2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 23
[ Page 15935 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, this morning it's my pleasure to introduce a young student, a grade 11 student from Oak Bay High School, who is doing a job shadow today -- close to the end of the school year. She is in the gallery and will be watching some of the proceedings here as well as the proceedings in Committee A. I'd like the House to please welcome, along with my legislative assistant, Claire Vessey, Karen Kang from Oak Bay High School.
Hon. I. Waddell: I call in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and in this House, Committee B, second reading of Bill 14, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The Speaker: On Bill 14, I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs to close debate.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to close debate on second reading of Bill 14. It was certainly an interesting discussion last evening around the Municipal Act reform. I would like to take a moment or two to respond, again, to some of the key principles that I believe are fundamental to the series of amendments, the Municipal Act reform -- now to be called the Local Government Act -- and the principles that we've used and addressed in developing the act.
First, I think it's important that we speak to the question of balance. Over the series of Municipal Act reforms, we've found the right balance, I believe, between the rights of citizens, local governments and provincial governments. We've taken the approach of trying to make the legislation as clear and simple as possible. I note the member opposite's concerns around the volume that's still contained within the Municipal Act. Obviously that's an area that we need to continue to work on in terms of reducing the volume and increasing clarity. But I think we have gone a long way to applying that principle around decisions and the language within the Municipal Act in order to achieve those goals.
The issue of broad powers was a clear principle that was raised by local governments, and the need to move from the view of having specific and narrow authorities, as defined in the act, to the concept of broader-based powers where local governments are really truly empowered to make decisions in their area of jurisdiction. The issue of flexibility, which my colleague from Burnaby discussed last night -- the need that this act gives municipal governments and regional districts the tools they need to create more flexible arrangements in their own unique and individual contexts
The principle of appropriate provincial involvement and making sure that the provincial government's involvement in local affairs should be limited to instances where the government has clear responsibility and interest, and that we should respect and acknowledge the rights and role of local governments in decision-making. That, I believe, is a principle that we've adhered to throughout our amendments to this act.
The principle of accountability. Decision processes must be fair and open, and local governments need to be open and accessible and answerable to their citizens and ratepayers. I think that is a very important principle, because the public does demand, of every level of government, the opportunity to be involved in decision-making and to have their voice heard.
[1010]
Another broad principle is that we need to match resources to responsibilities, so that local governments should be able to obtain the financial resources they need in order to meet the responsibilities they have and provide the services their consumers and clients demand.
The issue of consultation, which I believe is fundamental to the approach we've taken with Municipal Act reform
Finally, the last principle around which Municipal Act reform was based included the resolution of interlocal government issues and a process through which local governments should be able to collaborate and have closure on issues and to guide intergovernmental relationships -- again, a fundamental principle of our reform package this year, particularly as it relates to regional districts and the dispute resolution process.
It's my pleasure, in fact, to have the opportunity to close debate on second reading, and I look forward to the opportunity of canvassing specific concerns related to this legislation at committee stage. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 14, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, 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. C. McGregor: I call committee stage on Bill 13.
MOTOR CARRIER AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in committee on Bill 13; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Symons: I understand that section 1 primarily is the section that deals with the removal of municipal authority to issue taxi licences, and it makes it a requirement that all people seeking taxi authorization must go to the Motor Carrier Commission. I'm wondering if the minister could explain whether this might have some impediment upon various taxi companies wanting to give a different form of service -- for instance, a shared-ride service. Those taxi people went and proposed that they'll operate a taxi system on a shared-ride basis within the municipality of, let's say, Richmond. The city
[ Page 15936 ]
thinks that's a good idea and would, under the current rules, be allowed to offer taxi authority to them to operate within Richmond.
[1015]
This will preclude them from doing it within Richmond. They'll have to go to the Motor Carrier Commission to ask permission to do that. They'll go through the whole procedure of having the other taxi companies in the area put in their reasons why these people should not be given more plates and therefore most likely not be able to get carrier authority to operate an innovative type of service.
I'm wondering whether this might preclude that sort of thing taking place. I think one thing we have to do is see that we don't inhibit new ideas and new ways of delivering service. I see the possibility that this might cause that to happen -- to inhibit it. Could the minister give me some assurances that that would not be the case?
Hon. H. Lali: I just want to introduce staff: Deputy Minister Claire Dansereau is on my left and Kirsten Pedersen, senior policy adviser, is on my right.
I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with the hon. member that there needs to be some flexibility so that new ideas are not deterred. We're open to new ideas, and we want to work with industry and also municipalities to make sure that some of these new ideas are not thrown by the wayside.
D. Symons: I'm wondering, though, if the minister can give me a little bit more assurance on this, in the sense that I believe -- as things currently stand -- the person who will take my riding
I don't think they have to go through the same procedure that they'll go through after this act is passed, when they must go to the Motor Carrier Commission. Once you go to the Motor Carrier Commission and ask for plates, then the procedure in the past -- unless that's going to be changed
Surprisingly enough, a number of times you'll find that these other taxi companies say: "No, we really think we handle the load." In other words, they don't want more competition. So I don't believe you go through that same procedure -- do you? -- when you're going through the municipal plates. Could the minister clarify, if I'm wrong on that?
Hon. H. Lali: Having a uniform process for the entire province is not necessarily a bad thing; it's a good thing. It provides a level playing field for everybody concerned, whereas before those that had to go through the Motor Carrier Commission felt that they were being unfairly punished when they saw local municipal operators with municipal licences not having to go through the same processes and not having to pay the same kind of cost and also not having the same kind of regulations that would affect the health and safety of the entire industry.
This makes it uniform for everybody, so that everybody's playing on the same playing field and with the same rules and having to go through the same body to be able to get the proper licensing and also the inspections and other things. So this is a procedure that was the No. 1 recommendation in Stan Lanyon's report. This is also something that the industry, municipalities and Mr. Lanyon all agreed would benefit the entire industry.
D. Symons: Mr. Lanyon also made recommendations for alternative types of service for taxis, including shared rides. From the minister's answer, who totally avoided the question I asked
What you really told me just now is that it seems very much like it would be very difficult for a new firm to come in with new ideas and be able to get carrier authority to do it. They'll have to go through that procedure where the competition will be able to say: "Well, no, we don't want competition." That's currently the case, and the minister implied that that will still be the case.
[1020]
I think it will, as I suggested at the beginning of this, inhibit the bringing in of new ideas and new types of providing service, and I think that will be unfortunate. Possibly it will also prohibit the idea of a bit of competition in price and service being offered, as well, to the public.
I might go down, if I can, to section 1(c), since I think we've hammered this issue -- unless you want to make a response to that. I note that you're repealing the definition of taxi. I can see the other parts, where you're going into commercial vehicle, passenger vehicle
Hon. H. Lali: The definition of taxi is obviously being taken out of the statutes, but it's still included as a definition within the commercial vehicle definition that is included as a part of the regs. So taxi is not a stand-alone definition as it was before; rather, it's within that group of commercial vehicles.
I also want to point out that the final comment the hon. member made on previous answers to questions that he had asked
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Symons: I can take sections 3 and 4 together, if I may. That will answer
[ Page 15937 ]
sideration panel
Hon. H. Lali: The Motor Carrier Commission is bound by the principles of natural justice. The person who hears the original application is not going to be the same person that will reconsider it later on. That's a part of all this.
D. Symons: Just an assurance from the minister that that will be in the regs, so that it will be done that way
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
[1025]
D. Symons: I believe the minister answered earlier, when I was asking about section 6 under part (c) of section 1
The Chair: Shall section 6 pass? So ordered. Shall section 7 pass?
D. Symons: I'm a little slow in getting up on section 6. Section 6, section 39.1(2): "The commission may, by regulation, establish a Provincial taxi association and regional taxi associations
Hon. H. Lali: Further consultation with industry is ongoing where there are matters of requests from the industry. This will be followed up through regulation afterward.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
D. Symons: Now, I did have a briefing, and I thank the minister for the opportunity to get some feedback on this prior to its coming to the House. In this particular section, this is a transition where people who currently have municipal plates are going to be able to immediately go to the Motor Carrier Commission and, as long as they meet the National Safety Code regulations and so forth, then would be automatically basically given carrier authority.
However, there are some people caught in this who, either unknowingly or purposely, during the period when the Lanyon report came down to the time this bill's come forward, asked for municipal plates and received them
[1030]
Hon. H. Lali: When Stan Lanyon's report came down last year, there was a hue and cry from the industry saying that if we were going to bring in the legislation in the springtime, there would be a huge rush by some people to try to beat any kind of a deadline. Stan Lanyon's report had said that we would grandfather in those that had already received their licences through municipalities. So June 15 became a cut-off date. Those people who had been licensed by a municipality prior to that date would go through the regular process of the MCC to be licensed, but we would do it on a priority basis. And those who received their municipal licences after June 15 would have six months within which to comply and make the applications through the MCC. This is where this whole concept of a fair playing field for everybody comes into play, so that all those people who want to operate a taxi service would have to be licensed through the Motor Carrier Commission, having to go through the same kind of steps that everybody else has had to go through. For those that have received their municipal licence after June 15, there are six months available after this becomes law to actually make the application and go through the process of the Motor Carrier Commission.
D. Symons: I just want to clarify, again, that the procedures for those who had municipal plates prior to June 15 and those post-June 15 are slightly different. I gather that the people prior to June 15 will not go through the process where the Motor Carrier Commission sends out letters to other firms offering the service in the area, saying: "Do you think we need more plates in this area, and do you object to this person having a licence?" I gather that will not happen to those that have municipal plates prior to June 15. They will automatically go through that procedure and not have to be adjudicated by the competition.
However, I understand that the ones after June 15 will go through that procedure. It won't be an automatic receiving of the carrier plates. Is that correct?
Also, just one last question. You said the industry was concerned that there would be a rush after that Lanyon report came in, so they could sneak in under the wire, so to speak. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea how many municipal plates could be affected by this particular one in that post-June 15 date.
Hon. H. Lali: The simple answer to the hon. member's question is yes. Those that were already in existence prior to June 14, 1999, would have to go through a process, but not the
[ Page 15938 ]
entire process. They would not have to go through the economic defence argument, because that's already been proven. Letters were sent out under my name to all municipalities -- one on June 15 and then a follow-up letter a few months later -- that they should not hand out municipal taxi licences, because we were going to grandfather those that were done prior to that, and anything after would have to actually go through the regular process of the Motor Carrier Commission. So the hon. member is correct in that regard.
The number of operations that came in after June 15 is approximately 40.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
Hon. I. Waddell: I wonder if I might put a question to the hon. minister. I didn't get a chance to speak on second reading of this bill. My question is: in the transition, in the period of coming into force, will there be further consultations or continued consultations with the taxi industry -- both the drivers and the owners?
Before the minister answers the question, I might say to him that I have many constituents in Vancouver-Fraserview, my riding, who are working as taxi drivers. They are really hard workers. It's a tough job; they do a great job. I wear another hat as Minister of Tourism, so I'm interested in taxis from the point of view of tourists who come to this province. I know tourists expect good service. I think that, by and large, they're getting it.
I want to ask the minister that question, and I want to add an addendum. Many people have said how difficult it is in such a complicated industry. It's a complicated problem. I want to congratulate the minister for his work with the industry and with the taxi drivers in putting a reform and change to this which many people said couldn't be done. I think the minister's done it -- almost, if I sit down and let him do it.
[1035]
I ask the minister to answer that question. While he's doing it, I hope he will accept my congratulations from some of the people in my riding -- taxi drivers. I know he's worked really hard to work with them. My question is: will he continue to work with the industry and work with the drivers, who are
Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I want to thank the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. I know he's worked fairly closely with me, as so many of his constituents are involved within the taxi industry -- including the critic opposite and also the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain who sits across the way.
This is obviously an issue that had been ongoing for a number of years prior to my becoming minister. I know there was quite a bit of demand for the kind of changes that are being recommended by Mr. Lanyon in his report. That's why we set out to do the review and wanted to be able to do it in a way that wasn't ad hoc or just taking a couple of things and then trying to implement it or doing it in a disjointed kind of fashion.
We want to be able to have proper consultation with all stakeholders related to the taxi industry, including the taxi associations -- B.C. Taxi Association, Vancouver Taxi Association -- as well as UBCM and the member opposite as well, the critic. He's been kept abreast of this particular issue as well. I want to thank everybody concerned for doing such a great job and supporting this. I also want to assure the hon. member, the Minister of Small Business, that we will continue with consultation of the various stakeholders in this whole process, because we want to be able to do it right and with the least amount of pain as possible for anybody. We want to have an economically viable industry as well as a service that tourists can be proud of as they use it. So consultation will continue with the industry and the stakeholders.
The Chair: On section 9, still, the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: It relates to it, I hope, as much as the previous question at least: the Lanyon report. I must compliment Mr. Lanyon on the report that he did; I think it was very balanced and very thorough, looking at the taxi industry in British Columbia.
But it brought in 56 recommendations, and basically this bill deals with three. Many of the rest of them, I was told, can come through in the form of regulation. I'm wondering if the minister might give an idea of when those remaining 53 recommendations will be dealt with and when we can expect the regulations to be in place that will deal with many of the fine suggestions that Mr. Lanyon has made.
Hon. H. Lali: The 56 recommendations were divided into three categories: those that required, first off, legislative amendment; a second category, those that required administrative changes; and the third was in the area of policy. These categories were taken to the interim advisory committee, which was set up with representation from all of the major stakeholders in this whole process, so that they could go through this whole issue of prioritizing them on what should be done first and what could wait a little bit. All three of these categories are being looked at concurrently with each other. So that work will continue on. We're obviously just beginning right now, but we'll continue on and keep consulting with the advisory committee as we go through these.
D. Symons: Just one last thing for government, and particularly this government. The recommendations from Lanyon came in roughly a year ago, and within a year you've brought in a bill affecting them. Could you be a little more specific in the time lines for dealing with the rest of the recommendations? I grant that you're working in consultation to bring forth the bill. Are we looking at one year, two years, six months -- what time frame, roughly, to complete what we will be doing in relationship to those recommendations that Mr. Lanyon made?
[1040]
Hon. H. Lali: Although there are no time lines written in stone, the Motor Carrier Commission will continue to work with industry and try to implement the recommendations within one to two years.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 15939 ]
Hon. H. Lali: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 13, Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if we could take a short recess before calling the next piece of legislation or Committee of Supply business.
The House recessed from 10:43 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. I. Waddell: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Northern Development.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY
AND MINES AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE
FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
On vote 27: ministry operations, $37,969,000.
Hon. D. Miller: It's a little early in the day for speeches, Mr. Chairman. So let's get at it.
R. Neufeld: We will start the estimates with the Mines section of your ministry. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour, the critic, will be carrying that debate. Then we'll go on to the Energy section, the Oil and Gas Commission, the Northern Development Commission, B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro at the end. Unless there's some change to that to facilitate something, that's the way we'd like to keep it and be able to finish them completely. So we'll get on with that, then.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate that the minister is unable to make opening remarks on it, probably because he realizes nothing has been done in the industry for years in the past.
I would say that the mining industry, as is normal in these past years, has been in pretty rough shape. In fact, since your government took over, and since you yourself have taken over, two out of five jobs in the mining industry have been lost. For every mine we open, one is closed. Since 1990 I think there have been approximately 14 metal mines that have opened, and 14 have been closed. So it's not what you would call an exemplary record as to a ministry that supposedly has as its mandate -- I'm reading from your plan here -- "to maximize the economic and social return on resources and resource lands and to provide a competitive investment climate to encourage responsible development of the province's mineral and petroleum resources." Well, certainly petroleum has looked after itself all right. But that will be brought up later on in the estimates. But as far as the mineral end of it goes, there's a general feeling out there that this ministry in itself has precluded any further development in this province, through its legislation and through its open support of the land use problems that are affecting mining and development.
I was wondering -- if the minister would care to respond to my opening statement, in regard to their mission statement -- as to whether they intend to make any change in the future or continue on with the guiding principles that they have had up to this point: that is, ostensibly, to preclude mining and to discourage investment and development in the province.
[1050]
Hon. D. Miller: I won't rise to the bait, Mr. Chairman. Certainly mining has gone through a very difficult period in the province. The two key areas that impact most strongly on the industry are (a) international commodity prices and (b) the land use planning process. I would say the latter is the area where the mining industry has been most vocal in terms of their criticism.
I fully appreciate the concerns of the industry. These are not easy questions to resolve, given that minerals are subsurface and require extensive exploration. Typically, there's a 20- or 30-year gap between the discovery of an ore body by an explorationist and the take-up by a larger company of that body in the development of a mine. That's been a vexatious issue for the industry.
The member is aware that we passed legislation in this House two years ago, guaranteeing the mining industry access and explorers access to their claims. That was an unprecedented first in British Columbia, and I think that helped a bit. We've been working very hard with the industry. We have now put out a brochure on the question of exploring in special management zones. I can't remember offhand the number of applications or approvals we've given for exploration in SMZs, but it is considerable.
We've worked with the industry in a number of other ways to assist the industry and to try to develop more confidence for investing in British Columbia. I went to the PDAC conference in Toronto a few months ago. I met with some of the major international mining companies. I was pleased to see that companies like Rio Algom and others are coming back into the province, in a fairly modest way at present. They are coming back into the province with an exploration program.
I think we bottomed out on the exploration expenditures for last year at, I would hope, a low of $25 million. We clearly need to have much more than that. I think we may be able to improve that number fairly well this year. All the indicators, in terms of the level of activity from the ministry, support that.
There have been, however, other issues that I think the member would agree are beyond the control of British Columbia. I note, for example, the closure of the Quintette coal mine in northeastern British Columbia. It's interesting to note that the Gregg River mine in Alberta -- Luscar's mine in Alberta -- has also been closed. So anyone who wants to say that it's simply a B.C. phenomenon or a B.C. problem is wrong in that regard. Coal prices are at a historic low.
We've continued to work with other operating companies. We've made a significant agreement with Highland Valley to maintain that operation and well over 1,000 jobs in the Kamloops region -- and other agreements that we've made. I note in one of the latest mining newsletters, for
[ Page 15940 ]
example, that Alan Morrish, the general manager of the Endako molybdenum mine, was quite supportive of the government in its efforts in working with that company to ensure that that mining operation continued to run through the downturn, even though molybdenum prices had declined dramatically. The same holds true of Mount Polley and Huckleberry.
[1055]
We've worked with Taseko and Gibraltar, in terms of looking at some potential to get that operation back up. It may happen this year; it may not. But people are actively working on it. We have, I think, very good relationships with individual mining companies and associations. And while things are tough, my position and the position of the ministry is that we're there to work with the sector and to try to help. I think you'll find, if you talk to the people in the industry, that they will acknowledge that.
There are lots of reasons why mining has suffered over the past number of years in British Columbia. But we're working very hard to try to address those issues, and hopefully we'll see a resurgence in the industry.
D. Jarvis: On the basis of what you have just said, maybe we shouldn't even be here at all, because everything seems to be in order and falling into place. But we know, and the minister knows himself, that exploration and development moneys are not coming into British Columbia. There is no cash out there for British Columbia. Teck Corp., for example, is spending something like $2 billion next year on exploration development -- not in British Columbia, but in the rest of the world outside of B.C. No one is developing in British Columbia.
I appreciate the fact that mining is a cyclical sort of industry and that markets do sometimes reflect what's being developed and what's not being developed.
We all know that it takes five to ten years to get a mine going. If you're not exploring and developing, then you can't expect replacement mines to come into effect in the future.
It's not as though there's a general feeling out there that mining perhaps isn't a good industry. Mining, over the past, developed this province. At one point it was the No. 2 revenue producer in this province, and it's probably close to that now. So if we don't encourage mining
You say: "Mining is allowed to go into these special zones." Special zones: what are the hoops they have to go through? There are more and more restrictions to them. There are more and more chances of being open to legal suits, whether it be from the aboriginals or from some environmentalists, who will come up and say, "The road that they put through there wasn't quite straight down the line they were supposed to go," and all the rest of it. They're open to a legal suit, and it will slow everything down or virtually stop it.
You can't expect investors -- when you come into a situation -- to drop money into British Columbia knowing full well the potential of it being a park or being an aboriginal claim, or else it being under a lawsuit. They're not going to put their money in British Columbia; it's not there.
You have really an unfair sort of system that you've started up, in the sense that a few years back -- and everyone bought into it back in the early nineties -- you wanted a 12 percent chunk of our land in British Columbia set aside for parks. Everyone bought into it. The Mining Association bought into it; we bought into it; the Reform Party bought into it, independents -- everyone bought into it. They thought that was reasonable. They weren't all that happy; but nevertheless, it was reasonable.
So what do we have now? We have in excess of 12 percent in parks, from what I understand now. But we have 30 percent to 40 percent on top of that 12 percent that is being put into special zones. That wasn't part of the agreement. The agreement originally was that 12 percent of the whole province was to be set aside for parks -- not 12 percent in one area plus another 20-odd percent for special management zones. Now you have wild lands; you've created another new zone called "wild land," and on and on you go.
[1100]
You have not, as the minister of mining for this province -- and especially the minister before you, who stood up and said she was not an advocate of mining in British Columbia; the previous minister, Edwards from Kootenay
Your assistants, your deputies, certainly aren't advocates for mining. Your deputy, while briefing us last week, when we were talking about the LRMPs, said
It comes down to that all the key indicators indicate that mining has dropped dramatically in this province, and nothing is out there to replace it. The minister, despite these difficulties, does not seem to be able to stand up and tell the people in this province that he is going to do something to change the situation. He speaks about all the zonings and the permits that mining is allowed in British Columbia, in the LRMPs and in the resource management zone categories of enhanced special zoning -- the wild-land zoning. It's not going to happen, and he knows it's not going to happen. I have yet to hear him stand up and say that he does not agree with this.
The mining industry doesn't agree with it. The investors in British Columbia don't agree with it. The investors that go into mining from outside don't agree with it. This minister is supposed to be an advocate for this industry, and he will not stand up and agree with it or disagree with what's going on. So effectively the mining industry is being closed down. With these special management zones, although you say they're open for mineral development, it's always subject to the applicable legislation, subject to this and subject to that. The hoops that they have to jump through are many. As you say, you've had to put out a special brochure to discuss them all.
I'm wondering if the minister could tell me: is he prepared to stand up and support the mineral industry in the development of and investment in this province by saying that perhaps we have gone too far with these special management zones and LRMPs? Because we're now going to be
[ Page 15941 ]
looking at
I'm wondering if the minister may care to comment on what I've said up to this point.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, really two points. One is that the LRMP process has been well established in British Columbia and has produced, I think, significant results around the province. These tables, as we call them -- the land and resource management planning tables -- have representatives of interest groups. They have representatives from the forest industry; they clearly have representatives from "the broader environmental community"; they have representatives from communities and first nations -- in other words, the wide variety of people that you might expect would have an interest in the broader land use planning question and the outcome of that. I think, by and large -- as I've said, for example, with respect to a story you'll see in the Sun today -- that these tables are open, democratic, inclusive and do respect everybody's rights who comes to the table.
[1105]
I don't diminish the difficulty in broader land use planning. I think it's a very, very tough and difficult exercise to go through, but one that, at least on our side of the House, we think is necessary. We think British Columbians want us to do this kind of planning. We think British Columbians want us, through this kind of planning exercise, to be able to set aside significant areas of our province in parks. We think British Columbians support that and although I never read polls, I understand that the polling suggests that they do as well.
You can't embark on that kind of endeavour and expect that somehow it's all going to be sweetness and light, nobody will ever be unhappy and the outcome will be one that has no impact on anybody. That's naïve, to say the least. But we do think it's important that we continue with the land and resource planning in this province and complete those areas that have yet to have a plan.
My first point is this. If every other organization -- whether they be a business sector or community or whatever -- is participating in the planning process and is at the table, the question you have to ask yourself is: why should the mining industry not also participate? Why should the mining industry be the only major industrial sector in British Columbia that says: "We are not going to participate. We are only going to stand on the sidelines and be critics." I think most British Columbians would say: "Get to the table."
I've exhorted the industry, frequently and sometimes vehemently, to take their place at the table like everybody else and contribute to an outcome that hopefully protects the interests they have in any particular region of the province. There have been some good land use plans, and mining interests have been fully protected. It's like anything else in life: if all you ever want to do is complain, at some point people get tired of listening to you. They say: "Why aren't you participating like everybody else? Why is it that all you do is complain?"
Notwithstanding that, I did outline to the member, in answer to his first question, efforts that we are making to work with the industry, and I think they are going along fairly well. I've had extensive meetings with people from the mining sector. They come to me with their concerns; we try to help. I think there's a recognition that the industry needs to be more proactive, not just a critic all the time. We're working very, very closely, and I have no hesitation in saying that I can recommend any number of mining companies and individuals that I've been working with who would contradict what the member said in his first two statements.
I don't want to get into that kind of back-and-forth; I think that's rather juvenile. I do think, though, that there are clearly, for the industry
So certainty becomes, I think, an important question. One of the things we did in legislation, to try to provide more certainty, more comfort, to the mining industry was that -- again, for the first time in the history of British Columbia -- we passed legislation in this House which guaranteed that if, as a result of a land use planning process or land use table decision, active mining claims ended up being within a protected area, there would be compensation paid to the claim holder. We're working through that file, we've settled a number of those outstanding claims now, and we're continuing to work with others who found themselves in that situation. I think that's provided a degree of comfort as well.
[1110]
I guess, at the end of the day, all of us in political life need to make some fundamental decisions. Political parties need to make fundamental decisions. We've made a commitment on this side of the House to the LRMP process, and I'm not quite clear on the member's line of questioning. Is the member now stating as opposition policy that they will withdraw and shut down the LRMP process? I'd like to know the answer to that, and I think all British Columbians would like to know the answer.
D. Jarvis: Well, I'll discuss the minister's comments in reverse order, if he doesn't mind. In fact, our policy is that we agreed that 12 percent of this province would be put into parks. We're prepared to follow along on that premise, but it's the NDP party that has changed the ground rules on it. The ground rules were that the LRMPs, supposedly, were not there. It's just that you were going to put 12 percent of this province into parks -- the total of this province.
Now we see that 12 percent total is expanding and expanding and expanding -- plus you've got your wetlands, your special management zones and your protected areas. Now, you take the Mackenzie area, and you look at that map of the Mackenzie LRMP, and there are two little chunks in there that already were parks that are green but are still parks. But the rest of that is this socialist philosophy that you're going to cut off the investment and development of this province without consideration as to the social and economic value that occurs in mining in this province.
You have this attitude that your main thing is to protect health and education. Well, we know what you've done with
[ Page 15942 ]
health and education. Most of it's in chaos; there's a great problem out there. The minister laughs, but you go out in the streets and you'll find out that your record is not very good. It's not very good in any of the ministries. You've got to have revenue to support health, education and all the other social things that you have guaranteed.
You say that the LRMP has made significant results. There have been significant results; it's only significant to those that follow the socialist philosophy. The social impact has been really quite serious, due to the fact that there were at one time plus or minus 20,000 people in the mining resource industry in this province. Now we have less than 8,000 in the industry. It's not virtually collapsing, but it's on a slow withdrawal from this province. Investors, as you say, are looking for security. They're certainly not going to get security when they look at the process they have to go through if they're going to deposit money into British Columbia for exploration and development. It's really quite a problem.
The minister doesn't feel that the mining industry has absolved themselves by walking out of the process. Well, they haven't. When you look at that over the past years -- you started these off in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo, the Okanagan LRMP
I've got letters here that will indicate to you that your system isn't perfect. The Mackenzie thing
[1115]
The mining industry pulled out of it in protest. They were basically saying that they weren't being listened to. The consensus that you were basing your decisions on far outnumbered them. People had their own vested interests in it. The guide-outfitters -- virtually none of their area up in the northern part of the Mackenzie has been touched. What is better -- people that go out and kill animals? You've isolated the whole area for their self-purposes only. There's no question that you haven't been responsible to the mining industry. You're not being responsible to them. You're allowing other aspects of your philosophy, through your environmental wing, to shade your decisions.
I'm really surprised at the minister himself, who will stand out in the hall and say, "Yes, I disagree with this" -- right? The minister is smiling. Yet at the same time, when he gets up in here, he says no; he supports it 100 percent. It really surprises me that he doesn't stand up and say: "What we're doing is wrong."
On that basis, I was going to continue this all afternoon and read out different statements from different people in different areas that had complaints about the system. You know, I may still; you never know. I might come back to it later, because everything does seem to come back to the fact of land usage in this province when we're discussing mining now that they've exceeded their mandate of 12 percent.
I would like to maybe swing over to another question right at the moment -- and that's also to do with it -- with regards to the road deactivation aspect. For example, the minister knows that I have contacted him I don't know how many times over the last couple of years at his office. There, again, is a situation where the mining ministry has lost complete control. The minister has no say whatsoever in regards to the road deactivation; that is a decision made by the Environment and the Forestry ministries.
I was always under the understanding, and the minister did tell me several times, that there was an agreement out there that in the event that something was to be changed with regards to deactivation of a road, any ministries that were affected by it would be contacted and a full discussion would be had, etc., -- and maybe the decision not to deactivate that road at that time. But I'd get calls after calls after calls, and I'd call the ministry and say: "They're deactivating this road, and there are mineral claims on it." They had samples. The drill holes were torn up, samples were destroyed, and then they'd have to start all over again.
I'll refer you to the mine -- SYMC Resources, I think it is -- up in the Kennedy area and the Nahmint area, just outside of Port Alberni. I think it's a fellow by the name of McMaster. He called me again just two weeks ago, saying: "They did it again." They walked in -- there was even a gate on it -- and knocked down the gate, and they tore up all the drill holes and all the samples that were on the side of the road. I contacted your office, and they said: "Well, there's nothing we can do about it."
[1120]
It's that same old problem. So I was wondering if the minister can tell me: has there been anything further in regards to this relationship that he has with Forestry in regards to deactivation? Are they going to do anything further about protecting those that have mineral claims that happen to be in the areas where they're intending to deactivate? Are they going to give them consideration? Or are they just going to say, "To heck with them," and allow them to go in and deactivate the road and cause irreparable damage, sometimes, to those claims?
Hon. D. Miller: I just want to try to respond. The member's been on his feet for a while, and he raised a number of issues. I just want to try to respond, again going back to the LRMP, and I think this really is a critical issue for all British Columbians.
I spoke about the land and resource management planning process. It's really been in place in one way or another since 1991, when my party came to power and said, "We have a goal, and that goal is to try to fully protect about 12 percent of the land base in protected areas" -- parks; they're interchangeable terms. We created a process at arm's length from government. Government doesn't tell the tables what to do. As I said, we crafted the construction of the tables so that it was open and democratic and all people could come and participate and arrive at what I also acknowledged were very, very difficult and tough decisions. We have been doing that since '91, and we are now at about 11.3 percent. I think it was around 6 or 7 percent when we started, so there's been, throughout these planning tables, I think, a significant gain for the province.
There are currently seven LRMP tables in progress. In other words, they haven't arrived at a conclusion and sent that recommendation to government. Seven -- and there are five
[ Page 15943 ]
tables that have yet to be started. It's fairly clear to me that we will reach 12 percent fairly quickly. You could argue that we're almost there now, if you factor in, actually, 0.6 percent in recreation areas.
Is the member suggesting that if his party were in power, we would now shut down these seven tables and not start the five that are required? Is that the position of the member? I think this is a very important question that British Columbians want to know the answer to. Is that the official position of the official opposition -- that we would halt the land use planning process, we would not do a North Coast LRMP, we would not allow the central coast to come to a conclusion, and we would not allow these other ones to come to a conclusion? Is that the position of the opposition?
I'm certainly curious. It's one thing for the member to stand up and castigate me and say that I haven't done enough, and to criticize everything in sight. It's quite another for the opposition to be candid with the public about what their real position is with respect to these LRMPs. I am very, very curious. I would hope the member
D. Jarvis: Well, Mr. Minister, our answer is essentially that the process that we're under now is for us to ask you questions and you to be responsible enough to answer the questions that we ask you. If you want to insist on knowing the answer, I would suggest that you call an election, and we certainly will tell you what we're going to do with this province to make it a lot better than it is today.
My friend from the North Peace would like to ask a few questions on this subject too.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, Mr. Chairman, we now have at least as much of a position as we can get from the official opposition about probably one of the most important topics in British Columbia. The answer is this: "We are not prepared to tell the public what our position is." That's what the member's saying, and that's fine. I can now go out and talk with some authority about what the position of the Liberal Party in British Columbia is with respect to land use planning, and it is: "To the public of British Columbia, we're not going to tell you what our position is."
[1125]
But I want to return, because I would have hoped
Yet I received a copy of a bulletin put out by the Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia. The title of the bulletin is "The Mother Lode." I was quite intrigued by the May 2000 edition of "The Mother Lode."
An Hon. Member: Is that the one you sent me?
Hon. D. Miller: It is the one that I sent to the member.
It's interesting that the member criticized me, but in my conversations with him, when I informed him about this bulletin, he was completely unaware of it. That leads me to believe that perhaps his knowledge of the industry and his work with the industry are not as extensive as he seems to suggest.
Here we have a mining bulletin. I've sat down with the people in the East Kootenays on several occasions, including the editor of this bulletin, John Murray. He has written an article, and the article is headlined
In his bulletin, Mr. Murray writes: "What the Leader of the Opposition seems to be suggesting is that we not respect the rights of the people who hold the permit, that we ought not to engage in any due process to make an informed decision." That's not me saying that; this is the Kootenay mining bulletin saying that -- Mr. Murray, who writes this, who's a strong advocate of mining. I know him; I've talked to him. He's saying that about your leader. He goes on to say: "For those depending on a change in government to improve mining's lot in this province, [the Leader of the Opposition's] pronouncement can't be good news." He goes on to say: "Yet here is [the Leader of the Opposition] not waiting for the results of due process
This is pretty harsh language coming from the mining industry, the very industry that this member stands and defends and seems to advocate for. And he criticizes me for not being vociferous in defending them. This same industry is attacking your leader. In fact, not to pat myself on the back, the final paragraph of this articles says that the current minister, meaning me, "deserves recognition for trying to defend and respect the existing rights of the mining permit holder."
[1130]
We're both politicians, so I guess people can discount what we say. But this is pretty strong stuff. I know the member
[ Page 15944 ]
Now, with respect to the issue of decommissioning roads -- again, it's not a simple matter. It's a very difficult and complex matter. What we've tried to do under the Forest Practices Code is ensure that where roads are no longer required for Forestry access, they are decommissioned. There are some very good reasons for that. I'll go back to
Where the conflict arises is that explorationists typically use these Forestry roads for access to sites they want to explore. And how do you deal with the competing interests of two separate resource users? We have been doing extensive work internally trying to -- and I raise this
We're working very hard on that. I can't report that we've reached a significant breakthrough, but we're hoping we can get more cooperation at the regional level between the resource managers so that decisions can be made. Sometimes it's a question of timing. I discovered that one agency was making decisions, and the other didn't even know about it. We're trying to put that kind of structure in place so there's more cooperation at the regional level and trying to come up with solutions.
The mining industry has been involved with us on this. We're working with other resource agencies -- the Ministries of Forests and Environment -- to see if we can't assist in developing solutions. There will not be a significant, magic
R. Neufeld: I listen with interest to the comments from the minister in regards to a number of issues. Maybe I'll deal first with the article in "The Mother Lode." Probably if I wanted to, I could go and find quite a number of articles that would say some negative things about what this government that we have in British Columbia has done today -- not only in mining but in the disastrous effect that some of the things that this government has done has had on mining. We all know that. The minister is quite well aware and has been in government long enough to know that many times you don't even get a call from some of these reporters before they even write an article. That is true in this case. There was no contact with the Leader of the Official Opposition as to our point.
I think our point that day was made quite clear. It was an issue that had been going on for a number of years. It finally came to a head. As I understand, it was a bit of an issue between the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Environment. There were some disagreements -- I think some fairly large disagreements. But at the end of the day, what proved out was that there was no plan for aggregate in the province of British Columbia through the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- which I had been asking for for a long time -- because of the problems I face where I come from. Knowing the problems around the province -- and the minister is quite well aware of them -- that people are having in getting aggregate
[1135]
We actually encouraged the ministry to put in their business plan that they're going to start putting together a gravel plan -- an aggregate plan -- for the province. I'm glad it finally started.
Secondly, the press release put out by the government
I'm going to quote a number of texts out of that press release. One is from the Premier: "The proposed gravel operation in the Pitt River area has created considerable controversy at the community level" -- not just with the Leader of the Opposition -- "with environmental groups, municipal governments and residents -- including first nations expressing concerns about the possible effects the project would have on fish habitat in the upper Pitt River."
So there was controversy around it. It's our job to ask those questions, and we did ask those questions. They're fairly plain.
The Premier also goes on to say
The real answer here -- and we can go on about this forever, but I do want to put on the record some of these things -- is that the solution is that about 60 hectares of Crown land next to the company's gravel operations in the Sumas area of the Fraser Valley
So all in all, I'll give the Premier credit for actually dealing with this issue -- dealing with it in a fairly straightforward and fast manner -- so that Mainland Sand and Gravel can get on with its business. That should pretty well put into perspective some of the things about the comments in the "The Mother Lode."
The minister also spoke briefly about the Kemano completion project and said
[ Page 15945 ]
government of the day likes to point fingers at everyone else? In fact, they get to positions where they're pointing two fingers at other people, because they never want to take the responsibility for some of the tough decisions that are made in the province. They always want to point at someone else.
The minister blamed the Leader of the Opposition for the Kemano completion project and made absolutely no mention of creating the Tatshenshini and wiping out a huge mine -- and lots of employment and lots of revenue to the province of British Columbia -- without public consultation of any kind -- none. I was in this House when that took place. In fact, the Tatshenshini is an issue that we'll deal with later in estimates, because you still have not settled your commitments as a government to those miners that are in the Tatshenshini.
[1140]
To stand up here and try and say to the people of British Columbia that we don't consult -- that we make these decisions out of context -- is absolute rubbish when we look at the record of this government. The Tatshenshini is only one issue that I'll even touch on when I talk about no public consultation -- just deciding, along with Mr. Al Gore from south of the border, that you're going to create a park in a million hectares of land that's rich with resources in northwestern British Columbia, which no one but the rich can access. Talk about good planning. Then you'll have to fund the company to move out of there and move into another site in the province.
The minister knows full well, through his tenure in government, that there are a number of other ones that I could bring up if I so wished. But I don't wish to do that. I would rather that we got on with the estimates process. But there are some really serious issues regarding the LRMP process, and he knows it as well as we do.
To stand up here and ask us what our position is, when it's actually a government initiative
There were tables talking about parkland before the NDP were elected in 1991. I remember living in Fort Nelson and having people from Parks, from Environment, the Ministry of Lands and Parks, come and speak to the council in Fort Nelson about setting aside lands for parks.
So the process that's used, I believe, I agree with. It's difficult; I agree with the minister. There are some tough decisions to make about some tough areas; no doubt about it. It's not easy; it's not easy for anyone, whether you're an environmentalist, whether you want just parks, whether you're in industry -- whether it be oil and gas or forestry or mining. Those are all very tough decisions, when we start looking at locking up 12 percent of the province of British Columbia.
But as I said, everyone agreed. I think the minister's right: probably most of the public in British Columbia agreed with 12 percent, although they had some reservations and rightfully so. I think all of us had reservations. It was the NDP party that blew into the 12 percent; it was the NDP party that blew into the 12 percent set aside.
Actually, we've reached 12 percent now or, as the minister has confirmed, close to 12 percent. And we have only reported out 50 percent of the land base; that's the part of the problem that the minister didn't want to talk about. If we had maybe 5 percent of the land base yet to report out, that might be a bit of a different story. But we're at 12 or 11.3 percent; I take the minister's numbers. And only 50 percent of the land base has reported out.
The minister knows full well that the 50 percent that is left is very wild land in the province of British Columbia -- very remote, most of it, along the coast, in the northwest. Much of that land
[1145]
People bought into the 12 percent. But I remember clearly about
Do you wonder why people are a bit nervous, why industry is a bit nervous? All industry is a bit nervous; people are a bit nervous. Even where I come from in the Muskwa-Kechika, some of the rules that are being set up to keep people out of the park are getting almost a bit too much for the general public to be able to stand.
So when the minister talks about us, the official opposition, being candid with the public
I think it's time that the government of the day got candid with the public, got candid with industry and started telling industry that we're going to lock up maybe 25 or 30 percent of this province. Then we'll see how the public really responds to the initial attempt to lock up just 12 percent.
I think it is a serious issue; it's not just politics. It's an issue about livelihoods; it's an issue, where I come from, about people being able to work in the oil and gas industry and the forest industry or the mining industry. It reflects the same on the minister's constituency -- whether people can actually go to work in those well-paying jobs, those jobs that we need in this province to continue to provide good solid dollars for
[ Page 15946 ]
education and health care. As we slowly erode those jobs -- and the minister is well aware of it -- it's going to be that much tougher to be able to provide those services. I'm sure this government is finding that out right now.
The Chair: Member, you've used the 15 minutes.
R. Neufeld: I'll just wrap up. I'm sure that the minister realizes that now. So now that I've wrapped up my 15 minutes, we can either
Hon. D. Miller: My conclusion of the debate this morning, if we can call it that, is that perhaps there's an understanding that issues -- particularly land use issues -- are not that easy. Perhaps there's an understanding, as well, that it's not a simple matter of the critic standing up and castigating the minister of the government with respect to their failures. I think I've pointed out that there are people in the mining industry who are also critical of the official opposition. Let's not try to kid each other in terms of the level of purity people think they have around these questions we're talking about. But there are some fundamental issues.
I want to, first of all, pay a fair amount of tribute and credit to Laurie and Ted Carlson, the owners of Mainland Sand and Gravel. My deputy, Mr. Ebbels, did most of the negotiating, but I did meet with them. I found them to be upstanding citizens, above board and proud of the business they're in. I felt very strongly that they would never knowingly compromise fish or fisheries habitat. They were gentlemen in their dealings, and I want to give them a lot of credit. I certainly appreciated the attitude they brought.
[1150]
Again, I'm not trying to be provocative, but it was not our leader who went on Rafe Mair twice and made a public pronouncement. I think that's the wrong way to develop public policy. I don't think it's a good enough approach to say that because you get on a radio hot-liner's program, who happens to be hot about a particular issue, you suddenly have to knuckle under and pronounce on the radio a public policy -- which your leader did on Kemano and on the Mainland Sand and Gravel Pitt River operation. That's a fact, and we'll leave it at that.
Finally, the member is right: the 12 percent target will be achieved. Yet we have seven LRMP tables in progress and another five to be named. I think this is an important question, and I think the opposition cannot escape taking a position. What will you do if you achieve your objective, which is to sit on this side of the House? That's a fundamental question that cannot nor should be ducked. You have to come to my constituency, the North Coast, the Cassiar and a number of other areas, and you have to say to people what your intentions are. So far you've not done it.
I can say that we're going to continue with the process, see it through to the end, and it's clear. The number will be greater than 12. That is absolutely clear, and that may be an issue that divides our two parties when we eventually go to the public. So you have to think about what your position is, because people like this process. They support it strongly. They want it to continue, and you've got to make up your mind what your position is going to be on these things.
I know, and I've been in opposition. I understand about doing the opposition dance, which is try to never get tagged on having a position on anything, so the public can't go after you. I understand that; I've been there. But eventually you're going to have to take a position, so you ought to start thinking about it a little bit. Maybe that might temper some of the extreme criticism that you occasionally render. Anyway, I must say that I do enjoy this discussion, particularly with these two members. We've had it many times in the past. I'm not certain we'll be going into it this afternoon. I look forward to continuing what has been a somewhat fruitful discussion, but I'm sure it will get much more fruitful this afternoon.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FOOD AND FISHERIES AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote 14: ministry operations, $61,097,000 (continued).
R. Neufeld: We started briefly on this last night. It would have to do with BCAL, and the minister asked me to wait until this morning. It's the transfer of the Fort Nelson lands to the regional district. The operation of the Fort Nelson Airport was transferred by Transport Canada to the Northern Rockies regional district April 1, 1999. From that time until now, I guess, there have been some negotiations and some difficulties between the province and the Northern Rockies regional district which are causing some problems. But before I go into that, maybe the minister could just advise me as to where we are with transferring the Fort Nelson Airport lands to the Northern Rockies regional district.
Hon. C. Evans: There is an order-in-council being prepared, which I would carry, to ask cabinet to consider the approval of the transfer of core airport areas to the Northern Rockies regional district. The core is described as 210 hectares. As I say, it's being prepared, and I don't have it with me.
[ Page 15947 ]
R. Neufeld: I'm not sure if
They then went into some negotiations -- from BCAL -- with the Northern Rockies regional district, and I guess there happened to be some differences of opinion about the amount of land, and which lands, that were to be transferred to the regional district. As I recall, the province was not willing or didn't want to transfer the lands that had been transferred by Transport Canada to the province. I think therein lies part of the problem.
The second part of the problem is that much of the equipment that came with the airport was in disrepair. That's not the ministry's problem. But it is a problem for the Northern Rockies regional district, which is one of the one or two airports -- or maybe three airports -- in British Columbia that had some terrible difficulties accepting the responsibility for the airports and some huge costs because of the small population. We require an airport -- we just have to have one -- because of the makeup of the community.
[1020]
They have to buy a new sweeper -- or maybe I should say a sweeper that's in much better shape than the one that was left to them -- for the runways, for the winter. It's four to six months from the time you order them till you get them. Well, if we think about six months from this time forward, there's snow on the ground in Fort Nelson from this time forward. That might be hard for some people in the lower mainland to realize, but it is in fact true. There will be snow on the ground within four to six months in Fort Nelson, and they need a sweeper.
The airport's capital assistance program will not work with the Northern Rockies regional district to facilitate the loan and help financially to buy this sweeper until the province gets the land transferred. There has now been a number of people involved from BCAL in Fort St. John, and some who say this is not a priority so it's not high on their list to get done, and there are some problems. The minister has the letter, so he knows who is doing the negotiating on behalf of the province. But I would like to see the province get on with transferring that land.
It's like we were talking last night. It's not as though there's a shortage of land around Fort Nelson. In fact, there's a bit more Crown land around Fort Nelson than there is around Fort St. John. I can't understand, for the life of me, why it would take over a year of negotiation between the province and the Northern Rockies regional district and cause all this problem.
If the minister can confirm that the 210 hectares and the core lands that he talked about are the lands that the Northern Rockies regional district actually started the negotiation with, then
Hon. C. Evans: I'm sorry. I cannot answer the question as the member framed it, asking whether or not I can confirm that the regional district is satisfied with the offer of 210 hectares. I will put on the record my understanding of the issues that have led to delay, however.
I am advised that a larger area was offered to the regional district under licence and that the regional district turned down that offer. I presume, although I don't know, that they decided to turn down that offer either because they desired a fee simple ownership or because of the question of contamination in an area around the core airport. However, the present order-in-council -- which, as I say, I cannot confirm that the regional district is happy with -- I am advised does cover the runway and the ancillary buildings that service the runway around the regional district.
The language that cabinet has agreed to in terms of the free Crown grant of land to municipalities or regional districts to run airports is those lands "which are integral to the normal operation of an airport." The 210-hectare offer will reflect that definition.
[1025]
R. Neufeld: I can tell by that response, by reading between the lines, that obviously there's still some disagreement between the Northern Rockies regional district and BCAL on the amount of lands. Saying that the core lands that are needed to run an airport -- that's all you transfer
The contamination, as I understand, was dealt with. We did it in fine fashion, as we do in British Columbia. There was some contaminated soil on the airport land, and we dug it up and moved it to a dump-site down by the river and dumped it there. I mean, it really makes lots of good sense. You dig it up in one part, haul it 20 miles down the road and pile it up in a dump beside the river, and we've taken care of the contaminated lands. Even when we had a company that does soil reclamation in Fort Nelson, we didn't even haul it there; took it to the dump-site and piled it up. So the contamination thing is dealt with as far as I know. It's a bit silly, but we've dealt with it.
For the minister's information, I'll go back and I'll call the Northern Rockies regional district and see if the 210 hectares of core lands that the minister's proposing actually meets their
[ Page 15948 ]
requirements. If it doesn't, I would ask that the minister please put this issue with BCAL at some
Hon. C. Evans: Is it the suggestion or advice of the member that while that discussion that he encourages to happen takes place, I proceed with order-in-council transfer of 210 hectares? Or would it be his advice to myself that we wait until we can ensure that people are happy and that all of the issues are resolved?
R. Neufeld: I can't make that commitment right here. I'll talk to the Northern Rockies regional district. In fact, this might have transpired between the time that I received the letter and when I last talked to them, which was just a few days ago. They may be happy with the OIC that the minister's talking about. I'm not sure. I'll go back and make that phone call and let the minister know.
[1030]
Really what I want -- or what I would appreciate, I should say -- is that
M. Coell: I have a couple of questions for the minister. One is with regard to the federal dock divestiture of the outer Gulf Islands' wharves to the capital regional district. I'll just give the minister some background.
For four years now, the CRD and the federal government Departments of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans have been negotiating with regard to the transfer of federal docks situated on the southern Gulf Islands -- that's excluding Saltspring -- to the capital regional district. The transfer has virtually ground to a halt, and I'm told that this is a result of the approval process for the water leases by B.C. Assets and Lands. If the docks are not transferred soon, they will be removed as one after another falls into disrepair.
What is worse is that the agreement signed with the federal government included a fixed amount of money that would be transferred with the docks to undertake repairs. The longer the CRD has to wait, the more the taxpayers will have to shell out to repair these docks. These docks serve school children, water taxis and provision of emergency services and Coast Guard; they're essential for transportation and tourism. That's why the CRD is assuming control of them, because they're needed for those reasons.
Can the minister confirm for me the cause of the delay for the water lot lease transfer approvals?
Hon. C. Evans: This is a bit of déjà vu with the last question in a couple of respects. Firstly, it's once again an attempt to resolve in this room, here at the provincial level, the devolution of responsibility of Canada for infrastructure that used to be integral to people's lives; they decide that they're going to walk from looking after Canada. Then somebody has to pick up the pieces.
As in the last question, the condition in which the federal government desires to transfer the site may carry some environmental liability, not because of any mistake of their own, but simply because of the way we use land over time and our changing understanding of what's okay and what isn't. Whereas the last question was about possible degradation of land around an airport, this is about possible creosote damage to the sites where these docks are.
[1035]
I'm advised by staff that meetings are ongoing and that resolution on several of the docks appears imminent. Meetings with the regional director involved have happened and are ongoing. So I hope that the member will be able to give assurances to his constituents that he's raising their issues, but also that we are attempting to make the transfer possible.
The difficulties have nothing to do with the Crown trying to profit by the travail delivered upon the people by their country deciding to no longer deliver services. It has to do with who is going to be responsible, in a financial and regulatory way over time, for the condition of the site left by its previous landlord, the federal government.
I accept responsibility for dealing with these issues in a timely way. I would appeal to the member that we all keep in mind that whether it's airports or docks or a whole bunch of other issues that we could discuss, what's really going on is that people in this building are trying to figure out how to make up for the absence of federal responsibility in British Columbia.
M. Coell: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I think one of the problems that the residents of the Gulf Islands are facing is that they're now moving into the fifth year of negotiations for wharves that are essential. But it's really not a very complicated issue, so there is a level of frustration out there.
The other issue that I wish some clarification on from the minister is the Whaler Bay log lease on Galiano Island, if the minister could just update me as to where that lease is, in the negotiations with the company, and also the residents who have some concerns.
Hon. C. Evans: In spite of my bias in favour of logging and log sort dumps and basically having industrial work visible to the population, so everybody understands what we do here for a living, we're working really hard to try to solve this problem so that the people won't have to see logs outside their houses. I want credit for the staff for imposing common sense on their minister. They're working with DFO and the Islands Trust to get a short-term extension and trying to find a site where we can move this log sort away so it won't bother anybody. Credit should be given where it's due. I hope that's satisfactory.
M. Coell: I think the concern of residents is more about the times of operation and environmental damage, not the fact that the log lease has been there for some time and is in many aspects an accepted part of the community. I just want to
[ Page 15949 ]
make sure that if it's going to function for another decade or so, it's doing so in an environmentally sensitive manner. I appreciate the fact that the minister is aware of the issue and that the staff are working with both sides to find, I would say, an undivided solution to the problem.
[1040]
Hon. C. Evans: Would it be okay with you if we put a fish farm there afterwards?
The Chair: Through the Chair, minister.
M. Coell: With regards to Denman Island, I have had a number of correspondences with regard to oyster leases. I am not aware of the procedure that BCAL will be going through in the expansion of oyster leases. I wonder if the minister could just update me as to the extent of the increase in oyster leases by number of leases, plus the size of the leases that will occur on Denman Island.
Hon. C. Evans: I'm sorry, I don't have the specific numbers at present. I've been given some estimates. But rather than get it wrong, what I would like to suggest is that you raise the same question again when we move from Agriculture and BCAL to Fisheries. We will have the data specific to the Denman Island question. If that's not convenient for the member, he could write a letter or something, and I'll give it to him in writing.
M. Coell: That will be fine. What I think residents are interested in is knowing what the landscape is going to look like a decade from now, with the number of leases. But that can be raised in the Fisheries part of your estimates, minister.
The other issue I wish to raise is the status of the Riverview lands. There have been a number of announcements as to the size of the lands that are to be saved and as to any lands to be sold. I wonder whether BCAL has any of the Riverview lands up for sale at this point.
Hon. C. Evans: I want to clarify that we are talking about Riverview in the lower mainland.
M. Coell: Yeah.
Hon. C. Evans: I think that disposal is being managed by BCBC, and I'm not aware of any BCAL involvement at this time.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for that.
Just one final question: I wonder if the minister is able to tell us the approximate appraised value of the lands that BCAL has for sale this year.
[1045]
Hon. C. Evans: I'm going to answer the question a little bit differently than I think it was asked, but come to the same conclusion. I don't know the appraised value of land that we have available or on the market. However, I do know the target we are attempting to meet, and that would be approximately $70 million in this fiscal year.
I can assist the member to put that in some kind of context. Last year our target was $64 million, and we actually sold $54 million. There was 18 percent or 15 percent difference between what we were attempting to sell and what we sold. If you wish to apply that to $70 million, then you could come up with not only what we're attempting to do but how that would fit with our historical record.
M. Coell: I won't belabour the point. I realize that BCAL sets a target for what it would like to sell. What I was looking for is: what is the potential that is out there, if you were able to go to a web site and see all the properties the province owns and what their appraised value is and if they're for sale? You may only sell $70 million worth, but there may be $200 million for sale right now. I think that's the question I was getting at. But the minister can get back to me on that, if possible. I appreciate the answers to the questions I posed.
I. Chong: Hon. Chair, just following up very quickly on what my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands was asking, I was going to pose the same question but in a different form. Noting the priorities of BCAL -- one of the business priorities was to identify new opportunities that maximize the value of Crown land and assets -- I would have anticipated that there would in fact be a schedule or some memorandum identifying all the BCAL lands from where you would derive opportunities, whether it be by rental or by sale. If that list is available, I'm sure members on this side of the House would appreciate receiving a copy of that or even an identification inventory list of lands yet to be appraised. Certainly that falls under the purview of BCAL. So if something like that is available, I'll just ask the minister to follow up, as my colleague has suggested.
Hon. C. Evans: This is an interesting philosophical line of questioning here. We are not a real estate agency, nor are the people of British Columbia selling off their land. At present everything we have up for sale is on the web site. However, both questions sort of lead me to think that what the hon. members are looking for is the quantum: what are we worth, or what could we sell? Or something like that. That's not what we're about; that's not what the people of British Columbia are about; and that's not what they want us to do with their land.
We're sort of a facilitator, assisting business, community and first nations to accomplish their objectives, whether it's a dock or an airport or a business opportunity or a tenuring site, and somebody can run kayaks or go skiing. We are a facilitator, helping British Columbia to be what it can be.
We are not selling the province. There is no list, and I hope there never is a list, except as it's deemed appropriate by staff at a given moment that land is available and that the best use of that land is that it be sold, in which case you can find it on the web site.
I. Chong: To the minister: I just want to assure him I'm not suggesting that B.C. lands are up for sale throughout the province. What I just want to clarify
[ Page 15950 ]
Clearly a business plan was given to us this year; it shows some very clear objectives. So I would expect that there would be something that perhaps staff is working on, if there isn't something available now, to identify just exactly what those opportunities are; that's all. If the minister says that's not part of the business plan, then so be it; at least he's put that on the record.
[1050]
Hon. C. Evans: I think things look a little bit different where you are. I'll look and see what we own in the hon. member's constituency. Maybe in Oak Bay you could actually list property by property. In Terrace or Invermere it's much more complicated. There are first nations considerations, there are business opportunities, there are often tenures on top of tenures, and sometimes there are pieces of property which are available to sell that have issues that have to be resolved -- say, a contamination issue, which needs to be removed before it's put
But the province is not a subdivision. We will never reach the day, no matter who governs, where you can go to a web site and find out everything that is available in the province at a given moment. The business plan says we'll make some money by tenuring, by sales, by partnering and by development. We will absorb development charges and then sell property. We will work with first nations and make partnerships. It is a little bit more complicated than a Century 21 of government. I hope that answers the hon. member's questions.
I don't like the notion that we denigrate the business plan. I just answered the other hon. member and pointed out that last year, by this method, we missed the target by approximately 15 percent. I find that to be a reasonable record given that the disposal of land is incredibly complicated if you're going to attempt to do it with community buy-in. Of course, if you shove it down people's throats, you could sell land much quicker and accrue much more revenue, but it would have nothing to do with any kind of ministry or process or government that I would like to be a part of.
I. Chong: I know the minister likes to, perhaps, use phrases like "Century 21" and that. But again I want to state for the record that that's not exactly where I'm coming from or the questions that I'm posing. I just wanted to follow up on some questions that the member for Saanich North and the Islands asked and some questions that I had as I reviewed the business plan, as to the new direction BCAL is taking. I understand that there are some new directions, some new changes, some better development and marketing of the lands and Crown lands.
Clearly within the business plan it does state that you have, as one of the key priorities, developing a marketing division and identifying and planning future inventory levels "in order to take advantage of revenue opportunities and to contribute to economic development." That's clearly in your business plan. In asking the question of the minister, where it states that you're identifying and planning future inventory levels
Hon. C. Evans: I accept the member's clarification, and I beg her pardon for mistaking her intent. Of course it's not a three-year process or a five-year process; it's forever. It's our land. It will go on forever. I hope that the process happens in a way that's logical and user-friendly. There will never be an end to BCAL's involvement with communities and first nations and municipalities and developers and entrepreneurs, helping people's dreams come true.
[1055]
I. Chong: I'd like to ask the minister some questions specific to BCAL operations in regards to a matter that was raised through my office; this was raised over a year ago. I'm just trying to find out if it's been resolved now. It has to do with the Cameron Lake area. Apparently there were a number of properties in the Cameron Lake area that were subject to a bond requirement. It actually goes back to 1998, but it carries into the following year, where we're told that verbal agreements have been agreed to, as opposed to agreements actually signed. Having had some experience in other ministries, where we found out that there are agreements but we're still two years behind in signing them, I'd just like to get some clarification on this particular one.
In the Cameron Lake area, a number of residents were concerned about a bond requirement. Through a verbal agreement with the Nanaimo office, I guess, Mr. Mark Johnston, president of the Cameron Lake Ratepayers Association, met with a Mr. Max Nock, I believe, of BCAL in Nanaimo. There was an agreement that the bond would be split by all cabin owners and a 30-year lease provided. Again, they were looking for certainty. They said that it was verbally agreed to, but it needed to be approved by the higher-ups, the people that are allowed to sign off on these things.
This is almost a year and a half later. I'd just like to find out if the minister can advise whether there has been a written agreement and whether that assurance has been provided to the cabin owners.
Hon. C. Evans: I don't know the specific answer to her question. I would like to get back to her. Actually, I'd like to have the CEO get back to the member to give her the specifics that she's looking for and answer any questions.
I. Chong: I thank the minister, and I will pass that on to the constituents in that area who, as I say, I think are at this point
I'd like to ask the minister, as well, some questions under BCAL that affect the critic area that I'm responsible for, Small Business, Tourism and Culture. As we know, BCAL certainly significantly affects the tourism industry -- ecotourism and agritourism as well. In particular, the Guide-Outfitters Association has been quite concerned. I appreciate the briefing that we had received with BCAL and the minister's office staff on this.
But we still understand, or I've been told, that there still is a significant number, a backlog, in terms of applications. I'm
[ Page 15951 ]
just wondering, to this date, where we are with that -- the number of applications that have come in for this fiscal year, I guess -- and what kind of a backlog we're at in terms of timing and the numbers of applications that are still awaiting processing.
[1100]
Hon. C. Evans: I'm not precisely sure of the nature of the question. But assuming that the hon. member's question is specific to the guide-outfitters that she's concerned with, there are 11 outstanding applications from guide-outfitters for tenure opportunities. I can break it down by industry or give her a total of all the commercial recreation applications, which are those I assume she's interested in.
On her question of timing, we canvassed some of this yesterday, hon. Chair. Our period of time for an answer, yes or no, is running between three months and two years, depending on whether it's a straightforward application or whether it is one where there is biological information required, where you have to wait -- field seasons -- until you can hire people and go do work to find out what's there.
We had a little ceremony the other day and signed a memorandum of understanding for the first time with the Ministry of Environment. There were two parts to it. One was defining, finally, a relationship between BCAL and the Ministry of Environment and assuring that tenures would only be issued in cases where the Ministry of Environment had signed off the biological implications of using the land. In exchange for that, the Ministry of Environment agreed to a more timely turnaround time for applications.
Now, the guide-outfitters that the hon. member is interested in are
I. Chong: I think there perhaps is a mixture, as he can probably appreciate, from members of the Guide-Outfitters. But I think the general concern was in fact that there were timeliness problems. You know, when the minister mentions three months to two years in some cases, my question would be: in how many cases are we looking at two years? Is it very rare, or is it 50 percent of the applications where we're looking at two-year delays?
Hon. C. Evans: No, the two-year time frames are fairly rare. They tend to be in cases of really isolated land, and they tend to be in cases where biological information is required relating to mountain goats or caribou habitat or grizzly bears. We first have to collect the baseline data before the Ministry of Environment can say what impact a tenure will have.
I think, actually, we are trying to speed up the turnaround time, because there's a cost to business in waiting, and I acknowledge that. However, if you're going to issue a 30-year tenure during which time a species of wildlife may flourish or cease to exist, taking the time to know the answer to that question before you issue the tenure is the only way to behave in a responsible fashion. If it took two seasons, I don't see government ever doing it any faster than it takes to know what we're doing.
I. Chong: Certainly I would agree with the minister that there are sound reasons that would call for appraisals and evaluations, in whatever fashion -- environmental studies, etc. -- is required. No one would question that. But if there are delays caused as a result of procedural difficulties in offices, then of course that would raise the question as to where we are looking at efficiencies to reduce the time line. I'll accept the minister's response on that. I understand that it was canvassed quite thoroughly yesterday. Unfortunately, I was not available, so I will review the Hansard on that.
One final question that I do have is on the commercial recreation policy. As I understand it, there was assurance by BCAL given to the tourism industry that tenure rates would not be raised. I am wondering how long that assurance has been provided for. Does it extend for five years? Does it expire at the end of the year 2001? What is it anticipated we should be looking at for tenure rate changes? What is the process that ministry staff or the minister will have with the stakeholders who will be primarily affected by this?
[1105]
Hon. C. Evans: There are no plans for any rate increases in the short run. Whether or not there are rate increases in the future will depend upon the regulatory needs of the tourism operators themselves.
I. Chong: What I'm basically hearing from the minister
Supplemental to the question I posed earlier was whether there was going to be a process in place, should tenure rates be amended, that the ministry is already looking at convening or whether it is bringing together a process where stakeholders will be advised. Too often we hear that rates go up or rates are imposed or new fees are introduced, and it throws everybody in a bit of a whirlwind. To ensure that doesn't happen and to find out that the ministry has learned from some of its past practices, well before the expiration of any kind of commitment or assurance, a process will in fact be put in place
Hon. C. Evans: The precise words that I'm advised to use are that that is part of our business process now. We will be respecting business cycles and giving proper time for consultation, should the price go up. I have a more straight-up way of answering it, if you want to know.
I. Chong: Yes.
Hon. C. Evans: I met with the kayak association and told them that we would regulate them when they begged us to. Until they begged us to, the price would stay put. By the end of the meeting, it was clear that they might.
I. Chong: On that note, hon. Chair, I don't have any further questions. I know the critic has some other questions,
[ Page 15952 ]
but it's just as well to leave the point on the kayaking again. Those were one of those past practices where everybody was caught by surprise, where fees were raised.
And again, just to the minister, those are the kinds of issues that our small business operators don't need to be facing. If we've learnt from that, then, I would say that's good. It's time to move on to ensure that all other small operators will not be facing that kind of impact on their businesses.
I want to thank the minister and staff for their responses.
Hon. C. Evans: In defence of staff, it is my impression that the suggested increases in the kayaking association were in discussion. Often what happens is that government muses about something, consults about something. Everybody has a busy life and doesn't really deal with it until they hear it on the radio. And when they hear it on the radio, everybody is surprised by what they had known all along and just didn't think was real.
So I, in my meetings with other MLAs and with the kayak tourism operators, never felt that the industry had gotten short shrift from staff or that staff's intentions were inappropriate. In fact, I think we are going to experience quite quickly -- we may experience quite quickly -- a response from the tourism association asking government for a regulatory regime that allows them to do business and offering to pay the cost of that regulatory regime in order that the staff could assist them to have an orderly way of making a living.
[1110]
I. Chong: And just on that point to the minister, I wasn't suggesting that the staff in fact were responsible for that. In fact, I believe that, as the minister stated, through some conversations and musings that are done, certain things aren't clarified, and no certainty is provided for those discussions. What generally happens is that people disregard changes as being imminent, and I can appreciate that.
But what I also do acknowledge is clearly when one group of small business operators or tourism operators speaks to one ministry, they expect that those concerns are carried through to another ministry. Interministerial cooperation is, from what I've seen in these four years that I've been here, somewhat lacking at times. It's improved, I'll grant that, in some ministries but not in all ministries. My concern was that, as critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the Small Business minister didn't seem to have a handle on what was occurring with BCAL.
So from that perspective, I'm not suggesting staff is at fault, but neither are the stakeholders and those who are impacted by this. Everyone's relying on someone else who's heard the conversations or the general discussions about this, thinking that somebody has taken it to whatever level it's going to and that stakeholders will be consulted back prior to any announcement being made. That seems to not have happened in that particular instance.
So again, we've learnt from that, I'm sure, and those things shouldn't happen again. Again, I thank the minister for his response.
B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister might want to bring the
The Chair: Glenn, do you have any questions for BCAL?
G. Robertson: A couple. We have a number of new kayak companies starting on the North Island with first nations and local community people as well. We also have a lot of kayak companies not only from British Columbia but from all over the world, actually -- Washington State, Oregon and California -- that operate in the North Island.
I guess there's a number of concerns from the community in regards to some of the leasing and tenuring issues for these kayak tour operators and communities. People in the communities are concerned that areas they've traditionally used might not be available to them in the future. That's one concern.
The other issue that's of concern in the North Island is for tourism tenure holders. It's regarding their expectations as to exclusivity of the land and exclusive use of that land for them once they gain a tenure or a lease. Also, the resource corporations on the North Island are very concerned that unless there's some sort of understanding, the tenure holders' expectations might be that there'll be a cessation of resource development, particularly in forestry, in many of these areas. There are all sorts of demands for campsites all down the Broughton and Johnstone straits and all through the Nootka areas. So there are some concerns there as well.
[1115]
Another point is that while small campsites and leases are really important for tourism operators, there are also areas, which might be leased out over the long term to small tourism operators, that would be better utilized for different sorts of facilities. What I'm talking about specifically are small lodges or resorts. I've been talking to some of my tourism operators, and they do a lot of work with people from Britain. They don't necessarily go out on long kayak tours; they might go out for a day. They like to do a loop and come back to accommodation at night. So what they'd like to see is an opportunity for tenures for small resorts or lodges where people could overnight, and they're interested in your ideas around that. I just would like to get the minister's view on where we might want to go on that.
Hon. C. Evans: I guess I'd like to start by doing an odd thing, which is really thanking the hon. member for helping me to learn what my job is. I became the Minister Responsible for Rural Development and BCAL just a few months ago, and, while thrilled to accept the responsibility, it had somewhat of a learning curve. The hon. member for North Island had to come to me and educate me about my role in tenuring recreational land, especially campsites for kayak tour operators. As a result of his intervention, I met with the Minister of Small Business, who is, as discussed earlier, engaged in a consultation with North Island tourism development himself.
Then, at the initiation of the member for North Island, a meeting was held with the kayak tour operators and with BCAL and myself. It became clear that we have here, especially in the North Island area on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, a rapidly growing business opportunity. It doesn't make anybody a lot of money and could easily be wrecked by the imposition of strict regulatory regimes or high costs, yet at the same time it is being a victim, somewhat, of its own growth.
In the meeting that the hon. member organized, one young tour operator told us about the unpleasantness that she experienced bringing a group of people in from a hard day on
[ Page 15953 ]
the water -- people who were exhausted and looking forward to an evening on a beach by themselves and a big fire and a restful experience -- and then finding 13 other groups camped on the beach that she thought her company had tenured through BCAL and had some exclusive right to.
So the industry was saying on the one hand: "What we need is a more strict regulatory regime that guarantees us some kind of exclusive use or at least limits the beach to few enough clients that there's no feeling they're crowded or that it's noisy." The industry really wants Rural Development and BCAL to work with them to figure out what a regulatory regime would look like that would allow their industry to expand.
The hon. member is quite right. At least according to the operators' association, the issue is mostly in his area -- say, Campbell River north. In southern Vancouver Island, they advised me that there are enough private sites, first nations land, parkland -- what have you -- that beaches are available without necessarily tenuring from the provincial government. But in the North Island, they really need a regulatory regime by BCAL, and they need it to be business-friendly.
[1120]
In answer to the hon. member's question, I'd firstly thank him for advising me of precisely the need to deal with this question. Secondly, yes, I guarantee the hon. member that there will be resolution. Where we came to in the meeting with the operators' association, BCAL, myself and the hon. member was that following this year's season, when the operators themselves can attend the meeting without losing money, we will meet in some community in the heart of their operational area. I suggested Alert Bay. We'll attempt to work out a regulatory regime that allows their industry to expand, to advertise and to offer people a guaranteed experience for a guaranteed price. They assured us that in exchange for a regulatory regime that allowed them to operate a good business and that could deliver a product as advertised, they would be pleased to pay the tenuring costs.
In wrap-up, I'll say thanks to the hon. member for helping me to understand. We're not through yet. We'll see this job through, and we'll see this tourism industry expand in his part of the world.
G. Robertson: I just want to emphasize the importance of tourism to the North Island -- we're trying to diversify our economies -- and also emphasize the importance of resource development, particularly the forest industry, on the North Island. They're both really important not only to the North Island but to all of British Columbia.
There are some huge demands upon the land. Tourism and obviously the forest industry have to work cooperatively to move both industries ahead. We also have shellfish, aquaculture and, as I said, forestry. We have tourism and outback recreation and kayakers and all sorts of tourists coming from all over the world to visit the North Island. So I appreciate the minister's suggestion and commitment to have a process to develop a long-term plan to enhance all these opportunities on the North Island.
B. Barisoff: We might be jumping back and forth a little bit here. The Land Reserve Commission person is here, so I just want to touch on a few questions there.
Where I want to start is in the business plan where the Land Reserve Commission Act sets out the following objectives for the Land Reserve Commission. The first one is to protect the integrity of agricultural land and the working forest land base in British Columbia. Could the minister comment on the section that says "integrity of the agricultural land base"?
Hon. C. Evans: I take the question to basically be asking for a definition of my interpretation of the word integrity -- integrity of the land base. I think it means not only that the land be intact and available but that it be used for agriculture and, where possible, used profitably for agriculture in order to defend the existence of the zonation. I would extend that to some planning function, where integrity means you even have to give thought to adjoining pieces of property and the operating environment so that whatever's going on next door doesn't break down the integrity of the agricultural opportunity on the agricultural site.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next bullet: "To work with owners, local governments, first nations, the governments of British Columbia and Canada and other communities of interest in achieving the objective set out in paragraph (a)." Then I go to the Agriculture and Food performance plan. On page 34 in objectives it says: "Sustain agriculture values in first nations treaty claim areas." One of the key strategies was to participate in treaty negotiation process. I guess the outcome measure is: "Agricultural land reserve designations are retained within negotiated treaties." I want the minister's comment on whether that's something that's going to happen -- that if land is negotiated in aboriginal treaties, it would be retained in the agricultural land reserve.
[1125]
Hon. C. Evans: It's my belief that whether land is acquired in treaty or by fee simple acquisition doesn't make any difference. Land is in or out of the agricultural land reserve according to the ALR, not according to some process added later on.
B. Barisoff: So the minister is saying, then, that at the treaty table there would be representatives from the Agricultural Land Commission, who would be there making sure that any Crown lands presently in the agricultural land reserve would stay in the agricultural land reserve in perpetuity.
Hon. C. Evans: Absolutely. That is my belief; that is the government's position. I believe this is from Hansard, May 2. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, in response to a question by the hon. member for Delta South, said: "I'm saying that lands that are now under ALR designation, in the event that they are transferred, will remain under ALR designation and will be subject to the same provisions for removal as any other ALR lands." That seems as clear as possible and has always been my position, and I think it's government's position. I am unaware of statements to the contrary by any minister or arm of the government.
B. Barisoff: The minister could maybe comment on what would happen if these lands that are presently in the ALR were redesignated into reserve status. Would lands acquired by first nations that were in the ALR, which were taken from fee simple and put into reserve status, still remain and hold the same conditions that would happen with the agricultural land reserve?
[ Page 15954 ]
Hon. C. Evans: That is my position; that is the government's position. I think I acknowledged where the hon. member's worries may come from. That has to do with the fact that when you are dealing with reserves, you're dealing with another level of government. It is our position that in every interaction we have with that other level of government, the agricultural land reserve obtains, no matter whether you designate it fee simple, reserve, treaty land -- whatever it is. It is agricultural land if it's agricultural land.
B. Barisoff: My concern is probably somewhat deeper than that, in that we would then be dealing with a third level of government. If you take the Nisga'a treaty, for instance, we now have a third level of government on par with the provincial government or the federal government. My concern is: if these treaties are consistent and there are more throughout the province, then the third level of government -- would it not designate its own lands the way it wanted to?
The reason I raise the question is that it's my understanding that in my constituency, the Osoyoos Indian band is presently in the process of purchasing land within the township of Osoyoos, and that land is presently in the agricultural land reserve. I guess there are some concerns, because they're looking to put that into reserve status. The question that was asked to me was whether, once it goes into reserve status, the Agricultural Land Commission would have any jurisdiction on that portion of land anymore.
[1130]
Hon. C. Evans: It is our position, as I just stated, that it doesn't make any difference if it's in the reserve or it's treaty land or it's fee simple outside reserve. If it's agricultural land, it's agricultural land.
In the quote that I read from the minister, however, one of the things he said is that any removals would happen in the natural process, just like anybody else's land. So I don't want the hon. member to misconstrue my statements to suggest that first nations have less opportunity to remove land than anybody else. So if Osoyoos was to go through a process such as Kelowna did and do an agricultural plan and an ALR plan and then make arrangements with the Land Commission, it's conceivable that some land would come out. It shouldn't, it seems to me, make any difference whether it's native people or non-native.
However, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that there are other ways that other municipalities use to protect agricultural land where they feel that there might be some threat -- that is, zonation. It's conceivable that if the hon. member's constituents are concerned that agricultural land might at some point be removed and that that's inappropriate for the community plan involved, then they can have the community use the power of municipal zoning to zone land for agriculture. It's done for non-ALR land around the province all the time.
B. Barisoff: Again, I don't want to belabour that, but I think the minister maybe misinterpreted where I was going with the fact that the land is being purchased by the Osoyoos Indian band. They're looking to take the land not to put it into agricultural land reserve status but to put it into part of the reserve status of the Osoyoos Indian band. So I don't know how any community would have jurisdiction on rezoning something
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member might be right. I maybe did misunderstand, and I don't know the laws around a municipality's right to zone reserve land. So that extra safeguard may not be available, and he could raise it with the municipality involved or with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
B. Barisoff: I just want to move on to the merger of the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission and some concerns that have been raised to me. The concerns are the appointments of people on the new Land Reserve Commission and a possible politicization of what is taking place there. I know there's been a long history in the agricultural land reserve that this hasn't happened. My concern would be just a comment from the minister as to whether he feels there is any politicization happening or whether he feels very confident that the present makeup of the Land Reserve Commission is of a non-partisan nature.
Hon. C. Evans: It's the first such comment I've heard. Given that people criticize boards all the time, I'm somewhat surprised by it. I'd assumed that he would like the board, simply because the criticism in the past has been twofold. Firstly, there has been an argument that there are too many planners and thinkers on the board and not enough farmers and, secondly, that the board has failed in its regional representation. Thirdly, it has tended to be an exceedingly Caucasian board, failing to recognize the contribution in the farm community of people of diverse languages and cultures. Fourthly, all these questions around reserve status and treaties keep coming up because the board has never had first nations representation. So there are four failures which I've heard in my time, all of which are addressed by this board. And the question comes back: "Has it been politicized"? Well, I'm pretty sure there are people on this board who wouldn't vote for me in a hundred years.
[1135]
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: Any of them with any sense, eh? Oh, yeah there is one person on this board that is actually in my constituency. I'd be pleased to ask him if he's voted for me, if you want. He was appointed because he was the mayor of Slocan. Unfortunately, he didn't run in the last election. But I believed that having another municipal person on would make the hon. member happy, because we're trying to build relations between the farm community and the Land Commission and municipal government. Also, he has a background in farming from the prairies.
As I go through the list
[ Page 15955 ]
Peace" and "Thank goodness there are actually sheep farmers on the board." This is a board that works land. I want the hon. member to say: "Good on ya, minister -- you finally got it right."
B. Barisoff: The minister maybe got thinking that all the questions about politicization were coming from me or from the opposition. That's not actually a fair comment. They were comments that have been brought forward to me. And I felt, in all fairness, that it was incumbent on the minister to make known the reasons why. I think he has done that in the fact that he has mentioned
The one other question that was raised to me about it was that there was an appointment of a salaried public servant to the board. I guess that was one of the questions that the minister could answer -- that this has happened.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. Christine Hunt is the person that the hon. member is talking about, I think. Is that right?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: Well, I think that Christine Hunt is an excellent appointment. I think that because she acted as adviser on fisheries issues and then adviser on first nations agriculture issues to two ministers, as we have attempted to work with first nations in partnerships to make economic activity happen
When it became clear that there had never been a native person on the Agricultural Land Commission or the Forest Land Commission and that that was a terrific failure, I considered that and thought that what we should do is appoint somebody who has experience in government and experience in first nations and who is already seen by native people as a liaison between the two cultures.
[1140]
The issue was canvassed with the various people who have to be involved. It was advised that in order to make this appointment, Ms. Hunt had to agree not to accept two forms of remuneration. I'm assured that that's happening. I would be pleased to offer the hon. member a private opportunity to talk to this member of the Land Commission or to the Land Commission itself, or the conflict commissioner or my office or me or any official that you wish, in order to give yourself the assurance that this appointment is appropriate, legal and is not any form of inappropriate use of public funds.
B. Barisoff: I think that in all fairness to the people that look from the outside, these are the kinds of concerns that are raised. They're always raised to the opposition; they would never be raised to the minister himself. That's why I wanted to give the minister the opportunity to
I guess when the questions are raised, it's only appropriate that I make sure that they're raised with yourself and that it is on the record -- what it is. The question of double-dipping, of course, was something that was raised, and that's a genuine concern of people if they raise it to me. It's not that I'm coming after the minister on the different appointments and whatever's happened. What I'm saying is that we must not only be fair; we must appear to be fair. When people don't get their way with the Land Commission, as we know a lot of them don't -- and a lot of them do, of course -- the first thing they look for is a reason for something that could be wrong.
Moving on from there to the "Government's strategic directions": "The Minister of Agriculture and Food sets strategic directions for agriculture." Could you make a comment on that -- in the key challenges?
Hon. C. Evans: If I understand the question, the hon. member wants me to kind of give him the gist of what the key challenges of the upcoming year are. Is that right?
B. Barisoff: It's just that when you look at the government's strategic directions, it says that the Minister of Agriculture and Food sets the strategic direction for agriculture, and it is in the business plan for the Land Reserve Commission. With it being there, I'm wondering what
Hon. C. Evans: I think what the hon. member needs me to say is that the overlap between the ministry document and the Land Commission document is not intended to say that the Minister of Agriculture tells the Land Commission what its direction is. I understand that, and the hon. member will remember the price I paid for being confused about how the world needs to see that.
[1145]
B. Barisoff: The minister did definitely see where I was going with that question.
Moving down to the next paragraph and the next line: "A number of recommendations which affect the Land Reserve Commission were tabled in a 1998 report to cabinet on provincial interests in agriculture, entitled 'Stakes in the Ground.' " I guess this tie is very timely with the first statement in the strategic direction and the provincial interest in agriculture. Maybe the minister could make a comment on provincial interest in agriculture.
Hon. C. Evans: I don't think we have a copy of the legislation here. We can get it. We do have a copy of Moura Quayle's report, which was the wording we used to construct the legislative change when we made the amendments that defined the provincial interest.
Speaking generally, as I think the hon. member knows, the amendments pretty much changed forever how the province can define provincial interest. It excluded regional economic development precisely -- like on purpose and in language -- so that it would become difficult for someone in the Kootenays, for example, to propose an exclusion and justify that exclusion as being necessary for the region. That, of course, was a response to Dean Quayle's report reviewing the historical definition of the provincial interest and the absence of a specific definition of the provincial interest. I think that it now will limit any government's ability to ever use provincial interest in the future to something larger and provincial in scale, because the law says that a regional definition cannot apply.
[ Page 15956 ]
The Chair: Member, noting the time.
B. Barisoff: Okay, this is the last question before lunch, then.
On the bottom of that page, it has: "Potential budget reduction targets or a freeze on spending increases would impact on the ability of the commission to achieve its objectives." I guess I have some concern as to where the reductions would take place and, with the freeze on spending, what impact it would have on the Land Commission's ability to do their job.
Hon. C. Evans: As it turned out, when the budget came down -- thanks to the genius of the Premier in recognizing the importance of agriculture -- we didn't have to cut their budget. So they don't have those pressures that the hon. member refers to.
With that, I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada