[ Page 7713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7713

Sustainable development. Mr. Kempf –– 7714

Export of raw logs. Mr. Miller –– 7715

Tabling Documents –– 7715

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

On vote 38: minister's office –– 7715

Mr. Perry

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Clark

Ms. A. Hagen

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7732

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Long

Mr. Miller

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Second reading

Hon. L. Hanson –– 7741

Mr. Blencoe –– 7743

Hon. L. Hanson –– 7744

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Michael) –– 7744

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 7745

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7756

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 21). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7763

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989 (Bill 36). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7764

Ms. A. Hagen –– 7764

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7764

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

(Bill 38). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

Mr. Blencoe –– 7765

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

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

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

Ms. Marzari –– 7765

Mr. Perry –– 7765

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 7765

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

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 7766

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7766

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: I am pleased to introduce in the House today two teachers, Mrs. Martin and Mr. Rogers, who have with them 56 grade 6 students from Laronde Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale. Would the House make them especially welcome.

MR. BARLEE: There are two of our American cousins here somewhere in the precincts of the House: George and Fran Blankenship from Davis, California. For those people who don't know where Davis is, it's near Sacramento in the old gold country of California. I'd like the House to accord them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts are about 40 grade 3 to grade 6 students from the Sek Lep Elementary School in the Kamloops area. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like the House to welcome their teachers, Connie Trepanier and Janice Michel-Billy, as well as three parents, Daniel Gaspard, Lorna Seymour and Dora Iwanchuk. They're visiting the capital city for two or three days, and I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also in the gallery today are half a dozen senior people from my ministry. It's their first visit to the House, and I'd like the House to welcome Maurine Smibert, Vera Paterson, Sandra Bryant, Judy Duncan, Cynthia Maier and Kay Lewis.

HON. J. JANSEN: In the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are nine grade 7 students from Chilliwack Christian School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Norman Brouwer, and also two adults, Mrs. Brenda Bakker and Mr. Andy Maarhuis. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today is an alderman from Richmond, Mr. Doug Sandberg, formerly with the Ministry of Environment. Would the House please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), has said it was he who approached the Minister of Labour in early May of 1988, urging him to investigate how Mr. Giordano's firm got on to the approved list of firms for pub referendums. That contradicts what the minister said in this House on Monday.

My question to the minister is this: is that what happened, or does the minister stand by the version of events he outlined to this House on Monday?

HON. L. HANSON: On Monday last I tabled a quite comprehensive statement on all the issues of the Knight Street Pub. In that, I placed before the House my recollection of the events as they occurred, and I referred to a conversation. I believe the member will agree that the former Attorney-General referred to a conversation, and the fact that there was a conversation is confirmed by both.

MR. SIHOTA: There's a great difference, in terms of those conversations. The Minister of Labour said in this House that it was he who approached the former Attorney-General to discuss it with him informally, after a cabinet meeting. The former Attorney-General says he approached the Minister of Labour, when he first heard news stories about the matter, urging him to investigate Mr. Giordano's company. The question to the minister is: which was it — the version you outlined on Monday or the version which has been recited here that came from the former Attorney-General?

HON. L. HANSON: I am certainly satisfied with my statement that was made on Monday. In the preamble to his question, the member makes some assertions that are just not correct, and maybe the member should go back and read Hansard again.

MR. SIHOTA: We've read Hansard very carefully. I'm sure the Minister of Labour has listened very carefully to what the former Attorney-General said outside the House. The question to the Minister of Labour is: is he saying that the version of events outlined by the former Attorney-General outside the House are inaccurate?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I made a very comprehensive statement on Monday. It was my recollection of the events, and that is on the record.

MR. SIHOTA: A question again to the Minister of Labour. Did the former Attorney-General approach you urging you to take a look at the matter of placement of Mr. Giordano's company in advance of any discussions which you had with him?

HON. L. HANSON: Again I have to question the hearing of the socialists opposite. I made my statement on Monday, and that is my recollection of the events.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the minister is now saying he stands by the statements that he made on Monday.

My question to the Premier is as follows. You now have the minister publicly stating that he stands by the version of events that he outlined on Monday; the former Attorney-General has contradicted that ver-

[ Page 7714 ]

sion; and the Premier has said he believes both men. Does the Premier still stand by his position of yesterday that both men are right?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I understand that both are attempting to recollect exactly what it is that might have been said or where they met a year and a half ago. I have no reason to disbelieve either of the members, and I trust their word. Frankly, the member from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, as is so often the case, asked the questions on a whole lot of wrong assumptions that he makes up in his own head for his own political purposes.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA: It wasn't myself who uttered the statements; it was the former Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour. The Premier can't have it both ways. It's their statements, Mr. Premier, not mine. Could the Premier tell this House what steps he has taken to determine which of those two versions is true?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's a simple question of truth. If you don't have the facts, you can't tell which one is right. What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain which of those two versions is accurate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, they are both honourable members and I'm satisfied with the information that I have received.

MR. SIHOTA: There is a cloud of integrity hanging over this government. In light of that, does the Premier not think that he has a responsibility to determine the truth?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm again saying that I'm satisfied with the whole process that we've seen related to the whole matter. All of what's being asked has been canvassed, and certainly we've seen a thorough investigation of all the allegations that have gone before. Frankly, I realize that this time in the House is for us to deal with important and urgent matters, and I would hope that the opposition — although I realize many are away, and I look forward to seeing the Leader of the Opposition — will attend to those so-called urgent matters.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MR. KEMPF: I have a very urgent matter. A question to the Premier. Yesterday in question period your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) turned down a request to allow public scrutiny of the renewal of eight existing tree-farm licences. Has the Premier now decided to overrule his minister's disregard for public concern and allow for public hearings into the renewal for ten more years of these eight existing licences, the list of which includes: TFL 25; TFL 39, the controversial tree-farm licence on the Queen Charlotte Islands; TFL 44, in which exists the Carmanah Valley; and TFL 46, the TFL that was under scrutiny with respect to the Fletcher Challenge fiasco? Has the Premier decided that it's time to scrutinize, through the public, these kinds of renewals of tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I realize the member deems this to be an urgent matter, and I would like to respond, but not having the benefit of the question from yesterday or the answer given, I would like to defer to my minister and ask that he perhaps provide the information again. Then I'll have a better appreciation of the urgent matter before us.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to remind the House of the process for tree-farm licences in the province. Before a tree-farm licence is granted, there are substantial public hearings. Once a tree-farm licence is granted, every five years there's a management and working plan — that is, a public process every five years. Out of the management working plan arises a development plan. That is a five-year development plan that is updated every year. The updates, too, are a public process. There are two opportunities after a licence has been granted for public input.

Then comes the pre-harvest silviculture prescription for each of the proposed harvesting areas. That too involves the opportunity for public input. You still can't cut a tree. You need a cutting permit to be able to cut a tree. In the cutting permit application process, there is another opportunity for public input. That same process takes place with forest licences — the other major tenure in the province. In the timber sale major licensing system, that same process takes place: management and working plans, development plans, pre-harvest silvicultural plans and cutting plans. There is substantial opportunity for public input into the harvesting programs and the licences in this province.

MR. KEMPF: We are talking about the renewal for ten years of very controversial tree-farm licences in British Columbia. To the Premier: what is the government afraid of in providing further scrutiny, particularly of these controversial tree-farm licences that I've noted? Is this working together? Is this your new blueprint? Is this your new comprehensive strategy? What is the government afraid of?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Do you have a question?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have. Why is the government afraid of providing public scrutiny into these tree farm licences before they are renewed for yet another ten years?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It seems to me that the outline given by the minister indicates a fairly extensive public scrutiny in the whole process. Although I'll find out more about it and speak to the minister again, I can well appreciate why this system is as it is and has been — when the member asking

[ Page 7715 ]

the question was responsible for that ministry and as it continues to be with our Minister of Forests today.

EXPORT OF RAW LOGS

MR. MILLER: Further to the Minister of Forests regarding the log export question, is it the policy of the minister to allow private companies to develop their industrial plants through the export of unprocessed public timber?

HON. MR. PARKER: The member is alluding to a joint interview that we had yesterday on CBC in Prince Rupert and to a sawmill in Prince Rupert that at this time is unable to process the larger-diameter wood on their forest licence. They have made a request through the proper procedures for an export permit, the cash flow from which will help them finance the equipment they need to process the large butts instead of selling them off to the lower mainland at less than cost.

The member opposite should be the first to realize that when we see timber move from the north coast to the south coast, for those who live in the north coast area it is, for all intents and purposes, export, because those manufacturing jobs have gone to another part of the province and are not happening in our neighbourhood. It's a feeling that most of his constituents have and that certainly most of my constituents have.

Hon. Mr. Vant tabled the consolidated financial statements of the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 38: minister's office, $317,646 (continued).

MR. PERRY: I'd like to follow up with the minister some of the comments made at the end of the evening session last night. I've perused the Blues, and I'd like to begin by drawing to the attention of Hansard an error at page 48 of the Blues where I think my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was referring to me, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, and in the Blues it appears as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). That may just avoid confusion.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I wish it were otherwise, but I think it was probably me he was referring to.

There's a serious issue here....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the reaction of members opposite that some of them agree with the point I was raising in my question on May 29. If it was the intention of the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to ask the same question, far be it from me to take the words out of his mind. I think that would be wonderful and would reflect the wishes of his constituents. So I thank the members opposite for correcting me.

Since he took the question on notice, let me review with the minister my question of May 29, at page 7035 of Hansard. I'm going to take the liberty of reading the dialogue back into the record, because I think it's quite important. I asked the minister: now that he had returned from ARMX '89, could "he inform this House how much taxpayers' money was spent to host the British Columbia delegation at this international arms export mart in Ottawa?" The response of the minister was that he did not have the figures available but would "take the question on notice and get back to the member" — which was me. Maybe I can ask the minister if he has those figures now and would be prepared to divulge them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed to the minister, the second member for Vancouver East asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour today to introduce my wife's parents, May and Frank Babish, and the two visitors accompanying them, who are friends of theirs and ours, Ayako Endo from the Philippines and Akiko Endo from Japan. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has indicated that he would like to have an answer to a question that I've taken on notice. I'm not sure what the procedure of the House would be in such a case, but I would be pleased to give him some general indication. He asked the question: how much did the province of British Columbia spend to host the 14 participating companies that were bidding through BID B.C. and participating in ARMX? The strict answer to his question is: we spent approximately $3,700 on hosting those companies — lunches, coffees and so on.

[2:30]

MR. PERRY: I'd like to explore that in a little more depth. I'd like to ask the minister for not just the strict but the full answer. Were any subsidies or air fares paid to any of the companies involved? Were there any other costs to the British Columbia treasury for participation in this event? What were the costs or the estimated costs, if those are available, of ministerial time attributable to this exhibition? What was the cost of sending the British Columbia delegation of officials to ARMX?

[ Page 7716 ]

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I think the public would like to know this information.

HON. J. JANSEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I responded to the question that the member posed in the House. He asked how much we paid to host these companies, and that is certainly the answer to the question. If we go further into his new line of questioning, I don't have those figures because they're not finalized yet. They didn't attempt to construct those figures from that point of view. Suffice it to say in answer to his question that we did not subsidize air fares. We participated in coordinating the booth areas and did some publicity and some promotional work. We haven't got the final accounting of those figures yet.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to ask the minister if I could have his assurance that the full figures on all government expenditures relevant to the ARMX exhibition....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, we've had this happen several times. The member asked the minister a question about an amount. The minister gave him the amount, and then the member stands up and says: "Can you give me your assurance that that is the correct figure?" I think that type of questioning is out of place in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. I don't believe that's what the member said.

MR. PERRY: I certainly correct any misunderstanding. I think the record will make it clear that I wasn't questioning the answer, and I think the minister made it clear that he was responding to the precise question I asked. I really appreciate that he can't have these figures at his fingertips now. I'm just asking for an assurance that in due course — within the next weeks or months — we could have an accounting of that.

HON. J. JANSEN: I have no problem with giving you a full accounting of those costs when they're available.

MR. PERRY: I now want to explore in a little more depth the line of questioning my colleague from North Island began last night, because I think there's a serious issue here. I would, with respect to the more senior members of the House, like to ensure that some of this discussion is on the public record. I think it calls for some precision in discussion.

What in my view elicits public concern is not support by government for British Columbia industries or even subsidy for deserving British Columbia industries. The issue of public interest, I believe, is whether a provincial government should begin to tread down the very dangerous and slippery path of supporting military, arms or weapons industries which ultimately lead to the production of devices, weapons, bombs, electronic gear and guidance systems for munitions that are used to kill people. I think it's very important that government should understand which road it is embarking on on behalf of the public.

I think it's critical that we use advisedly and precisely the words "defence," "offence," "military" and similar terms, which have many different meanings to many different people. I don't think there's anyone on this side of the House who would question the legitimacy of genuine defence for Canada or of government support for the genuine defence needs of this country.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The real question is exactly as the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) says: "What does that mean?" Well, what does defence mean? I think there's great concern on the part of the public that the word defence is often used to camouflage activities which really mean the dispatch of weapons to nations, large or small, which use them against their own people — as we've recently seen the Chinese government do — or against people in other countries. I don't think the public of British Columbia, any more than members on this side of the House or on the other side, want to see our public revenues being used to help finance the production of weapons which will be used to kill people.

Let me give the House a specific example, because it's so relevant to the present problems in British Columbia. We don't know how much it will cost the taxpayers of Canada or British Columbia, but it's a good example of the semantic confusion and the importance of using words carefully.

We've been told recently by the Premier that he's advised by our federal government that low-level military flights in British Columbia will be made for defensive purposes. I think this is a serious issue, open to very serious debate — whether an American strategic bomber flight at a low level over British Columbia, practising for the delivery of nuclear weapons in the second or mop-up phase of a nuclear war, is defensive.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, I know that in this House, when we're discussing the vote of the minister's office, we allow wide-ranging debate on the operations of the ministry. I wouldn't want to change the tradition of this House, but I think the member has strayed far beyond the bounds of relevancy to the estimates of the Minister of International Business when he's talking about bomber flights.

MR. CLARK: We've heard evidence in the House that this ministry is funding the provincial government to participate in arms exhibitions in Ontario and maybe elsewhere. It's entirely appropriate to discuss those kinds of questions of defence. If the government is going to fund those kinds of ventures,

[ Page 7717 ]

we certainly have a right and are entitled to ask questions, particularly when the bomber flights are over British Columbia.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House this afternoon the balance of Mrs. Martin's and Mr. Rogers's class from Laronde Elementary School in South Surrey-White Rock. Would the House give them a special welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the points of orders that were just raised, it is the Chair's opinion that certainly the member has the right to ask questions of the minister with respect to any support that might have been given through that ministry to the exhibition to which he refers, but I do believe we're stretching the point a little when we start referring to specific flights of bombers or other military aircraft over the province. Perhaps we could proceed, bearing that in mind.

MR. PERRY: I recognize the problem. I was trying to answer the Attorney-General's question really as to the semantics. I was using that example of the bomber flights as an example of the confusion, I think, in the language between what is defence and what is offence. There lies the nub of the question.

I would like to ask the minister what, if any, safeguards or provisions the ministry or the government has or intends to establish to ensure that industries in British Columbia which receive government assistance will not be involved in offensive weapons development. I think this relates again to the question I asked on May 29. The response — which I agree with the member of North Island was rather alarming — was that he could not assure us that the government will support only businesses engaged in developing non-weapons technology and not those directly involved in the arms trade. That's at page 7035 of Hansard.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I had no intentions of getting involved in this debate, but I feel, in light of some of the comments made previously and today by the member for Point Grey, that we should put a few things on the record just for clarification.

First of all, there isn't a member in this House, I'm sure, or anybody whom I've ever met who believes in war. It's a motherhood issue with most of us; we just do not believe in it. I have yet to meet anyone who does. In fact, I know very many people in the military in Canada — members of NATO and NORAD — who serve diligently, and the last thing they ever want to see is a war. Yet the member continually refers to war machines and offensive weapons.

Maybe it would be a good time to put on the record where he and his party stand with regard to NATO and NORAD. I would like very much to hear this, because it seems to me....

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the minister wanting to engage in this debate, but I think there is a simple question of hypocrisy in this chamber. The minister rose on a point of order just a few short minutes ago and accused us of wandering into the realm of national politics, and he's now wandering into the realm of international politics. But we're certainly happy to have that debate in this chamber if the minister wants to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then both sides of the House would agree wholeheartedly with the Chairman when he suggests that we deal with vote 38 as opposed to dealing with everything else.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of wandering into this field of bomber flights, war machines and all the rest of it. I brought the point of order to the House to bring that to an end, but the member persists. If the floor is open for him to talk about it, then the floor is open for me to talk about it, and I intend to proceed unless I'm ruled out of order by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. government House Leader, but I'm afraid you're ruled out of order by the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Since I have the floor, maybe I could ask that member to define a statement he made. I would like him to explain what he means by legitimate expenses for defence. Does it include our commitments to NATO and NORAD?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, what is in order this afternoon is the government of British Columbia's participation in the ARMX trade exhibition in Ottawa. The government of British Columbia, led by the Minister of International Business and Immigration, participated in that exhibition and encouraged British Columbia businesses to participate in that exhibition. What was at question — and what is at question from this side of the House — is that prominent international arms dealers were not only present, but were also active in ARMX. The kind of war machine that we're talking about on this side of the House, which the government is completely in bed with, is the industry that promotes terrorist activity and supplies the armaments for wars that are conducted in various parts of this world. The Syrians are....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, nobody minds a good, legitimate, heated debate, but when the member says that this government is in bed with terrorist warmongers — to paraphrase him — or with terrorist organizations, I think he should withdraw that remark, because it is not true.

[2:45]

[ Page 7718 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to dealing with the point raised, I would ask the hon. member if he in fact was impugning the government as being associated in this way. If that is what was said, I suppose it would be in order for it to be withdrawn.

MR. GABELMANN: Maybe I need to clarify what I said. If something I'm saying needs to be withdrawn, then I'd be the very first to do that.

Let's just go through it slowly. There was a trade exhibition in Ottawa recently. The government of British Columbia participated actively in that trade exhibition. At this trade exhibition, Canadian manufacturers of various commodities, many of which are used in the war industry — or as President Eisenhower called it, "the military industrial complex...." Nonetheless it is a war industry.

Many others participating in this trade show were undercover non-governmental arms dealers. These are arms dealers who provide armaments to people who are fighting wars in Africa, in the Middle East, previously in Afghanistan and in various parts of the world. These arms are supplied by a variety of armament manufacturers on both sides of the Iron Curtain. It's an international business that produces great amounts of wealth to the industrialized world, including British Columbia. The position we're taking in this debate is that the government of British Columbia should not participate in that aspect of wealth creation. That aspect of the business has only one effect, and it is to take the lives of innocent people around this world.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I have a question for the minister — a series of questions, in fact. There's nothing that warms the cockles of one's heart more fully than to hear a righteous socialist in full voice, and that we have just done. I know that the cockles of my heart are going to be warmed even more when the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) gets up, because no one in this chamber can rise to the levels of righteousness to which he is accustomed.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask, as a point of information from the minister when he's answering some of the questions that have been put to him from across the House, that he might apprise the House of the extent to which the democratic socialist country of Sweden — about which we hear much in this chamber as a place to which we ought to look for guidance and as a role model for us to follow and as an example in all things.... We have heard in this House about how we should organize our economy, our social system and our value systems, and I don't know what all wouldn't improve British Columbia, if only we'd follow the example of Sweden.

The question I have to the minister is this: would he advise the House...?

MR. PERRY: A point of order. Frankly, the Attorney-General is escaping me. I'm having trouble with the relevance of these remarks in the debate. The point of order is that really we're debating the minister's estimates. I'm flattered that the Attorney-General and others are posing questions to this side, as if we were already the government. Unfortunately we're not yet, and I think we should go back to posing questions to the minister from this side of the House on relevant issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair certainly appreciates what the member has said, because the Chair has been striving to get both sides of the House to deal with the vote in question, which is vote 38.

If members insist on pursuing the matter of any participation in the exhibition in Ottawa on behalf of the government, the Chair is going to have to insist that the questions asked be absolutely relevant to that particular point. I would suggest to the House that it's one of those subjects where it's going to be very difficult for this to take place, and therefore it might be difficult for us to accomplish anything during this afternoon. The very topic, I would suggest to all hon. members, invites the very subjects that have been discussed and have been the points of order within the House.

Perhaps we can move along. Did the Attorney-General have another question?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I was trying to direct a question to the minister which, I think, really goes to the heart of what the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was trying to express. Perhaps we could find out from the minister, on a comparative dollar basis, the amount of armaments sold to all countries in the world by the democratic socialist country of Sweden, which is held up to us as a role model that we ought to follow. What is the dollar volume of the contribution of Saab and Volvo — and we see many of their products in democratic socialist parking-lots in this community — to armament, and does the minister have a breakdown of whether those armaments are of a defensive nature or otherwise? That's the first question.

This is important, because it has been raised in a provocative way by the member for North Island. In terms of the support system and things like clothing, food, radios, rubber rafts, snowmobiles and those sorts of thing, which carry for many countries, including this country, a very significant lifesaving component in terms of the Coast Guard and so on, what is the dollar amount of those items from Canada and from manufacturers in British Columbia as a total proportion of their wares on sale as compared to Sweden in terms of the Saab jets, attack jets, tanks and the other carriers of destruction that form the largest single part of the production of these benign democratic socialist countries to which we are always pointed as role models for ourselves?

HON. J. JANSEN: That's an interesting question. It extends a little bit beyond my ministry. First of all, may I say that Sweden, although a neutral country, has a very extensive defence force. In fact, their

[ Page 7719 ]

defence industry has developed over a number of years and is one of the major defence industries in the world. Here we have a neutral country which has the defence industry as part of its economy and manufactures that equipment and sells it throughout the world, such as the Saab fighter jets the Attorney-General referred to.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the members opposite that their counterparts in Manitoba, while they were in office for a time, had as one of their corporate entities in their province a firm called Bristol Aerospace. Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg produced, as part of their manufacture, CRV-7 air-to-ground rockets. I am wondering, in the terms expressed by the second member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. Perry), whether air-to-ground rockets really are a legitimate defence expenditure.

We have indicated in this House that the attendees at the ARMX '89 show were not munitions people; in fact, they were referred to, I think, by some as merchants of death. There were 14 companies who dealt in such things as lifesaving equipment, communications, radar equipment, and so on. Their primary objective was to access the market that is there for Canadian defence spending — of which there is some $1.5 billion — and the market that exists in defence spending with both NORAD and NATO allies. We have had success stories in those categories. We have had contracts committed or signed relating to that participation.

I would also add, Mr. Chairman, that in the province of British Columbia defence plays a very important part in our economy in that we have some 12,500 DND personnel. Curiously enough, the largest base in the province is in Esquimalt, where we have 9,200 civilians and military personnel employed. Are we now suggesting that these people are not legitimate defence people? What are they? We didn't get a definition of what legitimate defence means. Are we suggesting that the province of British Columbia should not avail itself of defence spending, and that we should lobby the federal government to reduce our defence expenditures and close our bases in the province of British Columbia?

I'm not sure where the opposite side is coming from. I refer again to their own situation in Manitoba, where they had this type of expenditure and this type of industry existing. We do not have that in the province of British Columbia. I take offence at having those 14 companies that participated in ARMX '89 referred to as merchants of death.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I think that what's transpired in the last four or five minutes, and certainly the minister's response, is a clear indicator of the Pandora's box that we open up when we start into this subject. I trust that the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey is almost ready to launch into some other subject under the same ministry's estimates.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have read my mind. Can you read the result of the next election that's rippling in there?

Actually, I was somewhat reassured by that answer from the minister In a circuitous way. I think he indicated that his thinking wasn't so far removed from mine on this issue. Since we all know that we're all honourably motivated here, that shouldn't surprise us.

You will see, Mr. Chairman, perhaps, the relevance of the initial example I cited, because of the confusion that language brings into this issue. Let me simply say — I'm not sure if the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) was asking a genuine or a rhetorical question — that I don't think we should look to Sweden for guidance on getting involved in the arms trade. The Bofors Company was involved in a major scandal with the Swedish government on exporting deadly weapons to Iran and Iraq during their war. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Even the government of Sweden, which is in a unique position in the world, despite attempts to avoid incidents like that, got into that situation. The French-built Exocet missiles that were used against British ships in the Falklands or Malvinas war killed young British soldiers — sunk them to the bottom of the South Atlantic Ocean. Those were French Exocet Aerospatiale missiles subsidized by the French government. That's what we're worried about.

I find it somewhat reassuring that the minister has indicated, if I interpreted him correctly, that he doesn't want to see us getting involved in British Columbia in making weapons that will kill people. I would find it more reassuring — just to bring this to a close — if I could ask the minister to commit himself to providing us within a reasonable time with a written list of the companies involved in the ARMX exhibition, the products that were advertised and the products that were sold at ARMX '89. I know in the papers that he's holding up that there was some listing of companies. I can't recall if it was comprehensive. I think the most revealing would be the listing of the products that were actually on sale at the exhibition and any contracts concluded. We would be very reassured and we might even be prepared to cease and desist our criticism if we were reassured in writing that those were essentially non-dangerous goods used in search and rescue or lifesaving.

[3:00]

Let me just move to a somewhat different question, if I may, very briefly. Newspaper reports at the time of the conference in Davos, Switzerland, reported on rather substantial expenditures by the government of British Columbia in an attempt to secure new business from businessmen from all over the world who attended that meeting, Coming from a riding where the University of British Columbia is situated, I had a particularly keen interest in one of the projects, which, according to the press at the time, was nearly a fait accompli for British Columbia. That was the so-called toxicology institute, which was a proposal for a major Swiss pharmaceutical firm

[ Page 7720 ]

to build a basic science research institute at the campus of the University of B.C. to foster for the first time, really, the development of very basic animal toxicology studies — and in vitro toxicology studies, I hasten to add; not exclusively using animals — for the long-term development of a pharmaceutical industry in British Columbia.

This is something that I thought it was very commendable for the government to pursue. I was therefore very disappointed to read somewhat later in the press that the pharmaceutical company had decided to locate elsewhere. I wonder if I could ask the minister to describe some of the negotiations. Why were he and the Premier so optimistic in February that this institute would be sited in Vancouver, and what happened?

HON. J. JANSEN: Part of the Davos initiative was to focus on several sectors. We certainly did focus on one of those, as the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey had indicated, and have subsequent discussions with that particular company. Unfortunately they have decided to locate their facility elsewhere However, we are actively talking to a number of other contacts, a number of other interested parties, and hopefully we can have something to report on fairly soon.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to go on and belabour the arms question, but I just have a couple of questions I would like to raise. It seems to me, just in a general sense, that British Columbia businesses do participate in arms manufacturing in indirect ways. I know a company in Richmond that, for example, built these absolutely huge.... They look like boat carriers. They were for the MX missiles in the United States when Ronald Reagan was going to move them around the country and hide them. Then, of course, after spending millions of dollars, they decided that wasn't very feasible.

What concerns me is that because of the amount of money spent in the United States on armaments, it's a bit of a slippery slope. One of the things that I — and, I think, the other members on our side — certainly don't want to see is the provincial government buying into that military expenditure complex and getting more and more industries involved in it. It's seductive. Once one gets involved, one becomes part of that industrial complex, and I think that's happening to some extent in British Columbia. It certainly concerns me and, I think, many British Columbians We on this side don't believe that the provincial government should be participating in, or at least promoting, that industry; we think there are other industries, or the same industries producing other things, that are more productive. That's why we have such concerns about the participation of British Columbia in the ARMX exhibition.

I understand that there is also a trade show running in connection with Abbotsford. First of all, I wonder if the minister could tell me what British Columbia's participation is in that trade show.

HON. J. JANSEN: The show the member is referring to is the Airshow Canada exposition, the first such event to happen in Canada. Hopefully it is an event that is reflective of a calibre that is going to represent the North American market. Airshow Canada does two things: it highlights our interest in the aerospace industry through promotion, getting buyers into our province and having exhibitors display the units they are selling; also, a major part of our show is going to be a symposium dealing with issues relating to air travel and air transportation.

The participation by the province is equal to that of the government of Canada. Its participation is hosting the event and sponsoring it, to ensure that over time this event can become self-sufficient and fund its own operations. It's going to be held in Abbotsford. We have approximately 300 booth commitments to date, which, although this is a first show, indicates its popularity. Combined with the Airshow component, it is certainly going to be an outstanding success.

The issue is to promote aerospace procurement in the province and to encourage the development of viable aerospace industry. By getting the buyers and those who manufacture aircraft in, we hope we can do that.

MR. CLARK: I share the minister's optimism about the aircraft parts manufactured in British Columbia. We do actually have quite a growing sector, and I think it's appropriate that we try to encourage it. There does seem to be real potential.

I am concerned, however, that a large number of aircraft manufacturers, certainly in North America, have been also connected to the military. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether military buyers or procurement people are invited to the show or are in any way involved; or whether in fact it is entirely a domestic or aircraft manufacturers' facility. Are there any military procurement people there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY: Today in the House we have some 30 grade 7 students from the Shaughnessy Elementary School. They are accompanied by Mr. T. Brunker and Mr. D. Scott. On behalf of my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and all members of the House, I would ask that they be welcomed. We are going to be meeting with them in the next little while, and I hope they will have questions to ask on this debate and will be able to tell us that they have enjoyed their stay in the House.

HON. J. JANSEN: The question, if I recall, was whether there will be any military buyers. We haven't indicated that we want to preclude military buyers from attending this event. Military buyers will be those who buy radar and communications equipment

[ Page 7721 ]

and provide the type of things that we want to see developed in our province — the high-tech type of equipment. We are also going to get significant representation from Boeing and buyers that are coming up here to search out markets for their significant order-book profile, which is fully booked, I understand, till 1996.

To answer your question, we've said this is our chance to display our industry, which, as I said before, is an industry that deals with communications, radar and the type of equipment necessary for aircraft — companies such as Ebco and MacDonald Dettwiler and companies that are highly developed technical companies that will certainly have access to this big market.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to move on to some other issues, but before I do, just a closing comment about the last 40 minutes.

I think it's easy for passions and emotions to run high on these questions. When one reviews the list of B.C. companies involved in the ARMX exhibition, one doesn't have a concern; they're all good and effective British Columbia companies. The concern that a lot of us had with that trade show was that it was not just well-meaning governments and efficient and productive companies who participated in ARMX, but it was also an opportunity for a nefarious group of what I would describe as international criminals who make their fortunes buying and selling arms; they were there too. If we could find a way — and I guess in a complex, complicated world like we live in it's very difficult to find that way — of dividing people of that ilk off from these kinds of enterprises, then we would be far better off as a society. We raise the question because we're concerned about those aspects of the kind of show that ARMX'89 was.

Clearly, the so-called military effort — whatever terms you want to use to describe it — that countries embark upon leads to inventions and gains for society that are really quite magnificent. Radar is a simple example of that, developed in a wartime environment. We don't seem to be able to shift.... When I say "we," I'm thinking of western society. The Attorney-General is right: Sweden is as guilty as and in some ways more guilty than many other western countries. But we don't seem in our societies to find a way to develop the technological advances without always having them funded and financed and a part of the military industry. It's the military industry which drives technology, in large measure. We're not going to change it, and even if we were government for a decade we wouldn't change that basic fact in our society; it's there.

But we raise these questions because it's so easy, as the other member said, to get seduced by it all and to say we're making guidance systems, life-rafts or unmanned submersibles which deal only with repair of underwater equipment; therefore we're not involved. The fact is that every single one of us — all of us — in one way or another are implicitly involved in activities. We just need to remind ourselves of this Not that we can solve it overnight, not that we can turn the world around; I don't believe that happens very easily. But it won't happen at all if we don't raise the questions.

So we felt it important to express our concern, not about British Columbia firms trying to sell their products to other governments around the world, but about the next stage, which is the international arms dealers who are also involved in these same conferences. Whether they're there formally and approved and accredited or whether they're there on the sidelines, they're there and that is a concern. I think it's a concern to an overwhelming majority of Canadians and definitely a concern to an overwhelming majority of British Columbians, who, if asked, would like to do whatever they could to change the direction of the world in terms of the way we've been going.

[3:15]

I want to turn, if I may, to immigration questions and ask the minister, first of all, whether or not the provisions contained in the Meech Lake accord — which is obviously yet to be agreed to — in respect of potential powers that this province has over immigration.... I want to ask whether or not that role is being exercised now by the provincial government — whether or not the powers accorded to provinces under Meech Lake are already being exercised by the province in terms of immigration.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a difficult question to answer, Mr. Chairman. We have been seeking to negotiate an immigration agreement with the federal government, which would be one of the factors enabled under the Meech Lake accord. I suppose it can be enabled now, as long as both the federal government and the provinces agree on this type of agreement. As you know, the province of Quebec has had an immigration agreement for some time. Although we're not seeking the same type of agreement, we are seeking some control over immigration.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to explore a bit further with the minister what kinds of — I think he used the word "control"; maybe the word "influence" would be more appropriate — areas of immigration to British Columbia from outside Canada he wants the province to have influence in.

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, the agreement is ongoing, and it's very difficult for me to comment on what the agreement will eventually look like. We are seeking to — and the member is quite right; I think the word "control" is not the appropriate word — influence some of the immigration factors. We're trying to have greater input in terms of selecting the skills that come into the province, and how that impacts on our economy. We're trying to deal with questions such as English as a second language, settlement costs and services to immigrant women. There are a number of areas that we're working on. So there are a number of issues that we've identified. There are about 15 issues that we want to become involved in and to discuss with the federal government — how they will eventually look, I don't know 

[ Page 7722 ]

— in terms of having some impact and some influence over the type of immigrant skill entering the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, is the government trying to have some influence over the numbers of immigrants that would come to British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman. We would have to stay within the national policies and the national quotas.

MR. GABELMANN: Within those national goals, would the province accept...? Let's say, for example, that we're 12 percent of the population of Canada. Would the government of British Columbia want to have approximately 12 percent of the immigrants, or would we seek to have a higher number or a lower number than the average?

HON. J. JANSEN: We are currently getting approximately 15 percent to 16 percent of the immigrants. Of course, it varies substantially by country of origin. But on an overall basis, we are getting 15 percent to 16 percent. Again, it would be a federal matter and a federal allocation of numbers.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, looking at the statistics, to note that we appear to be getting even more than 15 percent or 16 percent in the 1988 numbers — marginally more. Only two years earlier we were getting just over 12 percent. It's interesting to see the difference between 1986 and 1988 in total numbers. Just so everybody knows what I'm referring to, it's provincial figures from the central stats bureau of the Ministry of Finance.

British Columbia received — in terms of what they call immigrant landings — 12,500 in 1986 and 22,750 in 1988. That's a significant increase. I happen to be one of those people who believes that immigration is good, and that immigration in fact creates jobs and doesn't take jobs away.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I agree.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm delighted to hear the Minister of Environment agrees with me. It's something that many people in the public don't understand or agree with. I suspect those of us who take that position are a minority. But, in fact, all of the evidence is that immigration has a net benefit in economic terms and in employment terms. Having said that, we really need to look at numbers in respect of the kinds of changes that can happen in a society with unregulated, massive immigration, which can really create some difficult social problems in the short term. I don't think it does in the long term, as evidenced by the kind of immigration that took place in Canada just after the turn of the century. In fact, it is the descendants of those people who are now the strongest in their opposition to any more immigrants, which I always find an irony. It's only we immigrants who complain about more immigrants.

However, leaving that aside, I wonder if the ministry — recognizing the federal powers in this, but nonetheless, with provincial influence increasing — has determined an appropriate number, in ballpark figures, of immigrants that British Columbia can easily handle in any given year.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have those numbers. It's very difficult to say. Immigration into the province is not very substantial. We had an overall growth figure of 72,000 people, of which just under 23,000 were immigrants from other parts of the world. I have no idea whether that figure should be 15,000, 23,000 or 100,000. I think that kind of figure is related to the opportunities. If there is a certain sector of our economy needing skills that we currently do not have and that we could attract.... Again, I think the numbers would be dictated by how large the market is. So I think it's a difficult question to really give a specific answer to.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister talked about, among other things, skills. Earlier he talked about that being a major element in the negotiations with Ottawa. May I ask what kinds of skills? What does the minister mean when he uses the word "skills"? Sometimes all of us tend to hear different things from the same words.

HON. J. JANSEN: When the national government sets its skills requirements as they determine their immigrant-processing, they inventory the skills needed in the Canadian economy, whether they're welders, nurses, doctors or whatever type of profession. That's what I mean by skills.

We submit our requirements on the basis of what we see those needs to be, and they are put into the national process. If Ontario needs far more of a certain category than we need of another category, our request gets watered down. So we're trying to suggest that when they establish the national requirements, they look at it from a customized point of view by province so that we have access to those skills inventories, those human resources that we need to develop our economy.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, when we define categories of immigrants, they're broken down into several segments. A significant one in British Columbia is social or family; well over a third are under that heading. So there clearly isn't a question there of seeking skills; these are people who come in because family are here, and it's a question of, in effect, reunification.

Then we have the so-called humanitarian categories, which total approximately 10 percent of the immigrants to British Columbia, including refugees. Then we come to the so-called economic immigrants. Of the economic categories, the first is assisted

[ Page 7723 ]

relatives. As I understand that one, there's more priority there to your family relationship than to particular skills that you might have. Nonetheless, skills are a factor there because you must have a job to go to or be able to fill.

Then there are other independents. Again, this is not spelled out as to what it means. This accounts for over a quarter of our immigrants. I wonder if the minister would tell me what he understands this category to mean in terms of its relationship to skills. There are three others I want to pursue a bit later: the entrepreneur program, the self-employed, and the recently developed investor program. I'd like to get some sense from the minister, out of these economic categories, as to which of them relates specifically to encouraging people with particular skills to come to British Columbia. How does it work?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, as the member has indicated, there are a number of categories under the general economic category of immigrant: assisted relatives, which includes relatives who are.... All independent immigrants are assessed against economic selection criteria. I'm not sure if the member has it, but there is an immigrant class description which outlines in detail each class and under each class makes reference to what is called a point system. The point system takes into consideration the skills that the individual has to offer, and that's how we get back to the skills selection process, which gives higher points to those we want to see because of their skills and contribution to our economy.

MR. GABELMANN: I have the descriptions referred to by the minister, and I can read them, too Maybe I didn't frame this properly. Do the negotiations with the federal government for this ability to have more influence or control over kinds of skills that are wanted here in British Columbia involve any attempt to redefine these class descriptions? Or is it simply taking what the federal government determines are the class descriptions and trying to get more of one or more of another?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, there is no attempt to change the immigrant class descriptions. However, what we're trying to do is give added emphasis to the weighting system in terms of attracting those immigrants that relate to our skills requirement.

MR. GABELMANN: Would there be any weighting or consideration to what part of this province immigrants might wish to settle in?

HON. J. JANSEN: No. It's impossible to do that under the Charter, first of all, but I don't think it would be practical, either. Once a person comes into the country, he or she is portable and can live in any part of the country he or she wishes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Transportation and Highways requests leave to make an introduction.

[3:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANT: It's not too often I get a chance to welcome a vast number of constituents from the Cariboo. Today we have no fewer than 45 students from Buffalo Creek School, grades 5 to 7. They are accompanied by Mr. Jim Craigie; their principal, Mr. Bob Bergen; and Mrs. Colleen Van Dyk, who is a parent and a member of the board of school trustees for School District 27, and also happens to be the daughter of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). We also have parents of the children here: Jack Willie, Elaine Hazlehurst, Eleanor MacEwen and Joe Pacheco. Also a good friend of mine, the bus driver, Mr. Fred Schoennagel. Would the House please make this huge group from Buffalo Creek in the Cariboo very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the government concerned at all about the proportion of immigrants to British Columbia who locate in the Vancouver area as compared with the rest of the province? The '88 figures indicate that just over 18,000 of the 22,750 located in Vancouver. In '86 it was just short of 9,000 out of 12,500. There is an increase in percentage terms. Given what's obviously an issue in British Columbia, which is growth in the urban area and not enough in the rural areas, I wonder if the government has any concerns about these patterns of settlement.

HON. J. JANSEN: The province has been promoting decentralization and regionalization for some time, so the question is appropriate, given that initiative on our part. We would like to see as much as possible the skills that immigrants bring into our province dispersed throughout the province. We would encourage it wherever possible, but again, if an immigrant lives within his community grouping and wants to live in a certain part of the province.... My family came here in 1953, and we settled in the community of Chilliwack, which had a number of Dutch people already living there. It was that type of influence, I'm sure, that my parents looked at to determine where they were going to settle.

It's a question that has a wide-ranging impact on our economy. We would like as much as possible to see those resources and skills and that entrepreneurial spirit being utilized throughout the province. The answer to the question is: we would hope that as much as possible we do see the result of that decentralization.

MR. GABELMANN: In formulating policies on skill levels and who should come, given the desire for additional or increased settlement in the non–lower mainland areas, would some extra emphasis or weight be given to people who might settle in, say, Prince George, Kamloops, Cranbrook or Prince Rupert, rather than in the lower mainland?

HON. J. JANSEN: To my understanding, the federal government.... Again, you have to understand

[ Page 7724 ]

that this is a federal responsibility; we currently have little or no participation in the immigration question. While we are seeking an immigration agreement, we don't have any influence over the immigration policies of the federal government. I can't defend them or explain them; I shouldn't be doing either of those.

My understanding is that they do not give extra points for living in any other area than, say, Vancouver. I don't think that's permissible nor is it defensible under the Charter.

MR. GABELMANN: The other day the Premier appeared to be presenting government policy. I want to read the quote from the Premier and ask the minister whether he agrees. In response to questions concerning Meech Lake and the suggestion that there would be more control over immigration given to the province as a result of Meech Lake, the Premier is quoted as saying in the Saanich News, June 8: "That's important." That's in response to more powers over immigration. "For example, many people from Asia are coming, but they all want to live in Vancouver. We want immigrants to go to the other regions of B.C. as well. Europeans will go to the interior, but Asians want to stay on the coast. Don't get me wrong, but we want those people who will move to other parts as well."

The Premier is saying, it seems, that Meech Lake will give the province additional control over immigration and will enable the province to determine, or to have not just some influence over, where people live — although I don't think the province will have that control, but an ability to select, by some racial criteria, immigrants to this province on the theory borne out by the statistics that immigrants from Hong Kong settle in the lower mainland and a higher proportion of immigrants from Europe settle in the interior. The Premier is saying that Meech Lake will enable the government to have a policy to attract more Europeans. I wonder if the Premier was expressing government policy when he said that.

HON. J. JANSEN: The immigration possibilities come from throughout the world. Currently, British Columbia is the number one immigration target for German immigrants. We hope to see that continue, because they, generally speaking, do live in areas other than Vancouver. It's the decentralized approach that we talked about previously. It's difficult, given the conditions I mentioned previously, to say that a person should live in Prince George or Vancouver. The bottom line should be that immigrants should live where they are going to be comfortable, where they can integrate well into society and be a valued member of our society and our economy. That's really the bottom line.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm always careful about issues relating to race. What you say can be misunderstood and, if people want, misinterpreted by selective reference to parts of it. I have to say to members of this House that an attitude expressed by the Premier of the province which is characterized by a sentence that says, "Europeans will go to the interior, but Asians want to stay on the coast...we want those people who will move to other parts as well, " is a clear indication that there is a bias in favour of European immigrants. The minister shakes his head. I have no reason to accuse the minister of a racially inspired immigration policy or belief. I'm not suggesting that at all. Nor am I suggesting that the government, as a matter of policy, has a racially inspired immigration bias. But the government is going to have to do something about the guy who leads them, because too often he says these kinds of things, which have only one interpretation.

The headline in this particular newspaper, Saanich News, is: "Immigration Control." That can be read many ways. The subhead is: "We want immigrants who will settle in all regions, not just the coast." When you go further, it turns out that these are Europeans. I am not suggesting, because I don't think the government is as politically stupid as that, that this is government policy. Nor am I suggesting that this kind of statement is a deliberate and overt setting forth of a viewpoint.

MR. MILLER: It came from the Premier, after all.

MR. GABELMANN: It came from the Premier and was obviously inadvertent. It was unplanned, spontaneous, like so many of the other comments he makes that get not only him in trouble, but his government, and too often all of us. We all pay a price for these kinds of headlines, these kinds of stories.

I'm not going to pursue that any further, because I think I've said enough about it. In the same context but in another area, I want to ask the government whether or not it is concerned about whether the increasing number of entrepreneurial and investor immigrants who are settling on the lower mainland is a particularly useful feature of changing immigration patterns in British Columbia, in particular the investor immigrant. I wonder if the minister is comfortable about this being an increasing focus of immigration policy and a focus which inevitably leads to additional immigration into the hot spots, the high growth areas, because that's where the investor is likely to settle. I will ask the second part of that question at the same time: whether the government wouldn't consider a philosophical view that has been expressed by, among others, Robert Reich, who talks about collective entrepreneurism.

It appears to me as if both the federal and the provincial governments, in developing immigration policy, are trying to find the individual who has some money or an entrepreneurial record, on the theory that bringing people with those attributes to the province will lead to entrepreneurial activity and to growth and development, when the evidence is building that the kind of people who in fact create new industries and create new developments are groups of bright, well-trained people working together. The days of Howard Hughes doing it on his own are gone. The new technological changes come from group activity — people working together in

[ Page 7725 ]

research centres. That's why the universities are playing such an increased role in actual development, not just in research.

[3:45]

It seems to me that the government relies heavily — not in overall terms but in increasing terms — on this entrepreneurial and investor class, which essentially says you can buy your way into Canada; if you are rich, you can come. I think it would be a better policy to bring in people who have educational skills, research skills, brains and energy in research. Those kinds of skills, in my estimation — and, I think, in that of increasing numbers of people who look at this topic — will bring more tangible results to our society than allowing people who can buy their way into the country to come in. I wonder what the minister's reaction is to those general comments.

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, I might indicate that the entrepreneurial immigrants who came into the province last year created 5,400 jobs and brought with them approximately $813 million of net worth. Under that category, there are two types of visas issued: one is conditional and the other is unconditional. The conditional visa takes into consideration more than just the net worth of the individual. It takes into consideration the skills to organize an industry and the skills to enter into a business venture that would provide employment for the province and the people who live here.

Out of all those jobs that were created — the 5,400 jobs I referred to — we only had 868 of those immigrants out of the 23,000 we got last year. It is not a major part of the total immigration into the province, but it definitely does provide very substantial benefits. In the investor category, the number of people who came in was about 156, again out of a total of 23,000. They have brought into the country funds in excess of $300,000,000.

The question the member asked is whether we shouldn't be increasing the emphasis on people — I think that was the question — who provide us with skills that are perhaps a little bit outside of business but are related to specific disciplines. I think these people do provide that, and in fact, as I said before, the numbers under this business category are not that substantial. The numbers for the skills you are referring to fall into other categories.

The areas in which we have received investment are wide-ranging: aquaculture, communications, the film industry, manufacturing, finance, energy, tourism, and so on. It is a wide-ranging involvement in the economy, and it's fairly substantial.

The investments that the investor immigrant bring into the province created, according to our estimation, about 1,500 permanent jobs for the fiscal year ending March 31. We anticipate further that an additional 1,500 to 2,000 indirect jobs can be expected from the spinoff benefit that results from those permanent jobs being created. It's a program that does bring much benefit to the province.

Many of those people bring specific skills. Regarding the disciplines — the question that was raised — think it's sort of a general environment. It's very difficult for me to pinpoint precisely which areas of interest would primarily come into the province, other than those that come under the economic class.

MR. CLARK: Just to follow up on the member for North Island about the investor and entrepreneur immigrant class, I really have some questions about entrepreneurial immigrant funds. It seems to me that the theory in terms of an entrepreneurial immigrant is that such an individual is going to create jobs in British Columbia or in Canada. I think I can understand the logic behind it, but it seems to me that what has happened is that local entrepreneurs have taken advantage of the program by creating funds and then going and soliciting wealthy people in other countries, basically saying: "Invest in our fund and you get into Canada." It seems to me, intuitively anyway, that that's a subversion of the initial intent.

I wonder whether the minister might, first of all, talk a little bit about the question of immigrant investor funds and the provincial government's role in that area. I'm not clear on this, but it seems that both the federal and provincial governments have to approve immigrant funds. I appreciate that the minister is conferring, and that is certainly desirable. Maybe the minister can clarify that the federal government and the province must approve an immigrant investor fund. Maybe I could have some understanding about on what basis and how those decisions are made by the province.

HON. J. JANSEN: What the member is speaking about is not the entrepreneurial investor; he's talking about the investor immigrant category, which is a little different from the entrepreneurial category. The procedure as it now stands is that we take the application and we send a recommendation to the federal government recommending the fund or not recommending the fund. We do that essentially on the basis of wealth creation. I talked about the number of jobs being created in the areas that these investments have happened. That's the criterion we use: we establish what kind of a positive economic impact that particular fund would have on the province, and on that basis put forward a recommendation. But the final decision is a federal decision. Again, as in all immigration matters, we don't have any influence without an immigration agreement.

MR. CLARK: I'm sorry, I stand corrected — investor immigrant fund. Is it essentially correct to say that the investor immigrant simply must invest in the fund to get into Canada? Is it correct to say that the investor immigrant simply must deposit whatever the number is — $250,000 — in the fund and that is sufficient to get into Canada?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, he has to have this investment of $250,000; that's one of the factors. Secondly, he has to bring with him a net worth of $500,000. Thirdly, he goes through the normal processing that any other immigrant would have in

[ Page 7726 ]

terms of health, criminal record and any other thing that the federal people feel is necessary to evaluate before they issue any visa. While you're focusing on this particular category, all the other elements of approval are still there. It's safe to say that the $250,000 and the $500,000 are the elements of the category this immigrant would fall under.

MR. CLARK: Are there limits on the investment from the fund? Does the fund have specific terms of reference whereby, for example, they must invest in British Columbia? What about interest on the fund and those kinds of questions?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, the investment must be in the province of British Columbia. It must also be invested in job creation industries — industries I referred to previously, such as aquaculture, film and so on. Those are the areas focused on what we feel are the sectors in the economy that are going to benefit from investment. So it has to be a job creation type of environment.

MR. CLARK: Does the fund have to get preclearance for investments? Or do they file some kind of annual report every year which is approved or disapproved of by the ministry?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's an offering memorandum, like a prospectus. It's a normal type of process like that which gets approved and then gets submitted to the federal government.

MR. CLARK: Does the provincial government actually approve the investment? Does the provincial government peruse the investment intentions of the company and give a recommendation? If the ministry or provincial government decides that they don't think the investments contemplated by the fund are within the category, what process takes place?

HON. J. JANSEN: The guidelines are available for this category. I would expect that when we have an offering memorandum, they would fall within the guidelines that have been established and that I outlined previously.

MR. CLARK: As in all investments, it seems to me that those are not always that easy. There must be a degree of latitude given on both sides. I would suspect that it's not that clear. I just wondered what the process is if a fund is investing in ventures which the provincial government finds are beyond the purview of the program. What kind of remedial action can take place? Maybe the minister can also tell us whether in fact there has been a case where such action might have taken place.

HON. J. JANSEN: While I've been answering all the immigration questions, Mr. Chairman, I've been answering on behalf of the federal government to some extent, because we currently don't have that responsibility. We have some involvement, but the policy questions should be asked of the federal government. The federal government monitors the investor immigrant category and the investor immigrant funds, so it's their responsibility to ensure that they stay with the offering memorandum.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister or his staff could tell me what the relationship is between the sort of management operations.... This is a large growth industry in British Columbia, it seems to me — not just investor immigrants and not just the fund, but there are now businesses formed to manage such funds. The biggest one, I think, is Canadian Maple Leaf Fund, which is in part managed by two distinct groups: the Canadian Maple Leaf management arm and also First Generation Resources.

I just tell you, quite frankly, that I'm not trying to get into anything nefarious or any great political point. But I'm concerned about ventures now taking place and a growing kind of industry of management arms of the funds. I'm a bit concerned about the funds being used for certain different circumstances. I just wonder whether there are guidelines for the management arms of the funds; and we get rather complex structures related to these funds.

[4:00]

HON. J. JANSEN: As I said before, the responsibility to monitor these funds is within the purview of the federal government. We would expect them to.... We have encouraged them to ensure that they do monitor as well the management of those funds, so that we don't create an industry just for management of investment funds. I agree with what you're saying. Were we to see that happen, we would recommend to our federal colleagues that they take action. To this point in time, unless the member has a specific example, we're not aware of an outstanding example of this that we can take action on fairly quickly.

MR. CLARK: At this point I won't pursue that aspect. Let me back up. On the Vancouver Stock Exchange, for example, there are currently companies — as you know, this is a classic exchange technique — which are listed as exploration or mining exploration companies, and then sort of shift gears and decide to move into another venture. There is one called Morris and Grey, which, as I understand it, has applied to be designated as an investor immigrant fund, and I understand that application is before the provincial government. I wonder whether the province has taken a position with respect to recommending or not recommending to the federal government the approval of Morris and Grey as an investment fund.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, we haven't seen that application yet. It hasn't come to our desk yet.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the answer.

Would such an application.... The reason I mention it is that, at the VSE, of course, there are some 80 or 90 press releases a day on that operation. A press

[ Page 7727 ]

release was issued, and it has been stated that they are attempting to pursue an investor immigrant fund designation. That was some time ago. I just assumed, obviously erroneously, that that had reached the provincial government. If one were to pursue that, would it be the appropriate course of action to go to your ministry first, or would it be to go to the federal government and essentially copy your ministry? I just wonder about the process.

HON. J. JANSEN: They could do it either way. They can come in and consult with the ministry and make sure they're aware of the guidelines, or they can deal directly with the federal government. Again, our relationship in this whole process is a recommendation. The decision rests with the federal government.

MR. CLARK: How many registered investor immigrant funds are operating in British Columbia today?

HON. J. JANSEN: There are about 20, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister tell me the total value of those funds?

HON. J. JANSEN: About $130 million.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) and I want to pursue some issues relating to settlement policies and settlement services for immigrants once they arrive. I want to start out by referring to a report, which the minister may have somewhere, entitled "After the Door Has Been Opened," which is a federal task force on mental health issues affecting immigrants and refugees. This report was done early in 1988 and has had fairly widespread attention.

The matter that reaches everyone's eyes right across the country is a chart on page 20 of the report relating to financial support for immigrant services by the top five immigrant-receiving provinces. In this list, we're talking about contributions by the provincial governments in these five cases for services to immigrants. We're not talking about very much money even in the best of the provinces.

It's interesting when you look at the numbers. We in British Columbia spent $8.76 per immigrant in 1986; Manitoba spent $226.73. Manitoba spent 79 cents per capita; we spent 4 cents per capita. Now in Manitoba's budget, we're talking about only $850,000 but B.C., which ranks at the bottom of this list, spent $110,000 in 1986. Before I go any further, I wonder if the minister can tell me whether in this budget — because I can't extract it from the estimates — the $110,000 has been increased, and if it has, to what number.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of that report, but I'm aware of it and have looked at it. The concern I have with it is that I don't think they've done their accounting very well in terms of those comparisons of costs. Manitoba takes all their costs and focuses them onto one area, one cost centre; we have our costs distributed throughout our ministries. We talked about this before; in fact, I think that issue came up some time ago. For example, our English-as-a-second-language program costs the government about $18 million, we anticipate. That's a fairly significant item.

MR. CLARK: Doesn't that come from the federal government?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, this is provincial funding.

As well, of course, in the humanitarian category, we provide, a number of services for the refugees who come into the country. So if we were to take those figures and compile our figures the way that we saw them from the standpoint of multi-ministry initiatives, I think the costs would be substantially different. We haven't done that.

One of the areas that we're talking about with the federal government is looking at some of these services and seeing how we can better target our assistance. That's one reason why it's important for us to achieve an immigrant agreement — to deal with these issues. As I said before, when we talked about immigration matters, we saw needs of immigrant women, needs regarding English as a second language and needs regarding settlement costs. That was the reason, in part, that we wanted to have an immigration agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, in the report, it says on page 20: "Some provinces, such as Alberta, work closely with the federal government to support settlement agencies. Other provinces, such as British Columbia, are outspokenly reluctant to fund services which, they argue, fall under federal jurisdiction." If that was an accurate description of the 1986 or prior policy of the government, is it still the policy of the government to argue that these are federal responsibilities?

HON. J. JANSEN: As I said before, the negotiations that are now ongoing are dealing with this whole expenditure and assistance program. Hopefully, when we have completed that, we will have a far more integrated type of targeting as well as a more beneficial program in terms of providing those services that have been identified. I can't comment on what happened in '86. All I can tell you is that we are working on this agreement, and hopefully some of the concerns that have been voiced to us will be addressed through this process.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope the agreement is reached soon and that a satisfactory agreement is reached so that immigrants in this province don't continue to fall between the constitutional cracks, which appear to be gaping at the moment.

In a speech soon after this minister was appointed minister — and I think it was the first speech that

[ Page 7728 ]

related to the immigration part of his portfolio, in October of '88 — he said that he wanted the province to spend more time on assisting integration, not in terms of immigrants losing their distinct cultures but in terms of assisting them in becoming productive in the workforce. He said that if you did a good job in integration, you didn't face other problems downstream, such as crime and increased health care costs I didn't hear the speech, nor have I seen the whole speech, but if the minister said that, I applaud him. Those are noble and accurate sentiments, and would that government policies reflected those sentiments.

I just want say this, and then I'll turn it over to the member for New Westminster. I want to refer to a report of June 7, 1989 — just a few weeks ago — from the Canadian School Trustees' Association. It is a report of 27 school boards across Canada. Keep in mind that immigrants do better in other parts of Canada, according to everything I've seen, than they do here in British Columbia. I just have a few selected conclusions I want to read into the record from the CSTA report. Immigrant students generally get lower standards of education, fewer materials and less staff attention because of the continuing dispute between the federal and provincial governments over who is responsible for paying for their education.

We have seen that in British Columbia in terms of the arguments about the additional costs of ESL for immigrant children. The result, according to the CSTA, is that as many as a third of immigrant students are at risk and many will be unable to compete as adults in the workforce. If we are talking about as many as a third of these immigrant children being at risk and therefore unable to compete as adults in the workforce, we're talking about an incredible burden, not only to these people as individuals and to their life and the fulfilment of their own dreams but to the rest of society in terms of costs. It's from people who are at risk or people who have not had opportunities for proper education that our jails become filled. It is from those groups of people that our hospitals become full. It is from those groups of people that our mental institutions and services become overloaded.

[4:15]

For very small amounts of money, whether it's federal or provincial — and I appreciate the minister is talking about negotiations — there needs to be an understanding that in order to integrate properly we need to do far more in terms of education, far more in terms of language skills and far more in terms of ESL than we are doing at the present time. I suspect the minister agrees with that, but I wouldn't mind hearing some comments from him about the need for upgrading ESL programs, the need to increase the number of teachers who can participate in ESL programs, to eliminate problems such as the one described by the principal of Strathcona Elementary, believe, in Vancouver East, who says that ESL training adds between $700 and $1,000 a year to the cost of educating a student. School districts usually pick up the tab. It is all left to the local taxpayer, and that's unfair. Our government is welcoming immigrants and we are front-line people, so we should be given the funding we need to educate them.

If in fact we want, in British Columbia, to have an active immigration policy — which we do, and everybody in this House does — then we need to have an active settlement policy as well, which I would argue is dramatically absent at the present time.

HON. J. JANSEN: We are in agreement with each other. As recently as yesterday we had one of our staff meetings with the federal government to further iron out this immigration agreement. You are quite right: one of the key issues is English as a second language. As I said before, we have invested $18 million in this program, and we are negotiating very strongly with the federal government because we recognize that it is very important to have that kind of resource given to our young people.

What the member didn't talk about is the services to immigrant women. I recall my mother being at home and looking after the family, and it took a long time for her to speak the English language. We can't overlook the needs of immigrant women in our society. They're not out in business; many times they're at home. They need to get assistance to ensure that they also integrate and that the children who are at home with them can learn to integrate with our society as well.

One of the first things I did when I became minister was to speak to the Mosaic graduating class. It was the very first thing I did, I think, the first speech I gave, and it was probably one of my better speeches. In any event, it was wonderful to see the challenge that had been presented to these people and their determination to succeed. It was an invaluable experience for me. I can reflect on how they took an integrated approach to dealing with the problems of integration and settlement. That's the type of thing we're trying to strive for as well on a larger scale.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to pursue both of the issues we have been discussing over the last few minutes: the matter of English as a second language and the very significant role it plays in the successful settlement of people in our province; and services to immigrant women.

Let me begin by asking the minister if he could advise us what perspective he takes into the negotiations with the federal government around the matters of English as second language and services to immigrant women. Specifically, is it the approach of this government that the cost of providing those services should be borne federally? Is that the main focus of the negotiations taking place at this time?

HON. J. JANSEN: As I said before the member came into the House, it's difficult to indicate what the agreement will look like. I'm not prepared to indicate what our negotiating position is at this point in time.

Our bottom line is that we want to have an enhanced — improved, if you wish — English-as-a second-language program in the province. In the

[ Page 7729 ]

'88-89 academic year, we had 4,375 new ESL students come into British Columbia schools, and we provided about $18 million worth of services to them. Of those 4,400 students, 55 percent were from families who recently immigrated to the province, while the other 45 percent were Canadian-born children. It's the latter, really, that I spoke about previously. It's those immigrant women of the second and third generation who need assistance, and we need them to counsel and to provide the assistance to get the children to also take advantage of the program.

I'm not sure if I answered your question. We are, through the negotiating process, trying to come up with a stronger, more efficient program. The question of dollars and cents is really something that is a negotiable item and is ongoing.

MS. A. HAGEN: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), in some of his recent policy pronouncements that come out of the initiatives of the Sullivan commission and the review of education policy in the province, has indicated that he will be looking to the federal government as the chief — perhaps the sole — source of funding for English as a second language, certainly for students or young people when they first arrive. I have a real concern about that perspective, and let me hasten to say that I certainly believe, as I think all of us in this House do, that the federal government should undertake a very significant portion of the initial costs of resettlement, particularly around citizenship issues and job training.

One of the things we have learned over time is that this whole business of learning a language sufficiently well not only to be able to speak it but to be able to communicate effectively, to really understand what language is the tool for... The culture, the ability to work and the ability to participate in a democracy are a much more lengthy task. Indeed, the minister has just alluded to that in his comments about immigrant women.

I wonder if the minister can, separate from the negotiations with the federal government, which surely will centre around significant cost-sharing, give us some idea of his thinking on what he, as a new minister in this field in the province — we haven't had a minister responsible for immigration before — might see as the most important initiatives he would want to take around on the integration of children and immigrant women. Looking at those two target populations, what would be the initiatives that he would want to see his ministry taking to assist in the integration, settlement and productive lives of children and women in B.C.?

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps I should relate to you my own personal experience. When I came to this country, I was five years old, going on six. The first time I was exposed to English language was when my parents said to me: "You're going to school today." I came into school and I had absolutely no support, didn't speak a word of English and had to adapt to the requirements of academic training as well as understand the culture of Canadians at that time. My parents, of course, couldn't speak English, so it was a difficult process to adapt not only to society but also to the educational system.

What we want to do — as I said before in answer to some of the questions that I had — is look at a program whereby we can get immigrant women who wish to become employed into the workforce. We want to provide programs whereby we can integrate them into society. Many times they are left at home and forgotten. We want to get them involved in society, involved in training the youngsters in language, and so on. What services are available? There's a wide range of initiatives regarding immigrant women.

As well, as the member has indicated, we want to have the federal government share in the costs associated with English as a second language. That's certainly a key item, given that they are the people responsible for immigration in the Dominion of Canada. We have said to them that although they share in costs and provide some settlement costs for a one-year period, it is insufficient to deal with the problems that we see.

I can't be more specific in terms of some of the programs, because, as I've said, as recently as yesterday we were in a negotiating process and that will continue. We're receiving fairly good response from the federal government, and I hope we can soon announce an agreement that would meet the objectives that I think both sides of the House share.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to ask the minister if there are any funds within his budget for this year for programs for immigrant women.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, when we were asked previously about it — a question regarding per capita expenditures in immigration — I said that we've allocated our costs by ministry. We haven't brought them together under one responsibility as far as accounting is concerned. But obviously Advanced Education, the Ministry of Education as well, the Ministry of Health — a number of ministries — have responsibilities for portions of the immigration policy, as far as expenditures are concerned and support services, and it's brought together by a multi-ministry committee that coordinates the action. I don't have it within my responsibilities as you go through the estimates.

MS. A. HAGEN: The needs of immigrant families for ongoing language training are certainly well documented, especially when we look at the fact that in the Vancouver school system, 69 percent of the students who require some assistance with English as a second language are students who were born in Canada but because of a very different approach from the approach that I know my husband's family had — his family was an immigrant family....

They are teaching their children their cultural language as a first language. Does the Minister of Immigration see as one of his responsibilities a longer

[ Page 7730 ]

window on this, and has he some sense of the extent of that window?

He noted earlier that it sometimes took a very long time for women to really have the language skills and the doors opened to their participation in society. We know now from educators that it takes children not two or three years but four or five years to really be academically competent in the language. We know now that the presumption that the particular methodology of having children have a similar experience to the minister's — namely, that they arrive at school on the first day in kindergarten and grade 1 not knowing a word of English, and it's anticipated that they will learn the language in the playground and in the classroom — is not working. Has the minister some perspectives on his responsibility here or his negotiations over that longer window, as we really try to develop a policy for resettlement, integration and a multicultural society?

[4:30]

I ask the question from the perspective that we're in the early stages of this, and I think it's useful to look at not just the short term, the urgent questions, but also the long term, because we know that those long-term settlement needs have a great deal to do with the productivity of people in our society.

HON. J. JANSEN: Obviously the government is very concerned about all immigration matters. In fact, that is one of the reasons why the ministry was created for the first time in our history, as the member has indicated. In fact, the English-as-a-second-language program is needed not only for those who have recently come into our country, but for the 45 percent of the children under this program who are Canadian-born children. I think the member had different figures, but our figures indicate 45 percent.

We find that to be fully integrated and to be functional academically — perhaps I've never achieved that level — it takes an average of seven years, which is a long time. So you're talking about a window. It's a very long process. We're really excited that for the first time we're addressing these issues, recognizing how important they are and receiving good response from the federal government. As I said before, I look forward to getting an agreement to deal with these issues, now that we've identified the problems.

MS. A. HAGEN: There's one specific area in respect to immigrant women. It has to do with language training being, in most instances, limited to women who plan to work outside the home — that is, from the perspective of federal funding. What is the ministry's position on programs for women who intend to continue to be homemakers? Is there any change that he's aware of in the federal attitude towards this? It's a very short-sighted approach, and I think that the minister's earlier comments would suggest that he agrees with that. Can he give us some idea of the state of the art with respect both to provincial policy and his understanding of federal policy, as he negotiates for some of these shared costs?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the focus we're working on: those immigrant women at home. It's an area that, sadly, has been overlooked. The federal government is very responsive to dealing with this problem. All I can tell you is that we've identified that as an important priority. The federal government has agreed in our discussions with them that this is an area we need to focus on and address. I think we will have resolution on this type of program.

MR. GABELMANN: Can I just assume now that the directory that separated international offices from Tourism offices...? Let me summarize what I think we have around the world now. I think we have seven trade offices, three tourism offices, and the chamber of commerce operates an office in Taiwan. Is that the situation?

HON. J. JANSEN: There are two tourism offices: one in Seattle and one in San Francisco. We operate the Taiwan office through the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. The other offices — I think you have those listings.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. On this list that I have, the southern California tourism office has been merged into the newly opened trade office.

Not to make a big issue of it, but can I ask two different questions? What kind of financial involvement does the province — directly or indirectly through the Trade Corporation — have in the office in Taipei? How are we tied in financially with that office? Can the minister — if he can't do it now, at some point later, by letter perhaps — indicate the cost of operating each of these offices?

HON. J. JANSEN: I will certainly make that information available to the member. That information is readily available. The cost for the Taiwan office is about $250,000, and it's run through the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. So I think that answers both questions. We'll certainly make those figures available on each of the other offices throughout the world.

MR. GABELMANN: Just a minute or two on Taiwan. The official position of the government of Canada is that Taiwan is a province of China, and therefore we don't recognize Taiwan. This diplomatic stuff of not recognizing.... We go in there with our eyes wide open, we eke out all the money we can, and we do all these things, but nonetheless we don't recognize them. I recognize the hypocrisy in all that. Leaving aside all of those kinds of questions, my understanding is that there is not to be any direct government involvement with Taiwan. It's for that reason that the government ministers don't go to Taiwan when travel is happening. How can the Trade Development Corporation, which is a Crown corpo-

[ Page 7731 ]

ration, establish quarters in Taiwan and jibe with the federal policy?

HON. J. JANSEN: Before establishing this relationship we did consult with — and we have the agreement of — the Department of External Affairs in how to set this up. We are falling within their guidelines. As you're probably aware, the federal government also has an office in Taiwan. Although it's not recognized as a federal office, it certainly is sponsored by them indirectly. ,

MR. GABELMANN: Just very briefly on China itself, my questions would, I think, have been very different a few weeks ago than they might be today. We don't have an office, and we haven't had. Were there — not are there, but were there — plans to establish an office in the People's Republic? The minister says no. Is the Trade Development Corporation taking a position in any respect at the present time about trade with mainland China and what B.C. companies should or should not be doing?

HON. J. JANSEN: The marketing effort in the past for China has been the responsibility of the Hong Kong office. We don't have any projects on the books, obviously, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation having been established just recently, but we understand that the federal government has put a moratorium on, for example, all CIDA and EDC programs. They have stopped their involvement until the situation in Beijing has stabilized.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to move on to the new international competitiveness board coordinator. The minister mentioned it in his opening remarks last night. From what I can see, this is useful stuff, and I am not critical of the initiative. I am curious, though, about the composition of the board, and I wonder if any effort was made to broaden the scope of a board such as this. It includes, from a variety of perspectives, a very limited cross-section of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister tried to develop a better cross-section and was rebuffed. Did he, for example, ask people in any of the immigrant communities, or anybody in the labour movement or in other sectors, to participate on this board?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, this is not a board. This is an advisory committee. It's simple enough. This is a brand-new initiative of the ministry, and as we see additional requirements over time we can certainly add those to that committee. It's an open-ended committee. I haven't formally structured it as a board or in any other way. It's simply a bit of a pool of resources that we can call on to give us advice to deal with this whole question of international competitiveness. Over time, I'm sure we'll invite views from labour, from the immigration side and a lot of other people.

It is a new venture for us, and it's very difficult to determine how you will need the information, or what information you will need. Until we get into it further, I'm sure we'll be developing those other resources.

MR. GABELMANN: I would just suggest to the minister, then, that he should get his press release writers to take the word "board" out of the press release. It's entitled: "The advisory board for the coordinator of international competitiveness." But that's obviously a minor point.

One of the many areas that an office of this kind needs to address is the whole question of language training. Asia Pacific Report indicates — this is January '89, so it's not too dated — that there are only 22 teachers teaching Japanese in B.C. at the present time, only nine teachers teaching Mandarin on a full- or a part-time basis, and enrolment in Japanese and Mandarin this year was 962 and 335 respectively. It's not very much, given the kind of initiatives that we want to take, and need to take, in future years, particularly when you compare it with Australia, for example, which has many times more students involved in language training, particularly in terms of Japanese language training. I would just make that point and leave it as one of many things that this board or committee or office might want to look at.

Finally on my list of issues is an issue that is perhaps more properly the territory of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), but it's one that is overlapping, and it's aid to developing countries. The minister will know that I have a question on the order paper. I appreciate this may take some time to answer, but I trust we'll get an answer sometime this session. It has been on there since the beginning of the session, and we have been here a while now. It relates to aid.

We also have the British Columbia agricultural aid to developing countries, which has been a program — if my memory is correct — which was established by W.A.C. Bennett in 1969 and has been ongoing ever since. It originally had a perpetual fund. I think $5 million was set aside for it, and the interest was used for agricultural aid to developing countries. In '76 the Bill Bennett government decided to abolish that fund, but nonetheless money did come out of operating revenue within for this program. It has not played the kind of significant role it could play.

I just want to end these comments by saying that our initiatives in foreign aid, whether it's of the agricultural kind, health care, education or any number of other initiatives, I think pay phenomenal economic dividends to us; not only to those countries and people we're working with but to us in terms of developing business links and contacts. Everybody knows that the business world operates on the basis of contacts, and if we can establish credibility by participating in those kinds of aid programs, then the province has a role to play, and a significant one. I think it's to our benefit in the long run, and I would just urge the minister to pay some attention to the programs of some of his colleagues. Have a look at it and see whether it should be in that ministry or in this one, and see whether or not there might be some ways to not only beef up that program — to make a

[ Page 7732 ]

bad pun — but also to develop additional efforts that we could do through young people.

[4:45]

There are a variety of non-governmental operations, like Canada World Youth and others, that establish great links between peoples. While the government shouldn't play a massive role in those activities, it does have a role to play, and I would encourage the minister to look at those questions as he continues on in his responsibility as minister.

Vote 38 approved.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,333,991 — approved.

Vote 40: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $9,250,068 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
VANCOUVER ISLAND-COAST AND
NORTH COAST, RESPONSIBLE FOR PARKS

On vote 61: minister's office, $290,010.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary and Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of the Speaker of the House, to introduce today from Signal Hill Elementary School in Pemberton the students from Whistler, Pemberton, D'Arcy and the Mount Currie area, the finest community in the province of British Columbia. I ask the House to give a special welcome for these people and students from Signal Hill Elementary School.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: It is with great pleasure that I present the estimates as the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast and the Minister Responsible for Parks for the fiscal year 1989-1990.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the support and hard work of my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long).

During the coming year these estimates will enable B.C. parks to secure the present and to build for the future, and will extend the valuable work being done in Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast through regional development.

Both of these regions are booming. In the past year 25,000 more people have found jobs in the Vancouver Island-Coast region. Mining companies have spent more than $20 million exploring and developing sites in the North Coast.

As minister of state, it is my mandate to facilitate and coordinate economic development. However, before I take any action, I listen to the people who live and work in these regions. Sixty community leaders in each region volunteer their time to sit on task forces which help establish local priorities. In the North Coast, I have task forces looking at forestry, health, transportation and other vital issues. In Vancouver Island-Coast, task forces are looking at technology and innovation, agriculture, aquaculture and transportation, plus other vital issues as well. Regional development is succeeding in these two regions, because my ministry staff and I are working with and responding to those needs identified by the people of the regions themselves and not from Victoria.

The residents and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), representing Port Hardy, said that they needed help in renovating their swimming-pool — the only year-round recreation facility on the north end of the Island. Last month I had the privilege of presenting Mayor Al Huddlestan with a Go B.C. cheque for a third of a million dollars so that this valuable community resource could be reopened.

Last year I supported the mayors' silviculture program. Young people on Vancouver Island were employed to improve our forests through this innovative scheme. The program was such a success that my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has expanded it to a provincewide program.

Needs were also identified and met in the North Coast region. Residents said that there was a serious problem with the emergency medical evacuation from remote villages. Helicopters were grounded because there weren't enough approved helipads or flight paths. I supported the funding of an engineering study of helipads. This summer we hope to build those pads, so that we can respond to emergencies in a more effective manner.

Regional development is an ongoing process, and one which my ministry will continue to actively engage in, in consultation with and never apart from the residents of the regions themselves.

I would like to say a few words about our world-class parks system. In a phrase: we are securing the present, and we are building for the future. Last December I set out to secure the B.C. parks system by announcing a bold new policy regarding parks and mineral exploration. I said: "A park is a park." I stated that there would be no further mineral exploration or extraction in any of our class A parks. This is the first part of our commitment to the people of British Columbia.

Following this, on March 22, I upgraded 12 recreation areas to class A park status. In five parks I added former recreation areas to the designated parkland. In four of our largest parks I reclassified recreation areas to full class A park status. I upgraded Kokanee Glacier Park to a class A park from class B status. In the remaining areas under our management and in future park candidate areas we will evaluate other potential uses before making a designation. This is the second part of the commitment that our government has made to British Columbians: no designation before evaluation.

As I indicated in my December 21 speech, I am committed to legislating the boundaries of our class A parks. I note with interest recent statements to this

[ Page 7733 ]

effect by my hon. colleagues opposite. I am pleased that from time to time we can look at an issue and agree upon the solution.

This year we've taken some bold steps in other directions to stretch the taxpayers' contributions to B.C. parks. We're expanding the number of parks where contractors provide visitor services. Many employee groups have taken advantage of these opportunities and have bid on contracts to provide maintenance services. I want to emphasize here and now that B.C. parks staff still manage and maintain control of all our parks.

In addition, we have reallocated more staff so that we'll have more back-country rangers this summer. Many visitors tell us that they value the wilderness experience offered in our back-country parks. We've also formed partnerships with private corporations which share our enthusiasm for parks and our marketing audience. Our corporate partners have strengthened our Open Doors to Adventure campaign. For every dollar we spent, they spent $1.50 on our campaign. This calculation does not include what they have spent on their own advertising campaigns which highlight B.C. parks; it doesn't include distribution of our magazines in their outlets.

These elements boost our exposure enormously. We are reaching millions more people through our partners than we could reach by ourselves. The people we're reaching are those who enjoy visiting B.C. parks. They are families out looking for adventure; they are families wanting outdoor recreation at a reasonable price. As I said before, these partnerships allow us to broaden our audience without expanding our budget.

We're involved in many programs which allow us to secure the present and build for the future. We're upgrading and modernizing many of our key facilities. In commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray Provincial Park this year, we plan to pave the road to Helmcken Falls, one of the most popular destinations in the interior. We're also developing a trail in that park which can be used by people confined to wheelchairs. As a matter of fact, we have special facilities for the handicapped in 38 parks throughout the province, and we're upgrading even more parks this year.

We already have an impressive parks system: 5.4 million hectares. We've protected 38 of the province's 52 types of regional landscapes, and we're striving to make sure all of these landscapes are represented.

Two million dollars has been set aside this year so that we can acquire new parks and ecological reserves. We also try to respond to the public demand for more parkland in specific areas. It's an expensive undertaking. Many of these lands are privately owned, but purchases are always negotiated at fair market value. Fortunately we sometimes find partners in this area as well. The ecological reserve program is richer because of support from groups like the Nature Trust of B.C. and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. I was recently able to declare Brackman Island an ecological reserve because of the generosity of these two groups. With a small amount of assistance from the government, they were able to purchase this pristine Gulf island, Our ecological reserve program is unique in Canada, and it truly secures the present while we are building for the future.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have a park system beyond compare and regions which continue to prosper and develop with local input and local leadership. I would like to introduce my associate deputy minister, Stephen Stackhouse. I now welcome any questions from members of the House,

MR. CASHORE: I'm very pleased to be able to stand in the House and respond to the estimates of the Minister Responsible for Parks. I would like to be able to say the Minister of Parks and feel that one ministry in this House was attending this vital issue; but as we're all aware, it's the Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast, Responsible for Parks. From my bias, I would like to see that value placed the other way around. I don't expect the minister to comment on this, but if he had his druthers, I expect he would like to see parks as the primary designation. I also think it won't be very long until parks is seen as a front-line responsibility in cabinet in a province like British Columbia, where we have such marvellous nature values; where tourism, wilderness, wildlife, recreation and so many aspects are something we're all justifiably proud of.

I would like to say to this minister that I welcome his appointment to this portfolio. I have been very pleased with his approach, and it has been a pleasure to work with him and with his office. We've found this minister's staff to be forthcoming with information and assistance when we have requested it. I don't have any hesitation, even though I'm being heckled, in giving credit where I believe credit is due. I would also like to say, for the benefit of other members of the cabinet, that I think this minister is setting some standards with regard to his approach to his work which they might well consider adopting into their own approach. Perhaps we have some ministers who have been here too long and are getting too long in the tooth. They've perhaps become a bit jaded and stale and jaundiced. If "jaundiced" is unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to withdraw it.

[5:00]

I welcome the fact that this minister has responded in what appears to be a very creative and appropriate way to the Larkin report. The steps I've seen taken with regard to Strathcona are steps in the right direction. There is work in that field that needs to be done in terms of establishing the boundaries properly. We also have to consider the fact that Strathcona, perhaps among all the parks in British Columbia, represents a focus where the interests of very fine citizens in this province have addressed this issue courageously. They've been willing to put themselves on the line and to risk what was to result in arrest. Indeed, the process they have gone through has been very difficult — some would say punitive — 

[ Page 7734 ]

yet they too had a role in producing the result we see before us now.

In making those comments, I would not in any way suggest that this issue is completed. I think we have a long way to go with it. There are some very pressing concerns, some which I understand are before the courts in the matter of compensation. Probably we're somewhat limited in the degree to which we can canvass some of those aspects, but I do know that some of my colleagues will want to address the Strathcona issue. As the minister is aware, portions of the ridings of two of our MLAs involve part of Strathcona Park. We'll be coming back to that issue later.

I think this minister finds himself at a crossroads where it's crucial that the opportunity be grasped and fulfilled to bring about a turnaround in the very inappropriate ways that this government has been involved in land use decisions, and to recognize that in the spirit of the Brundtland report, which recognizes the importance of the biosphere and of setting aside land — that is, land that should be left as much as possible in a wilderness state.... In recognizing that, when we think of our park system, we think of people of all ages. I've noticed that the minister has pointed out that some 38 parks — I may not have that quite right; I can't find it in my notes right now, but I think it's 38 — are wheelchair accessible. I commend that direction, and I think we need to go further in it.

I would like to point out to the minister, however, that the amount of money for park acquisition that comes through by OIC each year is $2 million. One wonders why it remains static at that level when we are dealing with a situation in the province in which we really need to take a look at much-expanded parkland if we are going to fulfil our stewardship responsibility not only to ourselves here in British Columbia but to the world community, in terms of the fact that this is a global village and that we need areas that are forested and that are maintained in that state for a wide variety of values, including biological ones. That, too, relates to the fact that the biosphere is in jeopardy in the world today.

I would like to mention that some of the areas we are going to be canvassing will be parks and the various classifications: A, B, C, recreation areas, wilderness conservancies and nature conservancies. We want to address some of the other situations, some of the hot spots throughout the province where various groups of people are looking at their area with regard to possible changes that could be coming about. One example of that, for instance, would be the Blackcomb area. We've had a great deal of interest expressed in that area.

Also there's the question of tourism and park values. We'll be taking a look at some of that a little later on, and also at the issue of the privatization taking place within our parks. I know that the minister will hasten to point out that the parkland itself isn't being privatized; the park services are being privatized. But I would hasten to point out that the privatization of parks has been the leading edge of privatization in our province. It goes back to 1983, actually — that's my understanding — and it's been continuing apace.

Again, I believe that this minister, if he really had his druthers and if he had any control over the kind of tactics that took place back in the earlier part of the 1980s, would never have allowed it to take place. I think he would have recognized the value of the people working within the park service who had helped to build a good system in this province and who had somehow become expendable. As the minister is well aware, the majority of those people were temporary employees, but they performed a tremendous service on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The fact that they could be left out in the cold with regard to having a future in the park system is an unconscionable thing. I think it's a legacy for this province, for this government and for its predecessor that is indeed shameful.

We're going to be canvassing that issue because we understand that in terms of the five-year process of privatization that has been underway during this phase since 1986.... I think we're just coming towards the end of that five-year program. I've heard it referred to as a three-year program, but as the government has bragged, it's almost complete, and there aren't very many park services left to be privatized. So we're going to be coming and looking at that later.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister will remind me that it isn't the park lands that are being privatized, but disturbing things are taking place out there. I am very disturbed to see the golden arches starting to become part and parcel of our park system. I'm not sure about this government getting into the process of combined advertising in our parks. One of the values of our parks is that they are seen, in connection with tourist values, as representing that within our province that we are very proud of, that which is pristine, that which is unsullied by drawing in other values — granted, values — somewhere people go to get away from commercialism. It really does raise the spectre of what comes next. Are we going to see hamburger stands outside the gates of parks — or will it be moose burgers? Are we going to start to look upon the wildlife in the parks as perhaps a commercial venture? Maybe this would tie in with the government's new interest in game-farming.

What we are talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is a steady process of erosion of that which is of value to the people of this province. When we deal with parks as representing the natural beauty of this province, then we know we're dealing with something we are very, very concerned about.

I notice that the minister, in his comments, talked about how proud he is of the way in which the park system is improving. I would grant him that with a great deal of caution. One of the things that I would like to have addressed during these estimates is the classification of parks in the most recent annual report, where it designates A, B and C, and recreation and wilderness areas. Under class A, for instance, there are 299 parks and the total area is 4,040,733

[ Page 7735 ]

hectares. It is interesting to compare that with 1985 — just to compare it with one recent year. We find that from 1985 to March 15, 1989, the figure went from 3,019,477 to 4,040,733. Under class B, it went from 1,229,782 in '85 down to 25,212, and so on.

At some point, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to just explain something about the movement of this. Is this through acquisition or is it through parks being moved around from one category to another? It certainly is quite a confusing situation, and I'm not so sure, when the totals are added up, that it really amounts to a quantitative improvement, that it's the kind of improvement needed if we're going to be doing things in the spirit of the Brundtland report. The point is, Mr. Minister, that when we are taking a look at park values in our province today, we really need to have a very, very broad vision.

I would point out that it was an NDP government in this province that doubled the park size in this province. And it's an NDP government in this province that is very soon going to double the park size in this province again. In doing that, Mr. Chairman, not only are we going to double the park size, but we are going to bring a new era of economic stability to this province, one that is going to ensure that we are able to have the kind of environmentally sustainable job creation that is desperately needed.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: What does it have to do with the estimates? It has everything to do with the estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. REID: Does Jack Munro know what you are saying? He would throw you out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair said "Order," hon. member. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam please continue.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, it has everything to do with these estimates, because not only does the Ministry of Parks have a practical responsibility; it also has a symbolic responsibility, in terms of enabling us to turn around the horrendous practices that have been taking place in this province when it comes to land-use planning.

If we can just expand our vision and get excited about this, Mr. Chairman, we can get excited about a province that is growing toward the kind of sustainability that we can be very pleased about. For instance, we could look upon our park system as being interconnected with our education system. I know there is a degree to which that is happening now, but we need to expand that concept so that children in our schools have an adequate opportunity to be in areas that are preserved and set aside and to learn about natural history in a way that isn't confined to the four walls of a classroom, but which is a hands-on experience. We know all too well that administrations of this Social Credit Party have removed the opportunity for children to have the hands-on experience that they should be permitted to have.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the minister to explain to this House whether or not he is going to agree to double the parks size in this province. If he says he's going to do that, we'll be very pleased that he was willing to take our advice. If he's not willing to do that, then he will need to give some very thorough explanation; but we're very interested in that.

Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, there's just one other point that I'd like to cover. The minister, being the very fine fellow that he is, as I said at the beginning of my comments, has this problem of having to be in bed with a bunch of scallywags over there.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, it's the Parks estimates, and the Minister of Environment is standing....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. I don't know if the member is referring to the minister's bedmates or friends, but either way it's unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the House Leader's remarks. Do you withdraw?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the term "scallywag" with all my heart.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I will not be accepting the advice of my colleague at this point. I do not wish to get into more difficulty at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is, if I may use a biblical quote, that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. We find that embodied in an announcement that was made by the minister, as well as our friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), that 250,000 hectares was being added to the class A parks.

My friends on the Social Credit side should be very pleased about that, and I thought they would clap when I said that, because that's something they did. But at the very same time that that was done, a million hectares was moved into a recreation area where mining exploration would be allowed to go on for another ten years. So you see, Mr. Chairman, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

So we have this schizophrenic situation. I hope that term isn't unparliamentary, because it does seem to me to be the case, right within the cabinet where on the one hand we have the good judgment of the

[ Page 7736 ]

Minister Responsible for Parks, who is wanting to do everything he possibly can — and I am sure that he must fight tooth and nail in cabinet — to be able to add some land to the park base, but on the other hand they take a million hectares, call it a recreation area and enable exploration to take place.

Do you know what is going to happen as a result of this? We're going to have the same fiasco that we've had to deal with in Strathcona Park, where people are going to be calling for compensation, because at that time the public, just as in the case of Strathcona Park, will have identified some other areas in which they do not wish that type of activity to take place.

We are going to have people on the Vancouver Stock Exchange speculating not on the minerals that might be in the ground, but on those recreation areas on which they hope they can carry out some kind of a scam and then be able to follow through when the government decides that no, that's going to be upgraded into a park. They'll be able to make their profit from the taxpayers of British Columbia, who will then have to pay compensation.

I think that we have to recognize that this minister is doing as well as he can on these types of policies, but unfortunately he has to deal with the rest of the cabinet. We know that that cabinet is not a sustainable-development cabinet, and we commend the minister for being able to achieve what he has been able to achieve. But given the attitude over there, it's severely limited.

With that, I would like to conclude my remarks for this moment, and then following that, just so the minister will know, we're going to be dealing with the minister-of-state aspect of the ministry after the next comment from the minister. I believe we may be dealing with Strathcona Park tonight and the privatization issue tomorrow, plus some other issues interspersed. That's as far as I can ascertain for now.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We have, as I've indicated in my speech, protected and secured the parks in a whole new way. That had started back in 1986, from the wilderness committee report. My predecessors were also part of that. Certainly, in conclusion, today the parks stand more secure than they have before.

But let me also just say for a minute that B.C. has protected more land in its provincial parks than all the state parks put together in the United States. I also should mention a few statistics here because of the comment you made that our parks system was decreasing. In 1985 under class A we had three million and a total of 4.6 million. In 1986 we had a class A park system of three million and a total parks system of 4.8 million. In 1987 we had a class A of 4.04 million and a total of 5.4 million. In 1988 we had class A status for 4.04 million and a total of 5.4 million. In 1989 we had a class A status for 4.27 million and a total of 5.4 million.

I've also mentioned that we have a number of regional landscapes that we are protecting, and that we are looking at every other landscape that British Columbia has. We will look at these with a lot of care

We're going to study these very carefully. We're not just picking a number out of the hat and saying: "Well, it should be 10 percent or 7 percent or 8 percent." We're looking at these very carefully. If there's a landscape that we feel needs to be protected in British Columbia's parks system, then we will work in that direction. But I do want to say that at the end of the day we will have more parkland than we did before this government came into office.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to address to the minister some issues dealing with his capacity as Minister of State for Vancouver Island — it's a long title; it seems to expand regularly. There are a number of issues I want to canvass, and I want to know the minister's position on these issues and what he's been doing.

Before I go into specifics, maybe the minister can tell the House and therefore the good citizens of Vancouver Island, and in particular our constituents here in the capital region, what are — I refer to his mandate which he says is to coordinate economic action and activity — his economic priorities for Vancouver Island and then specifically for the capital region. In a nutshell, where are you taking us as minister of state? What do you see as the priorities for the Island? Maybe you can give us one to five, because you have this superministry, this all-encompassing ministry. Maybe you can tell us exactly where your priorities are.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What we've done in regionalization is give every British Columbian equal footing in government and at the cabinet table. Being a member from Victoria, it would be more difficult for you to understand because of the fact we've always had some cabinet ministers whose arm we could grab on occasion and ask to represent certain causes or issues.

I can assure the member that as I travel throughout Vancouver Island and the north coast, I learn they've never had that kind of exposure ever at the cabinet table. I bring back the community concerns and recognize the grass-roots issues in working with the MLA of the region. I have also, many times, invited you and others on Vancouver Island and the north coast to come and see me at any time I could be of assistance to you, and that includes MLAs on both sides of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: I expected the minister to get a little defensive a little later on, but he gets defensive immediately to what I thought was a very reasonable question. He is the minister of state, and I just wished to give him the opportunity for a positive response in terms of how he has assessed the priorities on Vancouver Island and what the economic directions are that he wishes to take us in.

I assume, through his consultation process, that he's had some feedback. For over a year and a half I've had the statements the minister has just made in recycled news releases. We've had them over and over again — about consulting, talking and umpteen task forces.

[ Page 7737 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) leaves, and then we have another minister here who's just as bad.

I don't want to be doing this in a negative fashion. I'm asking on behalf of the constituents that both the minister and I represent and all the citizens of Vancouver Island. He's had quite some time now to put together — call it a strategy, a priority list, a shopping list. Where are we going on Vancouver Island, and specifically the capital region?

With respect, I don't want the same news release that was issued a year ago and keeps being reissued. Let's have some substance.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I just want to tell the hon. member that I'm not defensive. I just can't believe that you don't understand the concept yet.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about concept. What have you done?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What we've done is represent the concerns of British Columbians throughout the two regions at the cabinet table. That includes the concerns of Victoria and it includes the concerns of Port Hardy. As an example, they've seen me five times, and they indicated to me they've never had that sort of attention in their whole life. So if you want to talk about respective issues, we've got lots of those as well.

Just yesterday we were at the James Bay Community Health Centre and helped make sure they got their Go B.C. program. There are a number of things we've been involved in. But generally, the people of British Columbia, the grass-roots people, have never, ever, in the past history of British Columbia, had the exposure they have today.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't disagree. The minister can meet and consult with as many people as he wants; that's terrific. I keep hearing that over and over again: he's available to people. But somewhere along the line, because your mandate is economic action.... You said that: it's to coordinate economic action and activity. You've got task forces on various things, and you're spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money doing all of those things.

Somewhere along the line there should be, from this superministry you've taken on, some strategy and some indication after these umpteen meetings of where you think Vancouver Island is going economically.

[5:30]

Where's our future? What's your strategy? What are your specific ideas for the region we represent? I'm just asking the minister. He must, in the time he's been in this ministry, have had some chance to put some plan like that together. Maybe not; I don't know.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We've mentioned the task forces, and that's the key. It's the task forces and the regional people that are setting the priorities, not Victoria. What you want me to do is set the priorities. We're out there listening to the people through their task forces and advisory councils. We're letting them set the priority for Vancouver Island, and we're representing them at the cabinet table.

MR. LONG: On a couple of occasions, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and, in the past, the socialist leader have mentioned that they would put 12 percent of British Columbia into parks. I think the Minister of Parks has given us a good example of how this government has looked after the parks in his ministry and done a good job of it. I'd like to know, possibly through the minister, where the opposition leader and the socialists figure they're going to get 6 percent more for parks, if it's not going to come right out of the loggers' pockets again. The logging on this island, for instance....

Interjection.

MR. LONG: The member from the capital city of flowers and towers has no idea that when you take another 6 percent of the forest base for parks in this province — we have more parks in this province now than there are in any other province — the loggers and the industry that we depend on for 50 cents of every dollar will suffer.

I would like to know just where this is going to come from, and just how they are going to work it in and justify it to all the loggers in this province. Maybe all the parks can come out of the member for Prince Rupert's riding. They can cut the forest base there by 6 percent, and he can find out if that's exactly what his constituents want in this province.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I appreciate the question, but I can't anticipate where the NDP are coming from. So it's a question that you'll have to address to them.

MR. MILLER: I would hope the member for Mackenzie sticks around for the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). I understand that the government has a great fear of debating those estimates at length, which will probably end up being the second-to-last estimates that we debate in this House as we get closer to adjournment. I don't suppose there is any mystery why that is, because the government doesn't really want to talk about their forest policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member confine his remarks to the relevancy of vote 61, which is being debated on the floor.

MR. MILLER: The government doesn't want to talk about forest policy or have the full debate that we need in this chamber, which the member who spoke previously has alluded to. The fact that there is

[ Page 7738 ]

a great deal of concern about the preservation of a sufficient quantity of parkland is not something that will simply go away.

I address my remarks to the Minister of Parks. It seems to me that there has been a failure on the part of the government and of industry to be out in front or ahead on this issue. That has led to a situation that has been described by people far more eloquent than I where, quite frankly, there is a complete lack of trust on behalf of the citizens of this province when it comes to having the confidence they should have in the government to represent their interests in those fields, in terms of creating parks and preserving appropriate areas of wilderness in this province. We can stand up and rail, as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) likes to do, or we can deal with the issue seriously and identify ways we can indeed come out ahead. None of the citizens of this province or the members of this House will be any further ahead if the confrontation continues.

We must arrive at a point where there is some public confidence in the process. When we see the kind of devastation, and I don't use the word lightly.... My colleague from North Island has a blown-up photograph of Kyuquot. He asked a question in this House the other day and didn't get a satisfactory answer. He's got a photograph of a denuded hillside, completely stripped bare, and at the bottom of that hillside, along the water's edge, is a series of caves that are quite unique. They are the home for some sea life that visually.... I would think the Minister of Parks would say, even in hindsight: "Yes, we would have liked to have preserved that area. It was unique, and a relatively small area." Yet the picture British Columbians get today is of a hillside that has been completely stripped bare.

My friends in the IWA are no happier about that kind of ill-conceived forestry practice than anybody else in this province.

MR. MERCIER: Will they grow back?

MR. MILLER: No, they won't grow back, Mr. Member. That's a rocky hillside; it's fairly steep. The minister described it as an old temporary tenure. The hillside has been stripped, and we will never get a crop of trees like the ones we had. There are all kinds of examples of those very poor practices that have led us to the present day. Small wonder the people of this province do not have the confidence they should have in their government to represent their interests, and no amount of shouting about the problem is going to resolve it.

In fact, I was quite proud a short time ago to see my friends in the IWA marching and rallying outside the offices of Fletcher Challenge about the kind of waste and destruction that they daily see taking place in the forest industry. They want an end to it too.

Quite frankly, we had identified many years ago a process that I thought contained the beginnings, if you like, of a method of resolving these kinds of disputes. It was through the Environment and Land Use Committee and the secretariat that was attached to it. I can cite a particular instance in terms of integrated resource management. And I think this falls within the purview of the minister; certainly the minister is the head of one of the ministries that should be closely involved with what we're talking about, the issue of integrated resource management.

I had an occasion — and I'm still working on it, Mr. Minister, so I won't raise it particularly as an issue I want you to investigate, and I won't even name it — within the last week in terms of an area in my constituency where a logging plan had been prepared by a company and submitted to the Ministry of Forests, who are shortly preparing to make a response, and there has been no consultation with the Minister of Tourism or the Ministry of Tourism and there has been no consultation with the Ministry of Parks. My simple conclusion is that they really haven't undertaken my idea of integrated resource management, which is to consider all of those values that are important to us and to come up with a plan that is acceptable — that surely involves some compromise on all parts, but is acceptable.

Until we get to that state in this province, we will continue to have the kind of confrontation, hostility and lack of confidence that I regret is a feature in this province today. It doesn't do any of us any good. So the cheap shots from the cheap seats by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) do little to enhance the quality of this debate, Mr. Chairman.

I want to talk about my colleagues in the IWA, because they're waiting for answers from this government. They're waiting for answers on the critical question of compensation. Surely one of the features that we should adopt as a matter of principle is that when governments act to remove from production land that previously was available for logging, we have an obligation to deal fairly with the people who made their living on that land.

I recited some statistics last year in debate — I believe it was in the budget debate — and I referred to another country. I don't want to get too much into it, but I referred to an article I'd read on a similar situation in one of the Scandinavian countries, where — if I can draw a parallel — there was a conscious decision made by the government of the day that the particular industry that existed in this one-industry town was really over the long term not going to succeed. It was doomed to failure. I am not equating that to the logging industry; I am just simply using this as an example. The whole machinery of the state came to bear in that situation in terms of retraining and in identifying other industries that were suitable and appropriate to that location, in terms of protecting the interests of the people of that community.

That was a successful planning endeavour. In fact, they moved from shipbuilding, I believe, into some type of automobile production, and it was a successful endeavour. It didn't happen because people wished it to happen; it happened because the state took an active involvement in terms of retraining workers and looking after the interests of people.

The provincial and federal governments — with, I think, a large degree of support from the public right

[ Page 7739 ]

across this country — made a decision to create a national park on the South Moresby region of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That was not an easy decision; I think it was painful. There were many debates around this country. Nonetheless, the conclusion was reached, and the provincial government was adamant about the kinds of compensation required for that area to be taken out of production. I recall that it was part of the debates in this chamber.

The workers, who at that time were logging on Lyell Island, were compensated. They weren't compensated all that generously; they were given the industry standard, which is what working people have been able to negotiate with their employers. Quite frankly, it's not overly generous. It's one week's pay for every year that the individual has worked for a particular firm to a maximum of 26 weeks.

Someone who, in theory, may have 20 years of employment, in the final analysis is entitled to half a year's salary. I don't think that's overly generous at all; I think it's rather meagre.

MR. PERRY: Was that as good as what David Poole got?

MR. MILLER: My colleague for Vancouver-Point Grey makes an apt comparison, and one I've made before in terms of the compensation that we've seen in this province for the former principal secretary to the Premier, who received about $175,000 for having worked for the government for less than two years.

[5:45]

The workers who were working on Lyell were compensated. I believe the government passed an order-in-council to allow that to happen. As the minister is aware, when timberland is withdrawn from production, it affects the annual cut in the whole area. As a result of that, additional workers — I believe it's around 60 to 70; I don't have the precise number — were subsequently laid off from an adjoining area in Sewell Inlet. Those workers were laid off because we made that decision. They are every bit as entitled to compensation as the direct employees of Mr. Beban who are working on Lyell Island.

I put this to the minister last year. I believe the minister did take it up, but he subsequently advised me that it's not in his purview. I question that. I have some difficulty with that, given the previous statements that the minister has made with regard to his role as a champion of bringing local issues to the cabinet table. That's your job. There's been some discussion about what the terms of reference are for the ministers of state. Perhaps a grey area remains about what that role is.

Nonetheless, I see your responsibility as primary in this issue. I would like to know what is being done. I asked last year that speedy action be taken that these families who were facing these layoffs before Christmas be given some form of compensation at that critical time of year, and now we're into late June and they've received nothing and they don't know whether they ever will receive anything.

I'm aware of the federal position on this issue; I disagree with it. I think it's short-sighted. My view is that regardless of whether this becomes a shareable expense or not, there is an obligation — indeed a moral obligation — to provide these employees and their families with at least the same compensation that was received by the people who worked directly on Lyell Island.

I'd like the minister to respond to that, and the minister might want to respond as well to the issues I raised in terms of the desperate need to get ahead of these issues.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction first?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'd like to welcome my wife and my two children. Today is my wife's birthday and it's my first time at estimates, and so I'd like the House to make them welcome.

In regard to the member for Prince Rupert and his concern, we've had discussions regarding that matter and we've taken those discussions up with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). We were in Ottawa about six or eight weeks ago. We sat down and discussed that problem with Mr. Bouchard as well and with different representatives. So I recognize the concern.

There is a forestry compensation committee that I understand they are now discussing this issue with, and the planning and coordination committee of Moresby will also be involved. Certainly I'm sensitive to the concern that the member has, and I'm again quite willing to continue to bring it up. It's a concern that I have addressed before. I will continue to address the issue, and as I said before, I will give the community perspective. I recognize the concern, and I'll just carry on as I've been doing.

The committee then will report to the Minister of Forests and also report to me, I'm sure, when they come down with an answer to that issue.

The other issue that I want to talk about for a minute is that issue of confrontation. If you will recall, when I became the Minister of Parks, we had a confrontation at Strathcona. It was a major one and it was something that I believe we've resolved, and it has worked out nicely. At the same time, we've tried to minimize any future confrontations in the Parks ministry from there on in. We now have master plans in place. We have public hearings, and Garibaldi is a good example. Blackcomb wishes to expand. We have had a public hearing in Whistler; we have had a public hearing in Vancouver. We are really giving the people of British Columbia and those who are interested in their respective parks an opportunity to have input, and by that method we will try to resolve the differences that may come up.

MR. MILLER: First of all, dealing with the compensation issue, Mr. Minister, I think you must have some appreciation for the time involved in this

[ Page 7740 ]

process. Government's wheels move slowly at times. That's understandable, and I accept that sometimes there's no way around that. At the same time, it is very difficult to explain in June to someone who was laid off in December: "Well, we're working on it."

I raised a fundamental point. I don't quite understand the relationship your ministry has with this issue. You are the Minister of Parks. We are dealing with a park. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has statutory responsibility for the Forest Act, but there is no other statutory responsibility. Originally the lead minister on this issue was the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), so I can be forgiven, I guess, for not fully comprehending just who is in charge or who should be in charge, for that matter.

Individuals are not forest companies. I recall the length of time it took for the compensation issue on the Pacific Rim Park to finally be resolved; it was years. I think there needs to be some commitment to a speedier process or a commitment by the province that a failure to act on the part of the federal government will not see these people left out in the cold.

I don't know what we're talking about in terms of total compensation or what the total monetary value is, but it could be worked out fairly quickly, I am sure, in consultation with the forest company. I think there is a sense of urgency about dealing with that issue and not allowing it to simply be discussed for some length of time by a committee. As I said, the federal position has been made clear. I assume British Columbia disagrees with that position. The minister might want to advise what the provincial position is I am urging the minister to go beyond, or at least to advise his colleagues — if I'm not mistaken, there may be officials in his ministry who are on that committee or involved in those discussions — that the matter be separated out and isolated from all the other discussions that are being held, and dealt with in a very expeditious manner.

I'll ask the minister to respond to that before I make a few other brief comments on the whole issue of planning.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me say first of all that I have a sensitivity to the delay, and I appreciate where the member is coming from. What I can say is that I don't think the federal government position is clear Both sides have agreed to allow it to go to the forestry compensation committee. I can also say that the South Moresby agreement process is being followed just as it was stated in the agreement, even though there is a delay, and I have sympathy with that.

MR. MILLER: Unfortunately, I don't have the letter with me, but to my mind the federal government position is very clear. There was a letter from the federal government — the minister may or may not be aware of that letter — which stated that their view is that those employees are not entitled to compensation. That's a specific statement by the federal minister responsible. It didn't seem at all ambiguous to me, Mr. Minister, and you may wish to check that.

I repeat: I would like some commitment from the province that this issue will not simply languish while the two levels of government attempt to come to some agreement. Ultimately, if the federal government presumably does not change their opinion — and it's the kind of agreement that requires both parties to agree — these people will be left out in the cold. I appreciate what the minister is saying about his feeling on the issue, and his feeling that there is also a sense of urgency. I would like the minister to give me a little better commitment about what the province intends to do and some kind of time-frame that these people can understand and relate to. Really, I would prefer the minister to advise me that if the feds are not prepared — and I understand the delicacies of negotiations and all the rest — to go along with this, the province will, because they view it as a moral obligation.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In answer to that — and I guess it again shows my role — I wasn't willing to accept the negative answer from the federal government. In dealing with Mr. Bouchard, together we have agreed that it would go to the forest compensation committee. From my perspective, their answer is not a definite no, because that was part of my role in the sense of representing your area and your concerns. I said: "Look, this is a problem that we share, and we need to deal with it. It's not good enough to say no." We're following that through.

MR. MILLER: What time-frame?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I can't give you a definite time-frame on that, but I recognize it's urgent.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the minister's response, and I will continue to follow that up with him in the hopes of a speedy resolution of the issue.

Dealing with the question of planning, in terms of master plans, public hearings and methods, I don't think any of them represents the comprehensive approach that is required if we are to gain some measure of public confidence in how land-use decisions are arrived at in this province. Clearly there can be an integrated resource management approach to these issues.

The ombudsman's report is an example of a recommendation on two areas, both in the area of integrated resource management, which he concludes by saying that he feels the approach he lays out does in fact lead to sustainable development.... He's talking about an approach that involves people at the local level and the regional level who are involved in the issues — whether they be logging or mining or whatever it might be. Without that kind of approach, we simply will not get to the point where there's confidence in the process.

Unfortunately, in my view, we have all too often relegated both practically and in public perception

[ Page 7741 ]

the responsibility for arriving at these planning decisions in the case of forestry to the major licence-holders in the province. There has been a decline in the number of people available on the government side to monitor, to evaluate and to represent the public interest. Coupled with the reports that are made public all too often, the kinds of issues that I talked about in terms of the Kyuquot and other areas, unless we develop the process referred to by the ombudsman, we will never be ahead of the issue. The ombudsman dealt with the process for dispute resolution: "consensual dispute resolution, " I believe was the title of his recommendation. Without that kind of system in place, we will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.

I don't think there really is a master plan, if you like, in terms of forestry. I don't think we have identified the different types of areas that should be set aside. I don't think the work has been done. I've heard, for example, no broad-ranging discussion vis-à-vis the Carmanah. I have heard of other areas that are equally spectacular. But are we examining that issue on the broader base, or are we simply dealing with one issue after another? Step by step we lurch from issue to issue.

[6:00]

I think it has to be much more than the brief sketch that the minister offered in response to my questions. I very much fear, Mr. Minister, when I see polls suggesting that when it comes to critical issues in terms of protection versus jobs, a large percentage of people are prepared to take the protection. Again, I think it's a reflection of the lack of confidence that people in this province have about the planning process and about the government's responsibility to act as their agent to protect their interests.

I would like a little more elaboration on where the ministry is going, how your ministry relates to those other ministries — Forests, Tourism and Environment — so that we know that ministries are not simply looking down the tunnel representing their interests when they can, but that there is some true integration in terms of the responsibilities of the ministry when it comes to planning the land-use in this province.

I would like some response from the minister on the proposal put forward by the association of registered professional foresters, who are calling for a zoning, if you like, of the province. Just as an aside' in their last package on the issue, they recognized the need for additional park space. They don't quantify it, but they say that there is room for a vastly expanded park system in this province. Those are the registered professional foresters, who work probably more closely on the land than most of us in British Columbia. They recognize and accept — and indeed encourage — the development of expanded or increased parkland in this province.

Similarly, I assume that the Ministry of Tourism must undertake studies in terms of that particular industry: where it's going and what the requirements are going to be. So how is the system going to work, Mr. Minister? How are we going to get these ministries together? What's the forum going to be? What about local involvement? All these questions really are very serious, and they have been asked for a long time by people, and to date they are not getting the responses they deserve.

Similarly, just as a final point, how does the ministry view the position taken by the Minister of Forests in terms of the alienation of a significant portion of the Crown land into additional tree-farm licences? We know the kind of divisiveness that particular policy created in this province. I listened very closely to some of the very eloquent and impassioned statements made by people who are all British Columbians, who have a feel for this land and who understand its potential and understand how some of the decisions like Kyuquot have really not been in the public interest. I think it deserves more than a brief response; it deserves an elaboration, because in my view it's the central issue today in British Columbia.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We will leave the debate and allow the minister to answer later today. I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 42.

CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

HON. L. HANSON: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: In the audience we have an individual who is very interested in the legislation we will be discussing. He is Fr. Nunzio Defoe, secretary-treasurer of the Cemetery Association of B.C. Would the House please help me make him welcome.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a particularly important piece of consumer legislation because it is designed to help consumers during a time of emotional crisis and uncertainty. Currently there are about 23,000 deaths annually in British Columbia. Since our province is experiencing both population growth as a result of migration and an increase in the percentage of the population age 65 and older, the need for cemetery and funeral services will continue to expand.

Bill 42 not only modernizes outdated legislation but also addresses future needs. The bill will make it easier for people to understand and deal with the formalities involved in obtaining cemetery and funeral services. It will create a single statute, and it will also make it easier for those in the industry to provide services.

[ Page 7742 ]

There are now five different British Columbia statutes that regulate this large industry. The industry includes 733 cemeteries, 20 crematoria and about 100 funeral homes. To demonstrate the problems with interpreting the present statutes: at present, cemeteries are regulated by three different statutes, depending on whether the cemetery is operated by a church, a municipality, a commercial firm or board of cemetery trustees. I am sure that all of these organizations will find it much easier to interpret and abide by this new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on this subject, I would like to commend the many volunteers who serve as trustees in cemeteries throughout the province.

As I have already pointed out, the main reason this bill is before the Legislature is that many sections of the existing statutes are seriously out of date with current practice. In fact, the first Cemetery Act dates back to 1879.

Back in 1976, law professor Richard Gosse submitted a report recommending new legislation. Every minister responsible for the legislation from that date onward has undertaken to introduce that new legislation. In 1986, the hon. member for Burnaby Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who was then minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, appointed a task force with representatives from the funeral and cemeteries industries and other interested groups. This task force has been instrumental in development of this statute. I would now like to, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, thank the members of that task force.

The members were: Ada Brown of the B.C. chapter of the Consumers' Association of B.C.; Josephine Arland and Clarence Morin from the Old Age Pensioners' Association; Dr. Paul McKinnon from the Council of Churches; Peter Marshall of the Memorial Society of B.C.; Jim Darby of First Memorial Funeral Services Ltd.; Judy Meldrum, Neil Allert, Paul Wright, Doug Sharpe and John Paul Jones of the B.C. Funeral Association; Mr. TY Colgur, a former mayor of Cranbrook and legal counsel for the funeral association; D. John Jones, John Butterworth and Doug Allan from the Cemetery Association of B.C.; and last but certainly not least, Fr. Nunzio Defoe, who made a significant contribution in the preparation of the initial draft of this legislation.

This bill incorporates not only those parts of the five existing acts which we wish to keep, but also policy changes based on task force recommendations The five existing statutes are the Cemetery Act, the Cemetery Company Act, the Cremation Act, the Cemetery (Municipal) Act and the Funeral Plan Act.

I would now like to outline some of the main changes that have been incorporated into this bill. In the area of crematoria services, Mr. Speaker, they are increasingly available throughout our province. In fact, about 61 percent of the dispositions in B.C. involve cremation; that is one of the highest rates of cremation anywhere. This increased availability has been made possible as a result of improved cremation technology. This change in technology also means that there is not as much need for government intervention.

Mr. Speaker, our government also recognizes that local government is most familiar with local issues and is in the best position to decide where crematoria should be sited. Therefore the ministry will no longer require the location of a crematorium to be determined through a certificate of public interest. Decisions on siting crematoria will be made by municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will recognize that the B.C. Memorial Society, with over 130,000 members, reflects the interests of a substantial number of persons. Therefore for the first time this legislation will recognize the existence of that society and other memorial societies.

Mr. Speaker, in the legislation we will allow the reclamation of unused lots with adequate consumer protection. This provision is particularly important, because there is a limited amount of land available. Even with the increased use of cremation, the available cemetery land in some urban areas in British Columbia may be full in 50 to 100 years. In order to protect consumers, lot reclamation may occur only where the lot purchaser is aged 90 or over, and the lot being purchased must have been originally sold more than 50 years prior.

The legislation also makes clear that a lot holder may resell a lot. The lot holder may choose to sell it back to the cemetery operator, but is free to sell it to another party.

This bill also provides that perpetual-care moneys will continue to be held in trust to maintain cemeteries for all time. There is currently some $28 million in these funds, which provides a very important protection to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the major single change to the existing common law is a new provision which establishes a person's rights to make binding arrangements for his disposition. Arrangements will be binding, unless they would result in unreasonable hardship.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will prevent cryonics and irradiation from being offered as forms of burial services if there is an implied promise of a person being resurrected in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the funeral industry practices are spelled out by statute. These include the provision of information by telephone, the disclosure of price ranges of goods available and an obligation to keep adequate records.

An issue of major concern is solicitation. We all know someone who has been distressed by telephone solicitation immediately after a bereavement or while a family member is very ill. Some people argue for banning telephone solicitation of funeral or cemetery services; other people tell me that they appreciate the opportunity to make those arrangements in advance of need. The current legislation is split on the issue, with telephone solicitation banned for funeral homes but permitted for cemeteries.

In this bill, we have chosen to ban it, recognizing that any decision on this issue would not please everyone. Other jurisdictions are also examining this

[ Page 7743 ]

problem. For example, Ontario's current approach to telephone solicitation is the same as ours, but they are also proposing to ban telephone solicitation.

[6:15]

Where prepaid plans are sold, we have increased the amount which the seller can retain in cases of refunds from 12 percent to 20 percent. The reason for this provision is to ensure a uniform policy with regard to refunds. At present the 88 percent may be refunded with or without interest. Although the amount the seller can retain has been increased, the consumer will be better protected.

Money invested by a consumer in a prepaid plan must be held in trust until needed, and the balance must be returned with interest on cancellation.

Since there is an increasing practice of selling insurance policies to finance funerals instead of selling prepaid funeral plans, we have obliged sellers of such insurance to be bound by this act in telephone solicitation. This legislation will apply to any insurance policy in which the funeral home is designated as the beneficiary by the insured party.

We will have an advisory council. The Cemetery and Funeral Services Advisory Council will be established to advise me with regard to the act, and I will specifically be consulting the advisory committee in the development of the regulations.

We have streamlined the approval process for cemetery bylaws and rates.

The funeral industry, in cooperation with the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), has been upgrading itself with a fairly recent provision for the apprenticeship of embalmers. You will notice that this statute enables the government to assist these efforts. The funeral industry may ultimately choose to rely on the occupational titles and provisions of the Society Act, but this bill may assist the funeral industry in its upgrading.

People may be concerned over the increasing takeover of small firms in the industry by larger corporations. Firms such as Service Corp. International, Memorial Gardens of Canada and the Loewen Group have increased their share of the market. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that competition policy is a federal jurisdiction. To date there is no evidence of problems arising from the trend, but this bill does provide powers to protect against some of these concerns. For example, the minister can cancel or suspend the rates if lot prices are unreasonable.

The Memorial Society does not appear to be alarmed over Service Corp. International's purchase of First Memorial. One of the traditional protections against big sellers is big buyers. As the largest buyer in the province, the Memorial Society is in fact exercising that role.

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

MR. BLENCOE: I want to let the government know right off the top that we will be supporting the legislation. There are a few things I want to comment upon though. Generally we feel that it's moving, or has moved, in the right direction. I know that it has taken considerable time to come up with what we have before us, and there has been an extensive process of consultation, for which I commend this minister and, I believe, other ministers who were engaged in that process. I've had some interest in certain components of this industry, and I've dealt with at least three ministers on this. We have today, I think, the culmination of a lot of talk, debate, meetings and consultation.

We applaud the minister for making the decision to ban telephone solicitation and door-to-door canvassing for both cemeteries and funeral homes. He and I have had discussions about that a number of times, and even up to the day when he made the announcement that he was going to ban it, there was indication from the minister that he was not going to change the legislation. What happened within a period of 24 hours I don't know, but there was quite a dramatic reversal in policy. But whatever transpired — I've said this before — I applaud the minister for making that decision.

I have had some involvement in that solicitation issue for two or two and a half years, and I quite strongly disagree on this issue with Father Defoe, who believes in solicitation, I understand. I happen to believe that some things, some commodities and some issues in our society should not be subjected to the modern telemarketing strategy. There are those, of course, who say the market should determine everything, and everything should be wide open.

Other than those cemeteries involved in the phone solicitation and the number that I have been involved with in this region and have had some sharp remarks with, I have not heard anybody in the hundreds of letters and phone calls that I have received on the issue — and I'm sure that other colleagues have done the same — and not one letter from the general population saying that they support that activity.

I think it's a mark of different values, if you will, in Canada. I know that south of the border that kind of activity is very prevalent; anything goes. The cemetery and funeral service is a major multibillion dollar industry, and I suspect it's fairly lucrative in Canada for obvious reasons. South of the border, that kind of activity is accepted and condoned. But up here I think we have a different view. I know the citizens who approach me in letters and phone calls are deeply offended by the process and by the phone call from a cemetery — sometimes a very high-pressure call and sometimes at a totally inappropriate time. Constituents of mine tell me that they've just come out of hospital, or a family member had just come out of hospital or was going into hospice or was going in for a heart operation, and the day before they got a phone call asking if they want to arrange a funeral or make cemetery arrangements.

I think some values — maybe they're traditional; maybe they're old-fashioned — are worth upholding. What we're saying here and what the minister has supported — and we're pleased that the government is behind this — is that the issue is personal; it's family; its religious, obviously, many times. It

[ Page 7744 ]

shouldn't be subjected to — and I know we all get mad at it sometimes — those horrible, annoying phone calls as we arrive home. We're sitting down and we get someone trying to sell us a vacuum cleaner, carpet shampooing — whatever.

MRS. GRAN: We all agree. Goodbye.

MR. BLENCOE: Well ' Mr. Speaker, you've got to realize that this has taken some time. I think we need to go on the record as applauding the minister and the government for taking this action.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave that portion, but just say that I think this is the correct move in that area.

However, there are some areas that I think will need to be looked at in future. I have requested the recent bereavement legislation from Ontario — substantial legislation — which I was told by the minister's staff was imminent, going on the floor. I am not going into the detail of comparing two pieces of legislation, but I think — I can be corrected; it's a long piece of legislation — there is one component from that Ontario legislation missing. A bone of contention here in British Columbia has been cemeteries either being bought out or affiliating with funeral homes, and that has created a number of problems and a number of concerns. In Ontario, I was interested to note, they are not going to allow the integration of a funeral home and a cemetery; they have to be separate operations. I don't see that in here and I know it's been an issue.

In my riding there's a well-known cemetery phone-soliciting and, of course, immediately handing over the business to a funeral home, which sends out its representatives to make the sale, etc. In Ontario, I notice, the bereavement legislation — and the minister may want to comment on that in closing debate — has drawn a line. The operations are separate, and that's not being allowed in Ontario.

The minister made some comments about buyouts. I think I may have — I can't recall — written or talked to the minister about this. I have certainly talked to a number of independents — and there are very few independent funeral homes left today. There is concern in the industry about corporate integration and the buy-outs in the industry; it's worrying.

Although the minister said there doesn't seem to be concern, there are major moves by SCI — the American Service Corp. International — and other conglomerates to affect the industry dramatically. I don't know whether we can do anything about it; it's a difficult one to deal with: foreign ownership, integration and, of course, in the end a monopoly of an essential industry in our society. I have seen the rundown of the losses of independent funeral homes in the last few years by SCI or the Loewen group buying out. There are some others; I don't have the names in front of me — American-based; SCI is the biggest one. I think it's something we may have to look at. I recognize that the minister will probably respond that it's a federal responsibility, and I suppose that under the free trade agreement there is nothing much we can do about it. But I hear from the independent funeral homes, especially in my community, that they are very concerned about these moves, and as I say, there are very few left.

There are a couple of other concerns in the legislation that we may canvass in committee, Mr. Speaker. They involve the pre-need, prearranged plans. It is my understanding that the industry lobbied intensely for an increase in their administration fee from 12 to 20 percent — a substantial increase. This means that operators need only deposit 80 percent of the payment into a trust account for p rearrangements, and that consumers, if they decide to cancel their contract, will only be entitled to an 80 percent return. That is a substantial jump from 12 to 20 percent, and I think we may talk about that in committee. I don't know how they came to that figure, but the minister may hear about that particular issue.

There are a few other minor issues that we may wish to canvass during committee stage, but all in all we support the legislation. Particularly in the consumer areas, it's welcome.

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

[6:30]

HON. L. HANSON: It is interesting to note that this piece of legislation, which has been drafted, as my arithmetic tells me, over the last 13 years, has finally come to the House. As I understand it, the Gosse report was tabled in 1976.

Certainly it is the culmination of extensive consultation. I would have to say that during the consultation process it is not possible, as it is very seldom, to reach complete agreement on every issue. But I can certainly assure this House and the members opposite that general agreement was received, with some exceptions, in the consultation process.

I know that we will get further into this bill during the committee stage, so I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 42, Cemetery and Funeral Services 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. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 35.

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7745 ]

On section 7.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to raise a question here regarding the possibility of a former spouse appearing with a court order or a written agreement which states that that person is the real recipient, after part but not all of the benefits have been paid out to the recipient who is designated. Can the remaining payout be to the former spouse? Is there any process whereby, I guess in a retroactive sense, a person who has documentation that he or she should be the real recipient can come into the situation after benefits have been paid out to the person designated in this particular clause? Is there any means by which the former spouse or partner can have any rights to the pension?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The question is of a legal nature, and I'm afraid I'm unable to answer it fully. What we are trying to do is to clarify the current wording and to clarify the problems we've had in the past. I would have to assume that the deceased person would have had a will. Suffice it to say that if they did not have a will, then they certainly had an executor of their estate.

The question is of a legal nature, and I am unable to state categorically what would happen in an instance such as the member opposite described.

MS. A. HAGEN: I must say that I haven't read this as carefully as one might need to, but the question has arisen. Perhaps the minister responsible and I might just explore it. Not to his knowledge or his understanding is there any means by which a former spouse may seek remedy. There is an obvious remedy through a civil suit by the former spouse with the documentation that he or she might have of the person who has been so named. Is there any means by which the minister can clarify that? I understand the intent of the legislation, and addressing this clause was an attempt, really, to see how this might apply throughout the bill.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's difficult to get into the details of each case across the floor at committee stage. If the member would so choose, I would offer her the opportunity to explain the problem she has in her files and give us all the details. I will take it up with Mr. Cook of the Superannuation Commission and see that a full answer is given.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just ask a question under section 10, Madam Chair. It will really encompass questions about a number of organizations.

Could I confirm that various pension acts as they affect teachers, college people and some of the specific bodies of teachers...? Have all of them been consulted about these clauses, and does the bill go forward with their acceptance that these changes are ones that they endorse and support and that they consider to be in the best interests of their members?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The idea in section 10 is streamlining the system, cutting red tape. Currently every time employees of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, or any of the other bodies named there, choose to belong to the pension plans — which they always do — there must be a separate order-in-council on each and every person who so chooses. It's cumbersome, and section 10 will clarify and streamline the entry into the various pension plans.

MS. A. HAGEN: My question is whether these clauses have been put forward in consultation with, in this case, the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

HON. MR MICHAEL: I would be very confident that if that question was asked of Mr. Cook, the answer would be yes.

Sections 10 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to section 1, which has to do with the amendment to the Ecological Reserve Act, as I understand it, it adds a reference that was deleted by mistake: the words "Mining Right of Way Act" after "Petroleum and Natural Gas Act."

just one comment. According to the act, it's administered by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm just wondering why that hasn't been corrected, if I'm right in my understanding that the statutes haven't been updated in that regard. The minister is just getting a copy of the statute, so he can take a look at that.

[ Page 7746 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I see the member's point. That reference in the brackets, "Act administered by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, " is out of date. As a matter of fact, it's a couple of years out of date. I'm sure that since the cabinet reorganization of 1986, ecological reserves have come under the purview of the Ministry of Environment. So the statute you're looking at is out of date.

MR. CASHORE: I would assume from the minister's comment that they're anticipating correcting that in time, but not during this present series of amendments.

With regard to the insertion of the Mining Right of Way Act, of course, when you're looking through these acts it's kind of convoluted sometimes to try to understand exactly what's going on, and I guess that's why we have the opportunity to canvass these in committee stage. As far as I can see, we agree with its insertion into the Ecological Reserve Act, since it restricts the power of the Mining Right of Way Act to allow rights-of-way over ecological reserve lands. I would ask the minister whether my interpretation of that is correct, or whether he might be able to expand on the reason for this amendment.

[6:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has got it right. It would allow the activity that's allowed under the Mining Right of Way Act to occur in an ecological reserve where the Crown felt it was the appropriate use. The Ecological Reserve Act, section 5, does say that dispositions can be made under certain acts, including the Mining Right of Way Act. So we can dispose of land under those acts for those purposes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just a further clarification You say that this allows a right-of-way through an ecological reserve?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the way I would read it. I know you would sense that with some shock, and I can assure you that given the significance of ecological reserves, a government — any government — would do this at some peril. Nevertheless, that provision is allowed in the legislation.

It includes a variety of other dispositions under other acts: Land Act, Forest Act, Range Act, Water Act, Mineral Act, Mining (Placer) Act, Coal Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, Mining Right of Way Act.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That does raise some concern, particularly given the concerns last year around the mineral tenure amendments that were put to the House dealing with placer mining, as I recall. I would ask the minister to relate this particular amendment to our earlier discussions around the opening up of placer mining in the province. Is this a further erosion of the province's ability to protect the environment? It certainly seems to be the case.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess that's a fair criticism. However, I think you have to consider that we already have the provisions under a variety of other acts to dispose of land for certain purposes, and this would be one of them. Again, I can assure you that, given the thought that's put into ecological reserves, a government would do it at its peril and probably with considerable difficulty.

What we do is simply allow for that provision to be in the legislation. It doesn't change the intent of the Ecological Reserve Act, because there are many provisions now for land to be disposed of in that fashion. So it simply adds another act that could come into play for those purposes.

I guess it could be seen — and it's a fair comment to see it — as threatening to ecological reserves, but since the provision is there already, we have to accept that we wish to do this. I repeat: any government tinkering with ecological reserves would do so at considerable peril, considering the amount of profile and thinking that goes into establishing them in the first place.

MR. CASHORE: From my earlier comments and the interpretation that the minister has given to the question asked by the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley, I find myself really confused now with regard to the actual purpose and function of this amendment. If I heard the minister state correctly that this authority is really contained under other statutes, then one has to ask the obvious question: why would it be included in this statute? Perhaps I didn't hear you correctly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Listen. I've got to apologize, because I simply read the references and saw it as a typo or a deletion. But in fact, it's the other way around. I'll read section 5 of the Ecological Reserve Act to you:

"After April 2, 1971, any area established as an ecological reserve under this act shall be immediately withdrawn and reserved from any further disposition that might otherwise be granted under any act or law in force in the province including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing dispositions under the Land Act, Forest Act, Range Act, Water Act, Mineral Act...."

This allows us to take land out of land administered under the foregoing acts and put it into ecological reserves. So I'm sorry; I've got it backwards. That's my reading of it.

MR. CASHORE: I want to confess that is also my wording of it, but I have the greatest respect for the mind of the former Environment critic, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. Now I have some concerns.

If we have a consensus on that, I think that I can.... I see her smiling and nodding with relief.

Apparently this amendment is being made to clear up an error, and it's confusing, because in the Ecological Reserve Act — the revised statutes — the reference to the Mining Right of Way Act is already there in section 5. It has been clarified, as a result of a

[ Page 7747 ]

phone call to a member of the civil service, that pursuant to section 67 of the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act adopted in 1988, the Mining Right of Way Act was accidentally repealed.

There must have been an order-in-council also passed that brought section 67 into effect. Since they have apparently changed their minds and intend to readopt the Mining Right of Way Act, it is necessary to readopt this amendment under the Ecological Reserve Act.

I would note that the Mining Right of Way Act is on the list — and this is the nub of the question I'm coming to — to be introduced. It says on the list that we are to receive it during the week of June 19, and I don't think this bill therefore should be passed until that one has been.

I therefore want to ask the minister, in view of the foregoing, if he would agree to wait until after passing the Mining Right of Way Act to pass this section.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess that would make for some legislative and statutory purity, but I think my answer would be no, because this embellishes the Ecological Reserve Act. With that said, I would want this section of this amending act to stay as it is, in spite of the fact that the other legislation may or may not be before us. Nevertheless, even if it does come, I would like this in here simply because it does embellish the Ecological Reserve Act, and I think it would be foolish to not use this opportunity now to pass it,

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chair, I would just point out that it would seem to me on this type of situation that it might behoove the minister to discuss this with legislative counsel. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to draw the issue to his attention. That's all I have to say on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CASHORE: Section 2 deals with the Environment Management Act, and it states in the notes that it "clarifies that persons making decisions under the Water Act, Pesticide Control Act and Wildlife Act have full party status in an appeal before the Environmental Appeal Board."

First of all, I'd like to ask the minister: why does this amendment not provide for interveners, for instance, to have full party status?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is not government policy.

MR. CASHORE: I think that therein lies the rub One of the things that we are finding as we look at the burgeoning interest that members of our society have in the environment is that we have some extremely worthwhile, helpful, valuable input, and sometimes, I would say, the type of input that actually saves the day.

We are finding also — and I am sure the minister would agree with this — that often people in an intervener role are freely providing very highly qualified research and expertise. I also recognize that there are instances where people intervene without having adequate knowledge and information, but then again, in some instances it is because the information they should have in order to be able to formulate their opinions isn't readily available.

The minister has said that this is not policy, and I think it shows that there is a problem with the philosophy of this government when it comes to supporting measures that would be consistent with Brundtland and with an appropriate concept of sustainable development.

One of the things that comes to mind when we look at this section is a debate that took place in this House a year ago — I think it was over Bill 50, if I am not mistaken. I recall that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley at that time raised some points about the recommendations of the ombudsman in his report on pesticide regulation in British Columbia.

It is interesting that this minor amendment — or at least seemingly minor — would now be taking place in the Environment Management Act, but here this act has been opened. I would have to ask the minister why he has not used this opportunity to legislate at least recommendations 6 to 11 of the ombudsman's report, which refer specifically to the Environmental Appeal Board. I would be interested in the minister's reasons for omitting that at this time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Really, if you look at it, the standing and the status of persons appealing to the board or the panel is expanded in this act from what we had previously, if you look at EMA in its form. It's quite a bit shorter and has only two sentences about who may appeal. If you look at the amendments that I am proposing, you will see that they do expand the status. I make no apologies for that. They might not be entirely what you'd like to see, but nevertheless, it is an expanded status of those who can appeal. The board or panel, as it says, "may hear a person, including a person the board or a panel invites to appear before it" — that's at the invitation of the board — or "on request of the person, a member of the body, or a representative of the person or body, whose decision is the subject of the appeal or review, shall give that person or body full party status."

So standing and status for the Environmental Appeal Board are expanded considerably, I would say. It expands it to the Water Act, the Pesticide Control Act and Wildlife Act.

[7:00]

With respect to the question you asked yesterday about waste management, that reference is already there in the Environment Management Act, so that is included. The four major acts that I administrate now

[ Page 7748 ]

have this provision for appeal, and I think it's appropriately broad.

MS. EDWARDS: I just would like to say to the minister that you have broadened it, but it still does not recognize the very thing that my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam mentioned; that is, the interveners, in fact, in some cases would not necessarily be a part of the party whose decision is the subject of the appeal or review. That particular opportunity to be able to make presentations to hearings or reviews is requested frequently by very sincere and interested members of the public. So I think that point should still be considered by the minister. Although there is a broadening, there is an opportunity, certainly it would be a wise thing to broaden it further.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm reading Environmental Appeal Board again under EMA and have to tell you that there are just two current provisions. This is from the act before it's amended: "In an appeal, the board or a panel may hear any person, including (a) a person, a member of a body or a representative of a person or body who made the decision or order that is the subject of the appeal or review, and (b) any other person the board invites to appear before it." With that said, I have to resubmit that we have expanded this considerably, and at this point I think that's the extent to which we wish to see the Environment Management Act expanded.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the significant thing the minister has said here is that the ombudsman's report of March 1988 is not government policy and never will be government policy. Back in June 1988 the ministry brought in a piece of legislation that directly flew in the face of the ombudsman's report, where the ombudsman recommends that the process be an open one, an inclusive participatory process that involved as many people in the community as is possible to achieve the community interest.

What we have here is a decision, first of all, not to deal with the ombudsman's recommendations of '88, but to pick and choose little parts of it. The legislation before us gives special people special status. It gives the Environmental Appeal Board or a panel the power to pick someone and give them full party status but does not make that next step to give power to local communities to participate.

I want to emphasize that the ombudsman's report of '88 said that there was a need and an importance to give the ability to community groups to hear the concerns of other citizens and for there to be a broad opportunity for cross-examination. There, specifically, the ombudsman is asking that community groups be extended that privilege of cross-examination, and the minister has decided not to open that up to communities but instead to give the appeal board, again, another opportunity to have a select group of people have access to that information and access to the power to cross-examine.

I'd like to ask the minister why he chose not to follow the ombudsman's recommendations and what problem he has with the recommendations. Perhaps if the minister could answer that, I have another question as well.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We of course reviewed those comments. We feel the process is working fairly well now. It's a very large board. It has expanded membership; it has considerable expertise. I think it functions extremely well in the province. There may be some concerns expressed by some, such as the ombudsman, and I do appreciate his review of the legislation. Nevertheless, we feel that this is appropriate legislation; it's fair. It does give appeal to those people who have status, who feel aggrieved by decisions of a director, and it gives them an appropriate body to listen to their concerns. We have expanded it to hear more people, to further define who does have standing, and we feel that's appropriate. We may not agree with every wish that you have, but we feel this is a fair treatment of people who would come before the Environment Appeal Board on the decision of any director under any act that I administer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to clarify that the concerns are not solely concerns of this member or of the opposition but concerns that have been raised both by the ombudsman and by communities and individuals throughout the province.

Two questions to the minister: do you reject out of hand the ombudsman's recommendations? Secondly, did the appeal board ask for this particular change to the act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will answer the second part of the question, and I will ask you to repeat the first part.

No, the appeal board did not ask for these changes. The changes were drafted by ministry officials in consultation with me, as is done with all of our legislation, and with legislative counsel, who supply opinion to us on the basis of law. It's in that way that legislation is generally drafted in the province.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of your question; I was reading a note. Would you mind repeating it?

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question is whether the minister rejects the ombudsman's report of March 1988.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, let's not characterize it that way. Let's say that I have sought my own counsel in drafting amendments to the Environment Management Act with respect to environmental appeals.

Section 2 approved.

[ Page 7749 ]

On section 3.

MR. CASHORE: We're getting into a number of sections dealing with the Water Act. Again, we look at the explanatory note, which states: "allows the comptroller or the regional water manager to give directions to applicants for water licences on such matters as filing applications." The point that is left out of the explanatory note is that it doesn't say where that power is taken from. I think the power has been within an order-in-council. So this amendment effectively means that the application procedures do not need to be specified in law but can be made up as we go along.

It also means that with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council giving over the authority to set these procedures to the comptroller of water rights — or the deputy comptroller or the acting comptroller or the regional water manager — it opens up the kind of decision-making that can take place under this procedure to one in which there is much less control. I think that's a real concern when we're dealing with water rights.

I wonder if regulations have ever been passed setting out the application procedures and rental fees. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that, but I would like to ask him what the current application procedures are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be quite frank with you. What was happening was that we had a complicated system of filing applications, so we just sought advice from the regional manager anyway. It was our position that in order to cut the red tape, speed up the process and allow for regulations to be made in the field by the appropriate people who would be giving us the advice anyway, we'd simply give them the power to do it. We still have a water comptroller, we still have a deputy minister and we still have a minister, so people who feel aggrieved by the filing of applications or any other procedure of a regional manager can certainly bring that concern to us.

This is taking powers away from Victoria and giving them to appropriate people in the field, essentially because those appropriate people in the field were giving the ministry advice on these issues anyway. So why not let them make the decisions, particularly on some minor items like rentals or the filing of applications? That's the nub of this legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister says "instead of regulations, " and certainly that's what the amendment seems to say. Since there is an extreme range of situations under which people, businesses, institutions or companies of various kinds would apply for water licences, it seems to me that we're giving.... And I generally recognize what the minister is saying, because it's important that regional managers have some say in decisions that are going to affect their regions and in which there will be input from local knowledge. Nevertheless, there is likely to be some sort of central idea of what is required, and certainly there must be some regulation.

You said that the regional manager would lay out the regulations. I'm curious to know whether that is a fair description of what will happen,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that certainly isn't. As I said, in the notes here we talk about such matters as filing of applications. If you'll just give me a second I'll get the act out and refresh my memory with respect to the actual wording. I have the Water Act here.

The first section is just better directions in terms of the wording. Where the act did read, "shall comply with regulations with respect to filing the application," it will now read, "...comply with the directions of the comptroller or the regional water manager" with respect to filing the application. That's rather minor. Then "...paying the prescribed fees and rentals" — we strike out "rentals, " and of course fees would apply to rentals.

That is the nub of section 3. It simply clarifies the ability of the comptroller or the regional water manager to give directions, as it says in the explanatory notes.

MS. EDWARDS: One assumes then that there still is some central set of regulations that applies to everyone relatively equitably across the province, but that the regional manager now will give directions related to that set of regulations.

[7:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's correct. Regulations are regulations: they're in a book of regulations, as you know, like statutes; they're numbered, they're provided for, everybody has them. The only difference is that regulations can be changed by order-in-council; but that's a different subject. What we have here is simply clarification of section 8 of the Water Act, in my estimation.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: One would suppose, however, that a regional manager could in fact take an application that has no reference to regulations, if the act is written this way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that's not correct. If you have the act there, you'll see that every person who applies for a licence shall comply with the directions of the comptroller or the regional water manager. Of course, they would have to comply with the regulations published under the Water Act.

MS. EDWARDS: What the minister says may be what he assumes, but it is not what the legislation will say. The legislation will make no requirement under this section for a regional manager to require that an applicant comply with regulations.

[ Page 7750 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But that's axiomatic, Madam Member, because the regulations are the law, and all persons — and, I can assure you, every employee working under the Water Act — must obey the law and the regulations of the law.

MS. EDWARDS: But I must insist that the common practice is for the legislation to require that the regulations be adhered to. That's why we would have this kind of phrase in the current legislation. It requires that whoever applies comply with regulations, and it's gone if the amendment is adopted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The regulations are the law, and there's no stepping aside from that. Every comptroller or regional water manager knows it. This would give them the ability to offer further directions and instructions above and beyond the regulations. In water licensing there are so many provisions that may apply. It's a varied field; it probably varies even on a creek or any watercourse within feet in terms of how you're going to manage a particular application. This provision does allow them more flexibility; it allows them to give directions. I wouldn't accept the notion that it's going to allow them to step aside from the regulations, because they wouldn't do that. They're employees of the Crown and they're operating under an act that has regulations.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In your introduction, Mr. Minister, you said that this was further indication of regionalization, that it was giving powers to regions to make decisions. The amendment takes out the phrase "with regulations" and substitutes "with the directions of the comptroller or the regional water manager." You're saying that the water manager in the regions can make decisions. As I read this, they are not bound by regulations, because you are.... Again I refer to your introduction, where you said that the people in the field are making the regulations, are advising you in the first place, and therefore you are putting the power into the regions and allowing them to deal with it firsthand. I am reminding you of your own words.

In a time when you take a look at what has happened in areas where we have more experience in waste management permits and some of the concern that has been.... Again, I will go back to other reports, by bodies such as the ombudsman, that have shown that there is not enough overall coordination of ministry actions, that there isn't enough communication between regions, that there isn't the kind of universal treatment throughout the province that is necessary in the way of reporting, in the way of governing and holding different areas responsible to the legislation. Here, with water, one of the resources that will show the strains of a deteriorating environment, you are now further handicapping the province in its ability to regulate and access information, and are further giving the responsibility to regions and not requiring the coordination.

It seems to fly in the face of everything we know to be necessary in the administration of environment management. I don't understand why you would be supporting at this time the local bodies making decisions in isolation of legislation, or the need for firming up regulations.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, let me say that we have a dedicated group of staff in the field working for the water branch.

Secondly, this section deals only with applications — directions given for application. It doesn't deal with who's going to do the licensing, how the licence is going to be apportioned, how the licence is going to direct. It simply says that when the person is applying for a licence, he shall comply with the direction of the comptroller or — whatever the amendment says — the regional water manager. As a matter of fact, it's even headed in the book: "Procedure to acquire licences."

It doesn't deal with the issuance or the management, but in fact the application, so I don't think it's serious or as dangerous as you seem to feel. It's an application process only, and it certainly does give our people in the field a lot more flexibility in handling the applications as they come. And they vary from site to site, as you can well appreciate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As we talk about this, I am recalling some of the work in previous years. It was the auditor-general's report, specifically, that talked about the licensing and permitting and about waste management. Let's talk about the licensing and permitting here.

The criticism that the auditor-general levied against the ministry was that there was not the continuity necessary to be able to enforce the licensing and permitting, because each region treated that process differently. They said that the information that was gathered by the licensing process often wasn't adequate, and they asked the ministry to look at a process that made that licensing more uniform, that gave guidelines to everyone in the field so everyone did it in the same way and they all asked for the same kind of information.

I read this as saying that not only are you not upholding the recommendations of the auditor-general, but instead you are acting in an opposite direction, because you are giving the power to the region without that coordination and instruction. You say that it has only to do with licensing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, applications.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Right, applications. It says: "Every person who applies for a licence" — and that's what I'm referring to — "...respect to filing the application, giving notice of it by posting, service or publication and paying the prescribed fees and rentals, and shall furnish the plans, specifications and other information the comptroller and the regional water manager requires." So we are taking out the

[ Page 7751 ]

regulations and giving the power to the regional manager in this process.

The point that I am trying to make here is that the auditor-general, in years gone by, has indicated that this was a weak spot for the ministry as far as waste management permits go, and I am trying to alert you to the fact that for water and water licensing, an area that will be of significant concern in this province, if it isn't already, we can well learn by looking at the example that was drawn to our attention by the auditor-general and try to strive for more uniformity in acquiring information and specifications with regard to these projects, rather than allowing different regions to go off on their own.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, reference to the Waste Management Act in this amendment is not relevant, but I appreciate the member trying to draw a parallel. I can also tell the member, without trying to infringe on committee work on this stage, that the member is going to be seeing — in the next day or two — significant changes to the Waste Management Act that might make her feel a little bit better about the criticism that the auditor-general made.

However, getting back to this. This amendment deals with the section that deals with the application procedure; not with licensing or with the regulations that come with getting a water licence, but with how an application shall be done. When applying for water licences, it's a very simple procedure.

The Ministry of Environment knows how much water is in the watercourse. It knows how much is being drawn out by the various water users. If there's anything left, then someone else can have some. If there isn't, then it won't work. I shouldn't say that the whole business of managing water is simple, but that is the basic process we have. We have a Water Act so we can have a government authority who tells all the users how much they can use, and so they can do their research to find out how much is in that watercourse from year to year. If there's a drawdown, for whatever reason — drought or low snow pack — then they can make further regulations with respect to changing that.

We're not dealing with a complicated process such as waste management plans or something like that We are dealing with water licences, which are simply: what the supply is, what the demand is and how we can apportion it. In this section that I'm amending, I'm simply saying that we have a trust in the fellows in the field, and we want them to do more than just have an applicant comply with the regulations. We also want to give them the ability to give further directions to an applicant.

I can assure you that I trust the fellows in the field enough to give appropriate directions. I don't see this as being in any way offering any inconsistency throughout the province. I see it as a remedy that allows flexibility at the application stage of applying for a water licence and gives some authority and flexibility to the civil servants who are receiving the application.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Not wanting to belabour the point, I want to make it very clear. The minister said that the process is a simple one, that it's a matter of knowing what the supply is and who is drawing on that supply and therefore the ability to licence users relying on that supply. Again I would stress to the minister that the only way you can reasonably make those decisions is if your information base is uniform, if you have access to all of the information and if you have coordination among the regions. That is of paramount importance when we're dealing with — if the minister chooses to say — simple issues such as water and water supply. What this particular amend ment does is ask the question as to whether or not that coordination and that information base is at risk.

[7:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, the member is reading more into the amendment than is there. As I said and I'll say for the third or fourth time, it has to do with the application process and nothing else. The ability to manage and regulate water is still very much intact in the act.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has said in his discussion that this is a simple case of the regional manager — so to speak — knowing how much water there is in a watercourse and then being able to direct someone in the region as to how to apply for water licences. Without going too far to suggest the powers of this particular water manager, I am suggesting that it would be in the interests of a water manager — if no one else — that he were protected by the act by some reference to the fact that he had acted in terms of the regulations. Whereas if he is not required to act on the terms of regulation, if he has the powers that he has — and we may only be talking in this clause about the application or the process but nevertheless, we are talking about a water manager who has a number of powers — and if you connect those powers to this particular clause, which now takes away any reference to regulation, it seems to me that we have a situation where a conflict of interest could even be supposed, and we have lost the protection for the civil servant that might be in the act. Even just that particular consideration is enough that I think it might convince the minister to retain a requirement that an application, when filed, must have some reference to the regulations and that the water manager must instruct that the application have some reference to the regulations.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll repeat, this amendment is for the purposes of the application part only, not for any licence issuance or licence amendment. There are, if you look at the rest of the act, I'm sure, appropriate controls in terms of how licences are issued and how reference is made to the regulations. As a matter of fact, that's what the rest of the act says. What we're amending here is simply the ability of the regional manager or the comptroller to give further directions to an applicant.

[ Page 7752 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, on this side of the House we have not become comforted by the minister's comments that these regulations are somewhere in law, and therefore that's all that is needed. If the situation is that he really does believe that the deletion of "with regulations" doesn't really change things, would he agree to leave it in?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, because I want the comptroller or the regional manager to have more authority than just complying with the regulations. I want them under statute to have the ability to give directions to an applicant, so I'm expanding their authority. That's the reason we have this provision here. In case of your concern about the whole system going down the tube because of this minor amendment, I should refer you to section 5 which says: "The exercise of every right held under a licence is subject always to this act and regulations, the terms of licence, the orders of the comptroller and the engineer and the rights of all licensees whose rights have precedence."

So there is considerable control in the management of water already in this act. Why you are so concerned about a minor amendment to the application process — not the licence process, not the management process, but the application process — is beyond me. But I can assure you if you read section 8 and go back to section 5 and go back to the definitions and look at definitions of "engineer" or .comptroller, " you'll see that every caution you're concerned about is maintained in the act.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it's quite obvious to every British Columbian that what we want is a tightening up of the way the environment is run, not a loosening up. Newspapers are putting out special sections dealing with the environment, dealing with living with the environment. Schoolchildren are being taught about the environment. The minister has us believe that he wants to take the word "regulations" out and substitute it with "directions." I don't have a university degree, but I know that the word "regulation" carries more weight in law than the word "direction." If the minister is concerned, I wonder why instead of striking out "with regulations" and substituting "with directions of the comptroller or the regional water manager," he simply didn't write into the act  "with regulations and directions." He could have achieved both goals.

The people of British Columbia, the people of Canada and around the world are asking for their water supply and their environment to be protected in the strongest possible terms because we realize that even if we started today — whether it's the application or the regulation of the act — with attempting to clean up the water that we must have to survive as a planet, it would take many lifetimes to complete.

Why take out "with regulations"? He certainly must know that British Columbians are concerned about the environment. It is the key issue; everybody recognizes it. As I say, I don't have a university degree, but I certainly recognize that the stronger an act is made, the better off we as a community and our environment will be.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's nothing in this amendment that in any way takes away the power, the authority, the regulation, the licence, the ability to manage the water branch, nor does it in any way dilute the Water Act, which is the act we are amending. It simply, in the application process, gives the comptroller or the regional manager more flexibility in his instructions to an applicant: the process of issuing the licence, the process of managing water is unchanged.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CASHORE: One other question. Again, with the loss with regulations, it also raises the question that I want to get on the record: what checks and balances are there to prevent favouritism?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh boy! If you were from the southern Cariboo, you'd know. Let me tell you, everybody who applies for water licences is aware of what everybody else is doing. Maybe that's a glib answer, but maybe the Chairman can have a chat with you later about that.

The act is quite explicit in terms of how water is managed. It empowers an engineer, which you'll see later in the section.... An engineer is mentioned in the Water Act, of course, and that's a person who must, to retain his professional status, do certain things and uphold certain fundamental principles of law, and who has a professional status to maintain. So the cautions that are there are remarkable. Plus the fact, particularly in the case of the southern Cariboo and the Okanagan, that when we deal with water and the ability to have water rights, to have apportionment of licences, to have licences, I can assure you that an awful lot of people are watching any issuance of water licences by this branch. It's very carefully scrutinized.

Section 4 approved.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I was standing on the previous section, and that's on division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 4 on division?

MR. CASHORE: No, section 3 on division. I believe we just completed dealing with section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm afraid, member, that I have section 3 passed here. Section 4 on division?

MR. CASHORE: No, Mr. Chairman. When you called the vote a moment ago I believe you did say section 4, but we were still on section 3, Therefore,

[ Page 7753 ]

since we hadn't voted on section 3, I was saying on division. The minister is nodding his head. What I'm saying is correct: section 3 is on division and section 4 is next, which we haven't begun to discuss yet.

On section 4.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In 1982 or '83 we gave a regional manager certain rights, including the right to cancel a licence, but we didn't give the regional water manager the right to apportion — to split a licence. In essence, that's what this section does. It is more decentralization. It is putting authority into the field, where in fact the authority already is, with the exception of....

MR. G. JANSSEN: A point of order. Being a new member, I'm not perhaps too wise on the issue of dealing with these bills....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Place your point of order, then.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The point of order is that the minister answered the question on section 3 that was asked by the member. Therefore the member naturally assumed we were still on section 3, having risen to speak on it and to ask the question. Now we've passed on to section 4, and he asked for division on section 3. If the minister was presumed to be on section 4, why was he answering the question on section 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding, hon. member, is that the member did not call division. He asked that the vote be recorded on division. If you wish to discuss the matter with your House Leader, I'm sure he will share with you the difference.

Mr. Minister, will you please proceed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was simply explaining what powers are added here. An apportion is that when you have one licence and another user wants to come in and there is water, then the regional manager has the right to apportion those rights. Again, the reason for doing that is the same anyway. We have one water comptroller but we have many regional managers, and although the comptroller always had to make the decision, he made it on the advice of the regional manager; so why not let the regional manager do it in the regions? That's the reason for this amendment.

[7:45]

MR. CASHORE: It seems we have a situation in the province where there's a lot of demand for water licences. It seems to be a fairly strong authority to detract from the rights of present water licensees, and it seems to be giving again a tremendous amount of power to individuals who have this authority. A term that comes to mind is the Chinatown syndrome. I think a lot of people will remember the movie with Jack Nicholson that dealt with the way in which water rights were handled in Los Angeles and how that gave way to some very unfortunate situations when there wasn't the appropriate regulation. I think again we have to pursue this on the basis of this seeming to be quite a powerful authority that's given out here.

Also, it seems to me that the result of all this is that there could be quite a few legal claims from licence-holders whose water rights are reduced. I would like the minister to explain how he plans to deal with that situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If there's a legal problem there will be a legal problem. I certainly don't think there will, as I have said.

It's the only explanation I can give you — but it makes perfectly good sense to me — because it was the explanation that was given to me when the section was presented to me for inclusion in this amendment act. It was that the regional manager gives advice on apportionment, which he sends down to the comptroller for rubber-stamping, so why not just let the guy in the field do it anyway? First of all, the procedure is no different. We are using the same expertise, we're not losing control of anything, and we're certainly speeding up the process for those people who are asking for apportionment of water licences. Don't forget, this doesn't deal with the granting of a water licence; it just deals with the apportionment. That's the words in the book there, and it's quite explanatory.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the apportionment is a very vital phase in the whole process, and I don't think it appropriate to downgrade the importance of that phase in any way, shape or form. When we talk about getting into the process of applying for a water licence we still have to ask why, instead of the way that the government is going on this, a fair process couldn't be legislated,

If the licences of people with existing rights are going to be altered, given the possibility of costly lawsuits and the government being involved in litigation, and given the fact that some people will feel because of their — what is the term; riparian rights? — historic rights that they are being abused, then couldn't there be a fairer process than giving this kind of authority into the hands of individuals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps I could draw your attention to the act itself — have someone read it to you. You have raised a lot of concerns that are already addressed. Let me read section 17, the section being amended: "If satisfied that no licensee's rights will be injuriously affected, the comptroller, " — it will now read "regional manager" — "on giving notice of his intention to do so to all persons interested, may apportion the rights and obligations granted and imposed under a licence among the owners of the several parcels comprising land to which the licence is appurtenant...." It's a good word; it obviously means something important.

MR. MILLER: Has someone read it to you?

[ Page 7754 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just read it to myself, and it's good legislation.

"On an apportionment being made, the comptroller" — in this case it will be the regional manager — "may either cancel the apportioned licence and issue a new licence to the respective owners of the several parcels of land or may attach a copy of the order of apportionment to each copy of the apportioned licence."

I can assure the member, with respect to his previous question, that the ministry must be satisfied that no other licensee's rights are going to be affected, and notice has to be given to all persons so interested.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister read the full section 17, and the amendment in this piece of legislation we are dealing with deletes the second sentence. That was one of the things I wanted to ask you about. The sentence being deleted gives the comptroller the power to cancel the licence and issue new licences. The area that we are talking about here is empowering regional managers only to reapportion and seems to take away the power to cancel.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All we are asking for is apportionment. We feel that comptrollers will have the ability to cancel, but apportionment is the appropriate....

MR. MILLER: The operative word.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Operative word; thank you. I'm getting apportionment and appurtenant so much. The operative word is apportion; that is, split and subdivide a licence.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister said that what you were doing here is giving power to the regions, and we are going back to the exact same thing we had in discussion of the whole application process. The same concern stands here as stood in the application process. When we're talking about water and the allocation of water, because it flows from one region to another and a watercourse may often fall into regions, there is a need for coordination. This amendment empowers the regional manager to make decisions on his own to apportion water.

Again I go back to the deletion of that second sentence, which says the comptroller has the power to cancel the licence and to issue new licences. Why would you delete the power of regional managers in that case, if you're dealing with this section and the apportionment of water licences?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, in apportionment we trust our regional managers. They are at a very senior executive level in the ministry. They do talk to each other, so they know what's happening throughout the province — and that's what this amendment is doing. If you're going to take the position that our regional managers don't know what they're doing, you do that at your own peril.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that we on this side have tried to give the minister all latitude in this debate. In all sincerity, we have asked for information, and the only thing that the minister can come back with at this point is: "If you don't trust the staff in our regional offices...." Well, that's absolute and utter nonsense. The reason you have legislation in the first place is to provide guidance for not only the staff but also the people applying for licences. Again and again we have pointed out that as a ministry you have run into problems in this process in other areas. The minister belittled our concern in our questions about the issuing of applications.

We're seeing the same thread go through all of the amendments to the Water Act. We're seeing a reduction in the ability of the province to control and coordinate the use of water in this province. The empowering of regional managers to make decisions without a requirement to come back to the province, to the comptroller, who ultimately should have all of the information as to the watercourses and the quantity of water available....

I am very concerned, and I am not happy with the kinds of answers the minister gives. Quite frankly, for the minister to suggest that we do not have confidence in the staff is a complete red herring. We have confidence in the staff. We are talking about legislation, and we're talking about your role in this process, your role as the person responsible for the law as it pertains to water management.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I simply say again that I have faith in the regional managers' ability to make these types of decisions. You certainly don't want me making decisions on water licences, I can assure you. But we have an act here that is very good. We have an act that operates extremely well. There have been very few problems with apportionment or water licensing in the province — except when you get into drought conditions, and then I guess everybody would like more, but it obviously doesn't come that quickly.

I can't accept your concern. We see this as a service to the users in the region, and we see this as our ability to allow our regional managers to operate. As I said, the fundamental practice now is that the regional manager gives information to the comptroller, and on that information supplied by the regional manager, the comptroller makes a decision. So why not just have the regional manager make the decision? That's essentially what we're asking for here.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the minister, who talks about this as a regionalization measure, seems to miss the point: all this amendment to the legislation does is move the central decision-making down to central decision-making by another person. As far as regionalization is concerned, it's only the very tiniest first step; but it doesn't give any control to the region.

And there is no indication of how in the world, for example, the regional manager is going to be satisfied that no licensee's rights will be injuriously affected. Is

[ Page 7755 ]

there any process whereby the minister would be assured that that would be the case? Is there some expectation that that happens? In section 2 it says that where the regional water manager considers it advisable.... But there's no indication that anybody except that one person....

Really, all we've got is the moving of a single authority down to another single authority at a different level, which has a minor advantage. We're still missing the point that this is not regionalization, and it does not involve any assurance to people who are applying for water rights, who are trying to get water rights or who have water rights that there's going to be a fair way of that manager being satisfied that no licensee's rights will be injuriously affected; that there is some way that gives that as fairly as possible to this manager.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: "Injuriously affected" has not changed. I don't know what else I can say, Madam Member. It's there in section 17 under the heading "Apportionment of rights under licence, " They must be satisfied that no licensee's rights will be injuriously affected. It's up to them to do that. If they fail to do that, then the licensee has every recourse under the law to appeal the decision to the Environmental Appeal Board, to the minister or to the comptroller. I don't know what else I can say to explain it to you, but it's there. I'm satisfied with respect to this and I'm sure everyone else is. I mean, if you've heard something from the Cattlemen's Association or the irrigation districts, or if you've heard concerns about this change, then please let me know. But I doubt if you have.

[8:00]

MS. EDWARDS: I believe I said before to the minister that there is a certain amount of local knowledge that I think should go into this business. I also believe that it should perhaps go beyond the local manager, as far as the input is concerned There's no provision for that in a formal way. As the minister says, the phrase is there; the phrase was there before. We could nitpick about this, and I don't want to nitpick about it. The point is that I think it's an inadequate regionalization; that's what the minister is calling it.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I was standing when you asked if section 4 would pass. I just want to make the point that it's on division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would make it much easier for the Chair if members, when they want to speak, were at their places and would stand rather than walk behind the chairs and expect the Chair to have ESP.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, your point is very well taken, and I apologize for causing that confusion.

With regard to section 5 and the right to enter land to discharge duties, as I understand it this refers to people who are on a personal service contract. It raises the question of contracting-out. I would ask the minister if he would clarify whether I am correct in the assertion that this is about enabling contracting out.

[Mr. Peterson in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I guess you could say that it gives persons working under section 30 under the direction of the comptroller or the regional water manager or an engineer.... By the way, an engineer is defined in the Water Act; it's not just any engineer, but an engineer under the Water Act. it gives persons working under the directions of those people certain rights. It adds flexibility and streamlining to the system.

MR. CASHORE: I'd be interested in knowing the extent of the increase in the number of personal service contract employees involved in this type of activity. I would just add that I wouldn't completely expect that the minister would have that information at his elbow. Mr. Chairman, if I just may at this point express a concern, without in any way criticizing the minister's valiant attention to putting forward his reasoning on the questions being asked, I find it very unfortunate that there are no members of the minister's staff here to be able to provide details on some of these questions. Were that the case, I don't think we'd be taking quite as long.

Is the purpose of this section, then, as has been said, enabling contracting-out and to protect personal service contract employees? Assuming that that is the purpose, have there been any incidents of contract workers having difficulty gaining access to the land?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question is not relevant, in that it does not mention in the amendment personal service contracts, contracts or whatever. It says, "...gives persons working under the direction of the comptroller, " which in many cases could include a technician who was a government employee but does not have the title of comptroller, regional manager or engineer. But as the member should know, we have many people with technical diplomas in the Ministry of Environment who do this type of work for us and are government employees, not contracted-out employees.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to ask the minister to explain this section.

[ Page 7756 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Section 38 deals with the Environmental Appeal Board, appeal tribunals and the appeal process. This does clarify that an engineer, as defined in the Water Act, has full party status in that type of appeal process in section 38.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. CASHORE: We move on to the Water Utility Act now. As I understand it, this exempts persons who sell water by tanker truck and who sell bottled water from the Water Utility Act.

One of the points I'd like to have clarified is that in looking at the explanatory note, it doesn't, of course, go into the same detail that the wording of the section does. Does this in any way refer to other forms of transportation of water, other than those specified in the wording of the act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The amendment is clear. It says, "...water by tanker truck; or (g) a person who sells bottled water." We don't see those people as being in any way involved in the Water Utility Act, because the Water Utility Act is designed to protect the consumers of a utility which, of course, is a monopoly. In the sale of bottled water, there is no monopoly. If you can get water in a truck, you can sell it, and so can anyone else. It's not monopolistic, where you would want to have the provisions of the Water Utility Act.

The Water Utility Act was rather vague on that, so to ensure that we didn't have to send every distributor or seller of bottled water or a person who supplied water by tanker truck to the Water Utility Commission for a hearing, we decided to exempt them under the provisions of this amendment. The question may be of Ocean Falls and the traffic there. If you think that's there, it's not; it's clearly tanker truck or a person who sells bottled water.

MR. CASHORE: One last thing. Again, an astute member of our research staff caught this. Apparently there's an error in the wording. If the minister will bear with me, I'll just read this explanation, and he can follow along. Under the definition of water utility are listed exemptions (a) through (e), with a semicolon between each, and "or" after (d). The change should be that the "or" at the end of (d) is struck out, with the period at the end of (e) being removed and replaced by a semicolon and the word "or."

I regret that the minister's staff isn't here, and I'm not even going to admit that I understood that myself. But I thought we should get it on the record, so that it would be clear that we at least knew that With that I rest my case.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. Does the minister accept the amended punctuation which was put forward as a friendly amendment? I wonder if the hon. member could go over it once more for the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, opposition House Leader, but in the wisdom of the Chair, I believe that request is out of order.

MR. ROSE: I was just wondering whether the minister would care to comment on that, because it seemed to me that if it clarifies it in terms of drafting, it might be worthy of some sort of consideration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If it does, it will be next year. We have a motion, Mr. Chairman.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Bill 34, Environmental Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 20.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 3., in the proposed section 263

(a) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) The council

(a) shall adopt the provisional budget, as prepared or as altered by the council, on or before the third Monday after January 1, and

(b) may amend the provisional budget at any time after its adoption and before adoption of the annual budget.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to cover this exemption-from-taxation section. The issue of exemption from taxation for religious institutions sometimes can

[ Page 7757 ]

be controversial, and the minister is personally aware of that in her own riding.

[8:15]

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me if it is accurate where it says in section 4 (h) (ii): "any area of land surrounding the exempted building, an exempted hall, or both, that the council may, by bylaw, exempt." My concern is that it is really very wide open. We've accepted that the actual building, the church or hall could be exempt by local government, but now the minister is really opening what could be the floodgates for pressure on local councils to exempt large tracts of land around religious institutions.

The minister has one in her riding that I know she knows all about, and I have a number in my riding, but the member is aware of one in particular that's very controversial in Surrey. Can the minister explain why she wants to allow council to exempt what could very well be huge tracts of land from taxation around religious buildings?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have here an amendment that really is going to do what we thought we had been doing all along. The ministry was of the impression that municipal councils had discretion as to the amount of property that they could exempt or otherwise, but there was a court action that said: "All or nothing." The amendment that we're dealing with this evening gives council the discretion, as was our original intention. In the ridiculous extreme, the court decision means that if a church and a billion dollar shopping mall happen to be sitting on one parcel of land, the shopping centre would receive tax exemption along with the church. We're suggesting that that was not our original intent and that the local council should be able to use the discretion that we thought they had all along. So all this is doing is clarifying a jurisdiction that we felt they had been given all along, but the court said no.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the issues that has been quite controversial is the interpretation by religious orders or institutions of what actually is used for religious purposes. We do have examples. One I know of very well is one in Surrey — and my colleague knows about this. On, supposedly, land owned by a religious group, organization or institution, other activities that are clearly not of a religious nature are carried on but are exempt from taxation. Indeed, sometimes they run businesses on land or buildings that supposedly are used for religious purposes.

I am wondering if the minister is yet concerned about that kind of, sometimes, stretching the limits of what should be construed as buildings used for religious purposes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I really didn't get the question; but as far as deciding what is a religious building, the assessor makes that decision. We are saying that the local council should have the authority and jurisdiction to determine how much, if any, of the land that surrounds this religiously used building should be exempt from taxation, along with the building that is used for religious purposes.

Even though that was what we thought our regulations had said all along, the court said no. Our legislation says all or nothing; nothing in between.

MR. BLENCOE: This is not necessarily a subtle change, but the previous legislation, in my understanding, used to say a building used for "the public worship of God" and now you're bringing in the words "set apart and in use for public worship."

I am wondering if the minister is aware of the Pandora's box that could be opened today in terms of interpretation of what is worship, what is public, etc. Is the minister concerned, again, about the intense pressures that will be put on councils for activities that, under this, could clearly be construed as some form of worship?

A local government is always struggling for finances, and my concern is that this is so wide that it could really create some problems down the road. Does the minister have any concerns in that area?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To clarify again: the determination for eligibility lies with the assessor. The removal of the words "of God" was done on the advice of legislative counsel, for whatever reason I'm not sure, but it was the legislative counsel that suggested it should say "place of worship."

MR. MILLER: That could be a bank.

MR. BLENCOE: It could be a bank, that's right.

I think I'll leave that before we really expand this debate. I only have one more question on this section, unless some of my colleagues have.... Okay, we're going to have some more questions. Could the minister answer for me — in subsection (i), I think — why the operative date is January 1, 1947? What is so important about 1947?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That date is not changed. It carries on as it was in the past. I don't know why 1947 was chosen, but that has been in there. It's nothing new.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question that follows along with what my colleague from Victoria was saying. In subsection (k) (iii), there is the phrase near the end: "...exempt as being reasonably necessary in connection with that building." That particular phrase seems to me to reflect the feeling that was in the old act, the feeling that the minister says she meant to do. But it's not in subsection (h), subsection (i) or subsection (j), and I was somewhat curious as to why that phrase is there but not anywhere else in that section.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's just carried over. It's a historical phrase. It carries over from the last bill.

[ Page 7758 ]

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: why was it carried over there, when it wasn't carried over in (h), (i) and (j) ?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It wasn't in the predecessors to (h), (i) and (j). It's just been carried over in that particular section. We didn't redraw the whole bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You read my mind. You knew that I wanted to ask some questions.

I understand the minister is more or less fixing a problem that she created, a problem that was brought about by a piece of legislation that targeted one piece of land in this province — one private piece of property. Now we have amendment after amendment to try and clean up the mess that was created.

The amendments here say that the council by bylaw may exempt certain areas of land. In the minister's explanation, you said that the problem was that the whole parcel was treated the same: it was all or nothing. This says that they can exempt certain portions. Does that mean they can tax certain portions as well?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The reference that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has made is not correct. The Bible college bill that you have been referring to is a specific bill. This particular bill covers all churches, homes for elderly citizens, hospitals and private schools. It's not specific. I would like the record to show that we're not correcting a previous bill that was brought in. This is a broad bill that covers all of these institutions, not one specific institution.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. BLENCOE: Previously councils could grant tax exemptions for any area up to two hectares used for non-profit organizations such as art or cultural centres, agricultural and horticultural centres. It's my understanding that this amendment removes the two-hectare limit. just a question to the minister: is this amendment made in response to a particular situation? Is there something that has arisen, or is there another lawsuit or case that we don't know about?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This is permissive. It was brought about as a result of concern expressed regarding possible taxation on a boys' camp in Squamish. It was a boys' camp that was sitting on an extensive parcel of land. It appeared that we were going to have some problems allowing the exemptions there.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. ROSE: I wanted to ask a couple of questions if I could, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'm interested to know why this section is in here at all. I wonder if the minister could enlighten us. This power was formerly vested with the municipalities. Why has the final say now been given to the Ministry of Energy?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're referring to the soil removal?

MR. ROSE: Yes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, the member for Victoria had indicated concern over this section, so I have some background notes. There's no question at all that we are reducing the local autonomy in this particular amendment that is being put forward. This is being done to protect the larger provincial interest in ensuring that each of our regions has an adequate and affordable supply of construction material. So in effect we look upon this as a compromise. Local government is getting something it wants, and that is the clear right to impose fees on removal, while the province is retaining something we believe that we need: the assurance that regional development will not be strangled.

MR. ROSE: I don't see how, if there's so much soil, gravel or rock in the world, a particular centralization of the authority ensures more equal distribution of that raw resource. I don't understand the argument.

Is that it?

[8:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's it.

MR. ROSE: Do you not care to enlighten a slow learner on this subject? How on earth does the centralization of power in these matters ensure that the various regions are going to get more gravel?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm afraid the member from central Okanagan might have rocks in his head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal aspersions, hon. member, are not one of the better characteristics of debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I didn't try to suggest for one minute that this amendment was going to result in more gravel being made available. But the amendment will result in a further and more thorough investigation of whether or not the removal of gravel in particular will be entirely prohibited in any one region of the province to the detriment of the economy of that region.

[ Page 7759 ]

MR. ROSE: Is the minister saying that the municipalities no longer have the right to prohibit soil or gravel as defined by the act — if some municipality was so outrageous as to ban it altogether, the Minister of Energy could step in and make certain that there were lots of holes dug in that municipality?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't look at it in the same way as the member opposite. But if you wanted to really exaggerate and stretch the explanation, yes, the autonomy and the authority is no longer left solely with local government.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, let me ask the question in another way. I have an example of an area where the Highways department wants to establish a gravel pit, the residents have said no, and the regional district has backed them up. I don't know whether they passed a bylaw or quite how they've done it, but they've established that no gravel pit shall exist in that area. Does this mean, if this passes, that Highways will now be able to overrule the wishes of the local residents and establish a gravel pit in that area where one is not wanted?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, that wouldn't automatically be the case. But there would certainly be consideration as to whether or not there was material available elsewhere in that region. If it turned out that that was the only gravel available in the region, the provincial interest would take precedence.

MR. GABELMANN: I just wonder if the minister can point out the language where it says that that would be the only available gravel supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It doesn't say that.

MR. GABELMANN: That's my point, Mr. Chairman; it doesn't say that. The fact is that what this is going to do is continue to give Highways the right to run rampant over local people.

MR. ROSE: Can I also point out and ask rhetorically — along with my friend here from North Island — whether or not this really gives the province the right in this case to overrule local zoning? I'm saying that the sections dealing with these pits...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: ...are the pits, as somebody said right behind me.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, it gives a right to prevent zoning that would prohibit gravel extraction. It would not overrule zoning that would be in place. But by and large, when all is said and done, the final say in this type of situation can be with the provincial government.

MR. GABELMANN: Did I understand the minister correctly that existing zoning can't be overruled, but rezoning can be prevented?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's correct, Mr. Chairman, under section 14.

MR. ROSE: I think one of the interesting questions is why this was really necessary, and I don't think we've had a satisfactory answer. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Westwood lands, which have now been sold to a developer, we're told, for $63 million. They sit on millions of dollars worth of gravel. We wonder whether the land for residential development might somehow be damaged in terms of its value because it sits on top of this tremendous resource, which is very conveniently located as far as the development industry is concerned,

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I know that the members opposite see a bogeyman under every bed, but we can assure them that this has no connection with the property mentioned by the member. Having a vague familiarity with the area, I would suggest that there are probably other sources nearby that would be available.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, given the minister's familiarity with the section, I suspect that getting this legislation into the House and passed is not something that has been at the top of her mind for the last few years. Therefore I suspect that it has come from some initiative of some particular area or branch of government. I'd just like to ask the minister what the background is. Who has been asking for this legislation? What's its genesis?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I have been advised that this is something that has been on the books for the last two or three years, but it has never reached this point.

We have been grappling with the matter of the soil removal fee in order to accommodate the requests particularly of Coquitlam and to attempt to resolve the concerns they have. It has really brought a lot of other areas of concern to the fore, but it's not something that has just come up overnight.

MR. ROSE: The minister knows that there has been at least one court case in Coquitlam that was lost due to this. It seems to me that section 10 (4) (c), which imposes variable rates, would have dealt with the problem. I can be corrected if I'm wrong. I was wrong a couple of years ago on one point; I have to admit that. The court case was lost because of the imposition, really, of road fees in addition to the unit gravel charges.

Subsection (4) (c) is really enough to deal with that, without giving this tremendous clout centrally: you know, big government intruding on the backs of the people of Coquitlam; the Minister of Energy has to approve all of these things in future, when that's really not necessary. All you really needed here was

[ Page 7760 ]

(4)(c), the power to impose variable rates to take care of other charges such as road maintenance because of the tremendous concentration of gravel trucks on those arteries.

MRS. GRAN: Where will the gravel come from?

MR. ROSE: From your house. The soon to-be-minister from Langley asks where the gravel will come from. The member knows that her home is located in a former gravel pit, and obviously....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Am I interrupting you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all members to take their time. They'll all have a chance. If they all address their remarks through the Chair, I'm sure we'll make marvellous progress and get some answers to some very diligent questions.

MR. ROSE: Well, if I were asked for my attitude on gravel or soil removal, it is that soil and gravel are a resource just like any other, and there are zonings and appropriate places in which to carry on this sort of activity. I don't think provincial parks is one of them; certainly areas that are contiguous to large urban developments are also probably unsuitable. The member knows. She lives in a mined-out gravel pit beside a beautiful lake in south Langley. Sure ' there are going to be other places in Langley and other places in each municipality; that's not the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please address the Chair.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, that is not the question. The question is whether or not you need this awesome power at the centre to guarantee a supply of this resource in areas where it's needed, when all I say we need in order to correct the Coquitlam thing is section 10 (4) (c).

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, we believe that we do require the authority, or it would not be in the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the same minister who consistently says she consults local government, she consults the UBCM; that virtually nothing comes forward that hasn't been endorsed by local government or the UBCM. Yet here we have a major intrusion into local autonomy and local government, and the minister cannot tell us why it's before us, other than that it's in the provincial interest. I would remind the minister that there are many things under her purview that could be in the provincial interest. Why this specific issue? Did UBCM ask for this? Was it local councils that asked for this? Or was it private interests that asked for this? Where's the sponsor?

Where's the initiative coming from? Why would you want this kind of control?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the provincial government has a responsibility for resource management, and that is the reason that this clause has come forward in this way.

MR. BLENCOE: Can the minister also answer why — in this same section — section 5 says the bylaw under section 4 (b) or (c) has no effect until it is approved by the minister? It seems to me that the minister really is moving into some areas that have traditionally been for the decision of local council.

Mr. Chairman, the minister says we may be seeing problems where they don't exist, but we know that there are all sorts of interests that would very much like to have this kind of power exercised by the Minister of Energy, when a local council passes a bylaw prohibiting the removal of soil, gravel or whatever.

I still have not got an answer from the minister, other than, "it's in the provincial interests." Where is the initiative from for this? It's not from you, I gather. It's not from UBCM. Is it from the Minister of Energy? Is it from some local councils? Is it site-specific to a specific municipality, as my colleague says — in Coquitlam or the Westwood lands? I'm surprised that the minister, in bringing this forward for the Minister of Energy to have this kind of power, would not want to be forthright about where this is originating.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the initiative is one of government, and I am part of the government.

MR. ROSE: I appreciate the explanations that are given. I don't accept them, but I appreciate them as they are given. I don't really think that my municipality is very concerned about them, because I checked. I do my homework once in a while.

[8:45]

It seems to me that if you are going to have this power, then you might as well be complete. "To require the holding of a permit for removal of soil (1) removal of soil from, or deposit of soil or other material on any land in the municipality or any other area of the municipality." I would think that would have to do with the dumping of gravel for roads, the dumping of topsoil for homes and gardens and that sort of thing in highly developed areas. But also, a lot of the topsoil and gravel that is purchased comes from other municipalities, and it doesn't seem to cover the transfer of soil, unless you say its removed in one municipality, and we can have a bylaw covering the deposit of soil. I think you get the point. It covers the removal and deposit of soil within a municipality rather than.... It's intermunicipal rather than intramunicipal.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's irrelevant.

[ Page 7761 ]

MR. ROSE: It's not irrelevant, because what this controls is within a municipality. But much of the soil removed in one municipality is deposited in another municipality, and I don't see that being covered here.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That isn't the concern. It is just to identify a supply. It's a source.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a couple of questions for the minister. To begin with, this is a municipal act, and it controls the removal of gravel within a municipality. Are there similar amendments proposed to control the removal of gravel from regional districts or other parts not under municipal control?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This applies by cross reference to regional districts as well.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like an answer, which has not yet come through. Why would the Minister of Mines have this particular power? To put a bit of context in this, as I understand it, currently no one can move soil or gravel without a permit. But that permit comes from — I believe, although I am not sure of this; the minister could probably tell me — the Ministry of Environment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's the resource side I'm not sure of the environmental permits that are required, but it's to ensure that we have a supply in all regions of the province. That's what the concern is; it's plain and simple. There is nothing ulterior There is a clear acceptance by the government that the provincial interest must be protected. We must ensure that there is a supply of material available in all regions of the province, and if necessary, the province will have the final say if we have a municipality that attempts to step in and effectively prohibit the removal.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister makes me curiouser and curiouser. Why in the world, if it doesn't seem to matter, would the Minister of Municipal Affairs ask, or somehow or other come to an arrangement with, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources...?

MR. BLENCOE: Mining.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think it is mining. My colleague says mining; I think not. It's soil or sand and gravel, which is controlled and managed by another ministry, not the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Why now do we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources brought into this? If the Minister of Municipal Affairs wants to control the distribution of gravel, why doesn't she do it herself? It is perhaps a municipal resource.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is a resource, and it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MS. EDWARDS: Under what legislation does that happen now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. It could possibly be the mining legislation. I'm sure we can get that information for the member.

MS. EDWARDS: If the minister is familiar with these amendments, I find it strange that she can't tell me why she would have chosen, among all her colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources if she is not even aware of which legislation currently exists that is similar to this or that makes it reasonable. I simply find it interesting. It makes one wonder even in subsection (5), where it says none of these bylaws have effect until they are approved by the minister. By the way acts are normally written, I assume this means the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but what it in fact means is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Section 10 (5) is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't have any answers, Mr. Chairman. As I say, by the way the legislation is written, I'm sure it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but the act is telling us it's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

I don't know whether the minister doesn't have the resources at hand to find out for me under what legislation the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has these kinds of powers somewhere else. Who controls people who already sell gravel out of gravel pits and people who dig up and sell top soil and have to have permits? Who controls that activity in the province, and why doesn't that same ministry do this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are multiple land use jurisdictions. We are attempting to ensure that they aren't at odds, so under (3) you will see that the provision in the bylaw that prohibits the removal of soil has no effect until the provision is approved by the minister — that's the Minister of Municipal Affairs — with the concurrence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It is, as I've said many times, an attempt to ensure that we have an adequate supply of the resource throughout the province, and we will be working with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is far better able to determine that than the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS. EDWARDS: I might bring to the minister's attention that under the Mineral Act, section 1, mineral — which is, of course, what the minister deals with — does not include sand or gravel. I haven't done a whole tracing of this, but the question remains with me: why would the Minister of Energy,

[ Page 7762 ]

Mines and Petroleum Resources be supervising this and making decisions as to whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Highways or somebody else has enough gravel to build a road?

I do not understand. It doesn't make sense.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess I'll just keep repeating and repeating. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a broad mandate which involves the removal of resources in the province. We are trying to prevent the use of municipal land use controls that could possibly prohibit the removal of some of these resources which may not be available in any region of the province. The responsibility lies firstly with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but working in cooperation with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. MILLER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concept in terms of the broader requirements of the province. In fact, the highways legislation recognizes that, in terms of being able to go in and expropriate land for highways, etc. Is there a possibility here that those needs would be identified essentially by the private sector as opposed to the province?

I think, particularly, of the privatized highways contractors who, in effect, are now doing that work around the province. Would it be a private company looking at their particular interest which would identify the need to enter into and remove gravel, dirt, sand or whatever it might be? Is there not a potential for the private interest to be mixed in with the interests of the province? They aren't necessarily synonymous. I think there is some feeling that the province or state would not arbitrarily — or at least not for reasons totally about the bottom line of the balance sheet of the company — want to acquire sand, gravel or dirt in a particular region. In other words, they might be able to go a touch farther and recognize some sensibility in terms of why a municipality enacted that kind of thing.

Really, I'm seeking some kind of response from the minister in terms of just who will be identifying the provincial requirements. If it is a private company identifying what they say are provincial requirements, but really they're looking at their own needs as a business enterprise, then I think there is some potential for mistrust and perhaps abuse. What process would be used to determine it is a pretty essential question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The purpose of this section is to require ministerial approval of bylaws that prohibit the removal of soil and also set the level of fees for permits.

MR. BLENCOE: You get to approve that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, of course we do, to the second member for Victoria. They really go hand in hand, because if the bylaw is intended to completely prohibit the removal of material, the fees can be set at a level which would do that on their own without prohibiting and spelling out the prohibition. This would really be the exception, not the rule. It wouldn't really matter what a private firm or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways may have in mind; we're looking at ministerial approval of bylaws. If the bylaws prohibit the removal, then we have to be assured that the region for which the bylaw is drawn up can provide the resource, possibly at another location, and that we don't have one region which is absolutely prohibiting the removal, affecting the economy of the region.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate that, Madam Minister, but regions are different throughout this province. You may be reflecting your own location in terms of the general area of the lower mainland. Regions in some parts of British Columbia — at least populated areas — are separated by vast distances. Again, I think it's fundamental that the bill would allow the minister to prohibit a bylaw that expressly forbade the removal of the substances mentioned. Who determines what the regional requirements are? What process is undertaken? Who makes those choices in terms of distance between locations of gravel or other material, or of costs? Who does all that work, Madam Minister?

[9:00]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry provides planning grants to the municipalities or regions. It is one of the areas that the planning grants can be accessed for. We are presently dealing with the CRD specifically along those lines. It's not up to the provincial government to start going in and planning areas. It would be ideal if we could look across the province and determine that this is where there's going to be soil removal or this is where there isn't. What we're saying here is that under exceptional circumstances a municipal bylaw can be brought forward that will prohibit in any number of ways the removal of material. We want to ensure, prior to that type of bylaw being approved, that there is a source of material in that area if it is determined that material is required; and that type of decision will be made in consultation between the two ministries and the local government.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to prolong this, but I do have to say that when the minister has been right across this province making the speech — and I've heard her many times — that we're moving into the era of decentralization and more local control, that we're going to have regional district legislation before us that allows regional districts to make a lot more decisions without having to come to any minister for approval, I find it very surprising that on an issue like gravel or soil this minister would endorse a provincial override — centralization. That's the theme being touted everywhere by this minister and by the government, and here we have a section which dramatically overrides local council bylaws and decisions by a minister of the Crown. There has to be

[ Page 7763 ]

some reason — other than what the minister is giving to us. We are surprised. Indeed, I think it throws doubts on the minister's and this government's claim to wish to give local government more control.

I'd like to ask the minister why, for instance, when local councils impose the rates or fees for a permit, she feels the local council must have those fees approved by the minister. As you know, local councils approve all sorts of fees. They're elected. They made those decisions. The citizens choose their elected officials at the local level. Why would you want to add bureaucracy? Why would you want to slow down the process and have you approving a local council's rates? That's something else, Madam Minister, that we're not hearing or seeing and not getting clear. I suppose the world will unfold and six months from now this may all become quite clear, but would the minister explain why she wants to have the right to approve rates, I suppose, for every council that gets into this area, when we're moving in the opposition direction? Why that bureaucracy?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I told you.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll just leave it there, Mr. Chairman, on this section. But I'm really very sorry that the minister has decided to make this move, and I'm sure local councils will be surprised when they see this initiative.

Section 10 approved on division.

On section 11.

MR. MILLER: Very briefly, I'm searching the Assessment Act for the definition, and perhaps the minister might offer an explanation — apart from the bill notes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I understand that it's in the regulations.

Could I at this time, Mr. Chairman, ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this evening we have a former mayor of Kamloops, Mr. Mike Latta, and his wife, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: I didn't hear an explanation other than the minister saying it was in the regulations, not in the act. Maybe she could offer a further explanation.

I only raise it because we have had previous discussions about the issue of municipalities really being prohibited from exercising any jurisdiction over logging that might take place on private lands within the municipality. I think it's a serious issue, although it obviously only affects those in that particular circumstance. I believe municipalities have felt hampered by their inability to really control through bylaw anything other than questions of public safety. The change in wording changes section 943(2)(c), which currently reads that the land is classified as tree-farm land under section 24 of the Assessment Act, to the new wording which reads: .classified as managed forest land under the Assessment Act...."

I don't want to read any undue significant into that, but I would like the minister to explain. It may be as simple as that the wording in the Assessment Act has changed, but I would like an explanation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This is to remove the outdated reference to "tree-farm" and replace it with a current term "managed forest land," and it is to bring the reference in line with the new term as used in the Assessment Act. There is no other reason.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 20, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 21.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. BLENCOE: On first glance, this is worrying and creates an apprehension. Maybe the minister could clarify. It's my understanding on reading this that the amendment removes the statutory requirement for municipalities to inspect hotels, schools, theatres, public dance halls and other public build-

[ Page 7764 ]

ings for fire safety at least every two months. I just wonder if the minister can explain the background to this. We're always conscious of fire safety and public standards and public safety. Why does the minister feel this is required?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This amendment has the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and the fire commissioner endorses the resolution as well. The elimination of this time requirement for conducting fire safety inspections is to reduce local government liability for negligence. It does not do away with their responsibility for inspections. The only thing that we are changing here is the time-frame The requirement for inspections is still there, but not every two months.

MR. BLENCOE: Basically, reading between the lines of what the minister says, this is really the legal liability that UBCM and local councils are concerned about. By a set stipulation, if they don't do it, something happens. Yet there is nothing now that says that the local fire department has to do it once a year or once every two years. Most councils and fire departments are responsible and would not neglect their public buildings, but we have to always be concerned about the exception. I just wonder if the minister is concerned about leaving it so wide open that there's nothing there at all. I can understand two months; I can see the problems with that. You'll see I'll be supporting this — and on liability questions I've generally supported them — but I just have some hesitance. My elbow tells me that this thing is a little wide open. Has the minister got any concerns in that area at all?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Under section 26(l) the local government will determine the frequency of the inspections. You're absolutely right, it is a matter of liability for local government, and the two months was felt to be onerous.

[9:15]

Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the mobile home parks Am I correct, and can the minister clarify, that under this section where the owner of the home is not the owner of the park he is subject to tax on his improvements — i.e., the owner of the home rather than the owner of the land will be taxed for the home and the improvement? Is that the general direction of this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The present situation is that the owner of the mobile home is taxed for the mobile home, but any additions, whether they be awnings or little sheds or buildings that are on the mobile home owner's lot, are taxed along with the park owner's property. It was felt that they legitimately belong to the owner of the mobile home and should be looked at in that way.

Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 36.

NEW WESTMINSTER
REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to put forward this bill for second reading. It contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to development of the city of New Westminster. It contains provisions regarding the process of acquiring and disposing of property within the development area. The bill empowers the city to enter into agreements with developers regarding off-site works and services. Above all, it will help ensure a high standard of development, one of which the city and the province can be proud.

MS. A. HAGEN: On behalf of city council in New Westminster, I welcome second reading of this bill in the House this evening. This particular act is a re-enactment of a statute which is now ten years old and which has guided the redevelopment of New Westminster's downtown area over that time. It's particularly timely that it should be introduced at this time, because there are some changes in the corporate structure that have been associated with the act through the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and First Capital City of New Westminster. I'd like to commend the minister and the ministry staff for their promptness in dealing with this issue and for their close and productive working relationship with city council and city officials. This particular legislation is, in fact, a cooperative effort which has our full support. We shall look forward to its timely and expeditious passage through the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7765 ]

Bill 36, New Westminster Redevelopment 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 second reading of Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND CULTURE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am once again pleased to put forward a bill for second reading. This bill contains measures designed to improve the functioning of legislation pertaining to our fire services, Pacific Northern Gas and industrial sewer charges in Port Moody; and, most significantly, improvements to the Revenue Sharing Act.

This bill refines the legislative framework of the province in a variety of ways. It enhances our ability to protect ourselves from fire by ensuring that all multiple-unit dwellings will receive consistent application of fire safety requirements. Bill 38 will enable several northern communities to enter into a franchise agreement with Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. It allows Port Moody to recover the costs of serving major industrial users of its sewer system. Most significantly, the bill improves our ability to respond to the infrastructure needs of our communities by expanding the range of the revenue-sharing program, allowing it to reach more sewer and water districts while removing cost limitations.

MR. BLENCOE: At this time I see no problems with the legislation. Consequently I will not delay it. However, as a courtesy I would like to let the minister know that I will canvass section 7, which deals with fire departments, during committee. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we support the legislation.

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

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read for the second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 38, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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 second reading of Bill 49.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am pleased to put forward this bill, University Endowment Land

Amendment Act. Bill 49 contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to the University Endowment Lands which are still under provincial jurisdiction, and smooth the transition to a new status which will be determined by the affected parties. This bill gives my ministry the power to adopt a community plan and land use regulations for the University Endowment Lands by bylaw rather than cabinet regulation. It brings the land use planning mechanism for the University Endowment Lands closer to that exercised under the Municipal Act. It also provides for an appeals process on decisions by the University Endowment Lands manager, moving the level of democracy of the lands one step closer to full municipal status.

MS. MARZARI: It would give me great pleasure to approve and support this bill in the most expeditious and efficient way possible. In fact, it's possible that this will be the least discussed bill on the floor of this House this session. If we can proceed with this bill in due haste, it would give a lot of people a great deal of comfort.

This bill was envisaged in the mind of Mrs. Iva Mann some 13 years ago. When I phoned her this afternoon to ask what she felt about the bill in its final form, she was just sitting down with a cup of tea to enjoy reading it, and she told me that she'd phone me back quickly if there was anything wrong. I can tell you, by the absence of a phone call, that this bill fills a void and brings a community plan into being where before there was no community plan. It will regularize the University Endowment Lands and its administration, give it some cohesiveness and some coherence, and is something that I think we've all been looking forward to, especially those of us who have acted almost as councillors for the University Endowment Lands over the last few years. So although I understand that there are a few sections which will be looked at over the next few years, and perhaps amendments brought forward, what you've got here is a process of community consultation. The community itself seems to be very happy with it and is looking forward to seeing its implementation as quickly as possible.

MR. PERRY: I share the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey's delight in speaking briefly to the bill. It's a real pleasure to speak to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about this. I speak as perhaps the only member of the House who was raised on the University Endowment Lands. There have been some problems of regulation recently, of which the minister is well aware. I think this legislation will be helpful in dealing with similar problems in the future. So I'm very glad to support it as well.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 7766 ]

Bill 49, University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Clark in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

[9:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
VANCOUVER ISLAND-COAST AND
NORTH COAST, RESPONSIBLE FOR PARKS

On vote 61: minister's office, $290,010 (continued).

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd first like to congratulate the minister, and I would hope that other ministers on that side of the House would follow his example in dealing with constituencies within his realm as the minister of state. When the minister visits my riding, he always has the courtesy to call and tell me that he is in the riding and why he is in the riding, and asks for any issues I have that he might want to address while he is in that riding. He also keeps me apprised of any correspondence he may have pertaining to my riding. I think that there are other ministers in this House who could well learn from the example set by the minister of state for my area; I am sure this House would run much more smoothly and have a better relationship between the opposition and the government side.

A number of questions were asked by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) that the minister was to reply to when we resumed the estimates, and I'd like to give him an opportunity to do that if he wishes before I get into what I would like to ask about.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I would just as soon that you keep on going in your particular region. I'd be happy to answer those questions regarding your constituency, and we can deal later with some of the others from the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for the opportunity.

As the minister is aware, the mayor of our community was appointed head of the transportation committee for Vancouver Island and did an admirable job in that capacity. I raised a number of questions at the meeting held in Port Alberni to deal with questions of transportation in my riding.

First of all, the funding for the Lady Rose, which still is not complete, has been going on for quite some time. Promises were made by the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Vant) that the process would be speeded up. That still has not happened. Is the minister aware of the dilemma that creates for Brooke George, the owner of that vessel, and the men who work for him, and communities such as Bamfield and Kildonan and the many fish-farms that they service up and down the coast of the Alberni Inlet? The long-term planning in the operation of such a vessel is crucial. Refits have to be done, plans have to be made to hire crews for the present season and for the upcoming season, and there's a lot of concern.

The boat, as the minister is no doubt aware, holds a special spot in the hearts of people in the Alberni riding. It's used not only for the tourist trade, which the ferry system seems to think is the prime goal, but there being no road — and I want to get into that later — to the west side of Bamfield from the east side, it carries a lot of the bulk materials that are needed on the other side of that small inlet. Also, communities such as Kildonan, the many logging camps up and down the canal, the fish-farms that require that boat to be in service to transport not only the materials they require to run those fish-farms but also the fish out of there.... It also goes down to Ucluelet, makes that run and, as I said earlier, takes many tourists down there. The matter has been going on for some time now. They've had extensions but no long-term planning and virtually no commitment from the Ferry Corporation. Could the minister use his influence as the minister of state for that area to see that this comes to a rapid conclusion?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I recognize the importance of the MV Lady Rose to your respective area and along the west coast. Because of that, I met with Mr. Brooke George. I've also met with the mayor of Port Alberni to discuss the issue, and I've sat down with the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Vant) about three times, I'd say, to discuss the issue. I think the big advantage of being the minister of state in this case is to bring this respective issue to the cabinet table and get it resolved once and for all.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Can the minister indicate to me any time-frame we could be looking at?

[ Page 7767 ]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Because it is a current issue I don't have an exact date. But I will assure the member that I will try to do that as soon as possible.

MR. G. JANSSEN: As I mentioned earlier, the issue of the Bamfield road.... Bamfield originally didn't have a road to it and is now served by a road from Port Alberni which is maintained by MacMillan Bloedel through a subsidy from the Highways ministry. Although everybody would like to see a better maintained road and there are always complaints about that road, I think MacMillan Bloedel is doing the best job it can, considering the funding that has been negotiated to maintain that road.

However, since the mid-sixties — the early sixties, as a matter of fact; I believe it was even 1959, when John Squire represented the riding.... The issue was discussed about whether to put the road into west Bamfield. There always was a controversy about whether the residents of Bamfield actually wanted the road, but as more and more people moved to the non-accessible side of the Bamfield community, Howie McDiarmid, another member, and Bob Skelly, my predecessor, took up the matter — and the matter is still being discussed. The road is some two or three kilometres in length. It's not a major expenditure. The community has recently indicated by a vast majority that it is in favour. There have been a number of meetings comprising 40 or 50 people, where two or three people indicate that they do not want the road. The regional district director for the area, Al Benton, has taken a poll and found it positive that the road should be completed.

The problem is that the people who formerly lived on the other side of Bamfield — the non-accessible side of Bamfield — were few in number. But now that the population has grown and we have become more aware of the materials needed to build houses that are of a more substantial nature than the ones there originally.... All the materials have to be taken across the inlet by boat or barge.

The question of garbage is also.... Formerly — many years ago — it was quite acceptable to throw the garbage on a fish boat, take a trip out into the Pacific Ocean and simply throw it overboard. Now we're more environmentally concerned, and the garbage has to be taken down to individual docks, put on another vessel, taken across to the other side of Bamfield Inlet, then trucked away. Now that we have a consensus in Bamfield that the road is necessary, that we need the road, does the minister — in his capacity as the minister of state — have influence to see that the road finally comes to completion, after 30-some years to put in two or three kilometres of road?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I have been to Bamfield, so I'm familiar with the village. I'm also very aware of this problem. Members of my staff have met with some proponents of the road. I know it has also been discussed in the transportation committee, and they will be reporting to me over the next week. I'm sure that will be one of the issues they will bring forward

I would be very happy to sit down and share that report regarding Bamfield at that time, and we'll see what we can do to resolve some of those problems.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister is responsible, as minister of state, for a variety of issues that happen in his particular district, including Vancouver Island. I am sure he has significant influence with other ministries that deal in his particular areas. I am hoping that we'll have more success with this minister than we've had with the particular ministries we've been dealing with in the Alberni area.

We could go on about roads for a long time. The road to Tofino is.... Well, it's not a road; it's a trail that's been paved. It's an old logging road. I'm amazed that after I and previous members canvassed to have that road upgraded, this year in the Highways budget there's one bridge; one old wooden logging bridge will be replaced on the Tofino road. I don't think that's progress, after the length of time that road has been there — almost 20 years, I believe. This year the Highways department comes out and says: "We're going to give you one bridge."

I'm sure the minister is aware — and I've canvassed the Highways minister on this — that much more needs to be done. The tourist traffic to Pacific Rim National Park is massive; 400,000 to 500,000 people take that trip. Large motor homes can't even make it around the corners; they have to back up, stall traffic and create dangerous conditions. It's an hour-and-a-half drive, and there are no communications along there. When an accident happens, somebody has to drive all the way back to report the accident and get a vehicle, an ambulance or the police department to come in.

Recently a motorcyclist had a fatal accident on that road. Perhaps if there were some communications on that road, and if the road was in better shape, people could get to those accident scenes quicker. Perhaps the young motorcyclist would have had a chance of making it.

I'm just asking the minister, as the Minister of Highways is virtually ignoring the requests handed in year after year to upgrade that road, if he has the authority or the capacity to see that those ministries actually do attend to the public good.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I will just take that as notice. I am sure it's part of the transportation plan that's going to be delivered to me in a week or so.

MR. LOVICK: As I listened to the response from the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast, I was sorry that I was not here for the beginning of his comments to hear him explain the role of his ministry, because I am one of those persons who still has considerable difficulty with the concept of ministry of state, and I wonder what those people do.

As I listened to that line of questioning, and as I listened to the response, I thought: is it possible that this role of ministry of state has changed somewhat? Is it the case that the minister of state is now nothing

[ Page 7768 ]

more than a paid lobbyist by this government? Is it possible that his role is simply to go out and lobby on behalf of all the constituencies that reside within that particular geographical area? Is that in fact what the job is? Because I remember, Mr. Chairman, that the job used to have something to do with economic development.

It used to be the case that the ministers of state, wherever they might reside, were responsible for meeting with all of the citizens within the particular communities, and they would come forward with proposals. They would do something under the heading of "economic development." Now, however, it seems — and I offer this for those individuals at the end who are already waving the white flag — it seems the role has transmogrified, that we are now talking about having a kind of super-MLA who will work on behalf of all the MLAs. If that's the case....

[9:45]

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: How interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that some individuals sitting in this chamber leap to their metaphoric feet — because they didn't really get up but showed they wanted to — applaud and say how important that is and how excited they are by that concept, forgetting, sadly, that to embrace that concept is also to say that they do not understand their own role in this chamber. They don't understand what their role as elected representatives happens to be if in fact they're prepared to allow somebody else named a minister of state to take on that job. That's the tragedy of it.

I'm horrified to discover that apparently the minister has also made that leap, has perhaps forgotten what the justification for his particular activity was, and instead, is answering questions by saying, "Well, I'll see what I can do about Highways acts" or, "I'll see what I can do about lottery grant Y" or some such thing. Those are not within your purview, I would remind you, Mr. Minister, unless something radical has changed. I would therefore give you this opportunity to respond and tell me if I am erring in what I am saying thus far, and perhaps to define your role in such a way that all of us can indeed comprehend what it might be.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think I need to point out to this member that the minister of state is not top-heavy and making directions from his perspective; the directions are made from the ground-floor level — in other words, where the people are involved. The task forces who represent those respective regions — 14 of them, dealing with tourism, health, economic development and social issues — report to me, indicating to me what the needs are in those respective regions. It is those needs that I represent at the cabinet table, in the sense of giving a community perspective.

At the same time, if you want to talk about economic development, we were very much involved with the mine in Port Hardy. We were very much involved with the $44 million development in Campbell River. We're very much involved with some of the projects in your region: the seniors' housing project and your handyDART issue. We are all involved with those.

As I mentioned, it's from the task forces, which are made up of people from school districts, municipal councils and native Indians. People are involved in those task forces, and they tell me what they need, and yes, at the cabinet table I represent them. And I am eager to work with you as an MLA to make sure that some of those issues are resolved.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I had my peroration with passion a moment ago, so I will be a little lower-key now to save my voice. But let me just remind the minister that when he makes claims to represent the people or when he says he gets people who will represent my riding, he errs. That's wrong. Our system of parliamentary democracy says, rather, that the people choose their elected representatives; they send them to this chamber. Those are the people who make the decisions, so please, Mr. Minister, don't suggest something to us, unless you want to rewrite about 700 years of parliamentary tradition.

I want to come directly back to the question I posed a few minutes ago, because with all deference to my friend the minister, I do not believe I've had an answer. The question is: does the minister see his role as a minister of state as essentially a lobbyist? Is it the case that he becomes an advocate, a kind of buffer zone between the MLAs and the line ministries? Is he the one who takes it upon himself to say: "You want a highway? I'll tell you how to get somewhere with Highways. Talk to me." Would you explain, please?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think you got a very adequate answer when I answered the last question, so the answer stands.

MR. LOVICK: I have never thought to accuse that minister of presumptuousness, but I think it was a trifle presumptuous to suggest that the comment he made a moment ago was somehow an answer to my query about lobbying. Sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't think it was.

Let me try another line of questioning. The question I want to pose is this: Mr. Minister, is it your contention that you are in fact involved in all of the major economic development activities or projects occurring within the geographical region for which you have responsibility? Is that true?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think I've mentioned before that we work through the task forces, and at the same time it is a team approach with the other ministers of state and Regional Development.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry; I must confess, Mr. Minister, that I didn't hear the last part of that answer. If you wouldn't mind. My apologies.

[ Page 7769 ]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I mentioned that it was a team approach with the other ministers of state, through the Minister of Regional Development.

MR. LOVICK: But in answer to my direct question, you are aware, or you do have some involvement, then, in all the major economic development initiatives, projects or activities within that geographical region. Is that the case?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I guess you could say, as I said before, that as a team approach we're all involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, give me a specific question and I'll answer it.

MR. LOVICK: I could pose a question, I suppose, in very specific terms, and say are you involved or aren't you, but I won't.

I'll give you a specific example. Can the minister tell me whether he had anything to do with, was consulted on, made recommendations on or did investigation of the proposed ferrochromium plant in the constituency of Nanaimo?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: On that issue, the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is involved, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is involved, the federal government is involved, and as the minister of state, yes, I'm also involved.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, Mr. Chairman. Will the minister now tell me in somewhat more detail what the nature of his involvement has been? What has he had to do with that? I'm aware of the answer that he gave; I appreciate it. But could he give somewhat more detail in terms of his ministry's involvement in this particular project?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: With the particular team that I talked about, this issue obviously came up on the table, and there were a number of sites on Vancouver Island that were brought forward. From the minister of state's point of view, it was to coordinate and assist the Minister of Regional Development and facilitate the activity of the project.

MR. LOVICK: Accepting that, then, Mr. Minister, can you tell me what advice you gave on this matter and on what grounds you gave that advice? Okay, you gave that advice. What evidence did you have to give whatever advice you gave, whatever conclusions you drew?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Any advice that we would give as a team, it would seem to me, should be left with the team. I mean, we were discussing the issue, and I just mentioned the fact that Vancouver Island had two or three great sites. That was one of them that was brought forward. As I understood it, that particular city was also interested in that project. That's the message I carried.

MR. LOVICK: The minister seems to be saying that the team did all of this. What position did you play on the team? Did you have anything to do with that? That's what I want to find out.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I was one of the key players. [Applause.)

MR. LOVICK: I have no idea that an answer of that sort could generate this support and enthusiasm from the opposite side. However, I continue to learn new things every day in this chamber.

I detect that we are getting close to the hour, and certainly I am prepared to move adjournment of this debate if that is requisite. But I would rather pursue this question just one more time to see if I can get a little bit more detailed answer. Will the minister share with this House, please, what his definition is of being a major player? What did he do? What was his contribution to the team that made this recommendation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 61 pass? The first member for Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: We're trying to find out something. Mr. Chairman, in frustration, I would respectfully move that the committee rise, report ever so slight 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. RICHMOND: I wish everyone a pleasant good evening after a nice night's work.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:58 p.m.