in this legislation for non-unionized workplaces to provide a process to be followed by employers, rather than broadening this definition of union. As the minister just said, it's very broad; I think it's far too broad. I would like the minister to justify why we should adopt such a broad definition of this word.

Hon. D. Lovick: I once saw a first nations play -- this is actually germane, believe me; this answers the question -- and the character in the play answers the question by: "What is the difference between folks like me -- European ancestry and all that -- and aboriginal people?" The definition given, essentially, was: "Well, you guys" -- guys like me -- "are

[ Page 7992 ]

Again, with all due deference, I don't see a problem. If the member wants some comfort that there is legislative precedent, he might like to know that this is precisely the language used in the occupational health and safety legislation in the Yukon. I suspect we could probably find something comparable in other jurisdictions across the country -- and without problems, no reported problems.

C. Hansen: I have great difficulty with the lack of objectivity in the definition. Clearly I believe this is an area that is going to cause considerable problems for us. One of the things that I fall back on is asking the minister, if he's not prepared to amend this, to at least give some parameters, on the record in Hansard, as to what kinds of organizations that might fall under this definition.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the parameters are in the language. The parameters are: ". . .an organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers." Those are parameters. That is the contextual fence, if you like, drawn around the definition. I don't think there is a problem here, as I say.

If the member wants to tell me that he thinks what the legislation should say is that unions are defined as having certification under the British Columbia Labour Code. . . . If he wants to suggest that, I suppose that's okay. My thinking is that it is probably better to broaden that so those that still call themselves unions but aren't under the Labour Code can nevertheless be captured and can make claim to be the representatives in their particular workplaces. Beyond that, as I say, I don't see problems here.

I can tell the member, just as I quoted the Yukon a moment ago, that I understand that there are other jurisdictions across Canada that go the other route: they do use the Labour Code and the definition of a union within that. Certified, essentially, is their definition. Some jurisdictions do; some don't. We've chosen one way, and I don't see a problem with that choice.

[4:30]

I would ask the minister: if you have a bona fide employee association that is outside of a certification. . . ? I'm assuming that would be the kind of body that would rightfully be included. Does the minister anticipate that through regulation there may be some definition given to this section? How do you give a definition to a definition? But interpretation, at least, as to what an organization of workers under this wording consists of. . . . Would the minister consider giving interpretation to this through regulation to the extent that if there is an organization that is not certified under the Labour Relations Board and that wishes to be considered a union for this purpose, that organization should give notice to the employer in a certain format? Is this a way that we can take some of the subjectivity out of this particular clause?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member began his question by making a valid point -- namely, that there are employee associations that don't call themselves unions but, for the purposes of this act, would indeed be the body within the workplace that would take on the responsibilities as elucidated and outlined in the act. I think that's as close an answer as I can give to his question.

In other words, on the one hand, we have those people that are not considered by others to be a union but do consider themselves to be, and others don't consider themselves to be a union but are considered to be by others -- for example, the faculty association from whence I came, the Malaspina College Faculty Association -- and probably Capilano, too, where my colleague across the way is from. In every sense, we behaved, we acted and we performed the functions of a trade union, but the great majority of our members were horrified at being considered as part of such a body. And some still are, perhaps.

C. Hansen: My objective in belabouring this particular point is to give some certainty to those who are responsible for administering this act and fulfilling its obligations. There are certain privileges given to unions in this particular act. There are rights of consultation, for example. There are different procedures to be followed in workplaces where there is a union, versus workplaces where there is not a union.

What is lacking in this definition is certainty, and clearly. . . . That's what definitions in legislation are all about: to give certainty. This does the exact opposite: it detracts from the certainty of what we need. So I would feel some comfort if the minister would at least be prepared to agree that there is a process needed whereby an organization that considers itself to be a union must be able to serve notice to the employer, so that the employer has to treat them in that regard. In the same respect as other provisions in this act, the employer would then have the ability to appeal perhaps to the WCB, to the board, for an interpretation as to whether or not this is a bona fide organization that fulfils the requirements that may be necessary to give it those special privileges under this act. Would the minister consider giving that kind of direction, following the passage of this particular legislation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize, I missed the last part of your question leading up to the question itself. Would you sketch that out again? I want to make sure that I do it justice.

C. Hansen: I'm asking the minister if he would consider giving a direction to those who will draft the regulations under this section, under this legislation -- whether it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or whether it's the WCB -- because that's also an issue that will come up here. . . . Would the minister would be prepared to give direction, to give clarity, to what would constitute an organization of workers formed for a purpose that includes the regulation of relations between workers and employers? If the minister would be prepared to give direction that that kind of interpretative advice be put into at least the interpretation manual, which will obviously come out at some stage, it would then at least give some certainty where I think it is lacking today.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's what I thought the member said. Let me answer the question succinctly by saying that what I am prepared to do is take the member's question and discuss it with legislative counsel. I think what we're involved in here is something that doesn't have much to do with what I perceive to be the substance of the bill. But in legal terms, the

[ Page 7993 ]

My sense, frankly, is that what legislative counsel will say is that the contextual definition provided in the definition -- namely, that this is about the Workers Compensation Act, and it's about workplace and worker health and safety and that the language is clear. . . . They will say that there is, in fact, no requirement or no need to give further definition. However, accepting the sincerity of the member's concerns, I would be more than happy to raise that with legislative counsel and will so advise.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that from the minister. When we get into those sections that deal with the word "union" as it is defined here, it is certainly something that we will perhaps come back to, if there is an opportunity to not proceed past this, so that at least we can revisit it after legislative counsel has had a chance to review that issue.

I would like to go on to the definition of worker. In particular, I know that my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano also has some comments here. I will start, by raising the issue of subsection (b) and just reading the definition. " 'Worker' means (a) a worker as defined in section 1" -- which is part 1 of the WCB act and is a fairly extensive definition -- "and ( b)" -- and this is, in effect, the new part that has been added -- "a person who is deemed to be a worker under Part 1 or the regulations under that Part, or to whom that Part applies as if the person were a worker." My read of that is that where it says "or the regulations," it in fact gives the board the power to expand the definition of worker. I would just like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies for the delay. As you can tell, we're getting into rather technical stuff here.

I'm advised that we aren't really broadening the definition. Rather, what we're doing is simply trying to capture those individuals who might fall through the cracks in terms of being an operator as well as a worker and who will be referred to in other pieces of legislation as an operator/owner, say, and therefore not considered a worker by the normal definition. That's what the intention is. It's simply to make sure that anybody working in a workplace effectively can be protected by the provisions of occupational health and safety legislation. That's the thrust of it.

J. Dalton: It's probably appropriate that I leap in at this time for two reasons. One, I will follow up on some of my colleagues' questions about the word "worker," but I also want to put on the record -- and I don't need the minister's response to this -- two points about "union" in the discussion that preceded our examination of "worker." Firstly, I was actually a member of the Langara Faculty Association, which is a union just like the Malaspina College Faculty Association. It's recognized under the Labour Relations Code as such, so I think we can all understand that definition. The minister is quite right that there are obviously some of my colleagues and some of his who would not necessarily consider themselves to be union people, but it was a union we were all members of. In fact, I was the vice-president of that union and negotiated on behalf of that union for a while. So there you are. I have some indirect NDP ties, and my colleagues opposite are pleased to hear that.

Secondly, if I recall, the minister, in response to one question from my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, said that he felt that the definition of union had built a fence around the word. I don't know. It's a very small fence. I think there's a rather large field or pasture beyond that fence. I think we may discover that the definition of union, which is very open-ended, really hasn't fenced anything in. Or if it has, there are a lot of horses and cows that have escaped from that fence or may potentially do so.

Let's return to "worker" for a moment, if I may. It's quite right of my colleague, who first referred to the definition of worker in section 1 of part 1. . . . If I could just read it into the record, essentially it's the people who work in a traditional employment relationship -- that's one aspect of the definition in part 1 -- and also people who are not necessarily engaged in a traditional employment relationship but are specifically included in the compulsory scope of part 1 of the act. That's, of course, the purpose of that part: to catch workers and make sure that they are all covered by workers compensation.

Now, however, we see that for the purpose of part 3 -- the new part that this amending bill is adding to the Workers Compensation Act -- we seem to be casting the net further. I just want the minister to clarify this. Would I be correct in assuming that the definition of worker in this new part 3, which expands upon the other definition, is intended to catch more employees -- or workers, if you wish -- beyond the other definition we find in part 1?

Hon. D. Lovick: I just want to remind members what subsection (a) under the definition of worker means. All right? I think worrying about whether we are indeed defining carefully enough. . . . That concern will probably disappear when I advise members that if you look under the definition of worker in the Workers Compensation Act, you see about 40 lines all serving as a predicate to the opening line " 'worker' means," and then we have a whole number of categories. I don't know if it's what anybody would call exclusive, but it certainly seems to be. I would refer members to that. Perhaps I could get a copy to show just what is captured and why, in fact, with our definition -- once we have said that -- we don't need to worry too much more about how clearly the matter is indeed defined.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is that if somebody is a worker under part 1, that same individual is, of necessity, a worker under part 3.

J. Dalton: Then perhaps, as a further point of clarification. . . . The concluding phrase of this new definition says: ". . .but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." Is the minister saying, then, that if you're caught by the section 1 definition, you are a worker for all purposes, but that under part 3, a worker could be exempted by board order? Is that a correct interpretation?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

[ Page 7994 ]

J. Dalton: Perhaps while I have the floor I could ask some questions about the definition of "order" in this new part 3. As we see, " 'order' means an order under this Part or the regulations." If I'm permitted, hon. Chair, to use as illustrations two sections that we're going to be dealing with later. . . . Could the minister look at section 125 in this new part? You'll see a phrase right at the end that says: ". . .is required by order." It doesn't specify who may be making that order. The other section I'd refer the minister and the committee to is section 139, which we will be dealing with specifically later. There's a reference in there to "by order of the board." Is there a distinction in this new definition between orders of the board as opposed to OICs or other orders that may be made? If so, what do we do if there are conflicting orders, for example? Which order would take precedence?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that only the board makes orders.

J. Dalton: I would take that to mean an order either through a board determination or a board regulation. Is that correct? Those would be the only orders that we would be concerned with in this new part 3 of the act.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure that I understand the question. The board makes orders and regulations. Is that what the member is saying? Is he acknowledging that or asking for clarification?

J. Dalton: Obviously the board does make orders -- or determinations, as I'll call them. Of course, the board also has the authority to set up a body of regulations. I take it that because of the definition of order we are now dealing with, those regulations could also then become orders in themselves. So we could have board-specific orders and board regulations that will become orders. They are all orders within the ambit of this definition.

Hon. D. Lovick: This is a wonderful education for all, hon. Chair. The example that has been given to me by staff is that in terms. . . . I think we need to differentiate between regulation and order. The board, by regulation, may say that a place of employment must have guardrails to protect workers. If the workplace does not comply with that regulation, then the board can impose an order to give effect to the regulation. That's the distinction. I hope that clarifies it.

L. Reid: Under "Definitions," in section 106, " 'owner' includes (a) a trustee, receiver, mortgagee in possession, tenant, lessee, licensee or occupier of any lands or premises. . .and (b) a person who acts for or on behalf of an owner as an agent or delegate." Is "agent" in that context the legal definition of agent?

Hon. D. Lovick: My information is that the definition is the standard contextual one, rather than any kind of more particular legal definition that "agent" might have.

L. Reid: Again, in the "Definitions" section is the "right to refuse unsafe work." My questions will be around the definition of unsafe work. Who determines, who regulates and, indeed, who enforces the determination on either side of the question?

Hon. D. Lovick: With all due deference, that matter is well and truly captured in that particular section. Frankly, I don't think the definition will make much difference beyond the commonsense definition. The "right to refuse unsafe work," as it says, means the right explicitly defined under section 141. So I think it will be captured there.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to reference section 141: "Subject to this section, a worker may refuse to carry out work if the worker has reasonable grounds for believing that the work is unsafe." My contention is. . . . I need to know who determines reasonable and unreasonable grounds, because I don't believe that's explicit.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that we will grapple with that definitional problem when we deal with section 141, and if there's something wrong with section 141 -- and it doesn't give the member comfort -- that's when we can talk about making changes. But the definition, as I say, will depend entirely on what we choose to say about section 141. Okay? In other words, we won't be able to answer the question by anything to do with the definition as presented here, because it simply refers us to a later part in the bill. So we'll have that discussion then.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's remarks. However, I think that the definition of unsafe work is integral to the bill. Do I wish to wait until we get to section 141? No. I truly believe that this issue should be resolved and that at least some sense of where the minister is headed with this should be put on the record. He will know, and I'm sure he will agree, that 141 doesn't answer the question I posed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'll just point out again that with any definition that effectively says, "This term will be defined by looking at another section of the bill," the only logical way to modify or have a discussion on that particular piece, it seems to me, is to look at the section. When we get to it, we can. I would also make the point to the member opposite -- who I know takes this job very seriously, and I commend her for that -- that it's not just section 141, because that definition gets broadened and clarified in all of division 5, when we see all the processes involved in terms of that section regarding the right to refuse unsafe work. So I think, quite frankly, that the problem will be dealt with -- probably ad nauseam -- by the time we get to division 5 and section 141 and others.

L. Reid: What I hear the minister saying is that my questions won't be answered with consideration to section 141 -- and perhaps not at all, in that it's now broadly encased in this discussion. What I find problematic with this legislation and with other pieces are the terms "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Frankly, they lead to incredible vagueness, without knowing who is in fact responsible for those determinations.

We will agree, I'm sure, hon. minister, that what one individual finds reasonable, another may find vastly unreasonable. There are no parameters for the discussion. So even though I appreciate that the minister disagrees, I think the consideration of it at this juncture is prudent. The minister, I know, has now read section 141, and the answer is not found

[ Page 7995 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm smiling, hon. Chair, because I think the member tried to slip something by me in terms of saying what we'd agree and not agree on. I do not think section 141 is as problematic as the member suggests.

Look, there is a large corpus of jurisprudence and common law and everything else, and there's also something called the Interpretation Act, which deals with admittedly value-charged adjectives like "reasonable" and so forth. But it would seem to me, in the course of our discussion and in looking through all the pieces of section 141 and other chunks of division 5, that we are certainly going to come to a very clear understanding of at least what is and is not on the table -- albeit we may disagree. I'm saying that given that we are now on the definitions section, the definition simply says that we will define this value-charged, difficult concept when we grapple with the concept. It's impossible, carrying on with the member's comments, to produce a nice, short, easy definition that will obtain throughout all time about "reasonable" and so forth. Rather, we're only going to get it in terms of the context.

S. Orcherton: I've got a question, as well, around definitions here, but mine pertains to the definition of "employer." I'm a little concerned. It appears that there may be a general exemption rule coming into play here. In section 106 it says: ". . .but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." I wonder whether the Workers Compensation Board should in fact have that kind of authority to relieve an employer of his or her health and safety obligations. I'm concerned about where we're going around that, and I wonder if the minister could clarify.

Hon. D. Lovick: I take it that the member is referring to the part following section 15, subsection 106(c), which says: ". . .but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." Okay.

First of all, this is the mirror image of what we discussed earlier about "worker." It's the same basic construct. Let me make clear that there is no intention whatsoever of providing a general exemption of employers from their obligations respecting occupational health and safety. Let me state that as categorically and clearly as I can.

The definition of "employer" in section 106, the member might be comforted to know, is consistent with the definition in part 1 of the Workers Compensation Act. I'm advised that section 2(1) of the Workers Compensation Act states that this part applies to all employers and all workers in B.C., except workers and employers who have been exempted by order of the board. If an employer or worker is exempted from part 1, then that may extend to part 3.

We talked about workers earlier, and I've just been handed the list about the following general exemptions which have been made with respect to employers and to workers. Members will recall that I referred earlier to the professional athlete. Let me sketch out some of the others. These are the general exemptions that have been made with respect to employers and/or workers. I'll just put this onto the record -- I think that would be the easiest way: casual grass mowers, babysitters, repairers and other service people, and the homeowner/occupier who hires them; professional sport competitors and athletes; both spouses involved in an unincorporated business, where one or both own the business -- including both common-law and same-sex spouses; and non-resident employers and workers temporarily working in B.C., provided they are covered in another jurisdiction that provides compensation coverage.

[5:00]

That's what has been established, and I can add -- again from my note: "The board has established a formal application and review process for all requests for exemption from coverage. The board's policy states that the governors -- now the panel -- may allow for general exemption orders in accordance with specific principles." Again, for the record, because it applies to questions asked earlier as well as to this one -- i.e., to both workers and employers -- let me outline those principles:

"[1.] Since section 2(1) provides for universal coverage, exemptions are only for exceptional industries or occupations whose circumstances do not fit the purpose and intent of the act.

"[2.] Exemption orders will only be made for industrial or occupational groups, not to individual persons or businesses unless the person or business constitutes the entire industry or occupation.

"[3.] Exemptions are not automatic.

"[4.] Wishes of employers and workers, size of operation, coverage through private disability plans or degree of risk of injury are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to result in a general exemption order."

C. Hansen: I do want to pursue this issue of the definition of worker and of employer, as the other member mentioned, in this context.

I just want to be clear about the list that the minister has just read out. My reading of the definition of both employer and worker, under part 1 of the existing act, is that it does not provide for exemptions. There are no exemptions to employers or to workers under part 1. What the minister was referring to with the list of occupational groups, etc., that he just read out is that these are existing exemptions to the regulations that are now in place on occupational health and safety. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Hon. D. Lovick: Those exemptions are in part 1, and they are extended to part 3, "Occupational Health and Safety."

C. Hansen: The question to the minister is: what provisions are there in part 1 for those kinds of exemptions from the definition of worker? I don't see that in the definition of worker under part 1 as it now exists.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me simply quote, then, from the Workers Compensation Act, part 1. The heading is "Compensation to Workers and Dependents: Division 1 -- Scope of this Part: Application." And I quote: " 2(1) This part applies to all employers, as employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the board." That, of course, is what I was quoting earlier -- the order.

[ Page 7996 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, but not as to whether you're clear. Rather, the answer is no to what you said. What you just said is not the case.

C. Hansen: I don't want to belabour this, but I do want to understand it. I think this becomes very important to us later, in particular when we start getting into numbers of workers. I'll just elaborate slightly on why this definition is so important. When we get into structuring our safety committees, for example, and we're talking about 20 or more workers in a workplace, we'll require safety committees. I think this definition is going to very important to our interpretation of those later sections, so I'm belabouring it for that reason. I believe it is very important. We can then have workers. . . . There is going to be. . . . Of all of the individuals who are defined as workers under part 1, some of them will be exempted under part 3 but not vice versa. Is that a fair interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I desperately want to respond with certainty, and therefore I'm going to ask you to repeat that to make sure. Before I say no, which I think I want to say, I want you to say it again -- just about the exemption.

C. Hansen: I guess I'll go back to my previous question, where I asked the minister if it were possible that workers could be exempted under part 1 but not under part 3, or they could be exempted under part 3 but not under part 1. The minister indicated that I was not correct in that interpretation. Maybe what I should do is ask him to explain why I am not correct in that interpretation.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's absolutely correct, but he's incorrect. The second point to make is that if you are a worker under part 1, you are also of necessity a worker under part 3. That's the short, clear -- and definitive, I hope -- answer.

C. Hansen: Now I think we're making some progress on this. Then that begs the question: why, in this definition we have been presented with, has the minister included (b)? Instead of redefining worker for the sake of part 3 by including (b), why not include (b) in the original definition under section 1 and it would then apply to the entire act?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that that would be more than a consequential amendment, and we aren't doing a complete rewrite of the Workers Compensation Act at this time.

If I might, I also want to go back to a point that the member made earlier about this definition of worker, and I just want to clarify it for the record. Remember that when we talk about workers and worker committees, there's another qualifier in there, and that is "workers regularly employed." That may give some comfort. I appreciate that lo, after these many minutes, I now am understanding what this definitional question is all about and the reason for it. I appreciate knowing that.

C. Hansen: The section on the structuring of committees is important, certainly, but the definition of worker is used throughout here, and it is obviously going to have consequences depending on how we define this. Certainly the minister is right. I am very much aware that that particular section does talk about being regularly employed. That in itself. . . . You know, we don't have a definition for "employed." We don't have a definition for "regularly" set out in here, either, but I appreciate that we'll save that for when we get to those particular clauses. I will be looking for some explanation as to what "regularly employed" means.

In terms of the definition of worker -- just as we're dealing with it here -- which adopts the definition of worker out of section 1. . . . But I notice that in section 1, it includes individuals who are in a workplace "for the purpose of undergoing training or probationary work." Now, I'm going back to the original section 1 definition of worker -- okay? So "workers" as defined, which we're incorporating into section 3, includes those who are undergoing training or probationary work.

My concern is that there may be situations in section 3 where that definition becomes quite broad compared to what may have been quite acceptable under section 1. I guess that it does concern me when the minister tells me that there is not an opportunity to exempt a worker for the purposes of this definition under part 3. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is, I guess, essentially a rhetorical question in itself. Shouldn't people, albeit they may be trainees while they are in that workplace, be protected by occupation health and safety regulations and legislation? I think that's the short answer to the question.

C. Hansen: I certainly wouldn't want to imply that I feel they should be excluded in terms of protection for occupational health and safety, but I think that when we're looking at the sections of this new part, part 3, that are more about process than they are about safety, then you wind up pulling these people into those definitions. That's where I will have some concern as we get into the discussion on those particular sections, but I won't belabour the point at this stage.

I would like to move on to the definition of workplace that is presented to us. Certainly "workplace" is something new that's being brought into the act. It's not in section 1 as a definition, but I assume it's actually defined in the regulations, which I must confess I have not gone to check in this context. What I'm concerned about is the number of requirements that we are imposing on employers to post notices in the workplace, and it's considerable throughout this legislation that is before us.

I would just like the minister to comment on the definition of workplace that includes a vessel, a vehicle or mobile equipment used by a worker in work. The posting of notices is going to become virtually impractical and in fact, I would suggest, probably a hazard in itself if fully imposed, given this definition. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think we're a little beyond the definition at this point. I know the question is absolutely authentic and sincere, and I think I can answer very quickly by simply referring the member to that particular section. One example of where we talk about posting -- in 154, for example. . . .

C. Hansen: One of many.

Hon. D. Lovick: Exactly, one of many. The member will discover that there are all kinds of caveats and clarifications.

[ Page 7997 ]

[5:15]

I would like to ask the minister. . . . In terms of dividing the responsibility for regulations between the Workers Compensation Board and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I would like the minister to explain to us how we went from the recommendations of the Workers Compensation Board, which were very clearly set out, to the point where we now have that divided responsibility.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I think that the member ought to know that the definition of regulation provided here is what is often referred to in the trade as boilerplate. This is absolutely standard stuff in most pieces of legislation. Regulation means a regulation made here or by whatever board or council might be established, as well as by the L-G-in-C. Traditionally, of course, what the L-G-in-C does, as all the textbooks tell us, is all those things that are, quite frankly, routine -- day-to-day housekeeping, ordinary things not of sufficient moment to justify legislation or great deliberation or debate. The same obtains here.

Now to the more specific point the member raised about the recommendation of the royal commission. Perhaps I can just have a quick look. Excuse me. Just give me a moment, member. I want to make sure that I got your precise point.

First of all, I don't want to hide behind a technical point or a point of order, but I would draw the member's attention to the fact that we're beyond definition when we're talking about why we allegedly didn't do what the royal commission said in all cases, or something like that. The short answer to the question is that under division 17, "Regulations" -- what we're talking about now -- in that particular instance the member refers to, the recommendation of the royal commission was to say in effect that there are two kinds of OICs one can do. There are those dealing with policy matters that are substantive and perhaps ought to be done by OIC, and then there are the ongoing regular housekeeping technical amendments, changes and so forth, which just ought to be done by a board-regulatory environment.

The royal commission, I am advised, wanted cabinet to be responsible for all regulations. That was, in fact, their suggestion. Cabinet decided, rather, that that would be neither feasible nor practical and that the split that was articulated and suggested here would make cabinet responsible for those broader criteria-establishing, larger questions, while the board's regulations would be more operational or technical in nature. I'm tempted to extrapolate and say that this is probably also characteristic of most pieces of legislation that posit the notion of OICs as well as regulation power of the board.

C. Hansen: The minister's comment that this is standard boilerplate. . . . This is not. It is a very unique definition of "regulation" which doesn't exist anywhere else. Basically all regulations that we have are made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. What we have under the Workers Compensation Board is a very unique definition of "regulation," because it's the only act where a body that is not directly accountable to this Legislature has the power to make regulations. So this is a very unique section. Historically, we've had the provision under the Workers Compensation Act that gives the power to make regulations exclusively to the Workers Compensation Board. As a result of the recommendations of the royal commission, that was reviewed and reconsidered. Now we have this shared responsibility, which is new and is, again, unique -- the shared responsibility between the board and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The minister talks about the consequential amendments, which I recognize we stood down, but I do want to refer back to section 1 of this act. Section 1(b) provides for the repealing of the definition of "regulations" in section 1 and substitutes it with a new definition, which says -- if the Chair will indulge me, I'm going back to this section: " 'regulation,' when used in part 1, means rules and regulations made by the board under that Part." I guess, in the context of what we were doing under part 3, that's hardly consequential. Here we've got one part of the act -- part 1 -- that gives the board sole jurisdiction to make regulations, and part 3, the new section of the act, in which both the board and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council have the power to make regulations. I'm wondering if the minister could explain why we have that distinction between part 1 and part 3 in terms of the regulation-making powers.

Hon. D. Lovick: The "regulation" that the member refers to in part 1 has to be defined simply to make very clear that this applies only to part 1 and not to part 3. That's why, stipulated under this act, the regulation as defined here -- I would simply emphasize -- has as its purpose, essentially. . . . It's only so that every time you talk about regulation, you don't have to add all of these things to it. In other words, "regulation" means both of these things. That's its purpose.

I'm wondering, I guess, why the question. . . . As I say, the royal commission's recommendation was that we give all that power to cabinet or something, which would sound like interfering with the activities of the board. Whereas the recommendation in the legislation is effectively to say: "Wait a minute; keep the politicians, if you like, out of the day-to-day administrative stuff but, rather, go back to what the royal commission really talked about -- namely, the broader, more important policy issues that as matters of public policy ought to be dealt with by the politicians rather than by the staff, by the bureaucrats." I hope that answers the member's question.

C. Hansen: I think that begs a much broader question, which the royal commission dealt with. In fact, when the royal commission talks about who should be responsible for what provision should be in statute and what provision should be

[ Page 7998 ]

I fully understand the rationale behind splitting that responsibility, giving the board technical matters only and giving the policy direction to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I will support that because I understand the thought process that has gone beyond the work that was put out by the royal commission. The point I'm trying to raise is: why would we give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that responsibility under part 3 and not, at the same time, give that responsibility to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for non-technical issues under part 1?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is very straightforward: namely, at this point we are not amending the Workers Compensation Act, part 1. We're talking about part 3 and only part 3. The royal commission, as the member knows full well, is going to make another report, and perhaps there will be recommendations there that will indeed address the circumstance and situation he describes -- but not today.

C. Hansen: But certainly in the mandate of the royal commission and in the report of the royal commission, they weren't talking about simply regulations as they pertain to part 3, because part 3 wasn't even envisioned. In fact, what they proposed was that there be a separate statute. To say that we can't amend part 1 of the Workers Compensation Act because it is somewhat consequential is. . . . When we talk about consequential amendments, we're talking about amendments to other acts. To lump that into consequential amendments within the same act seems to be stretching it a bit. Clearly we are amending the definition of regulation under part 1, and that is part of what section 1 of this act is, to amend the definition of part 1.

I guess what I don't understand -- and perhaps the minister can explain -- is: if bringing that accountability back to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is appropriate for part 3, why is it not also appropriate for part 1? That's clearly within the parameters of what the royal commission was setting forth.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is simply that we are not, as has been suggested, putting the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse; in other words, doing part 1 first and then doing part 3. We aren't doing that. Again, all I can say to the member is that if we want to have a discussion about what the royal commission is actually saying, well and good, and of course we will do that in the course of our deliberations, but under the heading of definitions, I am struggling mightily to find out why we're having all this debate about what is, frankly, pretty straightforward.

C. Hansen: I will turn this over to my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano in a moment, but I just have to follow up on the minister's comments about putting the cart before the horse. I think that's what this legislation is all about, in total: we are putting in place one piece of a puzzle that is going to rebuild and reshape workers compensation in British Columbia. I think I canvassed that in second reading, and I won't stretch the definition section to revisit that particular debate. I will turn it over to my colleague.

J. Dalton: I have a couple of questions about the definition of "prime contractor." It refers us, of course, to a subsequent section that we will again be dealing specifically with later: section 118. Can the minister tell the committee if prime contractor is used only in that one section, section 118?

[5:30]

J. Dalton: I suspect the minister is correct. I must confess that I haven't spotted it anywhere else. If we had this thing on a computer, we could do a quick word search and find out. My follow-up question would be: given that it is probably only in that one section, which we'll be discussing later, what need was there to define prime contractor in the definition section of part 3?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member, as someone with a legal background, will appreciate the answer: this was the advice from legislative counsel. I gather that the advice from legislative counsel is rather like getting it from above. You don't really ask questions, because that's a very esoteric and murky world.

J. Dalton: It seemed to me a bit strange, whether it be from legislative counsel or from some even higher authority than that, that it would be necessary to define a term that only appears in one section of this new part 3.

However, the other point I want to ask the minister about, on this same thing. . . . Last year, when we dealt with the Builders Lien Act, Bill 38, we put in a definition of "head contractor." Of course, it's defined for a particular purpose within the context of the Builders Lien Act, but I'm curious as to why we would have a head contractor in one act and a prime contractor in another act. It seems to me that we're either discussing apples and oranges and trying to mix the two or that maybe there's some subtle distinction between "prime" and "head" that has escaped my attention. I can appreciate that one anticipated answer from the minister will be: "Well, that act deals with a particular context, and this one deals with another." But given all these bills -- and heaven forbid, maybe later in this session we'll be dealing with a new Bill 44 that's revisited; let's hope it isn't -- we may see a subsequent definition that may further muddy the water. Perhaps the minister could inform the committee why we have two very similar terms in two labour-related bills, but they've taken on different terminology.

[ Page 7999 ]

L. Reid: The minister will know, because I certainly brought this up repeatedly during second reading debate -- where we talked about workers and whether or not this government would continue to constrain science and technology workers in the field. . . . When we talk about workers, the constraints that this act will put in place and the constraints that a future Labour Code certainly will put in place are of concern. I think the minister is aware that these are valid concerns. These are about individuals who are entrepreneurial in spirit and nature -- frankly, vital to the future of the province. If it were not for these individuals providing employment -- and certainly I think the minister will concur that this is the largest growth sector in the province, somewhere between 11 and 22 percent. . . . These individuals are not looking for protection. In an earlier comment in this Legislature, I believe during second reading debate, this minister said it would not be prudent to be protecting workers who are not looking for that level of protection.

I put it on the record at this juncture, because I think the definition sections are critical to the application of this bill. I am simply asking the minister to give me some background as to whether or not he sees this section pertaining to that community, that worker in terms of science: the technologist, the scientist, the researcher. To constrain the nature of their work would not be in the best interest of this province, would not be in the best interest of bringing together the finest minds and often having them work in areas that are truly about urgency -- about getting the best ideas to the marketplace; about being involved in medical solutions and science answers. If they were constrained, it is my contention that the province would suffer and, frankly, that patients would suffer and the country would suffer. We're not taking a long-term view. When these types of bills come before us, this minister will always see this member on her feet suggesting that there are exceptions that she believes need to be made. If the minister could kindly comment.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I'd be happy to comment. Again, dealing with the definition section, it's hard to get too specific. Because I recognize that that concern is an absolutely legitimate and valid one, let me answer it at a little greater length than one perhaps normally would in talking about definitions.

I suspect the member is aware of the initiative that the ministry has undertaken with regard to what's usually called section 7, to do with employment standards. What we said we would do is recognize the sometimes very unique circumstances and characteristics of the high-tech industry, normally defined, and say that because of that uniqueness, perhaps those workers ought not to be subjected to employment standards provisions that were really defined for a more traditional, industrial kind of workplace.

Accordingly, we have a committee established to deal with that matter. They have in fact been given a mandate: to protect the workers' rights on the one hand and also to recognize the unique character of the industry and sometimes the rugged individualism of those who work in it. What kind of accommodation can we make? We are hopeful that those regulations will be coming down fairly soon.

I mention that simply to make the point that that as a kind of value approach, I think, is behind what we're trying to do here as well. I want, however, to make the point that if we talk about a category like science and technology workers, the category is so broad that it quite conceivably could deal with certain workplaces which were absolutely crying out for major occupational health and safety provisions -- dealing, for instance, with biological specimens or radioactive materials and things of that sort. They'd want in place, it would seem to me, a more rigorous occupational health and safety regime than you might in your average small department store or something like that.

I guess my point is that in some areas of the science and technology workplace, you want an incredibly rigorous, well-defined, occupational health and safety regime. On the other hand, however, I'm perfectly prepared to acknowledge that large numbers of people like that -- probably physics profs or something -- would sit around and reflect and think about problems, and not do much in terms of physical activity. Therefore there perhaps wouldn't be much need for anything terribly rigorous in terms of workplace safety. I think the point, though, is that both of those categories and both of those problems will be solved essentially by the trigger point for this legislation -- namely, that you don't have a committee in place unless you've got more than 20 people working.

My understanding of science and technology is that the huge, preponderant majority of the exciting stuff happening there is in the micro-business kind of thing: people that don't really have a workplace but rather are connected by a cell phone or a modem. They probably wouldn't be captured by this legislation, just as a coefficient of size and effect. I'm trying to give the member the assurance that I think our definition of "worker" is not going to be incompatible with achieving, fostering and furthering the kind of exciting and innovative workplace that we both recognize under the heading of science and technology workers. I hope that answers your question.

L. Reid: I absolutely appreciate the sentiment the minister expressed that indeed this should not be about constraining the workplace for those knowledge-based industries. My concern -- and again, I'll put it on the record -- is that I believe most of this will be subject to regulation, and the regulation may or may not be impacted by the recommendations that come forward from that committee. I trust they would be, but both the minister and I know there is no certainty around that question.

In terms of the examples the minister gave around radiation, probably those are the most rigorous regimes in place today. I don't know if that can be improved upon. I certainly think that individuals working in those areas today are incredibly careful, frankly, when it comes to workplace safety -- because, as you know, they are usually the employer and are usually on the site. I think the responsibility and accountability question has been answered by the regulation that already overlays how they best conduct practice on those business sites.

Certainly the minister's comment that because of their size today they may not be captured by this legislation. . . . If you take that discussion to its logical conclusion, we are in this debate in science, technology and knowledge-based industry to spawn larger companies. If we are successful, this legislation will capture those very companies that perhaps today may be exempt but six months from now will absolutely qualify. The goal for most of these companies is to end up with 40 or 50 employees, so that they can have some competitive edge. I think the minister will agree that one or two employees, one being the scientist and one being the marketer,

[ Page 8000 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't for a moment say to go forward unfettered. That's too broad, for just the points I was making. Again, I don't think the member and I disagree very much on this, but I also have to point out that even if we are dealing with the so-called high-tech industry, there are phenomena and characteristics there that are absolutely common to many workplaces. People can still be subject to routine, repetitive injury strain like carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic back things and things like that, which might be solved by a joint committee, again assuming a large enough workplace.

My sense is that enlightened employers -- and I suspect that in the high-tech industry the propensity is to be more enlightened -- would probably say: "We want to have that, because we value the intelligence, ability, energy and creativity of our workers, and we don't want to do anything to lose that." Therefore they would obviously see it as in their best interest to ensure a safe workplace.

Again, I don't think the member and I have any disagreement on this issue. We both recognize that this is one of the absolutely bright lights in terms of today's economy, and we would be foolish indeed not to do what we can to encourage and further that.

[5:45]

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

R. Neufeld: I have a few questions left, and then I'll yield the floor to some of the others, who will be here soon.

I want to go on to northeast coal, just briefly. We talked about the Willow Creek property. But northeast coal represents a fair amount of B.C. Rail's traffic. I know there were some new contracts signed and a reduction in tonnage. I just wonder what effect that's having on B.C. Rail. Can the minister impart to us what was actually signed and what kind of reduction there was? Is it going to be significant to the bottom line of B.C. Rail?

Hon. D. Miller: There's no question that the reduced volumes and the squeeze on the price side will have an impact. In terms of quantifying that, I can't give the member. . . . The rates that we negotiate are confidential rates, and they'll remain so. But there's no question that with reduced volume and price, there'll be an impact.

R. Neufeld: The minister and one of the other members spoke briefly about passenger service. I'm not familiar with the passenger service -- where it goes and what process is used in determining who gets passenger service and who doesn't. Maybe the minister could lay out for us a little bit about how B.C. Rail decides where they're going to provide passenger service. Is it mandated? What are those costs? How much money do we lose on passenger rail service? Or is it actually something that makes money? How is it determined?

Hon. D. Miller: There is daily service to Lillooet and service three times a week to Prince George. It loses money -- four million bucks, approximately. The corporation is looking at ways to enhance revenue opportunities. Clearly the dinner train has proven to be very successful, but I don't have numbers available on that.

There are some issues that need to be addressed. While we've identified some of them, we haven't identified solutions. There are some issues around the transportation of school children -- the subsidy, if you like, of B.C. Rail with respect to that and how we can improve that situation. B.C. Rail, having been very successful at developing the dinner train, as I indicated early, is clearly looking at other opportunities on the tourism side. I spoke about the tourism conference, the circle tours and the potential of using both B.C. Rail and the Via Rail line in northern B.C. We'll continue to pursue those opportunities and try to minimize the current losses.

R. Neufeld: Is the cost of providing the service, the excess costs over revenues, just on a straight dollars-and-cents basis? Or does the passenger service actually get assessed a

[ Page 8001 ]

Hon. D. Miller: It's on a straight operating basis. We've not done what I referred to earlier with respect to Via Rail. It's clear that what they've done is separated and commercialized Via Rail. I would suggest that it's had some impact on people who use rail transportation. Except in heavily used corridors, there have been some dramatic changes. It really suggests that implicit subsidy if the passenger service does not account for any of the capital side, but that's not a huge issue.

The fundamental issue is that you've got a fairly long line. I'm not sure what the volumes are, but it's not a revenue generator. It loses money, yet it provides a service to individuals. Let's leave aside the tourism aspects of it and look at the individuals who live in some of the smaller communities. There's the school children issue. There are some solutions that might be effected, but a capital cost is required. Particularly when it comes to transporting school children, it begs the question: ought B.C. Rail to be in the position of having to subsidize that, or should it come in other ways? Again, I'm only throwing these out as some of the issues -- not that we've discovered very simple, easy solutions to some of these questions.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister provide me with what the subsidy -- I guess you could call it that -- actually is in dollars and cents? Do you have that number?

Hon. D. Miller: There's no subsidy from the Crown to B.C. Rail.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening to the response.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I actually wasn't listening to the question either. I thought the question was: is there a subsidy? There is no subsidy to B.C. Rail from the Crown.

R. Neufeld: So the operations of the passenger service are just part of the total receipts of the rail company, and they're not broken out at all.

Hon. D. Miller: Correct.

R. Neufeld: The other issue I want to go to, if I could, is the rehabilitation of the track, the bed and the bridges and how that's done. At the present time, we know -- in Highways, for instance -- that over quite a number of years, the infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate dramatically. I'm just wondering how the rail company actually assesses how they do their railbed maintenance and its bridge repair and replacement. Is it done on a regular basis?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

R. Neufeld: I have a question with regard to rail crossings, and it has to do with my constituency. Maybe the minister can help with how rail crossings are dealt with. I've talked to both the person who has the problem with the rail crossing and also to the station manager. Apparently, as I understand it, a permit is given to the proponent from B.C. Rail, and when the crossing is completed, when it's constructed, that permit expires and Municipal Affairs takes over.

What happened is that the lady who contacted me lives right beside the tracks. B.C. Rail uses that portion of the line, the Fort Nelson subdivision, as a staging point. They have up to 80 cars along this piece of track at times, and it's over top of her driveway. Her children, I guess, crawl under the train at times to get on the school bus. I don't know how we go about dealing with it. I've talked to the station manager, and he says that the owners clearly understood that it was a staging area; I've talked to the owners of the property, and they say no. We're kind of in a bit of a lock, and I wonder what happens. She was under the impression, like I say, that once the original permit for the construction was finished, it would be cancelled, and then Municipal Affairs would get involved. She thought it would be an open crossing. Now, I've talked to BCR, and I can quite understand their position on why it can't be an open crossing. I wonder what we do in a case like that.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I can tell you what I'm going to do right now. There are people from my office listening. You have made a statement -- and nothing against your statement -- that children are crawling under railcars at a crossing. I'm asking my staff right now to immediately find out about that situation. That is a death in the making. A person should never, ever go under a railcar on a siding. That has to be investigated immediately; it has to be investigated right now. On the broader question in terms of the issues of private property owners, I don't have a response or an answer to that particular issue. I'd be happy to take it up with my officials. But people should understand that you don't know when those cars are going to move. There could be an engine attached to those cars. There could be shunting taking place. Little kids could be killed underneath those cars. There has to be something done about that right now.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that, and I expect that there'll be some conversation with both the Fort St. John yard. . . . They both have a position on this issue. I want to be very clear about that. If the minister is going to deal with it right away, that's great.

I'll yield to the member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: Last year during the B.C. Rail estimates, we discussed at some length issues dealing with disclosure practices in annual financial statements. I was hoping -- and I think it's appropriate -- that we would have the 1997 annual report for B.C. Rail before these estimates commenced, particularly as it has a December year-end. In fact, I'd like to protest the fact that we haven't received it, because it substantially restricts the ability of the official opposition to do their job in respect to B.C. Rail. I'd like to get a response from the minister to that issue, if I may.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't always. . . . In fact, I don't have any control over the issue of estimates -- when they're brought forward and those kinds of things. I appreciate the member's question, and I'm sympathetic to what he has to say. Believe me, there's no deliberate attempt with respect to not making information available. Some of these issues are beyond my control.

[2:45]

[ Page 8002 ]

F. Gingell: The issues that I brought up last year were with respect to the standards of disclosure in the financial statements, the lack of segmented information that tells us about the various different business branches of B.C. Rail and what their sales, expenses and operating costs are. As a result of the discussion during the estimates process, I received a letter from the president of B.C. Rail on July 11. In this letter he says: "According to section 1700 of the handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the BCR Group is not required to disclose segmented information as we are not a publicly traded enterprise, we do not have securities filed with the Securities Commission, nor are we a life insurance company. BCR Group has regularly reviewed this presentation with its external auditors and believes the current reporting is appropriate."

I responded to that letter on August 18 and said, first of all, that if there is any company that could most properly be described as a public company, it is B.C. Rail. The shareholders -- I hope they appreciate and I hope they understand, because the way that letter responds indicates that B.C. Rail does not understand -- are every single citizen of this province. I found that response very disturbing indeed. They are going to use a technicality in the way in which this company is held to hide behind making a proper disclosure. For a Crown corporation, that's inexcusable.

In response to my letter of August 18, I got a response on September 9 that said that B.C. Rail does meet good disclosure requirements for public companies. So that is completely at odds with what they had written to me on July 11, when they said that they are not a public company and that therefore they don't need to disclose segmented information.

I asked the president of B.C. Rail to take the issue that I brought up to the audit committee, and he committed to do that. I'm anxiously awaiting the 1997 financial statements to see whether our discussion of last year has had any influence on the reporting practices of B.C. Rail.

Hon. D. Miller: I confess that the intricacies of public reporting and accounting practices are somewhat beyond my ken. Notwithstanding that, I think it is important to note that B.C. Rail is a Crown corporation. They take their role very seriously. Throughout the course of the estimates this morning, we talked about many of the initiatives that B.C. Rail is involved with, both in the core rail business and in other areas of their divisions, all of which are, if you like, in the public good. In fact, I was very pleased that both members of the opposition, the official critic and the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. . . . I think that both, as we concluded estimates this morning, indicated that they strongly support the direction that B.C. Rail is going in. I was delighted, because they both said that if they could assist in any way with respect to some of these initiatives, which are both government and B.C. Rail initiatives, they would be delighted to do so.

I really think that I can't get involved in the rules of auditing. I had some experience some years ago on a question of auditing, and I found myself at odds with the auditors. That's healthy, I think. In any event, B.C. Rail takes its responsibilities seriously and tries to conduct its business in an ethical manner, above board, and to operate for the public good.

F. Gingell: I know that this government strongly supports improved accountability -- or at least your deputy ministers do. They write reports about major initiatives in the government to improve accountability. I'd like to suggest to you that this is not an issue of auditors and bookkeepers arguing about how many beans are in each pot -- not at all. This is about advising the public about what a major Crown corporation is doing and advising them in a meaningful manner so that people can make judgments about it. It has nothing to do with supporting B.C. Rail in the directions that they're going; it's got nothing to do with any criticisms of those issues. It's purely and simply that the taxpayers and citizens of this province deserve and have a right to complete financial information, information that shareholders of CP Rail or CN Rail get. All I'm talking about is meeting the same standards that CP and CN meet. With that, I will leave the issue there, because I believe that the minister really does support improved, transparent accountability.

The other question I had was to do with the issue of dividends. We discussed it at some length. In looking at the financial statements for the 1997 year-end, which you did have available, by the way. . . . The quarterly report that came out in. . . . It's undated. But you did have preliminary statements for 1997 there, and you've obviously had a reasonably good year. Could the minister advise how much dividend was paid in the year ended December 3l, 1997, and the proposed amount of dividend to be paid in the year ended December 31, 1998? If it has been paid, at what date was it paid? Was it before the end of March or after the end of March? I appreciate that the government has a different year-end.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope I get this right. The dividend paid at year-end -- that's December 31, 1997 -- was $4 million, and nothing has been paid in 1998.

F. Gingell: In B.C. Rail's capital planning and cash planning project, I'm sure they have presumed some dividend based on advice from Treasury Board for this current year. The government would have needed estimates to include in this year's budget. I'm wondering what is planned for this year.

Hon. D. Miller: My understanding of the forecast is that it's 6l for this fiscal year.

F. Gingell: Six-one-comma-zero-zero-zero-comma-zero-zero-zero?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure if it were B.C. Rail, they would prefer $61, but I'll add the requisite number of zeros to call it $61 million.

F. Gingell: Maybe I should sit down or take another squirt from my nitro. I'm a little taken aback. It's going up from $4 million to $61 million. How much cash on hand does

[ Page 8003 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Using just current cash and equivalents, there are not sufficient funds to transfer the dividend, but the corporation is in the midst of looking at divestiture. That process is in midstream with respect to WesTel. Presumably, we'll have to await the outcome of that in terms of the value that might be obtained. The commitment is there, or at least it's booked with respect to the budget, and B.C. Rail knows what their obligation is.

F. Gingell: We used to have the term "dividend stripping." The government is taking dividend stripping to its epitome here. Unless there is an arrangement, a firm contract, whereby B.C. Rail will have made a disposition and will have received cash and will have sufficient cash on hand. . . . It reminds me somewhat of the exercise we went through in 1994 with respect to the proposed sale of the Columbia downstream benefits to the Bonneville power corporation. The government included in the budget for the year $250 million that was anticipated to be received from the sale of downstream benefits that would revert to the province on the completion of earlier contracts, and of course, there wasn't any deal. There had been some agreements and some stuff signed, but there was no firm arrangement. After the government had made, on that basis, a commitment to the Columbia Valley to fund the development fund there, which I'm not arguing about in any way. . . . But it is true that there wasn't any deal, and it was overstated. We're already through to the end of May, and B.C. Rail must have a deal very close to completion. These things -- making such major sales -- take a lot of time. Or is it again just picking some numbers out of the air and hoping that it happens, and it doesn't have any basis in reasonable, conservative budgeting practices?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't think that's the case.

M. de Jong: The issue I want to canvass, as I indicated earlier, relates to a relationship between B.C. Rail and the National Railway Historical Society. By way of a preface to my subsequent questions, I'll just say that my interest in the issue arose when I was notified about some historical heritage carriages that were heading south of the border, and I had an opportunity to examine them just before they headed south.

Now, I understand that there is a dispute and that whenever there is a dispute, there are two sides to the story. I would say that my interest in the issue is really twofold. First, there are significant sums of money -- millions of dollars -- involved, and in and of itself, I think that warrants in a case like this some scrutiny or investigation by an opposition through this estimates process. Secondly, on the face of it, at least, there's the appearance that a not-for-profit society has not been treated fairly. I won't delve into the legalities of the issue. That is not necessarily my purpose, but on the face of it and from the documentation I have seen, there is certainly an appearance that an organization that formerly enjoyed a very good working relationship with BCR has somehow -- pardon the pun -- come off the rails. My interest relates to that aspect as well.

[3:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I understand there is.

M. de Jong: Does that policy provide for the offering of assets, like a heritage railcar, to be made available to the public for bidding, or does it contemplate a different method of disposal?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not familiar with the policy at all, but I understand that various parties are notified when assets are available for disposition.

M. de Jong: Again, I don't want to drag this out. The dispute here obviously relates to the fact that the Railway Historical Society doesn't feel that they were given an adequate opportunity to bid or make application for assets that ultimately ended up south of the border.

Can I ask the minister whether the disposal of B.C. Rail assets takes place exclusively via its own operation or policy, or are transfers made to the Minister of Finance for disposal via the Finance ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe it's just B.C. Rail. Again, I'm not very familiar with these historical assets, but I understand that there has been movement back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border on other occasions with respect to these historical rail assets. I don't have the full picture, but I do believe that cars have come from the U.S. and vice versa, going back many, many years.

F. Gingell: I'd like to go back, if I may. I don't think I got the commitment from the minister that I would like, which is a copy of the response of the chairman of the audit committee of B.C. Rail to the chairman of the board of directors, or to the president, relative to the issues that I raised in my correspondence and in estimates. The president, Mr. McElligott, committed to ensuring that my letter and my concerns were forwarded to the chairman of the audit committee. I presume that there has been some official response from them which I have not yet received. I would like a commitment from the minister that I get it.

Hon. D. Miller: On behalf of Mr. McElligott. . . . I did explain that he's in Japan; otherwise he would be here. I believe Mr. McElligott is known for following through on his commitments. He made a commitment to the member, and I'll convey this discussion to Mr. McElligott and let him take it from there.

M. de Jong: Maybe the easiest way to deal with this asset disposal issue is simply to ask the minister whether he will undertake to make the policy available in its entirety.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure that can be done.

M. de Jong: When an organization -- like B.C. Rail -- that deals in what are often deemed historical artifacts on

[ Page 8004 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I will make sure that a copy of the policy, which I don't have at hand, is forwarded to the member. Again, I repeat that there is, over time. . . . Looking back, one can see that there has been a variety of movements with respect to historical railcars both from the U.S. to B.C. and from B.C. to the U.S. I will get a copy of the policy and forward it to the member.

M. de Jong: The concern that I and others have -- most particularly those associated with this historical rail society -- relates to the disposition of eight cars, four of which took place in 1996 and four of which took place in 1997. It may be a short answer, but I will ask the minister to exhaust himself of whatever knowledge he has today of the disposition of those cars, which, in fairness, has attracted some degree of media attention. Again, the point worthy of repeating is that this society, which formerly worked very closely with B.C. Rail, was extremely surprised and agitated to learn that they hadn't been provided with any meaningful opportunity to assume ownership of eight cars, which ultimately went to an individual at Mount Rainier -- Jack Anderson is the gentleman's name -- operating a train south of the border.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I was unaware that there's been any media interest. I guess the member listens to the radio more than I do. Clearly there has been a dispute with the National Railway Historical Society, which I understand is essentially a U.S.-based organization but has a B.C. chapter. There are perhaps some reasons with respect to the disposition of the cars to where they went. I'd be happy to get a more detailed briefing or, if not, have somebody from B.C. Rail personally brief the member on the question.

M. de Jong: One of the points I would like the minister to confirm, either now or subsequent to these proceedings, is that a request was received by this British Columbia organization. I will hasten to add that based on the information I've seen until very recently, the working relationship between this group and B.C. Rail was excellent. Both organizations had a lot to be thankful for in terms of what their opposite brought to the table, and they prospered together. But I would like to be in a position to confirm that B.C. Rail received a request from this British Columbia organization to have an opportunity to assume ownership of these cars, which ultimately went to the U.S. free of charge.

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't catch the last part of the member's question. I apologize. I was talking to one of my officials. Could he repeat it?

The Chair: Minister. Member -- I'm sorry.

M. de Jong: Only in my dreams, right?

It was simply to ask the minister to confirm my suggestion that in fact B.C. Rail received a request prior to the disposition of these railcars to the U.S. It received a request from the British Columbia organization for an opportunity to purchase these assets.

Hon. D. Miller: Not being totally familiar with all of that. . . . Quite frankly, B.C. Rail is a commercial enterprise. They conduct these kinds of businesses, and lots of times I'm not in the picture, nor do I want to be in the picture with respect to these questions. I understand there may have been some requests. I think there's also some suggestion that the cars in question, had they be retained here, might have been cannibalized -- in other words, disassembled and used for parts -- versus their destination in the U.S.

I would point out, as well, that on a net basis, as a result of our purchase of cars in the U.S., we have brought historic railway cars into Canada that, quite frankly, are U.S. cars. They're very nice cars. I don't know if the member has had a chance to take a look at the dinner train. There are some very historical cars there. I can't remember exactly, although it was explained to me, where they came from and what use they were engaged in. There's a lot of history in those cars. We're a net beneficiary, if you like, of historical railway cars as a result of B.C. Rail's purchase of the dinner train cars.

M. de Jong: I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a reciprocal exchange of artifacts and train carriages. That's fine. The two aspects to this that I think are worthy of brief exploration here are: (1) British Columbia groups that are interested in these sorts of things deserve to know what the policy is, and they don't; and (2) where there is an economic aspect to this. . . . The cars that went south of the border had value, although I have received correspondence from B.C. Rail suggesting that that is not the case, as historic artifacts that will be restored. They did have value, and in fact, as I understand it, B.C. Rail was obliged to purchase replacement carriages to fill a role that these cars might otherwise have filled had they been restored -- partly with the assistance of the society.

Hon. D. Miller: It's very clear that there's a lot of detail here. Clearly the member's had some correspondence from B.C. Rail, and I would encourage him to pursue that and perhaps sit down with someone from the corporation to explore the topic more fully. I'd certainly be happy to make that arrangement. There's a lot more detail that we don't have here and ordinarily wouldn't have here with respect to these estimates.

M. de Jong: I understand, as part of the process of filling in the gaps caused by the disposition of these cars south of the border, that there was a purchase of 14 railcars from Via Rail. I wonder if my number is correct in terms of the purchase.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that any purchase from Via is not connected at all with respect to the dinner train or the cars that the member is presumably talking about.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I can't be precise with respect to the answer. There were previous purchases of coach cars, I believe, from Via with respect to the Royal Hudson operation. Beyond that I can't really offer much more.

M. de Jong: Based on that response, this may be something I need to get from the minister later. But I'd like to

[ Page 8005 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't, Madam Chair, but I'm quite happy to try to get someone from the corporation to respond to any questions that the member has.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I take that back. I think I said Via Rail; I meant B.C. Rail.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: That's right. One of your guys said that the ferry goes to Prince George, so we're even.

M. de Jong: Before I move on to the dinner train, I understand that there is a specific process and a policy by which assets are disposed of by B.C. Rail either by donation or by sale. There is an asset disposal agent, Mr. Wright. Two questions. Does he remain the asset disposal agent? Is anyone else within the organization off the yard authorized to dispose of either parts or artifacts for B.C. Rail?

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that that is Mr. Wright's job. But we also have a charitable donations committee comprised of B.C. Rail personnel, which brings some influence to bear with respect to these questions.

M. de Jong: Is that committee comprised entirely of officials from within B.C. Rail? The minister may have answered this earlier: are they guided by a written policy framework by which they must abide in approving or disapproving donations?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm tempted to give the response that I gave last year in Hansard, which was that I'm unaware of the policy, but I'm sure that if there is a policy, people are following it -- but I won't do that.

I understand that the answer to that question is yes.

M. de Jong: And the minister is prepared, I'm sure, to release that policy to me.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I do believe that it's available, and I'd be happy to make it available.

M. de Jong: One of the greatest sources of frustration for the society that we've been talking about these past 15 minutes or so relates to discussions that they've had with B.C. Rail, dating back to at least 1988, regarding the planning of a dinner train. It's their belief that in working with B.C. Rail and providing the rolling stock necessary, there was an untapped market that B.C. Rail and the society could tap into -- to their mutual benefit.

What I'd like to ascertain from the minister and his officials is the chronology and thought process by which B.C. Rail moved from what appeared to be a very close working relationship with the society to, in effect, taking the decision in 1997 to exclude the society from any further involvement. Like it or not, and whatever the terms of the dispute were, that has had very grave financial repercussions on the non-profit group's ability to get on with doing what they like to do, which is restore historical rail carriages.

Hon. D. Miller: I think that we've been shadowboxing here a little bit in referring to the National Railway Historical Society. I assume that's the group that the member alluded to. I don't know that he's used. . . .

A Voice: Yes, that's. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Okay. It's also clear that there's a dispute between the society and B.C. Rail relative to the dinner train. I don't want to get into any sort of detail with respect to that, other than to say that B.C. Rail would like to resolve the matter. They've made serious attempts to resolve the matter, including making a cash offer. But it's also very clear that the relationship between the two is not good. B.C. Rail's position is very clear. I don't know if the member has correspondence on this question, but they've made it very clear that if they receive an itemized list of expenses that the society feels that B.C. Rail owes them, they're prepared to engage in some process that would lead to a resolution. They've done that in the past.

B.C. Rail, for its part, feels that its good-faith, without prejudice, discussions were breached publicly. So I don't know. . . . As the member said at the outset, there are always two sides to every story. I've tried to take the position that, first of all, we'd like to see the issue settled and to encourage both parties to get on with doing that. I believe that would be possible. It won't be settled here. I can assure you of that.

M. de Jong: There's an added component to this, which is that the introduction of the dinner train service as it now exists costs a whole bunch of money -- some several millions of dollars. Part of my interest in this relates to the fact that one side of that dispute is able, on the face of it at least, to present an argument that says: "This could have been done cheaper, and it could have been done in a way that would have benefited a local organization."

The minister says that he doesn't want to get into it in detail. He has a large ministry, and there are practical reasons for his being limited in his ability to do so. It doesn't escape our notice that there are political reasons for why he wouldn't want to get into detail on many of these matters. It's not before the courts, as I understand it. Maybe I could ask this question to cut to the chase. When the decision was made by B.C. Rail to offer this service, it's unclear to me what, if any, opportunity local organizations like the society -- and if the minister has any doubts, yes, we're talking about the National Railway Historical Society -- or any other British Columbia organization had to at least offer to provide some of the rolling stock, expertise and materiel that would have been required to initiate that service. I'm unaware of them having had that opportunity.

Hon. D. Miller: As I said -- and the member understands, having come from that side of the business -- disputes do occasionally arise between parties and sometimes reach an impasse and appear to be irresolvable. To some degree, there's always more than one side to every story. I want to say again that we'd like to see the matter resolved. I think B.C. Rail certainly would like to see the matter resolved. They've made that offer, I think, on a number of occasions. I suppose the failure of two parties results in going to another venue, which I've never really recommended in my life because I don't

[ Page 8006 ]

There have been a variety of statements made -- or accusations made -- with respect to the dinner train service, the origination of the concept, the purchase of cars -- these kinds of questions. In fact, I think it would be folly to try to get into that issue. Or, if you like -- the member on his side taking the part of the National Railway Historical Society and my taking the part of B.C. Rail -- we can kind of duke it out and hope that we, with our limited involvement in these issues, could do any better than the society and the railway have done in terms of trying to reach some agreement. I really have to continue to say that we'd like to see the matter resolved in a fair way, and we're prepared to do that. So the door is open for the society to respond to the initiative of the railway.

M. de Jong: I was actually hoping to do something quite different, quite the opposite of that. It's no secret that I've heard one side of the story. What I am trying to ascertain in part, from a public policy point of view and from the point of view of value to the taxpayer, is whether the Crown corp's own procedures were followed in a way that might lead to my concluding: "Look, there's no reason for a dispute to exist here."

When I ask whether or not, in initiating this dinner train service, an opportunity was given to others to bid on providing some of the rolling stock, some of the expertise and some of the services, I think, quite frankly -- absent the matter actually being before the courts -- that is a legitimate question for an opposition member to ask in the estimates process.

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's somewhat larger than that. This is a dispute between two parties, and I am cognizant of the fact that B.C. Rail is a public Crown corporation and that it's answerable in this forum and others as a result of having that status. It's also a commercial Crown corporation, and it does engage in business activities. It seems to me that there is a clear separation. If, for example, there is a business dispute between a private sector business company and B.C. Rail that is commercial in nature and that could potentially be a matter that appeared before the courts, then it seems proper to me that the commercial entity conduct its business as a private sector company would.

I don't know where this issue may arise. I know that there have been a series of allegations. It's unfortunate, because the railway has been accused of unethical behaviour, and generally the language used by the society with respect to B.C. Rail has been inflammatory. I don't think that's helpful if people are trying to solve disputes. I get letters from the society which I find unacceptable. The language that's used to describe B.C. Rail is inflammatory; it's not helpful. All of my dealings with B.C. Rail. . . . As the minister responsible, I've talked to many people in the organization. It seems to me that it's a proud British Columbia company, a commercial Crown corporation that is operating in the private sector and is doing well and doing things for the benefit of British Columbians.

Quite frankly, it's too bad that this dispute exists. I think there are avenues to resolve it, but this is not one of them. I'm not for a moment denying the member his right to raise the issues in this forum; I think it's appropriate. But it's also appropriate for me to respond, given the set of circumstances we're dealing with, in the manner that I am responding.

[3:30]

I know that at one time there was discussion about referring the matter to binding arbitration or some manner of arbitration. That is something that we in this place hear a great deal about from the Attorney General, insofar as alternative dispute resolution methods are concerned. Maybe this is an opportunity for the minister to practise what he preaches -- or what the Attorney General preaches, at least -- in terms of proffering advice or making the recommendation that this is a dispute that is worthy of reference to one of those alternative dispute resolution bodies.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe that is the case here. In fact, while there are appropriate venues for arbitration. . . . I recall bringing a bill forward some years ago on firefighters and successfully arguing that there ought to be the right for arbitration, given the inability in those circumstances for the firefighters to withdraw their labour. So there are clearly some unique historical circumstances where arbitration becomes a way in which disputes can be resolved. But I don't for a moment believe that it's a panacea. It's clearly inappropriate in some circumstances. I think that the current doctors' dispute in northern B.C. is an example of where arbitration is not the solution.

So I'll repeat: B.C. Rail would like to resolve the issue. In the fairly recent past they tabled a reasonably significant offer with respect to the cash. The correspondence indicates that the door is open for the society to forward a list of their issues, their concerns or their analysis of what monetary compensation they feel they're entitled to with respect to the issue. If they want to pursue that, I'm sure that B.C. Rail would be happy to go back to the file again.

When discussing these kinds of questions, if it's simply going to be surrounded by the kind of allegations and letters that I've seen, which suggest that B.C. Rail as an operating company is unethical and lacks integrity, then I don't know that that's particularly helpful.

M. de Jong: As I review the correspondence that has flowed back and forth between these two organizations, what I am very much struck by is the passion that one might expect from a group of people who are volunteers committed to a particularly passionate activity in their lives. To discover at the last minute, as they did -- from their perspective, at least -- that they had been cut out of an exercise that they were pinning their hopes on, in terms of furthering the objectives of their organization, would have been disappointing to say the least.

Maybe what I can ask the minister is this. . . . Exclusive of the dispute that is ongoing, I am interested in knowing a breakdown of the cost associated with the establishment of the dinner train service. It's no secret that the society says that it could have been done for this much. I'm interested in knowing how much it actually did cost and whether it might have been possible to effect significant savings by adopting a different approach. If the minister is in a position to provide a breakdown of those costs, then I'm happy to receive it.

[ Page 8007 ]

I don't that we've accounted for the kind of spinoff benefits -- apart from the business plan in terms of direct B.C. Rail -- to tourism and the communities, but I think it's fairly significant. Now, with B.C. Rail looking further afield at the potential for circle tours -- Great Canadian Railtour or Rocky Mountain Railtours types of things -- and with the experience in the business that they have gotten, I think there will be significant benefits that would flow from that to the province.

Again, even if I could tell you what every nut and bolt cost, I don't know that it would be helpful in terms of resolving the dispute that exists between B.C. Rail and the society.

M. de Jong: I don't think I was particularly clear in how I asked the question, hon. Chair. I don't think anyone disputes the success of the concept here. That's partly where the passion involved in the dispute arises from. Everyone knows that it was good idea, and apparently it's working very well.

I am told that when B.C. Rail established this service, they chose to go a particular way, which involved the purchase of rolling stock from south of the border. And when all was said and done, the cost of that purchase and the upgrade work brought total costs to somewhere in excess of $3 million. That information is presumably available and is information that I'm interested in reviewing.

Hon. D. Miller: The railway made a decision to purchase based on a variety of factors, and I think one very important factor was the knowledge that B.C. Rail had that no other set of cars was available. Combining that with the discussions with the then owner and their assistance with respect to setting up the service, it was in every sense an appropriate and prudent business decision.

M. de Jong: This dispute that we've been referring to through this discussion, as I understand it, incorporates a whole bunch of other things: lost revenues. . . . Quite frankly, I'm not equipped to deal with, nor am I terribly interested in dealing with, those issues. However, one point that the minister made was that no other cars were available to serve the objective that B.C. Rail had. That is an issue I am interested in, because as one who critiques government, if I'm in a position to demonstrate that there was an alternative available, then I should do that. I can only do that if I have an idea of what B.C. Rail was looking for. Up to this point I'm not able to do that because I don't know what criteria, what specifications, they had laid out at the time they embarked upon this exercise.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the tone of our discussion; I do. It's an interesting exercise when we try to go back and look at issues and determine whether you should have done this or that or the other. Those are judgments that are often made based on the factors that existed at the time. Quite frankly, having the set of cars available in the condition that they were, the assistance of the owner, the timeliness -- all of those kinds of questions. . . . It's not a simple issue based on one set of criteria. It's based on a multiple set of criteria with respect to your business plan, when you want to get your cars in service, how successful you think you might be. . . . All of those issues are canvassed in a broad perspective, and decisions are made as a result of that broad look. I've cited a couple of the issues -- and no doubt there may be some more details around that -- but essentially there was really no other set of cars available, in terms of the conditions and those kinds of questions, that would have suited B.C. Rail's purpose in proceeding with this dinner car service.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can ask the minister a straightforward. . . . I am told -- and this does relate to the dispute proper, if that's the way I can describe it -- that there is an element of this exclusive of the dinner car service. It relates to fees that the society believes it is owed by B.C. Rail relating to the use of certain parlour cars. I'm not an expert on that part of this; the minister isn't. It strikes me though that that should be a relatively straightforward issue to resolve -- that there are invoices. I know the minister has some briefing notes on that component to this. Is he in a position to summarize for these proceedings today? Is B.C. Rail prepared to acknowledge that there are funds owing with respect to those invoices, or is the fact that money is owing at all in dispute?

Hon. D. Miller: I did refer earlier to an offer to settle that was made, and that was rejected in February. Mr. Wayne Banks, who's vice-president of marketing and sales, engaged in confidential, without-prejudice discussions with the president of the B.C. chapter of the society. Notwithstanding the confidential and without-prejudice, reference was made to these confidential discussions in Mr. Sanford's letter to me in March of this year. Clearly, the breach of confidentiality. . . . The member understands that when you enter into those discussions on that basis, you have to uphold it on that basis. We made a cash offer; it was turned down. We entered into further discussions on a confidential basis and without prejudice, and we were unable to proceed. I've repeated a couple of times that we're quite happy to get back to that. I would encourage the society to follow up on the offer that has been made to them.

The Chair: I've been advised that the bells are for a quorum in Committee B. If you so wish, we can continue.

A Voice: Yes.

M. de Jong: To begin to conclude for the moment. . . . In terms of settling this matter -- and I don't want to get into specific amounts of money -- is it correct, and are B.C. Rail and the minister on behalf of B.C. Rail prepared to concede that there are moneys owing to the society?

[3:45]

M. de Jong: For the moment, I'll yield to my colleague.

[ Page 8008 ]

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect -- and I don't want to get too touchy on this question -- it's clear that the members of the society, who we have just been debating, are now passing notes to the member. I don't know if that's how we run proceedings in this chamber, but it's not something that has happened in my 12 years sitting in this chamber.

The Chair: On the point of order, member?

M. de Jong: Yes, I think it is on the point of order, hon. Chair.

When notes are brought to my desk, I don't know where they are coming from. So I'm not going to take great issue with what the minister. . . . I have not tried to hide the fact that I have asked questions with information that I have received from the society, and that's the fact.

The Chair: I do appreciate the minister's point, but there has not been a breach of order.

D. Jarvis: Seeing as we have settled that matter -- of course, I knew there wasn't anything wrong with what my associate was doing. . . . But he may want to ask another question in a short while, after he consults with his friends out in the hall.

Hon. D. Miller: This is something you guys should try: consulting.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, the problem is that the minister has the opportunity to get all the answers from everyone else when he doesn't know the answers -- or the questions. In this case it's the reverse, you see. When we don't understand what the question's going to be, we expect someone to feed us with the question.

I just want to mention to the minister that I'm going to ask a few questions and go into northern development. It's not a long harangue; it's rather short. It's just a matter of getting some information.

I believe there are two types of northern development. We recently discussed in Bill 5 the Alcan agreement; that was a portion of the northern development. Maybe, just for starters, you could explain the basic difference between northern development and Bill 5 and the Alcan thing. Do we have two different divisions?

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the member for his question, because it's an important one. The northern development fund was put in place as a result of our discussions with Alcan, which were centred primarily around an arrangement that would lead to construction of a second aluminium smelter in Kitimat, after the government's decision not to allow the Kemano completion project to proceed. In recognition of the detrimental impact that the original Alcan development had on areas of northern B.C., both parties -- the Crown and Alcan -- agreed to contribute $7.5 million into a fund of $15 million. I believe there was a press release put out earlier this week by the new chair of the advisory committee that will report to me on disposition of the fund. That fund's primary purpose ought to be to provide a financial resource to assist in the development of economic initiatives -- primarily in the Nechako basin, which received the biggest impact with respect to flooding, and in Kitimaat Village, the aboriginal community that has seen things like major power lines go through the centre of the community and those access issues. There is an advisory board set up to make recommendations to the minister on uses of the fund. They are holding broad consultations with the public in northern B.C., and we all await the results of that.

Secondly, the northern development act, or the notion of establishing a commissioner, is quite separate. That's a broader initiative that flows from the Premier's summit conducted last October in Prince George, in which we canvassed northerners rather extensively over a two-day conference. We looked at sectoral issues and concluded at the end of that that it would be appropriate to have a small focused agency that could work on behalf of northerners, primarily on economic questions. After receiving a report from the advisory group that we established to consider that question, we made a commitment to agree to the establishment of a northern commissioner. We'll be proceeding fairly quickly on that.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could tell us: what does he consider to be northern B.C.? Is there a Mason-Dixon line? Just how are we. . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think we should draw a very rigid, hard indelible line with respect to northern B.C. I have generally been using the constituencies as my guide. Historically, when one considers northern B.C. on a constituency basis -- and this is probably true for both parties; I'm not certain -- we tend to include all of the seats, and include as well Cariboo North. So it's my constituency and all of those others across the north: the two Peace River seats, Skeena, Bulkley Valley, the three Prince George seats and Cariboo North.

D. Jarvis: My other question is a very quick one: how will the commissioner be chosen? Is it you again?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, hon. Chair, as I indicated in a rather humorous exchange with the member when you inadvertently referred to him as the minister, it's an onerous responsibility but one in which you have no choice. You have to take that upon yourself as a minister and a member of the executive council, so we will make the decision.

D. Jarvis: Is there going to be any legislation introduced in the next while with regard to the responsibility for this department? Is it going to be a long vision or a short vision? Just how is he going to project that?

Hon. D. Miller: I will pass on that and indicate that I have said that legislation would be required. Obviously we hope to deal with that very quickly.

D. Jarvis: I should make these questions a little longer. This getting up and down is going to wear us out by the end of the day, because we've got another two hours of this -- over two hours. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: You don't have to. . . .

D. Jarvis: Well, sometimes we're forced to, minister, because. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.

[ Page 8009 ]

There have been numerous reports on northern development and what it actually means. In 1996 there was the report of the Northwest Transportation Corridor Task Force, with hundreds of recommendations. The Premier's summit was held last October, and a host of recommendations came out of that. How does the minister envision the commissioner dealing with all these issues and the recommendations that went forward?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, a good question.

D. Jarvis: They're all good questions; it's just a matter of interpretation.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we don't want to get into a debate about what's a good question. I have my own set of standards, and I've given this one a good mark.

There are a variety of processes in place. We talked a moment ago about the northern development fund. There is the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation, which was recently formed as a result of the task force report. I addressed them last week in Prince George. There are initiatives like the working group on transportation with the province of Alberta, because we both have a desire to enhance utilization of the northern corridor, looking at some of Alberta's issues in terms of -- I really dealt with this earlier -- trying to enhance their agricultural sector, going up the value chain; their need in terms of pursuing that to have access to tidewater; their desire to actually have containerization of the northern port. Issues like, presumably, the second smelter at Kitimat; the potential for even another smelter in northern British Columbia; looking at using the two railway interchange agreements that we concluded successfully with CNR to try to lever more grain from the Peace River down B.C. Rail and across the northern corridor. . . .

I have announced a major tourism conference for the fall of this year to be held in Prince Rupert, where we can bring the big players, the Crowns -- B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries -- plus the private sector to look at enhancing the opportunity for tourism, particularly the circle tours via northern B.C. We made a modest announcement last Friday, where the private sector will commence in late May -- in a week or so -- a mini-cruise, or pocket cruise, operation based in Prince Rupert, with the capacity for about 75 passengers.

On the mining side, clearly there was the opening of the Huckleberry project last fall -- about 170 jobs; approval of the Tulsequah Chief project up in the northwestern corridor; approval of the Chetwynd Willow Creek coal project; the announcement we made yesterday or the day before on the oil and gas initiative, which will see an additional $25 billion invested over the next decade in the Peace River region.

There's any number of initiatives that are currently in play: the allocation of 50 percent of the Transportation and Highways rehab budget to northern B.C. -- some $66.8 million this fiscal year to try to address some of the deficiencies in the transportation infrastructure; the addition, hopefully, if the economics are there, of a second ferry vessel on the Port Hardy-Prince Rupert run in the summertime. There's a myriad of initiatives that are all aimed at improving the economics of northern B.C. It's clear that there are others as well. The commission's job, I think, will be primarily to try to bring a focus to these kinds of initiatives.

It's interesting, because when you're trying to attract investment, there are a variety of ways in which you can do that. One is the traditional: "Let's put an economic development officer in the community and scout around, and if there are businesses that are interested in locating, we'll chase them." The other is to stand back and look at the issue more strategically, in terms of infrastructure, any deficiencies that might be in place, any ways in which you can try to correct those deficiencies -- strictly non-cost, creative ways. B.C. Rail-CN agreements are examples of that. There's a whole bunch of activity around northern development, and the commission should act as a focal point for that and should act as a voice for northerners with respect to developing the economy of northern British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm just exhausted; we're going to be so busy that I guess we'll probably have a balanced budget and no debt next year. But I'm not going to go into detail on those aspects. One quick one -- and then my friend from Matsqui has a question once more on the railway.

Is it part of the commissioner's responsibility to recommend the infrastructure -- roads and power lines and railways? Can he go that far?

[4:00]

One of the big issues. . . . It's interesting, because perhaps this province is so large that we tend to not connect with each other. I was speaking in Fort St. John a couple of months ago to a rather rambunctious group called the Fort St. John Petroleum Association. As I started to speak about the north, etc., and to talk about the commissioner, a bunch of people started bellowing at me that Prince George isn't in the north. I thought, well, really, this is kind of. . . .

A Voice: It's the south.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I beg to differ. Ask anybody who lives in Prince George, and they will tell you that they live in the north. Those are artificial barriers.

One of the things that I've been trying to encourage in a broader way, in terms of discourse amongst northerners, is to look at how it doesn't do you any good as northerners to be disconnected and fragmented. Look at the Peace River. Look what the regional district and the member communities have been able to accomplish, in terms of the significant Fair Share agreement that we just announced -- $12 million at full implementation. They did it because they set aside their parochial differences and worked together. That's a good message for northerners, because the question is: is there a connection between what happens in northeastern B.C. and what might happen in northwestern B.C.? Yes, there is. Coal currently comes from Tumbler Ridge, and all of the communities benefit because of that.

All communities will benefit if we can increase grain shipments from the Peace River -- again, along that corridor. The more we fill up that corridor -- it's currently about 30 percent capacity -- clearly that has an impact on rail rates. Any increase in utilization should have a net benefit to people who are shipping. Therefore, if you improve your transporta-

[ Page 8010 ]

I was delighted. . . . I spoke to the North Central Municipal Association a week ago last Friday, I think, and talked about some of these concepts and ideas. There was a real buzz of excitement. In fact, I met with them yesterday as well. They have taken up the kind of challenge that I put out to them: "Rather than each of you in your own communities sort of fighting and even fighting with other communities, let's all look at how we can market this northern part of our province in a better way." I think we're going to see, as you said. . . . I was pleased to note that you were exhausted when I completed the list of initiatives that's underway in northern British Columbia. I hope that some of them really are successful and that we can improve the economy and the situation for people who live in northern British Columbia.

M. de Jong: I have, I think, one last question on the matter we were discussing earlier. I am advised that during the discussions that have flowed back and forth between BCR and the society, on occasion reference has been made -- and I think the minister also referred to it -- to the business plan that was developed around the establishment of the dinner train service. Is that a document that the minister is prepared, via B.C. Rail, to release?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know that there would be. . . . I'd have to check whether it would be a single document. I think it was rather in the nature of B.C. Rail exploring a business opportunity and pursuing those discussions. There may be some papers; there may be some documents available. I'll certainly make that request to B.C. Rail to see what is available and to provide it to the member. I want to go beyond that and say that I am fully prepared to have officials -- even Mr. McElligott -- sit down with the member and run through the issue from B.C. Rail's perspective, not trying to influence anything but rather to inform. So if that would be helpful, I would be happy to make that kind of arrangement.

D. Jarvis: Almost a year ago today, the MEI -- the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- and the Alberta Ministry of Transport put out a joint press release. They agreed to promote northern development. That's a year ago now. How's that progressing?

Hon. D. Miller: I think quite well. Both of the respective governments formed working groups essentially around transportation issues. We have both developed some initial paper on those questions. There was a follow-up meeting in Edmonton about two months ago, which I went out to attend. Both the Alberta Minister of Transportation, Walter Paszkowski, and the Minister of Economic Development -- who was at that time Pat Black and who is now Pat Nelson -- attended, along with senior people from the trucking, coal, rail and other sectors. The municipal sectors were represented as well. It was chaired by the Hon. Don Mazankowski, who was at one time a very senior member of the federal Conservative cabinet and who has a lot of respect, I believe, in Alberta and western Canada. We had a very good discussion at that time. We've made some decisions to expand to include Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We also want to expand to include people from the union sector, for example, and others. We are trying to arrange for a second meeting of that group -- the idea being that when we develop these papers, these positions, in terms of identifying what we would like to see, that we have the players as part of a small working group so we can drive some of these issues.

It's proceeding fairly well, I think. I met with Mr. Paszkowski a week ago in Prince George to talk about the issue once again. There will be a follow-up meeting of ministers from western Canada and the Yukon and the Territories in mid-June in Prince Rupert. Again, that's part of a different mandate, but nonetheless an opportunity for ministers from the western provinces to focus on these kinds of questions. I think we need to look beyond some of the issues we've discussed. We've been focused on rail, on roads to some degree -- commodity movement.

There are some areas in air transportation that we need to get a fix on. There's some concern about the prioritization of the air traffic controllers and the NavCan fees that are charged. I know that Walter Paszkowski, for example, was incensed that when Alberta had a terrible problem on their hands with forest fires just recently, their water bombers were being charged a fee by NavCan for use of the airport facilities, when they were out there desperately trying to save the forest resource from burning up. So there are some of those kinds of questions that we want to develop a position on, as western ministers, and convey our concerns to the federal government, in this case.

I think it's progressing well. You've got to keep at it, and I think that by adding in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we'll enhance our ability to try to improve the situation not only in B.C. but in the other western provinces as well.

D. Jarvis: You were mentioning going across the corridor and that there's a transfer of tonnage coming out of Vancouver, obviously, and going into Prince Rupert now that you have more coal and more wheat going into Rupert. Any idea how that's going to affect Vancouver Wharves? They're starting an expansion as well.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't anticipate any impact. There has always been competition, in a relative sense, between ports, and we canvassed this fairly extensively under rail. The $42.5 million capital expansion of Vancouver Wharves to handle specialty grains is clearly tailored to changes that are taking place on the production level. I think that the real problem of the northern port at this point is underutilization. With a superior grain terminal which is capable of turning ships around at a faster pace and delivering to the Asian customer more quickly because it's closer -- it's actually 600 kilometres closer to Asia than Vancouver -- it's increasing that utilization. That has more to do with the broader issues of the Wheat Board, the farmers, the railways, pool owners and those kinds of questions. I think there's a growing awareness of the port and its opportunities.

As I said earlier in these estimates, as a result of strategic decisions made by CNR, we essentially have a rail corridor that stretches from the port of Prince Rupert and accesses virtually down into Mexico. If you think of that strategically in terms of the kinds of shipments that might be obtained. . . . Essentially, what I'd like to see over time is the development of more inbound cargo. There's been a fairly good hit this year. There's a lot of steel coming in for pipeline work, providing a lot of good work for longshoremen and others in Prince Rupert right now. But containerization, ultimately, and the ability to bring in commodities or to manufacture. . . . It's not beyond the realm of possibility, looking at the changes that

[ Page 8011 ]

D. Jarvis: Actually, we could possibly see taco stands in the minister's riding, in Prince Rupert, someday.

Hon. D. Miller: I think we have one.

D. Jarvis: Oh, you do. That's an advent of the railway from Mexico.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, I just want to ask the minister. . . . We'd discussed a few weeks ago the lifting of the moratorium, back in 1972, on offshore oil and gas exploration off the Charlottes. We had a reasonable discussion on that, but I'm just wondering what the minister's opinion is on this. Rather, what's his government's position? I guess it was about three or four months ago -- I think it was in March -- that he was actually opposed to it, so I just wonder if he could clarify that. What has changed your mind?

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, the slings and arrows. Au contraire, Madam Chair. In fact, I think I gave a extensive response in the House. I outlined our position quite succinctly, in terms of the issues. It was fully canvassed in debate in these estimates. I know that all of us are interested in efficiency, so I would refer the member to Hansard.

D. Jarvis: Also, before we go further, I just want to ask the minister what his position is and if he can delineate in regards to how much he's involved with Skeena Cellulose. Clearly 98 percent of the press releases coming out have the minister's name on them and all the rest of it. Are we in a position where we can ask you questions? Where does your responsibility end or start? We have a lot of questions on Skeena Cellulose at this time.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I have noticed the paucity of questions in question period on that topic, given the variety of positions taken by the opposition on that question. I'm happy to answer questions. Probably technically, in terms of any technical issues, one ought to go to the minister responsible, which is the Minister of Employment and Investment. But as the Minister of Northern Development, I think there ought to be a degree of latitude.

[4:15]

G. Abbott: We'd be happy to talk about it too. The minister likes to undertake these rants on this particular issue, and that's fine. The member asked a question, which hasn't been answered yet. We would like to know what the line of ministerial responsibility is with respect to Skeena Cellulose. I don't expect that we're going to see a sale of Skeena Cellulose to the private sector prior to next year's estimates, and certainly not during this year's estimates. Could the minister advise us what the delineation of ministerial responsibility is with respect to Skeena Cellulose?

Hon. D. Miller: With regard to a sale, I'd only make this simple observation: if the Liberal position had been followed, there'd be nothing to sell except scrap metal. I said I'm happy to answer questions on this topic. From a technical point of view it's under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment. I know the file very, very well, and I'd be happy to answer any questions the member might have.

The Chair: With that caveat in mind, I recognize the member.

G. Abbott: What I'd like to make clear. . . . We could undoubtedly go on for hours here. He accuses us of taking a variety of positions on this issue. Clearly the government has taken a variety of positions on this issue as well. We on this side of the House are not the government; we do not have at our disposal the resources of government to resolve issues. I think a variety of mistakes have been made around this issue. We can rant and rave and decry one another at length. The purpose of the question was to ascertain the propriety of questions with respect to the corporate structure of Skeena, with respect to the debt associated with Skeena, with respect to the government's aspirations and hopes with respect to the ongoing ownership of or the disentanglement from Skeena Cellulose. There is a whole range of issues.

I understand from the minister's response that those questions would lie within the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment. If that is the case, we will happily raise the issues there. Obviously we would welcome the participation of this minister in that debate, as well, if he chose to be a part of it. We do want to raise the important public policy issues associated with Skeena Cellulose in the appropriate venue, and I understand from the minister's response that that would be Employment and Investment. If the minister would care to confirm that now, we would certainly look forward to undertaking those public policy questions there and to hearing responses from the Minister of Employment and Investment -- and indeed from the Minister Responsible for Northern Development as well.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Chair, if I do get passionate about the issue of Skeena Cellulose, it's for a very good reason. I find it hard to discuss in words that are civil the depth of my feeling about this question and about the events that took place from early last year to the current day. I find it very, very difficult. The people of northwestern British Columbia were essentially pawns in the worst political game I have ever witnessed -- pawns. Cheap politics. People in those communities -- Smithers, Hazelton, Terrace, Prince Rupert and other smaller communities -- lived for well over a year in

[ Page 8012 ]

My passion comes from the people who live up there: ordinary men and women who didn't know what their future was going to be and who were essentially abandoned for what I presume was perceived to be political gain. Does the member understand what it's like to live under that kind of cloud for that long -- to not know if you have a job; to not know if anything you'd ever invested in had any value; to not know, as a small business person, whether you were going to be bankrupt and in ruins? It was exhausting for those people. At every turn, every time they picked up a southern paper or tuned in to a member of the opposition, all they got was ill-informed comments or inconsistent positions on this question.

I stood beside the Leader of the Opposition in April last year on a stage in Terrace, British Columbia, in front of a group of very, very angry truck loggers who wanted the government to fix their problem. The Leader of the Opposition said at that time -- and I was there: "Forest Renewal B.C. should pay all of your bills; Forest Renewal B.C. should assume the debts of Repap." What an irresponsible thing to say, knowing that that couldn't happen. I took the opposite position, which was not popular, by the way. None of this is to gain popularity. I said: "We will not do that; we can't do that." I didn't make anybody happy by taking that position, but it was the right position to take.

You proceeded from that day forward to change your position every time you thought it was convenient. That's why I'm so angry about it. The people of northwestern B.C. are owed an apology by the Liberal Party. You've got to have the good grace and -- quite frankly, without trying to offend anybody -- the guts to do it. When you do that, perhaps I can have a civil discussion with you on it. But until we get to that point, on behalf of all those people who've gone through such a traumatic time, I'm going to continue to maintain the position I have.

G. Abbott: I don't accept any of that, and frankly, what this minister is choosing to do is to entirely distort the position that the official opposition took with respect to this issue. We have, through this process, attempted to assist in resolving the problems that face northwestern British Columbia and in particular the Repap-Skeena Cellulose operation.

The minister accuses us of taking inconsistent positions. Certainly, if the minister were going to be forthright and candid about this, he would admit that as the situation evolved in northwestern British Columbia, his own government adopted positions which were quite different from where they started out. In fact, there are a lot of similarities, on a far larger scale, between the way things played out in Golden with Evans Forest Products and in Prince Rupert and the northwest with Skeena Cellulose.

The minister accuses us of not being sensitive to the concerns of people up there. I dismiss that. We're very much concerned about the people up there. We are also concerned that their jobs and their industry be viable in the long term and that those jobs be protected in the long term. We obviously have some fundamental philosophical differences with the minister on this issue.

One thing which we would never do as a government is acquire majority ownership in that company. That, in our view, is not the way to create long-term stability in that area. Frankly, given the recent news out of there, it's clear that it's not the way. There are some long-term problems and issues that have gone unresolved. Transitional stumpage is certainly one, but there are others, as well, that have gone unresolved.

We did not treat people as pawns in northwestern B.C. If anybody treated people as pawns it would be the current government with their absolutely scandalous treatment of the unsecured creditors during the proceedings around the restructuring. That, if anything, was the scandalous treatment of people in northwestern British Columbia.

So with that, we can continue this for a long time today, if the minister wishes. I'm not going to sit back and have the opposition maligned for what we have said on this issue. So we can continue it for a long time, or we can pick it up again in Employment and Investment, as he sees fit.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, perhaps that might be preferable. I will just make the simple observation that Mr. Greene, a Liberal who announced his candidacy in Smithers -- it's in the regional clippings; take a look -- is running on one platform: he's opposed to the government moving in to save Skeena Cellulose. That's the position of the Liberal Party in northwestern B.C.; it's the position of the person who wants to be the candidate in Bulkley Valley-Stikine. My friend the current MLA is going to have a field day, because the issue is very, very clear. You now have a person running for the Liberal nomination in Smithers, who's going to go out and campaign. The issue is clear for the people who work in that mill. Vote for this Liberal, and you don't have a job; vote for my friend the existing MLA, and perhaps you've got a chance of keeping one. That's the issue. It's very, very simple.

I actually think the member opposite is an honourable member. I try not to personalize things, but I feel very passionate about this one. It's very simple. Come to the north; accept my challenge. Tell your leader to accept my challenge to debate in Prince Rupert -- in front of the people who really matter; the people who live there -- the issue of your position on Skeena and our position. Come there with me. We'll debate it, and we'll let them judge. You can explain it to them. I've got to tell you this: if you don't come now, if your leader doesn't come now -- then you tell me what your candidate is going to do, come the next election. You've written off, by your actions, three seats in northern British Columbia.

The Chair: Minister, if I could just. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: So I'd be happy to see you up north any time you want.

The Chair: Minister, have your seat. To all members: the Chair has heard that possibly the better place for this to be canvassed would be in Employment and Investment estimates. So could we go on, possibly, with a different line of questioning.

D. Jarvis: Give me one minute.

The Chair: We will recess for five minutes, and we will reconvene after the recess at 4:35.

The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

[ Page 8013 ]

I wonder -- if we can start off at this point -- if the minister could tell us, with regards to Bill 12, when the mining industry could expect rules and regulations. I understand that they are going to be rushed, in the sense of maybe months. But it's going to just. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: I would hope the efforts we've made -- they've been greeted well by the mining industry -- would result in an increase in the level of exploration. We've had, ironically, a fairly significant increase in investment, in development. But we need to get exploration up. Probably within the next couple of months we'll have the regulations in place.

D. Jarvis: When the minister is referring to quite a large increase in development in the last short while, I wonder what he is referring to. Is he referring to the moneys put into the development of the old mines that have been redeveloped? I'm only aware of Huckleberry and Kemess, which are new mines coming on. All the rest are either. . . . Well, I guess Mount Polley and Huckleberry are both having problems anyway. I'm just wondering if that's part of what he is calling development and how that is going in that sense. The reports we're getting down here, which I receive, are that Imperial and others are basically going to join together to try to stay away from the job protection commissioner. They are now in the hands of the job commissioner, I understand, looking for some degree of help. Is his department going to suggest that they get help on the electricity end of it?

A question that came to mind is: why couldn't they have delayed the property transfer tax when they started? I noted that in the FOIs of the day. . . . Not FOIs. The airport society got brief relief on the property transfer tax. Most of the mining companies aren't really looking for that much relief. If not, just lay it off until such time as they get into production. But, you know, they have to pay this money all up front. It's like the corporation capital tax. It's a selective tax now. You put it so that the large majors are the only ones paying it. Is that right, or is it not? Why should they even be paying a tax? We've gone into a great circle on this question. In response to his statement that we've had a lot of development in this province, I wonder if he would clarify for us what he means by that.

Hon. D. Miller: I simply meant that we have now seen three fairly significant new mines open. There were two last fall: Mount Polley and Huckleberry. Kemess is now. . . . I talked to one of their principals yesterday morning. Kemess started production for the first time yesterday. And there's Golden Bear. So I think if you add up the capital investment for mine development, it has been about $800 million. In the case of Kemess, it's about 350 jobs. With Huckleberry, it's about 170. With Mount Polley, it's about 170. I can't recall the numbers on Golden Bear. So we've added significant capital investment, close to a billion dollars, and we've developed 700 to 800 new jobs as a result of that -- and probably more in terms of the spinoff.

There's no question that those projects have opened in a very hostile market. Let's not get into the usual debate about taxes. Suffice it to say that their projections were based on metal prices that are considerably lower than what they forecast as part of their business plan. We don't fault them for that. In fact, those were business decisions. We're now working with both of those companies, Mount Polley and Huckleberry, to see if we can't develop a plan through the JPC that would allow them to continue to operate in the face of a fairly drastic decline in metal prices, both gold and copper. It's very tough. I'm trying to recall some of the numbers used by these companies for their base forecasts of metal prices. We're dramatically lower than that today. So we're working with them to try to make sure they can continue. It's by no means certain, given the uncertainty. Gibraltar, clearly, is a little different case. So we're going through a tough time. We're going to work with them.

I note that that is also true in other jurisdictions. I think there was an article today where a fairly major Canadian mining company has now shelved some ventures that they were going to proceed with through a junior in Mexico and South America. So it's really having its impact worldwide.

Okay, here's Kemess. It looked at $390 for gold; it's $300 today. You can see that external factors have taken a toll. We're going to continue to work with them and wish them success in struggling through this tough marketplace. Hopefully, we'll catch a rising tide, and hopefully, we won't have to wait too long for it.

D. Jarvis: If the worse came to worst. . . . We have Imperial and Mount Polley getting together. Who has Mount Polley?

Hon. D. Miller: Princeton.

D. Jarvis: Princeton. I should have remembered that. Princeton and Imperial are getting together.

Hon. D. Miller: It's Imperial at Mount Polley.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

D. Jarvis: They're really subject to world prices right now, and we understand that. The perception is out there, whether you want to talk about it or not, that we have high taxes in British Columbia. The perception is out there, and that's holding people back from coming in. The taxes are affecting them -- no question.

Has Energy and Mines and Northern Development given any consideration to the fact. . . ? If they have reached a stage where they just can't compete and all the rest of it -- they're ostensibly out of money -- are you going to come in and given them some kind of assistance, like with Columbia Cellulose? Is this a pattern that has now stopped with Columbia Cellulose, or will it be continued in other jurisdictions in the resource industry?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the two situations are completely separate and different. It's not Columbia Cellulose, by the

[ Page 8014 ]

Any mine has to be based on a sound economic plan, because mines have a finite life. Unlike the forest sector, which is based on a renewable resource, mining is based on a non-renewable resource. That plan is developed based on the extent of the ore body, the grade of the ore body, the cost of extraction, the market -- all those kinds of factors. They know that over the defined life of that mine, they have to recover sufficient revenue to pay down their capital -- in other words, the cost of development plus profit and taxes and all those kinds of things.

The problem right now is that the forecasts have been skewed by the dramatic decline in metal prices. If you forecast a business plan on $390 for gold, and if you expect to have sufficient earnings to pay down your capital over a defined period of time and that disappears, then there's a real fear, because the mine is only there for a defined period of time. The fundamental choices facing an owner in that situation are: do you struggle through and try to rejig your fiscal in a way that makes sense, or do you say that on the face of it we're better off shutting it in and waiting for those prices to rise?

Imperial's Mount Polley is a good example. That was based on $380 for gold, I think. In the seven-year life, their expectation was to recover. . . . I hope I'm not revealing too much in terms of that company's operation; they're a very good company. If they can't recoup in the first four years, which is heavy to gold, then you can see that they're going to have difficulty dealing with their principal and interest.

They're fundamentally different situations. We're working with them. Hopefully we can come up with something that works, that allows them to continue to operate and employ people, etc., but it's a significant challenge in today's market.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the precise amount for Gibraltar, but I did indicate in our previous exchange in estimates that there's $167 million on deposit for reclamation. There is no problem with Gibraltar. The issue around Gibraltar -- and again, I do believe I canvassed this fairly extensively in the previous estimates last week or the week before -- is that they're at a 0.33 percent grade. They need capital to develop a new part of the operation. The business plan indicates that they would have to have 98-cent copper to make that viable. I have spoken to the president of the Boliden company. They're not asking for assistance. Notwithstanding that, I've also had meetings with one private sector individual, and I've had two or three discussions now with the mine manager, a very good and very qualified individual who also has some ideas about trying to extend its life beyond the end of this year. The challenge, given what I have just outlined -- particularly with copper at 76 cents. . . .

They're kicking some ideas around, and the door's open for presentations on the question. They know that. If something can be put together, then all the better.

D. Jarvis: My problem with Gibraltar wasn't necessarily them going broke tomorrow or something. But there was a suggestion out there at one time that they are getting ready to maybe close down because of world prices, to a certain degree and whether it is viable to keep going. What led me to it is the problems they're having in Spain right now. There are big dollars involved there. I'm wondering: if they walk tomorrow, how is the province protected for the balance of that reclamation? Maybe you could also describe reclamation to me. Are we in a deficit position with regard to the majority of the major mines in this province? If the market starts diving, they're going to close. Where are we going to be with regard to the bonding?

Hon. D. Miller: Not to go on too long, no, they're not. They're up to date in the deposits they have to make with respect to reclamation. We have no concern about that at all. I would caution the member to distinguish between a mine that might shut in and a mine that has exhausted its useful life -- in other words, you've mined all the minerals out. There's an open question, quite frankly, with respect to Gibraltar. While additional reserves have been indicated, the challenge is the one that I outlined, which is the cost. Given the grade and the cost of production, can you put together a business plan that makes sense?

If a mine reaches the end of its useful life and it's over and it's going to shut in -- not for economic circumstances. . . . If they have mined the non-renewable resource, there is a reclamation plan and there is money -- I indicated $167 million combined -- on deposit to pay for those reclamation plans. We have absolutely no concerns. We do have some problems with some of the older mines, some that were started around the turn of the century when we didn't have these systems in place. Those are problematic, but we're continuing to try to work on them in a limited way. There are absolutely no problems currently.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate the minister saying that, and I appreciate the fact that there's a difference between folding down or folding in. The information that I received some time ago, that they were concerned about the cost of finding. . . . I think they found another ore vein, but it's really deep down and it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to take off the subsurface to get at it. It may not be, by the time they're ready to do that, economical for them to continue. All I was trying to ascertain with. . . . I'm not suggesting that Boliden is not a valid company or anything like that, but they have massive problems in Spain. They've got big ore deposits -- or a company they've taken over in South America, with the Westmin thing. Westmin is doing all right; it's doing fairly good. Gibraltar is really sort of marginal now, considering when you look down the road as to how long. . . . Is that $160 million sufficient to look after the reclamation of that area, or do they owe us money -- when I say "us" in that sense, I'm talking about the province -- to protect themselves?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I've answered. The answer is no, they don't owe us money. Secondly, they've made a decision to shut the mine in at the end of this year, unfortunately. That's a traumatic incident for employees. But that's based on the price issue that I talked about. On the other hand, they're spending an additional $4 million on the exploration side in British Columbia this year.

[ Page 8015 ]

D. Jarvis: I understand, too, that the situation in Spain was on their watch, so the onus is on them to look after it. At the same time, I wanted to see if we had sufficient moneys to cover anything in the inevitable situation coming down the line.

Perhaps while we're talking about. . . . I had a section here on reclamation, if I can just quickly find it. Maybe we can stay on that subject before we jump to another item. Can the minister explain to me the requirement for establishing a bond for a mine in this province? When a mine is first discovered and goes into production, they have a basic idea of where they're going down the road. The mine reclamation end of it is sort of preventive care as they go along -- they do the reclamation as they're going along, and there's still something left.

Do they have to put up sufficient moneys at the start to cover the whole potential of reclamation? Or do they just put up a certain amount and as they progress they're either debited or credited -- whatever the situation may be -- with the reclamation that they do?

Hon. D. Miller: There has to be a plan, and there has to be sufficient money deposited to cover the cost of implementing the plan. Those are technical issues that are worked out between my staff and the companies themselves. We're fully current with respect to reclamation bonds.

D. Jarvis: So if a smaller company decides to close up and leave the country, we can be guaranteed that their reclamation bond is sufficient to cover any work that has to be done to bring it back to the status that's required under the bond.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, correct. But I would caution the member to try to distinguish between the point in time at which a mine needs to be fully reclaimed -- in other words, it's reached the end of its life -- and some economic circumstance that might arise midway through the life of the mine. We're covered because the reclamation bond is posted and is sufficient to cover any work that needs to be done.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister please advise us as to how much area -- how many hectares -- in the mining industry is not now reclaimed? We know how many hectares have been mined in this province, theoretically. We know that approximately, say, 40,000 hectares of land out there are being mined and 10,000 have been reclaimed in the last couple of years. How many hectares of land have not been reclaimed at this point? It's pretty simple. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, Madam Chair, I don't know that if you were going to try to measure those issues, you would necessarily choose hectares as your measuring tool. As a general statement, we do not have a serious problem with old mines that were developed prior to our modern system of having reclamation bonds, reclamation plans -- those kinds of things. We do have some, but it's not a serious problem in this province. Ongoing efforts are being made to deal with those old problems. There are no current problems with respect to. . . . So again, with all due respect, it's just that the using of hectares to evaluate the issue is not one that I think is appropriate.

D. Jarvis: Well, Madam Chair, I'm the last one to ever want to get into an argument with the minister, because he knows so much. Being the minister of everything, he knows everything. But if he'd refer to the report of the chief inspector of mines, where they describe land disturbed or reclamation of coal mines, etc., and all that, they measure by hectares. That is in the book. That's the only way they can. . . . They don't do it in feet; they do it in hectares. All I was trying to establish was how much land remains unclaimed. There's a certain group of people out there. . . .

By the way, we're back in '95, and I think we should have a new book by now. It shows a little bit of slack on the part of the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: It's so well written that it's stood the test of time.

D. Jarvis: Well, I guess so.

It sort of indicates that they have so many dollars in here for reclamation and that they were short. Nevertheless, what I asked was the question: does he know how many hectares there are that remain unclaimed?

Hon. D. Miller: It's a major confession on my part, Madam Chair, but no, I don't.

D. Jarvis: Well, I would hope that the minister would eventually find out, because I think it is quite important, as a lot of people are concerned about it -- especially his environmental wing, who are concerned about the land not being reclaimed. They find that mining is bad, you know. It's mostly environmentalists or the greenies who support this gentleman over here and who think that mining is bad for British Columbia and that we should have it back to its pristine state -- what the mines originally went to when they started mining in an area.

I want to ask the minister a question in regards to land access -- first of all, on greater access to land at the early stages for exploration and development. The first one that comes to mind is the Muskwa-Kechika area. When they go in to do exploration and development and look for minerals, as the minister said himself, there's usually no sign of land disturbance. There's a soft imprint. That's what the minister's words were at the time: a soft footprint on the land.

[5:00]

As far as mining goes, that was a very highly mineralized area. Has the minister given any thought to opening up those restricted areas? It makes this very difficult for. . . . You've virtually closed off the land for mineral exploration and development. I wonder if he can give me some of his thoughts on that matter.

Hon. D. Miller: It's true that from time to time decisions will be made about land use, both. . . . You know, if you want to take it down on the municipal level, they'll be made about

[ Page 8016 ]

D. Jarvis: The minister surprises me. When he starts stating that we had extensive debate on Bill 12 around land issues, I distinctly recall him throwing down his pen and using an expletive and walking out of the room. He wouldn't answer my questions on it. That's how good the minister's memory is. I remember that distinctly. In fact, I listened to the tape, Mr. Minister; I listened to the tape several times. I heard the pencil hitting, but darn it all, I couldn't get that word that you mentioned. I was wondering if you'd like to repeat it at this time.

In any event, the Muskwa-Kechika is a prime area for discovery, and you know full well that it has mineral deposits throughout it. As we go back to the Tatshenshini. . . . You closed down that whole area; there's a million-odd hectares you closed down. It's another four and a half million acres here that you've closed down. What's the purpose behind the minister's feeling with regards to mine development? I mean, pretty soon you won't be able to develop. Go into the Kootenays. The land that they've put aside in the East Kootenays has now exceeded 16-1/2 percent. The people in the Kootenays want to know when you're going to stop. It goes on and on and on.

You don't seem to have given any consideration to the value of the resource that's in the ground. Bill 12 was basically a good bill, but it means nothing until you open up this province and give the mining industry an opportunity to go out and search for it. If they go out and find a mineral deposit, then they can come and make an application to put a mine in. Then the decision is on to you as to whether it's a viable mine or is going to cause problems with the environment or whatever it may be. I don't think you understand the economic benefits that are in the ground in British Columbia. I don't think you really do. You just don't understand.

You're the man who knows more than the bankers. Madam Chair, he's said that many times now. Yet we're not getting out of our economic downturn the way we should be. The way to do it is to encourage economic development in this province. He's not doing it. The minister seems very bored with the discussion, but I'm telling him that there are a lot of people that feel very concerned, and their jobs are involved. There are about 150-odd resource areas in this province that are looking towards the minister to give them some kind of direction as to how they can stay viable. But he doesn't seem to care.

When the minister was at the Cordilleran Roundup, when we were talking about the Muskwa-Ketchika, he made a statement that it should be more like the energy field, where they could parallel drill and all the rest of it. And he said, "Why don't the miners do that?" at that breakfast meeting.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The minister is now denying that he said it. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say on this point.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I really do believe that we are guilty of being tedious and repetitious. Honestly, we had this debate in the Mines estimates. A quick reference to Hansard will show that. I mean, I'm happy to repeat myself, I guess.

The vast majority of this province is available for mining and exploration. It's fine if the member wants to say that he disagrees with the Muskwa-Kechika. That's fair enough. We know what your position is. On the other hand, there were a lot of people that applauded that decision, including the oil and gas people, major industry, the people of northeastern British Columbia and, in fact, people around the world. I know that the mining companies were offside, and I think I understand how that happened. It was unfortunate. There was miscommunication. Quite frankly, they had some responsibility in that. Fair enough. But we're not here to look back; we're here to look forward.

I've talked about the kind of capital investment that's taken place in mine development in this province in the last couple of years. I've talked about the major approval of the Tulsequah Chief, Willow Creek and others -- the fact that people have some confidence in this province. In the last month to month and a half there have been three editorials in the Financial Post lauding the efforts made by this government with respect to mining. It's significant that the Price Waterhouse report on mining that was produced last week, which normally is accompanied by a chorus of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the state of mining in this province, was actually a fairly positive story -- both in the Province and in the Globe and Mail. Read the stories, hon. member. Spokespeople from the mining industry talked about the positive changes that have been made in British Columbia -- the Financial Post, the Globe and Mail and industry people themselves.

Surely it behooves the member to be a little bit positive. You know, if you're negative all the time, what you wish for will come true. Be a little positive. We've made significant changes in legislation, in agreements to compensate. . . . For the first time compensation is entrenched in the bill, and access is guaranteed. Mining industry people are telling me that they like what's happening in B.C. Read the Financial Post editorials, and try to be positive about this province. There clearly are areas of the province where you wouldn't want mining to occur. If there were minerals in your backyard, would you want a bunch of people to move in there and stake it and dig a big pit? You'd probably say: "No, I don't think that's a good idea." Does it mean that you're against mining if you take that position? No, it doesn't. If they found oil on the front lawn of the Legislature, would you want to see a derrick there? No, you wouldn't.

A Voice: Why not?

Hon. D. Miller: "Why not?" the member asks. Now, there's a unique take. I don't know if you are reflecting your caucus's view or not, but I think we'll try to advertise that one. All I'm trying to do, hon. member, is suggest that yes, we do make land use decisions that sometimes result in protected areas, in parks. There are other values in this province. I know that that member is sensitive to these questions. I know he thinks it's important that there be somewhat of a legacy with respect to the magnificent geography of our landscape -- that occasionally we might create a park and that it's important not only in terms of our natural diversity but for future generations. I think the member would agree with that. I think we

[ Page 8017 ]

D. Jarvis: Well, I certainly am a big supporter of the minister. But I am beginning to think that sometimes he's got a little dementia coming on, because he's talking about. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: It's probably true.

D. Jarvis: We've been discussing this repetitively during the mining estimates, and we haven't had any mining estimates this year. I mean, this is the first time that we've sat up and discussed mining estimates. The minister is clearly. . . . We haven't had estimates on mining. So although I'm a supporter of his, I'm getting worried about his health.

Sure, he may see editorials, but the reason for those editorials is the fact that this government drove the mining industry down to the lowest point it's ever been in this province. You drove it down. You even drove it down probably below where the previous NDP government back in the seventies did. You clearly did drive investment. . . . And mines closed down. More mines have closed down than have opened. The majority of those that have opened under this regime are old finds from years ago, back in the fifties and sixties -- mines that were discovered and then finally opened up, but not because of exploration and development that is going on now. As you know, the Mining Association came to you last year, at which time you promised them that there would be changes. Now it's a year later, and now you're starting to make those changes. Nevertheless, you're moving because of the fact that you haven't got many friends left. You've driven most of them out of the country, for God's sake.

The gas people were very pleased with the agreement the other day. I think that deal is basically good. I agree with it, and I hope it goes through. But you know, with Alliance Pipeline coming in, they need some of our gas to go on the route heading down to Chicago. They need that gas. And this government realized that those were the only friends they had left in this province that were in the resource field. Because of that, they went and, I think, actually got suckered into some deals. I mean, they were suckered into, I think, 20 percent for future production on existing patches of land that they owned. The oil company is getting a 40 percent reduction for any new land they buy and any new production they do. So who knows?

This government had to get to the oil people. They had to get something. They had no friends. They had to show the rest of the world, so they could write a few editorials on the fact that they were now realizing that they had driven the economy of this province to the ground and that they had to do something to change.

[5:15]

With regards to the legislation they just put through on compensation, that compensation only applies to any new claim that is taken over as a result of a park. Now, the minister refused us -- maybe that's where the expletive came in -- when we wanted to discuss how the Premier, who had made a press announcement on the fact that he would look after the old claims in the same way as the legislation they're putting through will. . . . I asked the minister at that time if he could explain that a little further. But no, the minister didn't like that question, so he ignored it in his way of intimidation, which he thinks gets him farther in the long run.

Nevertheless, I can see that the minister really is not giving a specific answer on allowing the mining industry more access into the closed-off lands, because it's a gigantic rezoning system he's got going here -- not him specifically, but the Environment ministry. Of course he has no say in that, because I guess up to now it's been a sort of senior ministry, and mining has been relegated down to a subindustry. But now things are changing. Now they're getting a few editorials, and he's feeling really good about it. I hope things do really improve. But I think the opening up of the resource areas that are subject to exploration and development is the key for future development in this province.

In regards to allowing a mine in my own backyard, well, it wasn't too long ago when the previous Mines minister in this province, from the Kootenays, actually allowed a mine to be drilled in my riding in North Vancouver, right in the middle of a residential area.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: It didn't bother me at all. But I'll tell you that there's a lot of people who were upset with the grinding noise 24 hours a day. Being a good MLA, I appealed to the minister. She finally took away the licence to drill, because it was just too noisy for a residential area. As I've always said, I think you should mine anywhere. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: . . .as long as you do it in a responsible manner. In this case, it was clearly not being done in a responsible manner, because it was disturbing the people in the area.

To change the subject -- I think I'll be talking too long, possibly -- I would like to have the minister explain to me, if he can, if he's given any consideration to sort of a. . . . I had a review of the mineral code the other day at the opening of the geotechnical mineral office, and that was a good explanation. I was wondering if there's anything planned along that line in regards to placer mining.

Hon. D. Miller: It's certainly wide-ranging. Was there a question? Oh, there was a question, sorry. There is a placer mining regulation; we're working on that.

Really, very succinctly, we've done a heck of a lot in the last short while to try to deal in a better way with the mining sector. I think it's been appreciated by the industry and certainly has been recognized by the journals. I heard the member say earlier that he's a big supporter of mine, and I appreciate that. So it appears we're making some progress.

[ Page 8018 ]

D. Jarvis: I would like to go further on the placer thing and see if I can get some qualifications as to what their intent is, because he may think -- maybe it's part of his dementia that's coming on -- that things are all well up in the areas where they're placer mining. But from what I understand and from the letters I get. . . . If he'd like me to table them someday, I would certainly do that. But he obviously is getting the same response, in the sense that they're having problems.

They're not allowed to go in -- you know, take a machine into the riverbeds -- because there's supposedly damage to the riverbeds. The riparian zones are affecting the placer mining. Those are two of the main problems they're having up there in the interior, where they do most of the placer mining. I'm wondering what his intention is in regards to solving these problems that they've been coming up with.

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are working on a new regulation. We're doing that in conjunction with the stakeholders. Our target date is next year's field season. Indeed, some of the more difficult issues are around riparian protection, setbacks from stream channels and those kinds of things. We're working with a stakeholders group and with the industry, and we hope to have the regulation in place for next year's field season.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask the minister a few questions with regards to. . . . I mentioned before about the Finance minister selectively changing the corporate capital tax. . . . I wonder if there has been any consideration to extending that further, to dropping it down lower or to removing it entirely, for the mining industry.

Hon. D. Miller: That's a Finance question.

D. Jarvis: I can just assume, then, that the minister does not have any input into that, or he would be glad to give me some kind of answer. If the minister would give some explanation as to whether they're going to continue with the water use taxation to the mining industry. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, these are Finance questions.

D. Jarvis: Poor minister. . . .

A Voice: You've got that right.

D. Jarvis: Well, it's probably the best job he's ever had in his life.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me if, with the problems that Imperial and Huckleberry are having. . . . There is an outstanding loan to Princeton Mining by the government. Has that been looked after at this point?

Hon. D. Miller: Actually, this is fabulous job that I have. In fact, all of my cabinet posts have been enjoyable, challenging, invigorating -- making change and building the economy. But I have had lots of jobs in my working life. I was a second chef at the Café de la Rose. There were two of us. I have had a wide variety of experiences in my working life, and perhaps I may have a few more before this is through. But at this current point in time, I confess to being somewhat confused about this job. However. . . . Now I've forgotten the member's question. It was something to do with. . . .

D. Jarvis: Princeton Mining.

Hon. D. Miller: Princeton Mining. There is a loan. In fact, I was struck by the variety of opinions. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the opposition was opposed to us making a $5 million loan to Princeton Mining and the four Japanese partners to develop a mine that clearly the constituents of Bulkley Valley appreciate. There are 170 direct jobs, and more indirect jobs. So we did make a strategic investment. Interestingly, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. . . . There's a young gentleman by the name of Mr. Lanigan, who -- speaking of employment -- has never had a real job in his life, yet he is full of opinions about the real world. That has always struck me as somewhat odd.

But the loan is part of the agreement with Princeton Mining, and in fact, as we worked with that company through the JPC, we were quite open to looking at rejigging or whatever -- not abandoning, but rejigging in the interests of assisting that company to survive in the marketplace.

D. Jarvis: Well, it was interesting and good to know that. When he brought up the fact that we were upset with the loan originally, I think that loan, if I'm correct, was through the Japanese corporation Mitsubishi. The revenue that they have alone could wipe out our debt in this province two or three times. I think that at the time, we were a little quizzical at the fact that a company with all those assets would be looking for $5 million, or whatever the amount was. It was rather insignificant as far as they were concerned, I would think.

I want to ask a few more questions here, then we could wrap it all up, so that the minister doesn't have to come back to work tomorrow. He can go home to the north country.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to.

D. Jarvis: You might as well. We have a few of our MLAs up there right now to welcome you.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope they stay around, because I'll be there tomorrow. Or are they going to flee, knowing that I'm arriving?

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: The question. . . . I'm not sure whether we covered this the other day or not. I will admit that I'm not even sure whether we covered this during the discussion of Bill 12, but it's with regards to Crown-granted claims. When they're not being used, they have a minimal tax. There was a suggestion out there that perhaps the minister or the government was going to increase taxation on Crown-granted claims that are not being used and that they would like to see virtually all the Crown-granted claims disappear.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, my officials are all shaking their heads, and I'll take that as a no.

[ Page 8019 ]

[5:30]

D. Jarvis: The other question I want to ask is on Redfern's mine up in the Tulsequah area. That, I assume, is going ahead without any question whatsoever. It's just marching ahead, and there should be no reason for it to be hung up on anything other than dollars and cents, if it comes down to that.

Hon. D. Miller: All the indications from the principals are positive. Again, the role of the EA process is to process applications for mine development permits. They've done that; they've given the green light. The proponents clearly, then, have the obligation to proceed. That is often subject to the vagaries of the marketplace, the ability to raise financing -- those kinds of questions. But Redfern appears to be an outstanding company, a very good company. They've put a significant amount of money into the environmental assessment process and, I presume, are out there in the capital markets, trying to ensure that they've got the resources to proceed.

D. Jarvis: So there will be no holdups by the government, pending their ability to make it a viable mine.

Hon. D. Miller: The member is aware of some unfounded criticism that came as a result of our decision to give environmental approval to proceed. It's unfortunate, but these things do happen. What was poorly understood is that while the decision to proceed was given fundamentally, there is permitting required. In other words, when you go to actually build a road there's a permitting process that must be followed in order to do that. There have to be plans and those kinds of things -- similarly with the mine itself. There are a variety of what they call permitting stages, but there's absolutely no barrier to the company proceeding.

I was delighted with the comments, by the way, which belie some of the comments made by my friend opposite. . . . In an article in the Terrace newspaper, Mr. Greig not only talked about his project but said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that it was his view that this government had made some fundamental changes which were of significant benefit to the mining industry. That's consistent with a variety of letters I've received from people in the mining sector -- both large and small -- about the changes that we've brought about. I've actually received letters from companies indicating that as a result of the changes we've brought in, they now intend to proceed with permit applications for mine development. I won't cite any of those.

I think it's a good beginning. I think we've got a lot of work to do yet; there's no question about it. We don't claim that the world is now perfect in B.C. I think you've got to constantly work at it, but I'm satisfied that we've made some changes that are beneficial and a good beginning. If we work hard and if we maintain a positive attitude, particularly in terms of the kind of message we send out both to our own citizens and beyond our borders, there is indeed a very, very bright future for mining in this province.

D. Jarvis: The minister is correct that there are a few of the mine managers and developers who are saying nice things about this government, and there is a future in this province for the mining industry. I'm not so sure if it is with this government, because this government really has. . . . The reason there's a change now and a positive attitude from everyone is because of the fact that they drove them to the ground, down to their knees. . . . Here's an analogy: if your wife kicks you out of your house and then says you can come back, it doesn't mean that when you open the door, everything is all well again.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have any personal experience in that regard. . . .

D. Jarvis: Well, I don't either; not in my 38 years. That's probably why we're both acceptable for this job. We're both perfect people.

I thank you very much, Madam Chair, and the minister for his answers. I'll wait for the call of the vote.

Vote 31 approved.

Vote 32: ministry operations, $61,897,000 -- approved.

Vote 33: resource revenue-sharing agreements, $1,600,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:35 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada