Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 24 -- Tuesday, May 30, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 24

[ Page 15957 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

D. Symons: I have three guests in the House today: Bob Tai, Aaron Leung and Frederick Chan, who are here to discuss issues relating to property tax. Could the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: I'd ask all members of the House to please welcome a guest of mine, Mr. Rowan Shaw, a University of Victoria student and a resident of Westbank. Would everyone please make him welcome to the House.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Port Coquitlam-Burnaby Mountain . . . . Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- sorry.

C. Clark: Close enough. Do you need a teleprompter, hon. Speaker? Or maybe that's me. In the gallery today are Blanche and Marcel Juneau, more recently from Harrison but originally from our area. I hope the House will make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: Actually, it's a pleasure for me today to get up and introduce someone to the House who is new to the world. It's a first grandchild on both sides of the family. We have a very proud grandfather in this House. He's a great fisherman and is trying to figure out whether the boy is left-handed or right-handed, so he can buy a fishing rod for him. His name is Joshua Dale. He was born May 20 to Pam and Dale, and the member for Peace River South is a proud grandfather.

[1410]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, between May 26 and May 30 of this year, the national Reach for the Top championships were held. I'm sure there are people in this House who are probably old enough that they remember what "Reach for the Top" was when it was televised on CBC. It's no longer televised on CBC, but it is carrying on. I thought that I would let the House know that my former alma mater, University Hill Secondary School, won the British Columbia Reach for the Top championship, and they placed fifth in Canada. They have just come back, and I hope the House will give them all of their appreciation and applause for their exceptional accomplishment.

E. Conroy: An old friend of mine, Wayne Peppard, who's accompanied by Tom Sigurdson from the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council, is in the House today. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Roddick: In March of 1994 the Globe and Mail 's Gary Lamphier wrote: " . . . a field studded with thousands of yellow daffodils. It's an intoxicating sight, a bit like the flower-splashed meadow that greeted Dorothy and her pals on the outskirts of Oz."

On May 13 of this year B.C. and Canada lost someone who raised the bar for agricultural achievement, with the passing of Geoffrey Vantreight. He was a prominent figure in the Saanich municipality, serving on its council and on its police board. As the flower grower behind the Canadian Cancer Society's annual Daffodil Day, he helped to raise money towards and give hope for the day when that horrible disease will finally be beaten. On behalf of myself and the members for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Saanich North and the Islands, I would ask that this House recognize and show its appreciation for a man worth remembering and take this time to respect his achievements.

Introduction of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. P. Ramsay presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is with great pleasure that I introduce Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act 2000. This bill will achieve two fundamental goals of this government. First, it will usher in a clear and transparent made-in-B.C. personal income tax system. Second, it will legislate the tax cuts announced in Budget 2000. The proposed amendments in this bill represent a historic step in provincial income tax policy. British Columbia will now, for the first time ever, have control over design of its own tax system.

Under the new system, the rate of tax that people pay will be clear and transparent, because provincial tax rates will apply to taxable income rather than federal tax. In addition, provincial support to taxpayers through non-refundable tax credits will be clear and will reflect provincial priorities. In addition, Bill 19 will legislate the tax cuts announced in Budget 2000. British Columbia personal income taxes will be reduced this year and again in 2001. The tax structure will be indexed to put an end to tax increases resulting from inflation or bracket creep.

By the end of next year, a family of four with two incomes totalling $60,000 will pay only 5.4 percent of their income in provincial income tax, and they will save over $450 with those tax cuts. A family of four with one income of $40,000 will pay only 4.9 percent of their income in provincial tax, a savings of $433, and a single-parent family with an income of $20,000 will pay a mere 1.3 percent in provincial income tax, a savings of almost $300. Mr. Speaker, 100,000 additional low-income British Columbians will no longer be required to pay provincial income taxes at all.

[1415]

These tax cuts will mean more money in the pockets of all British Columbians, and the made-in-B.C. tax system means that British Columbians can make their income tax system more progressive and ensure that those who need the tax relief the most get that relief. The transparency of the tax-on-income system means that British Columbians will now know exactly what proportion of their income goes to support social programs like health, education and child care.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 15958 ]

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Petter: The Electoral Districts Amendment Act corrects technical errors and omissions in

schedule 2 of the Electoral Districts Act. Last year, when the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled its final report on June 3, 1999, the Legislative Assembly accepted the report without amendments. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act stipulates that the government must introduce a bill to establish the new electoral districts in the same legislative session as the report is tabled.

Consequently, the Electoral Districts Act underwent extensive revision last year under severe time constraints to establish new electoral districts for the province. Unfortunately, due to the compressed timetable in which the bill was prepared, there were a number of errors made in legal descriptions of electoral boundaries in

schedule 2 of the act. This bill amends those errors in those legal descriptions and ensures that the legal descriptions more accurately correspond with the boundary descriptions in the Electoral Boundaries Commission report, which was, of course, the intention of the original legislation.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NEED FOR CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS

IN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

L. Reid: Just last week the University of British Columbia school of social work graduated 53 social work graduates. Yet not one of those 53 individuals has applied to work for this ministry in the area of child protection. Will this minister tell us how she expects to hire more child protection workers when not one of this year's graduates wants to work for her ministry as a child protection worker?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I thank the member for the question. I would like to inform the House that the ministry is disappointed that some of the UBC graduates aren't coming to this ministry. They're missing a great opportunity. I have had conversations with several members of the faculty at UBC and other universities. I'm very proud to say that other universities are indeed sending their graduates to this ministry and other ministries of government. This ministry is working very hard to recruit new social workers and workers for our process and our system, and we're anticipating 130 new people coming into the ministry this year.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.

L. Reid: Let's be clear that we understand the problem. There's a 44 percent vacancy rate across the north. The fact that the minister is disappointed does not warm the hearts of families today who rely on that service. It's a huge problem -- a huge problem.

Perhaps we can move to a remedy. Individuals today have to pay $180 to take

part in this pre-employment orientation program to be part of this ministry as a child protection worker. Will this minister today get to her feet and commit to assume those costs, to cover those costs for individuals who might work in the province of British Columbia as a child protection worker?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The pre-employment program is one that we are rather proud of, actually. In fact, this year it's going to be graduating quite a number of people. I gather it's about 40 people the first session and over 100 in the second. It is working, and it is a tool that we are trying to use in the meantime in order to help us get the qualified people we need in the ministry.

[1420]

SALE OF FAST FERRIES

G. Farrell-Collins: On March 13 of this year the NDP stood up and announced that they would be putting the disastrous fast ferries up for sale at a cost of about $40 million each. We've obtained a copy of the Ferry Corporation board minutes for March 3 -- ten days earlier -- where there was a discussion of a report entitled "Beyond Pacificat." It says: "The potential for sale of the Pacificats is limited." Will the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries tell us why she didn't tell the people of British Columbia at the time she announced this sale that the chance of ever selling them was limited at best?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I freely admit I don't know the document that the member is referring to, so I can't in any way suggest that the way he's interpreting it is correct or not. What I do know is that we are selling the fast cats -- later this week we will announce the company that will be managing the sale for us -- that we are operating the fast cats as we speak and that the ships are considered to be well built. Again, we admit that they're not suitable for the waters of British Columbia. We'll be proceeding in the most cost-effective way to get the best price for the Pacificats.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: It took three months just to try and find somebody who would even agree to sell them.

The same board minutes . . . . These are the Ferry Corporation board minutes, and I assume that the minister gets briefed on these periodically. It says: "It is a buyer's market. Currently there is an overcapacity of shipyards and an oversupply of existing vessels." It goes on to state that this oversupply will last for the next five years. Will the minister come clean with the public of British Columbia and tell them there isn't a hope in hell that we're going to be able to sell these things anytime in the near future -- that we're going to be left holding the bag for them yet again?

[ Page 15959 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, all of those factors were announced at the news conference at which the Minister of Finance and I announced the sale. All of those factors were recognized and have been taken into account in valuing the vessels. So there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- new in what the member brings forward. All of that was revealed at the time we announced that we were selling them.

C. Clark: You know, the only way she's going to be able to sell these fast ferries is if she has a push, pull or tow sale. That's the only way she'll get rid of them.

The board minutes also reveal that B.C. Ferries now has a policy of "rotating the Pacificats into service on a weekly basis," so that an engineering crew can work through the defects on the weeks that they're not on. So in other words, the fast ferries are spending one week on the water in service and then the next week in the garage getting fixed -- one week on the water and one week in the garage. Can the minister explain how she expects that anybody's going to want to buy these lemons when they're in such rotten shape that for every week they spend on the water, they spend the next week in the repair shop?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, old news, hon. Speaker. Pretty soon they're going to have to find something else to focus on -- perhaps things that the broad public actually care about.

At the time, we also announced . . . . In fact, it was earlier this spring, around January of 2000. The B.C. Ferry Corporation announced that because of the higher operating costs -- admitted -- and because of no additional time value added to speedier sailings, the Pacificats would be rotated into the regularly scheduled vessels. In the meantime, they would have the regular maintenance done -- regular maintenance done, hon. Speaker -- in order to keep them operating on a rotational basis. There is absolutely nothing new that this Liberal opposition is making known to the public. What they fail to understand is that this new government has already made all that evidence available.

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.

[1425]

REVIEW OF THE CONDITION

OF B.C. FERRIES VESSELS

C. Clark: There must be used car dealers across this province that watch question period, see this minister and say: "Boy, I hope she walks onto my lot."

You know, the fast ferries are almost a joke. They're almost a joke to people around Victoria. But real people in British Columbia pay the price for the incompetence that this government has shown with the fast ferries. Take the people up in Prince Rupert, for example, who used to be represented by the minister responsible for fast ferries. This government promised that they would replace the ferry up there by 1997. There is now a 34-year-old crate still plying the waters up there, and there is no approved plan to replace it. Will the minister tell us . . . ?

Will she explain to British Columbians how they can keep paying the price for her government's hopeless, hopeless incompetence on the fast ferries?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, about two weeks ago the B.C. Ferry Corporation issued their five-year capital plan, in which it was also confirmed -- again something that the Minister of Finance and I announced at the time we said that the fast cats were up for sale -- that the corporation, for the first time -- yes, for the first time -- had done a thorough review of the stock of vessels. Not to accept the industry's standard of one vessel having a 20-year life or a 30-year life or a 40-year-life, the corporation actually went in and examined what the real life remaining in the various vessels is, including the ship that sails to Prince Rupert.

The good news, again, has already been revealed about two weeks ago. In fact, the critic for the B.C. Ferries actually said: "My gosh, the Ferry Corporation got this right." That was his public comment; maybe he forgot to tell them that he said it. What he said was: "It makes sense to do an actual review, an actual testing of the real life in the vessel."

That means that for $117 million this year and over the next five years about $400 million, we can extend the life of the current stock. And that is exactly what we're doing, hon. Speaker.

NURSING SHORTAGE IN QUESNEL

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The intensive care unit at G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital in Quesnel is closed indefinitely because of a nursing shortage. This means that critical care patients in Quesnel will have to take air ambulance to Vancouver and pay hundreds of dollars for their flight. Will the Minister of Health explain to the people of Quesnel why his NDP government has failed them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are working with the region and the health authority to address the issue around nursing shortages. That's why we are developing a nursing retention strategy to address the issue around the retention of nurses in the situation in Quesnel. We are dealing with it as expeditiously as we can.

GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF

LUBRICANTS AND CONDOMS

AT NEEDLE EXCHANGE CENTRES

M. de Jong: Actually, moments ago a pretty important deadline passed. Two o'clock today was the deadline for suppliers to respond to the Ministry of Health's solicitation No. 130576. The minister's asking: "What would that be?"

Well, it seems that the NDP has decided to begin offering free personal lubrication products out of needle exchange centres. At a time when there's not enough money for detox and other treatment centres, will the minister confirm that the NDP intends to provide free personal lubrication products? And how much is it going to cost the public?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll be pleased to take the question on notice and get back to the hon. member as quickly as I can.

[1430]

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a new question.

[ Page 15960 ]

M. de Jong: Yeah, a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Sadly, no -- to the member.

Apparently this is how this is going to work. Prior to finalizing the contract, people are going to be given their free lubricant and asked to assess it on the basis of "taste, smell, lubrication properties like length of time and stickiness . . . . "

The Speaker: Member.

M. de Jong: In addition, Mr. Speaker, suppliers wishing to bid on the contract have been told: "Samples of the personal lubrication must be provided at no cost to the government."

The Speaker: Will the member state his question, please.

M. de Jong: To the minister: without disclosing any secrets about what actually goes on at cabinet meetings, will he explain how it is that spending priorities within his ministry could be so askew?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The question was taken on notice. I will, as I said, endeavour to get the member an answer as quickly and as expeditiously as I am able to.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a new question.

M. de Jong: I don't want this to be one of those questions taken on notice that sort of slides off into the future without getting an answer. The point is this, Mr. Speaker . . . .

The Speaker: The member will ask a new question, please.

M. de Jong: I will, Mr. Speaker. Here we've got a government contract from a ministry that professes to not have sufficient moneys for a lot of important services on the downtown east side -- detox centres, schizophrenia, nurses, ambulance service. Today at 2 o'clock the government began receiving free personal lubrication samples. How much is the government going to spend on these particular items? Even today, can't the minister confirm that that money is better spent elsewhere within the health care system? Surely he can confirm that for us today.

The Speaker: The question was taken on notice. Members, any further questions? Question period is over.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter: I ask leave to table two reports, the 1997 annual report of the Ministry of Attorney General and the 1999 annual report of the criminal injury compensation program.

Hon. H. Lali: I have the honour to present the 1998-99 annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Government Financial Accountability for the 1997-98 Fiscal Year." I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move the report be adopted. This report describes work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to three items. It reviews the auditor general's report of 1997-98, issued in November 1998; it considers a June 1999 report of the auditor general regarding the province's financial management, specifically . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member.

Members, we can't hear the speaker. If members must leave the chamber, would they do it quietly, please.

R. Thorpe: . . . the reporting of the provincial debt and debt management planning; and thirdly, the report describes the committee's work to review the corporate accounting system and the corporate human resource information and payroll system.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report. I would like to thank the Deputy Chair and all members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout the last session, as well as the office of the Clerk of Committees, for their ongoing assistance and support.

[1435]

Motion approved.

Petitions

D. Symons: I rise to present a petition. I have a petition signed by 380 property owners of five strata title commercial properties in Richmond. They're seeking a fair property tax between strata and non-strata retail properties.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will continue debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In Committee B, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

[ Page 15961 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY

AND MINES AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE

FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 27: ministry operations, $37,969,000 (continued).

R. Neufeld: There are a number of questions some of the other members have that maybe we can deal with right now, if that's okay. I'll just turn it over to the first one, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

R. Coleman: This is basically some information for the minister. I'm going to ask him if he could have his staff look into this, because it's a concern that's come to my office and also through a number of people living in the area of Boston Bar.

There's a gentleman who lives up there by the name of William Peter Gorko. William Gorko is basically, for all intents and purposes, what would be described as a hermit. He has lived in the area for some 22 years. Recently some of his claims in the area were overstaked. When the inspector came by, they didn't choose to go to all the four corners of the staking area that was overstaked and, obviously, didn't see the stakes where the original stakes were.

The problem is this: Willy obviously doesn't have a telephone. In the wintertime he could be in for two months. He snowshoes to town and to Boston Bar, which could take him a day, at the age of 70, to do that. He grows his own herbs and what have you. There seems to be a difficulty getting communication.

So I thought that what I'd do today, if I could, for the minister is just read into the record the tenure numbers, the owner number, the map number and the tag numbers and ask if the minister could have his staff look into this, because the difficulty is obviously communication with someone that is living in isolation in an area of British Columbia -- which is actually almost like finding one of our original pioneers.

Here's a gentleman who actually grows his own herbs and items in the bush in British Columbia and has managed to eke out a living, living there in his own cabin -- doesn't run electricity, manages to survive with coal oil lanterns and food, drying his meat and what have you. It's quite an interesting story.

[1440]

So the tenure numbers are: 235501 Willy; 245577, which I'll put the name "Ernie" beside, because there's a gentleman by the name of Ernie that has claimed some of these, and there is some difficulty with these claims; 346596, which is called Willy 3; and 369639, which is called Willy 111. The owner number is 110049. The map number is 092104E. The tag numbers are 391880M, 663649M, 707405M and 707406M.

I know there are levels of communication that have taken place on some of these things, and that's why I wanted to bring it to the minister's attention, because I find this to be a rather unique situation with an individual that's so isolated and doesn't have the normal communication available to him that Mines or anybody else would require of him.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly we would be happy to look into the issue. For all members of the House, of course, I want everyone to understand that this should not be the only opportunity to raise those issues. At any time, if there are issues in your constituencies relative to my ministry, please approach my office, and we'll do our best to try to assist with any questions you have.

A. Sanders: I have a number of questions on behalf of constituents in the riding of Okanagan-Vernon, hon. Chair.

The first is concerning Granby Park, in the upper reaches of the Granby River, which is east of Vernon. This park has had removed a large block of prospective ground from exploration at the whim of someone in government. This move went directly against the recommendations of the CORE group working on the original study of the area and reinforced the belief that the CORE program and subsequent LRMP programs were smokescreens to keep people in large areas of the province unaware that land was being removed from the possibility of exploration.

To date, compensation has been very slow to individuals whose claims have been confiscated in the formation of parks, and this is certainly the case here. Last year the ministry requested applications from qualified individuals who were able to determine fair values for these claims. About six individuals in the province were deemed to possess suitable qualifications. During conversations with some of these individuals, I've learned that very few claims have ever been forwarded to them for evaluation. My question to the minister is: will the people in what is now Granby Park be compensated for their claims?

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated in response to an earlier question, we have established through legislation the right to compensation for claims that are taken as a result of the creation of parks. We have a budget for the resolution of claims. I don't have right now -- hopefully, I'll get it later -- the current number that we have resolved. We're working our way through these claims, and I'm confident that everyone who's in the position of having an outstanding claim will find or will see resolution.

A. Sanders: What is the time line for the compensation?

Hon. D. Miller: Time lines often depend on the parties. Clearly we've resolved some; we're desirous of resolving them all. But as to the time line on any specific claim, I'm afraid I can't give you an answer.

A. Sanders: My questions are not about all claims; they're about Granby Park. Is there any possible date for these people to understand with respect to when they would be compensated?

Hon. D. Miller: As I've indicated, we have resolved a good number of claims. We're working hard at resolving those that are outstanding. We want to treat claim holders fairly; we've done so. We've reached understandings with a number of them. We will continue to pursue that course. Hopefully, the claim that the member is referencing will be amongst them.

[1445]

A. Sanders: How many staff have left the Ministry of Mines geological survey branch in the last year?

[ Page 15962 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I've just been advised we maybe had three or four retirements. I don't have any more information beyond that.

A. Sanders: Besides retirements, how many have moved to the United States or elsewhere to practise their trade?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, just a general answer: this ministry was cut back fairly substantially a couple of years ago. We did reduce the number of personnel in the GSB. I'll try to get more specifics. As to where people go, we don't follow people. It's not the job of the ministry to determine where people go after they leave the ministry. So whether they went to the United States or anywhere else, I have no idea. Nor am I going to expend any effort to determine that question.

Notwithstanding that, I think it's fair to say that the British Columbia geological survey branch is considered, both by the industry and others, to be one of the better branches in the country; they do outstanding work. As a result of their work, which is displayed at the Geological Roundup every year in February, there is generally a rush of staking. So we're going to continue to try to work with industry. There is an industrial committee that advises the GSB. As far as I know, things are working very well.

A. Sanders: I concur with the minister. The geological survey branch is one of the best governmental geological survey groups in the world. They are staffed with geologists who have among the best databases in the world; that is something that's available free on the Internet at an award-winning site, I believe. The data that they have there shows mineral showings in the province, maps of locations, geological maps, and claims for claim tenure maps.

All of these people in the geological survey branch are hampered by the lack of budget to carry out field programs. So they certainly can do the desk part of their job in a survey, but not any or very little of the field. How many field survey people do we have in the geological survey branch?

Hon. D. Miller: It's 44 FTEs. But again, I'd suggest that members ought to think a little bit about positions they take. Certainly I've heard many advocates on that side of the House say that the simple way that government can get "the fiscal house in order," the very simple way to do that, is to simply make cuts across government ministries, reduce their budgets, because after all, everybody knows they're fat; there's too much money being spent, etc.

You know, we made some tough choices a few years ago. It wasn't easy, I can tell you, as a minister, making the choices we made. We reduced the geological survey branch from a staffing of 66 down to 44; that was very tough. Those are real people. It's not easy for the managers in trying to do that.

Notwithstanding that, the GSB continues to be, in my view, the pre-eminent geological survey branch across this country. I won't go into any extensive detail in terms of the work that they do. I've already indicated the sum of that. But those are the very real issues you face when you're trying to manage a ministry and you're trying to control expenditures across government. So I don't apologize for the reduction in budget. I think it's a testament to the men and women who work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the GSB that they continue, even with reduced staffing, to produce outstanding work.

[1450]

A. Sanders: Again, when we're looking at the individuals, there's no question about their quality. What kind of fieldwork they get to do after all of their learning is another question, under the auspices of the last decade.

I'd like to talk about the prospectors assistance program. If the minister could let us know, how many of the applicants to that program are actually funded?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we're searching for a number, Mr. Chairman. But I can tell you that we've maintained the half-a-million-dollar prospectors assistance program, even through the budget cuts, and it's well appreciated. I've spoken to this organization and individuals from the organization on a number of occasions. Last year this half-a-million-dollar program provided assistance to 51 prospectors.

A. Sanders: My constituents tell me that only 25 to 50 percent of the applicants actually ever receive funding. Is that within the ballpark -- from the ministry staff?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah: 120 applications, 51 grants.

A. Sanders: I think, just for the record for people, it is important to recognize that these prospectors do get supplied with $10,000 if they're qualified, to a total of $500,000 for the program, which is helping approximately half of those who would look for mineral investment in B.C.

Last year the government earmarked $5 million to pay expenses related to the B.C. 20 percent mining exploration tax credit. A reflection of the sorry state of the mining industry in the province is that these funds were not fully used. Is there any recommendation? Or has the minister considered using these funds, if they are not to be used there in the prospectors assistance program?

Hon. D. Miller: No. The amount of money made available under the legislation that I've referred to on a couple of occasions in this House earlier today was $9 million. The difficulty . . . .

In fact, all Mines ministers across the country have been urging the federal government to restore the flow-through provisions that used to exist in this country. And if you look at exploration expenditures in any particular province when the flow-through program was available, there was significant money spent on exploration. That's because on the flow-through, the tax benefits can be passed on not just to the principal company but to investors in that company. So I, along with other Mines ministers, have urged the federal Finance minister to once again restore that program in order to accelerate or increase the amount of money being spent on exploration.

So no, we're not contemplating taking any of that and making it available to the prospectors assistance program.

J. Reid: There's been concern in the community of Nanaimo with regards to a gravel quarry application in the Jameson Road area. The background of the dispute in this area is that initially the ministry assured the residents that the application would have to conform to local plans. There was the local official community plan, there was a growth strategy

[ Page 15963 ]

plan, and there were zoning bylaws. This area in particular was designated rural-residential. There were other areas that were designated resource extraction.

Later the ministry reversed this position, leaving many of the residents feeling very betrayed. The residents' particular concerns were with the road traffic safety noise. They presented their concerns quite thoroughly, I believe, to the technical review committee looking into this project. Could the minister explain why the initial letter was sent out? I believe there was a directive at that time that the local zoning should be considered. Why was that position reversed? At what stage of the process is the application at this time?

[1455]

Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct: I did send a letter out. I felt a little bit embarrassed by it, actually, because I did say in that initial letter that we would be waiting for the results of the official community plan. Subsequent to that I was advised that the letter was in error and that, in fact, legally the ministry was not allowed to take that position. We were obliged under the law or under the legislation to proceed to consider the application. As I say, I did feel a bit embarrassed about it, because I don't like to be put in that position. Be that as it may, there were some extenuating circumstances. I think the planning process took much longer than anyone had contemplated.

If I could move beyond Jameson Road, I think there is a larger issue in that we are the permitting agency. Many municipalities and regional districts around the province have tried a variety of mechanisms to limit activity within their boundaries, soil removal bylaws being the typical vehicle. But soil removal bylaws . . . . We have some models. We try to work with municipal governments and regional governments to ensure that whatever they adopt as a soil removal bylaw is legal. But you can appreciate that there are areas of conflict between the ministry and local governments.

I'm not exactly certain where the Jameson Road issue is at the moment. The reason for that is that I do not personally take a hand in these matters. You'll appreciate -- and again it may be an area that ought to be or could be open for debate -- that my view is that if you have a good process for making decisions, you ought to leave it alone politically. In other words, it shouldn't be directed by a politician.

As a matter of course, I rely on my ministry staff. There is a good mine development process, I think, in the regions, run by my ministry. They do try to consider the broad public interest with respect to areas like traffic, dust and noise -- those kinds of things. I don't direct them politically in terms of their decision-making. So it's in process -- where, precisely, I'm not certain. I could consult and try to get some answers to your questions later from the chief inspector of mines, and I'll attempt to do that. But that's generally the state of things.

J. Reid: I think this dispute has been more upsetting to the area because, as the minister said, that letter did go out initially, which misled a lot of the residents. In fact, at that time some properties were purchased under that assurance. Now there are definitely concerns in the community about the impacts of the process. Understandably, there is this tool the minister is referring to -- soil removal bylaws that can be used in communities to prevent this kind of situation occurring. The minister recognizes that there are concerns.

Is there anything that can be done in this particular situation, acknowledging that we're not looking for political interference? We're looking for process. But there are the legitimate concerns that the minister realizes exist on the part of the residents and the local government and the jurisdiction of the ministry. If the minister could suggest anything else that could be considered or that the residents should be looking at in this particular situation . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to any decisions made by private property owners, I don't think . . . . Again, I admitted readily that I didn't like being put in the position of having sent a letter out that said one thing and then being advised legally that I ought not to have done that; but I'll take that. I'm big enough to take any criticism that is aimed at me as a result of that. But I don't think that we ever, in putting that letter out, indicated yea or nay. We simply said that we were looking at . . . . So I kind of reject any arguments around that.

Again, I am somewhat concerned. You know, we like to and did have an exchange this morning about how sometimes it's particularly difficult to make decisions about quarries. I find around the province, particularly in the lower mainland and particularly where the areas have become urbanized, that people are demanding that even existing quarries be shut down. So you can appreciate that it's not always easy.

[1500]

You have to give, I think, due consideration to the rights of property owners, and I say that with respect to the people who have property they want to quarry. In other words, you can't . . . . I think all government officials . . . . Certainly it was my experience municipally when I was a councillor that you can't be capricious or arbitrary about how you treat people who make legitimate applications under legislation. You have to give them due consideration; you're obliged to do that. To do anything else would be an abuse of government.

So we do, I think, have a good process in place to consider these applications. I'm a strong believer that you ought to let the process work and let the officials who are in charge of it come to a decision after that due process and due consideration.

However, I've noticed anomalies that are starting to develop. I was somewhat bemused that the city of Surrey, for example, gave approval to a gravel mining operation within their boundaries, and they had no right to. The applicant never even applied to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Yet it was a big, contentious issue in Surrey. So clearly there's a broader issue that we perhaps ought to be looking at. I've talked to some of the mayors about the issue and whether or not we ought to be looking at reviewing the legislative authority and looking at whether or not municipal or regional government ought to be involved in the approval process. But it's a pretty tricky area.

We also know that we need a certain volume -- a certain supply -- of gravel annually in this province. That ranges from everything -- from the ordinary homeowner who may buy a truck of gravel to the municipal government that's paving roads or the provincial government that's paving roads or people who are building buildings. And we know that there's a price for that. I guess if we unduly constrain the supply of gravel, then we have to ask ourselves: "Is everybody prepared to pay the price increase that might ensue?" It's not a simple or easy matter to deal with.

[ Page 15964 ]

I'm weighing and mulling a lot of these questions. In the meantime I am relying on my officials to do a good job in assessing applications and hopefully making decisions that are reasonable, given all the facts.

D. Jarvis: I guess before the break we were talking a lot about LRMPs and different aspects of that. There doesn't seem to be any question that mining appears to be in trouble in this province. You know, I guess the big question is how far we are going to go before we stop mining in this province. Last year they had a tax loss -- a big tax loss -- of about $133 million after taxes. There is literally no investment in mining in this province. Exploration is down to $19 million to $25 million.

Actually, only $1 million of that, from what I understand, was in grass-roots exploration, where prospectors went out -- only $1 million of that, which is very little.

The fact that the area they have to go prospecting in is slowly being crunched into being closed off . . . . There's nothing more benign than a prospector going out and looking for a site of minerals.

[1505]

You told us earlier today that parks have now reached a stage of -- I'm not quite sure exactly what that figure was, but it was very little -- about 11.3 percent, I think, in this province. That only represents 60 percent of the province; another 40 percent of the province has not even gone through the resource land use process. So that ostensibly means that we are going to see, as you said, more than the 12 percent of parks that was contracted for with the people of British Columbia and the mining industry.

On your original mandate when you sought election back in 1991, you said that we were going to put 12 percent into the province into parks, and everyone bought into that. Now we see it's extending, extending, extending. We're probably going to see 30-plus before we're finished; it almost appears that way. Heaven knows what they have planned in the other five or six, seven or ten land LRMP process groups that are going, like the Stikine, Okanagan, Lillooet and those. I have not seen any of the reports on it or maps or how they divided it up.

But there are a couple of questions I did have on that LRMP process. The minister could give me what the costing is to this province, say, directly. How many million dollars a year is it costing for this LRMP process -- for the funding, the salaries, expenses of government staff and the consultants? And if they are paying any non-government officials to speak at these hearings, and if they have an approximate cost of what it cost last year . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Just a few questions were asked there. With respect to the level of activity . . . .

Oh, first of all, let me deal with gravel. There's an amazing statistic, actually. The average per-capita usage of gravel is 110 tonnes per year per capita. So you can appreciate that that's . . . . You know, I don't eat it with my cereal, but I can tell you that that's a lot of gravel, a lot of rocks. It's 50 million tonnes a year.

The member for Peace River North might appreciate this. I was in Fort St. John the other day and just outside, on the B.C. Railway spur, is a huge pile of gravel, because we're doing outstanding work in that member's constituency. The member was there. I was pleased to announce the first expenditures of the $103 million highway development package for northeastern B.C., pleased to announce that we're paving the Liard Highway over five years. But clearly in an area of the country where there's not a lot of gravel, they've had to bring it up from the South Peace.

That rather modest pile of gravel that I looked at was worth $3 million. So it kind of gives you a picture of both the magnitude of the volume we use and the costs associated with that.

Of course, for constituencies like North Peace, any dramatic increase in the price of gravel means that it's going to be a lot more costly to pave roads and to build those base roads in that member's constituency.

Now, on the issue of the level of expenditures and what the contributing factors are, we touched on that this morning. I really was remiss in not reporting that one of the problems faced with the resource sector -- quite frankly, this really spreads across not only mining but forestry and other sectors as well -- is the current state of play with respect to the stock market. What they call the dot-com stocks have really sucked up -- they've been a huge vacuum cleaner in sucking up -- capital from investors. It's a serious problem, and the industry dealt with it extensively at the Prospectors and Developers Association conference in Toronto a number of months ago.

I say that that's shifted somewhat with the corrections taking place in the market. The lustre has gone off some of the dot-com stocks, but still it's a serious problem. I think that for any resource company that's performing reasonably well these days, their stock is probably very much undervalued. Go to any of the forest companies that operate in this province, or any of the others -- the mining companies -- and look at their results. In other words, what are their actual performance results? Then look at the value of their stocks, and I think you'll agree that those stocks are significantly undervalued.

I'm not here advising people to buy resource stocks, but were I to play the market, which I don't, that would be an area that I'd look at with keen interest, because some of the returns . . . . For example, in the forest sector I think the first quarter results indicate about a $250 million net profit this year, versus about a $59 million net profit last year. So clearly the performance is improving, yet they're undervalued because of the nature of the almost frenzy with respect to dot-com stocks on the market.

[1510]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

It's also interesting to note that we anticipate . . . . And I did refer to what I thought was a bottoming out last year in terms of exploration expenditures. We estimate now that exploration expenditures are 10 percent to 15 percent currently over last year. New mineral tenure recordings are up 30 percent from last year. All of those are positive indicators, from my point of view, that there's been a renewed interest. Perhaps some of the work that we've done, in all modesty, may actually be paying off a little bit.

But let's listen to some figures from other Canadian provinces, because I think we in British Columbia tend to get a little fixated on what happens here and to think, I believe quite erroneously, that it's only in British Columbia. I'll just read the following figures in terms of exploration expenditures in other jurisdictions to illustrate -- and these are really '99 versus

[ Page 15965 ]

1998 -- that the member really shouldn't be too despairing that it's only in British Columbia that the impact of low commodity prices and these other questions, these land use questions . . . . Indeed, even in Ontario, there's issues there. We are down about 23 percent -- and this is '99 over '98. Ontario was down 25 percent. Now I know that Ontario is often held up as the model. But exploration expenditures in Ontario in 1999 were down 25 percent over 1998.

Now, if we accept the fact that we have the best government in Canada in Ontario, which I often hear those members saying, then what other explanation can we possibly come forward with that would cause a 25 percent reduction in exploration expenditures in Ontario? The member can perhaps see where I'm going here: Quebec, down 14 percent; Northwest Territories, Nunavut -- even with the spectacular diamond finds -- down 13 percent; Newfoundland, and my old friend Brian Tobin, down 32 percent.

So, really, I'd ask the members to sort of keep things in a relative context. I know the zeal with which the members would like to criticize this government, but I think it's important to try to maintain some kind of balance with respect to criticism, if for only one reason -- and I've really tried to . . . . I guess that sometimes I might even be guilty of lecturing the mining industry. And it really goes to that old fable that we were all taught as children: Chicken Little. If you always run around and say the sky is falling . . . .

You know, people, all that the mining industry says in B.C. is: "Don't come to B.C. to make an investment . . . . " Well, guess what. I bet you that some people are dissuaded from looking at B.C. So what I'm trying to say to them is: "Why don't you . . . ? " Quite acceptably, if you have criticisms, I want to hear about them. I don't care if they're in the newspapers or anything else. I don't want you to not criticize where you think you have legitimate areas of criticism.

But if some good things are happening, if there are some positives which you think are of benefit to our province and might assist in levering more investment to our province, why don't you say that at the same time? Why don't you try to balance your criticism with some positive comments, if you can find them?

And certainly, the fact that we appear to be on an upswing with respect to the level of exploration activity and the 30 percent increase in new mineral tenures, plus some very, very interesting activity, particularly in areas like Wells, B.C., where there is a significant amount of new activity . . . . I think some people think that there's a lot of gold up there that people overlooked. There's a lot of claims staking in the area. And I for one certainly hope that we see some positive results of that staking.

So the member had one other question, and I'm trying to recall what it was. He asked so many in his varied comments. It was something to do with the cost . . . .

Interjection.

[1515]

Hon. D. Miller: Okay, the cost of the LRMP process. Again, if I had it at my fingertips or if my staff had it, I'd give it. But with all due respect, Madam Chair, it is a more appropriate question for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, who is responsible for the land use coordination office. That's where the funding is. I would respectfully ask the member to direct the question to the appropriate minister. As I say, if I had it here I'd give you the answer, but I simply don't have it.

D. Jarvis: What I was more or less asking about . . . . I appreciate that the majority of the costs would be on the Environment ministry's side, but I assume that the Ministry of Mines sent people into the land resource process. I assume that members and officials from your ministry went in there, and I assume that they had a cost to them and you kept track of what their costs would be, going in there. So I appreciate the fact that you don't have it available to us. Can you perhaps give it to us at a later date or send it to me?

It was an interesting part of your answer, and I agree with you, first of all, on the gravel aspect. I hadn't realized that that many tonnes were used. But isn't it fortunate now that the opposition party finally convinced your government to have a policy to deal with the gravel situation? Now, there's a positive. If that hadn't happened, guess what. We'd still be out wandering the wilderness, and everyone would be in a state of confusion. But one of these days it's gonna be . . . . Now, how long, I don't know.

The other thing, Madam Chair . . . . I don't deal in fairy tales. Maybe that's your policy. Maybe that's why we're having problems. But we look at our land management program in this province, and we have now got to 60 percent of the province, and it's taken us eight years. Eight years to get 60 percent. You brought up the subject. I would never bring it up myself -- that was Ontario. Ontario went into a land management program. They finished it in two years -- did all of Ontario. You probably saw their press release. It's kind of interesting.

They're now going to provide $850 million over the next four years to rehabilitate and expand the northern highway system in order to help mining and forestry.

Whereas we're going the exact opposite. We're closing down our roads.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, through your land use programs, you will certainly not be able to put new roads through.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: As was said by the member for Chilliwack, we're deactivating roads. We went through that earlier today. But that's how you expand your province: through roads. And here you are cutting off, with these land use programs, access into areas all across our province. That's certainly a negative way of trying to create development and exploration.

Ontario is going to reduce the Ontario mining tax from 20 percent down to 10 percent over the next five years. Now, there's a positive thing that Ontario's doing. Ontario's going to increase tax incentives provided to investors through a flow-through shares program. Ontario's going to provide a ten-year tax holiday for new remote mines. It's pretty good. We're not doing that, are we? Perhaps he can answer me on that.

Ontario's going to create a new geoscience information . . . to encourage exploration for new mines. I notice that you came out with a press release -- which is a good press release; you see, I'm saying positive things about you -- back in July '99, saying that a task group was formed to increase

[ Page 15966 ]

mineral exploration in British Columbia. I wonder how successful that has been. And that will be one of my questions. Where have you expanded that, and have you kept track of what's going on and how your task force has done?

[1520]

Going back to Ontario again, Ontario will provide $3 million for advanced technologies for mineral exploration. Ontario is doing a good job out there. It only took them two years to get a land management program in their province. Here we are in our eighth year in this province, going on nine, and we've only got the 60 percent. I'm not complaining about it; I'm just saying that's the actual facts. You said you wanted to hear about those things. So obviously something drastic is happening, is going on, that's not really proper in this province.

I ask the minister if he can tell me, with regards to his press release back in July 1999 that he was going to have a task force formed to help mineral exploration recovery in B.C. mines . . . . "The group will work with government, first nations and industry and help these groups communicate." I am wondering if he could tell us: what is the progress of that task force? How has that encouraged new prospecting in British Columbia? Have there been any new claims reported as a result of that?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps the member might send a copy my way. I'm trying to decipher which document you're referring to. Perhaps I could ask the question.

We did sit down with some explorationists, such as J. Paul Stevenson, who made what I thought was quite a good proposal to try to work in a particular area of the province with some first nations, to try to develop a better relationship with first nations and the mining industry. We provided some funding for that; the industry itself was also supportive. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that's the document the member is referring to. If you could send a copy over . . . . Or the member might wish to acknowledge that that's what it is.

D. Jarvis: It's out of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, for immediate release on July 7, 1999; the number of it is 029. It's: "Task Group Formed to Increase . . . . " The contacts are Charene Cranston and J. Paul Stevenson.

An Hon. Member: That's it.

D. Jarvis: That's what I'm talking about. I just wonder if the minister could tell me how that's developed. Have any results come from that -- specific results? Did he track it?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know that we can report any final conclusions. There was an attempt to develop a draft kind of agreement. I think the work is continuing, and I think the effort by people from the exploration community to work on this particular topic was quite worthwhile. It's the kind of thing that we try to support in the ministry.

We all talk about land use issues and the difficulties that ensue. Certainly the member has talked to me and others have written to me about some of the issues around aboriginal rights and those kinds of questions and the occasional conflicts that arise there. Any attempt to put people together to try to work out an understanding so they know each other better and so first nations develop a understanding of the opportunities in the mining sector is, I think, worthwhile. There's no significant outcomes from that. But it's the kind of work that we like to support.

D. Jarvis: With regards to the LRMP meetings, I understand that the ministry sent the geological experts from the ministry to some of these LRMP meetings. If not, why . . . ? Were they allowed to go in and give their opinions as to exactly what the problem was with some of the promises that they were trying to put forward?

[1525]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, our role is really twofold. One is to provide the baseline data -- in other words, to supply the geological maps to indicate where the mineralization is. Second, we do have people from the regions at specific LRMPs.

D. Jarvis: Those geological experts that went in . . . . Were they there to give their opinion as to the amount of geological finds in the area? I wonder if there was expert evidence or anything showing that there was mineralization in those areas. Was it taken into consideration when you got the consensus to virtually close down the open mining in that area?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

D. Jarvis: The minister will probably remember -- and it's only a few weeks ago I guess when he spoke out quite strongly against some secret deals being made between forestry and environmental groups, etc., in the central coast area . . . . I can only assume that by his -- and here I'm being positive -- speaking out on that aspect, he was against it and didn't believe that should happen. I don't assume that, because I haven't heard any further that it had got far in the cabinet. They haven't made any decisions on that, obviously.

But anyway, was the minister aware that . . . ? I've been told that there's been no support from the minister with regards to the Mackenzie LRMP process and the fact that there was a deal made basically outside of the consensus, or the committee meetings, between the forestry people and the environmental groups in that area. Are you aware of such a meeting?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the first issue, the member ought to read the paper today. If you read the Vancouver Sun you'll see there's an

article citing some representatives of forest companies and environmental organizations, in which they've agreed that they are going to, I'll say, stand down or suspend their secret discussions and go out and apologize to everyone for having them in the first place. We'll see where that goes. I think I was quite appropriate in speaking out against that endeavour.

I spoke earlier about the difficulty of the LRMP process, the difficulty, generally, of coming to grips with a land use plan in any particular region. This province has been populated extensively by non-aboriginals for some time. We've got a fairly well-developed forest sector, mining sector and others out there. Making decisions now about areas to preserve and parks to set aside is a very difficult exercise, but one that I think, again, has the overwhelming support of all British Columbians.

We try to provide, from my ministry's perspective, the baseline data, the solid information. Where is the mineraliza-

[ Page 15967 ]

tion zone? Where is the oil and gas? And we do that to inform the table, just as the Ministry of Forests provides data with respect to the forestry resource values in any given region. Others, as well, bring their perspective or their factual information in terms of wildlife population, in terms of critical habitat, in terms of unique zones. All of that information is there to inform the table, which then grapples with all of that and tries to formulate a broad-based land use plan.

[1530]

There is some discipline at the table. There are trade-offs at the table. And while they may be difficult to achieve, the end result, I think, is laudable. Who could argue that we ought not to have done a land use plan for Vancouver Island? Who could argue that we ought not to have done a land use plan for the Cariboo? Who could argue that we ought not to have done a land use plan in any particular region where we have one?

Despite the difficulties, despite the conflicts and the tensions that arise out of that process, there is not a British Columbian -- well, maybe there are a couple -- who would say: "We ought to abandon this; we ought to shut it down. We shouldn't even have started it." We've got to finish the job.

So we provide to the table that kind of information. They wrestle with that in terms of trying to formulate a plan that achieves as much as possible those kinds of objectives, both with respect to preservation and with respect to maintaining economic activity. Along the way, as has happened in past land use plans, there are sometimes areas that forest companies would like to harvest that are removed. There are sometimes areas that mining companies would like to explore that are removed.

But I guess that when you're trying to put this together, that is one of the natural results. You cannot, in the age-old example, cut the baby in half to resolve a dispute. It requires compromise. For the most part, I've been quite pleased with the result -- for the most part. So we'll try to continue and, hopefully, to make the right kinds of decisions.

I would point out to the member that we have created in northeastern B.C. some of the most magnificent parks in this country, in the world, in my view. At the same time we have an oil and gas sector that appears to be able to accommodate that.

The member talked about the negatives. Well, what about the positives? What about the fact that the revenue for '99 over '98 -- and this is just direct revenue to government -- increased from about $360 million to $600 million?

What about the fact that I was in Fort St. John on Friday announcing a further $103 million road infrastructure package to assist the industry to find access to pave, for the first time, the Liard Highway? I can tell you, I talked to the mayor of Fort Nelson, I talked to the mayor of Fort St. John, I've talked to lots of the local politicians and I talked to industry. In fact, I even talked to the member for Peace River North, who appears to be quite pleased about the submission. So we are doing what the member talks about. The results speak for themselves.

We do lots of things to try to assist communities. Sometimes those are in areas where communities are threatened. It's much to my dismay, although I don't let politics get in my way. I don't let critics deter me from what I think may be the right course of action. When your party said we shouldn't have gone in and tried to work with the communities of Smithers and Hazelton and Terrace and Prince Rupert to save Skeena Cellulose, I ignored you. You were wrong.

I was delighted to be home last weekend and the weekend before that and the weekend before that. I was delighted to see that that company is thriving, that in today's pulp market they're making money. Those jobs in my community and in Terrace and Smithers and Hazelton are more secure than they were. We're not out of the woods yet. It's not fixed completely. But I was delighted that that's happening. I reminded myself again that despite the criticism from Liberals, we did the right thing.

We try as much as possible to work with the industry, mindful of the valuable commitment and the value that mining brings to British Columbia. It is an important industry; it's an important resource. It's going to be here for a long, long time to come. It's gone through some difficult times in terms of commodity prices and a few other issues. But I have absolute confidence that the industry will continue to grow and prosper.

[1535]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: First of all, the member from the Peace here was going to discuss that Liard road; he'd like to make a comment on it.

I wasn't speaking of those aspects of going out and paving existing roads. What I was talking about was Ontario's plan. The result of these LRMPs is that you have effectively cut this province into big chunks with your special management zones, your new designation of wild land and parks. We can't open the north of B.C. to create a road system for exploration or for tourism or whatever -- for hunters, trappers or just general recreation. I've also got to remind the minister that God created parks; you just designated them. You've got to remember that.

Unfortunately, the special interest groups have sterilized this province with these LRMPs. You cannot go from one area to the other, because of the rules and regulations that you're imposing. So I wanted to know with regards to . . . . I understand that in this new designation that you have called "wild lands," there is a special advisory board being created to govern the activities of . . . . Say you wanted to go in there with some kind of proposition. Could you tell me if the advisory board has any rules or regulations already set, and who will be appointed and whether your ministry has any input into those that are to be appointed?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member's wrong. As I indicated, we do attempt to ensure that people understand the values that are out there and, to the degree possible, that those opportunities are preserved for the future.

D. Jarvis: That's why I think the mining industry is so upset. The fact is that all these new rules and regulations and advisory boards, etc . . . . No one seems to know what it's all about. You've got to remember that we have a problem out there, a real problem. And no matter what you say or how good these LRMP processes are, there isn't the exploration and development in this province that there should be. Mines are closing faster than they are opening. As I said before, since

[ Page 15968 ]

1990, 14 metal mines have gone down. Now, I think, one or two coal mines have gone down. And only seven have started.

I don't want to be negative, but we are in a negative position when it comes to mining in this province. No matter what you say, your process is not a good process, in the sense that you are not creating any certainty in this province that would encourage development and exploration in British Columbia.

You said that you were doing this process of setup and that you had approval of the majority of the province. Whether you took a poll or . . . . I forgot how you explained that you did it, but you said you had the majority of the province. There was a poll done by the mining industry in January, and it showed that 96 percent of the people in British Columbia -- 96 percent -- wanted a healthy mineral industry in the province, providing it didn't have any negative effects on the environment.

We have a system set up now, and you know full well . . . . The mining development assessment program and all those other programs that will look and see if you can do something either in a benign way or else in a way that would be friendly to the environment . . . . There's no one out there I know that's in the mining industry that wants to go out and trash the environment. Those days are gone. You know that as well as we do.

[1540]

When the minister says he has the full support of the people in British Columbia, I question that, because this latest poll says they want mining in this province. They know that mining in this province is going to help our health and education and all our other social programs. There's no question about that at all. If we don't have it, we won't have those programs. They won't be able to succeed if we don't have good resource production in this province, because we're not as -- how would I put it? -- sophisticated as, say, California, in being able to get into this high-tech.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's a fact. Not that we don't have the brainpower, because our brainpower is down in California now. You know that. It's moving down. We have a few of them. They're way ahead of us. I think California would give its eye teeth to have the resources that we do to offset some of the ups and downs that they have in their economy.

I'm looking around here, and I wanted to ask the minister, again, going back to the LRMPs . . . . With regards to the Cassiar Iskut . . . . That's coming up, and that really frightens the heck out of me, and it frightens everyone else. God knows what that'll be, because by the time you get through with the Iskut and Stikine, tie it in with the Mackenzie and then tie it in with the Muskwa-Kechika, it's the Y-to-Y program starting all over again.

I wondered if, in these processes that your ministry was involved in to a certain extent -- although it was probably headed by the Environment ministry . . . . You have people in there all the time watching or listening or guiding or whatever it may be. Was there ever a proper and thorough audit done of their plans, in regards to . . . ? When they take a picture, do your expert geologists go in there and say: "Well, we have mineral claims here and here and here and here"? What effect would that have on the committee that was looking after, say, the Stikine and/or the Mackenzie, for example?

How would they say, "Look, your department's experts say, 'We have mineral locations here, here, here and here,' and yet if you take this map out on the Mackenzie and overlay it with the mineral finds in there, it's pretty frightening"? They've been cut out into the grey zones, which are wild lands, and they've been restricted into the other areas. So I'm just wondering if you could tell me what effect your officials would have had when they presented those aspects to the committees in the Stikine and the Mackenzie LRMPs?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I want to refer back to the polling data the member referred to -- the 96 percent who are in favour of generalized mining. To some degree, I don't think that's really the issue. The member's from North Vancouver, I believe, and I think he may find over time, or the members of his caucus may find over time, that there's probably more of a regional divide than a political divide in this province.

I don't think the real question is: are you generally in favour of mining, in the sense that isn't this nice that we have mining, and here are the benefits? It's sort of about motherhood. You know that saying: "Everybody's in favour of motherhood." The real question is: do you want to have a baby? And that kind of changes the focus; it kind of changes the question -- because then you're asked to actually participate, as opposed to sort of being aloof and removed, and that really is the issue.

[1545]

We supply information to the tables. We are not members of the table, which is why, when I go back to what I said earlier, I think it is so important for the mining industry to be represented at the table. If they're not there . . . . And occasionally what happens . . . . For example, in Mackenzie -- the industry wasn't represented there. There was a prospector there. Other tables have had individual companies go to those tables. But the industry itself doesn't formally go and sit down and participate at the table. I think they should.

We can only try to provide the information. We try to ensure, as we have from the beginning, that land use planning is intended to balance the interests of the economy and the environment. We hope that the tables understand that sufficiently, that there's enough discipline in there and enough intelligent discussion to arrive at decisions that make sense. Most often there are. I know that in my discussions with people in the industry . . . . In the forest sector, for example, they routinely sit at those tables, and as a result they have some influence on the final outcome. The mining industry should really do the same.

D. Jarvis: Boy, a shift has happened there every five minutes, hasn't it? It's a good thing that I'm right on the ball. Mr. Minister, are you tired? Perhaps you want a break. I can see you fumbling into your pockets; that usually signifies that you're looking for a smoke break.

You know, there's a definite reason why the mining industry is not sitting at the table now. The reason they're not sitting at the table now -- and it has only been since the first of this year; they have all the previous years, the last eight years, before this -- is that they have felt that the process was not right, that the process was unfair, that they were outweighed.

[ Page 15969 ]

When they would come up with statistics on the mineral locations in there, they were turned down. They'd overlook it; they wouldn't . . . . So they said: "Well, there's nothing we can do; we'll walk out of it."

And what they did was walk out, but they contacted you, and they sent you a long letter. I haven't got it here now, but I remember reading it, because I was given a copy of it. They appealed to you, as the Minister of Mines, to go in and, as they have told you, say: "The system is unfair." It's so heavily weighed against them that there's no use in them being there, because whenever they put up suggestions, they were ignored.

I want to read you something here by a gentleman that . . . . It was in the LRMP process on the Mackenzie. He said:

"Over the past five years, the tables suffered numerous setbacks, usually for changes in the process or from new facilitators. The same zones and concerns were covered and then gone over again with each change. In the past year the process and direction have fallen apart. A definite bias against mining was shown with each new issue. Injustices were heaped upon injustices. The rules of our table were ignored, and all was detrimental to the mining industry."

Okay, there's someone who was at that table who has come out.

So when you say that your ministry is not a part of it, I can sort of appreciate that, in the sense that it was probably all . . . . This whole government is run by the Environment ministry, it appears, anyway. But I understood that you or your deputy said that they had people at these hearings all the time and that geologists were sent in to give evidence or information. So what I was trying to find out is: did these geologists give them the information? Did they report back to you what they said?

While they were there, as a result of it, was there any, that you're aware of . . . ? Certainly you talk to the Environment ministry, or they certainly talk to you; they tell you what to do. Was there a cost-benefit analysis? Was there an economical and an environmental review done on all these processes that have resulted in cutting this land process into specific areas, like protected areas -- and now you've got a new designation, being wild lands -- etc., etc.?

[1550]

Hon. D. Miller: As I've already indicated, Madam Chair, the process and the discipline of the process, really, from the outset, is a balance of environment and the economy. You know, tables, when they do reach consensus, put the plan out for public comment. Following that, it's referred to government for a final decision. We've done that on a number of occasions; plans have been finalized, and that process will continue.

I don't discount -- I've never, in fact, discounted -- the sentiment of the mining industry and the difficulties of trying to reach agreement at these tables. It's very, very difficult work. But I can only repeat and repeat -- and I think I've probably done it too much -- that they'd be better off being in attendance at the table as opposed to not being there and complaining about the process. That's just my general sense. I think that's probably how the public tends to view it.

Beyond that, I'm always open to suggestions as to how any particular process could be improved. I would presume . . . . And I asked the question earlier today as to whether the official opposition actually had any specific concrete proposals to make. I asked a very pointed question as to whether or not the opposition would continue -- even though we may reach the 12 percent fairly soon -- with the seven tables that haven't reported or with the five that need to be established before we complete the broad land use plans for British Columbia.

I didn't get an answer. I'm still open. If the member has some specific suggestions to make, I'd be happy to hear them. I think I've tried to explain, and probably have repeated myself a bit in explaining, the stance that I and my ministry take in these matters.

D. Jarvis: I don't know, really, how to say this without upsetting the minister, but it appears, then, that you -- as the minister of mining in this province -- really didn't have any input into this process at all. And if I was in your position, I would have said: "Okay, my mandate is to encourage mining in this province. Therefore I want to know what's going on, and I want to put my experts and my staff in there and find out what's going on."

Failing that, I'd go in there myself and find out what's going on and see if they have done any kind of a study or an audit to see that what concerns the mining industry is being attended to. I wouldn't sit back, as it appears that you're doing, and say: "There's nothing I can do about it. The Environment ministry is controlling it. And yet my ministry is being virtually closed down."

These processes that are going through are sterilizing the whole north of British Columbia. There is not going to be any more -- I shouldn't say any more -- exploration or development in this province in those areas in the northern part of B.C. that to any extent is going to get us out of the doldrums that we're in until such time as the land use problems are changed.

Really, we've got the big aboriginal problem here as well, and there's no certainty there at the moment. And this makes it all the worse for it. They're not going to see the people with the money to develop coming in and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into British Columbia when you're saying: "You're allowed to go into the wild lands area. If you want to go into the wild lands area, you can go in there.

But we've got a special little committee that I know nothing about that will make a decision on whether your spending $100 million in there is worthwhile." Or you go into another area, the special management zones, and you get a permit, finally. But you drive a road and you make one turnaround or cut down the wrong tree, and you'll be shut down and closed down.

[1555]

I mean, this is an uncertainty. Of course, you probably don't understand it, minister. The fact is that if you've ever been out there, you've never had a business to look after to see that you've got to finance it. It's a different story sitting over there where you are, receiving your paycheque every day from the taxpayers. People out there that are paying their taxes are footing the bills all themselves, and they can't spend money recklessly like the government people can -- at least the present government.

Hon. D. Miller: We're beating a dead horse here. If we want to disagree, let's disagree. I did speak of the work that the ministry is doing, in all good faith -- very earnest work

[ Page 15970 ]

with the mining sector, recognizing some of these difficulties. I've not shied away from them; I've been quite candid, publicly, about them; I've talked openly about them.

We put out a brochure, "Special Management Zones and the Mineral Sector." I don't know if the member has had an opportunity to look at it. The member then knows that some of what he's saying is incorrect. We've not sterilized the north. This brochure contains nine case studies of mining companies working in a variety of special management zones on agricultural land, in wildlife habitat, in wintering range, water quality areas, caribou habitat, fish spawning habitat, caribou habitat again, remote fishing experience. These are concrete examples of mining companies working in special management zones and doing it successfully.

Now, I want to make another point with respect to the LRMP process. The member says: "You obviously had no hand in this." In fact, I did. I was the Minister of Forests when we started this exercise, and I recall -- and this is illustrative, member -- the criticism that came from the forest sector then: "We shouldn't be doing this. The odds are stacked against us.

Let's not do this at all." Then I see, not long ago, that very same forest industry that were vocal critics of land use planning meeting secretly in Vancouver with some environmentalists to plan a land use plan for the coast of this province without even bothering to consult aboriginal people or people who live in those coastal communities.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The lesson might be that it is important to recognize the value and the contribution that various industrial sectors make to our province. Certainly forestry and mining are two of the best. Without the kind of export income we generate in this province, all of us would be far worse off -- if we didn't have those two industries. Sometimes I think there's a disconnect, and people tend to forget about that. I think people in the regions are much more in tune. People who live in those regions and suffer the ups and downs of those industries are much more in tune with the value of those particular sectors, and we work very hard in both of them.

It's not always government's fault. It's a bit of a singsong you guys have got over there that somehow everything that happens in this province is the fault of the government. That is nonsense. Government doesn't control life to that degree in any jurisdiction, particularly in Canada. When you get the spectre of the private sector companies like the forest industry, who used to criticize what we were doing, sitting down and doing far worse themselves, it causes you to ponder and think a little bit, member, about just how far you go in terms of extolling the virtues and the benefits of one particular sector.

Maybe you ought to try to mute your criticism a little bit. I'd suggest that you start with your advice, perhaps, because if the two sides of this House switch -- which I know you'd dearly love to have happen; if that happens -- then you're going to have to, or somebody's going to have to, deal with it. You're going to have to decide what kind of advice you're going to give the mining industry or the other industries. In fact, you're going to have to decide what you want to do about the LRMP process beyond talking about it and beyond criticizing from your chair.

You're actually going to have to make decisions. The best decision you can make -- and start early if you think the sides are going to switch, hon. member -- is to advise the mining industry to take their place at the table with the forest industry, the oil and gas industry and ordinary British Columbians to try to deal with the particularly difficult problem that is land use planning in this province. I think you'd be further ahead, and all of us would be further ahead, if you wanted to think about it in those terms.

[1600]

D. Jarvis: Well, minister, I guess all I can say is that some of those deals took place and all the rest of it, but there must have been a reason for it. It's obvious that we have beaten this LRMP process, or the land management resource process, to death today. We've gone at it for about four or five hours now. It's obvious that the minister cannot or will not, one or the other, do anything to help the mining industry in this province.

They're dead in the water when it comes to land management and assistance from the Minister of Mines -- only because the mining industry has gone down and down, and it's in deep trouble. We know it's in deep trouble. We're all trying to find some way to recover. It doesn't look like they can recover by having assistance from the Minister of Mines.

I know that sounds as though I'm being critical of you. I don't mean to be critical. What I'm trying to say is that the people of this province are going to have to wait until they get a new government, because I'll tell you, when we get in there . . . . We're quite aware of what the processes are in this province. We will attend to the matter in a very prompt and a good reasonable manner so that no one gets hurt -- the environment or the people of this province. We'll be able to do something that you have been unable to do. We're not looking at the reason for programs such as this that are going on.

Special interest groups will not have control over this government like they have over your government, and that's the point of it.

I was wondering, before I close out of the mining sector of these Energy and Mines estimates and before my friend from the Peace gets up on gas, if you could tell me a couple of little things here.

Could he tell me exactly -- I've got a list here, and I can never make head nor tail; things are changing so fast -- how many metal mines and how many coal mines are actually in British Columbia? Do you have that? Would you have that information, or would you have to refer back to the Minister of Environment for that?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe the answer is 17 and eight. If it's different from that, we'll let you know.

D. Jarvis: I always get different figures all the time, so it's hard to come down to the details on it.

Hon. D. Miller: Nine and eight, Mr. Chairman.

D. Jarvis: So we have nine metal mines and eight coal mines. What a sad state of affairs. Kind of sad, isn't it, and this government is doing nothing about it. The point of the whole exercise here today is to show us that the minister really isn't doing anything and is not an advocate for mining in this province. That's the sad, sorry state that we have in this province.

I don't know what to say other than that I'm really disappointed in you. I thought that you would have a positive

[ Page 15971 ]

approach to what's going on and that when you saw something that was being detrimental to the mining industry of this province, you'd get up on your high horse, like you usually do, and tell them to back off. Let's look at this in a proper manner -- do a complete audit of British Columbia with regard to these processes that are closing off the mining industry and making investment in this province a bad bet.

On that basis, our friend from Vernon would like to ask a question. I thank you for your time.

[1605]

A. Sanders: How much time does the minister spend in developing provincial-federal relations with respect to the mining industry? How much time in the ministry is devoted to looking at that specific issue?

Hon. D. Miller: The question is a bit incomprehensible, Mr. Chair. I don't mean to be rude about it, but I'm not quite sure what it means.

A. Sanders: It's certainly not meant to be incomprehensible. Mining comes under the auspices of the provincial government, but also under the auspices of the federal government. How much time is devoted in the provincial government ministry to solving the problems that miners in British Columbia have with the federal government, where that interface occurs?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, mining is provincial jurisdiction. We're not preoccupied with the federal government at all. There are occasional issues that might arise with respect to DFO and others. I've had conversations with the Minister of Natural Resources on a number of occasions. I've also travelled to Japan with the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources to fight for the continued operation of the northeast coal mines. But it's very difficult -- in fact, I would say it's impossible -- for me to go back and do some exercise and quantify how much time. Perhaps the member, if she has some specific questions, might just get to the point.

A. Sanders: I will get to the point. We have lost some residents of Vernon who had been in Vernon all of their lives. The gentleman that I speak specifically about is a young man named Kevin McNabb, who has a geological survey company. His problems began three years ago when Revenue Canada audited his business. The audit determined that firms that work internationally can't claim the small business corporate tax credit. His company, with six employees, was taxed at the same level as Esso or IBM by the federal government.

They were not asking for special treatment; they were asking for the same kind of treatment that a company of commensurate size would be taxed at. Without the small business corporate tax credit, MacNabb saw his tax rate climb from 22 percent to 40 percent, and he owed $25,000 in back taxes for two years. His evaluation was that he was being taxed for being successful. He was not trying to dodge taxation but was having difficulty, because they were bringing money into Canada.

To the minister: is this a common problem that the ministry in British Columbia hears with respect to our mining people?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that the gentleman in question never approached the ministry, so I'm not in a position to comment.

A. Sanders: If the gentleman did approach the ministry, what help would there have been for him?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, this clearly is an issue involving Revenue Canada. I can't say. But if we try . . . . I think the word is out there with the industry. If there are problems that people have and they come to us for assistance, we can very quickly tell whether it's something we can deal with or not. But this is all rather oblique. It's an issue involving Revenue Canada. We've never been approached by the individual in question; nor is there any general kind of feeling within my staff that this is a problem that has been brought to the ministry's attention in any significant way.

As I indicated earlier, we have been lobbying the federal government to restore the flow-through share provisions that used to be in place in this country that really created a fairly significant level of investment in exploration. But as to the individual problems that any particular company may have with respect to Revenue Canada, you'll appreciate that it's not the ministry's job to care for those internal issues in any given company. We are open, and if somebody wants to approach us, if they think that we can offer some advice or assistance and help, then we're happy to do so. In the absence of that, it's very difficult to comment.

[1610]

A. Sanders: I'm interested that the minister would say, "Well, the gentleman's never approached the ministry," and then say, "We couldn't have done anything for them anyway, so I'm not quite sure why he would have approached us" -- which is exactly what he didn't do. There was nothing there. This was a federal issue -- I understand that very clearly -- but in the same way that citizens in British Columbia are now having a terrible time trying to get a plane to anywhere from the outskirts of Vancouver and Victoria. It's a federal jurisdiction, but it's a provincial problem.

I'm hoping that someone on that side is looking at that particular federal message to British Columbians and hopefully saying something on our behalf.

With respect to this particular issue, the minister has not mentioned that anyone else has had it, so I'm assuming that there's no other people in the province with this particular problem. I'm quite surprised that that would be the case.

One other thing that is of provincial interest is a provincial problem that Mr. MacNabb brought into the constituency office. He was looking at a job that he was to carry out, a two-day job that he had been asked to do in British Columbia. In that recent two-day job he was required to spend three days filling out paperwork and to pay a fee of $1,300 for the privilege of doing so. The fee was half of the cost of the survey. To the minister: does that seem like a reasonable cost for doing business?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I want to stress . . . . I have many, many meetings not only with the Mining Association but with individual companies both large and small, with prospectors and others -- and explorers. I think it's fair to say that we treat everyone with a lot of respect. We've also told everyone that if there are systemic problems that they think we can help resolve, we want to do that. Really, I don't know what more I can say.

I'm not dismissing or belittling or trying to downplay any problems that Mr. MacNabb may have. I'm just simply saying that he didn't approach the ministry, and therefore we're a bit

[ Page 15972 ]

mystified in terms of what the real issues are or even indeed whether, if he had approached us, we could have helped. Without the person coming forward, you can appreciate that it's very difficult for us to offer opinions on this subject.

Similarly, the member cites fees that this individual had to pay. I don't know who those fees were payable to; I don't know what they were payable for. It doesn't sound like it's something within my ministry. It sounds as though it may be resting with some other ministry. But I simply don't know.

Perhaps the member will appreciate that we're happy to look into these questions. Sometimes raising them here is important for the member in terms of ensuring that her constituents know that she's acting on their behalf, because it's recorded in Hansard . But I find that if there are issues, as I said earlier today in the House . . . . I want all members of this House -- on both sides of the House -- to know that if they come to my office with a problem or an issue, we take it seriously, and we do our best to try to help.

So I'll extend that offer to the member, again without being able to respond to the particular question, because I don't know who the fees were payable to, for what business or anything else.

A. Sanders: I will forward all of the information to the minister's office. I think this is something that's probably happening quite commonly. This gentleman is the owner of MWH Geo-Surveys, and he has since merged with a company in Boston. His family will be moving there, if they have not already done so right now, and they will be operating their business under a much more competitive regime.

The checklist that Mr. MacNabb provided for me for his two-day job -- which he never did, because it was going to cost more to do the survey and go up there than he was going to earn in being there . . . . It had 30 criteria for a checklist for geophysical . . . on Crown land. There had to be a first nations consultation package, a public consultation package, a forestry package, an environment and land geophysical review package and an archaeology package. Revisions had to all be indicated and a cheque for $1,300 to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations enclosed.

[1615]

And within each of the sections there were a number of boxes that had to be checked off. There were 30 items that had to be done -- literally three full working days of work for this gentleman -- including copies of logging plans, maps, tenure agreements, road permit uses and much, much more. Just to the minister: in final comment, this is why nothing gets done in British Columbia. This is exactly the reason that business is going elsewhere.

Hon. D. Miller: I really would caution drawing a conclusion, as the member just has, based on reading that list. It sounds to me and my staff -- we don't have a copy of what you have -- as though it is a well authorization checklist. I don't know that. The member leaves me somewhat handicapped in being able to respond with more information about the issue, because you've got some material in front of you that I don't, and we've not had the opportunity to check into the issues that the member seems to be raising. I would simply say this: I do caution you about reaching the conclusion you've just drawn.

There are good, legitimate reasons why people who are working on Crown land have to ensure that they do the work properly. That sounds like a BCAL list to me. We have to ensure that if someone goes on Crown land and wants to build a road . . . . Should we just say: "You don't have to fill out a form; you don't have to give us a plan"? I don't think that's acceptable. Clearly there's a reason behind those, but again, I'd be happy to look into it more fully if I were given more information.

D. Jarvis: I just want to add a quick couple of questions here that you could probably answer very quickly, I guess, or have one of your staff come back to me. It is in regards to a constituent. It's the Ainsworth mill rehabilitation improvement program. He's gotten his permits from British Columbia and from the Environment department and Energy and Mines. It's the Ainsworth Hotsprings area, just south of Kaslo.

Now, he's got all these permits, but I think he's being held up by DFO. That leads to another question: are we doing anything to try to mitigate these problems by assisting the citizens of British Columbia when they run up against the DFO, which is the federal Fisheries? And at the same time, can you tell me what status we are with Prosperity, which has a federal fishery problem, and with Tulsequah. I'm asking about the status of Tulsequah and Prosperity and tying in with the other question with regards to the federal Fisheries.

Hon. D. Miller: As I recall, just at lunchtime I was looking at a file that came into my office, and there was a letter. Is it Canim corporation?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. I just noticed it was there. I didn't have a chance to even look at the letter, so it's pretty hard to comment.

I think it's fair to say that one of the areas that's been referenced by the mining industry is, they feel -- by their own admission -- the issues around DFO. That's a difficult issue as well. As you recall, we had some discussion this morning about a company called Mainland Sand and Gravel. It's kind of an interesting issue because . . . . I really cite it now to point out that we sometimes engage in arguments of convenience in this House. We sometimes take positions that we think are popular, because we think that there are a lot of people who will publicly support it and that there's a political gain to be had.

I appreciate the member's question. But it's interesting that in Mainland Sand and Gravel's case they purchased, from another company, a gravel mine that had been permitted in 1990. That gravel mine in the Pitt River had been permitted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and by the provincial agencies. They said: "Yes, you can go ahead. You now have official sanction to go ahead and mine this gravel."

[1620]

The original company had a licence. Then they sold to Mainland. Mainland purchased the original company and applied to amend the permit to change their name. Two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition rose in this House and demanded of this government that we arbitrarily cancel their permit. And the federal MP Lou Sekora went out and visited the site and said that this should never have happened. Yet in that particular instance, going back to 1990, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had approved the project. The Leader of

[ Page 15973 ]

the Opposition stood up in this House and said: "I don't care; I don't care about that. Shut it down." You can appreciate, member, that in that particular instance your leader took a position that he thought was politically popular but, in my view, ran roughshod over the rights of the owner. Now you're asking me, on the other side, what we are doing to defend the rights of the owner against DFO. I find it somewhat paradoxical that we would have this shift in position.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Somewhat paradoxical; others might find it even more paradoxical.

But let me reaffirm what I've said in the past. I've said this in a gathering of the mining industry, whether they be prospectors or whatever. If you've got a problem and you think that myself or my ministry can help you, I want to hear from you. Obviously that must have gotten out, because there is a letter in my office from this Ainsworth or Canim company.

I don't know what we can do. It's a federal jurisdiction; it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I quite honestly couldn't tell you what we can . . . . Or maybe we can't do anything. But I treat them all seriously, so I'll take a look.

An Hon. Member: How about Tulsequah?

Hon. D. Miller: Tulsequah is a proposal up on the B.C.-Alaska border that would see the reopening or redevelopment of a mine that was shut down in the 1950s. I think that that mine currently has some problems. It's an old abandoned mine. The company, Redfern Resources, I think has done outstanding work in saying: "We will go in. We think there are lots of reserves left in there. We want to restart the mine. We will clean up any problems that exist there." They've been given approval by our environmental assessment office to proceed in principle, subject to permitting of the road into the mine and the subsequent permitting of the mine development itself.

Late last year I took the opportunity to fly up to Alaska to meet the governor, to explain British Columbia's position and to also say to the governor that between the two of us, because we have a lot in common between southeast Alaska and northwest British Columbia, we ought to be able to sit down in the spirit of cooperation and resolve issues between ourselves. In this case we're talking about an issue on the Canadian side of the border, but it's conceivable that there might be an issue on the Alaskan side of the border.

And rather than refer issues off to some commission that might take years and years and years to resolve, why don't we develop a process so that we can resolve these questions ourselves?

I also note that the Alaska House of Representatives, which albeit is controlled by the Republicans, has passed a motion rejecting the governor's request to refer that issue to the IJC. We're going to continue to work, because I do believe that we do have a lot of issues that we ought to work on together between Alaska and British Columbia, across a wide range of areas. Fishing . . . . We've had our conflicts, and where we have differences, let's acknowledge those differences, but let's also try to work for some common purposes. I'm optimistic, actually, that in the future we'll get to that point.

[1625]

To this date it has not been referred to the IJC. I have made representation, as have previous Premiers and members of our government, not only to the Canadian government but directly to members of the U.S. consular corps. I've met a number of times with the consul general, Hugo Llorens, on the question. I've met with a senior official from the U.S. consulate in Ottawa on the question. We're very, very active in terms of trying to support the development of this mine.

We are also trying to work very closely with the Taku River Tlingit, which is the aboriginal group in the region. I was up there last year and met with the band. We've made some strategic moves, I think. There was a piece of land that was adjacent to their reserve -- fronted the lake. It's clear if you've been there, member. You'll appreciate that long before colonists came to the land, aboriginal people in that region enjoyed unencumbered access to the lake, and yet here's this piece of land right beside the village council office owned by someone in Calgary, and access to the lake is limited.

So we bought the land. We went and bought the land off this individual. We leased it, I think, to the band for a dollar. No doubt it will be part of any future treaty settlement. We've been working with the band to have them fully involved with respect to any industrial activity that might take place in the region. We're going to continue with that kind of position. There is some interest. Sometimes these matters move more slowly than you'd like. But that's what we've been doing generally on the Tulsequah file.

On the Cariboo project, again, there are some issues with respect to DFO. The proposal is to drain a lake. The company looked at a number of options. They looked at about five different options, from complete drainage to partial drainage to trying to look at ways in which they could develop what I think could potentially be a world-class mine development.

The plan is to provide 250 to 700 jobs during construction, 400 to 700 jobs per year during the projected 21-to-25-year mine life, plus an estimated 900 to 1,500 indirect jobs, at an investment of $900 million. Clearly this potentially could be a huge, huge mine-development project.

We obviously started our review under our Environmental Assessment Act, Canada under theirs. It's unclear to me at this stage whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would accept the current proposal with respect to draining the lake. The question there is: is it habitat that can or cannot be replicated in the adjacent area?

The issue is with DFO. There are some policy questions, and I think there's been correspondence between the head of the environmental assessment office and the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I don't have a current status update on that, but we're continuing to work with Taseko, looking at these questions. I certainly hope that it's something that can come to pass. It would be a very large project in the Cariboo, one that would provide significant benefits and jobs to the region. As long as it can be done in a way that does not compromise the environmental values, hopefully that will happen.

[ Page 15974 ]

I did have the occasion a number of weeks ago to have a very brief discussion on the question -- not a substantive discussion, quite frankly -- with the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Dhaliwal. I didn't really ask him to do anything, but rather we chatted generally about the project. He certainly has knowledge of the project.

R. Neufeld: I wonder if the minister could maybe just give us an idea of a time frame for the . . . . I can never pronounce the mine in the north. The chief mine -- I'll put it in those terms. I can't get my tongue wrapped around that word. If there is some kind of a time frame . . . . I know it's difficult to try to put a time frame on it, but I think everyone's been waiting for quite a while. I realize the difficulties that have gone on with trying to get that mine going. Is there some kind of a time frame that the ministry's looking toward having some resolve to it, so it can either (

a) go ahead, or (

b) whatever happens from there?

[1630]

Hon. D. Miller: I wish I could tell you there is. Quite frankly, my experience on this file -- and it's been going on for some time -- is that we need to get a resolve on the question of a referral to the IJC. While that issue is hanging out there, you'll appreciate that it's very, very difficult to raise capital in the marketplace. There's another meeting in mid-June with U.S. officials. I personally have been very aggressive on this file. I feel quite strongly. I think that Redfern is a very good company. I think they're . . . .

An Hon. Member: They're all good companies.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, they're all good companies, but at least . . . . These people stand out. Terry Chandler, I think, has been outstanding. They've been very upfront. They spent a lot of money on their environmental assessment work. They've just been a very good company to do business with. They're serious, and they do nice work, and I feel quite strongly that I'd like to do what I can to help them, because I think the project has merit. So we have been very, very aggressive in our ministry on this and will continue to be, and hopefully we'll see a breakthrough. But I can't give the member a sense of time.

R. Neufeld: The minister spoke earlier about pressuring the federal government to get on with it. I can assure the minister that we, as the official opposition, have done the same thing and have asked them to get involved more, to bring some kind of resolve to this issue. So as we continue, I guess, to work together to try and get some resolve to it, maybe it will come -- hopefully sooner than later.

I have a few more questions about mining, and I'm going to ask a couple of questions about your performance plan for this year that was given to me. Actually, on page 6 -- I'm sure you have one there -- under "Goals" it says: "2. To revitalize the mineral industry." That's one of the goals of the ministry, and I know the critic has talked at length about some of the problems that he sees and that the mining association feels are hindering their exploration in opening mines, notwithstanding the price of commodities, which plays a huge part also.

Maybe the minister could briefly go through a few of the initiatives that he plans to take on to revitalize the mineral industry in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, Mr. Chairman, in many ways we really have covered a lot of this ground. I spoke about the mining initiative; I spoke about our ongoing efforts. We're playing a much more prominent role, I think. We're actually spending a bit more money. We've had, I think, a significant presence at the PDAC conference in Toronto. We were noticed. I met with senior representatives from major mining firms who are coming back into the province. We've maintained the kind of funding -- the prospectors assistance program funding -- that the member talked about. We put the brochure out with respect to the SMZs.

There are any number, in some ways, of new areas. It's more on the oil and gas side. We're continuing to look at ensuring that the legislation is implemented properly. In other words, my ministry is a one-window shopping centre with respect to getting approvals for access and those kinds of questions. We're working on the deregulation -- the forest decommissioning -- issue. We've mentioned the Tulsequah Chief. We'll be reviewing the mineral exploration code.

That's a pretty thumbnail sketch, but we've really talked, in a lot of ways throughout the day, about the initiatives that the ministry is involved with.

J. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Wilson: It's a good occasion today. I have a class of grade 7 students from Nazko Valley Elementary School visiting us in the gallery. They're accompanied by the principal, Dan Kishkan, and a parent, Sharilee Golob. Nazko is a small community in my riding which is 60 miles west of Quesnel, and it is mainly supported by ranching and forestry. I ask that the House make them welcome.

[1635]

R. Neufeld: I don't want to get in and rehash a bunch of the things about the LRMP process. Basically I want to say that I think working that process through, with local people and industry involved, is a positive way to do those things.

But probably the biggest problem that's taken place with that issue is that the initial set-aside at 12 percent was never given to those regions or those tables -- that they were supposed to come up with X percent of the land base. That's why we are now experiencing probably going to twice that much through the process. And I'm sure the minister's quite well aware that it could hit easily twice as much or even larger by the time the seven tables report out and the five more that haven't even been struck yet report out.

And those are probably, without trying to get into a whole argument about it, some of the underlying currents within the industry -- whether it's oil and gas, forestry or mining -- with some of the problems in trying to access land. And that's one of the problems, I guess, notwithstanding the aboriginal land claims that have to be settled in the province of British Columbia yet. That's probably stalling a lot of exploration that could be happening that would be beneficial for all of us.

On page 14 the ministry talks about performance plan details for increasing or revitalizing the mining industry. They talk about a 25 percent increase in exploration expenditures. I believe exploration expenditures last year were about $20 million, something in that neighbourhood.

[ Page 15975 ]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Twenty-five? So we're actually not looking at very much of an increase. But I guess it's something, which is better than nothing. Could the minister just tell me briefly: is that exploration taking place generally all over the province, or is that exploration taking place in areas where land use plans have been more or less settled to a certain degree, and in the core regions? Or do you have that information?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, with respect to the increase, I'm actually optimistic. I should know better, I suppose. But I'm optimistic that we might actually see a doubling of the exploration expenditures. I cited numbers earlier today indicating a fairly significant increase so far this year: a 30 percent increase in claim-staking. So let's hope that that does happen.

The work that generally takes place is . . . . First of all, you'll see a great amount of staking take place following the release of the GSB work at the Cordilleran Roundup. Sometimes it's focused work, on a particular region of the province. And all of the geologists and all of the companies are there at Cordilleran. They look at the work, and that generally provokes a bit of a staking rush.

There's some interesting work being done in the Kootenays. The Sullivan mine, of course, is at the end. I've talked to some explorationists in the region who think there's another Sullivan mine there, and they'd like to find it.

And I mentioned the activity up in the Wells-Barkerville area as a result of some of the claim-staking work or the exploration work that's been done with respect to potential for significant gold deposits in the region. So you can appreciate that there are three areas where you find work.

I mentioned Rio Algom. I don't know which company it was now. Rio Algom, I think, are doing some work in the northwest corridor. We have, in Eskay Creek, one of the richest gold and silver mines in Canada. Clearly that region has significant potential in terms of new development, so there's work taking place in that area.

[1640]

And in the case of the Cariboo, the work is taking place where there is a land use plan in place. I think there may be some final issues yet to be resolved, but to all intents and purposes, there is a land use plan in place in the Kootenays as well. The staking activity in SMZs is, I think, reasonable. I don't have an absolute number in front of me. So at the end of the day, it's where people think they might get a return. I think that's where you get people looking.

[J. Cashore in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: The 25 percent increase that we're speaking about . . . . Is all of that expected to be grassroots? What percentage of that 25 percent increase would be grassroots, and what would actually be expenditures in mines that are already operating and maybe expanding their operations?

Hon. D. Miller: Good question, actually, and I don't have the answer.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The critic thinks he has it.

Certainly most companies normally carry out some exploration work if they think that there's more to be found on their existing properties. Boliden last year, I believe, carried out some reasonable work. I'll try to get that, though, but I don't have the answer right now.

R. Neufeld: I understand that it's about $1 million in grassroots exploration out of the total increase. If we could confirm that, that would be great.

I'd like to go on to page 18 of the performance plan details. One of the goals is to increase aboriginal participation in mining by 10 percent. Could the minister explain to me briefly how he's going to go about increasing aboriginal participation in mining by 10 percent? And what areas are targeted?

Hon. D. Miller: I mentioned earlier in the estimates the work we did with J. Paul Stevenson in the Babine region, which was an attempt to develop a better kind of working relationship. I've mentioned the work that we're doing with the Taku River Tlingits with respect to the Tulsequah Chief operation. We're also part of a cross-Canada look, in conjunction with other provinces, at how we might increase aboriginal participation in the mining industry. I think there is some interest there, quite frankly, in some of the conversations I've had with aboriginal representatives. I think there is an interest.

Probably the best example in British Columbia is the Tahltan, the Eskay Creek, where it seems to be working quite well. When I was in there a few years ago, the band, in addition to fairly significant employment levels at the mine itself, carried the catering contract. I think they were doing some of the trucking work as well. So there's some real opportunity for first nations to participate, and we'll try to encourage it at every level.

R. Neufeld: I know that the Tahltan are quite involved in the operation at Eskay Creek, which is good. I think the more that we can involve the aboriginal communities in that kind of work, the better off we are. So I was really interested to know exactly what we're going to do. If we're talking about stuff that has already taken place, that's a different story, but if we're trying to encourage new involvement, that's great.

I want to go on to another subject now, and it's on page 22. Without taking a chance on getting into another argument about gravel . . . . I don't really want to do that. But the ministry has put forward in the performance plan that they want to create a secure and accessible gravel supply. There are a few strategies pointed out. Maybe the mini