[ Page 8653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 8653

Health Disciplines Act (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 8653

An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia
(Bill M228). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 8653

Forest Inventory Update Act (Bill M229). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Forest Waste Reduction Act (Bill M230). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Forest Practices Act (Bill M231). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Oral Questions

PCB storage sites. Mr. Harcourt –– 8654

Dust control chemical used on Cortes and Quadra Islands. Mr. Lovick –– 8655

Liquor licence appeal process. Mrs. Boone –– 8655

Former BCIT president. Mr. Jones –– 8656

Military research in universities. Hon. S. Hagen replies to question –– 8656

David Poole's pension. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 8657

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier and Executive Council estimates.
(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations –– 8657

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Mercier

Mr. Kempf

Trinity Western University Foundation Act (Bill 89). Hon. S. Hagen

Introduction and first reading –– 8679

Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 70). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 8679

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 86). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 8687

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Bruce

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 81). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 8690

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Temporary Use Tax Validation Act (Bill 82). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) I –– 8691

Third reading

Securities Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 83). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 8692

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 90). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8696

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 92). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8696

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 61). Committee stage.
(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8697

Third reading

Offence Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 63). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8697

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 64). Committee stage.
(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8698

Third reading

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 71). Committee stage.
(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8698

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Science Council Act (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 8699

Mr. Miller –– 8699

Mr. Harcourt –– 8700

Hon. S. Hagen –– 8701

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 45). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8701

Mr. Barlee –– 8702

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Food Choice and Disclosure Act (Bill 85). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Mr. Barlee –– 8702

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Second reading

Mr. Gabelmann –– 8703

Mr. Kempf –– 8704

Mr. Loenen –– 8704

Mr. Guno –– 8706

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 8707

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Committee stage.
>(Hon. Mr. Reid) –– 8708

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Today I have a special introduction on behalf of the secretary to our Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, Jennifer Charlesworth. Today her mother-in-law, Mrs. Sylvia Miller, is visiting from Allen's Grove, Wisconsin, along with her son David and grandson Joshua Miller from Victoria. I should add that we would like to bid a fond farewell to Jennifer, who is moving on to different things and has served our cabinet committee extremely well. Could we please wish Jennifer well and a warm welcome to her mother-in-law from Wisconsin.

MR. PERRY: I would like to introduce to the House a very distinguished visiting consulting engineer from Los Angeles, Mr. Norman Pitt, who is with us in the gallery today. Also in the gallery are two of my most enthusiastic constituents: Mrs. Marge Nicol and my mother, Mrs. Claire Perry. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Today we have with us some students who are involved in our ministry's multicultural law camp program. These students are from richly diverse backgrounds, cultures and heritages. They and their families have come to British Columbia from various Latin American countries, from Vietnam, from China and from India. The law camp program provides youth with multicultural backgrounds with an opportunity to learn about and explore our justice system. It's in its second year of operation, and it's very much growing in popularity. The multicultural camps help students develop their leadership skills, enabling them all — each of them and together — to be role models in their own communities. I would ask that this House join me to welcome the more than 20 students here today from our multicultural law camp program.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have Tas, Kathryn and Stephanie Morfopoulos and Mr. Larry Payeur, all from North Vancouver. Would the House please welcome these nice people to Victoria.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate on his birthday today our youngest member, blond, blue-eyed and somewhat baby-faced, who I think grew in the chair here: Gordon Hanson.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Economic Development for the period ended March 31, 1988.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Disciplines Act.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a means to regulate a variety of health professions and occupations presently not covered by statute. The object of this bill is to better protect the public in areas of health care where minimum practice standards for practitioners are not mandatory.

Under Bill 91, a group would apply to a health disciplines council for designation of a particular discipline, and this council, consisting of health care experts, would investigate each application for designation and make a recommendation to the government about the need to control the practice of the particular discipline. Following designation, a person registered by the board of that designated health discipline would be entitled to practise the discipline, subject to compliance with applicable competency and conduct standards. This arrangement would parallel the manner in which a number of professions and occupations are already regulated under acts that presently exist.

Mr. Speaker, I'm introducing this bill today as an exposure bill in the hope of getting input and feedback from affected groups and the public. In this way, we will have an opportunity to make any modifications that are appropriate following consultation with those groups and individuals that contact the Ministry of Health. This is an important initiative, and I'm pleased to table this bill today at this time.

Bill 91, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE

OF ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I delayed in introducing this bill. This is the eighth occasion; I was hoping that there would not be an eighth occasion for this bill. It was indicated earlier that something would be forthcoming, and it has not been forthcoming.

I think all members recognize that the native peoples of this province have 26 distinct languages — many of which exist nowhere else outside the borders of our province — and that we have a special responsibility to acknowledge those languages and give those people an opportunity for their children to know their language and who they are as a people. I think we've got a great deal to learn about the way

[ Page 8654 ]

native people executed their own land use policy — for want of a better description — and the way they valued the land and the resources of this province. I think the non-native people of British Columbia would benefit a great deal from the kind of bill that I've outlined, so that in the school system, children would have some accurate information about native culture.

I think the time is overdue. The time has come for recognition of the right of native people to understand and learn their own language. It wasn't their fault that, as a result of history, they were actively discouraged from speaking and learning their languages in the past. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like this bill to be passed.

Bill M228 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

FOREST INVENTORY UPDATE ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Inventory Update Act.

MR. MILLER: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the inventory work required under the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act is undertaken thoroughly, with a new inventory completed every ten years. Although inventories are presently required under these acts, complete inventories have not been carried out in some areas of the province for up to 20 years due to budget and staff cutbacks.

This lack of information about the resources available to the forest industry has led to overcutting in some areas. It has also made it difficult or impossible to determine accurately the volume of Crown timber involved in applications for large tree-farm licences. The results of the inventory are required to be published and made available to the public at ministry offices in each forest district. In between complete inventories, the chief forester will be responsible for noting logging activities and other forest depletion for the purposes of keeping a forest inventory.

Bill M229 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

FOREST WASTE REDUCTION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Waste Reduction Act.

MR. MILLER: The purpose of this bill is to introduce changes to provincial scaling procedures which will lower the amount of harvested wood that is wasted in the forests of the province. Starting on April 1, 1989, the district managers in each forest district will be required to calculate a portion of stumpage based on volume figures obtained through a cruise of standing timber rather than on the amount of timber a company presents at a scale location. Under the system of scaling standing timber, there will be a strong incentive to bring out as much wood as possible so as to lower cost per metre of harvested wood.

Bill M230 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Practices Act.

MR. MILLER: This bill establishes a mechanism through which timber-harvesting operations on private lands may be reviewed to ensure that good forestry practices are followed and that no degradation of the timber resource or general environment occurs as a result of the harvesting activity.

Under this bill the manager of every forest region in the province will form a forest practices committee consisting of members from various levels of government and from non-government groups. Every person who plans to harvest timber from private land which is zoned for non-residential uses or is larger than 5 hectares will submit a harvesting plan to the district forest manager. The district manager will submit the plan to the committee, who will approve or reject the application within 15 working days of receiving the application.

In addition, the bill gives the forest practices committee the power to establish forest practice guidelines for specific areas within the region where specific resource management guidelines are needed. Appeal processes are established before the decision of the committee on approval of harvesting plans and on any forest practice guidelines produced by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speedy passage of these bills. I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M231 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PCB STORAGE SITES

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday when he was asked about releasing the location of PCB storage sites, the minister gave a rather inventive reply. He said that public knowledge of the sites might make them targets for criminals. Later the minister defended the use of schools and hospitals as PCB storage sites; as he put it, the safest place to keep them now is in the school, because the school has security and properly trained staff to address these problems.

[ Page 8655 ]

Given that schools are often the target of vandalism, can the minister assure the House that his ministry will remove all PCBs stored in schools and relocate them in secure and proper storage facilities away from young children?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand by what I said yesterday in the House, Mr. Speaker, and also what I said later in a television interview that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. In the case of light ballasts containing PCB as a stabilizing chemical, which is commonly found in hospitals and schools, we believe that the secure rooms where they are stored now is the best possible storage, because these premises, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, are locked and staffed by janitorial and custodial staff who know how to maintain security, are on premise at all times, and can really provide the best secure and safe storage for us.

However, with respect to long-term planning, the Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of this, but in my budget, which was presented and debated some months ago, we did announce a funding process for building facilities to properly and safely and securely store special wastes. We are in that building program now, and that will enable us to remove these special wastes from facilities where they might not be appropriately sorted — and stay securely but appropriately — such as schools and hospitals. I trust that satisfies the member's curiosity.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. Yesterday I wrote to the minister requesting publication of all the PCB storage sites in our province. Can the minister tell the House whether he is now prepared to release this information, or is he sticking to his rather facile excuse about criminal and terrorist acts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The Leader of the Opposition can look up the answer I gave yesterday, and it still applies today.

DUST CONTROL CHEMICAL USED ON

CORTES AND QUADRA ISLANDS

MR. LOVICK: My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Residents of Cortes and Quadra Islands asked Highways officials to stop using an untested chemical — sodium lignosulphonate — for dust control on provincial highways. The question is very direct and straightforward: has the minister decided to ban the use of this chemical until it has been tested and proven safe?

HON. MR. VANT: With reference to the sodium lignosulphonate, I can inform.... [Applause.] Yes, indeed, I pronounced it correctly. Surprised you, didn't I?

I can inform the House that this is not actually banned in the province of Quebec, but certainly its use is under review in that province. Here in British Columbia it has been deemed environmentally acceptable and is approved by the Ministry of Environment in B.C.

I can assure the member opposite — because I realize his concern and the concern of the residents on Cortes Island — that the maintenance contractor covering Cortes Island is willing to use something else if necessary. Meanwhile I have directed my regional director of highways for that area, Neville Hope, to meet with the concerned citizens.

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Highways minister's colleague the Minister of Environment. The province of Quebec may not have banned this substance, but it obviously has imposed some very rigorous conditions on its use. I heard from your colleague that your ministry has approved this chemical. I am wondering if the minister could inform this House, please, what particular tests and studies have been undertaken to enable you to draw the conclusion that this particular chemical is indeed safe?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've done extensive testing with respect to sodium lignosulphonate. We have found that there is slight toxicity in concentrated volumes. If you had discharged more than you normally would around a lake, there can be toxicity to fish; but it would have to be a very concentrated amount, and nothing that we would normally experience in normal highway practices in the province. I should point out that sodium lignosulphonate is a product of a pulp and paper process. The lignum is a resin and is quite commonly used in animal feeds, so it does not generally have toxic capacity, except in very high concentrates and only to fish.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're getting warm.

What Quebec is looking at are the ammonia lignosulphonates and chlorine lignosulphonates. The sodium prefix we're using here is deemed to be safe by my ministry staff, by Agriculture Canada, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The products being tested and looked at in Quebec are an ammonia prefix and a chlorine prefix as well as a sodium prefix.

LIQUOR LICENCE APPEAL PROCESS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. In three separate cases the general manager for liquor distribution has denied preclearance licences for retail stores, stating that the sites did not meet legislative policy and that they were contrary to public interest. Appeals were made to the minister, and you decided to override these decisions. Can the minister tell the House what criteria are used to decide to override legislative and policy requirements?

HON. L. HANSON: It might be appropriate to know which ones. My ministry deals with liquor

[ Page 8656 ]

licensing in quite a volume. When a decision of the general manager is such that the applicants are unhappy with it, they have an ability to appeal to the minister or, if I choose to delegate, to the deputy minister. The answer to the member's question is almost impossible because I don't even know which licence she's referring to.

MRS. BOONE: I think it's fairly easy to say: what criteria do you ever use to override existing policy and legislation and the best interests of the community? It is clear that the minister hasn't got any guidelines, that he just does this stuff willy-nilly. If you want the names, I'll give them to you. There are two in Prince George and there's one in Fort St. John that I know of.

My question to you, Mr. Minister, is: how many other decisions by the general manager have you or your ministry overridden?

HON. L. HANSON: I can get those statistics if the member would like. As a matter of fact, I can get them back to the days when, I believe, it was the NDP who were in authority and the same process was there. The appeal from the general manager's decision is to the minister, as I said, or to the deputy if I choose to delegate it.

The reasons for overturning or upholding those decisions vary with the circumstances of the application. I might say to the member that the appellants' information that they provide in various circumstances is sometimes very inventive, and the reasons why discretion is exercised vary in each case. There aren't any set criteria.

I think the member is well aware that we have commissioned a study on the licensing process which we hope to have the report on shortly, and that it probably will change some of those processes.

The member is also aware that in Bill 38, which was passed last year and will be implemented some time this year, there will be an appeal process to a committee of appeal as opposed to the minister or his deputy minister.

MRS. BOONE: It's clear from the bafflegab that was given by the minister here that there is no policy, that there are absolutely no reasons to give for overriding the existing legislative policy or the best interests of the community.

[2:30]

My question to you, then, is: why have you not implemented that section of Bill 38 which was introduced and passed last year, which would protect the people and give them a fair hearing, and not have the political interference that's taking place right now.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George suggests bafflegab. I guess that's something to cover up her lack of understanding of the process. The process is quite a simple one, and the reasons that discretion is exercised are included in every letter of decision. If the member were to go to those applicants who have had a decision of the general manager upheld or overturned, she could see he reasons for it quite clearly in the letter they have been given.

FORMER BCIT PRESIDENT

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. As the minister is probably aware, statements by the former president of BCIT totally contradict statements the minister made in this House last Tuesday. Given that contradiction, does the minister wish to reconsider his remarks, in particular with respect to interference by the Premier's office and the minister's office in the operation of that institution, and with respect to the reasons for Mr. Murray's leaving as president of BCIT?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can say categorically, Mr. Speaker, that this minister and this government has only one thing in mind for BCIT, and that is to make BCIT the best — the number one — advanced technology institute in this country. That's exactly what's going to happen, particularly under the new president and the new leadership of BCIT.

But let me respond to the question. I find it interesting that the day the member raised the question during my estimates, I received a telephone call from Mr. Murray in Ontario. Mr. Murray was quite concerned about the article in the media. He was concerned enough, as a matter of fact, to contact me personally. He was concerned enough to tell me what he had said to the media. He also wanted me to know that he had absolutely no problems with this minister or this government, and that he was very pleased with the direction that BCIT was heading in. The other thing he wanted me to know was that he was very upset that the NDP would sit on this letter for a year without acting on it. Now I don't know how the NDP got hold of a personal letter sent from Roy Murray, the former president of BCIT, to the chairman of the board, but he was very upset that they had sat on this letter for one year.

MILITARY RESEARCH

IN UNIVERSITIES

HON. S. HAGEN: On May 29 the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) asked me a question regarding military research in universities which I took on notice. I would like to make a response to that question.

The provincial government does not fund any contract or sponsored research. All military-related research falls into this category. While the Department of National Defence and the United States military do fund research at provincial universities, the amount of research funded by these sources represents about 1 percent of the overall research done at our universities.

None of our universities undertakes any secret or classified research. All studies and results must be published in scholarly journals. Research funded by

[ Page 8657 ]

the military at universities has wide-ranging applications and is often quite benign in nature. For example, the University of Victoria history department is currently engaged in historical research for the Canadian military. Other examples include studies of motion sickness, diesel engines and artificial intelligence.

DAVID POOLE'S PENSION

HON. MR. MICHAEL: On July 13 I took a question on notice from the Leader of the Opposition. The answer to the negative question is in the affirmative.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $3,531, 225.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to rise and continue debate on the spending estimates of my office and our government, a government that has for years given the province of British Columbia prudent and responsible fiscal management and will continue to do so for many more years to come. We have produced a progressive budget and bold programs that are responsive to the needs of British Columbians in every region of this province, and once again we have shown strong leadership.

As we close another decade in the history of our province, British Columbians have every reason to be proud of the progress we have made in such a short time. This decade has been both a challenge and an opportunity for our province. When the recession struck, British Columbia was hit harder than any other jurisdiction in Canada. British Columbians accepted the challenge, and today we are especially proud of the strong economic and fiscal position of our government.

As governments elsewhere across the country continue to struggle with operating deficits, British Columbia proudly stands above them all with a balanced budget. As other governments continue to pile up a mountain of debt for future generations, British Columbia is actually reducing its outstanding debt. We are lessening the burden on those who follow.

Our prudent fiscal policies have not gone unnoticed. B.C.'s international credit rating has been upgraded, signifying a key vote of confidence in the government's management of the economy. Our policies are working. Our policies are putting British Columbians to work at a rate never seen before. The level of our job creation in the last 12 months in this province is unsurpassed in our history. Over the past year, one-third of all the new jobs in Canada were created right here in British Columbia; 100,000 more people are working in B.C. today than a year ago. Since we became government, the unemployment rate has dropped 4 percentage points and is at its lowest level since 1982.

Much of British Columbia's economic success is directly related to the policies of our government, policies which reflect the fundamental belief that the private sector is keyed to balanced and diversified economic growth. The private sector has enthusiastically responded with record levels of investment this year. There's $22 billion worth of construction now underway or in the planning stages throughout every region of this province. Statistics Canada says that B.C. can anticipate the largest increase in Canada in new building construction investment.

The provincial economy is diversifying and adapting to changing global trends. Manufacturing shipments have increased by 40 percent over the last year. British Columbia has outpaced the national average by far. Once again we're out ahead.

For the first time in our history, Asia has become British Columbia's leading export market, surpassing the United States. We have become the least dependent of all Canadian provinces on two-way trade with the United States.

Even with the record amounts of investment and job creation in our province, we have been mindful of environmental protection. Our enforcement of environmental regulations has been strengthened, and we have implemented new initiatives that will enable us to deal with the importance of environmental questions in the years ahead. We have developed some of the most stringent environmental laws in North America, and businesses are responding. Pulp mills, which have been a major source of employment in our province, are responding to the government's directive to reduce dioxin levels and will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to meet their obligations. Industrial polluters have been served notice that they must clean up their act or face a fine of up to $3 million, or even a jail term, if they violate pollution laws. Our environment and quality of life will not be compromised.

The task force on the environment and economy has recommended the establishment of a permanent provincial round table to recommend ways to resolve land use and other conflicts affecting the environment and economy. Our government has committed itself in principle to the major recommendations of the task force. As the task force pointed out, our economic well-being hinges upon the existence of a strong, confident industrial base. But unless the quality of the environment is protected, it is apparent that our quality of life will be diminished.

[2:45]

The permanent provincial round table will also assist the government in dealing with a number of forest industry initiatives. Forestry has played a significant role in the history of British Columbia, and its role will not be diminished in the future; it

[ Page 8658 ]

will be enhanced. A few weeks ago we announced the establishment of a permanent forest resource commission to independently review and make recommendations on forestry issues. We feel we have found an innovative and effective way of dealing with the forest industry and securing its future in this province.

The key to a secure and prosperous future for our citizens, along with a safe and healthy environment and quality of life, is a credible, well-respected education system. British Columbia's education system has proven itself, through international testing, to be one of the best in the world. We have begun implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education and have undertaken the first major revision of education legislation in more than 30 years. It will better equip our students to meet the new challenges of the twenty-first century. Our new Access for All post-secondary education strategy will create 15,000 additional spaces in university programs, establish full university degree granting programs in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo, and establish a new degree-granting institution in the interior.

Our educational policies are the most comprehensive and contemporary in Canada. No other jurisdiction has done as much for education in such a short time as this government. Just as all of us have had contact with the education system, all of us, in some way or another, are touched by our justice system. The government has followed through on the recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee to make our justice system fairer, more understandable and more accessible for British Columbians.

The major initiatives undertaken by our government have been done in full consultation with the public in every region of the province. We have consulted, we have listened, and we have acted. We have been responsive to the concerns of British Columbians. No government in our province's history has sought the advice of the public more than our administration. A renewed mood of optimism is sweeping through the whole of our province. British Columbians are looking confidently to the future and are feeling more secure about the years ahead. Together we have created a climate of confidence that allows us to build a richer and stronger province for us all.

I would like to conclude my remarks with some technical information on a reorganization that has taken place in the Premier's office. The Premier's office is now organized in two divisions: the office of the Premier, which includes the principal secretary; and the executive council operations, which includes the deputy minister.

I said I would conclude my remarks, but I hear all sorts of comments from across the way wanting to have some more, so perhaps I'll take this opportunity to say just a few more things.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition took a trip to the Cariboo to speak to a well-publicized meeting the other day which attracted 29 or 30 people. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the New Democratic Party and the leadership he said it could provide for the province.

I would like to compare just briefly the almost three years that we've been government to the three years of NDP in the early seventies. When the NDP came to govern in the early seventies, they inherited a considerable surplus; they inherited a healthy economy; they came at a time when forestry was relatively strong, when mining activity was growing in all parts of the province, when tourism was on the rise, when communities had autonomy, when social and health programs were certainly commendable as compared with elsewhere in the country. And in only three years we became known as the place where the last person was sort of expected to turn off the lights; where the forestry business was on a slide and where mining was almost demolished — extinct. We can recall that by the end of only three years people throughout this province were aware that the economy could not continue to survive under NDP socialistic rule. The people reacted.

Now let's compare that with today. After less than three years we have balanced the budget. After less than three years we have established, as no other province in the history of the country has done, a rainy-day account which will protect programs for the future. After less than three years we've been able to begin reducing our accumulated deficit. After less than three years we've gone to a triple-A credit rating, the best in the country. We've been able to increase moneys to local government at a record rate. We've invested more in new health facilities and social programs than any government in Canada during a similar period of time. The forest industry is expanding; throughout all parts of the province they are building. After less than three years, for the first time mining is growing. There are new mines opening up in all regions of the province. After less than three years, we are leading the country in diversification in new industries and in manufacturing opportunities.

After less than three years, regionalization is beginning to work effectively for the benefit of people throughout the whole province. After less than three years, we've established more park space in this province than any other North American jurisdiction with the exception of Alaska.

After less than three years, we've been able to reduce taxes. After less than three years, we've been able to reduce the size of government in order to provide our people a greater flexibility. After less than three years, we've become the place in Canada where people from throughout this country want to move to.

At record levels like never before, after less than three years we've been able to turn our export economy around to the point where Ontario is still 85 percent dependent on the U.S. for its exports. Canada, on average: 75 percent. We're down to just slightly over 40 percent — a record unachieved anywhere in the country.

After less than three years, the people in this province can look at their government and our

[ Page 8659 ]

accomplishments and say that we are safer, more secure and more recession-proof; as a people we are more insulated against a downturn than any other people anywhere else in the country.

British Columbians need only look back at the last time the NDP governed in this province for three years, and if they want more recent history, they can look at Manitoba and see the disaster that was created there.

HON. S.D. SMITH: They said that Manitoba was their model last year. That's what they said.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right; I can recall the Leader of the Opposition saying Manitoba was their model. Can you imagine?

We can honestly say that this government has accomplished more in a shorter time than any other government in the country, and the record speaks for itself.

MR. HARCOURT: I was pleased to hear the Premier speak about the mood of optimism that he observed, and I will tell you why there is such an optimistic mood among British Columbians. It's because in less than three years, this government is going to be gone finally.

[3:00]

I can tell you that people of the Cariboo are sure looking forward to the Premier visiting the riding many times in the by-election. They'd like the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) to stay away many times. When the Premier said that British Columbians feel more secure about the years ahead, it's because this Social Credit government is going to be gone within three years. That optimism is out there, because the people of this province have a great deal of confidence in the God-given resources they have and the skills that they have. And when they get rid of this Social Credit government, we'll really be able to get on with the future we deserve, a growing future.

I saw the optimism that was demonstrated by the Premier's own backbenchers. At the start of his speech the only two backbenchers here were his seat-mate and the member from Little Mountain, who I'm sure is going to participate in the Premier's estimates today. She expressed her optimism in the Premier and the Social Credit government this day last year, didn't she?

The Premier also mentioned that Manitoba had things going very badly under the New Democratic government. Well, I'll take their 7 percent unemployment rate when the New Democrats were government there over the 15 percent in Kamloops. I was just in Kamloops, and they wonder where their multiplex is; they wonder where the great economy is; they wonder where the jobs are. It's a figment of the Premier's imagination.

The people of British Columbia do indeed have a great deal of optimism about this great province of ours, but they don't have optimism in this government. You can practice your Dale Carnegie positive-thinking style of politics and believe that yourselves, but it's only this group of loyalist cabinet that believes that anymore. It's only the loyalists who protected the Premier's butt last summer.

We heard the "three Es" speech again, and I would like to ask the Premier a series of questions about a number of other very important areas to British Columbians. I want to start by addressing the issue of this cabinet's powers, particularly powers that relate to the agricultural land reserve. This is an area where British Columbians are not expressing a great deal of optimism. As a matter of fact, they're downright angry about the way the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands were taken out of the agricultural land reserve by cabinet contrary to the decisions of the agricultural land reserve.

These arbitrary cabinet powers were established in 1977 under Social Credit at the same time that the Agricultural Land Commission was stripped of its responsibility for greenbelts, land banks and recreational lands. The Premier knows this well, because he knows the history of the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands, because he's been intimately involved with the paving over of these agricultural lands. He knows that the public and the press are aware of the Terra Nova and the Spetifore farmlands and the willingness of this government to help a few on-side Socreds against the wishes of the people of Richmond, who came out in overwhelming numbers to protest the decision on the agricultural land at Terra Nova being removed and the 94 percent of the residents of South Delta, 6,000 of them, who showed up to vote to say no to removing the lands from the agricultural land reserve. Those are two instances of the citizens of British Columbia not optimistic about this government and the way they have eliminated agricultural lands for their developer friends and insiders.

On the issue of the cabinet's powers, I'd like to ask the Premier if he is open to an inquiry into the cabinet's ALR powers and the relationship between his cabinet and those developers who have benefited from cabinet's Terra Nova and Spetifore decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm asking the Premier a question as to whether he would be willing to have an inquiry into the cabinet's decisions on the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands. The citizens in Richmond and Delta, and many other citizens, would like to know why those decisions were made. Would the Premier be willing to have a public inquiry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times we've said that the records are public; all of the information is there. We know how the regional district voted on this. We know how the regional parks committee voted on it. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a friend called Harry Rankin who keeps a close watch on the regional district activities for him and did while he was mayor. He, too, voted for it. We know that all of these people voted for it. We know it was

[ Page 8660 ]

unanimous. We know the parks committee took a tour of the property, and they came back and said: "Yes, we'll support the application."

We know that they told Delta to make its application. Delta council supported the application. We know that in Richmond the council has had not only public hearings, but committee meetings time and time again. Yes, I'll grant you it was perhaps from time to time divided along NDP and free-enterprise lines. That could well be; I don't argue that. But I don't hear those NDP council members there screaming that somehow we should kill the local government process, and that somehow the provincial government must now become involved in all of those activities that were previously within local jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is something here for all of us. There is a message, and the message is that if the NDP ever — heaven forbid — took control, they would take over immediately from local government if any decision was made that they didn't agree with. We've seen it time and time again. If there is a decision made by local government that they don't agree with, they want to take the place of local government. We respect local government and will continue to respect local government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue working for the defeat of local government in this province, he won't get anywhere with it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, this is the Premier who eliminated the letters patent for regional districts and their planning in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, so they couldn't deal with the growth problems that we're facing right now. This is the Premier who was part of the government in 1977 that took away the ability of regional districts to participate in ALR decisions. This is the Premier who was part of bringing in Bill 9; you remember the infamous Bill 9.

This is the Premier who brought in the land use act that would strip local government of its ability to make decisions. Not only that, it was such an extremist, centralizing, draconian piece of legislation that when he tried to get it through his cabinet, the Premier of the day and his cabinet colleagues said it was a terrible, centralizing, extremist piece of legislation that would decimate local participation, local councils and regional districts.

As a matter of fact, I'll refresh the Premier's memory, Mr. Chairman. You recall that in 1983 when the Premier was turned down flat by the cabinet and Premier of the day, he rushed out in a huff. He puffed, and he said that he was going to quit, that the Social Credit government was gutless: it didn't want to take away the powers of local government.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier can't have it both ways. If the Premier is not prepared — on behalf of the many citizens who have expressed their outrage about the paving over of the prime agricultural land in the lower mainland — to have an inquiry into the cabinet's ALR powers, I'm sure he's aware that we have introduced legislation to curb the cabinet's arbitrary powers to exclude farmland from the ALR. Would the Premier tell us then if, in the interest of preserving our province's farmland — and we know it's very valuable; only 5 percent of the province is potentially available for farmland — he is planning to support action to curb the cabinet's interference in the ALR and in the independent ability of the Agricultural Land Commission to act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I won't comment much on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to regional planning or what was done in years past, because on each and every count he was wrong. But I'm not going to get into that, because I can understand that not being here very much, he can't have time for the research.

The question is: are we prepared to interfere in the process? I've said it before: we respect the role of local government in all of this and we'll continue to respect the role of local government. I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that it pays dividends. When Dave Barrett addressed the UBCM in 1975, he was booed off the stage. When we go to the UBCM we get an enormous reception, because local government respects the fact that we respect the authority of local government. So learn from that experience.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier has said that he agrees totally with those cabinet decisions. He's not prepared to have an inquiry, which many citizens have asked for. He's not prepared to curb the cabinet's ability to arbitrarily interfere with Agricultural Land Commission decisions. So his position is very clear. The Premier has expressed his satisfaction about the emasculation of the Agricultural Land Commission and the overriding of local citizens and their desire to preserve agricultural land for future generations of British Columbians.

[3:15]

Now that the Premier has very clearly expressed those opinions, I would like to deal with another matter of great importance to the working people of British Columbia, and that's the whole question of ethics in government. Our citizens expect our ethical standards to be of the highest. I understand that the Premier has expressed his satisfaction many times with his government's actions over the Knight Street Pub scandal, yet the Premier supposedly fired David Poole and gave him a $100,000 golden handshake and very generous pension benefits, paid for by the taxpayers. But he did fire David Poole for his role in this scandal, and he also knows that Bert Hick was fired as well.

I'd like to ask the Premier this: does he accept the principle that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) played a role in the cover-up of the scandal and should resign his seat?

[ Page 8661 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, I think this whole House finds the term "cover-up" offensive. It's unparliamentary, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, on many occasions during this session the Chair has brought to the attention of all members a quotation from Sir Erskine May with respect to the kind of language that should be used in parliamentary debate. The atmosphere that has prevailed since we got into debate on vote 4 early this afternoon has not been really conducive, I don't suppose, to the use of good parliamentary language, but we should always try our best. It is perhaps an unfortunate word, and the Leader of the Opposition would, I'm sure, be pleased to withdraw it,

Maybe the temper of this debate as we proceed through the afternoon could be brought up to a point where no matter what anyone says, it will be acceptable to the Chair as being parliamentary.

MR. HARCOURT: I'll withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's very clear that the people of B.C. find the ethics of this Knight Street Pub issue abhorrent. Somebody was fired, although we were told originally by the Premier and David Poole that he left of his own accord, that it was a genial leaving; then he receives $100,000 of taxpayers' money, plus another $75,000 on paying up his pension. Another employee who told a lie was fired — Bert Hick. Everybody is quite clear on that. We had the report from the ombudsman, who finally had to intervene because the minister wasn't taking care of this matter. It has been an embarrassment and badly handled by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

The Premier talked a lot about ethics and morality. In 1986 he talked about a fresh start, and I would have thought this would have been an opportunity for him to demonstrate his commitment to ethics in government and to moral standards, because if there's an example that people in this province have found repugnant, it is surely the events surrounding the Knight Street Pub. I would like to ask the Premier whether he doesn't feel that the conduct of the minister of consumer affairs and his involvement in this Knight Street Pub matter is such that he should have resigned his seat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, let me say that the numbers quoted by the Leader of the Opposition are wrong. The facts are wrong, and this has already been canvassed and is not to be canvassed again. It's not a part of the estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to ask a question of the Premier on this issue. The question, I think, is an important one, because it deals with ethics and morality in government and the standard of conduct expected from ministers in government.

The person to whom it falls to make those judgments is the Premier. The Premier, in introducing his conflict-of — interest guidelines, talked about the standards expected from ministers. We have, in this instance, a tremendous legacy of reports that deal with the facts. We have lies being told by officials. We've had admissions by ministers that they knew what was going on, and they chose not to act in light of a whole series of, I would say, lies. It's the only way one can describe it. I was trying to think of a more polite way to put it. A minister is acquiescing to that type of behaviour.

Given the fact that it's the Premier's responsibility to deal with these matters of conduct of ministers, does he not think, in retrospect, after we've gone through this whole situation — it's had time to cool down — that the appropriate thing to have done in that case was to ask for his minister's resignation in light of what had transpired?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know that this has been canvassed. These issues have been looked at by the former Chief Justice of the province, by the Attorney-General's ministry and by the ombudsman. These issues have been looked at independently, and we've canvassed them in the House.

I appreciate that the NDP is of the opinion that unless it is some type of political answer that they would like that suits their particular agenda, it isn't good enough. I'm not going to fall into that trap. It's been canvassed, and I'll not canvass it anymore here.

MR. HARCOURT: We're canvassing the Premier's election promise of 1986, when he promised a fresh start; he promised open and honest government. I think what we're hearing today is that that is rhetoric. It is not an action that he intends to take. His commitment was only empty rhetoric.

In his handling of this Knight Street Pub affair and the way he has defended his minister's conduct, which has been shameful.... We have had overwhelming evidence from citizens who had to come forward from south Vancouver to talk about the tampered plebiscite. Other pub-owners were pushed aside who had perfectly valid applications that were ahead of Peter Toigo's pub application, and yet it went forward. We have had an official lie. We have had political interference from the Premier's principal secretary. We have had, over and over again, a totally inadequate minister not dealing with this in the way that a minister of the Crown should deal with it. And now we have the Premier say that he is defending and agreeing with that 100 percent. It shows that his commitment to open and honest government in 1986 was indeed empty rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know what the people of British Columbia expect in terms of having open and honest government. The people don't want empty rhetoric; they want action. They want a conflict-of-interest law that will protect people from dishonest politicians and officials. They want a freedom-of-information law to make government decisions and research available to the public and to the press. They want a new approach to public spending accounts to prevent attempts to hide overspending and mismanagement. They want a whistle-blower's

[ Page 8662 ]

law to protect public servants who blow the whistle on government waste and bad business deals and cover-ups. If there ever was a government that needed that, it's this one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. I appreciate that the member is new, but estimates do not provide for the discussion of legislation or the necessity of legislation.

MR. HARCOURT: We have heard that the Premier is not prepared to take steps to protect the scarce agricultural land in this province; he's not prepared to take steps to protect the citizens of British Columbia from dishonest politicians or officials. He has shown us where his level of ethics and morality really is on these very essential principles to our democracy.

When he talked of showing strong leadership, I had to shake my head to think about that one, because I was thinking yes, the Premier has shown strong leadership for Peter Toigo; he's shown strong leadership for David Poole; he's shown strong leadership for the developers of the Spetifore and Terra Nova lands and for those who want to take the lands out of the agricultural land reserve and build condominiums and golf courses throughout the Okanagan.

He's shown strong leadership, but you know, Mr. Chairman, it's strong leadership for a privileged few and insider friends of this government. That's what strong leadership is to this Social Credit government. It's not for the working people of British Columbia, and I would like to say, on top of who this government represents, it certainly doesn't represent a leadership for the people of British Columbia that I spoke about earlier who have great confidence in our province and in our resources and their skills. He hasn't shown the vision that they expect.

We have a government that refuses to recognize that this great province, 40 years ago, two generations ago, had a million people, that it now has three million people, and in another two generations it will have five million people. It hasn't anticipated that growth, certainly not in the lower mainland where people are strangling on the growth problem, with air pollution, congested roads, inadequate transit, farmland being lost that could feed the growing population. It has failed to anticipate the fact that we are going to have another two million people come into this province over the next 40 years and we can't put them all in the lower mainland.

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that this government has no vision, no optimism about the future of British Columbia. Otherwise it would have anticipated the growth of population of the people who want to come from all over the rest of Canada and from other countries to live in this great province of ours.

We do not have a vision from this Social Credit government and this Premier that recognizes the growth that will occur in greater Vancouver, and because of that, we have the tragedy in Kerrisdale in Vancouver of a number of senior citizens being put out on the street because housing programs are not sufficient and because there are no laws that have any teeth in them to deal with developers who are going to demolish perfectly sound buildings. There is an insufficient supply of serviced land for young couples to be able to get into their own home.

There is no growth plan for the lower mainland, and what is happening is that there is too much growth in greater Vancouver and not enough in other areas of the province. That could have been anticipated, and this government hasn't anticipated it. That's why we've got a zero vacancy rate for tenants throughout Vancouver and other areas of the lower mainland and many other centres.

This government didn't anticipate the problems with transit, with traffic, with air pollution, with polluting our water with the sewage treatment that we don't have. And do you know something, Mr. Chairman? One of the problems is that we are going to have a very serious challenge to dig out the lack of vision and foresight that this government has shown in dealing with the growth of the greater Vancouver area.

[3:30]

What has happened in the rest of the province is equally a very clear example of the lack of vision and lack of ability to take strong leadership for the working people of this province.

I've just come back, as some people have pointed out, from the Cariboo and from Kamloops. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the Cariboo are looking forward to seeing the Premier many times, just as they did in Boundary-Similkameen. They want to talk to the Premier about the mine that's closed in 100 Mile House. They want to talk to him about the wood plant with $6 million in public subsidy that closed. They want to talk to him about what the mills are going to do after the temporary cut for the beetle infestation problem; what's going to happen when that ends this year, and where the wood is going to come from. They want to talk to him about a number of issues that people in the Cariboo are going to be bringing forward in the by-election.

In Kamloops, I'll tell you, they'd sure like to talk to their MLAs if they could find them. They'd sure like to talk to them about the 15 percent unemployment. They'd like to talk to them about the multiplex that we've been pushing for; our member for Vancouver East was pushing for it just the other day, as a matter of fact. The council finally located their two wandering MLAs. They finally cornered them, and they said: "Gee, we may be able to do something; maybe, but we're not quite sure."

What's happened in this province is that we have too much growth in the lower mainland that could have been anticipated and hasn't been anticipated by this Social Credit government, and too little in the rest of the province. It's going to take a great deal of good, hard work to balance that out; to make sure that the quality of life of people in the lower mainland isn't diminished any more than it already has been by this government's lack of leadership, by the weak leadership that this Social Credit government

[ Page 8663 ]

has shown in dealing with the half of the population that now lives in the lower mainland, at the same time not dealing with the lack of growth in the rest of the province. Lots of rhetoric, lots of talk, lots of meat-packing plants in Vanderhoof that never quite happened.

That's why, when I heard some of the words of the Premier about strong leadership, I shook my head. It's certainly strong leadership for the privileged few and the insider friends of the Premier and this Social Credit government, but it sure isn't strong leadership for the working people of this province, and it sure isn't strong leadership for the growth problems that we're having In British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, one of the positive initiatives that New Democrats have taken in this session of the Legislature to try and deal with another area where this Social Credit government has basically just exercised empty rhetoric, as they have in a number of areas, was to put forward an environment and jobs accord to deal with the land use conflicts that are holding back the development of British Columbia. New Democrats feel that it's the inability of this Premier and this government to bring the key players together to sort out these land use conflicts that is holding back our economy. It's their lack of acceptance that we need rational land use planning, not more battles between loggers and environmentalists and natives and non-natives and forest companies and local communities. It's the lack of recognition that there are three goals that need to be reached under the land use approach required in British Columbia.

I would like to outline those three goals that are required in British Columbia, but first the member for Victoria would like to say a few words.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the line of questioning of the official opposition leader is of interest to all those who are listening through the radio network of this province. I think it's time the Premier was brought to task. It's time for the report card, and I think this is of interest to all of us. I would like the leader to continue.

MR. HARCOURT: As I was saying, it's this government's inability to bring the various key players together in this province. It's their inability to recognize the need for rational land use planning, to cut down on the battles that we have between British Columbians. It's their lack of recognition that we have to come to agreement on three goals that are going to move British Columbia ahead. We are going to forge an environment and jobs accord between environmentalists, the logging community and native people.

Those three goals are: a sustainable timber supply so that our forest workers, their families and communities can have a viable future; the preservation and even doubling of our unique parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia to accommodate the two million new people who are coming into this province and the many more tourists who are going to be visiting this great province of ours; and third, the recognition of aboriginal rights and the negotiation of native land claims.

Those are three of the essential goals that British Columbians have to strive for. The Premier surely has to recognize, if we are going to reach those three goals, that his government is not going to succeed by just setting up another window-dressing committee going around the province talking to native people. That committee is not going to work unless his government recognizes that aboriginal title exists; that it hasn't been extinguished. Let's negotiate, not spend $100 million in courts litigating on this and other matters around the aboriginal issue.

Does the Premier accept that unless his government recognizes aboriginal rights and land claims, we can never achieve such an accord that is so essential to our province? Does the Premier recognize that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I appreciate the support from the Leader of the Opposition for our regionalization program. Obviously he has come to recognize finally that regionalization is working in this province, that there has to be an opportunity for people to have some input in deciding what they wish to see prioritized when it comes to roads, transportation and infrastructure generally, or that people must be allowed to participate in identifying resources and creating new industries and new jobs.

I commend the people of the Cariboo when I see what they did in Williams Lake, where they met and identified a waste-wood resource which was simply being burned, with the ashes going into the atmosphere, producing nothing at all other than pollution from the burners. They said,"How can we use this waste material?" and they now have discussions ongoing. Hopefully we will see something finalized soon for a chipboard plant and a co-generating plant in Williams Lake.

I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cariboo, he didn't have time for local government. He didn't visit or talk to the mayors of 100 Mile House, Williams Lake or Quesnel. But I can tell him from having had discussions with all three only very recently within the last several weeks that they not only support regionalization; they believe it's one of the best programs that's ever been introduced for the interior, for the northern part of the province, for the eastern part of the province, for those regions where we would like to see more diversity, more job opportunity and a better quality of life that will attract the people there.

Unlike what the Leader of the Opposition says, you can't simply go in and pass the laws he would suggest, saying: "You can't any longer live in greater Vancouver. We are going to ban you from moving to the lower mainland." You can't do that. You have to have a regionalization program that encourages these people to go to these other areas.

You know, we've heard from the Leader of the Opposition a number of times now the suggestion that we should somehow involve ourselves in the

[ Page 8664 ]

local decision-making process, that we must, whenever a decision is arrived at by local government, take the place of local government and reverse or change that decision in order to suit the liking of the provincial government of the day.

I've told him time and time again that we as a government historically and always have. I suppose that's why we've only had three years of socialistic rule...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...ever in this province, because we respect local government. I am proud, as I said a little earlier, of the tremendous record of this government: the fact that we are leading the country in growth, the fact that we are leading the country in having a balanced budget, the fact that we are leading the country in being recession-proof, leading the country in job creation, leading the country in investment, leading the country in diversification and the fact that we're the only place that's recently been given a triple-A credit rating. I can talk about that, but you won't listen.

Let me ask you a question, Leader of the Opposition. Tell me what you would have done as mayor of Vancouver, when you were there, had the provincial government come in and said: "What you're doing in Kerrisdale is wrong. We'll pass a law that says how it's to be done"? Would you have accepted provincial legislation dictating what it is the Vancouver city council might have done? Would you tell the Vancouver city council what it is they can or can't do? Are you suggesting that a provincial government must always step in and overrule a local government when a decision is arrived at we don't like?

I appreciate that is as we see socialism and the New Democratic Party to be, because we experienced it in the early seventies. But you're telling us this has all changed, and now we hear you time and time again asking us to intervene in local government.

I welcome further questions from the Leader of the Opposition.

[3:45]

MR. HARCOURT: He may welcome them, Mr. Chairman, but he won't answer them.

I asked him a very straightforward question that got lost in one of his — I won't say rants — meanderings to some of his favourite topics. By the way, we did canvass some of these topics in 1984 when he visited our city. He came to visit our city and ran for mayor. I gave him a guided tour of our city for about two months and pointed out the Expo lands. I shouldn't have done that, because if I hadn't pointed them out to him he couldn't have said: "Gee, now I can go sell them to a billionaire somewhere in the world." I'm looking forward to giving the Premier a guided tour of British Columbia where people can say, as that song from the press put it at our press party: "Goodbye."

The Premier refused to answer my question on aboriginal land claims, and I assume he's still taking the same position he has all along, which is going to hold up this very important environment and jobs accord that I have mentioned as central to the well-being of British Columbians. We'll pursue it. We'll pursue a sustainable timber supply; we'll pursue the preservation and enhancement of our park and wilderness areas in this province; and we'll pursue settling in a comprehensive way with the aboriginal people of this province in a way that's of benefit to natives and non-natives alike.

Out of courtesy to the Premier, I will answer his questions. He asked me a question. He said: "When you were mayor of Vancouver would you have accepted the provincial government coming into Vancouver to deal with the Kerrisdale problem?" I would like the Premier to know that the Social Credit government was asked to do some things to protect tenants and make sure there was affordable housing in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver asked for demolition controls so that senior citizens weren't thrown out on the street, and Social Credit turned down that request of the council.

The city council in Vancouver asked for the restoration of the rentalsman so that unjustified rent increases, unfair evictions and the bullying of tenants and a quick speedy way to expedite landlord and tenant disputes could be dealt with, and this Social Credit government turned down the council in Vancouver.

Many councils have requested that the Social Credit government, including this one, make sure there is land on the Expo sites that would be kept for single parents, seniors, people with disabilities and low-income citizens in Vancouver. Do you know what this government did? It sold one of the five best sites in the world without making provision for the low-income citizens. That's another request that was turned down not just by the request of the council that I happened to have the honour of being the mayor of — and being re-elected three times in a row.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, including the 1984 election where we canvassed Expo, the SkyTrain and B.C. Place. We heard these same arguments. I heard them in 1980 when I sought a mandate to be mayor, and I was elected mayor against an incumbent mayor. We heard these same arguments in 1982 when I was running for mayor for re-election. And do you know what happened? The citizens of Vancouver increased my margin from 3,000 votes to 35,000 against an opponent using the same argument. Then just to prove how tiresome Social Credit can be in repeating something that gets fixated in their brain cells, I heard those same arguments from the first member for Richmond and the Premier of this province now when he visited our city to run against me for mayor to make exactly those same points. Do you know what happened to my margin of victory? It didn't go down; it didn't stay the same. It went up to the largest margin of victory in the city's history; that's what happened. So please just keep raising those

[ Page 8665 ]

arguments over and over again, particularly in the Cariboo.

I wanted to deal with what the Premier had to say about the Cariboo, and whether I had met with the councils in Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House. The answer, Mr. Premier, is yes — not just once on a fly-through. I have met with the councils there, and they remember Bill 9. They remember the land use act; they remember who was against local participation, local decision-making and local government. They know that it was the Premier of this province right now who was trying to squelch local government.

Do you know what they also know? It was this government and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) who turned down a request for involvement in the local forests. Those three councils — Quesnel, 100 Mile House and Williams Lake — put in a municipal reforestation and silviculture program. Do you know what happened to them? They were pushed aside over and over again; they had to beat down doors and come back over and over again. I heard that two years ago, and they were given short shrift by this Social Credit government.

If you want to talk about respect for local government, I'm prepared to put my track record and the track record of New Democrats against the Premier's track record and Social Credit's track record any day of the week.

The other question that I wanted to ask the Premier — as he's not prepared to change his mind or answer my question on land claims — is one that deals with the poor forest management of his government and past governments, which has led us to the position where we don't have a sustainable timber supply in our province. I would like to ask the Premier whether he accepts that with the poor forest management his government now practises, we will not have a sustainable timber supply in our province, that will be lost and forest communities will be forever threatened.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House my deputy minister and secretary to the executive council, Mr. Frank Rhodes; Ms. Lynn Langford, deputy secretary, executive council policy and legislation; Mr. Vick Farley, special adviser, constitutional affairs and intergovernmental relations; and Ms. Jan Hemming, manager, administration office of the Premier.

One of the questions posed was with respect to aboriginal land claims and what we might do in order to work more closely with native people in the province. We have seen an excellent record over the last several years by this government in working with native people, and certainly the fact that we were the first government to provide local autonomy to an Indian band is an example of that. Also we have a Premier's native council which will be meeting with native groups and tribal councils throughout the province.

MRS. BOONE: They sure like that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You say they sure like that. Let's look at what the NDP did between 1972 and 1975 — nothing at all. Not only did you not have such a council, you didn't even have a minister responsible for native affairs. You did nothing for the native people, and the native people know this. The NDP have the worst record of any government in the history of this province. Well, maybe that's a bit far back; but it goes back a long way of not having performed on behalf of native people. Sure, you do a lot of talking in here, but let's look at the record; let's look at the period 1972-75 and see what the NDP did for the native people of this province: nothing at all. No native council to meet with native tribal councils throughout the province; you didn't care. No minister responsible for native affairs; you didn't care. Your track record is lousy. You talk up a fine storm, but you've done nothing. History certainly shows that you've done nothing.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

You talk about settling native land claims. Yes, we've held the position that this is a federal responsibility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So did Dave Barrett.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: So did Dave Barrett say, to his credit, that as a part of Confederation, yes, it was a federal responsibility. Now we have a new Leader of the Opposition who says: "People of British Columbia, trust me. I'll go out there and meet with all of the native people, and I'll settle all the land claims." Frankly, I doubt very much if the people of British Columbia want to leave that to your abilities, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

They would probably agree that the process, I grant you, is not as we would have it. I concur that when all of this ends up in the courts, it can be very expensive. You know that firsthand, of course, because you're in the courts now with your principal secretary, who alleges that he was falsely terminated; you know what it costs to go into the courts. I am sure that you are faced with a big legal bill in fighting a wrongful dismissal with your principal secretary. So I agree, this is expensive. It's expensive for you when you're fighting your former principal secretary, and it's expensive for us when we see these native questions get into the courts throughout the province. Only the lawyers benefit by this type of exercise. We must work to bring about a better approach to addressing this whole question or the way that the federal government is coming at addressing the land-claim question.

But to say that the Leader of the Opposition will, on his white charger, go into the province and sit down with native councils and try to settle land claims not only on behalf of the native people, as you yourself said, but on behalf of many of the people who are presently farming the land, logging on those lands, have businesses on those lands or are living on those lands.... I don't believe that the people of this

[ Page 8666 ]

province would want all that responsibility passed on to a person such as you, Leader of the Opposition. I think the people would want it to remain the responsibility of the federal government to pay for the land-claim issue.

[4:00]

That's not to say we couldn't improve the process. We're working towards that end. It's my hope that as we meet with the tribal councils throughout the province, we will hear, we will listen and we will learn. As you yourself have said, Mr. Leader of the Opposition — and I've said it many times myself — we are no doubt the most open government there ever was in this province. We consult. We have a cabinet that travels to different parts of the province and meets with people. We have our social services committee of cabinet. We have our regional development committee of cabinet. We meet with the people throughout the province. We seek their input not only through the regionalization process but also through the committee process. We listen to the people, we respond to their wishes and we attempt to involve them as much as possible, without taking over, as you've proposed it be done.

You also made mention of sustainable development. I agree that we are in a time when obviously we must provide for the concerns of people when it comes to protecting a quality of life, to protecting open space and park space. We've done this in spades. The record, as I said earlier, will show that we've created more park space than any other jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of Alaska.

I agree as well that undoubtedly we'll be looking at new methods of logging, new methods of forestry, new approaches in the industry, which is why we have a forestry council which will seek the opinion of people in the industry, people on the outside, people belonging to various groups or just individuals, to see how things might be done more effectively.

But let's again look at the record. Compare the silviculture program; compare the tree-planting program; compare all of that which is being done in forestry today with the NDP record of '72, '73, '74 and part of '75. You'd have to agree that it was shocking. It doesn't come up at all to the standards that we've established today, thanks to our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and his ministry. They've done a commendable job, and people know this. They see it; the record is there.

Madam Chairman, I have some other answers or information that I could provide on the agricultural land reserve questions, but I'll keep these for later. Maybe there could be more questions from the Leader of the Opposition. I would appreciate that.

MR. DAVIDSON: Madam Chairman, we've heard a great deal relating to allegations of undue influence in the Expo lands sale. We've also heard other allegations surrounding the awarding of the contract, the bidding process and the operation of the Enterprise Corporation itself. It's really time for the people of British Columbia to know the truth. British Columbians can no longer be expected to contend with the supposition, innuendo and inference with which we have been deluged over this past long period of time. For far too long the opposition has conveniently jumped on the bandwagon and followed the tune which our media gurus have been playing for a long, long time. It was the easiest course for the opposition to follow, because a campaign to destroy the Premier was underway, a campaign which on thorough examination will, I believe, have little semblance of fact, but will demonstrate a great deal of imagined fiction.

If the Premier wants his actions fully understood and even appreciated by the public of this province, then he has only one course of action open to him. That course of action is to hold a judicial inquiry into the entire matter. Let's examine just a few of the areas where a full-fledged judicial inquiry with every right to subpoena witnesses, examine files and documents and obviate secrecy agreements could begin.

One of the largest development projects in the history of this province has been so clouded with controversy and so linked with allegations that the real potential for this land has been almost totally obscured. Throughout this province the Expo lands sale has been associated with a person whose name is no stranger in this place, and that is Mr. Peter Toigo; yet with the exception of the Premier himself, I don't believe there is another person whose background has been so carefully scrutinized by so many people all trying to confirm false, malicious or fabricated stories about personal character, integrity or honesty. With all these people and all their research and all their rock-turning, not a single issue of consequence has been validated surrounding the Expo lands sale; but the doubts in the public's mind remain, and unless the clouds are cleared, the public will never have a full appreciation of the facts or understand the complexities of this entire process.

The Expo lands were never intended as a private fiefdom for a privileged few to consider their own economic playground, nor was it a project intended to be turned over to a group of politically partisan businessmen for their own personal profit., But that impression exists, an impression which has been carefully nurtured, encouraged and repeated to the people of this province by a media and an opposition determined to destroy the credibility of the Premier and the government. The opposition's motives are clear. They are political, and that's their job. What excuses there are for a media who refuse to do their job, who ignore fact, who stand around in corridors or sit in their office waiting for phony brown envelopes, is another matter entirely. Had the media of this province got off their collective biased butts, much more could have been brought forward, would have been brought forward and should have been brought forward. Investigative reporting means more than trying to validate your own hypothesis. It means digging, digging and more digging.

I want to ask a very simple question: why is a secret bidding process necessary for government owned Crown land? Certainly everyone can understand and appreciate the necessity for confidentiality

[ Page 8667 ]

in the bidding process, but once that process is completed and the successful bidder has been determined, why do we not let the people of British Columbia know what the rest of the bids were? If it's private land, then you can set whatever rules you like; but it's public land, and the public has a right to know.

Too often secrecy agreements are perceived as a convenience to bid-rigging rather than a convenience to the public. Many, many months ago Mr. Peter Brown, Mr. Peter Toigo, Mr. Podmore, Mr. Murphy, along with others, met at the Expo site and reviewed Mr. Toigo's presentation of a festival park for part of the Expo site, which would in essence be a marketing tool for B.C. industry. It was to incorporate many of the rides and attractions of Expo, but it would highlight B.C.'s economic and industrial opportunities. Not only did those individuals appear to be impressed, but at Peter Brown's suggestion it was recommended that Mr. Toigo and Mr. Jack Poole get together on a joint proposal.

In addition, it was suggested that an offer of approximately $160 million would be sufficient to win the bid. This was based on $40 million down and $120 million on terms. Later, however, that bid was increased to $50 million down and $110 million on terms — terms, by the way, more profitable to the provincial treasury than those finally awarded to Concord Pacific. Interestingly enough, the proposal by Toigo and the proposal by Jack Poole never included the parking facilities around the stadium, yet the successful Concord Pacific bid did include the parking facilities. How could the parking-lot for the stadium be sold when it wasn't even asked for? What possible rationale is there for selling the parking land around the stadium?

Madam Chairman, Mr. Poole subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Toigo, saying that in the political interests of BCE, the former Daon company which Mr. Poole represented in his bid, it was felt that either they — BCE — or Mr. Toigo should make the bid, but not both and not together. Now what prompted this letter can only be left to speculation or, better yet, to a judicial inquiry, In any case, Mr. Toigo dropped out of the bidding process at that time but started to watch very carefully the goings-on surrounding the strange occurrences in the Enterprise Corporation.

It would appear, from information that has been made available to some, that prior to the October stock market crash a group headed by the Enterprise chairman himself was preparing to put up almost $400 million, with the help of Merrill Lynch, for the entire corporation, and subsequently establish a merchant bank — about $100 million less than Mr. Toigo's final offer for the entire corporation.

Another strange thing took place. The loan portfolio of the Enterprise Corporation was written down by some $52 million. Reasons for that are best known to the corporation. What a surprise that $52 million written down proved to be unnecessary; the portfolio appeared very solid.

Questions which must be asked also surround the very rich severance packages for key employees. Was the money raised from the severance package to form part of the equity for the offer to purchase? Was Expo's own money to be used to take over the corporation which in fact was paying for the severance? This again is a question which can only be answered at a judicial inquiry

Madam Chairman, there are some other interesting questions. As you know, the government occupies a considerable amount of space on the Expo site, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put into leasehold improvements for those buildings. The question which must be asked is simply this: why is it that those buildings were sold without a leaseback arrangement to the province? Now the province has to vacate their own buildings, and we have to take space at the Pan Pacific Hotel, which undoubtedly is going to cost more money in leasehold improvements.

We have to ask what instructions the directors were under when they made these decisions. The people of the province want to know. They want to know what was going on. They want to know how decisions like these could be made; and if they were made, the reasons for making them. Who would keep a stadium and sell a parking-lot? Who would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for leasehold improvements and then sell the buildings without a leaseback arrangement? Why was so much secrecy involved and necessary in the bidding process surrounding the Expo site?

We are entitled to know the truth. We are here as elected officials to represent the people. We are not here to hide the facts or to cloud the issues. We are here to protect the public interest.

The people of this province feel let down, they feel suspect and, most importantly, they feel they have a right to know the truth. Only a full judicial inquiry will ever let the people know what happened to the most expensive piece of property in the western hemisphere. Only a judicial inquiry will let us know how, after all the expenses are taken into account for the reclamation of land, we could realize so little cash.

There are other questions that must be answered, questions that again can only be answered in a full judicial inquiry. Why was the meeting between Mr. Toigo and Mr. Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong so urgently prevented? How did the confidential documents in the hands of certain individuals and prepared by Mr. Toigo end up in the hands of his competitors? Why were other bidders not encouraged to put forward scale models of their presentation, just as Concord Pacific's model was presented to the Expo board? Were, in fact, other proposals discouraged from putting forward scale models? And lastly, why has the money due the province disappeared as quickly as the lagoons in the scale model of the actual design that was put forward?

Madam Chairman, Expo 86 was an overwhelming success. It opened our province to the eyes of the world. The disposition of the assets of Expo 86 leaves a legacy of a different kind. We are here to serve the interests of the people of British Columbia, and the

[ Page 8668 ]

air must be cleared once and for all. Only the Premier can take such action and order such an inquiry, and in the interests of protecting the image of himself, his government and this province, I urge him to do that forthwith.

MR. MERCIER: It's one thing to listen to the opposition providing misinformation, but it's something else to have one of your own colleagues providing misinformation. I would like to make a few brief remarks. I won't get into all the details, but I just want to comment on the bidding process used in the disposal of the Expo lands.

[4:15]

The ads were run worldwide. The selection committee narrowed down the applicants to those who had the financial capability to make an acquisition and complete a development of the size contemplated. The initial selection narrowed the bidders down to five, and in those five the winning bid was so far above the second bid that there was a free fall to the next bidder.

The evidence of that is simple. In business, if you think you've had an unfair process imposed on you, there would have been a comment made. There wasn't a whimper out of any of the bidders. Because the zoning of the land wasn't in place, some of the largest and most capable companies in the world wouldn't even submit a bid. They didn't want to face the uncertainties of zoning problems and concerns over the possible — and they turned out to be minor — environmental problems on the site. The province received the best price available in the whole world, and of the people who are commenting on this, none have bothered to go through that process and look at the ads that were run and the newspaper reports that were made.

Further evidence is that the current developer still hasn't got a permit from the city of Vancouver to develop the site, because they're still working on zoning matters and environmental matters. If you can find another developer who will put up $50 million — that's running at about 13 percent interest at current interest levels — then you should be talking about who you would have had put that bid up, not on the process and not on some idea of secrecy. How can you have secrecy when you run worldwide ads and publish the format? It was only in the last stage of the bidding, when the $200,000 non-refundable deposits had to be posted, that the procedure was in camera. There was nothing secret about the bidding process, nothing secret about the terms, and I just wanted to straighten the Legislature out on those matters.

MR. HARCOURT: I was intrigued to hear the last two speakers, because the public inquiry into the Expo land sales is something that I asked for over a year ago on behalf of the New Democratic caucus.

We didn't do it on the basis of trying to vindicate a friend of the Premier and the shameless interference by the Premier's office on behalf of that friend of the Premier. And we weren't attacking the board members of BCEC for doing anything that in their judgment was the proper way to deal with the land. Our criticism of the BCEC board of directors wasn't that they were acting in what they thought was the right way to act. We said we disagreed with the sale of the land and that it should have been leased, and we said it should have been broken down into smaller parcels so that individual and smaller developers and contractors could have had an opportunity to bid on that land. We wanted a far more open process for the citizens of British Columbia, putting together the concept rather than having three large billionaires square off against each other. So in answer to the member for Burnaby, we have never said that the decision of the board was anything but a judgment call that we disagreed with, and I want to make that very clear.

I also want to expand on what the member for Delta has said. We believe, and have believed for many months — as a matter of fact, right back to the spring of 1988 — that there needs to be a full public inquiry into the Expo land deal. But it's not for the reason the member for Delta talks about; it's because we disagreed, as I said, on a matter of judgment call and approach by the board of directors of BCEC. We think that needs to be scrutinized, but more importantly it's the appalling interference by the Premier's office on behalf of friends of the Premier that we want to have looked into.

That's why we thought the people of British Columbia needed a public inquiry, not so that various factions and groups in the Social Credit caucus and party can have at each other. By the way, I notice that the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain(Mrs. McCarthy), who was here previously, is no longer here. I wonder why. The reason why we want to see a public inquiry is not to sort out a feud inside Social Credit, but for the very important reason that we want the people of British Columbia to be assured that they got the best deal they could for this land. That's the reason we need a public inquiry and the reason we back a public inquiry.

I'd like to now deal with some matters of great urgency to the citizens of British Columbia, and the Premier's constant attempts to impose his personal views on the rest of British Columbians and put his personal views ahead of his public responsibility. In particular, it's the input of his office on his recent canning of the AIDS video, the imposition of standards of morality on people who are suffering from AIDS, and not making the AZT drug available to those poor citizens in British Columbia who are suffering from this dreadful disease. I would like to say, Madam Chairperson, that we look on the Premier's intervention in dealing with this very tragic and serious problem, this health hazard to many people in the world and some of our citizens in British Columbia — as a matter of fact, about 2, 600 people right now who have tested positive for HIV... We look on the Premier's not making the AIDS video available to young people this summer as immoral. We think it is immoral not to do everything we can to save people's lives, particularly young

[ Page 8669 ]

people. You may disagree with the approach, but that video was done with the best of intentions: to reach young people in a way that they could understand and in a milieu where they will be, in the theatres across this province. We think that the Premier's actions and the actions of this government to not do everything we can, even to preserve one life. Even if that video preserves one life, it will have been worth it. The Premier's actions are dangerous and a threat to our young people.

We also think that not making AZT funding available to people who are suffering from AIDS was a way of interfering with citizens who want to preserve their lives and need our compassion and understanding, as they are ill with this very serious disease.

I would like to ask the Premier why he insists on imposing his immoral personal views on British Columbians rather than embracing his public responsibility.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Madam Chairperson, this is a stupid statement: immoral personal views. The Leader of the Opposition goes on ranting and raving about the fact that there shouldn't be moral considerations when we look at social programs or health programs. Then he goes on to say: "But your view is immoral." So it's all right for him to make a moral value judgment, but for anyone else to make a moral value judgment is wrong if it doesn't coincide with what he thinks the decision ought to have been. On the one hand he says that government should operate in isolation of moral considerations or ethics.... I don't think, frankly, there's that much difference between moral considerations or ethics and the standards that people would want us to adopt. I'm going to go around this province at some point, not too long from now, and I'm going to tell all of the people that the NDP view is exactly what it is: that there should be no moral considerations. So on the one hand he goes around saying this; on the other hand he says: "Your decision with respect to a decision made by the Ministry of Health which I agreed with is immoral." So it's all right for him to make a moral judgment; and his judgment is that it's immoral to have made the decision that the video ought not to have been shown, as the Ministry of Health decided.

What we have further decided is that people in the community — community leaders, young people and others — should see this video and should perhaps pass some opinion on it. He would deny the people that opportunity. He talks about openness; he talks about involving people; he talks about open government. But if he were the Premier, he would simply ram ahead contrary to what the Ministry of Health decided. He would overrule his Minister of Health, and he would ram it down the throats of people, even if the majority of the people decided against the video in viewing it. Isn't that interesting! That's what you consider openness. That's what you consider fairness with the people. And you think that like local government you could simply run roughshod over your ministers and ministries, and have a one-man rule, as you would like to see it. It doesn't matter that the Ministry of Health decided against this; you would decide otherwise.

The most interesting part of all of this, though, is the fact that we keep hearing the Leader of the Opposition talk about ethics; but ethics, I guess, does not include morals; and ethics, I guess, does not include a standard which the people of the province might wish to see for whatever it is we do by way of social programs or health programs. Ethics, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is the way the NDP would have it. I don't think the people of this province want that standard or those sorts of ethics. I think our people still have values much beyond what you've expressed just now, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Frankly, I'm disappointed in your comments.

MR. HARCOURT: Speaking about ethics and ethical standards, I'm sure that the Premier will find this a very awkward one to deal with because it involves conflicts of interest from his staff, who blatantly interfered in the Expo lands. It involves friends who were involved in his campaign, raising funds and sharing his campaign. I'm sure the Premier will find that the request for a public inquiry from the second member for Delta(Mr. Davidson) involves a huge number of conflicts, ethical questions and friendships that he's going to anguish about. I'd like to hear the Premier's answer about the need for a public inquiry into the Expo lands deal.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess it's the same story all over again. The Leader of the Opposition has already told us that he doesn't agree with the member for Delta about why a public inquiry is needed. He's already said what he would like to see a public inquiry be all about or what the result should be.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, it would be by his own standards. He says: "We've already decided that it must be leased, that it should have been leased, and it should have been" — as he told us once earlier — "all developed into social housing and leased land." What's the purpose of an inquiry for you, Leader of the Opposition, if it may not come out exactly as you would have it? You'd continue to scream anyway.

[4:30]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes anyone, the Chair would just like to ask the members to please address the Chair — it enhances the debate.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairperson, I would like to say that I don't expect nor do the members of the New Democratic caucus expect it to be anything but an independent inquiry to look at some of the issues raised by the member for Delta. The issues he

[ Page 8670 ]

raised I can agree with; the reasons he wants the inquiry we have a difference of opinion about. I want to see it take place so that the people of British Columbia can be assured that their land was dealt with properly. The inquiry would look at some of the issues that the member raised: the idea of a merchant bank — he said some people on the board were getting involved in a personal way. If he has evidence of that, let's get it on the table and have an independent inquiry with a respected judge, a person like Doug MacKay who did the inquiry on the Coquihalla and is now doing the inquiry on the natural gas pipeline through the Coquitlam watershed. I would depend on the ability of a good and respected British Columbian to be able to look at issues like that.

The other issues raised by the member for Delta on the write-down of the BCDC loans, the severance packages, the Expo buildings that weren't provided with a leaseback arrangement, are all very important questions. There are some other matters, too, that I think British Columbians would like to look at that weren't looked at, and we raised those last May. They were raised by the previous Attorney-General, who resigned because he felt there was interference by the Premier's office. They were raised by the previous member of the board, the minister responsible, the first member for Little Mountain(Mrs. McCarthy). There are a number of issues that we believe should be canvassed, not just the questions that we've raised, but those of the people I've just outlined.

Yes, the media have raised them too. I don't think they were without diligence at all; I think the media dealt with this matter continually and fully in public with the information they had, and I think they could do a heck of a lot better job if there was a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this whole thing.

Mr. Premier, I would be prepared to agree to your statement that it shouldn't be just to satisfy what you call self-serving areas that I, as the leader of the New Democratic Party, would like to have looked at or New Democrats would like to have looked at. We think it should be much broader, and on that basis I would like to ask the Premier if he would be willing to have the public inquiry into the Expo lands to clear the air.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think the opposition leader's track record with respect to trust is that great when it comes to other fairly recent inquiries. We had Chief justice Nemetz do an inquiry. That certainly was independent. You didn't like that, because you didn't like the result of it. Then you went one further and went to the auditor-general. Certainly the auditor-general is independent, but again you didn't like that, and you publicly attacked the report from the auditor-general. Frankly, I don't see where we have sufficient trust to follow through on this.

MR. HARCOURT: I have not commented at all on what the Chief justice did. He was given limited terms of reference, and he carried out those terms of reference in devising future policy for the government on severance situations. I did say that the auditor-general's study was superficial and wasn't set up to deal with anything but the legality of what happened. It didn't deal with whether the David Poole pension was appropriate or fair — and the people of British Columbia know that it wasn't fair what David Poole received. I said I was quite prepared to have the people of British Columbia judge that at the next provincial election, and that's where it will be judged.

I want to deal with the Premier's personal views in an area of great importance to British Columbians, because a large number of British Columbians in our very pluralistic society that enriches us all are interested in this government's attitude and the leadership of the Premier on the whole question of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is more than a few grants on a national day or going to a banquet once a year or around election time to go and meet with the leadership in the major multicultural communities throughout this province.

I would like to ask the Premier two specific questions. This province has the lowest funding for multicultural programs in the country. It has the lowest amount that is available for immigrant reception services: about $9 an immigrant compared to — and the Premier was disparaging — Manitoba, which is about $220 per new immigrant, or like Alberta and others that are in the $150 range.

I would say that the actions of this government speak louder than their words in praise of multiculturalism or attending the odd banquet or, as that leaked memo in a recent column in the Vancouver Sun stated, getting engaged in multiculturalism for political reasons.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name names.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sure the Premier meets often with and in the friendly confines has many lunches and dinners with Vaughn Palmer. I understand you hold each other in the greatest of regard. I'm sure the Premier doesn't need to be reminded anymore of whom I'm speaking about.

There was a column that made it very clear that you just can't cynically use the multicultural community for political cannon fodder at election time. I would like to say to the Premier that the attitude of his government and his caucus towards our multicultural communities is very important.

I would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the first member for Vancouver South's(Mr. R. Fraser's) question a few weeks ago and his statement in this Legislature criticizing and attacking the Chinese students who were here from the People's Republic of China for peacefully protesting in the downtown streets of Vancouver. He was criticizing those students, and he went out of his way both in his question in the Legislature and in his statement on a Friday to be critical and say to those students: "If you don't like what's happening there, you shouldn't be protesting in Canada. You should do something about it in your own country." That was at the same

[ Page 8671 ]

moment, Mr. Premier, that those very brave students in Tiananmen Square were about to be crushed under the tanks of the army in China.

I would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the statements of the member for Vancouver South, who came out and criticized those students who were studying in our universities here for expressing their right to free speech in the Canadian tradition for free assembly and peaceful assembly to criticize their government. I would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the statements from the member for Vancouver South.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I heard free assembly, free something else. The only thing you left out was free speech. I suppose people might be entitled to say or express their views on any number of issues. They don't have to come to the Premier to see what his views are or whether it's all right. It doesn't work that way, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. People in this province are entitled to express a viewpoint, and it may not always be one that you would agree with. You may feel disappointed that you can't always agree with what it is that people say or that people might not always agree with what it is you say, but that's the real world out there.

You mentioned all these principles of freedom, but you left out free speech.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I mentioned free speech.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You didn't. The record will show. You just mentioned it now. It will be on the record now perhaps.

If I could defer to the minister responsible for multicultural affairs.... But I can't. His estimates have already been done, so this subject has already been canvassed very thoroughly, as have other subjects under the appropriate ministries. While I understand the Leader of the Opposition has been away a lot of the time, you can't go back and do every ministry you've missed out.

I will say that the day we talked about the Komagata Maru in the House — at least, one of the days — I was meeting with the Prime Minister at the Four Seasons in Vancouver as to how we could assist students affected by the terribly unfortunate incident in Tiananmen Square. So we are working on that, and we certainly attempt to assist in whatever way we can. We work very closely with the federal government and will work very closely with all people everywhere. We have a multicultural committee that does a very effective job.

Hey, I guess, being an immigrant, I understand that too. We work very closely with all of those groups, and we intend to continue that process. I'm proud of what we're doing there, and I intend to see it carried on.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairperson, it's not my opinion that's important. What's important is that those students who are here in our great democracy aren't going to be intimidated by a member of this Legislature saying: "Shut up, or you're going to go back to China." That's the point. It was a member of your caucus who basically intimidated those visitors from China who made very brave statements in full public that could impact their families.

I don't need a lecture about free speech. I don't need a lecture about what my opinion is; it's not my opinion that's important. What's important Is that a number of students from the People's Republic of China were threatened by the words of an ex-minister of the Social Credit government, who Is a prominent member of the Vancouver community and the ex-chairman of the parks board. When a member of this Legislature stands up in question period and makes a statement to follow that up and the Premier does not say anything against those terrible words, which had a very negative effect on those students — when he does not get up and give assurance to those students that the views of the member do not represent those of this government — those students are going to assume that his words are those of this government. I can tell you that members of the Chinese-Canadian community have been waiting for the Premier to speak up and express an opinion on this matter rather than give a lecture to the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition about what freedom of speech is. I understand that very well, Madam Chairperson.

The Premier has just now refused to contradict the threatening question and statement of the member for Vancouver South, and we will let that stand. The Premier is basically, by being quiet on this matter, letting those words of the member for Vancouver South stand. If the Premier wants to do that, that's his choice. He has the right of freedom of speech, and we respect that right of freedom of speech.

What I would also like to ask the Premier about is his attitude towards immigration. As the Premier and most members of this Legislature are probably aware, this country was founded on immigration and on immigrants. As a matter fact, 15 million of our 26 million people are immigrants, and we're proud of that tradition in Canada. We're proud of the fact that people could come from lands with the harsh tyrannies of the right and the left, could come as refugees to seek a new way of life, could come from conditions of poverty in their own country and find a way of life in dignity for themselves and their families.

[4:45]

Madam Chairperson, I would like to know from the Premier what his and his government's attitude is on this issue: the ability of rich immigrants to jump the queue ahead of those whose entry into Canada is based on merit, such as education, job opportunities and family unification. I would like to know what the Premier thinks about the ability of wealthy immigrants to buy that right to citizenship and to jump the queue ahead of less wealthy immigrants who want to come here, but have to come on their own merits — not just with a bundle of money. I'd like to know what the Premier thinks about that ability of the wealthy to jump the queue ahead of immigrants who

[ Page 8672 ]

have to get here on the basis of education, job opportunities or family unification.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, let me go back for one minute to the statements that the Leader of the Opposition attributes to one member of this Legislature and then says this must be the position of government. He should know full well — and I can't let him get away with It, because he tends to twist it all the time — that a statement was made in this Legislature by the House Leader as to the position of the government on that particular issue.

He also should know that we were the first province — and I publicly said so with the Prime Minister at a press conference in Vancouver — to say that we would assist in seeking a means whereby we could help those students who were stranded here and were participating in various schools, universities and colleges and couldn't return to China on account of what happened at Tiananmen Square. We were the first province to do that. We were the first province to say to the federal government that we would work with them to resolve that. We have done a great deal in that respect.

Further, let me say for the edification of the Leader of the Opposition and the few members there with him, that immigration Is a federal matter and has been a federal matter. We took the lead in requesting that we be permitted to enter into an immigration agreement similar to that which has been provided by the federal government for Quebec. We believe that if it's okay for Quebec, it should be okay for us to have an immigration agreement. That immigration agreement will allow us to perhaps be selective at least with respect to particular skills or people we wish to see for some of the communities in the province where this may be required.

If we continue with the system as we're presently experiencing it, then the federal government will continue to take averages tremendously influenced by whatever happens in southern Ontario, and that will be the rule for the rest of the country. We want an agreement for British Columbia not unlike the Quebec agreement. So yes, Leader of the Opposition, we're doing a great deal in the area of immigration. We can't do it all; it's still a federal responsibility. But we've made more progress than any other government that I'm aware of, and that speaks well for the government.

The Leader of the Opposition did make some statements with respect to the public deserving to know where we are on particular issues. I agree, and I've already told him a number of times that we are the most open government in the history of this province, and we intend to continue that way.

But I think it's also important that the people of this province know where the Leader of the Opposition stands at least on one issue. If you're not prepared to get off the fence on even one issue, then you're not really serving the people of this province as well. I'd like to know where you stand on Bill 19 and on the unlawful day of protest when you were asked your views on the law being broken. Do you agree with the breaking of the law or not? Can you at least tell us on one issue where you stand? Do you agree that the law could be broken on Bill 19, and that it's okay? Is that your position? That seemingly was your position. I think it would help us to know your stand on at least one issue, so give us your answer to that one.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairman, there were two questions there. First of all, one was on Bill 19, and I want to assure the people of British Columbia that Bill 19 — if we were elected to government in the next provincial election — will be gone. A fair labour code to deal with the 1990s will be introduced. It will be introduced not under the subterfuge and with the cynicism that Bill 19 was introduced, which was drafted in the secrecy of the Premier's office — and sending around the poor Minister of Labour(Hon. L. Hanson) to give the illusion that there was some public participation. There were 700 briefs accepted from good British Columbians who wanted to have a genuine fresh start, wanted an end to confrontation, and the Premier and two of his henchmen got together and drafted in secret that draconian bill. Very clearly, Madam Chairperson, I want the Premier to know, because the people of British Columbia are going to know it in the election. They are going to have Bill 19 gone and a new labour code introduced.

Secondly, I would like to let the Premier know that I find it scandalous that the Premier of this province doesn't understand the rule of law. I find it scandalous that the Premier can sit here and show his prejudice, can prejudge an event that he says was unlawful — that people were breaking the law. Is he a judge? Is he a jury? Is he a prosecutor? He can sit here when he's the government of British Columbia that didn't bring any legal proceedings against any member of the BCGEU or any other government union. He can sit here as the dictator of this province and say he prejudges what law is broken and what law isn't broken.

That is the most revealing remark the Premier has made today: that he decides what is legal and illegal; he decides what's lawful and unlawful. He has already prejudged those citizens who were out on a peaceful day of protest. He has already decided they were criminals. He just said that right here in this House. He has prejudged those citizens, and I will say what I said at that time: it is up to the rule of law. That is what our democracy is all about. The Premier is just showing his contempt for the rule of law. That is exactly what has happened here today. I don't say that. I don't make that decision. It is for employers in this case, for other citizens who feel that an illegal act was committed or a collective agreement was breached. There is due process. There are laws, both civil and criminal. There is, I want the Premier to know — he doesn't seem to know this — a presumption of innocence under our criminal law system, not guilt, as the Premier has just told us.

There is a balance of probabilities on civil cases that the person bringing the action has to prove instead of prejudging it, as the Premier has just done.

[ Page 8673 ]

I think one of the most telling comments the Premier has made today is that he has contempt for the rule of law. He criticizes me for saying I am not the judge, I am not the jury, I am not the employer who could have brought action against his employees, which the Premier and his Minister of Labour chose not to do. The Premier has just shown his ignorance and/or his contempt for our democracy and the rule of law, and I think the people of British Columbia are going to want to know the Premier's attitude towards prejudging citizens involved in a peaceful day of protest. I too am going to be going around the province to let the people of this province know what this Premier thinks about the rule of law and the presumption of innocence and the ability of citizens to peacefully protest bad laws. That's what Bill 19 is, and that's why it will be gone.

The question is still there, and the Premier hasn't answered it. Returning to his attitude and his government's attitude towards immigration, the question is: can the Premier enlighten us as to why he wants those immigrants with money to be able to jump the queue ahead of those whose entry into Canada is based not on having a pocketful of money but on merit, such as education, job opportunities and family unification? Why does he want those immigrants with money to be able to jump the queue of all the rest of those applicants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Leader of the Opposition has missed a fair bit of these proceedings, so I don't expect him to know all about the immigration procedures, but it is a federal matter. It is for the federal government. I would expect him, however, to know about legal proceedings. I understand that he practised law for a while, and the law that he was talking about was not criminal law; it was civil law, the law of contract. You were wrong on that. But after all of that, you still didn't give us an answer, so we still don't know your stance on even one issue. It's very sad. No stand on any issue.

MR. HARCOURT: It seems very clear that the Premier is not able to understand even the most rudimentary democratic principles. I wasn't speaking as a lawyer; I was speaking as a political leader.

I happen to believe very strongly in our democratic freedoms: the right to free speech and the right to peaceful assembly. I happen to believe that citizens should not be judged by a Premier sitting here in this Legislature condemning people without trial, without proof and because of his bias and prejudice That's the whole point of what we've been trying to get across to you; you put your personal views ahead of your public responsibility.

I will say the same thing to those citizens who are protesting Bill 19 or issues that they feel strongly about: you have your right to make that protest; you have the right to be able to express your opinions, and you have the right to be a free citizen. I will tell you, Madam Chairperson, that if you are going to be engaged in illegal or unlawful acts, you should be prepared to bear the consequences of your actions.

I say nothing different than Martin Luther King; I say nothing different than Mahatma Gandhi. I say nothing different than all of the other great democratic thinkers who have said that if you are going to be involved in peaceful actions to express your opinions, and in a way that may bring you before the courts for civil or criminal action, then you should bear the consequences of what you have decided to do.

The difference between New Democrats and Social Crediters is that all of these Social Crediters over here are prepared to prejudge every one of those citizens on June 1, 1987. They are prepared to say that those citizens were criminal and were committing an illegal act. I said then and I say now that that's up to the rule of law; that's up to courts. That's up to those processes to decide — not a bunch of Socreds who are trying to impose their bad laws on the working people of this province. That's what we have to say.

[5:00]

The Premier has still not answered my question, and because he won't answer the question, I assume that he is prepared to say that he is going to allow wealthy immigrants to queue-jump over the rest of the ordinary working people who want to get into this country and have a dignified and free way of life.

He ducked another question — a tough question. We'd like to know your opinion, Mr. Premier. There are about five or six questions I've asked you that you haven't been able to give us a straightforward answer to.

I understand that the member for Omineca would like to make a few comments, and I would be prepared to stand down to allow him to have a few comments.

MR. KEMPF: Perhaps when the Leader of the Opposition hears what I have to say, he might not, in retrospect, have been so eager to let me stand.

I've heard a lot of rhetoric pass from one side of this floor to the other from time to time, and perhaps more this afternoon than usual — a great deal more, as a matter of fact — but I want to deal with some specific issues.

Before I get to those specific issues, I want to comment on something the Leader of the Opposition just said with respect to a difference between one side of this floor and the other. From what I've heard this afternoon, I think it has probably solidified in my mind that there is no difference. That's the problem with politics in the province of British Columbia. There is no difference.

That's what is going to make it so difficult for the people of this province to make a decision come the next election that was talked about so much across the floor this afternoon. I am not going to dwell on that.

But I am going to dwell on one thing on behalf of the second member for Delta(Mr. Davidson), and I don't think we've had a resolution to that issue here this afternoon. I don't think we've had an answer to probably one of the most important questions that's

[ Page 8674 ]

going to be asked in these estimates: why is the Premier reluctant to adhere to the request from one of his backbenchers — not all of whom saw fit to come in and support you here this afternoon, I might add — a request....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: They're not here indeed. Their chairs are empty.

... from a member on something that the people of British Columbia would like to know more about as well? What's wrong, I ask. Perhaps I can bring a measure of neutrality to this question. There was some difference of opinion as to who might hold the inquiry, who might sit on the inquiry, what the results may or may not be, and I'm not concerned about those issues. I'm concerned, as is the member for Delta, that the people of British Columbia know the truth, that the people of British Columbia obtain some answers with respect to what really went on.

We saw a past member of the board of BCEC jump up and say: "The member for Delta was wrong" — another very valid reason, because there are differences of opinion, because there is a lot of misinformation out there, perhaps, with respect to what. really went on regarding the Expo lands.

Mr. Premier, if I may give you a bit of advice, through you, Madam Chairman, perhaps it would do you nothing but good, if as you say you have no skeletons in the closet, to do that on behalf of the people of British Columbia, particularly when it is your solid philosophy that you do head an open government in British Columbia.

There are a great number of supposed unknowns with respect to the sale of Expo lands. Why not, as the member for Delta has suggested, call a judicial inquiry into that matter? I see no problem with that If there's nothing to hide, why not do it? I'd just throw that out as perhaps a bit of help to the Premier

Because it's a very real concern of mine, I want to talk for a moment about democracy and the democratic process.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good.

MR. KEMPF: I'm glad the Minister of Environment agrees with me. It seems he very seldom agrees with me these days.

I want to talk for a moment about democracy and about the Premier's wish that everyone be involved. I don't think it's of doubt to anyone in this province that I was not in favour of regionalization. I don't think anyone doubts that, certainly not in this chamber, after what I've said about it. I still don't, for my own reasons and for the reasons of concern brought to me by my constituents, for it is they who I speak for in this chamber. That's pure democracy, in my estimation. Others think differently.

As I was not in favour of regionalization, I felt on behalf of those who sent me here, my constituents, that I should on their behalf at least know what was going on behind closed doors in those regional meetings — because, Mr. Premier, if you don't know, they're all held behind closed doors. The media is not allowed in. The media is only given certain information, that which those committees and that minister of state decide they should have. That's hardly open.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well, maybe it's different in your area. I'm speaking for the area that I tried to opt into. Perhaps it's different, and that's the problem with regionalization and the minister-of-state system. It is seemingly very different in different areas of the province.

I just want to talk about the area I'm involved with, and I want the Premier to tell me if he really believes in participatory democracy. Does he believe that in his regionalization system a duly elected member of this Legislature as well as the media should be denied access to that system? I heard the Premier himself say in this chamber to members and to British Columbians that that wasn't the case; that in fact he wanted everybody to participate.

Again I say that even though I do not believe in the system, I opted in on behalf of those I represent. I understand that some others have since done so. I can't attest to that, but I opted in. I wanted to become fully involved on behalf of those I represent. Does the Premier think that I should have been denied that right?

In the scheme of things of bringing in regionalization in British Columbia, did the Premier anticipate that members of this Legislature would be denied access to that system? I want the Premier to answer that, because I haven't been able to get the answer from the minister concerned, who — and I again read it into the record of this House — in a letter to me dated June 21, 1989, said: "As you are not a member of this group, I did not feel any obligation to advise you of that meeting." We're talking about a meeting of one of the committees — the only one the minister saw fit that I should be a member of. Then when meetings were held, I wasn't told of them. However, I continue: "I did not feel any obligation to advise you of that meeting, nor do I intend to advise you of future advisory board meetings." Is that what I get when I opt in to your system of regionalization? Is that the way duly democratically elected representatives are treated under your form of democracy in British Columbia?

I ask you, Mr. Premier: what do you think of that? What do you think of my being denied access to meetings attended by municipal leaders, regional district leaders and rural area leaders in the very area I represent? But I'm left out. The duly elected representative of the Legislature is left out, and I want the Premier to answer that. He's making notes, and I'm sure he'll have a list of answers for my list of questions.

[5:15]

The Leader of the Opposition brought up the question of Indian land claims. I'd like to say, with the Premier here — I've said it before in this House,

[ Page 8675 ]

and I've said it in public out there — that I don't care where we stand as British Columbians on whether we believe Indian land claims are valid or not; they have to be resolved. They must be resolved immediately for the good of all British Columbians, particularly the northern two-thirds of this province, where many projects are at a standstill and many more will be unless those land claims are resolved.

HON. S. HAGEN: Talk about garbage!

MR. KEMPF: "Talk about garbage." That's all the Minister of Advanced Education has to say. Okay, so I'm talking garbage. Let's hear it from the leaders of seven northern regional districts. Let's hear it for them, if not for me, if what I spout here is garbage, as your Minister, Mr. Premier, has just suggested. Let's hear it from those leaders that the Premier spoke so highly of, those leaders he was taking direction from, he said, earlier in these estimates. These are the leaders of the seven northern regional districts which make up in land mass clearly two-thirds of the area of British Columbia, and the little map is on their letterhead. Lo and behold, it's signed by the chairman of that northern development council.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: My time is up? Well, I'm sure there will be intervening business, Madam Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall the vote pass?

MR. HARCOURT: Shall the vote pass, Madam Chairperson? No, it shan't. There are many other items that have to be dealt with. The first one that I would like to ask the Premier about is the announcement of the Premier four months ago when he said that we would finally have a minister responsible for the status of women. I would like to ask the Premier to tell us what the specific goals of this ministry will be.

MR. KEMPF: I must interrupt here, because I want to continue before the Premier loses the direction in which we were going when I ran out of time. I realize that in his scheme of things, the Premier would have thought by now, had it not been for some very solid free-thinking, northern representatives — municipal and regional district representatives — that the Northern Development Council would have been gone. But lo and behold, it's still there. It's going to remain there regardless of regionalization for a long time.

[Mr. Rabbit in the chair.]

I go on. A letter that was written, incidentally, with a copy to the Premier, to the minister of state for Nechako and Northeast, Responsible for Native Affairs(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), on...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By whom?

MR. KEMPF: You'll find out.

... behalf of and over the letterhead which represents seven northern regional districts. It's signed by the chairman of the Northern Development Council, an individual whom I've heard the Premier speak of right here in this chamber, firing across the floor at me: "He's a good mayor." Yes, Mr. Premier, he's a very good mayor. He even opted out of your transportation committee recently, because he thought it was absolute garbage. He's a good mayor, the mayor of Vanderhoof.

I just want to read the final paragraph in this letter, a copy of which your office received. It's with respect to Indian land claims. Again I say that whether you agree with them or not, they have to be resolved. It's up to the Premier of this province on behalf of its citizens, both Indian and white, to do whatever is humanly possible to bring those Indian land claims to resolution.

I just want to read — for the information of the Minister of Advanced Education(Hon. S. Hagen), who considers what I say in here garbage — from this letter signed by the chairman of the Northern Development Council:

"It is the position of the Northern Development Council that you" — and again I say it was written to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) in British Columbia — "as well as your federal counterpart be apprised of our very serious concerns in this regard and our request for an expeditious resolution to the native issue. To this end, we would encourage the provincial government, for the obvious economic benefits to not only the northern development committee area but the entire province, to undertake a catalyst role in the resolution process of this long outstanding issue."

That is your responsibility, Mr. Premier, and I've seen rhetoric go from one side of this floor to the other on the question of Indian land claims for going on 14 years now. There's no difference from one side of this House to the other, particularly on that issue. But Mr. Premier, it is your responsibility on behalf of all British Columbians to see, to force, to do whatever is necessary to bring the Indian land claim issue to resolution. That's your responsibility, and I want to hear your comments on that.

Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of talk earlier in these estimates about economic development, and I heard in previous estimates of this Premier he himself talk about the economic development that I want to talk about now for a moment. That is economic development which heretofore was lost to the people of north central British Columbia because the government would not act, in this case on behalf of the agriculturalists of north central British Columbia. That's the question of the building of a meat-packing plant in northern British Columbia, hopefully in Vanderhoof. The Premier came back from a tour of Europe some 16 or 18 months ago and announced the project. It was then found that the government of the day would not support the ranchers of this province in order to make that project happen and in order to see an investment in northern British Columbia to the tune of $50 million.

[ Page 8676 ]

I talked earlier of misinformation. It was not the developers of the meat-packing plant, the slaughterhouse and whatever else was going to go along with it that was asking for money from the government and the taxpayers of British Columbia. That was not the case at all. I know; I was involved. I was the one who set up the tour the Premier had of the plants in Germany.

It was my friend who paid for that helicopter that flew the Premier around to see those plants in Germany. It's a black mark on the province of British Columbia, because promises perhaps were not fully made, but there was that intent which was reneged on. That doesn't sit well to this day. Do you know what? That project has since gone to the province of Alberta.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, it hasn't.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, it has. There is still the opportunity for another here.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Come on!

MR. KEMPF: Well, okay, we will believe the Premier that it hasn't. Is that the same as when we were asked to believe that no money was being asked for by those developers from government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're wrong, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: No, I'm not wrong. I just want to ask the question. We can argue right or wrong, and that again is rhetoric. We can argue right or wrong, and nobody is going to win that argument.

But the question I have is: if the Premier was so set on that kind of project coming into British Columbia on his return from Europe 18 months ago, is he still willing to look at a similar proposal? Because it can be made — and will be made.

I want to touch for a moment on another issue, and it has nothing to do with my constituency. It has to do with the economy of British Columbia. I want to talk for a moment about the Powder Mountain proposal. That has been brought up in this House before.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: For the edification of the House Leader, the Hartwicks haven't gotten to me at all. just for the record, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If I have anything to say, I will stand up and say it to you.

MR. KEMPF: Do that, or forever keep quiet from your seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the member address the Chair, please.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, surely.

I want to talk for a moment about the Powder Mountain issue — not because of anyone involved, but because of the investment that that project can bring to British Columbia, What really went on? I can go through all of this, page by page, if the Premier wishes.

[5:30]

In a letter as recent as July 14, he says: "No, we won't reconsider the Powder Mountain issue." Why? It's the same as the judicial inquiry asked for by the member for Delta. Why will you not reconsider regardless of what has gone on in the past? I can bring that all out if you wish. Why will you not give the Powder Mountain people another kick at the can? What harm will that do? Why not reconsider — not on behalf of the Hartwicks but on behalf of those who have put their good hard-earned money into this proposal for a number of years. Why?

That's the only question I have. I don't want to regurgitate the past, as I think that is rhetoric as well. I can if you wish. It's all here. All I want to ask the Premier is: why will he not give the Hartwicks another opportunity? It's not just for the Hartwicks; the Hartwicks haven't gotten to me. I treat everybody equally. That's the kind of representation I think is democratic. It's on behalf of those who have invested in this dream — a lot of hard-earned money, Mr. Premier. And it would behoove you as well in the case of the judicial inquiry into the Expo land. Give them another opportunity, if this government is so open; that's all they ask. Give them another opportunity, or at least answer the phone calls they've been feverishly making for the last week. At least do that; at least answer the phone calls of those who have invested in this — not Nan or Diane Hartwick, but those who have put their hard-earned dollars into this. They cover quite a wide spectrum of the public out there. You may have a dislike for the people who first dreamt this up, but surely you have some place in your heart for those people who put their money in. Give them another chance. If you don't want to give them another chance, tell the public of this province why you don't wish to give them another chance.

Mr. Chairman, those are my four questions. I leave it to the Premier to answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I appreciate the questions from the member for Omineca, and I will attempt to answer them as briefly as I can and still give him all of the information he sought.

First of all, with respect to regionalization, it is working extremely well, as I've already said. It's been a tremendous success, but it does vary some from region to region — that's quite correct. I think it should vary some, because I don't think that even with regionalization you can treat each region exactly alike. There is a difference between the approach used in Omineca and, say, the Kootenays or the Cariboo or any other place in the province.

The question was asked whether I really believe in participatory democracy and whether the MLA should be denied access. No, not all. Of course you

[ Page 8677 ]

shouldn't be denied access. As a matter of fact, from the very beginning we sought to get the involvement of the MLAs, and I'm very pleased that you've accepted. I regret that the NDP has failed to pick up on that, because I really think it's a vehicle; it's a means of doing still more for your constituents.

MR. KEMPF: How would I know? I'm not involved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Omineca has been involved. He's a member of the forestry committee, and I suppose he could opt into some of those other committees and be involved. Frankly I don't know exactly how you might time this, but I'm sure that your participation would be welcomed. I did hear your comments on that. I can understand where perhaps with all of their meetings they would not want to necessarily have all of the media involved, and I don't think you'd object to that, but we do involve as many people as possible.

The regionalization process is working well. I've met with the Northern Development Council quite recently; we met in the cabinet room. They, too, are a good group, well-intentioned, and we'd like to work with them as much as possible — anything that will get more diversification and development in the north will be a help to the whole of the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, the north and the interior. That's where we differ so much from the NDP, who tend to focus on downtown Vancouver only. We see the whole of the province. That's what I call vision.

You did mention that Indian land claims have to be resolved. Again I agree: Indian land claims have to be resolved. We still say it's a responsibility of the federal government; it has always been thus. I don't think the member for Omineca would have the NDP approach, where they would send out the leader and attempt to negotiate with each tribal council or tribal band. I think you're saying that we ought to help the process by bringing the parties together. I guess I accept that, and in fact, that is what we're doing.

The round-table process will no doubt identify a number of ways by which this might be done. We would be very pleased to try and assist the process. But more importantly, I don't think we should allow the system to frustrate other things from happening for native people. There's a great record now for social and educational programs and native people's involvement with those programs. On economic development, we've done a fair bit, but there's much more to be done and we intend to do more: environmental programs, highways programs, forestry programs. We're all attempting to work with the native people in order to give them greater opportunity to be more self-sufficient — and it's being well received.

But you're right, more can be done, and we intend to do more. I would hope that our advisory council can get out there very quickly and seek the necessary input from the various tribal councils.

You made mention of the meat-processing plant. Yes, I too was disappointed that it didn't quite work out as we had hoped. You're right, your friend and acquaintance from Omineca approached me. As a matter of fact, I believe you brought him to my office, That's fine, and I appreciate that. When I was in Germany he introduced me to the people. We had a good tour of the plant. They were very enthused. It's too bad that in fact at the end perhaps we couldn't meet all the requirements.

Can we do this again, you say. I agree there is an opportunity for us to yet have a meat-processing plant, but I don't think we can do it at any cost. I think we owe it to the people of this province to not attempt to try and match whatever Alberta might be doing or whatever the government of Alberta might be giving out to industry by way of grants and tax concessions and infrastructure and all sorts of things. I think there's a limit. I think as much as possible our industry must stand on its own feet, and I don't think we should be feeding industry. It does have to stand independently as much as possible. I can appreciate where from time to time we can assist with infrastructure, but I don't think we should adopt some major grant program, and I think that's really where we differed. We couldn't meet all the requests of the developers then, but if they're prepared to come back with a different proposal, I'm sure the minister responsible would be most happy to receive them.

That covers all your questions, as far as I can tell.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to go back to a comment the Premier made about resolving the aboriginal land claims issue. He treated it very lightly, and I thought that that was unfortunate, because it is one of the key issues in this province. I want him to be clear, because he seems to be confused about the role of the province. He seems to think that the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition just kind of traipse around the province holding discussions willy-nilly, so to speak, with tribal councils, and that we don't recognize the fact that the federal government has the responsibility, under our constitution, under the Indian Act, for the settlement of land claims. Having said that, the province has a role too. The province has to be at the table, as the province was in Quebec, as the province is in many other jurisdictions in Canada. It's that inability of the province to come to the table and to recognize that a broad, comprehensive settlement requires the province at the table. The sooner the Premier admits that the province has a role and that the role is more than his Minister of Native Affairs has described, the better off people in B.C. are going to be.

The Premier's own minister has said that this Social Credit government does not recognize aboriginal title but recognizes aboriginal rights on a day-today basis. If that is the position of this government, it is an absurd and insulting position to take. If the Premier wonders why his round table has not been accepted by the native communities of this province,

[ Page 8678 ]

he should know that that position is doomed to failure. It's doomed to failure to bring about a resolution of the claims that the Premier says — in another cliché another little bit of rhetoric, another bit of window-dressing — he is prepared to address. The member for Omineca has made it very clear that more rhetoric and window-dressing, whether you agree with aboriginal land claims or not, is not the issue. The issue is that the province has to be at the table. The province has to take a leadership role. This Social Credit government has not done that.

Another area where we have waited for leadership from the government is the whole question of the status of women and the ministry that was announced four months ago: that we would finally have a minister responsible for the status of women. I asked previously if the Premier would tell us what the specific goals of this minister would be. Would it be an advocacy role, or will she deal solely with program delivery? I think the Premier understands that what we mean by an advocacy role is one that really does try to bring about what we want to see happen in British Columbia, which is equality for women. Equality for women needs more than just the delivery of existing programs. It means a ministry that will advocate and help bring about equality for women in an orderly way.

For example, pay equity: push for pay equity in a variety of different ways and income security, because most of the poor are women, and most of the people in the low-income job ghettos are women. Women earn 60 percent of what men earn in British Columbia. The whole question of pay equity has to be addressed.

Child care: so that women who want to get off welfare and get into employment or are in low-paying jobs and want to receive the training and education they require are able to leave their children in a proper, safe, licensed child care situation.

[5:45]

Training and education: so that for women who are underemployed or employed in low-income jobs, who aren't yet in the workforce or who want to get off welfare and into work, there is education and training available in a far more aggressive and active way than there is right now in B.C.

The issue of battered and abused women and children is one that there should be advocacy on. There is far too much violence against women and children — lack of facilities and resources. As a criminal defence and family lawyer for a number of years and chairman of the Vancouver Police Board, I can tell you that that is still a very serious, tragic problem in British Columbia, which needs to be addressed in an advocacy way by the ministry responsible for the status of women.

Housing: the housing crisis for women and children is very serious throughout a number of areas in this province; not just in the high-growth areas like the lower mainland and greater Victoria, but in a number of other centres like Kelowna, Nanaimo and Prince George, where there is a lack of proper affordable housing for women and children.

The whole question of enhancing freedom of choice for women on abortion: the Premier has not made clear what the role of this ministry would be on this very difficult and troubling issue that is increasingly becoming one that is before the courts and that the Parliament has been asked to deal with. As a matter of fact, I think it's very important for the Premier to let us know what the position of his government would be on this issue and whether the Attorney-General(Hon. S.D. Smith) has been back in Ottawa lobbying to see that the whole issue of abortion becomes one that is dealt with under provincial jurisdiction, which we think would be a retrograde step.

The New Democrats feel that that is an issue that should be dealt with by women and their medical advisers, spiritual counsellors and their families, and that it should not be subject to a provincial government that was prepared last year to impose the private morality of the Premier on the women of this province.

There are a number of questions. There are a number of comments that we have that we would be interested in the minister clarifying as soon as possible. We've been waiting for this ministry to finally happen. We've been waiting for the Premier to appoint a woman minister who would be in charge of this program, and those questions are still there. We asked them when this was first announced four months ago, and we would be very interested in what the Premier has to say in response to those questions I have just raised.

I will repeat them so the Premier can answer them. Would the Premier tell us what the specific goals of this ministry will be. Is it an advocacy role, or will the minister deal solely with program delivery? Second, what will the minister be requested to do to enhance the freedom of choice for women on the question of abortion?

MR. KEMPF: I gave the Premier the opportunity to respond to the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly he can do that before I pose my other questions, if he wishes.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Okay, fine. That's fair enough, Mr. Chairman.

I know that the Premier inadvertently didn't respond to two of my questions, and I am going to repeat those two questions. I want to make some comments on that comment which he made to the other two questions.

I am still concerned, and the Premier hasn't told this House, and through it, the people of British Columbia, and I think he should. If there's a good reason why the wishes of the member for Delta with respect to a judicial inquiry into the sale of Expo lands should not be considered, then the Premier should tell this House. Why are you denying not the member for Delta but the people of British Columbia the right to have the whole story, as will come out in

[ Page 8679 ]

a judicial inquiry, with respect to the sale of the Expo land?

It's a simple question. If the answer is yes, we're going to have one, great. We'll drop the subject. If the answer is no, we're not going to have one, then I think the Premier is obligated to tell this House why not. Again, I don't want to raise my voice or get miserable with the Premier or spout garbage, as the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) says. I just want to help the Premier, and perhaps it will help his image. God knows he needs that help. It's not all as rosy out there as he says it is with respect to this government, which doesn't resemble a Social Credit government at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What is it?

MR. KEMPF: I would hate to tell you, Mr. Premier, but we're not going to get into that rhetoric, are we? We're going to be nice. All I want is answers to logical questions.

Why will the Premier not call a judicial inquiry into the sale of the Expo land? That's a question.

The second question.... The Premier touched on this. He said: "Perhaps the member for Omineca should be involved." There seems to be kind of a difference of opinion between his Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast and him. I've got to ask the next question, which is logical, given what the Premier told me in this House a few minutes ago. If the Premier agrees that I should be involved, and I've opted in — I was the first one to do so other than a government member — will he instruct his minister to accept me into the system? That's the question. Will he instruct the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) not to write such negative letters to the member for Omineca — it hurts him — but to allow him the opportunity to democratically take part in that system? Will he instruct his minister to do that? He nods his head yes. I take him at his word.

The Premier talked about the Indian question, and again I heard the same thing coming from over there as I've heard year after year in this House. But I have to ask the next question: what definite, solid thing is the Premier willing to do to ensure that Ottawa...? We don't want trade-offs; we saw what happened with FRDA when there were trade-offs; we haven't talked the last of that either — but what is the Premier willing to do? Is he willing to go out to the Indian people of this province and the white alike and say: "I'm going to take your fight to Ottawa, because it has to be resolved in order that we get on with economic development in British Columbia"? Is the Premier going to do that? Is he going to be a milquetoast minister like his Minister Responsible for Native Affairs(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), who won't knock down doors, who won't raise his voice to Ottawa, who goes cap in hand to Ottawa saying: "Please will you do this?"

The other question that wasn't answered was that of Powder Mountain, and I'm sure that the Premier inadvertently forgot to answer that question. Will the

Premier give the Powder Mountain people another opportunity to present their proposal? If not, why not?

MR. KEMPF: If there's not going to be any answers, I move the committee rise and report progress.

Motion negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 4 pass?

Vote 4 approved.

MR. KEMPF: Let the record read that there was closure on the Premier's estimates.

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

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: just before we proceed to committee stage on some bills, pursuant to standing orders I advise the House that we will sit tomorrow at 10 a.m. till noon and from 2 p.m. until 10 P.M.

Introduction of Bills

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

FOUNDATION ACT

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trinity Western University Foundation Act.

HON. S. HAGEN: This bill will establish a foundation for Trinity Western University. The purposes of this foundation will be to develop, foster and encourage public knowledge and awareness of this university and its benefits to British Columbians and to seek private sector financial support for the pursuits of the university.

Bill 89 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections I to 5 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8680 ]

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: This takes away the requirement for the hunter course that used to be required of young people or people who had not previously held a hunting licence in this province. It now broadens the requirement so that it's an examination on conservation, outdoor recreation and safety, which is approved by the director. Can the minister explain why this change was made?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is a challenge situation. If the director believes you have to take a course, you will take a course. However, if you have been trained in another province or another state, or if you feel that you inherently have the knowledge to challenge a course, you have the opportunity to do it. So this provision — although it seems to be letting up on the standards — does not let up on the standards. But it does allow you to challenge the test, as opposed to taking the course.

[6:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Well, challenging the test is not what it seems to say here. It seems to indicate that the course that has been there — which has been extremely well recognized — is no longer required. The minister obviously is the one who chose it, but the hunter training course that's been there has been extremely well recognized, and for some reason or another the legislation is now being changed.

It seems to me that the legislation goes beyond simply allowing people to challenge the test. It goes on to say that the hunter training course — which has been approved, recognized broadly and described as a very good course, and was required for all people who had not previously hunted in the province — is gone. It's a very open sort of a clause in the legislation now. I just wonder why the minister has taken away that kind of tightness.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We still insist that the director approve the qualifying examinations for applicants for hunting and firearm licences. We have an extremely good cadre of instructors throughout the province. We did want it loosened up to make it more flexible. But there is no way I sense this is going to lessen our effectiveness as an approval body with respect to the obtaining of hunting and firearm .licences.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: In this section a person may export fish out of the province if they are in his possession while they are being exported. He doesn't need to have a permit. Can the minister explain to me why this is allowed? It seems to say that if he doesn't have a permit, he can still take out what he wants as long as they are with him — traveling with him and he checks them, presumably in his baggage and that kind of thing. Can the minister explain what the permitting process is that he gets around in subsection(b) ?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, we clarify that it is a permit issued under this act or under the CITES convention. Then we add an offence provision, which we didn't have before. A person commits an offence unless he is authorized to do so by permit, which is the permit referred to in(a).

You are asking about(2)(b). Let me read that slowly again.

You can take fish or fish parts out in your possession. Presumably that's for people who have fished legally in B.C. and want to take the fish or parts of that fish home. For that reason we do not see that as an offence. Am I missing anything there?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A further explanation. Fish are now covered. They are still under permit. So we've added two things here: a reference to CITES and "fish."

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MS. EDWARDS: On this one you seem to be taking away the requirement that no one can shoot across an artery, saying only that you cannot shoot across prescribed highways. Can the minister explain to me what highways he would expect to exclude under this section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We don't exclude any; we are adding. Right now it applies only to a highway within an organized area. What we want to do is have it apply to any highway in the province, and that's the difference of highway descriptions.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MS. EDWARDS: This section goes to the heart of the whole game-farming issue. I understand that this is the central part of controlling game meat sales for human consumption. Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if the member could rephrase the question. I was listening to an answer and also looking up the sections. Pardon me, Madam Chairman.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister chooses to deal with the answers before he gets the questions.

The comment is that this is at the centre of the new Game Farm Act. In this case it would be the control mechanism to see that game meat designed for human consumption is controlled through meat cutters and the operators of cold storage lockers.

[ Page 8681 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What we've done in this case is two things. We have located those sections with respect to possession and cutting and storage of wildlife within one part of the act, and we have broadened our powers to have the people involved in that business keep records.

MS. EDWARDS: Do the people involved in this business have to keep records for residential hunters — in other words, the guy next door who goes out and shoots an elk? Does the meat-cutter and/or the cold storage operator have to keep records on that person?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He has to keep records on all animals coming into his care and also on the person who has brought that animal Into his care.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could the Chair just clarify something? Are we talking about section 13, which is being repealed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and they want to know why.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I see. Thank you.

MS. EDWARDS: Is there a penalty involved for the operator who does not do so?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is a fee here, and 51(e) deals with taxidermists, tanners, meat-cutters and operators of cold storage plants for wildlife and fish processed and prepared in their possession. It segues into section 110 of the current act, as I see it — which allows the L-G-in-C to make regulations, conditions, surcharges, royalties and fees.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, 110 has a prohibition section — which would mean an offence, presumably, if one broke that prohibition.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 14 in fact limits the protection of birds' nests. It used to be any bird's nest; I believe there's some indication that this now allows the collection of some birds' nests. The only ones to be protected now are eagle, peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, osprey, heron and burrowing owl. Is that correct? Are we going to name the birds that can be taken instead?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those are the species that keep permanent nests, and those cannot be destroyed by law — under the statute. Nor can you take a nest or an egg or a bird or its egg from a nest that's occupied by a bird or its egg. But you can take old nests. What this does is allow us not to worry about fining people who have, say, picked up a robin's nest. For example, I have one on my garage that my daughter brought home empty a couple of years ago. It allows you to take an empty nest of a migratory bird that's going to be building a new nest next year. It's in my garage; come around to my house and I'll show it to you.

MS. EDWARDS: As long as the minister is sure that these are the only birds' nests that need protection, because it would be bad if it weren't. I'm wondering how the minister expects to enforce that in a logging show, for example. Or does he?

[6:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're all protected. I know one would ask the question: what about eagles' nests when you're doing a logging show, but those nests are protected and so is that tree. That's the law currently and that will be the law after this provision is brought in.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MS. EDWARDS: It's nice, by the way, to hear somebody occasionally know that they got one up on the Minister of Forests. We love it: he has to leave your tree alone.

This is where you cannot retrieve wildlife and remove it to a temporary or a seasonal camp. I'm not sure why that is and I wish the minister to clarify.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The former act just said,, a place of consumption," that the meat could be removed to, which could be just a fly-in camp or any camp. Now we want it taken back to the place of residence. This is to ensure that all meat is taken out of the bush.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

MS. EDWARDS: This one allows the minister, by regulation, to prohibit hunting or trapping by method or by part of the province, or to prohibit a class of persons from doing so. Could the minister clarify what he sees happening here. I think the second part of this section, if I remember correctly, allows hunting of a special kind in a special area to offset an oversupply of a particular game animal, and I assume that the first section might be used for other than that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This allows us to add on to the current section 41 and designate and authorize classes of persons as well, so we can have more control over limited-entry hunting.

MS. EDWARDS: I am going to assume the minister doesn't mean upper-class people, or even accountants

[ Page 8682 ]

and architects. What he is going to say, presumably, is that what he means is the owners of a farm. What are these classes of persons he is talking about?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They could be non-residents, and there could be cases where we would exclude all people except native people, who could have treaty rights. We would then be excluding all non-native, non-treaty people in a particular area.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MS. EDWARDS: This section in general, I believe, is fairly well accepted, but I would like to question the minister about the extension of traplines and the probable increase in need for good enforcement, when enforcement has been at such a low level and we need more enforcers throughout the province. I wonder if the minister could comment on how he expects to enforce this section.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think you are going to find along these traplines, when you have a group situation, the group very much monitoring itself. There is built-in policing here, plus the fact that we do monitor the fur as it come out. We can control that very closely. Fur has to be marketed before it has any value, and by monitoring that we are able to understand what is happening on that particular trap line.

There is a section with respect to more enforcement later on in this bill that we can talk about.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MS. EDWARDS: There is a surprising little phrase in this that I can't quite understand. It seems to read that the order the minister is allowed to put out to the regional manager to restrict the issuance of licences to present holders is effective only if the plan that was talked about earlier — the angling guide plan — is published within 18 months of the date of the order. Can the minister explain why that would be there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The issue there, Madam Chairman, is to ensure that the public is aware of the plan.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems that if the plan is put in place, and then if the minister wants an order, it can only be done within 18 months of when that plan was put in place. If you happen to be 19 months into where you want to do some restricting, and the director wants to restrict, he can't do it. Is that correct? I just can't understand the 18-month time limit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have that in there so that the public is aware that we have a plan and aware of what the plan says. If you go over that date, the order ceases to have effect. The idea is protection and public knowledge of what the plans are.

MS. EDWARDS: The order that ceases to have effect can't be the order that allowed the plan; it's got to be an order... I'm relying somewhat on my notes, so I have to search a bit, Mr. Minister, but the order of the regional manager to restrict issuing of licences or endorsements for that area is what would not have an effect 18 months after the plan is put in place.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't forget, if you read(3), that these in fact are restriction plans: ". . The minister may order the regional manager to restrict the issue of angling guide licences or endorsements for that stream, lake or area to persons who, on the date of order, hold an angling guide licence or endorsement...." Because we have this restriction here, we put a certain onus on the ministry to ensure that the plans have been published. If the plan is not published within the period of 18 months after the date of the order, the order ceases to have any effect on the expiry of that period. What that does is ensure that the public is well aware of what our plans are and the way that we are managing that special stream or lake.

Sections 22 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MS. EDWARDS: This changes the term of a guiding licence from seven years to ten years, and then the person simply reapplies after five years for an extension. It's a sort of permanent extension of the guiding licence, I believe. Why does the minister change that? It gives a guide a longer time to stay in an area and more permanence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The explanatory notes really explain everything here, but I will go over them again, probably for my own benefit more than anybody else's. First of all, this section makes the language consistent with what we find in section 59; that is, the privilege of acting as a guide as opposed to the right to act as a guide.

The five years is what we worked out with the industry, and they deemed that to be an appropriate time, because they think we should have some control over the issuance of the certificates as well. So that was an arrangement worked out with the industry, and I think that it's something that we all agree on. It appears to be appropriate, and far be it from me to think that I should impose another set of numbers on them.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

MS. EDWARDS: This authorizes the regional manager to sell these guide-outfitters licences or certificates

[ Page 8683 ]

— the ones that are surrendered or in newly designated areas. It seems to indicate that there could be some allocation of these new licences to people without a tender arrangement; in other words, without a tendering process. Can the minister respond to that, please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: just as a point of clarification, I presume the member is asking specifically about subsection(3).

To the whole question of bidding or not bidding, we say here that where the regional manager considers that the area is not by itself suitable for designation as a guiding area — in other words, there just wouldn't be the revenue, the game or the attractiveness of the area — the regional manager may assign to a contiguous licence-holder the privilege of guiding in that area. It's picking up on loose little bits of territory that may not be appropriate to operate as a single unit but could be assigned, with some profit and some benefit, to a guide-outfitter who is already in place.

MS. EDWARDS: There are situations, Mr. Minister, where certain areas have not been assigned for specific reasons, such as protection of the game itself — the numbers are not sufficient. There aren't very many areas in the province like that. Are you suggesting that the boundaries of a guide-outfitter's range, his area, can be fairly easily reassigned by the regional manager?

[6:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. That's what it says Where the regional manager makes that determination, he may assign by amendment to the licence and on payment of a prescribed charge — which means it is a charge we would have in regulation — the privilege of guiding in all or part of that area. So that's a discretion call that would be made by the regional manager in that case.

Don't forget, further up the bill in subsection(2 we said that when they are looking for a new guiding area or when a licence has been surrendered, we would have to have advertising. I can assure you that the guiding business is competitive to the extent that if we advertise an area and the industry doesn't feel it's a good area to guide in or want to make a bid, then that area is really not appropriate, because the industry is pretty good at determining what's good and what's bad. In that case we're simply saying that in order to extract some more revenue from the industry if we can, we will allow the regional manager to make the determination that he can assign, on payment of a prescribed charge, the area left over to another guide-outfitter, if that guide-outfitter wants it.

MS. EDWARDS: I can't understand, Mr. Minister, why you would not do that under tender basis as well. If the particular area is contiguous to some other guide-outfitter's area and if you assume that it is not going to be beneficial or profitable for any other guide-outfitter to operate it, it would seem to me that by calling for tenders you would be told that very clearly by exactly who's going to bid for it. But if you have a regional manager making those assignments, he has to run the gamut of not only other guide-outfitters who might have not examined it and thought it was profitable but also the resident hunters, who are, as you know, not always so happy to have a guide-outfitter operating in the very hunting grounds that they prefer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This clearly would be used only where we have a very small area, where it would be uneconomic for a single person to operate or would not be good for management in itself. The area is so small that just to join it to a current guide-outfitter's licensed area is the best way of management.

MS. EDWARDS: If that were the case, why would the minister not consider tendering it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It could go if you tendered it, and you wouldn't want it go. It's so small that it would not be good management to have that separate guide-outfitter in that small area, when that small area should be assigned to a guide-outfitter who is already operating.

MS. EDWARDS: My comment is just that that's not what the legislation says; it allows something different to happen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. It clearly says that the area is not by itself suitable for designation as a guiding area. That would mean it's very small and not by itself suitable for a guiding area. When we have determined that and if the regional manager has hearkened to those words — which I think are quite explicit — then the regional manager may assign by an amendment to the licence. But first of all we have to demonstrate to all and sundry and the Guide-Outfitters' Association that the area is not by itself suitable for designation as a guiding area. The language is quite clear in the section.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't like to wrangle a long time, Mr. Minister, but I can imagine the action of a regional manager who would include a certain area in a guide-outfitter's area at certain points when that's possible. It might even be a particularly useful winter range for a species of game, which has been kept up for the preservation of that species. It is not a large enough area to make a guiding area by itself, it has previously been excluded for various management reasons, but it is a very rich area in game, and all of a sudden the regional manager is going to be adding it to the area of the guide-outfitter; or you may even have it between two guide-outfitters' areas that are contiguous. Who are you going to assign? You are not putting it up for tender. I think it's a shortfall in the act to put this decision at any time to the regional director.

[ Page 8684 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The changes under this provision would be made only in areas where we have had imperfect mapping, and the lines that have been drawn have not been in keeping with the best management of the prescribed existing guiding area. This allows the regional manager to make that determination.

I can't think of any areas that are left that would fall under the conditions or circumstances that you described. You may have a concern, but for the life of me I can't think of what it would be.

MS. EDWARDS: Within the last few years there was a guiding territory that was not licensed to a guide-outfitter in our area, and it was very passionately sought by a number of guide-outfitters. Of course, when it was assigned to a guide-outfitter, there were all sorts of resident hunters who were not happy with that allocation.

I don't know if there are no other possibilities of that within the province, but I certainly know of a situation where it could have been a very contentious Issue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Momentarily I am going to be joined by Nancy Crowe, who is with the Ministry of Environment and is in charge of guide regulations. She is the guides regulations and appeals officer. We will address that concern for you, if you will just bear with us.

By the way, also with me and sitting on my left is Ray Halladay, director of the branch.

Perhaps you might repeat your question, Madam Member, and then we will ensure that we have the answer for you.

MS. EDWARDS: Shall I wait until Ms. Crowe has arrived?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. Repeat it, and I will repeat it to her.

MS. EDWARDS: The question again is: is there not a situation here where the fact that the regional manager does not have to tender this portion of a guiding territory ...? It seems to me that there is no particular reason why the minister should not tender those particular areas, unless he can assure me that there is very little left, and I don't think that's the case in British Columbia.

Most of British Columbia is covered by guide territories, and there is very little left over that anybody wants as a guiding territory that isn't covered by concrete, for example. But there have been situations in our area where a guide territory was not assigned, and there was a great deal of controversy over it.

So when I read this section, and I see that the regional manager is able to assign an area of land that is contiguous to a guide-outfitter's territory to that guide-outfitter without tender, I see the possibilities of major controversy. For one thing, I am not sure that it would necessarily... What if that particular area was very close to two guide-outfitting areas? One could play with that and go beyond, but let's assume two.

Or, for example, what if that territory is the favourite hunting-ground of resident hunters, who would think that those are the boundaries for the guide-outfitters and that at least in that area they don't have to be competing with the guides and the foreigners who come in and clean the place out, that at least that's a place where they can hunt.

It seems to me that if you are going to have these little areas that create the kind of problem you have laid out, you then need to at least tender these areas or in some way ensure that there is public scrutiny of what happens,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, a resident hunter — in other words, a British Columbian who has all the other licences and approvals — can go anywhere he wants, except in areas they are not allowed to hunt.

Secondly, any of these determinations made by the regional manager are subject to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board.

Thirdly, I have to stress that this area has to be an area that, by itself, would not be suitable for designation. In other words, it is so small and sparse that as a guiding area it would not be appropriate. It's an area of such a size — or maybe quality; but presumably size in most instances — that the only use the Crown would have out of it in terms of raising extra revenue would be to have it attached to some current guide's area.

MS. EDWARDS: As I said, I don't like to extend this, but I don't think getting revenue for the Crown is the only use of Crown land. Although it may be a small area, there are certainly very strategic areas that could make a lot of difference to a guide-outfitter's territory. It seems to me that there should be a public process before these areas are assigned, not simply an opportunity to appeal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to tell the member just one more thing, because I can appreciate the concern expressed in her riding, where we have some of the best hunting in North America, without question.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Too many elk — yes, I guess it depends on whose hay they are eating.

MR. CLARK: All my constituents go there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know. Why is it that all the drunks wear red hats?

Seriously, we have set aside areas in the Kootenay that will not be released for guiding. We do recognize the member's concern. I can appreciate her concern that it may not be totally open to public scrutiny, but I can assure her that with the Environmental Appeal

[ Page 8685 ]

Board provisions, if there is a determination in the Kootenays by the regional manager and it is deemed to be incorrect by just about anybody, that determination can be appealed and due public process will be put in place.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

MS. EDWARDS: I was trying to contemplate, Madam Chair, whether to let this go past. I am really not sure what my question is. The notes have me a little confused.

It says that anyone who by accident kills or wounds wildlife other than prescribed wildlife and does not report it promptly commits an offence. My note doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I will simply ask the minister: is that dealt with by the regulations under the Wildlife Act or by something else?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We will prescribe the list where you are exempt. For example, if you run over a bunny rabbit, we are not too worried about that. I am sure the rabbit is, but.... We want to have all road kills reported except those common road kills that we will exempt, and that's the reason for the section. It includes cats.

[6:45]

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

MS. EDWARDS: This is obviously central to this act. I have some questions to the minister. Dogs, if they are to be controlled or in fact killed by officers to protect wildlife, must be running in packs, I believe, and harassing wildlife. Now poor puddy cat doesn't need to go out with the boys. All it needs to do is step outside the door and be in a place where wildlife is usually found. What we want to know, what is needed and what we beg for is a definition of wildlife. Is it the sparrow in the apple tree in the front yard? Obviously the bunny on the road which the minister so glibly says we may kill is okay; it's not wildlife. But what about the poor cats? What is going to require that they be taken into custody and given a life term?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've got to realize that we have some serious situations here. For example, felines are nocturnal, and there may be times when we want to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Felines. Some females are nocturnal, too. That's a different type of wildlife, Madam Chairman.

There may be instances.... I guess I could give one. I realize that we are all getting a bit giddy this time of night, but, for example, birds which may be protected.... The burrowing owl commonly found in the southern Okanagan is a protected species, and there could be an impact of domestic cats on the burrowing-owl population if they were out running at night. So we have put this provision here where we will allow a wildlife control officer to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shoot.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is that what we say? Actually, we don't say "shoot"; we say an officer "may kill." That would be the condition. I can assure you that our conservation officers and people employed with the Ministry of Environment have a lot more important things to do than look after nocturnal felines. But in a case where they determine that it should be done, they will have, under this provision, the ability to do that.

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, I am speaking to a minister that doesn't own a pet cat.

This excludes "running" and "on land." So, in fact, a cat that is where wildlife is.... Presumably that may mean within a municipal area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Remember, I told you earlier about that empty bird's nest I have in my garage; that's why I don't have a cat, either. I looked after him at the same time.

In any event, seriously, we've just editorially changed the section from "running" to "on land."

Sections 41 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

MS. EDWARDS: There is a major problem with non-payment of Wildlife Act fines. This says he can lose all of his licences, permits, and so on, and the director may refuse to issue or renew a licence, permit or limited-entry.... Again, I have to ask the minister: is this going to be enforced?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are just making clearer, in this addition to the current section 87, our right to do what we want to do. We do enforce this now. This is in forests, and it is simply a narrative change which makes it, for our purposes, a better section.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

MS. EDWARDS: This one, presumably, now makes it legal to shoot animals from aircraft. Actually, that is for animal control officers, but it is a change that will be broadly responded to. Is it correct that it allows the control officers to kill from aircraft, including helicopters?

[ Page 8686 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that is part of it. I think there's actually more in a previous section. This also adds to section 88 a mention of section 12 of the Firearm Act.

Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

MS. EDWARDS: This gives the minister the authority to appoint as deputy conservation officers anybody he considers suitable, and they then have the same power as conservation officers. Why is it the minister would want to do that? Why is it that he would not appoint conservation officers for the work that needs to be done? Conservation officers who are trained and who are in the system are in fact issued with guns. I have to ask: would someone who is appointed by the minister who is not a conservation officer also be issued with a gun?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. For example, we may deputize a former conservation officer or a former peace officer of a city police force or a former member of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, all of whom would have qualified with side-arms and/or rifles. Those people, under the minister's regulation, may be appointed to carry side-arms, if that is your question. If others did not have previous training in side-arms or other armament qualifications, they would not be allowed to carry guns or to use them. For example, in the case of appointing a person as a deputy conservation officer for animal control, we may appoint someone who's a trapper who has good rifle and hunting experience and would be a good person to do those duties.

There are a variety of things that could happen, but in answer to your question, I can assure you that the conservation officer service is very rigidly controlled and has a set of standards that are probably the best in North America. For them to deputize anybody, they'd have to be assured of that person's ability to handle whatever job they were being asked to do.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister foresee any appointments that would last for any length of time, or would they be short-term?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think most of them would be short-term. I would suspect we'd have people on a permanent basis doing summertime garbage dump work where you may have a bear problem or a seal at a popular lake in summer, spring or fall; inspecting angling licences; and that type of thing. There'd be a lot of that happening, but the majority would be short-term.

MS. EDWARDS: You talk about inspecting angling licences. I have to assume that there'd be a number of people inspecting angling licences, most of whom would be conservation officers. So you wouldn't be hiring somebody on a short term for that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A lot of it would be seasonal, as I said earlier; but it would be year-after year seasonal. It may be a retired conservation officer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because this is expanding the force of the conservation officer service on a temporary basis. That's why we have auxiliary police officers, I guess — why we have auxiliary people doing lots of things. Particularly in the Ministry of Environment, there's an awful lot of seasonal work for a variety of reasons.

Sections 48 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 53.1., by adding the following section:

53.1. Section 4 of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act, SBC 1988, c. 26, is amended by renumbering it as section 4(1) and by adding the following:

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may transfer, in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, an amount of the balance in the Crown land special account to the Habitat Conservation Fund special account.]

Amendment approved.

Section 53 as amended approved.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 70, Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 70, Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 8687 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. MILLER: just for clarification, I presume this amendment would allow the log squads to operate. Is that the intention of the minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Partly, Madam Chairman. Also, where regular check-scaling takes place with staff check-scalers, and a check scale has been conducted and it's determined that the original scale was inappropriate, the check-scale figures and summaries can be used in place of the original scale.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. MILLER: I have no particular concerns, but I would like to ask the minister to perhaps relate the circumstances that have required the change.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chair, I'll just refer to my notes. The section will make company assets in the form of section 88 credits against stumpage transferable, along with the transfer or change of ownership of a licence to which the credits relate.

Few of these credits remain at this time, less than $5 million worth, since the use of section 88 was stopped in October 1987. At that time the new stumpage system was introduced. Some companies operating in marginal timber are having a difficult time recovering their stumpage credits. Making the credits transferable will speed up the elimination of these credits and allow firms to restructure and improve their competitiveness. Those outstanding credits are obligations on the part of the Crown, because it's a means of paying for work accomplished.

[7:00]

MR. MILLER: It didn't completely satisfy me. The change allows the transfer of credits when there's a change in the ownership of a company. Was that not the case before? Did the original owner have to claim those credits? I don't understand how marginal timber factors into this at all. Really the Crown owes, through the existing section 88, payments to a company for work approved by the Crown. That company has now changed hands. Would those credits not have been receivable by the new company under the existing legislation?

HON. MR. PARKER: That's correct, Madam Chair. The act did not provide clearly for the transfer of credits.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. MILLER: just a question on the submission of scale sheets. I'm satisfied with this section generally and with the previous changes in strengthening the Crown's ability to collect revenue, but would this section legitimize, if you like, the current practice where brokers quite often submit the scale sheets to the Crown, although I believe the act requires the logger to submit the scale sheets to the Crown?

HON. MR. PARKER: Each cutting authority identifies the scaling station, and the scale return may be submitted by the log purchaser. In the past, we weren't in a position to recover charges due the Crown from the log buyer; only from the licensee. This section permits the recovery of charges due to the Crown for timber from the log buyer who has bought the wood from the licensee.

The scale return is from the scaling station. It may be submitted by the licensee; it may also be submitted by the buyer if the buyer is operating the scaling station. For example, if a timber scale operator in the Prince George area delivers his logs to Carrier Lumber, the Kordyban operation, they operate the scaling station. They would return the scaling sheet to the Forest Service, because that's the scaling location that was agreed upon with the licensee.

MR. MILLER: I was getting into the situation that I understand existed. I believe it was identified in the auditor-general's report or else in a subsequent conversation that I had with some auditor-general's staff, where under the existing section, the person who performs the scale has to deliver a copy to the Crown and to the person who requested the scale. What was happening in practice was that the scaler was sending the scale sheet to the broker. I'm using the term "broker" as the person who fronted for the small business logger. The broker was entering that data. There was some question about whether all that data was subsequently passed on to the Crown. Yet that was never really allowed for or legitimized, if you like, in the existing act.

Now where there's an agreement between a logger and a purchaser, the purchaser can submit the scale sheet. The purchaser could, I presume, request the scale as well. It's a fine point, in a way, but I think it was identified as just one of the areas where there was a potential for abuse: the whole system from scaling to submitting of that scale sheet to a third party and that third party submitting it to the Crown as opposed to the original scaler doing it.

HON. MR. PARKER: This provides for the scale report to come from the scaling station.

[ Page 8688 ]

MR. KEMPF: Seeing absolutely no indication of any impact on small business in the first five sections of this bill, would the minister please tell me in section 6 where it impacts substantially on small business?

HON. MR. PARKER: In some cases in the past, we've had situations where a small business operator has agreed with the buyer that the buyer would pay the charges to the Crown. The price that the seller or the licensee received for his logs is generally netted for the stumpage and royalty payments. Subsequently the buyer defaulted on the S and R account. The only recourse the Crown had was to go back to the licensee. So it hit the small business operator twice. This amendment protects the small business operator from that double jeopardy.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. MILLER: This section removes the phrase "on reasonable and probable grounds"; to me this seems to offer the Crown a broader scope to deal with the problem.

Basically we are talking about seizing wood that has not been.... Basically the change to section 143 which has been repealed has been replaced by a very definitive statement: timber that "has not been scaled under section 73 and is being or has been transported to a place other than the place where it is required to be sent for scaling." That replaces words that allow the regional manager, district manager or forest officer to seize timber that on reasonable and probable grounds he believes to be subject to the conditions that I have just stated.

It has or appears to have taken out that judgment or the ability of that officer to exercise judgment by the dropping of the words "on reasonable and probable grounds," because the wording now says that it can be seized if it definitely has not been scaled — and that might be a moot point — and is being transferred to a place other than where it should be authorized to be transferred to be scaled or has been. They are all very definitive terms, where previously section 143 allowed discretion on the part of the appropriate officer of the Forest Service to seize. Presumably that would be resolved once the issue, was determined. Nonetheless it appears to me that the discretionary aspect has been dropped.

HON. MR. PARKER: No, that part has not been dropped, Section 1430)(c) reads: "timber that, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes...." Okay?

MR. KEMPF: Same question as on section 6: can the minister please tell me how this section impacts substantially on small business?

HON. MR. PARKER: In the same manner as it impacts on everybody else. This provides for the field officer or the regional manager, district manager or anybody authorized by them to seize timber that on reasonable and probable grounds they think has not been scaled under section 73 and is either being transported or has been transported.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to recommend this section to the committee. I want to say how pleased I am to see it in, and I am sure I speak for a lot of MLAs who represent people who deal with the contractors. I think having this dispute resolution mechanism in the amendments is desirable. I commend the minister for it. I also want to tell the committee that the minister, when in private practice, had this sort of agreement with the company he was acting for and the contractors that he was working with. I am very pleased to see this in legislation. It has taken years and years to get some sort of a resolution to the concern that has been expressed by the contractors.

I don't know if it is perfect, but it certainly is a good start. With that said, Madam Chairman, I want you to know that I totally support this section and commend the minister for including it in this amendment this year.

MR. MILLER: That indeed is a real surprise that another cabinet minister supports a piece of legislation brought in by the government. I presume I wouldn't have expected anything less. And I'm sure it's a comfort to the Minister of Forests to know that the Minister of Environment supports what he is doing.

I think this is important, and I'm pleased to see it enacted, although I do have some questions on it from the point of view that it was the work of an all-party committee. I think the committee worked well together; we came down with a unanimous report. That in itself is noteworthy and worthwhile and points to the need to continue that process, because I truly believe that is an excellent vehicle for determining issues in a relatively non-partisan or bipartisan way.

There are a couple of points I want to ask about. First, the recommendation's of the committee were that significant phase contractors be afforded the same protection of a written contract and a means of arbitrating disputes, and yet the legislation only deals with contractors to licensees. I wonder if the minister would advise why that was omitted.

HON. MR. PARKER: The terms of reference for the select standing committee dealt with provisions of timber harvesting contracts between tree-farm licensees or forest licensees and contractors, as provided in the Forest Act, and did not deal with subcontractors. The committee saw fit to go beyond the terms of reference and make suggestions, but the suggestions are not consistent. They refer to significant

[ Page 8689 ]

phase subcontracts, significant phase contractors, significant subcontractors and simply contractors, so defining what constitutes a significant subcontractor is not easy. Sticking with the terms of reference for the select standing committee, we cut this amendment to the Forest Act and its enabling legislation to ensure that through regulation dispute settlement can take place on written contracts which are required between forest licensees, tree-farm licensees and their contractors, including phase contractors.

MR. MILLER: In reading the terms of reference, it certainly is a fine point of interpretation. The House authorizes the committee to examine and inquire into and make recommendations. I think the wording is such that the committee was within the terms of reference in making the recommendation. I would draw the attention of the minister to the plight of those independents, notably the truck loggers in the interior, who have tried a variety of means. It's certainly an important problem for them. The Minister of Environment is aware of the activities that took place in Prince George.

[7:15]

In a very untypical way the independent contractors — the truckers, primarily — banded together, actually got some union assistance, and undertook what we know of as job action in order to press their point collectively to try and get improved rates. They certainly impressed the committee with the detailed arguments they presented to the committee. They were very factual arguments in terms of their operating costs and the fact that they were captive to these companies, and in fact there was no dealing with them. They described how they would go in with the facts and figures indisputably laid out, only to be confronted by companies who said: "Well, it's too bad; it's the bottom line. Take it or leave it." It seems to me that once we accept in principle, bearing in mind the statement of the Minister of Environment, that this issue has been outstanding for a long time and it's overdue that we deal with it, if we accept that principle, then I don't see how we can refute the arguments of people who are contracting in the forest industry because of the original licence, only they're phase contractors. They should be afforded the same protection. I don't think there's an argument in principle against that. There may be some difficulty in defining significant phase contractors, I'll grant you that.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: If they're contracting to a contractor, they're not covered. That's the point.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Pardon my terminology. They're subcontractors, but they could be conducting a phase of the logging. They're phase contractors. Sometimes you get a contract with a licensee; sometimes you get a contract with a contractor. Nonetheless, a phase contractor refers to the type of work you do — a phase of logging.

Again I question the minister on the situation in the Peace River country, where people who had legitimately banded together — the truckers collectively had banded together some 70 truckers....

HON. MR. PARKER: Prince George?

MR. MILLER: Dawson Creek — to try to get an improvement in rates. These people appear to be forgotten in the amendment. I don't know, perhaps the minister could advise. Was it simply the difficulty of defining the issue in legislative language that prevented it from being included in this section? Surely we agree — bearing in mind the words of the Minister of Environment — that we don't have a philosophical objection. It's not interventionist in the extreme. We're simply saying that these parties should have a written contract and a means to arbitrate their disputes.

HON. MR. PARKER: The example cited at Dawson Creek is one of the sale of logs to a mill from sources of timber other than that held and operated by that particular mill. The terms of reference for the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands were with respect to provisions of timber-harvesting contracts between tree-farm licensees or forest licensees and subcontractors.

It has nothing to do with licences held by other parties or the sale of wood from those sales or sale of wood from private lands, which was the case in Dawson Creek.

In the matter of truckers in Prince George, where these trucks are subcontracted to a prime contractor, the prime contractor may have a phase that he's contracted, and it may be hauling phase. The prime contractor may have subcontracts with truckers. Where there's difficulty between that subcontractor and the phase contractor, this does not cover the situation between the sub and the phase contractor.

In the case where you have a full-phase contractor — traditionally called stump-to-dump contractor — and an individual has subcontracted a particular part of that operation from the prime contractor, this does not cover a dispute between those two. However, all prime contractors are put on notice with this legislation that if this sort of provision is made for their protection, and if they are not prepared to reciprocate in kind with their subcontractors, then there will be government intervention in their business place too.

MR. KEMPF: I don't see anything in the section that puts anybody on notice for anything. It was definitely the intent, and as the member for Prince Rupert has said, it's a very fine point of interpretation indeed. It was the intent, and you need only have asked your colleague who was the chairman of that select standing committee of this Legislature and brought in those recommendations.

[ Page 8690 ]

It's really too bad that the minister had to stop three-quarters of the way and not accept all of the recommendations of that committee. I agree with the remarks made by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). It's really a positive step. It is a sorry state of affairs to see that the minister, in his wisdom, chose not to accept all of the recommendations on that very fine point. This sort of situation has been waited for in this province for many decades. All the accolades go not to the minister but to the select standing committee of this Legislature and its Chairman for finally having forced the government to bring in this section. But again I say it's a sorry state of affairs that it couldn't have been done properly with all of the recommendations, regardless of that very fine point, accepted by the minister and government and put into legislation.

HON. MR. PARKER: The records of this House show, and I'd just like to emphasize, that that committee sat on the motion of this minister.

MR. MILLER: A final point of clarification with respect to the regulation. The recommendation of the committee was that if the parties were unable to agree on a method of arbitration, the Commercial Arbitration Act would apply. I guess I'm seeking the minister's assurance that that in fact is what the regulation will say.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's our intent to proceed along those lines, yes.

MR. KEMPF: If we're going to put things on the record, let it clearly show on the record of this House that it wasn't until after much prodding was done by this side of the floor that the minister brought in that resolution.

MR. BRUCE: I'd just like to commend the minister and the government for taking these steps. I know full well that perhaps not only may the legislation as we see it not be entirely as we wanted it, but also in the recommendations as we passed them through to the government in the first place.... As a committee we had some difficulty in determining what would be a significant contractor, a phase contractor, a subcontractor and all those other words. I'm one who takes the minister and the government at its word, that if in fact the message is not clear to the industry and those that play a role, there will be other steps taken in the future.

MR. KEMPF: Don't hold your breath.

MR. BRUCE: I won't have to hold my breath.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 86, Forest Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT(No. 2), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before we get started, members, the Chair would like to announce that by agreement of both sides of the House the Chair is going to allow general discussion of Bills 81 and 82 under Bill 81, as they are companion legislation.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't here for second reading debate, and I apologize to the minister, but we should be able to do this fairly quickly together.

I understand the minister said that the tax loss associated with the court case which essentially spawned these two bills was potentially over $100 million. I notice that the bill is retroactive. I think all members are uncomfortable with retroactive legislation, and particularly the auditor-general. I know the government has been accused of doing it from time to time. In this case it does seem to be unavoidable. Perhaps the minister could explain to me the tax loss associated with this particular case and how the $110 million is calculated, in terms of the possible ramifications. I note that this covers 1966, or something to that effect.

[7:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The understanding that had been in place since the early sixties, and possibly even as early as the early fifties, had been between the taxing jurisdictions across Canada and the interprovincial carriers and international carriers who did business in Canada. Each province would collect a sales tax on the purchase of new equipment being brought into service, and it would be prorated on the basis of hours used in the jurisdiction. That understanding had been worked out with the industry and had been in place for a number of years.

It so happened that in the early sixties, I guess, a province chose to change the understanding and expanded its potential for revenue gain. In that process a series of litigations was embarked on, each

[ Page 8691 ]

one for a different specific purpose but each one dealing with a generic question.

As a consequence of the to-ing and fro-ing in that earlier exercise, we were faced with a suit against us in British Columbia which was going to supposedly settle the constitutional question; that is to say, the legality of the understanding that had been in place for many years. We were a bit surprised to find that when the judgment came down, it ignored the constitutional question — a question, by the way, we feel comfortable in defending. Nevertheless, the judgment dealt with the fact that our legislation didn't have formulas included. As a consequence, we were told that in the absence of formulas we had no taxing authority or jurisdiction.

As a consequence of that, it exposed us to risk for tax refunds by all carriers: rail lines, interprovincial truckers, international truckers and even contractors who bring equipment into the province temporarily for specific contract work. We were exposed all of a sudden to tremendous potential financial impact.

That's where the $110 million calculation comes from. Were all the carriers to try to capture this interpretation of the courts, we would be faced with the possibility of a $110 million refund, or thereabouts. In his verdict the judge specifically said — or at least hinted; I shouldn't put words in his mouth — that in our case it might well be that by including appropriately phrased formulas in the legislation, the problem he faced in making his judgment might be resolved. It's largely that commentary, which was included in the written judgment, that prompts this legislation.

MR. CLARK: What is the annual tax loss that would take place if the bill were to stand not retroactively but in the following years?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am advised that if we include all categories that would be captured — truckers, rail, etc. — it would be about $15 million a year.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could assure the House that the imposition, so to speak, of these formulas is the codification of existing practice, and there are no increased taxes or changes in taxes associated with any of the interprovincial carriers as a result of this bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am pleased to advise the member that that is the case. There is no additional impost on the carriers as a consequence of these formulas. These formulas are designed merely to preserve everyone as whole. We would retain the taxes we have traditionally been collecting, and the carriers would not be obliged to submit any more than they have traditionally submitted.

MR. CLARK: I gather that since the court case' there hasn't been any rebate of any taxes, so I assume that we won't be back-collecting.

I guess one last point is that it seems to me obvious that this invites further court cases challenging the validity of these formulae, I would guess, given that the nature of the original attempt to go to court was on something other than the formulas. So I gather that the constitutional question is still outstanding and perhaps would still be the subject of a further court case. The minister has said the province is comfortable with our position on that, but I suppose it's possible for some legislation down the road to deal with another unfavourable ruling which may result from a constitutional question.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't want to prolong this, Madam Chairman, but as I mentioned, the constitutional question still has not been addressed by the courts. We do have a comfort about our ability to defend such an action. If it's declared unconstitutional, I suppose it's just a lost revenue source. I don't know what recourse we might have in that eventuality.

To the comment that we have not made refunds under this, I should point out to the member that the list is growing, so it is important that we deal with this section.

Sections I to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chair, I move the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 81, Social Service Tax Amendment Act(No. 2), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 82.

TEMPORARY USE TAX VALIDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 8692 ]

Bill 82, Temporary Use Tax Validation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 83.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before we get started, the Chair would just like to say that four amendments have already been distributed.

Section I approved.

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to be too complimentary to the minister, I could make the argument that this bill is long overdue and in many cases closes the gate after some of the horses have gone, but I won't go into too much detail. I will say that the bill is a significant improvement over existing legislation. I'm pleased to support it in general and would just like to canvass several of the new clauses for posterity.

The first brand-new section is section 2, which, as the note says: "expands the categories of persons considered to be in a 'special relationship' with a reporting issuer." If the minister has his notes on section 2, I wonder whether he would just explain the definition of "special relationship." Perhaps he might also tell me how it compares to the Ontario legislation. I note with interest and approval that many of the sections harmonize with legislation in Ontario, which I think has been superior. I might say, if I can be negative for a second, that all these changes do seem to be an admission that the existing law is inadequate, has been inadequate, something we on this side have been saying for some time.

But I note that this section doesn't refer to the Ontario act, so perhaps he could explain the definition of "special relationship," the significance of it and how it compares — or whether it compares at all — to existing statutes in Ontario, if he has that information.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I humbly acknowledge the expression of support by the hon. member opposite about our work, although I think I must straighten the record. To the suggestion that the amendments obviously indicate the existing law was inadequate, I must hasten to point out that a year ago we said we were going to embark on a consistent program of updating and strengthening the regulations. We served notice well over a year ago on this question of insider trading, so it can hardly be said that events over the last 12 months have dictated our style here.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

To the suggestion that the Ontario legislation is superior and therefore gives the member some comfort, I must point out that in a large measure we were driven towards compatibility. Because I am chairing a national committee which is supposed to be attempting to achieve just that, I felt compelled, even though there is a need for B.C. and the Vancouver Stock Exchange to continue to have future options available in a way that Toronto and Montreal might require. Notwithstanding that, as a general rule we want to conform, although I should point out that we haven't embraced conformity in every single respect.

The member asked about this section 2. This provides a new definition of "special relationship," which parallels the definition contained in the Ontario Securities Act. The definition is used in the new sections 68 and 119 dealing with insider trading and tipping. The most significant change to the definition is that tippees of tippees are now included in the definition and are therefore caught under the section 68 prohibition against insider trading and tipping, and the corresponding section 119 civil liability provision.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could explain the reason for increasing the maximum membership in the commission.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is the intention of the board of governors of the VSE to ensure that there are public governors included on many of the subcommittees. This has the effect of increasing the maximum number of members from seven to nine.

Pardon me. I was speaking to the wrong amendment; I stand corrected.

We are dealing here with the amendment to the Securities Commission, which is merely expanded for the purpose of evening out the workload. I am sure it hasn't escaped the member's attention that the number of hearings has increased very significantly, and the consequent workload on the existing members is such that it's becoming too time-consuming. We prefer to have commissioners from the public at large, and that of necessity almost means that they be not full-time commissioners, but rather those who can be brought in on an as-required basis. So this basically evens out the workload.

[7:45]

MR. CLARK: I have no problem supporting this. In fact, I suspect that to deal with enforcement of this new statute, you may need more. I might say that a trend in this administration has been to bring in certain improvements in legislation but not to enforce them, so I am encouraged that there is an increased number from seven to nine. I suspect that — and probably your staff would agree — that may even be tight, if the regulatory arm is doing their job

[ Page 8693 ]

and causing more hearings, which may be easier given some of the new legislation.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment to section 4 in the proposed amendments to section 6(2) in paragraph(a), by adding "126" between "121" and "129."

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain this. The superintendent of brokers is appointed by the Securities Commission. What is the current status?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The appointment is made under the Public Service Act.

MR. CLARK: What's the significance of this amendment? Does it mean that the new superintendent of brokers would not be an appointee under the Public Service Act? Does that have some special ramification for that individual? Can he be paid more, or is he subject to any limitations? I'm just wondering what the purpose of the section is.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It allows us a little bit more flexibility in that we can embark on a contract of employment with him rather than through the standard arrangement.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister confirm that that allows the government to pay more than would otherwise be the case?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose that's one of the possibilities.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. CLARK: This section repeals section 19 of the act and replaces it with regulations. I'm always uncomfortable when I see that in a bill. I wonder if the minister could justify that for me. Again, the section of the act that I saw was quite explicit, and by making it by regulation one never knows whether that means it will be enhanced or whether it will decrease its effectiveness. I wonder why removing it from the act and making it subject to regulations is here.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The new provision in the regulations will require all registrants, other than salesmen, to maintain adequate financial records and to make annual financial disclosure. The current act doesn't have the effect of requiring that information.

MR. CLARK: I guess my preference would always be to include it in the act rather than leave it subject to regulation, which can be changed by order-incouncil. I don't have any problem with the minister's explanation. My preference would be for tougher regulations, if that's desired, to be codified in the act and to improve the act rather than to eliminate something from the act and say that they're now subject to regulation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm advised that all of the disclosure requirements are contained in regulations, so this is an effort in uniformity in that respect.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment to section 14 in the proposed section 31(2)(26.1), by adding "or registered underwriter" after "registered dealer" in both cases where it occurs.

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: We don't have to debate these amendments, but just for the record could the minister inform the House that these are really just cleaning up things that should have been in the existing act and are really nothing of consequence.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That is correct.

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. CLARK: This deals with selling short. I know that all those people phoning me about Archer and others are interested in this subject. I wonder if the minister could just explain the purpose of this amendment. It seems to me to somewhat clarify matters. Even though it tightens it, it seems to make it a little looser in a funny kind of way. At least that's how I read it. I wonder if the minister could just explain the purpose of the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The amendment limits the interpretation of the word "own." It requires a person to notify his broker if he does not own a security when he places an order to sell the security. The requirement to give notice when selling short enables market participants to monitor transactions of this nature. Guidance is given in the new section 41(2) as to the meaning of the word "own" in order to

[ Page 8694 ]

remedy the problems caused by uncertainty as to scope of its meaning.

MR. CLARK: As the minister said, this limits the interpretation of the definition of who owns or who has to declare. It clarifies it. I see the staff is giving me the sign that it broadens the definition. I appreciate the need for certainty in these rules, and that's a constant problem. It seems to me it limits the definition of ownership. Perhaps the minister could inform me of the current practice that it's trying to remedy. Is it that people are not declaring because the current rules are somewhat vague and that this will make it clear for people and therefore more people will declare? Is that what this is intended to do?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's correct.

Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MR. CLARK: I just had a note to myself for the minister to explain this particular section. Every time I see repealing a section of an existing act, I'd like the minister simply to justify the need to repeal it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This repeals section 54. Section 54 prohibited an issuer from relying on the prospectus exemptions unless it was not in default of any requirement of the act or regulations. This prohibition created an unfair trap for issuers and is not uniform with the legislation in other jurisdictions. There are other remedies available to the superintendent under the act to prevent an issuer from issuing additional securities if the issuer is not current with its continuous disclosure of filing requirements.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that there are other mechanisms, but when I look at the existing section 54, it doesn't seem too onerous. Is the minister saying that this current section 54 is too onerous or has caused some problems, and it's a sort of bureaucratic question that people were complaining about?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, section 54 imposed requirements which through innocent inadvertence by issuers would have legally constituted violations. The intent here, insofar as violations are capturable under other sections of the act.... It was deemed that the presence and existence of section 54 in the old act tended to confuse the issue, and this is an effort to avoid that kind of confusion.

MR. CLARK: Is it fair to say that you simply weren't enforcing the existing section 54 in any event?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, I don't know that I'd want to embrace the member in that interpretation. Suffice it to say that it was a difficult issue to enforce.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 23 in the proposed section 55(2)(24), by adding "or registered underwriter" after "registered dealer" in both places where it occurs.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. CLARK: This is a very important section which is the guts of, or at least a large part of, the insider trading and tipping prohibitions that exist in this bill. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether this section deviates in any way from the existing Ontario statutes. I might say that I'm not trying to take comfort that just because it's Ontario it's good. I just want to know whether there are some changes from the Ontario act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. CLARK: Again, this section repeals a large part of the act, and then this section adds a large part. This in fact is about 20 pages of this bill. So I would like the minister simply to explain to me the rationale behind jettisoning the entire section with a complete rewrite, as opposed to amending the existing act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This brings in provisions that are substantially uniform with Ontario's takeover-bid and issuer-bid provisions. Once again, this is an effort to promote uniformity. Takeover bids are generally made in more than one jurisdiction and must therefore comply with the laws of more than one jurisdiction. As Ontario is generally the prime jurisdiction, it is essential that our rules be uniform with those of Ontario. The changes are mainly of a wording nature rather than substantive.

Sections 27 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

HON. MR COUVELIER: I move the amendment to section 32 in the proposed section 127(2), by deleting this section and substituting section 126.

[8:00]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 8695 ]

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

MR. CLARK: I would like to commend the minister and his staff for this section. It is a significant improvement. It increases penalties rather dramatically beyond those that exist in Ontario. I would like to say again, not to throw cold water on the minister, that having large penalties is desirable, but the will to enforce them is more important. We have seen with other legislation in this province, environmental legislation in particular, that having penalties which look good on paper are not necessarily worth very much unless they are enforced.

I would like the minister to comment — I believe it is this section — on the ability of the commission itself to levy rather substantial fines. I see somebody shaking their head — it may not be in this section. This section deals with fines generally, but perhaps it is elsewhere. If the minister would like to address that question very briefly, it will save us some time.

The fines in general are increased dramatically. There is a series here that deals with changes to that — all of which I support — but there is a new section, I gather, which allows the commission itself to act in a quasi-judicial manner. I support that, but I would like the minister to clarify it if he has it handy.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: First of all, I am hurt that the member feels that this Securities Commission doesn't have the will and determination to capture violations, enforce regulations and impose penalties for abuse. The record of the Securities Commission, since it's been in place under the fine generalship of Mr. Hyndman and his excellent staff, defies criticism and certainly would withstand any examination of their efforts in this respect. I realize that members opposite sometimes are frustrated by the fact that due process must be followed, but that's an unfortunate consequence of living in a democracy where it's important to prove guilt rather than just suspect it.

In answer to the question the member posed that deals with another section of the bill, I suppose the simple answer is that giving the commission and the commissioner these powers has the effect of allowing for speedier addressing of violations and probably reduces somewhat the burden of proof. It allows the commission the flexibilities that other commissions elsewhere in the country and across the continent have enjoyed and deem appropriate in order to ensure that there is a quick capability to react when suspected violations occur.

MR. CLARK: I wish for the minister to be assured that I am supportive of this, but I would say that I have had a couple of complaints about the Securities Commission, and your staff might be interested in this.

Given the increased status of the commission, the increased fines associated with the commission and the mechanism for speedy trials, so to speak, and convictions — all of which I said I support — there does seem to be somewhat more responsibility on the commission to act in a rather judicial fashion. I am not suggesting that they haven't done that, but just as a note of caution, I would say that there is a much greater onus on the Securities Commission if it decides to act regularly in imposing rather significant fines. I am sure that they are subject to court review in any event, and will be increasingly so if they choose to act on some of these rather large fines which they can levy~

Once again, I support that thrust entirely and agree with it. I just want to make a caution for the record, because I have heard from several people who are concerned about the regulatory power, given that you are essentially removing a court option where there is more likely to be a regulatory option prior to a court option because of the efficacy of which that can act. But the due-process argument is also one which I know we're all cognizant of. So I do support the thrust of the bill in total, and I support that specifically with that caution. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite pleased to support this and all sections of the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I do appreciate that the hon. member opposite in his comments just made had to tread delicately. Eggshells were all over the landscape, and he seemed to mince gingerly between them as he attempted to rationalize the fact that the extra powers I was asking to give the commission appeared to be heavy-handed possibly, and given the abuse I've taken in the House over the last three sessions on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the Securities Commission, I find the ambivalence of the hon. member on this point a little bit amusing. I trust he will forgive me in that respect.

I'd like to set the record straight though. There was one comment I made earlier which I understand might not factually be correct. I'm advised that the Securities Commission does not yet have this signing power that we are giving in this bill, but they're expected to bring it forward shortly. We might be forgiven by describing this as another indication where B.C. leads the nation if not the continent in its enforcement powers of the Securities Commission.

Sections 36 and 37 approved.

On section 38.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment to section 38 in the proposed section 142, by deleting "6 years from" and substituting "6 years after."

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

[ Page 8696 ]

On section 39.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendments to section 39:(a) in the proposed section 144(l)(a), by deleting "contravening, or" and substituting "contravening, and"; and also(b) in the proposed section 144(2), by deleting "from the date" and substituting .after the date."

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Sections 40 to 53 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 83, Securities Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 83, Securities Amendment Act, 1989, read a third time and passed.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT(No. 1), 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act(No. 1), 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act(No. 1), 1989. The bill contains amendments to 15 statutes covering a wide range of programs.

The bill makes several changes to the Adoption Act, providing for financial assistance in order to help secure appropriate adoptions for special needs children. As well, the superintendent of family and child services will be empowered by this legislation to disclose identifying information relating to the adoption of the child in specified circumstances where it is in the child's best interest. These sections, I believe, will be of particular interest to members of the native community in British Columbia.

The bill lowers the eligibility age in the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act from 65 years of age to 60 years of age.

The bill proposes that the Social Workers Act be amended to ensure that only qualified people may hold themselves out as social workers. A number of amendments are made to various statutes to improve the administration to those statutes, such as moving provisions respecting fees from statute to regulation and repealing provisions which are no longer needed.

The bill amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to ensure that certain key services will not be disturbed by possible industrial disputes.

In the bill, an amendment is proposed to the Privatization Benefits Fund Act allowing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to protect the real value of the earnings in the privatization benefits fund by determining the timing and the amount of payment of those earnings into the consolidated revenue fund.

This bill amends, as well, the Motion Picture Act to provide increased ability to ensure compliance with the licensing scheme of that act.

The bill also contains an amendment to the Land Title Act which will provide for registration of a statutory right-of-way on the foreshore in favour of the Crown. This provision will enable the preservation of riparian rights for the Crown.

Bill 90 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT(No. 2), 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act(No. 2), 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH: This bill amends various acts, including the Court Order Enforcement Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Fisheries Act, the Forest Act, the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Medical Service Act and the Sheriff Act.

Under the Court Order Enforcement Act, the bill proposes that an order for substituted service of garnishing order may be made by any judge or registrar, not just the one who issued the order.

There's a scheme to establish fees for appraisers.

Under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the bill proposes to validate certain maintenance orders.

Under the Fisheries Act, amendments thereto reflect the recent GATT ruling. There are proposed amendments to part 3 of the act to provide for the definition of "establishment," to amend the definition of a fish-buying station and to amend the definition of processing, in order to facilitate changes to licensing and inspection programs and to increase fines for contravention of part 3 of that act.

[8:15]

[ Page 8697 ]

Under the Forest Act, the provisions deal with a 5 percent reduction in allowable annual cut for tree farm licence No. 24.

Under the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the proposal is to streamline three programs into one and to deal with the funding thereof.

Under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, there are proposals to clarify the delegation powers.

Under the Medical Service Act, the bill proposes empowering the Medical Services Commission to enter into agreements for payment other than on a fee-for-service basis. Another amendment clarifies the intent of the Medical Service Act respecting funds required for the administration of that act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, under the Sheriff Act the proposed amendments address the appointment System of court bailiffs and the collection of fees.

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

Bill 92 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 61.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections I to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: 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 61, Land Title Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 63.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GABELMANN: It's my understanding that the federal legislation was changed to allow for telewarrants on indictable offences. What this legislation does is to allow the use of telewarrants on a range of lesser provincial matters. I want to ask the minister if he would give us some sense of the justification for this, As I understand the federal legislation, the federal House was careful to limit this to the more serious indictable offences. What motivates the government on this now?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member is quite correct: this legislation parallels the existing provisions — I think it's section 47 — of the Criminal Code of Canada. I say that because it parallels it in relationship to the procedures and safeguards for issuing a telewarrant.

It is designed to be used, for instance, by the Ministry of Environment. You could envisage a person who is suspected of poaching wildlife. The wildlife officer is out in the bush and has come across evidence. As you probably know, some of these operations are fairly mechanized; there's the truck, the freezer and the whole ball of wax' but in order to get the warrant to make the seizure and proceed, the wildlife officer, who we'll say is alone, has to physically go in and get it, and by the time he gets back the evidence has disappeared. This provision would enable them to get that telewarrant by electronic communication.

Another one where you could envisage this applying, I think, would be under the Waste Management Act. You might have a special waste — as today we euphemistically call hazardous materials — and want to seize it, and because you're some distance from being able to physically get a warrant, the evidence could disappear on you. This gives you that opportunity.

But you're quite right: it does parallel the Criminal Code. More importantly, I think, the same safeguards that are put in the Criminal Code are put in here with respect to the process for getting the telewarrant and reporting on your having got it.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand the argument, particularly in relation to offences committed out in the bush under the Wildlife Act. In those kinds of cases it makes some sense. If I am not misreading it, the bill doesn't seem to make those limitations. It seems to me that the bill would allow for the telewarrant procedure to be available for all offences created by provincial legislation. That didn't happen in the federal system, which restricted it to the more serious indictable offences, as I understand it. Now we're saying that in B.C., if a peace officer determines that the circumstances are such that the telewarrant process should be used, the peace officer can proceed on that basis if he or she feels justified in doing so. It seems there are not the limitations that the minister suggests when he talks about fish and wildlife or hazardous wastes, or whatever. Am I correct in that assumption?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, you are correct, member. This process could apply to any provincial offence. I think the practical limitation is to be found in section 1, which translates into section 17.1(1) and the clause: .and that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make application for a warrant

[ Page 8698 ]

in accordance with section 17." The person seeking the telewarrant is qualified by that and would have to prove it was otherwise impracticable.

Sections I to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: 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 63, Offence Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 64.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections I and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 64, Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections I to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like the Attorney-General to tell us what motivated him to depart from the policy of the previous Attorney-General in respect of national law firms and the whole question of allowing these kinds of mergers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: A number of things motivate me in that regard. First of all, I believe it was inconsistent as a matter of policy to be on the one hand advocating free trade and on the other hand advocating restricting trade in the legal profession interjurisdictionally within Canada. I articulated that position to the Law Society of British Columbia the first time I met with the benchers in Dawson Creek a week or so after I was asked to serve in this portfolio.

I suppose one could also point to the fact that the courts struck down the earlier attempt to develop a scheme to do that. I believe the Black decision in Alberta did likewise on a similar scheme. It seems to me that the appropriate thing to do, rather than try to prevent what I think is an inevitable march, is instead to find ways to accept that inevitability and empower the Law Society to come up with the appropriate regulation. It is something we should all be vigilant about, because the Law Society, members of the Law Society and firms operating within the authority of the Law Society carry a lot of moneys in trust and have great privileges. We give a tremendous wide authority and discretionary power to that Law Society to regulate them, so I think they ought to get on with the business of regulating.

[8:30]

Sections 12 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I know absolutely nothing about the Occupiers Liability Act. In fact, I don't think that before today I knew it existed. But I do have questions inasmuch as it seems to lower the responsibility of farmers in respect of strangers on their land.

I wonder if the minister might first of all tell us what prompted the legislation. Secondly, if I understand the legal language correctly, it lowers the duty towards strangers, but what does it do towards visitors, if I can make that distinction? I think that distinction is made in the Trespass Act to which this refers, and I wonder if we could get some clarification about the category of people for whom this duty is lowered.

HON. S.D. SMITH: First of all, this provision deals only with trespassers and therefore does not deal with so-called invitees, which means, obviously, someone has invited you or me.

What this does is the following. Today, if you were to enter upon my ranchland to do skidooing or whatever you wanted to do, and you were trespassing — I hadn't given you permission to come on that land — and the front ski of your skidoo entered a gopher hole, flipped over, and you broke your neck, there is precious little to prevent a suit by you against me as the owner of that land.

That imposes considerable hardship upon the ranch community particularly, because as we have more recreational vehicles and more people mobile and accessible to those lands, which are wide open

[ Page 8699 ]

and very often extremely inviting spaces, that problem arises.

If I fence and post the land, meaning I say "No trespassing allowed," and you thereafter come on my land as a trespasser and do the same thing, you will not succeed in some action you might want to bring against me for injuring yourself.

MR. ROSE: I think it's quite an interesting thing, and I thought at least one question would be appropriate. How does this apply to juveniles who might do this in spite of the posting, or illiterates who can't read the posting? What happens in the whole concept of the attractive nuisance In law? That usually applies to swimming-pools improperly fenced in urban areas, or other attractive nuisances which invite trespass.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The part respecting swimming-pools, section 31 of the bill, section 3(3)(b) of the act, says it's someone "who enters premises that the occupier uses primarily for agricultural purposes...." So it is intended for agricultural land.

The other two were people who couldn't read the no trespass sign. That would certainly be a defence I have no doubt they would raise. How successful they would be, I don't know.

The third one was juveniles, I believe you said juveniles likewise would not be entitled to succeed against the rancher in that case.

MR. ROSE: Has the minister considered the destruction of signs that are posted frequently? In my experience of years growing up in the Fraser Valley, hunting signs that have been posted every second or third post have been taken down. In the instance of that occurring, would it still be actionable against the rancher?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think we have to understand it would still be actionable, but whether you would be successful or not would go to the facts of the situation. It would go to the test of reasonableness, as it always does, given the facts. I don't know how I could hypothetically cover all the situations. But in all of these things it is actionable; you're entitled to bring action. What you're trying to do here is to create a defence for the rancher and for the owner of the agricultural land that's reasonable so that you don't have the situation you have today, where people trespass on somebody's land and then after they get in trouble they want to successfully sue the poor old landowner for their own activity, which probably wasn't particularly desirable in the first place.

Sections 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: 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 71, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 72.

SCIENCE COUNCIL ACT

HON. S. HAGEN: When the Science Council was established by the provincial government in 1978, its main functions were to advise government on science policy, to coordinate research activities and to award research grants and scholarships. In the intervening years, the role of the Science Council has expanded and changed to meet the needs of modern technology. The council has become a highly respected semi-autonomous government agency committed to strengthening the link between technology and economic growth in British Columbia. The amendments to the act will reflect this expanded mandate.

In addition, there are several secondary reasons for the legislative changes. First, the organizational framework of the council will be streamlined. The administrative arm, the secretariat, will be merged with the council, combining all functions, employees and officers, and a president who is appointed by the council will act as chief executive officer. As with many other board appointments, the 15 directors will be appointed by order-in-council.

Second, the modifications to the act will strengthen the financial provisions. By removing the need for an order-in-council, the annual funding procedure will become consistent with that of other similar arm's-length organizations. As well, financial reporting requirements will be more clearly specified.

Finally, two obsolete sections of the act will be deleted. These sections, covering transfer of employees from the public service to the council, were included when the agency was first being established. Since the transfers have now all occurred, the provisions are no long necessary.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out some deficiencies in the bill. We will support It, but it seems to me to miss the mark in terms of where a government needs to encourage.

I note that the explanatory notes and the objectives of the council both state that they are there to meet the needs of industry Yet my belief is that industry has not met their needs or responsibilities to the Canadian public. In canvassing that issue, I would note that the new head of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said in late June that Canadian industries hadn't emphasized research because they hadn't had to; they'd grown rich on natural resources. He also comments on the fact that the

[ Page 8700 ]

branch-plant economy is a factor, some 46 percent of Canadian manufacturing corporations are foreign controlled, and most research is done at head office.

Another article in the Globe and Mail points out, in terms of forestry — which is the thrust of my comments today — that in addition to the fact that Canada imported an estimated $24 billion worth of manufactured goods — more than it exported — we cut down more trees than any other country, yet we import chainsaws. We import 76 percent of our machinery, 40 percent of our electrical products and 80 percent of our health care equipment.

When it comes to expenditures on research and development,"Adjusting to Win" has demonstrated that in the forest industry in British Columbia we spend 0.024 percent of gross revenues in the industry on research and development.

Here are some selected statements from the Science Council of Canada's "The Case of the Forest Product Industries":

"Industry's technological and institutional infrastructure has been developed primarily to support its still important role as a low-cost producer of bulk commodities rather than to develop higher margins by manufacturing value-added products. In Canada the forest product equipment supply industry, with some notable exceptions — mainly in logging and wood processing — has generated relatively little new technology and relied heavily on foreign technology support, usually through foreign parent companies or licensing joint venture agreements....

"Suppliers of equipment to the Canadian pulp and paper industry are mostly subsidiaries of American and European companies. Few of these subsidiaries do any R and D in Canada. The demand for forest product machinery and equipment within Canada is massive. There would be considerable benefits to the Canadian economy if there were a few large internationally oriented, highly innovative equipment manufacturers.... Efforts to encourage the development of world-class machinery and equipment suppliers to the forest product industries would be difficult. There are few suitably growth-oriented, technologically capable companies in Canada."

just to further illustrate the point, in terms of the role of Canadian manufacturers, the total in-house — this is from the "Adjusting to Win" report, I believe; the Science Council report, sorry — R and D expenditures is in the forest product sector about $80 million. Employment levels in R and D by nine Canadian forest product firms, 1980-1984, 450 people. That's 450 people, nine companies. If we add another one in — if we look at ten companies, which is the next list of tables — it was 454. just a dismal record.

If we look at the activities of research and development as a percentage in Canadian forest product firms between 1980 and 1983, we see the following declines: a 50 percent decline in forestry research from 1980 to 1983; a 15 percent decline in pulp paper and paper board; a 45 percent decline in packaging; a 34 percent decline in effort in wood products; and a 15 percent decline in environment.

These are startling statistics in terms of the Canadian industry's performance. We talk about meeting the needs of industry, but when we look at what industry has contributed in terms of what they have acquired in this country and in this province, it is not very much. When we look at the imports verses exports, it's very... Here are just a couple of figures in terms of sawmill machinery: we export $29.7 million; we import $46.5 million worth. In terms of woodworking, we export $51 million, and we import $102 million.

Without dwelling on it, I think it's clear that we have to more than simply meet the needs of industry. It seems to me that we have to require industry to meet our needs. Their record is very bad. I wonder why we constantly set up programs to provide — and I'm not opposed to programs — funding and encouragement for research and development and the rest of it. Why do we constantly do this? We somehow miss the mark when it comes to saying very simply to companies in Canada and in British Columbia: "Look, we have some fundamental requirements. We would like you to spend some of the profits you make here on research and development. We'd like you to turn back into British Columbia a little bit of what you've reaped."

So I would like the minister to take those comments under advisement in terms of the efforts of the Science Council.

[8:45]

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

MR. ROSE: Since we're at second reading, as I assume we are, then I believe that my leader had a comment to make, because if the minister closes debate, that will be closing it up on our leader. We wouldn't want to do that, because we want to hear the enlightenment that he intends to put upon this House on this matter.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, hon. House Leader and Mr. Speaker. During the minister's estimates I canvassed some of the concerns that New Democrats have about the sad state of science and technology and research and development in this province. I talked with him about this. I think we both agree that we've got a long way to go to increase to what's required of a modern economic society to be on the cutting age in a very difficult world. I think the minister agreed with the information that I provided about the OECD, saying that at least 2 percent of the GNP of any economy should go into research and development — at least — and that most of the OECD countries were putting 3 percent to 3.5 percent of their gross national product into research and development and science and technology.

To recap, the Canadian average is only 1.4 percent going into research and development. British Columbia is at the bottom of that totem pole, which is the worst of the OECD nations. We're at 0.7 percent of our GNP going into research and development.

Our forestry critic laid out very clearly some of the, in our opinion, quite irresponsible lack of investment and lack of effort by the forest companies.

[ Page 8701 ]

I think, Mr. Minister, you and I agreed that we have to get industry to do their fair share, and that's why it seems that this objective of the council in subsection 3(a) that we encourage "development and application of advanced technology to meet the needs of industry in the province...." Well, I think we need to challenge industry in this province to do far better, rather than creating sort of an anxious climate around them to meet their needs. I think the forest industry in this province is a decade behind in dealing with valueadded activities and diversification of our economy, unlike the Swedes, the Japanese and many others. You only have to look at the logs that we ship out of this province to Japan and China. Out of that B.C. log the Japanese and Chinese are creating 173 different products. Here in British Columbia we're creating 22, so we have a long way to go.

I think the figures of the Science Council of British Columbia's subcommittee on forestry showed the dismal state of research and development in forestry, why we don't get value out of our products and why we don't have aggressive reforestation and silviculture programs. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the figures in a $13.3 billion industry — the major industry in this province — and at the sum total of research and development in this province, it's about $34 million in forestry, and $32 million of that $34 million comes from government grants, from government funding In other words, Mac-Blo and all of the other companies put just over $2 million into a $13 billion industry. That figure is shameful; it's a disgrace.

I hope the minister will look at changing that section to challenge industry to reinvest some of their record profits in pulp and paper in particular in research and development, so that we get at least the Canadian average of 1.4 percent going into research and development, and hopefully the bare minimum of 2 percent, which would bring us up to about at least a quarter of a billion dollars going into research and development, so we could get the benefit of our forests. This is not a theoretical question, Mr. Speaker. You're talking about tens of thousands of jobs that could be created right here in British Columbia in value-added diversification activities, in reforestation, in silviculture and in finding new products and new markets with a new and aggressive partnership between public and private investment.

So I hope the points that have been raised by our forests critic and that I raised with you in a more general sense during your estimates are addressed by the Science Council and the 15 directors, who I would hope are going to take that same aggressive attitude to their duties. Having the Science Council Act to work with, which expands their mandate so that they can start to move towards the kind of research and development, the kind of science and technology that we need in forestry and that we need to get more value out of our mineral products.... For example, a copper smelter and other value-added activities like that should be looked at. I know that some very fine people in the mining industry think that a copper smelter is possible with new technology.

So there are a number of opportunities in our natural resources in particular, let alone in the rapidly growing information sector, which your own Science Council has said that within ten to 12 years will be an industry almost the size of the forest industry. The opportunities are there, Mr. Speaker. This Science Council, I hope, will start to do a lot more than have us be number ten in this country, which is at the low end of the OECD advanced modern economic states.

I would like to hear the minister give us some encouraging words and say that this indeed does mean that we will have funds and an aggressive partnership between public and private enterprise, and that he'll be pushing private entrepreneurs to reinvest their profits and their funds back into B.C. jobs and B.C. opportunities.

MR. SPEAKER: Under standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was using outdated statistics; they go back to 1986 and earlier. Since 1986, of course, our percentage of R and D has more than doubled in this province, and we're continuing to grow.

While I agree that the forestry companies have not done a great job up until recently on R and D, they certainly are picking up steam. MacMillan Bloedel is spending $15 million in their centre; Canfor is also putting in a centre.

I want to also just comment on three initiatives of the Science Council. One is strategic planning for applied research knowledge; one is industry-based research and development; and the third one is technology transfer, which I think deals with the points that the member made.

I also want to remind the member that our universities have some of the brightest and best minds in Canada and all three of our universities are in the top ten in receiving research dollars from the federal government.

With those few short succinct comments, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Science Council Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to discuss Bill 45. The purpose of the legislation, as I stated in my opening in introducing the bill, is to provide for....

[ Page 8702 ]

MR. ROSE: You weren't even here.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The comments were made on my behalf; correct you are.

This bill is obviously to draft a new act relative to the milk industry. The last time the Milk Industry Act was amended was 1956. After a lot of discussion among staff and legal counsel, we felt it better to introduce a new act rather than patchwork the one that has been in place for some time.

The rationale is to restructure the board and certainly to repeal the existing Milk Industry Act, which established the Milk Board and its authority, recreate the Milk Board as the British Columbia Milk Marketing Board under the Natural Products Marketing(BC) Act with parallel powers plus specific provisions to regulate producer-vendors who custom-process milk into milk products.

It also makes provision for the B.C. Marketing Board to be the supervisory and appeal body for British Columbia Milk Board decisions in order to provide for improved and less costly appeals and to ensure consistency in treatment of commodities under marketing legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARLEE: Generally we concur with the intent of this act. There are certain things that we realize are cosmetic and there are certain loopholes you have been trying to block. We realize that too.

It will require, perhaps, somewhat of a leap of faith from some of the milk producers because of the government's rather recent attempts to take them out of the national marketing program. There are only a few questions we have as we go through the bill, but I think it is generally accepted by the industry and by the opposition.

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

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I am pleased that the opposition critic has made comments to the fact that they recognize that we have had some consultation with the industry and it is for the benefit of the industry that this is being changed and this act is being forwarded.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill go through second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 85.

FOOD CHOICE AND DISCLOSURE ACT

HON. MR. SAVAGE: This one was also introduced by our House Leader. The purpose of this legislation is to give the consumers a "choice" in their foods. I think it's important to recognize that the system will be voluntary in the aspect of enrolment and the programs for certification, and they are to develop, Mr. Speaker, by way of consultation with groups who might wish to utilize such a system.

[9:00]

It allows our food processors and marketers to develop and label food products with government sanctioned descriptions. Consumers desiring information on food contents or seeking products produced without the use of specific synthetic additives may rely on the food descriptions and labelling that will be enabled by this act.

MR. BARLEE: I think this is long overdue too. I'm rather surprised that the terms "organic" or "natural food products" were not used in the act, although that is obviously the intention of the act. There must have been some problem defining which foods fit into those categories.

There are a few things that I'm a little worried about. What's to prevent foreign producers from labelling? How would we police that? It may be difficult; I don't know. I don't see anything in the act that really covers that.

There are a couple of other things too. When they refer to the inspectors, I can see some difficulties, because what's to prevent a producer from purchasing the same product from another producer who is not an organic producer? This rather worries me. Say that they're producing red delicious and they're an organic producer. They've run out of red delicious — it has been done, by the way — and they go to someone else who is not an organic or natural producer. They buy the product from him and sell it under the organic label, thereby probably doubling their profits. This is a little problem here, and I don't think it's covered in this act. And the offence and penalties section of the act would be very difficult to enforce.

So we have a few problems with it. We realize it's new ground that the ministry is breaking, but those are several areas where I think it's a little lax.

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

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I realize what my opposition critic is referring to. To identify organic food, I think you can appreciate the very point you made that it would be difficult to really establish what is organic and what constitutes organic. How much regulation would it require to certify that once it's left a farm is it still organic, or when it arrives at a handling facility what happens to it? All those things are critical as to how you certify that particular application.

[ Page 8703 ]

The same could be said if you had a roadside stand, as you referred to. If a producer optioned that he would say that he has organic food, who's going to certify it? Is it going to require an inspection? That may well be extremely costly as well. But the purpose of it is to have certification, if we can certify at a level.

When you talked about labelling — the same thing. Labelling is required under federal legislation, and it would have to be concurrent with the legislation that is written.

I see what the hon. critic is referring to, and I agree with you. It is difficult to bring in a regulation that would be stringent enough to cover all areas, but what we need is to identify to the consumer that they do have a food choice. We'll do it to the best of our ability to certify that it in fact is of an organic nature, whatever is demanded, even if it means to the point of labelling it within a store shelf.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 85, Food Choice and Disclosure Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 87, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ACT

MR. GABELMANN: I thought the minister would continue his speech from yesterday; he got the first line out yesterday.

I want to say on behalf of the opposition that in continuing the debate on Bill 87 we are in the middle of what I consider an historic occasion. We have had in British Columbia a history of dubious electoral boundary changes over the years and proposals for changes that I think any fair commentator would say have left a less than decent taste in people's mouths.

I don't intend to trace the history of gerrymanders and fingers and other activities over decades past, because first of all it would take a long time, and second, I don't remember them all. Thirdly, I'm not old enough to be able to do that history in a comprehensive way. But most importantly, we really are at a significant change, and there's no point now in going back over the bad old days. This is good stuff and it needs to be said clearly and unmistakably: this is good legislation.

The process of referring this to a legislative committee, not only the designation of riding boundaries in respect of the report of Judge Fisher, but also the question raised by Judge Fisher of what happens next time and the continuing need to make changes to riding boundaries periodically... This bill requires that changes be made after every second election Presumably that will be, in the normal course of events, every eight years. We will get a full and thorough redistribution. The redistribution will be based on the principle of a 25 percent plus or minus variation, which is, I believe, a constitutionally sound provision, and in this province an appropriate deviation from the norm.

It would be desirable in a democratic state to have one person, one vote, and it would be desirable to try to get to a deviation of a handful of percentages. But I think anybody who knows the history and geography of this province knows that we cannot reach those kinds of numbers — 5 percent or 10 percent deviation — and that, in fact, we really do need to have the kind of deviation that is allowed for in this legislation and in continuing redistributions that we will see in years to come.

I have no doubt that many people in northern British Columbia feel that the 25 percent variation is not large enough, and that northern British Columbians will be not represented effectively enough by having a limited number of MLAs, as would happen with this 25 percent. In a democratic society and in this Legislature we have to find the right way, the right mix and the right balance on these kinds of questions.

We are aided, I might say, immeasurably and, in fact, almost required as a result of court decisions.... The Beverley McLachlin decision makes it clear that to go beyond a 25 percent deviation would not bear up under the Charter of Rights that this country — wisely or unwisely — chose to adopt some years back.

Having said that, I believe that the process has been very good. The work of the committee has been, in my view, outstanding. The committee has worked well together, and in presenting their report on Friday last to the House, the chairman of the committee, the second member for Okanagan South(Mr. Chalmers), expressed some thanks to some members of the committee for the work they did in developing the committee report which, of course, is what led to this legislation.

On behalf of our side of the House and members representing the New Democratic Party on that committee, I want to say thank you to members of the government who participated in that committee. We had a rocky beginning, but once it became clear what the course of action had to be, everybody on that committee cooperated fully, worked hard and were determined to get the very best and the fairest kind of process for electoral reform. I applaud all members of the committee, in particular the chairman and the member for Cowichan-Malahat(Mr. Bruce). In terms of what I had to do with the process, those two members played a very outstanding role, and I think that should be noted.

There has been some concern and nervousness about — and we will get, perhaps in committee stage, to some discussion about some of this — the process that is dealt with in section 15, which deals with the whole question of how we implement legislative change between now and Christmas or the new year, when the Legislature isn't sitting, and the mechanisms that have been drawn up to try to reach a legislative solution when we don't yet know precisely

[ Page 8704 ]

what that legislative solution is going to be and the House won't likely be sitting.

I just want to say again on behalf of our side that we feel comfortable with the provisions of the legislation guaranteeing that Judge Fisher's report — or a possible minor variation on that, depending on what might happen with the legislative committee — will become law by January 31, come hell or high water. It is required in this act.

It was a difficult thing to do, and it required a leap of faith on the part of some members who might not be as trusting as some of the rest of us. But in my view, this legislation meets all of the tests and requirements that are needed to ensure that the independent report of Judge Fisher is implemented by the beginning of January.

The only thing that can go wrong now is that somebody might do what somebody else did in the fall of 1975. If somebody does now what somebody else did in the fall of 1975, the election will be on the old boundaries, and people should know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Colin's going to worry.

MR. ROSE: Don't worry, be happy.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't worried in 1975.

Anyway, I don't want to take any more time of the House in respect of this, other than to say that it really is a landmark day to see this kind of legislation introduced. In my view, it is among the best — it's not the very best, but it is among the best — pieces of legislation on electoral reform in the country. All members of this House are to be congratulated for achieving this goal.

MR. KEMPF: I guess I'm going to be the odd man out, because I can't, in all good conscience, stand and speak in favour of or vote for this piece of legislation. That's unfortunate, because I too believe in the establishment of an independent, non-partisan electoral commission. But as a northern representative, as one who knows that the dilution of northern representation in this House is thin enough already, there is no way I can stand and vote for this piece of legislation in this Legislature. This legislation, in accepting the Fisher report, totally alienates the northern two-thirds of this province, further dilutes their representation and adds six urban seats to an already top-heavy urban Legislature. Representation by population indeed! In this day and age....

The member for South Peace River(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) laughs. He wants to ask his constituents — as I have — what they think of this piece of legislation and what they think of adding six more seats to this Legislature, not one of them from the northern two-thirds of British Columbia. You want to ask that before you stand and vote in favour of this piece of legislation, because it not only puts in place that commission, it accepts fully the Fisher report.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You worry about how you vote.

[9:15]

MR. KEMPF: Yes, you worry about how you vote, and I'll worry about how I vote. That's the process in here. I would have been remiss to do any different, without standing up and saying it the way my constituents see it.

This piece of legislation will be remembered for a long time in British Columbia. There was some talk about the Charter of Rights. There's been a lot of talk about socialist legislation. If we're going to talk about socialist legislation, you want to talk about the Charter of Rights. It's now showing up very clearly just how wrong that piece of legislation was for the people of Canada.

Another thing it's showing is the fact that for decades politicians without the intestinal fortitude to do differently have given away their power to judges — judges who are appointed for life, who make decisions that politicians should be making. It's absolutely wrong, and the Fisher report doesn't make it any righter.

MR. WILLIAMS: How do you spell that?

MR. KEMPF: Whichever way you like, Mr. Member. More right, righter; who cares? This piece of legislation is wrong, and on behalf of those whom I represent, I shall vote against it.

MR. LOENEN: The member for North Island(Mr. Gabelmann) called this a historic day and a historic piece of legislation. Indeed it is. It is of great significance. After all, we're talking about the redistribution of political power; we're talking about who participates in governing this province; we're talking about justice, equity, freedom — concepts which are so often very difficult to put into practice and yet are so very dear to all of us.

I would like to at least argue some caution for us adopting this wholesale. The basic premise of the Fisher report — namely, that equality of representation somehow results from equality of numbers — is a departure from our history, and perhaps it does not sufficiently recognize geography, logic or communities of interests. Whereas currently we have a deviation of some 80 percent plus or minus from the norm, we are now moving to allow about 25 percent, which is a very substantial move towards a situation where we would have an equal number of constituents represented by each of the members of this House. That particular norm, that equality in numbers, is not how this province was formed historically, nor how the British parliamentary tradition has developed. Historically, elected members represented geographical areas and communities of interest, and that is how this country and this province were ruled.

We have to ask ourselves: why change, knowing that not all change is progress?

MR. JONES: It's time for a change. Face the facts.

[ Page 8705 ]

MR. LOENEN: The member says it's time for a change, and it may well be. But I'd just like to caution that when we talk about greater fairness and greater equality and who it is that can participate, let us look at it realistically and recognize that what this represents is a shift in power. It's a shift away from the regions to the centre. It's a shift away from the rural to the urban. It's a shift away from the north and the interior towards the lower mainland. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be vast regions of this province that will be less represented than they are now and perhaps even become forgotten corners.

We already have cases where we see immense disparity. For instance, we see high unemployment in Kamloops, we see the economy of the Kootenays suffering in distinction from what's happening in the lower mainland where we see an explosion of growth. I believe the Fisher report will in fact, unless we watch this very carefully, make these disparities even worse than they are today and very much tend to undermine the regionalization initiatives this government has initiated. We have to be aware that that will be one of the side effects of this.

On the federal level we complain bitterly that somehow we are unequal participants in Confederation, Why is that? It is because the rules are stacked against us. It is because on the federal level we try to give that principle of equal representation in terms of numbers a great deal of play. It means that the city of Toronto alone has more MPs than the province of British Columbia. It means that B.C. gets less federal work, as we read in today's Vancouver Sun, and that situation is getting increasingly worse. I just want to quote from today's Vancouver Sun: "With 11.5 percent of the country's population, B.C. got 3.8 percent of the contracts from Ottawa in 1987-88, according to a department...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm having a hard time relating what you're saying to Bill 87, and I'd ask the member to get back on the bill.

MR. LOENEN: The legislation, as I understand it will largely follow the recommendations of the Fisher report, and the Fisher report is based on the premise that there will be justice, that there will be equality of representation, to the degree that we have equality of numbers. I just want to point out that on the federal level that has produced a great deal of inequality, and we suffer from that in this province. The question I have to ask is: why is it that a system which we know to be profoundly unjust is one we recommend to be introduced into this province?

Traditionally, we have never considered numbers alone when distributing political power. We have always looked to geography and communities of interest. There's a very simple reason for that: our geography is vast. Our province is larger than most of the nation-states of Europe. With that vastness comes diversity. We know that life in the Peace country is very different from life in the Fraser Valley, and that the Kootenays are light years away from Oak Bay and Point Grey. That kind of diversity should be protected and not killed.

I know that the Fisher report does make some allowances for that, yet the underlying principle aims to do away with that kind of diversity. Numbers are great when you're dealing with ball bearings. When you're dealing with people, it's a different story. Ball bearings are all the same, but people and geographical areas and communities are not all the same.

We're talking about how people can participate in government. I want to draw an analogy from the experiences I have had in my riding, as compared to a riding that is just beyond the Fraser Valley: namely, Yale-Lillooet. I relate to my community through only one single municipal council, whereas the member for Yale-Lillooet(Mr. Rabbitt) has eight municipal councils to deal with. I have one school board; he has six. I have one hospital board, one seniors' organization and one chamber of commerce; he has many. I have the benefit of one community TV station and a few local newspapers. I can travel to my constituency in 25 minutes on the helicopter. It takes him six hours by car and ferry. My constituency office is located so that no constituent lives more than ten minutes from it. When we talk about equality, about participation, about access to government, one could very well make a case for saying that a constituency such as Yale-Lillooet should be entitled to the additional member rather than Surrey or Richmond.

The question is: who is underrepresented? Fisher is not only against history and geography but also against reason and logic. He writes: "This principle of fairness is at the heart of our free and democratic political system. It says simply that all voters should be treated equally...." So far, so good. But then he goes on to explain what equal treatment means:

". . that votes should count equally in electing the representatives who choose the government...."

To be treated equally means that persons, geographical areas and communities of interest have the opportunity to be represented in this House, Giving equal weight to every person's vote in the province does not achieve that at all. For instance, do the native Indians represent a community of interest? Of course they do. Will Fisher's principle ensure that they can now participate in government? No, it will not.

Fisher says that the principle, the norm, is equality of numbers. In addition, he also recognizes as legitimate certain other factors, such as geography and community of interest, and they are therefore to be limiting factors on what he calls his norm. It would seem to me that it would be better and more just if he would say that history, geography and community of inter est is the principle, and that if you deviate from that you do not get fairness, you do not get an open society where diversity is recognized and encouraged.

[9:30]

My point is that in a province where the population is spread so unevenly, in a province so vast and containing 150,000 native Indians with their history, their culture, their right to be represented, a distribution of political power based on numbers should

[ Page 8706 ]

never be the norm. There is a contradiction in logic in here. He says he recognizes that the principle cannot really be fully implemented. Then the question is: why does he want us to move closer to a principle that he himself recognizes is unjust?

We should also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the Fisher report simply asserts that the principle will lead to greater fairness. He does not say why. Somehow most of us cheer this on, and all the editorial writers, columnists and open-liners say that somehow this is more fair. It seems to me that this is simply the temper of our times; namely, this notion that equality can only be conceived of in terms of equal numbers.

All these people take great offence that tiny little Atlin, with a population of merely 5,500, should be entitled to a seat in this House. It so happens that that community, that constituency, has chosen to send the one and only native member of this House. I believe that after Fisher it will be extremely unlikely that this House will ever again see a member from the native people of this province, and that's sad. The question becomes: what is so fair about that? What is so progressive about that? Is that really just? The point is that equality in terms of numbers reduces everything to merely counting noses without recognizing that behind noses are unique features and a rich diversity.

Behind redistribution lies a vision of what society should ideally look like. I favour diversity. I believe that we should create conditions whereby minorities and special communities of interest, such as our native people or geographical regions, can flourish and grow and be participants and be treated as full partners.

Maybe, just maybe, fairness and equity demand that we set aside three or four ridings, and that they be drawn in such a way to ensure that those ridings will return native Indian people. Why don't we look at the New Zealand model? In New Zealand it is possible for the Maoris to vote at large and be assured that they will be represented in government We have the opportunity to do that, but under Fisher's model, there's no opportunity for that.

We do it for Quebec; we go overboard for Quebec In fact, we give so many special considerations to them that we even go to the point whereby Quebec denies the basic Charter of Rights. But certainly if we can do it for Quebec, we should be able to do it for a community such as our natives.

Someone will undoubtedly say that there's nothing to prevent a native person from participating — but only to the extent that they submerge themselves in the dominant culture. We should make it possible for the native people to be true to themselves and to participate in terms of their own culture. Distribution of political power based on equality of numbers means that the aboriginal peoples of our province will be excluded from sharing any and all political power. As long as we have significant minorities excluded from participating in governing this province, we cannot really talk about having justice.

The great political theorist J.S. Mill said: "The injustice and violation of a principle are not less flagrant because those who suffer by them are a minority." I've always thought that protecting the least powerful among us is the whole basis of our country's system of justice, and we should remember that when we talk about redistributing political power. I believe that the Fisher premise fails because that particular norm does not take into account history, geography or communities of interest. If he had taken this into consideration, Fisher might have just considered how native Indians could have been included, and he certainly would not have butchered up the north country the way he has.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the select standing committee to at least consider some of the points I've made, because justice and fairness are ideals we all strive for, but they are very difficult to attain. Unless we have justice for all, there is justice for none.

MR. GUNO: I had initially chosen to speak tonight because of the implication for Atlin of the passing of this bill. After listening to the last speaker, I thought maybe I would at least respond to his suggestion that we set aside three or four ridings for native people. It is not a novel idea; I think it's been thrown out in various jurisdictions. I think it has been practised in South Africa, where blacks are given different classifications and different opportunities to sit in the House.

I think the member would do well to really listen to what the native people are and what they want. I think if he reviewed the first ministers' conference on self-government in 1986, where they talked about developing their own concept of self-government, he wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous suggestion he put forward tonight.

The reason I am getting up to speak tonight, Mr. Speaker, is really to talk about the implications of this bill. I had hoped that Mr. Frank Calder would be here tonight. I spoke to him earlier this week and this afternoon. He indicated to me that as a member who had represented this riding for 26 years, and, I might add, from both sides of this House....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Now it's your turn.

MR. GUNO: When hell freezes over.

I really didn't want to go out with a whimper, but I wanted to note the passage of this bill with a lament. This is an historic riding. This year it is 107 years old. It was first created in 1882 as Cassiar. In fact, in 1886, when John Grant was elected, the returning officer was not able to provide figures but could only say that John Grant was elected by a majority of three. I think Mr. Frank Calder improved on that and was defeated by one.

Interjections.

[ Page 8707 ]

MR. GUNO: I said defeated by one.

When Mr. Calder was first elected in 1949, shortly after the native people obtained a vote, it was the first time in B.C.'s history that a person of aboriginal origin was elected to this assembly. When I was elected in 1986 I was only the second. I don't know if that's a reflection on B.C. politics, but I think that all in all it's better than most provinces, and it speaks well for the tenacity of our people to try to enter mainstream politics. I don't think it's true, as the second member for Richmond(Mr. Loenen) suggested, that the native people have to submerge themselves in the majority society to become effective politicians. That ignores the rich tradition of our people that still exists today.

I want to give my own personal perspective on this, because I have had the opportunity to represent this riding for going on three years now. When I decided to run, I knew that this eventually would happen: with the passage of the Charter it was inevitable that the riding with the population base that Atlin has would have that kind of challenge. But I don't regret running; it's been a rich experience.

I recall when I first traveled through the riding, especially the northern part, and being awestruck by my first glimpse of the Grand Canyon of the Stikine and the sheer natural beauty of the Atlin lakes. But I think it's the people that made it even more special. It is the home of the proud Nisga'as, the industrious Tahltans and the people from the Tlingit nation, but also the people who have chosen to live there, people who choose this area because of the challenge of living in what is in actual fact the last frontier of our province, an area that has intact one of the last wilderness areas. I sincerely hope that in this major reshuffling the voice of the people there is not going to be lost, that the future of the whole wilderness area in Atlin will be considered.

As I said, I'm not sure what's going to happen from here on in. I know that this will not become law until January. They say that in politics a month is forever. Given the crazy pattern of B.C. politics, I'm just going to say: I'll believe it when it happens.

MR. ROSE: Hang in there.

MR. GUNO: I'll hang in there.

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

HON. MR. REID: My compliments to the previous speaker. I wish that the first member for Victoria(Mr. G. Hanson) was here this evening. I know how deeply he felt about this issue and how often he has raised it in this House. I know other activities take him away. I wish he was here, because this is a symbolic evening.

There has been considerable debate in the House about the need for an appropriate mechanism for determining the electoral boundaries. The members of the House, more than anyone else, know the importance of this issue. It touches the very heart of our democratic system of government.

Early in its mandate, this government indicated that it was prepared to tackle the problem of redistribution, particularly in the matter of dual-member ridings. In April 1987, a royal commission with Judge Tom Fisher as the single commissioner was established. Its task was to recommend the appropriate number of members to the Legislative Assembly and to propose boundaries for electoral districts.

Judge Fisher began holding public hearings in June 1987. Over the next 12 months and as a result of intensive public meetings throughout the province, Judge Fisher received over 1,000 oral and written submissions. In May 1988, following the receipt of this substantial public input, judge Fisher released his interim findings and requested public reaction to his proposals. A further round of public hearings was held. Some modifications were made, and Judge Fisher released his final report on December 20, 1988.

[9:45]

At this time I'd like to acknowledge the very significant contribution made by Judge Fisher in this regard. I know I speak for the members of this House and for all British Columbians in expressing our gratitude for the hard work and the dedication of Judge Fisher in tackling this very difficult task. As members of this House know, it's not easy to balance the demands of representation by population with the realities of the province's geography and population distribution.

At the beginning of this session, the commission's final report was tabled in the House and was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations. The committee was instructed to bring back to the House a unanimous recommendation. Despite the predictions that unanimity was impossible, the committee tackled this issue in the finest traditions of our true parliamentary system. The select standing committee has reached agreement and has referred a recommendation back to the House, the basis of which is incorporated in the bill before us now.

The bill does two things. Firstly, it provides for the introduction by January 31, 1990, of 75 single-member electoral districts in line with Judge Fisher's recommendations, and as unanimously recommended by the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Secondly, it establishes a mechanism for ongoing review and revision of the electoral map of British Columbia, reflecting the principles of representation by population.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important moment in the parliamentary history of British Columbia. It has been echoed by others here this evening — and I continue to echo — that we have succeeded where others have tried. I am proud to be a member of this assembly as it moves towards establishing an equitable balanced process for defining our electoral boundaries, as committed to by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[ Page 8708 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

NAYS — 1

Bill 87, Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 87; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section I approved.

On section 2.

MR. GABELMANN: just a word on the composition of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. First of all, let me say that this is a good provision, and it's one that was recommended by the standing committee.

There's one minor addition to the bill that the committee report was silent on, and I just want for the record to say that 2(a) says that a judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is one of the commission members. The report from the committee did not deal with the issue of who selects that judge or retired judge. Members on this side of the House would have hoped and wished that the appointee would in fact have been made by the Chief Justice and not by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The final appointment, in fact, would be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but on the recommendation of the Chief justice — or words to that effect. That would have been the preferred course of action in this particular section.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a comment on section 14, which is the section which deals with what happens to the report once the commission has finalized it. It is referred to the Legislature, and this section allows the Legislature to amend the report. I have to acknowledge initially that the committee recommended that and the committee was unanimous on this issue. I don't mean to quarrel with that, and for that reason do not intend to make a big issue of it.

This would be perfect legislation if this provision was not included, in my view. The principle that electoral boundaries are determined outside of the political process is a sound principle. This allows for members of the Legislature to by majority vote alter the recommendations of an independent commission, and it weakens, in my view, the impact of what is essentially very good legislation.

There will be some, I'm sure, who will argue that the Legislature is paramount over the courts, over judges and over independent non-elected bodies, and for that reason the Legislature needs to have final say. That is generally true, and it's one of the reasons the notwithstanding clause is in the Canadian constitution now. But when it comes to the question of electoral boundaries, a very good and compelling argument can be made that politicians should have nothing to do with the determination of those particular boundaries.

Nonetheless, having said that, I acknowledge that the committee discussed it. The committee comprising the two major parties was unanimous, and I don't intend to quarrel with it any further than that, other than to say the bill would be better if it didn't allow the Legislature to alter the report of this independent commission.

Sections 14 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 87, Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With that done, a good evening's work, I remind the House that we will sit tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:59 p.m.