[ Page 10099 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Corporate-sponsored travel by hospital board members. Mr. Clark –– 10099

Hospital purchasing policy. Mr. Clark –– 10100

Logging on the Gulf Islands. Ms. Cull –– 10100

Shortage of nurses. Mr. Davidson –– 10100

South Slocan logging dispute. Mr. Miller –– 10101

Island Highway route. Mr. Lovick –– 10101

Flooding at Canyon City. Mr. Guno –– 10101

Crown lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 10102

Mr. Williams

Third reading

British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act (Bill 12). Second reading.

(Hon. J. Jansen)

Hon. J. Jansen –– 10102

Mr. Perrry –– 10103

Hon. J. Jansen –– 10103

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Mr. Clark –– 10103

Mr. Harcourt –– 10104

Mr. G. Janssen –– 10106

Mr. Peterson –– 10108

Mr. Lovick –– 10108

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10110

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10113

Mr. Marzari –– 10115

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 10117

Ms. Pullinger –– 10118

Mr. Perry –– 10120

Mr. Williams –– 10124

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10127

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier and myself, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome a friend, a supporter and a constituent. I would ask the House to please welcome Mr. Bob Aiken.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to the House the president of the B.C. Tree Fruit Marketing Board from Kelowna, Mr. David Taylor. Accompanying him is Mr. Brian Karrer from Penticton, a member of the same organization. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you the recipients of the Lieutenant-Governor's foster families award. This is the first year that this award has been presented.

These families were chosen because they represent the very best quality of British Columbia's foster parents. Through their commitment to fostering, our foster families have displayed great parenting skills, patience, understanding and compassion for the children of British Columbia. They have cared for abused children, substance-addicted children, disabled children, emotionally disturbed children and children who, for one reason or another, have not been able to remain with their own families. They have opened up their homes, they've opened up their hearts, they've opened up the future to literally thousands of children from all over British Columbia. Theirs is truly a special vocation.

With us are Donald and Loraine Bartlett from Kamloops, Stanley and Gilda Beech from Courtenay, Phil and Ronnie Braendel from Langley, John and Marion Coltman from Kelowna, Betty Dube from Mission, Ken and Donna Gilliland of Port Coquitlam, Allan and Angela Hatch of Victoria, Jack and Ellen Lacerte of Burns Lake, Robert and Barenina Pohl of Chetwynd, and Jim and Nancy Stewart of Delta.

Please join me in welcoming these very special people.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I too, on behalf of this side of the House, would like to make the welcome not only unanimous, but equally enthusiastic. The foster parents of this province of ours play an absolutely irreplaceable role. The work that they do in taking care of children in very difficult circumstances, in opening their homes and their hearts and in helping those children is irreplaceable. No matter how many institutions you have, you can't beat the work that foster parents do. So our congratulations too, and welcome.

MR. KEMPF: As the Minister of Labour has said, among the ten couples who received the Lieutenant Governor's foster families award are a couple from Burns Lake. Ellen and Jack Lacerte hail from Burns Lake, and Jack grew up in Nautley village, near Fort Fraser. They have done an awful lot and should receive great praise for what they have done for foster children, and I would ask this House to give them a very special welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Mike Healy. Mike is a director of marketing, media and customer relations with BART, the Bay Area rapid transit system in San Francisco. I wish you would all make him welcome.

MR. BRUCE: I beg your indulgence for half a moment. Today is a very special day in Cowichan Malahat. It's the birthday of a close friend of mine who is 106 years old, Mr. Dwight Robinson. For those of you who can't add or subtract, that means he was born in 1884. I spent an hour with him today just talking about a few things, and I asked him if there was anything I should deliver to this House. With a twinkle in his eye and a little excitement in his voice, there were several words; however, I am unable to repeat them in the House at this moment.

At 106 years old, colleagues, he's keenly concerned about the environment around the world and about the youth, and at 106 he's looking forward very much to the future. I would ask that this House join with me in sending our congratulations to my good friend Mr. Dwight Robinson, at 106.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Speaker can send a message from the House. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: It will be a message in parliamentary language, which may be quite strange for some of you.

MS. MARZARI: Would the House please welcome to the precincts the Grade 6 and 7 class from St. Augustine's School, under the leadership of teacher Gladys Brown.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Would the House give a warm welcome to one of my constituents, Joyce Johnson, from the wonderful community of Blind Bay.

Oral Questions

CORPORATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL
BY HOSPITAL BOARD MEMBERS

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Health. Ms. Susan Brice, in response to questions raised yesterday in the House, indicated that despite the appearance of conflict she has had no problem in accepting a corporate junket from Siemens because — as she put it — the trip was "approved by the Ministry of Health." Can the minister inform the House by what

[ Page 10100 ]

guidelines his ministry approves corporate junkets laid on by hospital suppliers?

HON. J. JANSEN: Obviously the member opposite is getting his information from press reports, and unfortunately there is sometimes a lack of accuracy in those reports.

I think the House should be aware of the circumstances regarding this trip. The decision to purchase equipment which was utilized for digitization in the radiology department was made in 1983. The process of digitization is a long one and has resulted in state of the art in the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

The trip the member is referring to happened in April 1986, some three years after the decision to purchase. I have said before that I recognize these types of situations do invite comment. We are looking at it, and I have no further comment in regard to that situation.

MR. CLARK: I wonder whether the minister feels that Siemens does this out of the goodness of its heart. It clearly looks like a payoff to me, if it wasn't in preparation for....

I heard Susan Brice say on television that this trip was approved by the Ministry of Health. Yesterday the minister said that the boards were autonomous; Ms. Brice said that they were approved by the Ministry of Health. Can the minister stand up in the House and say which is correct?

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps I should again clarify that the decision to purchase this equipment happened in 1983; the trip happened in 1986. In April of 1986 I was not the Minister of Health, as the member probably knows. I will look at all the details concerning this approval process.

I said before that the board of each hospital is an autonomous board, and a decision was made — and it was for public record — to take advantage of the opportunities for education in terms of the digitization process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we proceed to the next order of business and the next question, I must explain to the member that on the issue of asking a question of a minister about a time in which the minister was not responsible, we know by parliamentary practice that it's out of order. So you have to ask a policy question to do with current policy.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health. The standard-of-conduct policies applying to all government employees clearly prohibit government employees from accepting benefits and hospitality from corporate sponsors. Does the minister think it acceptable that the so-called autonomy of board members should extend to protecting them in circumstances in which government employees would clearly be fired for conflict of interest?

HOSPITAL PURCHASING POLICY

MR. CLARK: A new question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that the MRI unit bought for Royal Jubilee Hospital in 1988 — after the trip, I might add — was purchased without public tender, over the objections and protestations of other suppliers? Can he explain why this equipment was purchased without any public tender?

MR. SPEAKER: As I advised the member earlier, the current Minister of Health was not responsible at that time as Minister of Health. So you have to reword the question if you wish to use that question.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister undertake to table in this House the documentation surrounding the purchase of that MRI equipment in 1988 and the reasons why a decision was made not to go to public tender?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have said before — and I repeat — that I am looking at the circumstances regarding the whole purchasing policy of hospitals. I would be pleased to make the findings of my review public.

[2:15]

LOGGING ON THE GULF ISLANDS

MS. CULL: To the Minister of Finance. The minister has called the request by Nick Gilbert, chair of the Islands Trust, for logging guidelines on the Gulf Islands, "the ramblings and musings of a very confused person." Given that the government's own internal report calls for such guidelines, would the minister not agree that it is he, not Mr. Gilbert, who is confused?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, question period is to deal with the ministerial responsibility. I would think that the question might be better put to another minister.

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

SHORTAGE OF NURSES

MR. DAVIDSON: I have a question for the Minister of Health. One of the key problems in our health care system is a shortage of nurses in some of the more specialized fields, particularly in the cardiac operating room and the intensive-care units. Can the minister advise what steps he is taking to encourage solutions to this problem?

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps the hon. member opposite is too busy stuffing his pocket with bread-crumbs to be aware of all the press releases that have been occasioned in regard to this issue.

I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects to this current shortage in British Columbia. One is recruitment, another is retention, and another

[ Page 10101 ]

one is training. We have recently appointed Ms. Bonnie Jamieson as provincial senior nurse adviser, and she is looking at all aspects of this.

One of the most important things is the lack of recognition by the BCNU of extra payment for those who work in this type of category. Critical-care nursing is a category that we in the ministry think should be compensated at a higher level than other nursing positions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Order, please. There'll be no supplementary on this question. Enough humour for today. The member for Prince Rupert.

SOUTH SLOCAN LOGGING DISPUTE

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I hope that doesn't mean I'm not humorous.

A question to the Minister of Forests. A broadly based citizens' group in the Kootenays is attempting to prevent a company from logging on 300 acres of private land. The weather and the ground conditions are such that logging would seriously impact on the village of South Slocan's watershed. Has the minister taken any action, or is he considering any action to halt this logging?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is yes.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister. I understand that the Forest Service has shut down logging on Crown lands in recognition of the conditions that exist there. Can the minister advise the residents of South Slocan when they can expect action to protect the integrity of their watershed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Soon. What do you want? He's talking about two different areas. Unlike the party opposite — whatever they happen to be calling themselves today, New Democrats or socialists or social democrats — we take the rights of people on their own property very seriously. Maybe you don't, as the actions of your members in Ottawa indicate, but we do.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister. We have on record the attitude of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) toward the chairman of the Islands Trust, who, when asking for regulations, is treated to the buffoonery of the Minister of Finance. The Kootenay-Boundary municipalities have been asking for regulations to give them the ability to regulate logging on private land for two years now, as have people on the Gulf Islands and other areas of the province. Why has the minister not acted, given that these requests to take action came not just last week but have been around for two years?

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore the question is out of order, but the Minister of Forests may wish to respond.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would assume from the member's question that he would act no matter which group showed up on the lawn or blocked the hallways of the Legislature so people couldn't get in or out of their offices. If they demand that you take action on somebody's private property, that's all you would need. If, heaven forbid, you should ever form the government, all you would need was a protest group to fill the hallways up, and you'd tell people what they can do on their private property.

ISLAND HIGHWAY ROUTE

MR. LOVICK: My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. There is considerable opposition in the community of Nanaimo to the ministry's proposed inner route — a four-lane highway that will go directly through that community. The ministry's response to that opposition is to issue a series of paid newspaper advertisements taking the form of newspaper columns. Can the minister tell me whether it is now government policy to deal with divisive issues by disguising advocacy advertising as news?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in having the opinion of the member for Nanaimo on the highway proposal for his constituency. But the answer to his question is no.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, the minister hasn't done her homework, because if she had she would discover that I have expressed my position to her and to her ministry. However, we can't expect miracles.

Another quick question to the minister, if I might. Can the minister tell this House just how much this little caper in advertising cost the taxpayers of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the question is addressed to the wrong minister, but perhaps the Minister of Highways could answer the question for us.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I can only respond by saying that we're a very frugal ministry, and every dollar we spend is well spent.

FLOODING AT CANYON CITY

MR. GUNO: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Yesterday my colleague from Prince Rupert and I were in the Nass Valley, which is situated in my constituency, to assess the situation there as a result of the flooding. As you are aware, two communities were shut off as a result of the severe flooding.

While we were there, an action was taken by the local PTA from the small community of Gitwinksihlkw — which is usually called Canyon

[ Page 10102 ]

City — to not allow their children to cross the tiny suspension footbridge. It has outlived its life span by about three years. While we were there, and when we crossed that bridge, the raging torrent with trees and debris was only a few feet from that bridge.

Is the minister aware of the situation and, if so, will she undertake to have an up-to-date engineering study done on that to allay the fears of these parents?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I will have to apologize. Because of the noise around me, I couldn't hear the question properly. If you would like me to get the question from the Blues, I'd be pleased to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was regarding the footbridge at Canyon City, if that is of any assistance to the minister. I was barely able to hear it myself, but I am closer to the member.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would have to take that question on notice.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 5.

CROWN LANDS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in Committee on Bill 5; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could elaborate on what the impact of section 1 is.

HON. MR. PARKER: If the member cares to take a look under section 74, he will see that whenever there's any disposition of Crown lands, there can be a provision for a public road. We are expanding this to include a road allowance — or walkway allowance, as the case may be — to make sure there is public access alongside that property in the years ahead.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister please introduce the amendments standing on the order paper for section 2.

HON. MR. PARKER: I introduce the amendment on the order paper, to wit:

"The minister is responsible for and may undertake, commission, coordinate and set standards for base mapping and land related information systems in British Columbia and for related remote sensing and survey control functions." 

I move the amendment in my name.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 5, Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HEALTH
RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation to continue to operate as a statutory corporation under the name British Columbia Health Research Foundation.

The foundation currently awards grants to individuals and organizations to encourage health research in our province, including not only basic and clinical research, but research in the fields of health policy and health promotion. It also awards scholarships and fellowships, both to encourage newly established health research personnel in their endeavours and to retain skilled health research personnel already working in the province.

The foundation also cooperates In research endeavours with organizations involved in the delivery of health-related services or those concerned with the general health of communities in the province.

This bill expands upon the foundation's existing purposes to include in its mandate improving public knowledge and awareness about the foundation and its work, facilitating fund-raising programs and activities of the foundation and managing funds and property in a way that will further the research purposes of the foundation.

[2:30]

Under this bill a person donating money to the foundation will now be entitled to a claim of up to

[ Page 10103 ]

100 percent credit against taxable income in any one taxation year.

The board of the foundation, which may be composed of eight to 15 members, will continue to receive advice on grants, procedures and priorities from the scientific advisory committee. This committee coordinates the detailed peer review of grant, fellowship and scholarship applications and rates projections for scientific quality, feasibility and relevance to provincial health issues.

The conflict-of-interest provisions of the Company Act incorporated in this bill by reference require disclosure from a director who may be affected by a potential research grant, scholarship or fellowship.

The annual report and financial statements of the foundation will be tabled in the Legislature each year.

Employees of the foundation will continue to enjoy benefits under the Public Service Benefit Plan Act and the Pension (Public Service) Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the provisions respecting the establishment of the foundation are in fact very similar to the provisions respecting hospital foundations of British Columbia and the University Foundations Act.

MR. PERRY: Her Majesty's loyal opposition will be delighted to support this bill. The British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation has achieved an enviable record in supporting research, which has improved the quality of patient care in this province and has improved our understanding of scientific issues and public policy issues relating to health.

I would simply like to record my appreciation, on behalf of the opposition, for the foundation's efforts over the last years and our confidence that it will continue serving the public of B.C. in the future.

We have no further comments at second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised the Minister of Health closes debate.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, British Columbia Health Research Foundation 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.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs McCarthy), to welcome to our Legislative Assembly today some students from Eric Hamber Secondary School in the heart of Vancouver–Little Mountain. I'd ask the House to join us all in making these students welcome to Victoria today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 16.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT
(continued)

MR. CLARK: I'll be brief in my remarks today. Yesterday I discussed the PR aspects of the bill, the minister's picture on the advertisements and the horror that that provoked among focus groups for polling firms. But today I want to deal seriously, if I can, with a few aspects of the bill.

Essentially my concerns revolve around two aspects. This is called the Sustainable Environment Fund Act. It creates a separate fund. It seems to me that as parliamentarians we should be concerned about two things: how money is raised by taxes and how it is spent. The essence of democracy is that this place is accountable for both those actions. Of course, the government will be held accountable for all these tax increases at the next election.

Nevertheless, this seems to confound to some extent those elementary parliamentary questions, because for the first time — it appears to me, anyway — we have a fund which has dedicated taxes. We have a fund which says that the proceeds from the taxes will go directly to the fund. In addition to that, we have the minister responsible for spending from that fund. The taxes go into the fund, and the minister is responsible.

Normally in this House we have estimates with certain votes and subvotes. The auditor-general has been very concerned about transfers between sub-votes. This allows the minister, through the Environment and Land Use Committee, to spend the money in the fund on a whole range of programs. Money can go between programs or around programs any way the minister chooses.

For example, a lot of the money that goes into the fund is recycled money — if I can use that term — from the Ministry of Forests for reforestation. But nothing in this act says that the money must be spent on reforestation; it could be spent on any range of things that the minister of the day deems appropriate. In terms of public accountability, I'm concerned that we are asked to vote on a bill which allows the minister a kind of slush fund with a range of initiatives that the minister can now spend money on. Rather than the scrutiny we normally get with line ministries, with votes and subvotes and the debate and detailed defence of that debate that the minister is forced to reply to in this House, we don't have those with this bill. We have a rather general question of a fund with taxes flowing into it — again, unique in this respect — and then money flowing out of that fund without the accountability built into it that we might normally expect from a minister of the Crown through a line ministry during the estimates debate.

[ Page 10104 ]

That causes me great concern, because it seems to me that the debate on where money should be spent in the environment might be more difficult, or at least the intent of the ministry might be more difficult, given the range of initiatives that the minister can now choose to put money into. In fact, over the year, money can flow and priorities can be altered at will by the ministry. Again, it makes it difficult to vote on something which gives such flexibility without accountability from this House. That should be worrisome in terms of public accountability.

I'd just like to talk very briefly about the new taxes in the bill, because we know that the government said in the budget speech that there are no new taxes. But then it says here that there are environmental levies — so those aren't taxes — but I can assure you that British Columbians know that these are taxes. We now have a new $3 levy on pneumatic tires. Every time you buy a new tire for your car, you have to pay $3. That's hardly going to solve the recycling problem in British Columbia. We know that there is no program to recycle tires, so all we know is that they are going to be taxed now, and the money is going into this fund.

In addition to that, we have a $5 tax on lead-acid batteries. A more appropriate mechanism would be a refundable deposit system, where there was a $3 deposit required on tires, and then you get your $3 back when you return them. That encourages the consumer to recycle the product; likewise with batteries. What you want to do is encourage the recycling of lead-acid batteries, so what you do — as they've done in Ontario — is institute a $5 deposit-refund scheme, where you pay $5 extra for your battery, but you get the $5 back when you take the battery back.

This doesn't do that. This is a tax of $5 on batteries. What happens if I take the battery and put it in my garbage can? Well, it goes into the dump. That toxic waste goes into the landfill. What is most appropriate is to have a deposit-refund system to encourage me as a consumer to take the battery back to an appropriate place to get a refund. That would be more appropriate. But no, we don't have that because the intent of this bill is really to raise a tax; it's really a tax grab. It's really a way to create a little slush fund for the Minister of Environment to dispense on whatever projects are the highest profile going into an election campaign. That's the real intent of the bill. It's a kind of lottery fund system — of course, some of this money is lottery funds.

The guidelines on how this money can be spent are very vague in this bill. They can be spent on a range of issues. The money is raised through these taxes rather than a deposit-refund system, which would be more environmentally friendly. Instead, all the money goes into the fund and there may or may not be a recycling program for tires; there may or may not be a recycling program for lead-acid batteries. It would be much more appropriate to use a deposit-refund system if one wants to encourage the consumer to recycle. But no, that isn't the intent of this bill and never was.

We are asked to pass a section of the bill which deals with levies being applied on environmentally hazardous products. That's all it says. We don't know how much the levy will be. We have no idea what the definition of "hazardous products" is. We could think, I am sure, of all kinds of things that we think are hazardous products — or hazardous to our children, but I won't go into that. It's rather vague language.

The power to tax in this bill is rather wide, it seems to me, and the power to spend is even wider. It leads one to believe — and it's hard to escape the conclusion — that it really is a kind of political slush fund. If they were serious about the environment, they would have strengthened the Ministry of Environment rather than move it over to a little fund. They would have a deposit-refund system on hazardous products to encourage recycling. But rather, they want to go into an election campaign. They thought there would be an election campaign this fall but they have kind of derailed from that — and they want to announce again and again that they have created a fund.

They want to wave it around. They want to have TV ads with the minister and Eli Sopow on them — that shadowy figure — and typing going on in the background. That's the real intent of this bill. It's not a sustainable environment fund act; it's a sustainable Social Credit fund act. That's certainly the intent.

It has very little to do with the environment; it has everything to do with the government's electoral agenda. It has very little to do with recycling; it has everything to do with trying to recycle Social Credit politicians — or in this case an old Tory politician from Ottawa.

It's very clear that this bill is really PR; it's really moving money from one ministry to the next. It's a kind of shell game to try and convince people that they're born-again environmentalists. They weren't born environmentalists in the first place, but now they want to say that they are born-again environmentalists.

It won't work, because the public can see through this kind of smoke-and-mirrors game. The act is far too broad with respect to raising and spending taxes, and we don't intend to support it on this side of the House.

MR. HARCOURT: The Sustainable Environment Fund Act, Bill 16, is the Environment minister's equivalent of the Finance Minister's BS fund.

It is a fund that has been artificially created after reading the polls. The Social Credit Party has looked and seen that the people of British Columbia have caught on to the disgraceful record of actual performance over the last 15 years of despoiling the environment of this beautiful province of ours. It is an artificially created fund to give the impression that this Social Credit government is balancing the environmental balance sheet when it is running red in overwhelming proportions.

[2:45]

[ Page 10105 ]

This shell game is contained in section 4 of the bill, which shows that the closest they get to recycling is recycling old money. That's really what it is: recycling old money — the last gasp of the FRDA and the lottery moneys that in disgrace.... Because of the GO B.C. scandal, the disgraceful recycling proposal that went through the White Rock municipality, the Semiahmoo society, it has been shifted over into this act to try and cleanse the GO B.C. funds. This act really houses those two sources of revenue, Mr. Speaker. It's the forestry agreement, the FRDA of $212 million that has been put from the forestry ministry.... The Forests minister was so embarrassed about his efforts on behalf of reforestation that he shifted it over to the Environment minister, who lost the flip of the coin to carry the can for reforestation in this province. And it is the funds that were shifted over from the escapades under the previous Provincial Secretary, the lottery funds of $50 million.

What we have is a shell game for a shell department by a shell minister, who is there not out of substantive commitment to cleaning up the environmental problem we have....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We must discuss the principle of the bill. The depth of the minister's commitment, whether or not the minister is the right person to be holding the portfolio, and all those other things are inappropriate for discussion at this time; perhaps at another time, but certainly not now. Now we must remind ourselves that we're in second reading of the bill and therefore on the principle of the bill.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, that's the point I'm making, Mr. Speaker. The principle of the bill is not to take the environment seriously; it's to recycle old money and give the illusion that this government is doing something about the environment, because they're scared that the people of British Columbia are going to catch up with them very shortly when the next election is called. That's what we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker.

The point is that this government and the Ministry of Environment are showing, through this act, that they are more interested in PR to deal with their disgraceful track record on the environment over the last 15 years. These are their words. Their actions are to cut staff so that conservation officers cannot do their job; to cut staff so that wildlife officers cannot do their job; to cut funding to municipalities who are trying to clean up their garbage and their sewage systems. They cut funding to those municipalities when they could have been taking care of that work, changing their sewer systems, in the down-time of the depression; this government made it tougher for those municipalities to do it. So when I hear the government House Leader talking about cleaning up the sewers.... He was here then; he was part of the cabinet that cut that funding to municipalities, so he should answer for that.

The minister, when he finally twigged upon this idea and created this sustainable environment fund, didn't do it out of a sincere commitment to the environment, Mr. Speaker. You'll recall that this is the minister who in his own riding said: "Come on down and have a crab-bake. The water is just fine." His own officials couldn't tell him; it was the federal fisheries people who had the last word and closed down the shell-fishery in his own riding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I appreciate now that the Leader of the Opposition must realize that he is a long way from the principle of the bill. We must ask you at this time to stick to the principle of the bill. You may discuss the other matters in committee on the estimates of the minister, but not at this time.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the principle of the bill. The object of the bill, the object of the fund, is to provide for programs to protect and enhance the environment and for forest renewal initiatives. That is the principle that I'm speaking to.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but in speaking to that principle, you can't bring into discussion whether or not it's appropriate for this particular member to hold that particular position.

MR. HARCOURT: Oh, I didn't say.... I think it's totally inappropriate, Mr. Speaker. I am not questioning that at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You're abusing the House at this point. I must remind the member that the rules that we have in place are long-established rules, and they clearly define what we can debate and when we can debate it. It's not in order. I can read you the citation from Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, but the member has already had that read to him on a previous occasion; I won't go through it again. You must remember that if we're going to deal with these matters, it must be done at the appropriate time. The line of discussion that you're on right now is inappropriate. It must be appropriate to the principle of the bill.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With that guidance, I am speaking to the principle of the bill, which lays out the objects of the bill, which is for programs to protect and enhance the environment and for forest renewal initiatives. I am saying that the funding that's made available in this bill is recycled funding from other departments. It is not there to renew forests; it's not there to protect and enhance the environment. The objects of this bill are not going to be met by the recycling of old funds. They're certainly not going to be met when FRDA I runs out very shortly and there isn't funding coming from the federal government to carry out the objects and the principles of this bill.

Where was this government in trying to establish the proper funding for the reforestation renewal of this province? What they were doing, when they talk about these objects, was cutting down the number of

[ Page 10106 ]

not sufficiently restocked hectares in this province by changing definitions and shuffling paper, not getting out and replanting the forests. I'm pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's flimflam bill here is not going to aid the wishes of British Columbians, which are indeed to renew the forests and to clean up the environment in this province. The closest they come to recycling is to recycle old funds under disgrace.

The object and principle of this bill is to supply funding to the round table and to the Forest Resources Commission, which are mentioned quite prominently in this bill.

I might say that that round table was the last to be established in this country. This was the last province to get on board of the national commitment to the United Nations report, Our Common Future, by Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway. They delayed and delayed until finally the polls said: "You've got to move."

That's what drives this government; it's PR — not the people of this province, not a commitment to cleaning up the environment. The Forest Resources Commission is telling this Social Credit government what they should have known ten years ago: that they've been overcutting; that they've been underplanting; that they've been overwasting; and that they have been involved, as they were during the recession in this province, in what's called "sympathetic enforcement of forestry regulations."

So we now have to catch up. This bill and this fund are not going to allow us to do that, Mr Speaker. That is exactly the reason why I say that this fund, the ministry and this government are not committed to the principles of this bill. It is strictly PR; it is for surface only. It is for selling paint, selling stock, selling votes. It is not for doing what has to be done in this province to clean up the environment and bring about the renewable force that the people of this province want — very clearly that.

So I say in sorrow to the staff who have to work to carry out this bill: we appreciate your carrying the load for many, many years in the face of indifference and hostility from a government that doesn't care about the environment, the renewal of our forests, the cleaning up of our waters and our air, the recycling of garbage and the dealing with toxic wastes.

The understaffed environmental officers, wilderness officers, wildlife officers — the people out in the field — have been trying for many years under many circumstances to carry out the principles of this bill with inadequate resources and inadequate funds.

Now what they receive — disgracefully misusing the name "sustainable environment" — are recycled lottery funds and the dying gasp of the FRDA with the federal government. That is not good enough to clean up the pulp mill pollution, to clean up the overcutting, to deal with salmon streams that have been despoiled by improper logging practices.

The only good thing that comes out of this whole sorry political statement, this sorry political bill that will be recycled through many government advertisements, many more government publications publicizing only the minister — not action on the environment — is that the people of British Columbia are going to see through this act, are going to see through this recycling of funding.

They are going to have a say in the next election, and this government isn't going to like what the people of British Columbia are going to tell them: that they want a clean environment. They want recycling, not recycled funds.

Thank goodness we have the fine staff that are staffing the forests and the environment ministries in this province, because they're surely going to be able to outlast this sorry, sad government.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to see the minister's not in the House. The Sustainable Environment Fund Act — which we're going to discuss here, going to debate — should actually be entitled "The Recycling Act." What it does is recycle old dollars from one ministry to another, recycles old programs into new.

It's like Aladdin's lamp: new lamps for old. Maybe we should have new ministers for old, except there's no genie that pops out of the lamp here, because the Socreds have run out of new ideas. They've run out of promises. Therefore they're going to recycle this bill.

What happened to the FRDA? No, we're taking money, in this case, out of the forestry fund and recycling into the environment fund, so that the Minister of Forests doesn't have to face the facts, doesn't have to face the forestry companies and the forestry workers of this province, by saying: "No, we don't have enough trees. We'll lay that on the Minister of Environment. He's good at shuffling one set of estimates into another."

We're going to bring $50 million from lottery funds in order to create this sustainable environment fund. We should be asking the minister what a sustainable environment is. Has he identified that yet? What is it we're actually funding? Are we going to have these lottery funds year after year after year?

Funds that used to be used in the communities to develop community programs are now being used to plant trees, to clean up the environment and to clean up the mess that the Socreds have made over the last 30 years. Now they're painting themselves green with a brush and saying: "Look at us; we are actually doing something, folks."

What they're actually doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking one set of moneys from one ministry and shuffling it into the other ministry, because we know that the one ministry has been a total failure. So we will give it to the Minister of Environment to see what he can do with it and if he can actually convince the people of this province that they're doing something over the 30 years of neglect.

What do they do? They increase taxes on diapers. They're going to tax babies now. The Minister of Finance in the budget speech said there are no new taxes. What do we read? Taxes: not on folks who are making money, the super-rich or the poor, but on babies. A fine lesson we are teaching the diaper-

[ Page 10107 ]

wearers of this province. We're going to tax them before they even get old enough to vote.

[3:00]

Now let's examine that $5 on every battery you buy. In the bill it says that a battery that weighs less than five kilograms.... In other words, what are we going to do about flashlight batteries, radio batteries, ghetto-blaster batteries — you should do something about that if you know my kid — and motorcycle batteries? There are 156,000 motorcyclists in the province of British Columbia who are going to take their batteries and throw them in the garbage. And does the minister care? No, because they weigh less than two kilograms.

Pneumatic tires? Cars? Sure, we're going to tax the tires on the cars. We're going to tax them on bicycles. We're going to tax them on wheelbarrows. Do you really think that these folks, after they finish with their wheelbarrow and bicycle tires, are going to take them to a recycling depot? I rather doubt it. And what have we done?

There's no recycling initiative in this bill — none at all. We call it a Sustainable Environment Fund Act. What's sustainable about a bill that supplies no initiative for recycling and sets up no recycling industries in the province? Are we going to stockpile these, like it has been done back east? Then are we going to put them in trucks and truck them off somewhere else?

Is there any money for research and development? No, we're simply going to tax the product up front, take money out of people's pockets, load the stuff in a truck and store it somewhere until we figure out what to do with the damn stuff. That's the government's idea of recycling. Do we actually have any plants set up? Do we actually have any research and development facilities?

Perhaps that's where the environment fund should be going, so that we actually develop areas of new initiatives and new development techniques that we can market around the world and say, "Look, we have taken a tax and done something with it," rather than shove it into a slush fund for the Socreds to spend before election time because they've got such a dismal record on the environment of this province.

What is hazardous waste? It doesn't identify that or the PCBs and dioxins being spilled out by pulp mills day after day. Is it gasoline that's spilling out? Is it the exhaust from the tailpipes of cars? No. What's happening? We don't know that, and we don't know what we are going to do with the hazardous waste once we collect it and store it. There are PCB and dioxin sites across this province that are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

We may want to sustain the environment, but we're doing nothing about reducing the hazardous wastes. We're doing nothing about taking those hazardous wastes and finding new ways of recycling them, turning them into usable products and eliminating the threat that hangs over our head day to day from the storage of these wastes.

There's nothing in it about sewage disposal. Washington State disallows....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't talk about what's not in the bill. We can only talk about what is in the bill. We went into this the other day with one of your colleagues who wanted to discuss what she felt should be in the bill, what can be included in the bill and what isn't in the bill.

In fact, if the member wishes the Chair to be rather strict on the matter, since there are a number of private member's bills before the House currently tabled by your colleague from Victoria, you would find that the entire line of your debate is out of order. Bearing in mind that your own colleague has forced you into a corner here, I must ask you to restrict yourself to the principle of this bill and not discuss those matters which are before the Legislature in terms of a bill.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to relate my remarks to the bill. It's hard to do that, though, when there's very little in the bill except an environmental slush fund for the government.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: No, they won't bring our bills forward, because they know they're good bills, and they know they will stand up. They will be embarrassed by the fact that they will be forced through their indoctrination as free enterprisers to vote against those bills.

Mr. Speaker, this is a slush fund to sell the environment so that they can get re-elected. They know they're down in the polls; therefore they take money out of taxpayers' pockets and put it into a slush fund that they can sell to the people of British Columbia through the Round Table on Environment and Economy — $18.6 million. That's in the bill: $18.6 million so they can run around the province and give money out here and there to build up the confidence of the people and to show that they're actually attempting to do something after 30 years of neglect.

That round table took 18 months to set up. After the announcement, they said: "Finally we've got some people who want to sit on this." Undoubtedly the people they got for the round table that they had to search across this province for.... They couldn't find anybody with the expertise to put on that round table. It took them 18 months to find the appropriate people to sit at that round table, and now they fund it with $18.6 million of public money.

The Forest Resources Commission is another one. They set up the Forest Resources Commission and have it going around the province looking to see what's wrong with the forests. Thirty years of managing the forests, and they don't know what's wrong. So they developed the Forest Resources Commission, this bill and this act in order to fund that.

When you look at it, it's actually a decrease in reforestation spending. It's $1.7 billion over ten years; that's $170 million a year. What was it in 1989? It was $231.7 million. That included $73.1 million for the FRDA, which undoubtedly we'll never see a sign of because of the government's inability to treat the

[ Page 10108 ]

forest in a manner that will see it sustainable, and their inability to go to Ottawa and cut a deal that's acceptable to the people of British Columbia.

They announced that this is actually a 24 percent increase in spending. Yet it includes in the bill $28 million to $50 million in lottery funds. Year after year, are we going to have to go to the Lottery Fund to see that the environment is funded properly? Is the money going to be there? Are we not going to use it for other areas?

Hazardous wastes are in the bill. It doesn't tell us which ones they are. It doesn't say anything about recycling programs for communities, cleaning up landfills and contaminated soils or vehicle inspections for emissions.

It talks about habitat and park acquisitions in the bill. Isn't the Parks ministry supposed to be handling this? I see the Parks minister sitting across. Have they taken some of your control away, as they have from the Minister of Forests? Are we going to end up with depleted ministries over there run by one superministry funded by this act? Aren't the other ministers on the opposite side of the House somewhat worried that their roles will be diminished? Perhaps their salaries should be diminished according to the amount of control they have over those ministries.

But no, we have the Environment ministry taking on the roles of two or three other ministers over there, dipping into the Lottery Fund in this instance, and saying: "We're going to present a new Socred green image to the people of British Columbia, because we're going to market ourselves as environmentalists, something we failed to do in 30 years." You can see that by the pulp mill pollution, the dismal state that the forests are in and the confrontation that takes place there.

They tax babies, tires and batteries, and they say: "We don't have any new taxes." If they would use that tax money to develop some new initiatives, perhaps the people of British Columbia would buy this act. But the way it is, there is nobody in British Columbia who is going to take the government seriously on their new commitment to the environment.

MR. PETERSON: I didn't think I would have to get up and speak in favour of this bill, because I thought the NDP opposition would support it. I'm extremely surprised. In fact, I'm astounded that they would come up with this almost nauseating rhetoric dealing with something as important as the commitment this government is making in terms of this Sustainable Environment Fund Act.

Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Here is a man who is wandering around the province telling people and giving lip-service to the environment, but when it comes time to stand up in this House and support a solid, affirmative action that our Minister of Environment is bringing in for our consideration, what does he do? He stands up and tries to make a political football out of an extremely important issue to British Columbia. I think that is absolutely unforgivable.

Where is the responsibility of that man when it comes to the environment? It's strictly political rhetoric that he's dealing with. He doesn't care about the environment. All he cares about is his and his colleagues' personal political ambitions. He'll say anything he wishes anywhere in the province, but when it comes to producing, when it comes to supporting something that is meaningful, what does he do? He stands up and hands....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have tried to explain to members all afternoon that we are in second reading of this bill, and we must therefore discuss the principle of the bill and not really concern ourselves about what other members may have had to say or what their motives are at this particular time.

It's an interesting bill. There are several things to discuss in it. There is quite a broad range available for members. The Chair would be most pleased if some of them would actually skate occasionally into the principle of the bill. It would assist the Chair and perhaps the rules of the House.

I ask the member to continue on the principle of the bill.

MR. PETERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate your comments. You're exactly right. However, my problem is that when I listen to that drivel from over there, it gets me off track. I do apologize to you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill shows the commitment of the Social Credit government to the environment. It shows the commitment of our Minister of Environment. It shows the real commitment of all of us to solid affirmative action.

I just wanted to say that I totally support it. We know this bill will produce the effect we want: that is, to sustain the environment which is so critical to all British Columbians. I want to compliment our Ministry of Environment for bringing it in.

MR. LOVICK: I was sitting here listening to the debate that has unfolded thus far....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: There seems to be some muttering from the other side of the House to do with the posture I assume as I stand. I wonder if there is a point to it. Is there some point to that? Or is it rather the case that the muttering, as is typical from that side of the House, is simply inane and filling in time?

I await your instruction, Mr. Speaker, on whether I am supposed to address what is muttered across the way or.... In any event, let's proceed and try to talk about the principle of this important bill — this important measure.

I was saying that I had been listening carefully to what had gone on thus far and had also spent a little time reading what had been said about the measure, and it struck me passing strange and curious indeed that the other side hadn't been responding as quickly

[ Page 10109 ]

as I would have expected, given what I think have been some pretty damning and devastating criticisms offered from this side. I would have thought that those who support this measure would have leapt to their feet and seized the opportunity to say something.

I am happy to see that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) did indeed give a response. It's a speech we have heard on many occasions from that particular member, and I just want him to know that it is improving in quality, and with another five or six renditions it will get really quite good. It's entirely out of order, but it nonetheless has a certain amount of passion, which we appreciate.

To the principle of this bill — this thing called the sustainable environment development fund. The principle of the bill ostensibly is to take steps to ensure that we do indeed have a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy as part of that environment. Who would argue with that?

[3:15]

I wrote some time ago — in a paper I delivered to a conference — about the need for an environment-economy integration. That is a phrase, by the way, that comes from Bill Rees, professor of planning at the University of B.C. He has done some really good pathfinder kind of work in this area, suggesting to us that what we consider as economically viable — using old measures and old yardsticks — is in fact not economically viable.

What we need to do, rather, is rethink our approaches entirely. We need to think about an economy in which old constructs like free goods — air and water and resources — are no longer recognized as free goods but rather are recognized as very precious and indeed rare goods that therefore have to be priced.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's the kind of approach to economics and environment that requires some pretty radical thinking. It's the kind of radical thinking enunciated by a professor like Lester Thurow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thurow is one of those brilliant economists who probably four out of ten times is absolutely marvellous in what he has to say, and probably six times out of ten what he has to say is absolutely impractical and probably irrelevant. But he is sometimes right.

The kind of thing that Thurow has talked about — and I think it is something that we in this chamber who are committed to a sustainable environment ought to consider — is this. "Take, for example," says Thurow, "the example of the Brazilian rain forest." Everybody recognizes that as a very fragile, unique ecosystem — unique on the planet — a system, moreover, that affects and influences all of us on this planet. The problem is, we can't do anything to exploit that particular forest. It won't grow back. It's the product of a unique combination of circumstances and climate and resources. There's nothing we can do to exploit the resource.

What then do the people who live there do, the people who rely on the goods of that environment for their own sustenance and their own sustainability? The answer they have found — those poor people in that country — is to cut down the forest for wood or to clear the land for harvesting purposes. In short-term economic thinking it makes perfectly good sense; it's entirely understandable. The tragedy of it is, however, that in the long term they are committing suicide.

What do we, as human beings, have to tell those individuals? Do we say to them: "You must starve to death because you can't cut down the rain forest"? Or rather do we say to them: "All of us assume a joint responsibility for the preservation of that forest"? If we do assume that responsibility, then we have to put our money and our resources where our mouths and our principles are.

That translates, according to Thurow — this economist — into a system whereby all the rich nations of the world ought to pay a levy or an annual tax to the people of Brazil so they will not have to cut down the rain forest. This is just one example. But that's the kind of radical, innovative thinking that we have to use if we are serious about sustainable environment.

You don't have to be a scientist or know about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics or anything like that to recognize that you can't continue to exploit finite resources as if they were infinite without having to pay the price. That's what young people know, because they have seen the price we are paying. I'm happy to note there are some young people in the chamber today. Those are the folks who are telling us that no one generation has the right to exploit the planet as if there were no generations to come. That's what a sustainable environment model endorses, embraces and accepts.

In the paper I referred to a few moments ago, I said that I had tried to reconcile economy-environment integration, the phrase I borrowed from Professor Rees. I don't claim any great success in having achieved the reconciliation. What I know, however, is that makers of public policy, including Ministers of Environment, have an obligation to grapple with the problem. Every decision we make today must be made in the shadow — or the light, if you prefer — of Brundtland. What Brundtland's report did, you'll recall.... The common rendition of that was the United Nations report called Our Common Future. All Brundtland really did, if I can put the matter rather bluntly, was to pull together some information that had been a-building and a-collecting for a lot of years. She put it together in one short, readable book, and happily that book had the effect of galvanizing public opinion and making governments throughout the world, in both rich and poor nations, both north and south, respond to the crisis.

What I said, beyond the fact that we all live in the shadow of that, is that what we have under the heading sustainable development is literally an idea whose time has come. That phrase, as I know many members of this House well recognize, comes from the French philosopher-writer Victor Hugo. The full

[ Page 10110 ]

line, of course, was: "Greater than the might of armies is the force of an idea whose time has come." The notion is that you can't stop it. You can't stand in the way of an idea whose time has come.

The problem, however, is that governments can step aside from the idea whose time has come. They can pretend to be rolling with the strength of an idea whose time has come rather than embracing the idea. Sadly, that is what is wrong with this bill. That is what is fundamentally wrong with this bill and the principled error in the bill.

The bill is talking about creating a special sustainable environment fund. Well and good insofar as we recognize that sustainable environment matters and that it will cost money to do that. The problem, however, is that the bill doesn't anywhere embrace the concept that gives it justification. It doesn't anywhere address the notion of sustainable environment and what it means and what it entails. It's not good enough to simply say that a sustainable environment will be the product of recycling. Lord knows, this bill does a lot of recycling. As my colleagues have pointed out very adroitly and effectively, this bill recycles money from the forestry resource development agreements. It also recycles money from the lottery grants branch.

It recycles money, and it even puts the money into a good place. It also reuses ideas and reuses money — money that, in some cases, has already been spent, I suspect. Nevertheless, that's about as far as the commitment to sustainable development really goes here.

We have a couple of the famous four Rs of environment and sustainable environment built into this measure — but only a couple. The other two important measures aren't touched here, and this bill is flawed in principle in that it says nothing about our lifestyle, nothing about our approach, nothing about reducing what we do.

That's what's wrong with the principle; it's gatekeeper legislation. It stands at the end, and says: "We're going to punish folks for what's already happened." It's a heavy-handed "We'll zonk you if you aren't doing what you ought to be doing."

Thus we have, for instance, the situation of the so-called special green taxes, or consumer taxes, that unfortunately seem to be skewed almost entirely toward consumption, rather than toward investment  — i.e., toward those who are the producers of the pollution.

We estimate, on the calculus we've done, that the fund represents an added $18.5 million in taxes on consumers and, sadly, a corresponding $2.0 million from industrial polluters. The balance is wrong.

What's wrong with the balance especially is that what we need to do is to put the emphasis on lifestyle, on producers. We can do that in a couple of ways. We can use negative techniques in terms of taxation, but we can also talk about incentives to decrease industrial pollution.

Sadly, I don't think this government has measures of that kind, and sadly, this particular bill — this principle — ignores that construct of sustainable development for the kinds of reasons I have been articulating. We need to talk about reducing our use of finite resources. We need to rethink our assumptions.

That brings me to the fourth R of rethinking. That's what sustainable development also involves necessarily: a rethinking of our approaches. Our predicament as a species — and I think all of us who've thought about it for any length of time know it — is that we all accepted more or less literally what we read in Genesis. Genesis told us that we were created first, and that we would have dominion over all living things and even "over every creeping thing that creepeth" — if I can remember my Scripture well enough to quote that chunk.

The problem is that we have embraced that notion of a conquering relationship to the environment, of regarding the environment as simply so much raw matter to be pushed around, to be exploited, to be shaped to our wishes, that we have developed an entire culture and society in which the centrality of mankind as toolmaker, shaper and technocrat is perceived to be our highest destiny as a species.

What we need to do — and the evidence is overwhelming — is to rethink that assumption. Can we, in any way, any longer assume that we can indeed have dominion, or that we should have dominion? Rather, what all the studies have shown in the last 20-odd years, what the science of ecology has taught us, if nothing else, is that we are part of an interconnected system and that we aren't the only, or even necessarily the most important, player in the system. Rather, we're a part of it, and we need then to co-exist with others. We need to function with our natural environment, as well as with the environment of other living forms.

As I say, we all embrace the concept of sustainable environment. Nobody denies that for a moment. The concept we embrace. We also recognize we need to spend money. Sadly, though, this bill seems to amount to a recycling of existing moneys. It's not new money. Worse, it does not appear to provide us at all with any sense of what sustainable environment and sustainable development really mean and ought to require from us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this bill, maybe to straighten the record out a little after we heard the ravings of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) getting up and mouthing the same words we heard from his leader.

It was an interesting lecture from the second member for Nanaimo. It was very difficult to disagree with. I've read some of the same works he quoted from. I too have paid particular attention to the Brundtland report, and I've read the book that came forth from that report, Our Common Future. It's a book that everyone today should read. It should be "must" reading in the schools.

[3:30]

But I also point out what is so often overlooked when people quote Ms. Brundtland and her report.

[ Page 10111 ]

She put tremendous emphasis on the environment and how it was linked to the economy. She mentions it several times in her book, and I don't have any of the exact quotations in front of me. I hadn't even planned to speak on this bill; I didn't think it would be necessary. But since some of the things that have been said, I think we should straighten the record out.

Ms. Brundtland says very explicitly that you cannot have a healthy environment without a healthy economy, or vice versa. She says that many times. In fact, she even points out some of the countries that have very sick environments, and it's because their economy is sick. To paraphrase her, she says it's very difficult to be that concerned about your environment when your prime concern is what you're going to have for dinner tonight — if anything. That's exactly why we pay particular attention to the balance between the environment and the economy. You cannot have one without the other.

One needs only to look to countries in eastern Europe where we're finally realizing the devastation there to the environment. When we talk in this bill about a Sustainable Environment Fund Act, it is because we have the wherewithal to do it. Those countries which have had an economic disaster for the last 45 or 50 years have not been able to pay attention to looking after the environment, even though they probably wanted to. Even though many of the good citizens in those countries knew what they were doing to their environment, they were powerless to do anything to clean it up.

The factories and smokestacks in those countries — and I've been in a couple of those countries.... The factories spew out sulphur from the very poor-quality coal that they use, to the point where the buildings are deteriorating, the forests are dying and the people are breathing air that no human being should have to breathe. In fact, I sincerely hope now that they've taken a first step to economic freedom that they can find the wherewithal to clean up the environment over there.

I heard the other day that the bill to clean up the environment in eastern Europe will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion. I don't know where they're going to find that money, and I hope over a period of time that they can do it.

So we on this side of the House take very seriously the environment, the sustainability of our economy, the forests, all of the industries and how they interact with the environment, despite what you might have heard from the member for Port Alberni and the Leader of the Opposition.

We don't run around at our conventions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for Alberni had his time on the floor, and I'll get to him in a moment. I think that if he isn't already, he should be in a great deal of trouble in his riding come the next election.

We take very seriously the relationship between the economy and the environment, and industry and how it relates to the environment. This bill will go a long way to strengthening our commitment and industry's commitment to the environment.

The member for Nanaimo said that we should spend more money on the environment. We are — if the member would take the time to read the bill and look at all the sections. But it isn't only government that's spending money on the environment. The pulp industry alone in this province this year is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up their industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thankfully, they have the money to spend, Mr. Member, because the economy is healthy. Because of the government we've had in this province over the last few years, we have a healthy industry that can spend the money to clean up its act — hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone. If they didn't have the money to spend on it, the alternative is to close down. There is no in between: they either have the money to do it — which they have — or they close down. There is no other alternative.

So thankfully, our industries in this province have the wherewithal to be able to clean up their act, which strengthens the statement I made earlier that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes. All right, let's talk about Sweden for a moment. Sweden does a good job in the environment, though not as good as they would have you believe, when you start extrapolating some of their figures and transposing the measurement system they use against what we use. But they do a good job — no question about it.

They do a good job in forestry in Sweden. They're cutting some of their third rotation now. By the way, they clearcut too. They do a couple of commercial thinnings, but they clearcut in Sweden. In fact, the law says they must clearcut.

But let's go a little further in Sweden and see what else....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member keeps hollering at me: "Good socialist government!" I think that's a contradiction in terms, Mr. Speaker. Good socialist government — I don't think there is such a thing, and I don't think the member can point to one anywhere in the world. I challenge him to point to one that has worked effectively anywhere in the world.

He keeps hollering: "Sweden!" Let's see how well Sweden stacks up against some other countries. In Sweden they have a tax called the VAT. Have you

[ Page 10112 ]

heard of the VAT in Sweden, Mr. Member, the value-added tax, which will be called a GST over here? Are you in favour of a GST like those they have in some European countries, which might have started at a low percentage? Guess what it is now, Mr. Member from Port Alberni. Guess what the VAT or the GST is in northern Europe now. Take a guess, Mr. Member. Their VAT is at about 22 or 23 percent. Is that a good socialist government? Is that what you want for British Columbia — a GST of 23 percent? The member wants a GST of 23 percent for British Columbia. Wonderful, eh?

Let's hear what the income tax is in some of those countries, Mr. Member.

MR. HARCOURT: Are these the Finance estimates?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It seems that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like this, but he roamed all over the map talking about this bill. He didn't talk about what he did in Vancouver, when he was the mayor, to clean up their sewage effluent.

I didn't go to Sweden, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; it was your member from Port Alberni who said: "Let's talk about Sweden." So we talk about Sweden, where an income tax on the average wage-earner, Mr Member, is about 70 percent. That's a good socialist government, isn't it? That's what happens when programs get out of control, when governments don't know how to say no. Oh, I admit the Swedes and the Danes and the Norwegians did it for all the right reasons. They are a very compassionate people, and they have had social programs for a hundred years But they admit that their spending got totally out of control. When a government doesn't know how to say no to anybody, Mr. Member, that's what happens.

When we talk about sustainable environment, and we make decisions that balance the economy and the environment, like a decision we made on the Carmanah Valley, which was a balanced decision, to balance the environment and the economy.... You didn't see the Premier of this province running around a convention floor trying to make a deal between the greens in his party and the IWA, running from one member to the other, saying, "Hey, we've got to worry about our chances in the next election."

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, sure he was. Just exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was doing — trying to protect his own job within his own party And then after he runs around to all the members in his party and makes a deal, Mr. Speaker, then he gets in front of the TV cameras and says: "Watch my lips. I'll tell you what we're going to do in the Carmanah: there will be no logging." He said, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relevancy, please, Mr. House Leader. Bill 16.

HON. MR RICHMOND: Yes, the Sustainable Environment Fund Act, Mr. Speaker.

He said: "There won't be any balanced sustainable decision in the Carmanah. There will be no logging in the Carmanah." How are you going to defend that, Mr. Member from Port Alberni? I want you to get up and defend that in this House when we bring in the Carmanah bill.

MR. BLENCOE: A hundred and twenty jobs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's only one decision. How many would there be if your leader had that decision to make? They'd all be out of work. There wouldn't be 120....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm supporting the decision we made, Mr. Member. And I want to see what happens, as opposed to losing them all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 16, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

The member said — and I'll try to quote — that my role as Minister of Forests would be diminished under this bill. Not true, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to put that on the record. It's anything but the truth. If the member would care to get up later, in the committee stage, and defend what he said, I'd like to hear that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He has already spoken, but he can speak again in committee, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and he can get up and defend his statement that my role will be diminished. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I just challenge the member and the Leader of the Opposition: when this bill does come up for final vote, stand up and vote against it. I sincerely hope they do. It will show everyone where they stand on sustainable environment in this province. The forests critic can get up and say where he stands on private land and how he would react to every group that comes in here, on private land. We'd like to hear that too.

It's sort of: "Aren't we wonderful!"

The member for Port Alberni talks about toxic waste or special waste and doesn't even realize that he's in the wrong bill. You'll have a chance next, Mr. Member, on Bill 38, when we talk about hazardous wastes, to talk about your batteries. You can get up and talk all you like, instead of just mouthing what your leader says, getting up with the same tired old lines about recycled money. It isn't funny.

We take recycling very seriously. We take sustainable environment and the economy very seriously on this side of the House. We know that you cannot have one without the other, and the decisions we make

[ Page 10113 ]

reflect that, unlike the bills we see introduced from your side or the comments from that side of the House. They do not reflect that you have the knowledge of your member from Nanaimo who has read the Brundtland report — if you haven't — and knows that you cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment and vice versa. We take it very seriously.

I urge the members from that side — if they feel like their leader and the member from Port Alberni — to vote against Bill 16, so that we can have it on the record that you are against a sustainable environment and sustainable economy.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would like to pick up on defining "sustainable environment." I think we're getting confused, but I am really glad that the government has finally educated itself a bit to understand that sustainable environment is really what we need to talk about, and with that we would have a sustainable economy. I think it is really important that the whole issue of what sustainable is, in fact, starts to get defined. We are looking at a government trying to create some integration of its different activities at the highest level in order to fight a bit of fire on the environmental front. The notion that the economy is sustainable only if the environment is sustainable requires a little more in-depth treatment than this bill gives it.

[3:45]

Before we endorse the Brundtland report in its entirety, it is perhaps worth looking at it on balance, as they have also said that there has to be a major shift in resource expenditures from military back into sustainable economic ventures. So the report has to be looked at on balance, and I don't think the speakers from the other side have done that.

I don't think that all the evidence is in, either, because the whole history of the western world has indicated that we have destroyed one ecosystem after the other and turned rainforests of the Mediterranean into deserts that don't sustain life. To bring it home, the issue here is: with so little research involved, how do we know that we aren't doing the same thing here?

It is argued that we are reforesting, but are we reforesting for more than one generation? I am sorry that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) isn't here, because although I know he doesn't like advice from this side of the House, I am glad to see that he is beginning to take a bit of it in setting up his local advisory council for the Cariboo. It should have been for the Chilcotin; it's too big a region to deal with in integrating all aspects of the economy. But I can continue to give him my advice in letter form if he doesn't want to be in the House listening to it at the moment.

With respect to the Ministry of Environment, they have set up an integrated resource management branch, as has the Ministry of Forests. I really wonder why we need two separate branches dealing with basically the same subject. I am glad to see that the government recognizes that there is really no difference between the environment and the forests when dealing with forested ecosystems. The forest is the environment, and we have to look at the forest in a lot broader way than we have been doing.

I am a little disappointed that the government has put the sale of trees as a revenue for this fund. It seems to me that the sale of trees should go to the Ministry of Forests for replanting and not into this fund. You are replenishing this fund with revenues that were already targeted for some other activity.

On the question of dealing with eastern European forests and how they manage their environment, when the evidence is in on Sweden and other countries, we may well have to admit that none of the models in the western world work for us. We have seen that after three rotations of clearcutting, the sustainability of the forest ecosystem is seriously questioned. That is because they have not respected the holistic processes that deal with the complex nutrient cycling over time.

I recognize that the Brundtland report did address some of these problems, but it certainly didn't address the problems of the temperate forests that we deal with here. It was a very general work and pointed to the weaknesses in history, when we haven't paid attention to making decisions before we develop so that conservation of the resource is built into the development decision.

When we talk about paying money for pulp mill pollution cleanup, we have to recognize that there has been a significant amount of money extracted from that resource in the past and we are trying to play catch-up. That's what creates the hardship on the economy: when you have to catch up in short order. I would like to see the emphasis placed on any funds expended under this bill — as little as they are — on prevention rather than cure. I hope there are enough funds for initiatives at the local level and that people will have the best opportunity to make the trade-off between the economy and the environment. If there's going to be some damage to the environment, we should enhance the short-term economy. The people who have to live with those rights should be plugged into the process so they have some power.

We see in this bill that the decisions are going to be made at the cabinet table. If those issues don't get sorted out through the political system, during elections or during the consultations that members have with their ridings, then there's no mechanism instituted that will look at the trade-offs and the balances. If we're going to trade off long-term environmental values — what I call economic values — for short-term, then those decisions have to be made by the people who have to live with them.

We have this contradiction of people in the lower mainland living in what are termed the largest clearcuts in B.C. They are living within an economy that has benefited from the exploitation extraction in the interior. Those people in the interior need to have a much stronger voice in resource-management decision-making.

First, we have to institute some power of integrated resource management information at the local

[ Page 10114 ]

level, which means we have to do some inventory work. Officials at the local level who work in the Ministries of Forests, Environment and Energy are accountable to local people. I realize the weaknesses we have in the provincial government system, but we have to work harder to give people some kind of zoning powers to decide on the complex uses for some areas, with strong provincial guidelines that show what is, in fact, ecologically sustainable in the long run.

Our decision-making now has to incorporate 20 years of research that's taken place across the border with respect to forest management. We have to rapidly incorporate that into our decision-making here in this province. It's creating a lot of problems within the ministry system, because they are hierarchical, and it's creating noise in the political system. It creates what I call an inordinate task of decision-making at the senior levels. There are some risks in terms of allowing people to make decisions which would sometimes err on too much extraction and other times err on too much conservation. I'm not sure you could have that. Thereby it temporarily threatens local economies, but it may be just temporary. A conservation decision will mete out the resources and stop the expenditure of ecological capital.

We have to realize what has happened in this province. We have used ecological capital; we have lived beyond our means and not just spent the interest; now we have this pressure to reinvest in backlogged reforestation, to clean up the estuaries and to generally replace that ecological capital. That's what Brundtland was talking about if you read the fine lines. She said we're going to have to take the fruit of our economy until we can put the economy into a transitional stage.

The issue of balanced decision-making is going to require more information than we are providing to local people to provide input, and it's going to require a process that seeks consensus. That means that people have the power to make the decisions, not just finding consensus and making recommendations to cabinet ministers. Those who have to live with the decisions have to be able to make the decisions. This act doesn't go very far at all in that direction.

It does talk about the operation of the Round Table on Environment and Economy, and that's fine for talk of provincial policy at this level. But the real decisions and the real integration has to happen at the local level — the subregional level.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Forests, talked about the Brundtland report, but he neglected to say that one of the points that came through in the many hearings they had in the discussions with young people around the world was the old notion of the feeling of efficacy. Young people around the world need to know that what they are doing will make a difference.

This government has a responsibility to integrate action programs into the school system that young people can engage themselves in and learn in a holistic way about resource management. Every school should adopt a forest or part of an ecosystem that's close to them and be involved in nurturing that and looking at the negative feedback from development and looking at the positive feedback from conservation measures that are instituted.

Brundtland also said that if we don't do that in a major way, we will be losing valuable time. When the rhetoric about the healthy economy gets going, people are very quick to say: "Gee, if the economy or our lifestyle is threatened, we won't make those decisions that will preserve that lifestyle — or a good measure of it — long into the future." Our planning horizons have to change. We have to look at a 200-year planning horizon at least with respect to forest management. The longest one I've seen is 100 years. In the interior of the province that doesn't even get you regrowth to a merchantable size in some of the species.

The idea that we can sustain the present activities is a notion that has to be incorporated into policy. In my view, we have to look at large-scale zoning of the forest base to allow significant parts of it to go through the old-growth cycle. You might think this is talking about forest management, but as I said previously, forest management is environmental management in the forested ecosystems.

The long rotation age that we must institute in a lot of areas will enhance the environment and will allow the total environment — the flora and the fauna — to flourish and adapt to changes in weather patterns and to changes as a result of disturbances due to environmental contaminants, man-made disturbances, erosion or whatever. I think that in the process of long-term evolution, we allow the process of nature to continue to develop and enhance the environment. We have to map the blueprints that exist in the wilderness in order to simulate and repair the man-made disturbances.

To show that this is not a simple matter, when we look at preserving old-growth forest in the province as blueprints, I think we also have to preserve what I call young growth. We have to take areas that have been burned over and not necessarily reforest them and create a plantation, but allow the stages of evolution to go on, which is a low-cost way of allowing an ecosystem to evolve. After 300 years, it will then become an old-growth system. That's the way nature does it, and that then becomes another blueprint. We can watch that evolution take place.

I think we have to be humble as agents of evolution here and watch what nature has done in a very complex set of environments. On the whole language of so-called management, we could take advice from whoever said that "man who manages least manages best." I think we need to approximate natural systems of management a lot better.

That leads us to looking at minimal or zero discharge systems. We have to immediately begin the stage of planning for zero discharge, unless those discharges can be seen to be beneficial to the environment. In the long run that will be the most cost-effective. I would hope that government would take initiatives to invest in those areas or to allow the

[ Page 10115 ]

experimentation of resource management and industrial activities that we want to be models for sustainable development. I feel that there are many more than meet the eye. There are a lot of them percolating around in communities. A lot of people would like to experiment, because they feel that by using conservative resource management techniques, it is going to save money in the long run — not 25 years, but certainly in the 100- and 200-year time-frame. That's a difficult one to build into government decision-making.

I'd like to comment a bit about some of the things that the bill doesn't address, and that is habitat management. The Ministry of Environment's budget has gone up by 0.7 percent. We think that this bill could have covered a lot of issues like wildlife habitat management. Wildlife habitat officers and conservation officers are critical in order to determine what is sustainable environment for those species which, incidentally, have value for themselves and certain economic values. Wilderness tourism, based on hunting and fishing, is an extremely important and a very fast-growing area of the economy, and they require virtually undisturbed ecosystems. If they are disturbed, they have to be very carefully interfered with, so as to not restrict the continued development and conservation of those important species.

[4:00]

We're seeing here the largest increase in the Minister of Environment's funds being expended at a high level, which allows the government to pick certain high-profile projects and not to invest in multi-resource, integrated-resource and holistic-resource planning at the local level, where we can begin to see some real cost-effectiveness in terms of government spending.

I think we've seen in the past few years a beleaguered civil service that's trying its best but can't move fast enough. We have a situation where wildlife habitat officers can't evaluate cutting permits as fast as the Ministry of Forests can send them to their desks. There are a dozen of them in the province, and they have had to concentrate on major options in timber management which will protect the habitat. I think the need to integrate the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests at the regional and local levels would bring about a very cost-effective way of providing public service to protect public resources. This government is not doing enough in that respect.

This bill indicates the reactive mode that the government is in, in dealing with serious environmental problems, and not the proactive stance that I think is necessary at all levels, regions and districts. I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Before we proceed, I will just remind hon. members — and I purposely did not want to interrupt the second member for Cariboo — that there are many items being mentioned here by both sides of the House that would be much better canvassed at the time of the ministry's estimates. We are really dealing only with the principle of Bill 16. 1 would just like to bring that to the attention of all members.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, it is the principle of this bill that we are addressing when we talk about sustainable environment. The fund which is being promoted to address sustainable environment, we believe, has no principle. Does that mean there should be no debate? I don't think so.

Why doesn't this bill have a principle?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unprincipled.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: Perhaps because it is unprincipled. Let me explain that for a few minutes.

Politically speaking, it's always nice to grab together a big fund — the big-fund theory. It's rather like the big-bang theory about what created the universe. The big-fund theory has been used by the federal government over the last number of years to provide funds for day care and to do stuff for the environment. Very often these funds are introduced into the federal House, and they announce billions of dollars and stretch them over seven years. By the time you crack them all out and look at them and find out that they're basically recycled money, and then you divide them by ten provinces, and again by the number of years these funds are available, you find that you've got less than you started with. Very often you find yourself, in the context of the federal government, fighting for what you've got now so that you don't end up being retrenched and pushed back. This is what happened on the day care bill.

When I come to look at this bill, I see it's even more cynical than that. It is not a big fund pulled together out of a genuine planning process which has taken a careful look at the roots of the problem and attempts to address the larger problem with a sustained amount of money over a sustained number of years. What I see here is a sustainable environment fund which in itself is not sustainable. This fund is not sustainable.

In fact, the attention of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, who were here a few minutes ago on their own bill.... Their attention span isn't terribly sustainable, since they are not sitting in their seats. The Minister of Forests has left, after our leader pointed out that he hadn't read section 11 of his own bill to deal with hazardous waste disposal.

I should say that sustainable environment is about the principle that you can't take more than you're giving back. You can't take more out of a system, out of the earth, out of the ground, than you in fact give back. You can't take more out of the taxpayers to address your problems than you give back. You don't survive.

The sustainable environment fund that I see in front of me is a hodge-podge of other funds that have been collected, put into one pot and are being sold as a sustainable fund. Let me tell you that the $222

[ Page 10116 ]

million coming into this fund — which is already being spent and would have been spent anyway for reforestation — is nothing more than a simple bookkeeping transfer from the Ministry of Forests to some conglomeration of ministers sitting in the cabinet who will be making decisions about reforestation. Don't kid me — reforestation has to go on in this province as it always has. It has to be paid for. Let's not kid ourselves that the money is not going to go into reforestation. If it doesn't, there will be a lot to answer for.

The remainder'of that fund largely comes from small tariffs and levies and taxes that look good on paper but are not going to produce a lot of money Fifty million dollars is coming In from lottery money that didn't happen to be expended last year, because the Lottery Fund came to an abrupt halt. It was not spent last year, and there were many reasons why not.

Let's face it, this fund is not a fund as much as it is an election gimmick not intended to last beyond the election call, because $222 million plus $50 million plus a few levies does not a commitment make. It is basically an election fund which in itself cannot be maintained.

The second reason this fund cannot be considered credible is that it lacks accountability. It lacks accountability at the top and it lacks accountability at the bottom. At the bottom you've established a round table. People in this province know about the Social Credit government's round tables. They generally aren't round. They are generally very long tables, and many people — the citizens of this province and the workers — sit below the salt at that table. Accountability at the bottom is not guaranteed. Communities are not plugged into this fund, from anything I see in this bill. In fact, what I see in this bill is a method of extracting levies and taxes out of local communities, with no promises as to how they're going to be spent back in those communities.

Accountability at the top. Well, I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. I happen to chair it, and just this week we are looking at the Lottery Fund, and we will be looking at it again next Tuesday morning This government does not have a good reputation when it comes to spending funds — special funds in particular. The Lottery Fund, according to the auditor-general of the province, has suffered badly from the fact that it has not had guidelines. Where it has had guidelines, those guidelines have been exceeded or ignored. There have always been exceptions, and where there have been exceptions, they are called "special exceptions." Finally, after this was all divulged in the last year, the Lottery Fund has given itself a special ministerial committee. Now it's the ministerial committee that will be looking at the guidelines and the special programs. Are we satisfied with that? Is there arm's length there? I fear not.

Moreover, the auditor-general has suggested that the guidelines that did exist weren't really circulated to the larger community and that people in the communities didn't understand that money was available. When they did understand that money was available, very often there were bidding wars for particular kinds of projects. When guidelines changed, communities weren't told about that either. Also, when community groups did receive their money, they were not asked for appropriate reporting back to government. These are not bad agencies; these are good community agencies. Government — your side of the House — did not ask for standard reports on how the money was spent. There was no monitoring after the money was given out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that we are dealing with the bill before us. It has nothing to do with the Lottery Fund, except for a portion of lottery funds to be attributed to this ministry and its program. I would suggest that you get back to the principle of the bill.

MS. MARZARI: The non-principle of the bill. The Sustainable Environment Fund Act sets up a fund. The Lottery Fund was for $86 million last year; this program is for $300 million. The connection, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is not very good at spending funds. It knows how to spell "fund"; it can put "fund" into an act; it can create a very pretty piece of paper that incorporates from their polling all of the environmental issues that are affecting communities. But when they set up a fund, they don't know how to advertise it, call for tenders or put it out with proper guidelines. They don't know how to ask for appropriate reporting back.

What are the similarities between this fund and the Lottery Fund? Once again we'll have an interministerial committee. Is it called the sustainable development committee? I'm not quite sure. It's going to be deciding how this fund is to be spent.

What should this government be doing? I think it might be better off looking at the roots of the problem rather than the politics of the solution. The root of the problem we're faced with here is that we cut too much in our forests. We cut in the wrong places. We take out 100 million cubic metres of wood a year in a province which, we are told by the environmentalists, should cut only 40 million cubic metres. The moderate foresters who have studied the issues of rotation and what can be regrown tell us that we should be cutting only 65 million cubic metres. That is the root problem here. We overcut; we cut in the wrong places.

The problems of management that grow out of that have to do with the fact that we don't know how to collect the money from our forests that we should be collecting. We seem to be collecting $600 million a year from our forests and our stumpage and our TFLs. Once again, we did not do a proper job last year, according to the auditor-general, of collecting the most basic of fees from our stumpage. That seems to be the root problem in our forests right now, Mr. Speaker.

The whole problem is being avoided very nicely by setting up a fund which talks about sustainable environment and mixes together hazardous waste disposal, toxic wastes, air pollution, tires and dispos-

[ Page 10117 ]

able diapers, and throws them all into a hopper with the fact that we mismanage our land resource and our forests. That whole problem is being dumped from the Ministry of Forests onto the back of the Minister of Environment, who is going to be stuck with some kind of interministerial committee, advised by a special commission. The whole problem is going to be sidestepped very nicely this year, just before an election. That's what I think is happening here, and that's what I think the motivation for this fund is.

[4:15]

Go back to the roots. Go back to the basic problem. Go back to how we spend our wealth in this province. Our wealth depends upon our land and our resources, and upon how we treat them. I come from Vancouver, the largest clearcut in this province, as has been pointed out many times; and in my community, when I sat on city council, I dealt with the fundamental power that I had at city council. That fundamental power had to do with land use, with densities of development. Every time I made a development decision around a zoning, a densification or a bonusing, I knew that I was handing out dollars; I was granting the community benefits to people who wanted to develop in our city. I knew that. It was money I was giving out when I was handing out zoning and density. It was money that we were taking back in on city council — balancing our budgets every year to ensure that proper services were delivered back.

You don't take more than you can give back. In our forests, we take more and more each year. We don't ask how much they're cutting. We don't ask where they're cutting. We don't ask if they're putting it back. We just cut more and more. When we realize we're up against a wall, what do we do? We lift the problem right out of the Ministry of Forests and hand it over to Environment in the form of a nice big parcel called the sustainable environment fund.

This is probably — more than the BS fund — the biggest piece of smoke and mirrors we've seen thus far in this House.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I've listened to the opposition this afternoon refer to the Sustainable Environment Fund Act as if it was going to be the cure-all for everything that happens in British Columbia.

But I would remind the other side that it's exactly what it says: it's a fund act. It's where the dollars go in, and where the dollars go out. If you look at it, it very clearly says that the object of the fund is to provide for programs to protect and enhance the environment and for forest renewal initiatives. I don't think that either side of the House really disagrees — or shouldn't — with the object of the fund act under that basis.

The speech that we heard from the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) clearly outlined that he was in favour of that object, I believe. It clearly states where the funding comes from. In other words, it says that $50 million is going to be transferred from the Lottery Fund.

It goes on to say that it will also be transferred from the Financial Administration Act, which means, in the case of parks where there are funds set aside through Crown lands for the purchasing of property, that it's already approved by budget. From there it will be transferred to the Sustainable Environment Fund Act for us to apply to.

It talks about the proceeds from the government sale of tree seeds and seedlings. The list goes on and on. I guess what I'm saying is that it also talks about the Waste Management Act and fees from the Environment Management Act, Fisheries Act, Litter Act, Park Act and Pesticide Control Act. We're clearly outlining the areas within our jurisdiction where some of these funds should come from that are going to be shown as revenue. I congratulate the ministry for bringing this in to show us exactly where the dollars are going to be raised each year.

The remark was made by the last speaker that the Sustainable Environment Fund Act does not say where it's going to get its funds from year to year. I suppose that's only good management, in that we should be deciding whether or not the fund is a progressive one, whether or not it's curing what we're trying to cure and whether or not it's negative. Consequently, because of that, each year we can decide through government the number of dollars that should go into the fund.

It also says where the expenditures are going to go upon application: "Initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes; land acquisition costs for park, fish conservation and wildlife conservation purposes...." The list goes on and on.

It also says in here that when we're talking about municipal waste — the Waste Management Act — we're talking about applications through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

It's too bad she's leaving right now, but the last speaker spoke about the fact that in the city in which she was an alderman, whatever dollars they took in, they spent, and they had a balanced budget. What they didn't tell you was that they had a problem with their infrastructure because they didn't set any money aside to look after the sewage and waste that they have within their community.

While they said that they were making dollars for the community, and bringing dollars back into their municipal council so that they could exercise the right given to them by the electors to spend those dollars, they put no money aside to look after the future.

Consequently, through this bill — this Sustainable Environment Fund Act — it's my belief that that's exactly what we're doing. We're looking after the future for British Columbia. We're clearly outlining where the money comes from and where it's going, no matter which department it comes from or goes to. In other words, what we're trying to say and do within the province is work with municipalities.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 10118 ]

We're also saying in here that to start with we're going to charge a fee for lead acid batteries and for tires within the province. It's a start, and it's called "user-pay." I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

We've come to the time when you can no longer ship your stuff out of the large metropolitan areas to the area that I happen to live in — the central part of British Columbia — without it costing you any dollars. That's what this act is going to help reduce.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 16, the Sustainable Environment Fund Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanalmo.

MR. REID: Tell us about the recycling plant in Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER: Oh, the past Minister of Tourism wants to talk about recycling. How interesting! Maybe we should talk about recycling. What a good idea! That is a wonderful idea, Mr. Speaker, because obviously we're talking about recycling in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We still have a quorum if the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) leaves. Short of that, we could ask him to restrain himself while the member talks about the principle of the bill.

MS. PULLINGER: This Sustainable Environment Fund Act purports to be based on the basic principle of sustainability. As we all know, and as one of my colleagues said, the principle of sustainability is all about not taking out more than you put in; dealing with our resources, our environment and our economy in such a way that we can do what we need to do today without damaging the ability of future generations to use those same resources. That's the principle that we're being told this bill is based on.

However, I'd like to point out that what we're hearing is simply not believable, for a number of reasons. Probably one of the most salient reasons for this bill simply lacking credibility is the inherent conflict between the right-wing, Social Credit, neoconservative economic agenda and the principle of sustainability. The two simply don't work together They can't. It makes it very difficult to believe that this bill and the principles behind it are anything but politically motivated.

There is that conflict, because let's not forget what a neoconservative agenda is. Let's not forget what Social Credit and its counterpart in Ottawa, the Conservative government, and that right-wing think-tank the Fraser Institute, and the neoconservative politics behind and around that, are all about. They're all based on a nineteenth-century economic analysis. It's outdated and outmoded, but they still hang on to it and cherish it as a central myth, a central ideal. For these neoconservatives, the job is to free up the engine of the economy. That's the principle behind right-wing economics.

If you are going to free up and fuel that engine of the economy, then you do things like deregulate. For instance, you let pulp mills and polluters look after themselves and monitor themselves. Part of deregulation is privatization, where everything is arm's-length, such as privatizing highways. It costs us a lot more and it's not as effective; however, it fits with that neoconservative principle.

One of the flaws in that whole economic analysis, I might point out, is that it assigns no value to things like clean air and clean water. There's a single economic, monetary goalpost that kind of forgets things like environment and social structure and people and society.

What we've seen under this government is a following of the Thatcher regime, where they're privatizing everything without much discrimination. I remember a lot of questions being asked about studies and why those things were being done, and it's simply philosophical. It's a right-wing agenda, and it doesn't work. You can't privatize research and development.

We've allowed polluters to monitor themselves. We've gotten rid of things like the rentalsman and rent review process and motor vehicle testing stations in spite of the fact those things were all very effective. In short, the neoconservative agenda, the Social Credit agenda, rejects monitoring and regulation. It rejects long-term planning. It rejects local input or local decision-making and is very much centralist. That's the neoconservative agenda that obviously flies in the face of all those basic principles of sustainability.

Sustainability, as we know, is all about wholeness. It's all about dealing with things in their context and in the larger picture and in the long term. People are no longer prepared to put up with that kind of ad hoc decision-making — lacking planning, regulation and effectiveness — that we've had under Social Credit for far too long. They're not going to buy this most recent political ad hoc bill either. It simply lacks credibility.

Aside from that very basic inherent conflict, which makes all of us roll our eyes a little bit when we see a bill titled Sustainable Environment Fund Act, there are some other things that are wrong in the principle of this bill. One of the major things, also something we've seen a lot of, is that this whole bill is deceptive. It's misleading. It represents everything that's bad about this government. It lacks accountability. It's a slush fund where spending is very much at ministerial discretion. It lacks any real guidelines. In fact, it's a sloppy bill.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to ask the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale to restrain himself or excuse himself.

Would the member continue.

[ Page 10119 ]

MS. PULLINGER: I think one of the ways in which this bill is misleading is that we have a fund that supposedly is a new fund and new money.

MR. LOENEN: No. You said that; we never said that.

MS. PULLINGER: Oh no. It was quite clear that this was a new fund. I think the member should go back and read some of the speeches we have heard from his side of the House.

It is supposedly new money, but most of it, in fact, is $222 million that has been removed from the Ministry of Forests, where there is accountability, and put into a slush fund, where there isn't accountability. Not only that, but the bill is just a bit sloppy. You take it out of Forests and put it into a so-called sustainable environment fund. Then, before the bill has even passed, it is amended by the people who brought it in. It then takes the Forests money, which went out of Forests into an Environment fund, and puts it back into the hands of Forests. The only difference is that it has been recycled through a fund. Instead of being accountable through the normal process of ministerial spending, it now goes through a slush fund, from Forests to this fund, and back to the ministerial discretion of Forests. The accountability simply isn't there.

The money hasn't changed; it's just a shell game. All that's missing — all that's gone with this whole proposal — is accountability. That simply isn't good enough. I don't think ministerial discretion is something that the public is willing to have as a criterion for spending. So the largest portion of the money in this fund is simply removed from Forests and put into this fund, to be spent by the Forests ministry.

MR. LOENEN: It's making good legislation better.

MS. PULLINGER: It's making legislation, but it's creating what's obviously a political slush fund that lacks accountability. It's similar to the other funds we have seen, like the Lottery Fund. In fact, it recycles Forests money into this fund. It also recycles lottery money into this fund — some $50 million. So we have $270 million of this so-called new money coming out of existing funds and ministries and simply being put under a new umbrella. That's not a commitment to the environment; that's no new initiative or new fund. It's simply a shell game, and nothing much else.

The other thing is that this is touted as an increase in environmental funding. When you peel away all the layers, all the games and all the shifting around of funds — there are a few amendments to this act that obfuscate it just a bit more — what you find is that environmental funding has increased less than 1 percent. When you factor in inflation, that is a decrease.

[4:30]

With its shifting of more than $200 million out of Forests into this fund, it also represents a long-term decrease in the Forests budget. Neither of those is acceptable. We have major problems in both of those areas. Particularly for the government to decrease those two ministers' funding while saying they are increasing environmental and Forests spending just isn't the way it ought to be done. It's not credible at all.

I think one of the other reasons this bill lacks credibility in terms of being sustainable is that the things that are purported to be dealt with under it could have — and should have — been done by this government a long time ago. We've heard a lot of talk about recycling, but we have only seen recycling in things like this bill, where we see one account recycled to another. We haven't seen any moves towards effective control of disposal of toxic wastes or any effective cleanup of our environment — our air and our water — which badly needs it. And we have seen a continuation of overcutting and mismanagement of our forest resources, lax standards and insufficient restocking of logged land.

What we are seeing is an inherent conflict in a government that really isn't dealing with the problem. Instead it comes up with a bill that somehow is supposed to rectify all of those problems but that, in fact, doesn't do much. I would suggest that maybe it is an attempt to clean up the government's image more than the environment.

The remaining money under this bill comes from a new tax. Again it's deceptive, because we have heard again and again how there are no new taxes under the latest budget. I find it interesting indeed that these new "levies, " as the government side of the House is fond of calling them, are in addition to the Social Service Tax Act, which makes me think that this is possibly a tax and should be identified as such.

What we see with those taxes is a levy — or a tax — not on those who create pollution, not on manufacturers.... There is no incentive to make things that are less polluting. What we see instead is a tax on people rather than polluters. We see a tax on mothers, not on manufacturers. There's no incentive to recycle in this bill, and there's no incentive for research and development, or to find or create ways to produce goods that are either less polluting, not polluting or perhaps even environmentally beneficial. None of those things are included in this so-called sustainable environment fund. What it ends up being, as far as I can see, is simply a tax grab.

We see that this bill purports to deal with hazardous waste. But it's a very sloppy bill, as I've mentioned already. There's already an amendment on the order paper to clarify some basic mistakes that were made in drafting the bill. What we see is a bill that talks about hazardous waste but doesn't define what those hazardous wastes are. Yet somehow, in spite of the fact that there's no definition of hazardous waste, there's a prediction that there will be $3.8 million revenue from levies on these hazardous wastes. That's this year; next year there is supposed to be some $5 million revenue from an as yet undefined hazardous waste. That appears very sloppy. The definition of waste is up to the discretion of the minister, as is the prescribing of taxes or levies on

[ Page 10120 ]

waste. The minister can decide that something is hazardous and then put a levy of some kind on it. Yet he can exempt any class of persons or any class of hazardous waste he wants. It's an enormous amount of ministerial discretion.

MR. LOENEN: That's good government.

MS. PULLINGER: That's sloppy government.

This bill is more about the government's image, which itself appears to be awfully tarnished and polluted indeed. It's a sloppy, deceptive bill that in fact shows a long-term decline in forestry money and a decline in environmental spending. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's designed to convince the people of B.C. that this government is serious about the environment. But that's going to be hard to swallow. Just like the crabs and shellfish that glow in the dark, it's not easy to swallow. Clearly it's another pre-election plan by members opposite, and a slush fund that really has no credibility and very little accountability.

The money in this bill can obviously be spent on an enormous range of things, including a whole lot more glossy ads or television ads proclaiming themselves as news. There's no public scrutiny in this spending, there's no significant new money and there are no new programs.

The bill supposedly deals with pollution, but we haven't seen any funding for environmental review of new projects, for instance. There's no money in the Ministry of Environment and there's no money in this act for environmental review of programs. If we're going to clean up the environment and if we're going to create a sustainable kind of development, then it's pretty clear that we have to take a good, hard look at proposed projects and industries, especially those that are potentially polluting. If we're serious in any way, shape or form about a sustainable environment, a sustainable form of development, we'd better be looking at what we're doing. There's absolutely nothing to address that issue. All we've had so far is an admission that the existing process is very badly flawed.

The bill doesn't grapple with the fundamental questions of sustainability. It doesn't grapple with the question of stopping practices that are polluting. There's no incentive to stop polluting. In fact, under present policies there are incentives to pollute. There is nothing that grapples with those very central issues about the sustainable environment.

We have regulations that are lax, and poor forest practices, and mis-management of resources, and poor land-use decision-making processes, and overuse of much of what we have, but there is nothing in the so-called sustainable environment act to deal with those things. It doesn't grapple with those things. It doesn't grapple with that fundamental rethinking and reshaping of what we're doing today to make a clean and environmentally sustainable economy, one that's available for future generations.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is a highly political bill. It's a sloppy bill, and an attempt to show people that the government is dealing with their problems, when in fact, as I say, when you peel away the layers of it, there's not much there. It puts patches over the holes — over where the polling shows the holes are the biggest. It's simply another ad hoc way of dealing with mostly political problems rather than taking a realistic look at what we need to deal with out there, rather than decentralizing some of the decision-making and power, rather than looking at the whole question of what we're producing and how much we're producing, and how we're using our resources.

It's recycled money in this bill. It's recycled ideas. It's recycled programs with little accountability but enormous, centralized ministerial control, somewhat like the other political funds we've seen such as the GO B.C. funds. I can't, in all conscience, support this bill. It's a bad bill and ought to be rejected, and I'm sure it will be rejected by the people of British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: I don't see anyone else rising. I'd like to welcome the students who have just come into the House, wherever they are from. I'll also acknowledge those in the gallery who have been listening with interest to this discussion. I will point out for them that we are discussing one of the most serious issues that has been debated in this Legislature since I arrived only a year ago, which is Bill 16 — the Sustainable Environment Fund Act — and the concept of a sustainable environment.

I share the view of my colleague the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam. (Mr. Cashore) that this is, in fact, a sustainable Socred act. This is an act that purports to be a sustainable Socred act, shall I say in deference to the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen). This bill will not, in my view, ensure the re-election of the Social Credit government. The public has seen through the sham and the scam, and they will continue to see through it.

MR. LOENEN: You don't believe that yourself.

MR. PERRY: The second member for Richmond suggests that I don't believe this bill is a scam or a sham. I can't think of a better way to characterize this bill.

MR. MERCIER: You're more boring than I am.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I can't resist. The member for Burnaby–Edmonds has called me more boring than he is. That's the most charitable thing that has been said about me all session by anyone on the government side. I thank him for the compliment.

What troubles me about the bill is if only I could have faith.... My colleague the distinguished former United Church minister, the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam, quoted Scripture to me a moment ago: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." What is the meaning of that citation from Scripture?

[ Page 10121 ]

The treasure in this bill is in public relations and in trying, once again, to con the people of British Columbia into thinking the Social Credit tiger has changed its stripes — or hyena, perhaps I should say. The Social Credit hyena has changed its stripes and turned into a lamb.

MS. PULLINGER: I think they're spotted.

MR. PERRY: Spotted! Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. The authorities on Kipling, the second member for Nanaimo and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull), point out, as Kipling would have, that the hyena is spotted.

The point of the allegory is the same. The animal cannot change its basic rapacity, and be it a hyena, a leopard, a tiger or a vulture, it's the same animal.

Why do I say this is a public relations stunt? Previous speakers have covered the ground more than amply — I might even say repetitively. The key is that we are seeing the recycling of funds which already exist, and we see a diminished commitment over the next ten years to the funding of the basic needs of the province to return or restore some semblance of sustainability to our environment: namely, reforestation.

Reforestation has been a pathetic scandal in this province for years. Talk to any tree-planter, tree contractor, experienced professional forester or the representatives of MacMillan Bloedel who appear at forestry panels like the one I recently appeared on at Lord Byng Secondary School in my riding. Listen to what they say.

The representative from MacMillan Bloedel at that conference sponsored by the student environmental club at Lord Byng pointed out that the record of reforestation in this province is an atrocity. That was not his specific word, but that was the gist of his commentary. He laid the blame squarely at the foot of the politicians who have controlled the Forest Service for years. I emphasize that he did not blame the forests, the trees, the tree-planters or the Forest Service and the civil servants who have undoubtedly given better advice to their political masters over the years. He laid the blame squarely at the foot of the Social Credit government.

[4:45]

When even the representatives of MacMillan Bloedel are saying that in public.... I'm not talking about the IWA members who speak for that company and have made this point in the past. I'm not talking about the low-level foresters. I'm talking about the senior representative that a major forest company delegates to represent it at public meetings. When those foresters are pointing out that reforestation in this province has been a pathetic atrocity, the public listens.

Don't let us think we can fool ourselves by passing — as this House probably will, despite our objections — a Sustainable Environment Fund Act. Don't let us fool ourselves into thinking that this represents a genuine commitment by government to undo the sins of the past. I may be gullible, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not that stupid, and I don't think the people of British Columbia are stupid. They see what has gone on around the back roads of the province. Those who fly in aircraft across the province — like you, Mr. Speaker — see what can be seen from the window of a jet. Even from the side windows you can see — although not the panorama you're accustomed to, Mr. Speaker — what's going on in the side valleys of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Try to bring the bill just slightly into order; you might tempt the Speaker to go elsewhere.

MR. PERRY: I'll turn my attention towards some comments made about this bill by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who I regret is no longer with us in the chamber. He referred to the Brundtland report as if to say that somehow this Sustainable Environment Fund Act incorporates the philosophy of the Brundtland report, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. I must say I was — perhaps briefly — misled by his reference to having read the report. I thought he understood more about this report than I had been aware of. But as he went on to continue his speech, it became clear to me just how little he really understands what the Brundtland commission was about.

I have fetched my copy from my office. I'd like to read into the record some excerpts from the published version of the report entitled Our Common Future, published by Oxford University Press in 1988, so that we in the public know where the Brundtland commission did stand on some of the issues of sustainable development, as it called its concept, and not be misled by the Minister of Forests.

I welcome the presence of some students in the gallery, because the Brundtland commission report was largely and specifically addressed to young people. I quote from page 14 of the forward. I was going to end with this, but I'll begin with it, not wanting to test the patience of the young people in the gallery. This was addressed by the Brundtland commission to young people:

"But first and foremost our message is directed towards people whose well-being is the ultimate goal of all environment and development policies. In particular, the commission is addressing the young. The world's teachers will have a crucial role to play in bringing this report to them.

"If we do not succeed in putting our message of urgency through to today's parents and decision-makers, we risk undermining our children's fundamental right to a healthy, life-enhancing environment. Unless we are able to translate our words into a language that can reach the minds and hearts of people young and old, we shall not be able to undertake the extensive social changes needed to correct the course of development."

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize, as I end that quotation, those words of the Brundtland commission: "Unless we are able to translate our words into a language that can reach the minds and hearts of people young and old, we shall not be able to undertake the extensive social changes needed to correct the course

[ Page 10122 ]

of development." I think that makes it clear why I find it preposterous that the Minister of Forests would cite the Brundtland commission report in reference to this act.

This is not an act to change the minds and hearts of the people; this is a perverse attempt to propagandize them. This is not an act aimed at fostering the extensive social changes needed to correct the course of development; this is a scam to transfer money that was already being spent — inadequate as it was — in reforestation and environmental protection into another fund. It is to transfer control from those people whom our society has entrusted to become expert in the administration of such public funds — namely the Forest Service and the Environment ministry. It is an act to transfer control of those funds from our experienced and trusted public civil servants into the hands of politicians whom the public has learned not to trust.

It's not by accident that the public opinion polls tell us politicians are just about the lowest on the scale of human life when it comes to trusting somebody for the protection of the environment. The public opinion polls make it clear that the public does not want politicians sitting in a back room in committee — be it smoke-filled or, thanks to your gracious intervention, Mr. Speaker, no longer smoke-filled in these buildings — deciding how to spend money for the maximum political benefit.

That's what our objection to this bill is about. It's not an objection to the lofty goals that the minister will cite to be achieved through the spending of these funds; our objection is to the process of transferring control of public money derived from the taxpayers of British Columbia from those people most likely to spend it in the public interest to those who may be least likely to do so.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me refer again briefly to some other passages from the Brundtland report, because it never hurts to remind ourselves what it was about. The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) alluded in his speech to the importance of reducing militarism — the colossal waste of resources on useless weapons which can only kill people. Most of these weapons are never even used to do that, but if used, they would only create more havoc in the world. The report made clear the necessity of transferring those resources. I must say that I've been encouraged to hear — I believe in the Speech from the Throne — a glimmering of understanding of that point from this government, although I look forward to seeing some action in that direction for once.

I quote again from the report, on page 34 in the first chapter. It's an excerpt quoting the Hon. Victoria Chitepo, Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism of the government of Zimbabwe, appearing before the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986:

"The remarkable achievements of the celebrated Industrial Revolution are now beginning seriously to be questioned, principally because the environment was not considered at the time. It was felt that the sky was so vast and clear, nothing could ever change its colour; our rivers so big and their water so plentiful that no amount of human activity could ever change their quality; and their were trees and natural forests so plentiful that we would never finish them. After all, they grow again."

Mr. Speaker, does that remind you of anything? I see the Environment minister nodding his head, and I wonder if he's had the same thought. It reminds me of our provincial motto, Splendor sine occasu — never-ending splendour. It's a holdover from the frontier mentality of the nineteenth century; today it's a perversion of reality, as if the never-ending splendour were the reality in British Columbia and not the denuded black holes of the west coast or parts of the interior; the flooded reservoirs where the trees were never cleared throughout Social Credit administrations; the grotesque pollution of the Fraser River, of Howe Sound in the Environment minister's own riding and of much of the rest of the coastal waterways of British Columbia; and the grotesque and unhealthy pollution of the air of the lower mainland. Splendor sine occasu — some splendour!

The Hon. Victoria Chitepo continued: "Today we should know better. The alarming rate at which the earth's surface is being denuded of its natural vegetative cover seems to indicate that the world may soon become devoid of trees through clearing for human developments."

At that point, I'd like to refer to an article published in Science magazine. This is the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, if not the leading one. It's an article by Pieter Tans, Inez Fung and Taro Takahashi entitled "Observational Constraints on the Global Atmospheric C0₂ Budget".

The article is highly technical, but it was drawn to my attention by the Member of Parliament for Skeena, Mr. Jim Fulton, and by a librarian in Smithers, Pat Moss, who sent it to my attention. The article was summarized neatly in the first few paragraphs of an article in the Washington Post entitled "Forests May Combat Greenhouse Effect, " by William Booth, March 23, 1990:

"Northern forests appear to play a much greater role than previously believed in scrubbing man-made carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, according to a report published today. The study concludes that the bulk of the carbon dioxide created by the burning of fossil fuels is absorbed not by the world's oceans, as once thought, but by some still mysterious processes occurring on land, probably in soils and plants of the vast forests of the northern hemisphere.

"If the new study is correct, it could mean that protecting the forests of North America and Eurasia may be crucial for slowing the worldwide warming that many scientists predict will occur as carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere in coming decades."

I would point out that this is not established fact. The article concludes with a qualification from a scientist at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography,

[ Page 10123 ]

who points out that this is one scientific paper and not the established truth. But it's an alarming observation and a revealing one. It tells us that — if anything — we should be pouring much more money into the reforestation of our province than we have been, not into a fund which would decline in real value over the years, as the value of $170 million in 1990 will decline progressively to some small fraction of that value in the years between now and the turn of the century.

This observation leads me to question the genuine sincerity of the government in dealing with the crucial, potentially catastrophic environmental problems that the world is facing even in my lifetime and yours, Mr. Speaker, let alone that of the young people watching from the gallery.

Let me read you another excerpt from the Brundtland report, just so we remind ourselves what the report was really about. At page 58 there's a citation from Jaime da Silva Araujo of the National Council of Rubber Tappers. That is an organization that you may be aware of, whose leader was murdered by the former Brazilian government for raising questions about the preservation of the rain forest, and about whom a major movie, I understand, is in progress. In October 1985 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Mr. Araujo said to the World Commission on Environment and Development:

"I work with rubber trees in the Amazon. I'm here to speak about the tropical forest. We live from this forest they want to destroy, and we want to take this opportunity of having so many people here gathered with the same objective in mind: to defend our habitat, the conservation of forest, of tropical forest.

"In my area we have about 14 to 15 native products that we extract from the forest, besides all the other activities we have. So I think this must be preserved, because it is not only with cattle, not only with pasture lands and not only with highways that we will be able to develop the Amazon.

[5:00]

"When they think of falling trees, they always think of building roads, and the roads bring destruction under a mask called progress. Let us put this progress where the lands have already been deforested, where it is idle of labour, where we have to find people work, and where we have to make the city grow. But let us leave those who want to live in the forest, who want to keep it as it is.

"We have nothing written. I don't have anything that was created in somebody's office. There is no philosophy. It is just the real truth, because this is what our life is."

I quoted those words, Mr. Speaker, because they remind me of the words we heard at lunch from the chief of the Kluskus band of central British Columbia, near the Blackwater River, who has the same concerns about the progressive deforestation of the aboriginal homeland where his ancestors have lived for thousands of years. The wisdom is equally wise, be it from Brazil or from British Columbia.

We have deforested our province unacceptably. We are one of the few areas with a man-made feature that can be distinguished from space: the enormous clearcuts of the pine-bark beetle infestations in the eastern Cariboo. We have a pathetic, atrocious and abominable record in reforestation in this province. If I felt that I could count on this government to reverse that record, then perhaps I would be running for the party that now forms the government. It is precisely because I have lived in this province and followed environmental issues since 1969, when I was an 18-year-old, that I know how foolish that would be and how the record of Social Credit in this province has been to deny the reality of environmental problems and to deny the truth that comes from the small people who face pollution and the effects of the neglect of the environment.

I see the Minister of Environment laughing. He would be the first one to laugh at those who fish for crabs and prawns in Howe Sound who have been affected by the pollution of that environment. His response to them was to invite reporters to eat crabs contaminated with dioxins beyond the acceptable standard established by Health and Welfare Canada.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: It is his most famous speech yet, says the member for Vancouver East. It will probably be his political epitaph.

Let me shift my thinking. I would love to quote more from the Brundtland commission report, but perhaps I will wait until during the estimates of the Minister of Environment. I will restrain myself by turning to another aspect of this bill that disturbs me.

I've known civil servants in the Ministry of Environment since I became involved in the Skagit Valley issue in 1969; that was 21 years ago. I remember Environment ministry officials — in those days it was called the fish and wildlife branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation — who felt strongly that the Skagit Valley should not be flooded and that it was a precious environmental resource.

I remember very well the record of the then Premier and the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Ray Williston, who prevented them from ever speaking their minds in public and from attending the International joint Commission hearings, the Federal Power Commission hearings, the hearings of the Washington State Department of Ecology or any other public forum to express their concerns. Because of those concerns, Mr. Speaker — and I know that your record when you were Environment minister was substantially different — I have maintained contacts with civil servants, particularly in what is now the Ministry of Environment and to some extent in the Ministry of Forests. I know the dedication they have to achieving a genuinely sustainable environment in this province.

I know that advice has been forthcoming to government from those civil servants. I know that many of them have at times risked their careers to offer advice which went unheard. I know that many of them have been repeatedly muzzled. I know their advice has been scoffed at and laughed at — as in the case of the Skagit Valley, when it took a change of government to change the philosophy as to what future should await the Skagit Valley: a sellout to the

[ Page 10124 ]

Americans and flooding of one of the most precious environmental resources in the province or its preservation, as we have tentatively achieved and are still fighting for.

I know from those experiences how seriously the civil servants have taken their job and how sadly they have been let down by the political leadership. I think, for example, of a man who is now an independent consultant and who recently wrote a report for a United States conservation organization about the inventory of old growth in the province of British Columbia. He prepared that consulting report because nobody in British Columbia and the government was interested in learning what the true situation was in the old-growth forests of British Columbia. Therefore we have the humiliation in this province of turning to an American conservation group to provide us with information about our old growth — virtually the only information we have.

I know that someone like that would not approve of the political sham of transferring funds which could be wisely spent on reforestation — and in many cases have been wisely spent, in the last year or two in particular. But we are simply transferring them to an interministerial committee where more political patronage decisions can be made. Simply because there has been some improvement in the response to reforestation needs in the last few years, belated as it may be, inadequate as it may be — but still a step in the right direction — is no reason to change, just because things are finally starting to get better.

Look at the Ministry of Environment. Civil servants have told us repeatedly.... I think, for example, of the lowly conservation officers I met in the Skagit Valley in the early 1980s, who told me they could not stop a pit-lamper from shooting a deer at night in the headlights of a car, because they didn't have enough staff to have a backup individual nor the ability to call in reinforcements if they needed them. Therefore they were, in effect, terrorized by the pit-lampers. Those comments were widely known. I learned about them on Rivers Day in 1980, on a tour organized by the Outdoor Recreation Council for politicians for which I happened to be a guide in the Skagit area. Those allegations were known perfectly well by the government of the time.

Now that we are finally recognizing that this government has cut back on the funding for a ministry like that, which was sorely in need of new funding, why do we suddenly see the shift of funding from the Environment ministry — which could be capable of meeting some of the needs of British Columbia — into a politically controlled fund? What is the rationale for it? I have studied this bill. I've thought about this issue in the couple of months since the throne speech announced this initiative, and I see nothing but pure politics in it.

I will have some comments to make on the iniquitous characteristics of section 11, but I see my time is expiring, and I will leave that for the clause-by-clause debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say something with substance.

MR. WILLIAMS: "Something with substance," says the member from Langley at 5:10 in the evening. That's asking quite a bit, out of this chamber, from any of us.

I can only reinforce what some of my colleagues have said. You put it all together, and it spells: s-l-u-s-h. For the benefit of the minister, slush. If you want to really tighten it up, it could be: p-o-r-k, pork. It's either a slush fund or a pork-barrel that we've got here. It has very little to do with sustainable environment.

I can't help but reflect on the way politicians in the modern era corrupt the language. Sustainable development is an idea that came out of the Brundtland report, written by an eminent Canadian by the name of Jim MacNeill, who used to work for the government of Canada and now works for the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Essentially, MacNeill wrote the Brundtland report. I'm sure he's as offended as some of the rest of us in terms of seeing how that language of just a couple of years ago has been accepted by people who don't really take the environment very seriously. When you look at this legislation, it's pretty clear that's what we've got. It's slush.

This is a government that likes to avoid process — and I have to admit that I'm not always a great fan of process. I understand some of the frustrations around process.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Like in 1973.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. I can understand the kind of creativity that's possible where process doesn't exist. At the same time, the kinds of problems governments get into are also there because of the lack of process. It's these funds that have caused you trouble in the past. I suggest that this fund is just one more that equally will cause trouble. With the regular line ministries, there is a process involving public servants. While you've decimated the public service in this province, at least the line ministries still have the essentials there for doing something of a job.

But when it comes to this cabinet committee handling the $50 million fund, I think we're looking into more trouble, particularly in a pre-election period. I really think this is awfully tempting stuff for the new Minister of Environment. Fifty million bucks is a lot of money. It's very tempting to be just a little arbitrary in allocating that money. While you have a cabinet committee there, it's pretty clear where the direction is going to come from; it's going to come from the minister. It's a lot of money, and it begs the question of process.

This business of the language.... I don't know if the minister happened to read the New Yorker of a couple of weeks ago, but I did. Once again, British

[ Page 10125 ]

Columbia has been noticed by the pre-eminent magazines of this continent. A while back the National Geographic said: "Hey, have a look at B.C. and stay away. All that supernatural stuff — forget it!" They talked about Kyoquot and the areas that the new Minister of Forests has visited. They had seen the mess and the terrain that is wasted in this province under this administration. They said: "We've seen all these errors in forestry practice before, but we've never seen them all in one place. If you want to see all the mistakes in one place, come to British Columbia." That's what the National Geographic said.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. There's that old record down there. It may play in Langley at CKST, but I don't think it flies very far once you get out of the corral.

The New Yorker was the latest to notice us. What was the date? For the first time in his life, the Minister of Forests probably went out and bought a copy of the New Yorker.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not the first? Well, second maybe.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Never. It was sent to me by people like you who agree....

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. Okay.

Catherine Caufield was the author.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And you agree with her.

MR. WILLIAMS: In a sort of blue-green funk over there, the Minister of Forests mumbles away: "You agree with her." Well....

AN HON. MEMBER: She's well dressed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. I wonder if it ever crossed the Minister of Forests' mind that this woman was really saying something fundamental.

[5:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Ha!

MR. WILLIAMS: He says: "Ha!" What this author in the New Yorker is telling us is that the history of North America is one of logging, cutting and getting out, of exploitation and towns disappearing, because sustainable forestry has not been practised. He can bury his nose in his book now. But that's part of the fundamental story Ms. Caufield put to us in the New Yorker. The history of the United States is one of decimating the eastern forests as the settlers moved west. It's the history of the Mediterranean basin. For those who have seen the eastern Mediterranean — Greece and the Greek islands — it's hard to realize that these were great forests 2,000 years ago, in terms of Syria, the great cedars of Lebanon and so on. If you are thoughtful, it does cause you to pause and think that man has made these mistakes — and I am willing to be sexist in that regard — again and again as he has moved across North America. She is telling us that we continue to make those mistakes, and that we are not in a sustainable mode at all.

But she does even better for us, in a sense. She asks us — the readers of the article at least, and certainly those of us who live on the Pacific coast — to start looking at the great Pacific rain forest as one of the great assets of the planet.

I am one of the lucky people in this province who has flown in the belly of a helicopter in the Owikeno Lake region or has been to Mt. Edziza in the Stikine region back of the panhandle, and I have seen more of this province probably than most of the people in this room. I felt I had an understanding of the grandness of the heritage that we are entrusted with in this province. But after reading the article in the New Yorker, I felt I hadn't grasped how important these assets really were. What we have here is a huge chunk of a planetary resource.

She is arguing that the great rain forest, from the Golden Gate to the Aleutians, is on a par with the Amazon rain forest, in terms of its importance on the planet. I have to admit that I had to stop and think about the fact that I hadn't appreciated how significant this asset we are entrusted with is. And that, at least, is what Catherine Caufield did for me. She made me see this forest of ours in British Columbia as part of the great Pacific rain forest that probably has implications on climate — maybe not to the same extent as the Amazon, but to an extent that we barely begin to understand.

We now know that excessive cutting on the coast in British Columbia impacts the climate in the interior of this province. Due to the fact that we don't have trees standing, because we've got these huge clearcuts, we're impacting the climate of the interior and Alberta.

I guess this is a bit of a bore for government members, but it's something that we didn't know until just a few years ago — that what we're doing on the coast is impacting the ecology of the entire province and further east in Canada — and maybe more of the planet than we ever dreamed. I want to say that I'm thankful there are writers like those in the National Geographic and the New Yorker who have some kind of view of what we're up to in this province and how inadequate we are.

For the record I will quote a few things Ms. Caufield says — things like this: "The Pacific forest is a triumph of life over adversity. It thrives on thin, nutrient-poor, unstable soils on steep hillsides and under extremely difficult climatic conditions." I think that's true. It's an extraordinary development we've had on this coast — very thin soils, very difficult sites, steep sites, and subject to terrible erosion as a result of forest practices in this province.

In terms of plants per acre and that sort of thing, it's kind of interesting for those who really care that the most productive tropical rain forests that have

[ Page 10126 ]

been measured contain 185 tonnes of plants an acre. The average Pacific Northwest forest contains just under 400 tonnes an acre. So we tend to think of the tropical rain forests as the great producers on the planet. The reality is that the great producers of plant life on the planet are our own forests. The highest levels are the redwoods, where they get up to as much as 1,800 tonnes of plant life per acre. Those are really quite extraordinary numbers, given the frail nature of the sites we deal with.

We know so little about this area. This kind of slush-fund approach to the question of sustainability is really laughable. As they point out in the article in the New Yorker, the first comprehensive ecological study of the Pacific forest was published in 1981. The people working at the universities in Oregon are the first to have started to get a significant understanding of what these rain forests are about and what plant life, animal life and fungi are about in these forests. We've barely got an understanding. I'm sorry to say that the forestry school at UBC is in that category; it barely has an understanding of the great asset we've got here or how it really works.

They have a look at British Columbia in this article in the New Yorker, and it's fascinating as well. They say: "Overcutting is a serious problem in British Columbia forests. Provincial government ministers, as well as industry officials, expect timber yields to drop by at least 25 percent as the old growth runs out. On the coast, the numbers are in fact higher." That's been documented by the federal civil service, not by the provincial civil service.

That's the future. The pattern in North America has been one of cut and get out — exploitation. The mill towns disappear; the mills no longer exist as the forests go. The same pattern is now being applied in British Columbia.

You have a look at Washington State. Look at the numbers there. You ask the question: how much timber is growing in Washington and how much is being cut? You find there's a balance. They cut no more timber in Washington than they grow annually. In Sweden they actually don't cut as much as grows. They are building up a bank account in terms of the forests of Scandinavia.

We're working in the opposite direction. We're cutting far more trees than we grow. That means it's going to be all over in a much shorter time.

Look at the question of wilderness preservation. Wilderness preservation in this province is about 6 percent of the provincial land base. Just look across the border, again in Washington State, and you'll find that it's 13 percent. They already exceed the Brundtland recommendations in terms of wilderness preservation in Washington, which is a more settled community than ours in British Columbia. It's an indication of the distance we've got to go in this province to just catch up to them in Washington.

But again, you go down to Washington and you'll find that the forestry profession is whistle-blowing The civil servants in Washington State and Oregon are whistle-blowing about the inadequacies of their forest management practices and levels in the U.S. northwest. There are now 1,000 professional foresters who have formed an ethical forestry association in Washington and Oregon. They are essentially civil servants who are arguing that what they're doing is still not good enough and, in their view, not sustainable.

In British Columbia, what happens? Name five or ten foresters in the public service who have been willing to stick their necks out about our unethical practices. You won't find them. It tells us something about the nature of government in this province compared to the nature of government in the United States. The Americans believe that citizens really have freedom of speech. The Americans really believe that their public service must be free to speak out on issues of principle and issues of conscience. Not so in this province. The structure is such that nobody speaks out. The structure is such that firing would happen to anybody who spoke out on matters of conscience and principle in terms of abusive practices and in terms of land management practices in British Columbia. That's the nature of this place.

It's fitting that we should have a statute like this one from this administration that's called the Sustainable Environment Fund Act. In terms of the immensity of the problems and the nature of the problems in this province, this is little more than a joke and part of the constant PR parade we get out of this minister and this ministry these days. What kind of capacity is really there to handle these questions? It doesn't exist.

How many people in this chamber actually know what the roots of the Ministry of Environment are?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You see, you don't know. You ask who started it, Mr. Minister. The reality is that it was Bill Bennett. In 1975 he promised a Ministry of Environment, and he gave us one.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What did you do?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Minister of Forests, what we did is we established an environment and land use secretariat of some 80 to 100 professionals, an interdisciplinary group that was at the leading, cutting edge of these questions at that stage in development, and it was scrapped. We thought that environment was too important to be confined to a line ministry, that it had to be through all the line ministries and that there had to be concern throughout. So this cabinet committee was empowered with a secretariat to begin to do the kind of work that was necessary in this field.

That still doesn't exist. You don't have a secretariat any more. You've got four people in the Ministry of Forests trying to achieve some aspects of integrated forest management in this province; four in this land mass that is unequalled in the world in terms of the softwood forest. Four people — that's it.

But to get back to what the roots of the Ministry of Environment are, let's understand that all Bill Bennett

[ Page 10127 ]

did was to name a Ministry of Environment. It was the old water resources arm of the ministry of resources. Water resources was essentially a group of engineers who were dealing with water questions, from measuring the snowpack in the mountains to putting in water mains in little improvement neighbourhoods around the province. That was it. You put a label on it: you called it the Ministry of Environment. You threw in pollution control, and that was it.

Not a heck of a lot has changed. You've got a few wildlife folks, you've got a pollution arm, and you've got all of those old waterworks engineers, and that's it; that's the Ministry of Environment. You've added a few people since then from other areas, but that's about it. The capability of this ministry is very limited indeed.

[5:30]

In those circumstances we don't look forward to much out of this minister, or out of this agency. The statute we have is clearly a standard Social Credit statute. Pour some money into a bucket, and it's a slush bucket. That's it. And the minister, with a few of his colleagues, has full discretion in spending the bucks. I can understand this minister liking the bill. This has the smell of Social Credit all about it. It's just another slush fund. It's got the name sustainable environment, but the reality is the same. It's slush; it's pork; it's business as usual.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's sad to see the NDP in danger of becoming irrelevant on environmental issues, particularly when these issues are going to dominate world politics for the foreseeable future When I read that, and saw that it was said by the NDP provincial executive member and chairman of the party's policy and review committee, I couldn't help but smile.

It's always enjoyable to speak after the member for Vancouver East, who wants to talk about political patronage, slush funds and pork-barrel. He knows it well, Mr. Speaker. After the '79 election, $80,000 was paid to get a little job with the party. He knows what patronage is all about, and slush funds. The member for Point Grey....

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the'75 election.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, well, '75 or '79. He could have done it again. He knows what it's like.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The Leader of the Opposition should get in his chair so he can make some comments. He says it's private enterprise. It's interesting that it's private enterprise for them, and it's patronage for us. He talks about taxpayers' money They say they're going to pay their employee half out of the government and half out of the party, but they don't tell you that the party money comes from tax-deductible donations, which is taxpayers' money. Slush funds for them, patronage for them. No, no, they call it free enterprise. Mr. Speaker, they talk about these things during the debate on this bill. I ask them to give us one example.

I'm just amazed that the so-called environmentalists on that side are going to vote against this bill, a bill that's going to do so many good things.

The second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) used the words "slush fund." Does she think the BRINI project in Nanaimo is a slush fund? I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Nanaimo are going to be very interested, next time I speak up there, to hear that the BRINI plant, one of the most modern and the first of its kind in North America, is considered by their member to be a slush fund, something that we shouldn't be doing in this province.

I saw the Leader of the Opposition earlier reading Twigg's British Columbia Report. I'm sure members on the other side have read it and have seen the quotes in there on the polling that's been done lately. This government is the highest it has ever been in the eyes of the people in the province on environmental issues. That's a fact. That has them scared on the other side, Mr. Speaker, because they think the PR might be working.

In his comments — I wrote some of them down — the Leader of the Opposition talked about understaffing and the lack of conservation officers. I want to tell him that our fines increased by 46 percent last year, to $528,773. Waste charges are up 67 percent in this province because we have taken a tough stand.

Nobody's saying that things were perfect away back when, especially when the member for Vancouver East was the minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) doesn't think half a million dollars in fines is enough. I'll tell all the industries that he wants to get in.... Fine them all a million dollars the first day without a trial, without a conviction; just fine them and make them pay the bill. He sits there in his proud way as a doctor.... I can't believe what he says in this House.

The member for Vancouver East talked about employees and about how the ministry works. I want to quote one of the employees who worked for the ministry when he was minister. He said: "I'm appalled at the waste of public funds and human resources that exists in the pollution control branch. Expenditures of large sums of money are approved for unnecessary and inane projects. A great deal is being done to establish this great bureaucratic government agency known as the pollution control branch, but very little is being done about pollution." That was said by Dennis Maxwell, a pollution control engineer who quit in disgust at the practices of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) when he was minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm just answering things that you said during your speeches. You talked about

[ Page 10128 ]

employees and about how they feel about our ministry now. I'm telling you that we have a lot of very proud employees in our ministry who are happy they've got a minister who defends them and defends their actions out there in the field.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is just great.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You talk about crabbing. I sit here and watch the Leader of the Opposition send a brochure around this province, and the lead item says that fishing is illegal in Howe Sound. That's an absolute lie, and the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed that his party would put that kind of brochure across this province just so it could take a cheap shot. It's not illegal to fish in Howe Sound, and it disturbs me that the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to affect fishermen all around this province by making false statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you radioactive?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I will put my x-rays up against the Leader of the Opposition's anytime.

AN HON. MEMBER: It looks like real hair.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I've got hair, but I can't see the two guys across from me. The glare is just a little too much.

You can prawn in Howe Sound. You can fish for salmon in Howe Sound. You can also crab, if you're a private individual, in Howe Sound. It's quite legal. I've said that I'll eat a crab out of Howe Sound, and I'll say that forever. We're cleaning it up. You'll be commercially crabbing in Howe Sound in the not too distant future. It really disturbs me that these so-called socialists — the workers' party — want to affect the crabbing business right around this province, when the problem we've got is less than 2 percent.

I find it amazing that the member for Alberni (Mr G.Janssen).... I've got some quotes from him too. He said there's no sewage in the bill. If he looked at the whole of this year's budget, he would see that there's a massive increase for assistance for sewage treatment in this province. He doesn't read the whole budget. He wants to put false statements inside the speeches and pass them around.

He talked about the round table being no good. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey also mentioned the round table and said it was no good and didn't work.

MR. PERRY: No, I didn't mention it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If it wasn't you, it was the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms Marzari), because I made the notes here, and it says Point Grey.

The member for Alberni said that there was nobody with expertise on the round table. I'll make sure I send every member of the round table a copy of that segment of your speech, because I think you'll hear from a few of them. The round table in this province has already got a reputation. If you don't want to believe me, go and talk to some of the round tables across the country. They're doing just a superb job under the chairman, Chuck Connaghan, and the other hard-working members.

I find it just amazing that a member would stand up in this House and talk about the round table in such a derogatory manner — a group of people who are dedicated to the environment and dedicated to British Columbia and come as representatives of both sides of this House.

MR. PERRY: Are we in Camelot?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Only in your world is there a Camelot.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Listening to members from the other side, I find it very disturbing that some of the comments.... The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) talked about recycling programs, and that we weren't supporting ideas from municipalities across this province. I don't know how wrong she could be. This bill gives support for those projects in this province. This bill gives money for blue-box programs throughout your communities. In fact, you should be proud that your Capital Regional District has a 100 percent blue-box system — the first regional district in the province. You should be proud of that, and we're paying for it. We're assisting as a provincial government. We're assisting the Capital Regional District in other recycling programs for their garbage. In fact, they will be the first regional district in this province that will exceed the 50 percent we're asking for by the year 2000 — well before that period — because of assistance from this government. That member should be proud of that. What is going to be recycled in Oak Bay is the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head in the next election.

Her comment where she says the goal for 15 years in the future is a 10 percent reduction is totally inaccurate. Again, I guess I'll have to send this material off to the Capital Regional District and ask them to write the member a letter to inform her of what they're really doing in the Capital Regional District so she can be informed on what is happening in her own constituency.

When it comes to pulp mills in the province, the members on the other side had many comments. But I have been in Powell River where the candidate there, Howard White, wants to close down the pulp mill.

MR. HARCOURT: Don't use names.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: He's not a member.

I know the member across the floor lost to a candidate who would rather close down the pulp mill than see it progress in the future.

[ Page 10129 ]

The critic for the NDP was telling schoolchildren in my constituency that he would close down the pulp mill in Howe Sound, yet the Leader of the Opposition goes around the province saying: "We'll work with both sides. We won't close the pulp mills down." He has a different story. Isn't it nice to see them say that now. But we've got them; the quotes are there. They say one thing in one place, but the Leader of the Opposition.... One day he said he has never been a socialist; that was at a big free enterprise meeting in Vancouver. The next day he's at an NDP meeting and he says: "I've always been a socialist." One day he's a socialist; the next day he's not a socialist.

Mr. Speaker, I could go through a lot of items in this bill. The Leader of the Opposition says it's a bad bill for the environment. Well, let me read you section 4 of the bill, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and you tell me what is bad about the environment in this. It says: "The fund shall consist of (a) $50 million that shall be transferred to the fund from the Lottery Fund special account on April 1, 1990, and any further amounts that may be transferred to the fund from the Lottery Fund special account on that date." Does that make this a bad bill for the environment, Mr. Speaker? That shows a commitment from this government.

I could go on and on, clause by clause, but we'll be getting into detailed items on this bill when we get into committee. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[5:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.