[ Page 7653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 49).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 7653

Oral Questions

Community mental health services. Mr. Perry –– 7654

Special credit card rates for NDP and federal Liberals. Mr. Rabbitt –– 7654

Sustainable development. Mr. Kempf –– 7654

Logging practices on Vancouver Island's west coast. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7655

Forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 7655

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 76: new programs –– 7656

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Regional Development and

Ministry of State for Mainland-Southwest estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 7666

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Kempf

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Miller

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 7688

Agriculture Protection Act (Bill 30). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7688

Mr. Barlee –– 7688

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7689

Game Farm Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7689

Ms. Edwards –– 7689

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 7691

Seniors Advisory Council Act (Bill 41). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 7692

Ms. A. Hagen –– 7692

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 7693

Health Professions Amendment Act (Bill 40). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 7693

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 7694

Mr. Cashore –– 7694

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 7695

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7695

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989 (Bill 35). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 7699

Mr. Williams –– 7699

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 7699

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Committee stage. (Mr. Jacobsen) –– 7700

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Business and Immigration estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 7700

Hon. J. Jansen

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK: With us today we have a number of representatives from the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics. These people have assisted my ministry in the past couple of years in putting together our mental health plan. We're very grateful for the work they have done. With us today in the House are: Len Horne, president and director; Howie Morgan, vice-president; Murray Galbraith, vice-president and director; Ruth Frankish, secretary; Betty Vaughn, honorary director; Pat Forgacs, president, Vancouver branch; Lee Horvat, past president, Vancouver branch; Julia van Gorder, Vancouver branch; Kathleen Kerr, director; Alan Forgacs, Vancouver branch; Shirley Cook, president, Abbotsford branch; Marie Weeden, president, Chilliwack branch; Maureen Nicholls, director; and Iona Douglas, Vancouver branch. Would the House please make these people welcome.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to second the Minister of Health's welcome to the Friends of Schizophrenics. You know, it's a relatively short time ago that parents and relatives of schizophrenic people were looked on as the villains and blamed for the disease. I think this group has done a wonderful service to the community. It's very nice to have them here. I'd like to welcome them as well on behalf of the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's been asked: what is the best night or best day of the year for Scotsmen to get married? That's obviously not on the longest day of the year but the shortest night of the year so that a person can negotiate a shorter time-frame for the hotel. We have a person here of Scottish origin who is celebrating 16 years of matrimonial bliss with his long-suffering wife, Cheri. I'd like to congratulate and have you congratulate with me the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and his wife Cheri on their anniversary.

HON. MR. REID: From my constituency today we have two visitors. I'd like the House to give a special welcome to Gretchen Williams and Scott Stevenson, as well as to the representatives of the Friends of Schizophrenics from the White Rock area.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on the floor of the House today is Mr. John Albert Hay. Mr. Hay was a member of the British Parliament for 24 years, and during the time that he served his parliament he was a joint parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, Civil Lord of the Admiralty and Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy~ Mr. Hay is now retired, and came to live in what our Speaker tells me is the best constituency in the province, West Vancouver. Would you all please welcome Mr. Hay to the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We in the B.C. Transit family are very honoured today to have been given a very special national award. The Victoria regional transit system has earned the Canadian Urban Transit Association's Best Record in Traffic Safety award for 1988 in recognition of its outstanding safety record. Victoria buses have less than 13 incidents for every million miles they travel. The award was presented to representatives of B.C. Transit this morning at CUTA's annual conference in Ottawa. I'm sure that the House would like to join me in saying thank you for a job well done to our drivers around the Victoria regional transit system.

MS. MARZARI: In the precincts today are grade 7 students from Quilchena Elementary School with their teacher Mr. Reimer and their principal Mrs. Jackman. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Visiting in the House today from the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands are approximately 60 grade 6 students from the McKenzie elementary school. Accompanying these students are: two teachers, Mr. Peter Gorman and Mr. Jim Richmond; Const. David Cairns of the Saanich police; two student teachers, Cathy Thomson and Carrie Lauplind; and four parents, Mrs. Robin Calder, Mrs. Carol Denton, Mrs. Linda Nisula and Mr. Derek Byer. The first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and I would like the House to join us in welcoming this group of people.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In the precincts today is the former vice-president of the B.C. Social Credit Party~ Ed Kisling. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in congratulating our Victoria bus drivers. They are indeed a great group of bus drivers. I can assure you that getting such an award driving the Victoria streets is indeed sometimes quite miraculous, particularly when the Legislature is in session and we have all the visiting MLAs back.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This bill contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to the University Endowment Lands that are still under provincial jurisdiction. It is to smooth the transition to a new status which will be decided upon by the affected parties.

[ Page 7654 ]

Bill 49 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

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. On May 11, over a month ago, I asked the minister when he would be presenting the mental health consultation plan to the cabinet. Has the minister taken the plan to the cabinet?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that's future business.

MR. PERRY: A supplementary then. When he implied in his answer at page 6718 of Hansard that he would take it to the cabinet soon, I conclude that he has not yet done so.

Another question: when is the minister going to stop delaying and provide the resources necessary to remedy the crisis created by the lack of community health services in this province? We know there is a $20 million shortfall. When will we be seeing that money?

HON. MR. DUECK: His conclusions are wrong We have the best system in Canada, and Canada certainly has the best system in the world. That doesn't say that we cannot continue to make improvements. We constantly review the programs we have and add and improve wherever we can.

The member for Vancouver-Point Grey knows very well how the system works. He's been in it -although not for very long, and perhaps he hasn't got that much experience. But to constantly insinuate and indicate that there's a lack of service, or to say that service is not provided, is absolutely wrong and not truthful.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. In the estimates debate on April 27, the facts of the matter were carefully laid out, and there has been no response from the minister. I would like to ask again, Mr. Speaker: does the minister have a date on which he will present the mental health plan to cabinet?

HON. MR. DUECK: That will be done in due course. I said it would be done soon, and it will be. I am not going to indicate exactly when, because if there is an error and something does not get in on that date, you'll stand up and say: "You said " I'm not going to do that, because everything doesn't go exactly the way I want it to at the time I want it to. I said that plan would be presented soon, and it will be. He knows that very well, because I've spoken to him in the past about it.

SPECIAL CREDIT CARD RATES

FOR NDP AND FEDERAL LIBERALS

MR. RABBITT: My question is to the Attorney-General. The NDP and the federal Liberal Party have a special deal with two of Canada's largest banks that will see their parties receive special interest treatment for major credit cards across Canada. Is there any law being contravened by this special privileged arrangement which favours a political party ahead of the general public?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll have to take as notice that part of the member's question with respect to any contravention of the law. I certainly will have it looked at. Indeed, I must say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that there have been members of the public who have asked that question. Generally speaking, I think it is the case that we have high interest rates inflicted on people, consumers with credit cards in this country, and those who are in small business are inflicted with high interest rates. I think generally legislators ought not to be in bed formally with those they may have to regulate.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests. Given that the government unveiled yesterday a blueprint for business and environmental groups to work together to develop sustainable development, and given that the task force chaired by Dr. David Strangway defines "sustainable development" as "a goal or ideal in which economic, environmental and social objectives are balanced to build a society of long-term prosperity, stability and quality, " has the minister decided to reverse the policy and allow public input into the management plans of the eight tree-farm licences now up for renewal in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: In the tree-farm licence policy of the province, there are a total of five opportunities for public input. In the very first case, before a tree-farm licence is even considered, there are public hearings. Secondly, we get to the management working plan, and there is public input. Then we get to the development plan, which is reviewed -it is a five-year horizon and is reviewed every year -and there is public input. Then there is a pre-harvest silviculture prescription, and that provides for public input. And then, before you can have any opportunity to cut within a tree-farm licence, you have to have a cutting authority~ called a cutting permit. In the cutting permit application there is opportunity for public input. That's five. A past Minister of Forests should understand that.

MR. KEMPF: Given the controversial nature of tree-farm licences, as indicated by the minister's eight so-called information meetings around the province, and given the concern by more than 40 percent of the public in the province of British

[ Page 7655 ]

Columbia with respect to tree-farm licences, will the minister not reverse the policy, giving the public some input, through public hearings, public meetings or whatever, into these eight tree-farm licences that are up for renewal, in order that they may voice their concerns, should they have any?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, we originally looked at five locations in the province and decided on eight, in order to have information sessions on a proposed policy for replacement of forest licences which are already held by licensees with tree-farm licences. We went around the province to eight different locations. We listened to over 90 hours of oral presentations and received over 300 written presentations. Those are all from the public. I consider that to be public input; probably most people in the province consider it to be public input.

There was a proposed policy, Mr. Speaker. We have not developed a replacement policy. Any move on that program has been stopped while we review all of the inputs thoroughly and discuss them within the ministry. That's taking place currently, and there's no intention of forcing any policy without going through due process.

The Ministry of Forests is one of the most public ministries in this government. It's the most decentralized, and there is more opportunity for the public to have input into the management strategies of this ministry than in any other ministry.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the minister said yes or no with that lengthy diatribe But given that the task force chaired by Dr. Strangway made some very real recommendations, and the Premier said yesterday, "We intend to move quickly to translate these recommendations into action, " is the minister, by his not allowing the public to voice its views of these eight tree-farm licences up for renewal, making a farce of that task force and that public announcement yesterday?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

LOGGING PRACTICES ON VANCOUVER

ISLAND'S WEST COAST

MR. GABELMANN: I also have a question for the Minister of Forests. Given the unconscionable and devastating logging practices on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in particular between Port Eliza and the Bunsby Islands - the Kyuquot area - has the minister any explanation to this House and the people of this province how that kind of logging could have taken place in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER: The operations on that part of the Island are largely on tenures known as old temporary tenures. They're basically timber licences from the turn of the century and have been harvested on a clearcut basis since that time. Some of them are now in tree-farm licence and managed on a sustainable yield basis; but some are outside of tree-farm licence, and they have the opportunity to cut the entire timber licence because of the nature of the tenure.

Recall what I said earlier: that the tenure has been in place since the turn of the century. It was not any different in the '72-75 period than it is today. They still have the opportunity to harvest those licences which they own. What they own is the standing timber. The management of those old temporary tenures is basically one of a liquidation cut, following which there is a forest renewal program.

The clearcuts that the member opposite alludes to have occurred over a number of years, including the tenure of the '72-75 period. The Forest Service is on record publicly under this ministry to more closely regulate the old temporary tenures and to ensure more responsible management of those lands. That has taken place in the last couple of years and certainly didn't take place in the early seventies.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking about logging that took place between 1979 and 1985 in Mount Paxton, St. Pauls Dome and other areas - plans approved by the Forest Service. Will the minister explain why his staff approved those logging plans?

HON. MR. PARKER: Those folks became my staff on March 31, 1987. The member opposite may be talking about '79 to '85, but I'm talking about the period from the time when those licences were first issued, which was in the early part of this century and all the time intervening.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is also to the Minister of Forests. This year we're experiencing twice as many forest fires as in a normal season, which means we're probably headed for a very heavy forest fire season. Recently your ministry imported two unit crews from California to fight fires in the Golden area. Given the fact that B.C. has only six unit crews operating in the province - although we have many people very well familiar with the forests - has the minister decided to train more unit crews to deal with this year's forest fire threat?

[2:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: The member opposite alluded to the number of fires compared to a normal year. I don't know what's normal as far as a fire year is concerned. Every year has its own special attributes.

The fire at Golden, by the way, is an interesting situation. When the fire was discovered, it was on very tough terrain, high elevation and steep. The Golden office attempted between two in the afternoon and 11 at night to acquire local firefighters. Eleven agreed to go. We needed 40. Ten showed up at the district office. When they got out to the toe of the slope on the reservoir, six of them said: "No, thank you very much, I won't go into that ground." Four were moved to the top of the ridge. When they got to

[ Page 7656 ]

the site, two more left. We were left with two firefighters. It's extremely difficult terrain.

We have highly trained individuals in our unit crews - in our rap attack crews and our helitack crews. They were all deployed. We had had some 1, 500 lightning strikes. What we have is a cooperational agreement with the Yukon, Alberta and the neighbouring states, including Oregon and California, for assistance In emergency situations. We had a clear emergency In very dangerous terrain. It meant that we had to have experienced personnel to attack this fire. The unit crews that were available to us were out of the U.S. Forest Service station in California.

Last year, we helped in a number of the states, and we also helped in Peru with forest fires. This international assistance is important if we're going to have sustainable economic development with due concern for the environment around the globe. This Forest Service participates. Yes, we are training additional people, and we have made those opportunities available not only in the Kootenays but across the province, and continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests seeks leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: I ask the House today to welcome 22 students in the grade 7 class at John Field Elementary School in Hazelton. Accompanying them are their teacher, Dave Hobbs, and parents Alf and Ruth Brady. Would you please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just prior to announcing this particular vote, and for the benefit of my staff who are listening on speakerphone, we will be proceeding to the estimates of the Minister of Regional Development directly following the vote I will call now.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

AND CORPORATION RELATIONS

On vote 76: new programs, $45, 000, 000 (continued).

MR. CLARK: just a follow-up to the minister's staff on the speakerphone. I have given my assurance to the government Whip, and through him, I'm sure, to the minister, that I will not go beyond 4:30. That will be the maximum amount of time that I will continue on this discussion.

With that in mind I just want to finish up, as briefly as I can, our discussions of some of the concerns that I've raised about the Vancouver Stock Exchange. After we do that, hopefully we can wrap up In short order.

I wonder if the minister's staff are planning to be here today.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I wouldn't want to see the affairs of the House delayed, while bureaucrats dictate the pace at which we move. So the hon. member should just proceed. He hasn't said much in the last six or seven hours that would need much staff assistance, so I'm quite happy to see him start the debate.

MR. CLARK: Actually, it wasn't that I was looking for the staff's assistance for the minister; I know he doesn't need any. I thought I would just give information that the staff weren't necessarily aware of, and I wanted them to be assured of that.

I have canvassed a couple of specific examples: one of an international criminal and one of what appears to be a good case of money-laundering. I thought I would very briefly, if I could, canvass one other relatively small matter of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; then my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I will briefly wrap up.

The minister and his staff may be aware of this, but I was reading in the Vancouver Sun an interesting court case about a promoter. This is a fascinating case of a guy named Sonny O'Sullivan; some people call him "Suitcase Sully" - that's his latest nickname, I hear. He was involved in a stock that was delisted finally. It went from 50 cents to about $5, and then was delisted from the exchange. This was an interesting court case, because it had nothing to do with the specifics of Starfire or this promoter, but I am wondering if the staff of the Securities Commission are aware of it.

I'll just explain it in laymen's terms. Mr. O'Sullivan hired a couple of people - a guy he calls Cliffie Robertson, in particular - to sell stock on a 10 percent commission. This is a few years ago, but the court case was just a month or two ago. Part of the deal was: "We'll give you 10 percent commission on the stock if you agree or make sure that they don't resell the stock within 90 days." I know the minister and the chief regulator beside him knows that it's illegal in this province to essentially withhold stocks by agreement from being resold.

Some of the people who he sold the stocks to resold within the 90 days, so Mr. O'Sullivan refused to pay the commission. As a result, to make a long story short, Mr. O'Sullivan was attacked and beat up by these individuals he'd hired. He was beat up because he didn't pay the commission, and he didn't pay the commission because they resold the stock before the 90 days were up. First of all, he called the police in, and the police went after the individuals for beating him up and extorting money.

What I found fascinating was that in fact the two were convicted - I think they got 30 months in jail - for beating up Suitcase Sully. The funny thing was that in the court case, while they were convicted of beating him up and extorting money from him, it turns out that all they were after was money that Suitcase Sully wouldn't pay, because they didn't

[ Page 7657 ]

fulfil the bargain. The bargain that he made with them is against the laws of the province of British Columbia.

I looked on the VSE, and I wondered if Suitcase Sully was still around. His new deal is a company called Bridge River Development. When you read the paper about the antics of Mr. O'Sullivan in connection with this case that came up, what kind of individual he was and what kind of deals he was promoting, you ask the question: is this a suitable person to be operating on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? I could ask that very simple question of the minister.

It seems to me that hiring hoods, essentially, to promote a stock in the United States on some arrangement which is a violation of the laws, and then the fact that he was beat up for not paying off, does seem to question whether this individual should be allowed to be a promoter on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I wonder if the minister has any comment on that case, or whether his staff are aware of the court case and the material that came out of that court case, which would seem to imply that Mr. O'Sullivan may not be the kind of person we want to see promoting stock in Vancouver.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This debate has been going on now for a number of days, and I have said - I don't know how many times - to the hon member that I have statutory responsibilities in performing the duties that I have. The statutory responsibility is to ensure that, beyond regulatory matters, justice is done and that we deal with those who are alleged to have perpetrated crimes, but that we do that in a fair and unbiased way. I am not, by virtue of my statutory obligations, capable of responding to individual requests or suggestions such as have just been made by the member opposite. I cannot confirm or deny that there are investigations taking place surrounding an individual or a firm doing business on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I have an obligation to ensure that justice is done, and that implies that there must be adjudications with evidence that can sustain any legal criticism and that justice be done and not only be done but be seen to be done by those we are attempting to regulate The very essence of that system requires that those in charge withhold comment until investigations, if they are taking place, are complete. So I'm in the position of being unable to deal with these questions, as the member knows full well.

I repeat again for the record, to start the day's debate: if the member has knowledge of a particular violation of laws, he should bring that knowledge to the attention of the Securities Commission. They would be pleased to take that information and act on it. In a similar sense, the hon. member can bring the information to me, and I can ensure that the issue being spoken to is addressed.

The member, in addition, has been repeatedly offered the opportunity to discuss any specifics outside of this public arena privately with myself or the Securities Commission so that he might be made aware of the current state of affairs as it may relate to any one alleged violator of the laws. I can't do any more than that, Mr. Chairman, under the law. The member knows that full well. So he is, in my judgment, abusing the privileges of the House here by continually dealing with matters that he knows I cannot speak to.

I am troubled by the suggestion the member made yesterday when I suggested to him that given the fact that all I can do is stand and say exactly the same thing I've said now to individual allegations, I would no longer rise and respond to individual comments or questions but rather I would save my answers until the end of the debate so that we would all save a little bit of time and wear and tear on our patience. I think that would be my inclination for the balance of this debate today, because there's no useful purpose in me standing and repeating myself.

[2:45]

I would, however, make this one additional comment; that is, upon reading the Blues of yesterday, the hon. member appeared to be making rather definitive statements in a number of cases. As a consequence of that fact, and by virtue, of course, that comments in this House are privileged and therefore the people or firms named are unable to respond in any legal way, I have isolated those particular points that were, in my judgment, alleged new material. I will be requesting the Attorney-General to follow up on those specific cases. It will be interesting to see what the consequence of that request for follow-up and hard evidence produces, Mr. Chairman.

In any event, it does strike me that that's the best way of giving the general public some comfort; that while justice must always be done, nevertheless, if allegations are made on the floor of this House in a privileged status, when they appear to have been made in such a definitive form that there's a suggestion of hard evidence associated with the comment, then it's appropriate that we have the Attorney-General follow up and perform his statutory responsibilities. I therefore will be communicating that request to the Attorney-General, and hopefully that way everyone can get the comfort that I trust both sides of the House are anxious to provide when it comes to dealing with matters of the stock exchange.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the fact that there's an undertaking to investigate some of the cases I've raised. I would assume that they would work with the Securities Commission on those matters.

I just have a general comment before we move on. The minister, on the one hand, says: "Don't use generalizations, because then you are using innuendo...." He goes to great lengths to say that we shouldn't do that. Then when you raise specifics, he goes to great lengths to say that we shouldn't do that, because then we are impugning specific cases and raising them in the House.

[ Page 7658 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If you are so sure of your facts, why do you need the immunity of the House?

MR. CLARK: I don't need the immunity of the House; I've said many of these things outside the House.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: That's good. I'm glad, Mr. Minister. I am happy that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) will be looking into them, because those are the kinds of things that should be looked into by the Attorney-General and by this administration. They have clearly demonstrated on several occasions a very soft response to white-collar crime. There has been some clear movement on the part of the Securities Commission, but not nearly enough in these respects.

The minister has said in earlier comments and letters to me: "There are no international criminals. There is no money-laundering. You can't prove it." I've stood in the House and given a specific example of one of the most notorious stock swindlers in the world now operating in a firm connected with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I have given a case which is very clearly money stolen from the Philippines and laundered through the stock exchange; I've brought another case of money-laundering before the House; and now this latest one, which is a local case in which all of the evidence came out in the court case.

The minister may be aware of the fact that I have not, in this case, made any unsubstantiated allegations. All of the allegations I made with respect to Mr. O'Sullivan came out in court in December 1988 with respect to him being beaten up by two thugs. In the court case it came out that it was a result of a stock deal that Mr. Suitcase had arranged on the VSE. That evidence is very clear for everybody to see; it's all on the public record already. The question really is: why has the Securities Commission not followed up and dealt with the individuals concerned, given the track record we've seen and the facts that came out in this court case?

What I would like to turn to now are some general questions regarding the handling of the insider trading charges that were laid by the Securities Commission against the two Bennetts and Mr. Doman. It begs several policy questions regarding insider trading in this province. I think that if we canvass that thoroughly, we can then move on. Rather than me starting off, I thought I would turn to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who could maybe canvass this area first.

MR. SIHOTA: I know I have engaged the minister in the past in discussion about the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Usually I talk about things that aren't in front of the commission, and the minister always pleads that he doesn't have the information. Today I want to talk about something that, of course, has been before the commission, and I am sure the minister has all the information.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House when the Securities Commission commenced its investigation into the Bennett-Doman affair.

HON. MR. REID: What's the question on the estimates? What do you want to know about the estimates?

MR. SIHOTA: You'll find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew have another question he can continue with?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is consulting with his staff, I would assume. I don't think they are talking about the weather outside.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I should say that I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to stand while I ask these questions, in light of my back.

Again, to the minister, whom I see is in the midst of a detailed conversation with his officials: this is a matter that the Securities Commission investigated quite some time ago and out of which some celebrated charges were laid. It is no longer before the courts, in the sense that the trial has been heard. I am sure that the minister would be quite happy to tell us about the diligence of his officials, because often he has said that they are very diligent. Often he has said that we on this side of the House make spurious allegations, so my question to the minister is: when did the Securities Commission commence its investigation? The minister will now, of course, have an opportunity to expand on the diligence of that office.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am advised that the investigation order was signed on November 8 and that there were investigators appointed, including one from the province of Ontario - because, as the House knows, this was a joint effort by both jurisdictions.

MR. SIHOTA: November 8 - that is about four days after the sale took place. I am wondering if the minister could tell the House when the Attorney-General's department was first notified of the ministry's investigation of this matter. Was the A-Gs department brought in on November 8 or was it advised a little later on at this stage? If so, approximately when?

AN HON. MEMBER: Prior to November 8.

MR. SIHOTA: I wouldn't think so.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful here in our responses, because as the House knows and as the member knows full well, there are still unaddressed legal issues surrounding this matter. However, I am anxious to provide information to the member opposite and to the House when I can, providing that it doesn't violate the ongoing matters now under legal dispute.

[ Page 7659 ]

The hon. member made some aside, to the effect that the order was issued four days after the event. He conveniently overlooked the fact that two of those days were holidays - Saturday and Sunday. I think that point needs to be on the record.

The inquisition sometimes tends to be couched in phrases and language which create false impressions, and I trust that the member opposite would agree that it's neither his objective nor obviously should it be government's.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister failed to answer the question. Could he tell us approximately when the Attorney-General's department was called in? I give you credit: if it was November 4, it was two working days after the sale. That's fine. I didn't mean that in a negative way. Let me ask the minister then: when did the Attorney-General's department join hands with your securities people?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, we are uncertain whether that information should be disclosed at this time, given the legalities still being pursued in the courts. The only way I can handle the question is to take it on notice and provide the answer when we're given legal authority to do so.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't understand why the minister thinks that a simple question about when the Attorney-General's department got involved would in some way impede anything. It's a civil matter before the courts, that I'm aware of. The criminal matter has been resolved in British Columbia and is not being appealed. The appeal period has expired. Your government has decided not to appeal it. So I don't understand what legal ramification the minister is talking about. Sure, there's something pending in Ontario, but... .

HON. MR. REID: That's why you'll never be a lawyer again. You're finished.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd be very happy to show the Minister of Tourism my bar certificate.

I don't understand why the minister is taking that view at all. That's fine; we'll come to that again perhaps. I want to ask the minister this question then: could he tell us what triggered the investigation on November 8, 1988?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As the member knows, the trade occurred on the Toronto Stock Exchange, so the inquiry was triggered by notification from the Toronto Stock Exchange of the transaction.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister then tell the House how long the investigation was by his officials? It obviously commenced November 8. When did it terminate, or is it still ongoing?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I took an earlier question on notice because of pending legalities. Obviously the member could infer from my taking on notice and my response the answer to the question he just put.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me tell the minister, in response to his response: if he'd just stop trying to figure out what my question is all about and answer the question, it would be a lot easier, because I think he's reading far more into the question than there was,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA: Certain members of the Social Credit cabinet would prefer that I not ask these questions, but I think they're fairly important.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll try to ignore the comments from the side there.

MR. BLENCOE: Consider the source.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. I was mindful of the source when I decided to ignore it.

The question to the Minister of Finance is this. Obviously the government or his officials reviewed the records of the transactions. Could he tell the House who his officials interviewed during their investigation?

[3:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, as I've said to the hon. member, there are ongoing matters before the various authorities. I certainly would not be prepared to harm the legality of those matters. Therefore I cannot answer to the question. The member fully knows it. As a matter of fact, the Securities Act, section 132, says: "No person, without the consent of the commission, shall disclose, except to his counsel, any information or evidence obtained or the name of any witness examined or sought to be examined" under previous sections. Insofar as I have said there are still matters to be settled in a legal sense, clearly a response to that question would be inappropriate. If, as the member alleges, he is a member of the bar, I would have thought he'd know that.

MR. SIHOTA: You've got the people there from the Securities Commission. Maybe you could ask them for their consent and let us know. The minister told us that the investigation commenced on November 8. Could he tell the House whether or not that investigation involved both the acquisition and the sale of shares, or was it subsequent that you dealt with the matter of the acquisition of shares?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The same answer, Mr. Chairman. It would be damaging and potentially harmful to the matters yet to be settled for an answer

[ Page 7660 ]

to be provided at this time. So we'll take that question on notice also.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister explain why he thinks that question would be damaging to any litigation that's going on? Could he afford the House an explanation for this shield that he chooses to use?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I take some offence at the suggestion that we're using a shield. The member opposite knows full well that were I to harm ongoing matters that will be addressed by other adjudicating authorities, I could be found guilty of abusing public off ices and confidences given to me by statute. He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. Were I to oblige his request and subsequently be found to have done damage to the ongoing issues being adjudicated, then he would promptly ask for my resignation, and probably with justification.

I'm sorry, I can't let him have both sides of the debate. I have told him that I am not interested in withholding any information. When I am legally free to answer the questions that he puts surrounding this matter, I'll be pleased to file the answers; but not before.

MR. SIHOTA: Can the minister tell us what litigation is taking place in British Columbia in relation to this matter?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Once again, a little fishing expedition to attempt to determine exactly what matters might yet not be resolved. I cannot play that game. I have, as I said, statutory responsibilities Were I to start playing that game and in the process do harm to the issues being adjudicated, then of course I would have to resign my office. I have a matter of responsibility and obligation to perform here, and I'm attempting to ensure that it's done in an unbiased, fair, open manner.

The answers to these questions can, of course, be provided once we're legally free to do so. I for one am committed and make the commitment to do just that, but not before.

MR. CLARK: It's quite clear, it seems to me, that if the minister says he's prepared to tell us when the investigation started, it's not prejudicing anything to tell us when the investigation of the buying of the shares started as well. Maybe I could ask a different question: is the Securities Commission reviewing the case with respect to regulatory sanctions, as opposed to legal sanctions, against the parties, given that the government has chosen not to appeal the legal question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have stood in this House for at least eight hours saying repeatedly I cannot confirm or deny the state of investigations that may or may not be underway. To imply that we are not would suggest that we may, or even that a case might have been closed. To imply that we are would alert the alleged perpetrators that there are ongoing matters for which they may be at some risk. None of that would be in the interest of the duty I must fulfil. The question is patently exactly the issue I have been responding to for the last eight hours. I cannot share that in a public way. The member knows that. He's heard it repeatedly.

I can't do any more than my legal duty. That's what we're doing. If, as you suspect, there may be some sort of a shield here - to use the word of the other member - then all we can do is let the matters that are still under question be resolved, and at that time, when there can be no harm done to one side or the other, then I'm quite happy to share that information with the House.

MR. SIHOTA: When I referred to a shield, I should have said a mythical shield, because I defy the minister to point to any legal impediment that prevents him from answering the question.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) about ministerial responsibility~

The question to the Minister of Finance that still remains outstanding, of course, and the fact that's obvious to him, is that there is no judicial proceeding operating in British Columbia - maybe quasi-judicial, but not judicial.

The Minister of Finance is not on retainer for Mr. Bennett or Mr. Doman; he's on retainer for the people of this province. His job is to answer questions relating to the activities of his ministry, and we're asking questions relating to the activities of his ministry.

It would be a different matter if the matter was under appeal, but we've gone past the appeal date. It would be a different matter if the matter was being litigated criminally in British Columbia. That's not the case anymore. That's not a defence anymore. They should have called the estimates back in May if you wanted to avoid this, Mr. Minister, but you didn't. You're here before us now, and your officials have to account for themselves.

I also find it passing strange that the minister would say to my colleague from Vancouver East that it's not for him to confirm whether or not any investigations are ongoing. Has the minister forgotten that last year, in relation to a question I asked him in question period dealing with a company that Mr. Brown was associated with - and I can give him the name of the company if he gives me some time to look it up - the minister indeed confirmed that a matter was under investigation, and offered that information on his own. That's a total contradiction of what he said today. I'll be happy to provide the minister with that response. As it turned out, however, the minister said that there was an investigation and there wasn't one. We spent about four days in this House trying to tell the minister that he was behaving like Pinocchio, and he still, to this date, hasn't retracted that error. Maybe it has more to do

[ Page 7661 ]

with the fact that he got stung than it does with this mythical shield he says exists.

I want to know this from the minister. The Attorney-General's department chose at some point to lay charges against the Bennetts. I can't remember the exact date that that occurred, although I'm sure I could find that. Was the Securities Commission informed prior to the laying of those charges that the Attorney-General's department was about to proceed with the laying of the charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm advised that that's a matter of public record, and the answer to the question is yes.

The member made a few other comments that I'll deal with now. He pointed out that last year I did confirm or at least that I answered a question he put to me regarding a particular stock. He asked if that was under investigation and I said: "Well, the Vancouver Stock Exchange have halted trading, so obviously it's a matter under investigation." That's the issue, I take it, that he's referring to. As a matter of fact, I'm advised now that the word I used at the time was "examination, " not "investigation." I remember trying to dance around that issue. In any event, the aside made by the member just a moment ago isn't quite on the point.

I also want to remind the member that in the opening response to his first question, I pointed out that the issues surrounding the Doman matter were a joint investigation. I don't know whether he caught that or not, but if he didn't, I make the point again.

MR. SIHOTA: When you say it was a joint investigation, I take it that it was a joint investigation with Ontario.

Could the minister first of all tell the House when the Attorney-General's department told you they were proceeding with charges? How much notice did they give to your ministry with respect to that matter? Was it hours, minutes or days?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'll take that question on notice, on the same reasoning as the previous questions.

MR. SIHOTA: I fail to see how that can prejudice any type of litigation that's going on. Does the minister want to do his job or not? The question to the minister is this: what discussions did your officials have with people in Ontario, once you were advised of the charges being laid in British Columbia, vis-à-vis the value of proceeding in British Columbia first and Ontario second?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We'll take that under notice, Mr. Chairman. As I said, there are matters still to be settled and there is much more to be done, and therefore it would be inappropriate to respond at this time.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess we've been getting accustomed to this sort of stonewall methodology on the part of the government.

Let me ask the minister this. He says there are other matters left to be covered. Could he explain what those other matters are that would prevent him from answering such a basic question? Tell us.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have responded to that issue. I do believe the question has been answered previously, and I can't add any more to my previous answer.

MR. SIHOTA: You haven't covered it at all, and in fact the preference seems to be to allow it to remain uncovered in terms of your attitude vis-à-vis these answers. I want to tell the minister that it's very important that we get some answers in terms of what his ministry did or did not do and the level of cooperation that existed between his ministry and the Ministry of Attorney-General.

Let me ask you a general question that pertains to this matter. Are your officials satisfied with the level of cooperation they had with the Attorney-General's department in this regard?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue is obviously one that involves all arms of government, and to that extent all arms of government act in a coordinated fashion. So the member can draw his own conclusions.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA: I think there are others who have written about this matter and have drawn several conclusions. It relates again to the matter of cooperation with the Attorney-General's department.

Let me ask the minister this question. Did your securities officials make any representations to the Ministry of Attorney-General as to the jurisdiction in which the criminal charges should first be laid?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think I've already dealt with that issue in a previous answer.

I believe the only way to ostensibly tackle this question is for me to remain in my seat and make a note of the questions put. I have already assured the member that once we're legally free to provide the information he's asked for, we will provide it. But that time is not now, and therefore I'll have to just make a note of the questions and let the natural course of events dictate when I can provide the answers.

MR. SIHOTA: Somehow I suspect we're not going to get any answers from this minister until after the next provincial election.

I want to ask the minister this question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You'll be back asking the same questions.

[ Page 7662 ]

MR. SIHOTA: If the Minister of Education wants to come run against me in my riding, I'll be very happy to take him on.

Did the Attorney-General's department in any way pre-empt the investigations of your people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: just in case the minister did not hear the question, because there was some chatter going on between me and the Minister of Education: did the Ministry of Attorney-General in any way pre-empt the investigation and activities of your securities people?

MR. CLARK: I guess if the minister wants a list of questions, we'll give him a list of questions.

Can the minister confirm that in fact Securities Commission investigators of this case were surprised that a press conference had been called by the Attorney-General's ministry to lay these charges?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister confirm that the Ontario investigator from their Securities Commission in Ontario was not informed that charges would be laid by the Ministry of the Attorney-General here in British Columbia?

Can the minister confirm that in fact the investigator from the Ontario Securities Commission had to attend the press conference that the Ministry of the Attorney-General held in order to find out what charges were to be laid and what constituted the charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am advised that that is not correct, Mr. Chairman, and I am free to disclose that fact.

MR. SIHOTA: The member for Vancouver East asked two other questions. Can the minister explain why it is that he is not prepared to respond to the first two questions and only respond to the third one? Has he got an objection? Is he unaware of what transpired, or is he aware and just would prefer not to tell us?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I answered that question about five or ten minutes ago. I told the hon. member that the issue was a cross-ministry issue, and whenever those instances arise all arms of government are coordinated to act effectively, and that was the situation that prevailed. I can't answer any more definitively than that.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister saying, then, that the Ministry of the Attorney-General did not pre-empt his official's investigation activities on this matter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continues.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the minister is not prepared to answer that.

With respect to the laying of charges, there was a charge laid initially with respect to the sale of shares and subsequently, on the date of the trial, the charges with respect to the acquisition of the shares were laid. What conversations did his securities officials have with the Attorney-General's ministry, if any, with respect to the need to lay those charges at the time they were laid?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Question to the Minister of Finance again: did the Attorney-General's department come to your ministry and say: "Look, we should lay charges on the front end" - in other words, on the acquisition? So first, did they do that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Repetitive and tedious, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: These are new questions.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't understand why the minister is not prepared to answer this question. There was obviously a gap in time between the original decision to lay charges with respect to the sale of shares and the decision to lay charges with respect to the acquisition of shares.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this: did his officials recommend to the Attorney-General's ministry that charges be laid with respect to the acquisition end of the charges? Did they make that recommendation or . . . ?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can't answer that.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm at a loss to understand why the minister says that he can't answer that question. He's already said his officials investigated on November 8. We know when their investigation commenced. All we're trying to find out is whether or not they recommended that charges be laid on both ends -the sale and the acquisition? Or was it that no recommendations had... ?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I know that the ego of the member for Esquimalt demands that if he wants to ask a question 20 times, somebody should answer it 20 times. He has asked those same questions several times. He has perhaps changed a word or two, but the content has been identical. He has had the answers to them, and then somehow or other he expects that the minister must answer because it suits his ego, and the committee has to listen to all that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just remind members - and I have mentioned this before - that there's no

[ Page 7663 ]

compulsion that ministers answers questions that are put to them during estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: Certainly it is not for the Minister of Education to impute any motive, and it's pure hyperbole to make the suggestion that he did make. Quite frankly, we have an obligation on this side of the House to ask questions. I am sure that the Minister of Education would prefer that we not do that when it brings some sense of discomfort to ministers on the other side of the House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We believe in the learning process; you haven't learned a thing.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, in order for a learning process to take place, there must be dialogue, and we're not getting that in terms of the new Socred stonewall mentality.

MR. CLARK: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[3:30]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 11

NAYS - 32

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to know how the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) voted on that one.

HON. MR. VEITCH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I notice that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew voted on both issues. He's like his leader and has both of his feet firmly planted in the air. I'm wondering which way he voted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is well aware of the way the vote was taken, hon. member. The hon member has received permission to remain on his feet because he has a bad back. The debate continues on vote 76.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: A question for the Minister of Finance. What discussions took place between his ministry and the Ontario securities people vis-à-vis whether or not charges with respect to the acquisition of shares should be laid, and in which jurisdiction?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Delta rises on a point of order. just before he does, maybe I could ask the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) to take their seats.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, the matter being canvassed at this time by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is currently a criminal-proceeding consideration by the Ontario court. Notwithstanding the fact that no charges have yet been made, it is very clearly understood that that is still a matter of consideration by that body. The questions by the member at this time transgress that area, which- is reserved for a theatre other than this one.

I believe the Chair has made a ruling on this matter in the past. I believe - with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman - the minister has made it clear that this is a matter that cannot be discussed at this time, and I would ask the Chair so to rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has the benefit and wisdom of counsel. The matter is not sub judice until charges have been laid, and I do not believe charges have been laid in this case.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, it's my understanding that charges have been laid in Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In that event, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew must govern his remarks accordingly.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought that the matter in Ontario - and I could stand to be corrected; the minister has his officials here - was charges that flow from the Securities Commission with respect to violations of securities provisions in Ontario. Are you saying that they are the same criminal charges?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: They are, I'm advised, the equivalent charges that were laid surrounding the transaction of November 4.

just for my own information, Mr. Chairman, could you clarify your ruling? What is the practice in matters that are before the courts? Is it appropriate that we continue on this course?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not make a ruling; the Chair only wants to make a recommendation for guidance. In order for the Chair to give a really well-researched ruling, I wonder if it would be possible to discuss another facet of this issue for now, and I will have the Clerks give us a definitive ruling. It's going to set a precedent not only for this

[ Page 7664 ]

committee but for future direction of the House, and as such, I'd like to get something definitive on it. If the member could proceed on that basis, I'm sure a number of other areas could be canvassed. Or perhaps the House Leader could call another vote.

MR. CLARK: Pending that, I would like to canvass, if I can - I don't think this falls within the purview of the Chair's ruling - some issues that have arisen out of recent events. In Ontario, the securities legislation has a different test than B.C.'s. The test in Ontario is commonly referred to as a reverse-onus clause. Would the minister care to comment on that and on the government's view with respect to the difference in legislation between the two, particularly with respect to reverse onus?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Rather than get into a ruling right away, perhaps I can assist the committee by reading from the journals of MacMinn, page 58, dealing with the sub judice convention and matters pending judicial decision:

"A matter is sub judice during the following period of time:

"Criminal matter - from time charge laid to passing of sentence and from date of filing notice of appeal to date decision given by appellate court. Between sentence and filing notice of appeal, matter is not sub judice, subject always to the discretion of the Chair."

I was hoping the committee members would exercise their own discretion, but we will work diligently to try to get a more definitive ruling.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member has dealt in his last question with an issue that apparently has had a fairly wide circulation. Therefore I believe it's appropriate to set the record straight. Certain commentators have suggested that the acquittal in B.C. Provincial Court indicates the need to introduce a reverse-onus provision for insider trading which would require defendants to prove they had not traded on inside information. It was suggested that the Ontario Securities Act has such a provision. The fact is that the differences between the B.C. and the Ontario acts were not a factor in this trial. Ontario does not have a reverse-onus provision. Such a provision would most likely violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' protection of a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty~

MR. CLARK: I want to be very clear that a reverse-onus clause is a difficult one and rarely used As I understand it, the classic example is in drug trafficking. Where an individual has possession of a drug in a certain quantity, once a legal case is made that possession is in fact the case, then the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that the quantity of drugs is not being used for trafficking.

A reverse-onus clause does sound like a very heavy... I think a circumstantial case must initially be made before the onus would reverse. It is true, and I think it is a terrible.... If I can be quite bold, think the ruling of the judge was preposterous in some respects, and the conclusions that he came to were simply unsubstantiated. But, having said that, it is true - and I agree with the minister - that he said a circumstantial case was not made.

In that case, a reverse-onus clause similar to the one in the Ontario case would not kick in, because first you have to make the case. Then the onus shifts. So I agree with the minister that with respect to the judge's reasoning - and as I said, I think it's faulty reasoning - such an onus would not be reversed, so to speak.

Having said that, I want to get a little - if I could, for a minute, until we get a more definitive ruling -beyond the narrowness of this specific case and deal with the general principle. Although the minister's briefing notes have said there is not a reverse onus in the strictest sense of the words, I wonder if he would agree that the onus should shift to the defendant in light of circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, it would seem to me, as Ace Henderson said, you will never be able to prove a case of insider trading unless at some point the onus shifts, after a circumstantial case has been made.

So let's put aside this particular case. That seems, in light of the debate surrounding the legislation in British Columbia, to be a flaw which subsequent trials and cases may bear out. Whether this one did or not is really not the point. The point Is that the Ontario legislation is stronger and does imply a shifting onus, once the circumstantial case is made. Does the minister not agree that it might be desirable in British Columbia to move in that direction?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we hear from the minister, perhaps I can have the attention of the members of the committee. The Chair can only go on the information that is brought forward. The information we have received from the minister is that charges have been laid in this case, and it is incumbent upon us to respect the decision. These charges are laid either in a court in British Columbia or in any other province in Canada.

The rule that the Chair is bound by is one of avoiding any possibility of prejudicing the case. Therefore it's in the best interests of justice that we avoid discussing this issue. There will be another time in this forum when this issue can be canvassed more thoroughly. For the members and for the minister as well, I would ask that you confine your remarks to other parts of your responsibilities. Thank you. Please continue.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Our Information Is that the reverse-onus clause in the narcotics act, which the member referred to, was struck down. It's in violation of the Charter, so the precept under which the member frames his question is ultra vires.

MR. CLARK: I won't get into a legal debate. It seems to me that the evidence is clear, and we could debate for some time the relative merits of the Ontario legislation. I think there are several aspects of that legislation which are better than ours - not

[ Page 7665 ]

just in terms of the penalties and the shifting onus on trading with knowledge as opposed to having to prove those kinds of questions.

[3:45]

1 might just end my remarks by suggesting to the minister that I look forward to further legislative changes in that area in line with the Ontario legislation. I would hope that, despite differences or concerns we may have, that the Securities Commission is pursuing the research with respect to moving in that direction in British Columbia.

I will conclude my remarks on the minister's estimates. I might note that it's earlier than I had anticipated. With respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I want to first of all commend Mr. Hyndman of the Securities Commission. I think it's very clear that they are moving in a direction I support. But I think it's clear, given some of the evidence that I've tried to put forward, that there is still a ways to go in British Columbia to deal with undesirable elements on the stock exchange. The minister, by saying that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) would investigate, seems to imply some problem with that; I actually take some solace in the fact that there is going to be some investigation of these remarks.

I've chosen specifically not to go into other cases and there are other cases that I clearly could have gone into. I tried to isolate it specifically to three cases which deal with three different facets of the exchange and which deal with questions raised by the minister about the allegations I made earlier. I tried to narrow the focus, although it took longer than I had hoped.

I want to end, though, by saying that it seems to me that we do have to make decisions in British Columbia with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the direction that we want to take as a province. The government very clearly, particularly with respect to the comments regarding investment of government pension funds on the stock exchange - clearly the kinds of notions that the minister has put forward - wants to move the Vancouver Stock Exchange to a level of the Toronto Stock Exchange. That seems to be the desire and the stated intent of the government, on the view that the stock exchange plays a very significant role in their economic development plans.

We've heard comments from the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) about what he sees as the role of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We've seen comment in British Columbia about the role of a venture capital exchange as opposed to a more senior exchange in Toronto. In addition, we've seen a lot of controversy regarding the kind of people involved in the Vancouver Stock Exchange and some very unfortunate international exposure recently.

I will end by saying that on this side of the House we feel very strongly - as the Leader of the Opposition has said - that we need an all-party committee or some other vehicle which comes to some consensus about the direction in which we want to see our stock exchange go. They have played a role, we want to see in what direction we want them to go in the future.

The direction the government is moving in concerns me in terms of its moving very quickly in the direction.... There have been lots of changes, many of which are commendable, but investing government money In the Vancouver Stock Exchange, using government money in a way to try and - falsely, I think; at least potentially - elevate the stature of the stock exchange concerns me. There are many questions outstanding with respect to how we marry a venture capital exchange with new rules and regulations which attempt, in the government's mind, I think, to elevate the exchange, and at the same time deal with the risk - with risk comes reward - by removing unsavoury elements from the exchange.

All of those questions are evolving. I know that the minister has given it some thought. I don't think British Columbians and this chamber - and if I might say, the government - have given enough thought to the role of the exchange in an evolving global marketplace and the role of other international financial Institutions, international financial legislation, international financial centres, Asia-Pacific foreign investment - a whole range of things which have the potential to fundamentally alter the economy of British Columbia, and not necessarily, in my view, beneficially, but potentially so.... The challenge, it seems to me, is to channel that foreign investment into things that add value to the community and to British Columbia as a people and a place and, beyond that, to look at the stock exchange as one of many levers which could be used by government and by public policy to try and shape the future British Columbia.

I think the government has been moving in a direction without adequate forethought. There hasn't been adequate discussion, and I think the debate needs to be elevated in some ways to a bipartisan if not non-partisan way. We need to discuss these questions in an open public forum. We need the full participation of the business community - not just the people on Howe Street, but the entire business community of British Columbia - in how we see the exchange fitting into the future plans of British Columbia. That is why we feel strongly that one forum, one possible way in which we could proceed, is through an all-party committee which helps both to deal with these fundamental questions and the direction we want to see in British Columbia and also with our international reputation, which I think has suffered very greatly In recent months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm about to call the vote, but if the minister wishes to speak, I recognize him.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A couple of points should be made in conclusion. First of all, the member made some reference to his desire to see some changes to the insider-trading regulations. I just remind the member and the House that a year ago I announced that we would be bringing in some legislation this session to deal with that issue. We

[ Page 7666 ]

will be dealing with that, I believe, in the very near future.

The member also dealt at some length with the future of the VSE vis-à-vis other exchanges around the world, and certainly vis-à-vis adding to the economic strength of British Columbia's financial community. He seemed to be working on the assumption that the government had not been very active in this field, and I just want to disabuse him of that notion. It's a subject we've been spending a considerable amount of time on with the industry and with others who might have an interest in the industry. So that is an ongoing matter, which I do believe will result in some policy issues in the near future.

The key point here, however, is that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is managed by a board of governors. It is a self-regulating organization, as is every other stock exchange in the world. Therefore it is the government's attitude that it's important that the industry itself see the vision, see the potential and see the opportunity, and that the industry itself develop the maturity to be able to resolve internally its own problems. That is progressing apace, and there has been significant progress made over the last year and a half in that respect, not only by the Securities Commission but also by the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am satisfied that the board of governors of the exchange have similar desires as those expressed by both sides of this House relating to the operating style of the Vancouver exchange. I do anticipate that by the time we revisit my estimates next year, we will have seen continued significant progress, and I look forward to that day.

Vote 76 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTRY OF STATE

FOR MAINLAND-SOUTHWEST

On vote 48: minister's office, $341, 470 (continued).

MRS. BOONE: I have a couple of different issues I'd like to canvass here with the minister. When we last dealt with this, we sort of got into a little bit of a debate with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) on the structuring. I'd like to get a little bit more general on the structuring of the ministry as a whole here. I'd like to ask right now how the ministry is currently structured. When the ministers of state first came in, there was no overriding ministry; each of the ministers of state was autonomous, and there was no sort of super minister or minister of everything dealing with it.

Is the money currently in your budget the money for seed capital funding, for consultants? There are various things that come through.... Any other issues that are raised, are they included in your budget or are they diffused out into the budgets of the various ministers of state throughout the province?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No. Essentially, if you're talking about seed capital.... Those kinds of items are provincewide issues administered through the Ministry of Regional Development. The Ministry of Regional Development has a coordinating role with the ministers of state. We meet at least twice-weekly and sometimes thrice-weekly to discuss issues. If you look at the blue book, the estimates book, you'll find that the ministers of state have their own budgets, for their office, for expenses that occur within their region, for their regional development officer and regional liaison officer and a small staff. They also have some budgets there for helping out in local situations, such as studies in a particular region or something of that nature.

But the loans portfolio, the ERDA arrangements, and indeed, the majority of the analysis, other than the primary analysis, is at the Ministry of Regional Development level. That is where the expertise lies -and we don't want to duplicate that expertise anywhere in the province.

So with the Minister of International Business and Immigration you essentially have six ministers of economic development in the province of British Columbia, all working in their own areas. The ministers of state, of course, have the function of bringing forward to either a ministers-of-state committee or the Ministry of Regional Development - essentially what was the economic development committee -issues and opportunities that affect their regions throughout the province. But the coordination and the administration is effected through the Ministry of Regional Development in cooperation, of course, at the official level with the associate deputy ministers in each particular instance. So it's working very well. It's taken some fine-tuning, like any other initiative, but it's all working and coming together very well.

MRS. BOONE: So all the ERDA money is in there. I can understand that.

From what I can see at the moment, consultancy seems to be a pretty hefty business in this province. I would really advise people, as long as the Social Credit government is in, to go into consulting, because it certainly is a hefty business right now.

Is the money for consultants held at the local level or at your level? How is it accessed? Do the ministers converse with you and have to go through you in order to get money for consultants, or do they have the ability to do that at the local level? Can you tell me as well just how much is budgeted for consultants?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I prefer not to comment, of course, on the budgets of other ministers. You'll have your chance to do that. We wouldn't want to offend the rules of the committee.

We don't use consultants to a great extent, but we do use them rather than keep expertise on-board at all times. There are people out there with knowledge in a certain area. One of the examples would be the steel area or something of that nature.

[4:00]

[ Page 7667 ]

Generally consultancy work is done through the Ministry of Regional Development when there is a cross-ministry situation involved or when a large project comes close to fruition. If it's a smaller project - say between a municipality and the minister of state or the MLAs in the area - that can be, and indeed is, done at the minister-of-state level.

We'll look up the money in the budget in just a minute, but it Isn't all for consultants; it covers a broad range.

We don't hire consultants unless we need them and it's something our in-house staff is not capable of doing. They're very experienced people, and there are very few things they're not capable of looking into. But on something like the steel project or a large new project, we would take consultancy advice and bring someone in.

MRS. BOONE: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that most of the funding for consultants, etc., is done through the local ministers.

The minister is shaking his head. You are saying to me, then, that if it's a small project, it's done through the minister of state through his own budget, and if it's a larger project, they come to you for the consultant's fee. If it's a major study... For example, is the health study that's taking place in Prince George in conjunction with the regional districts, the municipalities and what have you being funded through the minister of state?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The particular one you're alluding to was done at the regional level because it is purely a regional situation. You could ask the minister about it when he stands up to do his estimates, but it was a regional item done through the minister of state's budget in the Cariboo region.

MRS. BOONE: The minister was talking about regionalization and about having the ministers of state out there on hand for people to do all of these different things. Yet earlier he mentioned that his staff goes out into the regions to advise the people there as to what they can do. Surely you must see some conflict in your whole attitude. You're saying: "We want to regionalize. We want to give these people the authority to do these things." Yet you are sitting here once again sending people out from Victoria to deal with issues. Surely they ought to be dealt with at the local level, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It depends on where the expertise lies, and the general expertise lies in the Ministry of Regional Development. That's where very talented people who have had many years of experience work, and rather than double up on these items, of course, we do them through the ministry. There's no problem. We get along extremely well, and it's all done through consultation. We have meetings, as I say, at least three times a week, and sometimes more often. We go over all of the issues. If it's purely a regional issue, it is done at the regional level, and the Ministry of Regional Development, other than proffering advice, is not involved.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If it was the potential closing of a plant or something of that nature - a broader arrangement -or something that was tied into one of the federal-provincial programs we administer through this ministry, the original information would, in all likelihood, flow through the minister of state's office. The analysis and indeed the negotiation would be handled at the Minister of Regional Development level so that we don't double up and do what the NDP has accused us of, and that's piling people upon people. We're very quick on response, and we try to move things through just as quickly as we can. I can tell you without equivocation or fear of contradiction that we haven't had one argument in any of these issues. It's working very well indeed.

MRS. BOONE: I certainly wouldn't argue with the minister, but it seems to me that you definitely are piling people upon people. You're telling us at one point that you have a regional staff here and then that you also have people out in the field. Surely it's not necessary. We've done without those people in the field for many years, and we've had offices. Most areas have regional development offices that have worked very well.

You mention the FMC plant that's going into Prince George. The minister seems to like to claim that this was all done because of the minister. The mayor of Prince George worked very hard on this with the regional development office, which has been there for many years. That plant would have come about whether you had your minister of state there or not, Mr. Minister, because we have had some very hard-working people.

it seems to me that you are definitely duplicating staff. Do you or don't you have a large central staff?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: You have a fairly large central staff, I would say, and then you have staff that have never been there before out into the regions. That is a duplication, Mr. Minister. If you're saying "no, " how can that be? Has your staff then decreased considerably since they put staff out into the regions?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We increased the government agents' offices, as I said. The staffing of government agents that you asked about before increased by 10 percent. Normally in an area the permanent staff would be one regional development officer, who is domiciled in Victoria and gives that advice back and forth, and a regional liaison development officer. In some of the smaller regions, there's only the regional development liaison officer and a secretary, and in many cases they work out of government agents' offices. So we do not have duplication.

[ Page 7668 ]

What does happen, though, in an area like Mainland-Southwest, which represents almost 57 percent of the population of British Columbia, is that in those instances and some of the other instances we have some staff that I must admit came over from the old Economic Development ministry into our ministry. They go out into the field and talk with people, and they do give advice. We quite often send people from the Ministry of Regional Development at the request of one of the ministers of state. In fact, we consistently send them out - they're on the road a lot out into the various regions - but we do not double up.

I'm glad you mentioned FMC, because FMC is a perfect example of regionalization and how it can accrue to the benefit of the people of B.C. The mayor of Prince George was one of the first people to accept regionalization as something that would work very well for his area. I have been told as well that the mayor is of NDP persuasion. He is a very progressive mayor, a darned good mayor. It doesn't matter what his politics are; he believes this process is good for Prince George. What happened with that? We worked with the Minister of State for Cariboo, with the Ministry of Regional Development, with the companies, and we negotiated to have that particular operation not placed in another community in B.C. where we felt it ought not to be; but it was up to the company.

Indeed, with the cooperation of the mayor, with the cooperation of the people in local regional development, with the cooperation of the regional development officer and the liaison officer - and yes, the mayor, and yes, members of the council.... That's what regionalization is all about: people getting together to help other folks in their area. That is a perfect example of how we established a new operation in Prince George. By putting it there, not only are we going to employ, in the construction stages, about 400 people working on that magnificent project; we are working, as the first step there, towards eliminating the dioxin problem in the province by starting a hydrogen peroxide plant in Prince George. It works, and it works very well, hon. member.

Do whatever you want philosophically, but I know you have a great interest in the people in your riding. The other member is on board. You might come to some of the meetings and work with them and find out how well this is working. Sit down with Mayor Backhouse of Prince George and ask him how well it's working. He is one of the greatest proponents of this program. I believe the mayor of Prince George is doing exactly the right thing on behalf of the people in his particular jurisdiction. The mayor and the council, all of the people involved, including the minister of state, cooperated to ensure that the FMC plant was built in Prince George and not in another location in British Columbia: regionalization at its finest.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you act like these people would never have spoken together if there hadn't been a minister of state. I'm telling you that the Prince George regional development office has always worked closely with the existing MLAs, and that would include the minister of state. It has always worked closely with the regional district, with the municipality, with all of those things. And they worked closely, I would Imagine, with the Ministry of Regional Development, which would have been there. It is totally unnecessary to have that extra little level in there, the minister of state. The minister of state was not necessary to have that come about. The Ministry of Regional Development certainly did its work, and so did the existing people at the municipal level. They didn't need that extra level of bureaucracy in there, Mr. Minister, and the province certainly doesn't need that extra level of bureaucracy, and they don't need the amount that it's costing. We can work quite well at the regional and provincial levels to deal with the ministries there. The mayors can deal with the ministry, too, and they don't need an extra level in there to try and sort things through or, in many cases, to add some confusion.

You act like it's so amazing that these mayors are cooperating. What mayor wouldn't cooperate if they thought they were going to be able to get something out of this? Any mayor is going to do that. They may be skeptical and they may not necessarily agree that this is going to be the best thing, but of course they're going to try their hardest to get whatever they can for their community. But I'm telling you, Mr. Minister, that they don't need to have another level of bureaucracy to do it.

I've talked to a lot of people out there who are dealing with the ministries, and as I stated earlier this morning, they don't know who to go to. They don't know whether they go to the line ministry; they don't know whether they go to the minister of state. So they end up doing duplications of everything to try and get things going. They do duplications just to cover all the bases, because they're not sure who's in charge, they're not sure who has the final word, and they don't know who has the ear of the person who's listening. For example, if it has to do with a health issue, they don't know whether the minister of state is going to bypass everybody and go directly to the Premier or the cabinet and leave out the Minister of Health. They don't know whether it's faster to go to the Minister of Health on an issue. They don't know those things. As I say, people out there are covering all the bases, and that is the only natural thing to do.

To think that anybody out there who is dealing with any ministry is going to verbally oppose something and verbally come out against the only avenue they currently have to get anything from the government is really putting blinders on. You know darned well that they won't do that, because you know darned well that that community - whether there is a New Democrat or a Socred mayor in there - would be cut out of the funding right away.

[4:15]

I find it interesting that the minister takes it upon himself to know the political leanings of the various mayors around this province, as if that makes a difference. The mayors in our area don't even run on a political basis; they don't run as a party thing. So I

[ Page 7669 ]

find it kind of interesting that you should be so concerned that you actually take the time to find out the political leanings of the various people.

I'd like to ask you some specific questions, tied to regional development. They are of grave concern and things that I think this ministry ought to be dealing with quickly. The minister will probably say this Isn't even my interest, but it is, Mr. Minister. There are a lot of issues around environment, and we've talked about them. But one of the main things has to do with native land claims in development plans. It has become clear to anybody who has anything to do with it in the province that economic development cannot proceed steadily until we deal with native land claims. That is absolutely essential for the development of this province.

We have areas in the Cariboo that have specifically expressed concern. There are logging companies there complaining that unresolved land claims impede their ability to conduct business. There is an Indian band in the Cariboo that wants a moratorium on logging by Carrier Lumber. They are saying that because they want to have their land claims settled. In my area at various times we have logging roads blockaded because they're trying to raise the issue of land claims. As Minister of Regional Development, you cannot ignore this issue. It is not going to be possible for economic development to take place in this province until that issue is settled. I would like to know just what you are doing to deal with this and how you have interacted with your minister of state on this issue. He certainly has a difficult job. It is not going to be an easy job, but it's one that we've got to tackle. I'd like to know what the minister's views are on this, what he has done and what he intends to do on this issue.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This is interesting. There was a statement there. It doesn't have to include a question, of course, during this type of debate. You can make a statement of principles, if you wish. I am just trying to pull apart the convolution in the first statement that the hon. member for Prince George North uttered here. The statement was that any mayor worth their salt would cooperate with the government of the day to get something for their community, to bring in an operation, an industry or whatever was viable, proper and economically and environmentally correct for the area. I agree with you. Any mayor would, regardless of their political affiliation.

You also said that any MLA would, for whatever set of reasons, for some philosophical bent that I do believe is quite inconsistent with the federal NDP position as enunciated by the current leader of the NDP... Mind you, if Svend Robinson or somebody takes over, it could be anything. But anyway, you said that the position of all of the members on that side -save one and a half, because one of them is very active and the other one is not quite so active - is that you don't want to have anything to do with it.

So you won't attend these things, you won't have anything to do with it, and you made no submission whatsoever as far as the FMC plant was concerned. You know, "We just open up the clouds and it will happen anyway." I will tell you something: it doesn't happen anyway. The only way that economic development happens in this province is by people working to make things happen, and that's the only way it happens in any jurisdiction.

If they can get a little help from their MLA and throw some of that darned philosophy to one side and work on behalf of their people, the people might get along a little better. I can tell you that the other member, who happens to be the Minister of State for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also the Minister Responsible for Environment in the province of British Columbia, did just that. It was because of his good work and because of the mayor's good work and the good work of others that we got the FMC plant in Prince George. It would not happen by itself. It would have happened in another part of British Columbia. Nothing happens by accident; it happens because of the disposition of people to work to make things happens.

On the other hand, you are telling us you don't believe in the ministry-of-state system, and now you are saying we should go out and have the ministers of state negotiate Indian land claims. You can't have it go either way. If you are looking....

MRS. BOONE: That's his portfolio.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's right, hon. member. Now that you've told me that's his portfolio, I would suggest you proffer that question in that vote when it arises.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you are the Minister of Regional Development. I have just pointed out to you that you cannot have regional development and economic development in this province until we settle these claims. This is not something that you can shirk off at this point. You are responsible for economic development; you are responsible for regional development.

The reality is that the federal minister, Cadieux, has written to our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and asked him not to approve any more TFL9 until the land claims have been settled. Now that is economic development. When you constantly have problems there, when you are constantly dealing with a situation where a company can be shut down, where people are not secure in knowing what is going to happen on their land, that is a regional development problem, Mr. Minister, and it is something that you ought to be concerned about.

You ought to be concerned about it to the extent that you, through your coordinating powers, are working to coordinate your ministers to deal with this. Surely you can see that's one of your roles as a coordinating power - to deal with these issues. Or do you want to just continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue, as the rest of your government has, and not deal with it?

[ Page 7670 ]

We will not have sound economic development in this province until we settle those claims, until the industries that are coming into our province can be assured they are not going to constantly be upset, having their work stopped as a result of claims taking place. We must deal with this. If you cannot see this as part of your role as minister of regional and economic development, then I certainly feel sorry for you, because I think you have really lost touch with what your role is truly about.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would not want to have the hon. member for Prince George North feeling sorry for me. I would hate to have that - crocodile tears. If you started to cry, I'd start to cry. I can never see anyone do that, so don't feel sorry for me whatever you do.

I can tell you we are having sound economic development in this province. If you think $24 billion worth of economic development on the books -major projects; projects outside Mainland-Southwest which are $10 million or more, and $20 million or more inside - is peanuts, I am sorry. That's not the way it falls within my lexicon. These are major projects, and there are hundreds and hundreds of smaller projects happening in each and every region of this province.

They're happening because of policies that this government has set forth, because of balanced budgets, because people from all over the world see this as a good place in which to invest, live and do business. They didn't do that when the NDP was in power. Do you remember the signs at the airport? I remember a big sign that said: "Would the last British Columbian" - the last businessman - "to leave please turn off the lights."

The lights have been turned on in this province, and it's moving. The economy of this province is in the ascendant in a way that it has never been before There are some areas in the province that, like Prince George, need help - but we've brought that one around - because they're resisting the general trend throughout the rest of the province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) alluded to one of these communities a while ago. It's not for me to say, but I believe it would be much better if the MLAs, regardless of which party they represent - or whether they represent any party at all - got on board to work within the system that prevails to try to make these things happen, the same as the mayors that you spoke so kindly of a while ago.

There are all sorts of opportunities, all sorts of problems - if you want to call them problems - and responsibilities that fall with other ministers. The Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) within this province is the hon. member for South Peace River, and I'm sure he will respond to questions if they are given to him in the House I'm not going to offend the rules of debate in committee by moving into another minister's estimates.

You accused me a while ago of being the minister of everything. You're doing me honour overmuch

I'm merely a coordinating soul who works very hard to try to help other people do things for the province. I'll work with you too if you want me to, if you'll give us half a chance in your area. I'll work with any member of the Legislature, regardless of their politics, or with anyone in the province. Economic development is happening in a sustainable way in British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE: It's obvious that the minister does not see this as something within his role as a coordinating body. That is your role: coordinating these things. Last year in his previous life, his previous role, I took the minister at his word when he offered to give me access to information regarding lottery grants given to him. He said: "Send me letterhead and I will send them out." Well, Mr. Minister, I never received anything at all back from those people. No letters coming back, nothing whatsoever.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I changed portfolios.

MRS. BOONE: You changed portfolios, but long after that system was out. Either my people aren't getting any lottery grants or else I'm not getting anything there, so working with the minister is not exactly my top priority.

I work very hard, and I'll work with the line ministers. I work with the line ministers in each and every one of the areas that I've got, and I don't feel I need to go through my minister of state in order to reach a line minister. A line minister is quite willing, quite adequate and quite proper for dealing with the situations that exist within their ministry. They don't need a third person in there, or whatever it is. I certainly don't need another person in there to deal with.

You talk in terms of the need for diversification. If you're going to diversify, one of the things you must diversify in is dealing with the inequities among regions and why sometimes people are reluctant to move from the lower mainland. I've always contended that if people move from the lower mainland and stay outside for three years, then they don't want to go back. I'm sure the member for Omineca will agree that that's often the case. We've got to do something to encourage people to do that. But some of the things that are foremost in encouraging people to move - and you must do this if you're going to have diversification or anything happening in the regions - have to do with inequities in transportation, in education in terms of the northern university, in social and health services and cultural activities. These are key areas that I hear about time and time again as to why people from the lower mainland don't stay in our area, or why they won't move into it.

If we are going to encourage any kind of growth outside the lower mainland, I think our communities have acknowledged that those are prime areas we must address in terms of our development. They have to be there first, because unless that infrastructure is

[ Page 7671 ]

there, communities will not grow a tremendous amount. That is why the northern university, for example - and I think this goes for all of the regions - cannot be seen strictly from an educational viewpoint. It's an economic viewpoint as well. People, industry, professionals, what have you, look to see what's in a new area in terms of facilities for their families, their employees, a draw to gain new employees - all of these various things in a university setting. Those are the things that I think are really essential. They also look to make sure they've got adequate health facilities and services. Those things must be addressed.

[4:30]

When I talk about health facilities, I can't help but notice that there have been some studies going on throughout the various regions, in different areas. It's interesting, though, that in your areas, the southwest and lower mainland, it says that no initiatives have been taken and no proposals received to date from any group - this comes from a BCHA newsletter of March 1989. In region 3, Okanagan, no initiatives have been taken to date with respect to health care. Perhaps the minister feels that there is nothing his your area needs. He may be very correct, too. Perhaps he doesn't think any changes need to be made.

If you look at what's taking place here, there are a lot of different task forces going around. There are studies being done, but it appears to me that these are often being done independently. While these studies are taking place, the ministry has sent out a memo saying that this is how they are going to reorganize the presentation of their health services through the community and family health services plan. We've got people running around at the local level - very well-meaning and busy people - doing task forces and studies to try to determine what the best way is to deliver those services in their area, and yet the line ministry has already determined that there's going to be reorganization and has presented something else. That lack of coordination is the type of thing that I talk about, where there's a duplication of services, where people are saying: "Why are we doing this when you've already sent us out something? Why are you studying something twice?" It makes absolutely no sense at all.

I would like to ask the minister, on a broader term, though, just what he's done on those areas I've talked about - the entire infrastructure - and how he's dealing with those areas in terms of getting people in and providing those services so that the communities can grow properly.

HON. MR VEITCH: I do believe that the member is a latter-day Saint Thomas. She is almost persuaded. She's almost ready to accept the regional concept. You're getting very close to it. I agree with a lot of things that you have said.

We talked about transportation. Through my very good friend the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), at his request, the ministers of state throughout all of the province of British Columbia are....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you want to listen to this? The ministers of state throughout all of the province of British Columbia have been working with their local community groups. They've been working with the regional districts, and very shortly a comprehensive transportation plan - or at least the genesis for that plan that has to be worked on at the government level to ensure that the priorities are correct with the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways and his ministry - will be coming forward from all over the province of British Columbia.

You're absolutely right. If you don't deal with transportation Issues, especially in the mainland southwest and the lower mainland.... It can either be a funnel ' or it can be a plug for all of the rest of the activity that's going on in the rest of the province because you can't get it out to our customers around the world. We're dealing with it. We're dealing with it in the most comprehensive way that has ever been attempted since 1958.

[Mr. Miller in the chair.]

You talked about the northern university. The hon. member knows that I am a great supporter of that prospect, of the potential of having a university located, preferably, somewhere in your area of British Columbia. The Indians used to have a word for it. They used to call it sunwapta. They would throw a pebble in the water, and they would watch the circles spread out from that. That was the aura of influence that was caused by the simple act of throwing the pebble in the water. A university is one of those kinds of things - or any institute of higher learning. It provides a whole new infrastructure, a whole new reason for different industries or different businesses or different entities to locate in any particular area. That's part of the regionalization process. Some of these things have to happen coincidentally, one with the other.

The same is true for cultural and social. We have been doing this. We've been working with our lotteries branch and building cultural outlets in areas like Prince George and Prince Rupert, and indeed, all over the province of British Columbia. The minister responsible - I won't get into his territory - has done just a super job in that particular field.

You talk about health care in Mainland-Southwest. You were telling me that the reason that people wanted to live in the mainland -southwest area of British Columbia is that they had first-class health care. Well, yes, but there can be some changes to it and there can be better ideas brought forward in that particular area. I say that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is doing a super job. We do have a social services committee that will be working with the Ministry of Health and bringing forward Ideas. But you're quite right: most of the infrastructure is

[ Page 7672 ]

there. We have a super, first-class health care system in British Columbia. We have an extra-super one in the mainland-southwest area of British Columbia. It's working.

I agree with you on transportation. We will soon have these reports back. The Minister of Transportation and Highways, through his staff, will be able to work them together. In fact, they're working with all of these committees and groups and offering a coordinating role at the present time. They'll soon be back. You'll have the best transportation plan that this province has ever seen, and remember, it will be done by this government.

MRS. BOONE: I can't help feeling a bit of deja vu here. You came up to Prince George and you traveled the province - a social whatever-it-was committee. A whole slew of you guys came up. What was it? Social services or whatever. There were a mess of you up there, anyway; you only seem to come up to Prince George in gaggles. There were about seven or eight of you, and you had submissions coming from people all over, and they told you about the social needs That was two years ago.

They told you about the social needs, and if you'll remember correctly, a group came in with their children, and they presented each of the ministers with a balloon. That group of parents are currently fighting this government because that very building, the child development centre, is in danger of closing because of financial problems. So tell me that you listened to them two years ago. Tell me that the social services group listened. Tell me how much you are going to listen to everybody else who comes around and gives you information, whether it be through the transportation committee or what have you.

We're tired of coming and making submissions to you. Listen to your elected people. Listen to your MLAs, because I could have and would have told you those things, and I have told most of those people those things over and over, as has the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). We all can tell you these things. We don't need to have these things studied over and over again, and we don't need to have these submissions going on again You traveled the province once, you got submissions from everybody, and you can come....

HON. MR. VEITCH: And I'll travel it again. I'm going into your area.

MRS. BOONE: You've already been in, I think -the economic development.... There were nine of you in there on a weekend. That was great. You raised some $3, 000 or $30, 000 or $13, 000 for the party, so that was good government money well spent.

We don't need to have more of these task forces running around studying these issues. They are absolutely essential things that we deal with. We must deal with the services that aren't in our area We must be providing the mental health services, the access to our health services, the transportation which is not just paving roads. It has to do with providing Carefree transportation for our seniors on Sundays so that they can get to church, and in the evenings so that they can get out of their homes and do something. We can't do that. The seniors in our area can't do any of those things if they depend on public transportation.

Those things were told to you two years ago, and you haven't done anything on them. And you're expecting us all to come back to you again and tell you these things over and over, so you won't act on them again.

I know darned well that the minister will come around, and they'll study things again. I'm sure we will hear more from the Minister of Transportation as to how great these studies were and how much he learned from them. But I'm sure it's all been told to him at different times by the existing MLAs and by people throughout the area. I think the member for Omineca wants to speak, so I'll let him go on for a minute here - just a short one.

MR. KEMPF: That's precisely why I sit here in the middle between these two groups: in my position, I don't have to be browbeaten by anybody's caucus but my own, and I can speak on behalf of those who send me here, which unfortunately too many people don't do in this chamber.

I sat here very quietly for the last hour, and frankly, I really don't know what we as northerners did before this minister. I'm amazed that we even were able to inhabit the northern part of this province. The minister thinks he's the best thing since mother's milk. My gosh, Mr. Chairman, I really don't know what all that infrastructure did in place before the minister and his convoluted ministries-of-state system came along in British Columbia. The member for Prince George talked about that very thing a few moments ago and asked why we need yet another level of government in the province for the taxpayer to pay for.

I was involved in municipal politics before coming here almost 14 years ago. I remember an organization which is still in place and which the minister is going to have a very difficult time getting rid of to get full control over the state ministries of the north: the Northern Development Council. Through you, Mr. Chairman, It did very well, thank you very much, for the people of the north and for economic development - I don't want to puncture your ego - long before you came along, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I've got to go through the Chairman, because not many people have been using the poor fellow this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, while you're at it, would you bring that minister to order. If he wants to speak, let him get on his feet and speak - which is the rule of this House - strictly in order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What do you want me to order, Jack?

[ Page 7673 ]

MR. KEMPF: I don't want you to order anything, Mr. Minister, and neither do the people of the north. I would invite you to come into my area. You're just the thing I need to win the next election.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You need something.

[4:45]

MR. KEMPF: Ah, we hear from the peanut gallery, Mr. Chairman - from the minister who sneaks around behind the duly elected member's back The member for everything down there said a little earlier that MLAs should try and cooperate. Boy, are we going to talk about that when we get to the estimates of the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast. Are we ever going to talk about that! Endlessly, we're going to talk about that.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You're good at that.

MR. KEMPF: That's what I'm sent to this place to do, just in case you wonder what your tenure here is.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm happy with my tenure.

MR. KEMPF: Well, don't get too happy with it. From the information I'm getting out of that member's constituency, I wouldn't get too familiar with this place.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back for a moment to the question I was asking the minister about prior to the lunch hour. He's had plenty of time to call the Aluminum Co. of Canada or to discuss with his colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) why the government allowed the hydroelectric project at Kemano - commonly called Kemano 2 - to proceed prior to that company living up to a commitment to the northern interior for the use of some of that hydroelectricity here at home in British Columbia. Why did the government allow that? Why did they allow the Aluminum Co. of Canada to slither out of that agreement and not to live up to that commitment to the people of Vanderhoof and area?

While he's at that - and I'm sure he got this information during the lunch break - there's the question I asked earlier, Mr. Chairman: what is the agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the Aluminum Co. of Canada with respect to the hydroelectricity that's going to be generated from this new project that they don't need themselves? By their own admission, they already have an excess of hydroelectricity for their needs at Kitimat. Certainly I've heard no announcement about the building of another aluminum plant in British Columbia by the Aluminum Co. of Canada. So the question remains: what's going to happen to that hydroelectric power generated by Kemano 2?

Certainly it's not going to be used in a pulp mill in Vanderhoof, because there isn't one being built. And we all know how long it takes to construct a pulp mill. So what I want to know is - and I ask it of this minister because he is the Minister of Regional Development, and this is development in the province - what is the agreement between B.C. Hydro and the Aluminum Co. of Canada?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have many questions, some of them a little more localized than that one.

I want to know - and I'm going to ask the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast this same question when his estimates come before the House - what are the qualifications? Just for the record, so that other members of this House know and so that the people of British Columbia would know to whom their tax money goes, what are the qualifications for an economic development liaison officer, of which there are a number in British Columbia now? What are their qualifications? What are the qualifications of the individual who's paid $45, 000 a year plus expenses, plus being supplied with a vehicle, an office, office personnel and office equipment? What are the qualifications for such an individual?

While I'm on those localized questions, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote the minister from this morning's Blues, which are white now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They don't print this stuff, do they?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, lo and behold, it quotes the minister as saying: "Our transportation plan is being developed...." He talked this afternoon about this glorious transportation plan, which even the Minister of Transportation and Highways doesn't know a heck of a lot about. I ask him questions all the time, which take him four months to respond. But then it's a long way from his office to mine in this building, so three or four months is not a great deal of time for a response.

Anyway, to continue the quote: "Our transportation plan is being developed from the bottom up, through consultation with users.... As such, local MLAs ......

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, MLAs, those are the people out there who used to represent the people of British Columbia through a democratic process; I remember those. "...local MLAs, locally elected officials, local people from transportation fields."

Well, I just want to ask the minister how, in his area - in his state of British Columbia - the local MLA goes about getting on this transportation committee. Does he make application? Does he write a letter to the minister? Does he get down on his knees? What does he have to do, Mr. Chairman? The minister talks about trying to cooperate. Well, Mr. Chairman, try as I might, not only am I not considered good material to be on these committees, but even the ones I get on I'm not told of the meetings.

[ Page 7674 ]

MR. DAVIDSON: They don't like you.

MR. KEMPF: I guess not; they don't like me. I don't know why, Mr. Member. I'm a nice guy; I'm quiet. I don't know why they don't like me.

Tell me, Mr. Minister, how do people in your state get on this transportation committee? I'd like to know. I want to cooperate, as you talk about.... I want to cooperate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you moving into my area?

MR. KEMPF: Is that what I have to do - run in urban Vancouver in order to get on a transportation committee? If that's it, tell me. I just want to know.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. I don't want to draw any attention to another vote of this House, because it would be offending the rules of committee, and I try not to do that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Back on February 20, 1989 at 11 o'clock in the morning in room 209 of the Hotel Vancouver - that great and glorious bastion of all things in downtown Vancouver - the Northern Development Council met, and the chairman was Mr. Fox. They came there and met in downtown.... They can meet any place they want, hon. member; it's up to them. It's a free country, and they can meet any place they want, but they met there.

There was Mr. Fox from Bulkley-Nechako, Mr. Kinsley from Fraser-Fort George, Mr. Robinson from Kitimat-Stikine, Mr. Parker from Fort Nelson-Liard, Mr. Girvin from Cariboo, Mr. Laloge from Peace River Regional District, and Mr. Simmons. One of the fellows who sat in on this was His Worship John Backhouse from Fraser-Fort George.

Here's what they said about this council that the hon. member said was dead, gone, kaput - the Northern Development Council: "Chairman Fox opened the meeting by advising that the meeting with the Premier and the ministers of state was a good first section. He noted that it had accomplished" - he is speaking of the meeting - "what it was intended to do." That is from the minutes of the Northern Development Council of February 20, 1989, held at 11 a.m.

We talked about Kemano 2. My good friend the hon. member for Omineca - whom I respect very much and whose quiet tones I'm glad to hear in the, House - keeps stating that we are going to export all of this cotton-picking electricity that is going to be generated. First of all, it's cheaper for hydro. I'm going to get off this kick because I don't want to impinge upon the territory of my good friend the Minister for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

The electricity generated there is going to be needed because of a burgeoning demand for power and energy in the province because of the policies of this Social Credit government. There is a demand that in the next number of years is going to far outstrip the ability to provide electricity. The other side - not you, hon. member - the CCF and the NDP, said that we shouldn't be building dams way back when because we didn't need them. But we built them. And because of the foresight of previous Social Credit governments and the foresight of this Social Credit government dealing with the energy problem, we will have energy for the future. We don't just go and start up a dam, pull a switch and it happens just when you happen to need it. You have to build for these things and prepare for them, hon. member.

Alcan, I am told, is not reneging on its proposal to build a pulp mill at Vanderhoof. Alcan put out bid proposals for a joint venture. They spent major dollars on feasibility studies for this particular proposed venture. They lined up the support of the Sinclair group of four sawmills to provide fibre for the site and, most importantly, they are offering low-cost power. The low-cost power that the hon. member was speaking of doesn't have to go through the hydro situation. It is Alcan that is offering low-cost power which should provide an advantage for people in your region who want to build this pulp mill. It's an equity position by Alcan to make this thing happen. All the advantages are there because of the enabling actions that this government has taken. It will happen.

The hon. member should know that securing a $200 million project takes a bit of time and effort; it doesn't just happen overnight. An amount of $200 million in Vanderhoof means a lot, and those are the kinds of things that we are working towards to have happen, together with the hon. member for Omineca in his area. I know that he has a concern for his area.

There are also important environmental issues that must be considered before you build a pulp mill, a steel mill or anything, anyplace. If these things are not in balance and the balance is against the environment, then we have to take a hard second look at those issues. In my opinion, you have to correct the environmental problem before you can proceed with an establishment of this kind in British Columbia.

These principles are inculcated in the government's statement yesterday and in the committee's report by Dr. David Strangway. They are the principles that the government proposes, and they are tied to sustainable development in British Columbia. There are all sorts of issues that are tied.

[5:00]

Alcan is confident, they inform us, that they will find a major pulp and paper investor that can help market the pulp from the mill. They are confident that the mill will be on stream well before the 1994 scheduled completion date for Kemano 2 and that it will be environmentally sound, producing jobs, jobs, jobs for the people in your area.

You ask how one gets to be a regional liaison development officer. I don't know if the hon. member is applying for a job or not. If he is, he could send an application to any one of the HON. ministers of state and it will be carefully considered. I can assure you

[ Page 7675 ]

of that. Indeed, if the second member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) wanted to send in an application, it would be carefully considered. Maybe even Atlin - we would even have a look at that one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: "No, thanks." He's declining the offer.

We will have a job description for you - there are job descriptions for each and every position in government. I don't have one right here in front of me, but we will provide you with one, hon. member. You can look it over at your leisure - when you are not doing research. If you want to apply for the job, then you can send it on. The fact that you are a life member in the Social Credit Party I'm sure won't inhibit you in way, shape or form from applying for that job.

How do you get on the transportation committee in Mainland-Southwest? We invited each and every member of this House - we opened our arms - to become involved in this great undertaking, this regional development that is happening all over the world, not only in British Columbia. They sent back letters, member after member. The tenor of them was basically: "We are philosophically opposed to regionalization." They didn't choose to become involved.

I'll tell you, there are members from our side of the House who are very actively involved in the transportation committees of this House. I'm thinking of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) and others who have a great Interest in what's happening in transportation, because they know that's the lifeblood for their area. They are involved. They are Involving themselves on behalf of their constituents. I want to tell you something. That hon. member will be elected with a great plurality the next time around, because he's working on behalf of his constituents He'll be elected again and again, if he wants to be.

That's how you get on board. You simply come forward and be on board. You can force a horse up to the water, but you can't force it to drink, hon member. Not that I am comparing you to a beast of burden, but you don't have to drink if you don't want to. You can come on board, I'm sure, any time you want. You can become involved in this great undertaking that is drawing interest from all over the world.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I guess you just get tired of boxing a shadow, although that shadow isn't very small.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Did I want the job of economic development liaison officer? No, I don't think so, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You took a long time to answer.

MR. KEMPF: It took quite a while, because it pays significantly more than does my job as a representative of the people. However, we're getting a long way off the subject, but it's a far-ranging debate that we have here this afternoon. I do carry a life membership in the Social Credit Party, and maybe that gives me the opportunity to apply for such jobs. It would appear that those are the kinds of people getting them. They don't have many other qualifications, but they have those, surely. Perhaps it won't be long that I have that life membership, because I have tin-snips at home with which I can cut it up. It's because of the antics of ministers like that that I'd love to do it.

From what the minister said about the Aluminum Co. of Canada and their hydroelectric project, is the minister leading me to believe that the Aluminum Co. of Canada is now becoming a power company in the province of British Columbia, and that they have no further plans to utilize the power for which they were given the licence? They're now to become simply a power company that, through this project, are going to sell power to B.C. Hydro to do with as they wish. That's really what the minister told me.

Certainly it would have to be low-cost power for the pulp mill at Vanderhoof - that doesn't exist -because they're not going to use very much until you build one. It ought to be awfully low cost, Mr. Minister. I'm happy to see that you're so confident. You must have read from Aluminum Co. of Canada news releases, because they've been telling us this for three years now.

They got the people of north central British Columbia off their back by promising them a pulp mill in the Vanderhoof area and by promising them jobs in the interior of British Columbia. Now we find that the hydroelectric project is well underway, but the plan is to sell power to B.C. Hydro. When are they going to lay the foundation for a pulp mill in Vanderhoof? Don't give me all that gobbledegook about environmental problems. They were all addressed many months and years ago. Where have you hibernated all this time? If you'd asked the elected representatives for the area you're talking about, they might have been able to tell you. Those environmental studies have gone on for ten years. I could take you to my office and give you a stack that high.

You talk about reinventing the wheel. That's your problem; that's the whole problem with regionalization. It's a reinvention of the wheel. You're doing things we did 20 years ago in the north. All you had to do to find out about that was ask. All you have to do to find out which roads should be built, which should be paved, which should be graded and whatever else should be done with transportation is ask the people who represent....

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's what we're doing.

MR. KEMPF: No, you're not. That's what you think you're doing. Therein lies the problem. This minister actually thinks that's what he's doing. He's been told by the corner office: "Go off and do something." So that's what he thinks he's doing. He's

[ Page 7676 ]

reinventing the wheel. He's doing the very things the people of the north did 20, 25 and 30 years ago. I know, because I moved there 31 years ago. We were talking about the same things we are talking about today.

Why didn't you ask the real people, the people who were involved through the process of local government, who were involved with industry, who knew then and know now what the needs of the people of the north are? We don't need your experts fresh off the plane with a briefcase. The last thing northerners need is someone from the south who thinks he's an expert telling us what to do. That's your problem, Mr. Minister.

It's a unique situation. It's an easy way to get the people of the north off your back and make them think you're doing something for them. All you're doing is committeeing them to death. Every time I turn around there's a dissection of the present committees to form more and more committees that everybody can get involved in. Then they forget about what government is doing in Victoria, don't they? It's been done in other jurisdictions. I could name a few, because I'm aware of what other jurisdictions it was done in, but you wouldn't like it.

We're tired of your experts. Just leave us alone as northerners. We talk a lot in this country about seceding. That's what we should do in the north before all our resources are gone and all the money is taken down south to urban British Columbia and spent on God knows what.

Reinventing the wheel - that's all you're doing with regionalization. You're trying to make the people of the north think you're doing something for them. If you want to do something for the people of the north, stay out of the north and stay off their backs. We'll keep our tax money, thank you very much, and we'll do our own thing. We don't need your experts with their briefcases coming up on aircraft and telling us what to do. That's the last thing we need in the north.

I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm going to have other opportunities. There are going to be other so-called ministers of state in whose estimates we can speak, and we'll very clearly canvass this whole so-called democratic system that's now in place in the province. Democratic system indeed! Running around behind the backs of duly elected representatives.... If you think northerners enjoy that, if you think they like that, then you've got another thought coming, and you've been talking to the wrong northerners. They're sick and tired of your experts from the south; they're sick and tired of your taxes. If we had proper legislation in place, there'd be a tax revolt in northern British Columbia. They're tired of sending their resource revenues down here for government to squander. If the people of British Columbia knew what their governments did with their tax money, there'd be a revolution not in Tiananmen Square but right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're watching some of it here in this House today, my friend.

MR. KEMPF: You bet we are. And I hope the people of British Columbia are watching and listening, because they're tired of your experts. They're tired of your posturing. They're tired of you trying to buy them with their own tax money. The time in our history for that is gone; it has passed. And if you think you're going to buy the next election with that big rainy-day fund you've got, you've got another thought coming, because the people of British Columbia are smarter than that.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) shakes his head. Let's go in a by-election in Cariboo, and let's find out. Let's find out where the bear was in the buckwheat, Mr. Chairman - to put it in the terms of that previous member for Cariboo. Let's go in a by-election in Cariboo.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to bring his remarks back to the vote that we're now debating.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I will. Absolutely. And I'll do it in the estimates of a number of ministers of state.

The minister talks about a difference in outlook, a difference in philosophy, between one side of this floor and another. That's one of the things you learn when you become an independent: you learn to mature; you learn to sit here and listen to what's really going on; you learn to understand that listening to people is more than just a passing fancy -really listening to them. We heard a lot about listening prior to the last election, about how things were going to change and how government was really going to start to listen to the people of British Columbia. Well, if you think, Mr. Chairman, that It's being done through regionalization, you also have another thought coming - and you know that, yourself. You're on pretty shaky ground in your own constituency. You better tell this member, this minister for everything, where it is that the people of British Columbia want government to go. "Smaller government" we heard from the largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia; more bureaucracy with regionalization; bureaucrat on top of bureaucrat; experts running all over the province, trying to tell people what it is they should be thinking. Well, Mr. Chairman, it isn't going to work. Unfortunately, with the mentality that that minister seems to have, it's going to be too late when he finds out.

HON. MR. VEITCH: After listening to that long speech by the hon. member for Omineca, I think he can be best described as a doubtful supporter of regionalization. We'll just have to leave it at that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll try to engage in my portion of the debate in slightly more dulcet tones than the member for Omineca. I have been noting some of his rather wonderful metaphors as he's been addressing his comments about his constituency in the north,

[ Page 7677 ]

and actually he's given me my introductory line; in fact, it goes right into my thesis. He spoke about boxing with a shadow. I want to address my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to a minister that I variously call the invisible minister or the minister of bumph - occasionally going off into arm-waving hyperbole. Shadow, invisible, minister of bumph - I think all of those describe my neighbour to the north and west very well.

He's a minister who happens to have an office in my riding. It doesn't really make very much difference that he has an office in my riding, because he is indeed not very well known in that place, although I must acknowledge at this particular time the last occasion when we met, a very happy occasion. I had worked very hard on behalf of the seniors in the community, Century House, and the minister, with a new infusion from lottery grants - an infusion that enabled him to get around some of the earlier limitations on grants - on behalf of this government made a very generous contribution to an important project in the riding. He was visible at that time. He was, in fact, a minister I thought full of good grace and fine comments. So he does have a whole chameleon of manifestations - slimmer or broader, depending on when one is looking at him - with which he travels around this province.

He is a minister who is wont to take claim for many things. His most recent claim in my riding was one that somehow associated the economic development activity of a reworking of our Woodward's site as reflecting his good work in the region. In fact, he multiplied by five times the value of that project. I read in the press that he calls it a $150 million project. It's a $30 million project, and although I don't know all that this minister might claim to know about spinoff effects, I am accurately and wisely informed that the spinoff effects at best would be multiplied by three, not by five. But a little hyperbole on the part of the minister of bumph, when he does appear, is something that we have come to expect.

Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, in this riding of mine, where he has an office, I have talked, as I am wont to do on many occasions, to most of the people who are active, be they on the elected boards, be they representatives of the business community or the social agency community, and except for that occasion when he came - bearing good gifts, I will acknowledge - to Century House for its expansion, I can chalk up pretty well a zero or a mark that, to use education parlance, is a failing grade.

He is, in fact, a low-profile person, to use the kindly language of people in my riding. It's hard for us to imagine that, and I know his profile, through his great care - and I watch what he eats in the legislative dining room - is slimmer. But in terms of the profile of his ministry, his profile is non-existent in my riding.

I do want to talk about a serious commitment that this minister made.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note, Mr. Chairman, that I find it impossible to hear the minister, because although my tones are dulcet, they are not that dulcet. So I would await his response, rather than trying to hear what he may be flinging across the floor at me at this particular stage.

There is an issue that I do want to question the minister about. One of the areas that this minister and this government has promised that it would pay attention to under this regionalization is social development. I will quote from some of those big and costly ads, which of course are very important to development, I don't know how much that costs, but in the realm of thousands of dollars. I will quote from such ads. The date on that, Mr. Minister, goes back to the very early announcements when we had a lot of bumph about what this was about. I remember one columnist noted that we are obscured by a tangled web of words. Well, this is some of the tangled web of words that we have in some kind of an explanation of this. One of the commitments stated that: "This new drive" - that reflects what this is all about -"to take government to the people will not be confined to only economic issues.... We intend to apply the same principles to health care, education, social services, agriculture and the environment...."

I want to just draw a very small parallel with what's happening in the social development area -some of the same perspective, I think, that my colleague from Prince George North was talking about. The minister indicated, in the only opportunity newsletter I've seen - perhaps I'm off his mailing-list because I haven't attended any of his meetings - a newsletter of spring 1988, that as a result of consultation, there were a number of recommendations that would be researched and assessed, including such items as coordination of the services for seniors and the role of community colleges in the development of economic strategies. It goes on to talk in more economic terms about individual business proposals for economic diversification. To my knowledge, nothing has happened in that realm at all. There have been no meetings on the whole social development issue.

I want to draw this House's attention to just one example of the minister's alacrity in dealing with a very important proposal that came to him from my school district. It was a proposal that grew out of very lengthy development activities by people in the riding. The minister was first advised that the district was looking at the need for a multicultural service worker in March 1988, and the minister wrote an encouraging letter saying this was the kind of thing that he wanted to hear about. In June 1988 a complete proposal was forwarded, a proposal that was very well documented, and noted that this was an area where the minister could in fact cut across line ministries that normally would be responsible for such activities, because this dealt with immigration, education, social services, mental health, the Attorney-General. In fact, all of those ministries could well be affected by the presence of a multicultural worker in our community, where there's an increasing num-

[ Page 7678 ]

ber of people who are of other cultures or new to the community.

That proposal went forward in June. In December of that same year, still no response from the ministry or his officers, the community or regional liaison officers, or whatever those people are called. Finally, a second letter asking for some action, and very quickly back, within a matter of two or three weeks, a really peremptory rejection stating that there were ramifications for other school districts and therefore it couldn't happen. It's the sort of thing that puts in question the whole perspective that this minister, in his bumph and his hyperbole, tries to suggest is a part of what all this regionalization is about. So much for bold and progressive decision-making; so much for responsiveness and working with local groups. A long time in responding; a sense on the part of those people who did their homework that the only reason the response came was because somebody had written quite a strong letter asking where the heck was the minister's action on that particular proposal.

If I look at the interagency group in New Westminster, a group that has something in the order of 50 members, a group on which I sit or, if I'm not able to be there, on which I'm represented; if I look at NWEDA, the economic development association; if I look at any of these groups that are functioning locally, those people can and do identify the issues and act on them through the line ministries much more extensively than what you have been about. But you've made a promise that there would be action in the field of social development, and there is no sign that I'm able to find in my community of your having responded to people who have offered to participate in your committees or who have put forward well-designed proposals. No sign, really, of that kind of involvement.

In the transportation area we have representation on that committee from two people who were rejected by their constituencies, but the minister appoints them to represent the communities on the transportation committee. There is in our community a sense of disappointment.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Your former mayor is on the committee.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm saying that the people this particular minister has appointed to those committees are mayors who have been rejected by their communities in a free and democratic vote.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: In my community and the community that you represent, Mr. Minister, the people who sit on those committees - representatives of the minister - are not elected officials. They are not people who would have been nominated by those councils.

This particular exercise by this minister who, in addition to trying to take on responsibility for the whole province as the lord high Poo-Bah instead of the Premier, is also trying to take responsibility for 54 percent - his own figures - of the population...

[5:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Fifty-seven percent.

MS. A. HAGEN: ... 57 percent - we're growing -with the Mainland-Southwest region and heaven knows what proportion of the province in terms of the land mass. He has put forward a whole bunch of bumph, verbiage and pep talk, and he claims things for which he can't take any credit at all. But in the lowly areas where people have put forward their names to participate, indicated their willingness to be involved or come forward with concrete proposals, zilch; absolutely nothing to show for his efforts.

Perhaps he's too busy up in Nechako, Prince George or somewhere else. As the Minister of Regional Development for our area, he doesn't have much credibility at all, in spite of his attempts to reform his figure.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's always a pleasure to reply to that kind member. I meet her at various functions in New Westminster. By her own admission, we were able to bring some social services development money there to Century House, and they were very happy to work with you on that and in all areas.

It may be important for the hon. member to understand how these transportation planning committees work, and how the one works in the Mainland-Southwest area. We found it necessary to set up six transportation committees plus, in the case of the GVRD, a separate committee which is called a community advisory committee. Do you remember back on November 29, 1988, when the Premier was joined by the Highways minister and myself in announcing a planning process to include full participation in all parts of the province by the regional ministers of state and MLAs? Those are the MLAs who would want to be involved in this vital area of transportation planning. Some didn't want to.

The process called "Freedom to Move" is based on an 18-volume study outlining the status of transportation systems in every region of the province. It identifies highway, rail, air and marine improvement projects totalling more than $7 billion in the province of British Columbia over the next decade in every region of the province. It's important to understand that the Mainland-Southwest region comprises, as I said, well over 50 percent of the population base -some say 57 percent - of the province, and highly complex and extensive transportation infrastructure requirements. For this reason, and on the recommendation of the regional advisory committee all of the regional district heads from region 2 it was decided to conduct this region's study on a regional district basis. A side benefit of this is the involvement of a greater range of the community in the actual study and an opportunity for a higher degree of local input and comment.

[ Page 7679 ]

At the outset, at the genesis of regionalization, each and every MLA was indeed invited to participate. The members of the New Democratic Party said that they didn't want to be bothered with it, that they didn't believe in this sort of community participation.

With regard to the Greater Vancouver Regional District study, through discussions with Mr. Gil Blair - who, by the way, was elected the last time around, as near as I know - of that organization and others, including Mayor Gordon Campbell of the city of Vancouver, who beat the socialists as well, we agreed that a two-pronged approach was necessary in region 2.

The GVRD transportation subcommittee is predominantly composed of technical and industry representatives, whereas the community advisory committee has more local representation. Our belief is that the bringing to bear of these two perspectives on the study will ensure that communities in the GVRD get the best possible transportation plan.

There are five regional districts within this particular area. They are all working in concert with each other. They have within them a broad mix of citizenry from many disciplines. The regional districts will come together very shortly with a comprehensive advisory plan so the Minister of Transportation and Highways and others in government can look at it.

It's working very well on behalf of the Mainland Southwest area of British Columbia. The hon. member would know how well it was working if she were involved in it. There is no question about it. I make no excuses that we are spending more time on economic development issues with respect to Mainland-Southwest and the ministry-of-state operation in that area, because that is principally the issues that come to us.

We are looking at thousands of applications, and we are spending more time. We go out into the community to help the people. The hon. member will know that a rising tide will lift all ships and get the economy moving. The other areas come along with it, and the economy is moving at an unprecedented rate in the Mainland-Southwest area of British Columbia.

SkyTrain, which was opposed by the NDP, has brought unprecedented growth and development to the Royal City. It would not have happened if it had not been for the vision of the minister in charge of SkyTrain at its genesis, and that is the current Premier of the province of British Columbia. Tremendous vision and leadership were involved in there.

I can tell you that the former mayor - you might call these people cast-offs or retreads, or call them anything you want. ... I'll vote for experience any day of the week, and wherever we can get experience, get people to come and volunteer their time and knowledge to work on behalf of other British Columbians, we're going to take them on board and have them work with us.

We are not going to ask them whether they have a credit card at the Bank of Montreal that has an orange flashing on it. We are not going to ask for that card as identification before we take them in and have them work with us. We are not going to ask them what their politics are. We are going to say: "Can you and are you willing to work on behalf of British Columbians?" The answer for Bill Lewarne, Tom Baker and for a whole bunch of other people - by the way, some of whom have become very disenchanted with NDP policies because they saw it wrecking their community - is coming on board and working on behalf of their fellow citizens for no pay at all.

It's working very well. There is fine-tuning to be done. We are moving in the social services area. I can tell you there has been more social services development under this government than there ever has been under any other government in British Columbia at any other time in history up until now. The hon. member, if she simply goes through and looks at the blue book, will see that there is more money spent in the area of social services, and more of it spent in the lower mainland area of British Columbia, than there ever has been in any other point in time.

Yes, we are cognizant of social problems; we are cognizant of economic problems. The hon. member keeps telling us to ensure that we don't get our staff too big in these areas. We have a new government agent's office in the city of New Westminster. Government agent services now have been expanded to cover a whole array of services on behalf of people, helping people so they don't have to come to Victoria for services - where they had to come before - and helping them not only in New Westminster, but all over the province,

I think that being a critic is wonderful, but it's not always the critic who counts in these things. It's generally the person who has been in the arena, who has worked and strived on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I would put Tom Baker and Bill Lewarne among those people who have worked and continue to work very hard for the province. The fact that they may be out of the office for a short period has nothing to do with it. The people will see the results of their good work, and if they run again they will be re-elected again.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would just like to note that it is the minister who used the terms "rejected" and "cast off, " which I think are very inappropriate terms to use in respect to people who have offered their services.

I want to raise a couple of points to conclude my comments on this minister's estimates. First of all, I think it's very disappointing for the minister to set up an expectation that he is going to deal with social development issues and not follow through. If it was not a priority of the minister to deal with those issues, then he should simply not have engaged in any kind of shadow-boxing with people about his intent to do that. It is his own newsletter which states some of those priorities. It's his own initiatives that have asked people if they are prepared to contribute.

The very issue I am raising, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a minister of bumph and a minister who is invisible. I think that if you are going to ask people to

[ Page 7680 ]

be involved in consultation and community development and then not follow through, that is not an ethical way to go about one's business.

I want to also rest my case in respect to the transportation issues by noting that the minister, In setting the hearings that were to take place within his own area, didn't have the wit or the grace or the forethought to consult with his own council, who happened to have a public meeting scheduled that day. I would think that if the minister was really in touch with what was going on, he would at least have checked with the particular councils that were close to and would be interested In the transportation hearings, to find out whether or not they had a major conflict with those hearings.

I would also note that the perspective - I will quote from an article in the Burnaby-New Westminster News of May 17 this year - is that: "According to the GVRD, which is working under the assumption that about 12 key projects, including the Cassiar connector, widening Mary Hill ... construction of the Mariner Way-Johnston Street overpass near Coquitlam Centre and the widening of New Westminster's Royal Avenue" - in my own riding - "to four lanes will proceed regardless...." I guess that's my point, Mr. Minister: a lot of what is going on is, in fact, a placating of people, an exercise in window-dressing rather than any real, sincere consultation.

I think you're a person who enjoys the work you do, and you probably do in fact make an effort to talk to people. But I honestly wonder about this exercise with the minister from Burnaby-Willingdon, who seems to have taken onto his broad shoulders responsibility for everything. He was back into Provincial Secretary stuff a moment ago. He really hasn't let anything go.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was complimenting the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid).

MS. A. HAGEN: You look at the Blues and some of the comments you just made. You were talking about stuff that very much belongs with the Provincial Secretary.

In my riding there's disappointment, there having been some interest and enthusiasm and a sense that there might be some good things that could come out of the work of this ministry. That's not the report I'm getting, and I think you are responsible for the report card you have received.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to switch a little bit over here and ask the minister some questions about ERDA. As you know, ERDA is federal dollars, and obviously...

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not all.

MRS. BOONE: Well, some of it is federal dollars. But the federal dollars are going to be reduced, and like most British Columbians, I guess I have a concern about what the reduction in ERDA is going to mean to the ministry and to the future of the program in British Columbia. Does it affect the estimates that you have within your budget? How do you intend to meet those estimates if you've had any information from the federal ministry that those funds are going to be reduced by any amount?

There's also some concern.... As I understand it, the small business subsidiary agreement, the tourism agreement and the industrial development agreement used to be grants, and they were suspended last year because the Premier believes - and I think he's probably right in this case - that you should be giving loans to businesses rather than grants. They were reinstated in February of '88, and I understand they were supposed to be in there for one year. Have they been approved for another year? Can the minister tell me how much has been spent on each of these agreements - the tourism, the small business and the industrial agreement - in the past year?

I will sit down and let the minister answer those questions.

[5:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: While my deputy is looking up the answers to my hon. critic's question.... As far as the expenditure goes, the hon. member for Prince George North, the hon. critic, will know that ERDA was a $590 million agreement co-shared with the province of British Columbia. The first term was for five years. It was a ten-year agreement, but the first term expires one year from now.

I was down in Ottawa a few months ago, and among other things I had extensive meetings - in fact, in Ottawa and here - with my counterpart the Hon. Charles Mayer, who has just taken over as the new Minister of Western Economic Diversification. All of these programs, more and more, seem to be in that envelope. We have reached agreement, after some discussion, that we would start a new round of ERDA talks. Thankfully we have a year to go in the current agreement. It's working quite well on behalf of British Columbia. We're necessarily trying to get more money into the ERDA system on behalf of British Columbians because we feel that we have every right to, considering our contribution to Confederation and to the well-being of Canada as a whole.

The tourism incentive program special account established under sections 5 and 6 of the Industrial Development Incentive Act: March 31, 1989, approvals were $12, 590, 243; actually disbursed from that, $8, 190, 781; plus an additional set of approvals of $7, 409, 557. There is some balancing here between the approvals and the disbursements. There was an actual $8 million disbursement there. So if you look at the approvals side - you don't have to add them up - there is $20 million even coming up for 1990; on the disbursements side, there is $16, 190, 781. These are generally fifty-fifty co-shared.

The small business incentive one.... If you're looking for tables, I can make this information available to you later on if you want, but it's as at March 31, 1989: approvals under the small business incentive program, $16, 894, 006; disbursements,

[ Page 7681 ]

$12, 790, 743, plus an additional amount of approvals of $32, 105, 924, and the amount disbursed under that was $15 million. On the approval side you've got a total of $49 million; on the disbursement side you've got a total of $27, 790, 743.

The last one is the industrial development subsidiary agreement. The totals on that as at March 31, 1989, are: approvals, $42, 565, 000; disbursements, $24, 862, 951, plus the additional that will go on into 1990 - on the approval side, $17, 135, 000, and on the disbursement side, $34, 837, 049, for a total on the approval side of $59, 700, 000 and on the disbursement side of $59, 700, 000. 1 think that's all of them.

MRS. BOONE: Am I right in assuming that these are all loans and not grants?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, as far as the provincial government is concerned, these are all loans.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to put some questions then on the process of these loans. As I understand it, the loans are currently vetted through provincial and federal management committees, and they used to go to Treasury Board, then to the Cabinet Committee on Regional Development and then to full cabinet. You can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that now they're vetted through the provincial and federal management committee, then go through a provincial credit committee and then to cabinet. Can the minister tell me if I am correct on that? It goes to a provincial credit committee. Is this a cabinet committee? Who are the members of that credit committee?

HON. MR. VEITCH: All deals that come under the industrial development agreement go to the credit committee and they are an advisory committee, of course, to cabinet. They are made up of an adviser from my ministry, who is not a member of the committee, because we didn't want to have any conflicts of interest there. My deputy is there as an adviser only. Mr. Nesmith and the former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, Mr. Rogers and the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon Mr. Couvelier) are the members of that committee.

MRS. BOONE: The change has been that instead of going to a cabinet committee....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: It goes to a cabinet committee in addition? Now it goes to cabinet committee first and then to the credit committee? Or does it go to the credit committee and then to a cabinet committee?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It depends on the loan, but it goes to CCRD first to see whether or not we want to move it forward. Then it goes to the credit committee and Treasury Board. Sometimes it goes directly into cabinet, depending on the type of loan. Anything that requires additional Treasury Board submissions,

Treasury Board staff are always available working with all committees. It sometimes would not have to go to Treasury Board but would go directly to cabinet from the credit committee. It starts with the CCRD -Cabinet Committee on Regional Development. It can then go to credit committee. From credit committee, it can either go to Treasury Board and then cabinet or straight to cabinet, depending on the particular issue.

MRS. BOONE: These two gentlemen that you just mentioned as being on this credit committee, Mr. Nesmith and Mr. Rogers, are they paid consultant fees? Can you tell me what their consultants fees are?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. They work within the Treasury Board purview, and as such would report through the Ministry of Finance. You would have to ask that question of the Minister of Finance, as it falls within his vote.

MRS. BOONE: This is rather confusing in terms of who is responsible for what, because these loans are responsible from regional development and yet you make recommendations to the credit committee; and then the credit committee makes recommendations to cabinet. So if there's somebody in between you - the regional development committee and the cabinet committee - those people are not even members of cabinet. Is that correct? It seems a little fuzzy in there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, I don't know whether the member is fuzzy or not. You don't look fuzzy to me; you look fine. But it's a committee of Treasury Board, and as such, Treasury Board reports.... Except for the members of Treasury Board who are cabinet ministers, the Treasury Board staff and committees report through the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. I think they're paid a per diem. If I could remember off the top of my head, I'd tell you; but I don't know because it's not within our purview. They do a darned good job, and they give some very objective analyses to some of these arrangements that have been worked over by our staff in the Ministry of Regional Development, or from whatever source they happen to come from. They're very objective, and they are two very bright individuals working on behalf of the people of British Columbia and giving further service to that which they've given previously on behalf of the province of British Columbia.'~

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to ask the minister - and he can provide this not today but at some other time - for some information that was denied to our research. We asked for a summary of the ERDA loans. I would very much like to get a summary of the ERDA loans. If you could provide that to me, I would appreciate it - as I said, not now or within the next 15 minutes, but within the fullness of time, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 7682 ]

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Yes. Forever; that's right - and not forever.

My colleague from Port Alberni had some questions on an ERDA....

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer is yes. We'll provide you with a summary of the ERDA loans: the ones that have been consummated, not ones that we're negotiating, obviously. We'll provide you with whatever information we can contractually provide you with.

MR. G. JANSSEN: As the small business critic for my party, I'd just like to ask the minister how much money will be available this year, basically, for small business development in the province. I realize that the government doesn't have a small business ministry anymore, so I presume that the purview for the availability of funds in the growth of small business in this province, which is at an all-time high and has so often been started time and time again.... It has been started by people with an idea, with a limited amount of funding, and in fact they sometimes have a great problem getting banks to finance operations How much money would the minister have available this year in this budget to help those small businessmen who are providing the majority of jobs in this province? Large businesses are modernizing, as I'm sure he's aware. The industrial sector is laying off people. I think it is imperative that we give an injection to the small and medium-sized business community to see that they receive the capital required to start businesses in this province and to in fact keep them going after the crucial first four years in operation.

[6:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: A preliminary inquiry is in process. Funding was $21, 154, 101. There are approvals of $19, 541, 576, and there was a cancellation of $1, 505, 103. So that gives us a net approval of $18, 036, 473. This particular set of funds - SMIP, the AIP, the IDAP, and the new one, the small business incentive program - was $39, 190, 574 in aggregate There's about $11 million left in that fund after you subtract those items. There's also the original seed capital fund of $48 million, plus $3.8 million in COED funding. The member may want to put those numbers together.

We're working on some other programs, but this is the funding that's available as a government resource right now. We also offer all sorts of services and help and aid. In the Mainland-Southwest region we send people out continually - analysts and others - to help people with their small business problems.

There is a tremendous amount of attention paid to the small business opportunity in the province of British Columbia. I am going to be announcing another program very shortly that will add a greater dimension yet to the small business opportunity.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It seems that there is a considerable lot of money available to entrepreneurs in the province of British Columbia who wish to go into business. Has the process been streamlined to gain access to these funds? Is there a long waiting-period involved? Could the minister give me some indication as to the amount of time necessary for somebody who is planning to go into a new business and the type of capital or requirement that he may have to have in order to have access to those funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH: With respect to the regional seed capital programs - which, by the way, we are fine-tuning constantly - it's the length of time that a person takes to go and see his or her banker. If all it takes is the seed capital contribution to that, credit committees meet - voluntarily, by the way, and those are other people who are working for the community, people experienced in finance and matters of this kind who work for no fee at all - twice monthly in the case of Mainland-Southwest. I try not to keep anything of that kind on my desk over 24 hours. We move them just as quickly as we can.

The new small business incentive program consolidates the existing three programs - the small business incentive program, industrial development assistance program and the aquaculture incentive program - into one. This consolidation simplifies and streamlines program delivery under the small business incentive subsidiary agreement for the balance of this term, which expires, as I implied before, on March 31, 1990.

Additionally the small business incentive program has been expanded to fill a gap in financial assistance for manufacturing and processing projects which were formerly assisted through the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, under the low-interest assistance program, or the LILA revolving fund. We now have that under a different program.

We are trying to move these as quickly as we can. But we must use due diligence on them, of course, hon. member, you will agree, so that we can ensure that the money is not only properly spent but that all things are proper and without being too darned bureaucratic with respect to small businessmen.

The regional seed capital average turnaround is a little longer than I'd like to have it. From the time people get involved with the bank until they get their permission or indeed their rejection - there are some rejections there too - is between 27 and 35 days. We'd like to shorten that up and make it less time if we possibly could, and I believe we're working on that now in all regions.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the speed in which the ministry attempts to operate so that these people attempting to enter business or in fact in business don't have to wait too long and their plans don't end up on the back burner. I also appreciate the fact that some diligence and some thought has to be put forward to the spending of taxpayers' money.

However, on July 27, 1988, the ministry approved $1.5 million for exchange of 150, 000 class C shares in

[ Page 7683 ]

Three Buoys Houseboat. As the minister is aware, Three Buoys was touted through the "Frontrunners" TV program; numerous clippings appeared with the former Premier of the province as to the success of this company. When in fact that loan was approved on July 27, was the ministry aware that since May of that year the creditors of that company - some 277 of them - were demanding cash before they supplied any more supplies to Three Buoys Houseboat? If the minister was aware, why was the loan approved?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Ministry of Regional Development, rather than advancing the amount that the member mentioned here in this House, has advanced $750, 000 towards Three Buoys Houseboat Builders Ltd. The Ministry of Regional Development has demanded the repayment of the $750, 000 and is working with the receiver and the Royal Bank to realize the value on the government's security. We believe that we are completely secured in the amount outstanding, and we believe that the government will not be out of pocket.

Three Buoys Houseboat Builders was an excellent concept. I'm not going to get into any of the details as to why they failed. I think the hon. member might know why they failed; it's the reason a lot of companies fail. The government helped them on the basis that it was a great industry for the Okanagan. It was a good regional initiative, and we helped them on that basis. However, we are secured. We will receive our money back.

I hope that in the future firms such as Three Buoys will again become operational, because the concept is very good. I guess you can't win them all, but at least we are secured and the people of B.C. will probably not be out any money in the process.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister seems to have a great deal more faith in recovering the $750 '000 advanced to Three Buoys Houseboat Builders than do the bank and the other creditors in getting back total liabilities of $6, 900, 006.98. Does the minister have some form of security that the bank is not aware of? The deficiency, according to the creditors, is some $6, 650, 006.98. The liability to the bank is $3, 747, 815.44; others were owed $2, 299, 949.91. The secured value, according to the creditors, is a mere $250, 000, leaving a shortfall of $2, 299, 949.91. If in fact the creditors are having trouble recovering that kind of money, I would like to ask the minister where the security for the government's $750, 000 might lie.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't know what security other folks have. The people of the province of British Columbia have security against some marina property which is worth far in excess of the $750, 000 we advanced. The reason we advanced the first $750, 000 was that they met the conditions of the offer. We were on top of the issue. When we found that they were unable to meet the conditions for the second disbursement, we had our analysts look at the situation and move very quickly to ensure that wouldn't happen.

Our security is against the marina property, and we are working very closely with the receiver to realize on that security. I have been given a good indication that we will realize on the security. It's too bad that Three Buoys Houseboat suffered the financial problems that they have, and it's too bad that the people who would have been working in that industry are no longer working in it. We must look forward to new opportunities and every now and then take a bit of a risk to help people in small business to someday become people in big business and employ many people. In this particular case, we believed the government to be secured.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Perhaps the minister could advise us why the loan was made, considering that in May 1988 creditors were refusing to do business; some 277 are now left holding the bag. Many of them owe money to the banks. Those banks, of course, will attempt to obtain those funds back from the original creditors - the 277 small companies. Some of them will undoubtedly go bankrupt in the process. In May many of them were refusing to do business - except on a cash basis - with Three Buoys. On July 27 the ministry approved a loan of $1.5 million, and as the minister has indicated, $750, 000 was advanced. Some scant three months later Three Buoys Houseboat was in bankruptcy. They called in a fellow by the name of Dan Johnsen, who said: "There is nothing I can do."

I wonder if the minister could explain to me what kind of investigation was done by the ministry, that an operation worth $10 million to $12 million can go broke virtually three months later. The members opposite like to say we were shovelling money out of the back of the truck. I suggest to you that in this instance the government was driving down the freeway with the tailgate open.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, here is a chap who someday would like to be a minister of small business. The first thing he would have to do is take a course for the very small businessman, so that the underachiever could learn from it.

Businesses go broke and businesses make it. That is the essence of private enterprise. There is no darned guarantee in this province or in any part of the private enterprise system that you're going to win. The individuals who got involved in this business - sure, they put their money up - didn't intend to go broke. They didn't plan it that way. They planned for a huge company and had every expectation it would work that way.

There were a whole bunch of situations that intervened. Some would argue that some of it was management and a whole bunch of other things as to why they didn't make it. Sometimes the reach does exceed the grasp, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) points out.

We loaned the money on the strength of a relocation that was required to make this firm a viable operation. We believed and were convinced at the

[ Page 7684 ]

time that the government ought to move ahead to help give this company a chance to continue to employ the people, to continue to pay taxes in British Columbia, and to make it a very viable operation. At the same time, we did our best to ensure that we were secured on the loan.

I don't think we're going to shovel a dime out of the back of the truck, hon. member, but we did go out on a limb to help a business in British Columbia. We'll go out on a limb again to help businesses in this province, because that's the kind of government we are. We are a small-business-oriented government. We are also a government with compassion, and we have compassion towards the employees involved there.

We believed that we were secured. We're very sorry that Three Buoys went bankrupt. From those ashes another enterprise will rise again and do more business in British Columbia. In fact, they're already starting to do it, and if they request assistance, we'll have a look at it. If it meets the requirements, we'll help them again.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It's exactly those requirements that we're talking about here. What requirements were there? Other people wait in line months and months on end to get approval to start viable businesses.

[6:15]

Here we have a business that's in the hole for $10 million or $12 million. The receiver, Mr. Johnsen, comes in and says there's no backing for this organization. We have 277 creditors who are not going to get any money, who may in fact go broke when the banks foreclose on them. What happened to the $750, 000? What did they use it for? They certainly didn't pay off any of their creditors, those small business men in this province. Perhaps the minister would consider helping those small businesses get out of the glue they were left in by Three Buoys Houseboat, that was in fact helped and encouraged by the Minister of Regional Development to resurrect itself from the ashes - the phoenix bird, so to speak What happened to the $750, 000? It certainly didn't go to the creditors. The plant, I know, was moved. It was moved to Winfield from Westbank, I believe. Is that where the money went? Who owned the building? Did they purchase the building? What happened to the $750, 000?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The first $750, 000 was disbursed to purchase equipment and assets. They purchased those assets and that equipment.

Yes, hon. member, they went bankrupt. I can tell you that we have got a darned good track record in the province of British Columbia. We put a 25 percent reserve on all of these loans that we put out. We put a bad debt reserve on them. We always have a reserve on each and every one of these. In fact, each one of these statements here has a reserve component. We have never had to realize on more than 12 percent of that bad debt reserve. It looks like on this one we ought to get back 100 cents on the dollar.

Listen, they didn't make It, but had they made it, I'm sure the hon. member wouldn't be standing there now telling us that we did the wrong thing. We did the right thing at the right time. We protected the security on behalf of the province of British Columbia. We believe we will realize on that security.

If you ask us if we will take a chance on British Columbia entrepreneurs in the future, the answer is: you're damned right we will. We'll be very prudent as to how we spend the people's money, and we'll have increased business activity in all sectors -small, medium and large - in spite of what the hon. member might say.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Could the minister tell me the name of the marina that he has this secured credit on that the bank will not seize before the ministry has a chance to recollect its money? What's the value of this marina, this hard and fast security that is going to see that the province and the taxpayer don't lose their money?

HON. MR. VEITCH: For the edification of the hon. member for Alberni, the $750, 000 previously advanced by the provincial government to Three Buoys Houseboat Builders Ltd. is secured by a charge on resort property in Sicamous, owned by an associated company which we were able to take a charge upon. The Three Buoys Marina Ltd. is the name of that company, which was not part of the assets sale to Roco.

The marina property, which is presently leased and operated by Go Vacations Inc., has been valued by an appraiser at approximately $2 million. The Royal Bank of Canada holds a prior charge against the property, and we believe that there is sufficient equity in the property, even with the prior charges, to look after our security. That is our advice at the present time. I don't believe that that will be proven wrong.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Coopers and Lybrand indicates the creditors in this case; there are secured assets of $250, 000, not including the marina. The bank is owed a further $3, 747, 815. So the $2 million you are going to get from this is going to be eaten up by the bank, obviously, and I fail to see where your security of $750, 000 is.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Obviously other folks with whom this company, Three Buoys, has been doing business have secured their loans against different assets. We are saying that this particular asset, which has been owned by an associated company to Three Buoys - Three Buoys Marina Ltd. - was not part of the assets sale, not part of the assets that were secured. It's my information that just the bank and the government of British Columbia have a charge against that particular asset, which we are told by the estimator is worth approximately $2 million. That's the difference. We took security against something that was not previously quite so encumbered as the other assets of the company.

[ Page 7685 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: What Is the charge by the Royal Bank? What lien or what charge do they have against that marina? Is it the full $3, 700, 000-some-odd that they are owed? Is that the only security that's left, other than the $250, 000 identified in the secured list of creditors? Could the minister advise me?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I say, the appraiser has done the appraisal, our people have been in contact with the receiver, and it appears that with the charges the Royal Bank... . I can't tell you the exact amount. I don't know the Royal Bank's business, but I can tell you that from the information we have at hand - and that's all we can go by - it appears that we are secured against this $2 million asset to which the Royal Bank has charge. We believe we're secured. We certainly fervently hope we're secured, and it looks like we are at this point.

MR. G. JANSSEN: just one more question, Mr. Minister. I would hope that the other 277 creditors who stood by... In May many of them didn't want to do business with Three Buoys anymore except on a cash basis. When the government approved the loan of $1.5 million, they must have said: "The government believes in this company. Therefore we can trust this company." The government, which obviously must have checked this firm out, must have realized that it was going to secure the money it was going to lend on behalf of the people of the province. Those small businessmen must have taken some heart from that and said: "We'll wait a little longer. We'll perhaps advance a little more material. We'll perhaps give them another chance, because if the government has this much faith, perhaps we should also." That faith was unfounded, because in fact a scant three months later Three Buoys went belly up. I'm as sorry to see that as anybody. When I was president of the chamber of commerce in Alberni, many businesses went broke in '81, '82 and '83, and I was saddened to see that.

I would like to ask the minister if he would consider - earlier he indicated that they have a lot of programs and a lot of money - seeing that those small business men who advanced money and supplies to Three Buoys Houseboat Builders could approach the ministry... Because after all, the ministry gave some indication to these small businessmen that Three Buoys was all right, since the government of British Columbia was behind it and was in fact investing in it. Could he give those 277 small businessmen the same type of security he gave Three Buoys by guaranteeing some of the money that they owe the banks, so that some of them do not face the same fate as Three Buoys did with the help of the ministry?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The NDP claims to have some political brand of DDT that they can spread around and ensure that everybody lives happily ever after. In this life you take no chances, and I guess you'd make no gain. I don't know what kind of an operation the hon. member ran up there In Alberni. I understand it was a jewelry shop. I'm glad he did very well.

But there are risks to be taken in this life, and to suggest that the government is responsible when it is trying to help a business to ensure - by his own admission - that the business will be viable and will carry on is purely and absolutely ludicrous. That's all there is to it. It's ludicrous socialist thinking.

In this life there are no guarantees, my friend, that you will win; there are no guarantees that you are going to lose. But you could do either one. Every now and then the government has to come in and help out an industry. We believed we were doing the right thing in attempting to secure these jobs and secure this as a viable industry. Unfortunately the industry did not make it, and we believe we have protected as well as we possibly could the assets on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARLEE: I find this rather entertaining. This is a government which understands business. Let's put it this way: if I were owed $750, 000, and there was a security or an asset valued at $2 million -we'll accept that - and I also knew there was another creditor such as the Royal Bank, I would want to know exactly - precisely and to the penny - how much the Royal Bank was owed.

So how much of this $2 million asset is claimed by the Royal Bank? That's the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. BARLEE: Is the loan secure?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We are assured by the receiver that it is less than the $750, 000 that's owed to the government. If the member has ever been involved in any kind of receivership situation, he will know it takes a while to work these things out. With the best information that we have available, it appears that we are secured. I think the government did well in securing itself with this property, which was a subsidiary of Three Buoys, to protect its investment.

I can remember a whole bunch of things that a previous government got into when they were in power for 1, 200 days and 1, 200 nights, where they didn't have one whit of security. I hope that the Bank of Montreal has better security on their orange and black cards they are going to put out than they had back then.

MR. BARLEE: That essentially is not an answer. I still have not got to the point: exactly how much was the Royal Bank owed? That's all we want. If they are only owed $250, 000 in that particular asset, I am perfectly satisfied. But I think it's the minister's responsibility to know exactly how much the Royal Bank is owed on that asset.

Otherwise ' that $750, 000 you claim the province is going to recoup may never be recouped. That's all; it's as simple as that.

[ Page 7686 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: If ifs and ands were pots and pans, the whole world would be tinkers, I guess. We are dealing with the receiver, and we are working with the receiver on a constant basis, and it's our belief that we will come out.... Unfortunately the company didn't come out very well, because it went bankrupt, and we are indeed sorry about that. We are indeed sorry about the people who don't have the jobs anymore, but as one of my other hon. colleagues, the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) points out, the company is being resurrected. At least the elements of the company are being resurrected. In fact, that industry under new management will prosper and thrive in the beautiful Okanagan once again, and hopefully we had a little bit of help in pointing it in that direction.

[6:30]

MR. G. JANSSEN: The second member for Boundary-Similkameen asked a question that the minister seems unable to answer. However, I would like to read, for the information of the member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. notice to creditors in the bankruptcy of Three Buoys Houseboat: "In unsecured creditors - $5, 797, 765.35 Total liabilities of $6, 900, 006.98 and total assets of $250, 000. In unsecured creditors, section (a), Royal Bank of Canada is owed $3, 497, 815.44. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 48 pass? The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: I thought there were a bunch of egocentrics in here. I keep hearing a bunch of Is from the Socred back benches.

I wanted to ask the minister about the ERDA negotiations in terms of negotiating with the federal government. I've raised the matter of the FRDA program previously in the House and the requirements that B.C. has laid down are identified as being necessary to continue the work in forestry of some $700 million. Could the minister advise whether or not he has been apprised of what is likely to be forthcoming from the ERDA agreements?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's a very good question. In our first round of discussions with the Hon. Charlie Mayer - and as you are well aware, this is now under Western Economic Diversification - we merely received agreement with the hon. minister that we would commence negotiations. My deputy, who has had some experience in negotiations, will be meeting with the deputy for Western Economic Diversification - the deputy responsible to the minister, Charlie Mayer - in the very near future.

We are putting together our negotiating package at the present time. It is not quite yet assembled, and I am unsure what is in the total fund. We are going to attempt to get as much out of it as we possibly can on behalf of the province of British Columbia. I believe there is probably less money than there was last time around; I don't think there is any question about that. We are going to attempt to get every cent we can on behalf of the people of British Columbia, including FRDA.

MR. MILLER: The indications, going back to last year, were actually that the money wouldn't be forthcoming. Was the minister aware of those? Did he track those? Did he read the signs that were out there on that issue?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Our management group is having regular meetings with federal officials. I have had telephone discussions on several occasions and two meetings with the hon. minister, Charlie Mayer. I guess you can't buy and sell at the same time, so we haven't gotten down to trading rugs or anything at this point in time. I have no indication whatsoever that ERDA funding will not be continued; it will. I am also not under any illusion that it won't be tougher to negotiate this time. Indeed, there may be less money in the total fund. I am sure there will be, and we are just going to have to get as much as we possibly can and then take a look to our own resources in the process.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister saying he was not aware of the clear signals that were being sent by various federal officials last year with respect to moneys that were coming to B.C. ? Was the minister not aware of that?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, I've been in, as I say, telephone conversation, personal conversation and written communications with the federal minister. After all of those things have been concluded, we now have an agreement to start negotiating.

MR. MILLER: Surely you must have known.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Known what?

MR. MILLER: That the money was going to be there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What would we be negotiating if there wasn't any money there? There will be money in the fund, but I am sure there will not be as much money in the fund.... At least, the popular knowledge is that there won't be as much money in the fund as there was previously. I've told the hon. member that whatever is there we are going to try to do our level best to get as much as we can on behalf of the province of British Columbia. That's our job.

I have never had any indication that there will be no ERDA funding. Why would the hon. minister agree to commence negotiations if there wasn't going to be any money in the fund? I've never even surmised for a moment that there was no funding. I have heard rumours, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't as much as there was the last time around.

[ Page 7687 ]

MR. MILLER: I sort of get the sense that people don't want to discuss it, but given the importance of the forest renewal agreement.... As I've said on other occasions, and perhaps I've said it here as well, it's probably the single most important agreement that we can enter into with the federal government with respect to the future of the economy of this province. I don't think it should be made light of at all.

It was clear to me last fall. I got the stories about the fact that the feds would not go along with a program of that magnitude. Surely the minister must have his ear to the ground or have people in his employ who have. I got the hints that there would be no stand-alone FRDA money; it would come from western diversification. All of those things - if you looked and listened, you knew it was going to happen. It didn't come as any surprise to me that the money wasn't forthcoming; neither did it come as arty surprise when the minister, Mr. Oberle, announced that there would be no fifty-fifty funding. Yet all of these signals were out there.

If he was aware of them, he didn't do anything much about it. It culminated in the Premier's fully supporting the federal financial initiatives, the federal budget, which was the instrument that cut money for British Columbia. I just wondered about the minister's view of that, given the importance of these funds for reforestation and silvicultural efforts. Given the problems that we have in some parts of British Columbia, why was advice not given to the Premier not to take such a wholeheartedly enthusiastic, supportive position with regard to that federal budget, and to consider the interests of British Columbia first? It baffles me, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you can explain it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We always consider the interests of all British Columbians first, paramount and always.

The answer is yes, we take these negotiations or renegotiations very seriously indeed. That's why we started negotiations a year in advance of the contract expiring. We have given ourselves lots of time. We have now secured an agreement from the minister, Hon. Charles Mayer, to start negotiations. We're starting those negotiations very soon. My deputy has been or will be in contact very shortly to get some meetings in place to start these negotiations. We take them very seriously. We've given ourselves a year's leeway so that we can negotiate the best agreement possible on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister would advise me what other projects in British Columbia are earmarked as important to the government in terms of funding from western diversification. If the FRDA funds must come from western diversification, which is a fund that was established, Mr. Minister, to do exactly what it says, although some politicians at the time accused it of being a slush fund for the Tories . . . Nonetheless, its name is of some significance: western diversification. We're looking for stand-alone money that will allow us to improve the underpinnings of our forest economy.

I've heard, for example, about the kaon factory. Obviously in the four western provinces there must be other projects that their governments consider and projects in British Columbia that you or this government consider to be of importance in terms of that fundamental question of diversification. Or is that not the purpose of the fund? Perhaps the minister might advise me if he doesn't see that as the purpose of the fund.

What kind of competition are we faced with? What are the projects in British Columbia that have priority or that the government has a sense of urgency about in terms of trying to get money from that pool of capital? What's forestry competing against, Mr. Minister? What are the other priorities? Is FRDA the top priority for the western diversification fund? Let's get that out on the table. What about the other western provinces as well? Because we will be competing with them, and a fund administered by a federal cabinet minister who does not come from this province....

You can smile, Mr. Minister, but it's clear that what we expected last year, what the government said they wanted, is not going to be there. You failed in terms of that particular objective, so you'd better be clear on what you're dealing with in terms of trying to get some money for this province in forestry.

HON. MR. VEITCH: When I was in Ottawa the last time, I gave 100 percent support to the federal minister responsible for forestry for a stand-alone budget for forestry renewal. I will continue to express that support.

MR. MILLER: Where is it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, hon. member, he used to be involved in negotiations. You know, you have to start these negotiations, and they have to work through to a logical conclusion - and they will. And we'll get every cent possible. FRDA is the most important one. Forestry renewal is the most important part of any of these sorts of funding that we're going to get. There isn't any question about that at all. It is number one, number one, number one. As far as western diversification goes, I can tell you that the western diversification office is working with our regional offices in looking at opportunities all over the province of British Columbia. They're very happy to do that, because it works very well for them, and it gives us a greater amount of cooperation with the western diversification office. But FRDA is number one. We will continue to negotiate. They are very aware - each and every minister that we've talked to in Ottawa - and indeed the first minister is very aware that we see FRDA as number one. We see forest renewal as number one.

Interjection.

[ Page 7688 ]

MR. VEITCH: Well, you just wait and see what clout we have, hon. member. You just wait and see.

Vote 48 approved.

Vote 49: ministry operations, $51, 599, 831 - approved.

[6:45]

Vote SO: mainland-southwest development region, $1, 169, 199 - approved.

Vote 51: economic and regional development subsidiary agreements (ERDA), $14, 848, 500 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

FARMING AND FISHING INDUSTRIES

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act.

HON. MIL SAVAGE: The purpose of this bill is to create legislation that will enable producers of commodities of the farming and fishing industries to collect levies approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council and under the supervision of commodity councils, and apply those levies to promote and benefit their industries. The legislation will apply only to those commodities where the minister is satisfied that a substantial number of the producers wish to have it applied.

This legislation will increase industry self-sufficiency and reduce pressure on government to fund industry development.

Bill 44, Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, 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.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 30.

AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize the importance of this legislation. The purpose obviously, I think I explained in first reading, was to discourage people from using courts, etc., to stop those activities that create noise and smell where farmers are: number one, operating their farms in the agricultural land reserve; number two, carrying out their operations in a reasonable manner or in accordance with accepted farming practices; and three, complying with all enactments and permits relating to the operations causing the nuisance.

This legislation will not allow a person to: one, obtain injunctive relief, interim or permanent, to stop the farm operation; or two, to obtain an award for damage against the farmer, If in fact the farmer is eligible for the benefit of this legislation.

It is important to note that the bill does not safeguard against the farmer's negligence or against the unreasonable use by the farmer of his land.

The proposed legislation will not affect the bylaw-making powers of local government.

MR. BARLEE: The minister will be pleased to note that in general we support this bill and its intent, although we have a number of questions about its handling of agriculture, in the absence of non-conforming rights and the lack of any appeal or arbitration process which would remove some nuisance actions from the courts. I think this is quite Important.

There is a legitimate need for this type of legislation and we concur in principle with the purpose of the bill, as frequently, as you well know, Mr. Minister, suburban areas encroach onto farmland, with the result that there have been increasing numbers of complaints, a disturbing number of which have escalated into time-consuming and very expensive lawsuits. This has been a problem particularly evident in the Fraser Valley and parts of the Okanagan and in certain sections of Vancouver Island.

Consultation with people involved in the agricultural sector has led to the development of a number of questions relevant to the purpose of this act. The act suggests that its intent is to provide farmers with a defence against nuisance actions and that the defence is based on the fact that a farmer facing legal action is and has been using accepted farming practices.

The act also provides farmers with a 90-day period of notice, and it ensures that the intended plaintiff must lay out the actions of his or her intended grounds, which essentially serves as a cooling-off period. I think this is a good idea, and we generally concur with that provision.

The bill defines agricultural operation as any agricultural operation or activity carried on at a farm located within an agricultural land reserve, and that's logical. It includes all activities on a farm, such as land cultivation, operation of machinery, application of pesticides, fertilizer and conditioners, and the use of noise-scare devices.

In summation, and this is, as I say, a very quick acceptance from our viewpoint, Mr. Speaker, I should mention that although we feel that this bill is long overdue, on the other hand it does address a number of problems facing farmers. We will, however, question some of its inadequacies during third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House the minister closes debate.

[ Page 7689 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate my hon. critic's comments, and I am very pleased by the fact that he and his party do support the legislation that is proposed here. I do believe, as the hon. member says, that the farming community has wished to have this legislation in place for quite some time, and I am sure it will give them some comfort as to what their future is relative to operating within the pressure of advancement from urban communities into rural areas, which was a very real concern that they did have.

I really appreciate the concurrence of the hon. member, and hopefully it will go through third reading quite quickly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question Is second reading, Bill 30.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Agriculture Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 31.

GAME FARM ACT

HON. MR. SAVAGE: just to review the purpose of this legislation, it's to develop a framework that enables the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to license game farmers and to administer game-farming, while ensuring that we do promote a developing industry, that we have control over game farms through record-keeping requirements, that we provide protection of environmentally sensitive regions of the province by providing the ability to exclude farming from them, and that we provide protection of wild stocks from adverse effects of game farming by: (1) controlling disease; (2) providing that escapement of farm game is minimized and animal control programs are put in place; (3) restricting game species to particular regions of the province; and (4) recognition of the interests of consumers.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment will sign a protocol agreement to recognize the ongoing consultation and cooperation between our ministries to address the following: the protection of the environmentally sensitive areas of the province from the potential impacts of game-farming and, of course, the protection of wildlife, especially from disease. When regulations are developed to protect the environment and wild stocks, this will be done in consultation with the Ministry of Environment.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, it's a major change from two years ago. Two years ago the Minister of Environment was saying that there would be no expansion of the little bit of game-farming that we had, and that in fact there were dangers there. He foresaw that there were obvious problems with poaching and some problems with health. He outlined many of the problems that we also saw, and assured us that there would be no expansion and that it was just a case of trying to get a handle on the game-farming that had gone on for some years with bison and for fewer years with fallow deer.

Since that time a number of things have changed and now we have an act which the minister introduces by suggesting that what he wants to do is promote a developing industry and in fact encourage the growth of the industry. I find that rather strange, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure what the rationale is for this government to all of a sudden have decided that, from a point where they saw the dangers of having some game farms with species that could not interbreed with the wild stock, now we have an act that defines wildlife and the kind of game that can be farmed, including all of the game animals in British Columbia - exactly the same animals that are defined in the Wildlife Act - and anyone who chooses to farm these can now apply to the minister for a licence to do so, and if he can get a licence to do so, he will be able to farm these animals.

It is interesting that the Minister of Environment said in June of 1987 that it would: "...never be my policy, nor, I think, the policy of this government, to consider a native species such as elk. There are too many health problems, too many control problems. I just can't see that coming to be in the province of British Columbia. When we look at elk, we agree that this is just not the proper thing to happen in our province."

Earlier than that, on June 12, he said: "The concern is obviously that we're going to expand further into elk and other indigenous species, and I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be my intent as minister to allow that expansion." Well, within two years we now have that expansion. The minister is not sitting in his chair, but he is here this evening, and he seems to have no objection to transferring the function of game farming over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and to expanding it to every game species in this province.

Some time after that, the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned that if there was going to be any game-farming in British Columbia, it would be some time before we see this type of game-farming - the kind that would expand on the business of fallow deer. Well, it has not been very long.

I find it interesting that the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries tells us - and tells me by phone -that there is still no intention to farm endemic species, which is the same, in essence, as indigenous species. That's very interesting, but that's not what the legislation says. The legislation says that any of the game species of British Columbia can be applied for to be licensed and therefore farmed in this province.

The minister says, as I pointed out, that the aim of the legislation is to expand and see that the industry grows. Therefore he is going to do the marketing and see that the marketing is done for this particular

[ Page 7690 ]

industry. In fact, it's suggested that of the 20 fallow deer farmers in the province now... The hope is that within a very short time that will triple to 60. There is an expectation that the number of bison farmers -who are a relatively small number of about eight, I'm told - will expand and in fact, that there will be an import of caribou from the Yukon. That was proposed a while ago, and the problems were so huge that it hasn't yet happened. With this act, which is extremely loose and has some clauses which you could drive a herd of caribou through, the minister seems somehow... It's likely that herd of caribou will be driven to the Peace River country under this particular act, despite the fact that it's anticipated there will be a huge mortality rate in that particular transfer, and that there could be some major dangers in the kind of parasites that happen with those animals.

The limit as to who will get a licence, where there can be farms in the province, for which species and so on, will depend on the minister's decision or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, rather than being written into the act. There is no indication in the act of where the limits will be as to what is going to happen with game farming here in British Columbia. Are we to believe that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker?

There are a number of problems I want to deal with fairly specifically, as far as game farming is concerned. I think that both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister Responsible for Environment have said they considered this before, but the problems haven't gone away - the problems of confined animals, and the fact that when there is disease among a confined herd, it spreads much more easily than it does among the wild stock. Therefore the disease problem is considerably greater than it is among a herd of wild game - the kind of animals that could be farmed in this province.

[7:00]

The disease can spread not only by transmission from animal to animal, but it can spread by transmission.... For example, parasites can spread through manure. How, for example, does the minister propose to control such things among animals that might be on a farm? When the animals go to market, for example, is there a control on the manure which might very well be carrying a parasite to other animals, domestic or wild?

The problems of disease lead to the problem of overdosing with antibiotics. I've been told fairly frequently lately that there are major problems in the province with the control of antibiotics for animals. In fact, the veterinarians are worried about it, and a farmer or rancher can go to a standard hardware or feed store and buy antibiotics by the case. The administration of antibiotics to food stock is a major concern to the consumer, and there's no indication that has been taken care of.

It's quite probable that we're going to have increased problems with imported stock, because if we talk about continuing breeding of fallow deer, we could have an importation of stock from outside the country. That has a number of major problems, many of which are related to the control of disease.

The business of health and the inspection of meat raises concerns, because the number of inspectors for meat in this province have not been adequate. What the arguments are by those who say that we could have game-farming without problems about the meat that is sold and certainly about the problems of poaching as far as meat is concerned involve a major increase, I would think, in the number of inspectors for the meat in the province. There's absolutely too much we don't know about the kinds of disease that might develop, and the ways to control it, to take the chance we would have to take to farm any kind of game that's defined in Bill 31 as presented.

Another whole range of problems comes up with the possibility of escape of game. There's no question that there are going to be escapes of game animals from game farms, and that's dealt with in a minimal way in the act. Animals will escape at some point or other. There's no suggestion here how we would deal on the broad scale with contamination of the gene pool if in fact we did have some imported animals. It's not made clear by the act that this wouldn't happen.

There's no indication of how liability will be controlled if an animal escapes and creates damage to someone else's property or in fact creates damage to some person on Crown land. Who is liable? What happens? There are no penalties in the act. All of these things need to be dealt with, and you need to know what you're going to do before you begin a full-blown activity such as the minister seems to be proposing.

The establishment of a market infrastructure is basically what the minister is talking about. He says he wants to establish the marketing function for the game farms. The minute you establish a more extensive legal market infrastructure, you will have more poaching, and even the Minister of Environment has agreed with me on this. We already have a problem with poaching, and it's going to be worse. In fact, in June of 1987 the Minister of Environment said there had been a significant increase in the amount of poaching that was going on throughout the whole province, in the national parks as well as the provincial parks. He also said we needed more conservation officers and that it was something he would take to Treasury Board.

I don't know whether he took it to Treasury Board or not, but the increase in the number of conservation officers is not.... There seems to be a promise of several this year. In fact, it still won't be enough. If we have more game and a considerable increase in poaching, which the Minister of Environment at least has agreed there would be, we need a substantial increase in the number of conservation officers. As I said, he admitted before that we didn't have enough COs. We're going to need even more if we're going to encourage a situation that could lead to a significant increase in poaching in this province.

The whole idea of poaching is a matter that I have dealt with at least a couple of times in this Legisla-

[ Page 7691 ]

ture. I've given examples, and I have tried to persuade my colleagues on both sides of the House that game management in British Columbia, where the wild stock is there for anyone in this province who believes they own those animals.... They do. They have access to them. No one in the province can buy the animals and say they belong to them alone. That kind of privilege has not been allowed in British Columbia. The kind of conservation that happens when everybody is the guardian of the animals has proven to be one of the best game management systems in the world. If you begin to farm these wild animals, you will lose that particular mentality. You will lose that rationale of the people to protect the game.

It seems, again, that the minister, if he's going to pass this kind of legislation, would have to ensure that some grading and processing facilities would be available. That has been a problem in other provinces. If he wants to have more of the particular kind of meat that has to be graded and processed, are those facilities here in British Columbia? Are they reasonable for a tripling of the number of game farms of fallow deer, plus an increase in the number of bison farmers and perhaps some caribou as well?

Inevitably, once an expansion begins, once a game farmer invests in a game farm and wants a return to that investment, the longer and the more that he invests, the more return he wants, and the more pressure there is on the government to expand the ability to have game farms. The Minister of Environment said on June 12, in responding to a statement that I made, that he was going to demand a 12-acre minimum if there was any game-farming in British Columbia. It would be private land. He said, by the way, there was no intention of using Crown land for these purposes. He said a game farmer would have to make some sizeable financial commitment and be well prepared for the costs involved. The case is that the minute a game farmer does that, he wants a better return.

There is no indication that there is going to be any end to the expansion of this industry; there's no indication that it could be contained by the will of the government, which is going to be lobbied by these people who want to expand in order to make their money and protect their investment. There is no indication that they would keep them to the private land; they could then be going onto Crown land and the whole thing could move further if the government does not have the will to see that the limits are kept where they have said they want them kept. The legislation does not put any limits down at all. There is no indication in this bill where those limits would be or that the government intends to be severe about those limits or even to do what they have said they wanted to do.

That lays out most of my objections to this bill, Mr. Speaker. The act is simply not sufficient. It doesn't deal adequately ..if the minister were sincere about an industry or if he had some strong support for it There is no question that the minister has had a lobby for it, but he has put together something that doesn't cover enough of the bases. It doesn't indicate to the members of this Legislature nor the members of the public where the limits will be. For those reasons, I think that the bill should be opposed.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I have taken note of a number of the concerns raised by the hon. member. You should be well aware that anybody could apply to have a licence for game-farming. That doesn't mean to say that they would get a licence for it - not by a long shot. We are certainly planning to restrict by regulation the species that can be farmed. In other words, cabinet will decide, based on the input from the Game Farming Advisory Council and other interested groups, including the Wildlife Federation and other ministries. We have gone to people to make sure that we have input from them.

You talked a little about disease. I guess all of us would have concerns if disease were to run rampant. I would suggest to you that by confinement you can control disease; in the wild stock you cannot. There is no way of controlling disease in the wild stock, whereas if you confine It.... By the fact that you mention the size of a farm as five hectares, which is 12.35 acres approximately, we are meeting the standard that the hon. Minister of Environment had mentioned to you before. That's the basis on which the guidelines are laid out for the establishment of a game farm.

On the issue of all indigenous species, we are limiting it right now to bison, fallow deer and reindeer in the Peace River - that is the present limit. We have consistently turned down applications for elk, for example. We have not accepted that. I don't accept your fear that it is going to be wide open. We are taking a very responsible position on it by saying that it has to be an order-in-council. Through the advice of some of these advisory councils, any further considerations will be considered only after their consent.

On the issue of how we would control escapement, I think that is covered very clearly under section 79 of the Wildlife Act. The intent is to follow that section.

A number of the other concerns you had may well be valid to some extent, but I think we will cover most of those on the issue of veterinarians who would inspect meat. There will be inspections of meat - there is presently, periodically. When you go to a slaughtering house today, the meat is graded by inspection. It is not necessarily tested by inspection. That's done by spot checks on stores and so on. That's the same thing that will happen, I suggest, for the meat that comes from game-farming.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Came Farm Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

[ Page 7692 ]

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL ACT

HON. MR. DUECK: As members of this assembly will recall, my mandate was broadened in July 1988 to include responsibility for seniors in addition to health. In establishing this new portfolio, the government recognizes the increasing relative Importance of the seniors' population in British Columbia and the need to plan public policies and programs to serve this population.

As a first step In carrying out my new responsibilities, I established an office for seniors. This office serves as a very effective vehicle for public liaison and policy development. Although the office for seniors is physically located within the Ministry of Health, this is purely for administrative convenience. The mandate of the office extends much beyond health issues to include economic security, retirement, work, housing, family, education and many other matters of concern to seniors.

[7:15]

The second major initiative relative to seniors is the "Toward a Better Age" task force. This task force is currently visiting 21 communities in British Columbia to obtain firsthand knowledge of seniors' concerns. I understand that more than 400 briefs and presentations have already been submitted to this group, and I am confident that their report, expected by year's end, will provide us with some very useful insights from the people of our province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The third major initiative relating to seniors is the establishment of a seniors' advisory council as outlined in this bill. This council will provide me with advice from citizens on current and future issues of concern to seniors in our province. I am eager to hear directly from seniors themselves, as well as from representatives of seniors' organizations and from individuals who have particular insight into seniors' issues. In view of this, we are proposing that the Seniors' Advisory Council be composed of up to 15 persons who will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. In addition to providing me with advice, the council will maintain a valuable network of communication links with seniors' organizations and organizations providing services to seniors.

I am confident that this council will prove to be an important intermediary between government and the seniors community, a community that is growing more rapidly than any other in the province. It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I'm pleased to present this bill to the assembly.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will first of all state that we on this side of the House will be supporting the establishment of the Seniors' Advisory Council. In this second reading debate I want to take the opportunity, as the minister has, to make a few comments about this initiative.

In respect to the minister's capacity as the person responsible for seniors, having that as part of his executive council responsibility, I believe this bill and the actions stemming from it may well be the hallmark of the involvement with seniors. Therefore it seems to me there are certain benchmarks against which we should measure the legislation: what does it have to say about the autonomy of the members, about the representativeness of the members of the council and about the accountability of the council?

Let me take the time this evening to look particularly at representation and accountability, because I think in dealing with those two issues we also address the fundamental principle of autonomy. The bill empowers the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to name the members of the council, and it empowers the minister to designate the chairperson. So the people who are indeed going to sit on this council are appointed persons. I think we have some legitimate questions to ask in respect of the bill as it's presently constituted, as to how these people will be chosen or appointed. It seems to me that there should be some principles intrinsic in the language of the bill - or If not in the language, certainly in our discussions -that determine how these people will be appointed,

The bill has been compared to the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, an initiative of last year. It's noteworthy that in that bill the clause which deals with the makeup of the council clearly states that those appointed shall be .persons with disabilities or persons representing persons with disabilities." I quote from Bill 42 of the 1988 session of the House.

There are no principles or no statements about who may be eligible for membership on the Seniors' Advisory Council. There is no statement that the persons should be older persons; perhaps better than saying seniors, since "seniors" tends to have an age qualification that doesn't necessarily reflect the breadth of those persons who might be considered in the senior category. Nor does it make any reference to whether persons providing services or advocating for seniors might be represented. I think that that's a deficiency in the act.

There is no reference either to how people will be chosen. Has there been any consideration about whether there would be representatives from the major seniors' organizations in the province or the major advocacy or service-provider groups? It would, I acknowledge, perhaps be difficult to deal with a group that is representative by actual nominations of the people from those sectors. But the minister might very well indicate that the council will be chosen from nominations from bona fide seniors' organizations and groups. The government does that with judges. It looks for nominations. That might be a means by which the minister could be advised of the wide range of people who might very well be

[ Page 7693 ]

available to provide him with the advice, information and networking he seeks from this group.

Nor is there any indication to suggest that the council will be representative of geography or gender. I might note that since there are more women than men among the older sector, if we were looking at some kind of different approach to parity, we might have more women than men on this council. That might be a very appropriate representation of the older population. It's a little different view from what we normally look at when we look at gender issues, and there's a little bit of tongue in cheek in that, Mr. Speaker. But I think the issue of gender is one that the minister would want to address.

Who is on that council is very much going to affect its credibility and people's sense that it is an autonomous body. I would suggest that there is good reason for the minister to have some process that indeed allows him to know about the many people who could offer good service, to look at some kind of representation and to have some clear guidelines around geography, gender and representation when the council is appointed.

The second issue I want to raise is accountability. The bill states the mandate of the council. I think it might be worthwhile to read that mandate into Hansard. It's in section 3 of the act: "The council may (a) advise the minister on current and future issues of concern to seniors of the Province, (b) represent interests of seniors throughout the Province, and (c) maintain close communication links with major seniors' organizations and organizations involved in providing services to seniors." It's a very tall order that this council is asked to undertake.

I note that the mandate is enabling rather than prescriptive. It says that the council "may" rather than "shall." It would be my expectation that those sitting on this council would take that mandate very seriously to heart and give their very best to achieving those goals.

Let me add, too, that the status of this council is to be recognized by the fact that they are to receive remuneration for their work in addition to their out-of-pocket expenses. I applaud that initiative. The task that has been given to this council is significant, and I think it is a recognition of the effort involved. We will, of course, look in committee stage at what might be involved with that remuneration.

I mention it now because it suggests the extent of the work this council may be asked to do on behalf of the seniors of the province. Therefore it seems essential that this particular body of people be a reporting body, not just to the minister but to those people about whom they are going to advise the minister, for whom they are going to represent interests and with whom they are going to maintain communication links, in order for that group to have the kind of status and credibility that I'm sure the minister would want it to have. It seems to me that it should be incumbent upon that group to present its findings, its recommendations and the report of its activities not only to the minister but to those people whom it represents. Indeed, we will at the appropriate time be bringing forth an amendment to deal with that very matter.

If we are going to see good legislation, and possibly regulations that augment the legislation and deal with representation and accountability issues, then I think this body, as a representative group of seniors and as a group that may speak on behalf of seniors, will have a high degree of integrity. I think that is an expectation that we would want to see made possible by the legislation we are dealing with now.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and the conclusion of our debate on the establishment of a Seniors' Advisory Council by statute.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Seniors Advisory Council Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 40.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[7:30]

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, just on general principle, I hate to see any measure go through without at least some kind of explanation - albeit brief, perhaps - from the minister and those who introduce it. I wonder if he would be good enough to share with us some observations on the background to the change to the Chiropractors Act. Was this the product of some discussion, some intercession or some representation on behalf of that professional association? Would the minister be good enough to fill us in on that, please?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of professions - chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists - that are asking for incorporation so they can use the tax relief. That is what is contained in those four. It doesn't in any way affect their liability.

The Chiropractic Association is seeking to establish a college at the university, and we've made some changes so the teachers and students can in fact

[ Page 7694 ]

practise without being registered under the chiropractic registry. The second amendment is to the Physiotherapists Act. Remedial gymnasts, which we looked up last year... There are still about ten or 12 remedial gymnasts in the province that came over from England mostly, and they didn't have the same qualifications as our physiotherapists. We are grandfathering them, provided they do a certain service that isn't quite at the level of a physiotherapist.

Without asking me questions, you make it very difficult for me.

Under the Psychologists Act, they are strengthening their disciplinary procedures so that they have a little more strength in looking after their own members; they are strengthening their authority. Also under two of them - I think it was the psychologists and another - they will separate the association from the college, so that.... Chiropractors and psychologists.

That's more or less the meat of the whole thing.

MR. LOVICK: Our Health critic has informed us that he has no difficulty with this, and therefore he has recommended that we don't pose any further questions. If it will expedite the process for me to say that now, I shall. We don't have any quarrel with any of the sections.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 40, Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is clearly a statutes amendment act that covers four acts, so probably the bulk of the good debate will be during committee stage, inasmuch as the bill has very little principle as a bill.

There is a housekeeping change to the Ecological Reserve Act. There are housekeeping changes to the Environment Management Act which establish uniform procedures for standing in front of the Environmental Appeal Board. There are changes to the Water Act which essentially have the principle of establishing more works, and approvals can be done by regional managers. There is a change to the Water

Utility Act that exempts the bottlers and suppliers of tanked water from being controlled by the Water Utility Act. These people clearly are in the transportation business and not in a monopolistic or tight supply situation, so it is not necessary to regulate them under those statutes.

With that said, I will wait for further comment now from members of the assembly, but again, since this is a variety of changes to four acts, anticipate that the better and more productive debate will be in committee stage.

MR. CASHORE: We are not going to spend much time on this during second reading. It certainly does appear to be a relatively minor bill dealing with minor housekeeping changes. However, when we get to the committee stage and have a chance to canvass some of the questions that we have on the particular sections of the bill, we will perhaps have further to say about it.

I note that the Ecological Reserve Act that is referenced in this bill relates to being under the ministry of lands, parks and housing. Perhaps there's a housekeeping thing there that needs to be looked at. Also, given that the Mining Right of Way Act authorizes owners or holders of mining properties to use rights over other lands, we are therefore in agreement with this housekeeping measure, since its insertion into the Ecological Reserve Act operates to restrict this right. We think that's appropriate.

Under the Environment Management Act, the question is raised of environmental impact assessments. It would be interesting to know if the impact assessment of this has ever been used. I note that it also refers to the right to declare an environmental emergency, which was recently used. It refers to getting full party status to lower-level decision-makers who make decisions to issue permits, etc., under the Water Act, Pesticide Control Act and Wildlife Act, yet I note in the explanatory notes that it doesn't refer to the Waste Management Act. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that.

With regard to some aspects of the Water Act and the Water Utility Act, I think we will be canvassing those areas in quite a bit of detail during committee stage, because we want to be able to relate that to some things that relate to the pesticide regulations and the implementation thereof. With regard to the Water Utility Act, the explanatory note refers to bulk tanker, but in the specifics of the bill it refers to the sale of bottled water. I would want to query whether the act applies specifically to the export of water by truck or if it also could include by sea or rail. I would be interested, too, in knowing just why it's worded that way and doesn't seem to include those other methods of transport.

Having said that, I don't think we see anything extremely contentious in this bill. I have no further comments at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, you are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

[ Page 7695 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the questions posed by the hon. member are duly noted. They will be in Hansard, and staff will provide answers to me and to the committee when we get into that stage of the bill.

I have one quick answer now with respect to the Environment Management Act and the waste management provisions with respect to full party status in an appeal. Those are already in the Waste Management Act. This section brings those other three acts mentioned up to the status of the Waste Management Act. I believe that's the answer to that question, but as I said earlier, we will clarify all of that during committee stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 33.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Peterson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might establish some ground rules with the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). We don't plan on taking a great deal of time with this. Yesterday I said I had some reservations and some questions about this measure, and perhaps, depending on the answers we receive, one might vote against it. I still have those questions, and I have not yet decided whether this is a progressive or a retrograde measure. Therefore I wonder if I might, under section 1 of the bill, which technically doesn't do all the things I want to allude to.... I wonder if the minister might bear with me, so we don't have to worry about whether it's section 8 or 9 or whatever.

[7:45]

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

Can the minister confirm for me that the monitoring of the work done by the official administrators will be done by two persons, rather than the 11 who were formerly employed in the public trustee's office? Is that the effect?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If I understand the question correctly, the monitoring will be done by one person, who will be the designated official administrator for the province. That person in turn will be the public trustee. One person will do the monitoring in that sense. By this legislation, the public trustee will be empowered to name deputies, and those deputies will be in various locations around the province. There are now 12 persons around the province who are official administrators. They perform the functions and report relatively independently. It is likely - although to be fair, there is going to be a call for people to submit their names and so on - that the majority of those who are now doing that function will have the greatest chance of continuing to do it.

MR. LOVICK: Is the work presently done by the 12 appointees, those outside the Vancouver office, as I understand it... ? There are 19 in Vancouver, I think; there's a 19-12 split in there, but I'm not sure I understand. I don't think it's persons but positions or functions or areas or something. The question is whether the 12 appointees now in place are in fact being monitored. Do they differ from the other 19?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, they do. The 12 now report; there is an independent reporting role or function. One of the essential changes is that the public trustee, who will be the official administrator, will be the person through whom they will report.

MR. LOVICK: The minister made reference to the fact that it was likely that the 12 would apply again and be reinstated and all that.

The question I wanted to pose - and I'm wondering if we can deal with this under section 1 - is: can the minister tell me how many contracts they anticipate letting for this particular function? Any idea? Is there a particular number of contracts already determined?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is no, there's no predetermined amount. But you see, if you look at the situation as it is now, there are 12 people around the province, then there are notionally 19 in Vancouver - who turn out to be one person, the public trustee. What you can do under this system most appropriately, because the appointments of the 12 are related to the counties, is be more flexible in terms of need if you wish to add people in the future. Quite frankly, as I said when I introduced this legislation, this provides for - as frequently legislation does not - and anticipates: (1) the change in our demographics and increased demand therefore; and (2) the increased need that flows from the fact that we have more people living independently in our community for all kinds of reasons - deinstitutionalization, desire to have people living independently in the community and so on. All that is reflected in an anticipatory way with this.

MR. LOVICK: I wonder if the minister could explain to me whether, when he talks about anticipating the change in demographics, he also is talking about a geographical construct: namely, that this will be an effort to better service those regions? Is that indeed part of the logic? If that's the case, would he explain to me where the present system is deficient?

[ Page 7696 ]

I understand that there is a traveling team from the public trustee's office, and when that team is not able to go and do an on-site evaluation or inspection or whatever the terminology happens to be, they will frequently make contact, say, with the government agent in that district. Has that system proven to be ineffective and therefore remodified?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I've stated before in second reading, you have to take this together as a package with the changes to the public trustee itself, because what the fundamental change is here and throughout all this is that instead of the collected fees and costs and so on going into general revenue, there is a separate fund being set up with the public trustee's office. For the first time it's being done outside the general revenue scheme, so that any "surplus" amounts will be redirected into provision of service. That requires then, with respect to the official administrator function, that instead of people quasi-independently reporting directly through to the Legislature, someone has to be responsible In this arm’s length agency in the public trustee's office. That someone is the public trustee, and that drives the changes that are taking place.

MR. LOVICK: We'll perhaps have occasion to discuss the matter of surplus amounts a little later under another clause. I have some concerns about that.

just in passing before we leave section 1, 1 want to refer the Attorney to the statement he made in second reading the other day, which certainly caused a little concern on my part: namely what appears to be a blatant non sequitur in a comment he made by way of justification. I know the Attorney is ever mindful of logic and rational discourse, and I know he would love to clarify what he really intended rather than the non sequitur that we are left with. In explaining this particular bill, he stated: "This bill provides that the official administrator can delegate his responsibilities as official administrator to others while at the same time assuming a more exacting role in the monitoring of deputy official administrators' activities. This will ensure greater protection for heirs and for the public."

The problem with what the Attorney is saying is that the individual will give up his direct responsibility to others and therefore will be better able to monitor the job that he no longer does. To see that as somehow an improvement, it seems to me, defies imagination and logic, so I wonder if the Attorney might like to explain that clear error in reasoning which is enunciated there.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can't believe I'd use the word .exacting, " but in any event, the answer is that the official administrator - the public trustee - will develop, is developing and has developed standards for the provision of service: standards, objectives and policy frameworks within which all those who operate within his authority will have to conduct their business. Thereby it seems to me that it's quite logically the case that he can at one and the same time delegate his authority and have more exacting standards for ensuring that his delegated authority is properly carried out.

MS. EDWARDS: In listening to this fairly closely I have not yet determined why we want to divorce the appointment of these people from the counties themselves and why we want to have parts of the province.... In other words, why are we getting away from the county system in this area, which is still connected to the court system, which is determined by counties?

HON. S.D. SMITH: We will be using the framework of judicial districts. It reflects earlier legislation we passed which merges the Supreme and County Courts. Counties in that administrative sense now become judicial districts. They turn out to have the same boundaries as the existing counties, save and except the Cariboo county, which is further divided into the judicial district of Peace River. Why we didn't go and survey another county is just because of that: you have to go and actually survey it, which is extremely expensive. So we followed the boundaries of the Peace River Regional District.

Counties in British Columbia, following the merger of the Supreme and County Courts, become judicial districts.

MS. EDWARDS: I would assume from what the Attorney-General has said that we will still have access in a region to someone within the region. For this kind of task I think it is frequently important that the trustee's representative be from the region, which will no longer be called a county, but at least a region that is no larger than a county.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The intention is to increase the access in the areas outside of greater Vancouver.

MS. EDWARDS: Is it to increase the access with people living in that area, not increased by having people who can commute?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, and also to increase the access by way of all kinds of educational material which we will produce.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOVICK: just a very direct question on section 2 (4). 1 would like an explanation from the Attorney-General why acts of deputies exercised in accordance with this section are deemed to have been properly exercised in the absence of proof to the contrary. Why is that? Is that a particular legal phraseology that has some validity, mandate or purpose that eludes me?

[ Page 7697 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: You are right, in terms of the phraseology. What that means is that if you want to claim it is improperly done, then you have to take steps. You have to bring proof. If you don't, then it is deemed to have been done properly.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LOVICK: This one does cause me some concern. The note says that this is self-explanatory, and the clause is simply: "An official administrator may delegate a power, duty or function conferred or imposed upon him by an enactment to any person." I wonder why that is the case. Why would we leave that so wide open? Why would we not rather talk about qualification or some such thing?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Because "person" in this sense is a legal person, and that might include.... Let's assume for a minute you have a public trustee who will be the official administrator in this instance; right now he operates businesses in the province. The public trustee is responsible for the operation of a manufacturing plant, a retail operation in downtown Vancouver, an extended-care hospital. Let's pick Lillooet. It may turn out that there is a business that comes under the authority of the public trustee for some reason that needs operating there. It may turn out that the person - in this legal sense - that the public trustee wants to have authority to operate in that case is the trust function of Royal Trust Co. or of Thompson Valley Savings Credit Union, if they have a trust provision or a trustee attached to their organization. So in some specific instances they may be able to use a legal person, as they do today, to carry out certain functions.

[8:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Did the Attorney-General say that it could be an organization, an institution, rather than a person, and that is legally allowed with this language?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The word "person" in our law includes a credit union, anything created by this House, as well as a human being, yes.

MR. LOVICK: Again, a clarification. Does "official administrator" as used here also refer to a deputy official administrator?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No.

MR. LOVICK: In short, then, Mr. Attorney, the only person who has this power is, in effect, the public trustee?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Once the public trustee has made this, yes. The answer would be this: the deputy's power is power derived by way of delegation from the official administrator. So in the absence of specific power - which I believe would be found later on - they could not hire or redelegate their authority.

MR. LOVICK: just to make perfectly sure that I do indeed understand what we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, the reason I am pursuing this line of questioning is that I simply want to determine whether in fact we are giving that kind of power to somebody who may not be directly an employee of government. I am suggesting that we may be. That was my concern, and that's why I asked if this was in fact the official administrator or a deputy. Can I get that clarified?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It is the official administrator, and just to be certain, there is a provision under the Public Trustee Act, I should remind the house, that provides that a deputy public trustee, of which I think there are two or maybe three, has statutory power to redelegate.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. LOVICK: The justification for removal of this particular section, I take it, to judge from the comments made yesterday - despite their intensity - is simply that it is now obsolete, in effect, eh? The other measures to be enacted have made this absolutely unnecessary. Is that the case?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is yes. I don't have the provision before me, but it has not been used for the purpose of hiring for many years.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. LOVICK: Again, a question about section 5. 1 notice that this one has the effect of amending a clause that previously required official administrators to provide some $2, 000 as a security for due performance of their duties, etc. I am wondering why this ought to be removed.

Is this the one that deals with the protection to be found rather under the Financial Administration Act? Is that the answer, or is there some other reason why we're removing that particular security protection?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There is a twofold proposition here. Because the public trustee becomes the official administrator, the question of security itself really does not arise.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. LOVICK: Section 6 (b), if I might. This repeals another subsection that stipulated a $300 penalty for

[ Page 7698 ]

failure to perform, in essence. Is that particular clause removed for the same reasons as were adduced for the last two removals and changes? Is it simply because it's now directly in the hands of the public trustee and therefore we no longer have the same question?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is yes.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. LOVICK: I understand that this particular section, this amendment, has the effect of repealing the requirement for the administrator to prepare a return showing all the moneys paid in and out of each estate. This is the clause that - and I apologize - I confused earlier with the one we've just dealt with, namely the Financial Administration Act. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General would explain to us just how exactly the Financial Administration Act will fill in this particular breach and how it solves the problem. I'm not sure I understand that, based on discussions we've had about the Financial Administration Act in Public Accounts Committee meetings.

HON. S.D. SMITH: What the separate fund means, frankly, is that any surplus.... I must confess I'm always at sixes and sevens using the word "surplus" when talking about trust moneys. It seems to me when you're talking about trust moneys, you ought not to ever have a surplus. However, we do also charge fees, so perhaps it is from the fees that we derive a surplus. I hope it is.

What we're trying to achieve here is to provide that the fund - the moneys that are derived from fees, from earned interest and from whatever sources come into the public trustee office - are separated, for accounting purposes, from general revenue, so there is no risk of any argument about those moneys going anywhere but for services to the people who are under the authority of the public trustee.

However, in order to ensure that the public trustee himself operates the same as everybody else in government - under the same general rules of accounting and the like - the rules with respect to the Financial Administration Act apply, and so too, therefore, do the provisions for audit by the auditor general and anyone else who is authorized by that act to do an audit function. So the safeguards apply, but what doesn't apply is that the moneys do not go into general revenue; they go back to services for the clients of the public trustee.

MR. LOVICK: The intention then is that the public trustee's office will function as independent and forever regenerating its own required operating expenses. Is that the case? I see you're nodding.

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's exactly the case.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MS. EDWARDS: I presume this refers to a payment that's required of the trustee in order to inspect accounts that belonged to the estate itself. Is that correct? Is it 50 cents per record, or is it 50 cents for all of it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm advised that for some reason this 50-cent amount did not get collected. It may not ever have been invoiced. I don't think that anyone would admit to that, but it certainly did not get collected. So I can't tell you whether it's 50 cents per hour or per invoice.

MS. EDWARDS: It was the 50 cents that the estate would pay to the trustee for having the trustee examine the estate's papers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Apparently this was for someone who themselves may wish to have a look -someone who was related to the estate in some official, legal way who may wish to have a look.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Attorney-General that it's one of the most delightful pieces of legislation that I've seen since I came into the House. I'm really pleased to know that someone appreciates 50 cents, and that someone has appreciated the fact that perhaps it wasn't collected at some time. I'm happy to know that now perhaps the machinery of the state can move along without the impost of 50-cent fees on estates for this kind of function.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. LOVICK: I have some concern about section 14. The existing section 61 (l) of the legislation established a very clear formula: namely, the provision whereby the fee was limited to some 5 percent of the gross value of the estate, including the gross income on those assets. The concern now is that this fee can apparently be changed by a process that is not entirely clear - I gather simply by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council; i.e., by cabinet. I'm wondering if we could have some explanation for that change, given especially that the existing section 61 still has subsection (2), which makes provision for moneys in addition to a commission.

The obvious question is: why are we changing this? Why in fact are we removing the limit on the fees to be charged? As I said earlier, I know the public trustee's office functions on the basis of being able to make sufficient money from what it does to maintain its own operations. If we are going to be contracting out some of those services, I wonder if the government has any Intentions of trying to turn this into a revenue-generator to make some money. I hope the Attorney will assure me that I'm totally wrong in that and will explain to me what the

[ Page 7699 ]

rationale and justification for this particular change happen to be.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Let us be clear that the government will not be contracting out anything. Any revenues collected for services rendered in relation to an estate under trust will go to the public trustee. Section 61 as it now exists says that an official administrator is entitled to collect a certain fee. That's no longer necessary, because the official administrator will be the public trustee. The fees prescribed by the public trustee are set by the Public Trustee Act and its regulations.

The other question you asked with respect to a member of the Law Society referred to where someone under the old system may have been an official administrator; also, for whatever reason, they or their partners provided legal services to the estate. If they were getting a percentage amount for administering the estate, they could also get compensated if they were asked to provide a legal opinion on, say, a sale agreement for a business, a tort matter or something such as that. You'll find that provision in almost any will one cares to look at.

[8:15]

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On the title.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't want to argue about the title passing, but I just want to make clear to the first member for Nanaimo, because I don't think I was clear enough back on section 3.... The powers you are concerned about are found in section 2, which would be section 400).

MR. LOVICK: just before we dispense with this measure, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer a couple of observations, and perhaps the Attorney-General would like to respond. I think that what was missing in this measure, and why it generated some rather acrimonious debate which, as it happened, was not necessary, was that we did not get the kind of explanation by way of a preamble and the kind of justification that I think was necessary. I would simply like to say that I dearly hope that in future we will have that kind of introduction in the opening remarks by ministers responsible for legislation.

If in fact it's the case that the current system is not operating as well as it ought to, let us indeed hear that. Let's not, rather, all have to work through the detailed clause-by-clause analysis of a bill to find that out. I can't resist making that point, Mr. Chairman. With that, I end my comments on this measure.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 33, Estate Administration Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 35,

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1989

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes are minor and of a housekeeping nature. They have been discussed with various consultative groups and respond to recommendations of these groups and the Ministry of Attorney-General.

The results of the proposed changes will be that the public sector pension plans will continue to be more accessible to public sector employees, with the addition of new employers under the plans and the extension of the enrolment procedures to employees continuing in employment. The changes will also clarify the benefit entitlements under the survivor provisions and protect the rights of a former spouse.

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act Canada scheduled for next year will require a change in reporting. As a result, the financial reports will now be completed on a calendar year basis.

There is also a change which provides for continuing contributions to the pension plan while an employee remains in the employment of the same employer, regardless of whether they are employed on a full-time, part-time or casual status. Once the employee becomes a contributor, the employee remains a contributor until termination of employment.

With the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act Canada scheduled for implementation next year, a change in reporting is also required. As a result, it will be necessary for the financial reports for the four pension funds to now be completed on a calendar year basis. This is a change for the public service and college pension funds.

The last noteworthy change is under the municipal superannuation plan. This plan will continue to be more accessible to public sector employees, with the addition of new employers, which covers the support staff of the various teachers' unions and associations, as well as the College of Teachers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's intriguing. I think we can cover that at committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, these proposed changes are viewed in a very positive manner by those who participate in the plans. They have been determined through consultation and reflect the responsible manner in which those involved in this process deal with such issues. They also reflect the

[ Page 7700 ]

government's continuing commitment to ensure that public sector employees are treated fairly and equitably in the provision of retirement income related to their period of public sector employment.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are currently having some negotiations in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, and will advise you as soon as possible as to the extent of our business.

I call committee on Bill PR401.

SEMINARY OF CHRIST THE KING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. JACOBSEN: Section 1 is simply to delete from the current wording that two semesters of theological study would be necessary in order to qualify for a BA degree.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where is the seminary?

MR. JACOBSEN: It's on a beautiful hill in the beautiful town of Mission.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, we spent some time canvassing this. Indeed, we interviewed the Catholic clergyman who came over to explain this. Certainly we on this side of the House have no difficulty whatsoever with this measure and are therefore happy to support it.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill PR401, Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 38: minister's office; $317, 646.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a privilege to present the estimates of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. On July 6, 1988, the ministry was created. Its mandate is clear: to bring together the government's international activities under one ministry to work with British Columbians to take advantage of available opportunities. Our objectives as a ministry are to attract new investment, bring strategic human resources to the province and expand exports of our products and services. Our activity has been focused on two fronts during the past 10 months: firstly, we have been maintaining a high level of service to the business community; and, secondly, we've been putting in the new trade corporation structure.

As we reflect back on the year, one can conclude it has been a very good year for the province of British Columbia. After all, what other year has brought us the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement? It is the first tangible step towards recognizing the need for international competitiveness and economic globalization. The numbers reflect British Columbia's success on the world market. In 1988, for instance, there was a dramatic increase in the value of British Columbia exports over the previous year. The value of shipments rose from $15.7 billion in 1987 to $17.4 billion in 1988, an increase of some 11 percent. That came about in part because exports to our major trading partners were up substantially. To the United Kingdom, for example, exports were up 21 percent; to Japan, they were up 17 percent; to West Germany, they were up by 20 percent; to South Korea, they were up 17 percent; and to Taiwan, they were up some 46 percent.

Let me tell you about some of the highlights that we have in our ministry this year and what has happened outside the province first of all. Earlier this year this ministry organized attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Our team was led by the Premier and included about 20 business leaders. The ministry staff were responsible for the superb job of organization. However, not only were we representing the province but a number of people I met there commented that we were representing the leading edge of a more global economics.

The first tangible sign of this era was the free trade agreement, and many of the Davos delegates recognized this and saw it as a positive step toward a more global economy. We are moving into an era where countries and regions will be compelled more and more to cooperate for economic reasons. Dramatic shifts are taking place which will affect international

[ Page 7701 ]

competitiveness, shifts like the upcoming single Europe market in 1992 or the end of Britain's relationship with Hong Kong in 1997.

Our government has been positive about the free trade agreement since the very beginning. The ministry has conducted ongoing consultations with the private sector to ensure that our position has always taken into consideration the views of industry. Once the agreement was in place, the ministry was quick off the mark to deliver with the private sector a series of seminars and workshops explaining how the B.C. companies could take advantage of those new opportunities. This free trade series has been touring the province visiting every region. I have been to a number of these myself, and I can tell you there really is an enthusiastic response to the opportunities that are ongoing as a result of this trade agreement.

[8:30]

Setting the scene for more open trade with our neighbours to the south, in March the ministry and the Tourism ministry opened a joint trade and tourism office in Irvine, Orange County, in southern California. There is a tremendous potential for us in California. Not only do Californians share geographic ties with us but we have an established trading relationship, and the office is now going to help us tap that 26-million-people-strong market. In fact, the whole Pacific coast of North America offers great potential. Within two days' drive of the border, we can reach almost 40 million consumers, and these are only our nearest neighbours: California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington and Alaska - those closer to us than eastern Canada.

In a tangible step towards developing this regional market, British Columbia and the state of Washington signed a Pacific Northwest economic partnership in January. This agreement is aimed at enhancing the whole region as a home for foreign investment and encouraging greater trade between the two areas. As a forerunner to this partnership, companies from our province and from the state of Washington collaborated at the Comdex trade show in Las Vegas. This high-technology mission resulted in estimated sales of $3.5 million in the United States.

Further afield, looking towards more global trading, the ministry opened a new trade and investment promotion office in Singapore in April. Our ties with the ASEAN region - Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Brunei - are constantly growing. In the last year alone, we exported $332 million worth of goods there, a 38 percent increase over 1987. The Singapore office is meant to handle clients from all these areas.

British Columbia has been selling around the world, and here are some brief highlights of the ministry's involvement. Five million dollars' worth of sawmill equipment has been sold to Czechoslovakia following a previous trade mission there. An apparel manufacturers' mission to eastern Canada resulted in $500, 000 worth of sales. Three million dollars' worth of log homes have been sold to Japan by a company the ministry sponsored through its market development program. Sixty-two million dollars in sales of electronic and aerospace industry products and technology have gone to western Europe. A mining equipment manufacturers' mission to Chile has generated $650, 000 in new sales to date, with prospects for another $30 million in the next three years.

One again right next door, an aerospace industry mission to Boeing in Seattle resulted In $500, 000 in new sales initially, and prospective additional sales of $4 million. Then there was Ottawa. As you know, federal procurement does just not happen automatically. In Ottawa our staff were instrumental in steering $10 million towards B.C. companies.

Let me take a moment to tell you about the activity inside the province. In the high-technology area, the federal government is purchasing a new automated air traffic control system. Our government has worked with the two potential contractors so that B.C. will have a large piece of the action, whichever way the decision is made.

The booming apparel industry hasn't been forgotten. A $2 million investment from Hong Kong to establish a thread-dyeing and -spinning plant on the lower mainland came about after an investment mission. Construction and education were combined, two of our leading capabilities, when a $6 million investment was made in an architectural school to help teach Japanese students more about North American construction technology. An Australian based company is investing $8 million to manufacture steel railway ties for B.C. Rail and for export.

The ministry is responsible for immigration. As a result, we are now leading negotiations on the possible immigration agreement between the province and the federal government. In the meantime, the entrepreneurial immigrants coming to British Columbia are helping to build a solid foundation for trade and investment, and here are just a few success stories.

A $12 million Investment in a lower mainland yoghurt manufacturer has created 40 new jobs. Investment has been made in a business manufacturing highway equipment. Three pieces of heavy machinery have already been sold to California. A new seafood business exporting to Japan gave 45 people employment when an immigrant entrepreneur invested $350, 000.

Earlier I mentioned that we have another activity underway, setting up the new Trade Development Corporation; at the same time the ministry was formed, the government announced it would be creating such a corporation. It was meant specifically to promote exports to the world and to the rest of Canada. The concept of a Crown corporation falling under the ministry's jurisdiction came from a belief that a dynamic new approach was needed to deliver the province's export development initiatives. The new structure is now in place and is up and running.

We have identified the key priorities. The marketing division, divided into sector branches, will work closely with companies and associations to develop marketing strategies for encouraging exports. The export advisory services division will work on improving the competitiveness of existing and potential

[ Page 7702 ]

exporters, The training and information division will deliver useful intelligence and help improve both basic and international business skills for entrepreneurs.

Before closing, I would like to tell you briefly about some of the upcoming initiatives the ministry is proposing. We plan to enhance our out-of-province offices. In the west coast U.S. offices, for instance, additional staff will aim at helping small business and new exporters. In continental Europe, a reallocation of resources will better target our markets. In August, Air Show Canada, the first international trade show to be held in conjunction with the Abbotsford Air Show, will get off the ground. The ministry has been supportive in the past and will increase its efforts to ensure this event gets off to a flying start.

Let me mention once again my sincere belief that British Columbia deserves to win more federal government procurement. Our industry is world-leading, and nothing - not air traffic control systems, mine countermeasures for the navy or satellite digital mapping - is beyond our capabilities. It has been an honour to head this ministry since its inception last summer, and my staff and I look forward to the challenges and opportunities the next year will bring

MR. GABELMANN: The minister, in his ten-minute speech, talked about a number of initiatives and programs, but unless I missed it, failed to talk about the biggest trade issue in British Columbia today Where were the comments about the implications of the negotiations under GATT and affected by the FTA in respect of 6, 000 to 8, 000 processing jobs on this coast?

I assumed that in opening these estimate debates the minister would take some time to tell this House just what the government of British Columbia has done in the last few years in respect of this essential and important industry in British Columbia; would tell us about the position British Columbia took in the early days in respect of the preliminary discussions regarding FTA; would tell us about how British Columbia appeared to get left behind while Atlantic provinces managed to secure a better arrangement for their people and their industries and why that happened.

I thought the minister might take some time to talk to us about why his deputy was forced to leave discussions on this subject in Washington earlier this year, and take some time to talk to us about recent developments - initiatives that the government has taken to ensure that British Columbia can process its fish in the way we expect to be able to process our logs and in the way we hoped, someday soon, to be able to process our mineral resources as well. I wonder if the minister would take us through his version of the history of this sorry episode.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, let me explain our involvement, generally, with the GATT negotiations. First of all, as you are aware, international negotiations regarding trade matters are within the purview of the federal government. We have been acting and trying to put forward the provincial positions in regard to these trade matters, but we don't have an active involvement in terms of sitting at the table and negotiating issues under GATT or, indeed, under free trade.

We have formed a committee of western trade ministers which I chair, and we have made submissions to the federal negotiators regarding western positions and have indicated our position on a number of issues regarding natural resources and the functioning of the GATT system, and those submissions have gone forward to my colleague the Hon. John Crosbie.

In regard to the salmon and herring issue, which I think the member is referring to, we have had a very large part in trying to influence the federal government in regard to some of the concerns that Were brought to us from a committee established by the Premier involving the Native Brotherhood, fishermen, processors - in fact, all facets of the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia. We've worked very closely with that group, and my deputy minister has had about 12 meetings talking about all the issues. Last week I was in Ottawa, again talking to the Hon. Tom Siddon and the Hon. John Crosbie regarding the concerns that we have.

As you know, the challenge was launched under GATT. The exemptions the member is referring to are exemptions under the free trade agreement. The actions taken were under GATT, and the actions that the U.S. government or indeed any government can take can be taken under GATT irrespective of any other agreement.

The GATT challenge challenged the ability of the provincial government - indeed, the federal government - to deal with the processing of salmon and herring. We have indicated that we are very concerned about the challenge. We have got input from this multisector committee I was talking about. I've indicated the requirements we want to see put in place. The landing requirement is the first part of that process, but we want to continue to work on other measures that would ensure that conservation and management of our natural resources aren't impaired.

Again, we are not active participants in this negotiating process and the GATT challenge. Indeed, the FTA panel has now been established, which is the first time the panel has been established. We have requested that the panel hearings be held in Vancouver. We have also strongly requested that we be part of the process of negotiation. But again, you have to understand that our responsibility is that of ensuring that our industry has as much strength as possible in its representation to the federal government. We have coordinated that and added our voice to that concern.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the minister agree that the Magnuson Act in the United Sates could prohibit the export of unprocessed U.S. fish?

[ Page 7703 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: Probably they could, except that the regulations regarding the Magnuson Act have never been put into place.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister suggests that probably they could, but the regulations have yet to be promulgated. Is that a fair rendition of the answer?

HON. J. JANSEN: They have never applied the regulations in the Magnuson Act to the salmon and herring issue, so it's never been challenged.

[8:45]

MR. GABELMANN: But the minister would agree that they could apply those regulations to salmon and herring or any other fish product should they so choose,

HON. J. JANSEN: If they were to apply those regulations to salmon and herring - because the herring doesn't really apply; processing of herring doesn't happen in the United States - but if they were, it would certainly be a "GATTable" offence.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me ask the question another way. Would the government of British Columbia ask the federal government to lay a complaint under GATT should the Americans choose to take this initiative?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think the answer to that is fairly simple: yes. But what I don't understand is the line of questioning, given that the whole problem with the salmon and herring situation was that the processors in British Columbia were buying fish -unprocessed form - from the United States, so the Americans were releasing their fish to Canadian processors. It essentially wasn't even a matter of discussion under the Magnuson Act.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate it wasn't a matter of discussion. Let me come at the same fundamental question in another way. Can the minister explain to the House how we in British Columbia - on the south coast, at least - are able to ensure that we process 100 percent of our logs in this province, but cannot ensure that we process 100 percent of our salmon and herring?

HON. J. JANSEN: As the member opposite is aware, we have a fee in lieu regarding logs that has been in place for some time, and in fact -it is covered under the free trade agreement as well. But that has not been challenged, so it's very difficult to answer that question. If that policy were to be challenged, I have no idea what the outcome would be in that regard. It requires, as you know, a challenge for the policy to be interpreted and, as the member has indicated, we have a policy that restricts logs by virtue of an export tax that essentially makes it uneconomical to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Do I hear the minister say in between the lines that he fears or anticipates or is worried about a potential GATT action on the log charges?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think trading practices are open to challenge at any time by anybody. I'm not indicating that I fear a particular challenge on our log policy, but I'm indicating that certainly if another country wished to launch a challenge in regard to our exporting practices or in regard particularly to one sector of our export, that could happen at any time. Certainly we in Canada have taken.... Again it's the federal government under whose purview this falls, not the provincial government. We would request the federal government to take action to challenge, and we have done so on several issues - requesting them to attack what we feel are restrictive export policies of other countries.

MR. MILLER: I'll try to approach this in a few ways. First of all, the minister said - I wrote it down - that if the U.S. used the Magnuson Act.... My colleague from North Island asked what we would do, and you indicated that we would refer that to GATT, I'd sure like to know why you would want to do that.

To make it clear, Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that if the U.S. were to apply the provisions of the Magnuson Act, which in effect is a surplus test . . . . In other words, no fish can be exported, in this case, until the requirements of the processing facilities in the respective states are satisfied. Only fish surplus to those processing requirements can be exported. The minister said that's a "GATTable" offence and that we would want to move, using GATT, to stop that. Why on earth would we?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think I probably should have said it's the other way around. If the industry feels it's exporting its product, it would be a case of the industry taking action against Canada for buying its raw stock.

MR. MILLER: We have an historic relationship with the United States that goes back a long time in fish products. On the north coast we have always, for example, purchased unprocessed fish that are surplus to the processing ability of Alaska, and there are lots of reasons that that exists. Alaska does not have the processing capability and they don't have the pool of skilled labour. They have unpredictable runs, so one year you'll have a low run and the next year you'll get a huge run of pink salmon in Bristol Bay. That's been a complementary relationship all along.

The minister talked about logs, and he was wrong when he talked about the fee in lieu. We have in legislation the right.... In fact, we have a surplus test. We have legislation that is similar to the Magnuson Act in its intent and purpose. Only logs that are surplus to the processing requirements of this province can be exported. There are some other provisions, but let's leave those out, because they don't

[ Page 7704 ]

really bear on the argument here. The fee in lieu has simply been used, first of all, as a revenue-generator and latterly by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) on Vancouver Island and the south coast as a means of recapturing 100 percent of the difference between the domestic and the export price.

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's constitutionally vulnerable to boot.

MR. MILLER: That's right. The minister deliberately used a fee in lieu, an export tax, to recapture that value, to provide a disincentive to export, as opposed to saying that there are logs, and we'll decide whether they'll be exported and in what form. It's interesting that when the minister explained why he did that.... I remember questioning him in the House. He admitted that the advice he'd received was that we couldn't, under the free trade agreement, move to simply say that those logs would not be exported at all. The minister referred to advice he had received.

The minister talks about east coast grandfathering. I don't think the east coast grandfathering amounts to a hill of beans. I think the Americans have played Canada for a sucker, and Canada has been compliant. I think there's been an agenda in eastern Canada, and this government was either too shortsighted to recognize it or they agreed with it.

just as an aside, has the minister contacted the federal Minister of Fisheries, who is an MP for British Columbia, and who referred to the British Columbia fishing industry, those men and women who work in the industry, the processors... ? He said in Ottawa: "They're living in the past." Has the minister taken steps to inform the federal minister that he's living somewhere other than in the real world when it comes to the economic lifeblood of British Columbia? Has the minister taken that up with the Minister of Fisheries - who is from British Columbia, I'm ashamed to say, because he certainly has not represented the interests of British Columbia all that well?

Has the minister sought advice? I note that the federal Minister of.... What is Crosbie these days? He keeps changing. I think he's the federal Minister for International Trade. He confirmed that despite the grandfathering clause the eastern provinces have obtained, we cannot move to stop the export of unprocessed fish to New England, because it would invite retaliation. Did this government give any consideration to or do any kind of analysis of the potential impact of the free trade agreement on our processing industry before they so wholeheartedly embraced it? Was any kind of work done?

Let me read some of the promises made by the politicians from eastern Canada - the Tories, who had their own agenda when it came to the free trade agreement, and I'm not convinced yet that selling out the fishery in British Columbia wasn't on that agenda quite a long time ago. I quote the Fisheries minister, Tom Siddon, from November 17, 1987, Richmond: "I give my assurances that those jobs are saved." Another quote from Tom Siddon, November 18, 1987, Ottawa: "What we have here is a panel recommendation which will in all likelihood be overturned by the GATT council, of which we are a member." We all know what happened there.

Time after time these federal ministers advised that there was nothing to worry about. I recall the statements of Pat Carney and Crosbie, who both said on November 9 during the federal election, when the issue of free trade was very much in everybody's mind and very much discussed by everybody right across this province, and more particularly by people in the fishing industry... Sorry, it wasn't Carney; it was Crosbie and Siddon who issued a joint release on November 9 and accused the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union of spreading lies. Said Crosbie: "This issue has nothing to do with the free trade agreement." Said Siddon: "This is a GATT matter, pure and simple, and attempts to link it to the FTA are wrong."

So what happened? We read in the May 25 edition of the Vancouver Sun that Robert Mosbacher, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, came to town. He came to Ottawa to deliver a speech to the chamber of commerce - they didn't even allow us the courtesy of allowing Canadian officials to tell Canadians what was going to happen with this dispute. It took the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to come to Canada and tell us that this whole thing's going to a free trade panel.

This is the issue referred to by Crosbie on November 9 as not being a free trade issue. And the U.S. Secretary of Commerce comes to town and says: "You people are going to refer it to a free trade panel." That's the kind of spineless jellyfish approach that we've seen from the federal government when it comes to sticking up for the jobs and the economy of British Columbia.

I have a lot of concern, Mr. Minister, about the position taken by British Columbia in standing up for British Columbians.

HON. MR. REE: We have; we always do.

[9:00]

MR. MILLER: The minister says that as he's sitting down.

I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that the issue be canvassed now. When I was in Prince Rupert on Sunday and looking out my front-room window at the harbour, I saw the fleet going out.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You stay at the Harbour Towers.

MR. MILLER: No, I don't stay at the Harbour Towers, Mr. Minister of - what was your ministry again? Minister of everything. No, I don't stay at the Harbour Towers. I stay at home and I'm fortunate enough to be able to look out on the Prince Rupert harbour. I saw the fleet going out on June 18, the first opening of the season. That's of some importance. We celebrate those kinds of things in Prince Rupert, to all members of the House. It's quite traditional to have

[ Page 7705 ]

parties at the beginning of the fishing season, and there's a fundamental understanding that people in my community have about the fishing industry and what it's meant to our community.

You look up and down this coast - to the two laughing members sitting over in the corner - at the communities that were established by pioneers. Many of them were Scandinavian pioneers who arrived and established little settlements all the way up this coast. They were the first in there in developing that industry, years and years ago, in the thirties, who took on the companies, set up the co-ops and started the early credit unions that have proven so successful in this province and that are there to serve the people of this province, not just their own balance books.

There is a long and proud history of the fishing industry in this province, and we see it slipping away because of ineptitude. We see it slipping away because we think there's another agenda that the federal government has with regard to this industry. It's a bargaining chip, and I think they let it go, in effect.

We want answers to these questions about the Magnuson Act and whether it's possible. I canvassed this issue with the Minister of Fisheries, and we concluded with the minister saying that he didn't feel that Canada should necessarily have to accept any ruling that came from a panel. I'm taking a negative view right now. I'm assuming that the panel's going to rule against us, because every single tribunal that's dealt with this issue has ruled against us. What about the Magnuson Act, Mr. Minister? Is it possible to develop a Canadian Magnuson Act, if you like, and to put that into place? You can answer the other questions I raised earlier as well.

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps I should refresh you on the history of what's happened with the whole case First of all, this is not a challenge under free trade; this is a challenge under the GATT.

The whole problem started In the constituency of the member opposite, when we had processors in that constituency buying unprocessed herring. Subsequent to that, an American company raised the challenge as to why they couldn't do the same thing in Canadian waters. I can understand that the member has some concern about it, but let me tell you that we started the problem. We created the problem, and we created the challenge as a result of that.

The GATT panel that ruled on this issue found our trade policy to be restrictive and inconsistent with GATT, and as a result ruled against us. We have subsequently, through the process, worked very closely with the union, with the industry, with the fishermen, with the Native Brotherhood - with everyone. I don't think that any one of those organizations has complained once about the inactivity of the provincial government. In fact, they have been very supportive of our initiative.

We have been very strong in our voice in Ottawa We have ensured that the industry's positions have been put forward. We are now to the point where we have a free trade panel which will hear the new landing requirements that the federal government is putting in place. On the panel are three Canadians and two Americans, and it remains to be seen....

As I have said before, we have asked that the panel hearings be held in Vancouver. We have access to the Canadian negotiators; we have seen the American position. Our intention is that we will continue to work closely with the industry and fishing task force to ensure that they are very much involved, from our standpoint, and that we get all the input that is necessary for us to convince the Canadian negotiators of our position here in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister would advise us on what terms of reference or basis the panel will operate. Is it simply to determine whether or not U.S. law has been violated?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, the question before the free trade panel is whether the landing requirements put forward by the federal government are consistent with the GATT.

MR. MILLER: On what basis, Mr. Minister, are they going to be making that decision? The U.S. has already stated their position. U.S. trade representative Carla Hills said that the landing-station rules were unacceptable and that the U.S. would consider retaliation. So it has been referred to the panel. We know what the U.S. position is: that it's unacceptable.

Why have we entered this panel - if I can make an analogy to arbitration - with the bare-bones position, with the weakest possible position? You go in showing your bottom line, and you are going to come out with less than that. Why did we adopt this bottom-line position?

The minister shakes his head, but I am aware that his officials walked out of a meeting in Washington when Canada proposed to go to that bottom line. Are you telling me you are happy with it?

HON. J. JANSEN: Let me say again that the negotiating process is entirely under the purview of the federal government. We have asked to be part of the process. We have asked to be in the room where the negotiations are being held. We were not even in the room where the negotiations were being held. How can we walk out of a meeting when we are not even in the meeting in the first place?

I am not going to try to defend what the federal government has done. We have put forward what we think are alternatives. We have indicated that the landing requirement, in our opinion, is the first step, and that we want to work with the industry and the federal government to look at other alternatives, such as something that closely resembles the Magnuson Act. There are a number of things we are looking at, and we will continue to work with the industry and lobby the federal government to ensure that those changes are made to protect our natural resources.

The whole question of natural resources is under the Uruguay round now being discussed. It's a concern relating to conservation and to management, and it's receiving intensive discussion at the Uruguay

[ Page 7706 ]

round. I think this is an example of how concerning it can be to an economy and to the province of British Columbia. For example, as the member has indicated, it does involve a significant number of jobs - I think there are 4, 700 equivalent jobs in the fishing industry.

MR. MILLER: Is the ministry preparing for the decision which is going to come, I believe, sometime in October, in terms of having in place an alternative position should that panel ruling be contrary to what we want? I recognize that there are ongoing meetings with people in the industry. Are they preparing for that eventuality?

HON. J. JANSEN: The ruling of the FTA panel.... Let me say again that we are fortunate in that the representation on the panel is three Canadians and two Americans. The findings of that panel will be released on September 1. In the meantime, however, we're continuing our dialogue with the industry - I mean the industry in a general sense. We'll look at what our fallback positions should be if that panel hearing is unfavourable. Again, it's a question of our representation to Ottawa, making sure that Ottawa's positions regarding this matter are dealt with as strongly as possible.

MR. MILLER: There are other implications apart from the simple matter of export. There's the Issue of the treaty we have with the U.S. in terms of the salmon catch. Would the minister care to advise the House what consideration has been given to that in terms of a possible unfavourable ruling by the panel? In other words, is the treaty worth anything if the U.S. gains the right to purchase our unprocessed fish stocks?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question, I guess, that the member is asking is whether or not, under the treaty, we would still get an equitable share of the fish harvest. I would assume that that would be ongoing, certainly. I don't see the representation changing That's certainly one remedy and one opportunity for us to follow through with.

MR. MILLER: The minister referred to the Uruguay round and the importance of the question of natural resources. I assume the minister has a position in regard to that, and I'd like to find out what it is. I don't mind saying what mine is in advance. It's my view that the raw resources - the resources that each country is blessed with, or perhaps not - are the purview of that country when it comes to making fundamental decisions about the level of processing it requires before they're exported. I think that's a fundamental sovereignty issue, and whether it applies to minerals, fish, timber or whatever commodity, there is no question in my mind that we should have the sovereign right to make that determination Is that the position of the minister?

HON. J. JANSEN: Our position will be communicated as western Canada's position regarding natural resources. That position will be communicated very soon - next month, I think. It also is a position that, in a sense, deals very closely with the member's comments.

[9:15]

The problem we have, however, is that some of the participants in the Uruguay round don't share that view. That's one of the reasons why the Uruguay round has had much discussion. There are those in the Uruguay round who feel there should be an unfettered right of access to natural resources of member countries. We certainly take exception to that, given that we have to manage and conserve and properly look after our natural resources. That's an issue paper that we will be releasing very soon. It deals extensively with control of and jurisdiction over natural resources.

MR. MILLER: It's an interesting topic and a very fundamental one as well. It would seem to me that the free trade agreement or the FTA - if I can use that term - deals with that. The underlying premise of the FTA is unfettered trade in any commodity. In other words, if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, there should be no impediment to that transaction. That does seem to me to be the underlying premise of the free trade agreement; the name implies it. Would the minister agree that that is the case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the hon. members of the House that if the ambient noise could be lowered somewhat, we could hear more acutely the debate on the estimates of the Minister of International Business and Immigration.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm not sure what the question is. If the question is whether the free trade agreement enables unfettered access to our natural resources, the answer is no. I'm not sure where the member is coming from in regard to his question.

MR. MILLER: First, by virtue of its name.... Free trade means that there shall be no impediments to trade. Impediments to trade are viewed, as in the case we've just talked about, where one country says we require this raw resource to be processed before it can be exported.... That is considered to be an impediment to trade. It was initially dealt with under GATT, but the FTA takes the same position. I was trying to say that the FTA had that very thing as an underlying premise: the unfettered right of free trade without these kinds of restrictions. We've covered off some of them, and time will tell whether or not they prove to be effective. For example, British Columbia maintains its right - I can't remember the exact words, but it's something like this - to uphold its legislation with regard to log exports. But clearly the underlying premise of the agreement is free trade. Given that, how would one expect the Canadian government to take a contrary position when it comes to the Uruguay round?

[ Page 7707 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, under the free trade agreement, there are a number of areas - if you want to focus on a particular area that you have concern about.... As you know, the energy sector is specifically covered off. The agriculture sector is specifically covered off, as well as the forestry sector.

It's a different situation under GATT. GATT is dealing far more in the general sense. While positions have been put forward, it's very difficult to comment on what the final GATT round will bring, or what the Uruguay round document will finally look like. I have no idea at this point. We just completed the midterm review in Montreal recently. By the way, we had active participation in that. It's difficult for me to comment on what that vehicle will look like. To this point in time, the previous rounds haven't dealt with the natural resource sectors very extensively.

The Uruguay round is considering all aspects. It's considering agriculture and forestry as part of that. It's considering natural resources. It's dealing with all of these questions. What will eventually happen, I don't know. It's very difficult for me to answer the question, unless you get specific in terms of what issue you're talking about.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not in the public consciousness yet, but the Uruguay round is going to have potentially profound implications and a profound impact on British Columbia. It has the potential of having a devastating impact on British Columbia.

I want to get a sense of comfort about British Columbia's role in influencing federal government positions in respect of these negotiations. We've seen too much in the past of British Columbia's voice not being heard and not being effective. I wonder if the minister - before I ask some other questions -would take us through the kinds of mechanisms he used. What kinds of bargaining levers do the minister and the government use to ensure that Ottawa truly understands the unique nature of our economy as compared to economies in other parts of this country?

HON. J. JANSEN: We have had extensive work done on the Uruguay round. First of all, we had a number of consultations around the province. We consulted with over 200 companies and asked for their positions regarding the multilateral trade negotiations. I also had the opportunity to visit Geneva and to speak with the Canadian negotiators. I spoke to the ambassador to Geneva, who was responsible for negotiations. I also spoke to the Japanese ambassador to the GATT, and to the American and European negotiators. Throughout those discussions we did indicate what the concerns of British Columbia would be.

We followed that through with very active meetings with my counterparts in the three other western provinces and put forward position papers - which will be published very soon - that deal with agriculture, natural resources and the functioning of the GATT system, and continued extensive dialogue with

Mr. Crosbie and his department. We have met with him on several occasions collectively, as the ministers of trade. Also, I have individually put forward our positions. We have taken the leadership role on this whole Uruguay round, which is unprecedented compared to previous rounds. The provinces have never been involved in this type of negotiating process.

I think it is fair to say our voice has been strong on this issue. We have consulted the industry provincially. We have consulted as many groups as we could. In fact, the working papers and the process we've used have been copied in Ontario and Quebec and other provinces, which are very interested in our process of working through the whole question of multilateral trade negotiations.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.)

MR. GABELMANN: When the MTN were launched in Punta del Este, the so-called Uruguay round, they set out a number of items for discussion. One of the items was entitled "Natural Resource based Products": "Negotiations shall aim to achieve the fullest liberalization of trade in natural resource based products, including in their processed and semi-processed forms. The negotiations shall aim to reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff measures, including tariff escalation." This is for processed and semi-processed forms of natural resource-based products. I don't understand. I may be the only member in this House who doesn't understand, but how did the natural resource issue itself - the primary product - get involved in the MTN, this Uruguay round? The terms of reference do not appear to include reference to natural resources. They talk about processed and semi-processed products of natural resources.

I guess alarm bells are going off in my head. tonight about this whole subject matter because of the absolute dependence British Columbia has on these issues, when you start to think about the potentially vulnerable situation we might find ourselves in. Can the minister enlighten me at least, if I'm the only member in the House who doesn't understand, how this issue is now on the table?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay round has, if I recall, 106 participating countries. China is currently endeavouring to become part of that. As the Uruguay round proceeds, the whole question of what is being discussed is an ongoing thing, and it changes. There are a number of countries that do not have natural resources, and obviously it is in their interest to see if that question can be put on the table. That's how it evolved. That's how the matter was brought forward - the negotiating chip many times, and I suppose it was also this time around.

It was our understanding, certainly in talking to negotiators, that in exchange for a right to their market they wanted a right to our market for natural resources, and how that right would be used and what form it would take is now a matter of discus-

[ Page 7708 ]

sion. We are concerned about it. In fact, you'll see that reflected In our discussions, and we're going to continue to be very concerned about it. The member is absolutely right: it's one that has significance to us, being a natural-resource-driven economy. And we'll ensure that we continue to work on it.

Again, I should emphasize that we can only try to influence the federal position, but it's one that is under the purview of the federal government.

MR. GABELMANN: Given that the items for negotiation can change - the parameters of the discussion can change as the round progresses -what kind of process is involved for British Columbia to ensure that as the nuances of the discussion evolve, we're aware of and alert to the potential issues that may arise as a result of those changes and those negotiations as they go along? If we're not sitting at the table directly, what are the processes to ensure that we don't miss anything in this process?

HON. J. JANSEN: The Uruguay negotiations are an extremely slow-moving process. When I was in Geneva, in fact, on the agricultural issues, they hadn't even agreed on what issues they were going to talk about, let alone started talking about them. So it's sort of slow-moving. And given that there are over 100 countries involved, it's difficult to get consensus even on what items are going to be discussed.

We have an officials' committee which meets regularly with the federal officials, I believe once a month, and talks about the progress, the issues, how matters are unfolding. I intend over the next little while to speak to those responsible for the negotiating process, as I'm doing with the minister, my federal colleague, and hopefully soon can again go to Geneva to find out where the negotiations are heading, so that we can come back and again put forward a position. It's the whole question of gathering information and then ensuring that we can quickly react and quickly put forward what we think is detrimental to our province. We've been able to do that through the ongoing process, and we're going to continue.

MR. GABELMANN: Trade relations between countries in the last few years have embarked on a new direction. We see Fortress Europe in 1992; we see of course the FTA; we see the Australia-New Zealand economic arrangement.

Has cabinet had a discussion about the philosophy of what's best for British Columbia in future trade discussions - whether groups of multilateral or bilateral arrangements are preferable or we should throw all of our marbles into GATT? What direction has the minister been given by cabinet in respect of promoting British Columbia's interests? Are we going to rely on GATT, or are we going to look at some new mechanisms?

[9:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: The member has indicated the changing global markets and the globalization of our economy, and that 1992 will see a single marketplace in Europe. The bilateral arrangements and the pressures for further bilateral arrangements with other countries are continuing. What is going to happen in the ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific markets? What's happening in the South Pacific? It's creating a number of different trade patterns which are substantially different than what has happened in the past.

The province of British Columbia has depended on a free trade environment because we are very much a trade province. I would indicate that our trade patterns are changing significantly as well. We are now exporting more to Asia-Pacific than we are to the United States of America, which is the first time in the history of our province that we've changed our trading pattern to reflect our strong Asia-Pacific connection. So our concerns are not only what happens in Europe or the United States but also what happens in Asia-Pacific. We export as much to Europe as do both Ontario and Quebec in real dollar terms, but we are significantly behind Ontario as a percentage in our exports to the United States. So we're going to see that our dependence on the changing world economy is really flexible and can meet the challenges.

We just recalled our overseas officers to Vancouver. Our developing international market strategy takes advantage of those changing trade patterns. What should our presence be in Europe in 1992? What should our presence be in the United States, and along the east coast of the United States? What should our presence and our focus be in Asia-Pacific? So that is now underway, and we are looking at participation in the ongoing 1992 discussions. There are a number of areas that we have targets and objectives for, and we'll focus on those opportunities.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back in a minute or two to something the minister said about our increasing trade in Asia-Pacific. In respect to these developing trading patterns, there has been a report done in New Zealand about the possibility of a free trade arrangement with Canada. I wonder what position the provincial government has taken in respect to that proposal, which is, as I understand it, in Ottawa under consideration, and there is some way to go yet before it reaches the light of day. It hasn't had much publicity. Nonetheless, the minister must be fully aware of all of the proposals in that particular report. I wonder what he has said to John Crosbie about that particular suggestion.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the matter of a free trade agreement with New Zealand is under review right now with our ministry. We have had an opportunity to speak to the New Zealand representative who was doing the negotiations, but it's too early to say how that will impact on us and what position we'll be taking. It's a pretty current initiative, and it's one that we'll work on. But we are up to date on the issue and will follow it through.

[ Page 7709 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Have those discussions so far been in-house, or has the minister extended beyond his ministry and gone into the sectors that might be impacted? One thinks immediately of the dairy industry in British Columbia, of course. Has there been that kind of discussion with potentially affected groups, or is it still an in-house... ?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, it's too early in the process yet. We haven't done any of that work yet.

MR. GABELMANN: A couple of minutes ago the minister talked about trade with Asia-Pacific - our increasing trade. I didn't write notes down, but I think he talked about our increasing trade with Asia-Pacific. It's interesting, when you look at the trade statistics, to see what in fact our British Columbia-origin trade is with the rest of the world.

When you listen to all of the discussion about Asia-Pacific and about these new markets and whatever, and then you look at the trade numbers for, let's say, 1988 - the most recent ones, obviously, that are available - we have incredible trade relations with the United States, almost 43 percent by dollar value, and with Japan of just over 27 percent. Then when you look at the countries of the Asia-Pacific, the numbers are really quite minuscule. We really are in an early stage, it seems to me, in developing trade relations with Asia.

Then I look at other information which appears to indicate that while our trade is increasing with what we think of as Asia-Pacific, our share of Asia-Pacific trade is in fact declining. All of the increased activity, particularly In the Asian countries, but in total for all of Asia.... I'm told that in terms of value of trade -from their point of view, the value of imports, the value of exports - our percentage share is declining. While it increases fairly dramatically perhaps in absolute terms, it's declining as a share. Other places, I'm told, are getting a better share of these new markets, these new patterns that are developing Have I been led down a garden path on this? Do you have information that would contradict the information I've been given?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't quite understand the question. The 1988 exports in each of the Asia-Pacific countries are up substantially over 1987. In fact, Hong Kong is 25 percent, Japan 17 percent. I'm not sure what the member is talking about. Are you talking about an absolute dollar term?

MR. GABELMANN: I agree that in absolute dollar terms our trade has increased. Let me just try to quote the exact words I'm referring to: "Our share of the total trade with Asia-Pacific is declining." That is, other nations have moved in and have in fact capitalized on that expanding market more successfully than we have. In other words, there's more trade, and our ability to capture that additional trade has apparently been less than other nations around the world who have been more aggressive, more active and whatever it takes to get a greater proportion of that new additional trade than we have done. That's what I'm told; I could be wrong. I'm just referring to one person who is asserting this. I'd like to know if the minister has anything to say about it.

HON. J. JANSEN: I can't respond to that question. I don't know whether other countries have accessed a greater percentage of Asia-Pacific trade than we have. Our growth has certainly been significant in 1988. 1 can't comment on whether access from Europe to Asia has been proportionately greater than ours. I don't have those figures.

MR. GABELMANN: just a technical question, Mr. Chairman. Is there some idea of how much money is actually spent within these estimates - I know this is difficult; I can't break it out of the estimates - on purely trade-related issues, initiatives in terms of offices we have, conferences we hold, brochures, delegations, the whole range of activities that take place in promoting trade? I recognize that we are now talking - since the legislation passed - about both the corporation and the ministry. I am curious to know - in rough terms; I don't need an exact dollar figure - roughly what proportion of the budget is allocated to trade-related matters.

HON. J. JANSEN: I am sorry, I didn't hear the question. Are you talking about a matter of trade policy or about promotion and marketing as well? When you say brochures, do you include the promotional pieces that we're producing?

MR. GABELMANN: This is one of those times when I am not sure of the question, any more than the minister is sure of the answer. I am just trying to get some sense globally, from a financial point of. view, of what proportion of money the ministry would have spent on trade-related issues as opposed to other activities that it undertakes. Is it two-thirds? Is it 90 percent? Is it 5 percent?

HON. J. JANSEN: Our staff here indicate that probably in the order of 60 percent of the expenditure is related to trade promotion and trade policy matters.

MR. GABELMANN: That's close enough, and it suits my purpose at this point. What's the government's philosophy and policy on participation in trade missions? Who should go and how important are they? Should it be mostly government? Should it be mostly business? Should it be an even mix, roughly? What role should labour play in trade delegations in terms of government policy now?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question of mission participation is very important from our standpoint. We think that there are lots of benefits to be had from participating in trade missions, and encourage companies to be involved. What we try to do, first of all, is target our sectors. So it's not a broad-brush

[ Page 7710 ]

approach. We target specific sectors we want to go over, and ensure that the companies themselves pay most of the bill if we do become involved. This particular program comes under the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. We're also looking at.... If you're successful, you pay back some of the subsidy that you get under this program, so that next time you go on a new venture, a new initiative, we can increase the amount given to you. So it's an important process. Last year, I believe, we had a significant number apply in this program, and we consider it to be successful.

MR. GABELMANN: Given the reputation British Columbia has had historically in many parts of the world with respect to industrial relations, wouldn't the minister agree with me that if we could manage to get ourselves - in terms of other public policy issues in British Columbia - to a stage where we could present a united voice of business, government and labour to the rest of the world, our position as a sound trading partner would be perceived differently, more effectively, in many parts of the world than it is now, when we send two-thirds of the equation and leave the other third at home?

[9:45]

HON. J. JANSEN: That's a good comment. In fact ' we present a very balanced approach when we go on these missions. We're certainly willing to look at those kinds of proposals whereby we involve all sectors that produce component units for the marketplace. If we can present a total picture, that certainly enhances our position in the marketplace. We would be willing to look at those kinds of proposals and deal with them.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I have the voice for it, I just want to make a comment about that. I strongly believe that if we are going to be successful around the world, we have to present that kind of common view, we have to have involvement of all the partners in our economy on these missions.

Not to raise an extraneous issue, it's clear the government's view is that labour legislation of the kind that led to Bill 19 is more important than presenting that kind of view to the rest of the world. I don't want to get into a debate with the minister about this topic, but I would urge him in his discussions in cabinet to recognize that B.C. is paying a big price in the long term in terms of our international trade relations as a result of a small-minded decision to be punitive in labour relations. That's a price that I don't think future generations of British Columbians should have to pay.

The minister makes it clear that he believes these joint delegations are more effective when we can go to other parts of the world and say to those people that labour and business and government are in this together; we are united in our desire to promote this province and its trade. We can't do that in British Columbia because of a decision a couple of years ago by this government. I think, if for no other reason - and there are many other reasons - that whole question should be revisited by government. But I will leave that discussion. We've had that debate in this House, and no doubt we will have it again.

Back to the free trade agreement. What staff involvement is there in monitoring the effects of the FTA as we get into it? We are not quite six months into the agreement. We have got ten years before it is fully effective. We have crucial negotiations coming up in the next few years in respect of the FTA, because those negotiations are far from complete. What does the B.C. government do in terms of monitoring and preparing for the effects of the FTA?

HON. J. JANSEN: We have a trade policy branch that has about 14 staff members, and part of its mandate is to ensure that the opportunities as well as the problems of the free trade agreement are brought to the government's attention.

We have also recently hired a coordinator of international competitiveness, Oksana Exell, whose primary responsibility is to ensure that Europe 1992, the free trade agreement and all those trade policy questions are dealt with on a competitive basis to ensure that industry in the province of British Columbia is competitive and can take advantage of the opportunities under those agreements. We are monitoring and we are ensuring that our industry takes advantage of those opportunities.

MR. GABELMANN: I take it there isn't one specific office or officer or group of people mandated solely to deal with the FTA.

HON. J. JANSEN: Within that staff of 14, seven are very much involved in the trade policy and hard-core trade policy questions. Within that seven we have one individual who is the free trade specialist and works on those free trade questions.

MR. GABELMANN: One person. I really wonder whether or not that's sufficient, given the implications as we proceed to those supplementary negotiations.

However, I'm going to leave that subject and raise one more issue tonight before we get on to some more substantive matters tomorrow afternoon, I assume. This is the whole question of British Columbia's active involvement in and solicitation of, procurement of, business in the war industry. The minister is quoted in the current issue, I believe, of "British Columbia Enterprise" as saying:

"British Columbia recognizes there are increasing opportunities in the defence market, both in Canada and overseas. There are billions of dollars of work which could be done in B.C. We want to show our unique capabilities. We have the infrastructure, the skills and the desire, particularly in areas such as telecommunications, aerospace and subsea technology."

Does the minister have in his own mind a sense of delineation between those industries which, while they may be defence-related, do not contribute directly to the war machine and those industries which

[ Page 7711 ]

actually produce goods that lead to the loss of people's lives in this world? Do we want, in British Columbia, to be part of the industry that fuels the war in the Middle East, the kind of industry that enables South Africa to prevent the majority of people there from having a say in their society? We're involved in those kinds of issues very directly, Mr. Chairman. I actually was surprised to learn that the minister was supportive of ARMX, that trade show in Ottawa earlier this year at which the arms industry was ~ ell represented - shady characters from around the world determined to make money off the backs and the lives of innocent people in country after country. Why would B.C. want to involve itself in that kind of madness in support of what I call the war industry?

HON. J. JANSEN: That's an interesting question. First of all, does that mean that we don't participate in defence spending in the province? Does that mean that we should pressure the federal government to close bases in the province - CFB Esquimalt - and that we shouldn't be participating in accessing defence dollars? I don't think anyone on that side of the House suggests that. Or maybe they do; I don't know.

We assisted companies that were related to the communications side, that produced life-rafts, that produced radio beacons, that produced radar systems and that were involved in helicopter repair. We promoted their services to a number of buyers who were at ARMX in Ottawa. The contracts they got.... A number of them were with the federal government. In fact, one company that manufactures life-rafts has a $10 million contract, I understand, with the coast guard of Algeria.

Are we indicating that we should not support these companies; that we should tell these companies that their industry is not acceptable in our terms; that we should not participate in defence spending in British Columbia, and should let Ontario and Quebec continue to take the lion's share? I feel that we have some good B.C. products, some good initiatives, particularly in areas that are high tech, which add a lot to our economy. There's a substantial number of jobs involved.

I support their initiative to ensure that their sales relating to defence.... None of the companies were there to promote their ability to manufacture anything to do with offensive armaments or hardware.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, before I move the motion, I want to come back to this tomorrow. I just want to read into the record that in British Columbia we spent $56 million received from the defence industry productivity program; that's $56 million in this province to aid the war machine. A lot of this stuff is clearly not just life-rafts.

In the House on May 29 - in answer to a question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry), who asked if the minister could make a commitment to this House that the government would support only those businesses engaged in developing non-weapons technology and not those directly involved in the arms trade - the minister said: "No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot." I find that answer reprehensible, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to pursue this subject again tomorrow.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, just in case this hasn't been done, pursuant to standing order 2, 1 would advise the House that we will be meeting tomorrow. With that said, I'll move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.