[ Page 11537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 11537

Georgia Basin Commission Act (Bill M245). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

An Act Establishing Multicultural Heritage Language Education

(Bill M246). Mr. Jones

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

Builders Lien Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

Tabling Documents –– 11538

Oral Questions

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Scramblers for ministers' cellular telephones. Mr. Serwa –– 11539

Island Hall liquor licence. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Cruise-ship passengers in Vancouver. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11539

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Mr. Williams

Auditor-general's report. Mr. Williams –– 11540

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 11540

Pollution on White Rock beaches. Mr. Reid –– 11540

Purchase of computer equipment. Mr. Lovick –– 11540

Arsenic and lead levels in Wells area residents. Mr. Sihota –– 11540

Lifting of Queen of Burnaby. Mr. Sihota –– 11541

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 11541

Coast guard vessel in Prince Rupert. Mr. Miller –– 11541

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11542

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Miller

Mr. Clark

Ms. Cull

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Jones

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11549

Mr. Williams

Mr. Miller

Mr. Cashore

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 54).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Third reading

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 76).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 46).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 67).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11556

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 73). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11557

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Third reading

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 11563

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 11564

Indian Self Government Enabling Act (Bill 64). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 11564

Mr. G. Hanson

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act (No – 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11564

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Miller

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11566

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11567

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Savage

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11569

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Third reading

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 66). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11572

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Mercier

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Peterson

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 11594

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 11596

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Messmer)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 11602

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Vant

Mr. Perry

Mr. Serwa

Mr. G. Janssen

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 3: ombudsman –– 11618

Mr. Cashsore

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome two constituents from Ladner. On behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, would this assembly please welcome Nick and Carol Mellish.

MR. BLENCOE: On behalf of my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), I would like to welcome some people who work in our community office in Victoria, which is an extremely successful office and serves the people of Victoria extremely well. Without these people, Mr. Speaker, this office could not do its job. I'd like to introduce to the House today: Beth and Tom Loring, Sue Stroud, Doug Lewis, Bruce Fog and Robert Arnold. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as the previous member said, every constituency must have very hard-working and dedicated people, and I want to introduce four dynamic senior ladies from my constituency. Three of them are with the Kiwanis Golden "K" Club, and the other lady is one of those hard-working community workers. I have with me today from White Rock: Mary Fournier, Gladys Newell, Ivy Bryant and Islay Baril. Would the House please make these ladies welcome.

MR. PERRY: Today I have the pleasure of introducing in the gallery Leona Sparrow of the Musqueam Indian band in Vancouver, who is a constituent of mine. She is also a law student at UBC and an authority on the aboriginal rights of the Musqueam people. She is with her friends Susan Knox and Danica Knox. I can spot them up there now, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

I'd also like the House to welcome Susan Moger of our research staff, who has been very helpful to me as the Health critic this year. I'd like to express my appreciation to her at this time.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like the House to welcome visitors from Israel. I'm very pleased to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Shargil, their son Yoaav and their daughter Michal, who are in the gallery today.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House for the first time in question period are six or seven very important members of our research staff. They spend all their time developing penetrating questions to put the government off balance — unbalanced as they usually are. They are too numerous to mention, but I hope the House can welcome them for their first but not last visit.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today are the parents of two of our Pages. I'd like the House to please welcome Jim and Kathy Hartshorne.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House will join me in thanking the very hard-working staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms. They spend a lot of hours in here working for us, and I know their toils are much appreciated.

We would especially like to wish a happy retirement and Godspeed to two of their members. Dan Currie, who spent 25 years in the RCAF and retired as a major, joined the Sergeant-at-Arms staff in 1985. Ed Zwolak spent 28 years, between 1951 and '79, with the PPCLI and joined the Sergeant-at-Arms staff in 1980. I know every member in this House — including yourself, Mr. Speaker — wishes them a very happy retirement, and thank-you for the many years of public service. [Applause.]

MR. LOVICK: That thunderous response to the government House Leader's welcome and introduction will demonstrate that the expression of gratitude is unanimous, and on this side of the House, we certainly want to echo that.

I want to point out in the gallery today a visitor from Nanaimo, Mr. David Hagel. Mr. Hagel is the operator-owner of the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre and was here earlier today with some 15 students who visited the Legislature and had a brief introduction to its activities. I would ask the members of this chamber to please join me and the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) in welcoming Mr. Hagel.

MR. PERRY: In the spirit of the concluding hours of this distinguished Legislature, I'd like to acknowledge a famous quotation. In the latest Bartlett's it is rendered something like this: "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach." We acknowledge the contributions that the parliamentary dining-room has made to those of us from out of town in providing us a home away from home and keeping us happy while we are here. I think all members can join me in expressing our appreciation to the dining-room.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair undertakes to send a specific message on behalf of all members at the end of every session to the people who work in that facility.

Presenting Reports

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations for the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament, respecting the Builders Lien Act. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

[ Page 11538 ]

MR. CHALMERS: I move that the report be adopted. In doing so, I would like to make a few brief remarks.

The Builders Lien Act is certainly not the most exciting piece of legislation, but it is a very complicated piece of legislation that has long been in need of overhaul. Throughout the process the committee had six public hearings throughout the province and received over 275 submissions from interested organizations involved in the construction industry, from individuals and from corporations in that industry, as well as from members of the general public.

I'd like to pay tribute to all who contributed to the process. I'd like to make special mention of the Clerk of Committees for the work he did in assisting all of the members. I would like to thank all of the members of the committee from both sides of the House who contributed — in particular, if I may mention one, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I would like to give my personal thanks to him for his full cooperation in all the subcommittee meetings and for the contribution he made in making this happen through the committee system.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

GEORGIA BASIN COMMISSION ACT

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled Georgia Basin Commission Act.

MS. CULL: This bill recognizes an area of land and water in the southwestern part of British Columbia as a distinct region called the Georgia Basin. It establishes the Georgia Basin Commission, which will have the responsibility of developing policies and procedures to achieve the reduction of air and water pollution, as well as strategies for reducing' the Impact of urban growth on the Georgia Basin area.

The bill requires the commission to consult with local governments and provincial agencies in British Columbia, as well as with local and state governments or other commissions having the same mandate in the state of Washington.

The bill requires local government to consider policy guidelines developed by the Georgia Basin Commission when preparing and adopting its community plan.

Bill M245 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT ESTABLISHING MULTICULTURAL 
HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Jones presented a bill intituled An Act Establishing Multicultural Heritage Language Education.

MR. JONES: British Columbia is one of two areas of Canada that is very poorly served in terms of support for heritage language education. The purpose of this bill is to redress that inequity and to recommend that multiculturalism become a reality in this province, and to provide that the some 15,000 students who take heritage language courses after school, on weekends and in the evening be allowed to have their heritage language incorporated into the school curriculum. This will help the students of British Columbia who wish to maintain, acquire or upgrade their knowledge of a heritage language to do so, and it would also assist immigrants to Canada and to British Columbia adjust to our school system.

As well as doing all that, this bill would allow the opportunity for students of all cultures to enrich the lives that they have, to become aware of and appreciate cultures other than their own.

This bill provides for a multicultural heritage language education in languages other than English, French, and aboriginal languages. It's time we recognized the multicultural nature of our province and encouraged B.C. students to become bilingual, or multilingual, in languages such as Chinese — meaning Cantonese or Mandarin — Italian, German, Japanese, Punjabi, Hindi, Hebrew, Greek, Portuguese and Spanish.

The absence of language training....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please move the motion.

MR. JONES: In closing, it's clear that the absence....

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. Order, please. You may now only move the motion.

Bill M246 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BUILDERS LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders Lien Act.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is an exposure bill for which, as my colleague from the Okanagan said, we are looking for input from all members of the industry in spite of the fact there has been significant input.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development and the 1988-89 annual report of the Ministry of

[ Page 11539 ]

Regional Development and Minister of State for Mainland-Southwest.

Hon. J. Jansen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the fiscal year 1988-89, the annual report of the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation for 1989-90 and the financial statements of the Medical Services Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989.

Oral Questions

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael). On July 11, 1990, I asked the minister in this House a question about Mr. Thomas and the tendering processes established by the PNE and questioned whether they had been violated. The minister took the question on notice. Is the minister now prepared to provide an answer to the question?

SCRAMBLERS FOR MINISTERS'
CELLULAR TELEPHONES

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Government Management Services. In view of the confidential nature of discussions that must be held between cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and other officials, has the minister decided to purchase scramblers for any cellular telephones used by government ministers?

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's true that my ministry does have the responsibility for vehicle management, so it's an obvious question to ask. I'm sure that the opposition would agree, as does the leader of the NDP in Manitoba, that the act of listening to and using private conversations should be, if it isn't, a criminal act and that those participating should be thrown in jail.

The answer to the member's question is that each individual minister will have to make that decision But we are looking at it at the staff level, in terms of purchasing them at a lower price.

ISLAND HALL LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. SIHOTA: On July 9, 1990, I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) a question with respect to the Financial Disclosure Act dealing with a question in relation to Island Hall. The minister took that question on notice. Could the minister advise the House why, to date, he has not responded to that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The member should continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not wish to answer the question, I have another question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen). On July 9, 1990, I asked the Minister of Labour in this House a question with respect to the liquor licence granted to an establishment in Parksville. At that time the minister indicated he'd be happy to take the question on notice and bring back the information to the House. Could the minister explain to the House why we still have not received an answer to that specific question?

CRUISE-SHIP PASSENGERS
IN VANCOUVER

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. I am speaking today on behalf of Gastown merchants and downtown merchants who are losing business because of a federal government ruling that whisks the cruise-ship passengers from the cruise ship to airport customs, without the benefit of spending any money in the city of Vancouver. I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism what he is going to do about it, what word he has had from the federal administration, and when we can expect to have some relief for those businesses in the city of Vancouver being denied this business.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for the, question. The answer is that our staff have been working very hard with not only Tourism Vancouver but also Ottawa. I can tell the member, Mr. Speaker, that there were three senior officials from U.S. Customs, from Chicago, in Vancouver all Thursday and Friday. They met with Tourism Vancouver. They reviewed the problem. They've had a first-hand look at the problem. I have been assured that they are much more conversant with and cognizant of the problem following their briefing with Tourism Vancouver than they were at the beginning. We're very optimistic that we're going to have some positive response from U.S. Customs within the next week or two.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's good enough. It's a federal government decision. It's time that the minister was down to Ottawa and insisted on action on behalf of the business people of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is out of order.

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. In June I asked her a question with respect to the $13 million one-time payment to BCBC to offset the costs of privatization with respect to Highways. The minister took the question with respect to that subsidy on notice. To date, the minister has not afforded this House with an answer to that specific question. Could the minister advise this House why it is that she has not provided this House with an answer to that question?

[ Page 11540 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister responsible for privatization. We paid $240,000 more last year for privatized signs that we didn't receive in the Ministry of Highways, but earlier the privatization task force showed that the public company cost us only $25 a sign the previous year. Has the minister's staff reviewed those differences and added up how much more privatization is costing now than previously?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Government Management Services is only responsible for the process and the implementation, and the question should be more properly put to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

MR. WILLIAMS: I note that that question was asked May 9, and the minister advised that she would be happy to bring the answer back to the House.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: This question is to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. The auditor-general expressed concern about the accounts of the government and the reporting system of government. On page 19 of his report he said he would be pleased to assist the government in this process. Will you accept his offer of assistance to correct the books?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is guilty of selective editing. The fact of the matter is that the auditor-general did endorse the accounts of the government and in the ensuing discussion, at the Public Accounts Committee itself, the auditor-general made rather congratulatory remarks about the fact that this province leads the way across Canada in terms of public disclosure.

Furthermore, to the latter part of the question — because it had a couple of facets to it — I can assure the member that this government has in the past and will continue in the future to work cooperatively with the auditor-general to ensure that public information is disclosed honestly and without bias, fear or favour. We have done that historically. The auditor-general has confirmed that with his remarks, and I can assure the House that we will continue to practise in that fashion.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would assure the Minister of Finance that this is a bona fide offer presented to the Public Accounts Committee of the House. It is there, and I would urge him to consider the offer of the man that made it.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for the former Expo lands. Are there any unresolved liabilities still remaining with respect to those lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, there is one, but it is very near completion.

POLLUTION ON WHITE ROCK BEACHES

MR. REID: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. I noticed today that in the White Rock area there is another problem developing about the pollution on the beaches. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) today introduced a bill which deals with the question of pollution on the beaches. I'm sure some of it must be emanating from the south Victoria area into Semiahmoo Bay. Mr. Minister, I asked earlier whether your staff was researching that. Could you maybe indicate to us today if there is any report on why the beaches in White Rock are currently reaching higher levels than on any day in the past?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. Some months ago now, we posed questions in this chamber to this minister and also to the Minister of Transportation and Highways concerning the $10 million that was apparently spent with indelicate haste to buy personal computer equipment for Highways personnel. I'm wondering if the minister could share with us now the fate of that computer equipment. Is it still in a warehouse, or is it actually being used?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has never gone on so long.

ARSENIC AND LEAD LEVELS
IN WELLS AREA RESIDENTS

MR. SIHOTA: On July 9, 1990, a question was put to the Minister of Health dealing with arsenic and lead levels in the Wells area. The minister took that question on notice and said he'd get back as soon as possible. Could the minister advise the House whether he has reported back to the House with respect to that question taken on notice?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, rather than answering in the House, we have taken action and have addressed this problem, together with my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). We are there now testing. As the member from the Cariboo will know, we have taken very significant action in dealing with that problem. If the member would rather I respond in the House and not take any action, I'd be pleased to do that, but we in fact took the other approach. The second member for Cariboo

[ Page 11541 ]

(Mr. Zirnhelt) brought up this problem, and I indicated to staff that I wanted to resolve it as soon as possible. We did, and I see the member for Cariboo agreeing with that observation.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: This just goes to show you how effective an NDP member from the Cariboo can be.

HON. J. JANSEN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not an NDP member.

MR. SIHOTA: Not only are we grateful for that, but if you wish to step down and call another by-election, I'm sure we'd win it, as we did in the Cariboo.

LIFTING OF QUEEN OF BURNABY

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the parliamentary secretary for transportation matters, whoever that may be. On June 27, 1990, I asked a question about the Queen of Burnaby and the rescheduling of its refit for a number of months. At that time the minister took the matter on notice. Could the parliamentary secretary for transportation advise me why that question has not been answered yet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll be happy to take that question as notice for the minister.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Provincial Secretary. Back in April 1990 I asked the Provincial Secretary a question about the delay of the Marson report and why it took this government two months — from December 12, 1989, when it was tabled, to February 27, when it was released.... The minister took the question on notice and was unable to explain the delay. Could the minister tell us today why there was the delay?

MR. SPEAKER: New question.

COAST GUARD VESSEL
IN PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Environment. In September the Coast Guard is proposing to eliminate the Cloo Stung, a Coast Guard vessel based in Prince Rupert. This vessel is important not only in patrolling for fisheries but also for environmental reasons. Given the events in Alaska and the committee that has been formed in terms of oil spills, has the minister taken any action to advise the federal government that it's in the interests of coastal British Columbia to maintain that vessel in operation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am tempted, after all these questions, to take this one on notice, but I won't. I can advise the member that we have advised the federal government of our feelings. But I would say, in closing this question period, that it's probably because of the poor representation of the federal members from that area that he's not getting his job done.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 35, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance: namely, the current crisis with respect to the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia over their longstanding grievances.

In stating the reasons, this matter is of an emergency nature, and its peaceful resolution is of critical importance to the social and economic well-being of this province. We are at the crossroads in this province's history. The pent-up frustrations of the aboriginal people in B.C. over the long-held refusal of the provincial government to recognize and take action on aboriginal title and aboriginal rights has led to a situation where roads and other services are blockaded and further escalation is likely. It is imperative that this volatile situation be resolved rationally and peacefully.

Mr. Speaker, there have been references made in this House to the use of force against the protests of aboriginal people in British Columbia, rather than using peaceful means. This is evidence of the need to hold an emergency debate so that members are better informed of the history and the reasons for the escalation of the blockades.

This sitting of the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament is nearing adjournment. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure the course of action adopted in the coming critical months leads to peaceful resolution of this fundamentally unfinished business in British Columbia. Ill-informed action risks further escalation and hardening of positions, making future conflict resolution more difficult. The courts have repeatedly ruled that aboriginal people have legitimate rights and the Crown has unmet obligations. The courts have also repeatedly signalled to both federal and provincial governments the importance of addressing these grievances through a fair negotiation process.

The statement made by this government to expect an announcement by mid-August on a proposal, which does not include reference to the fundamental matter of recognition of aboriginal title, is hopelessly inadequate to diffuse the situation and in fact has provoked angry reactions contributing to the escalation.

We contend that this matter is of sufficient urgency to warrant a one-hour emergency debate in this House. According to standing order 35, we urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give favourable consideration to this request for emergency debate on this pressing matter.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if I might add a couple of points that might help you in your deliberations. First of all, we realize — on this side of the House — the importance of this subject. We would not try to demean the member's motion. However, this matter has been going on for

[ Page 11542 ]

some days — even weeks now — in British Columbia, and the other side has not chosen to rise in question period to even ask a question about it.

Secondly, the Premier's Council on Native Affairs, which has been meeting for over a year, filed their interim report yesterday. There are many good recommendations in it. We do not take this subject lightly.

Thirdly, at this very moment the Premier is out in the interior of this province meeting with the natives of this province — not just talking about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and bring back a reply. I would refer members to practice recommendations of our standing orders on page 155 of our operating manual.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 79.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 6.

MR. SIHOTA: I have concerns about this section and the way it is worded, and I wonder how expeditious an application can be under this provision. There is nothing here saying it must be an interlocutory application. There is nothing saying that the court must hear the matter within a particular time-period. There is nothing here that gives a signal to the courts that this matter must be dealt with in an immediate and urgent fashion.

What it allows for, quite frankly, is matters to be bogged down in courts for as long as one party wants them to be, as long as they are prepared to play games. For some people it may well be worth the penalty to be able to do that. Surely the minister would agree, when looking at this section — if he is serious about this bill, and I know many have commented as to that motivation — that there ought to be some provision in this section to ensure that matters get dealt with immediately. If they don't, someone can bog up this matter in front of the courts for a number of weeks while a dispute continues to fester. How is that in any way in the public interest?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The parties have a right to argue their positions in front of the court, and the court obviously will make its judgment on the merits of the arguments.

MR. SIHOTA: No kidding! But the point is this: this section allows a party to bring a matter before the courts.... You are sitting in the middle of a labour dispute, and you have given your notice as the other sections require; the registrar does his summary or whatever it is he has to do; they have had their meeting and so on; and then you have to go to the court to get authority before you can take action — be it lockout or strike.

In terms of the time that the matter is.... It says here: "A trade union that is, under section 4(3), forbidden to strike because the public sector employer has failed to comply with section 4(2), may apply to the Supreme Court for an order compelling the public sector employer to comply."

The opposite applies in the other situation with respect to an employer. Maybe the way I paraphrased it to the minister isn't exact, but what I am trying to get at is that you still need an order for the person to comply. I might have had the time sequence wrong in terms of where this has to be done, but you still need an order for someone to comply.

Don't you think there should be a provision in here to say when that application is brought forward on an interlocutory basis — in other words, a court must deal with it within two days of it being filed? Or are you saying that it's got to fall on the trial list to hear all sorts of evidence?

Let's say I comply and somebody else says: "You didn't comply." Then that's a matter — as you say, Mr. Minister — that is going to be resolved on the merits. What do you mean by "comply"? If "comply" is not defined, or if it's only partially defined or not accurately defined, you and I know there can be quite a dispute about that in court. So now you are saying that matter gets put on the trial list to be heard — on today's schedule — somewhere in April of 1991. Is that what you had anticipated in this section, Mr. Minister?

Surely there must be some provision in here or some acknowledgment that these matters must be dealt with expeditiously by the courts. Do you not see that as a flaw?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: First of all, by virtue of the relatively high penalty of $50,000, we believe the message would be out there in the community, and that it would be in both sides' interests to ensure that they comply. You must remember that we are only dealing here with a failure to comply with the requirements of the act.

If we didn't put some sort of penalty in there, obviously we would be at some risk in terms of the act not being complied with. In considering the point raised by the hon. member, we determined that a $50,000 fine would address that issue. It is our view that it is sufficient. It is our view that all sides in a public sector dispute are people of good will and people with a genuine desire to avoid these major differences; certainly they would wish to avoid a court appearance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Note that he asked a question and then left.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, I suppose I should make note for the record that the person who asked

[ Page 11543 ]

the question has shown such little interest in a response that he has left the Legislature.

At any event, for the purposes of the written record, that is our judgment.

MR. MILLER: I guess I could point out that even though the minister responsible for the bill has been in the Legislature, we still can't get any answers out of him. Given the lack of clarity that the minister admitted under section 3.... You were completely unable to define sections (c), (d) and (e) with respect to the responsibility of parties to file. We dealt extensively with the range of options that would be available to either party; how this section wouldn't work; how, for example — and the minister agreed — you could file a blank piece of paper. I am wondering....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order. Maybe you could help me. Are we discussing section 6 or section 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 6, hon. member.

[2:45]

MR. MILLER: That's what I was discussing, Mr. Chairman. Section 6 deals with either party who, having failed to comply with the requirements of previous sections, by a provision under this section goes to the courts. It seems logical, in looking at this section and the options available, to refer to sections that are referred to under section 6. All I'm pointing out is that given the lack of clarity about the requirements, how can the courts possibly be in a position to determine whether either party has complied, if the minister himself can't state with any degree of clarity or certainty what compliance means?

You build a bill, Mr. Minister, on a good, solid foundation, and that means that each successive section rests on the previous one. Hopefully, if you've constructed it well, it makes sense and therefore it stands the test.

I recall Bill King telling me that when he talked about putting together the Labour Code. The most fundamental thing he was striving for was not to try to appease parties who would be having to live under the legislation, but to develop a piece of legislation that could withstand the test that the courts were going to put it to. It's kind of fundamental, to me, in terms of good sound government, that you go through that process.

You previously, as I pointed out, had admitted....

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, we've already had second reading debate on this particular bill, and that has concluded. We're in Committee of the Whole, and I wish the member would pay attention to that and stay within the section we are dealing with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, for your assistance. The member will proceed with relevancy on section 6.

MR. MILLER: The question's pretty straightforward. I think the minister must have got the sense of what I'm trying to ask. The courts, having to rule on these matters as to whether or not the parties have complied, are going to have to rely on the previous sections. The wording is so bad and the minister's explanation is so bad that the courts. It seems to me, will be confounded.

HON. MR COUVELIER: We categorically refute the suspicions of the member opposite. We happen to think that the issue is quite clear. It's very simple. There are only three short paragraphs. We suspect that there should be no doubt. In the event the member opposite is correct, then we'll soon find out, shan't we?

MR. MILLER: So you don't care.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I heard the aside from across the floor that we don't care. The reverse is true. We care about the public's right to know. We care about their ability to determine the effects of these job actions in the public sector. We care about our responsibility to provide some leadership in this difficult area, and we care about making sure that there is an unbiased reporting of the facts of the negotiations of a public sector labour contract, both the opening position and the final position, before job action takes place. We care, hon. member. That's why we brought the bill forward.

MR. CLARK: It's pretty obvious that my colleague is correct. The minister doesn't understand, and he doesn't care about the consequences of it, because this legislation, if it is proclaimed, will have significant and serious consequences in the public sector, not the least of which is an expense. Dragging the Supreme Court into labour relations matters has never worked. That's why we had strong privative clauses in the Labour Code. Even in the IRA there's a privative clause to try and let the IRC be the adjudicative body.

I want to ask one simple question. If the public sector employer and the public sector union fail to comply with this law and neither party applies to the Supreme Court under this section, then what happens?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Nothing happens, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: Therefore it is very easy to boycott this legislation. The public sector employers — say, a school board — and the unions simply have to agree to bypass this legislation, and there's no penalty.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Exactly, Mr. Chairman. This bill is not intended to interfere. I say it again. I've said it repeatedly last evening, this morning and this afternoon. This bill is not intended to interfere with the bargaining process. This bill is an attempt to ensure that the public is aware of all of the informa-

[ Page 11544 ]

tion relating to public sector labour negotiations in terms of the opening position and the final position.

As I said repeatedly this morning, the absence of that information is frequently as informative to the public as its presence. While the members opposite may have some trouble with that ethic, I can assure you, hon. members, that were such a rare event to occur — if neither side chose to make sure that the information was supplied by their adversary in this exchange — then in that very rare instance, that's a very useful message for the public. We see nothing wrong with that.

You see, you keep trying to put the spin on this issue that we're trying to manipulate or interfere in the process, and we are not. We are only attempting to ensure that the public knows the details of a labour dispute. That's all, pure and simple.

Section 6 approved on division.

On section 7.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, the registrar is required to do a number of things under this section: primarily to summarize the material that she or he receives as a result of the other sections; to make those summaries available to the public upon request, I guess; and to publish the summary in the newspaper. There does not seem to be any process, though, after the material has been received from either party and summarized by the registrar, for the two bargaining parties to review the summary. Do you anticipate that the bargaining principals would have an opportunity to review the summary the registrar makes, to check for accuracy and interpretation? A number of things can go wrong when someone who is not part of the process is trying to construct a summary.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: You know, I have some trouble understanding what the socialists across the floor really can agree on among themselves. We heard some conversation this morning that this would delay the process, make life far more difficult and drag out the process; many speakers spoke to that. Now this member appears to be trying to manufacture an argument that somehow or other we should be bouncing back and forth like ping-pong, agreeing on where the commas would be put. I really don't understand why you fellows across the floor can't get your act together. I guess I do understand why.

I want to make this point, because we haven't really made it in our debates over the last few hours: this government understands full well that for this legislation to be useful, the credibility of the registrar is critical. We understand that, and it would certainly be our intention to ensure that the person selected for this appointment stands above and beyond any possible criticism. That would be our desire, and we fully appreciate that if we fail to properly satisfy the public that this is an unbiased exercise, one that has no ulterior motive other than providing information to the public.... If we fail in meeting that criterion, this bill will have failed its purpose. We understand that, so it is our determination and our conviction that we must ensure that this function is performed without fear, favour or bias.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, I'd like to advise the minister that simply because I'm asking questions on how this legislation will work or won't work doesn't mean that I'm recommending that the things I'm asking about be added to the legislation.

What we've been talking about here all morning is the fact that this is a completely unworkable piece of legislation. It's laughable, it's so bad. As you delve into it with the horror of wondering how it would actually apply in any particular bargaining situation and start to work your way through it, it just gets more and more absurd.

You just talked about the importance of the credibility of the registrar. That leads right into my next question. I can't see how the employer — this government — can appoint a registrar who is going to summarize the position of the employer and the union. That is exactly the situation that would occur during BCGEU bargaining. It is different than any of the other public sector bargaining. If you're dealing with CUPE or any of the other bargaining units — the teachers, whatever — at least you may have a semblance of neutrality. We'd have to see who this individual might be. How in the world can you stand up and say to the public and certainly to your own employees that there isn't an apparent conflict of interest, when your appointee is going to be summarizing the two positions, which the bargaining principals aren't even going to have a chance to look at to make sure they're accurate?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, what this section shows is another group that the minister failed to consult with. He failed to consult with anyone who knows anything about the craft of communication.

As a politician, the minister himself should know that the clearest form of communication comes when you are closest to the source of the information. What the minister is doing is putting in the way of the source of the information at least one registrar and a whole process that goes with that. How in the world the minister thinks he is improving anything, not interfering with it, by suggesting that there is no need for any information at the beginning of the bargaining process.... At the end he's going to require some; but, of course, it can be ignored by both parties— that's okay, he says. Nevertheless, at all times there's going to be a registrar who is supposed to summarize some information and then give it to the public. And that is not an interference with clear communication.? The minister knows extremely well that when we're in public service bargaining, when we get to the strike-lockout situation, both sides are very anxious to put their case to the public, and they do put their case to the public. If the minister thinks putting a registrar in the middle is going to make their case clearer to the public, he's making a big mistake.

[ Page 11545 ]

MR. CLARK: A couple of things, to get it clear. The registrar has to summarize the summaries — right? Each party has to put forward a summary, and the registrar summarizes the summaries. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If that is necessary. In a perfect world, of course, each side would be succinct and to the point, and the registrar need not make any effort to clarify the issue.

MR. CLARK: One last thing. I noticed in section 7(3), it says: "Where the registrar receives material...the registrar shall publish summaries, made under subsection(1) " — so that's his summary, not the summaries put forward by the parties — "of the material in a newspaper having a circulation throughout the province." So "shall publish." Every time this happens — and there are about a thousand collective agreements.... Not that many would get this far, so fair enough. As I say, there are dozens of them they publish them in the paper. If there is a teachers' dispute in Atlin, they probably have to publish it in the Vancouver Sun or the Province. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, it's not correct.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain his answer, then, given that it says: "Where the registrar receives material..." If there's a dispute and they've received material from the Atlin teachers' union and the school board up there, the registrar shall publish summaries of the material in a newspaper having circulation throughout the province. Could he tell me where it‘s wrong?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's not envisaged that we would necessarily take an advertisement in the Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province. That was the question to which I was responding.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister explain what is meant, then, by "a newspaper having a circulation throughout the province"?

The minister is seeking counsel, so he probably didn't hear. I want to know what is envisaged? If that's not envisaged, what is envisaged by "a newspaper having a circulation throughout the province"?

[3:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't think it's government's business to legislate which publications they will be putting ads in. I happen to think that that's something that you would not appropriately put in a bill.

MR. CLARK: Does the newspaper mean a commercial newspaper, though? Is that fair to say? There are only two papers in the province that have circulation throughout the province, that I know of, and they are the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. I wonder if the minister could confirm for me that it would be one of those two newspapers; or if it's not, whether it's a commercial newspaper — or what he means by it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm prepared to concede that it might be one of those two newspapers.

MS. EDWARDS: Is it true that the minister is willing to have the parties go to court to prove that the registrar has published in a paper that has circulation throughout the province? Is this another issue that's going to have to go to court and be settled by litigation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't want to extend this, Mr. Chairman, but it's so foolish of the minister to not even stand up. Is he, or is he not? If the legislation is no clearer than that, it's obviously a case that is going to come up for dispute.

MS. CULL: It might be the Sun, it might be the Province or it might not be. Might it be something like the bargaining-update newsletters that the government personnel services division put out during the last round of master bargaining for the BCGEU? Is that a newspaper under the terms of this legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That isn't contemplated.

Section 7 approved on division.

On section 8.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment under section 8, an addition to subsection (1). I believe you have been provided with a copy, as have the members of the opposition. The amendment would add this sentence: "The trade union is not entitled to strike and the public sector employer is not entitled to lock out until this meeting has occurred."

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: It's clear from reading the bill that this amendment is what was contemplated. It adds to the confusion and the delay in resolving labour disputes when now we have to wait until perhaps a Supreme Court order has one party comply. After they comply, we have to wait for the registrar to call a meeting, and we have to wait for the registrar to put an ad in the paper and get a meeting-hall. With the BCGEU, several thousand people would be involved. Then there has to be an open kangaroo meeting with thousands of people hearing both sides of the dispute before a strike or lockout could take place.

That strikes me as really constructive — with my tongue in my cheek. I cannot see how that will help to resolve matters. Frankly, it will inflame the situation. I don't see how any reasonable person looking at this legislation could see otherwise. However, because most of the legislation can be opted out of by

[ Page 11546 ]

agreement between the parties — it appears, according to the minister's own remarks — perhaps there would be a way of opting out. There probably is a way of opting out of this section as well, given what we've talked about. If one party doesn't compel the other party to comply, then the registrar will have nothing to do and nothing to go from. That will mitigate some of the impact of the legislation, except for particularly belligerent parties in a dispute — employers who want to pursue the matter for political benefit. There maybe something to that, but I don't see that happening.

This amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the bill, which is crazy. It doesn't add anything to bringing about stability. We're opposed to it.

MR. MILLER: The amendment is not so much an inhibitor, as my colleague suggests; it's just one more clause in a bill that doesn't make a lot of sense. We'll get into debate on the rest of the section following this. Basically you're saying that you can't have a strike or lockout until you have a meeting. When you look at the rest of the section, whether it's the public or anybody else in terms of these meetings, It really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Perhaps we could just get on with the section itself.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It seems that with all the filing, the registrar's reports, the summarization, more summarization and filing, now we're going to have a meeting. This section says that you can't go on strike and you can't lock anybody out until you have a meeting. Now section 8(2) says that both sides are going to be notified "in one issue of a newspaper circulating within the area where the meeting will be held."

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We're on the amendment.

MR. MILLER: Are we dealing with the amendment separately?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the amendment.

MR. MILLER: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved on division.

On section 8 as amended.

MR. MILLER: Are there any rules governing how long this meeting should be?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Is the question referring to the length of the meeting once it is convened? It's not perceived that it need be a protracted event; it is perceived merely as an opportunity for both sides to publicly summarize their positions. We don't envisage that it would necessarily drag out for a long period of time.

MR. MILLER: If both sides can summarize their positions in five minutes, presumably you might have a six- or seven-minute meeting, then. Is that possible?

HON. MR COUVELIER. That's possible, although I suspect that's not likely.

MR. MILLER: What are the rights of the public at these meetings?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intent here is to ensure that the public can attend as observers if they have the interest.

MR. MILLER: The rights of the public are to attend, nothing more. They cannot participate or ask questions in any form, only attend. Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, that the minister nodded his head that the public's only right is to attend the meeting.

Who decides at the meeting if (a), (b) and (c) have been complied with?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The registrar would be the chairman of the meeting and could, in that role, make those sorts of adjudications.

MR. MILLER: It doesn't say that in the bill. Is that just your opinion?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't know. The member asked a question; I gave him an answer. I don't know what more I can do to confirm the government's position, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: The section says that at this meeting each side shall do certain things. I asked who determines whether or not they have complied with the act. You said you think it might be the registrar. Are you not certain? It doesn't specify in the act that the registrar has that obligation. As far as I can see, the parties themselves can decide whether or not they've complied. If they choose to go and present their version and leave, then I suppose they've complied with the act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say: "I think the registrar would chair the meeting." I said: "The registrar would chair the meeting." The members opposite have dragged this thing on for hours, for goodness' sake, taking my words, confusing them, confounding them and trying to twist them and change them when they don't suit their purpose for the debate. I was asked a question; I gave the answer.

MR. MILLER: I just want it confirmed. The minister is getting rather testy, as we explore this bill that's so full of holes. Obviously people besides us are going to be looking at this legislation and wondering just what it means and how to interpret it. Surely the clear explanations you provide in this House would

[ Page 11547 ]

offer some guidance. Or the opposite could be true: the rather muddled explanations presumably will make it more difficult to deal with this bill.

The registrar is the chairman. We've established that. He's going to be, or possibly could be, a busy person. Could he have a designate, by the way? That's a question that seems to me to come up. Can the registrar designate some other person to be the chair of the meeting?

Secondly, the section says specifically: "At a public sector bargaining disclosure meeting under this section, each party shall give...a summary of all matters...a summary of matters with respect to which no agreement has been reached, and...each party's position with respect to the matters about which no agreement has been reached." That's a requirement. Who decides? It does not say in the bill that the registrar has any power at that meeting to say to either party: "No, you haven't complied with the legislation." There is no power contained in the legislation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I suspect part of the member's concern is contained in section 9. We're not there yet; we're still on section 8(1) as amended.

MR. G. JANSSEN: As I was saying earlier, the registrar is going to notify the parties in one issue of a newspaper circulated within the area where the meeting will be held. In provincewide bargaining as some ministries do— that means there's going to be a lot of meetings at a lot of different places in British Columbia. Does that mean we're going to advertise in every newspaper in British Columbia? There may be two members of a union, for instance, in one particular town. Will there be a meeting there? How many registrars do you plan on hiring here? The Forests ministry has a lot of employees, and if they're in a bargaining position and they can't go on strike, are they going to be forced to go out to these meetings? How many registrars or designates do you plan on hiring to do this? Are they going to be fully employed, or are you going to hire them on a part-time basis for specific purposes? What's the intent of the legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 8 as amended pass? The member is still on his feet.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm still waiting for an answer. How many meetings are we going to have around the province, and how many people are we going to hire under this bill? Oh, he's going to answer it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll never get an answer if you remain on your feet.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member opposite has sat in the House for a year or two, I believe. Two?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Almost.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would have thought that he would have grasped the simple fact by now that each ministry does not negotiate its own contract. There are government employees; there is one negotiation process dealing with BCGEU, so each ministry would not be having meetings around the province with its employees. The government is authorized under the process to negotiate with the employee representatives, or union reps.

The member this morning had a similar kind of spin to one of his questions, which implied he didn't understand that simple fact. Maybe that helps clarify that situation for him.

MS. CULL: I do understand that the Forests employees don't bargain separately from other employees in the BCGEU, but I think the question is still a good one. If the meeting is held in Vancouver, for example, I think it disfranchises the public from coming and hearing what's going on all over the province.

First of all, you have employees all over the province, and you have members of the public who are affected by it all over the province. It would seem to me that in government negotiations you're going to have to hold a series of meetings; there's going to be some kind of dog-and-pony show, I guess, going around the province while these meetings are held.

I have another question, because we've been talking about the members of the public and their right to know. There is no definition in the act as to whether the parties involved are the union members and the employers, or their representatives. I'd like to know whether union members coming to such a meeting have a right to voice their concerns or their positions on issues, or if it is only the principals that have the right to talk about this. Do you envision that members might have a chance to speak out on issues? They are certainly being very affected, and their opinions — because the principals are only directed by their members — on whether something is acceptable or not, or in dispute or not, are going to be very important to the public's understanding.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intent of the legislation is merely to communicate information and to make sure the information is available. It's not to provide a debating forum.

MR. LOVICK: A number of us on this side of the House have used phrases to describe this bill such as "silly," "wacko," "crazy," etc. This section, it seems to me, illustrates very clearly why we draw that conclusion.

This is ludicrous, in a word, Mr. Chairman. The whole concept of collective bargaining has evolved over time to mean discussions between individuals who are knowledgeable and professional. Therefore we do that, in most cases, behind closed doors, and we know that sometimes those sessions get very acrimonious and sometimes very heated indeed.

[ Page 11548 ]

What we are doing here is creating the possibility of a circus — a circus that might even turn ugly.

Obviously the minister doesn't even want to answer any of the serious questions we pose any more, so I will simply register concern. The predicament here is that we're going to invite a large audience to come out and see this. They have already been told about the big event; it's advertised in the newspaper: "Come on out." Then we're going to put the two sides in an adversarial mode where one side says to the other: "We can't agree, and here's our position and here's what's wrong with you and your obduracy and your failure to recognize the legitimacy of our side." Then we're going to say to the crowd that has been summoned to watch this gladiatorial kind of combat: "You're not allowed to speak at the meeting or ask questions."

What is the reason for having the meeting in the first place? We've advertised; we've got the positions published in the newspaper. Any citizen in the province can apparently get a copy of the submissions free, gratis and for nothing. We're doing all that stuff. Whatever possible purpose could there be to have a great public meeting? It strikes me as silly in the extreme. I am embarrassed to have to stand here and talk about this nonsensical stuff.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, my Whip and all members present are concerned about time, and time is one of the concepts that I have learned about in this Legislature. Actually it's the Minister of Finance who has taught me the meaning of the term "in the fullness of time." I am concerned about an aspect of this particular section that deals with time, and it is the section that says, "at the earliest practicable opportunity."

It seems to me the minister is saying: "We're not really fettering the process of bargaining. We're only setting up a situation that provides for public information at two points in the process." But is it not true, with the kind of logistical problems my colleagues have pointed out, that "at the earliest practicable opportunity" may cause a considerable delay in the negotiation process? Thereby this legislation could add a considerable fettering to that process, which the minister says is not so.

No? You don't want to defend it? You can't defend it.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

Sections 9 and 10 approved on division.

On section 11.

MR. CLARK: This particular section gives great offence because the minister said at some length that essentially, as he went through the sections, it appeared likely that unions and employers could collectively opt out from sections of this bill. Yet this section gives the registrar effective power — kind of a czar — to force different parties to comply, even when the parties have agreed among themselves to follow their own conscience with respect to what they will or will not do.

If the government was serious about collective bargaining, and if the rhetoric the minister has used today in spite of this bill is to be believed, then if both parties were in collective bargaining and agreed for the sake of reaching a conclusion that they would not comply with certain sections of this bill — and the minister said that was within their rights — then it seems to me that the registrar ought not to be able to overturn the decision made by those two parties. So this section clearly makes it much more difficult — depending on who the registrar is and the direction of the government —for the parties to achieve a collective agreement jointly in their own fashion. Even if they choose and both agree completely with each other on every aspect of it, this can override that by way of the registrar, and I think it is offensive.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved on division.

Schedule approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS - 36

NAYS - 19

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

[ Page 11549 ]

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

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. The question is third reading of Bill 79.

Since all members are still in the House, is it agreed that we waive the time requirement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 36

NAYS - 20

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

[3:30]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605 (continued).

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd really like to spend a little time with the minister and, hopefully, his staff — if they are here — on the question of the ambulance service in the province and various aspects of the management of that service. It seems clear that there are serious inadequacies in managing this service, which was brought into being in the period '72 to '75 under the early NDP government and which many people in the province are proud of. However, there has been a bureaucratization of management, serious labour disputes and costly decisions as that program has evolved. Is the minister aware that there are more grievances, in terms of labour problems with respect to the ambulance service, than in all other health services combined?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, it's interesting to listen to the comments about what happened in '72 to '75, because I find quite a different emphasis when we compare the hours of usage in those years with those today. The information I have is that the air ambulance usage during 1975 was 271 hours. The corresponding usage for cabinet ministers of the day — and I guess, they were very active in terms of getting re-elected — was 4,274 hours. Contrast that — a very stark contrast — to what the situation was for last year, when there were some 1,600 hours for air ambulance and 2,400 hours for cabinet and other transportation, and a substantial decline in other transportation.

I'm surprised to hear the member saying that they had a proud record during 1975. It's extremely interesting to look at what we've done with air ambulance, as opposed to what he calls a proud record during those years.

In regard to moral and employee relations within the air ambulance division, if he's talking about the last contract and the last negotiations, that took some time. We were pleased that we finally got ratification.

I can say that I'm pleased with the operations. We have an excellent service and excellent employees. I spent some time with our ambulance crews in downtown Vancouver. The comments I get from them are quite a stark contrast to what I just heard in the House. They are very proud of their service. They are very happy with their service. I look forward to seeing the proud record continued.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister doesn't seem to have listened to the question. That's not unusual. The question is: are there more grievances in this sector than in all of the other health sectors combined, dealing directly with the central ministry?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't keep track of grievances to be able to give him that information. If it is his wish that I supply that information, I would be pleased to supply it to him at a later time. Understandably, the information isn't currently available.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope the minister, deputy and staff do, because you will find that that is the case. You have serious labour problems there and have had for some time under Mr. Dubas, who was the chairman of the commission, if my memory serves me right.

Is the minister happy with the kind of budgetary overruns he's had with respect to the ambulance service?

HON. J. JANSEN: Is the minister happy with overruns he's had in the ambulance service? From that, I presume the member would have us cap the budget and say to patients when we've reached a

[ Page 11550 ]

certain level: "I'm sorry, we've reached our budget limitation, and we can no longer afford to pick you up." The air ambulance operation and the entire ambulance operation is driven by demand. If that demand increases, obviously the budget has to increase. He says: "Is the minister happy with his overruns?" No, I'm not happy with my overruns, but they result from patient demands, and when patient demands are there, this government is there to meet those demands.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the minister know what the overruns are?

HON. J. JANSEN: I thought we were debating this year's estimates rather than last year's results, but I can tell him what those overruns were, because we did put through special warrants, as you recall. The ambulance utilization was an overrun of $2.4 million. I'll give him all the overruns so he knows. The hospital wage settlement, as a result of our settlements in both hospital programs and continuing care, was $48 million. We had extra demands in terms of Pharmacare, and there's a reason for that. There's a breakdown for that as well. It's $18,749,000. Altogether, the overruns were $69,169,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: The annual report of your own administrators in that sector, Mr. Minister, indicates an overrun of $8,082,250 — not the number you've given the House. Maybe your staff could clarify that.

HON. J. JANSEN: Unless the member opposite is keeping a separate set of books.... Our books indicate to us that in the ambulance division, the actual costs were $66,104,000 on a budget projection of $70,558,000. So where he got $8 million.... I don't get that from those figures, but I'd be pleased to hear his explanation.

MR. WILLIAMS: The appendix of the Emergency Health Services Commission annual report, and it is page 20 — so there it is. But I just make the point because this has been a consistent pattern, and the minister can say it's simply driven by the problems in demand. I'd like to suggest that the capacity and capability in terms of management in this section is seriously lacking. Mr. Dubas was the chairman of this commission, and I'm arguing that the monitoring of it was not as effective as it could and should have been. It has had serious problems in terms of grievances, and the costs related to that are very significant.

Your whole system of paramedic registration is a result of your inadequate labour-management practices. It follows from actions that were taken by management that Mr. Dubas and the staff had to deal with and clean up, and the typical answer of this administration is added bureaucratization of the system. We saw it in the last bill in the House a couple of minutes ago and now — again through Mr. Dubas and the way he managed this ministry — we see it again in this section.

There's always a tip of the iceberg in these things when you hear complaints from the general public. Remember the complaints we heard a year or so ago when the communications section was being moved to Kamloops — a centralized system in terms of dispatch? There were complaints from the people of Prince George about the moving of that. In terms of calling ambulances to rural areas, common sense tells us it's a problem when you highly centralize the system. It also becomes a problem when you make it a more highly technical system as well, and that is what your management in this section is doing.

You've had seminars in the Kamloops area, in this section, Mr. Minister, dealing with stress problems. What has your management level done with it as a result of those stress seminars? They hired a part-time chaplain for the service. That's the level of management we have.

Mr. Minister, are you aware of the kinds of problems with that centralized communication system when telephone circuits are overloaded? Do you have any understanding of what it means at Christmastime when long-distance lines are plugged and people are calling their families? Doesn't that create some problems in the system in terms of communications with the ambulance service? Are you aware of those kinds of problems?

HON. J. JANSEN: Obviously the member is not utilizing facts; he's speculating and rambling somewhat. He was somewhat abusive about the chaplain. I take offence at that. In fact, it is an ambulance attendant who also provides us with the ability to deal with some of the tragedies that occur in accidents throughout the province. For him to suggest that we shouldn't provide that compassionate care and support in times of tragedy, I think most people would find offensive.

I'm also aware of the high standard. We have 3,000 people, full-time and part-time, working for the air ambulance division. I submit to the member that all those proud men and women who serve in the B.C. air ambulance service do so with the excellence of care that is second to none in Canada. I'd be willing to compare our service with anywhere in Canada, because they provide very proud and dedicated service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nobody's disputing the good work done by the people in the field in this, and we're proud of having established it in the seventies, when it was a private sector system that did not serve the people well at all.

The question is: what has happened to management? Your new computer-assisted dispatching system, which you're spending great amounts of money on, will remove voice contact in terms of that system. Are you satisfied that really is the answer, that you've got the best advice in the world on it and that it is not going to have glitches, just as the move to Kamloops had its glitches?

[ Page 11551 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess the question is: are we happy with putting in place a system that enables a quicker response time to the patients of the province of British Columbia? I want to say yes — absolutely. We are designing and implementing a system that enables us to respond quicker, more efficiently and more effectively to the calls we receive. Do I support that? Absolutely yes, Mr. Member.

[3:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: We shall see, Mr. Minister.

On the whole question of consolidation of communications, you're satisfied that it in fact has been successful, and that there have been no problems. We don't have an address system in rural British Columbia, Mr. Minister. Not everybody has a number on their house when you get into these small rural areas. The kinds of difficulties in knowing where a location is, in terms of dispatching, are serious. Are you satisfied that a centralized system in Kamloops, covering all of the north and all of the interior, is the way it should be, and that your head of communications in the ambulance service has all the real qualifications for his job that are absolutely necessary?

HON. J. JANSEN: Absolutely yes.

MR. MILLER: I note that the head of the service is a Mr. Bates, and I see that the head of communications in the system is a Mr. Bates. I notice that there are other people in the service by the name of Mr. Bates. It's quite extraordinary that these family people should all be as qualified as they are in these various sectors. I'm pleased the minister is so satisfied about their qualifications.

The service also has a public relations arm, which is under Mr. Klein, and I'm sure the minister knows Mr. Klein. The public relations service has developed its own logo, and they've gone to considerable expense. They've created a four-foot mouse called "Medic Mouse, the Righteous Rodent." It's the symbol of the ambulance service now in British Columbia. Your head of communications in the ambulance service has lost Medic Mouse. He ended up sending a memo to all members of the Legislature, saying that Medic Mouse had been lost, and they thought it had been stolen by the paramedics from the Big Apple. Your communications expert asked every MLA to send a wire to the Big Apple and bring back Righteous Rodent. Well, I complied, because I'd been so impressed by their calibre of management in the service. I still haven't had a reply. I wonder if the minister has written the paramedics in New York, urging the return of the Righteous Rodent.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like to say a few things, but I won't, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me say that I find it offensive that for some reason the name Bates is wrong; or that there was some inference or insinuation that perhaps that name wasn't appropriate. I would like to learn more about that. The head of communications is not Bates; the head of communications is a gentleman by the name of Train.

I very much appreciate the efforts of our ambulance service to make their services supported by the public — their campaign to get public participation and understanding of the service, how effective it is, how supportive it is, how to access it and what we provide in terms of defibrillators, other equipment and first-responder programs. Yes, I agree with all that. The bottom line, again, is that it's the best service in all of North America.

MR. WILLIAMS: The public relations arm supplements the activities of this sector through a separate agency, a society that ends up selling, I guess, the logo "Righteous Rodent," T-shirts and a whole range of paraphernalia. Could the minister advise us of the name of that society?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, I'm sorry. I'll get back to the member with that name as soon as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

I take it, then, that that operates separately, outside the regular budget that we would cover in estimates.

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there was a study carried out in 1985 about overmanning at the managerial level of the ambulance service. It's my understanding that it was concerned with overmanning at the supervisory level of the service. You have unit chiefs; you have supervisors; I guess, at the level here in Victoria, you have an executive director; you have a director of medical programs; you have an executive secretary; you have a director of operations; you have an assistant director of operations; you have a superintendent of public relations; you have a superintendent of Airvac programs — oh, that's the other Mr. Bates; I'm sorry, it's not communications; he's the supervisor of Airvac programs — the director of administration and support operations; a superintendent of support operations; and a superintendent of policy and planning.

I'd suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that it's a classic case of too many agencies since you people have been in power. It's the over bureaucratization at the top, at the managerial level. There were reviews in '85, but there was no action taken, was there, Mr. Minister? There was a review of the over bureaucratization. There was a review of excessive supervisory levels. Despite that, nothing happened. Isn't that the case, Mr. Minister?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can get guidance from you as to what has happened in the past or whether the debate should be focused on the responsibility during the term that I am Health minister. I'm not sure if some of those things in the past are out of order or not.

[ Page 11552 ]

Having said that, however, I would say that I understand from the staff that reviews have been done and that there have been some efficiency changes made. I guess the bottom line — and I'm sorry I don't see that focus on that side — is how effective the organization is in dealing with patient calls. That's really my bottom line. If we're not effective in terms of dealing with the continuing growth in the province and we're not effective in terms of call-volume increases and response times, then yes, I accept some of those things. But we have an outstanding service and an outstanding employee base, including the supervisors, that provides that service to the people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member, the minister asked us whether he was obligated to answer questions on situations that occurred prior to his being the minister. I would again say that the minister is under no obligation to answer any questions, and I would leave to his judgment the answering of questions from before his being the minister of that ministry.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's true that all grievances and arbitrations are now moved to central government authority. The track record has been so bad in terms of the managerial capability within this division that all grievances and significant labour problems simply get shunted to the central government negotiating agency, because this management is not capable of handling it in an adequate way. Is that not the case?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, it's not.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the minister really know?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister should be briefed so that he can give us a more detailed answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 38 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister can get some help from his deputy so he can be really sure of that answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 38 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: The reality is that these problems are dealt with by another agency of government because your management in this section has such a terrible track record and has got into real problems in the past. That's the reality.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm talking about the kind of management we have.

I'd like to get on to an arbitration, one of these many arbitrations that the government lost with respect to the ambulance service. One of the arbitrations you lost was with Stephen Kelleher, who is a highly respected arbitration and labour lawyer. Mr. Kelleher concluded that an employee had been wrongly dismissed. This was because they pulled the certification with respect to the paramedic as part of the exercise of dismissing him. As a result of that, Mr. Kelleher's learned judgment was that you could not do that.

Subsequent negotiations with Mr. Dubas ended up creating a registrar and a registration system. That came through as a bill a year or so ago; it was Bill 39 at the time. Again, this is a classic example of responding to problems and inadequacies by bureaucratization.

You end up having a registration system for paramedics and staffing with respect to registering paramedics and licensing paramedics as a result of previously inadequate labour practices. While the union accepts that circumstance, I would suggest that it is simply the result, again, of poor labour practices and inadequacies at the management level that have had to be addressed by other agencies of government.

Could the minister advise us who reviewed employment with respect to the new registrar and paramedics?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, that hiring was done a year and a half ago, and long before my tenure as Health minister. Staff advise that this particular hiring was done appropriately as a result of a normal competition.

What is important to focus on.... Somehow the member finds it offensive that an arbitration took place during staff relations.... He thinks an arbitration means that we have poor employee relations, and that arbitration is — in his words — inappropriate. As a result of that arbitration, the minister of the day established a licensing authority that would give some impartiality and an arm's-length review of licensing. I find that positive.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why was that necessary?

HON. J. JANSEN: We thought a process not dissimilar to the one in professions throughout the Health ministry — where we have a licensing body which is distinct and separate from the one that looks after negotiating — more appropriate, and for obvious reasons. This is not a regressive step. It's a positive step in terms of dealing with issues of concern to those licensed in the profession of air ambulance attendants.

[4:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister can call it what he will, but for anybody who reviews the evidence in terms of this operation, it's very clear there are serious problems at the managerial level. They've had to be resolved in a costly manner. They continue to have to be resolved in a costly manner. The Kelleher report is clear in that respect, and it's just one of many arbitrations that have had to be faced again and again in that particular shop.

[ Page 11553 ]

There's also the modification plant which builds these vehicles. I see that there is now a superintendent in that area. Is this the same person who was effectively an executive assistant to Mr. Dubas previously — Mr. Buchanan?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't know why the member is asking about things that happened years ago. Obviously I was not the minister at that time. Perhaps he could elaborate on why that's important during this discussion, and I could comment in terms of what the impact is on this year's budget so we could get back to the budget debate.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister be prepared to deposit with the House all the detailed analyses with respect to moving the fabrication plant from Saanich to Kamloops — the kind of business plan and economic analyses that took place with respect to that decision?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes. Obviously before we embark on a move like that or make a change like that, we have a business plan to support it; in fact, it's a substantial savings to the people of British Columbia We also think it is very appropriate to locate services in a more centralized geographic location in the province. It conforms to the thinking on that side of the House that decentralization and moving services into the region is a good thing. I suspect from what the member is saying that he really supports this move.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it that the minister has made a commitment that the business plan and the various economic analyses will be made available with respect to the society that I requested information about. That's fine.

Since we are in a new regime in terms of the public service and the management of the Health ministry, which is so huge, I would hope that management at the highest levels of the ministry will look seriously at the questions I have raised and others that I would be happy to discuss with them. These matters could have been resolved more satisfactorily I am not satisfied with the capability of the decision making process within that system at this stage.

MR. CASHORE: I know the minister has received correspondence from Mr. Don Pharand in the Grand Forks area. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) and I have received several letters from him with regard to the indoor radon gas issue. I am sure the minister is aware that the United States Environmental Protection Agency indicates that household radon is a probable major cause of lung cancer. They publish quite widespread information on how the public can protect itself from radon gas. I would like to ask the minister to give the House an update with regard to how his ministry is addressing this issue.

HON. J. JANSEN: We are trying to dig up the briefing note on that. As I recall, we are in the second year of a two-year study, and we are looking at that issue. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey knows that as well. I think I corresponded with him in regard to the radon issue. We are studying the issue, and I don't have the results of the study yet.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you for that answer. Perhaps when the briefing note is available, the minister could also comment on whether or not his ministry has made any measurements of background radon concentrations in ambient air in the affected interior communities. I think that would be an important process to review.

On the same subject, I would like to ask the minister if he has considered making available the test kits which can be supplied in bulk and at very little cost to enable people in communities to do that testing. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to go on to my next question, if the minister would like, realizing that some information is forthcoming. Or would he like to respond to that now?

HON. J. JANSEN: The second part of the question is whether or not we would make that available. What I'd like to do, first of all, is deal with the study to determine the extent of the problem with radon and ambient conditions. I don't think it is the case.... But I'll address that in more detail when we dig up our briefing note on that issue.

MR. CASHORE: With respect to that answer, it would seem to me that the study would have a purpose that is not connected to the importance of making some sort of testing available to the community. I don't think that should depend on the study and, again, I would like to recommend to the minister that he make that testing available. I may come back to that in a moment.

The other question is: would the minister consider arranging for an article to be published in Your Better Health so that the public could have up-to-date information on this important matter regarding public health?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, that's an excellent idea, and we will do that.

I should give you a little more clarification now on the study. It's a two-year study, and we are doing it through the University of British Columbia. We have funded $140,000 to do a study on 14 locations in the province. The university, in phase 1 of the study, has put detectors in 75 homes in each of seven locations, such as Kelowna, Penticton, Prince George, Quesnel, Valemont, Vernon and Nelson. We'll be putting in further locations in phase 2 of the study.

From that information we'll be able to better advise the public on the areas in their homes that should be tested for radon. From that study, too, I hope — and I'll certainly take it on advisement — that the measuring kits the member is mentioning in

[ Page 11554 ]

terms of the areas that have been Identified as high-risk....

MR. CASHORE: I want to thank the minister for that answer.

The next issue is a rather tragic situation that exists in my constituency and which I believe exists elsewhere in the province. Recently in School District 43, which includes Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, we've had a rash of teenage suicides. I know that the ministry, along with the Ministries of Solicitor-General and Social Services and Housing, and perhaps others, shares responsibility and concern in this area.

I have a letter here from Gesele Lejoie and Ron Roberge, who are with the Coquitlam Secondary School Counsellors' Association, and I think the way they articulate this issue puts it in a nutshell. They point out that SHARE services had a contract whereby they were providing some services in this area dealing with teenage suicide. Because they did not feel that they could fulfil the mandate that needed to be fulfilled, they did not apply to continue with that contract. They really felt that they were not able to do what needed to be done with regard to this tragic issue.

Following that, Fraserside Community Services received the contract, and I just want to point out that there is no attempt here whatsoever to get into any criticism of either of these organizations. They've both done outstanding work, but with very limited resources and a very limited mandate.

As a matter of fact, Lejoie and Roberge say:

"We've been very satisfied with Fraserside Community Services Society, which is the new agency contracted.... They have been outstanding in their delivery, providing immediate contact for students and follow-up consultation with the referring school counsellor.

"Our only concern is with the lack of follow-up with the individual and family. It is our understanding that under the present funding scheme, Fraserside cannot meet this need. We respectfully request that additional funding be found to provide these services."

A lot of people in the Coquitlam area have been meeting in the context of quite a bit of despair over this issue. It has tragically affected a number of families in our area. I have had people come into my office to talk to me about ways they are trying to deal with some of our young people, to enable them to have a listening ear. But the services provided are not comprehensive enough; there are serious gaps. Because of this, we are losing either through the tragedy of suicide or the tragedy of the social consequences of those who don't go that far.... There's some real disruption, dislocation and serious despair in the lives of these people. It's a tragic thing to see this happening to our youth, who in this country and this province should be able to look forward to a fulfilling future. These are very troubled people, and it's obvious that government has not addressed the issue of filling these gaps and enabling the community and agencies to complete the services that are needed.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

HON. J. JANSEN: It is a very serious matter, I agree, and a great concern to us. We are doing an article in our next Your Better Health magazine about teen suicide, in the part of the magazine that is focused directly on our teens. It is a tragic situation, and through the new mental health plan and the youth mental health services we are looking at crisis intervention as a program.

I would ask the member to submit that to me, and I will have a took at it in a review for that service.

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: We certainly don't oppose appropriate studies being made, but we need these intervention and follow-up services right now. It's urgent.

Just a couple of quick things in conclusion. One is that the area I share with my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) includes Riverview psychiatric hospital. We feel that we have seen some very unnecessary difficulty for the people of the mental health community — the people who work there both management and labour — and the patients. We are pleased that a settlement has been reached, but I just want to get on the record the cost in human terms to all involved in that long and difficult dispute.

Finally, I know that yesterday a number of letters were read into the record. I don't propose to get into reading a lot of letters, but there is one letter I want to make reference to, because I think it typifies for my constituents some real concerns that have been expressed about the delivery of health services.

This is from a resident of the Maillardville part of Coquitlam. Tanya Carter is talking about her father who has some kind of growth in his abdomen. His condition is not considered serious enough for him to get a bed, even though once the diagnostic work is done, it will probably be deemed to be very serious. This is the kind of situation where a delay is causing a great deal of distress and difficulty for people. I think it typifies the way in which the health system needs to be addressed so that these people aren't left in a much more life-threatening situation simply by a delay in getting the diagnostic work done.

HON. J. JANSEN: I thank the member for the comments about that individual patient, but it is very difficult to generalize. There are different circumstances relating to each case that many times result in delays. It could be because the surgeon is overbooked or the facilities are overbooked. I said yesterday that I want to develop a system that provides information to the physicians and surgeons as well as the patients, which would enable us to utilize all our resources more effectively in addressing wait-lists for patients such as the one the member just mentioned.

Vote 38 approved.

[ Page 11555 ]

Vote 39: ministry operations, $3,367,859,624 — approved.

Vote 40: Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, $1,434,501,771 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 76; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MS. EDWARDS: The clause amends the Utilities Commission Act, which gives the minister broader powers to exempt independent power producers from regulation — the projects themselves. I'm not sure why the minister felt he needed this increased power. There may be some larger independent power projects.... The minister had the power already, and I'm not sure why he wanted to extend that power.

HON. MR. FRASER: It just provides the minister power to exempt small producers. It doesn't leave the public interest unprotected.

MS. EDWARDS: They were already regulated if they produced more than a petajoule. This provision takes off that limit.

Could the minister answer the question? I know the Solicitor-General knows this like the "inside of his hand," but I suspect the minister initiated this change. Since the minister is in the House, I wonder if he could respond to my question. He has fairly broad powers now, and this could lead to a spot where many of the independent power projects coming up.... There is considerable concern, now that we're moving into independent power production, as to what's happening. I'm not sure why the minister needed this power. I would like him to answer.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The independent power producers, if they merely sell their energy to one other customer — one other industry, or one other customer in the sense of B.C. Hydro — are not themselves the utilities and are not, therefore, regulated, assuming this section goes through. Their contract — if they have one —  with B.C. Hydro would, of course, be examined when B.C. Hydro comes before the Utilities Commission to justify its purchase of additional supplies of power. So the details of the sales contract will become a matter of public knowledge simply because Hydro, a major producer, transporter and distributor of electrical energy, is a monopoly and a regulated utility.

If any of these projects export any energy, or if they sell energy over any distance across B.C. Hydro's powerlines, then the exportation and the wheeling over Hydro's lines will be subject to public hearings

[ Page 11556 ]

and, therefore, regulation. But it does exempt private companies, large or small, and there will be very large number of very small ones — from regulation if they do not themselves act as retailers of power.

MS. EDWARDS: In the best of all possible worlds, I'm sure it would be very clear whether all of these things are very clear or not. I would suggest that there is a possibility that it's not always going to be so clear. I would like to ask the minister: is there any possible way for concerned parties to appeal the minister's decision if he exempts a project from regulation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I can't identify a process of appeal other than here in the Legislature. What is of concern to the public is usually a matter of rates and so on. These companies will have only one sale. It will be to another company. If it's to another private company, then the rate or rates in that private sale are not necessarily in the public domain. It's not necessary to file them. If they do involve any of our monopoly utilities, they must of necessity be filed.

As I said before, if this is a significant source of power to Hydro or to West Kootenay Power or for export, then there will be hearings before the project is approved for construction. Certainly the environmental aspects, etc., as well as economics will be examined in full public view. We're hoping to be able to exempt a few dozen really small developments, where the companies do not engage in retailing energy in any form, from regulation.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm just trying to figure out how much they are exempt from any kind of supervision and meeting any environmental requirements and so on. How would they be required to meet environmental requirements if they don't have to go to the Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are two matters here. One is the granting of an energy project certificate by the province. That is necessary in any case. A review by the commission, on the other hand, may be a second stage — or a necessary part. The amendment to section 27 deals only with the status of an independent power producer as a regulated public utility This doesn't exempt them from having to obtain an energy project certificate from the province.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 67.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

[4:30]

On section 12.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm just seeking clarification from the minister again. What this does is recognize that certain sums set aside in sinking funds to repay debts owed by Hydro are now set out as obligations against Hydro's borrowing power. Could the minister clarify why he has done that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's to treat Hydro in the same way that a number of our other Crown corporations are treated, or to put it another way, to allow Hydro to treat its sinking funds in the same way as, for example, B.C. Rail can. If Hydro has access to its sinking funds, up to a point, for financing new projects or to carry out repairs and so on, it needn't borrow new money at present high interest rates. It creates uniformity across all of our Crown corporations.

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm a little confused about the rationale for this section. It provides the power to municipalities regarding shop-closing. It applies to Sundays as well as to other days. The way I interpret this section — and the minister may correct me; or somebody, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) isn't here — this amendment will allow councils to make Sunday one of the days on which the closing hour of stores is regulated, or to make Sunday the seventh day, meaning that the council can require that stores stay closed. I wonder why this government wants to get mixed up in Sunday closing and give councils the right to close on Sundays when the people decide that issue by referendum. What's going on here?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to allow municipalities to regulate the shopping hours on Sunday, not to prevent shopping on Sunday. This means that this is a shopping day subject to regulations by the municipality.

MR. BLENCOE: Do municipalities have the power on six days of the week, other than Sunday, to say:

[ Page 11557 ]

"You shall open and you shall close at a certain time"? Or is it open to the stores and free enterprise to make that decision, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment was a lack of clarity as it was written. The purpose of the act is to allow municipalities to regulate the hours of shopping on Sunday, as it would any other day, and prevent them from closing on Sundays, as they have done in some places.

Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 73.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have several questions. I'm rather surprised to have to rise at this point and admit that I have several questions. We agreed to give the government a reading last night, with the understanding, as the minister indicated on two different occasions in this House, that the purpose of this bill was solely to license existing private adoption agencies.

On my desk this morning — and it's interesting that it should take so long to come from the ministry — I received the minister's own press release. There are a couple of things that really disturb me, because they are very different than what the minister has said in this House, and I'd like some answers.

I know that we're going section by section, and I'll ask the minister some questions in particular about section 2, because this refers to the children being put up for adoption and to who is qualified to adopt these children. My first question, which relates to the minister's press release, has to do with who those children are. In the minister's press release, the minister says that the ministry will continue to plan adoptions for older children and for children with special needs. Mr. Minister, are you suggesting that this initiative is to privatize the adoption of infants in this province? Is that the real purpose of your bill? That's certainly not what you introduced in this House.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to that is no, it's not an attempt to privatize adoption in this province. Many children at the present time are privately adopted, and this is to put regulation and control into it and have it done through a licensed agency.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I asked a specific question about the age of the children, but we'll get back to that. I want to follow up on this particular point.

Mr. Minister, if you are refuting what this press release says, perhaps I could suggest to you that you send out a correction, because in the press release it says that the amendment related to the creation of licensed private adoption agencies will take effect in the spring of '91. It suggests that you will, through these amendments, be creating new agencies, not bringing into compliance the agencies that already exist. Mr. Minister, I ask you again: are you encouraging the privatization of adoption in this province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, we not privatizing the adoption of children in this province. Again I say to the member that we will be licensing agencies that will be carrying out the adoptions. Many of these adoptions are now carried out privately — unlicensed. We will have them licensed and controlled to make sure that the adopting is done in a proper process that takes into consideration the relinquishing parents and the adopting parents and protects the interest of the child. That's what it's all about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am happy to hear the minister's response, and I'll look forward to some amendments later on that talk about the target group the minister has referred to. Perhaps we can make this bill a little more specific so that it suits the task.

Back to the question of age of the child, Mr. Minister. In your press release you say: "The ministry will continue to plan for adoptions for older children and for children of special needs." Why have you excluded in your press release the adoption of infants? Is the ministry getting out of the business of adoption of infants? Or are you trying to facilitate a special group in this province to handle the adoption of infants?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the question is no, we are not doing that at all.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm not sure what "No, we are not doing that at all" means. I'm unclear as to what you're not doing, Mr. Minister. Why have you excluded the reference to infant adoption in your press release? Why have you chosen specifically to talk about older children and special-needs children? Those two groups are the most difficult to place for adoption. Is it the intention of the ministry to solely

[ Page 11558 ]

handle those difficult cases and leave the adoption of infants to others? Could the minister be more specific in his answer?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We plan to continue to adopt infants through the ministry, but the legislation deals with young babies — they are the easiest to adopt — and it's to control the adoption of them through the licensed agencies. But we will also do some. We may do some.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm a little unclear on the minister's answer once again. The minister says that the legislation deals with the adoption of babies. I don't see anywhere in this legislation that it refers to age. As I read the minister's introductory statements on two separate occasions, the ministry talks about licensing existing adoption agencies. Are those agencies only dealing with infant adoption?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: They are presently dealing only with infants. If they wish to place older children, that's fine too; but at the present time they are placing infants.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to follow up on the questions that my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was asking. It's still unclear to me what the minister's intention is with regard to what he says is the regulation of the agencies that are already involved in adoption. Would the minister tell the House, with regard to infant adoptions, what percentage is now being handled by adoption agencies and what percentage is now being handled by his ministry?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The figure for 1989 is 108 private adoptions and 112 ministry adoptions.

MR. CASHORE: So the minister is recognizing, by those statistics, that already adoption is to quite some extent privatized in the province, even prior to this regulatory legislation coming through. Would the minister tell the House if he anticipates, as a result of this legislation, any change in those percentages, which are roughly fifty-fifty?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We can't say for sure that there will be a change; there might be. But again, I want to counter the argument that adoption has been privatized. Many infants have been adopted by arrangements of other people. If you call that private, I guess it is, but that's not something that the government was doing. It's something that's been carried out that way for a long time.

We are putting rules, regulations and licensing to that so that there is a control system to make sure that it's all done properly and in the best interests of the relinquishing parent, who is a very important individual in this process; the adopting parent; and, of course, most importantly of all, the child. It's to protect the best interests of the child and to make sure that it's done properly. That's why we are going into the process of licensing — not to change the makeup of the system that has done it before. There will still be children placed by the ministry. And instead of unlicensed adopting being privately done, it will be through a licensed agency.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, my colleague has read from the news release. It seems to imply that the minister anticipates that in the future, at least, the adoption of normal children will be handled by private agencies, and the adoption of those with special needs will be handled by the government. The minister has not answered her question as to whether or not the wording of his news release is correct. Is the wording of the minister's news release correct? Or does he see that perhaps there was an error in the news release?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The wording of the news release is correct, but your interpretation of the intent of the wording of the news release is not correct. That's where the difference is.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would ask the minister if he's seen his press release.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I've seen the news release.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me read another quote from the press release, because nothing the minister has said, either in answers so far or in his introductory statements, has even come close to what this says: "There are many reputable agencies currently providing quality service to families and children in British Columbia. We expect that some of them will be keenly interested in providing adoption services." You're not talking solely about bringing under regulation existing private adoption agencies. What you are specifically talking about here is encouraging other agencies to become involved in adoption services. Is that correct? Rather than trying to clean up the mess that exists, you are encouraging the privatization of adoption services in this province. In this press release you refer to the fact that the ministry will continue to provide adoption services for children who are difficult to place, and you exclude any reference to infants.

You are being less than honest in your introductory statements. The minister is being somewhat misleading in his comments to the House in the two different stages of this bill and in answering questions now, because very clearly this is not a bill to regulate existing adoption agencies. This bill — as clearly spelled out in your press release, and which is very different from the picture you would like to paint in this House — is to encourage the private adoption agencies in this province in the area of infant adoption. Would you not agree?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, it's getting late in the session, and I don't know that I should spend

[ Page 11559 ]

time challenging the member on her comments regarding "dishonesty," "misleading," and statements to that effect. I don't take them very lightly, and I think that you are perhaps not as willing as you might be — or as you pretend to be — to understand the legislation.

Some of the agencies that will be licensed are providing that service already, but they are not licensed at this time. There are also individuals who provide this service, and they will not be able to provide it. It will have to go through a licensed agency that is equipped to provide the service required to do the job properly and effectively in the best interest of the child and all people concerned. That's why we want it controlled, because there have been some difficulties with children who have been placed privately in the past. We want to remove that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the minister's introductory statements, he says: "This amendment is thus not privatizing work done by government but is regulating work already done by the private sector." In your press release, you say: "There are many reputable agencies currently providing quality services to families and children in British Columbia. We expect some of them will be keenly interested in providing adoption services." It seems to be a direct contradiction. In one you are saying that you are cleaning up a mess that's already out there, and in another you are saying that you are interested in other private agencies taking up the task of government in providing adoption services.

I have only one further question for the minister in this area. Is it the intent of this government to facilitate private adoption by groups, such as pro-life organizations, that are encouraging women to keep their children, and thus provide placement for those infants?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's a very interesting question. I guess the member finally got to the point that she was really aiming at all the time. I can tell you very honestly — although you don't think my credibility is very high from the comments you have made — that we have never even considered that. We have not talked about that; we have not considered that; that is not the intent. We are not doing something that's presently being done by the government and that's now going to be done by the private sector The people and the players may change, but the service that has been provided by the private sector and will be provided by private agencies in the future will now be licensed, controlled and under regulation, where regulation never existed.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister tell the House if, after this legislation comes into effect, he expects his ministry will still be involved in handling the adoption of normal children?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean "normal"? What a terrible thing to say!

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "normal," but I assume you mean children who have no birth defects, who are not in any way disadvantaged. The ministry will still be involved with them. Let me tell you that, even more importantly, this ministry will concentrate on finding homes, providing care and looking after the future of those who are not quite that fortunate, too. The reason they are specifically mentioned in the news release is that they are more difficult to place. It will probably be the responsibility of the ministry to find homes for those children. We welcome that opportunity, because they are of tremendous concern to us.

MR. CASHORE: In view of that answer, then, why doesn't the minister simply recognize that the news release is not worded correctly and clarify it in that way? Why doesn't the minister just rise and indicate that?

HON. MR, JACOBSEN: I don't believe the news release requires clarification at all. I suppose if we were to cover every detail and every aspect of the process, we would then have to provide a news release that was as long as the bill itself. It's not our intention to do so. We've outlined what we think are the essential points, and we stand by that.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This section begins to deal with the actual functioning of private agencies. The minister says that he's interested in making the system work better. I and my colleagues have given our support quite sincerely to the minister's introductory statements about this bill, What we've been able to read into the bill without the government's press release, which in my view is not consistent with the minister's statements in this House.... There's a real difference here.

What this section does, in essence, is talk about the court making its decisions based on the findings of the home assessment, which I understand is quite typical. The problem is that with private agencies — those dealing with the assessments — the assessments may be done by paid employees of the agency. There is no reference to the qualifications of those employees. Therefore, in my mind, there is a real question— I'd love to hear from the minister — as to how the government plans to regulate and to have some confidence in the placement of children in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, the agencies we're talking about are non-profit agencies set up for the explicit purpose.... One of their functions is to provide this adoption service. We would assume that people who get involved in a non-profit situation to carry out a service are interested in providing that service in the best interests of society and, certainly in this case, of the children.

[ Page 11560 ]

In addition to that, the people who work in these agencies and the people who make the decisions will be under regulations. There will be regulations that will stipulate the necessary qualifications for them to have.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If a home is not approved as an adoptive home by the ministry, could those people then go to a private agency and receive a child?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, they couldn't, because if they're not approved, that information would be made available to the agency.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister could be a little clearer. How would that information be made available to the agency?, How would the ministry necessarily know that those people are asking the private agency for an adoption?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Because there will be a registry, and we will have all that information through the registry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What will be involved? Who will be listed on that registry? What information will be on it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The ones you would be interested in are the people who are wanting to adopt and information on their suitability as adopting parents. But people wanting to adopt would be part of the registry, so the information would be there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, I didn't quite get the minister's answer. If I understood you correctly, you're saying that anyone who applies for adoption with the ministry would then be on the list or the registry, even if they were declined.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Anyone who applies to adopt, whether they apply to the ministry or to the agency, will be on the registry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As well as any case history, rejection and reason for rejection?

HON. MIL JACOBSEN: Yes, the question of suitability will certainly be there.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

[5:00]

On section 10.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This section deals with the actual licensing and regulating of adoption agencies The ministry says that it's your intent.... I'll try to ignore this press release. I'll pretend it didn't happen, although it's curious that the ministry decided that this was the public face you were putting on the announcement of this bill. But lets just deal with what the minister has said specifically in this House. He has said that the intent is to deal with existing adoption agencies. Why not add to this section? Why not put in this section that there will be a limit to the number that are licensed and that, from this time forward, all adoptions shall be done through the government? If It is not your intent to privatize, then why not amend this section to read accordingly?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There's a very good reason for that. The reason we did not take that all back into the ministry is that we want mothers to have a choice of where they will put their children for adoption and who they want to handle it for them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I guess I have some problems understanding that, because the ministry recognizes its role in the protection of children in this province. Someone giving up a child because they no longer feel they are able to care for that child.... Is the government saying that you are quite satisfied to turn that over to a private agency — an individual or group of individuals — to do the adoptions, that you are more interested in privatizing that service than you are in the protection of those children? There is a bit of a contradiction, because you have said in your introduction that there was a need to license and regulate the existing agencies dealing with adoption in this province. Anyone who works in the field recognizes that there is a problem and there is a need to regulate. Having said that, most people who work in the area of child protection do not believe in private adoption agencies to deal with children—. Most people who deal with the protection of children feel that this should continue to be a mandate of government. What you are saying, when everything is cut down to the final line here, is that you want to encourage private adoption and that you feel that private adoption agencies can do a better job than you're doing right now in the adoption of infants.

Let's not say it has anything to do with cleaning up the existing circumstances. Let's call it for what it is. You are privatizing the adoption of infants as a target in this province. The press release tells the story, doesn't it, Mr. Minister? It really doesn't have anything to do with what you have said in the House in the two introductions. The press release says it. You are privatizing the adoption of infants in this province. Are you aware of the history and the problems that have surrounded private adoptions in North America? Are you aware of other countries that are trying to clean up messes with private adoption agencies? Yet, in 1990, all of a sudden this government decides it's a great idea, and they're going to privatize adoptions.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just a little while ago, we talked about 1989. We said in 1989 there were 112 adoptions through the ministry and 108 privately. When this legislation comes into effect, we will still have adoptions through the ministry and those done privately, but those done privately will be regulated. The member would very much like to make a point and try to convince those who care to listen that this is a privatization of a government service; it is not a

[ Page 11561 ]

privatization of a government service at all. For those children where we become involved, we can arrange the adoption. We're adding an ingredient of choice. The mother will have a choice. I know that the member opposite doesn't think any group of people can do anything well unless they belong to government. We don't believe in that. We think there are people who will do an extremely good job of providing this service. We're going to give mothers the opportunity to make the choice. If they don't want to have an agency do it, then we will do it if they want their child given up for adoption. The choice is there for the mother. What you're arguing against is the mother having the choice.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Before we go to the next section, my point is very clear. You have a responsibility. You are vacating the field. I have some real problems with that.

Section 10, as it deals with licensing and regulating, goes on to talk about the superintendent. It talks about the expenses charged by licensed adoption agencies and that those services may be limited. It does not say "must" be limited; it says "may" be limited. If the superintendent should decide to limit it, they may limit the fees charged. This opens the door for a two-tiered system, where those who can afford the fees would use private agencies and those unable to afford the fees then have very little option. Very clearly the minister is targeting the infant adoptions to go to these private adoption agencies. Perhaps the minister could explain to the House why you chose not to limit those fees.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, isn't it interesting? I'm asked the question why we chose not to limit the fees, and that's exactly what the legislation does. It limits the fees. It limits them to the counselling of the mother and the expenses that are attributable to the adoption process. It is illegal, according to these amendments, to provide any type of payment other than those that are counselling to the mother, support for the mother and the direct costs involved. Anything else, anything that may be termed an 'inducement' is strictly prohibited. So we are limiting the fees.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The wording says that the superintendent may limit fees. It says "may limit fees." My question is: why have you not used the words "must limit fees"?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, it says that the superintendent may limit fees and the regulations will give a precise rundown of what fees are permitted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This conjures up visions of yuppie adoption agencies. We'll have some West Van adoption agencies — little pink flamingos, maybe — with real high-flying counselling services. I don't want to belittle this point, but I do want a clearer answer. Why have you not put in place a specific fee schedule to inhibit the creation of a two-tiered system? Why have you not said that the superin—tendent has the power and must limit fees?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It says that the superintendent may limit the fees, and the regulations will spell out the fee structure. As far as the amounts are concerned, the amounts may not be the same in each particular case. There may be a difference, because there may be counselling necessary or desirable for the relinquishing parent in one case, and it may not be needed or even desired in another case; so of course they cannot be identical. But the superintendent will be regulating the fees that are permitted to be charged. It is as simple as that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can explain why the superintendent still has the option of choosing regulating or not regulating.

Secondly, in the same section it talks about a prohibition on advertising. It says that the adoption agency cannot advertise a child but that it can, I assume in general, advertise children. Does the minister envision adoption agencies advertising generally that they've got children for adoption?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Section 15.7(1) says: "No person shall publish in any form or by any means an advertisement dealing with the adoption of a child." I guess that answers the question. It says that by no means or in any way shall they advertise the adoption of a child. That would include saying that we have children for adoption periodically, "If you want a child, come and see us," or that we have a specific child, "This child's available if you want it." That's all prohibited.

MR. BLENCOE: I've been listening to the debate, and I have a general question to the minister. It applies to this section, and it applies to all sections. I am wondering how long ago this section was written. Was it prior to this minister taking over this portfolio? I'm wondering if the minister has fully studied the implication of this legislation. As we take a look at it and hear the debate and the lack of assurances, we really are concerned about the implications and perceptions of this bill. I'm wondering if the minister is fully aware of the news release that has been looked at today and that we're now seeing the implications of. Is the minister fully aware of the potential implications of this legislation?

HON. MR- JACOBSEN: I can appreciate that, but you're still debating the issue of rent control; you're still debating the question of secondary picketing. You've got all of those things that you haven't decided about yet. We understand the legislation. The legislation has no problems. It will work very well. Rest assured that sooner or later, after it has been in performance for a year or two years, after you've seen it perform in society and after you've seen the good job that it's doing, you'll come to recognize that it's good legislation. It just takes a while.

[5:15]

[ Page 11562 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Since we've gone through each of the sections that I specifically wanted to ask the minister about, the reality is that in this piece of legislation there is nothing we can see that would not enhance a problem that already exists out there. It would not deal with regulating unlicensed adoption agencies — and we support that. We very clearly support the regulating of existing agencies in this province.

We would not, when we are government, encourage further privatization, and we oppose the further privatization of adoption in this province. The only thing that I can really find to vote against is this government's intentions— and those are not in this bill. They are not spelled out clearly in this bill. It's in your press release, a press release that you didn't even have the nerve to read in the House.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran), even though she has been sitting and listening to this debate, didn't hear the press release we read into the record on several different occasions. Very clearly, for a minister who talks about her sincere care for the women and children of this province, I've got some real problems with her sitting there supporting a press release and the intentions that are spelled out in it.

The minister says that this is to clean up a problem, to regulate existing agencies. We will support that, as we have supported the other readings of this bill. But for the record — and I want the minister to understand — we file the strongest concerns about further privatizing adoption, and we file strong concerns about the intent as spelled out in this press release. Mr. Minister, a lot of people will be watching you and this government in the next while. I will make a commitment that after the next election.... In this press release, you specify that this will take effect in the spring of '91. I will make a commitment that I will argue strong and hard when we are government to ensure that if this bill is not brought into law by that time, it will never be brought into law.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I really had no intention of entering this debate, but I can't let some of the remarks made by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley go by without some comment.

To answer the question of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), this legislation has been contemplated for quite some time. It was discussed thoroughly when I was the Minister of Social Services, and I'll tell you why. I just want this on the record to show those members and the people of this province why this legislation is necessary. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the further privatization of adoptions."

MS. SMALLWOOD: Have you seen the press release?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member keeps cackling over there: "Have you seen the press release?" I'm under the impression that we're debating a bill, not a press release. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For the record, she keeps hollering: "Pro-life." They've got a kind of fixation with that. That's what she is saying this is all about. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that.

I'll tell you what it has something to do with, Mr. Chairman. It has something to do with the protection of children who are placed for adoption privately. It has to do with their well-being, so that the government and the superintendent can get involved at an earlier time in the adoption, so we know where those children are going, and so they aren't placed for six months in a home where maybe one of the parents has a record of child molestation. That's what it has to do with: the protection of infants and children of all ages who happen to be placed through private hands— maybe through a doctor, a lawyer or a non-profit organization — so that the superintendent can get involved earlier to make sure that all the safeguards are taken for the protection of those children. It won't alter the number of children placed by the ministry or those placed privately. It won't alter that at all — to put any of their fears to rest about the government "privatizing" adoptions. It has nothing to do with that.

It has everything to do with the protection of those children to see that they have every protection we, can give them as government. There will be a registry set up — as the minister has said — so that anyone trying to place a child for adoption will have to be scrutinized through this central registry. If parents have been turned down at one point for adoption, they can't go behind the scenes through some private means and get a child regardless of whether they've been turned down.

Just for the record, I want that placed squarely there that this member is so far off base on this. She's got a fixation that we're trying to do something clandestine here and that we've got an ulterior motive. I just want this House, this province and every member in this Legislature to know that nothing could be further from the truth. This act will be one that every British Columbian will be proud of when we say we truly are concerned, about the welfare of children put out to adoption.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 11563 ]

Bill 73, Adoption Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) sought to invoke provisions of standing order 35 and provided the Chair with a written statement about the matter, namely the current crisis with respect to the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia over longstanding grievances.

The House Leader made representations to the Chair that standing order 35 could not be invoked as: "...the current crisis had, in fact, been ongoing for some days; and therefore, the application by the hon. first member for Victoria ought to have been made previously."

In addition, the interim report of the Premier's Council on Native Affairs was yesterday tabled in the House. The Chair does not consider the tabling of that report to be in any way relevant. However, it is stated in the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 370: "If a matter is not raised at its earliest opportunity, it fails in urgency." The Journals of this House disclose that on numerous occasions earlier Speakers of the assembly have consistently held that delay in raising a matter under standing order 35 is fatal to the application. The Chair, while recognizing that the matter raised is of very great consequence, is nonetheless bound to apply the rules the House has seen fit to adopt. The application must fail, as the requirement of standing order 35 has not been fulfilled.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 36.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister who he sees acting as inspectors. This section deals with the inspectors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Several different groups may be drawn upon: certainly the Canadian Standards Association or, in the case of electrical equipment, frequently B.C. Hydro. We do have moneys voted, but not staff in the ministry. We can hire summer students and that kind of thing also to carry out inspections. So there are several ways in which inspection will be carried out. Our main interest, though, in trying to save energy and therefore money is to be as thorough as we can.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has said that this legislation is modelled on Ontario's. In the Ontario legislation there are specific provisions for actions required under the act, such as the issuing of warrants by a Justice of the Peace. Is there a reason why no provision for warrants was made under this legislation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The advice we had from the Attorney-General's office was that it was not thought to be necessary in British Columbia, given the general structure of this and other legislation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. EDWARDS: This section includes the penalties. Again, the Ontario legislation includes penalties which are up to $10,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations. Frequently legislation has the penalties included. It's not in this act, so can the minister tell the House the penalties considered for offences committed under the act?

HON. MR. DAVIS' Mr. Chairman, I'm told that where the offence is not described — the penalties, more particularly, are not described — in the legislation, then automatically the provincial Offence Act comes into play, and under the provincial Offence Act, the penalties could go up to $2,000 and up to six months in jail, or money and a term in jail concurrently.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could clarify. I presume that's $2,000 per offence, and is it an offence per appliance?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would assume it's per offence. Let's assume, however, that it's a retail outlet carrying an item; they may have more than one item. To offer for sale an item that is not authorized is the offence, and I would assume it would apply first time round, anyway. Whether they have one or a dozen items there, it would be a single offence repetition. This reaches beyond just the retail outlet; it could reach back to a manufacturer or wholesaler. Repetition of an offence would be cause of multiplication of the penalty.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: This section anticipates the adoption of standards and, obviously, existing standards. For the record, I wonder if the minister would clarify what standards the ministry anticipates adopting.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, we'll develop our own standards, but initially we'll adopt standards established by Ontario. We do intend, within a matter of months, to be reaching into some kinds of apparatus and equipment not presently covered in Ontario, including industrial motors and lighting. I

[ Page 11564 ]

don't think Ontario has touched lighting yet, so we'll have to develop our own standards in that case. The United States has a federal law which covers this matter, so we'll certainly have a look at the U.S. federal legislation. Assuming that in a year or two our federal government passes legislation along these lines, there will be a set of standards that apply nationally, and Ottawa will certainly be helping to develop standards.

If the federal government had introduced legislation similar to this, it wouldn't have been necessary for first Ontario and then British Columbia to bring in a bill of this kind.

MS. EDWARDS: I have one other question on this section. The section allows for exemptions. I wonder if the minister could tell me why there is a sub-clause allowing exemptions. What does he have in mind for that?

[5:30]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Obviously this is the last item, and it's unusual. There won't be many exemptions, if any, but there can be circumstances of hardship — such as some small company with a few items wrongly stocked or that they have had in stock for a long time and that kind of thing. There might be a case — obviously an exception — for an exemption in their case. But I doubt if there would be many, if any, instances of that happening.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Energy Efficiency Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the House has been advised that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is anxiously awaiting an opportunity to table a report. Therefore I recognize the minister.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 64.

INDIAN SELF GOVERNMENT ENABLING ACT

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

On section 1.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) dealt with this matter in second reading last evening. He reports that the bill is to be approved on this side of the House. The three different provisions of the bill that account for the various categories of taxation are satisfactory to this side, and we will approve the bill.

Sections 1 though 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 64, Indian Self Government Enabling Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1990

HON. MR RICHMOND: Bill 72 provides two amendments to the Forest Act that will enable the Ministry of Forests to regulate timber harvesting on timber licences and private-managed forest land to protect environmental values such as water, wildlife, fish, recreation and landscapes.

Bill 72 addresses integrated resource management concerns on timber licences. These licences give the licensee the right to harvest all merchantable timber within the licence area before an expiry date. Many of these licences are expiring in the next few years, and the licensees are willing and able to complete their harvesting. In some cases this could result in the loss of significant wildlife, watershed and other resource values. This bill will permit the ministry to extend the term of a timber licence so that timber harvest can be spread out over more years. This will allow time for adjacent areas to green up, thereby protecting non-timber values.

Bill 72 also addresses integrated resource management concerns on managed forest land. There has been a marked increase in timber harvesting on some of these private lands in recent years. Aside from producing commercial timber, some of these private lands are important to local communities for their watershed, wildlife and scenic values. The bill authorizes cabinet to designate areas at the request of a local government within which regulations would apply to timber harvesting and other forest management activities on private managed forest land. This will enable the Ministry of Forests to ensure that integrated resource management is practised on these

[ Page 11565 ]

lands. In addition to harvesting plans already required by the British Columbia Assessment Authority, Bill 72 will require landowners to obtain timber harvesting permits from the Ministry of Forests before beginning their harvesting operation. The ministry will be able to enforce site-specific requirements, including limitations on the rate of cut, size of cut-block and method of logging. On some environmentally sensitive sites in managed forest land, timber harvesting may be prohibited altogether under this bill due to unacceptable risks of environmental damage.

This government is sensitive to the burdens that administrative requirements can place on landowners and will make every effort to keep the process as simple and flexible as possible. Applications for harvesting may be approved quickly or, in some cases, especially for very large operations, returned with a request that a professional forester certify the adequacy of plans for harvesting and reforestation.

The Ministry of Forests will have authority under this amendment of the Forest Act to monitor forestry activities on private managed forest land, and to enforce compliance with the plans and conditions where the basis of permits is harvesting, stiff financial penalties are provided for non-compliance. To ensure fairness in the application of regulations to private managed forest land, Bill 72 also provides for the establishment of an appeal body to adjudicate the ministry's decisions and actions.

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

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, obviously we'll support the bill. I point out that for two years now I have been introducing a private member's bill to regulate activities on private land and have engaged in some fairly vociferous debates with the current minister's predecessor, who absolutely refused to consider taking these steps.

I don't mind saying that I think the current minister is better than the former one. That has nothing to do with this bill. I would note that it's the norm in many U.S. jurisdictions to have regulation. We're really talking about the need to zone in the public interest as opposed to the former minister's characterization of a massive intrusion on private property rights.

We think the bill has some beneficial sections, but we also are aware that there are other aspects of management on private land that have been left out of this bill. In fact, there are significant areas of private land where the lack of regulation will continue. Some 600,000 hectares of land in the province will not be covered under this bill.

We generally approve, subject to more discussion at committee stage, the extension of the management onto the old tenures. I personally witnessed what I believe were acts of desecration on some of these old tenures as the holders hurried to cream the timber off before the expiry date. We generally think it's a good move.

We are a bit concerned about the fact that there has to be a request from local government for management to be imposed, but there do not seem to be provisions in the bill to allow local government to offer its input into the kinds of practices that would be in order in their regions. Although it's difficult to define, the words in the act that give the district manager powers to deal with unacceptable levels of environmental damage are very broad and sweeping. They require that sufficient work be done in the regions and in the districts, so that in each of those districts, over a reasonable period of time, there will be developed a code of practice that is put together with the assistance of local people and is applicable in the local region, which will guide the district manager.

There is some concern about the fact that the bill takes precedence over existing bylaws. The previous debate has revealed that municipalities and regional districts generally have very limited powers to deal with aspects of erosion. We want to be assured that those powers would not be lost under this bill — or at least if they are, that there will be replacement measures put in place.

Generally we view the application of regulations — be it under this bill or generally in the province when it comes to the question of forest practices, forestry activity, harvesting activity or resource activity — as best being put together with the province providing the overall guidelines, and the local areas, districts and regions developing, through public consultation, what suits their area best.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this first step along the road to providing a regulatory regime to govern harvesting activity on private lands. With that, I will take my place.

MS. CULL: I don't want to prolong this debate, but I do want to just put on the record that this bill is not going to address one of the most serious concerns that have come up in the last year: the issue of private land logging on the Gulf Islands. With the number of exceptions, omissions and loopholes the bill has in it, it is just not going to address the Gulf Islands' problems. We are going to continue to see conflict, as we've seen this summer on Saltspring Island, occurring on the Gulf Islands as people who live there try to come to grips with the issue of private land logging. That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure that we can answer the concerns of the two members during committee stage, so I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

[ Page 11566 ]

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MILLER: I assume — and perhaps the minister would confirm — that the need to regulate the timber licences, in part at least, is for the reasons I described in second reading. Without the ability to manage, the holders of the tenures were practising a really bad form of resource extraction in order to harvest all of the timber prior to the expiry of the licence.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That is correct. It also validates three extensions which were made administratively with the consent of the licensees. Subsection (3) prevents potential claims for compensation by licensees who do not consent to the extension of their timber licence.

[5:45]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. MILLER: I raised an issue with respect to the regulations and local input. The section allows regulations to be extended. I pointed out — and will make the point again — that it really only applies to managed forest land. It doesn't apply to other categories of private land. That whole question of allowing regulations to be developed is very broad, particularly the difficulty that might arise in terms of district managers having to justify meeting the definition in the act that harvesting would not result in unacceptable levels of environmental damage. I wonder if the minister has any comments to make with respect to its application and the aspect of local input.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As regards the district manager, he or she would have the same powers as they do now over Crown land. The regulations are identical. What we are doing here — the member is quite right — applies only to forest land that is "managed forest," but it brings it under exactly the same regulations as someone harvesting timber on Crown land. That includes all the provisions for local resource use, plans that will be examined at the local level for all the silviculture requirements, road building and taking the seedlings to a free-to-grow state. Everything that is required under Crown land will be required under this act. If land in the managed forest is brought in using this amendment, it will be handled by the Forest Service staff exactly as though it were Crown land.

MR. MILLER: In announcing the bill, the minister made some mention of a request from local government, I believe. I don't see that in this bill. Is it in the bill?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's in the bill.

MR. MILLER: Okay. Perhaps the minister might comment then. What is the process? Does each municipality or regional district have to make a specific request to the minister?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the proposed procedure would have a regional district, a municipality or the Islands Trust make application to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to have an area designated for forest management regulation. We call it a designated area. The application would include a line on a map encompassing both Crown and private land. However, only the private managed forest land would be subject to regulation under part 3.1. The intent is to involve the local governments.

Let's take the case of the Gulf Islands where the Islands Trust said: "We would like this managed forest land on this island to be taken under this section and treated as though it were Crown land." They would make a request, presumably through their local MLA, to the L-G-in-C, who would make the decision. I think the distinction should be made here that we deliberately made it the cabinet rather than the minister. We felt that these are pretty far-reaching decisions, and it's breaking new ground, as it were — no pun intended. These applications are very serious, and we wanted to make it a government decision rather than putting the onus on the minister.

MR. MILLER: So the local authority would make the request. Given that the government is introducing a bill that seems to want to achieve a measure of regulation, is it conceivable that the request would be turned down? Perhaps the minister wants to comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I suppose it's conceivable, Mr. Chairman. Decisions like this would not be taken lightly. I'm sure the cabinet would have to have a pretty sound reason for turning it down. Again, we are reaching out to the local level of government, saying: "We want local input. If you deem it in your best interests to have this land brought under Forest Service management, then we take that request very seriously." I can honestly say that I can't conceive of an instance where it would be turned down, but I suppose it would be possible — all things are possible — but not likely.

MR. MILLER: As I recall, part of the difficulty in one instance of the Gulf Islands was the relationship between the private landholder and the Islands Trust, and there was no mechanism — or at least it was felt by the local government that there was no authority — to allow them to act as a bargaining agent, if you like, in terms of the issue at hand. I don't see the bill providing that.

It goes back to my earlier question, of course. The request would come from a local government, but it would not appear that the local government would be involved to any extent in terms of any of the

[ Page 11567 ]

regulatory provisions. They would be the normal regulatory provisions as applied by the district manager, with the broader inclusion of preventing unacceptable environmental damage. Are there plans to involve local government? They are, after all, making the request. Presumably they would want to be involved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I could give the simple answer that you're reaching into future policy and into another step. The answer to that, quite simply, would be no. But the local government would have its two chances, I think, to give input: firstly, when they make their application, giving reasons why they would want the land brought under Forest Service control; secondly, once that had been done, the licensee would go through all of the steps that they do now if they're harvesting Crown land, including local resource use planning, preharvesting silviculture prescriptions and presenting them in public for the local people to look at. All the safeguards are there that are there under Crown land. If the member is asking if we go to the next step and give the local government literally jurisdiction over whether it shall be harvested or not, the answer is no.

MR. MILLER: No, I wasn't suggesting absolute jurisdiction. I was simply saying that if the bill is structured so that it takes a request from a local government to the provincial government to have this regulation brought into place, it would seem logical that there would be some further involvement with that local government beyond them simply making the request. It would seem, for example — and surely it could be done outside the bill — that local advisory committees could be struck with representatives of local government to look at the whole range of issues that have to be looked at. It's not that they should have absolute authority, but it appears to me that they should play some significant role.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Beyond the involvement that I mentioned under the normal cut controls — five-year plans, LRUPs, PHSPs and all the rest — when we get to section 2.48.1, subsections (4) and (5), these subsections permit forest management guidelines to vary on the basis of parcel size and between designated areas and within designated areas. It's essential that there be some flexibility to be able to develop these basic planning guidelines for specific areas within the province, and also to be able to apply them differently in different areas and under different circumstances.

I should add here that the reason we made it permissive to the local government is that we didn't want to impose it. There may be many regional districts, municipalities or trusts that do not want it, so we didn't make it mandatory. There are areas in the province that don't want any part of it. So it is by request of the local government.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the sections there. I would simply say that it would seem to make sense to develop some local structure so that the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) can be fulfilled.

I'm skipping a bit here. The question I asked earlier was about the overriding of the municipal bylaws or Islands Trust Act. Clearly they have some limited powers to control activities now. I just wanted to receive the minister's assurance that those powers would not be diluted by the override of this bill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In section 48.4 the amendment provides for the avoidance of a duplication of authority under the Forest Act, the Municipal Act or the Islands Trust Act. Where two acts provide control over tree-cutting on private lands, this amendment confirms that the Forest Act will override the other act on lands regulated under part 3(1) of the Forest Act. Does that explain what you want? Or is that your concern?

MR. MILLER: It is. I would have to be assured that the Forest Act is at least equivalent or superior to the powers that the municipality or regional district may currently have. I've already indicated that they are pretty weak. I think they can deal with erosion — and possibly a few other aspects. I would like to hear the assurance that the powers under the Forest Act are superior to what exists.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know of any instance where they're not. The Forest Act is far more stringent than any act I'm aware of at a local level. Besides, the Forest Service has the professional foresters on staff, and regional districts and municipalities do not. We didn't want to force them into the situation where they had to go out and hire professional foresters when we have them on staff.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, the Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 75.

OKANAGAN VALLEY TREE FRUIT
AUTHORITY ACT

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The creation of this legislation follows the reporting of the Commission of Inquiry — British Columbia Tree Fruit Industry. Certain areas of the interior of British Columbia have

[ Page 11568 ]

unique characteristics making them well suited to tree-fruit production. The fruit growers have special skills and are committed to ensure the industry's future. The legislation will focus on one authority, all government initiatives to revitalize and transform the tree-fruit industry. This will provide the Okanagan Valley, Similkameen Valley and Creston area with a strong industry base in the future.

The act creates a corporation, to be known as the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, with the powers to ensure an efficient and coordinated approach is taken to resolving the numerous problems of the tree-fruit industry in the interior of this province. The corporation will have broad responsibilities to develop, redefine and tailor government programs, and to stimulate private sector initiatives to assist in the modernization and transformation of the industry into a lasting competitive force.

The corporation will have the authority, subject to regulations, to provide funding and technical assistance to facilitate the improvement and modernization of tree-fruit production and marketing systems, and to assist in putting in place the necessary training, applied research, market information, and promotion initiatives required to maintain a modern and competitive industry. It will participate in the sound stewardship of orchard lands.

The board of directors will manage the corporation and will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The corporation will submit a business plan annually to propose its programs as a basis for assessing moneys from government for its operations. Programs will be developed to ensure that the purposes of the corporation are fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. ROSE: We're glad to see this bill. It's just wonderful what the prospect of an early election does for legislation. This is a kind of death-bed repentance: after you let the industry languish for about a decade until everybody is broke or in debt up to their eyeballs, finally you're doing something. We look upon this bill, as we've done with the conflict of interest and this so-called sunshine wacko bill, with cynicism. This doesn't follow the situation where we get something we don't even anticipate coming in on the last day — which is absolute nonsense and a breach of trust. I'm sorry I have to say this.

[6:00]

I hate to have to say this to the Provincial Secretary, but this conflict-of-interest bill is absolutely unacceptable in many of its components; it even denies freedom of speech. Mr. Speaker, before you tell me that I am on the wrong bill, I will get back to the right one. I must say that I was somewhat carried away, and a lot of people think I should be, frequently.

However, I'm really pleased that it has happened, although it has been a long time coming. We've gone through a recession and a depression in that industry and put people and families that have been it for perhaps two and three generations into hock, and perhaps they will never get out. The solution is to have the authority of the corporation move in and buy their land. You know, a portion of this bill is a land bank. I suppose that's preferable to bank land, because that's really the alternative.

I am pleased, too, that it doesn't follow that other wacko report tendered to the government by Professor Lusztig. As a matter of fact, I think it is a complete ideological reversal; you have done an ideological 183 degrees turnaround. This can provide, as I understand it, under certain sections— the section dealing with the ability of the authority to deal with other governments or parts of governments in other parts of Canada — a national marketing plan for apples.

I know this might be offensive to our Premier. He tried to break up the national plan when it came to milk, and I'm not sure he wasn't aided and abetted by a very senior person in the Agriculture department. Anyway, at least we had the good sense to turn that down, courtesy of — I guess I'll have to call it the commission headed by the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong).

We wonder how much a commodity group has to suffer before government acts. He has finally acted, but I think it is probably too late. What has happened to these people is that there has been no income for years. The market return is below the cost of production and at the same time many who have been in this industry for a lifetime are frozen into peonage because they are also in the agricultural land reserve. I pity them. There has to be some alternative.

The alternative isn't to blacktop the orchards or to cut down all the trees. The alternative is to seek other ways of ensuring people have a decent income, and to encourage people to go into the business if other people want to get out — a way to finance it. So there are a lot of provisions in this bill that I think are worthwhile.

I can deal with some of the other concerns I have in committee. I think the initial start-up of $2 million is pretty puny when they were probably promised up to $100 million, as I understand it, by the Premier, or at least his deputy minister.

In any event, I'll deal with the matters when we come to committee as we come to them, because there is no point in my waxing eloquently for half an hour on this. I think we've made the main points. The purposes of the corporation are extremely broad. The powers and capacities seem to be that of an agent of the Crown — as a matter of fact, it says they are. The board worries me a little bit, though, in addition to its powers to borrow.

The component isn't explicit here. I would hope that in an industry — dealing with the sick industry that we have now — we would at least have some of those people who are in the industry represented on the board, rather than somebody from outside that industry who perhaps knows nothing about the problems facing the industry and would be less than sympathetic. They don't have to have 100 percent of the membership, but they should certainly be well represented on that board through their organiza-

[ Page 11569 ]

tions such as the B.C. tree-fruit growers and other pertinent organizations.

As I said, $2 million seems rather puny when you look at the powers and the purposes of the corporation. Maybe it can be clarified. Perhaps this is start-up money, just an appropriation, and they will have the ability to get grants from the general treasury and borrow issue bonds, that sort of thing. That's where the funds are going to come from to do this mammoth job set out here in the purposes of the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I enjoyed the comments from the opposition side. Obviously I, as one member of this side — and I am sure every member on this side — recognize the importance of the tree-fruit industry of the Okanagan. But we have to realize that it is important to the industry that we do what we can to help them reposition themselves to meet this decade of the nineties and into the next millennium. I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member that he would support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 75.

Motion approved.

Bill 75, Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

OKANAGAN VALLEY TREE FRUIT
AUTHORITY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: Since I raised the matter in second reading, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can enlighten us on his ideas about the composition of the board, and whether or not a number of them will represent the industry.

There's a board of directors. It doesn't say how many; it doesn't say where they come from. All it says to me is that they shall appoint one of the directors as chairperson. I wonder if he has had any thoughts on this. Will it be representative of the commodity groups and interest groups, or will they be excluded?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, we have not determined how big the board of directors may be, but I can tell you that we will certainly involve the tree fruit industry. The final decision on the size of the board.... It may change from time to time as can be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I think it's important to recognize that we value the knowledge of the industry representatives who have worked in the industry for years and years and therefore will be part of the makeup of the board.

MR. ROSE: I would assume that it would include more than just people who are active growers. It might include packers and people in marketing. Can the minister assure the House that these people will also be represented on that board?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, yes, we can assure that we will take a cross-representation of the industry through several sectors that are involved in it.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. ROSE: Are there any thoughts that the minister or his officials might have on subsection (2)(a): "...to assist in the rehabilitation and improvement of orchard land and orchards"? I think I understand part of it, but I just don't know what "a board" is going to be doing in this regard. I can't conceive of them running a cultivator or adding mulch or anything like that. I just wonder what you intend to have them do. They're wonderful words, but I'd like to know what you're going to do.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the intention here is for the board to provide direction and, possibly within the parameters of requirements, direct some funding for the purposes of orchard renovation or replanting. I think that we want to give the opportunity for the orchardist to access new types of trees, which hopefully will give higher yielding fruit and higher value fruit.

MR. ROSE: I turn my attention to (2) (b): "...to develop and operate programs to improve productivity in the tree fruit industry and marketability of tree fruit." I understand the last part of it, but I wondered about the first part. He might comment on (c) as well: "...to commission applied research into production and marketing."

Is this something separate and different from what the Summerland station might do in terms of a research station? Or is it going to be duplicating the work there? I think the minister knows that there's space in the Summerland federal research station, and it has never been taken up by the Department of Agriculture.

They prefer to rent something downtown in Penticton and Kelowna instead of having a federal-provincial-coordinated approach to these problems in the building at Summerland.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the intention, as the member says, is to work with the Summerland research station, coordinate some of our activities and enhance things: for example, the issue of inte-

[ Page 11570 ]

grated pest management and things like that where we can do dual research and benefit that much more from the dollars expended, and the benefits will accrue to the industry.

MR. ROSE: Are we going to move in?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Are we going to move in? That has not been decided yet.

MR. ROSE: Future policy, is it? Well, it certainly hasn't been past-year policy.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. ROSE: These are really the land bank provisions, plus the loans and grants. For instance, how would the authority come about purchasing land — because it's advertised in the paper, or some burnt-out farmer decides he'd like to approach the authority and ask them to buy his land, some particular land that comes available that you think really needs some help?

If you're going to acquire land, I presume you're going to sell it. What plans have you got there? Obviously these provisions are in here for some reason. Could you elucidate on them a little bit?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Hallucinating did you say?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Perhaps if I knew what a burnt-out farmer was I could give better criteria. What we're really looking at here, in all seriousness, is where, for instance, if we've had for year in and year out considerable concern about frost pockets, we can maybe take a look at whether that is worthwhile keeping in fruit production.

There may be other uses for it. Maybe you could buy out some land. We need to have a look at the point you made about a farmer who may be near retiring age and wants to get out of the business. The authority would have powers to purchase that land, but on the understanding that we would look at trying to help new people get started as well — or the consolidation, perhaps, of other orchardists who are presently operating.

MR. ROSE: I'm reminded of the wheat farmer who won the sweepstake. They asked him what he was going to do when he won the million dollars. He said: "Well, I plan to just keep on farming till it's all gone." That's the situation with the orchardists as well. The only way we can encourage young people to go in there and become slaves to the land and do the work that's necessary....

I see my friend here, your deputy minister. We've shared the Okanagan as a domicile at one time, the most pleasant and happy times of our lives....

But you've got to guarantee some farm income. If there's no farm income, the industry isn't healthy. People want to go the other way; they don't want to go into it at all. I imagine that's a conundrum for the authority.

Another advantage of having an authority is that it is at arm's length from the government. You can't blame the government directly for it, so it's kind of: "Me? We didn't do it." The minister gets asked the question in the Legislature: "Oh, I don't know; I just report for the authority. Why don't you ask those guys?" It's a neat move, really — really wonderful.

Mr. Chairman, sections 4(e) and (f) say: "...subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, enter into agreements with the government of Canada, the government of a province or another government, or with an official or agency of any of those governments, and (f) do such things...." Is this anticipating joining or forming a national marketing act? There was a federal Natural Products Marketing Act passed in about 1970. Milk belongs to it. Until recently — except for B.C. poultry and turkeys — eggs and all that good stuff, and the chicken pluckers, all belong to it. Is it envisioned that if there was a desire on the part of the growers in three or four provinces for such a national agency, this authorizes the authority to enter and have them join on behalf of the authority?

[6:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: They presently have that act. In fact, tomorrow is the last day of the national farm products marketing act as we know it, relative to marketing boards. The intention here is to look into where the federal government is going to join in research and things like that. It's not intended necessarily that we deal with the national farm products marketing act. That will still stand alone. The industry can apply through the national farm products marketing act, as it is doing now in the hearing process.

MR. ROSE: There's always been the provision in the national act for commodity groups to join. Is the minister saying that the B.C. apple producers, with the approval of their government, are now just about given permission to join such a body if there is one established?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's premature for me to judge what the hearing process has resolved. I couldn't tell you what the results of that hearing are.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I have no problem. If the industry makes a decision, it's their business to run it the way they like. I must remind you — as you well know, hon. member — that if you set up a national system, you only deal with domestic product. You'll still have a large majority of product to market on a global basis as well, which obviously can't be done under the national system.

[ Page 11571 ]

MR. ROSE: It's interesting. The minister is so modest; he says that he has no power. He had power to set up a thing for dairying as to whether or not to get out of the marketing system, but he hasn't got any power. Certainly he's got lots of power. He's got persuasive power. He controls all kinds of funds that go into the industry — farm income insurance and all that stuff. He's far, far too modest. I would like to know whether or not he feels that that is a reasonable direction for them to proceed in — if he feels he could do this without prejudicing the outcome of any decision they might make.

One other point: you have to have the approval of the province before you can proceed under the national farm products marketing act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not denying that. I'm well aware of that point. I'm still waiting to see the results of the hearing. Then we'll deal with it once it comes to the table.

MR. HARCOURT: From the purposes and powers that the corporation, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, has, it looks like it has the potential to bring the long-term viability of the industry that we all want to see, and it's the reason we're supporting this particular act.

Our concern, though, is that we not just have this act after a study. Time is of the essence to the tree-fruit growers — this growing season. They were looking for a way of stabilizing their financing in March. That's when the money was needed. The cash flow situation is desperate. I know the minister is aware of that. The initiatives required right now are what's important; otherwise, you're not going to have a healthy body to get healthier down the line.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Minister, with all the purposes of the corporation, the powers and the capacities, which can take some time to set up, whether there is a strategy to carry out some of the short-term purposes, powers and capacities of this corporation over the next few months until this corporation gets set up. In other words, instead of nothing happening, which is going to be hard on the industry this year, are there plans to flow from an interim authority, using your ministerial staff and the tree-fruit growers' people, as soon as possible? Have you some plans right now to move on the financing problems, in terms of a per-pound cash infusion, in terms of paying down the packinghouse debt, and in terms of dealing with the lack of financial viability of the crop insurance fund, $12 million in debt? Are there some plans that in the short term meet the objectives of this bill in powers, capacities and purposes?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, could we hear about those plans?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The plans are being worked on, and obviously that's also a policy that is of concern to us. It's being worked on fairly quickly.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. ROSE: This I can deal with along with section 18. Section 18 authorizes $2 million up front. This one authorizes borrowing powers. Is there any limit on that? The package that was proposed earlier was up to 100.... I thought I had a note here which said something like that, but there was some mention earlier by David Emerson, through, I guess, the Premier, of the possibility of $75 to $100 million in the fund. Are the borrowing powers only going to be addressed under section 9? They could borrow from the government. Is that the intention? Where's the other money? Two million bucks is no good for meeting the purposes.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: At some point, once the corporation is up and running, there will be a business plan submitted. Then, of course, there would have to be a budget established through the ministry for that.

MR. ROSE: You just answered my leader by saying that you had provisions for short-term assistance. Is that outside the purview of this particular bill? Or do we have to wait until this happens? You don't. Am I right to ask whether there has been a suggestion made to the industry of assistance of a large amount like the one I just mentioned — $75 to $100 million?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That figure was tossed around for the overall term of the expenditures that might take place relative to the authority. The short-term is not necessarily going to come out of this particular part of the bill. That would be addressed in a different way.

Sections 9 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 66.

[ Page 11572 ]

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am pleased to open debate on second reading of Bill 66. This bill provides a comprehensive framework for dealing with a broad range of issues related to conflict of interest, both real and perceived. This legislation stems from our belief in the public's right to know. The citizens of British Columbia have a right to know that the business of this House and of the executive council is carried out in a manner that meets the highest standards of conduct.

There are several important aspects of this bill. First of all, it defines what constitutes a conflict of interest. It specifically identifies unacceptable conduct for members in the use of insider information or influence that flows from their office. Secondly, the bill provides for a 12-month transition period for former cabinet ministers, restricting their dealings with government either on their own behalf or on the behalf of others.

A key provision in the bill is for the appointment of an independent officer of the House, called the commissioner, to oversee the process. The bill provides for the comprehensive disclosure by each member of his or her financial affairs and a public disclosure statement of relevant information prepared by the commissioner on the financial affairs of the member, the member's spouse and minor children.

The appointment of the commissioner offers a protection to the public and indeed...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if the government Whips are listening to this, I will give them a couple of minutes to get some more bodies in here, and then I'm going to ring the bells. Please proceed.

HON. MR. DIRKS: ...to the individual member that conflict-of-interest issues will be dealt with in a fair and impartial manner. The commissioner will be empowered to give an opinion and make recommendations on any matter regarding the obligation of a member under this act. The act provides an opportunity for a member to seek the opinion and recommendations from the commissioner as to whether a real or potential conflict of Interest exists with respect to that member's affairs.

The commissioner will also be empowered to act on an allegation by a member that another member is in a conflict-of-interest situation. If it is determined that there is a conflict of interest, the commissioner will report to the Speaker of the House. The report could include a recommendation on a penalty ranging from issuing a reprimand to declaring the member's seat vacant.

We believe that the components of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act build a strong framework which will provide an effective balance between a member's privacy and the right of British Columbians to know that holders of public office conduct their business only in the public interest. I believe that all members of this House can take pride in adhering to that principle.

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes. a process which will give British Columbians a firm guarantee that public business is conducted free from conflict of interest.

MR. HARCOURT: The issue of conflict-of-interest laws is of great interest and concern for British Columbians. New Democrats believe that our province deserves the toughest conflict-of-interest laws that we can come up with. That's why we prepared Bill M223, Conflict of Interest Act, which is the toughest conflict of interest law this province has ever seen.

This government has had months to review that act — which a great deal of thought has gone into — and put something forward. It puts forward a comprehensive law that would restore the trust that has been seriously eroded during this government's term of office. It's a conflict-of-interest act that would make sure that public officials put their public responsibility ahead of the private interests and ahead of the interests of friends and supporters. Our New Democrat bill lays out what the people of British Columbia would expect in a conflict-of-interest act. I'll read the explanatory note, because it lays it out quite clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The difficulty is that we're not discussing your bill; we're discussing a government bill. Therefore we can discuss the principle of the bill, but not by clause-by-clause of another bill.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I'm not doing it clause by clause, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then it's fine, as long as you stick to the principle.

MR. HARCOURT: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite aware of the rules in this area, and your reminding me of that is very helpful and I appreciate it.

The principles of the New Democrat conflict-of-interest act are as follows:

"This act is designed to ensure honesty in government by creating legally enforceable standards of ethical conduct and financial disclosure for all Members of the Legislative Assembly. It gives special attention to members appointed to the executive council, reflecting the public trust held by ministers of the Crown. Specifically, this act (a) clearly sets out the nature of the direct and indirect interests to which conflict and disclosure provisions apply...."

[6:30]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition did not hear your admonition to stick to the bill that is on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: It's best if the Chair determines when these matters are out of order, but thank you

[ Page 11573 ]

for bringing the matter to my attention. Please continue.

MR. HARCOURT: Speaking once again....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: No, he's chewing gum and writing at the same time; that's progress.

I was interrupted when I was outlining what we believe should be in the principles of a conflict-of-interest act. I said that, specifically, this act:

" (a) clearly sets out the nature of the direct and indirect interest to which conflict and disclosure provisions apply' — with an emphasis there on direct and indirect interests — "(b) requires that cabinet ministers and all other members of the Legislative Assembly to withdraw from participating in any decision, process or proceeding when a conflict of interest arises, and to disclose publicly the nature of that conflict, and (c) provides a legal process that may be initiated by any member of the public to investigate alleged violations of this act."

This is the bill that we should be debating tonight. This is the bill that serves the public interest. Instead of this fine bill put together by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and many New Democrats and members of the public, we have Bill 66, Members' Conflict of Interest Act. When the bill first came forward— you can see how proud this government was of it — there was the minister here and one other member. Instead of a bill that the people of British Columbia could be proud of, what we have seen instead, particularly over the last few days, are some wacko bills from a wacko government. The last day or two of the session they try and sneak these in, because they're ashamed of them and I don't blame them. Here we are coming out of a major scandal, and what do we get from this government? Another attempt to shoot themselves in the foot — which they succeeded in.

This bill shows either that the government doesn't know right from wrong or, probably more accurately, that the government does know what it's doing and this is, in fact, a Socred scandal-coverup bill.

With a government that has had nine resignations and has almost hit double-digit numbers on the scandal meter — almost half the cabinet has had to resign — I can see why they would attempt to bring in this bill to limit the public's right to expose scandals and the right of members of this Legislature — which they have had over centuries; go and read Erskine May — to deal with scandals without fear of recrimination from kings or governments and to have the freedom of speech that we've all struggled so hard for.

I take it that this government does know what it's doing, given that sorry track record. Not just looking at the past, I think we're looking at an October election window which has been getting smaller and smaller as it closes in around this government. It has been racked by scandals, not knowing right from wrong and faced with other problems that it has with the people of British Columbia.

Quite frankly, if that's what it's for, if it's an October election window and this is an exposure bill, it has exposed this government. And we, as New Democrats, are quite prepared to go into that October election with our conflict-of-interest act that leads towards open, honest and fair government, as compared to the Socred bill that they believe will save them from the scandals and the secretiveness of this government — the special deals.

We would have proposed amendments, but we don't believe this government would have accepted those amendments. We would have proposed our bill, but we don't believe this government would have accepted that offer. So we have come to the conclusion at the close of this session that the best solution for British Columbians to get the conflict-of-interest laws they want and deserve is to have an election. Go ahead and have an election this October and let the people decide whether they want the Socred bill— the scandal-cover-up bill — or a New Democrat conflict-of-interest bill. Call the election!

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I should let you know before I get into these comments that I am the designated speaker for our party with respect to this legislation. Therefore I may be going beyond....

It is interesting to listen to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and to see that not one member of the government stood up to speak in defence of this legislation or to take issue with the fair comments made by my good friend the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, nobody else from cabinet is here in the House to defend this legislation.

The Provincial Secretary is by himself as he functions as the lonely Maytag repairman waiting to respond to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal-ridden government. As it lays on its deathbed, it seeks some kind of redemption...

MR. PERRY: Lies on its deathbed.

MR. SIHOTA: ...or repentance for the people of British Columbia — as it lies on its deathbed — hoping this legislation will provide it with some salvation at the end of the day.

MR. PERRY: As it decays on its deathbed.

MR. SIHOTA: Nine....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to excuse himself or return to his own seat. I will give him a copy of Sir Erskine May about reading newspapers in the chamber, if he likes, as well. But he can't coach the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, not from that position. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, after the resignation of nine cabinet ministers, after conflict-of-interest scandal after scandal, after all the affairs, some of which I'll be talking about tonight, this government can't

[ Page 11574 ]

cleanse itself by the introduction of this legislation. It cannot cleanse itself.

This government is a government which is hoping today that political redemption is just a faded memory; that the electorate will forget all of the improprieties, indiscretions and violations of conflict-of-interest guidelines that have occurred over the past four years.

I want the government to know that every member of the opposition, between now and the next provincial election, will be vigilant in bringing to the attention of the public the inadequacies, the improprieties, the scandals that have plagued this government through the course of this last four years. The people of British Columbia will not forget what has happened.

Since he is one of only two cabinet ministers here to defend this bill, I want the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) to understand that redemption is not just a faded memory away. I don't think that I could put it any better than the Vancouver Sun did in an editorial on July 18, 1990. I think the Sun expressed the views of many British Columbians. Let me read the editorial into the record.

"Let's understand this. The Social Credit government and the Premier have made it clear that their nasty little spin on the former Attorney-General's affair is to ignore the substantive slime and affect high moral outrage at the means by which it oozed out from under the Socred tent. This ruse — acting like a shocked aunt in a Victorian novel — should fool no one.

"In the last few days members of the media, as organizations and individually, have been baring their breasts and examining their navels about their part in the matter, including how it became public. But no citizen of this province should be in the slightest doubt about whether it should have become public, and least of all whether it was in the public's interest that it did so.

"Ringingly, unambiguously, unapologetically, this paper states that it stands behind its treatment of the issue, and that any scruple about the manner in which the information was obtained and disseminated, when weighed against the appalling seriousness of the information itself, weighs as a feather against an anvil."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Bill 66, the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, deals with private interests totally. What the member is relating now is interesting, but has no relevancy to the bill in front of us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will endeavour to interpret it as we go along, and see if that's the case. I have only briefly had a chance to peruse the bill myself, so I will listen to what the member says and ask him to remain in order.

MR. SIHOTA: May I continue? It's just about over now. I know it's painful for the member opposite. The media's collective reporting of the issue, including the reporting — even over-reporting, some reporters might think — of the conduct of several of their own members, has been in the best traditions of the craft. I want this to be heard: "The pus is all over the floor, all right. Don't look to the lance, look to the boil." Mr. Speaker, those comments do not apply exclusively to the issue at hand, when the editorial was written; they apply to the record of this provincial government.

On January 15, 1987, the Premier introduced conflict-of-interest guidelines. In introducing those guidelines, which weren't law, he said: "These guidelines will ensure that ministers work under conditions and guidelines that are not only fair and reasonable, but which leave no doubts in the public's mind as to the ethics and integrity of those who serve as ministers." Mr. Speaker, we have before us today conflict-of-interest laws and legislation. A lot has happened between January 15, when the Premier introduced those conflict-of-interest guidelines, and the legislation that's before us. I want to talk a bit, as I go on, about the events that have happened since January 15 and today's date. But I want to talk about them in the context of this conflict-of-interest legislation, and more particularly in terms of the principles that ought to drive conflict-of-interest legislation.

I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker — and I think it will become evident as I go through the various principles, that the legislation this government has introduced fails in every regard to pay homage to the kind of principles that we should have in conflict-of-interest legislation. It fails to pay homage.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will submit to you now that most of the scandals that have plagued this government we might not even have been able to have introduced, brought up or spoken of in this House under the principles enshrined in this legislation.

Therefore I say, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, that this is not conflict-of-interest legislation. This is legislation that endeavours to cover up scandals. That's what this legislation does. Shame on this government that would bring forward legislation which covers up scandals under the guise of conflict-of-interest legislation!

[6:45]

I want to go to the first principle. The public ought to be able, in an open and free society, in the kind of democracy that we cherish as Canadians, to take action if a minister is engaged in a conflict of interest. Surely if someone enters into a contract with a government and then realizes that a cabinet minister is benefiting as a consequence of that contract, the public ought to be able to complain. An individual aggrieved ought to be able to complain directly.

There was a case.... Well, I'll get to the case in a second. Let me say this. This legislation is so inept and so failing in recognizing the principles that one would expect to be enshrined in conflict-of-interest legislation that it forbids, prevents and does not allow for in any way publicly generated complaints.

The legislation which the New Democrats put forward says that any member of the public, as an alternative, can come before a court in this province and lay out the information that points to a prima

[ Page 11575 ]

facie case of conflict of interest, and then it's dealt with. This legislation prevents that from occurring.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says: "It still can." I would defy the Provincial Secretary to produce one section in the act that allows that to happen. Come on, is there one section? You know that and I know that, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me give an example of how this legislation fails, using a scandal that plagued this government very early on in its mandate.

The member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), now the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, was involved in a scandal around conflict of interest — one of the earliest ones that hit this government. There was a cement company that he had a say in — or had an interest in; that's the best way to put it. They entered into a contract to provide cement at the University of British Columbia.

The members recollect the facts of that specifically. In that situation it became evident that the minister was responsible for the operations of the university. The press made that information available. The press reported that situation. Let me show you how this legislation would prevent that from happening. First of all, for the press to be able to know that the minister had an interest in the company, they would have had to had access to the disclosure statements There is nothing in this legislation that allows the press or anybody else the authority to go in and review the disclosure statements. In fact, if you compare it with the legislation that we've introduced, which makes it very clear that the public and the press can go in, this legislation is silent on that point.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to this in committee stage and I'm mindful of what the chair had to say. I would ask the minister opposite to take a look at the culmination of section 13 and 15 under his legislation. If he does that, he'll see that it is not clear under the legislation that the press has that right.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Look at 13(3).

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get into committee debate, Mr. Minister, and I'll establish for you very easily how a combination of those two sections don't allow that to happen. I don't want to get into section-by-section debate. You've got it wrong.

Interjections,

MR. SIHOTA: Let me tell you this. Compare that to the legislation that we've introduced, which makes it very clear that any member of the public, the press or anybody can come and get those disclosure statements. You have no provision that says that.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't have that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could deal with the principle of the bill. Perhaps the member could address the Chair, and we could restrain other interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, those members on the government side who want to defend this bill — and there hasn't been one member yet — can get up and defend it. I'm telling you what that bill says, and I'll establish that during the course of committee stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm telling you, you're wrong.

MR. SIHOTA: You're wrong. If you go back to that situation, there's no guarantee that the public or the press will have access to those disclosure statements. There's no way in which an average citizen is guaranteed access to those disclosure statements. There's no way for an average citizen to publicly generate a complaint to a vehicle, be it the commissioner, as established under this legislation, or be it the courts.

In that situation, there would have been no ability to be able to raise that example. I was going through my notes on that scandal, and I have been provided — I haven't made this publicly available before, but I will now — with respect to that situation a report of the Law Society into the affair. If the members recall — and I'll point out again how this offends a principle in legislation during the course of that scandal — the defence of the minister at the time was that his lawyers hadn't done their work.

I quote from the Comox District Free Press at the time: "The Minister of Advanced Education blamed the negligence of his lawyer and suggested he may fire him." He said that it was his lawyer's fault that these documents suggested that he had an interest in the company.

Mr. Speaker, I have here the report of the Law Society investigation into the matter, which has now been forwarded to me. This occurred in 1988. There were two lawyers involved in that case with respect to the minister for Comox. One was a Mr. Morris, and one was a Mr. Swift. The Law Society investigated. With respect to Mr. Morris, it concluded as follows: "In the result therefore we are of the view that Mr. Morris has neither conducted himself improperly nor failed in any way in any duty owed to Mr." — and it mentions the name of the member — "or his companies." So it wasn't that lawyer's fault. Remember there are only two lawyers.

The second lawyer was a Mr. Swift. The Law Society looked at the matter and said: "As a result of that full and frank discussion that they had had with Mr. Swift, it is the view of that committee that Mr. Swift has done absolutely nothing improper and has

[ Page 11576 ]

not misconducted himself and has not failed in any duty owed to either the member or any of his companies."

That information, which had been provided to me some time ago — and I must confess it wasn't until today that I appreciated the significance of it shows that the explanation provided by the minister doesn't stand up under the scrutiny of the examination by the Law Society.

Under the legislation that this government has introduced, if this very situation was brought forward, there would be no opportunity to introduce the type of new evidence that I've produced today. Secondly, there would be no opportunity — and I'll get into this later — to raise it in the House. Thirdly, because the legislation says the decisions of the commissioner are final, there is no appeal process. There would be no opportunity for one to raise the issue or to revisit the issue. Again, I will point to the appropriate sections when we get to them, but that's the kind of problem created by this section or by this legislation.

Not only is the public foreclosed from generating complaints under this legislation, but a member cannot raise it in the House. A member has no right to raise a conflict-of-interest matter in the Legislature. Think about that. You go right back to the Magna Carta and start to think about all the principles that drive our democracy; you start thinking about the privileges and rights of members in the House, the concept of free speech and the concept of the public's right to know about improprieties involving ministers.

Who is this government trying to silence through this legislation? Is it constitutionally, ethically, historically — given the laws of parliament — correct to introduce legislation that forecloses a member's right to stand up in this House and raise a matter of conflict of Interest?

Very early on in my time as a member of this Legislature, in November of 1987, I raised a matter of conflict of interest dealing with the current Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael). I had a duty as a member of this Legislature to bring an indiscretion to the attention of the House, and I did that. This law that this government introduces denies me the right to come before this House and raise that type of example. In that situation the minister ended up resigning. But the legislation that this government has introduced denies the ability of any member to come before this House and introduce a matter of conflict of interest.

The gag section, if I can put it this way, says: "A member is not entitled to raise in the Assembly any matter respecting the contravention of this act or of section 25 of the Constitution Act." Section 25 of the Constitution Act was cited in respect to the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), because section 25 deals with contracts and ministers benefiting from contracts of the Crown. What does this section do? It says that the rights that we had as members of the Legislature under the Constitution Act are gone.

It says later on in this act that section 27 of the Constitution Act is gone. That was the right of the Legislature to strike a committee to take a look at violations of the constitution. It says that that section is gone, that we can't strike a committee anymore to investigate whether or not a minister benefited from a contract with government. And you have this section, which then gags a member from being able to come into this House and state that there has been a conflict of interest. Open government my foot, Mr. Speaker!

As I said at the outset, this is an attempt by this government to silence those who would seek to bring scandal to public attention. That's what this section seeks to do. No section in this bill demonstrates more than this one the extent to which this government would seek to silence those who oppose this government. Shame on the government for introducing that type of section! Shame on the government for trying to put aside centuries of parliamentary tradition! Shame on the government for seeking to banish freedom of speech!

Mr. Speaker, first, there are no publicly generated opportunities for complaints; secondly, members are forbidden to raise complaints; and thirdly, the public and the press are not assured of notice of the disclosure statements. But it goes on.

One of the major criticisms of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines was that he sat as judge and jury with respect to all matters arising from conflict of interest — which, of course, begged the obvious question: what would happen if the Premier himself was in a conflict of interest, as we saw in a case involving a real estate holding that he had in Kamloops? Mr. Speaker, under this legislation the Premier still retains the authority to nominate the judge. He still retains the authority to decide who is going to pass judgment on matters of conflict of interest. This government wants to be able to have some grip on the nomination process.

[7:00]

Surely a better way would be to go in the direction that we as New Democrats put forward in the legislation we've offered. It's a better way: leave it up to an independent judge — a Supreme Court judge with full tenure, with no possibility of anger, frustration or removal. But no, this government won't go for an independent arbitrator; it won't allow the courts to intervene; it won't provide the courts with the opportunity to determine whether or not a conflict of interest occurs. It wants somebody that the Premier nominates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no — the House.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister wants to say that, he should.... No, I won't get into it.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Talk about the two-thirds vote in the House. Tell the whole story.

MR. SIHOTA: What about the two-thirds? We have an ombudsman — it's unanimous. Tell us the

[ Page 11577 ]

rationale behind the two-thirds. I didn't hear the Provincial Secretary get up in this House....

MR. SPEAKER: I think perhaps this would be best in committee. It seems to me we're breaking down into clause-by-clause debate and interjections which are not recorded, which make the whole speech by the member appear to be very disjointed in Hansard. So perhaps we could just continue on the principle.

MR. SIHOTA: The principle ought to be that an independent tribunal or a court ought to have the authority to decide whether or not there have been violations of the act and whether or not there should be any penalties flowing. I object to a piece of legislation that would suggest that it's up to the Premier to appoint the alternative arbitrator with respect to this matter. Certainly this government cannot, or just does not wish to, relinquish control — not surprisingly, given the scandals that have plagued it. They want an onside guy. They're going to try to get an onside guy with respect to the position.

Another very important principle when it comes to conflict-of-interest legislation is that individuals must be required to disclose all of their holdings: assets and liabilities, shares and the like. It's very important. And not only direct holdings, which are in your name, but also indirect holdings. There should be a requirement under conflict-of-interest legislation for....

MR. MERCIER: What's an indirect holding? You either own it or you don't.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the member wants to know what an indirect holding is. All I can suggest to him is that he read Bill M223. He'll find out why we spent two pages defining an indirect pecuniary interest and liability. If he wants to know the alternative, it's right here in the bill that we've introduced.

It's very, very important. I'll give you a simple example that all Canadians are aware of, and that's the situation involving Sinclair Stevens, a former member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. There is nothing in this legislation that prohibits chatter over the morning breakfast table — as happened in the Sinclair Stevens case — where husband says to wife, "Here's what is going on, " and wife goes out and structures an indirect company to go out and make an acquisition of a piece of property where a highway is going to be built, where land is going to be removed from the agricultural land reserve or where a hydro transmission line is going to be put This legislation is so flawed that it would not prevent a Sinclair Stevens episode in British Columbia.

It would not prevent, as we saw this winter, the situation involving the member from Delta, who, in the course of his conduct as a minister, allowed for changes to the agricultural land reserve permitting property to be converted to golf courses where a property that is a family holding was situated between golf courses. This legislation would not forbid that type of practice. It would not prevent one benefiting through an indirect holding from the profit that would accrue from that type of change. So not only does it not deal with the Sinclair Stevens kind of situation; it doesn't deal with the kind of ALR situation that we saw with the member from Delta.

It may not allow for the situation to become exposed as it did with respect to the member from Comox; it would not allow one to raise the matter, as I did with respect to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) ; and it would not prevent the kind of situation that arose with respect to the member from Delta. It's full of loopholes, because it does not define, deal with or provide for indirect and family disclosures and then deal with decisions as they relate to a family interest, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation over and over again says: "A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or seek to further the member's private interest. A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision to be made by any other person to further the member's private interest." It continually talks about the "member's" private interest, and "member" means a member of the Legislative Assembly or of the executive council. But what about furthering the interests of an uncle, an aunt or a child? It does not deal with that type of situation; it does not forbid that type of situation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in this legislation which I have named in the name of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). It says: "This act does not prohibit the activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents." What does that mean? Does that mean that the lottery scam that we saw can be justified under the provisions of this legislation? Does it mean contracts to Sonny-Unger — as I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) raised very early on during our time in the Legislature — are now prohibited? What does that section mean? Does it not provide a member with the defence to say: "Look, all I was doing was engaging in an activity that was designed to benefit a constituent"? Is a wife, a son, a daughter or a brother a constituent? It's not defined in the legislation. The defence, for someone who may be in the same situation as the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, if they were to get a benefit from all of this work, would be to say: "Look, I was just acting on behalf of a constituent." The legislation is full of loopholes.

Let me go on and give another example of where this legislation fails. Let me go back a bit. A very fundamental principle of conflict-of-interest legislation is disclosure. Conflict-of-interest legislation does not work if you don't have disclosure— if you don't have to disclose what you own, be it direct or indirect. You have to have disclosure.

This legislation requires annual disclosure on the part of a member. It does not require continuing disclosure on the part of a member. During the course of a year, you can acquire shares in a company that may benefit from something you've done as a

[ Page 11578 ]

minister. You can dispose of those shares during the course of a year or six months, because there's no requirement for continuing disclosure.

As New Democrats, we've said in our legislation that there's a better way. If you want to enshrine the principle of disclosure — full disclosure, continuing, ongoing disclosure — what you've got to be able to do is put a requirement in law, as we do in our legislation, that within 30 days of acquisition or disposal you must file a notice with the Clerk.

And we go further. We say....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, we are dealing with the principle of this bill and not the detailed clause-by-clause study of another bill. If you wish to discuss the principle of this bill and what It is lacking — if that's what you feel — you may do so. But it's not appropriate for you, at this time, to discuss what amounts to a blend of second reading and committee reading of another piece of legislation. In fact, it's out of order to do so, because the bill is before the House.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, my point here is that there are certain principles, there are ways in which to enshrine principles and there are ways in which this government has failed to enshrine those principles. It has that loophole in it. If the minister is responsible for a particular area of activity and if he has a share in a particular company that benefits directly or indirectly from what the minister did, the loophole exists. There's no requirement for continuing disclosure.

Let me go back again to another very fundamental principle. It seems to me that if you are going to have an arbitrator or if you are going to have someone — and I say that ought to be a Supreme Court judge — who is going to make decisions about whether or not the act is violated, those decisions of that individual ought to be final with respect to the penalty or sentence that is to be handed out.

What this legislation tries to do is set up a commissioner — which the Premier will nominate, and which, as the minister says, is approved by two-thirds of the members of those present in the House at the time— and that person will look at things. Then it says that the Legislature will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not the person should be disqualified.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Again, if I could illustrate it through an example, it puts the Legislature in the same situation we found ourselves when a member of this House was convicted, I believe, of forgery — if I'm not mistaken — about a year and a half ago. Quite frankly, it's a very difficult thing for a Legislature to decide that it is going to banish a member from this House. I don't know how often it's been done in the past. I know it hasn't been done during my time. I know of only one occasion when it could have been done.

With respect to the sentence that can be handed out under this legislation, it is left to the Legislature to decide. In effect, the Legislature can't be called back to deal with it; it will be done when the Legislature is in session. It puts us in the position of having to make the ultimate decision. Some will argue that's good. I don't think it makes sense in terms of conflict of interest. I think that decision should be made by a judge. It fails in that regard.

Another very basic principle as it relates to conflict of interest is a principle as we know it and as we describe it: do we want a notification or, in other words, want a proof? Conflict-of-interest legislation, including the one introduced by the government, appropriately says that when a minister is involved in a matter in which he may have a conflict of interest and these matters are being discussed by cabinet, he is to leave the room. That's good. That's the way it should be. If he's not in cabinet, but it's in the context of his ministerial duties, he should ask another minister to deal with the issue. That's fine. I don't have any problems with that.

There's always a problem in every conflict-of-interest case I've seen — and I've studied a lot, because in the preparation of the legislation that we introduced we researched what happened in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta — in that proof is always a problem. It is always a question of whether the minister indeed left and whether he notified his cabinet colleagues that he had a conflict.

In the legislation that we produced, as opposed to the legislation that the government has produced, there is no provision for notification. In other words, the minister who seeks to absent himself must not just leave the room but must ask that whoever is there in the role of secretary record that fact.

[7:15]

That provision ought to be a requirement in law. It is easy to say: "I did it." It is very difficult to pierce through the veil of cabinet confidentiality. You can't haul other cabinet members in front of the House and ask them: "Well, did he or didn't he?" But if you have an affirmative requirement in law that says you have to do it, and if you don't you are deemed to be In conflict of interest, it will get the person to clean up their act, and you won't have to deal with a matter of proof later on. If it's not there, if you didn't do it, it's your fault. You're on the shtick; you should be gone. That's the way the law should be. That's what our law says: "...an affirmative obligation."

The legislation introduced by this government fails to make that even a basic requirement — and it should be one. Not only that, but this legislation has no "voidability clause," as we call it. There is nothing in this legislation to allow for the voidance or termination of a contract that may benefit a member or minister.

If you use the example of the cement company that I used earlier, which involved the minister from Comox, and he was benefiting from that contract, then at least you should be able to provide an individual who is making the decision— a commissioner in this case; a judge in the world that I would like to see — the ability to declare a particular contract void so that you can't benefit from it. But that

[ Page 11579 ]

power doesn't exist in this legislation. It should be expressly provided for so that not only are the perception and the reality of conflict dealt with, but so are the fruits of that conflict so that they are denied to that individual who seeks to benefit from the conflict of interest. But that is not provided for in the legislation that the government has.

I don't want to get into clause-by-clause debate, as the previous speaker said, but that is a very basic requirement of conflict of interest. It is not in this legislation. I'll tell you why It's not in this legislation. It's because the purpose of the legislation that this government has introduced is not to deal with conflict of interest; it's just to try to create a public impression that it's dealing with it. It's a charade, a sham. It's a shell game. That's all you're trying to do: to try and convince the public that you've done something when, basically, through a rational critique of that legislation, it's evident that you haven't done anything at all.

This legislation is so bad that it doesn't deal with the Jim Nielsens of the world. It's fine to go ahead and appoint Jim Nielsen in charge of the WCB. Do it right after the election. It blesses patronage. Do you want that in conflict-of-interest legislation, or do you want to prevent it? There is always this payoff to friends and insiders.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on a bit longer than I had planned in talking about this legislation. It is frustrating when one takes a look at conflict-of-interest legislation and what should be required as part and parcel of it and then to ask: "How would we deal with all the issues that have come before this House?" I want to quickly go through some other examples of what this legislation would do.

We had a case involving Mr. Toigo in April 1988, when it became evident that the Premier was interfering to assist Mr. Toigo with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and the acquisition of Expo lands. The Premier was getting involved and telling him about Mr. Li Ka-shing, who's going to buy the Expo lands This legislation would prevent us from being able to raise the propriety of that issue in the House in terms of a conflict-of-interest.

In the case of the member for Comox (Hon. S Hagen), we had a promise from the Premier — which he never fulfilled, by the way — in August of 1987 that he would "heed a New Democratic call for a legislative committee to probe the member for Comox's business affairs," despite the member being reinstated as Advanced Education minister following an investigation by the Deputy Attorney-General.

This legislation, because it repeals section 27 of the Constitution Act, no longer allows the Legislature an opportunity to set up a committee to probe into those types of affairs.

MR. LOVICK: Scandalous!

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. The member from Nanaimo says, "Scandalous!" It really is. This is a scandal-plagued government that now has introduced scandal as conflict-of-interest legislation, Mr. Speaker.

It's unbelievable that they would have the gall to come before this House four years after the Premier made his promise of conflict-of-interest legislation. Four years after he made his promise — you know, after the horse has left the barn — the government shows up with the legislation. As I said at the outset, it's a deathbed repentance on the part of this government.

I want to conclude on this note, because there's going to be ample need for debate at committee stage: I want to tell you that this is not conflict-of-interest legislation. This is not legislation that pays any type of respect to the principles that ought to be enshrined in conflict-of-interest legislation.

I'll tell you what this legislation is. This legislation is the last gasp, the last act of the last days of the last session of the last year of the last Social Credit government we'll ever see in this province.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, brothers and sisters, this is a glorious day. For today the Socred cabinet has seen the light. They've taken a long time, but they've come to the well of disclosure, and they've seen the light.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen!

MR. CASHORE: For too long they were mired in scandal and conflict and embarrassment and licentiousness and downright ornery behaviour. But amen, there is repentance and there is salvation, and for these people perhaps salvation is at hand. Too long have they known that the godless NDP had their own conflict guidelines, brought in by the member from Esquimalt.

Oh, the shame, Mr. Speaker, the shame to see righteousness on the part of the godless socialists when those who thought they owned righteousness were the ones who were seen by the public to be the evil one! But it's never too late for backsliders; it's never too late.

They want to be pure as the driven snow, and they want to be seen to be pure as the driven snow. They've been to the book, and they've looked in the Book of the Polls. They've seen heaven on one side, the pearly gates of government, and on the other side the fires of hell.

They see the election looming. They've looked in the Book of the Polls and they've decided that since they are despised by voters, vilified by cartoonists, crushed by columnists.... And amen, brothers and sisters, they have come to the realization of the need for repentance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen! Hallelujah!

MR. CASHORE: But it is with deep disappointment that I have to tell you I've read their acts, and it's an apostate bill. Verily, Mr. Speaker, I say they will not escape Judgment Day. They want to be seen as being pure as the driven snow, but they won't escape

[ Page 11580 ]

Judgment Day. Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to tell them that after the election and after Judgment Day, they will be relegated to the deepest reaches of a chaos of their own creation. This has been an apostate generation that has produced an apostate bill. It is a shallow salvation. Along with their counterparts, they will be relegated to the chaos that is now being experienced by the Tories of New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, our member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has shown them the light, and they have forgotten to look at it. They have forgotten to see the light. They cannot see the light. My only message to my friends on the other side — and I do wish they would come into the fold — is: if you want the real guidelines, brothers and sisters, read, learn and inwardly digest his bill.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, before you recognize the next speaker, I would like to rise on a very small point of order regarding the remarks of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew when he indicated that this member had been convicted of forgery That is false. It is not true, and I believe the member knows that full well.

Mr. Speaker, this member went through a very difficult process. He was accused of forgery, he was accused of fraud, and he was accused of counselling an offence. I did not sit in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, for a full year, awaiting that trial. The forgery charge was dismissed at a preliminary hearing. It was a ridiculous charge; the judge said himself that it should never have been laid. The fraud charge was dismissed at a trial. The conviction which this member humiliatingly suffered was one of counselling an offence which did not take place, a very rare occasion, Mr. Speaker, an occasion which I regret sincerely, and I apologized to the members of this House for any disrepute that I may have brought on them at that time. But to say that this member was convicted of forgery, a serious offence, is an absolute lie, and I would ask that member, who knows damn well better, to withdraw that remark.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I withdraw the comment, and secondly let me say that I think Hansard will record that I was unsure as to which offence. I think I said that; in fact, I'm positive I said that during the course of my comments. However, I understand and appreciate the comments that the member makes and the emotion with which he says them. If I have offended the member, which is obviously the case, I apologize for that.

[7:30]

MS. PULLINGER: I too rise in opposition to this bill. As other members have said, the government has had four years to introduce conflict-of-interest legislation. It has promised legislation in this House and to the people of British Columbia, and here we are on the very last day of the session and we have this bill dropped unannounced into our laps.

I think it's interesting that this government has refused to even accept what it has done, to apologize, or especially to bring in legislation to deal with this kind of thing. They're just guidelines — guidelines that have been broken — that have no teeth. And here now we are after nine scandals, nine resignations, four people who have left their caucus in protest and a government that's in tatters, and on the very last day we have a bill of conflict of interest.

Now we have at this eleventh hour what's obviously a damage control bill, as my brother — or friar — next to me points out. It's a last minute attempt at restitution and redemption, and it's expected to convince the people of this province after four years of this government's scandals that they can draw up this kind of weak, ineffective legislation, and that everyone's going to believe that it's a sincere attempt on the part of this government to change. They're trying to make people believe that they're really concerned about conflict of interest, their history and their record of scandals and improprieties.

I think, as the member suggested, it's simply a response to polling; it's eleventh-hour desperation of a government heading to the polls in the worst state of any government we've seen in many years in this province. This bill is not going to make up for this government's record of conflict, scandal and unacceptable behaviour.

Over a month ago this side of the House introduced conflict-of-interest legislation that's comprehensive legislation with teeth; it's broader and designed, as it says in the preamble, to ensure honesty in government — especially on the part of members who are charged with the trust that accompanies the office of a minister of the Crown.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Bill 66 fails to do that. It fails, for instance, to define in any kind of an adequate way the assets, interests and liabilities that a member must disclose. It doesn't define that. It doesn't define what the indirect or direct pecuniary interests are of a member, or what interests are subject to conflict of interest as defined by section 2. This bill fails to provide for the mandatory recording of compliance. It fails to do all of those things. It falls to define who a constituent is or who is involved in conflict of interest.

Moreover and very importantly, the bill doesn't provide in any way for a process that ensures members are informed about what conflict of interest means or what their ethical and statutory duties and obligations are. On the first day of this sitting of the Legislature we moved a committee on ethics — a badly needed committee. I would suggest that real conflict-of-interest guidelines are badly needed after the record of this government. That's patently clear.

But this bill is soft. It doesn't do the job, and it's full of loopholes. Instead of actually providing some safeguards or some real conflict-of-interest laws that will protect the public interest, it takes the members' and cabinet ministers' behaviour out of the public eye. It takes it away from public scrutiny and buries it in a process that precludes, for instance, the public from raising the matter of conflict of interest. It

[ Page 11581 ]

buries it in a process that precludes a member of this Legislature from bringing conflict of interest to this Legislature. It takes it out of the Legislature and instead leaves it to an appointed commissioner. It leaves it outside the normal legislative process.

What this bill does, I would offer, is to protect members or ministers from public scrutiny and the legislative process when there is a charge of conflict of interest. It's not about open government, and it's not about honesty in government. There is no process whereby a member of the public can expose a conflict of interest when it arises, and there's no provision for the public to initiate any kind of a hearing. The commissioner has no right to impose a penalty on a member who has crossed the conflict-of-interest line or is found in conflict of interest.

As the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) said, there is no clause that would void transactions or benefits gained through conflict of interest and no provision for restitution of those gains. There is no provision for any kind of predictable, standardized or mandatory penalties or suspensions when they are appropriate. They're not mandatory; they're at the will of the House.

The bill is weak, it's flawed; it's ineffective; and it doesn't deal in any way with the very real problems we have seen in four years of this administration. We have seen again and again over the past four years conflicts of interest, scandals and resignations, and here at the very last moment we have this very weak ineffective bill. I would suggest It is for purposes other than to....

MR. SERWA: How many resignations were there from your side, hon. member?

MS. PULLINGER: Not nine.

I don't think anyone would argue that conflict-of interest laws are needed. We need tough laws to prevent this kind of scandalous behaviour happening again in British Columbia. What I see here is another smokescreen and another attempt to convince voters that the government is seriously dealing with conflict of interest. It's not. This bill wouldn't touch a number of the conflicts that I have seen in my year and a half in this Legislature. It simply wouldn't have touched them. It's an election bill. It's an attempt at damage control, and it's an attempt to plug holes in this very leaky government to try to make it more acceptable to the voters out there who are finding this government harder and harder to accept.

I don't buy this bill. I don't think any of us on this side buy it, and I don't think the public is going to buy it. We can't support a bill that simply removes conflict of interest from the public arena, that bypasses a member's right to bring a conflict to the Legislature, that puts a conflict of interest in the hands of an appointed commissioner who will adjudicate it and then recommend charges and then bring those charges back to the Legislature where the people the government is dealing with are charged with either passing or not passing, enforcing or not enforcing that recommendation.

In other words, the government has the last word in the conduct or misconduct of its own members under this bill. The bill is a sham; it's full of holes and it's not going to touch — wouldn't have touched — most of the conflicts we've seen in the last four years. In the last few months, as this very leaky government has become fuller and fuller of holes, we have seen one attempt after the other to find a populist issue, that magical issue that will take them to the polls. I would suggest that this is simply another one of those.

The others haven't worked. They have fallen flat because the people of British Columbia are tired. They're tired of smokescreens. They are tired of shams. They are tired of vacuous comments and promises on the part of this government. Those other attempts to find that hot issue haven't worked, and I would suggest that this issue won't work. It's an eleventh-hour bill. It's not going to work for the purpose it's intended, and it's not going to work as a conflict-of-interest bill.

MR. DAVIDSON: My remarks will be very brief because the majority of this bill can best be canvassed in the committee stage. Basic to this bill is the concept of impartial adjudication. If members can't accept impartial adjudication, then they can't accept this bill. I can accept the concept of impartial adjudication. We have a similar situation with the ombudsman: an impartial adjudicator. We seem prepared to accept those recommendations.

I believe there are individuals in this province who can and will serve in this position if asked; who will be acceptable unanimously to all sides of this House; who will provide the service to the Legislature and to the people of the province that the position will call for.

Findings are made by an impartial adjudicator: the commissioner. He then determines whether those findings have any validity or not. If he determines that there is a case, he makes that known to the Speaker, who then informs this Legislature. If, on the other hand, there is no case.... We all from time to time fall into the trap of making frivolous or vexatious accusations in this House for pure political purpose, but that damages the process and it damages individuals in this chamber.

This bill goes a long way to try to take out the concept of false accusation and conviction by media before an individual has that opportunity to examine, as the commissioner will, to see if there is merit to the case brought forward by a member. If there is no case, there is no reporting and thus the member and the accusing individual are saved embarrassment. This bill in no way precludes any individual from making an accusation outside this chamber; no way is that precluded. Any individual always has that right. What it does is remove the immunity of this chamber. It puts an individual in the position of having to justify his accusations or face the consequences, which ultimately protects the chamber, the members and the system.

[ Page 11582 ]

This is sound legislation. It benefits the system. It is not, as members referred to it, an opportunity to short-change the system. It enhances our system, it protects our system and it offers all of us an additional measure of protection from frivolous and false accusations, which all too often seem to come forward — possibly on the spur of the moment, possibly not. It removes that aspect. It removes trial and conviction by media, because all too often people today simply need to look at something.

I will refer to what happened a few moments ago. I accept the apology of that member, but the case was made that a member was accused of a particular crime, which in fact was not the case. Long before anything happened there was accusation, inference, innuendo and, in the minds of many, conviction. That was not the case. It's not the case today with many of the accusations that are made.

I refer to the tragic circumstances surrounding one of our members who resigned because he thought it was the parliamentary thing to do, because one of his staff people was involved. That is not a scandal; that is the highest level of parliamentary responsibility There's a necessity on all of us to accept the concept of impartiality in a commissioner who by his very oath undertakes to serve this province as we undertake to serve this province.

[7:45]

This is good legislation, and not just for the government. This is good legislation for the province of British Columbia and for every member on both sides of this House. Ultimately it defends the system, and in no way does it prevent an individual from making accusations for which he must take full responsibility. Even in the legislation, the commissioner has the authority to come back to this chamber and say: "The complaint made against this member was not only without foundation; it was more than that. It was a breach of parliamentary privilege."

There is an opportunity within this legislation for members to be expelled from this House. There is no attempt to cover up. There is no attempt to preclude individual members of the public — far from it. This is good legislation. This is fair legislation. This is honest and open legislation. It precludes nothing; it enhances our system.

MR. CLARK: I would dearly love to support this legislation, and I do agree with some of the comments of the previous speaker. Unfortunately, I don't agree with many of the comments he made, and I think other comments are wrong. I think he's interpreting the legislation incorrectly.

This legislation does not deal effectively with conflict of interest. We need conflict-of-interest legislation, but you could drive a truck through this bill, to use an old saying. It's so full of loopholes and openings that it won't deal effectively with conflicts of interest. We've had scandal after scandal after scandal with this administration. We've had almost daily, weekly, even this session....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: And we will have more scandals. I don't doubt but that the minister's right. We will have more scandals before this administration runs its sorry course.

Remember the Knight Street Pub scandal? Every day, day in and day out, just like a water torture for members of the government; every single day we saw it. We've had scandals and we've had more scandals. Remember the Lottery Fund scandal? That's still embroiling the government in a mess. This bill doesn't deal with some of the problems that have arisen out of those scandals. If the government wanted to come clean, if it wanted to try and show the public it was concerned about those matters, it would have brought in really tough conflict-of-interest legislation. It would have brought in freedom-of-information legislation and others.

Let's look at the Premier himself. One of the prime reasons conflict of interest, has been a problem with this administration has been the conflicts associated with the Premier and his inability to understand right from wrong, his inability to understand the public interest versus the private interest. When he became the Premier, the Agricultural Land Commission removed land from the land reserve that he owned for which he benefited to the tune of about $2 million. Does this bill make the Premier sell Fantasy Gardens? I don't think so. When you look through the bill: "Carry on a business...." Is he carrying on a business there? If you look at the disclosure forms, he owns more than 30 percent of Fantasy Gardens to this day.

When Peter Toigo moved in to rent a large part of Fantasy Gardens when another tenant moved out, was that a conflict of Interest? Not under this bill. Is he going to sell it because of this legislation? Of course not. He got his land removed from the land reserve by a commission appointed by this government. He financially benefited by it, and nothing was said about that. He set the standard for which we've seen other ministers fall. He had the conflict-of-interest guidelines. He was the adjudicator. He was in conflict.

He's still in conflict. Even just as late as a few months ago we saw the Premier's own holdings in Kamloops. B.C. Hydro was going to rent a building he owned. He said: "I told my real estate agent not to rent it to them." Is he carrying out private business while he's the Premier of British Columbia? Yes, he is. Does this bill deal with that? Is he going to sell his building in Kamloops as a result of this legislation? I doubt it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

You can drive a truck through this legislation. There are a couple of sections I want to draw to the House's attention. Section 15(2): members are not allowed to raise questions in the House. That's a principle of this bill. The last speaker talked about it. This is a good thing, he said; members can't raise it in the House. I suspect that that could be challenged in court. It could be successfully challenged, because we

[ Page 11583 ]

have had hundreds of years of parliamentary practice.

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to submit that the member opposite is not debating the intent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're dealing with the principle of the bill. I'm sure hon. members are well aware of that.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the most important aspects of this bill — and the previous speaker on the government's side mentioned it — was how members are not allowed to raise these questions in the Legislature. I suspect that that could be challenged successfully, because we have a long tradition of not muzzling members on any question in this chamber. That's what it's all about. We have to be protected. We have to have immunity in order to have free speech in this House. Members on that side exercise the same immunity. Every member exercises that responsibility. It is an important parliamentary right. This bill tries to take it away, and it will be challenged successfully in court.

Why are they bringing this legislation in? What's the real reason? The real reason is possibly because of an election window. There's an election coming, and they want to pretend to look clean.

I want to draw the House's attention to section 10(6)(b). A two-letter word, "is." It says: "Where...the office of the commissioner is...vacant when the Legislature is not sitting, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint an acting commissioner." The two-letter word "is" means that when this House rises, if this bill passes, this government can appoint an acting commissioner under this act with no two thirds majority in the House, no debate in the House and no discussion of who is appointed. The minister, the Premier, the government can appoint an acting commissioner to act between now and the next election. That's the real agenda. It's an election gimmick. It's an attempt to look clean.

They can appoint the commissioner as soon as this House rises without any reference to the House and without any reference to a two-thirds majority. Just think of who could be a commissioner under this bill. The second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who talked so eloquently: he could be the commissioner adjudicating conflict of interest. Or the first member for Delta, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr Savage). The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid), who probably isn't going to run again. There's a job for him. The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, who's looking for a job, could be the commissioner responsible for conflict-of-interest legislation.

Just think about it. The names are boggling of who could be this commissioner. No public debate or legislative approval is required. The government could appoint the commissioner the day this House rises to take them through the next election, to give them a clean bill of health, to implement this weak legislation so it is even more meaningless and to get them through an election campaign to pretend that they've learned their lesson, and that conflict of interest won't happen anymore.

They've solved the problem They've appointed the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale as the commissioner. It's weak legislation, and it's window-dressing legislation. It's full of holes, and it's an election gimmick. Section 10(6)(b) points to the fact that this very clearly is election legislation and designed to assist the government to call an election.

MR. HARCOURT: Point of order. The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale talking about me and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew being in handcuffs is unparliamentary and unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. He should withdraw those remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale to refrain from passing comments across the floor, and I would ask him if he was inferring anything against the members involved. If he was, he might withdraw his remarks.

MR. HARCOURT: What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Does that mean he refuses to withdraw his remarks, or does it mean he refuses to...?

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: He did; he made a remark and said that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and I are going to be in handcuffs pretty soon, and that is a very serious statement to make, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that's not what I said. If that's what he thought I said, it's not what I said. If whatever I said, in translating the comments back and forth.... Then I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: All you said was: "Polish your head. It is a little dull tonight; you should polish it."

MR. MERCIER: As usual, the opposition members are talking longer and louder, and that's their style. It sounds like they don't want the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Or is it simply that they would dig further into the private lives of those who serve in this House?

The opposition talks about teeth to enforce and what conflict of interest means. Well, after the past years here listening to every time they spoke about conflict of interest, I think it's about time we had a definition of what conflict of interest means. So many times I've heard them bring up items that were in no way a conflict, and simply by stating it, they thought they made it so. Well, I don't agree with that.

This bill meets the need of those who would presume innocence before guilt is proven. It does not suit those in opposition who, without evidence, would convict a member without the member first having a hearing.

[ Page 11584 ]

This bill provides for disclosure of holdings and debt. This Legislature is a special place; it is not a court of law. This bill will provide for the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to appoint an independent commissioner. That commissioner will have to be an honourable person capable of dealing with the matters in this bill with respect to the conduct of the members of this House.

This bill respects the individual property rights and privacy of individuals who serve, while still providing for penalties in the cases where there has been a violation of matters considered to be the public trust.

The opposition member who spoke earlier this evening made comments with respect to items that might otherwise be processed in the justice system and prosecuted in a court of law. I've had a lot of trouble in this session listening to someone who's a lawyer prosecuting cases in this House without allowing the usual points of rebuttal and the presentation of a defence. They convict the person in the media and the members of this House, and the members who are lawyers should know better.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This Legislature is not a court of law, and the number of matters that the member mentioned omitted the test: did the member who he would be questioning attempt to gain personally through his position in this House? That's a very important test.

[8:00]

I have some concern about this bill. There is no mention of the involvement of a member of this House with powerful trade unions and the obvious conflicts related to their positions in those unions or those relationships with those unions. That is a serious deficiency in this bill. I can tell you that there's just as much conflict in passing a labour bill that favours a trade union as there is in any of the other avenues that are mentioned in this bill.

It has also been interesting to note how many times in the past few years the opposition members have claimed conflict of interest when in fact the simplest test — did the member personally benefit? — would provide the answer no. Yet they would make statements that would convict that member. How easy to damage or destroy a member's reputation by inference; how easy to do it. And how hard for that member to redeem that reputation.

By this legislation there will be a channel to follow that is dignified and proper. There will be penalties for members who have broken the public trust. In addition and in conclusion, probably most important to me when I looked at the actions of the members of the opposition in this past session, there will be a penalty for any member of this House who lodges a frivolous and unsubstantiated claim against any other member.

I'm sure there are a few differences from the bill that you might have wanted to put forward. Your bill would go further into the rights of the individual. It would deprive people of their rights of privacy. It would assume more guilt, even in cases where it's not proven.

I saw the legislation when it first came in, when the NDP government put in their disclosure act. It had mountains of bureaucratic paper. It didn't meet some of the simple tests of the rights of individuals to privacy even though they are elected.

So I think this bill will move a long way in the direction that the public wants us all to move and still allow us those privacy rights. I support this bill.

MR. LOVICK Mr. Speaker, somebody who spoke earlier pointed out, quite correctly in my opinion, that the substance of this bill is certainly going to be more debatable in committee stage than it will be in terms of principle, because the principle is relatively simple: conflict of interest.

I commend the bill insofar as the definition of conflict of interest is very clear. I would also recommend that to the previous speaker, who obviously didn't understand that — by his reference to trade unions — suggesting that somehow there has to be a special stipulation.

Conflict of interest is conflict of interest is conflict of interest, and it applies to any organization and to any group one happens to be dealing with. That's not a problem. The argument, with all due deference, is bogus.

As I say, I'm going to be very brief because most of the comments ought to be made at committee stage. Let me just offer a couple of comments, however.

I must confess that when I first saw this bill I was suspicious. I had mixed feelings. I was suspicious on the one hand because here it does indeed arrive at the eleventh hour, literally. This is after four years. This is after there is a rather considerable legacy of scandal and suspicion. Yet as a number of my colleagues have pointed out, it does seem to be making some commitment to clean up the House, to do something about it.

I am then, on the one hand, very pleased that we're taking steps to address that pressing and important matter of conflict of interest and the absence of adequate legislation to protect us.

But I'm scared spitless, Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the comments of some of my colleagues on this side of the House and discover that this bill seems to be so terribly, terribly flawed. The temptation one has is to assail and to attack this thing, and to do it at great length and with great passion, to engage in the normal sort of filibuster that one frequently would do on second reading, perhaps even to offer hoist motions, reasoned amendments and so forth.

But here I must admit in all candour that I'm not sure I want to do that, because I think what we have in this measure — flawed as it is — is precisely the kind of thing that my colleagues and I would love to carry into an election. This is precisely the kind of measure I would love to present in a campaign and juxtapose with our measure on conflict of interest, because it is the case that what we have here is flawed.

[ Page 11585 ]

My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has given us a rather learned disquisition on the subject. He has spent, as we know, considerable time on this matter, examining other jurisdictions and the inherent difficulties with conflict-of-interest legislation, and has pointed out a number of areas that cause us concern.

His contentions are rather frightening. He describes what he refers to as a number of loopholes. He talks, for example, about the fact that this measure, if it were implemented and if it were in fact legislation, would be incapable of dealing with a number of specific issues that have come before this House. That seems obviously to be a major flaw.

He has also talked about the weakness of this measure insofar as it does not, on the face of it, appear to protect against members of this chamber who are furthering the interests of their relatives and people who have some more distant and indirect relationship with them. He also refers, of course in general terms, to just why this particular measure, even though ostensibly it is designed to solve a problem with conflict of interest, doesn't seem to do that. Certainly by comparison with the legislation we had proposed earlier by way of a private member's bill, it is found wanting.

The conclusion one comes to is that if in fact this measure — albeit presented at the eleventh hour — is so seriously flawed, why is it brought forward? You can imagine the conclusion that I think will be fairly drawn. The conclusion that will be drawn is that what we're looking at is what somebody earlier referred to as damage control.

Clearly the polls that this government and the rest of us read demonstrate that this is a government whose credibility is rather in question. It needs some means and mechanism whereby it can tell the people that it is attending to its own— dare I say— corruption within, and the perception that people have that it is not in fact as noble, honourable and upright as it ought to be.

The question is: how do we on this side of the House deal with this? Obviously we support the principle of conflict of interest and have no question of that. However, insofar as this particular measure, this particular bill is flawed, we have no choice but to oppose it. Therefore I do that, for reasons which will become a great deal clearer when we get to committee stage.

MR. PETERSON: To be quite honest with you, my intent was not to rise and speak on this bill. However, I've heard some statements made. I've heard the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) speak, which was probably the most impassioned speech I've heard in this House, and I want to give him full compliments for it.

What I want to talk about is the human decency factor in politics. I am a rookie in this Legislature, but when I came here, my understanding was that we would represent our constituents to the best of our ability. I say that to members of not only the government but also of the opposition. Somewhere we have to develop a level where we will not, for political purposes, judge other members of this House without due cause. It's my feeling that this bill accomplishes that.

I speak from my heart when I say this. As an individual and as a member of this House, I am very proud to do that, and probably very humble to do it. I do not feel that we should be using these sorts of very trite circumstances for political purposes. If the parliamentary system is going to survive, we must develop a certain level whereby individuals, members of this House who are duly elected, will understand that for political purposes we do not walk into this House and unjustifiably accuse another member of this House of acts that we know probably are of no consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I just rise for a short time. First of all, I ask: what is expected by our constituents? I think that is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. What is asked by our constituents? I think we have to develop in this House a level of human decency. I believe this bill may bring some thought to members of this Legislative Assembly relative to that ideal. Maybe it's time that all members of this assembly stop and think about that.

MS. MARZARI: This House, as many of us have come to know it, is clouded in secrecy. I hate to say it, but over the last four years many of us in this House have probably come to suspect that there is no sunshine in this House, and no legislation labelled "sunshine" will ever bring that into this House. The very nature of the building we function in, the very nature of the systems we operate with here, seem to withhold information rather than giving information out. It seems to be a way that we function — perhaps not in the rest of the country and perhaps not in other parliamentary democracies but certainly in British Columbia. I can point to just two instances where this tendency to want to withhold information is very apparent — most notably in the Public Accounts Committee where information is withheld from the public by inability of the committee to meet, by the structure of the committee itself, and by the inability to properly access the information that is there — not the withholding of information by the administration but the inability to properly access it.

The second area in which we could be doing some half-decent outreach and half-decent exposure of this House to the world would be by introducing television to the House. It is no surprise, then....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. There is no mention of television in the principle of the bill, and there really isn't anything about the Public Accounts Committee either. There is lots to talk about without getting that far out of order. Please continue.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to lay the foundation for the secrecy in which we seem to be operating many of our functions in this House and in the system we operate within.

[ Page 11586 ]

It is no surprise, then, that conflict-of-interest legislation has not been a major facet in what we do In this House and in this parliamentary system that we seem to have grown for ourselves here In British Columbia. It is no surprise, then, that the conflict-of-interest legislation, which has just been introduced to this House, has as little sunshine in it as it does. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the definition of conflict of interest we find on page 2 in section 2 is a good definition: "A member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office, and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest." The definition is a good definition, but between the definition and the actuality there lies a void. "Between the idea and the reality" — to quote a poet — "falls the shadow." The shadow here seems to revolve around the fact that once again the public does not have easy access to any of the disclosure documents filed by any member of this House.

[8:15]

Members nominated to run for election to get to this House are not expected to disclose, so the public once again has no idea of what the interests are of people who have been nominated by various political parties. The disclosure of the nominated candidates is not there. Once again the updating of these disclosures is not clearly spelled out.

We have here a bill that lies in the shadows, a bill that does not clearly spell out what the teeth will be or what the commissioner's true powers will be. It seems to me that the commissioner himself or herself does not in section 17 have the full range of penalties which should be accorded to a commissioner who is actively uncovering secrets which could well be withheld by members of this House. Five thousand dollars is not a large penalty to pay if the pecuniary interest has been greater than that. Loss of a seat — there is no definition in here as to what will actually happen or what the gradation of penalty might be if members should overstep their bounds.

I really feel that the definition of this bill is a solid one, but as it is implemented, as the regulatory regime is laid down for the development of active involvement of the public and active regulation by the commissioner, it is simply not here. It does not present itself in any obvious way.

In section 8 we talk about carrying on business and it being incumbent upon the member to disclose any involvement with a business or with employment or practice of a profession. But there is no necessity for the member to disclose any membership in a social club or religious organization. I would suggest that from the point of view of the public — the constituents in the community — memberships in social clubs and religious organizations are just as important as memberships in the executive of a professional association or as the practising of a profession. These organizations, social clubs or religions benefit greatly from the tax dollar in terms of exemptions that could be written off in terms of land grants that are often made, or golf clubs. As we all know, lottery grants have invested very heavily in golf clubs in the last few years. I think these are areas which should be seriously scrutinized by the drafters of the bill, because they have a lot to do with where money actually goes and who benefits.

So I rise to vote against this bill and to spell out my concerns that this bill will perpetuate the secrecy and shadows.

MR. SERWA: I, too, was not really well prepared to enter into this debate, because I think it's fundamentally good legislation and certainly a very major step in the right direction. It's rather interesting to listen to some of the speeches that have been made on this bill by members of the opposition who consider themselves pompous, self-righteous, jack and jenny asses.

The fact remains that this conflict-of-interest bill doesn't go far enough.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I couldn't believe what I heard, and I don't think it's fitting for this debate. I would ask the member to withdraw that rather spurious remark.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been asked to withdraw an unparliamentary remark. Would the member please withdraw.

MR. SERWA: What remark was unparliamentary?

MR. SPEAKER: Any remark that a member finds unparliamentary that the Chair asks you to withdraw is deemed unparliamentary, and the Chair need not repeat it.

MR. SERWA: What was the remark that was unparliamentary?

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest you read Hansard if you....

MR. SERWA: I was referring to an animal. I could say male and female donkey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's quite enough. I heard part of it. I was engaged in another conversation at the time. I've asked you to withdraw it, and I'll now instruct you to withdraw it.

MR. SERWA: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the recognition that conflict-of-interest legislation may in fact not go far enough.... I see in this Legislature members of the opposition who represent special-interest groups, single-interest groups, and they have no hesitation in speaking for those groups that they represent. That, in my view, is a blatant conflict of interest, yet they tend to feel that they can get away with it.

When I said that there was a self-righteous mood about them.... I think they fail to realize that whether they speak for one of the professions or

[ Page 11587 ]

another, they are in fact in a conflict of interest. Just a short while ago, earlier this afternoon, we heard speaker after speaker stand up in defence of trade unions which actively support that organization, both financially and with personnel. I suggest that if one of our members had spoken up in support of large industry, which provided funding or support for that individual that would have been a conflict of interest. Here you have a group of individuals who have no hesitation in speaking about organizations that support them. They speak long and loud, not for the people of the province but for special-interest and self-interest groups. I find that totally unacceptable.

We had the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) speak about corruption and scandal, with the implication that any member who resigns does so less than honourably. I can only assume that that second member for Nanaimo also includes the two members on the opposition side who resigned their seats — who originally fought in an election and won that election to represent individuals, and subsequently resigned from this Legislature. I presume from her words that she classifies them in the same manner in which she classifies everyone else.

The members of the opposition tend to make general statements in this House which are catch-alls. They work very effectively through innuendo; they're masters and mistresses of that technique. The first and second members for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams and Mr. Clark) seem to be leaders in that particular field and make charges....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are in second reading of this bill, and second reading is discussion in principle. What other members have done and how they conduct themselves in the House is subject to discussion, but not at this time. You must restrict your comments to the principle of this bill.

MR. SERWA: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that direction. This hon. member certainly wishes that you had been in the Speaker's chair a bit earlier this evening to give a similar direction to some of the other animated speakers in the opposition who had the luxury of considerable latitude in your absence.

I believe that the philosophy and principles of this bill are such that they do provide guidelines for all hon. members of this House. I believe that it's necessary to have these guidelines in place, and I appreciate the formalization of legislation rather than simple guidelines. There is no question in my mind that this will result in a House which will be responsible and answerable through a formal method of representation. It will tend to be just and fair. That is absolutely necessary. When we have a conflict of interest established through innuendo and carried forth through the media, it is neither representative of truth nor fair in any shape or form. This mechanism here in the principles of the bill allows for a fairer opportunity.

The other major concern I have — and I hope this bill addresses it — is the fact that members of the opposition are always striving to structure conflict- of-interest guidelines so that individuals such as themselves will be the only ones capable of being elected into this House. There is virtually no member on the government's side of the House who comes to this House with any security of tenure to go back to. I wonder how many of the hon. members on that side of the House have the luxury of leaves of absence. Whether they are gone three years, five years or ten years, they can go back to a profession that will welcome them with security with their previous history of association.

If we structure conflict-of-interest guidelines in such a manner that we eliminate the opportunity for a broad cross-representation of citizens in this House, then we will defeat the best interests of democracy. The members on this side of the House who are workers and who have worked hard for what we have achieved represent the majority of the people of the province of British Columbia. No structure must be so rigid that it eliminates the opportunity for ordinary British Columbians to respond to the opportunity to serve their constituents.

I believe this is very good legislation, and I actively support it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, when I heard that this bill was about to be brought forth and that it was called the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, I thought perhaps — incorrectly, it appears now — the government had decided to do something about the issue of conflict of interest that has plagued this province with scandal and embarrassment and has, in many respects, made British Columbia the scandal centre of Canada.

Obviously when I heard it mentioned, I hadn't seen the insides or the sections. I thought this government was giving itself a chance to bring something forth to clean the air and to show the people of the province of British Columbia that it had learned something from past experiences, past mistakes and past scandals. When all the technical points have been made by others on this side of the House, it's quite evident that that is not accurate.

This government has not learned any lessons. This legislation really is basically to ensure that we, as legislators — as the opposition — do not get the opportunity to ensure that the people's business is done, and that potential scandals, embarrassment and conflict of interest are not allowed to be brought to the floor of this Legislature. That's unheard of in a parliamentary democracy.

Basically this bill is an attempt by a government to give the perception to the people of the province that they have discovered that conflict of interest is an issue, and that people are tired of the embarrassment and of being the scandal centre of Canada. But at the same time, they are ensuring that any potential problems in the future will be covered up in the interests of a political agenda set by a government that's not just on the ropes, but is finished. It's a government that is absolutely washed up.

[ Page 11588 ]

This government has gone from scandal to scandal. In the last few days, we have seen a government that is so low, so devious....

[8:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: And in the polls?

MR. BLENCOE: And in the polls. So low that it would try and bring forward legislation such as this, purporting to do something in the public interest that is conflict of interest.

This bill is an Insult to the parliamentary procedures and process. It's an insult to the people of British Columbia, who are demanding a clean sweep in terms of the issue of conflict of interest. When they heard, as we heard, that this bill was coming forward, we and the people had hoped that at long last we were going to have some legislation that would clean up the act.

They had their chance, and once again they blew it. Once again this government blew it. Put our bill up against this government's conflict-of-interest bill, clause by clause by clause, and you can see who's serious about doing the people's business in an open and honest way. It's New Democrats who have tabled the bill that does something about conflict of interest in this province. I will be proud, as all my colleagues will be, to go on the hustings; because one of the major issues in this province today is integrity in government. The people of British Columbia are tired of being the laughingstock of this great country. They're tired of being embarrassed by scandal and a government that refuses to deal with it. We'll be proud to take this issue on the hustings, and to compare how we will deal with conflict of interest integrity in government; integrity in public service by those elected by the people is an issue. It is important to the people of British Columbia, and this bill is an insult to them.

MS. EDWARDS: There are two parts to what you want to do if you're going to deal with conflict of interest. There is the part that asks what we are going to deal with, and then there is the part that asks how we are going to deal with it. I believe that there is some common belief on the two sides of this polarized House about what constitutes conflict of interest. In this bill there is at least the basic belief that members of this Legislature should not benefit from what they know because of the Legislature or from what they know because of their position as an officer of this Legislature. This bill starts that sort of thing, although it doesn't go far enough.

The problem comes when you get to the point of what we are going to do about it. We are trying to deal with this under a principle that we call the rule of law. Under the rule of law the idea is that if we can't lay it out in a law and say that's what we want and then live by what we wrote out, we can't require that that is what is done. Instead of doing that and leaving the decision after what is laid out as to what we want done, as to what we believe is the essence of a conflict and what we want done after that — and leave it to the traditional idea that our peers will decide and be able to decide, and that it will be decided fairly in openness and democratic public access to what has gone on — instead of that, we have big-daddy legislation. We have this bill that requires that all of a sudden somebody else is going to deal with what we say is going to be a conflict.

To me the essence of the problem in this legislation is that even though some of the ideas of conflict of interest are there, all of a sudden it's to be handed over to some authority who is going to keep quiet what's going on. It is no longer open to the public of this province in any way, either to all of the public or to the members and their representatives in this House. Because it doesn't do that, and because it avoids allowing the people to have their say about what people have done, what members of this House have done, when they do something, any infraction of what we may agree to be conflict of interest, then the legislation fails.

As far as I'm concerned, this piece of legislation fails. It fails on the essence of that democratic involvement. The rest of what I have to say can be said in committee, but I leave that as the idea of the principle.

The principle here is that it does not follow through. After having laid out some of the issues of conflict of interest, it then doesn't leave it to the democratic process to recognize what's gone on and to deal with what's gone on. It gives it to a closed system. That principle, I believe, is wrong.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should start off by saying I kind of like these debates in the House, because they really bring out the true feelings of the other side of this place.

It's really interesting when you start to listen to people. We just heard from the member for Kootenay, from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), and, oh yes, Jimmy Swaggart over there. We heard from Jimmy Swaggart earlier, and we know what happened to Jimmy Swaggart, don't we? Although he was entertaining, Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that you weren't in the chair, because he would have been ruled out of order very quickly.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) to restrain himself, or return to his own seat if he wishes to speak in debate.

MR. CASHORE: Amen, brother.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not very familiar with those terms. I'll ask the member to go ahead.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just like Jimmy Swaggart, when he sinned and then had to return to his own seat in a great deal of humility, I think we will see that.

[ Page 11589 ]

The second member for Victoria said he would be proud to fight an election on this bill. So would I. I will be proud to go out....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just be a little patient, Madam Member. We will be calling an election.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Who knows — three weeks, two weeks, it doesn't really matter. We will be going to the hustings, and I will be very proud to stand up. I'll go through some of this legislation in a minute, and I'll tell you why I'm going to be proud of it.

But I'll tell you, when I come back to the true feelings of some of the people opposite, that's why I'm glad we get into these sorts of philosophical debates from time to time. As I listen to Point Grey, Victoria and a few others, it's very clear that they would bring in legislation that is so tight that literally no one — or at least no one who had ever accumulated anything in this world — would be able to run for politics.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey summed it up very nicely. She would leave absolutely nothing private. Nobody would have even the slightest thing in their whole life that could be private. If she had her way in drafting a bill like this, not the slightest thing would be private.

I only feel that with a bill like this we can't prevent some of the abuses that happen in this House. I think it's very pertinent to the bill, because conflict of interest reaches a long, long way. It goes beyond just monetary values; it goes far beyond that.

Integrity is a word that comes to mind, which I think is sorely lacking in a lot of members on that side. As I watch them perform in this House, in the way they abuse this House....

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I really don't think it's in keeping with the dignity of the House for the House Leader of the government to reflect on the integrity of other members. We're all called hon. members around here, and I think that's the way it should be.

Imputing motives or casting reflections on other members is uncalled for and unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a valid point of order, actually, because if a member imputes an improper motive to a member, that's unparliamentary and has to be withdrawn, but where it is for a class of people or a group of people, the Chair has allowed it to go. Otherwise the Chair would be interrupting almost every member speaking. There have been blanket accusations on both sides of the House as to a whole host of areas.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, you know how much I admire the wisdom of the refined Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Facetiousness will do you no good at this time of night.

MR. ROSE: Having said that, I feel that I would like to follow your advice of a little earlier that if anyone feels offended by a remark, and I do — a reflection on my individual and collective integrity — the minister should withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we have not in the past asked for withdrawals of remarks made to a group of people; we have only asked for withdrawal for remarks made to individuals. The government House Leader may wish to comment on the matter.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If I have imputed any motive to an individual member, then let him or her wear that. I am talking about the integrity as a whole.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I tried to save the minister from this, but once you have individualized it, I have to ask you to withdraw any imputed motive to an individual.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't impute any motive to any individual member.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: But I think integrity is something we should take into consideration here. The members opposite, talking on this bill, say that they think it's a shame that they can't come in and raise a matter of conflict in this House and that they have to go to a commissioner to raise a conflict. Well, let's examine why — and I think this is why I like this bill. I like it because it prevents any member on either side of the House from coming in here and accusing another member when there are no grounds for accusation. But the accusation is then out in public for the media to run away and write their column about, and the person is tried, convicted and hanged in the press before he or she has had an opportunity to clear their name. I think that's wrong. I think that it's hiding behind the immunity of the House, which those members do with regularity.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is probably the best at making statements in this House which he wouldn't dare make outside.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The second member (Mr. Clark) thought he was better at it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, the second member is learning rapidly. But the first member.... We saw an example yesterday of that member making statements in the House which he wouldn't dare say outside the House. Run to the press and the press prints it, of course, because it's a big headline, and then it's proved later to be incorrect, and it is then that the member so accused has to try to defend their innocence, and it's too late because it's been all over the front pages and on the six o'clock news.

[ Page 11590 ]

So when the members say that they now cannot rise in the House and accuse someone of a conflict of interest, I think that is probably a good thing. I think they have to go to an independent party — in fact, I know they do — and show cause why they think there is a conflict of interest. They can't come running into this House saying anything they want to grab a headline at the expense of someone else's political career.

We have heard all the tired rhetoric. We heard the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and all the rest of them. The same tired old rhetoric is all they have to say on this bill.

I'll tell you why they don't like the bill. They don't want us to have a conflict-of-interest law. They don't want us to pass this law. It would have served their purpose very well if we had never brought this in. But now they have to go out and say that we have a good conflict-of-interest law in this province. It's maybe not as tight as they would like it, maybe not so tight that nobody could ever run for parliament anywhere who had ever acquired anything in their lives or who had ever accumulated anything at all.

[8:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I think people work very hard, Madam Member, to accumulate things in their lives. I don't think we should have any conflict-of-interest bill that is so tight that nobody can own or possess anything and still be elected to public office.

I would like to see this legislation eventually extend to every elected member at every level of government in the province, not just in this House. I would like to see it extend to anyone who runs for office.

The bill does provide all the necessary safeguards that anyone could ever want. I'm going to go through a few of them: "A member may request on his or her own behalf that the commissioner give an opinion or recommendation on a matter respecting the member's obligations." We've never had that before, where a member could go, if he or she was in doubt as to whether they were in conflict, and get a ruling from somebody. The opinions will be released only with the consent of the member.

"A member who has reasonable grounds to believe another member is in conflict may request the opinion of the commissioner." If any member over there thinks that any one of us is in conflict for any reason, they don't have to be silent on it, except in this House. They can go to the commissioner, and the commissioner after investigation, if he finds there is no conflict, will report the findings to the member requesting the review and the member affected. The matter cannot be raised in the assembly if it's found there was no conflict.

Contrary to what they would do.... They would raise the matter in here publicly first, and then see if there's any conflict. That's their style; it's what we see them do day after day in here. They would raise it first.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you get back to your own seat before you start making any comments.

They would raise it in here first, and then run and see if they were right — not really caring whether they were or not.

"If the commissioner finds there is a conflict of interest, he shall issue a report to the Speaker and may recommend a penalty, anywhere from a reprimand to declaring the member's seat vacant." Pretty severe penalties.

"The Assembly may accept or reject the recommendations of the penalty, but cannot alter it." The House can either accept or reject.

"Allegations of conflict of interest or contravention of section 25 of the Constitution Act cannot be raised in the House, but may be addressed following procedures laid down in the act."

The Act defines conflict of interest as the participation of a member in the making of a decision when the member knows that there is an opportunity to further his or her own private interest. There is ample protection there to the public of British Columbia. Members cannot make a decision when the members know that it may further their own private interest.

The Act prohibits the use of information not available to the general public to further a member's private interest. What more protection do you need? It prevents the use of information that a member, say of the executive council, may possess to further his or her own private interests.

It prohibits the acceptance of any gift or benefit, except as authorized by law or received as an incident of protocol. In that case there is a requirement to disclose a benefit or gift exceeding $250 in value. All the safeguards are here.

It provides for a 12-month transition period received after holding this, during which a former cabinet minister can accept a contract. I ask the members of the opposition: is that not long enough? When someone has been in public office, is a 12 month transition period adequate for members of the executive council before they can accept a contract with government or make representations to government on their own behalf or on behalf of another person? What would the length of time be if this bill isn't adequate? I'd like to know: if 12 months isn't adequate, what is adequate — two years?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could have second reading now and committee later.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The members keep asking us from across the way: "What is wrong with the bill?" They say that it has big loopholes in it. I'm just trying to point out all the things the bill provides.

Interjections.

[ Page 11591 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Who cares if they are headlines? Every one of these is a headline. They won't be, but they should be.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The opposition House Leader knows that the minister closes debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR RICHMOND: Now the member would censure me and say that maybe I'm not entitled to speak in this debate.

I firmly believe that the intent of this bill is to implant in legislation what is required of a member of this House. It does that. I've gone through it clause by clause several times. There are places where the legislation could be made tighter, but you could make it so tight that no one would be able to own anything except maybe the home they live in. They could acquire nothing else or they wouldn't be allowed to run for public office.

When we want a cross-section of people in British Columbia representing people in this House, I don't think we want to preclude anyone from running. We want people from every walk of life. I am very proud of the fact that our parliamentary system provides for that. It really does. We've got people who are very educated — we've got Rhodes Scholars on this side of the House — right down to people with a C-plus average. But as I've always said, some of the most successful people I've ever known are those with a C-plus average. A bill that was any tighter than this would preclude anybody such as I just described from running for public office.

We get down to the real reason they don't like this bill: it doesn't go far enough. Read the Blues about what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and a couple of others said: it just doesn't go far enough They would tighten it up so you wouldn't be able to not disclose what church you belonged to, I believe she said. You would leave nothing to a private individual.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the term "honourable member" has some significance; I really do. I believe in the integrity of members, and I believe in the phrase "honourable member." I think everyone in this House is an honourable member. I don't think for one minute that you can legislate morality, because you cannot. But you can also not legislate down to the nth degree, to where there is absolutely no freedom for the individual.

This bill does exactly what is required to guide every hon. member in this House. For the first time it gives them an opportunity to seek some guidance, which they've never had before. It lays down the guidelines stringently enough, and I will be proud to stand up on any platform during the coming election — whenever that is — and defend this bill. In fact, I would love to stand on a platform during an election campaign and debate it, as the member for Nanaimo said, juxtaposed against your bill. I would love to do that anytime, and I am sure we will have the opportunity very soon. I commend this bill to this House and support it in second reading.

MR. ROSE: After that speech, the minister just intimated sotto voce that she had to go to the bathroom. After making a speech like that, I don't wonder.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind joining you at the time, but I have to make a speech — a similar speech; I hope not in a similar length but I hope it will at least equal or surpass the logic that was in yours.

You've got to hear this before you go. This is a velcro bill. What this does is put velcro on the lips of all elected members. This is a bill that I think actually defies the Charter of Rights. I think this bill will be thrown out of court. I think this bill is unconstitutional. Going back for 500 years is the matter of free speech in a free parliament. This is a bill to get rid of all the bad news. That's what it's for.

Here are the privileges, and I'm quoting from page 36 of that great authority, the second edition of Parliamentary Practice by one George MacMinn, who is, by the way, still alive — at least he was the last time I saw him. Why he's still alive is another question. But anyway, this authority has this to say about privilege: "Privilege belongs to members of the Legislature individually and collectively." The minister said he respects the integrity of the members. Not five minutes ago he was attacking the integrity of the members on this side. Now he can't have it both ways. If you look at this, what are these privileges? "Freedom of speech or debate; freedom from arrest" — I don't know whether we'd always need that, but nevertheless.... "The collective privileges are: (a) access to the Crown...(b) the right to provide for its due composition; to regulate its own proceedings..." and so forth.

Look at 15(2). This bill denies the right of free speech. No longer can we bring up legitimate grievances. What this bill tries to do is bury this whole thing under the seat of the commissioner, and who appoints the commissioner? Guess who?

This is a terrible bill. This bill is not going to stand up constitutionally, and I'm certain of that. This, I think, is merely a bombast to prepare for the next election. We needed this bill because for 15 or 20 years we've done nothing about it, and so on the eve of adjournment, we're going to bring it in and we're going to cover ourselves with glory. Nonsense!

You look nakedly corrupt when you do this at the last minute. What are you trying to hide? This bill is an abomination. It's not freedom of speech, it's not freedom of conflict of interest. What this bill tries to do is to prevent the kind of embarrassment that you've gone through not once, not twice, not three

[ Page 11592 ]

times, not four, not five, not six, not seven, not eight, but nine times — a whole side of the team struck out. A whole side of the team was retired.

What you need, I think, is a new coach. You need a little time in opposition to renew your juices because I think you're all juiced out right now.

The minister of bombast has just defended this bill. He's tried to defend the indefensible, and he had a few notes beside him. He said....

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, I find the use of "minister of bombast" unparliamentary, and I would ask the opposition House Leader to withdraw his comment.

[9:00]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: No, seriously, members and Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to withdraw it. It was just an honest mistake; I got his ministry wrong.

One of the fundamental principles in a British democratic system is the right of the accused to face his accusers. You're denying the right of the accused to face his accusers. You're denying the right, in the highest court of the land, to bring an accusation against another member, which is steeped in the tradition of this House, and the right of that accused to reply and defend himself. You want to hide it under the carpet and shuffle it off to some unnamed commissioner appointed by the Premier. It's not good enough. The velcro bill, the mug-and-gagging bill, is not acceptable to us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I rise to support this legislation tonight and speak in second reading in favour of it.

It goes without saying that in the last three or four hours most of the debate we have heard has been flawed. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who attempted to lead debate, sadly missed most of the understanding of the legislation, which was evident in his debate, and I think any perusal of Hansard will show that. As a matter of fact, during the debate he was heckled to the degree that he had to withdraw what he said. He had to reflect on what he was saying. We've clearly seen a lot of misunderstanding of this bill.

I want to tell you why I support this bill. It goes back to a principle adopted by the government during Expo 86 and Ken Fawcus, a retired judge, being appointed to look at conflict of interest with the board. Of course, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker — particularly you, sir, in your previous movie — there was a tremendous potential or capacity for conflicts of interest during the Expo 86 building which went on really from the first part of the 19809.

Ken Fawcus was brought in to review what interests members of the board of directors of Expo 86 might have had in the building of Expo, and he did an extremely good job, to the extent that you could look at every decision made by that board of directors on purchasing or private holdings — which is what this bill deals with — and find absolutely no conflict whatsoever. It was on the basis of Ken Fawcus's ability to manage and the tremendous potential for conflict that I have advocated to cabinet for some years now the establishment of a commissioner or some such person to look at the holdings and private interests of members of the executive council and to judge them in fairness, equity and equality, to better understand and better provide to members of the executive council and other members who would have a private interest and would maybe have some influence on decisions of government advice on how they could best manage their affairs and private holdings. I think it's most appropriate.

Ken Fawcus — God rest his soul — did a great job. All the board of directors of Expo 86, from Jimmy Pattison on down, were never concerned with any dealings that they might have had with respect to their private holdings and the expenditures of that exposition. And the same thing should apply here.

We have had conflict-of-interest concerns for some time. We have had conflict-of-interest rules, but they don't seem to have satisfied the public or the opposition. I believe that this bill certainly will. It has all the trappings of fairness. It has all the language and capacity to allow a commissioner to better understand what a member has, what a member wishes to deal with and how a member should conduct himself in dealing as a member of government or of the opposition. That could come into it as well.

In my role as a member of the executive council in three and a half ministries, I have had considerable concern from time to time — not with my own dealings, but sometimes land acquisitions — when I note that an MLA or someone who was elected may have an interest in something that I am doing as a member of the executive council. I have often thought it so unfair that MLAs are sometimes mistreated — accused unfairly or whatever — for legitimately holding land or having an interest in something that affects a government initiative.

On the basis of that, I think the right way to go is where you have a commissioner who can adjudicate a member's holding and the government initiative and say: "This is fair. Yes, you can carry on with this initiative, or you can't." Clearly from time to time there have been those considerations and concerns by members of the executive council and by government. The opposition would seem to take the position that you would be best served if you sat in this assembly and had no private holdings at all. From their point of view, maybe that's best, because I doubt if many of them do.

This assembly must recognize that other members will, and that members will want to have a pattern and a format for disclosure that is fair, equitable and yet gives the member some protection. This legislation clearly does. This legislation clearly says: "There shall be a disclosure. There shall be a public process. There shall be everything the public wants to see and must know, and it shall go through a responsible commissioner." The members seem to indicate that they don't have any trust in that commissioner, yet

[ Page 11593 ]

this legislation provides that the trust shall be established.

Finally, I guess the most interesting thing about the NDP's comments was that they would want a Supreme Court judge to adjudicate this. Now that's interesting, because a Supreme Court judge when hearing evidence from a Member of the Legislative Assembly — when listening to a disclosure — would have no capacity or ability to respond back to the Legislative Assembly. That in fact would end the matter.

This commissioner does have the capacity and the responsibility to report back to the Legislative Assembly. That's the difference between our legislation and yours. As a matter of fact, your legislation as you proposed. It would bury that information by giving it to a Supreme Court judge. That is curious why you would suggest that. It almost appears that you want to see the whole thing hidden. Our legislation, if you read it, indicates that it has to come back to the Legislative Assembly.

It has been evident in all of your arguments — even by those of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who apparently is trained in the law — that you haven't read this legislation and are not aware of what it does, what the processes are....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, no, it isn't. Read his debate. Well, have someone read it to you then, because it is clear that he doesn't understand the legislation. It's clear you don't understand the legislation. The legislation is clear. It has the capacity, the technical language and every ability to report back publicly and to the Legislative Assembly. That, as a matter of fact, is something which your legislation does not.

If you are hung up on the word "trappings," and I know you're kind of a linguist and you enjoy this kind of stuff — etymology — then you may dwell on the word "trappings." I am sure you will because it's your wont. So go ahead and live on that word for the rest of this evening. But the point is that this legislation has all the language required to ensure total disclosure, to ensure....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you spoken yet? Did you speak in second reading? You'll have a chance in committee, then, to continue on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you read this legislation carefully, or have someone read it to you.... Your researchers shouldn't have taken this afternoon off. They should have been looking at this bill. They will explain to you that there is every provision here for fair and adequate exposure, for fair and adequate adjudication of what that disclosure means, and for fair and adequate adjudication of how that disclosure is going to impact on a member of the Legislative Assembly, or more particularly, a member of the executive council.

We have pointed out in spades that your argument is flawed and weak and that it indicates that you don't understand what this legislation says. With that said, I would ask all members of this Legislative Assembly to support the bill. It's probably the best legislation you will ever see with respect to this issue. It would be in all of our best interests to have it passed and have it passed expediently.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I won't speak very long. I listened to my colleague the opposition House Leader over there talk about this side attacking the integrity of the other side. I find that after a number of years of being in this business — and I know the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has been in this business a long time; he will remember back in '75 — it's probably a normal thing, when Legislatures tend to be winding up, that there are a few more attacks than at other times. I personally find it distasteful. I wish that we didn't have to put up with it, but it seems that it happens.

MR. BLENCOE: I remember you in '83 and '84.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I guess we all do a little bit of it.

MR. BLENCOE: Were you distasteful then?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't think I was ever distasteful.

Interjection.

HON. MR- REYNOLDS: No, I don't think I'd know it at all, but I look at this legislation and listen to the other side complaining and know that it's a blend of probably the best conflict legislation in Canada taken from different jurisdictions. The government of Quebec has a commissioner. It's not a new idea. Innumerable parliamentary jurisdictions around the world have a commissioner. It's not a new idea at all. It has been voted in as good legislation and supported by members who support that party across the floor.

I wonder why the members don't like section 15. I would assume, and I would think the member for Nanaimo would be the first to agree, that if something is wrong, it's going to be made public. Nothing is going to be hidden. In fact, under this legislation, if you were to pay attention to it, you would see that if we were to have the vote to appoint a commissioner today, the Premier surely would name the commissioner, but it would need the support of at least a certain number of members on that side or the commissioner wouldn't be there.

Interjections.

[ Page 11594 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If you read the legislation, it needs two-thirds of the House.

MR. GABELMANN: Read It.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No, you read the legislation. It has to be approved by two-thirds of the legislation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if we saved all this committee discussion for when someone else was in the chair, and just stuck to the principle of the bill, it would be very helpful.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I got distracted by the comments on the other side. The principle of this bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't read it; that's the problem.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I've probably read a lot more bills in this House than the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has, who makes a lot of misstatements in this House that are usually totally inaccurate. Mr. Know-it-all.

It's interesting to me that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would like the decision to be made by a Supreme Court judge, which would totally take away the rights of the members of this House to make decisions. One of the worst things that happened in this country was that we had a Prime Minister by the name of Trudeau who took rights away from parliamentarians. That aspect of the bill is very positive.

[9:15]

Again, I say that there is nothing in this bill that would prevent anything from being made public. Members on that side support an ombudsman. People like that have integrity. The commissioner that would be appointed would have the same integrity. He would have to be supported by the majority of the members of this House. Let's respect that integrity. That way, at least it goes to an individual who is going to look at the problem. If there is a problem, it will come back to this House and be debated here by all members — not debated in the public before we know what the facts are, which has happened too many times in this House.

I watched the former forestry minister Tom Waterland be accused by members of that side of things that were absolutely incorrect. He had to live with them for a few days until the facts were out there. It would have been much better if it could have gone to a commissioner and come back to this House.

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island (Hon. Mr. Gabelmann) asks how I think they felt. I imagine he felt just as bad as some of our people feel right now. I go back to those times, and that's why I said it's unfortunate that some of those things happen, but they do. That's not what democracy is all about.

That's why innumerable parliamentary democracies across the world, Commonwealth parliamentary countries, have appointed a commissioner to try to get away from these false and phony accusations that are made by both sides of the House no matter where they are. I think it's time we got into the modern age and passed this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the standing orders, the House is advised the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. DIRKS: This is good legislation. This legislation not only requires greater disclosure than exists today; it allows such disclosure, contrary to what I heard from the members opposite, to be more public than ever before. I don't think basically that any hon. member actively sets out at any time to get into a conflict-of-interest situation. I believe most members, if not all, would actively seek ways to ensure that a conflict of interest does not occur. With the passage of this bill there will be an independent authority whose purpose it is to assist members in avoiding a situation where a conflict might occur. Yet this bill gives that independent commissioner the power to thoroughly investigate a conflict-of-interest charge and select from a wide menu of penalties when a conflict occurs.

This is good legislation, balanced legislation; it is legislation that is balanced between the need of privacy for a member and the need of the public to know; it is a balance between the helpful policemen and a judge for the wrongdoer. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. It will move this House from the archaic situation of accusations and innuendo to a system or process that is responsible and responsive. It is with pleasure that I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 66, Members' Conflict of Interest Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 68, the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990. In moving second reading I wish to describe to the House some of the major provisions of this bill. The intent of the bill is twofold: to introduce several miscellaneous amendments needed to strengthen the Waste Management Act and to tighten up some of its existing provisions; and to introduce the first step towards new, comprehensive contaminated-site legislation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 11595 ]

Under the miscellaneous amendments section we are going to provide for a maximum penalty of $1 million for contravention of a regulation that specifies quantity or quality of a waste discharge. The current maximum fine that can be prescribed for contravention of a regulation is $200,000, with the exception of the special waste regulation which is $1 million. This amendment will ensure that violations of waste discharge requirements are subject to the same maximum penalty regardless of whether the requirements are specified in a regulation or a permit. This is particularly important with reference to the pending pulp mill effluent legislation to allow for more complete control of special wastes, with emphasis on treatment and recycling, and to enable delegation of responsibility to administer source control regulations to municipalities to effectively ensure the reduction of toxic compounds entering municipal sewage collection systems; to allow municipalities to recover costs related to administering special waste regulations and to ensure application of the polluter-pay principle; to tighten up the Waste Management Act to close some potential loopholes; and to clarify the intent of some sections.

Under the contaminated-site legislation, we are enabling certification of contaminated sites where they have been remediated: to enable collection of fees with respect to services provided by the government for assessment and remediation of contaminated sites; to enable pollution to be controlled and polluted land to be remediated without the need for an emergency declaration under the Environment Management Act; to enable more effective control of underground storage tanks and to prevent the creation of new contaminated sites arising from the leaking of such tanks; and to enable cost recovery for administration of the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I've summarized the major features of the bill. I'm confident that these amendments are in the public interest and will enhance our ability to protect the environment of British Columbia. I am pleased to move second reading of the bill at this time.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say thank you to the minister for informing me in the House yesterday that this bill was coming down and providing me with the opportunity to be briefed by Mr. Jon O'Riordan of his staff. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the bill is coming at such a time that it's awfully difficult to have done the appropriate research that I need to do with my overworked staff in order to do justice by providing an appropriate critique.

Having said that, we don't intend to vote against any of the sections in this act. As we go through the clause-by-clause, I will be pointing out that I have some real concerns about the drafting of the bill.

However, I do want to say that I want to commend the minister's staff for having taken note of some of the points that I and my colleagues raised during the estimates. I want to commend the minister for that. There is some responsiveness in this bill. It will emerge, as we go through it clause by clause, that we don't feel it goes far enough in some areas, or that it's really coming to grips with some of the problems. But I would not want it to be said that I stood in the way of some of these measures taking place.

With that, my colleague from Oak Bay is going to have something to say. Then we're going to get into the clause-by-clause.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, it's hard to know what to say about this bill. Here we are, this late in the session, this late in the day, considering something that advances some aspects of waste management, but that really, when you have a close look at it, is so hastily put together with so little thought that if I were the Minister of Environment, I'd be embarrassed to bring this forward.

This is coming from a government that says it's found the environment; they're born-again environmentalists. They're all for environmental protection. What does it have in it? We're going to get into this in committee, but I want to just quickly highlight the things that are in there.

It tinkers with the whole subject of urban air pollution. It doesn't deal with urban smog or with apartment incinerator pollution. It just tinkers around with it a little bit.

It gets into the whole question of hazardous waste again, and says that we can now treat or recycle hazardous waste for up to 15 months without a permit. What happened to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation that we were debating a few weeks ago in this Legislature? What happened to the strategy that was promised? What happened to the public consultation on the strategy? Now we find that hazardous waste can be treated and recycled without a permit. It's impossible to believe some of the things in this legislation. Prior to this act being introduced — right now — hazardous waste can be stored for up to 12 months without a permit.

What is this bill going to do to advance the cause of environmental protection? Now you're going to have 15 months that you can operate without a permit. And not only will you be able to store it, but you will be able to treat it. You will be able to burn it and incinerate it for 15 months without a permit.

Contaminated sites are also iIn the legislation. All it does, when you have a close look at it, is create a shell. It puts in a title "Contaminated Sites," and says: "We're going to have some regulations. This is the way of dealing with contaminated sites."

It's interesting. You have to come to the conclusion that after all of these weeks that we have been in here — and sometimes you're standing up talking and you're not convinced anybody is listening.... The Minister of Environment has been listening. We spent a lot of time talking about underground storage tanks during the minister's estimates, and there is some reference in here. It doesn't shed any light on the answers that he gave us during his estimates about whether there was a code, whether there were regulations. But at least it's on the list now.

[ Page 11596 ]

On second thought, I rather like this bill because it shows clearly the Socreds' commitment to the environment. It shows that it is haphazard, that it is superficial, that it is expedient. I guess that's what it all comes down to when we're talking about the environment and the Socred government.

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

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would thank the two members on the other side for their wonderful comments and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 68, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: just before I call the Chairman, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, hon. members. I would like to announce in the gallery Mr. Al Rycroft and colleagues from the Greater Victoria Disarmament Group. Mr. Rycroft is a sincere young man who took seriously the possibility of passing legislation in this House for a nuclear-weapons-free zone and has been working hard to get the Premier's attention to achieve that.

I would like the House to recognize that there is hope yet. One day we shall have a nuclear-weapons-free zone in this province.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister if he would confirm that section 2(a) is in reference to a case that had to do with the Doman company up in the Cowichan estuary which the ministry lost on a technicality. Is that why this reference has been made in this bill?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to section 2(b), I would assume this means that institutional and commercial operations burning wood will now need to get permits. But permits will not be needed for comfort heating in homes and also in institutions and commercial buildings.

I would like the minister to respond to this statement. Every time you bring in an act with a section such as this, you have an opportunity to do it right. The opportunity here is to address the issue of urban smog. The Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Forests have all recognized the problems with carbon dioxide emissions — air pollution —- and I think they are well aware of the position that we put forward that there needs to be a phasing out of apartment and commercial incinerators which do not have proper pollution control equipment. Therefore they should be phased out, because they're simply inappropriate in our urban areas. I'd like to ask the minister to account for the fact that he did not take the opportunity to deal with this serious environmental urban pollution problem.

[9:30]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The reason it's not dealt with right now is because of the great consultation process this government has. We are dealing with the municipalities on bylaws that they will use for woodstoves, and hopefully in the next session I will present this legislation to you in March or April.

Also, I might say that we're encouraging people everywhere I go that they should put natural gas fireplaces in their homes. I can tell the member that when I moved into my new house that my wife built, she put all gas fireplaces in the house, and they work tremendously well. They're not dirty; I don't have to haul in logs anymore. You can just flip them on and off, and they're excellent. We all should encourage people to go to natural gas as British Columbians; it saves the trees and also is a much cleaner fuel.

MR. CASHORE: That's all very well, Mr. Minister, but not all of us have a ministerial salary to be able to put gas fireplaces all through our houses.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't make enough money either. My wife bought and built the house.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to ask the minister if he included his gas fireplaces on his disclosure form.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Minister, that you blew it on 2(b), because you had the opportunity to bring in the legislation now. You have sitting next to you a gentleman who is very good in the area of drafting legislation to deal with these problems, and if you hadn't left it until the penultimate day of the Legislative session, I'm sure that you would have done a much better job.

The Minister of Education just said that he's an expert on verbal pollution. I don't know if he's planning on getting into the debate or not, but I would agree with what he just said.

I'm ready to go on to section 3.

Section 2 approved.

[ Page 11597 ]

On section 3.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to section 3, this is generally housekeeping. Let's see: "A person who is storing...."

I would assume from reading this that this clause makes it more liberal in the sense of providing for the initial 90-day exemption to be given to notify that special — that is, hazardous — wastes were being stored when this section was passed last year. My assumption is that by providing this clause, it makes it more liberal. But I want to get it on the record if that indeed is the case.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: This removes the 90-day time-limit for notifying a manager of special waste storage. This time-limit was set up only for the initial introduction of the special-waste regulation. Immediate notification of storage of prescribed special waste will now be required.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CASHORE: My understanding of section 4 is thatit authorizes the ministry to give permits to recycle and/or treat hazardous waste as well as store special wastes. This is a point that my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has referred to on many occasions. What we have to recognize here is that the government has not passed legislation that would entrench even the existing weak major project review process. That's an inadequate process, but it has not got even the strength of being legislated. That should certainly be done.

Where's the provision for a full environmental assessment? Without environmental assessment, public review or consultation, it enables the permitting of a major hazardous products recycling or treatment plant. I'd like to ask the minister exactly what he means by "treat or recycle special wastes."

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It means that someone who's creating some waste can treat it on site without having to move it somewhere else.

MS. CULL: Maybe the minister could answer a question. The section is expanded by allowing the treatment and recycling of hazardous waste. That's the main purpose of the section — to add those two items, treatment and recycling, to storage, which is there now. I have to assume that right now there is no authority to treat hazardous waste, that you can't do it. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MS. CULL: Then once this amendment's in place, a permit can be issued and treatment of hazardous waste could commence. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MS. CULL: I have to ask the minister about all of the discussion we had during the debate on the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, when he assured this House that a strategy for hazardous waste would be prepared and discussed publicly before we ever got around to this situation where the hazardous waste would be treated.

It seems to me that as soon as this bill becomes law, the Ministry of Environment is in a position to start approving treatment of hazardous waste, without any of those safeguards that he talked about during the debate of his bill being assured.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: What I said during my estimates was absolutely correct.

MS. CULL: The minister is not really dealing with the issue here, because he is not giving us any assurance. In answer to my questions right now, he told me that once this section becomes law the treatment of hazardous waste becomes something that can happen in this province with a permit. And when we get on into the next section, we discover that it can happen even without a permit — which certainly is not consistent with anything that he said during the discussion we had on the hazardous waste corporation.

MR. CLARK: Just to follow up, then, is the minister saying that there will be no permits issued until there is the kind of public discussion that he apparently talked about in his estimates?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Under the hazardous waste act, that's correct.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. CASHORE: I did hear the explanation of this section in the minister's office yesterday, but the object is that we are trying to cut down on pollution in this province. The object is that we are trying to deal with the question of allowing people who have permits — which are permits to pollute — being permitted to pollute even more. It seems to me that in the greening of the Social Credit cabinet, they would understand that. But this is moving in the opposite direction. This is giving the minister entitlement to extend approval from the now very adequate 12 months to 15 months. It allows the time of the permit to be, in effect, that much longer.

Again, the minister knows that we are on record as planning to eliminate these approvals altogether. Surely if you have a permit that goes through the permitting process and all that that entails, if a polluter is going beyond the permit, instead of the minister or his staff functioning in such a way as to give the polluter a pat on the head and say, "There you go; go on and do it some more; not only that, we'll reward you by extending the length of your permit," it seems to me that it's a step in the wrong

[ Page 11598 ]

direction. I'd like the minister to account for the fact that they are actually making it easier on polluters with this section, not trying to force polluters to come to terms with the excess pollution.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member misunderstands this section. Approvals of this type are necessary to respond quickly to control and authorize emergencies and short-term discharges. If his party were to eliminate these, I could see the situation where the city could burn down while some bureaucrat was waiting to get a permit. The minister has to have the power. If a pipeline breaks, it needs an emergency authorization, and that's the minister's responsibility. That's what this section is for. It's not to allow something to go on and on; it's for those types of emergencies.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister say, then, that virtually all the permits now outstanding would fit into the metaphor he's just used — that type of emergency, such as a city burning down? Would that be an average example of the type of permits or variance orders that are now approvals?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: An example would be a pipeline repair. That would be an approval in an emergency.

MR. CASHORE: I wonder if the minister could advise the House how many operations in the province are existing on approvals now.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that number, but Dr. O'Riordan would be pleased to get it for you. It might take some time.

MR. CASHORE: Perhaps the minister will provide that during one of the sittings of the House next week.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: One of the members over here asked me who writes this stuff for me, and I just want to comment on that. As I said earlier, when this minister dumps a bill like this on us late yesterday afternoon, one has to be very thankful that we do have people who can get something written and prepared for us. I have to admit that it takes me a little while to read, learn and inwardly digest, but I'm working on it, in the interest of trying to make sure that this is good legislation.

I just want to say to the minister that I think the 12 months that presently exists is sufficient. I don't think the minister has provided an adequate explanation as to why he is extending that from 12 to 15 months.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CASHORE: Again, section 6 is housekeeping. I just want to ask the minister if there were municipalities or regional districts that requested this change. That's one question. The other question is: does this weaken the opportunity for citizens' input into the solid waste management planning?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No, it doesn't weaken it.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. CASHORE: Now we're getting into the section on contaminated-site remediation. This is a stopgap section until there is further consultation, which was a point the minister made on a previous section about drafting full and proper site-remediation legislation. I understand that this has been drafted in order to take full advantage of federal funding. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise the House if this section is of any effect prior to regulations specifying standards being put in place.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We have the standards that we were applying to Pacific Place, and they will be formally brought out by regulation in about a month.

[9:45]

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise the House whether those standards have been adopted by order-in-council, or just what process has been used to bring those standards into effect?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: They are out for consultation, and I'm advised that he was sent a copy today. I hope it didn't go through the federal mails; it might take too long to get to him. You will have a copy of it, and your recommendations will be put in with all the others before the final report comes out about a month from now.

MR. CASHORE: Once a federal Member of Parliament, always a federal critic. I appreciate that I will be receiving those regulations.

Under this section, in 20.3, it gives the Crown, the minister and employees immunity, except where they have acted in bad faith. I would just like the minister to clarify whether this is a sufficient standard to protect the Crown and ministry employees when literally millions of dollars may be at stake. Would the minister advise the House if this is the same standard used in other jurisdictions, or have they checked with other jurisdictions to see how the standard is applied?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is a legal term. It is done in other jurisdictions. I'll just

[ Page 11599 ]

say that it provides for commencement of an action or proceeding if it is established that the Crown, minister or employee acted in bad faith, which may be considered as acting outside the scope of authority as set out in the act, or engaging in actions promoted by self-interest, sinister motive or malice.

MS. CULL: I just wanted to ask a little bit about section 20.3, immunity, and some of the discussions that we have had about liability — particularly where you draw the line between a public body assuming liability and where the liability doesn't exist.

I'm a little concerned about this section, because if I read the first part of it correctly, it seems to me that if the Ministry of Environment makes a mistake and some harm is caused to somebody down the line because the site was not cleaned up properly, and as long as there was no bad faith, then the Ministry of Environment is off the hook. Is that what this section says?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If it's done in good faith, that's correct.

MS. CULL: So what remedy does somebody have if a site that was contaminated, cleaned up and certified to be clean is subsequently determined to have caused serious health problems to a family — perhaps permanent damaging problems or ongoing chronic problems? What recourse does that family have to claim for damages, for suffering?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm advised they would have to go to court.

MS. CULL: Could the minister tell me who they would sue, since the Ministry of Environment is not liable according to section 20.3? Who would they seek damages from?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can't answer that question. We don't have an attorney here. The Crown is immune, and that's not unusual in legislation.

MS. CULL: I'm just harking back again to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation discussions we had. We had a lot of discussion about who would be liable. I asked the minister a number of questions about what would happen if a treatment facility had an accident and there was contamination. Who would be liable? The minister made it clear that in the end, the ministry would be liable; they would own the waste. But in this case, it seems that the public is not being protected. There's some real concern here. We've seen sites throughout North America, that were contaminated but supposed to be safe subsequently turn out not to be safe. We're leaving the public out to dry on this one, and I don't think the Ministry of Environment gets off the hook here. I would suggest that the minister might like to have a look at some of the municipal liability and some of the debate that's gone on about municipal liability and find out where municipalities continue to be liable even if they have acted in accordance with procedures and good faith and all the rest of it.

MR. CLARK: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has made some excellent points.

I wonder if we can get at the question a little differently. Does the minister think there's some obligation — if not a legal obligation — on the part of the government to deal with the problem, even if it's produced by his ministry by accident, in good faith? If it has some injurious effect on some private individual down the road, does the minister not agree that there's some obligation on the part of the Crown to try and deal with that problem?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head did make some good points, but she also brought up two different issues. If you are talking about a hazardous waste facility that has an accident, there is insurance. The polluter who is sending his material there has to have insurance while it's handled, and the public is protected.

If you are talking about a contaminated site.... I guess the only example I could use is that five years ago scientists told us dioxins and furans were safe. If this minister made a decision based on that scientific evidence, I don't expect you would expect him to go to jail and pay personal fines if five years later other scientists said that wasn't true. This section protects the minister and his staff in making legitimate mistakes. Science may improve and tell us a few years down the road that things have to change. But you can always go back to the polluters if you know who they are. If you've got an orphan site, you do have a problem, and that's why there's orphan-site legislation.

MS. CULL: That's precisely the situation: you may not be able to go back and find the polluter after a period of time. I think the words used by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) were "moral obligation." I'm certainly not suggesting that if a site is subsequently found not to be safe that the minister or his staff should go to jail. But I think there is some obligation on the part of government to compensate or to deal with damages, because those people have acted in good faith, based on your certificate. They have taken the word of the government, and they look to the government for protection. They have to look to the government for protection. If the government has not been able to protect them, for whatever reason, then there is certainly a moral if not a legal responsibility there.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I couldn't agree more, and that's why in situations so far, like Trail and Wells, the government has taken that moral position and is spending a fair bit of money doing things and assisting people.

[ Page 11600 ]

MS. CULL: A final point on this. If that's the practice of the government, then why doesn't the legislation the minister is bringing in reflect it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 7 pass?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to move on to sections 8, 9 and 10. I think we can do those in a group.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. CASHORE: With sections 8 and 9, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that the West Coast Environmental Law Association has been raising this point with this minister and with previous Ministers of Environment. The problem has been that under legislation conservation officers in investigating certain pollution situations have had to go through the step of finding someone to show identification to before they could begin their investigation. As you know, Mr. Chairman, often the evidence would be gone very quickly, especially if it was an effluent that had been discharged into a water body. This is certainly an important section, and it's a corrective where the minister has finally responded to the West Coast Environmental Law Association and to others. Also, I would like to take credit personally, because I raised this during estimates, and I would like to thank the minister for having responded so quickly to that.

I said 8, 9 and 10, right? I don't know if the minister wants to comment on or clarify any of those sections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I just want to say that I think what we've done here shows that we are a government that does listen. We listen to the opposition when they make good recommendations; we listen to the West Coast Environmental Law Association and appreciate the consultation that they give the ministry.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. CASHORE: I wonder if the minister would clarify the purpose of section 11. The note says it "enables pollution to be controlled, abated or stopped and polluted land to be remediated without the need for an environmental emergency declaration under the Environment Management Act." Would the minister confirm that part of this section would deal with, for instance, the problems the Sumac mine had up in the Grand Forks area, where the minister had to put forward a pollution abatement order under the Environment Management Act a little over a year ago? It is my understanding that this would enable someone other than the minister — for instance, a manager — to put forward an order to deal with such a situation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes.

MR. CASHORE: In this section we have (a), (b) and (c). It says: "Where a manager is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a substance is causing pollution, the manager may order (a) the person who had possession, charge or control of the substance...(b) any other person who caused or authorized the pollution, or (c) the person who owns or occupies the land on which the substance is located...." I see some value in this, but the problem I see with it is that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to where you start. This seems to be a hodgepodge, unless the minister declares that there is some kind of a hierarchy of (a), (b) and (c) ; in other words, that the manager would start with (a) and then go to (b) and then go to (c). That might make some sense of it. Who do they go after first? And who do they go after second? Or would it be that one manager might start with the situation described in (c) and go after those individuals, and another manager might go after the individuals in (a).

It seems to me that this section is drafted with a great deal of ambiguity and a tremendous potential to thwart the basic purpose of the section. I understand the purpose of this section; I think it has a worthwhile purpose.

[10:00]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Normally we would go after them in the way they are listed there: (a), (b), (c). But this does allow the manager to go after whoever he wants to go after on that list, with the idea of stopping the pollution as quickly as possible.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, but the problem is that without that being spelled out.... It's not good enough simply to have that on the minister's word. If it is not spelled out in the legislation, does not the minister realize that he is leaving his government open to litigation that could be enormous? When you consider the costs of being charged with pollution offences, when those costs really start to function on a polluter-pay principle, they're going to be enormous. Therefore some polluters who can afford to do so would take a section like this and use it to try to point out that the minister is going after the wrong guy.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised by our legal advisers that this is the way the act should read to protect us.

MR. CASHORE: I am not going to persist with the point I have made, but I just want to say for the record that I don't think the minister's response in any way addresses the issue I am raising.

To get back to a point I was making a little earlier, this points out that when the Environment Management Act is not used, where the minister would put forward a pollution abatement order and where the

[ Page 11601 ]

manager is able to do so.... Would the minister describe precisely where the borderline is? When does the Environment Management Act kick in, and when does this clause kick in? What is the qualitative difference between this section and the responsibility the minister has under the Environment Management Act?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The Environment Management Act allows me to use my authority in a very broad manner. This section allows the manager, or person in charge of the area, to go in where there is a definite pollution.

MR. CASHORE: I'm prepared now to go on to section 12.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. CASHORE: I'm going to start by reading the explanation. Section 12(b) "clarifies that all permit/approval holders who fail to comply with the requirements of their permit or approval, whether discharging or not, are committing an offence under the act and are liable to a penalty."

This is subsequent to legislation that was brought in last year where the ministry had changed its fines from $50,000 to $1 million. At that point in time, the maximum fine under any of the Waste Management Act provisions was $50,000. A year ago that was changed to $1 million, and in cases where there was wanton disregard, it could be $3 million. It would appear that 12(b) backtracks on that to some extent.

I would like the minister to give a rationale for having in effect modified the somewhat stringent fines that were brought in a year ago. It needs to be noted that in terms of government rhetoric and trying to put on a green image, there was a tremendous amount of reference: "Now we've got such good fines in legislation, now we're going to be fining people a million dollars." The fact of the matter is, the minister well knows that never in the history of the province has anyone ever been given anything close to a maximum fine.

As a matter of fact, never in the history of this province has the total amount of fines for the entire province for the entire year totalled much more than a maximum fine. The fact is that pollution enforcement was and is a farce. The fact is that the minister will stand up and say, "Yes, but we've increased the number of prosecutions by 67 percent," or whatever figure he'll toss off; and he'll say, "We've increased the amount of fines by 38 percent," or whatever figure he decides to use. Mr. Chairman, 100 percent of nothing is nothing. It's like saying to a volunteer: "We're going to increase your salary by 50 percent."

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm dumbfounded by the comments of the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). There's a tremendous gap between the rhetoric of how much the government is legislating as a maximum fine and the amount that they're actually collecting in fines.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I think the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is well aware that one of the reasons we have a deterrence in terms of traffic is because fines are collected. In Environment fines are not collected, and we do not have the deterrent effect. In this section it would appear that the ministry is backtracking on its fines. It makes the penalty, for instance, for failing to comply with a permit up to $300,000. That's a lot less than the $1 million to $3 million fines that we heard about a year ago.

Would the minister explain the rationale behind backtracking on the fines in this way — even though they don't collect them anyway?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to inform the member, just so we get it correct, that there have been maximum fines. One of the pulp mills in this province was fined $50,000 in this province not too long ago, which was the maximum fine under the old regulations. The judge also warned him that if he had been under the new legislation when charged, he would have paid the $1 million fine. That was a $50,000 fine.

I would like to suggest to the member that I like his comment that he doesn't think the fines are strong enough; I think I'll clip that out and send it to all the pulp mills and industries around the province.

I don't think it's in order to table documents in committee, but I will assure the member that we'll get a copy of this and send it over to him. It's a breakdown of the maximum penalties and the description of the violations. There has been no back down whatsoever, but he can see by this list— I won't take the time of the House to read it — that it gives the different items that people would be fined for. I'm sure he'll appreciate having that so that he can be accurate with his comments.

MR. CASHORE: Let it be stated that the minister tried to make that sound as though a maximum fine was quite a normative experience in the province. He used the plural, but I think he only has the one example. It's an example, as he admitted, based on the old inadequate fines. The minister has no basis for prejudging what a judge would have decided under the new fines.

Be that as it may, he is simply unwilling to recognize that his fining categories mean nothing, because there is so little money collected under enforcement by this ministry. I don't see any sign that that's changing in a substantive or significant way. I'll leave it at that.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 11602 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990, reported completed without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PARKS

On vote 52: minister's office, $301,610.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the estimates for the Ministry of Parks. I seek your approval to spend $37,122,000 to maintain, improve and promote our parks in 1990-91.

The Ministry of Parks is good news for the province of British Columbia. The Ministry of Parks plays a vital role in conservation and in the economy. We have assets worth more than $300 million in our provincial parks and ecological reserves. Our government protects more than 13 million acres of parkland.

But some people say it's not enough. So we are addressing those comments through Parks Plan '90. On June 7, I announced a new initiative to review provincial parks in British Columbia. We have taken a look at all the special features and all the distinct landscapes we have in this province and in our parks. We have asked the public to think about the natural assets that we protect in our parks. In the fall we'll invite everyone who's interested to attend public meetings on the future of our parks.

You will recall that earlier this session we amended the Park Act, enshrining the boundaries of 23 additional parks. Now that this bill has been proclaimed as law, 79 percent of the area in our parks will enjoy the strongest protection possible.

Since this committee last discussed the Ministry of Parks, our government has created 13 new class A parks and expanded nine existing class A parks. Our government has also created 12 new ecological reserves and expanded one other ecological reserve. We've added 38,000 acres, and that's roughly as much land as in all of my beautiful home riding of Okanagan-Similkameen. In our provincial parks we've protected 41 of the 59 provincial landscapes. We've protected almost half a million acres of old-growth forest.

The people of British Columbia share our pride. That's what I heard over and over again on my fact-finding tour that I went on in March. Everywhere I went people told me that we have the best parks in the world. Many people told me that the most important thing we do is preserve and protect nature. They told me our parks are important in our economy. From Fort St. John to Nelson I heard that B.C. parks are a vital part of the tourism industry. We estimate that each year our visitors contribute $400 million to the tourism industry. Every community benefits from having a provincial park nearby.

We do more than bring tourists into the province; we are also a major player in the accommodation sector. In fact, B.C. parks are the largest single supplier of overnight accommodation in the province. We have roughly 12,000 units, and that makes us an important part of the tourism industry. In the first five months of this year the number of campers increased by 6 percent; and in the past three years the number of visitors in provincial campgrounds has gone up by 15 percent. Last year 2.3 million people camped in provincial parks, and over 20 million people visited our parks in British Columbia.

[10:15]

I've told you how those 20 million park visitors have a positive impact on our economy. Now let me tell you how our parks have a positive impact on those millions of people. Families visit parks to have an affordable vacation. People visit parks to learn about nature and to teach their children about our natural heritage and history. Our parks are places to relax and to recover from the pressures of everyday life and to put things back into perspective. I think we'd better head for those parks tomorrow morning. Our parks are living legacies for all British Columbians to cherish.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Parks is responding to the needs and wishes of the people of British Columbia. Our government protects more than 13 million acres of land for the benefit of our citizens and for generations to come. It provides many important economic benefits, and it contributes to the well-being of our citizens.

In conclusion, I would like to introduce two members of my staff: Stephen Stackhouse, the associate deputy minister; and Derek Thompson, the director of planning and conservation. I now welcome any questions from members of the Legislative Assembly, and I promise to keep mine short in response to their short questions.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm well aware that the minister was in my area. I'm not sure how sure he was of where he was at what time. I hate to put it on the record, but the minister is quoted as saying he was in Cranbrook when he was in Fernie. Nevertheless, he may have known the names of the parks that he saw, and I do believe that he went to see a number of the parks in the area.

Of course, the first question and probably the most obvious question, Mr. Minister... As far as creating parks in our area is concerned, I know the budget is practically nothing. It must be, because there's certainly no money being spent. There are no increases for parks. It's been extremely bad.

The last park that was created in the East Kootenays, I'm told, was up in the Windermere area at least six or seven years ago. The interesting thing is that the Minister of Parks at the time, in 1987, said that he would create a park at Newgate. It was to be a

[ Page 11603 ]

class A park. We definitely need a park in Newgate. The use is there already. It's very clear that the people in the area are calling for a park; the people who use the area want a park.

They don't want a built-up fancy park with a whole lot of facilities, but they want a boat launch, a telephone, some adequate water — they now have that; B.C. Hydro put it in — and they want garbage collection. They have had put in place the stands for garbage cans, but they haven't been used because nobody collects the garbage anyway. That is what has happened after the promise of the minister for a class A park.

There has been some confusion — and I have asked the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) about this — about who is going to fund whatever goes on in the Newgate area, and, as a matter of fact, all around the Koocanusa Lake area. It's called a lake. It's really a reservoir, but sometimes it's a lake. Sometimes it's a just wide river again, sometimes it's got a whole lot of mud flats, and so on and so forth.

I would like to ask the minister what he intends as far as Newgate Park is concerned, and if he would clarify for me what his policy is on doing work at Newgate Park vis-à-vis B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. MESSMER: In answer to the first question, I was in Fernie and Cranbrook. I was in both places, and I know the difference between the two.

Having said that, I did go down to Newgate. I looked at the proposed park at Newgate. You are absolutely correct that the former Minister of Parks did make that commitment back a few years ago. I believe it was in 1988.

We have been negotiating with Hydro. Part of the problem with the boat ramp site that's being requested there is that I believe the one we are requesting is a few more dollars' expense than what Hydro is prepared to talk about. The reason for that is exactly what you related, and that is the lowering of the lake and the height of the water that's going in there. It's estimated at this time that a ramp would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000. If we were to continue and put a 50-unit campground and associated day-use in that area, it would cost about $300,000. We are continuing to negotiate with Hydro. That commitment was made back in 1988. The use of the area right now is not as high as we feel it should be. Part of that is because there is no road from the south, as you are quite aware. In other words, it's for the local users only at this time, practically, along with visitors who would come to that area. So it's a case of dollars as far as we're concerned.

When you talk about spending additional dollars on parks within British Columbia, it is true. The amount of dollars that Parks has had in its budget in the past years to spend on new facilities has been limited, certainly going back to the early eighties. This year, as you are aware, we did have $1 million, which is very little; nevertheless, it's $1 million more than we've had in other years.

MS. EDWARDS: The point about Newgate Park is that there was a promise. There was a promise to bring it up to class A standards. The people in the area don't want a class A park, Mr. Minister. They want the kind of protection that comes with a class A park, but they don't want the kind of investment that comes with a class A park They don't necessarily need all the blacktop and all that kind of stuff that goes with a class A park. In fact, all the polling they've done and the surveying they've done has indicated that what they want in that area is a partly natural area. One of the reasons people go there is because it still remains a fairly natural area.

The fishing, if it were better, would have brought more. The fish weren't there, because B.C. Hydro has been allowed to lower the level on the lake more than they were before, despite the promises of this government.

One of the benefits of having the Columbia River Treaty would be that we would have beautiful recreation on our reservoirs. Mr. Minister, I would like to put some fire in your argument to say that we want that recreation and we want it on Koocanusa reservoir. We don't need to depend on B.C. Hydro's whims. Maybe B.C. Hydro is going to give a lot of money, but it isn't going to take a whole lot of money to put Newgate Park into the shape it needs to be. I know the minister saw it. It's an amazing area.

It's not like most parks. It's a strange area. There are little spits out into the water. The people camp in the most amazing places. All it needs is that kind of control and clean-up that is needed for a park. They also need a telephone so that everybody that comes and parks there is not going to have to go to the neighbours to call for the tractor to pull their trucks out when they try to launch their boats, and all that kind of stuff. When is the minister going to put some money in and keep the promise that his predecessor made three years ago?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond that we will continue to push Hydro. We will continue to work with Hydro. It's our feeling that Hydro has an obligation, and has had as an obligation for many years on this particular site.

I would just like to mention to the member one of the problems, of course, that we have with new parks. They become class A parks, and I think that's a good policy; I don't disagree with that. When they do become class A parks, people naturally wish us to spend money for operations. I'm sure the member would agree with that. But we will continue to push for it.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd just like to clarify with the minister. He said there's no road from the south. Of course there's no road from the south, Mr. Minister; it comes out of the U.S. I'm assuming that you don't want a road. There's not likely to be a road up from the U.S. at that point. We're dealing with a road that comes down that side of the reservoir to that park, or comes across the bridge — which you probably travelled — and comes right into the Newgate Park area.

[ Page 11604 ]

What we want is something with that park as it is. It isn't going to take a lot of money; it takes dedication. I hope the minister is going to do that.

MR. REID: Sounds pretty good.

MS. EDWARDS: It sounds great to me.

The other park that I hear more about than any other park in the area is the Elk Lakes Provincial Park. What I hear about is the road. I know that you're not totally responsible for what happens to the road. I also know that it is a gravel road that has been fixed several years ago and not fixed since then. Because it is not a good road, people can't use the parks. You need not just a four-wheel-drive vehicle but some other kind of vehicle. I won't suggest a helicopter, because we don't want them in that area when they get a little further north into the height of the Rockies. Nevertheless, we need some improvement to that road. If we're going to have it operate as the kind of park it has been designated as, we need to have the road in there. I hope the minister is going to see that something is done about that.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I met with the mayors in the area and certainly that was one item that was brought up — the same one as you have. As far as the forestry roads are concerned, as you are probably aware, we have asked Highways department to take a look at them. We feel the same as you do, that Highways should be looking after the roads rather than Forests or Parks — especially Parks, because it would completely eat up our budget. That committee has been set. Transportation and Highways are coming back fairly soon with a report to us. It's not only for that one; it's for others within the province.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly hope that you use all the power you have to twist Highway's arm, because that road in particular needs to be improved. There's no question that we've got this magnificent park sitting there and so many people can't get to it. It even has fish in it, for heaven's sake— marvellous fish. It's got everything you could possible want and a road that a people can't get over.

Mr. Minister, I have another question to you. You have received a letter from the East Kootenay Environmental Society. They gave you some input on general parks concerns. They make a number of points, but there's one that I'm going to bring up tonight. We're tightening our time, so I won't go into the whole thing. The East Kootenay Environmental Society is very concerned that the ministry has announced that industrial interests, such as logging companies, will be allowed to donate facilities to parks. The concern there is that members feel that donations and taxes are supposed to go into a general pool and are then allocated to various ministries Parks should have a reasonable budget. We should not have that situation where the people who make the donations may well be able to direct how the money is spent and influence in a major way what happens in our parks. Can you assure us that industrial interests will not be allowed to donate facilities in the park?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I believe I met with that lady in Cranbrook. There was a misunderstanding. Certainly we have said to industry that they have an obligation to put something back into the land. In this case, the land is parks or ecological reserves. They will have no input into what happens. We've asked them, for example on Okanagan Lake where they own the property, for the right to have a launching site for boats. It would mean that Parks would have the rights to that. In recognition of that, we are quite prepared to put up a sign saying thank you, on behalf of the people of British Columbia and Parks, to that company for providing that ramp.

We have also said to other industrial people in British Columbia that if they're willing to donate something to our parks, such as trails and that type of thing that they're building, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a small plaque, as you go into the trailed area, saying thanks to whatever company that may be for their contribution to the parks in British Columbia. You have to remember that 90 of the parks that we have in British Columbia were donated. So it's not a case of having a McDonald's on every corner; it's a case of where we're simply saying thank you. I don't think there's anything unreasonable in that. These are not billboards.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to say to the minister that I'm sure the intent was not that we don't say thank you to generous gifts; the intent is to be sure that it's overwhelmingly clear that Parks policy goes in the direction of Parks policy, and that there is no pushing on that from any gift that is given. In other words: "Will you accept this? If you'll accept this we'll give it to you, and it will therefore mean that you will have to develop A, B and C" — and therefore I don't get Newgate Park, or that kind of thing.

[10:30]

I might also say, Mr. Minister, that we have some concerns about the development of the borders around Koocanusa reservoir. There are consultations going on now. I have asked for a public meeting around that for quite some time. I haven't been able to get one. I came so close to getting it from B.C. Hydro that it was actually scheduled, and then it was off. Then I had to start again with the interministry committee that works there.

There are some major concerns that Crown Lands is working like the worst kind of development company around that lake, and that various areas that could be developed perhaps as parks or perhaps by Forests recreation, which is also active in that area.... I know you're not totally responsible. As I say, there is input. An interministry committee is working, except that Lands seems to be working somewhere against everything else that's happening there. And the whole idea that it all goes off to private cabins or that kind of thing, when in fact the foreshore has to be public.... We need to be assured

[ Page 11605 ]

that we have adequate parks area for people on that reservoir.

HON. MR. MESSMER: It doesn't come under the Parks jurisdiction, but if you would send me a letter on it, I would be very pleased to check with my colleagues and get back to you.

MR. CASHORE: It's a pleasure to stand in the House at this hour.

MR. SERWA: To be able to stand!

MR. CASHORE: And to be able to stand. I have enjoyed working with the minister since he has been appointed. I also want to say that I have had excellent cooperation from Mr. Stackhouse and the minister's staff. It has been much appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to acknowledge the fact that this is perhaps as late as we have sat this year, and we have guests in the gallery. It's really something to see the people interested in the workings of democracy sitting up there. I would like to welcome all the people in the gallery and thank them for being with us. You are a tremendous inspiration to all of us, and that's why you are hearing such erudite speeches in the chamber this evening.

I would like to ask the minister to confirm my understanding of his mandate. I know he made some comments about it in his opening remarks. But as I understand it — it is in both the annual report of the Ministry of Parks and "Striking the Balance," an attractive booklet that came out recently — the mandate has to do with the management and conservation of land — and water-based systems of parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves, including the best representative elements of B.C.'s natural and cultural heritage, and it represents outdoor recreation interests in allocation and use of land resources throughout the province.

I would like to put it to the minister that in a nutshell it means this minister has a mandate as big as all outdoors.

MR. SERWA: And he's a big man for the job.

MR. CASHORE: And he's a big man for the job.

I don't mean to be trite in saying that, but I say it partly for Mr. Chairman's benefit, because we're going to be canvassing issues during these estimates that are as big as all outdoors. I look forward to that dialogue.

Getting on with it, I'd like to point out that I assume that this minister, along with his government, supports the Brundtland commission and supports the concept of sustainable development as put forward in the Brundtland commission. Is that correct?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I have never said that I agreed with the Brundtland report. When I say that, certainly I am only dealing with the figure that says 12 percent. I have made the statement many times that the figure may end up being less than 12 percent, and it could end up by being more than 12 percent. It's really only the people of British Columbia who will possibly in the end make that decision.

I think the purpose of Parks '90 is to place the designations of parkland and use for our land in British Columbia on one table and consequently to ask other peoples and other organizations to join with us — and I say with us — to decide what areas shall be parks within British Columbia.

I don't disagree with the Brundtland report; what I'm saying is that I think the figure of 12 percent is used too often. It also depends on the nature of the land you put into parks. It's quite easy to say that land that will never be used should be parks. I think the public would disagree with that type of stature; however, in principle I agree with you.

MR. CASHORE: I think the minister makes a good point in acknowledging we're really talking about representative ecosystems and that there are variables. However, will the minister confirm that his government has endorsed the Brundtland commission?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't know what the policy of the government is on that particular question. I believe the Premier has said that, but I wouldn't want to say that in this House.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate that answer. I would like to confirm that. It is my understanding that this government has endorsed the Brundtland report, as has the official opposition.

One would think, therefore, given the beauty of the province and the magnificent variety of ecological systems, the ecological diversity, and the different types of habitat, deserts and shore areas — just the incredible variety of geography we have throughout this great province — that we'd certainly be looking at 12 percent as a minimum, not a maximum, when we're dealing with this ministry. I see the minister nodding, and I know that he views his ministry in a sense of advocacy.

Just before I turn to my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), I want to say that I think that this minister has a problem, and I think his problem is in the cabinet. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the pudding in this cabinet is that the Parks ministry and the mandate of the Parks ministry are relegated to almost what you would call a junior role in terms of what we would see as the hierarchy of values operative in the cabinet. I think that is rather unfortunate, but it is my observation. It's unfortunate because if we're truly going to have a sustainable future, then the values that one would find to be operative and appropriate in Parks policy would indeed permeate the values of the government. I just say that, and I'll come back to it in some of my comments, because I believe we have ample evidence that, while this minister may seek to be a good

[ Page 11606 ]

advocate, there are those in cabinet who would not go along with what would make a great deal of sense.

On our side of the House, we have made it very clear that in 1973-75 we doubled the parks and wilderness space in this province. That was tremendous stewardship; no member of that side of the House has criticized it or would dare to criticize it. We believe that we have done that, we can do it again and we will do it again. We're on record as saying we will do that.

It is unfortunate that this government has not followed the lead of this minister and got on with the job of developing the representative ecosystems that need to be protected. We're talking about areas in this province that are going to be lost because time is running out. If the member wants me to name names, I would be glad to. I will be doing that. I hope he has the stamina to stay in the House for three or four hours, because it's going to take me that long to name all of them.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Of course, I would have to disagree with you. I came into this ministry in October of this year, and if you look back to see what has been accomplished in Parks within the last eight months, you must say that cabinet has given us full support. We continued with the solution to the Strathcona situation. We have added to the ecological reserves. We've made submissions for the world heritage sites. We've protected the park areas by increasing them to about 80 percent at the present time. We have released documents within our government and Parks to the public on landscapes. We came in with a Parks '90 plan, and I'm very pleased that a few days later you announced yours and agreed with us in general on this very important start for the year 1990.

We added a tremendous number of new class A parks from January 1989 to May 1990. I don't know if you want me to list them, but there are 13 that we added to new class A parks and recreation areas. We added to class A parks which are greater than 25 hectares— one, two, three, four, five. We upgraded the status of 22 recreation areas to class A parks, which was 188,212 hectares; one recreation area to a class B park; and one class B park to class A.

We do have the full support of cabinet and have had it. I can go onto ecological reserves, if you'd like to have them too. But it's a new era for parks. After all, Parks is a ministry by itself now. It stands alone, and because of that we have a full seat when it comes to cabinet. This year we went before the budget process system, and we were very pleased to have an 11 percent increase in a time when you are dealing with a balanced budget. We'll do better next year. Part of that is because we're not afraid to go to the public. Parks has always gone out with questionnaires to the public. We also toured nine communities last year, talked to over 1,000 people and invited them to open meetings to discuss parks and what was going to happen to parks.

On the one point, I'm pleased that you know that we're doing a lot of things in British Columbia. I just want to correct you on that one small detail.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister says that they're not afraid to go to the public. I would like to offer that the public is also not afraid to go to the ministry.

A number of my constituents have approached the ministry with a magnificent piece of property that's quite unique. I'm sure the minister is familiar with the Pylades Park Association. This is a unique and beautiful piece of property out in Cedar. It has a range of wetland forest and undergrowth. It has Garry oak, arbutus, evergreens. It has sandy tidal beaches and an offshore ridge with a high ridge of caves. It has an ecosystem that is unique in that little area.

[10:45]

The people of Cedar have lobbied quite extensively, as the minister is aware. I'm sure you received many letters. I know you've received letters from me. However, you have advised people, including me, that because of the location, size and topography of this park, it doesn't fall within your mandate. I wonder if you would elaborate for me on the guidelines. This is a 25-acre park. I'm sure we have some that are that small. I wonder if you'd just elaborate for me why that's so. It seems to me this is something we should preserve for all of the people of B.C.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, it's a good question — one that I think has a pretty logical answer to it, the answer being that the provincial government has a responsibility to all of the people in British Columbia. The parks that we establish should be established for the use of most people in British Columbia. That's a pretty broad statement to make.

The second one is that we're not in the replacement business. When a regional district and a community, such as the city, advocate that they believe it should be a park, we feel that in cases such as that really that should be a taxpayer base — those people who are interior to the community — and it should be a regional park supported by regional taxation.

MS. PULLINGER: I just have a couple of observations. One is that the area this park is in is a tourist area. Yellow Point is very much a tourist area; ergo, that park would be available to all British Columbians. There is growing tourism there, so I have a little trouble with the first argument. This park isn't contained within this area and exclusively available to residents of the area. It would in fact be available, as are the other parks of that area.

The other observation I have is that I understand that last year you had a $2 million budget for acquiring new parklands, and of that budget you spent something like $1,050,000. Therefore there is a significant amount of money available for that purpose. By comparison this is an extremely inexpensive park with enormous returns to the people of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister would like to

[ Page 11607 ]

comment on that. I see an inconsistency there, and if you can explain it, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. MESSMER: The staff tell me that we already have two parks in the Cedar area: Heiner and Roberts Memorial. I suppose that also came into the decision on the one we are referring to.

You spoke about the $2 million that we have for the purchase of parks and said that the year before we spent in total.... I think you were close, anyway, to whatever that figure is. We always have ongoing negotiations, attempting to purchase land throughout the province at a price that we can afford. So we have more land on the books today than money to supply it.

Further to that, when you are talking about purchasing — and I know the question will come up — we also went and asked cabinet to support us with $1.7 million to buy Wallace Island. I have been given a note that says that the Pylades is upwards of about $600,000. So those are the types of dollars that you are talking about today when you are just looking at the purchase of the land. Certainly that does not count anything to do with the capital expenditures and the operations.

MR. VANT: I rise to take part in the debates on the Ministry of Parks estimates, because in the great Cariboo constituency we have many well-known parks. We have the famous Bowron Lake Park, huge Tweedsmuir Park — it's one of the largest, if not the largest, in the entire province — and Wells Grey Park. Almost a third of what I would call our highly productive forest land in the Cariboo forest region is dedicated to parks. Only about 24 percent of our land base in this province consists of what could be termed highly productive forest land. Yes, some of that should be dedicated for the enjoyment of the citizens of the province and visitors alike. It is nice to see them nicely forested.

Just a couple of months ago, in early May, there was a considerable blowdown of timber throughout the Cariboo. In particular, in the Bowron Lake Provincial Park there were no less than 700 hectares of prime timber blown down. I understand a hectare is, as some people say, a huge acre — a heck of an acre It's about 2.5 acres, so 700 hectares would be about 1,750 acres.

I see the member for Vancouver East kind of chuckling about this. That would be an area larger than your entire constituency of Vancouver East.

To see that much prime timber blown down is no laughing matter. I understand in the Cariboo forest region no less than one million cubic metres of timber was blown down in early May. That's almost a third of the entire annual allowable cut in the Quesnel TSA.

Naturally, I'm very concerned about this huge volume of timber that is on the ground in the Bowron Lake Provincial Park. I have been waiting for just about two months for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Parks about this timber. I want to hear from him about what his ministry is going to do about all this timber, some of which is right within the park boundary, and to see if he has addressed this urgent problem.

HON. MR. MESSMER: It certainly is a remark that we heard on our nine-community trip throughout British Columbia — that there is a fine line between the economy and the environment. Of course, it depends on where you live in British Columbia as to what your views are.

In connection with the blowdown — I have been told this, but I can't verify it — roughly one million cubic metres of wood was blown down. To give you an example, the allowable cut in that area is three million cubic metres. I agree with you that there is a large amount of wood fibre sitting there. Only a small part of it is within the park.

What we have done is this. Immediately, we asked Forests to go in with their experts to take a look at it. We have also asked Canada Forestry to go in and take a look at it in regard to any — I guess they call it — pine beetle or bugs that are possibly in the material, and to report to us. We have a preliminary report. We are asking for a final report so that we can make a decision. The Park Act says that the only way trees can be removed from a class A park is to enhance recreation values. In this case, it may be possible to improve the habitat for moose and beaver by planting some other type of species. You can be sure that we're taking an immediate look at it.

MR. VANT: I thank the minister for his comments. The reason I'm so anxious about this is that a number of years ago, there was a blowdown of about 6,000 acres. That was mostly in the same Bowron Lake Park. Unfortunately, all that timber is rotting on the ground. While it may be a natural phenomenon, the spruce beetles infected the healthy stands. Many parts of the park are now infected because that was not cleaned up at the time. It does make a long-lasting eyesore when these healthy stands are infected. I can understand from the frivolity of those sitting in the socialist comer of the House.... Believe me, they'll be sitting there for a long time to come, many sessions and many parliaments of this House. But this is no laughing matter. I certainly appreciate the beauty of the parks, and cleaning up this blowdown would ensure the health of the adjoining stands so those trees will be healthy and look nice for a long time to come.

MR. PERRY: I have a very brief question. Can the minister explain when we can expect the Skagit provincial park?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I guessed that question would come during my estimates; after all, the member has spent a tremendous amount of time on the Skagit and has always been a well-known supporter of it.

The master plan, as you are aware, was sent out. The remarks have been given back to our staff at this time. I have not been there. However, I can assure the

[ Page 11608 ]

member that when the House is out I intend to go in there. I intend to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) to go in with me on the same trip along with our senior staff to take the recommendations and review the remarks that have been sent in on the master planning, because it is essential that a decision be made as soon as possible.

The answer to the question is that I have undertaken that an answer will be given.

MR. PERRY: I have made a longstanding offer to previous government ministers — and I'd be delighted to make it again to the minister — of a free canoe trip down the Skagit River this summer at a time of mutual convenience.

As he knows, I am very concerned about the Mines ministry plans to explore for additional minerals on the east wall of the Skagit Valley. I don't understand why they would want to explore there if they didn't want a mine there if they found something. I am very concerned that not only British Columbians but Americans downstream in the state of Washington — in fact, the International Joint Commission — will be alarmed if the proposals proceed further. So I just want to encourage the minister that we get that park soon.

It will disappoint me if it comes under Social Credit government rather than the next NDP one, but I suppose that will be the breaks. It will delight me personally even more, given how many people have fought for it.

I have another quick question on the south Chilcotin. Is there any progress toward a park proposal in that area? I asked that question last year.

MR. MESSMER: Without sounding repetitious, that too is an area I intend to visit. I'm also hopeful that it will come up in our Plan '90 process that we have throughout the province this year. Part of Parks (Plan) '90, as you can probably guess or already know, is to be able to put everything on the table at one time. Consequently we will not be fighting it on a one-valley basis. All of the players will be allowed to give the pros and cons to everything we have. That will allow the people whom I respect — such as the Valhalla Wilderness Society, the Southern Chilcotin Mountains Wilderness Society; all of those — an opportunity to come in and take a look at what's going on and express their views. That goes for industry as well and also, of course, the opposition.

MR PERRY: Just to go back very quickly to the Skagit, my colleague points out that maybe I should have asked the minister his personal opinion. Does he favour increased mining in the Skagit Valley? Has the Parks ministry taken a formal stand on that issue?

[11:00]

HON. MR. MESSMER: I think it would be unfair for me to say that at this time. After all, the recommendations are coming in. I have not seen the particular site. Like the Carmanah, until you go and see a site, it's very difficult to prejudge.

MR. PERRY: That's a good answer. I think once he has seen the site he'll understand my concerns. I don't think it will be hard to convince him that it wouldn't be a good idea to plan mining in that site, once he has seen it.

Another quick question on the Skagit. I've had a call recently from Mr. Curly Chittenden and Tony Everts, the Province outdoor reporter, who are concerned about road-paving in the Skagit. I had a very thoughtful response from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to a letter I sent her a few months ago. Her response came in the last few months, and it indicated that there were no plans to pave that road. I'd just like to confirm that with the Minister of Parks.

HON. MR. MESSMER. The reply that I have is that the B.C. Parks staff consider the work done by the Ministry of Highways to be normal road improvement directed at enhancing public safety and the long-term reduction of annual maintenance costs. Parks tells me that we have no concerns with the work in general as it has been done to date.

MR. PERRY: I was asking the Minister of Parks if the Parks ministry has any plans for paving the road beyond the bridge approaches and the matters discussed in the Minister of Highways' letter to me.

HON. MR. MESSMER: The answer that I'm getting says no.

MR. SERWA: It's a pleasure for me to enter into the debates on the estimates of the Minister of Parks this evening. I've had the opportunity to travel to many countries in the world. I'd like to compliment the minister for the quality of life that we enjoy in British Columbia. That quality of life is exemplified by the quality and diversity of our provincial parks system. Such scenic grandeur and beauty, which covers virtually every landscape in British Columbia, is preserved in our provincial park system. I'm very proud of that system. It's certainly the major tourist attraction in the province.

I have a number of questions, and I'll start by addressing some of the concerns expressed locally with respect to the Okanagan Mountain Park, which enjoys a number of scapes in a very rugged area called Rocky Point on the eastern shores of Okanagan Lake. There are some problems with this particular park. I'm certain that the minister is conversant with them. One of them is the private landholdings within the park. A number of my constituents are concerned that the integrity of the park itself is handicapped by these private landholdings. They have expressed real concern with this and the sincere hope that progressively the provincial government will undertake the obligation to acquire the private landholdings.

I have a series of questions, and because of the lateness of the hour and the ambition of others to

[ Page 11609 ]

speak on the estimates of the Minister of Parks, I'll try to ask a number of questions. I'll continue on the Okanagan Mountain Park system.

One of the other concerns is that if those private holdings are not acquired, they will exert continuing pressure for either right-of-way corridors for utilities or for actual access roads. They have expressed concern again over the impact and the integrity of the park.

My third question deals specifically with Okanagan park. Concern has been expressed to me by a number of sportsmen's associations and fish-and-game clubs over the increased utilization by this particular park system of the potential restrictions in hunting of big game. I think the minister is quite familiar with that specific park. It holds a number of species of big game, certainly excellent trophy mule deer and a fine herd of elk.

Would the minister perhaps answer those questions? Then I have a few other matters that I would like to bring to his attention.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'd like to thank my colleague for those questions. It so happens that Okanagan Mountain is very close to my constituency. Right now it's in that member's constituency, but when the new boundaries take a solid effect, it so happens that it's in mine. I have a particular interest in this park.

Interjection.

MR. MESSMER: That would never happen. However, that doesn't mean I'd do away with the mountain.

It is true that we would like to do away with in holdings in all parks in British Columbia, but certainly in the Okanagan Mountain Park it's unfortunate that those 11 lots were allowed to be subdivided That's past history, and it's an error in our society. However, they are there.

I have made the statement that it is high on our priority list that we attempt to purchase those 11 lots. We are not interested, though, in purchasing just a couple of lots in order to make a show, to make us look good as a government. If we're going to buy them, we should attempt to buy all 11 lots, because after all it's easy to say that two particular lots within that area can cause us as much damage as 11. I know that's not completely true, but the idea is true.

Access roads. There will be no access roads. It's water only, and it's a caveat on the property to show that there will be no access roads going into that area.

Hunting. The master plan for Okanagan Mountain says very clearly that hunting will be allowed. We're quite conservative when we set the limits within the area, but that's done in consultation with Environment, and after all that is the responsibility of Parks. That will continue.

MR. SERWA: Thank you for the response, Mr Minister.

While all of British Columbia has a great deal of charm and beauty, I am particularly partial to the Okanagan, as it is a real tourist centre and a haven for residents throughout the province. Why, we have people coming from the Kootenays into the Okanagan. Yes, we have them from the lower mainland, and we even have a number of tourists coming from the Alberni area to the Okanagan. But, Mr. Minister, in the summertime the fine recreational parks and facilities are absolutely chock-a-block full for the total season.

I know the ministry has endeavoured to expand the shoulder seasons, and we certainly appreciate the efforts to extend the tourism season in order to spread some of the load onto the shoulder seasons. But there is no question in my mind that because of the unique characteristics of the Okanagan — the attributes, the lower lakes system and the upper-level lakes system — we require more recreational-type parks for campers and tents along Okanagan Lake, whether it's on the east side or the west side. I know that land and property is very difficult to acquire. What do you have in your plans to lighten the burden and to provide the required capacity for the increasing number of tourists coming to the Okanagan and camping in the provincial parks system?

HON. MR. MESSMER: It's absolutely true. Our recreation parks and campsites are overloaded in some areas of the province, and they are very popular. The one that's closest to you is Bear Creek Park, which is one of the finest parks in all of British Columbia. At the present time — I just checked with them the other day — they tell me that there is a four-day waiting-list. They have a ticket procedure in that particular park where you go in, get a ticket and then come back every day at 1 o'clock in the afternoon to see whether or not your ticket number has come up. Right now it's four days later, and that's not considered to be too bad, because you're allowed to stay in the park for two weeks. Nevertheless, it shows the demand there.

Even on long weekends in the Okanagan — and the same in the Kootenays — when we will be jam-packed full, people in the private enterprise field may not have the same numbers, by percentage, in their parks. In most of our parks we do not have showers like the private enterprise field has, and we try to stay a little further away from towns than private enterprise does, to make sure that we're on some kind of equal basis.

The answer to the question, really, is that we are going to expand. With the demand we have today in British Columbia, using our parks and the increases that we have, I forecast that it's going to be just a natural situation that the number of recreation sites will probably double. I made that statement a short while ago, and I went over that well with all members of cabinet. I believe it is going to happen, because British Columbia is a wonderful place to visit, and consequently the demand is there.

I know we're in a rush tonight, but I'd like to give you one example. We have roughly the same area in parks as Ontario. I told you earlier that we have 20 million people visiting our parks. I can tell you that

[ Page 11610 ]

the number of people who visit Ontario parks is six to eight million, so that gives you some idea of what we've done — partially, I suppose, with Tourism. Beautiful British Columbia says that people are now starting to visit our parks.

I have no quick solution to the question you asked. Certainly it's one that we have to consider, and we are working on it.

MR. SERWA: The last series of questions I have deals with two linear parks; or perhaps if they're not parks at the moment, I have a real desire to see them denoted as parks.

The first one is the abandoned portions of the Kettle Valley Railway, running from Hope as far as Midway. As we get more and more people in the province, we're going to require that type of park. There are some very famous trails, for example, located in Ontario which are heavily used by hikers and cyclists. The advantage of this particular right-of-way, starting at Hope and going through to Midway, is that it goes through a variety of ecological zones and a tremendous variety of scapes. It changes from the coastal area, with the heavy rainfall and the forests, and as you climb up into the Coquihalla and the high country, you get into the grasslands in the Merritt area and then up into the plateau area, and through the very rugged area up above Kelowna.

My concern is that if we don't get hold of the right-of-way and protect that corridor, I don't think it will be available for the future. I think there is a tremendous amount of potential for this type of recreational corridor for British Columbians and tourists alike. I believe it has the potential to be a world-class destination trail. I would like to hear what the minister has to say on that, because it is very significant and very important.

The other linear trail that I have some concerns about is the designation of the Alexander Mackenzie Heritage Trail. I would like to know if it is designated or protected or has the potential of being protected through the parks system, rather than through the trails system. I suppose my real concern comes when I recognize that the lead agency in some of these trails is perhaps the Ministry of Forests, which has other areas specific to its particular mandate. I would like, if it were possible, to have these linear corridors transferred into the Ministry of Parks, where the parks system would protect the actual corridor and a certain distance on each side of it.

HON. MR. MESSMER: On the Kettle Valley Railway, the area from Penticton to Midway is abandoned. It's in the hands of Crown Lands, as far as the land is concerned. Forests is doing a study on it at the present time. Most of the area from O.K. Falls to Osoyoos is in the hands of Crown Lands, and Parks is doing a study on that particular piece of property.

[11:15]

From Spences Bridge to O.K. Falls, of course, is a different issue, and the CPR has just been given permission to abandon that line. Crown Lands is dealing with the CPR. There also is a company which is dealing with the CPR to retain the line as a railroad. So that is the mix and match that's there.

There is no doubt that these lands should be preserved as a corridor. The uses depend upon whatever the people want. My personal opinion is that whatever we do with them, we should make sure that the leases or whatever all come due at exactly the same time so that we don't get into a conflict over the use of the land after we've got it. It's important property.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: We have a nocturnal visitor in the gallery, Mr. Brian Giles, who is a realtor from Squamish and the NDP candidate in West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Would the House join me in making him welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm sure once Brian Giles in the gallery sees how long we work, he may even reconsider his nomination.

I would like to canvass the minister very briefly on an issue I've spoken to him about and that everybody in British Columbia — if not Canada and the world — is aware of. That, of course, is Cathedral Park — the little bit of it that is a park. I'm happy to notice that the minister said he was considering purchasing 11 lots in the Okanagan to include in a park. However, Cathedral Grove has been a small park for a very long time. As a matter of fact, just to bring him up to date, it was May 27, 1944, when an announcement was made by the Victoria Lumber Co. Ltd., and Mr. R.O. Sweezey of Montreal declared there would be no logging in the park. Later that year, on November 28, Premier Hart accepted the park from H.R. MacMillan as a gift to the province of British Columbia. H.R. MacMillan, of course, went on to become famous as one of the owners of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.

At the time, there was some 30 acres of big trees that they were interested in. However, they felt that 332 acres should be set aside: "If all the surrounding forests were removed, the grove itself would not stand for long." The grove is still standing, and it still needs some attention.

Cathedral Grove itself — MacMillan Park — has some quarter of a million people a year visiting it. The small parking area alongside the park, which I'm very familiar with, because I drove through it every day.... When I'm not in the House here, I used to go to work. It's a very small parking lot. Even the RCMP have described the traffic problem along and through Cathedral Grove as an accident waiting to happen. As you can understand, with parking for possibly 60 cars and a quarter of a million people a year visiting — most of them in four months in the summertime — it's very congested. People leave their cars alongside the road.

[ Page 11611 ]

In fact, of the 332 acres originally considered, only about a third of that area — if that — is actual park. Way back in 1944, there were a number of timber holdings, but statements were made that it would be ten or more years before the trees along the highway were seen to be in danger of either being cut or falling down. At that time the estimated value was $150,000. Mr. Minister, as you well know, it's a bargain at that price.

We're still waiting for the government. After all these years of negotiations and all these years of people saying it should become a park, nothing has been done. Nobody has come to an agreement. In 1945, questions were raised in the House of the then Minister of Lands, E.T. Kenney, and he was asked the question by James Mowat. I'm sure there might even be a relationship there.... The Liberal coalition member from Alberni asked: "Is there any danger of the Douglas fir in Cathedral Grove perishing within the next decade because of overmaturity?" The Minister of Lands replied: "Some of the older trees will die from time to time, but a gradual process extending over a very long period." And wasn't he right, because of course those trees are still there, and people still enjoy them to a very large extent.

MR. MILLER: Not like the former Minister of Forests, who said they're all going to fall down and die.

MR. G. JANSSEN: That's maybe why he is the former Minister of Forests.

However, the question of the park.... I'm sure the minister is well aware of it. Even the Ministry of Parks' report on the park — which is going to be expanded by some very minute amount —said: "For a park of such international renown and significance, the existing services provided to the visitor are at best described as primitive."

I'm glad to see that they're considering doing something with the park. People, not only in my constituency but right across British Columbia and Canada — including one of the former candidates, Mayor Gillian Trumper — question the priority of park spending, when money unavailable to develop more popular and more easily accessible attractions is spent on new parks like the remote Carmanah Park. We know Carmanah Park is going to cost a couple of hundred million dollars to create; $750, 000 will be lost in perpetuity just on the timber value.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MacMillan Bloedel has not logged any of that area. That's to their credit. They have taken into consideration that Cathedral Grove is a significant area. However, talks have stagnated since 1945. That's 55 years, and, nothing has been done. I asked the minister. He was going to purchase 11 lots in the Okanagan. Certainly negotiations could continue. I know that they were close to a deal on Strathcona Park in the early eighties, but because of pressure and because they had already removed a lot of areas from that park that they have since put back — and they're to be congratulated for that; they realized their mistake — there is no more land left to trade. So you're probably just going to have to make an outright purchase here, Mr. Minister. I hope that you can go to your cabinet and convince them to loosen the purse-strings and say: "Let's save the rest of Cathedral Grove."

MR. GABELMANN: Tell us about '46.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Don't go to sleep yet.

Ron Lampard, who is in charge of parks in the area, admitted that there just hasn't been enough money to develop Cathedral Grove regional park. The management received some money this year in their budget, but it was spent on signage at existing parks. They were hoping the money for MacMillan Park will be available next year, if the management plan is in place. Well, this is next year, Mr. Minister. I'd like a commitment from you to the people not just of Vancouver Island and British Columbia but of Canada that you'll make accessible this perfect park, where large trees are available to be seen by everybody, including the handicapped.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Just a quick comment. I am told that the present parking situation at MacMillan Park is unacceptable, so they confirm exactly what you've said before. But we both agree with the public process, and as you're aware, the master planning process is currently at work on MacMillan Park. The original deadline for submissions was June 8, and the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot requested that this be delayed. We have just received the information for the master planning, and I can assure the member that that will be released as soon as possible so that we know exactly where we are on the master planning for MacMillan Provincial Park. No negotiations are going on with MacMillan Bloedel while this master planning process is in order. We're negotiating with other property, but not with this particular one. As soon as we get that we will make it public, and we certainly will make an announcement at the same time.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS: For dedication and commitment you can't beat the employees of our legislative staff, and I'd like to introduce two of them who have just whisked in from their typing and so on: Sue Beischer, who labours for me, and Leslie Ivens. Please help me make them welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce the chefs who keep us so well fed and allow us the strength to go on for hours and hours into the night with these speeches. We'll be down for a midnight snack right after we finish up in here.

[ Page 11612 ]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the minister for his comments. However, I was looking for a commitment here, and the minister says there's a park plan in place. We're all aware there's a park plan in place and that you want to add a little wee sliver to the park. Is the minister aware of how many submissions to that park plan called for the inclusion of the rest of Cathedral Grove in the park?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you that, but the master plan is not in place. The process is taking place. The master plan will be in place by this fall. I'm sure that you had an opportunity to go up there and make your submission to the master plan, and I understand that there were not great numbers that made submissions. However, as soon as that information is available, I'll make sure that it's sent to you.

MR. G. JANSSEN: There were two options, option A and option B, in that plan. Neither of those two options called for the entire inclusion of the rest of Cathedral Grove — that strip along the highway There were submissions by the regional district and by many groups in the area that the rest of Cathedral Grove be brought into the park. Now what I'm asking the minister is: when he sits down to look at that plan, will he consider opting away from the A and B plan that his ministry has recommended and moving to the recommendations of the community to include the rest of Cathedral Grove, the rest of those large trees, in the park?

HON. MR. MESSMER: The answer is yes.

MR. CASHORE: I wanted to wait until everybody had done their thing — all the bird dogs — and this way I can try to bat the seagulls....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes. Now we can start the estimates.

I'm not going to get into a lot of cross-examination and that sort of thing. I'll put it on the record, and if the minister wants to respond, that's fine.

The first has to do with something in my riding, and it has to do with an announcement that was made last week by the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) concerning the agreement that was signed for the Coquitlam Quarry Road property. I don't expect the minister to have firsthand knowledge of this. It's a property that seems to be on its way to becoming a golf course. In this area, as we've just learned, a gravel pit is underway and it appears that it's going to be providing the gravel for the construction of the golf course.

[11:30]

The concern about this is that in 1980 — and I realize that the minister wasn't minister then — the Ministry of Parks funded the Coquitlam area mountain study. One of the recommendations of that study was that that area become a class A park. To my knowledge there has been no provincial action on that.

Recently Rick Hankin of the GVRD, realizing the way in which events were developing, attempted to at least forestall the process by getting a task force in place that could be looking at the issue. He did a review of the whole area of Minnekhada, Buntzen, Mount Burke and other places in that area that form a prime potential for a recreation corridor.

I want to know what input the Ministry of Parks has into such an action, when it was a study funded by the Ministry of Parks that made the original proposal that there be a class A park there, and recognizing that there has not been adequate input from the Northeast Coquitlam Ratepayers Association. A lot of them have real concerns about it, and they feel that their wishes have been disregarded and that they have been overridden in a roughshod manner by the proponents of this other process.

So it is a question that deals with the mandate of the Parks ministry in terms of protecting the interests of taxpayers, given that it was taxpayers' money administered through Parks that made the recommendation in the first place.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, just a quick response. I believe it is referred to as Mount Burke....

MR. CASHORE: It includes that area.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Yes. And I can tell you that our people met with the GVRD a week ago. The parks board of the GVRD has started a study on that area, similar to our Parks '90. Our recommendation is that the creation of a park on Mount Burke would be more benefit to the local residents and consequently should come under the Greater Vancouver Regional District. So it is being taken in hand by the regional district.

MR. CASHORE: I thank you for that, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to turn now to the Tatshenshini. I'm going to canvass a few issues on the Tatshenshini, but the issues they lead into are the Canadian heritage rivers system and the recreation corridors system.

I know that the minister has much contact with the Outdoor Recreation Council. At the meeting at Riverfest II, which the minister's predecessor attended, many of these issues were canvassed. With regard to the Tatshenshini, I just want to say that we have the Windy Craggy project there, and I would like it if the minister would comment a little later on what he sees as the mandate of his ministry regarding such a project, where the proponent is putting forward a mining venture but where it is very clear that there are other public interests in that area.

Just for the record, the Tatshenshini flows through three jurisdictions: the Yukon, British Columbia and Alaska. It is part of a river system recognized as having enormous recreational value as well as other values including the fishery that it supports.

[ Page 11613 ]

I would point out to the minister that the Yukon government has taken quite a strong stand with regard to the Tatshenshini to protect the wilderness river. They've called on the federal government to put a moratorium on mineral activity in this unique valley until the Kluane land use plan is developed.

Also, I'm sure the minister is aware that the Alaska government is on record with regard to a similar concern. I would think that as Minister of Parks, he would be looking at the International Joint Commission for significant input on this issue.

I would also like to say that it is our position that the Tatshenshini should be British Columbia's first candidate for inclusion in the Canadian heritage rivers system. Yet this government is one of two that do not participate in the Canadian heritage rivers system, which I believe began in the early seventies. I feel that is very unfortunate.

The minister will probably say that the recreation corridors program is adequate. But given the international significance of the Tatshenshini, I think the minister will have to agree that it is not adequate.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, the Tatshenshini is of course a little different situation; it comes under the mine development review process under Mines. Consequently it is a public process, and everyone is entitled to participate. We in Parks take an active part in the process also, and we're there to make sure that all British Columbians must deal with the economic prosperity by balancing the wilderness values with the very real wilderness values of Windy Craggy. So I guess what we're saying is that we have an interest in the environment, and we in Parks take an active part, as should the public, in that particular situation.

If you go on to CHRS, there's certainly a different situation there. Yes, it's true that Alberta and British Columbia do not belong to CHRS. I'm personally not convinced that joining the federal program is necessarily the salvation of the corridor system and the safeguards of the river system in the province. You'll find that the average is that one river is protected in each province under CHRS. At this particular time, I cannot see why we would need other provinces within Canada telling us what we should be doing with our river system and the protection of our river system in British Columbia. I believe we are a leader in parks in this province. Consequently we should be able to lead our own.

You asked whether the system is working at the present time, and I very bluntly have to tell you that in my opinion it's not. We have two ministries involved, along with Outdoor Recreation, and while we were established back in 1985, at that time we established too many rivers and corridors that we wished to protect. They consequently got bogged down. While we protected eight — six within Parks and two others — at that particular time, not too much happened. We have asked both ministries, along with the Outdoor Recreation Council, to review the situation. Just recently they have come in with a recommendation. I can tell you today that that recommendation — although it hasn't been approved — simply means that other ministries must be in this joint committee in order to make things happen.

Number one, in my opinion the system was not working. Number two, we had to address it. Number three, we have. Very soon that decision will be made. I hope that next year when we are back in the House and asked the same question, there will be some solutions to it, the same as there have been to handling the great numbers of ecological reserves which we had requests for but were not dealing with.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to say for the record that I know the minister works closely with the Outdoor Recreation Council. The minister is also aware that the member groups that make up the council don't particularly agree with the minister on the points he has just made. They feel that especially the Canadian heritage rivers system would add quality to the way we regard certain representative areas that we recognize as being of national importance. The fact is, when you really think about it, it's only British Columbia that's rejecting this system. Alberta, as I understand it, is about to come on board. The minister shakes his head, but that's not the information I have from my contacts, many of whom are the same as the minister's.

With regard to the recreation corridors program, the minister is right. The program is bogged down. However, I wouldn't agree with the minister that it has reached beyond its grasp. If we're consistent with the mandate and the values of sustainable development and recognize the importance of wilderness protection, then we would certainly recognize that if we are going to have a program like the recreation corridors program, for goodness' sake let's make it work.

It really cannot be considered a great accomplishment to have designated only eight of the studied areas since 1985 — not in a province like British Columbia. The minister has acknowledged that, but I want to be on the record saying that's woefully inadequate. It's a failure. It started off with 32 candidates nominated by the Outdoor Recreation Council. The responsibility for assessing those was split between Parks, which had 12, and Forests, which had 16. They've completed none. I hope the minister will comment on the apparent tacit lack of interest and benign neglect of the Ministry of Forests in its failure to participate with Parks on this.

Given the power that the Ministry of Forests has over resources in this province, this is as good an example as we can come up with to recognize that the multiplicity of values don't have equal status when it come to decision-making in this province. The power rests with Forests, but the Ministry of Parks should be in a position to stand up for values that don't necessarily look upon forest resources as logs on stumps.

The Parks ministry has done somewhat better. They have been responsible for assessing 12. They've completed five; one has been withdrawn. What is the designation "recreation corridor," really? Once they

[ Page 11614 ]

have been so designated, what does that do? There's no funding that I'm aware of. I would put it to the minister that there is no mechanism whereby new areas can be nominated by the Outdoor Recreation Council or any other group. I'd like to know what the minister has to say to that. There's apparently no mechanism to keep this system vibrant and functioning, assuming that it is a good system.

I'd like to point out, just to give you a couple of examples, that two of the areas that have been rejected, as I understand it, are the Inside Passage, notwithstanding many of the noble words we've heard publicly, and the lower Stikine. I'd be interested in what the minister has to say on that.

HON. MR. MESSMER. I made my remarks very clear as to the work we're doing and the fact that there is a recommendation there. I'm told that the corridor plans, as for protection, give a joint management plan that's set up by the committee. I've also been told by staff that your remarks on the Inside Passage are not correct; on the lower Stikine they are correct.

[11:45]

MR. CASHORE: I would just like to ask the minister, given the bill that's been passed to create a park in the Carmanah, what resources have been allocated to carry out the plans the minister has for that park.

HON. MR. MESSMER: There's a budget of $550,000. The operation cost is $104,000. There's interim capital of $118,000; $30,000 for planning; and capital works, which are the parking-lot, the trails, the viewing platforms and the signing, is $298,000 Again, we took that to cabinet, and cabinet supported us, to make sure that when we stepped into the Carmanah we had some resources to be able to go in and do some work. I'd just like to say that the work is underway right now.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like the minister to indicate when that decision was made and if it has been announced. I'd like to put the same question I asked about the Carmanah, now that the boundaries have been consolidated: what is the financial resource and the program that's been put in place for the operation of Strathcona Park?

HON. MR. MESSMER: It was about four weeks ago that we made the announcement on what we were doing. At that time we talked about having two attendants there. We talked about the road going down to the parking-lot. We talked about the fact that we would install some basic toilet facilities, and we would block off one of the roads going down and improve another one. That announcement was made at that time.

As far as Strathcona is concerned, it already has the staff and the facilities. The only thing we've done up there in the last year is increase our supervision.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, the lower Tsitika has become very controversial in the province. We have the concern with regard to the activity now taking place below Catherine Creek. We also recognize that a process which in many ways is exemplary has been going on there since the 1970s. Nevertheless, we realize we have a world-class situation in Robson Bight.

I guess we have this problem with the advancement of technology and the ability we have to extract ever more of our resources, and often our ability for ethical decision-making and our ability simply to apply our ethics to our environmental understanding is slow in catching up with the technological possibilities that are out there. That's one area which we all realize is a real.... In a sense it's on the cutting-edge. It's a challenge to all of us to try to understand our philosophy of the land and how we want to apply that, and how we want to keep things in balance and in harmony. It's difficult for all of us, and in that sense it's a creative process. Hopefully it will be a process whereby our children and our children's children and their children a hundred years from now will find that it is still a world-class and unique area where a phenomenon happens with killer whales that happens nowhere else in the world.

There are concerns that some development appears to be starting to take place there. As yet we have no completion of situation studies. There's really no access plan in place with regard to the problem of human beings going into that area by foot and possibly causing disruption to the whales. There's also the concern about the traffic on the waterways and the effects that has with regard to the whales. I'm not talking just about fish boats; I'm talking about kayakers and a variety of burgeoning population of humans going into that area.

There's the question with regard to harvesting rates and practices. As the minister knows, there are other issues there that simply have to be dealt with. For instance, the old-growth committee is examining that on a provincewide basis, and certainly its findings are relevant to what's happening in that area.

I would like the minister to advise the House what his ministry's involvement is in protecting Parks ministry values in that setting and that context. What is the minister's view on creating a buffer zone that is truly adequate with regard to the lower part of the valley?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, our responsibility is the ecological reserve, where the primary interest is the killer whales. I was up there a couple of weeks ago, and I think we are taking every precaution we can at the present time.

We have park wardens up there who are asking people not to go in and follow the whales. We've increased our budget to $50,000 to assist us in that case. A federal-provincial committee sat, as you are aware, and it will report back to us this fall. There is no solid proof at this time that one specific activity is affecting the killer whale; of course, that's what we hope to get from that.

[ Page 11615 ]

As to the situation, we have a person in Parks on the Tsitika follow-up committee, and we also have representation on the old-growth committee. In that particular area, we have asked for the cooperation of forestry and MacMillan Bloedel to put in a gate to stop people from going down. The gate has been installed, and I can say that we've met with MacMillan Bloedel a fair number of times, and we are really getting full cooperation and dialogue with them on this situation. They know the high profile of it.

The Johnstone Strait is a very crowded area; it's not just a case of one particular type of traffic. I agree with you, the kayakers are probably — and I'm guessing — the most numerous when you're talking about going right into the particular area. However, we're doing the best we can to protect the area, and I believe we are doing that.

MR. CASHORE: Just a quick question with regard to Manning Park. I understand that the Copper Creek drainage on the northeast side of the park is not within the boundaries that were established in the Park Act. Our staff has been talking to your staff about this, and I know there is an answer, but I just want to get the answer on the record as to why that has not been included, since a number of people feel that that area certainly has park values.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I am told that that particular area was taken out by legislation in 1987.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that my illustrious leader would like to make an introduction. Perhaps after that, the minister could say why. He knows.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I seek leave to introduce two visitors in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to introduce Debbie Nyberg, who is the office manager of the Leader of the Opposition's office — the air-traffic controller for all the travel that I do throughout the province — and a very valuable member of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition; and Dan Thachuk, who is a lawyer and is our researcher for the Attorney-General's estimates and many others. I'd like to give a warm welcome to members of our staff.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Just a quick answer. Copper Creek was removed in 1988 by legislation. The Cascade recreation area was established to compensate... as a result of interagency and WAC studies that concluded it was the best use for the resource harvesting. That's the answer.

MR. CASHORE: I want to turn now to Boundary Bay.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Somebody said it's for the birds. Yes, it's for the birds, and it's for people, and it's for our children, and it's for our future. With regard to Boundary Bay, I'd just like to point out that a little over a year ago, Boundary Bay and the TDL lands were the cause of a great deal of embarrassment for this minister's predecessor and for this government. At that time it was an excellent example.... It caused me to point out earlier in these estimates that this Parks ministry does not have the clout within cabinet that it needs to have in order to fulfil its mandate. You may remember that the minister wrote a letter to the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee stating that he favoured a provincial park in the area of the TDL lands, which constituted an area where....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I know you weren't the minister at that time, and you weren't in the cabinet at that time, but we're talking about the stewardship and the accountability of this government, so the comments are appropriate.

The then minister wrote three letters. In the first letter he was very positive, having met with the people and having said that he favoured a park.

After that, there were members of the cabinet.... I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) took that junior minister out into the woodshed and beat him up. He wrote them another letter and said: "I really didn't believe in a park. That wasn't exactly what I meant." The Minister of Agriculture wasn't satisfied with that, so he took him out in the woodshed again, and he managed to produce a 180-degree turnaround.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: He got more than a slap on the wrist.

But it was tacit evidence that the Ministry of Parks just does not rate in terms of where the power is in this cabinet. I know this minister is trying to do something about it, but so far we haven't seen sufficient evidence.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I'm just coming to that, brother.

There are a few points I want to ask the minister to state his position on. First, there is some study going on in the area on the multiplicity of demands that are being made through housing construction, recreation needs and wildlife habitat, recognizing what a crucial area that is for the birds that use the Pacific flyway. What is the minister's position with regard to this government participating in the funding of the environmental impact assessments that are needed to enable that appropriate decisions be made in that area? Recognizing that the municipality of Surrey has done its part by funding a study it has done, recognizing that the municipality of Delta has been doing something toward that, and recognizing

[ Page 11616 ]

that the then federal Minister of Environment has indicated the importance of adequate studies being done, where is the provincial government in helping to fund the important studies that need to be made? I think that if anybody...

[12:00]

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I notice that a number of the members are not dressed in parliamentary attire, and I find that objectionable. A number of the individuals are having very tired looks on their faces, and I find that objectionable.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I bought my jacket at Dunn's Menswear...

MR. CHAIRMAN: It fits well.

MR. CASHORE: ... and I think everything's done up, but....

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Maybe I'm paranoid, but I thought the member was referring to me. My tie's done up, and I put deodorant on this morning. I can't understand....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 52.

MR. CASHORE: Okay, that's one thing I would like to ask the minister to comment on. The next thing is this. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr Reynolds), when he was responding to a question about Ramsar designation for that area, said that the NDP wants to give the property to the United Nations. I would like this minister to go on record as dissociating himself from that ignorant remark by the Minister of the Environment, realizing that the previous Minister of Environment and Parks had himself gone on record, as well as the Premier, that they believed there should be Ramsar designation for the area. I want this minister to go on record as setting the record straight. If anybody needs to be taken into the woodshed, the Minister of Parks should take the Minister of Environment into the woodshed for making such an irresponsible comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's too late for this nonsense.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the government House Leader. It's too late for the kind of nonsense we're hearing from the government members right now.

I would like to ask the minister to state his position with regard to the order-in-council that has set loose a wave of speculation on the farmland in that area and has caused serious habitat problems for the raptors and other wildlife in the area. I'd like the minister to account for that. What is he going to do about it? I'd also like to ask the minister his position on establishing a wildlife management area in Boundary Bay.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that. It really comes under the Ministry of Environment, and we would support the Ministry of Environment on any type of recommendation they brought to us. The only interest we may have in the area would be the possibility of a small ecological reserve proposal. Other than that, we basically have no interest as far as the park is concerned in the area. Any venture that is taken on should come under the regional district. So my response is very simple: there are many areas in the province we have to be seriously looking at. There is a study going on, and as far as the funding of the study is concerned, I would hope they secured that before they started their study.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Minister, this is not just an ordinary habitat we're talking about. We're talking about a major station on the Pacific flyway. We're talking about 120,000 hectares that are protected in Alaska's Copper Valley. We're talking about 35,000 hectares that are protected in San Francisco. We're talking about 100 hectares that are protected in Boundary Bay, which is British Columbia's major habitat for migratory birds and waterfowl.

Mr. Minister, you say that you're quite happy to go along with the Minister of Environment. You should be saying you recognize that in your role you should be training the Minister of Environment, because he said such irresponsible things about it. Surely, Mr. Minister, you recognize that you've got the smarts when it comes to this issue, and I want you to stand up for your ministry and for that wildlife on this one.

I know that in your heart of hearts you believe this area should be protected. I want to see you do that, Mr. Minister, because this government is playing loose with something that might be lost forever, and if that happens, it's a link in a chain — and a very weak one, at that, and one that requires protection. It simply isn't good enough to hide behind the skirts of the Minister of Environment; he's not a very good one at all to hide behind on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that an enormous amount of outstanding work has been done on this issue by the volunteers who work with the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee and with its umbrella organizations. The minister is well aware of that. I would hope that the minister would give these people some hope, on record, beyond saying that there may be a small ecological reserve there. That simply is not good enough, recognizing the fragility of that area. Our leader has gone on record with the importance of the Georgia Basin management plan, recognizing that we share a common heritage around that area. I call on the minister to do that.

A question was raised by the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), and I want the minister to get into that in a little more detail.

[ Page 11617 ]

During the debate on his estimates, we asked the Minister of Environment about funds available for parkland in the sustainable environment fund. He gave three different answers: in the first answer, he said there was $2 million; in the second answer, he said there was $3.7 million — it's in Hansard; in the third answer, he said, I think, $5.7 million. I believe he said that all that money comes out of the sustainable environment fund. It has usually been the pattern, I believe, that an average of $2 million has been budgeted for park acquisition for the Ministry of Parks. In going through the budget book this time, I saw a figure.... Well, I'm not even going to look up my notes here, because I'd have to fumble around for my papers. But there was one figure of around $2 million for park acquisitions and another figure of about that amount also. Were both of those figures dealing with acquisitions, to the point that there is approximately $4 million in the Ministry of Parks budget for park acquisition? Is that correct? Does it come out of the sustainable environment fund?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MESSMER: That's very nice. I just heard Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) say we could have as much as we needed.

Previous to this year, the budget of $2 million for the purchase of land was in the Crown Lands account, not in ours. This year it was transferred to the sustainable environment account. It's quite correct that we went to cabinet and asked for an additional $1.7 million to buy a marine park, which I referred to earlier. So the correct amount in that account is $3.7 million. Of course, we applied immediately to have it go towards these purchases.

MR. CASHORE: It's woefully inadequate. Again, with the money that is coming out of the sustainable environment fund, one gets a sense of a kind of shell game going on.

The minister referred to the Crown land fund. I just want to remind the House and this government that in 1987 the Minister of Finance removed over $200 million from that fund at a time when that fund was earmarked for social housing and the acquisition of parkland. I believe that money has gone into the BS fund, whatever that is. It's really tragic that at a time when we have this opportunity to make purchases of the representative ecosystems we need, that money has been taken away from that need.

I'd like to move along now to another point and ask the minister to account for the fact that it states in the budget that the Ministry of Parks full-time employees for 1989-90 totalled 436; in 1990-91 they total 401. That's a significant decrease at a time when the minister has brought into legislation the Park Act, which has consolidated in legislation the boundaries of several parks; at a time when there is this new park in the Carmanah; at a time when by any assessment, the demands would be increasing. I'm at a loss as to how this minister could allow a decrease of 35 full-time employees between last year and this year.

HON. MR. MESSMER: The reason is that some of our employees became permittees — in other words, looking after our parks. Also, because of the permittees we did not require the number of part-time employees we had the year before. This was, as you know, the last year that we went out to contract on the remaining portions of our parks, so that is how they were accounted for.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to move on now to recall that when I was reviewing the annual report of the ministry, there were some promotional projects undertaken with the private sector. One was with Shell; one was with Beautiful British Columbia magazine; one was with the Knowledge Network. But I seem to recall having seen some publicity about the golden arches showing up over parks. The minister is shaking his head, so they've abandoned that bad move. But they're still in bed with some companies that they consider to be kosher in terms of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Beds? Where are the beds?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, that's not true this year, although we have some programs such as.... C-FAX Radio and companies like that are helping to promote special days within special parks.

MR. CASHORE: We've said this every year. We won't get into debate on it, but we're opposed to the parks service privatization that's been going on. The minister and I have corresponded on that, and I would just put it to the minister that I think the studies done on this have been done in such a way as to produce answers that put a pleasant look on it. I don't think it would be considered objective polling by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Chairman, I come to my last point. I refer to an article in the Times-Colonist.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: This is quite serious. This is a challenging issue related to parks that even the ombudsman wasn't able to resolve. It had to do with a conflict between two moose. The plural of moose can't be "meese" — so it's two moose. The ombudsman's office investigated Mr. Spong's complaint and determined that it is substantiated in part but not resolved. It turns out that the Parks ministry said that Jerry the Moose's career peaked with a guest appearance on the place mats at McDonald's Restaurants. Jerry is best remembered as the only moose ever introduced in the B.C. Legislature. I'm sorry I wasn't here at that time. Meanwhile, George the Moose is effectively deceased.

I'd like to say to this minister that he needs all the help he can get, and I don't see why he wouldn't employ both of these moose. I'd like him to account for that.

[ Page 11618 ]

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I guess you'd have to say that two mooses are better than one.

[12:15]

Vote 52 approved.

Vote 53: ministry operations, $36,820,390 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $19,291,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

Vote 2: auditor-general, $6,126,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: ombudsman, $3,113,000.

MR. CASHORE: I would point out that sections 3 to 11 have not been proclaimed, but even with their not being proclaimed, the work of the ombudsman's office increases year by year, reflecting some serious problems in the administration of this government. Yet I would point out that during the last three years the number of full-time employees in the ombudsman's office has remained a constant 38. I do not believe this is adequate. Surely there is a need for additional funding for this office to enable it to deal with the burgeoning number of complaints about the application of fairness within this government.

Vote 3 approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps the member could give us an idea of what the budget should be. I'd like the number of dollars that the budget should be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote has passed, hon. members.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, Mr. Chairman, we always get from that side that we're not spending enough money, and I think the public should know how much they want to spend.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to say how much I appreciate that member, because my leader has always said: "Operate in the opposition as though you are in government." Now this House Leader has got the message and is putting the questions to the people who really have the answers. I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote has already carried, so I'd ask the government House Leader to make the next appropriate motion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee reported resolutions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that the report be considered forthwith.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move the reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply on May 15, 22, June 4, 11, 20, July 3, 5, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $14,801,215,205 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1990.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 9:30 this morning.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 a.m.