[ Page 7785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Milk industry task force. Mr. Barlee –– 7785

Purcell heliskiing venture. Mr. Blencoe –– 7786

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7786

Investment of B.C. Hydro pension plan funds. Mr. Clark –– 7787

Petroleum industry oil-spill response organization. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7787

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 –– 7787

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Williams

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Clark

Ministerial Statement

Essential services in hospitals during labour dispute. Hon. L. Hanson –– 7818

Mr. Sihota

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 –– 7819

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Seniors Advisory Council Act (Bill 41). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 7826

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Third reading

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 7836

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Credit Union Incorporation Act (Bill 50). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7843

Mr. Clark –– 7843

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7844

Assessment Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 48). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7845

Mr. Clark

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We have in the members' gallery today two very distinguished visitors: His Excellency James Humphreys, Australia's High Commissioner to Canada, and Mrs. Humphreys. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like the House to welcome two guests here today: my wife Florence, who is a registered nurse here to support the nurses and also to visit the galleries; and from Nanaimo my father-in-law, Clifford McIvor, here on his sixty-ninth birthday.

HON. MR. REE: I would like to welcome a friend from the great village of Lions Bay on Howe Sound, in your riding, Mr. Speaker. She is a vice-president of the recently established Whistler Institute of Advanced Learning, a private business initiative that is being structured to offer executive programs to business people throughout the Pacific Rim countries. Would all the members please join me in welcoming Karen McAndrew.

MR. PERRY: I would like to welcome to the precincts Marcia Forrest and Brenda Jameson, who are registered nurses. Any other of the registered nurses who were here this morning that I don't recognize I would also like to ask the House to join me in welcoming.

MRS. McCARTHY: We have visitors in the gallery today from the state of California: Mr. and Mrs. David McClelland and their three children. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. DUECK: On behalf of this side of the House, I would like to welcome the nurses who are visiting the precincts today. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BRUCE: In the House today are 22 students from Crofton Elementary School, a little school in my hometown...

AN. HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. BRUCE: I'll name all 22 of them.

... with my son, Ryan, who is here with his fellow friends, taking a look around to see what this place is all about. They are with their teacher, Mr. Tim Lord, and several parents, Donna House, Judy Aitchison and Ngaire Wilson, along with my wife. Would you please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

MILK INDUSTRY TASK FORCE

MR. BARLEE: To the Minister of Agriculture. In a hastily called private meeting on the night of June 12, the Premier told representatives of the dairymen's association and the Minister of Agriculture that he wanted British Columbia to pull out of the national milk marketing system. But at a similar meeting a year ago, you stated that the decision to opt out would be left up to the farmers, the decision whether or not they wished to continue or discontinue participation in the national milk marketing plan. After that meeting, the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) was appointed chairman of a hastily called three-person task force on milk marketing, which the minister announced the day after the meeting with the Premier. My question is this: does the minister really believe that the appointed chairman can be considered truly impartial, given his support of the Premier's position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I strongly believe that the chairman of the task force can be completely impartial, because I think we will have presentations from all kinds of sources as to what the future of the milk industry will be in this province.

I can tell you that there are golden opportunities, and if we sit back and don't look at those, then we're not representing the people properly. Hon. member, I stated very clearly when I discussed it with the producers about a year ago that I would gladly have their input. I have had numerous occasions, I might tell you and members of this assembly, to meet with several different groups involved in the dairy business. We have discussed different options. We have discussed the issue of negotiating in the federal system; we've discussed the offers that have been presented to us. We've made personal appearances on behalf of this province, trying to have a better allocation. I have a great deal of confidence that what we are doing is the right procedure.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Agriculture: if this is a representative body, why is there no announcement of a consumer representative on the task force on milk marketing?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Over a period of time we have discussed what opportunities there are. I guess I'm a consumer as much as the next person. I hope every one of us in this assembly is a consumer of milk. It's very important; it's a good health food.

I think the members of the task force — both that are being considered — will be good representatives from a consumer point of view. In fact, I bet you will have considerable input from the consumers themselves, who will make their case known to that task force. Once all those presentations are made, then recommendations will come forward. I think it will be fair to everybody.

[ Page 7786 ]

MR. BARLEE: A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. It has been stated that British Columbia consumers pay too much for milk in relation to other provinces. The Shelford report last year placed the blame not on the farmers but on the retailers.

The question is this: why hasn't the minister taken the opportunity to look at the pricing system, instead of picking on the producers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Through the discussions we've had with the formation of the task force, I perceive the guidelines by which they are undertaking their responsibilities. I think it leaves it very open for a number of inputs that can be made in the way of comment and questions that they may well ask — one group to another — as to what the future holds for that industry. Without that input, I don't believe the task force will cover the whole gamut.

The pricing, as far as milk is concerned — whether it's at the retail level, at the farm gate or at the processor level being distributed to the retail sector — is one that I'm sure will come forward in those discussions with the task force. I think it's only fair that all representations be heard in light of the responsibilities of the task force.

PURCELL HELISKIING VENTURE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The business community of Golden, the Golden council and the Regional District of Columbia–Shuswap are all supporting the proposed operation of a new economic venture: the Purcell heliskiing venture. Approval of this venture appears to have been blocked by the provincial government as a result of a personal objection by the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall).

[2:15]

The question for the minister is: has the minister received the revised bylaw of the Regional District of Columbia–Shuswap, and if not already signed, can she assure the House that she will approve this local government bylaw post-haste?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The bylaw is sitting on my desk at this time, and I have not yet dealt with the matter.

MR. BLENCOE: This minister constantly says she that will not interfere in local government and that she will support what local government requests. The minister should be aware that the only serious objections to this proposal are coming from the member for Columbia River. The project has gone through all of the various stages. It's supported by the community and the council. There's even been a court case supporting the proposal. Can the minister assure this House that there will be no more political interference in this matter? Will she support the Golden council and community?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that the comments that have just been made by the second member for Victoria could be construed as political interference. I have not yet dealt with the bylaw.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. On May 31 of last year, the minister was asked by the press whether or not he was interested in knowing how Mr. Giordano got onto the list of individuals who can conduct pub referendums. At the time, the minister said: "I haven't got the report." The question to the minister is this: was it the purpose of that internal investigation to take a look at how Mr. Giordano got onto the list?

HON. L. HANSON: I made a statement Monday last which outlined my recollection of the sequence of events. I'd suggest to the member that if he didn't get a copy, I'd be pleased to present him with one.

MR. SIHOTA: This is a question that flows from the statement the minister made on Monday. The minister has told this House all along that the purpose of the internal report was not to take a look at how Mr. Giordano got on the list. That seems to contradict his statement on May 31, 1988. Again to the minister: in light of that contradiction, could he tell the House the purpose of the internal investigation that he ordered?

HON. L. HANSON: I know the member is aware that it has been extremely well publicized, canvassed, questioned and investigated. I say to the member opposite that his use of the word "contradiction" is just not correct. Again I offer a copy of my statement of last Monday for his knowledge.

MR. SIHOTA: The contradiction comes again from the minister's statement. The minister outlined in his statement at what point he first became aware of concerns about how Mr. Giordano got on the list. On May 18, 1988, the minister said: "There was no involvement from the Premier's office or my office in dealing with the matter of how Mr. Giordano got on the list." That was on May 18, 1988. Was that true?

HON. L. HANSON: I would hope that at some point these repetitious questions would be recognized as such. Again my answer is that there was a statement made last Monday. It canvassed the event very well. During the various question periods that we've had, the issue has been canvassed very well. The issue was dealt with in great depth in the ombudsman's report. There were subsequent investigations by the RCMP and various people. The member certainly should get copies of all those public documents, and he could find his answers simply by reading.

[ Page 7787 ]

INVESTMENT OF B.C. HYDRO
PENSION PLAN FUNDS

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. I have a draft actuarial report dated June 1989 on the B.C. Hydro pension plan. Can the minister explain why $56,799,000 of that plan is invested in financial instruments that are in clear violation of the Financial Administration Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The question apparently had such a high degree of interest that I couldn't hear it clearly. I wonder if I could have it repeated.

MR. CLARK: I have an actuarial report dated June, 1989, on the B.C. Hydro pension plan. Can the minister explain why close to $57 million of that plan is invested in financial instruments that are in violation of the Financial Administration Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I obviously don't have the file at hand. I will be happy to respond to the question once I obtain the background material.

My quick reaction from memory is that during some period between 1972 and 1975 the government of that day purchased some shares in a variety of enterprises, and my memory is that as a result of those purchases we on this side of the House have been looking at that situation from time to time. Nevertheless, I will give an answer to the member on that specific point when I get the material. I'll take the question on notice.

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY OIL-SPILL
RESPONSE ORGANIZATION

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday morning it was reported from Washington, D.C., that the North American oil industry has admitted that it cannot handle a major oil spill and they have announced a program that will cost $250 million to equip five regional centres to react to oil spills within five hours.

At the moment the plan calls for a petroleum industry response organization to be headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices in New York; New Orleans; Norfolk, Virginia; Long Beach, California and Seattle. This is a privately financed oil industry which takes a great deal of profit from British Columbia, but more importantly, significantly affects British Columbia as its tankers move off our coast.

Will the minister consider requesting that the oil companies locate at least one of these field offices on our British Columbia coast?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am in receipt of a letter to the President of the United States from the Secretary of the Interior indicating what must be done in terms of handling that industry, and also a recounting of the problems that did occur with the Exxon Valdez.

I am also in receipt of a similar gesture of cooperation and of oil spill management from the Canadian Petroleum Association. I don't know, but I suspect that David Anderson, who is negotiating with the state governments of Alaska, Washington and Oregon on behalf of the Premier's Task Force on Oil Spills, may speak to the American petroleum association about siting equipment and resources and considering plans for that type of reaction in Canadian waters. If he isn't successful, we will still have the cooperation of the Canadian Petroleum Association. I have spoken to their director, Ian Smyth, with respect to that. I think they recognize their responsibility, as an industry association, to ensure that they have the best management practices and emergency team practices available to safeguard their industry and our Pacific waters.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: I did not notice two delightful people in the audience until I sat here for about five minutes. One of them is Christine, my executive assistant from the constituency office, and her husband Chuck. Christine and Chuck just recently married, and upon marriage, Christine — who is a lovely young woman — became a grandmother. Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY: I'm pleased to welcome back to the press gallery, if only for a day, a young lady who was in our press gallery for quite a long time. I know all of the House will welcome Lisa Fitterman.

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to pick up where we left off last night. We were dealing with the ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo. We had discussed the fact that the minister of state stated quite solidly that he has been a key player in the team making decisions about the ferrochromium plant, and that he had some involvement in all these economic developments, initiatives, projects, etc. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) asked — and I would like to ask, because we didn't get answers to those questions — just how the minister defines his role. What does being a key player mean? What is your definition of a

[ Page 7788 ]

key player? I would like to know more specifically what your involvement has been in the decision-making process for that plant.

HON. MR HUBERTS: As I indicated yesterday, being one of the key players certainly makes it obvious that we're part of a team. The ministers of state and the Minister of Regional Development discuss all the issues that are brought to us from the regions.

In the case of Vancouver Island, there were three sites identified, and Nanaimo in particular was very interested in this ferrochromium plant. My statements have always been, for any of the three sites, that whatever industry we bring to Vancouver Island, we want to make sure it's environmentally sound, and if it isn't environmentally sound we don't want it. If you check through the history, I've always made that comment.

At the same time, the ferrochromium plant would never have happened if the people of Nanaimo didn't want it, would never have happened if the federal government wasn't involved, would never have happened if Regional Development wasn't also involved, and would not happen if the minister of state was opposed to it. But the important thing to stress here is that the people of Nanaimo wanted it. I think it's also important to stress that Dave Stupich, the former member, was also keenly interested in having it.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm interested that you say that you're a key player, yet all I'm hearing is that you brought three sites to the committee or you recommended the three sites that were brought to you. But contrary to what you're saying, there is some great concern among the citizens of Nanaimo about the ferrochromium plant.

As your role, I understand, is economic.... Maybe you can clarify that for me. You mentioned the environment. Is your role also to look after environmental concerns, or is it just economic? I'll let you clarify that first.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'll repeat it again. I'm interested in economic development but not economic development that's not environmentally sensitive. I think every British Columbian needs to make that statement.

MS. PULLINGER: One of the things that's becoming clear, Mr. Chairman, is that we have to be very careful about economic development in terms of conflicts. If nothing else is clear in this session, I think that particular issue is.

I would like to ask very specifically what the involvement of the minister has been — and I would like very specific answers — for instance, with the Pacific Biological Station. Have you had any discussions with the Pacific Biological Station people in terms of the effects of this ferrochromium plant?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: If we're going to discuss ferrochromium, let's just have a few more questions and put it all together to see where she's coming from.

MS. PULLINGER: Okay, I'll give you several questions then.

Obviously there's some concern around Nanaimo about the plant, about conflicts with various economic concerns. You tell me your role is to coordinate and look after all the economic development in that region. I'm having a little trouble defining just what your role is, if there is one. I would like to know if you've spoken to folks like the Pacific Biological Station. That's a very simple question. I don't see that it's difficult to answer.

How about the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union — have you spoken to them? Another simple question. How about Hagensborg Resources Ltd., who have a fish-farming operation fewer than five kilometres away from the plant? Has the minister spoken to any of those people to find out what their concerns are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think I've made that very clear. I don't care if there are 50 organizations out there. If they indicate to us that it doesn't meet the environmental standards and it's proven by the federal government and the provincial government, then it won't happen. It's just that simple.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, the minister of state is a relatively new role. What I'm trying to determine is if there is in fact a role. I can't seem to get any answers from the minister as to what he is actually doing. He says he is a key player in this project, yet he won't say whether he's talked to any of the other key economic interests, which is directly related to economic development on the ferrochromium plant. He's having a little bit of trouble answering that. It seems to me that it's a very simple straightforward question. Have you dealt with any of these other economic interests and people who can give you some information about that, like the fishermen's union? How about MacMillan Bloedel? Have you talked to the people there? Or Doman's? To add to that list of question, how about the tourism people in Nanaimo? I would like some specific answers to those questions so that I can see what exactly your role is. Who are these people of Nanaimo that you're saying are so enthusiastic? I would like to know where you get that information.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: My role is a coordinating role. Some of those specific questions are environmental issues, and environmental questions are addressed to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I play a coordinating role; it's as simple as that. I should ask the member a question: are you against jobs for Nanaimo? That's the question. At the same time, I would think that you would answer it the same way that I do: I'm for jobs for Nanaimo, but

[ Page 7789 ]

they need to meet the environmental standards, so that they are environmentally safe jobs.

MR. LOVICK: We were trying very hard, based on the temper and tone of last night's debate, to approach this in a quiet, careful, modulated and rational way. But what do we get for answers? We get this vacuous kind of puffery that we've come to associate with that side. All we're asking you is: what does being on the team mean, Mr. Minister? What does being a team player mean? You want to tell us that you're making great things happen in our community. We say: give us an illustration; tell us about that; lay it out; give us some specifics; give us some detail. Instead, all we get is the reiteration of the same silly stuff: namely, "I'm a team player, and I make big things happen." We need better than that.

We also want some answers to some very specific questions. A few minutes ago the minister made reference to the fact that he had input from a number of people. No, I'm sorry, that's not quite right. He didn't say that. Rather, he said: "Do you think I would have proceeded if we hadn't had input from X number of people?" He made reference to the people of Nanaimo, among others. My colleague quite rightly poses the simple question: who do you mean when you say "the people of Nanaimo"? Our information is that the great majority of the people of Nanaimo were not consulted. Moreover, the city council, you recall, put some very definite obstacles in the way of this proposal, because it felt it didn't have enough information and was not in fact consulted. We are getting a groundswell of opinion throughout our community, and more and more individuals are suddenly perceiving that perhaps we're proceeding with this project — which has long-term implications — before we have the answers we require.

We're asking you, Mr. Minister, to simply give us some idea of what your involvement was. We know that most of these questions will be for the Minister of Environment. Believe me, we have lots of questions for that minister. But we also want to know what you do to earn your salary. We want to know what your particular job was. Who did you consult with? Who did you check this out with before you gave it your so-called clean bill of health? How about a few answers, Mr. Minister? How about a little help?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are some questions posed with respect to a ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo and the Ministry of Environment.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh. Well, let me just tell you where it is. It's been announced in the press release, but I'll say it again. The proposition does have approval in principle, but there are two conditions. Number one is a public hearing process put in place by the applicant; and secondly, the submission of a full-permit application. The proponents know what that is, and they will comply with that at their timetable. Until such time as they do, nothing proceeds. So that's the answer from the standpoint of Environment.

MS. PULLINGER: As the first member for Nanaimo has pointed out, we're not pursuing this from an environmental point of view right now. What we're trying to do is look at the economic coordination, which is what you're telling us is your role. I would specifically like to know if you've talked to any of the other economic interests involved in that area. For instance, $75 million to $100 million worth of herring go through the channel each year. Have you talked to those folks at all? What about the fish-farm that is not too far away, in which there is also public money? Have you talked to those folks? Have you talked to MacMillan Bloedel, which has 1,500 jobs — one of the biggest employers in the region? They expressed some concerns. Have you talked to those people? How about Doman? Surely you would talk to those people. Tourism is a growing industry in Nanaimo. Have you talked to those people to see if a ferrochromium plant and a mineral wool plant are compatible with that industry?

Who are these people you've talked to? What kind of contact have you had? What I'm trying to get at is: what is your role? What are you doing in this? Maybe the minister can answer some of those questions. If you haven't talked to those people, tell me who you have talked to.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think I've answered their questions adequately. They're just repeating themselves.

MR. LOVICK: As dispassionately, quietly and as low-keyedly as I can, I will say to the minister that, with all due deference, no, you didn't answer a single one of those questions. The obvious suspicion that is arising over here is that maybe you don't know or maybe you haven't consulted with anybody and maybe you're a very minor player in that particular game, who simply sits around the table and says: "Yeah, guys, whatever you want to do is okay with me." That's the suspicion we have, Mr. Minister. We're giving you a chance to vindicate yourself, to vindicate the role of the ministries of state, to show us that you indeed have a function in this government. Last chance, Mr. Minister. Do you want to answer?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm very comfortable with my position as minister of state.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to talk to the minister in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for Parks, because we have some major recreational problems surrounding the reservoir behind the Libby Dam known as Koocanusa Lake. Two years ago the ministry you now head — which was at that time part of the Ministry of Environment and Parks — was involved in a recreational study of the use of the Koocanusa reservoir. It was a study not of the

[ Page 7790 ]

Kikomun Creek Park but of the unorganized areas. What was found was that there were at least 18,000 users around that reservoir in the summer between the middle of June and early September.

The problem was that there were, I believe, 24 sites in all. Of that, 83 percent of the use was in 8 sites and 25 percent of the use was at a single site — that was at Newgate. Following that survey of the users and the statement of the obvious crisis that was there as long as we had all these people using sites that didn't have adequate facilities for recreation — meaning that there were a number of crises about health concern and so on — the Minister of Environment and Parks in 1988 promised the establishment of a park at Newgate. I believe two toilets were installed and there was some other, minor work.

Could the minister explain to me what his understanding is of what is going to happen to this park at Newgate, because progress has been disappointingly slow. Would the minister tell me what his understanding is of what has happened and what is about to happen, and what his expectations are about the use of that park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: It's getting very specific to that park. But we're reviewing that park and a few others as far as updating some of the facilities we have. That's one of many we're looking at and reviewing.

MS. EDWARDS: I intend to be extremely specific, Mr. Minister, and as I understand it, it's your task to be able to answer me on the specifics.

I want to know what's going to happen at the park at Newgate, which had a disappointingly small amount of work done on it last summer. As I understand it — and I've done some work on the specifics of it — there is nothing but talk going on right now and no indication of what the Ministry of Parks intends to do, except that there was no allocation of funds for development of that park this summer.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: To be very specific, we are reviewing Newgate park.

MS. EDWARDS: Does that mean that you're reviewing its existence? Are you reviewing whether or not you shall in fact carry out the promise that was given that there will be a class A park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Any promises that were mentioned we will certainly be in the process of carrying out at the appropriate time.

[2:45]

MS. EDWARDS: The appropriate time was last year or previously. This year is too late to have answered the concerns that were put to you and the survey, which showed you very clearly that there is a problem around Lake Koocanusa. It centres on the Newgate park; it's not only at the Newgate park. What happens is that there are more and more people going to Lake Koocanusa, partly as a result of the kind of promotion that the lake got in Beautiful British Columbia magazine. You may not know, since you were not minister at the time, that Beautiful British Columbia came out with an absolutely magnificent colour article on Lake Koocanusa just in the year when B.C. Hydro and the Bonneville Power Administration were deciding that they would be able to draw down enough water in a drought year. The lake was in extremely bad condition, and what was promised to be a fish year turned down, so the use that could have been expected in fact didn't happen.

That kind of use will come back as long as the fishery remains. The fishery has been extremely valuable so far. If we are going to continue to have people using the lake, we need to have development of the sites around the whole reservoir. They all suffer to some extent the same pressure that the Newgate park suffers. If something doesn't happen at Newgate, the impact affects all the other sites; if we have something happening at Newgate, it affects all the other sites.

All of these impact on Kikomun Creek Park, which is under your jurisdiction, albeit administered by a private group on contract. In the parts not directly under an organized park, we have problems, because the Ministry of Parks has allocated no money, as far as I understand. Neither have the other ministries. Some of them have allocated a very little money.

What we need to know is: what kind of plans do you have to deal with Newgate and the other sections? You are talking about review. In what context are you doing a review?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm not at all disagreeing with what the member is saying. All I am saying is that we are reviewing and discussing it with B.C. Hydro regarding the reservoir areas. As soon as that gets to my desk, we will do what we believe is necessary. I'm not disagreeing with the member that it is an important area.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could tell me what made the ministry change its mind, and why the minister changed his mind about developing a park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I don't recall saying that we weren't going to develop Newgate.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister, as I understand it, said that he is reviewing the park at Newgate. The promise that I was given was that there would be a park developed at Newgate. That was in the spring of 1988, after the crisis was put forward to the other minister. The minister says now that he hasn't changed his mind. What made you decide that you wouldn't proceed with development at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think I've answered that. I said we are reviewing all aspects of that and I don't disagree with the member. I'm not quite sure what

[ Page 7791 ]

she is all excited about. I recognize that it's a concern to her, and I recognize that we are reviewing it and will be dealing with it.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder how quickly the minister thinks parks would be developed in this province if we reviewed them all the time and called that doing something. I would sit down and wait for an answer if I thought I would get any, but of course it's such a foolish question, because the answer that I was given was so foolish.

Nothing is happening at Newgate, Mr. Minister. When is something going to happen? How are you going to do it? Are you going to involve the people? Are we going to be able to have a public meeting to deal with the recreational use of the reservoir on which that particular dam was justified by B.C. Hydro and this government? The recreational use of the reservoir has not yet been adequately dealt with. The government promised that it would be. It now says only that it can't do it under current legislation, but it doesn't look forward to any new legislation. When we do get a promise from the minister about a park at Newgate, we get — a whole year later — a different minister saying: "Everything is going ahead. I am reviewing it." So nothing is happening.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I am just wondering if the member would go on as much as that if she were meeting me one on one. It seems to me sort of ridiculous. We indicated that we are reviewing the process. If you are just looking at the history of the 11 months that I have been here, and look at how we strengthened the parks and the commitment that we've made to them, recognizing that there are many parks that need development, and Newgate is one of those.... We're not saying that we're not going to do it. It's not in my budget this year, but it is certainly something that we will be reviewing and looking at for next year. Every member here has got a park that he would like me to develop right now.

MS. EDWARDS: I presume that I can take that to mean that the minister doesn't intend to get anything done at Newgate this year. It's not in your budget. It's under review. Nothing is happening at Newgate this year. Okay.

I would like to ask the minister, given the fact that he intends to do nothing with Newgate this year: does he intend...?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He didn't say that. You're making it up.

MS. EDWARDS: He said that nothing would happen at Newgate this year under his budget. Is he willing to share with us any ideas he has vis-à-vis having some agreement with B.C. Hydro about operating that park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I mentioned, there are discussions with B.C. Hydro, and whatever comes out of that, I will announce when the time comes.

MS. EDWARDS: Does that mean the minister goes in with no opinions?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm very comfortable where I'm coming from.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a number of constituents who frequently speak to me about another lake, Grave Lake. It's a privately owned lake in Elk Valley, north of Sparwood, and it is currently operated by a private organization. It is owned by Crows Nest Resources, but the regional task force in the area has recommended that Grave Lake be purchased as a recreation area to be developed as a park. I believe indications were when the company first went in there to do coal-mining that the idea of the ministry was that the company might donate the park to the ministry. That didn't happen. I wonder if the minister would make some comment on the possibility of following the recommendation of his colleague's task force on purchasing that lake.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: At this point I have not received the recommendation, but I would be very delighted to look at it.

MS. EDWARDS: I only have one more thing to deal with, Mr. Chairman, and that's the Purcell wilderness. The management plan for the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is currently undergoing review, and I have been asked to try and get assurance from the minister — because there seems to be some worry — that the review process will continue as it has been laid out. As I understand it, the questionnaires have been collected. They are going to be put together and that will go to a basic, I guess you could call it, sort of White Paper, which will go back to the public for more input from the public. After that time, there will be a draft management plan put out, which will again go to the public. I would assume there would be more public meetings. I'm not sure how many public meetings will be at the second level that I mentioned. I would like the minister to comment on that. I would like him to give assurance that there will be that level of input and I would like to hear his comments about how he expects to respond to the input from the public in the area.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As the member knows, the Purcell wilderness planning newsletter has gone out, and we have invited public involvement. I can assure the member that the whole process will be very much open to the public.

MS. EDWARDS: Could the minister tell me how he sees it being open? Does he see it being open through public meetings, or how does he see that happening?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: If I can recall, we have already done some public meetings on Purcell. If we need to go to more of them, then we'll go to more of them.

[ Page 7792 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I guess, Mr. Minister, you tempt us to get assurance that you know what is being said by your ministry and that you do agree with it. The ministry says that there will be two other rounds of public process. Will that involve public meetings?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, the question isn't whether I agree with the ministry. If we need more open public processes, then I as the minister will indicate that's what we need, and then that's what we'll do.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to conclude by suggesting to the minister that we need more public process; that the people in our area believe we need more public process. I am sure, that being the case, the minister will hear that — by whatever means it is that he finds out — and determine whether it is needed or not.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have sat through the minister's debates here and was briefly involved yesterday, and I have listened to him say, on questioning from this side of the House, that he's involved; that he consults; that he listens; that he convenes; that he is in fact a team player. As we know, on a baseball team, you've got a batter and a catcher and a first baseman and a second baseman, and you have fielders; and in football you have quarterbacks and fullbacks. But you've also got the bat boy and you've also got the water boy. What we're trying to determine here is: are we dealing with a fullback, a quarterback, the batter, the pitcher, or in fact the bat boy or the water boy?

We're simply trying to identify from this side of the House why the minister has his estimates here and why in fact.... I wonder what the $10 at the end is for. I hope that's not his wages for the year.

We're simply trying to determine what the minister of state does and is involved in. As is widely known, the former member for Alberni and myself have been calling for an independent review of the land use conflicts that are occurring, particularly on Vancouver Island in my riding. That hasn't been done. An offer was made by the federal Environment minister to do that study. It wasn't taken up by this government. The conflict undoubtedly will occur again. It happened in Sulphur Passage. It's now happening in the Carmanah. It's going to continue up and down the Island, on the coast, and perhaps all over British Columbia.

I see that the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) is leaving. We attempted to get some answers out of him on PEP. We attempted to get some answers out of other ministers. The minister of state says: "You can always come and see me, and I'll take it up for you." He says he reviews, he consults, he meets with people, he calls hearings. I guess the question is: can he in fact make a decision?

[3:00]

Now that Tofino's city council and the chamber of commerce.... I know he was in Tofino and is undoubtedly aware — he's on top of matters in his ministry — that they have done a study for some $5,000 or $10,000 to determine the future of the Clayoquot Sound area. They would like to become more involved in the tourism aspect and move away from the resource-extraction type of industry that's been prevalent there for some time. They've requested a further quarter of a million dollars to do a larger study — an impact study. I'm sure that's gone through the minister's office. Is he going to approve that quarter of a million dollars? Is he going to deny it? Is he going to partially fund it? Are we going to have some local input to see whether we can ward off future resource and land use conflicts in this area?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We did meet with that group in Tofino, and we also facilitated their ability to come to ELUC and make a presentation. It is one of many groups that are concerned about that issue. We encouraged them to make sure that other groups were also part of that planning process. Hopefully they will come back and indicate to me that they are working with the other groups as well, so that they can resolve some of those difficulties. Certainly, some of the other groups are quite willing to work with each other to resolve the problem and to prevent problems in the future.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Sitting in the gallery today are two very dear old friends from Nanaimo. On behalf of the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and myself, I would like to introduce and ask the House to make welcome Ron and Florence Riley. Florence Riley, as a matter of fact, was the executive assistant to the former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bob Strachan.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Again we're told by the minister, as before, that there's consultation: "I'll take the message. I'll get groups together. I'm willing to listen at all times." But no concrete action is taking place. He's saying now that the group in Tofino — city council, through their chamber of commerce — has been asked to meet with the other groups of the area. How was the minister involved? What does the ministry of state do? When groups from various areas within his jurisdiction come to him, does he simply play traffic cop and direct them into various areas? "You go over there and meet with him, and I'll take this to cabinet for you. Would you please go over and speak with the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Highways."

I fail to see that any direct action comes out of his ministry. Does he make any decisions? Does he have the right to spend any money? Does he have the right to give any approvals? Was he involved in the Carmanah dispute? Did he direct the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment or the Minis-

[ Page 7793 ]

try of Tourism to carry out studies there? Or does he simply carry the water bucket?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I indicated before that we've met with the group from Tofino. If I can coordinate and facilitate to resolve that difficulty, I'm happy to be there. If you want some examples of where we got involved, let's look at the Cribco deal. Campbell River has a $44 million development that wasn't coming together. The native Indians wanted to be involved with that. They couldn't get money from the federal government, and the provincial government wasn't playing a role. We were able to coordinate and bring them all together. Now the native Indians are happy; the federal government is happy; the provincial government is happy. And we are going to have a $44 million development at Campbell River because of my involvement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: You call it whatever you will; I think I made a major difference there. It had been going on for 15 years, and we've resolved that problem. I'm certainly not the only player, but I made a difference.

In Port Hardy they talked about closing the mine. We met with the principals of the mine; we met with people from Port Hardy. They indicated to us that there would be 500 people unemployed if that mine closed. We met with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and again we coordinated and facilitated. That mine today is open because of our involvement. Again, I wasn't the only player, but I'm sure that we facilitated and helped solve the problem — and there are many more.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Great facilitation! You brought groups together; you got a project going in Campbell River. Wonderful stuff, if that's what your ministry does.

There's a rally going on outside very shortly on the Carmanah Valley. Were you involved? Did you speak to the Ministry of Forests? Did you speak to the Ministry of Environment? Tourism? What was the minister's role? Surely a dispute that has made headlines across Canada — even "The Journal" had a special program last night on the valley.... What was the minister's involvement there?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: First of all, as you recognize, that area is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). Having said that, as the minister of state and also as the Minister of Parks, I have been to Carmanah. I spent an afternoon there looking at Carmanah. I've also met with my federal counterpart, Mr. Bouchard, and discussed Carmanah with him. I also recognize the conservation and recreation aspects of Carmanah, and I've voiced that issue a number of times with my colleagues.

MR. LOVICK: As a former teacher of language, I always used to tell students: beware of those fancy words that end in "ate" — words like "coordinate" and "facilitate" — because what they usually mean, as opposed to their counterparts in Anglo-Saxon four-letter words, is that there is nothing going on. They're not words like "work," "make" or "do." Rather, these are fancy words that tend to generate their own realm of inactivity. So I'm a little suspicious when I hear that the only definition of that minister's job is, apparently, to coordinate and to facilitate, and perhaps indeed we'll throw in.... Do you ameliorate too, Mr. Minister? Do you mitigate? Do you militate? I don't know what else might be in there.

MS. PULLINGER: Hibernate.

MR. LOVICK: How about hibernate, as my colleague for Nanaimo says? It seems the most appropriate description thus far.

The question I wanted to pose, picking up on this debate, is to do with the question that my colleague from Port Alberni just....

HON. MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to acknowledge that I'm back in the House, since the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) made a point of saying I was leaving the House earlier.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I am pleased that the Solicitor General did that, because if he hadn't, I'm sure nobody would have noticed his arrival. So that's good to see.

In any event, what we were discussing was the point raised by my colleague the member for Alberni, Mr. Chairman — and a very important one: namely, what has this minister's involvement been vis-à-vis the Carmanah? We know what's been said by the federal counterpart, all right, in Ottawa. And I'm wondering if in fact this minister is telling us that he as a Minister of Parks is perhaps responsible for federal minister Bouchard's possible decision about giving some park status to that area. Is that what you discussed with the federal counterpart, Mr. Minister? Tell us what you talked about when you discussed this with Bouchard. What did you say to him? Did you say: "Here's our list; here's our involvement from B.C.; here are the kinds of things we want"? Give us some illustration of that, if you would, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, since the member opposite obviously wants to send this out to his constituents, maybe he should also send out that it wasn't him alone that got the handyDART buses. They might want to write that up there, to make sure they know that. You might also want to indicate that the $760,000 Go B.C. program was not done by the member respectively.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have never at any time taken all the claim for the handyDART in Nanaimo; I have always given credit to all the others involved, at every single occasion. To

[ Page 7794 ]

suggest otherwise is unparliamentary and dishonest. I would suggest you don't do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, that's not a point of order in Committee of Supply. The member knows he can respond at any other time. Secondly, I heard the imputation of the word "dishonest," and that must be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw the word "dishonest," please.

MR. LOVICK: I will withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman, but I will also emphasize the fact that what the member opposite said does not conform to the reality of what was in fact said by me. But I will withdraw the word.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm very interested in this debate. I had not anticipated this; I was coming to talk about something else.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Give us the Botanical Beach story.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, Botanical Beach, yes — singlehandedly saved that one. I can tell you more stories about that. We've got new stuff. Actually, I was going to talk about Botanical Beach.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you know about Botanical Beach?

MR. SIHOTA: A lot more than you do.

By the way, I want to thank the minister of state for responding most recently to my letter about Botanical Beach.

I want to know from the Minister of State for Vancouver Island what he told his federal counterpart when he looked him in the eyes and discussed the Carmanah. I'm sure the minister didn't want to blink before he did. What did you tell him? What representation did you make on the Carmanah on behalf of the people of British Columbia in your capacity as Minister of Parks and Minister of State for Vancouver Island? What position did you take, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: When I met with my federal counterpart, I indicated to him that I had been through Carmanah and seen parts of it, and that certain aspects of it definitely needed to be preserved. We just had a general discussion about Carmanah. That's in essence what it came down to.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if I should have walked in here today.

Generally, you had a discussion about preservation. As Minister of Parks and minister responsible for Vancouver Island, where the Carmanah is situated, could the minister advise the House what his position is on the Carmanah? Do you have a view as to whether it should be preserved or logged or what? I am most interested in knowing what you, in your capacity as minister, have to say about that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As one member of government, that decision will come down in the near future. Certainly I'm part of the democratic process that takes place.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA: As a part of that mighty team of cabinet members, can I ask the minister a question then. I know we'll have a chance during Forests estimates, when we ultimately get to them, to ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) this question; when we ultimately get to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), we'll have a chance to ask him this question to ascertain the views of individual ministers. With respect to the minister's own area of jurisdiction, what position is he taking on the Carmanah? Are you advocating, as I guess your responsibility is for parks, a park status for the Carmanah?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's future policy, but the minister may wish to respond.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Precisely; it is future policy. I've indicated that I recognize a lot of the conservation-recreational aspects of Carmanah.

MR. SIHOTA: It's future policy as to what you may do in the future. I'm trying to ascertain where you are now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He's right over in his seat.

MR. SIHOTA: I know where he is physically. It's important. I think the minister knows full well it's a critical issue. It's a very important issue in my riding, in that there are people who work in the forest industry. People in my riding feel strongly about the environment.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: What's my stand? Our stand has been very clear right from the outset: we believe as much of that area must be preserved as necessary to maintain the Sitka spruce and the ecosystem that maintains it. It's as simple as that.

Having shared our view, if that satisfies the Solicitor-General, could the minister tell the House what his personal view is on the matter of the Carmanah, which I would agree is a difficult and contentious issue. What is your ministry's position on the Carmanah as it sits right now?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I just told you.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it the minister's position is that it's a good recreational corridor and that some of it should be preserved. Is that basically the position,

[ Page 7795 ]

if I can paraphrase the minister? Am I wrong? I don't want to misrepresent the minister. Is that an adequate phrasing of the minister's position on the Carmanah?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I don't remember using the words "recreation corridor."

MR. SIHOTA: Just for my benefit, could the minister go over his position again for me? I'll make a note of it.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: You can read it in Hansard tomorrow.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, I would have respected that kind of response from other ministers, but not from the Minister Responsible for Parks and the Minister of State for Vancouver Island–Coast and North Coast. I would like to ask the Minister of Parks if it is his view that there should logging in the Carmanah Valley region.

MR. G. JANSSEN: As Minister of Parks, undoubtedly the minister is aware that a number of people in British Columbia on Vancouver Island have called for the Carmanah to be put into a park. The Cowichan regional district had an opinion on that, as well as the Sierra Club and other groups involved. Polls show a percentage of British Columbians believe that the big spruce, the entire watershed and the ecosystem should be preserved. Has the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Parks, done a study? Has he listened to the concerns of all the British Columbians who have been involved in this for the last year or so?

Has he advised any of his people in his department to take a serious look at the Carmanah Valley and ask if it is feasible to make this a park? Is there any reason to make it a park? Are we concerned enough about the ecosystem? Is it so unique? Are we following the wishes of British Columbians? Has any study been done? Has he considered it? Has he talked about it with the federal minister when he met with him? What exactly did his ministry do about the Carmanah Valley?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The question was: "Have I listened to the people?" Yes, I have, I am and I still will continue to listen to the people. I've already shown that in a lot of the decisions that we've made I'm listening to them in Garibaldi, in Strathcona and in the Purcells. I'm not sure what more I could say regarding listening to the people.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Very simply, Mr. Minister: has his ministry looked at the Carmanah Valley with the viewpoint of preserving it in a park or a recreation area?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The answer to that is yes. We're reviewing that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Now as Minister of State for Vancouver Island–Coast and North Coast, has the minister taken into consideration the processing plants that have to survive on the allowable cut on the trees that are necessary to keep the community of Alberni viable?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you ask him as the vet and get it all done?

MR. G. JANSSEN: I know what vets do; they did it to my dog. Hopefully they won't do it to the Carmanah Valley.

Has the minister of state considered the economic implications of allowing the valley to be preserved, of not allowing any logging to be done in that area and of cutting off that supply of raw material that is so vital to the community of Alberni and the four big processing plants that virtually keep the community of Alberni alive and the infrastructure that surrounds it? As minister of state, has he reviewed that in an economic sense?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I've indicated, I listen to the people. I have also sat down and talked to the mayor of Port Alberni. I have toured the Franklin division, so I'm listening to all the people.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Now we've determined that the Minister of Parks has looked at the Carmanah Valley with the view of turning it into a park, and he's obviously had his people in there reviewing the ecosystem and the tall trees. He's also gone down and talked to the mayor of Alberni. He's also toured the Franklin River area. He must have some indication of the economic benefit those trees have. Now all we have to determine, Mr. Minister, is what decision you have made, or are you again trying to facilitate the people who are in favour of a park or in favour of logging? I can't recall you facilitating, intervening, consulting or even trying to bring together those two groups to have a meeting with you — in either your capacity as Minister Responsible for Parks or your capacity as minister of state — in order to resolve the issue. Are you attempting to do that fairly quickly?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: All the knowledge I'm gaining by listening to the people I will bring to the cabinet table. In the fullness of time, I may reveal that to you.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Can I at least ask if the minister of state has consulted with the Minister Responsible for Parks about the issue of the Carmanah and has come to any conclusion?

MR. SIHOTA: This is a very interesting debate. There is no doubt that there are conflicting concerns here. There is the economic concern, and there is the environmental concern. There are the economic responsibilities that fall to the feet of the minister of state for Vancouver Island, and there are the environmental concerns which, of course, fall to the Minister of Parks. We have the good fortune of having the minister responsible for both functions.

[ Page 7796 ]

It seems to me that he — as the spokesperson for Vancouver Island in this scheme the government set up in terms of regional ministers — has got quite a role to play on this matter in reconciling these conflicting demands.

After listening and considering what people had to say, could the minister tell us what his next step was? What has he done on the matter of the Carmanah, now that he's listened to people and has the benefit of their wisdom?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, I've listened to the people, I'm reviewing the process, and I'm bringing all that information to the cabinet table.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't want to ask the minister to break his oath and tell us secrets about what transpires in cabinet, but I do want the minister to let the public know what he thinks about the issue. I don't think that's asking much from the minister, and I think it would be appropriate for the minister to embellish in this House what his position on the Carmanah is. He's responsible.

I don't really care to know what happens in cabinet. We'll know the end result in any event, but you're certainly not going to be violating any secrets if you tell us what position you intend to take, or what position you have taken to date. Perhaps instead of dealing with the position you intend to take, could you tell us what position you have taken on this very difficult, sensitive and complicated issue? I'm sure it's not a passing thing for the minister. I'm sure it's occupied some of his time, and I'm sure he's come to some general conclusions in his mind, apart from the vagaries he's given us to date. I'm just wondering generally what position you are prepared to take. Do you think it should be converted into a park? Do you think it should be logged? Are you leaning one way as opposed to the other? Have you got a third option, in keeping with the statement made earlier this week by the Premier? Just what are the variables you're weighing, and which way are you leaning on this issue?

MS. PULLINGER: We'll come back to that subject in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to pursue the whole issue of the ferrochromium plant and the minister of state's involvement in it.

Although we hear the minister telling us that his role is to facilitate and coordinate, and he's listened to the people, all those different bodies I mentioned from the biological station, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, Hagensborg Resources and the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association haven't heard from you, and you haven't heard from them. I don't know where this coordination, facilitation and listening to the people.... I don't know who you're listening to.

[3:30]

I'd like to ask a couple of questions concerning your involvement in this process. The first question is: given that you haven't spoken to any of these people, that you haven't done any investigation into the potential economic conflicts with this plant, I would like to know if the minister has had any studies done. Have there been any studies done about the whole economic viability of the plant in that area, given the other industries there? Have you done anything with that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) answered that question very well. There's a process in place, and that process is being followed. From my perspective we should let the process just continue. If it turns out for some reason that it's not environmentally sound, then let's not let it happen.

MS. PULLINGER: My seatmate was just commenting that I ought to remind you about something that we've discussed: that there is a fundamental flaw in that process. The flaw is that the plant can be built before the permit process is complete.

MR. LOVICK: Check that out with your officials.

MS. PULLINGER: Check it out with your officials. That's the information we get from your officials.

In any case, I am asking about the economic viability of this. Has the minister been involved in any studies...?

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: There's a fundamental flaw on the other side of the House.

Has the minister done any studies about the economic viability of this plant? Can he answer that? I'm talking about not environmental but economic viability. There's a difference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Nanaimo continues.

MS. PULLINGER: I assume that the answer is no, that the minister has not talked to any of the people, nor has he done any studies about the economic viability of the plant.

I would like to ask a very simple question. I'm sure you can answer this one. When was the approval in principle given for this plant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER: I note the minister doesn't seem to be able to answer that one either. I'm very suspicious as to what his role is.

I note that the repayment of the taxpayers' loan from the provincial government — our moneys — of $4.7 million comes in the form of royalties in lieu of interest. Am I correct in that assumption?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

[ Page 7797 ]

MS. PULLINGER: This is ridiculous. Are there no questions you can answer? Do you know anything at all about the ferrochromiurn plant? Have you had any involvement in its development? You haven't talked to anybody, you have no studies, you've done nothing with it, you don't know when approval was given. I am most interested to know.

I notice that this plant produces 25,000 tonnes of ferrochromium each year, and that seems to have been looked at. It also produces 20,000 tonnes per year of mineral fibre — mineral wool. Has the minister looked into the markets for that? Does he know that it's economically viable? It is a saleable product? Can you answer that question?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We can continue talking about the ferrochromium plant and be here all day, but I have mentioned that there was a process in place. The approval in principle was given a number of months ago; I believe it was around January. The economic viability has been discussed with the Minister of Regional Development. We've got a process in place to make sure that it is environmentally sound. I am not sure why the member is dragging this out.

I get approached all across Vancouver Island continually by towns and cities wanting projects in their regions. It is my position as the minister of state to bring those to the team and see what opportunities lie there.

The process is carrying on. Nothing is definite, and as I indicated before, if all the numbers and all the environmental issues don't fall into place, it won't happen. At the same time, you wouldn't want to turn everybody down immediately and say: "You're not welcome on Vancouver Island." I think we need to research everything carefully.

MS. PULLINGER: You say nothing is definite? I have some trouble with that, because my understanding is that once approval in principle is given, they are free to go ahead and start building the plant. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, perhaps I could ask all members, especially when the tenor of the debate starts to get a little acrimonious, to remember that they must address the Chair and questions must be placed through the Chair.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the plant will not go forward unless the Minister of Environment approves all the environmental standards that are necessary.

MS. PULLINGER: That is contradictory. My understanding from your own people is that the permit process happens as the plant is being built — before it's allowed to operate, but after it's built; they can start pouring concrete. That is the information I have.

You say that you're part of a team and that you're responsible for the coordinated economic development of the region, and I'm not getting any answers about that. Can you tell me: have there been any independent studies whatsoever about the economic viability of this plant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask the member to again refresh her memory and address the Chair.

MS. PULLINGER: Through you, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing, quite clearly, with a ferrochromium plant that's unproven. There has never been a prototype built. As far as I can see, in the one preliminary study, an overview only — and the authors of that study say that more needs to be done — this plant has not been looked at. It's a preliminary study on an unproven plant, done on preliminary drawings and on the owner's own information.

The minister is confirming by his silence that there have been no independent studies whatsoever, in spite of the fact that it's an unproven technology with no prototype and only very preliminary reviews. Is that correct, that there is no other independent study whatsoever? Can you respond to that?

MR. LOVICK: Just a couple of other questions. Clearly one doesn't want to beat the empty drum too often, because the sound is monotonous — monotonous.

The minister made reference to the fact that his part in this was to promote Vancouver Island sites, and he made reference to three different sites. Is it not the case — through you, Mr. Chairman — that two of those sites were rejected because of opinions expressed by the residents of those particular communities? Will you confirm that? Heck, you can even nod, if need be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First member for Vancouver South. If the member wishes to speak, that will be fine, but I will advise the member that the Chair will be firm on his debate this afternoon.

MR. R. FRASER: I think I heard, when that member was going, "through you to the minister, Mr. Chairman," that he didn't like to hear any word ending with "ate." That's the whole thing with the NDP; they don't like the word "fortunate," either. What a great, fortunate province we have. How many hundreds of parks do we have here?

One government after another run by the Social Credit Party, creating one park after another. We have a system that's unequalled. California has half a million hectares of parkland; British Columbia has 5.5 million hectares of parkland — not too bad, not too shabby. This government that you criticize has done all these things, year in, year out, still ongoing, while you hassle the minister mercilessly.

I can't stand here and let that happen, because the park system here is wonderful. You know what I'd like to see, Mr. Chairman? I would like to have seen a provincial park in the city of Vancouver, or close to it. It would have been grand to have the former UE Lands as a provincial park. I think the minister

[ Page 7798 ]

would have done a great job with that. It would have looked good: a provincial park for British Columbia.

Here's the thing about the opposition: what do they care about the jobs in the lumber industry? Not one job do they care about, unless Jack Munro tells them to stay off the front stairs. Then they care. "Don't come to the meeting," he said. Isn't that right? No. We went to the meeting, and it worked out very well.

How many parks have we had since 1988? How about Botanical Beach Park, Halkett Bay Marine Park, Sandwell Park, Squitty Bay Marine Park, Columbia Lake Park and Adams Lake? You probably haven't heard of these parks. One of those little parks is on Gabriola. Have you heard of that, Mr. Member, and the second member for Nanaimo? Probably not. Have they ever cared to create one little area? No, no, no. What they say is: "Save every valley. Forget about the jobs of the men and women in the lumber industry. Let's save everything."

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who has a great interest in the forest industry, who I am sure will be able to extend this debate three, maybe four, days single-handedly, would say to the minister here: "Yes, have some parks, minister, but let's have some logging. Let's have some forestry; let's plant some trees." We're in the tree-planting business in Parks, are we not? Saving those trees — you bet.

How about some stand-alone recreation areas? How about Blanket Creek, International Ridge, Loveland Bay, Niska Lakes, Roderick Haig-Brown — there is an interesting name; a great old British Columbia name — Sunnybrae, Green Lake, Kentucky-Alleyne, Mount Judge Howay, Pennask Lake, Silver Star, Kootenay Lake and Mansons Landing. Have any of you ever travelled this province and found out how wonderful it is? Have you been anywhere in the world that can tell you how great it is here? I urge you to go somewhere. Anywhere. Compare what we've got here with what you'll find anywhere.

MR. LOVICK: I urge you to go somewhere too.

MR. R. FRASER: I've been there and back. You guys don't even dream big. It's terrible. I've been to countries in Europe where they're making streets into parks because it's so crowded over there. It's important to have a nice combination. But do they think that way? No, they don't. They never liked the "ate" words. They don't want to hear "fortunate." They don't want to think it's grand. They don't care who pays for it. They just want to nag, nag, nag to the minister who's been running hard since he was appointed to executive council.

MR. LOVICK: Relevance at last.

MR. R. FRASER: And do they heckle me, Mr. Chairman? Yes, they do. Do I care? No, I don't. I want to put you in Hansard today, Mr. First Member for Nanaimo. You're here. It's a great breakthrough. As a matter of fact, for those at home reading Hansard today, they'll find out that all three members of the opposition party are here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please relate this particular line of your debate to the relevancy of vote 61.

MR. R. FRASER: And all three have spoken about parks. Mr. Minister, you get up there and tell those good people over there some good news, because we've got lots of it. If you're not good, I'll come back and give you more.

[3:45]

MS. PULLINGER: I just want to respond to the great economic management team over there — as they always tout themselves — and just ask one last question to see if I can't elicit some kind of intelligent response. We have $4.75 million of the taxpayers' money being invested in a ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo. The return on that after five years interest free is through royalties from the plant, not interest. Of course, royalties assumes that the thing is viable and it's going to have some sales.

We're dealing with a prototype — something that has never been built, that has never operated. This government has done a two-week overview based on the plant owner's own information. The corporation in Luxemborg that they had a partnership with backed out of the deal because 46 percent of the product — namely the mineral wool, which is 46 percent of what that plant will produce — had no markets.

On the face of that information, it seems like a very foolish economic deal to make without further knowledge. It doesn't look to me like a good deal from the great economic managers across the floor here. I would like to ask once again: have there been any independent studies done to show that this is viable, that that 46 percent of the product, the mineral wool, is a viable product, has markets and can sell and produce royalties so the taxpayers of British Columbia can have their money back? Can the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: It's interesting that it's the last question; it's also going to be the last answer. What I will do for you—- and I'll make it so detailed you won't know what to do with it — is give you all the details and all the information on that project. We'll make sure it gets to your desk, and you can read it all.

MS. MARZARI: I'm interested in talking to the minister in his role as minister of state for the Island. The member for Vancouver South has talked about big dreams. The thing about big dreams is that in order to accomplish big dreams, you have to have very specific tools. I'm interested in knowing from the minister of state what has been presented to you by your cabinet, by your government, by the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) in terms of what economic tools you do have to bring to your region and to bring to your role in the region. Have

[ Page 7799 ]

you had briefings with your staff and with your fellow ministers of state on those economic tools and those programs available to you, both from the federal level and from those programs that have been initiated here provincially?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We meet with each other as ministers of state and with the Minister of Regional Development, and constantly discuss opportunities that are available — both provincial and federal funds that may be available as well.

MS. MARZARI: Could the minister advise me which programs are in use today? For example, in your particular ministry and in your role and the role of your fellow ministers of state, are you at all involved in the process of giving tax concessions to various projects and proposals that come before you?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Those are options that are available.

MS. MARZARI: Would the minister talk in some detail about those programs that are available? Is the special investment interest subsidy program still being made available by this government and by you particularly?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We have the seed capital program and the venture capital program; we have small business programs and other programs that may come through other ministries and that we can tie into. We try to do that as well.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister involved at all with the special investment interest subsidy program, commonly called SIIP?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I've mentioned, there are a number of programs we can be involved in. That particular one doesn't ring a bell, to be honest with you.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister involved with a program called low-interest loan assistance, and is this a program which is extant right now? I gather it used to be under BCEC, when BCEC was in the business of offering loans, special grants and subsidies to corporations. Many of those were closed down. Obviously BCEC no longer lends, but I've been told that LILA, the low-interest lending agreement, is still in existence. Are you involved with LILA?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let's just go through the process we go through, without trying to make me Minister of Finance at the same time.

When there's an initiative brought to my attention, say, from the task forces, then there's a process we go through. Obviously it comes from the task force; it comes to me; then we go to Treasury Board if necessary. We discuss it with our colleagues the ministers of state and with the Minister of Regional Development, and there are staff people on the team that help us find the suitable funding process that needs to be in place.

MS. MARZARI: Do you know whether or not you're involved with LIFT, something called Low Interest Funding Today, and if this program is still available to businesses and corporations?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Many of the questions being addressed to me should have been addressed to the Minister of Regional Development, who has the members on staff that deal with those programs. I, as one of the members of the team, sit down with the Minister of Regional Development and his staff, and we try to coordinate the right program to help facilitate some activities that may be possible.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister saying that basically he doesn't have hands-on experience of any of the individual programs which are available for small corporations and large corporations as they come before the ministers of state?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm saying that I have access to all those programs when necessary.

MS. MARZARI: Does the minister have a working, hands-on understanding of these programs? Or do you approach your team and your grand master — the great Pooh-Bah, as he is being called — as a supplicant? I'm trying to ask whether you have hands-on, working knowledge of all these programs.

I'll tell you why I'm asking the question, Mr. Minister. I stood up a few weeks ago during the Finance estimates and asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) what programs were available for the subsidization of corporations and small businesses needing risk capital and venture capital so that they could dream, so that they could build business, so that they could help the economy. The Minister of Finance told me that he did not deal with these programs, that these were not within his jurisdiction and that, in fact, I would have to talk to the ministers of state in order to get any kind of responsible answer to my questions about what programs were available.

I am asking you now: do you have working knowledge of each of these programs? In other words, when people come to you from whatever company, corporation or enterprise seeking risk capital, seeking tax exemption, seeking some assistance so that they can dream a little and help our economy and help their neighbours and their communities, do you have working knowledge of these programs so that you can, in effect, walk into your team and lobby effectively for particular dollars from a particular program?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: You asked those questions of the Minister of Finance. You should have asked a lot of those questions of the Minister of Regional Development as well. However, we are familiar with the programs that are available. We have staff that are

[ Page 7800 ]

also familiar with those programs. Certainly when you're talking about small business men, we talk about the venture capital program or the seed capital program. We've been very involved with those. We have high-tech firms that we've assisted; we have tourist facilities that we've assisted as well. We've also helped small business men get started in photography. We've helped small businesses start in medical fields. We've been involved with a number of issues through the seed capital program, in which we guarantee the loan up to 75 percent.

MS. MARZARI: I'm not asking you who you're helping; that isn't the purpose of my questions. It's mostly women who are engaged in small business nowadays, I should suggest; 60 percent of successful small businesses have been started and are run by women. So if you're only dealing with businessmen, you're already doing yourself a disservice.

But I'm not interested in who you're giving the money to; I'm interested in your knowledge of the programs that exist now. I'm not interested in what the Minister of Regional Development knows; I'm interested in what you and your fellow team members know — what you're being told. If you're not being told about the programs, if you are bringing your shopping-list to one senior minister, I want to know that. If you come in as a shopper with your shopping-list and your only job is to lobby a senior minister for your package to take home, I want to know why I as a small business person wouldn't go straight to the Minister of Regional Development in the first place. Why would I have to come through your office in the first place? Why would I as a taxpayer be spending $809,000 keeping you running around the Island?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason the House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The reason we have these rules about addressing the Chair and speaking through the Chair is so that debate doesn't become so acrimonious. The Chair becomes the receiver of some of these rather caustic comments. Perhaps we could ask all members just to remember that. It will help, hopefully, in the waning days of this session.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me say that I am knowledgeable about a number of programs. Any group, or business lady — or businesswoman, if you want to put it that way — that comes to me with a set of facts and has a business plan.... We will do whatever we can to facilitate the opportunity for that individual.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman.... I will save my caustic comments for you, Mr. Chairman, but you're doing such a good job. It's difficult to get angry at you; you're so mellow.

Mr. Minister, I'm beginning to understand that you do not have a hands-on, working knowledge of the individual programs you have to offer to the people who come to you. I am beginning to understand that in fact you take a list back to your team, and your team captain pretty much tells you where the money is going to go, when and how, depending on his priorities, not your priorities. I am beginning to understand that very clearly.

Do you, Mr. Minister, sign contracts?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The answer is yes.

MS. MARZARI: Do you, Mr. Minister, sign contracts all by yourself, or do you have the signature of your senior Minister of Regional Development on each contract that you sign?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Some I sign by myself.

MS. MARZARI: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how big the contract is allowed to be? What is the financial level? What is the ceiling? Does he sign the big contracts, or is he allowed to sign the little, weenie contracts?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: There is in essence no level, but any wise businessman would be prudent to discuss major contracts with the other people involved before he signs.

MS. MARZARI: When does your Minister of Regional Development let you sign a contract by yourself, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, exactly. I'm going to ask for all the questions at one time, if you're just going to nitpick away. Let's have them all.

MS. MARZARI: I want to know when you're allowed to sign a contract, and I want to know under what programs you're allowed to sign a contract. I would like to know what the level of dollars is that you're allowed to sign a contract for, before the senior Minister of Regional Development takes over. I want to know how many times a year you meet with your team and the senior minister.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Slow down. He's making notes.

MS. MARZARI: He can read the Blues — possibly.

MR. LOVICK: No, this is for today.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, you mean today.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, we want answers.

MS. MARZARI: Okay.

[ Page 7801 ]

I'd like to know what you do, Mr. Minister, in your role with your team colleagues, with your cohorts, as the minister of state for a region, besides going around and acting as a sponge to absorb people's dreams and aspirations, and taking them off to your senior minister, who may or may not respond to you, but may, rather, respond to the wishes of some other plan that has nothing whatsoever to do with your agenda.

I'm interested in knowing what you know about your job. I figure that if I'm coming to you as a business person seeking help — a tax concession, a rebate on my water rates, some lessening of my water bill, some special venture capital, a low-interest rate on a loan, some guarantee.... I want to know what you know. I want to know what you've got to offer. You have $809,000. I want to know why I shouldn't be talking to the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch). He's the one who probably knows. I want to know what power is decentralized to you; that's why I asked you the specific question as to what contracts you signed.

Finally, my last question is: do you sign as many contracts as you cut ribbons? I was at a ceremony the other day for the wellness clinic in James Bay, and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was there. I noticed that he sat there on the dais, but there were four ministers sitting at the front of the group in front of 150 senior citizens. Sitting under a tent were four ministers for a small opening of a small clinic that we're all very proud of, but it was a very local affair. Four ministers showed up at this little local affair for the opening of a wellness clinic. They took time off their busy schedules to be there, and I think that's rather good of them. They were the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), the Minister of State for Vancouver Island and the second member for Victoria. I was there along with my colleagues, because I happened to be invited by the local organizers of this event. Now what stood out....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why were you there?

MS. MARZARI: Why was I there? Because 20 years ago I was involved with establishing social service and health facilities in this province as a member of city council. The James Bay Community Health Clinic was one of the prototypes for the whole province. The four ministers who were there were reinventing the concept, but that's beside the point. The fact that 20 years ago it was invented by another group altogether was hardly mentioned, except by my colleague from Victoria.

The important thing here is that the organizers — the people at the wellness centre — didn't quite know who to give the scissors to, to cut the ribbon, nor did they know how many ribbons to actually stretch. So it turned out that rather than one ribbon being stretched across the opening to the centre, there were two ribbons. They compromised on two ribbons. One of the ribbons was a blue ribbon, and one ribbon read "Go B.C." I can imagine what cabinet must have looked like that day, because I would think that the minister who wanted to cut the ribbon would have been the Provincial Secretary, who runs Go B.C. But no, he was allowed to speak. So the minister who was allowed to cut the ribbon was the minister of state.

The minister who was allowed to cut the other ribbon was the Minister of Health. The Minister of Finance and the Provincial Secretary were allowed to make long speeches.

AN HON. MEMBER: No kidding.

MS. MARZARI: Yes. Four ministers....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. MARZARI: Well, the major point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is trying to find this out of order, but can't. Therefore I will sit here and listen to it. But I must insist that if members are going to shout across the floor, they must at least do it from their own chairs. I would remind the government Whip that he is not allowed to comment from locations other than his own chair. I think it would facilitate the business of the committee if members of the executive council would restrain themselves during this rather enlightened discussion.

Would the member please continue.

MS. MARZARI: The question comes down to my original point, Mr. Chairman. The minister claims he signs contracts, but he has given me no reason to understand why he would be allowed to sign contracts with his team and his colleagues. I asked him if he signed as many contracts as he cut ribbons. I would suspect that the minister is there for every ribbon-cutting, but when the crunch comes and when those business people have to actually follow through with their contracts and ask questions, they won't be going to him; they'll be going to the Minister of Regional Development.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm going to take your advice — you asked me to read the Blues — and I'll get all that information to you.

MR. BLENCOE: I think we started these estimates yesterday. I was trying to....

MR. DAVIDSON: It seems longer.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the minister doesn't give us answers that are very fruitful. I was trying to ascertain from the minister yesterday — and maybe he's thought about it overnight.... He's had some time now with this consultation process, input and meeting all these organizations, and his mandate is to "coordinate economic action," according to his own words.... He's meeting all these various leaders and

[ Page 7802 ]

all these task forces that exist; he has coffee and doughnuts on a regular basis, I gather. It's all very nice. He got close to $1 million for coffee and doughnuts. I'm just wondering if the minister, in all these months — and I asked this question yesterday — has any sense now.... Could he show some leadership to this region and Vancouver Island? What game plan has he as minister of state for economic action and economic development? Or is it just a matter of going around and talking to the grand Pooh-Bah or the grand czar over there, who might endorse your projects? It's just a matter of picking out little projects here and there, but with no definitive direction or strategy.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, citizens of British Columbia have been asking now for over a year what the direction is, and you keep saying: "We don't know." Nobody knows what you're doing — except a million dollars for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the member to address the Chair, and I will ask the newly arrived minister to restrain himself, as others have been asked to restrain themselves, or else absent himself from this committee, or be absented by the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows exactly what I'm getting at. He's got this organization, this minister-of-state role, that's supposed to be dealing with economic action. We'd like to see some leadership The citizens would like to know what action they can expect from all this meeting, all this discussion, all these ideas that are being generated. Can we see some plans? I am particularly interested in the capital region. What great things can we expect from the minister of state for the future?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The member for Victoria continually wants me to take an NDP position whereby I take such leadership that everybody had better follow my directions, and then it's all top-heavy. We are trying to get away from that, because we believe that the local people in the areas know better what they need than we do, sometimes, in Victoria.

If he were to go up and down the Island.... I suggest he should. He should meet with all the councils, with the regional districts, with the 14 task forces that work and give so much of their time, and with all the mayors. He would probably really feel bad when he came back home, because they truly appreciate what I'm doing.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's try and lay it out in a simple, straightforward way that even this minister can understand.

You've got a task force here, you've got a task force here, and you've got a task force here, and you've got a committee here, and a committee here, up and down the Island, and a committee here in the CRD, all meeting with I don't know how many people, over a period of I don't know how many months, and all these people come together and under normal procedures and process they suggest ideas for some kind of strategy on what you say is economic action for the future. You've got this group and this group and this group and this group, all meeting, suggesting ideas. One would conclude, with a normal government, that the end product would be some definitive action, definitive recommendations for economic development — something specific.

I'm not asking you to tell people what they should do, but I'm saying if you've got all these organizations, they're all meeting, having coffee and doughnuts.... I can tell you they're getting very tired of meeting. They'd like to see what the end result is going to be. What are we going to see for these millions of dollars we are spending on all these meetings? This region would like some strategy, some leadership from this government. There comes a time when you've got to stop meeting and you've got to lay out some plans.

Has the minister got the message? Can we expect some definitive response, some definitive plan or strategy on — I don't know — the fishing industry, tourism, Via Rail, environmental issues? Can we expect some definitive analysis or action on public servants and what's happening in our region? Some direction from the minister on the Princess Marguerite, for instance? Or are you just going to have coffee and doughnuts forever in your little meetings with no plan for the people of this region and this Island?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I can't believe that someone would ask the same questions as often as that member does.

The transportation committee will be reporting to me. I am very much involved with transportation throughout greater Victoria and Vancouver Island. We are looking at aquaculture and will be making decisions in that area. We were involved with the value-added....

Are you listening, Mr. Member, or are you not interested?

[4:15]

The value-added symposium that we put on in Nanaimo was a great success. We had about 160 people from North America there. We had a report brought to us. We are trying to implement some of that report. There is the Keogh bridge up near Port Hardy — it's a bridge that hadn't been replaced for the last ten years, and we are now in the process of making sure that happens. As I indicated before, we are involved with the mine. We are also discussing with people about the Inner Harbour. We were at the symposium for changes to Victoria. We are involved in all those issues. So from the perspective of greater Victoria and this area, if he speaks to the local mayor and if he speaks to the mayors of Oak Bay, Saanich, Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney.... I can tell him that they are very delighted with all the

[ Page 7803 ]

input and the involvement that I've had and what I'm doing for the city of Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I really don't want to tell the minister what many local politicians are telling me, because I would definitely be ruled out of order; it would not be a part of the language of this facility. I can assure you that there is great frustration about this kind of process that seems to go on and on with no leadership, no direction at all.

Let me ask the minister something specific: what are you doing about the Princess Marguerite?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Maybe you want to be a little more specific.

MR. BLENCOE: I thought he knew the issue. I will try and tell him what the issue is. As you know, it now looks like the Princess Marguerite will end this season. She will be mothballed and put aside. I am wondering if the minister has had any discussions with Stena Line to see what the possibilities are for continuing that ship on the Seattle-to-Victoria run. I don't have to go into the history of why that ship is so important. The minister is supposed to have this important role of economic action. What is the minister doing on this issue?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: If the member would do his homework, I was on the B.C. Steamship Company as a director, and I have always said that the Princess Marguerite is very valuable to the people of Victoria. We need to preserve it. Ideally we should keep it on the run, but if we can't keep it on that particular run, at least we need to preserve it in Victoria.

As I mentioned, I am having discussion with people who are involved with the Inner Harbour, and part of that discussion involves the Princess Marguerite.

MR. BLENCOE: That's all very well.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a spinning wheel.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, that's right.

Is the minister prepared to say that...? After less than one year, Stena, which took over this corporation and indicated publicly in its news releases that the Marguerite has a long future with that line and that they are upgrading and refitting her and she will be complemented by another vessel, suddenly, very shortly after they acquired this privatization by your government, are now saying that her future is virtually doomed.

Is the minister prepared to say that he doesn't accept that, and that Stena has some responsibilities to this community to ensure that the Princess Marguerite has a future in the harbour and on these waters?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've already indicated my position for the Princess Marguerite. I have indicated in the past that it should be taken care of and protected. That's nothing new. Although I am surprised. From what I know, there has been no decision made with Stena Line. It's your typical approach. You are trying to scare the people again and get them all riled up. There is no formal, final decision made by Stena Line. At the same time, as I indicated, I appreciate the Princess Marguerite.

I also appreciate the E&N railroad that you talked about. We've written a letter to Mr. Bouchard, and we have indicated in the letter the responsibility of the federal government to preserve that railroad for the benefit of Vancouver Islanders.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the minister who appreciates everything, but when we ask him what he is doing in terms of concrete action, it's: "Well, we're meeting" and "I appreciate it." I mean, what are you doing? Tell me: what letters have you written to your cabinet colleagues? What discussions have you had with Stena, with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) ? Where is there evidence that you are putting your position as minister of state on the line, if you will, for the future of that ship in this region? Or is it just, "We appreciate it," but that's about it?

MR. LOVICK: I hadn't planned on jumping up at this juncture in debate, but I do have a set of questions that we were pursuing some time ago and, sadly, we were interrupted. That probably doesn't matter too much, because we weren't getting answers in any event. But perhaps I can try again by just asking the minister if he can tell this assembly what his involvement was — if there was any involvement — in terms of the transfer of a parcel of property in a designated greenbelt within the area of Nanaimo to the private developer as part of the economic development agreement that was made as far as this ferrochromium plant was concerned. I think it falls directly within the purview of this minister in two ways: (1) as the minister of state responsible for Vancouver Island and ostensibly responsible for economic development measures; and (2) as the Minister Responsible for Parks. That's because a contract — indeed, a covenant — was signed between what was at that time called Duke Point Development, which was also part of B.C. Enterprise Corporation and is now, I understand, probably in limbo, but is probably part of the Crown Lands responsibility.... I see your colleague, the minister responsible for that particular configuration, is here. Perhaps he can give some guidance if that's necessary.

In any event, that body of government — the government of the province of British Columbia, in effect — made a covenant with the city of Nanaimo to put into a greenbelt a particular parcel of land in the larger area called Duke Point. The covenant said — and I think I can quote it directly from memory — "for public or park use." That was its purpose. What we have recently discovered, however, is that the covenant has apparently been revoked, or whatever else one legally does with a covenant; and the developer, apparently as an added incentive to settling in the community, has been given permission to

[ Page 7804 ]

build a private residence of some four or five acres within the greenbelt.

I want to ask the minister first whether he's aware of that — I sincerely hope he is — and whether he was consulted, as the Minister Responsible for Parks, about the legality and advisability of making that change and in effect breaking that covenant.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As the member knows, it's a local Nanaimo council issue, and the answer is that I was not involved with it and I don't intend to interfere with it. It's more involved with the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) than it is with me.

MR. LOVICK: I'm not entirely surprised by that answer. In fact, in the course of our discussions with the minister of state I think we've invoked the ghosts and spirits of about 15 other ministries thus far. In terms of every substantive question we raise, the answer is: "Well, that's really not my responsibility, because I facilitate and I coordinate; so perhaps the member could talk to Minister X, Y, Z or Q."

However, I would ask this particular minister whether he might give us some assurances, or if that's going too far.... That's probably a bit too gutsy a claim to be asking the minister to make at this point. It would be perceived to be intemperate. I won't ask him that. Instead, I'll ask him whether he ever considered making representation to the bodies directly affected, insofar as he was the Minister Responsible for Parks, because in effect that greenbelt land became a park the moment it was declared and covenanted to be for public or park use, and public or park use only. Did the minister consider doing that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We're talking about a municipal park, and it's not within my jurisdiction as the minister of provincial parks.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ecological reserves intrigue me. Looking at the last filed annual report, I note that Canfor has finally sold Nimpkish Island to the government of British Columbia. Could the minister advise the House what the arrangements were? This is a very significant grove of Douglas firs in an ox-bow of the Nimpkish River in north-central Vancouver Island. It certainly is important. I'm intrigued as to how generous either Canfor or the province was.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm obviously aware that it's one of our new ecological reserves. I don't have the exact details, but I would be happy to get them for you.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would appreciate that. I look forward to the information. They sometimes arrange an exchange in these cases, but I think that's been difficult to do in recent years, given the overcommitment of the forests in British Columbia.

I was trying to remember exactly what the goal was when the ecological reserve program was set out. If my memory serves me right, it was something like 1 percent of the land area of the province. In the initial years, when the program was more active, particularly '72 to '75, interestingly, we moved along well in terms of those goals. I wonder if you're coming anywhere close to that. In those years we actually set aside something like a 35,000-acre virgin Sitka spruce grove on the western part of the Queen Charlottes, and so on. Has there been any equivalent in recent years in terms of major ecological reserves?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We've just added four ecological reserves and now have a total of 121. The latest one we were involved in was Brackman Island, and as you know, they act in educational and research aspects — sort of like an outdoor laboratory. We are looking at some others, and over the next few months we'll probably have two or three more coming up. As for the size and whether they are large, not necessarily so; but they sort of protect a certain aspect of British Columbia flora that we want to preserve.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder also how we're moving along with major parks. Not much has happened in terms of major park designation since those days, either, I'm afraid. Parkland in British Columbia was doubled in that period of '72-75. It was an extremely active period, when many progressive things happened. The benefits are still being felt by people around the province, even in the regions where nothing is happening.

There are obvious places where we don't have representative park areas, and I just wonder what active work has gone on in terms of genuine, significant park planning in the province. For example, in the southern Chilcotin there are areas clearly not represented in the park system which are pretty dramatic and which have been clearly pointed out by wildlife people. While Carmanah is actively on the minds of people outside, I think the more neutral park observers would argue that some of the southern Chilcotin is worthy of designation on some scale, but it's not in the forefront like the current green battles outside. What sort of work has been done by your staff in that area, Mr. Minister?

[4:30]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We've had the addition just recently of six parks: Botanical Beach, Halkett Bay, Sandwell, Squitty Bay, Columbia Lake and Adams Lake.

In reference to your question about the Chilcotin area, you probably weren't in the House at the time, but I did address that issue. I had representation on that prospective site that it's worth protecting, and I'm actually spending some of my holidays this summer to make sure that I tour it myself, and my staff are looking at the area.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased about that, because it's probably overdue. We might meet up there in the summer. It's a good place for us all, I suspect. It is significant and I think it has been overlooked.

[ Page 7805 ]

However, the list you just gave us is an indication of the kind of problem we're talking about. These are pretty little parks. For example, Squitty Bay is that little eye of a nothing cove on the east side of Lasqueti Island — isn't that where it is? These are awfully modest things, so if you're pointing to those as recent achievements, the Chilcotin would be more worthwhile, and I'm pleased that you're seriously looking at it at least.

Maybe you could also, while we're in this mood, tell us the status of the Grand Canyon of the Stikine. Is it fully designated now or is it a recreation area? I haven't kept up to date, but I'm one of the lucky people in British Columbia who actually helicoptered down the Grand Canyon of the Stikine many years ago, and it is genuinely one of the wonders of western Canada. It's absolutely magnificent. Maybe you could advise us on the current status of that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In regard to the Stikine, about two-thirds of that area is protected and the lower one-third is under discussion.

MR. WILLIAMS: The lower one-third is immediately east of Telegraph Creek or further.... The canyon is just up from Telegraph Creek and continues through to the east. It's the lower part of the canyon that is not designated, is that it?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the real reason for that be the hydro potential and B.C. Hydro's possible power interest?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: From what I understand, it's under discussion, but I don't think that it's the primary reason.

MR. WILLIAMS: The other interesting area there, when I think about it, is that once you leave Telegraph Creek — and most people of British Columbia won't have ever seen this country, because it's very hard to get to and you basically need a helicopter to get around in it — and Glenora, the Stikine becomes a magnificent braided river that moves back and forth over the sand and gravel bars, with glaciers breaking off into it immediately back of the Alaska panhandle, and that, too, is really one of the magnificent corridors of the province. Has any thought been given to that part of the Stikine in terms of some kind of protective designation?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What I can say is that we are looking at it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us on the process. How much of a staff does he have to work in this area of future park designation, and what is the process? Do you have to work it up through ELUC? Does it go to a deputy ministerial committee prior to that? Is that the current process?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's basically correct, sir.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has other matters in terms of the minister-of-state responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's on the badge?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister wants to know what's on my badge. It says: "Value Nurses' Work."

I want to ask the minister some questions that relate to his budget. The first is in terms of parks. There are several parks in my riding: China Beach, French Beach, Sooke Potholes, Goldstream and some adjacent to my riding at Gordon Bay and Bamberton. First of all, could he tell me what the cost to government was last year for maintaining the parks at French Beach, China Beach and the Sooke Potholes?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I have a rough idea, but I'd prefer to get that detail and get it to you.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't hold the minister down to the number. Could he give me a rough approximation of the number that pops to mind? I won't hold him to it. It's for the purposes of this discussion, and he can clarify the number for us a little later on.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm hesitant to do that; I'd prefer to get exact details.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell me how many full-time employees will be engaged by government to look after the maintenance of those three parks this year? I guess you hire auxiliary employees to look after them.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We're going to run with as many as we need. It may be up to four. We attempted to contract out French Beach and China Beach. We have not been able to get a contractor for those two parks, so we will continue to run them this year and contract them out next year.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you saying that you will run them this year with the same number of employees as last year, to maintain the same level of service?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We will continue to manage them from the Ministry of Parks, but we may contract out specific services: for example, the wood to the parks and that sort of thing.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand that the government has the other option. I know you're looking at the option of contracting out the maintenance — for example, looking after the toilets, the wood, and so on — and I understand you've made some contact with some janitorial and security firms in that area.

My question to you is this: while you're waiting for that, the parks are open, running and functioning, and my constituents are complaining about the level

[ Page 7806 ]

of service, in terms of the number of people hired to look after the parks. Can you give us an assurance that prior to any privatization, you will maintain the same level of staff you had at those parks last year?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What I can assure you is that we will maintain the same level of quality.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to tell the minister that you can't do that if you don't have the same number of staff. Last year, just for China and French, you had four employees. This year, for those two and the Sooke Potholes, you've got two employees, and physically they just can't do the job. Would you not agree with me that over the year, given what's happened now in terms of the number of employees you've got there, the standards just can't be maintained and in fact have not been maintained?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The season's just begun, and at this point we have two employees. We are attempting to contract out some of those services. If we do that, then two employees are adequate. If I see that the standards are not being upheld and that we don't immediately have someone to take care of some of those other initiatives that we're trying to contract out, then we'll have to bring another individual in.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know, first of all, what evidence you need that the quality of service is not appropriate. What information do you need? I'll provide you with the information if you tell me what would satisfy your mind in terms of maintaining adequate standards in those parks. What information do you need?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Certainly my staff would be reporting back to me — no doubt about that. We also have satisfaction surveys that come back to me. I also handle all the letters that come to me. People may have positive responses or negative responses, but I can assure the member that they will be reporting to me, and it's important to me that the standards are kept. It's also so close to home that I'll probably, as the minister, drive through it myself.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'll be happy to take the minister through there myself, if you want to take me up on that. And I'll be happy, more importantly — because you can put your satisfaction surveys aside — to take him through there with the employees that work there. Would he then be prepared to listen to the employees and accept their versions? He hasn't mentioned listening to the employees, in the list that he just rattled off. Why don't the minister and myself hop in a car and go out there with the employees, and let the employees explain to the minister what's lacking? And on the basis of that information, would you be prepared to supplement the staff levels that you've got there?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'll be happy to go there with the member, and if those employees want to come to me and meet me in my office, I'm happy to sit down and talk to them too.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'll make those arrangements right away with the minister. I'll even pay for the gas.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: But you've got to pay for lunch, yes, that's right.

The question to the minister is this now. I want to know specifically, with respect to privatization of the parks in my riding that I've referred to that were privatized, and also those on southern Vancouver Island that were privatized in his riding — it's interesting to note that the only ones that were privatized to employee-operated groups were the ones that fall in his riding — what the value of those contracts are. I think there was Saltspring; there's Galiano; I think there was McDonald Park, as well as the other ones that I've mentioned. The ones that were left — that hadn't been privatized — were China and French. Is the minister prepared to tell us what the value of those contracts are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I don't have the details on those right here, and they've just been completed. But I don't have any problem sitting down with you sometime and discussing what the value of those contracts are.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd also like to know from the minister, at the same time, if he also will provide us with information as to what it cost last year to maintain all of the parks that I've enumerated, both those that have not been privatized and those ones which have been privatized, on an individual-park basis.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That sort of information I will provide to the auditor-general when he requests it.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know from the minister what objection he's got to providing it to another member of the Legislature, particularly for those parks that fall within my riding. Are you prepared to provide me with that information? Is the minister not prepared to provide me with that information?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member address the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister: is he prepared to provide me with that information?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I think I've already answered that question.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister explain why he's not prepared to provide me with that information?

[ Page 7807 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 61 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: No, the minister's up on his feet.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That project of contracting-out services is not yet complete, so we've got another year to go. At that time, possibly I'll think about sitting down with the member.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the minister has misunderstood my question, Mr. Chairman. My question to the minister is this: I want to know what it cost you last year, prior to privatization, to deal with those parks. It's got nothing to do with privatization, with respect to those parks which haven't been privatized. I also want to know what it cost you last year for all of those parks. I also want to know what the value of the contracts are for this year, for those ones that have been privatized, so that we can see whether or not, indeed, it's been cheaper to the taxpayer. If it has been, I'm sure you've got no problem sharing that information.

Those are three different sets of information. Which of those three sets would you be prepared to share with myself?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: If he reads the Blues tomorrow, I've already answered that question.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister explain why he's not prepared to share that information which he says he's not prepared to share?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I didn't say that I wasn't prepared to share it with him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that we move on. This has been canvassed at length now.

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right, it is an appropriate question. What side is the Chairman on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SIHOTA: If that upsets, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what came over me saying something like that about yourself. You are fair.

Would the minister agree with me with respect to those non-privatized parks that I mentioned, that from May 1 last year and every year prior to that it has taken four people to look after those parks from May 1 on, given the volumes you traditionally have?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm not looking at numbers as much as I'm looking at quality.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess I'll go right back to what I said before. We'll go through there, and I'll point out exactly how quality has eroded. In general terms, in dealing with those parks in southern Vancouver Island, could the minister tell the House: what are your parameters, what are your guidelines in terms of privatization? Do you expect the bids to come in at an amount equal to what it cost last year? An amount less? If so, to what extent less? With respect to those parks that I've talked about on southern Vancouver Island, could he tell me what his guidelines are in that regard?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm looking at these bids. Hopefully they'll be close to last year's. Some may even be a little bit more, as I indicated in a letter to you in regard to your respective area, but when the bids are 100 percent more than what it cost us last year, then we're not looking at those.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. Is the minister saying that those bids that were submitted from employee groups that dealt with his riding were above or below last year's costs?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In the employee groups bids, there were 25 groups that applied throughout British Columbia, and 18 were successful.

MR. SIHOTA: Of those that were successful in your riding — that would be, I guess, Saltspring, Galiano and, I believe, McDonald — were those three over or under what it cost last year?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I do not have the specifics on those bids, but I'll get back to you.

MR. SIHOTA: In terms of Goldstream, could he tell us again what the number was? Were they over or under in terms of the successful bidder on Goldstream?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Again, I don't know the specifics of those bids, and I'd have to get back to him.

MR. SIHOTA: Do I understand that the minister will provide me with that information? I see the minister is saying yes. We're dealing with the minister's estimates here — the financial information of the ministry. You would expect the minister would have this type of information available. It's frustrating to try and do this. Then we get a letter later on with the numbers and, of course, we can't ask the minister any questions. It's a nice way to foreclose the debate, which I think falls right within the parameters of what we're supposed to be doing here in dealing with the finance of your ministry. I'm just wondering whether the minister would tell me this: is it possible to get that information overnight, and we can pick this up tomorrow?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I will write a letter to the member when I get that information.

[ Page 7808 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Before I talk about a few issues of concern in the northern half of Vancouver Island, I just want to remind the minister that his job in estimates is to be accountable to members of this Legislature for his spending. I don't know whether new members of this House understand what this estimates process is, but this is a debate about whether or not we are going to approve your spending. How can we make an informed judgment about approving your spending when you can't provide basic figures? That's exactly why we're here: to get that information so we can make an informed judgment on behalf of the public of British Columbia.

I've made that point. It's not just this minister. A number of ministers this session have assumed that they don't have to tell this House about their spending. Parliamentary democracy for hundreds of years is based on that principle. I want to ask the minister: which areas, excluding Brooks Peninsula itself, between Brooks Peninsula and Estevan Point have been predesignated for potential park sites?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's under discussion. It's also a part of what we're looking at under marine parks.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm delighted it's under discussion. I'd like to engage in that discussion. Could he give me the names of some of the areas he's looking at?

MR. WILLIAMS: Be specific.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to buy some property down there?

MR. WILLIAMS: Come on, what a cheap number!

MR. GABELMANN: I don't make enough money to buy any.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I mentioned, there are a number of areas we're discussing. Is the member asking whether he can be privy to some of those discussions as a member? Is that what he's asking?

MR. GABELMANN: I thought I was clear, but maybe it's my voice, Mr. Chairman. What are the geographic designations, the names or the descriptions of the areas on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island between Brooks Peninsula and Estevan Point that are now being considered for park designation or some other designation, like perhaps marine park or ecological reserve?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We're talking about the Nootka Sound area and Bligh Island, but I don't want to jeopardize any of these discussions that we're having at this point in time.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the minister tell me whether Rugged Point is on that list?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I can't recall that specific place, but we'll look at it.

MR. GABELMANN: This is the Minister of Parks, and he doesn't.... Let me tell you, this is the most beautiful place in North America. It's the prime location for a park on the west coast of Vancouver Island. You can't recall the place, and you're the Minister of Parks?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The question really wasn't do I know the place; the question was whether that was one of the places we were looking at. I can't recall if that's one of the areas we're looking at or not.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would ask his staff whether they can help him out and then tell me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 61 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether the Bunsby Islands are now being discussed for potential park status?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's something we're looking at in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister can tell me what negotiations might be jeopardized in respect of either of those locations, given that both locations are Crown land.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Issues like aquaculture.

MR. GABELMANN: At Rugged Point?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Generally, not specifically. I know the importance of Rugged Point, and I know how beautiful it is. But generally the whole area along that coast.... As you know, there are some aquaculture issues that we're dealing with in that area. Certainly from my perspective, I recognize the recreational value of that area.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, let me take a minute and tell myself to relax and have a reasonable conversation — if that's possible — with the minister. We're talking about an area.... I raised the issue of an area that has largely been untouched by British Columbian eyes. It is an area that in my estimation and in the estimation of thousands of kayakers from all over North America has some of the most beautiful terrain, including that of the Charlottes, that you'll find not just around here but anywhere in the world. There is an active committee of the Regional District of Comox–Strathcona, which the minister has met with, which has a west coast parks' committee that has identified a number of potential sites. I mentioned only two of them, but I mentioned two in particular about which there is no conflict, because I

[ Page 7809 ]

know there is conflict in some of the other areas where there is, at the present time, either TFL tenure, timber licences or whatever else.

I've raised the issue of Rugged Point and the Bunsbys because of their absolute unique nature and the absolute lack of conflict with any other potential resource, including aquaculture. There is absolutely no conflict whatsoever, and the minister tries to avoid having a discussion about these areas by saying he can't talk about it: either there are negotiations, he might threaten some discussions or there's aquaculture. All you have to do is walk the beach at Rugged Point and look out there at the surf crashing through the rocks — small boats can't even get through unless you know the area like the back of your hand — to know there aren't going to be any fish pens out there on the wild, open Pacific. I just wonder what in heaven's name the Minister of Parks and the Ministry of Parks is doing if it isn't identifying these kinds of sites before they're lost.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I don't disagree that that's a very, very beautiful recreational area which we need to look at. We have 380 parks that I'm taking care of. We have been very strong in securing those parks and building the future of those parks. I've said before, through my estimates, that we're looking at different areas. That's one of the areas we're also looking at. If they expect me to know every specific little area by their respective names because they're the MLA there, that's probably asking a lot. I am very protective of our parks. We're looking at a parks system down the road; I indicated that. I indicated we had 38 sites that were part of our parks. We wanted to include the 54 eventually.

I can't elaborate more than that, but I do recognize that the area is very beautiful. I know about the kayaking; I know about the canoeing. I know about that area; I've flown over It. I'm not learning anything new. I know it's important, and I will represent that area as the Minister of Parks and do so very well.

MR. GABELMANN: In his other capacity, the minister presumes to represent all Vancouver Island and coastal MLAs, and then he says: "I can't know the area as well as the MLA." It seems self-evident that you can't know the area as well as the MLA. It's too big, which is the reason why the whole idea of ministries of state is so stupid.

If you are going to have this ministry-of-state system, which prevents MLAs from having real access to the system and from discussing directly with various ministers what is needed in their riding — because it has to be vetted by some committee appointed by the minister or vetted by the minister himself or his staff — then you'd better know the area as well as all the MLAs. Otherwise you can't do your job.

[5:00]

That is particularly true in respect of our own Ministry of Parks. The fact that the minister, who has been in office now coming on a year, still doesn't know Vancouver Island well enough to know some of the most beautiful areas on its coast by name, tells me that he doesn't deserve any longer to be Minister of Parks or, for that matter, to do that other silly job of his.

I want an undertaking from the minister that serious and immediate attention will be paid to that whole area between the Brooks and Estevan Point, with a view to ensuring that park status is declared on a number of sites in there, as identified by the Regional District of Comox–Strathcona, including these non-conflict areas of the Bunsbys and Rugged Point, and there are others in which there are some TFL and timber-licence conflicts.

Nonetheless, there are a whole series of areas that the people who live and work there have determined should be preserved for park status. If they aren't, we are going to throw away the potential of a resource that will last for hundreds and hundreds of years, a wilderness tourism resource which has no better place to play than in that area.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I have indicated that it is a beautiful area, but I am not giving the member any assurances. There are all kinds of beautiful areas in British Columbia that we are looking at and will be looking at, and that's one that we are also looking at. I'm not sure what more I can say.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll move on. I just wish we had a government in British Columbia.

I want to talk about Strathcona Park and ask the minister what the current fee is that Westmin pays to the provincial Parks ministry for occupying the heart of that park.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The permit fee is $60.

MR. GABELMANN: What is the other amount, and how do you designate it? What do you call it?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Would the member be a little clearer on that?

MR. GABELMANN: Does the minister know that Westmin has been paying $100,000 a year for its trespass? I call it a trespass, but it's not an illegal trespass; it's occupation of the park. Does he not know that they have been paying $100,000 a year for some years?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I know it's close to that amount.

MR. GABELMANN: Why, then, did we get this $60 figure? Were you trying to pretend that you didn't know about the $100,000?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That was the actual permit fee.

MR. GABELMANN: In the arrangement made between the government and Westmin some years ago, what was the figure originally, what is it now

[ Page 7810 ]

and what were the dates? Your staff will be able to tell you that in a minute, because it's been a big issue.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We will get back to you. We will have to get that from the staff member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I assert that the figure has been $100,000 for quite a number of years now and hasn't changed, would the minister quarrel with that assertion before I make some other argument?

HON. MIL HUBERTS: With respect, we are reviewing that with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

MR. GABELMANN: Reviewing it to what purpose, to what end?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: For changes.

MR. GABELMANN: Changes to eliminate it?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: If we are going to talk about Strathcona, let's just talk about the issues that have happened in Strathcona. If the member doesn't understand the changes that are taking place, I should just remind him that we had the issue with Strathcona. We had the mining issue that we resolved, and we had issues from the Larkin report that we had to deal with — cleaning up the Buttle Lake area — and we're talking to Westmin about that. We had issues of that whole hydro line, and we're resolving some of those. At this point there's a lot of discussion happening regarding Strathcona Park, so there will be some changes.

MR. GABELMANN: Do these changes envision moving to a new system, where the Westmin operation does not actually pay money to the parks branch so that the parks branch can upgrade the park, but rather Westmin itself looks after building trails and doing other things within the park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's one of the issues we're reviewing. If Westmin wishes to contribute some money towards those kinds of things, we would certainly be happy to look at that.

MR. GABELMANN: Westmin is a very profitable mining operation; one of the most profitable in the province, if not the most profitable.

HON. S. HAGEN: Because there are good employees in your riding.

MR. GABELMANN: Because it's a very rich body of ore.

HON. S. HAGEN: Good employees too, though, don't you think?

MR. GABELMANN: That's right.

It should be paying for its right of occupancy, and for the minister to suggest that he might take whatever beneficence the company would offer is pretty scary. Shouldn't the government be establishing a value to the people of British Columbia of their occupation and impose that kind of fee — in negotiations, but nonetheless impose that kind of fee — on Westmin for their occupation of that park? While I'm at it, the minister can answer this question at the same time: how much is B.C. Hydro paying for its transgression through the park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: On that issue of payment, which was also brought up in the Larkin report, I don't disagree with the member. We're dealing with that issue at this point. It's one of the issues we're trying to resolve.

MR. GABELMANN: How much did the minister say B.C. Hydro was paying?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Working with Westmin is free enterprise. As to what B.C. Hydro is paying, I'm not privy to that information at this time.

MR. GABELMANN: In a calmer voice than earlier, Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest to the minister that if he's the Minister for Parks...

MR. WILLIAMS: He is the Minister for Parks.

MR. GABELMANN: He thinks he's the Minister for Parks.

... then he should be not only privy to how much they're paying but demanding a fair price with his colleagues who might sit on the board of B.C. Hydro, if they're now not paying a fair price.

It's no wonder that the impression and the image of parks and our natural wilderness resources in this province are in such disarray around the world.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's not true.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not true? You just have to read magazines from Chicago and Winnipeg and everywhere else.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: How many million visitors to our parks last year?

MR. GABELMANN: It's clear that the Minister of Parks needs the support of any number of cabinet ministers to help him through this. All we'd like you to do, Mr. Minister, is to be aware of what's going on in your own ministry. You can't answer basic, simple questions about what's going on.

Let me ask you another one: is it your view that the baffling that Westmin intends to put on its exhaust fans will be sufficient to prevent noise pollution on Flower Ridge?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: My view is that if they're not sufficient then they'll have to change them.

[ Page 7811 ]

I don't know how long we can continue. You're talking about parks. Parks have never been as strong as they are today, and that's recognized throughout British Columbia. We had 20 million visitors to our parks last year. We've been involved with the Strathcona. We've resolved the contentious issue that was there. We are now following the Larkin report in respect to that. We've raised a number of areas to parkland. We've indicated that we would be legislating the boundaries of parklands. We've indicated that we would be looking at a systems plan. I don't know how much stronger you could get, Mr. Member. I'm not sure how much more you could ask for from the Minister for Parks. We are very positive. You, with your little respective issue, are probably having some fun, but the parks have never been as secure as they are today.

MR. GABELMANN: If it is true that the parks in British Columbia have never been so secure as they are today, it's thanks to those thousands of people who demonstrated on behalf of Strathcona Park — many of them risking going to jail to do it. That's why; if it's true.

People in this province forced this government to begin to do some of the right things, and I would agree that some of the right things were done in Strathcona. But it took an immense struggle. It took the determination of thousands of people, some of whom were prepared to go to jail. The government couldn't live with that kind of public outrage about its policies, and it has in that case done a few things that I think happen to be good.

We have yet to see whether or not those decisions promised by the government will in fact be put in place.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In regard to Strathcona, there was a contentious issue, but there wasn't any group of people lobbying on the front lawn saying that I should also make sure that there is no mining resource use in the rest of British Columbia's parks The government of today made that decision.

Let me also remind the member that in 1973, your party only had the intestinal fortitude to put a moratorium on them and not enough guts to really say: "No further mining and no further exploration."

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like to speak about Strathcona Park, and I'd like to read from the Larkin report — the foreword, just for the minister's information:

"Many years ago when Strathcona Park was first marked on a map, it was imagined that it would some day stand beside the great natural parks of the continent attracting the interest and admiration of travelers from all parts of the world.

"Today, 77 years later, Strathcona is little known outside British Columbia, and even within the province it is well known to only a small group of enthusiasts. Over the years the vision for the park has fallen from the view of all but the few who have used the park and who have wished to see its potential preserved and enhanced.

"The park now embraces a reservoir that was once a lake, logged-over forest land that has not been replanted, a number of mineral claims and an operating mine, a power line right-of-way and a boundary that defies park principles not only by its original straightness, but also by the revisions that have been made over the years.

"The park's agency pays the park scant attention. The park is not used for recreation as it might be. There is little effort to attract visitors to the park. Far from realizing the vision of its founders, the park, in a word, is a mess.

"To put it mildly, the park's agency in particular and the government in general has long since lost credibility in their dealings with the public on the issues of Strathcona Park."

[5:15]

It's a pious document of the Strathcona Park advisory committee duly appointed by the Hon. Bruce Strachan, Minister of Environment and Parks for the province of British Columbia. That's what I'm quoting from.

Let's have a brief history here. In 1911 we established a park of 105,937 hectares. In 1930 we added to it to make 214,00 hectares. In 1960 again we added to make it 215,000 hectares. In 1968 Forbidden Plateau and Buttle Narrows brought it up to 227,000, and it continues until 1987 when park cancellation and re-establishment brought the park down to 201,000 hectares.

We have heard the minister and the government say they have increased park sizes. They've gone all over the province and actually added parks, yet when we read from the Larkin report — from the record — commissioned by the former Minister of Parks, we find out it's actually dropped by 30,000 hectares, deleting the Bedwell River area, the Mount Bubey area, the Ash River area, Ronald Creek, Crest Creek and Puzzle Mountain.

Are we increasing the size of Buttle Lake? No, we are deleting the park. We have allowed forestry in old forest tenures within the park, areas of the park that have been logged but not restocked and areas to date that have been outside the park containing significant timber values and are potential additions to the park. Have they been added?

The people of Alberni and British Columbia who protested the mining in the park are concerned. Will this trend continue? Will we again delete more and more from the oldest park in British Columbia?

HON. MIL VEITCH: You're always against something.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We are for increasing the size of the park, or at least re-establishing its original boundaries.

What has the Minister of Parks done? He has deleted.... Then the former minister calls on a report that spells out very clearly that the government has been ineffectual and has allowed the park to be raped, logged and not restocked. When will you act, Mr. Minister? When will we reinclude those areas that have been taken out of the park? When will we see Strathcona Park brought back to the vision that

[ Page 7812 ]

was created in 1911 — the first park in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: It's interesting listening to that member, and I guess it's so easy to shout when you're on the other side of the House. Where were you in 1973 when you had the opportunity to restore it? It's this government that's bringing it back to its original state, and it's this government that's following the Larkin report. Where were you guys? We're the ones who are restoring it, and we're the ones who are going to bring it back to its original state, which you're so concerned about.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The deletions were made in 1987. If you'd listen, or if you had perhaps read the report, you would know that. Obviously you haven't read the report; obviously you don't know the dates. You don't know that 30,000 hectares were taken out in 1987 — a long time after 1973. However, I realize the minister has trouble answering questions today. I realize he has trouble balancing his act as minister of state and Minister of Parks.

When I asked him earlier today about the Carmanah Valley, he said he had looked at that area as Minister of Parks and his ministry had considered — I think that was the term — whether or not to turn that into a park. Obviously his ministry must have spent some time on it; hopefully it did. I wonder if he might release to this House or perhaps to me.... And I congratulated him yesterday for keeping me informed when he goes into my riding, and sending me copies of his letters. I wonder if he would continue that era of cooperation by letting me and the House know exactly what constitutes the reason for making — or not making — Carmanah into a park.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've already answered that question. If the opposition members would stay in the House when I'm answering the questions of the other members, then they would know the answers. As I've said before, we have a provincial parks system that we can be proud of. We have the most secure system that we've ever had. At the end of the day, we're going to have more parkland than when we started.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The question was very simple. Will he release to the House or to me any information or study about turning Carmanah into a park? Many British Columbians are asking. We've just had a demonstration outside here. Those people were saying: "Don't log Carmanah. Make it into a park." I would hope that the minister, in his capacity as the Minister of Parks, would take the view of those people into consideration and look at whether or not it is feasible to do that. Obviously he must have looked at it. I'm sorry if he didn't. Would he release that information, if in fact there is any?

MR. CASHORE: It's nice to be back in the House after being out on the lawn. I took my position on the lawn, as did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). I can tell this House that the people gathered there were not at all happy with what they heard from the Minister of Forests. But when I was explaining to them outside the House, I made a very clear statement of what our position is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's have a little order, so the member can proceed and possibly bring his debate around to vote 61. Please proceed.

MR. CASHORE: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. My question to the minister is: what is his personal philosophy with regard to the preservation of parkland in this province? We have stated very clearly that we intend, as we did in 1973 to 1975.... At that time, we were very proud that we doubled parkland in this province. We're very proud of that, and we have stated our position very clearly, that we are going to do that again. We are going to do that again, Mr. Minister, and we are going to do it in the context of a royal commission into forest practices in this province. We're going to do it in the context of an inventory of the available forest land. We are going to do it in the context of public participation in land use planning.

I want this minister, who has responsibility for parks in this province, to tell this House what position he is representing at that cabinet table when they're dealing with this very divisive issue in this province. I want to know what the points are that he's making, with regard to his philosophy, that are going to enable the fulfillment of his position on parkland in this province.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: While you were outside, I'd already done that. Read the Blues.

MR. SIHOTA: I was inside here when we were dealing with it. We told the minister. We made our position very clear. We made it very clear earlier on. You might as well read Hansard.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Just settle down. Calm down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. I would ask the member to address the Chair, and possibly we'll be able to proceed in an orderly manner.

MR. SIHOTA: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we debated this earlier on, around 3:30. We told the minister, because he wasn't answering, to take a few minutes to put his thoughts together and then we'd come back later on this afternoon and debate the issue again. So it's not as if the minister can say that it has already been debated. We put him on notice, and we gave him a break and went on to some other stuff in terms of matters that were arising in Nanaimo.

[ Page 7813 ]

I think the public has a right to know what considerations are before cabinet. And the Minister of Parks is the advocate for parks in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: He is?

MR. SIHOTA: Supposed to be. And he's also the Minister of State for Vancouver Island, so he's supposed to be, at the cabinet table, the advocate for Vancouver Island.

My question to the minister is this: what position are you advocating with respect to the Carmanah?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That's the same question that was asked before, and I answered it.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me ask the minister this then. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that you do not believe the area should be converted into a park? Is that your position?

MR. CASHORE: I'd like the minister to tell this House what his position is on having an independent environmental assessment of the valley, as was offered to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard, the federal Minister of the Environment. What is this minister's position on the question of having an independent environmental assessment of the valley?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've indicated this afternoon that there's a process in place. I've also indicated that parklands will increase before the end of the day. What more can I say?

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister tell this House that he would be willing to support a recommendation to have an independent environmental assessment? This would deal with some very important issues. Because of its independence, it would not then appear that the decision-making is in the bailiwick of the forest industry but that there was an independence in the way in which the recommendations were being arrived at. Would he recommend it on the basis that we can grant him it's difficult for him to answer some of these questions because he too doesn't have all the answers, and therefore it would help this minister to formulate his answer by having this type of assessment made available?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: My response is that you should make that recommendation to the Minister of Forests.

MR. SIHOTA: We're just trying to figure out what the role of the Minister of Parks is. The Minister of Forests has some jurisdiction with respect to the Carmanah, to use that as an example. The Minister of Environment has some jurisdiction. We'll ask those ministers — if the government decides to call those estimates; so far we haven't seen those estimates. We have before us the estimates of the Minister for Parks, and I'm sure he has a role in that process. What submissions have you made to that process? Could you tell us, first of all, what that process is; and secondly, what submissions you're making to that process with respect to the Carmanah.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've already indicated, from the Minister for Parks' point of view, the recreational value of Carmanah, but the government of British Columbia will make the decision for the benefit of all British Columbians.

MR. SIHOTA: I think we all recognize the recreational benefit of a lot of areas of this province. When the minister speaks of recreational benefits, through what status will those benefits be enjoyed by the people of British Columbia? Will they enjoy it on the basis of park status?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I guess you're going to have to look at my accomplishments over the last 11 years...or 11 months, and that should answer your question.

[5:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure right now it feels like 11 years to the minister instead of 11 months.

I want to ask the minister this again. He says that the government will increase the number of parks. You could increase a small park, and I guess that would fulfil that commitment. Will that include the Carmanah?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We've indicated that we would increase the parks. We've indicated — and this is probably the fourteenth time I've said it — that we've protected 38 landscapes. We want to go up to 52 eventually. The interior part of the Carmanah is an area that we're talking about in Parks. I've indicated that I will contribute to a cabinet decision from a Parks perspective, and after that the cabinet will make the decision as to what's best for British Columbia's people.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister indicated that this afternoon; I've simply asked him to make it public. We're doing estimates here for the Minister of Parks and the minister of state for the area. He wants this House to approve funding so he can continue his fine work in both ministries over the next year.

Recently he reiterated what he said this afternoon: that Parks was involved in the Carmanah and that in fact they did look at it. I asked him earlier if he could indicate to us what Parks found out about the Carmanah. Was any decision made? What part does he want to save? Does he want to save it all? Does he want to save a small part? Does he want to go with MacMillan Bloedel's plan? A little later on he turned around and said that he had spoken with the mayor of Port Alberni, Gillian Trumper, who is head of the transportation committee. He said he was down in Franklin River talking to the people who will be logging in that area. He must have come to some conclusion. What did he say to the mayor, for

[ Page 7814 ]

instance? What did he say to the people who are logging in that area and are looking to their future jobs? What did his people tell him about the Carmanah Valley? That's a simple question.

You want us to approve the funds, and we're saying: share with the House the public information that this money is going to pay for.

MR. CLARK: I have been absent for much of this debate, and I come at it fresh, so maybe the minister might respond to someone who hasn't been tarnished in this debate so far.

It seems to me that almost everybody agrees that there needs to be an environmental assessment, an independent inquiry, about the integrity of the ecosystem in that valley. The federal minister, Bouchard, has written a letter to that effect suggesting....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I hear my colleague say that the Minister of Parks has met with him. I wonder if the minister could just tell us whether in fact his ministry is considering or has decided to work with the federal Minister of the Environment to engage in or commission some kind of independent analysis. Not one done by MacMillan Bloedel, or even one — with all due respect to the Ministry of Forests, which has, I think, a vested interest in a certain direction.... A genuine, independent inquiry as to the value of the ecosystem and how to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. The federal government — not, in my view, an environmentally crusading government — has taken a rational approach to this matter.

I wonder if the Minister of Parks has a view on that specific question.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We've discussed this most of the afternoon, and the government will make the final decision. We've met with Mr. Bouchard. I've indicated that those meetings plus my staff meetings and my staff analysis of the Carmanah.... I'll be bringing all that to the cabinet table when the decision is made.

MR. CLARK: The minister says he's going to bring it to the cabinet table. I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether he agrees that some independent analysis would be beneficial in terms of pursuing this question of the Carmanah Valley.

The minister didn't seem to answer. I assume that means that he believes that an independent evaluation is not necessary, that the Ministry of Parks has done its own evaluation, MacMillan Bloedel has done its evaluation and the Ministry of Forests has done its evaluation. Presumably it's on that basis that the government of British Columbia will make a decision. Is that correct?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I am sure the government of British Columbia will make its decision on all the information and all the facts they have that are available.

MR. CLARK: But there will be no independent analysis of the environmental aspects of that valley, no independent commission by the government, no working with the federal government to pursue an independent evaluation? That's not contemplated by the government?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that his staff have done some analysis on the Carmanah issue. Obviously it has been done with our dollars, public taxpayer dollars. Is the minister prepared to let the public know, through this Legislature, the results of this analysis?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: After I have reviewed it, yes, I would be happy to reveal those.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell the House when this analysis was conducted for him?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The analysis has been conducted throughout the last four, five, six months.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell us when the analysis was put on his desk?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: It's not on my desk yet.

MR. SIHOTA: I see. When does the minister anticipate it to arrive on his desk so that he can read it?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In the next little while.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the government has said that it is going to make a decision with respect to logging activity in that area. Originally they said Friday, which is tomorrow; now they are saying Wednesday. It would seem to me that your analysis would play a pivotal role, I would hope, in that determination. Are you saying that you still haven't seen it, you still haven't read it and you expect it to arrive in the next little while? Are you going to read it on Tuesday and make your decision on Wednesday, as a government, and look at all these issues after considering the environment, forestry or parks?

Or is the opposite? Are you saying that the Ministry of Parks is a minor player on the cabinet poker table? I want to know from the minister: when will the government be making its decision on Carmanah? Am I wrong in my understanding from the press reports that you are going to be doing it on Wednesday? Has that now been delayed?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the members opposite feel the sting of this debate. just settle down and allow the minister and myself to do our respective jobs. I'm sure we'd get through a lot quicker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member would address the Chair, instead of debating with various members

[ Page 7815 ]

around the House, it would help keep order in the House. Now would the members kindly refrain from talking from chairs other than their own. Also let the member who has been acknowledged by the Chair to have the floor continue.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know this from the minister. Are you now telling us that your decision with respect to the Carmanah, in light of the fact that your analysis isn't before you — and I would assume therefore not complete — will be coming at some time later than Wednesday, because Parks hasn't got its analysis through? Are you now saying it's going to be on some date after Wednesday?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: The members opposite want to know what our position is. They should take the time to read that outstanding piece of work put out by our leader on sustainable development. We have issued some 40,000 copies across the province. I would urge the members opposite to take a look at the statement that our leader made.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Now if the member wishes to continue on a relevant point, the Chair will recognize him. Please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just responding to the demands of the members opposite.

Let me ask the minister this question then. When does his ministry intend to give input to cabinet on the Carmanah? Given the decision is supposed to be coming on Wednesday, when will you do your duty.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, I refer you to that guru of parliamentary procedure, George MacMinn. On page 101 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia is the heading: "Legislation Not Proper Subject for Committee of Supply." It says: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in the Committee of Supply...." I suggest that this member is completely and absolutely out of order, as he has been much of the debate this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that you would so rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Chair is aware of the rules of standing order 61 and would remind the member of this when he proceeds with his remarks.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That was the big minister looking after the little minister.

Mr. Chairman, let me say I am mindful of the rules when I ask this question. I want to ask the minister this question. Your duty is to the public in terms of parks, and I know you take that duty seriously; we've talked about that. When will you be making your submission to cabinet on the Carmanah?

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, for the very same reason that I stated previously, Mr. Chairman, the member is completely and absolutely out of order. I had asked that you bring relevancy to this debate, with great respect, and some decorum to this House in the process.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has told us that for the last six months his ministry and he as the minister responsible have been doing an analysis of the Carmanah vis-à-vis parks. I am wondering if the minister could at least provide us with a preliminary summary, perhaps, of that analysis. Does the Minister of Parks have any views on the Carmanah in terms of the summary?

MR. SIHOTA: As an elected official.

MR. BLENCOE: As an elected official, yes. As the Minister of Parks, can he tell this House and citizens anything on his views on Carmanah?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The Minister of Parks will definitely discuss this whole issue from a parks perspective with the cabinet ministers, and then the cabinet will make a decision. I'm the Minister of Parks. I take that seriously, and you know that. We'll give a parks perspective, and we'll give it strongly.

MR. BLENCOE: I ask the minister: should there be logging in Carmanah? You're the Minister of Parks. You're supposed to be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member address the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the Chair, you're supposed to be working in the interest of parks. I assume that you do have a voice at the cabinet table. Tell us. What is your view as the Minister of Parks? Should there be logging in Carmanah?

[5:45]

MR. G. JANSSEN: We're having great difficulty. After asking all afternoon whether or not the Minister of Parks takes the people of British Columbia seriously, whether or not he has done a study as the Minister of Parks on the Carmanah Valley, and whether as minister of state he has considered the economic implications to the people of the Alberni region and the forestry industry in British Columbia, we finally find out that for the last five or six months the Ministry of Parks has been looking at the Car-

[ Page 7816 ]

manah Valley. He then tells us that the analysis is not yet complete. He then explains to us that he will take it all into consideration with cabinet.

Can he tell us that before a decision is made on the Carmanah Valley, that analysis will, in fact, be taken into consideration?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I wouldn't do the analysis for the good of my health, of course.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Has he also done an analysis on the economic benefits of the Carmanah Valley in terms of the forestry industry?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've left that to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) to do.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to this analysis that's been going on for the last four or five months, could the minister tell the House what the scope of that analysis was? What are the terms of reference? What was that analysis to look at? I'm not asking you what the recommendations and the conclusions were; I'm just asking you what the purpose, the scope and the terms of reference were of that analysis.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: That analysis was done so that I could discuss this issue with cabinet, and you'll find out in due course.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not asking to find out what the conclusions are; I'm trying to determine what the terms of reference were. Is the minister prepared, first of all, to tell me what the terms of reference of that analysis were? We as the taxpayers paid for it. It seems to me we should have a right to know exactly what it is that we're paying for.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And you will.

MR. SIHOTA: We're talking about the end results.

Well, let's ask a question that maybe isn't as tough to answer: could the minister tell the House who did the analysis?

MR. G. JANSSEN: It is presumed, and it's widely stated, that the decision on the Carmanah will come down next week. The Minister of Forests has indicated that he will be making a statement on the Carmanah Valley. The Minister of Parks tells us that the analysis is not complete and hasn't reached his desk. Will the analysis be completed in time for the Minister of Forests to make a decision on the Carmanah Valley and in fact for the cabinet to study the issue?

MR. BLENCOE: The Ministry of Parks has been doing this analysis. I assume he's had some briefing. He maybe had some information passed his way about the Carmanah. I'm just wondering if the minister has any view on the Carmanah vis-à-vis when it goes to cabinet and the kind of position he'll be taking as Minister of Parks. He must have had something in mind in six months. Or is it just a slow learning process?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Questions are one thing, but questions that are completely out of order are another. The member knows full well that the opinions the minister takes to the cabinet table are really none of his business, and they're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must concur.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister can't tell us what the terms of reference of the study on the Carmanah were.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He can but he won't.

MR. SIHOTA: He can but he won't. I take it he's taking instructions from all the other members of the government who have refused to answer questions on a number of other issues. He won't tell us who did the report. Will he tell us why he won't tell us who did the report and what the terms of reference are for the report that we as taxpayers are paying for? Why won't you tell us? What have you got to hide, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I've indicated this afternoon — if everybody had been here — that my staff did the report. Yes, we've been in consultation, and yes, I'll deliver that at the cabinet table before any decisions are made. In due time you'll get all the answers you want.

MR. BLENCOE: The analysis has been done; the minister, I assume, has briefed himself on the issue. Can the minister let us know if he thinks, as the Minister of Parks.... A very basic question: is there any park value in Carmanah? Can the Minister of Parks at least tell us that he's well enough versed on this issue to tell us that there is some park value in Carmanah, or is he prepared to — as he did on Spetifore — roll over? Give us some indication as the Minister of Parks.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks yesterday I commented on the privatization of the camps and park services, and the minister took note of my remarks. I would like to ask him now to comment on how the privatization is taking place.

As you know, this is a privatization that we on this side of the House have been very much opposed to. We feel that while this minister brags about the Parks ministry and the park system, he somehow fails to recognize — along with the other members of his cabinet — that the people who have worked within the park service, including temporary employees, are people who have helped to build that and make it worthwhile. It is not a park service that has been developed strictly by the goodwill of any government, but it's something that has been built by the

[ Page 7817 ]

goodwill of people who worked — and worked well — within that system.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to privatization, the situation is — as is the classic model of privatization, wherever it has taken place — that the government tries very hard during the initial stages to make it look as though it is doing all right. But we know that as time goes by, we get into a situation that is completely inadequate.

In some places it is said that this current phase of privatization has been going on for three years; others say it's five years. But really it goes back to about 1983, when this started to take place. So I would like the minister to give this House an update with regard to privatization. I hope that in the process of giving that update, he will state how much of this process is still to be done.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The history of contracting out to the auto-accessible parks and the day parks does go back to 1983. From the survey reports that we're receiving from the interior, it has been very well received. The surveys indicate that they have not noticed any difference whatsoever in the parks that were contracted out and those that weren't contracted out. Last year I visited some of those parks, and the same answer that I received and that I noticed myself is that I personally couldn't tell the difference. So this year we are contracting out more parks.

Really the thing we want to stress here is that the government is not giving up any of its managing ability. We have stringent guidelines in those contracts. Those contracts are two-year terms, and if they don't measure up to the standards that I require or demand, they will not be renewed. We supervise the parks. We continue to have our permanent staff continually supervising as well. We get surveys and reports back, and we'll make sure that we maintain the same standards that we've always had.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister refers to surveys that indicate satisfaction. I would be interested to know if not only the results of the survey have been made public, but also the details of the survey itself, the questions and how it was distributed, so that we can see just what questions were included in seeking to achieve that kind of survey.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Those surveys are public. Every individual who visits our parks has an opportunity to check off a number of issues on those surveys, and they come back to us and give us an idea of what the people are feeling about our park system. I reiterate: they're coming back just as positive as they were before we even started contracting out.

MR. LOVICK: Just before I do anything else, to pick up on that question.... Is the minister saying then, given that it is public information, that he would be willing to share with this House the specific results in terms of the aggregate, the total province and all the parks? You must have that information available, and I am wondering if you would publish the results of those surveys. We'd like them.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: After the results of this year, I would be very happy to publish them and the responses to the surveys.

MR. LOVICK: Well, the obvious question is why the minister chooses to wait. Why must we wait till the end of this year? As you say, the process has been going back to '83. You made reference to the fact that the survey results have been very good. Surely you have a pretty well-established corpus of information that enables you to make that statement. If you don't, obviously your comments are premature, so surely, in the interest of truth and public relations and all that good stuff, you'd love to share with us those results as quickly as possible. Will you reconsider? Will you make that information available now? Or soon?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Well, last year we had 45 of those auto-accessible parks that we contracted out, and we're still in the process of doing 100 this year. The results would be much more conclusive for you when I do them at the end of the year, and I am happy to give them to you then.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I am certainly not persuaded that it is a justification for waiting until the end of the year. One of the reasons I raise the point is that the information my colleagues and I have received about the comparison of levels of service leads us to quite a different conclusion. In fact, we have all kinds of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the services have gone down; they have degenerated somewhat.

That's why we're asking for that information. Again I want to emphasize that we ask for that primarily because the minister has made the claim quite boldly and quite emphatically that we — i.e. the people on that side of the House — accept that the program is a success, everything is going wonderfully, and therefore: "Take our word for it." When we ask you for some information, you tell us we have to wait until the end of the year. Surely if you have the kind of evidence at hand that enables you to make that kind of statement, then it follows logically, does it not, that that information ought to be presented to us post-haste. That's the first point to make.

[6:00]

I'm going to try and cover a little bit of ground here before I give it to you, Mr. Minister, because I remember that earlier you said to us: "Give us a whole bunch of questions and we'll deal with them." I'm going to accept that invitation from you and offer a couple of observations and ask you to respond to them.

I'd like to try and put this debate on a somewhat different footing from the one we had in the last go-round, when we were focusing primarily on min-

[ Page 7818 ]

istry of state estimates. You recall, Mr. Chairman, that there were moments when that debate took a rather ugly tone. Indeed it was rather acerbic, and members were struggling somewhat to restrain their emotions. There were some rather unpleasant utterances going back and forth, sadly. But I submit to you that the reason for that is that we on this side perceive that the minister was either incapable of answering the questions, or, even worse, had simply as an act of will decided he would not answer the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the member that there's no onus on the minister to answer a question, and to impugn the member's integrity is not considered a parliamentary procedure.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, your statement, quite frankly, with all due deference, is not borne out by what I just said. I made no effort to impugn anyone's integrity, and to suggest that flies in the face of the words I used. I said very clearly that the minister was either incapable of answering or chose not to; neither of those utterances in any way impugns his integrity. With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, I think you're in error.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I move the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Ministerial Statement

ESSENTIAL SERVICES IN HOSPITALS
DURING LABOUR DISPUTE

HON. L. HANSON: I rise to make a ministerial statement. As members of the assembly are aware, the province of British Columbia is currently affected by a labour dispute involving the B.C. Nurses' Union and the Health Labour Relations Association, which represents the province's hospitals. This afternoon I was very pleased to hear that the two parties have agreed to go back to the table tomorrow and resume bargaining under the mediation of Mr. John Kinzie. It is my firm belief that the collective bargaining process is the desired method of reaching an accord in this matter.

However, there remains a major outstanding concern. It has come to my attention that people are being put at risk, that the manning levels for essential services in our hospitals are deteriorating and that some hospitals have closed their emergency wards. It is very apparent that the voluntary agreement on essential services has broken down.

I am troubled and disappointed that the nurses' union and the HLRA could not maintain their earlier agreement on the very vital matter of essential services. I cannot and will not permit people's lives to be in jeopardy over the issue of essential services. Today, pursuant to section 137.8(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, I have ordered the Industrial Relations Council to designate the facilities, productions and services it considers necessary in our hospitals to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia.

I find taking such action regrettable. It would have been much more appropriate for the two parties involved to have worked out the issue of essential services on a voluntary basis, but circumstances and the concern of the government for the safety of our people dictates otherwise.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for providing me with some notice of the statement. We got it about a minute and a half before the minister stood up. I want to make some comments in relation to that.

First of all, I must say that from this side of the House we are delighted to see that the parties are back to the bargaining table, and that they will resume bargaining under the mediation of Mr. Kinzie starting tomorrow. I think that's good. It's obvious that the parties have arrived at that decision without the heavy hand of government, without imposition and force from government. That's a decision that they have freely arrived at, and it shows respect for the collective bargaining process.

It's regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the heavy hand of government had to show itself with respect to the other matter, where the government has intervened. I say that for several reasons. I say that first of all because I have faith in these parties, faith that the parties are capable among themselves to resolve any difficulties which may have arisen with respect to essential services. Respect for the collective bargaining process, which has been shown by government with respect to the bargaining resuming, should have been shown equally to this matter of essential services, to allow the parties some time to work out any difficulties that existed among themselves.

I think that, in part, this government has moved because it felt it had to do something about the situation. I think that that ignores the problem. I want to say this: I have a lot of sympathy for those people in hospital who are facing the difficulties that they have; however, they are not the cause of this dispute. The cause of this dispute emanates from the government opposite, which has chosen throughout this not to encourage the parties to conclude bargaining on their own and not to provide the type of funding for health care which British Columbians deserve.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

[ Page 7819 ]

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

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

MR. LOVICK: How ironic, Mr. Chairman, that when we left off I was about to try to introduce the point that we start the debate anew on a much more even keel and a much more temperate kind of tone, and the first thing that happened is that we got into a procedural debate and rancour. However, it passed. Let me see whether I can continue to pursue the line of questioning I began and whether I will have somewhat better luck this time around from the minister.

The minister again has suggested to us that the results of the surveys, of the efforts to canvass public opinion, have demonstrated rather clearly that there is no observable or discernible difference between the privatized provision of park services and the public provision of those services. I for my part said: "Share with us, if you will please, the evidence," and gave one reason why I was asking that. Let me give you another, again as part of my question to you of whether you might indeed reconsider and give us partial information, even if you don't have at hand all of the available information. The other reason is simply the evidence in jurisdictions elsewhere.

I'm sure the minister is well aware of the record of service in places like Ontario and Alberta and the state of Washington. In at least a couple of those jurisdictions the privatized operations have now reverted to public ones simply because of the level of dissatisfaction. If that is in fact the experience in other jurisdictions, it seems fair to ask that we get some clear evidence right now of what is happening as far as public opinion is concerned about our privatized delivery of those services.

If I might start with that question, I'm asking the minister to reconsider and share with us at least some of the information that he has which leads him to the conclusion that yes indeed, the new service is working quite nicely, thank you very much.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, I'd be happy to share that information at the end of the year. But if I can collect some of things that we've done up until now, I'm also happy to try to put that together for the member so that he could look at it as well.

As far as comparison in parks goes, the privatization in Alberta was very selective contracting out in those parks. As far as Ontario was concerned, the contract was a much longer term than what we're looking at. They were looking at 15 years. They were giving up some of their management of the parks, which we're not giving up, and they were also allowing the contractor to build certain structures in the parks. So there really isn't a comparison between the two, because we're still maintaining our management; we're not giving any of that up whatsoever.

MR. LOVICK: Again, I'm not entirely content, but I appreciate the answer. If there's an honest effort to answer the question, that's fair.

The minister made reference to the fact that the difference between our system and those others was, at least in some cases, that we were talking about a longer-term model. Something struck me when he said that: namely, the reference within the strategy document for establishing private sector operation of major parks and campgrounds that was published a year or a year and a bit ago. I'm sure you're familiar with the document, or your deputy would be.

That document points out that one of the possible problems in a privatized system is that the park operators would be demanding a longer-term tenure or leasehold — or contract, I guess is the more appropriate term — given that they would need thereby some encouragement to make major capital investment to improve and enhance those parks. My question to the minister very directly is whether that proposal has been summarily and categorically rejected and that there will be no such thing as any long-term lease or rental of the existing parks in our province.

HON. MR. HUBERT: The answer to that is yes.

MR. LOVICK: While I'm on the subject then, perhaps I might ask the minister if he could explain to me the status of other parts of that document. You recall that other things were talked about. For example, there was one reference to public access, and the apparent working agreement at the time this document was published was that "commercial operators" — I'm quoting the document, by the way — "within provincial parks will not impair the public's right of free access to and within such parks, except as may be reasonably required for proper conduct of their business."

My question is whether that statement is still alive and well, or whether any or all of these statements are alive and well — i.e. still operative, to use that old word.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In reference to that, they are public parks, and I wanted to make sure that we were not impeding access to those parks; so that position obviously holds.

MR. LOVICK: I asked for two answers. The first one he gave me; but to the second question, are the guidelines embraced in that document still in effect?

Are we still using those? Is that in fact the policy guideline for the privatized park?

[6:15]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: I have to say that the rather laconic answers of the minister throw me. I sometimes want to look around for another question to formulate, and I don't expect the monosyllabic reply. So I sometimes

[ Page 7820 ]

have to stall for a moment to discover what direction I want to pursue thereafter.

I wonder if you can help me out a little bit with the estimates document, because the document — though it tells us about budget expenditures — doesn't give us anything about the other side of the ledger, namely revenues. I know that this is not the document to find those revenues in, but I think it would serve the public interest — and certainly the interest of this chamber — if you could give us a little information about revenues.

Where I'm leading with that question — and I will certainly divulge it to you now, rather than keep it a secret — is that I want to get some sense of what has happened to revenues since we have changed the system, albeit only piecemeal.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The revenues that we were receiving over the last year have been about $4.5 million. When these parks are contracted out, the revenue that we will be receiving is about $2 million, because some of that revenue that is received will be paying the contractors and they will be keeping that amount.

In those parks which we had to subsidize in the past, we will augment that revenue to the contractor. In some of those areas where the contractor is receiving more than what it cost us in those parks, that revenue will be coming back to the Crown, to us.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister tell me something about how many fee increases have been imposed since privatization and what the prognosis is for future policy in that regard? Are we going to get into the position by the imposition of fees where we in fact make parks less accessible and less available to people? I ask the question simply because it's something that the public, the clients of the system, are certainly raising. I am wondering if the minister would care to respond to that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I recognize that they are public parks and that they should be accessible to all families and all individuals in British Columbia. The only fee increases that we have done this year are where we have actually increased the service or facilities. Mentioning increasing the facilities, one of the issues that comes back on our surveys quite frequently is that people would like to see more flush toilets and showers. So we have a program in place where we are trying to implement that throughout our parks, and it's in those cases that we have increased the fee by $1 or $2.

MR. LOVICK: Is that the reason that the fee increases — according to that strategy document I alluded to earlier — are stipulated to be shared 50 percent between the province and 50 percent between the operator? Is that the case?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: All the fee increases come back to the province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: I am puzzled by that response, because the document that we made reference to a moment ago stipulated that it would be a fifty-fifty sharing, and I believe the minister informed me that that document was still operative and in effect. Now I discover that that's apparently not the case, so I am wondering if he could clarify that for me.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The fee increases that we have this year will come back to the province. When we negotiate next year, we may recognize some of the deficiencies the contractor is worried about. We may recognize them or we may not recognize them, and then the Crown would still continue to keep it, or we may say yes, we'll augment your contract slightly.

MR. LOVICK: I note that in the vote description for the ministry, one of the principal functions there is under vote 62(b), which "provides for the repair, reconstruction and enhancement of parks resources and facilities." Is that still the case? Do the private operators have the work done to enhance, repair and reconstruct their facilities done by government? How does that system function?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Those facilities belong to B.C. Parks, and we repair them. If there is any repair at all by the contractor, it would be a very minor repair that he would probably do on his own initiative.

MR. LOVICK: What about enhancement? There's a terminology there which suggests something much more than the ordinary wear-and-tear maintenance activities. Can the minister tell me what enhancement means and what the rules governing enhancement are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In reference to enhancement, we are talking about the issue that I just talked about: showers, flush toilets and possibly extra tables and those kinds of things.

I want to stress that it's B.C. Parks; they're our facilities and we control them. That's the area that Ontario got into problems with, but we won't get into problems with it, because I'm going to reassure you that those facilities will be maintained by the B.C. government.

MR. LOVICK: That answer — and I certainly accept the spirit in which it's intended — opens the door to those perennial questions one has about privatized operations: namely, the custodial and monitoring kinds of functions. My understanding is that the privatization thus far of those parks that have indeed been privatized effectively puts into question whether the resources will be available to monitor the particular facilities to the degree that is necessary.

It's a tough question, and I don't know how one deals with it, except that if one goes along with the

[ Page 7821 ]

literature from the right on the subject.... Certainly I've had considerable dealings with the Michael Walkers and other gurus of the Fraser Institute on the subject, and their contention is that everything can be solved effectively by the way you write the contract — by the language of contract. I would ask the minister if that indeed is his answer to that question and then perhaps pursue something further with the contract. But first I'll give you a chance to answer, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Detailed standards are part of that contract, as the member knows. At the same time, our staff are trained to monitor it very carefully. I can assure the member that from my perspective also the issue needs to be well taken care of, so I'll be monitoring it very closely.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister tell me whether those standards are published? For example, your counterparts in Highways produced a very impressive set of documents stipulating contract quantities, service schedules and all of those kinds of things, and however critical I am of Highways privatization, I nevertheless admire the administrative and technical work that was done. It would seem to me that although Parks is certainly not as technically complex a field and as large an operation as Highways, the same principle ought to obtain.

I'm wondering two things: first, is there that set of standards? Secondly, are those available to me?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Yes, there is that set of standards; and yes, I'd be very happy to share them with the member. A number of groups and individuals have occasionally asked to have a look at those, and we've done that in the past.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I heard that reference from your colleague the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael). But I'll let it pass, as much of what he says deserves to be let pass.

The other part of my question had to do with contracts, and I am sure the minister will recall that his colleague in the Ministry of Highways and I had quite an extended discussion and debate about contracts — the nature of those contracts, whether they would be public, and so on and so forth. Would this minister like to shed a little light in this chamber and surprise us all by saying that as far as parks privatization is concerned, the contracts will be public documents and, yes indeed, you can look at any of those documents?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In that particular case we will be following the government procedure in that area.

MR. LOVICK: When the minister answered that question, he sort of looked across in a tentative kind of way as if to say: "Is that enough? Do I answer your question?" With all due respect, no, that doesn't answer my question. I am wondering if you could be somewhat more specific than that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Speaking to my deputy of Parks.... Those contracts are available for viewing in our respective offices.

MR. LOVICK: Could I just flag for interest's sake that that announcement is a startling one. In fact, I hope your colleague the Minister of Government Management Services heard that, because it certainly seems to represent a significant departure and deviation from what is happening in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. There is rather a large literature on the subject of why we can't reveal the details of those contracts. The obvious question, of course, is: well, wait a minute. If we can't reveal the details of contracts in one area of government services, why is it we can in another? What I would like to do, I guess, is just ask the minister to perhaps pursue that matter with his colleague and find out if he can — I was unable to — what the rationale, explanation and coherent set of arguments is for that particular government policy position. Having said that, I will leave that one.

I appreciate hearing the news about contracts; I appreciate hearing the news about standards. The next question that arises from that, however, has to do with monitoring. Would the minister be good enough to explain to us what steps have been taken in terms of establishing a monitoring function, given that there is obviously increased pressure to have that function — probably a somewhat beefed-up function — because the work is no longer done by government employees, but rather is done by private operators who clearly and understandably want to maximize their own return on their own investment?

Can the minister tell us what steps are in place now for monitoring? How's it working?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We are using regular government Parks employees, and we have put them through a training program as well. They will be monitoring the contractors and the people who work for them, just like they monitored auxiliary employees in the past. At the same time, we've beefed it up somewhat.

[6:30]

MR. LOVICK: The minister informs us that they've "beefed it up somewhat," and I'm wondering if he might give us some dollar figures to demonstrate what that means. How much?

I'll see if I can make it more specific, if it's helpful. Have we got new positions that now take on that new supervisory role as distinct and separate from what we had before? Have we got a new position effectively within Parks with that as its function?

I ask that question — and I'm being, as you see, quite specific with the question — because when I spoke to your colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) during his esti-

[ Page 7822 ]

mates, that's where we had considerable difficulties. Once we got to the question of monitoring, it was extremely difficult to find out if we had sufficient people on staff to do that kind of work, and whether there was any adequate provision made for doing the monitoring — the kind of monitoring, let me emphasize, that becomes especially necessary in a privatized operation, where it wasn't as necessary when we had the public operation.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The monitoring is done by our park rangers, and what they can concentrate on now is to look at the results, as opposed to monitoring the staff and making sure that they're all doing their respective jobs. They will be monitoring the results of the contract. just to finalize that: it's not going to cost us any more.

MR. LOVICK: That's what scares me. We've made a very significant change to the system. So we have something that could be a systemic conflict of interest, yet the minister is telling me that we don't have an additional monitoring function.

One thing we surely know about the privatized operation and the danger of a privatized operation is that we no longer have the built-in protection. We therefore need to hire what some economists refer to as "guard labour." We need more monitors; we need more supervisors. That is certainly something that comes across very clearly.

In answer to my question about monitoring, the minister states that the rangers are going to take on that role. But he talked about contracts, and I believe his phrase was "monitoring the contracts." My information is that those persons charged with that responsibility are learning about contracts; they're learning how to draw up contracts with the respective outfits that contract to do the given services within any given park. But that doesn't answer the question, however, about the resources actually on site or in the field to do the monitoring and checking.

I'm wondering if the minister could answer me that. Is there something beyond just the fact of contract enforcement and the workshops that have been conducted to teach people about contracts?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Those rangers have 10, 11, 12 or 13 years of experience in monitoring the results of the parks system. They know what it was like before; they'll obviously know if it's not up to the standards that they were familiar with. The other thing is that the standards are detailed out in the contract to the contractors before they take on the contract. So the people who are monitoring them are the same people who monitored them before we contracted out.

MR. LOVICK: If I might clarify for the minister: nobody is for a moment suggesting that the individuals will suddenly go through some marvellous transformation because of being privatized and become shirkers and no longer committed to doing their duty. That's not the issue; I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is, because of the system and because of the fact that the rangers are now spending all their time dealing with the contractors — in some cases, a number of contractors for one particular park — they do not have the staff and the resources available to them to do the on-site inspection and monitoring that otherwise would have been done. That's the question I am asking.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In actuality the rangers will have more time, because the details are spelled out in the contract. They just need to make sure that those details are followed. That's less work than making sure that everybody is doing their respective jobs.

MR. LOVICK: Wonderful stuff. I guess the assumption there is that miraculously what happened is that only with privatization did we ever actually have a manual of standards. Right? Those poor, hapless civil servants all that time had no idea what they were doing, but suddenly those same incompetent and incapable civil servants produced the manual of standards. Isn't that a wonderful thing? Isn't that amazing that that could happen? Apparently it did though.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's wrong with that?

MR. LOVICK: It's a contradiction, Mr. Premier; that's what's wrong with it. It's a self-sustained and self-contained contradiction. And if that's intellectually too profound, sorry, but that's what it is.

Now that the Premier is back to catching up on his correspondence, which I am sure is getting more heated by the day, there's another question I'd like to ask, and that has to do with the whole matter of enforcement of regulations. We all know — heaven knows, the stories have been legion — about the problems within campgrounds and parks throughout the province, sadly, because there is a yahoo element in every population that wants to get out and destroy things rather than simply enjoy.

The problem has been that we need people who are able to convince those individuals that they cannot do what they are doing. In the past, of course, those public employees were given that kind of power, insofar as they were public employees. Now what we have are employees working for private contractors; in some cases, perhaps, people who are very young, very inexperienced, who are probably working at what may well be minimum wages, who will not have much training and certainly won't necessarily have much in the way of stature, certainly not the stature of the kind of the gentleman standing on your immediate right there. They won't have that kind of deterrent power inherent.

What, then, are we going to do? How are we going to monitor the infractions of the park rules? If the answer is going to be — and I don't want to pretend to be psychic or anything — "Well, what the heck; we'll just call the cops; we'll just call in the RCMP and all our problems will be solved," I would suggest

[ Page 7823 ]

to you that the history of parks and campgrounds and dissent would suggest that that answer isn't sufficient unto itself.

I am wondering if the minister can explain to us what steps have been taken to enforce the rules whereby one can indeed evict people — the noisy, the rude, the belligerent, etc? What has been done?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, we have the same park rangers on staff; so they are still involved. We've also put the contractors through a training program so that they will also be responding. These contractors also have the ability to evict someone. As you indicated, if that's not satisfactory and if it's such a large party, then, yes, we also have contact with the RCMP that we pull in in the local area.

However, most of our problems are noise problems, and most of that will be able to be handled by the contractor and also the park ranger.

MR. LOVICK: Same people, same training, the minister tells me. What I want to ask him, though, is: how many people are getting the same training, doing the same job? I want to put that in some very specific terms, if I can, or give my question that specific kind of focus. I'd like him to give me the same kind of report that his colleague in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways did: namely, the total numbers of individuals who were formerly part of the Parks staff complement — the total number of individuals we started with — compared to the total number of individuals now. In other words, how many individuals were working for Parks and are no longer? Moreover, what is the current status in terms of employment in parks? How many do we have now, compared to what we have had, say, over the pattern of the last two or three years?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The number of parks that we are contracting out this year is 110; the number of permanents we have is 64. As I indicated, the employee groups that applied to be involved with the park as far as the contract is concerned — there were 18 successful ones. Does that answer your question? Is that what you are asking?

MR. LOVICK: No, that doesn't quite answer the question, although I appreciate the answer. What I want to get at is the numbers of people who used to work for Parks, compared to the number of people who now work for Parks. And the combination will do — those who still work for the government as well as those who work for private contractors. I want some of that kind of basic data in terms of numbers.

Obviously the reason I am asking the question is to be able to determine whether parks privatization has meant a net reduction in employment, as is the case in Highways. I want the minister to give me, if he will, the data to answer that question.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In answer to that question, we would be happy to get the details later. But as I understand it, we have basically the same number when you're putting the two together.

MR. LOVICK: One has to wonder, then, why we went through the exercise, if we were going to save all this money, if it's the same number of people. Does it perhaps have to do with fringe benefits, level of salary compensation, pensions and those kinds of things? Are we perhaps making parks employees cheaper labour than was hitherto the case?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: An answer to that is that because of this restructuring, we were able to put 50 percent more park rangers into the back country than we had there before.

MR. LOVICK: That statistic is perhaps a little misleading. In terms of the overall system, I don't think the fact that we put 50 percent more into the back country is a big difference in terms of total person power within the system.

I'm wondering, though, if the minister has at his disposal now any information about the number of people who were Parks employees who for one reason or another have decided not to stay with Parks. I assume, by the way, that they had the same options as their counterparts in other parts of the civil service faced with privatization; namely, they could invoke the provisions of the Verrin decision and all that. Is that the case?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: The answer, in essence, is that we follow the same procedure. We encourage the employees' group to come together. We made every effort to redistribute the full-time employees throughout our parks in different areas. For those who didn't want to stay with Parks, we made every effort to assist them in finding a job in government.

MR. LOVICK: Does the minister have that kind of data available now: that is, the total number of persons who stayed with Parks when given an option — for the privatized parks — the number who chose not to stay and the number that have been satisfactorily placed? I ask the question because, between you and your colleague the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael), I would hope that you can get the answer. I ask the question because I have some very powerful and passionate concerns about the government's vaunted redeployment program, which was, as we recall, one of the means by which it attempted to sell and popularize the privatization program.

My information is that the program has proven to be not very successful at all; indeed, large numbers of people are claiming that it's an unmitigated disaster. There are some tremendous casualties out there — individuals who got lost in the shuffle or who couldn't be accommodated by the transition. Despite all the efforts of government, trade unions and all the other parties involved, the fact is that we still have all those casualties.

[6:45]

[ Page 7824 ]

Therefore I think my question about numbers is very important, and I dearly hope that the minister can answer it for me now. Can he?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Let me say that we are very sensitive to the issue. When people's jobs are on the line, then I and the ministry are obviously concerned. At the same time, I can assure the member that we still have the same full-time employees. We have the same number of employees, and in the past we've pulled in roughly 300 seasonal employees. Obviously those have now been replaced by contracting-out. We are certainly sensitive to the seasonal employees, but we have followed the collective agreement.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if the minister can give me any indication of when we might get some of those aggregate numbers: how many opted to stay, how many left, how many have been satisfactorily placed and so forth. Can he tell me that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We're just signing off the permits, but we'll try to get that to you as soon as possible.

MR. LOVICK: Just one other quick question. I'm about done with this. I understand that there have been some advertisements to fill new positions out of service, as opposed to internal competition and all that. Yet people within the bargaining units say that individuals are in fact being laid off as a result of privatization. How true that is I do not know. But I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us what is going on under that heading.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: There were seven zone manager vacancies, and there were 84 applications for the position. They were all filled by former park employees.

MR. LOVICK: Just a question-statement, if I may. The minister has given me a number of assurances in the course of our discussion here that he will provide me with information in answer to various questions. All I would like to ask is that he and his officials indeed review the transcript of our exchange here and flag for me, or for themselves, all those items which the minister has promised to provide. I say that just because it has been my experience, sadly, in this chamber that frequently those kinds of utterances will be made but somehow people will forget to give me that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Name names.

MR. LOVICK: I could name names, but I won't. There is no point in embarrassing anybody.

Again, I don't think there's anything malevolent in that; it's probably just an oversight. But that's why I'm flagging it now for the record. I hope you will give me that assurance, because I am not for a moment reassured by the answers, nor do I feel confident and comfortable with the description I have seen in terms of background papers on park privatization. I don't think this program, quite frankly, has been thought out as well as some of the others that your government has embraced and entertained, and therefore I have some real reservations. Thus I want to get that information.

I assure you, Mr. Minister, that even though Parks is not directly within my critic responsibilities, as the privatization spokesperson I intend to pick up this matter with you again. However, I understand that by agreement we have only a relatively short period of time allocated to this debate, and therefore I'm now going to defer to my colleague, who wants to raise some matters.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was raising some matters with the minister earlier on with respect to French Beach, China Beach and Sooke Potholes. I want to put some more questions to the minister about them. They really get to the standards that are to be expected from privatization.

Parks employees in those areas, as well as other areas of the province, have all sorts of problems. One thing that seems to be a regular occurrence throughout the park system, certainly not unique to French and China Beach — places which I treasure, by the way.... Someone else mentioned that when we were in power we doubled the number of parks in British Columbia. I should say that it was the NDP that bought the French Beach property. One of the regular problems here, of course, is fire at campsites, especially when it's hot. What steps do you take in the course of your privatization to ensure that people are trained, before entering into the contract, in fire protection matters?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We have trained and are training contractors, and we supply them with the necessary equipment.

MR. SIHOTA: It would seem to me that they should have the ability before entering into the contract — that it should be a condition precedent to the contract. Would the minister not agree?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Certainly before they sign the contract.... I would agree that they need to be trained before they come into the job. From my perspective, that's taken care of.

MR. SIHOTA: So the minister is saying that it is indeed being done. Am I correct on that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I understand it, that is being done. When we go to French Beach, we'll be happy to discuss all that with you.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not sure the minister understands my question. The question relates to whether it is indeed required before someone enters into a contract. Is the public assured — apart from French Beach, but generally speaking — that people have those skills? Before the contract is accepted, do you

[ Page 7825 ]

take steps to assure yourselves that people have firefighting skills?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm satisfied that we are taking care of that part of our responsibility and that our people are safe. That was the answer.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me try it a different way, because he's fudging on it. Is it or is it not a condition precedent to their getting the contract?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I have answered it twice already. I guess at the end of the day the quality needs to be the same, the safety needs to be the same, the fire protection needs to be the same, and I feel confident that through our contract we are taking care of that.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister another question. Obviously when you are in parks — parks employees now deal with the whole range of medical difficulties — people in parks get bee stings, get burnt, have heart attacks. This weekend at French Beach a young chap committed suicide. I want to ask the minister not so much about the matter of suicide but the experience in terms of first aid. Could the minister tell me whether or not people are required to be trained in first aid prior to entering into the contract?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I understand it, the same requirements are there now that were there before. Again, it goes back to the answer that I have just given, that the safety aspect and the quality aspect and the fire protection aspect, from my perspective, are taking the same approach as before.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell me, then, who pays for the training, both in terms of first aid and firefighting?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We will go over those details when we meet together, and I will bring those with me.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you for that answer, but I am just wondering, in general terms, who pays for those costs. Do we the taxpayers pay those costs, or is that a cost of doing business?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I understand it, and as my ministry is informing me, the net cost is part of developing the contract, and we will get those details for you when we do meet.

MR. SIHOTA: The net cost is part of developing the contract, I am just wondering again: who pays those costs? Do we, or does the person who's got the contract? In other words, is it a cost for them of doing business, or is it a cost to us in terms of the cost of privatization?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As I indicated, we don't have those details right here, but I will share those with you when we are going on our trip.

MR. SIHOTA: It's just a basic question in terms, of costs of privatization.

With respect to the current situation at those parks, because of the fact that there are two employees there, there is no upkeep. For example, at French Beach, it is my understanding that they have 69 campsites, each surrounded by brush that has now grown over and covered those areas. There is no regular cutting of grass, or weeding and painting that should go on. Last year 165,000 people came to those two parks, and each year it has gone up by 10 percent, so it is expected to go up again by 10 percent. Of course, most tourists who come to British Columbia — mostly Americans that come to that area — don't like to see that. Is the minister satisfied that an adequate level of maintenance is currently occurring in those parks?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: What he is indicating to me may be true, but I want to assure the member that we will be dealing with that issue — we will bring it up to the same quality. Maybe from that perspective we should run down there very quickly so that I can get a really close personal perspective on what I see in those parks.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, and I would be happy to take the minister down there as soon as we can.

I want to ask the minister one other question, which may be my final question. One of the worst things that can happen to tourists who come to Canada from a foreign country, particularly the United States, is to have their vehicles broken into. One regular event that I am told occurs in southern Vancouver Island parks, particularly these parks out here, is vehicles being broken into regularly, particularly American vehicles. With a staff complement of four people, people were....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister suggests my constituents are doing that, and I take offense at that. I'll be happy in the next election campaign to tell the Social Credit candidate that that's what the minister said about our constituents.

There is a security problem there. Before you could have three surveillances, and now you can only have one per day. I don't think that's the quality of care that ought to be provided there. Similarly, with respect to vandalism and hooligans coming down there at night, there are some significant problems in both those parks with people coming down and basically terrorizing the campsite. That's a rotten experience for somebody to have. That's happened regularly in these parks over the years, with the kids coming in there — and the parks officials know who they are; they know how to deal with them. With four

[ Page 7826 ]

employees, if it happens to two parks, you can cover it. With two employees, you can't do that.

Is the minister satisfied that the standard is being maintained in both of these areas? My suggestion to whom is that it's not. I'm sure he'll see that when he comes. If this is happening in this area, in these parks, it would seem to me that it must, therefore, be occurring in other areas of the province; they must be experiencing the same problem. Would he not agree?

[7:00]

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I can't see that privatization would have any effect on whether or not somebody is going to break into someone else's car. If you're talking about one of those parks, and you had one person there, or two or three, and one is down at the beach, one is in the bush somewhere and the third is in the washroom, and someone is going to break into a car, that will happen whether it's privatized or whether it's run by our own people.

MR. SIHOTA: The point is, if levels of service — which is what the government says it's going to provide.... I don't expect you to solve every vandalism problem or every break-in problem. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you have to have sufficient staff to deal with those problems. You don't have that right now. I don't think you should be using that as a justification to privatize. The reason you've got that problem now is that you don't have adequate staff there. If that's the case now, then what assurance do we have that when you proceed with privatization the same level of staff will be there? We don't know.

It seems to me that what you're driven by, your prime motivation — and I'll end on this note; but I look forward to those numbers you said you were going to provide me with, because they'll prove it — is saving bucks, not improving the quality of service.

Vote 61 approved on division.

Vote 62: ministry operations, $34,676,286 — approved on division.

Vote 63: development regions, $1,558,755 — approved on division.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Speaker, I call committee on Bill 41.

SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by noting that the government Whip has suggested that I owe him a favour, and I want to thank him and the minister for being available tonight so that I could participate in committee stage. I have to leave tomorrow, before, I think, this bill would have been on our House agenda. I do appreciate the accommodation.

Moving then to section 2, which deals with the establishment of the Seniors' Advisory Council, I'd like to note that when the bill was tabled in the House — about ten days ago, I guess — I sent along copies of it to about a dozen people who are active in the seniors' community, either because they are seniors themselves or because they work as advocates or providers of seniors' services. I felt it would be interesting just to get their comments. I simply sent it out as it was tabled in the House, with a request for them to get back to me with any issues, concerns, suggestions or comments they might have.

It's interesting that I had a very good response to that bit of informal canvassing. I think that suggests to the minister and to the House that people are interested in this particular initiative. To a person, every single one of the comments I got back — either by phone or by letter — referred to the makeup of the council and asked questions around the issues that I raised in second reading debate: how this council would be constituted; how it would be representative of the seniors' community; who else might be represented on it besides older people; how geography would be looked at; and by what means the minister would go about appointing the council.

There were some comments about the need for a council and, just to put another perspective on it, I would like to read from an excellent brief from an older woman who lives in the Okanagan. She said that surveys have indicated that older Canadians trust their provincial and national senior organizations to represent their views, and she noted that in British Columbia there are in the order of 4,000 groups actively representing seniors' views.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's really 4,000 — 4-0-0-0. There are two umbrella groups that represent the organizations that exist in every town, city and hamlet in the province. The Old Age Pensioners' Organization has a history of 60 years as an umbrella organization for seniors' groups in the province. A newer group, the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations, also has a very large number of people. If you look at the banner head of that particular organization, there are at least 30 or 40 other umbrella organizations, all of which have branches around the province.

She goes on to note that these people have demonstrated their clout when they participated with groups across Canada in preventing the deindexing of the old age pension. The Chairman, I think, will remember that well.

[ Page 7827 ]

She really questions the need for the council, which I think in a way gives more impetus to the question that I want to begin with. Could the minister give us some information about how he intends to appoint the council, what kinds of criteria he has in mind and what he might do to ensure that the council is seen as representative of seniors? I think that particular issue will have a great deal to do with the way people work with the council, and we know that is one of the mandates the new council will have.

HON. MR. DUECK: To begin with, we envision that the council will be no more than 15 in number, and they will represent various regions throughout the province and also various groups. They will be by order-in-council. I've already asked a number of seniors and groups that represent seniors whether they have anyone in mind to serve on this committee. I've had many names already suggested to me and many letters from societies and also from individuals interested in this type of work.

I think I understood that some felt this seniors' council was not necessary. I'm not sure whether I understood that correctly. You are the first one to mention that to me. Every person I've talked to — and I've traveled the province very extensively — and all the groups I've talked to wherever I go are very excited and enthusiastic about it. They feel this is a heck of a good idea, with the office for seniors. I was a little surprised when you mentioned that. I don't know whether that's one individual or one particular society that's functioning so well — and the Ministry of Health being responsible for seniors is looking after that group so well — that they don't need any other assistance whatsoever. But I would be enlightened to hear why someone would not wish this type of council to look after the interests of one group that have said — and you included, Madam Member, in that group — we must do more for seniors and concentrate on some of their concerns and aspirations that perhaps are not quite looked after in the mainstream of society.

So I am very enthusiastic about this; I think it's a tremendous move, even if it would have been from any other government; I don't want to take any kudos for this. But I think it's certainly something the seniors have looked for, and that's why they've been most enthusiastic.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me note that the comments that I made about the 4,000 seniors organizations and the effective way in which they have been representing the interests of seniors is indeed the perspective of one senior, but I think it is a point of view that's shared. I don't put forward that particular comment as a counterpoint to the Seniors' Advisory Council but simply as a baseline from which the minister will be working in the establishment of this council. This council is another group, if you like, a group formally associated with government, that has the opportunity to represent the interests of seniors to government. But there are many organizations that have done so and will continue to do so, as I'm sure the minister recognizes. The point I'm making is that we are looking at that rich resource and at the effective work those organizations have done in representing the issues as the baseline from which this council will be working.

Let me pursue for another brief minute the issue of nomination or representativeness. Given that there are some large umbrella organizations....

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: People are feeling a little lively tonight. They must have been down for dinner. All of us hard-working types are waiting until we finish our work for the day, long past the dinner hour, before we deal with some of our more basic needs, if you like.

Let me ask the minister a very direct question around the process for appointment. Is the minister going to have some clear guidelines about being open to nominations and about communicating with seniors' organizations that he is open to nominations? Is he considering having some direct representation on the council from some of the umbrella organizations that clearly stand as representative of seniors, such as the old age pensioners' organization or COSCO? I'm looking for some indication of how the minister is going to provide to the senior community the methodology, if you like, that he plans to use to appoint this council. I think it is very important for the minister to take this action in an open and clear-cut way so that the status of the people who are finally chosen by the minister, or who come through some sort of nomination or representation process, is clearly understood.

I will ask another question at the same time, because it deals with who may be on the council. Is it the intent of the minister to have on the council as well some representation from service-provider or advocacy groups? And the same question, then: how would he go about the appointment or choosing of people from that particular sector, which clearly works very closely with the senior community and might very well be a part of this council too?

[7:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly intend to have a good cross-section of people on this particular council. They will be appointed by order-in-council; they will not be by nomination. I'm inviting people to write to me or to phone — or people from seniors' groups. We'll ask for input from advocacy groups that wish one of their members to serve. It's 15 members, so we can't satisfy every region. They will also be from various regions of the province. There will not necessarily be one from the city of Vancouver and all the rest from somewhere else. There will probably be a proportionate greater number from the more populated area, of course.

We haven't set out a formula, whether by nomination, or a set way of choosing them. I'm asking for input from groups like you've just mentioned. I think I'm aware of the one you're referring to, and certainly

[ Page 7828 ]

we would want someone from that group on this particular council.

All I can tell you is that they will be by order-in-council, they will be by recommendation from my office, and they will be a good cross-section of people from regions and various interest groups that are now involved with seniors.

MS. A. HAGEN: Do I conclude from that last comment that in addition to older people there will representation on this council from the advocacy service-provider group of people? People who work with seniors, I guess, is the generic description. Was that the intent of the minister's last remark?

HON. MR. DUECK: Since we have not yet chosen it, it very likely could be.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm really asking the minister to confirm that he's got a process in hand that we're all going to know about. I would not be satisfied if by some serendipitous process people are sending in names to the minister, worthy though I know all those names will be. I think the minister has an obligation to set up some kind of a process that informs people about what he's about and gives people some opportunity to provide him with some input to that. I think it's really important in terms of the integrity of the choices he's going to make that he write to perhaps the umbrella organizations. There must be some framework here, and I'm looking for some assurance that the minister is going to be accountable if somebody writes to him and says: "What is the process?" "This is the process, and I am communicating with people."

You've done that around the task force in terms of letting people know by advertisement. I'm sure you know, by virtue of the piles of communication you're getting from the task force, a lot more about seniors' groups than you might have known in the past. So give me some indication that you've got some idea of a due process rather than just a serendipitous one that occurs if somebody happens to hear that the council is going to be there.

HON. MR. DUECK: The member makes good points, and they will be noted.

MR. CLARK: I note that this section of the bill talks about remuneration. I'm sure the minister doesn't contemplate salaries. I'm sure it's modest. Maybe a broader question would be whether this advisory council has a projected budget for the coming year.

HON. MR. DUECK: As to the phrase here that they would be paid a remuneration, it is intended to be a per diem. They may not meet more than X number of times a year, maybe to begin with once a month or what have you, and it would not be fair not to pay them a per diem if they serve in this capacity That's why it's in there: to give us that authority.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister tell us, first, what the per diem currently is under the regulations or guidelines of the Treasury Board; and second, whether the expenses are on top of the per diem?

HON. MR. DUECK: They certainly would be paid out-of-pocket expenses and a per diem, which is normal with committees of this kind. I'm not sure at this time what the per diem rate is, but there is a set per diem rate offered for this type of work, and it would follow that same pattern.

MR. CLARK: The minister said — I don't want to put words in his mouth — that there's no fixed meeting schedule. It's not contemplated that the council will meet monthly, twice a month, four times a year or once a year. Is it at the discretion of the council itself once it's formed? Is that what you envisage?

HON. MR. DUECK: In truth, Mr. Chairman, at this time it has not yet been worked out, but I do not foresee that they would be meeting as regularly as once a month or twice a month. As we get into this council, perhaps we'll have some input from the members that are serving and from the chairperson and we will evolve from there. It is for information, concerns that seniors have; the council meets and gives the information to the minister. It's not like some committees that are set up that are very rigid and must meet so many times a year under their mandate. It will be much more ad hoc. Perhaps it will develop into a meeting once every two months; it could well be. I'm not sure at this time.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is really the nuts and bolts of the bill, I guess, because it says what these people are going to do once they are appointed by what I hope will be an open and seen-to-be-fair process that is representative in all the ways we have described representation.

Again, going back to my earlier comment, I did have some very solid feedback on this clause as well. It's not a very long bill, so there's not very much for anyone to feed back on, and it's not surprising that they're talking about who's going to be on the council and what they are going to do once they get there.

Just thinking about the minister's last comment, the mandate is quite broad: "(a) advise the minister on current and future issues of concern to seniors...; (b) represent interests of seniors...." Just remember that I said there are 4,000 organizations and two or three umbrella organizations already representing the interests of seniors. The minister has had them in his office; I've had them over in the east wing in our offices. They are pretty articulate and pretty damn sure about what their interests are, and they're not at all shy about letting any of us know in no uncertain terms. "(c) maintain close communication links with

[ Page 7829 ]

major seniors' organizations and organizations involved in providing services to seniors." My heavens, we already know there are 4,000 organizations. We can't begin to count the number of homemaker agencies, long-term-care facilities, gerontological organizations and academic organizations that are involved.

I want to ask the minister if he is at all familiar with the work and the mandate of the National Advisory Council on Aging, a federal council made up primarily of older people that deals with issues relating to the older population.

HON. MR. DUECK: I have not met with him, but I have heard of the organization. If you have some information that I should know or that we should follow up, I would like to have your input.

MS. A. HAGEN: My first advice to the minister is to for heaven's sake make sure that he does find out something about this organization, because they have been working for a number of years with a mandate like this, with a budget, with the autonomy to carry out studies and do some very fine work that enables them to represent the concerns and interests of seniors.

Let me just mention one document that I use as a standard piece of reference. "Community Support Services" is a benchmark document based on the "Listen to Me!" series, in which the council met with seniors' organizations and was able to pull together and articulate in a very simple, graphic and well-orchestrated way the needs in communities around seniors' issues. In fact, when I was advising people to participate in the minister's Toward a Better Age task force, one of the pieces of information I sent out to them was a one-page guide from that study that I knew would provide them with solid information and give them some further thoughts on some of the issues they might want to raise. There was very little time, from the time the minister first announced the task force to when people needed to have briefs ready to present.... There were only about ten days, I remember, from the time of the first announcement to the first hearings.

Let me be very specific. How does the minister expect the council he is appointing to achieve its mandate? How does he expect that group to achieve the goals he has set out for it?

HON. MR. DUECK: The council that we envision will be provided with a very broad mandate to advise the Minister Responsible for Seniors on current and future issues of concern, especially to seniors. Quite deliberately, no limits have been placed on the subject matter to which these concerns may relate. In order to provide comprehensive, balanced advice to the minister, the council's mandate also provides it with the authority to establish close communication links with seniors and seniors' organizations, to request studies of issues relating to seniors, and to represent interests of seniors in general terms.

It is broad; it is all-encompassing. Some of the details will have to be worked out once we have established who will be on that committee and appointed a chairman. Then we will probably have a little more detailed information for you.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister chose to answer my question by just repeating the mandate. I was asking a much more active question: how is this group of people going to carry out the tasks that this bill asks them to carry out? I will ask that question again and perhaps give the minister a direction that might help us in understanding how they are going to do it. Is there a budget, and will there be staff available to this council?

HON. MR. DUECK: It is in my global budget. Staff have not yet been allocated. However, when the time comes, we will see what staff they require.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's the kind of answer I find it hard to continue to accept from this minister. It is his frequent comment that in the fullness of time, to use words that have been used excessively in this House, something may happen. If you are going to set up a council and give it a mandate, then surely we must have some idea of how that mandate is going to be achieved.

Not "we'll take a look at it" — will there be staff and a budget for this council?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take that as an insult, because I don't think it was meant that way — inferring that this minister says "in the fullness of time." If you look at the task force and the job they are doing, some of the results that have come back thus far... Today was their last meeting. I don't think you can stand there and accuse me of saying "in the fullness of time" and "somehow it will work out." That's not so. You weren't referring to this one; you were referring in general terms to how I operate, and that's not true.

I am telling you that I do not have a specific budget or an allocation of FTEs at this time, but whatever is required will be done. That is what I told you earlier, and I maintain that. That's my answer to your question.

[7:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm going to ask the question more directly rather than circuitously. That means going round in circles. Will there be a budget and staffing? I'm not asking how much. I'm not asking for details. I'm asking for a commitment to staff and budget for this council. Will the minister, in response to that question, give us his commitment that there will be a staff and a budget for this council?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: I'll repeat: whatever is required will be provided.

[ Page 7830 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I don't think the seniors of this province are satisfied with that approach. They may be satisfied with the decision of the minister, but when we're dealing with things in legislation, I think it's important to be upfront so we know what we're dealing with. It was a straightforward question. I believe the seniors of the province who are being asked, in fact, to make suggestions to the minister deserve a straightforward answer so they know, not that whatever is needed will be provided for, but that there is a plan for a staff and a budget for this group, that that will be provided. Is the minister prepared to put that on the record?

HON. MR. DUECK: For the third time, whatever is required will be provided.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll move on, Mr. Chairman, while continuing to express my lack of satisfaction with the minister's last answer, because he has not provided a clear and unequivocal answer to the question I asked.

Let me ask this then of the minister. What will be the status of this group in terms of their autonomy? Let me put it in fairly concrete terms. In their representing the interests of seniors and through the communication links that they are maintaining — words from the mandate — will they be able to act as an ombudsperson for seniors? May they take positions that may be at odds with government policy? May they, in fact, be critical of government policy, not for the sake of being critical, but because these are positions that the council has developed out of its deliberations? Will they have some capacity through staffing to have access to research that will assist them with their deliberations?

The first two questions are around very important issues of the autonomy of this group, so that they do in fact have the opportunity and are seen to have the right to speak for their senior constituency. The last question around research is, again, a question that deals with resources: the kind of information and activity that any group that is going to provide a government with good information and good advice certainly needs to have available.

HON. MR. DUECK: I find the line of questioning rather odd, because it's right there in the act. It says exactly what this council is supposed to be doing: "...advise the minister on current and future issues of concern to seniors of the province, represent interests of seniors throughout the province, and maintain close communication links with major seniors' organizations and organizations involved in providing services to seniors." What more do you want in an act than that? That's about as broad as you can make it.

We're saying that we want information from this council that will be providing a link between seniors' organizations, individuals and groups to the minister of concern. We also say that they will perhaps be asking for certain studies so they can give some advice to seniors on various issues. It's about as broad as you can make it. If I had made it any broader, it would mean they could do anything they want.

In fact, we are saying any interest of seniors. I think, right now, you're just trying to run the clock, because I don't know what else I could say. We're giving them an open book and saying: "Please advise us of any concerns that seniors may have." I find it a little difficult to know why you are asking these questions. What do you want me to put in here? Exactly the task? "Go to the seniors' group by X name and find out from that group because they now have a housing problem and I want to know that specific information." This group is at liberty to go out and do all these things. It's about as wide open as you could possibly want it. I find this very unusual, I really do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Minister and Member, we are in committee of the bill, not second reading. Second reading, for clarification, is where we discuss the principle. In committee, we are to discuss the legislation. So maybe if we can kind of tie it in a little closer, the bill will move along, a little quicker in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is perhaps a little overdefensive. I don't think he needs to be. I think the questions from this side of the House are reasonable. This is a new body. We would like to know, other than the fairly general description in the legislation, what the minister's feelings are in terms of where this council may go. I think that's quite reasonable. I'm sure seniors are very interested. It's quite clear from your discussions that it's fluid. A lot of the mandate of this council will be determined as they proceed.

I think seniors would like to know and have a commitment, other than just quoting from fairly open-ended language here, what degree of autonomy they are going to be able to hold. Let's take a look at legislation of policies that may affect seniors. In this last year or two we've had a number of controversial pieces of legislation and changes that have impacted upon seniors: long-term-care rates, Pharmacare and those sorts of issues that are pretty basic. They impact on seniors' income.

Do you see this council being able to make representation to you or to any other cabinet minister prior to passage of key legislation so that they are not always surprised by dramatic changes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Did you read subsection (a)?

MR. BLENCOE: Let's just cover it, Mr. Minister. With respect, let's just cover it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, read it.

HON. MR. PARKER: Somebody from caucus research could read it to you.

[ Page 7831 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You people are so unbelievable sometimes.

Mr. Chairman, what comes as a shock to seniors, obviously, is when the nature of their lifestyle is affected dramatically by government policy. Sometimes that policy is changed overnight. Would the minister make it clear to this House that they are intending to try to change that modus operandi of past legislative changes and that seniors will have a chance to give input and effect potential changes before they actually happen? Maybe the minister could answer that.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, once again, the council is provided with a very broad mandate: to advise the minister responsible for seniors on current and future issues of concern to seniors. Quite deliberately, no limits have been placed on the subject matter to which these concerns may relate.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a reasonable question to ask the minister. The things that I've been talking about and my colleague have been talking about, will they be within those parameters of concern? Will they be allowed to discuss legislative changes prior to the shock — which has happened in the past and impacted upon their lifestyles? Is that within the issues of concern.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm completely at a loss. I'm really baffled by your line of questioning. When I say "any current and future concern," I'm saying any concern that they have this particular advisory council can bring to the minister. As a matter of fact, we're inviting; we're putting no limit on it. How much broader would you want it?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Just a minute, I'm still standing. Just sit down. Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean to be insulting at all. At this time of night, I wouldn't want to do that.

When we say quite deliberately that no limits have been set or placed on the subject matter, I'm telling you it's wide open. If this was a little narrower, perhaps you would have some reason to ask or have some concern. Now if there is some legislation that they want to voice their concern on, if your question is will we not pass legislation unless they agree, that may be another subject. I couldn't give that promise to anyone; neither could you.

However, I'm saying: any concern, no limits, deliberately left open; tell us what your concerns are; we want to listen. We want to have an advisory committee or an advisory council that in fact is in touch with all these various groups that have concerns, whether they're providers, whether they're senior citizens' societies, whether they're individuals, whether it's in Fort St. John or Victoria. Of course, in Victoria they are all looked after so well that they probably haven't got any concerns.

As a matter of fact, what I hear again and again from that side of the House.... I get very upset, because I must see more seniors than any of you people. They have some concerns; they always will. We'll always have concerns; everybody in life has some concerns. But by and large, seniors today are happier than they ever were.

I have good conversations. I visit many groups, including the one from New Westminster — a tremendous group. They have concerns, and so do other people in society. With this advisory council, we are trying to get some of that direct input to the minister so that he can listen to them. We are trying to get more information from people who have concerns, to listen to it and see whether we can answer some of their concerns.

This is not just in the Ministry of Health; this is in the various ministries that serve seniors, whether it's Transportation, Housing, Attorney-General, Advanced Education — it covers all those ministries. We're saying: "Look, seniors, here is an advisory committee made up of people from all regions of the province. Please come and give us your concerns, suggestions and recommendations, and we will listen and see whether we can help you."

Surely this must be the best piece of legislation that I've put forward since I got appointed in 1986, and I am getting more questions on this than something that should be controversial. I thought that when this came forward, the member for New Westminster would say: "It's about time. My gosh, this is tremendous stuff. We want to have this. We've wanted it a long time. How come you waited this long?"

[7:45]

And I get opposition. "What are you going to do? What if somebody has a question?" It's wide open. We are saying: "Please, council, come and tell us." That's what it's all about.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is being very defensive, and I don't think he needs to be. There are a number of ways that an advisory council like this could work. I want to see if I can get the general philosophy from the minister. Such a council could be reacting to change introduced by the minister or any other minister, and that's the point I am trying to make. It's so often that seniors have to react to change that comes very quickly and by surprise.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Chairman. Prior to user fees being introduced to seniors, or to an increase in Pharmacare or long-term-care rates, would you put the issue to them, thus getting some input before you create the furor? Would you do that?

HON. MR. DUECK: In most instances that would be the case, but when we do budgetary items and revenue, sometimes I haven't even got the liberty to know what is coming in the budget, so how could I pass the information on? When we do the budgets, that happens. By putting it on the record — "Yes, I will in every case" — you will remind me the first

[ Page 7832 ]

time I don't. So I am saying that wherever possible, I will.

We want a consultation process with the seniors in just about everything we do. That's why it's so wide open.

MR. CLARK: I did step out, so I may have missed it, but I am curious about the minister's remarks. I appreciate that the council is wide open. Do you see it as essentially that you would refer matters to it and say that the government is thinking about doing X and could we have some input, or would you see it being able to respond?

The second member for Victoria says that's what he asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind the member that he may have also been out when I reminded members of the House that we are now in committee, not in second reading discussing philosophy.

MR. CLARK: This is the mandate of the council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the member sit down, please. If the member can tie in relevancy to the specifics of the legislation on section 3, the Chair will recognize him. But we are not discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are not discussing the principle; we are discussing the mandate of the council. The language is wide open; the minister has said it is wide open. We are asking specific questions through the "issues of concern." If that's not mandate, I don't what it is, Mr. Chairman, so please, perhaps you will let us continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the second member for Victoria, I would be most willing to let you continue as long as you keep the debate strictly relevant.

MR. CLARK: The explanatory note says that it establishes the council's mandate to provide the minister with advice. I appreciate that. I'm wondering whether the main purpose of the council is to generate their own questions of interest among the group of them and provide advice on their interests, or whether the minister would see the ministry going to them and saying — "We are interesting in doing X, Y and Z. Could we have some feedback on that?" Or is it both?

Let me just add a third thing. Say I have a seniors' issue, a policy question, in my riding — and I've already talked to the minister some time ago about seniors' day care. Could I write a letter to the council and say that this is a policy issue that I think is of great concern, and I think it would be useful if the council could review this question and provide advice to the ministry? I'm wondering what the prime focus of the council is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. First of all, standing order 43 says the Chairman of committee shall remind a member who is being irrelevant or repetitious. The member is clearly being repetitious. He uses as an excuse the fact that he wasn't here. That's covered in standing order 8, which says that every member is bound to attend the duty of the House. The fact that the member wasn't here doesn't excuse the fact that he's being irrelevant and repetitious. I think it would serve this committee well if we could get on with the debate and relevance to this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made the point known to the member and would ask the member to fall within the rules of the House.

MR. CLARK: I was only out for about a minute, and I can't believe I missed....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not the point.

MR. CLARK: I understand the government House Leader's point. If the minister would like a new question which has never been asked: is it contemplated or appropriate under the mandate that individual MLAs go to the council with specific questions of policy that they would hope they might address and provide advice on for the minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: The answer is yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am a little puzzled about the tenor of our discussion at committee stage. I think it's clearly our intent to try to understand what is a very broad mandate. Let me ask a very specific question about the third mandated activity: "...maintain close communication links with major seniors' organizations and organizations involved in providing services to seniors." How does the minister see a council that might meet every couple of months achieving that particular goal?

HON. MR. DUECK: If that member is puzzled, I'm even more puzzled. I'm saying that the council members will be chosen from various regions. They will bring forward their concerns. It's wide open as to what concerns they may have. It's wide open as to how many times they will meet. To this point we've never had this type of council. We didn't put in legislation: "Thou shalt meet once a month." They might meet once a month. That is something we'll work out later on.

The main purpose of this bill is that they will provide information and a link with seniors' organizations throughout the province. What is the problem? Please, help me.

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the things I've often been told in committee is that the minister can't ask questions of the member. I guess I have to turn the problem back to him. In fact, it may be a problem that some seniors have when they are faced with what is a

[ Page 7833 ]

very tall mandate. I would hope that the minister is going to be able to answer the questions by the time he has his council. In fact, one of the reasons we're asking the questions is that we want to know. I think the seniors who are going to be participating in this want to know. And the 4,000 organizations we know about and all those other people who are going to be funnelling information through to the minister via this council probably want to know as well how all this is going to work.

That's what all of this is about. It's a very simple exercise that we're engaged in — not a pep talk about how wonderful all of this is, but how it works.

Certainly the whole issue of policies, perspectives and so on requires more than 15 hard-working, earnest, concerned, knowledgeable, in-touch people, unless there's going to be some kind of framework for all of this. I would hope that when the minister brings in a bill, he's able to answer some of these questions for us, and that it's not going to be something that happens in some never-never land of Peter Pan. I know the minister never grows old.

However, at this stage, I think we have probably exhausted the minister's ability to give us any further information. I don't really think the minister knows how this is going to work. I do think he's sincere that it's going to help them out. I hope that he won't be disappointed, like the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has been disappointed when the people who advise him don't always tell him what he wants to hear. In fact, one of the dangers of consultation is that you don't necessarily hear what you want to hear. I hope the minister will not be worried and concerned.

Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, that probably the most candid, articulate and well-informed constituency that I know in this province are the older people. They know about citizenship, representation, lobbying and how to get their points of view across. This council may indeed turn out to be a very lively group. I hope it will, and I hope the minister is prepared to deal with what he has created and provide it with the resources to do the job. We don't want some rubber-stamp group, nor would seniors want to participate in that, and I'm sure that's not the minister's intent.

The mandate requires specificity. I'm using some long words here, but it needs to be specific. It needs to be pinned down, and when you ask people to serve on a council you very well — I was going to use a stronger word, but I held myself back — need to tell them in much more solid terms what that mandate is and how they are going to achieve it. Before the council is appointed, I hope you've got your act together.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to let section 3 pass.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I look for direction from you. I have an amendment to this section. Would it be appropriate for me to move it at this time? It has been tabled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: By adding the following section at the end, the amendment to section 4 would read: "The minister will table these reports no more than 30 days after receipt."

If that's in order, I would like to speak to it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's acceptable to the Chair. Would the member please proceed.

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you very much for that ruling, Mr. Chairman. This particular council is enjoined to report not less than once a year, and it has the mandate to report its findings and recommendations as and when advisable. Presumably it can report on its studies or any positions it might take. I like to think of this as a bit of an ombuds role, if you like, as well as a research and communication role. But if the council reports only to the minister, then there is a fatal flaw in the whole operation of the council.

The mandate of this council stresses communication and the importance of that communication; it stresses representation and the knowledge that this group needs to have around issues. If the reports it is preparing are not in the public domain, then I feel there is a fatal flaw in respect to the whole mandate of the council.

This amendment is designed to ensure that these reports will be made available to the public, and I think that means that specifically they will be made available to the senior public, which this particular council is representing. It is consistent with the goal that we would have in this bill that government be seen to be open and that consultative processes are shared.

[8:00]

Mr. Chairman, that has clearly been the role of the advisory council on education, about which I made a comment a moment ago, and that process has been a very good and healthy one. I would hope that members on both sides of the House would see the wisdom of that amendment and would be prepared to support it.

HON. MR. DUECK: We would not be prepared to put that in the legislation at this time.

MR. CLARK: I can't sit here without participating in this amendment. It seems to me that the government's position on this amendment tells us a lot about what they really see this council doing.

[ Page 7834 ]

The minister has said that there are no guidelines for appointing people to the council. He said that they don't know how often the council will meet, and that there is no budget for the council. He said it's whatever it takes, but there's no formal budget. He said that there's no terms of reference; it's a broad mandate. He doesn't know whether they'll be independent or not, and the bill contemplates that the annual findings would be given to the minister once a year.

It's hardly a consultation process, Mr. Chairman, which gives us any satisfaction that there is in fact open government and that the findings of the Seniors' Advisory Council, which may well be critical of many of the things that this administration has done, will be public. It seems to render the entire bill a bit of a sham if all of the recommendations only go directly to the minister. It renders the entire bill meaningless in many respects.

It is a very modest amendment, and I am surprised that the government has chosen not to accept it. But it clearly tells us a lot about what they really see — this very political bill with very little substance to it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am entering into debate on the amendment. I would advise voting against it, and I am going to vote against it for the following reasons.

The council shall report its findings and recommendations to the minister. I think if they are going to be clearly truthful in everything that they are doing and report to the minister in confidence what they found out — with respect to other ministries; with respect to, say, the operation of a seniors' home which is run by a separate council; with respect to federal government regulations; with respect to a variety of issues — they are going to want to report in confidence. I could see the notion of everything they report to the minister being made public as being counterproductive to the real purposes of having this council. You should think that one through.

Don't ever think that everything said by 14 members of the public is going to be totally secret, because if they are critical of a ministry of the provincial government, which is what you want them to be, it is going to leak out sooner or later. But don't ever lose sight of the fact that for a variety of very good reasons they are going to want to be able to report in confidence to the minister so that he can address their problems on their behalf without having the whole world and the press and all the public voyeurs know what their concerns are.

I don't think you have thought that one through, and I think if you thought it through and talked it through with some seniors' organizations, you would realize the validity of what I am saying.

MR. BLENCOE: Nice try, Mr. Minister. It was a good attempt.

This motion is the basis of my earlier questions about taking positions that may be contrary to the government's view on things. That is why I was asking whether prior to making dramatic changes through legislation and policy, user fees, Pharmacare changes, long-term-care rates, taxes for seniors, which this government has done over the last two years, dramatic increases for senior citizens....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the member be reminded that we are only now discussing the amendment, which states: "The minister will table these reports no more than 30 days after receipt." Now we are talking, hon. member, on the amendment, whether or not this amendment should be added to section 4 of the bill. If the member would be strictly relevant, the Chair will recognize him.

MR. BLENCOE: I think I am being totally relevant, because, Mr. Chairman, this motion, if not accepted by the government, really shows that what we've got is a behind-closed-doors consultation process for senior citizens. It's going to be a rubber-stamp process for government policy unless you are prepared to have the process open and public and allow those seniors to have their information tabled 30 days after you have received it. That's true independence. That's true openness. That's a council that could be free to do what they feel is in the interests of British Columbia senior citizens.

At the moment we've got a behind-closed-doors consultation process. We've got a select group to be appointed by order-in-council. We've clearly got no minutes or anything that's going to be on record for the public to see.

Mr. Chairman, if this minister is serious about this council being able to advise and at times, perhaps, take positions that are contrary to the government, then he should ensure that those reports are public at least 30 days after he receives them. That's reasonable, fair and open, and it tells senior citizens that this council will be meaningful. Right now it's more of the smoke and mirrors and PR by the Social Credit administration that we have become used to over the last few years in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe that the comments made by the government House Leader are correct, and I would add to those arguments the fact that we are dealing here with the likelihood of future government policy. Clearly that's a matter that is normally not discussed or debated prior to introduction of any action in the House.

Secondly, I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this suggestion by the opposition members for the amendment would have the effect of emasculating the worthiness of the committee. If the committee know that the reports and recommendations they make will be a matter of public discussion, then the committee's recommendations will be less pointed, less useful, less responsive to the needs of the community they're trying to serve. If you really want to see action result from this committee's efforts, then the committee has to have the comfort and the

[ Page 7835 ]

knowledge that those recommendations will be treated with some sensitivity.

We all know, Mr. Chairman, that by virtue of actions of the members opposite on a variety of other subjects, it clearly is not in their interests — that is to say, the members opposite — to have that kind of sensitivity brought to these public policy issues. But we want to create a committee which will be able to respond sensitively and intelligently to the needs that are brought to them by the constituents they're attempting to help.

If you are naive enough to think that the tabling of public reports on these potentially sensitive matters will result in meaningful recommendations, then these people opposite who make the recommendation clearly have no experience in terms of administering public policy issues. I know that to be true, because they've only had three years out of the last 37 in terms of experience, so I'm not surprised that this kind of naive recommendation would come from across the floor.

The House Leader is entirely correct: if you really want this committee to be effective, and if you really want them to be totally free to respond to the needs of the senior citizens of this province, you must allow them the privilege of confidentiality so that those reports can be more pointed and relevant than they would otherwise be. And if you are so naive as to think that that is fallacious, then, my friends, you really are not likely to be able to add to your record of three years out of 37 years.

MS. A. HAGEN: Last week, I remember using the words "I am astounded." I have just heard a speech by the Minister of Finance that I believe insults senior citizens. And I'm sorry to say that. To suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the advice of this group — which is, by the repeated assertion of this minister, to represent the aspirations, the concerns of older people — on matters of policy should be somehow better if it was kept secret is to totally put a lie to the whole intent of this bill.

Let me make clear what the intent of this amendment is, and it is a modest proposal and a simple amendment. It says that it's in the interests of the mandate of this council to communicate the results of their work with their constituency. And they would choose what they're going to report. I want to make that point: they will choose what they're going to report. A report is not something that springs out of a meeting. A report is a decision that's taken that there is something to report. They would choose what they were to report, what they wanted to report. To suggest that those reports in some way should be buried in the secret bowels of ministers' offices or bureaucracies is to make a mockery of what we've been talking about.

Let's look at the models, including the model in the Education ministry, around consultation, which has been an open process. Let's deal with the medical ethics issue, where we've had to fight to have an open process. Let's look at the issue around the Knight Street Pub, where we had to go to the ombudsman.

The whole intent of engaging a citizenry in advisory processes is to ensure that that group can and will represent its constituency.

This is a modest amendment. It gives some integrity to a bill that, as I said in second reading, we intend to support. The intent of our discussion tonight is to understand how this particular body would function. This amendment is, I think, an amendment that would help to improve the bill. I would urge the members of this House to support it.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is saying: "This would muzzle them." That is the ultimate in newspeak: to be open is to be closed, to be black is to be white. Come on! You're simply afraid about some honest dialogue about inadequate policies of a dying government. That's the reality. The convoluted reasoning makes Orwell look like Jane Austen or something. It is just incredible. You've given us the most wonderful mail-out for senior citizens that I can think of. I just hope the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) will continue speaking this evening so that the seniors will continue moving to the opposition and move you out of where you are at the moment.

[8:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think, given the sort of profile this amendment has been given, that it would be an interesting question to put to the council, because they in fact will have the right in this legislation to advise the minister. It's probably a good question to put to them: do they want to have their reports public, or do they want them to be confidential to the minister? Why don't we give you the undertaking.... As a matter of fact, it's in the record now: let the council decide on that and make that recommendation. Let's see what they say in a year about how they want to report. Let's see if they give that advice to the minister, because I'll bet you they won't.

They have the right....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is there a window open? I hear seagulls.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your microphone won't work until you are recognized by the Chair. I'm waiting for the committee to be somewhat more orderly.

The Minister of Environment.

[ Page 7836 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The previous section clearly states that the council "may advise." Let's see if they give that advice to the minister.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 11

NAYS - 28

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 41, Seniors Advisory Council Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is the question of rates and requiring these to be kept on the premises, and nobody could argue about that. But I think the reality is that this industry is one that has become an oligopoly essentially. It's all very nice to say, "Post the rates," but a handful of companies have taken over this industry. It's consolidating more and more. The Memorial Society and the memorial groups have been impacted. So it's all very nice talking about a schedule of rates, but the reality is it's now a monopoly industry in the areas of major population, and it's a meaningless exercise to handle it in this manner.

[8:30]

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again on the same point, a price list is to be available. The reality is that this government has idly sat by and let the industry become monopolized, and that impacts price. Now the Memorial Society's own group has been taken over by outsiders, and the family operation that had it for many years, serving the Memorial Society, is no longer there. This government is not adequately protecting the interests of the citizen. The legislation is not going to do the job; the reality is that the monopoly game is in play, even in death.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister might give us some explanation. I am particularly interested in the question of solicitation. I note that subsection (6) says: "Where the contract of sale is solicited, negotiated or concluded at a place other than the operator's business premises," and then goes on to say that there are seven days. First of all, seven days seems to be short.

I wonder if the minister could give me some explanation of the range of solicitations required. I know that much of the public debate on this question has been around telephone solicitation. Does this bill contemplate door-to-door solicitation? It seems to me that if it contemplates solicitation other than at the operator's business premises, it might be contemplated.

HON. L. HANSON: Door-to-door selling is prohibited in the act. The member might understand that under a sale consummated at the place of business, the person going into that place of business would know what he is going in to purchase, what he is doing and so on.

The reason this is in here — and it is in the Consumer Protection Act — is that when a contract is made up at the residence and not at the place of business of the seller, there is a seven-day period for that person to reconsider and to have automatic cancellation and full refund, in case there was a lot of pressure used and that sort of thing. That's the protection purpose of it.

MR. CLARK: I am just wondering: if door-to-door solicitation is not allowed, it presumably contemplates salesmen, as the minister said, going to one's residence. How would that be arranged, or how is it contemplated?

[ Page 7837 ]

HON. L. HANSON: The situation would arise from someone wanting to have a pre-need service provided, and they would request it as a result of maybe a mail program, an advertising program or just on their own initiative. The individual would come by invitation to their residence. Door-to-door selling on the basis of a cold canvass, knocking at the door and selling, is prohibited in the act.

MR. CLARK: Just following up what the minister said, a mail solicitation is legal, so junk mail — I guess I shouldn't be so derogatory — is quite possible under this act. Nothing prohibits mailing to people, advertising cemetery lots. Is that correct?

HON. L. HANSON: If I understand the question correctly, no, there isn't a prohibition against advertising. I think the member opposite would agree, and it certainly is recognized, that a pre-need service can be provided at the discretion of the person who wants it. I see no great difficulty in an advertisement of the services available. People then have the ability to make their decision based on the information they have received; they also have the choice of not doing that.

I am sure the member opposite is well aware of the philosophy behind banning direct solicitation — telephone or door-to-door. It is possible that it would happen at a very emotional time in the family's life. It may be at the time of a bereavement or a serious operation or advice of some serious illness. That's what it is intended to prevent. I think the member opposite would agree that if a brochure came in the mail offering services, the household could do as it sees fit with it, without any pressure or intrusion into their privacy.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the minister's answers. I guess the difference is between an aggressive sale and what may be called a passive sale. However, it seems to me that, by the minister's own admission, it would be possible for funeral parlours or the like to mail to senior citizens' homes, for example, with a phone number and advertising rates, and try to pre-sell lots. Is that allowed under this bill?

HON. L. HANSON: There is a provision in the act to make regulations. If experience showed that it was a difficult situation, I suppose regulations could handle it, but it's not prohibited.

Sections 32 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

MRS. BOONE: I'm not quite sure why we have this section in here. It says that if a lot is not used within 50 years, then they can figure that the person who bought it is 90 years or older, and if they can't find this person, then they can resell it. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. If this lot was sold, surely the person who sold it isn't losing any money, even if there's nobody in it.

It states here they have to place public notice, and the notice is at an address.... I'm sure there are many seniors who would not have let their funeral plan know if they happened to be placed in a long-term-care or extended-care facility, and perhaps may not even be of a mind to know to do this; yet it may be written in their will.

I know the act states in the same section that if later on the person who purchased that lot turns up — or turns down or goes under, or wants to go under — then the holder would have to find something of greater value. I don't think that's always acceptable. My parents, for example, purchased lots beside each other, and my mother died before my father. As it is, when my father died he was buried beside her, but if it had gotten to the stage where he was 90 years of age and somebody sold that lot, we as a family would have been very upset to find that my parents could not be placed beside each other.

I'm not quite sure why this is in there, given that the owner of that lot, the person who has that cemetery, is not losing any money by not having anybody interred in that place. Why is it necessary to make this available for the people to resell it?

HON. L. HANSON: The philosophy behind it, of course, is that there isn't a forever supply of land or lots for this purpose.

There are a number of safeguards built into it. I would refer the member to some of the subsections: "that the registrar shall, within 30 days after receipt of the application under subsection (1)" — which is the part she's talking about — give a ruling.

I think the member is confused that a cemetery owner who has a lot that was sold 50 years ago to an individual who is over 90 years old can sell that lot just because it has met those conditions. That's not true. There has to be an application to the.... First of all, there has to be an attempt to contact the owner to see what the situation is. If they are not able to contact the owner, under certain circumstances they can apply to the registrar to sell it. The registrar can grant that application or he can reject it. He can grant it with or without conditions, but he must provide reasons for the rejection. If it's a totally untraceable ownership and there's just no way of finding it out, one of the possible conditions of the approval is that the funds would go to a continual care fund to maintain the cemetery.

I think an awful lot of safeguards are built into this. Again, the philosophy behind it is to ensure, over the long term, that the lands available for this purpose are used for that, but not to take away anyone's rights or to preclude a family from being buried together if that's their intention. I think the safeguards are quite adequate in the registrar's ability to deal with it and to provide provisions.

MRS. BOONE: It states here: "Where a notice is required to be given by an operator to a lot-holder under this act, the operator shall mail or deliver the notice to the last known mailing address provided to the operator under subsection 1." If that person

[ Page 7838 ]

purchased a lot 50 years before and became senile or for some reason....

I don't think a lot of us think of advising people when we change our address. There are a lot of things that we forget to do. Some forget to change their licence addresses. Some forget to let their creditors know. That may be deliberate, but there are a lot of things that people forget to do. This doesn't seem a very hard way of trying to find somebody — to just mail something to their last known address.

[8:45]

Even if there was a public posting — something in the paper — and if there was some adequate ability to find the next of kin or something like that.... Quite frankly, it doesn't say anything here as to why the registrar would or would not approve of the application. It just says the registrar would grant — with or without conditions — or reject the application with written reasons for the rejection. But they can approve it with or without conditions, so it doesn't say that the registrar has to do any work to find out if this person is still alive or if they still want this. I'm sure there's not a tremendous number of plots that go unused.

It seems to me that this is written from the standpoint of the cemetery owner, who is merely seeking to increase his or her profits at the expense of the user. If somebody has purchased a plot, I think they ought to have the right to know that plot is there for them, regardless of whether they're 90 or 50, or whether they've advised the funeral people of their change of address or not. It just ought to be there for them; they have purchased it. It makes no sense to me to do this. Surely it is something that is only going to be to the advantage of the cemetery owner, and it is not in the best interest of anybody else.

HON. L. HANSON: I just wanted to make a small point to the member opposite. If she reads the bill, she will see that the operator may apply as prescribed. I think that the member is aware that in another section of the bill there's the provision for an advisory council that will help us make up the regulations. I assure you that there's no intention to make cemetery owners rich by the reclamation of lots that haven't been used, and that there will be ample protection for the consumers, both through the registrar having to approve it and through the ability to prescribe regulations under what circumstances the cemetery would attempt to notify the owners. So there's no question that there's adequate protection for the consumer.

Sections 37 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us how these maintenance and care funds operate, and how they satisfy themselves about the adequacy of them. It would seem to me that these funds would have to be fairly substantial in a place like Forest Lawn in Burnaby or the Loewen Group of companies, for example. These are pretty substantial operations, and once these funds are established, are they firm? Is that it? Are they in effect untouchable? One doesn't get that impression from these sections. There's certainly auditing and that sort of thing, but it seems to me these funds really have to be there in perpetuity. This is a fast-moving, fast-buck industry, despite what they trade in, and some of us find the whole thing offensive, as Mitford has. What assurances do we have about these funds being genuine funds in perpetuity and outside the hands of the diggers?

HON. L. HANSON: There were a number of questions there. First of all, there is a prescribed amount of the sale figure that has to be dedicated to the care fund. It varies slightly with different cemeteries, but it is in the 25 to 35 percent range. Section 43 says: "A care fund shall be held in trust and administered by a savings institution in the Province in accordance with a written care fund trust agreement between the savings institution and the operator." I think that's the safety in it.

There are some very small commercial cemeteries — sometimes owned by a church, sometimes...but in any case very small — where there isn't a requirement for a care fund; but they are limited. Situations where a care fund is not required are in this act at the discretion of the registrar. So he may establish the care fund for a cemetery of any size, and it must be held in trust and administered by a savings or trust company registered in the province. Does that give you a description of...?

MR. WILLIAMS: It certainly goes part of the way, but I have some doubts about its adequacy, to tell you the truth.

MR. CLARK: Maybe just because there are several sections on care funds, I wonder.... First of all — excuse my ignorance — what in this is new?

HON. L. HANSON: There's nothing substantially new about it. There's about $28 million in various funds around the province now.

MR. ROSE: There's a technical term I'm not familiar with. What's a columbarium?

HON. L. HANSON: A columbarium is "a structure or building or an area in a structure or building that contains, as an integral part of the structure or building or as free standing sections, niches for the inurnment of cremated remains."

A lot of funeral homes have established columbariums where, in the case of cremation, the family buys a niche and stores the ashes of the cremated remains.

MR. CLARK: Back to the funds. The minister said there's $28 million in the funds. First of all, can the minister tell me how many funds are in existence? Secondly, is there an average percentage of the sale price that must go into the funds?

[ Page 7839 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I can't answer the first question, but I can certainly get that information. I don't know exactly how many there are. The prescribed amount is in the 30 percent range, but it is prescribed in each individual circumstance for each different operation. Some are 25, some are 30, some are 35, but they all end up in about that range.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister explain what the criteria are that determine whether it is 25 or 30 percent?

HON. L. HANSON: There are a number of historical reasons for the discrepancies, but generally a perpetual care fund is established to allow for, as it says, the care of a cemetery forever and a day, and that is the calculation used to establish that. That would vary, depending on terrain and location and a number of things.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister tell me whose money it is? Is it the company's money that they manage in trust, or does the government manage it?

HON. L. HANSON: Perpetual trust funds certainly wouldn't belong to the cemetery. The only part that can be used for maintenance and care of the cemetery is the interest that accrues in that fund. The capital cannot be touched, and I suppose in the truest sense you'd have to say it was public funds, but it's dedicated for a specific purpose: to maintain a specific cemetery.

MR. CLARK: Are the investment practices of the trust fund prescribed? Who invests the money — the company in trust, or does the government get involved in investment decisions?

HON. L. HANSON: In a trust fund, as I'm sure the member knows, the credit union.... As an example, if that were the case, the credit union is the trustee and they are responsible to invest the funds.

MR. CLARK: Does the company then use the interest on the money as part of their net worth of their business? If they sell it, can they capitalize the value of the interest on the trust fund? Presumably it reduces their overall costs of business, because the maintenance of the facility is kept up by the fund. Is that fair to say?

HON. L. HANSON: No. It can only be used as expense. I'd point out to the member that cemeteries have a life — if you will — in that there's a certain capacity in any cemetery, and when it reaches that capacity, I'm not sure that there is a great amount of interest in the sale of it as an enterprise. It ensures there are funds available to continue the maintenance of the cemetery.

I have difficulty in understanding how anyone would use the establishment of a perpetual-care fund as being an asset to the purchase of a cemetery. My sense of the thing is: why would anyone purchase a cemetery unless there was the availability of a potential sale within the cemetery.

The funds or the interest from the funds for the perpetual care have to be spent only as expenses and have to be spent on the maintenance of the cemetery that's established. I would suggest the registrar would be very upset if the funds were used to purchase another piece of land to add to the cemetery to develop more plots.

[9:00]

MR. CLARK: Is there a management fee charged by the cemetery for the collection and the remitting of the money into the fund? Is there a management fee prescribed in the legislation, and how much is it? I assume there's a management fee for collecting and disbursing the money into the trust fund. Is there no management fee associated with that?

HON. L. HANSON: Not other than what the trustee would charge for its services.

MR. ROSE: I'm fascinated with this business about a columbarium. I wonder if the minister would confirm that the literal translation of this crypt really is "pigeon-hole."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member should refer to the interpretation section of the first part of the act, which clearly defines these matters.

HON. L. HANSON: The opposition House Leader can term it as he sees fit; there's a very clear description in the act, though.

MR. ROSE: I'm reading from The Concise Oxford Dictionary. It says: "columbarium, building with niches for reception of cinerary urns" — and the translation is pigeon-house. So this is a kind of a pigeon-hole for ashes. Is that true?

Section 42 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 83.

MRS. BOONE: This section is the one we've been waiting for. This does prevent telephone solicitation, which is something we have been advocating for some time and fully support. I want to ask my question under this section, although it deals with the next section as well. What I think should be included in this section is an addition that clearly states that insurance companies dealing with prearranged funeral plans should also not be allowed to solicit by telephone.

I understand that section 84 deals a little bit with that, but I don't think it clearly states it, and I think it should be clearly stated in section 83 so that there is no question as to whether an insurance company can solicit by telephone where they are doing prearranged funeral plans as well. Can the minister comment on that, please.

[ Page 7840 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that is our intention, and 84, on our advice, does do that. I would point out to the member, though, that we do not have control over telephone solicitation that may be made from another part of Canada or from another part of continental America. We do not control phone-calling from, say, the state of Washington. We feel that section 84 does handle it within the province. In the opinion of our counsel, it does handle it as well as we are able to, considering the inability to control what may come from out of province.

There is an ability for the registrar to deal with situations. He has a licensing and a certificate of most operations, and there is an ability for the registrar to deal with a situation if there were a particular operation that was operating in British Columbia but using out-of-province solicitation methods. I think it could be dealt with in that sense if that were the case. It does cover it as best as we are able to, within the province.

MRS. BOONE: I was going to ask you about across the border, and I'm glad you clarified that. You must have been doing some mental telepathy here.

Does this prevent solicitation of somebody who has already purchased a plan, to upgrade that plan to make it bigger, better or what have you? Would this act prevent that sort of thing? If somebody has already purchased a plan, would this prevent the supplier of the plan from phoning to entice them to upgrade it in some way?

HON. L. HANSON: I think I understand what the member is suggesting: that someone has purchased a deluxe plan and now, by solicitation, someone wants to sell them a super-deluxe plan. That would be prohibited, too, by telephone or direct contact.

Sections 83 to 89 inclusive approved.

On section 90.

MRS. BOONE: There may be some section — this is a very big bill — that already deals with this. But section 90(1)(a) says: "...a plan may be cancelled at any time by the purchaser on the purchaser's own behalf or on behalf of some other person or persons for whom the plan was purchased...." If the plan was being cancelled by some other person, would they have to have written permission of that person? Does it mean that a person who had control of somebody's finances, for example, would be able to decide for a senile parent that they were going to change what they wanted to happen? Could they do this without consent of the purchaser? Could somebody who has control of their affairs at that time do that without their written consent?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member may be referring to another section, if I understand her correctly. There is a section that ensures that if an individual puts into his or her will that he or she wishes to be cremated, the executor or estate are obligated to carry out those conditions unless those conditions are an undue hardship. As an example, there may be an estate with $500 in it and the terms of the will involve a $10,000 situation. If, through the registrar, the case could be made that it was an undue hardship, that could be waived by the registrar — but only in the case of undue hardship. Other than that, the wishes of the individual would have to be carried out, providing they're put in proper documented fashion.

In section 90, I think your question was: can anyone cancel a prearranged plan or a service that has been purchased on that basis? Certainly if there was incapacity or some other situation, the person or persons who would be recognized as the agent of an individual would have to have been recognized as the agent before there could be any cancellation. Not just anybody would be allowed to come and do that. I can think of a circumstance as an example. Let's say there was a pre-need arrangement made, and the person was lost at sea, and there was a need to cancel it. Well, under the circumstances, the estate or the agent of that person would have the right to apply for the refund and get it. I just use that as an example.

MRS. BOONE: Well, it doesn't state here that somebody has to be deceased in order to do that. It says: "at any time by the purchaser on the purchaser's own behalf or on behalf of some other person or persons for whom the plan was purchased." There is nothing here to state any of those things. What it states is that I could go in and say that I want to cancel this plan on behalf of my mother. It's not possible to do that? What would be the condition under which somebody would have the ability to cancel the plan made by some other person?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the member is referring to section 90 at this point. So section 89 is passed, and we're on section 90.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess I could describe the circumstance that the member suggested. If there were a decision by some competent body that your mother was not capable of looking after her own affairs, and you in fact were appointed as her guardian to handle her affairs, yes, you could probably do that. But you must go through a fairly stringent process before you would be empowered to act as the agent for someone else. It would have to be unique circumstances. It just isn't something that is done on a regular basis without close scrutiny and justification.

MRS. BOONE: It doesn't make sense. If somebody is a guardian of somebody and in control of their estate and of their money before they die, they can change the plan that they've made. Once that person dies, this act states that you can't change the plan. So somebody who is in control of that estate may have been given approval by the court to control that person's wealth, whether it be through mental incompetence.... If they want to change that person's

[ Page 7841 ]

wishes regarding their arrangements, they can cancel that; but if that person happens to die, then they can't cancel it, because this act says they can't. So in fact you've got more protection of the wishes of a person who dies than for a person who is still alive, regarding what they want to have done with their funeral arrangements.

Does that make sense to you, Mr. Minister? It doesn't? Well, tell me why it doesn't make sense. To me it makes perfectly good sense that if a person is still alive and you have power of attorney over them, then you may choose to alter that person's plan. However, once that person dies, you can't alter the plan. Why are we protecting the plan after death but not protecting that person's wishes before death?

[9:15]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess the member is correct in that sense, but I'm not sure that is a crucial issue in this legislation. Certainly it says in the legislation that if someone has determined in their will or by a prepaid plan with a proper contract and everything that this is the manner in which they wish to be handled after their death, and they've done that when they were in a competent state of mind, and so on, it is a fact that that has to be carried through. There is the ability, when someone has obtained a power of attorney or a guardianship, to do that. I would suggest that it would be a very strange and unique circumstance if that happened.

I would point out to the member that this was intended to give the right of cancellation and to stipulate the way the cancellation would be handled. In the unique circumstance where a guardian would cancel that plan because of incompetency or because they had obtained power of attorney.... I would suggest that there must be some justification for doing that. People are not appointed to be in charge of other people's affairs unless there's a fair amount of common sense used, in that they will handle fairly and reasonably the affairs of the person who is incompetent. So I don't see that as a major threat.

I suppose if we had a rash of cancellations by guardians or people who had power of attorney over individuals, that might be a difficulty, but I don't anticipate that this section of the act will generate that. I just don't see that as being a very large possibility in the real world, quite frankly.

MRS. BOONE: Any more than it would be a very large possibility for a competent and a reliable executor of a will to change the prearranged plans. The reality is that there are occasions when somebody may choose to change those plans, and they may do so because the person involved may not want a religious service and their family would choose to have a religious service. They may choose to be cremated, and their family may think that's not appropriate. They may choose to provide a very fancy funeral, thinking that they are doing the best for their family, for their loved one, when the reality is that that loved one would choose to have a less costly service. The pressures put on the bereaved are such that you want to give your person the best there is, usually. If you have a person whom you love very much who is incompetent and obviously dying and you have power of attorney, then there may be that pressure on you to alter the prearranged plan so that you can do what you think is best for your loved one.

I don't think that people are going to do things that they think are bad, but I feel very strongly that the wishes of people as to how their funeral is arranged, what happens to them after death, are very important. I don't think anybody ought to have the right to change them, whether it be somebody who has a power of attorney or an executor after you die. Those are very sacred things, and they are the things that you want to have remain with you.

Unfortunately, this section allows someone to make those changes. It does, Mr. Minister. You haven't given me any difference. You just stood there and told me that somebody who had that power of attorney could cancel a plan.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: No, not after death, but before death you could. Before death you can cancel the plan, but after death you can't. It makes no sense at all that we are protecting people's rights to have the funeral they want after they are dead, but we don't protect their right to make that choice before they die, and somebody can come along and change it. This section does allow that to happen. I would hope that you will bring forth an amendment to eliminate that.

Sections 90 and 91 approved.

On section 92.

MRS. BOONE: This section deals with money and refunds, etc. I've just got some short questions regarding the 20 percent of the selling expenses which companies can keep. This is a markup, an increase from 12 percent to 20 percent, which I think is pretty excessive, given the fact that this industry does make a considerable profit as it is.

I'd like to know why the minister made those changes, and whether or not he feels that this jump from 12 percent to 20 percent is an excessive increase in the fee structure there.

HON. L. HANSON: Contrary to the member's perception of the industry, there are places that are not getting rich at it, as the member suggests. If the member were to read this very carefully, she would see that the commission has been increased from 12 percent to 20 percent, but that there is a provision for the payment of interest that will be determined each year by the registrar which will be relative to the interest rates that are being earned. It may not be exactly that amount.

Under the circumstances as they are now, the rebate, if applied for, does not require the payment of interest unless it's stated in the contract, and the rate

[ Page 7842 ]

of interest quite often as stated in the contract — because when someone signs it, they don't anticipate to have a rebate — is a very low rate. So with the interest rate being set relative to the current rate that may be charged each year, the rebate, in a very short time, a matter of a couple of years, will be much higher than the rebate was in the past.

By experience we've found that the rates usually are very low in the contract, and the 12 percent plus the low interest rate will be far offset by the higher interest rate, even though the 12 percent is increased to 20 percent. We can give you a lot of examples. There are a lot of examples where the interest is based on 2 percent. In some cases, no interest rate is stated. So this requires a payment of 80 percent of the principal amount plus interest as is established each year relative to the rate that is the going rate.

Sections 92 to 98 inclusive approved.

On section 99.

MR. WILLIAMS: The advisory council. Could we have some assurance that this won't be the industry itself being the advisory council?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wrong not to involve the industry, but I also think it would be wrong not to involve other perspectives from our society. The member opposite has very little faith in the world, I can see. On the advisory board that was established to help with the drafting of this act, there were representatives from the seniors' community, the consumers' community, the funeral industry, the cemeteries industry and Consumer Services. I think that the advisory council would be less than effective if there weren't representatives of a broader cross-section than just those people in the community.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister can give us some assurance that the majority of the advisory council will not be from the industry.

HON. L. HANSON: This is not a statutory body that is a voting process. It is an advisory council that will help develop the regulations and keep a continual consultation process among the government, the public at large and the industry. The minister of the day may or may not take that advisory council's advice. I'm not sure what assurances the member is looking for, nor do I think it's possible to give those kinds of assurances. I assure the member that as long as I am minister, it will be a representation of the industry and the public, so that all perspectives of society can be considered as we develop regulations and as we continue to monitor the act and its performance.

MR. CLARK: I guess the concern I have — and I think it was expressed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — is that the industry has become increasingly oligopolistic. There is a very small — and shrinking — number, and that's a phenomenon that we are seeing in North America generally. Given that, it becomes more and more important, it seems to me, that they don't determine the rules of the game with respect to a range of matters that might be in the public interest.

I appreciate the minister's comment, and I might agree that there may be some representation from the industry on such an advisory council. I am seriously concerned about them having a dominant influence, given that they are now having an increasingly dominant position in the field, particularly with respect to some members. That is why we have very serious concerns.

I wonder if the minister, maybe just to end, might tell us who is on the advisory council, because this isn't exactly a public body — I guess I shouldn't say "body"; a public forum that gets much attention. I am just curious who is on there — or at least, who they represent — and what the makeup is now.

HON. L. HANSON: The member hasn't referred to Hansard, but I can go back to my speaking notes and name the individuals who are on the task force. There isn't any council in place at the moment. We are just passing this legislation that will enable that council.

The people who were part of the task force, which I think was representative of British Columbia citizenry, were: Ada Brown of the B.C. chapter of the Consumers' Association; Josephine Arland and Clarence Morin from the Old Age Pensioners' Organization; Dr. Paul McKinnon from the Council of Churches; Peter Marshall of the Memorial Society; Jim Darby of First Memorial; Judy Meldrum, Nell Allert, Doug Sharpe, John Paul Jones and Paul Wright of the Funeral Association; Ty Colgur, former mayor and lawyer from Cranbrook; D. John Jones, John Butterworth and Doug Allan of the Cemetery Association; and Nunzio Defoe, who happens to be in the audience. So I think there was a good cross-section in that.

[9:30]

I was given the input from that committee. It served the generation of this act very well, and I think it was an excellent consultation group. But we don't have any names to put on; maybe it's appropriate that those members be looked at as possible members of the advisory council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will forward those suggestions.

Sections 99 to 142 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 7843 ]

Bill 42, Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 50.

CREDIT UNION INCORPORATION ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The Credit Union Incorporation Act modifies and clarifies existing legislation concerning the corporate structure of credit unions. It replaces provisions presently contained in the Credit Union Act, which is being repealed by the proposed Financial Institutions Act. The act will provide credit union members and boards of directors with a straightforward statute dealing exclusively with credit union corporate law. The regulatory provisions which pertain to both credit unions and other financial institutions are contained in the Financial Institutions Act to ensure that all financial institutions in British Columbia operate within the same regulatory framework.

The provisions in this bill have been discussed extensively with representatives of the credit union movement. The legislation before the House today incorporates many suggestions brought forward by credit union representatives over the past year, and it is better legislation for that input.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the individuals and organizations who have contributed time and resources to assist in the preparation of this bill. Their association with this legislation has been most productive.

I would like now to enumerate some of the important provisions in this bill. In this act, credit union incorporation provisions are made generally consistent with those found in the Company Act. Specific provisions are included to deal with business acquisitions, amalgamations and liquidations. These and other provisions preserve the unique, cooperative character of credit unions. For example, there must be at least 25 subscribers to the constitution of a proposed credit union incorporation, and all subscribers must reside in the province and share a common bond.

Consistent with the procedures imposed on other financial institutions by the Financial Institutions Act, the incorporation of a credit union will require the approval of the newly created Financial Institutions Commission and the minister. The act will permit credit unions to reorganize using procedures that follow those presently contained in the Credit Union Act, with some minor differences resulting from the regulatory framework established by the proposed Financial Institutions Act.

Membership rules will be expanded and clarified. Membership termination provisions similar to those recently included in the Cooperative Association Act are added. These provisions will give members terminated by the directors a right to appeal.

This bill will improve the ability of credit unions to raise capital to support business operations with new provisions which facilitate the issue of equity shares. Credit unions will be able to issue equity shares without par value. Every member of a credit union will be required to purchase at least five qualifying equity shares known as membership shares. Non-members will be able to purchase other classes of equity shares and will be known as auxiliary members. Auxiliary members will not be entitled to vote on ordinary or special resolutions or in the election of directors or to hold office in a credit union. Auxiliary members will, however, have the right to vote on resolutions affecting any special rights attached to their shares. The principle of one member, one vote is maintained and specifically entrenched, except in limited circumstances which are consistent with the Cooperative Association Act.

Since directors play a critical role in the direction and operational management of a credit union, provision is made in this act for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to require a central credit union to establish a directors' training program. This statute also applies principles of natural justice and fairness to regulatory actions by incorporating hearing and appeal provisions which parallel those contained in the Financial Institutions Act.

I hope that members from both sides of the House recognize and support the positive spirit in which this legislation was produced and is presented to the House. I believe it is a fair-minded, straightforward piece of legislation. It incorporates many constructive suggestions put forward by credit union representatives. It will, I am confident, provide a strong foundation for the continued growth and stability of credit unions in British Columbia. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. CLARK: We on this side of the House are very pleased to support this bill. It's very clearly a companion bill to the Financial Institutions Act, and we think it's desirable. I know the credit union movement feels strongly that they should be the subject of their own legislation, and this bill does that. A separate act for credit unions is well worthwhile, and we support it.

I might say that the movement that we on this side of the House are part of has long been a strong supporter of credit unions. I know that the minister himself has also on occasion voiced very strong views in favour of credit unions, and we commend him for that. It is part of our origins and roots in the CCF and the NDP that we really came out of the credit union movement.

I have some concerns that the connection between the NDP and the credit union movement is not as strong as it should be, particularly given the common roots that we share and that the credit union movement grew out of a cooperative movement and cooperative spirit that the NDP and CCF are for and grew out of.

I want to deal briefly, if I can, with what I think is the main section of the bill, one of the main innovations: the equity share question. I know that credit

[ Page 7844 ]

unions are required to hold 5 percent of their assets in a statutory reserve, and I know the system now is running at about 3 percent or 3½ percent. I know they're moving towards 5 percent, but I know that it's very difficult to maintain that statutory reserve. One of reasons for that is that they have to generate that reserve out of revenue essentially, whereas banks have the luxury of getting a lot of their revenues — certainly their reserves — out of their shareholders' equity. That's one of the fundamental differences. So credit unions are always, in some respects, at a disadvantage in terms of trying to maintain that reserve, because they don't have the shareholder base the private sector does.

I must say that while I strongly support the bill, I have some concerns about the question of equity shares. The difficulty is attempting to marry, if I may say, credit union principles to the private sector market mechanism of equity shares. I think this bill tries to deal with that. I think it's commendable, and I have no problem supporting it.

Nevertheless, it causes me some concern, because the principle of the credit union is one person, one vote, regardless of the size of the balance in the credit union. The principle of normal equity shares is that shareholders purchase those shares so they have an influence on decision-making, and that influence is directly proportionate to the number of shares they hold. Of course, that's in direct conflict with the goals, traditions and principles of a credit union.

The minister has explained today and I know that in many respects the equity shares that are being contemplated — at least, as it appears to me — are similar to preferred shares, where they don't have voting power except on resolutions which directly affect their shares: the terms, etc. That's the way the bill deals with that, and I think that gets around the main objection I might have to the principle of equity shares in credit unions, which is that it dilutes the democratic, open and egalitarian principles of the credit union.

I see the problem the credit unions have trying to raise equity and their statutory reserve requirements; I recognize it's a real problem. This proposal may help to deal with that, and I'm supportive of it. But I'm concerned about what might be a slippery slope down the line to a kind of privatization of the credit union movement. I know that's a word the government likes, but I think the government and the minister may agree with me that it's not the kind of credit union system the minister contemplates or likes; it's certainly not one that I like. So I appreciate that the bill attempts to strike a balance. I think it's a good balance at the moment, but I have some concerns.

[9:45]

I might just say — and maybe the minister can address this in his closing remarks — that Quebec has struggled with this and come up with a form of equity participation. Their model is amazingly successful: the caisse de dépôt and the like. In the Quebec case, as I understand it, the tax system was used to increase shareholders' equity. I'm not quite sure of the mechanics of it, but I know the government played an active role in assisting the credit unions with their statutory reserves.

While I'm not going to stand here and advocate that the Quebec model be adopted by the government, what I will advocate — and very strongly — is that the government undertake to review how Quebec attempted to struggle with this very question I've been talking about and how they've resolved it in such a way that the caisse de dépôt is, in many respects, the major financial institution in the province. The caisse de dépôt has had a fundamental impact on the economic development of that province.

We on this side want a strong and vibrant credit union movement, and I know the minister agrees. We have a very strong and vibrant credit union movement, and we want to enhance it. I think this bill helps and does enhance it. We're strongly supportive of it, but I have these nagging concerns in the back of my mind about equity participation and how that might work to undermine the very system that we want to see. It might be appropriate — maybe more appropriate — for the government to at least share in some of the risk with respect to equity participation so that credit unions aren't forced to respond to this challenge by giving equity shareholders more say and something more like a traditional equity arrangement than they might like and that certainly we might like.

With that, I'm happy to have the minister close debate. I hope he'll respond to some of the concerns I've raised.

HON. MR COUVELIER: First of all, I'm not surprised to see the opposition critic make mention of the desire of the socialists to get closer to a financial institution with the strength and vitality of the credit union movement. Of course, it's typical of the attitude that might be brought by those who believe in central control: all the levers of power in the hands of some little elite group. So I'm not surprised that this would be a suggestion.

This side of the House believes, with conviction, that the financial institutions of the province must be free of political interference and should not have any political connotation associated with their leadership. So if there ever needed to be a clear example of the philosophical differences between the two sides of the House, I suppose that comment illustrates it.

The member also dealt with the issue of equity shares, and in this respect I share his sensitivity to the need to preserve the principle of one member, one vote. The matter is a very difficult one to manage, in the sense that the objective clearly must be — I trust from both sides of the Houses — to do what we can to increase the equity capital of credit unions. The issue is how to accomplish that, and it is not easily accomplished.

The member suggests that we should study the Quebec system. I can comfort the member by telling him we have already done this and are extremely envious of the tremendous success record of the caisse de dépôt in Quebec. As a matter of fact, I must

[ Page 7845 ]

confess that in some of my visions of the future, clearly a strong credit union movement could and should have a strategic role in the development of a provincial economic policy. We are ad idem, I sense, in that respect, and I am extremely pleased to notice that the opposition member said they're going to support this legislation. That would be helpful and I'm comforted to have that piece of knowledge. I'll therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 50, Credit Union Incorporation 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: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain section 2 with respect to B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. The explanatory note (b) says: "Allows a supplementary roll to be issued where property becomes or ceases to be partially exempt from taxation because it's transferred to or from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority." I wonder what occasioned this amendment and why we would need to deal specifically with B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment provides that where property is transferred to or from B.C. Hydro, which is a partially exempt entity.... Where property is transferred to or from B.C. Hydro between August 31 and December 31, a supplementary notice can be issued to reflect the change in ownership and degree of taxability due to the transfer. The existing section limits the use of supplementary notices to ownership changes of wholly exempt property. Where a lease or other type of occupation of B.C. Hydro property commences or terminates between August 31 and December 31, this will be considered a change of ownership, so that a supplementary notice may also be issued in this instance.

MR. CLARK: So what problem is this section attempting to resolve? Is the minister aware? I see his staff here.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: No, what the government is attempting to do appears quite straightforward. I haven't heard any criticism in the past — lots of criticisms of B.C. Hydro — but I wonder what this is remedying specifically.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that when the land is transferred, previously we couldn't put it on the roll and now we can. So the amendment has the effect of allowing us to put it on the roll; before, we didn't have that authority.

MR. CLARK: So the effect of putting it on the roll is to show people the tax that will be payable. Otherwise, you'd still pay the tax, or a grant in lieu of tax; but now it's on paper and documented. Is that basically what you're saying?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps the minister can tell the committee why he needs these sections anyway. Why can't B.C. Hydro be assessed and taxed exactly on the same basis as if they were privately owned? That's the situation with private utilities in this province and was the situation with the British Columbia Electric Co., Hydro's predecessor. I see no reason at all why B.C. Hydro cannot be treated absolutely like any other industrial entity under the same assessment rules and the same municipal taxation rules. It should have no special status.

If for some hoary utility reason or Crown corporation reason the government wishes to call those taxes grants in lieu, that's fine, as long as the taxes or the grants in lieu are calculated on exactly the same basis as if B.C. Hydro were privately owned. Then we wouldn't need any of these sections. Perhaps the minister can tell the committee that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That was a tremendous little dissertation; I don't know its relevancy.

As I mentioned, the fact is that this enables us to capture something that we previously were not able to capture. I point out to the member that the phrasing is "transfers to or from B.C. Hydro." To the question of Hydro being treated the same way as other institutions, it is. To the extent that it doesn't pay property taxes, that isn't relevant to the issue before us. We're talking about an amendment to a bill which allows us to do something that we were previously not allowed to do.

The philosophy, I believe, is something that should have been addressed in second reading. I think we're now in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe relevancy is the determination of the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: I would actually have to agree that my question is not strictly relevant to the section. However, I still don't understand why the minister can't answer the question directly, since the section is about the assessment of B.C. Hydro for real property taxation purposes. Why do we need any of these provisions whatsoever? Hydro's predecessor was taxed as though it was privately owned, as are

[ Page 7846 ]

private utilities, and I see absolutely no reason why Hydro should have special rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That debate would be out of order.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: This deals with establishing criteria for assessment rates of utility property. Again, I wonder if the minister could explain the reason for this amendment, and then we can get to some other questions that arise out of that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm very pleased to do that. This amendment provides an objective methodology for the assessment commissioner to establish rates to value improvements of utility corporations, such as poles, lines, cables, towers, wires, railway tracks and pipelines. The rate will be based on the average current cost to construct and install the existing improvements, less an amount for physical depreciation. Additionally, discretion is granted to the assessment commissioner to express the rates in various ways and to reduce them further where he deems it appropriate.

MR. CLARK: I can see that this sets out very strict rules. I wonder what the current situation is. Is this just codifying in legislation the current practice, or is this something different from the current regulatory practice?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member is correct, Mr. Chairman: this is to codify the rules and confirm the established practice.

MR. CLARK: It says it limits the grounds of appeals of the rates. I'm just wondering what the bottom line is here. Is this going to generate more or less revenue in property taxes or assessments, or is it revenue-neutral? It's quite a complex formula, so I'm wondering what the impact will be.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intention is to preserve the revenue source. The amendment arises, if my memory serves me correctly, from appeals that have been heard by the board over the months. It's been determined that in order to clarify the issue of what is appealable, the grounds are limited to whether the commissioner prescribed the rates in accordance with the method set out in the amendment. In answer to the member's query, it's revenue neutral.

MR. WILLIAMS: It appears that this is really after-the-fact legislation. Is that the reality? You have a retroactive section at the end. Is that really your problem — that this has indeed been the practice, but not clear at all, or maybe not there under existing legislation, and this is really dealing with that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Two points, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it's not our problem; it's the problem of the government, which represents all the citizens of the province.

The issue here is to preserve the taxation base that may be applicable for local governments to recover the cost of servicing. If the hon. member is opposed to local governments' preserving the tax base, then of course that's an interesting position. But certainly this amendment, as I mentioned, is brought about by virtue of various appeals that have been heard over the months past. The intention here is to be revenue neutral. It's not a tax grab; it's merely to react to rulings of the appeal board. The intention is to preserve for local governments their revenue sources.

I might point out, in case it has missed the attention of the members opposite, that the purpose of this is to apply to poles, lines, cables, towers, wires, railway tracks and pipelines. If the members find that troublesome, I'd like to know a bit more about their concerns.

[10:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: Do I have to repeat the question? Would the minister answer the question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm trying to be helpful; I thought I did.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, was it after the fact? Is this recognizing practice that was not codified previously?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe that we had a point of order earlier, where members were advised that they had to attend to the business of the House. The question put to me by the previous member about three minutes ago was exactly the same as the one you put to me now. I understand that to be repetitive and unnecessary.

In any event, the answer to the question is yes; it is to codify the status quo. It is not a new revenue source, it does not increase the revenues available to government, and it does react to appeal board rulings.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we got a yes out of this convoluted nonsense and pompous stuff we get from the minister at this time of the night. It is not the same as what you said previously. If you would only learn to use the Queen's English, the business of this House might move along a little more satisfactorily in every regard.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: Did the minister not have the power to appoint replacement members to the court of revision if someone resigned?

[ Page 7847 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, we would have had to do it by order-in-council. Insofar as we have so many citizens involved, it was cumbersome and difficult to administer. Frequently it had to result in adjournments of courts of revision, which resulted in inconvenience to taxpayers, some of whom travelled great distances to have their cases heard. As a consequence, this is an amendment to facilitate service to the taxpayers.

MR. CLARK: Well, my only comment is that I am concerned that parliamentarians won't know who has been appointed. I appreciate the minister has a bureaucratic problem. I am sure they go through orders-in-council, but it's nice for all of us to see who has been appointed to the courts of revision. I wonder if there is provision for, or if the minister contemplates, somehow making appointments public. While this gives the minister the ability to make those appointments without orders-in-council, it seems to me that the information is public information that should be made known at the time someone has been appointed. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that public information process, so that when someone is appointed, the public is informed. I'm not suggesting you are trying to do this in a nefarious way, but that lack of information is not a trend I would like to see. Currently we have a nice system that allows everybody to see when someone is appointed. Is there some other mechanism that might be available?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This only deals with replacement members. The normal process would apply, and public notice would apply.

To give the member some assistance here in terms of orders of magnitude, it happens apparently about 12 to 15 times during that narrow time-frame when courts of revision sit. You must remember, we're dealing with about 250 members of courts of revision. Our experience has been that something between 5 and 10 percent of them, for one reason or another, need to be replaced after their appointment. It's only a short-term appointment, as the member knows, and the fact that an OIC is required means that days are lost when dates of hearings are pre-published weeks in advance. As a consequence, it is a great inconvenience to members of the public.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if I could start out with a question about what the purpose of this section is. Is it court-related? In other words, is this a response to some kind of challenge or something?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is, I think, to deal more appropriately with this issue of appeals. Appeals had previously been registered with the Assessment Authority. Insofar as the appellant was appealing a decision of the Assessment Authority, it seemed to us improper that the appeal should go to that body; rather, it should go to the appeal board itself. This just is an administrative transfer of the registration obligations to the body hearing the appeal, as opposed to going to the body that made the ruling being appealed.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. CLARK: I'm curious about this amendment, which deals with churches and, in this case, the 1989 taxation year. I wonder if the minister could tell me what occasioned this amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment arises as a result of a Supreme Court decision which was handed down last year dealing with the classification. This provides that church property is retroactively included as class 8 property for the purpose of that '89 year and that a supplementary assessment notice may be issued to ensure such properties are classified as such.

MR. CLARK: So what is the impact of this on the assessment roll with respect to churches, or on their taxation? Does this reduce the level of taxation for churches or increase it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue here is that if we didn't introduce this amendment, it would have the effect of increasing their obligations. This maintains the norm, the traditional status quo.

MR. CLARK: Which is no tax.

HON. MR COUVELIER: Which is no tax for that purpose — used for the worship of.... I forget the wording.

MR. CLARK: Does this have anything to do with the debate and problems we've seen in Surrey with respect to some of that property? Does this invalidate the municipality of Surrey's attempt to raise taxes on parts of church property? Is this meant to deal with that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, it does not.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the minister could tell me, then. He was nodding his head when I said it dealt with Surrey, so could he explain how it deals with Surrey? I assume it's that particular situation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I nodded to Surrey because that was one of the problem areas, and the churches do pay some local costs of services. In addition, if churches own large areas of land, only part of which is used for the worship or the holding of their services, then the balance of the land can be taxed at a different rate if it's used for a different purpose.

[ Page 7848 ]

MR. CLARK: I just wonder why it is, then, that the minister said that without this section, taxes would go up. Is that because there was no mechanism for the municipalities to tax that portion of the land which was not used for worship, so to speak? Is this a fine-tuning — taxes say, the Surrey case, had to be on the entire property, and this carves out the worship? Is that what the minister is getting at?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, that isn't the issue as it related to Surrey. The problem in Surrey, I'm advised, was that the classification change as a consequence of the court division would have resulted, in that instance, in using business-other rates, and that would have had the effect of increasing the tax obligation. So this restores the historic status quo.

MR. CLARK: But wasn't the appeal because in fact there is a business there, in that case? The reason why the municipality could levy business taxes was that it was a business. Why would the government choose to bring in this amendment which invalidates the municipality's attempt to collect business taxes from a business?

HON. MR COUVELIER: The hon. member is evidently talking about an entirely different incident not related to this amendment. We don't know specifically what he is referring to, but there apparently wasn't a business use in the Surrey illustration that we're thinking of.

MR. CLARK: I defer to the minister. I'm not trying to suggest anything nefarious — at this point, anyway; I'm trying to determine what this amendment deals with. If there was a Supreme Court decision which would have resulted in increased taxes on churches, presumably the Supreme Court decision was as a result of something which may well be legitimate. I'm trying to understand that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The Supreme Court ruling said that churches were not a fraternal organization, which in effect meant that they had to be in a different class of property. This reaffirms the fact that they belong in class A. As I said, it merely restores the historic status quo.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Assessment Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:11 p.m.