[ Page 13221 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 13221

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 15).

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Third reading –– 13221

Motions on Notice

Select Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters and

Intergovernmental Relations (Motion 34). Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 13221

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Clark

Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Perry

Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest

(Motion 35). Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13226

Mr. Gabelmann

Supply Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. J. Jansen) –– 13230

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Kempf

Appendix –– 13234

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1991

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOENEN: In the members' gallery I just noticed some very special friends who used to live in the constituency of Richmond — but no longer do. I would like to ask the House to please welcome Wally and Gertie Floris.

On behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, Hon. Mr. Weisgerber tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1991.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I would like to ask leave for the following committees to sit today: the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice, which will meet at 11:30 a.m., and the Select Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters and Intergovernmental Relations, which will sit at 3:00 p.m.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to practice recommendation 3, I am advising the House that it is the government's intention to conclude the proceedings on the supply bill at some time today.

I call third reading on Bill 15.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

Bill 15, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991, read a third time and passed.

Motions on Notice

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 34 standing in my name in Orders of the Day. [See appendix.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to have this opportunity. This is an important issue not only for the province but also, as both sides of the House would agree, for Canada. We're the last province to be involved in soliciting support and information from the people. If nothing else, governments across Canada have learned that we can build a country only if the people of that country have reached a consensus about what kind of country they want.

The New Democrats have very clearly said, not only here in British Columbia but nationally, that they are in favour of an inclusive process and that the discredited process Meech Lake should never again happen. This committee and the motion that we have before us is a good start here in British Columbia to allow the people of B.C. to have some say in how we conduct ourselves in this Legislature as it pertains to the building of Canada and Canada's next round.

The important issue here and the concern that we have with this particular motion is the time-line. This motion indicates that the committee makes its first report in August of this year. Our concerns arise over the ability of the committee to truly fulfil its mandate and the need of the people of British Columbia to reflect their concerns and their desires. From this side of the House, in the strongest terms, we must register that we are not prepared to participate in a committee which does not have as its goal the involvement and a reflection of the people of British Columbia's concerns. So we will look for some assurances from the government that this timetable does not reflect a bit of railroading or image-building on the government's part, but indeed accomplishes the goals that we have as a party to involve the people of British Columbia, and develop a report that is truly reflective of the needs and desires that we understand the people of British Columbia have in building a strong Canada.

MR. CLARK: Five years we have been here, and there has been no parliamentary committee or public input on the question of the constitution. Virtually every province in Canada has a bipartisan committee which has toured the province and heard public input from the people on this most important question. Finally, with a couple of months left in the mandate, we see a committee on the constitution. I'm pleased that we finally see a committee, but where was the government during the Meech Lake debate? Where was this government, calling for public hearings on the Meech Lake debate?

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: My friends, they would say: where were we? We were calling for public input, and have been calling for it for some time. We've been calling for it for months. It is absolutely critical at this time, when we are in a constitutional crisis in this country, that provincial governments play a constructive role. I certainly feel strongly that as a member of this committee I look forward to playing that constructive role. I have no hesitation in saying that. But I must say it is very unfortunate that we did not have this committee some time ago debating and listening to the people of British Columbia.

Furthermore, it is very unfortunate that the deadline for the preliminary report and recommendations is August 15. We have a month to get public input on this most important question. I think it's worth doing. I hope the committee meets every day and hears public input. I hope we tour the province, and I look forward to that. But surely this is simply very late in the game, and surely this time-line is too tight to do the promotional work and seek out the input that I think British Columbians want. So while I have no hesitation supporting this motion and participating in the committee

[ Page 13222 ]

— I look forward to the work; it is very important in a bipartisan sense, and I mean that very seriously — I think it's very unfortunate that we are so late in the day trying to do the work that should have been done for some time.

I echo the comments from the previous speaker that while we believe the time-line is too tight, we do want to make sure that in that short time we have a process that is inclusive and that hears the views of British Columbians. We won't participate in, I don't believe — and I certainly won't be party to — any kind of charade which simply sets up a committee to rubber-stamp some document that cabinet or some consultant has prepared for the government. It has to be a genuine committee that is genuinely bipartisan, that genuinely hears input from British Columbians and that makes thoughtful recommendations which, I believe very strongly, should be bipartisan representations and a bipartisan report. It is very important that we be united on what British Columbia's position is on this very important question for the future of our country.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly very pleased to speak in support of this motion. I appreciate that this is only part of a process; it isn't the entire process. The committee undoubtedly will gain much information, but I'm sure that with committees such as this travelling the province we tend to cater sometimes to those who are better informed and perhaps more a part of the intellectual group who like to present their ideas to various committees — and so they should; it's certainly very helpful.

[10:15]

However, there will be a further process, and that is that before anything is decided with respect to our constitution and the future of this country — and we've provided the opportunity in legislation — the people should vote through the process of referenda. That is very important. It's another time when we can have good public debate, when we can see this being discussed in community meetings throughout the whole province, where people perhaps can be presented with options, so that they're not simply having to depend on the arguments presented by those there from the university or some intellectual group.

I think the government has done a commendable job since Meech Lake in developing a more acceptable process. It has a number of components, one of which was to consult various people who made their views known with respect to having a particular interest in constitutional matters. We've had Mr. Mel Smith do a commendable job, and his report has certainly received some circulation. Perhaps more is required. It's an excellent report. All of this is part of a process, and that is what's so important; that we have a process which is sufficiently diverse to give as many people as possible the opportunity to participate.

We've heard some mention about the Meech Lake process, and I certainly agree that it failed us. I think as well, though, that in our attempts to be good Canadians and in our attempts and desire to see something resolved, all of us — and that applies to both sides of the House, as I recall it in debate — in part because of inexperience and because this was a first time and it is not regularly done, were probably confronted with a process which was incomplete. This, instead, is a more complete and more diverse process, and I'm happy to support it.

MR. SIHOTA: The failure of the Meech Lake accord was as a consequence of Canadians — British Columbians in particular — feeling that they were left out of the process. At the time, we heard much in terms of Canadians — particularly women, native people and those people having aspirations from various territories and provinces across the country — feeling that they had been left out of the process. There has to be a process which involves British Columbians and Canadians in building this nation and taking the attributes of this nation and incorporating them into a constitutional document that reflects the vision of Canadians. As a consequence, the type of process contemplated in this motion in many ways is a first step.

In my mind, the committee falls short, in part because it consists only of members of the Legislature. I would have preferred a broader-based committee. Be that as it may, I think one can live with that aspect of it, although somewhat reluctantly from my way of thinking.

However, I find significant discomfort in the fact that the government has put a time-line of August 15 with respect to a preliminary report from this committee. One has to ask why that provision is in the motion. Quite frankly, it's there because the government knows full well that it has backed itself — and this province, as a consequence — into a corner.

There is a meeting of Premiers being held in British Columbia during the third week of August, and as a result the government feels that it must have gone through some sort of process between now and then. It's unfortunate that it feels boxed in by the reality of that conference, because I think it will handicap the ability of the committee to get on and deal with the issue in a broad way to try to build a broad consensus and to be able to hear from British Columbians throughout the province.

If I may put forward a suspicion at this point, I suspect that this committee will probably not get on to its work until sometime after July 20 and will have to conclude its preliminary report by August 15. Quite frankly, a month is not enough for the committee to hear from British Columbians with respect to their concerns — and that's assuming that the committee meets every day. In my mind, that short three and a half to four weeks is not enough to put forward a vision that this province will take to the constitutional negotiations with respect to the safeguarding, reform and restructuring of our national institutions. I don't think that the complex issues of division of power and disentanglement and dealing with the nature of the federal government as it interrelates with the provincial government can be resolved in that time period. Nor do I believe that in that short time the government will be able to resolve the question of the role of the Charter and amendments to it, or the role of native

[ Page 13223 ]

people in the whole matter of constitutional reform in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot on the plate, and there's very little time as a consequence of this government's decision to call the motion today when, as my colleague indicated earlier, it should have called for this process and this committee to be struck at the time the Leader of the Opposition first requested it some 18 months ago. That's when the process should have been commenced; that's when the committee should have started its work. By now we would have been able to have had a position where a debate was in this House with respect to the recommendations of the committee. It would have been based on some greater consensus among British Columbians and would have given us a far firmer position on issues such as the amending formula to be taken when we deal with the issue in August at the meeting of the first ministers.

Yes, the committee should meet, and yes, it should proceed. Let's wish it success in its endeavours to build this nation and to make sure that B.C.'s position is stated with clarity during the course of constitutional negotiations. However, I regret to say that this government has initiated the process much too late in the game and has forced itself to work on a deadline that is somewhat artificial and has consequently boxed itself into a difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker, I know that others want to talk about the incorporation of the referendum as it relates to this process, and rather than commenting on it myself, I would leave it to some of my colleagues.

MR. PETERSON: I rise in support of the motion, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I'm really looking forward to serving on this committee and listening to British Columbians. I would hope that this committee works in a non-partisan way and joins members of both sides of the House together to give British Columbians an opportunity to express their opinions on the very critical issue of where British Columbia and Canada will be in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is very necessary, and it certainly gives an opportunity for all of us to get our views into the public forum on where we should be in the future. I'm looking forward to this. I think it's a very critical component in terms of British Columbia's place in the Canada of the future. I hope that all members of the House work together in a spirit of cooperation that will take the input from British Columbians and that we listen very carefully, ponder, take our time and come back with recommendations. It's a critical component that I look forward to being part of.

I just want to stand up and lend my support. My constituents in Langley speak to me about this issue frequently. It's healthy, and I look forward to it.

MR. LOVICK: The previous speaker, the second member for Langley, pointed out that ideally we ought to approach this committee in a non-partisan way. I agree with that, and I think the great majority, if not the entire number, of my caucus colleagues would agree with that. The predicament is that when we look at this resolution and see the importance, value and the integral worth of it, we recognize, unfortunately, that the noble intentions are not likely to be met because of the simple problem of the time-line. It's an ambitious resolution, Mr. Speaker, as it should be, because we're talking about a problem fundamental to the lives and hopes and aspirations of people in this nation. We're talking about a constitution, which is usually referred to as the basic law of any society, the law that gives meaning to hopes and dreams and culture of the entire society. What we do in the constitution tells the world about what it is we demand of ourselves as the basic ground rules. It therefore becomes crucial.

This resolution authorizing the standing committee to meet and to solicit opinions is good and desirable and commendable. The problem, however, is that the committee is being asked to consult broadly with British Columbians about two important features: the social and economic interests and aspirations of our citizens and of other Canadians within our federation; and also the form that the federation should take in order to most effectively meet those needs and aspirations. Well and good; we don't dispute that.

The problem is that not only is the committee required to come up with a preliminary report, but its recommendations apparently must also be in place by August 15. Clearly we have a problem. How can the committee possibly consult with all of those individuals who ought to be consulted? That, as others have pointed out, was the failure of the Meech activity. The process was flawed; we did not, as politicians, consult with the people. We're all, I'm sure, resolved not to repeat that error here, but we seem to be writing a timetable to repeat that error here, and that's what concerns us.

I know that the minister in whose name this motion appears has the prerogative to close the debate, and I would offer that one question to him that I hope he will address.

I want to pick up on a point made by the member for Richmond, the former Premier of the province, who you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, introduced referendum legislation that dealt directly with the constitutional matters. The argument there is that British Columbians will have another opportunity to discuss the constitution and British Columbia's place in the constitution by virtue of a referendum. At the time I remember having discussion with the member for Richmond in this House about the predicament that that might put us in if the referendum question were the only opportunity for input. In other words, if complex questions are decided in a yes or no format, I argued that I do not think we are really having any kind of meaningful debate or meaningful consultation. Of necessity, we're involved in an adversarial kind of relationship — yes or no; which side are you on?

That then takes me back to the question that I raised about this resolution. If the committee must do all of its consulting work with British Columbians and make recommendations by August 15, which recommendations will then apparently have something to do with a referendum question, where is the opportunity for the broad consultation? That's the fundamental question.

[ Page 13224 ]

To summarize, then, Mr. Speaker, we accept the intent of the resolution. We think it's a good one. We're concerned, however, that what we might have here is a prescription for a repetition of the Meech Lake process. I would ask the minister, then, if he would in his closing remarks try and answer those questions. I think they are fair ones.

MR. PERRY: As much as I welcome the calling of this motion and the establishment of the committee, I also have to observe that I think it's rather cynical at the very end of a Parliament to call a committee which should have sat at the start of this Parliament and should have sat every year during the last five years of constitutional turmoil in this country.

[10:30]

I speak as someone who, like half of the population of British Columbia, was not born here — an immigrant Canadian citizen for the last 21 years, one who chose to be a Canadian citizen. I wasn't forced to be. I made that choice consciously, because I decided this was the best country in the world to live in. I could find no place I would rather live than this country and this province.

I'm worried as well about how the views of my constituents could be reflected before a committee that may sit for a maximum of five or six weeks, according to this resolution. What about the multicultural communities, which are so strongly represented in my riding? Many of them — as you know, Mr. Speaker, representing an urban riding — take a very different view of this country than the politicians in Ottawa or British Columbia do.

At least half of the population in my riding are immigrants. They chose this country. When I sit on the stage of a high school at a Court of Canadian Citizenship ceremony, as I did recently, and look out at the new citizens who have chosen this country, I see people who view the constitution fundamentally differently than politicians. These people's faces would show nothing but dismay at the attitude of the Ottawa government, its contempt for the views of the public, and nothing but dismay at the provincial governments which bicker continually over who will get to be first at the table, who will get to wave the flag the most and who will get to claim the most credit, cut the most ribbons, open the same hospital the most times — even though it's never staffed — and make the most ceremonial abuse of the taxpayers' money at the real expense of the country. My constituents are fed up to the teeth with that. Because they are immigrants who have chosen Canada and gone through the very act of choosing to become Canadian citizens and adopt this country, many of them have a much more powerful vision and faith than many of the people in daily political life. I wonder how they will be heard.

Will this committee, for example, be publishing advertisements in the multicultural papers in the languages of immigrants? Will it be advertising to the Chinese-speaking citizens of my riding and other Vancouver ridings and the rest of the province, who built this country by the sweat of their labour — the small merchants who ran corner stores day in, day out, year in, year out? Because they were working so hard, they never had the opportunity to learn English and will not be familiar with the content of a legal advertisement in the Vancouver Province or the Vancouver Sun. Will the committee reach out to them? Will it invite them to its hearings? Will it make them welcome? Will it provide translation if necessary so that the elderly Chinese citizen, who paid a head-tax to get into this country, may speak to his or her view of the future of Canada and of British Columbia? Will it advertise in the Indian languages, Punjabi and Bengali? Will it advertise in Tagalog for the Philippine community that's strong in my riding?

What efforts will this committee make to reach the aboriginal people who, after all, were here first and who were so excluded from the Meech Lake accord that Elijah Harper finally expressed the will of Canadians and brought that agreement down?

What assurance can the minister who sponsors this motion give me, as a representative of Vancouver–Point Grey, that the Musqueam people, who numbered 50,000 at the time Simon Fraser descended the Fraser River, will be fully incorporated into this process? What assurance can I possibly take from the record of this assembly, from the contempt with which the Musqueam people were treated when they came here two years ago and attempted to secure from the former Attorney-General an amendment that protected the title they had never relinquished to Ulksen, the aboriginal name for the Point Grey peninsula I now represent?

What possible assurance can there be in this flimsy piece of paper labelled pages 7 and 8 of the Orders of the Day that contains the motion we're debating, that those aboriginal people or those whom my colleague the second member for Cariboo represents in the Chilcotin country, far out in the wilderness where they've lived for 7,000, 8,000 or 10,000 years quite satisfactorily subsisting.... They were nearly eradicated by smallpox brought to them by the white man from Europe, deliberately. What assurance do they have that they will participate in the debates of this committee?

Without that full consultation and a legitimate attempt to ensure that those people participate in the deliberations of our provincial legislative committee, the process is worse than meaningless. It's a cynical ploy to try, once again, to win an election at the cost of the public's faith in our country.

What about the youth of our country? I saw some of them at a forum at the University of British Columbia which originally chose the name Citizens' Forum — a name of which was robbed by the Spicer commission — and then held the Alternative Citizens' Forum on a Friday night at the University of British Columbia. It was organized by a young Liberal and other UBC students who tried to ensure the public would have a real voice and a real chance to think about what they want for the future of their country. Will this committee, led by a Social Credit government, entice — in the middle of summer — those young people to come to its hearings? As I look across at the expressions of the members on the government side and from what I've

[ Page 13225 ]

seen of them in these cynical days of the closing session of this parliament, and when I think of how they have muzzled the opposition through the invocation of closure for the first time in the history of this parliament, somehow I doubt that....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion is quite self-explanatory. It deals with the establishment of a committee. Debate, to this point, has been non-partisan and genuinely accepted in good faith. However, the member is straying, first of all, from the good intent that I've heard put forth so far in the first four or five speakers, and also he's straying incredibly from the intent of this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules of debate on a motion are the same as on a bill: it has to be relevant to the motion before us. I would ask the second member for Point Grey to bear that in mind as he continues his remarks.

MR. PERRY: I'll finish briefly. I'm reflecting my concern that the timing of the calling of this committee will, by its nature, exclude the young people of the province. Steps must be taken with the utmost of urgency, if the youth of B.C. are to be included, to recruit them actively to share their views with this committee.

What about the seniors of this province — those who have suffered through the Great Depression and are veterans of Canada's wars, both male and female? Will efforts be made to ensure they are represented and not just the special interests whom one would predictably rely on to dominate meetings of this committee — not just the Business Council, for example, or the organized groups like the Alliance for the Preservation of English or whomever one might expect?

What about women? Women, who were so concerned about the Meech Lake Accord, who are the majority of Canadians — will there be a special attempt to ensure that they are represented in the testimony before the committee? I note that members on this side of the House made an effort to include two women among the six representatives we were allowed. Unless my eyes deceive me, I see no women representatives among the government members. Will there be a special attempt by this committee to bend over backwards to ensure that the majority of Canadians, who are women, are well represented in the testimony before this committee and that their views are reflected in its report?

I have made some suggestions which I hope are constructive as to how this committee might effectively solicit participation, even in the short five weeks allowed to it.

I want you and the public to know, Mr. Speaker, that on this side of the Legislature there was intense competition for our seats on that committee. There is enormous faith not only in this province but in this country. Every member on this side wanted to be on that committee. Only some few, the elite of our side, those who were best suited, were chosen. But I want you to know that every single member on the opposition side of this Legislature hopes that that committee will function effectively and hopes that it will help guide our province towards a future within a united and secure Canada.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the sponsor of this motion, I rise to conclude debate. I won't be partisan in my comments; I don't think it's appropriate, given the nature of this debate. I will also answer questions that have been posed by other members in their debate.

First of all, I’d like to thank the members on the committee who have indicated their good wishes. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley indicated that this is a good start. The member is on that committee, and I think with that type of positive, enthusiastic feeling about the committee, we can carry on our work as quickly, expeditiously and fully as we have to.

With respect to the motion itself, and some of the details, the motion provides that we provide a preliminary report and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly by August 15, 1991. That's in there not to put any imposition on the total report, not to constrain it at all, but to assure the people of the province who are reading this report that we intend to get down to business.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a very important event in my personal political life coming up within the next month. However, I can assure this assembly that between now and July 20 this committee is going to meet, because I feel it's important that we do so. The committee and this assembly have my commitment to do that. The assembly will note that this motion does allow for the committee to travel, to meet and to carry on its business during a time when the assembly is adjourned, or prorogued for that matter. We have the full ability to travel, to meet and to be as flexible as we want to.

I want to point out that this has been a very serious concern of mine since Meech Lake, and I think it's been a very serious concern of all Canadians and particularly all British Columbians, and of all the members of this Legislative Assembly. In the spring of 1987 members of this assembly voted unanimously for Meech Lake.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there was a majority and both parties in the majority did support it, but I stand corrected; there were some members who were opposed to Meech Lake for very good and personal reasons. I have no argument with that. But the majority of both parties did vote for the Meech Lake resolution in this assembly in the spring of 1987.

We realize, and all Canadians realize, that perhaps we were not doing it the right way. A concern for our national boundaries, our national identity and our national unity became more and more apparent to us. I make no apology, and I will accept the criticism: this is maybe a little too late. Nevertheless we are on track now, and we're going to give it our utmost resources — and this motion sets that out.

[ Page 13226 ]

Some have called it cynical and flimsy. I don't accept that. I think that the determination of the members I see on this committee is there and is solid. I wouldn't characterize any of those members as being cynical or flimsy in terms of this issue.

Some members have brought up the question of who we're going to consult. I can tell the assembly, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a cabinet committee dealing with this issue for some time now, of which I have been a member, and considerable work has been done and will be made available to the committee. There is senior staff available to the committee, as well as the Clerk of Committees, whom this assembly knows and has trust in.

One of the members brought up a concern with youth. I can tell the assembly that the B.C. Youth Advisory Council has been working on this for some time. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised the members didn't know this, because they have been taking out ads in papers and at universities. I see the member who is critical has now left. The B.C. Youth Advisory Council has been advertising for some time now about the hearings that they are going to be holding. I would expect that our committee will be liaising with that council, and as they meet with youth groups in various parts of the province we may send some of our subcommittees — and we have the right to appoint subcommittees, Mr. Speaker — to visit with the B.C. Youth Advisory Council and understand their input and their feeling. I think it's critical that those young people, who are going to be inheriting our province and our country — the one that we leave to them — are an integral part of this process.

Mr. Speaker, I have every good wish for this committee. I am determined, as its convener, to ensure that it travels, meets and has genuine dialogue with all British Columbians with respect to our job.

Clearly in our terms of reference we have two major concerns. We are concerned about the social and economic interests of British Columbians and other Canadians within the federation, and the form of federation that can most effectively meet the social and economic aspirations of British Columbians and all Canadians. I can tell the assembly that those resolutions were drafted by government, and they did not include the term "all Canadians." I went back to the cabinet committee and to the draftsmen, and I said we had to ensure that the interests not just of British Columbians but of all Canadians were met, in terms of determining what we want to say about our beloved country, Canada. I feel very strongly about that.

I know that this committee is going to meet with the best wishes of all British Columbians. It's going to be non-partisan, and the structure that intend to put in place will ensure that. I'm pleased to see the excellent representation from the opposition caucus. It represents native interests and regional interests, and it includes members who really are representative of the province as a whole, from downtown Vancouver to the Cariboo to the Kootenays. I'm pleased to see that type of representation in place, and I commend the NDP caucus for the members that they have put on this committee.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place in closing Motion 34, that this select standing committee meet. I would welcome all members to meet with us this afternoon at 3 o'clock for an organizational meeting.

[10:45]

Motion approved.

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ETHICAL CONDUCT AND
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move Motion 35 standing in my name on the order paper [see appendix], and in so doing will give a note of explanation. By this motion, we are authorizing the Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest to examine, inquire and make recommendations with respect to all of the members' notices on the order paper, except one which is the subject of a police investigation and is under the investigation of a special prosecutor. For that reason we are leaving that one item off, but we are including all other items as requested by members on the matter of ethics and conflict of interest, and the committee is granted the traditional powers to receive evidence — both during the present legislative sitting and during adjournment — and to adjourn from place to place to summon witnesses and call for papers.

MR. GABELMANN: I was first of all simply going to ask the government House Leader whether the fact that Motion 18 had not been included was a simple clerical error; it turns out it was not. I therefore want to move an amendment to the motion: that the motion be amended by adding "Motion 18" in the first sentence and by adding "No. 11" towards the end of the resolution — that "the matter of cabinet's knowledge of the role of the former Premier in the Fantasy Gardens sale and related events" be added to the government's motion as No. 11 in the list of what is now ten items. Mr. Speaker, I assume the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: You don't mind if I have a moment for consultation. But yes, while the matter is under consideration by the Chair, because of the fact that this matter appears on the order paper, I'll allow debate on the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The consequence of the amendment is really simple, whatever the wording. It is simply to ensure that the full list of matters referred by various members to the ethics committee be included in the reference motion to the committee for its possible deliberations this summer.

The government House Leader — the Minister of Forests — indicated in his opening comments that Motion 18 was not included because it is "the subject of a police investigation." To put it charitably, the minister has made a mistake. The matter of cabinet's role in the cover-up is not a matter of police investigation. Mr. Speaker, this is a cover-up of the cover-up.

[ Page 13227 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. They can thump their desks and huff and puff all they like over there, but the accusation by the member for North Island that there was a cabinet cover-up is totally without foundation, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair can only listen to one point of order at time. I would ask the member for North Island if an improper motive was imputed any member — and when you say "cabinet" it's a reflection on all of them. I ask you to withdraw that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that there was a cabinet cover-up, and this motion covers up the cover-up.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the tradition of this House is that when one member finds remarks made by another member to be unparliamentary, and a request is made for withdrawal, then the withdrawal is forthcoming. Therefore I'm asking that you withdraw any offensive language.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the rules of the House. I am not impugning the motives of any member of this House; I am simply asserting a fact that has not been disputed. It has been argued that it's not true, but it has not been disputed. It's a fact which requires investigation by this committee. I am asserting that that cover-up is being compounded by the refusal of the government to allow the committee to further investigate that cover-up — and that too is a cover-up on the part of the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has something to say before we proceed with the point of order. The Chair finds the amendment to be in order. The only thing that the Chair is asking — and it is the tradition of the House when one member has made remarks in the speech that another member finds to be unparliamentary — is that those remarks be withdrawn in terms of how they refer to that particular member. On that basis, if the member is satisfied that he has taken the option that's available to him, I'm going to proceed to the next order of business.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, to assist you in making your decision, it seems to me that what we're talking about here is a dispute as to fact. No individual member has been named as part of the cover-up. What my hon. friend is asserting is that he can see no good reason for one particular motion not to be accepted when all the others were included. He doesn't understand why it's not acceptable to the government. If the government does not wish to accept this, what is their motive for not accepting it? It certainly....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm not finished yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're dealing with two different subjects here, and the members are trying to confuse the Chair by complicating it: the subject of whether or not this amendment is acceptable, or whether or not these items which appear on the order paper and were not included in the motion that we're discussing might have been included in that motion, are quite acceptable. The Chair has no problem with that. The Chair only has a problem with the language, and the member used specific language. All members should be aware that when you make a remark about the government as a global remark and it's unparliamentary, the Chair can accept that, because it's a broad general thing. But when you use the word "cabinet," you reflect on individual members. That's the only problem that the Chair has on this issue.

Are there other points of order? Opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: The last thing that we would attempt to do would be to confuse the Chair. We would never even think of it. That would be the furthest from our wildest, wildest dreams. But the difficulty that this member has, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is acceptable as a collective, and therefore it wouldn't be out of order, but the cabinet as somehow individual.... I find that very difficult to comprehend. Far from attempting to confuse the Chair, the Chair has confused me.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take serious exception, as a member of this assembly, to the use of that word "cover-up." That bunch over there have for four and a half years covered up their intentions for this province should they — God forbid — ever become government. Let them wear that word "cover-up."

MR. SPEAKER: Just to ease all members on this issue.... Mr. Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 111 — unparliamentary words. There it is: "cover-up." House of Commons debates, November 16, 1977, page 941. That being the case, maybe we could terminate this tiny little unpleasantness by asking the member to withdraw the word "cover-up."

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, because of the parliamentary tradition, my respect for it and my awareness of the consequences of not accepting your direction, I will change the words, and by that means I expect to accomplish the request you've made of me.

The government, by this action, is deliberately making sure that the truth is never found out by the public about what government....

[11:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, one quick point that might assist you further is that the matter this member refers to as a cover-up is still in the hands of a special prosecutor, who, to the best of my knowledge, has not reported out of the case. I do not

[ Page 13228 ]

understand how the member for North Island can insist that we're trying to cover up anything when a special prosecutor has been appointed to look into the matter and has not yet reported. Furthermore, the member has not withdrawn the offensive remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we can deal with them one at a time. Can we deal with the "cover-up" word first and then deal with the next item?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if it makes it easier, my subsequent comments replace and stand instead of the term "cover-up." Because of parliament, I withdraw that term.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have known of a police investigation, with a special prosecutor involved, into the actions of cabinet. Motion 18 reads: "Be it resolved that the matter of cabinet's knowledge of the role of the former Premier in the Fantasy Gardens sale and related events be referred to the Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest." What is being referred is cabinet's knowledge. Now the House Leader for the government says that that is a matter of a special prosecutor's investigation. That's the first I've ever heard of that particular investigation. It may well be a good idea, and it should have happened long before now.

Mr. Speaker, this motion does not refer to matters that may be under the purview of Mr. Firestone. They refer to the role of the government in making sure that its involvement in matters earlier in this parliament are never allowed to see the light of day. That's what this refusal to include Motion 18 is about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Absolute nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN: If that's nonsense, Mr. Speaker, the government can easily solve the problem by introducing its own amendment to this particular motion and allowing all motions presented by all members or any members of this House to be considered by the Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest Committee. If the government refuses to do that, we on this side of the House and the public will have no other conclusion available to us but that the government is afraid to have this discussion conducted in public.

The special prosecutor is not, to my knowledge, investigating cabinet's or government's role in ensuring that facts don't reach the light of day.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The House Leader is saying: when he finishes his report. Why then doesn't the motion read something along the following lines: ...and that when the special prosecutor reports, Motion 18 will also be referred to the committee"?

I don't accept that that's necessary because the issue of Motion 18 is not being considered by the special prosecutor. But if the government believes it is and for those technical legal reasons feels that Motion 18 should not be referred to the committee, they can amend the motion to allow for that. If they don't, it demonstrates that they have much to hide and that they are afraid of the truth.

One of the former Ministers of Finance was fired for his role in that event which I'm not allowed to describe. The public has a right to know. The member for Saanich and the Islands has a right to know how the events came about in government that led to his sacking by another candidate for the leadership. His future in politics will forever be clouded by what happened to him earlier this year. He deserves that the truth be known. When any member of this House is under suspicion or under a cloud, all members of this House deserve an opportunity to have it cleared up.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I agree.

MR. GABELMANN: The House Leader says that he agrees.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I agree. How can you argue with...?

MR. GABELMANN: Well, I'm proposing an amendment which will allow that to take place.

If ever governments and parliaments needed evidence that four years of a five-year term is enough, this is yet further conclusive evidence. Governments towards the end of their fifth year are absolutely unable and incapable of governing in a rational and reasonable way, and this is yet further evidence of that.

The role of a former senior deputy minister in respect of cabinet's role needs to be investigated by this Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest Committee. Mr. Emerson is quoted as saying: "I think there was a feeling in cabinet" — if I'm allowed to say that, Mr. Speaker — "that it was no longer just his issue" — referring to the first member for Richmond — "and that it was indeed a government issue." Mr. Emerson's lawyers suggested: "At the direction of cabinet, our client reviewed documents relating to the sale of Fantasy Gardens in order to ascertain and inform the members of cabinet to the fullest extent possible of the facts regarding the transaction."

Why is the government afraid of having the public know anything about that issue? What fear does the government have that the facts will be on the table? If the government did nothing wrong and if there was no problem with its role, then the government will come out of this episode smelling like a rose. If the government feels its role and behaviour were such that it will come out smelling sweetly, then there should be no fear, no problem. The committee is well able to distinguish in its discussions which matters are not available for public discussion. Some narrow matters relating to the former Premier, the first member for Richmond, will obviously be subject to some caution. So then, what is the government's fear and concern about having an investigation into the facts — an investigation which may well clear the government? It may well clear the former Minister of Finance. If the government's position is correct, that's what will happen. But if the government is guilty, what would they do? They would prevent the discussion. How would

[ Page 13229 ]

they prevent the discussion? By denying Motion 18 to be included in this particular motion.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say a lot more. I suspect that other members will have things to say. I simply want to conclude by saying that if the government has nothing to hide, then it will allow this amendment to pass. If it votes against the amendment, it is clear and evident that it has much to hide with respect to its role in the events which I'm not allowed to describe by their proper name.

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader rises on a....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To speak against the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Chair could have a moment of your time just before we get going here. The subject of what is under investigation and what is not under investigation is something that the Chair doesn't have purview of. But the Chair has another matter under consideration, which all members are aware of, in terms of a matter of privilege. The Chair, to bring down a decision on a matter of privilege were there is no other investigation.... Under normal circumstances the Royal Canadian Mounted Police don't publicize when they're involving themselves in an investigation, and they certainly don't advise the Chair as to the scope of the investigation, nor is there any process to advise the Chair whether an investigation is terminated. If they don't normally advise the public that an investigation has started, they certainly don't advise the public that it is terminated.

All of this brings me to the matters brought forward by the member for North Island in terms of what can and can't be included. The reason the Chair finds this amendment in order is that this matter — Motion 18 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition — could be included in this committee, and the committee could then decide whether to discuss this matter. That's why this matter is in order for debate. It's up to the members of the House to decide whether the amendment is acceptable.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for North Island makes some good points, which I have no quarrel with. In fact, I have no problem with the committee investigating Motion 18. When we discussed it, the only reason we didn't include it — I can assure the members of this House — is because it is the subject of an investigation by a special prosecutor. The whole matter of Fantasy Gardens....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This motion is not, the member's right there. But the whole matter is before a special prosecutor. I am told that it is public knowledge — I'm just repeating what I've been told — that the RCMP have said that it will be at least a month before they report on their investigations. I can only go by that secondhand information, but apparently it's public knowledge.

We felt, when we left that off, that if the committee were to proceed with Motion 18, it could undermine the workings of the special prosecutor and the RCMP, if a committee was out calling the same witnesses, etc. We would have no problem with Motion 18 if we were to.... I don't have the member's amendment in front of me, and I can't remember all that it said, because I don't have it in writing. Perhaps he could provide me with a copy of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have the amendment: "That the motion be amended by adding Motion 18 in the first sentence and by adding: '...11. The matter of cabinet's knowledge of the role of the former Premier in the Fantasy Gardens sale and related events'." That's the amendment, a copy of which will be made available.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would have no problem with that if it contained the words "subsequent to the completion of the investigation that is ongoing." When the prosecutor and the police have finished their work, then I would have no problem with that. I can tell you, Mr. Member, and every member in this House, and anyone who may be watching, that I have nothing to hide in this. I have absolutely nothing to hide. [Laughter.] You can laugh all you want, the little second member for Victoria, but I don't have anything to hide and I don't know of any of my colleagues who do, either. We would welcome the committee doing this type of investigation.

I have said that if the amendment could be amended to include the words, "after the special prosecutor has finished his work," then the amendment would be quite acceptable to the government side. If the member for North Island would like to amend his amendment, or if you'd like me to move an amendment to the amendment.... Whatever is proper is fine with us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll take advice from the Chair. Would you rather have it as an amendment to the amendment or rewrite the thing?

If you wish, if the member would withdraw his amendment....

MR. SPEAKER: Customarily an amendment to an amendment would come from the government House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If it will assist the Chair, we can either move an amendment to his amendment or, if he will withdraw, make the amendment to do it — whichever is the easier way to accomplish it.

MR. GABELMANN: May I propose a five-minute recess, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 13230 ]

MR. SPEAKER: A five-minute recess is in order. The Chair will ring the division bells at the end of five minutes.

The House recessed at 11:15 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:27 a.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In trying to word this amendment to satisfy what everyone would like to do, it gets very complicated, and in legal matters I'm way over my head, so I consulted with the lawyers in the Attorney-General's ministry. They advise me that the amendment would have to pertain strictly to Motion 18, because it's known to be under investigation, and would have to read that No. 18 could be added to the list as per the opposition's request, but with the caveat.... The amendment would be: "...that until the special prosecutor has finished his investigation, this matter not be under the scrutiny of the committee." I would move that as an amendment to the member's amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask the government House Leader what he means by "this matter" in his just concluded comments — the matters that are under investigation, or the resolution?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Speaker. I know we're not in committee, but if we put Motion 18 on the list as the eleventh item, it's quite in order and quite acceptable to us — but that item 11 not be scrutinized by the committee until such time as the special prosecutor has completed his work and reported.

MR. GABELMANN: What then of other of these motions that are also before the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe this is a matter that would be dealt with by the committee when the committee meets, but....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think just that, too — that the committee knows what is before the courts; it does not always know what is under investigation. The committee can deal with matters that are before the courts and that they don't know would be sub judice.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Chair could take the pre-emptive strike of having a suggestion that we go on to another matter of business till the normal hour of adjournment, and the House Leaders can discuss this matter. When we reconvene at 2 o'clock we can start with either a new amendment or a new process. The time-frame doesn't seem to be acceptable. Would that be agreed to?

[11:30]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MILLER: As I stated in second reading, there has been virtually no opportunity to canvass issues that are critical to communities and to working people in this province — mainly issues around the Ministry of Forests. This bill will allocate money that will go to the Ministry of Forests. The original supply bill will run out at the end of July. This will take it sometime into September, so I intend to canvass the Minister of Forests with regard to some of the critical issues that people in this province are facing.

I indicated in my remarks yesterday that, if I could try to put the issues together, we have faced for some time significant numbers of layoffs in the forest industry. Over 8,000 people have been laid off in the industry. The industry is facing a number of pressures with respect to that, some due to markets, but some due to the gap that has been noted between the amount of timber available to be harvested and the ability of various processing plants to consume that timber — the gap between available supply and mill capacity. As a senior official in an interior sawmilling company said succinctly late last year: "There are too many mills chasing too little wood." Some of the remarks made by people in the industry are very alarming. There is a lack of certainty and confidence. There's an inability in those resource communities for people to plan their future activities. People employed in the industry don't know if their next paycheque is going to be coming along, whether they're going to be tossed out of work, and where they're going to end up.

There has been a complete lack of planning around this issue. When we look at some of the comments that have been made by individuals in the forest industry.... One individual last year said he would be hard-pressed to name any interior region that did not have too many mills. The same individual — and I won't name him — said mills are inevitably going to have reduce shifts or in some areas shut down in order to carry on and marry supply with demand. That same individual, asked about where those activities might take place, said....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect to the Chair and to that member, we are dealing with section 1 of the Supply Act. I'm going to quote the act so that the members opposite have it very clear in their minds what we are dealing with. I'd be happy at any time to debate forestry issues with that member. I would be happy....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Now that we have the huffing and puffing out of the way again, maybe we

[ Page 13231 ]

can get back to the business of this House, Mr. Chairman.

I submit to you that section 1 of the Supply Act deals with a schedule that's printed with the bill, which deals with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Social Services, the estimates of which have all been passed by Committee of the Whole and approved by the House. They do not deal with other ministries. As I said, I'd be happy, at some other time, to debate forestry matters with this member and be able to put the true picture on the record, rather than the one that he is painting.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, to assist the Chair, I want to make it clear that I believe that the minister's remarks are largely fiction. I want to make the point, to explain how we arrive at debating other ministries.

If you review section 1— again, the minister is correct in this respect — section 1(1) deals with the debates which we have had in this House, of some $10.66 billion on three estimates. However, section 1(2) deals with the remainder of the Supply Act approval that we gave some months ago. Subsection (2) is really an interim supply disguised as a Supply Act. The effect of subsection (2) is to give interim supply for — to quote the last line — ". . other than those of the ministries referred to in the Schedule," to give them additional expenditure approval from the end of July to roughly the end of September.

It is on that basis, Mr. Chair, that my colleague the member for Prince Rupert is choosing to debate over $700 million in new money which will go in part to the Ministry of Forests. We have approved only the interim spending until the end of July; we have not approved interim spending beyond the end of July. Close to $800 million, I believe, is now going to be diverted from those three ministries — Education, Health, Social Services and Housing — to other ministries of government, as subsection (2) states.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the same point of order, only for clarification to the Chair, I would submit to you that subsection (2) does not include any new money, any money that was not voted under Supply Act (No. 1). Supply Act (No. 1) voted a certain amount of money, and it was debated in this House for some 14 hours. Subsection (2), with the greatest of respect to you and to the members of the opposition, does not contain any new funds.

MR. ROSE: I think the government House Leader is having a bad day, Mr. Chairman.

It's clear to me that what we're talking about here, without very much debate, is the expenditure of about $11 billion. For the benefit of those who tuned in late, that's eleven thousand million dollars. That's what we're being asked to ram through.

Let's get down to the point here about whether or not this is really interim supply in disguise. The interim supply runs out at the end of July. I realize it's not stated, but the intention of the government is to take the remainder that has been unspent of a $5 billion interim supply and scatter it around to the various ministries, so they can limp through their leadership campaign. That's what they're attempting to do. There's nothing clearer than that, and I think the public should know that. Therefore, if you run out of funds at the end of July — even though this thing is not necessarily time-specific — what you're going to do is take the money intended for interim supply for two months and butter it all over through the other ministries — shell-game it around through the other ministries — to look after your needs until you might want to come back here. Now you'll never want to come back here.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about a point of order. What we're saying here is that it is perfectly legitimate, honourable, right and proper to debate the estimates under that $2.5 billion expenditure which you're going to continue and which you say is not time-specific. We think it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all, hon. members. Your advice is very much appreciated, and now let me tell you what the Chair is prepared to do. The Chair is prepared to hear debate on what we will refer to as the minor ministries — in other words, the ministries other than the big three that are shown in section 1(2). I'm prepared to listen to limited debate under section 1(2), the same program as the House was advised by Mr. Speaker would be used yesterday. So that, I think, should resolve the problem of relevancy with respect to the debate that's going to ensue. We're dealing with section 1(2). I will hear brief debate.

MR. CLARK: In light of your ruling I would simply request that the government House Leader — the Minister of Forests — bring staff in to answer questions with respect to important forestry matters that we on this side of the House intend to raise. Then, of course, we can go through and advise the government House Leader as to which ministries and when we choose to bring them forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will appreciate that this has got nothing to do with the Chair. It's strictly up to the ministers involved.

MR. KEMPF: On Bill 16....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on the point of order, hon. member?

MR. KEMPF: No, I'm not. I'm speaking on Bill 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I had recognized the member for Prince Rupert and he was interrupted, so I must go back to him.

MR. MILLER: As I had been outlining, there is a serious problem with respect to the ability to plan for the future in these forest resource communities. These communities are dependent, in the main, on the

[ Page 13232 ]

harvesting and processing of forest resources for their economic well-being and for individuals' economic well-being.

With regard to that identified gap between supply and capacity — some 30 percent; it varies — could the minister tell us where that will be manifested, where that will show and in which communities? Will there be mill shutdowns? Will there be jobs lost? Where will it happen? Which communities? Have you identified the jobs — the magnitude of job loss — and can you deal with the specific plans that the government has developed to deal with this issue, to give some security to those communities?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I can. The member for Prince Rupert doesn't bring any great revelations to knowledge of the forest industry. We're all well aware of what is happening in the forest industry, nobody more so than this government. That's why we have taken steps to assist — especially the one-industry towns, the small communities of which he speaks — with the job protection commissioner. Whenever we have a community that is in difficulty because it's a one-industry town, specifically a forest industry town, we take that very seriously. Over the past year I and the ministry have taken action in many cases to preserve the integrity of not only the community but the jobs involved. I can point to Golden, Lillooet, and others that don't come to mind. We have also asked Mr. Kerley, the commissioner, to intervene in several instances to see what can be done.

[11:45]

The member says, as he did yesterday and again today, that the government is not aware of these problems or of what is happening in the forest industry. I submit to you, he paints a very one-sided and distorted picture of what's happening in forestry. I can inform the member right here and now that I do not intend to get into a full debate of my estimates at this time. I do not intend to bring in staff, and I do not intend to sit here as if it were the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

MR. MILLER: The job protection commissioner is a temporary measure designed to presumably, as I recall the debates, assist industries that are having difficulty due to current market forces. The job protection commissioner does not deal at all — has no authority and will not deal — with the fundamental issue of not enough wood to continue feeding the capacity that exists in some communities.

I am going to reinforce what the individual I quoted previously talked about. He said he couldn't think of one interior community that wasn't facing this critical problem. In addition to that, the communities of Houston, Merritt, Hazelton and Williams Lake have all been identified. Add Prince George, Radium, Valemount and Cranbrook, and the list goes on of communities that do not have any means of securing their future. They simply do not know how long these timber supplies will last, or which mill will go down next. Workers don't know if they're going to have a job next week, next month or next year. This government has done absolutely nothing to come to terms with that issue.

When you add the fact that at least two major companies in this province have, in essence, put their solid wood manufacturing plants on the market — they said: "We're getting out of this business, we don't want to be in it anymore" — that compounds the uncertainty. When you add the fact that the gap I have talked about has really been confirmed by the minister and by every independent source in this province.... What action is the minister taking, perhaps in conjunction with other ministries, to deal squarely with this issue? He could go to those communities and say: "Here's the situation. Here's the timber supply and here's your milling capacity. Here's what we think the scenario will be over a reasonable period of time, and here are some programs we have designed to deal with that — perhaps in terms of topping up pensions for those who could take early retirement." There's a whole range of retraining opportunities or permanent silvicultural funds to deal with intensive silviculture in order to close the gap in those specific areas.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the literature, news releases and government information, it is clear to me that they have not done that work and are incapable, at this time, of doing what I have proposed.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The minister of regional development says: "Nonsense." If he says nonsense, then I invite the Minister of Forests to stand up and give some detailed answers to this House, because the forest communities and forest workers in this province need those answers from this government.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it's so typical of that party across there, which can stand in this House and point out any little problem in British Columbia — any problem you want to name. Anyone can stand and point out problems. It doesn't take people with much intelligence to stand up and point out problems and say: "Look at our warts. Here's what's wrong with us." But I never, ever hear a solution coming from that side of the House. We can point out the problems; the problems are all there. But I never, ever hear them coming to the defence of the forest industry.

Whenever there are problems that affect the jobs of the working people of this province, you never see them there, getting into the middle of the fight. The government's there. We're there defending the jobs of people who want to harvest in the Tsitika Valley, or in the upper Carmanah, or in the Walbran, or in the Tahsish-Kwois, or maybe in the Stein someday.

I never hear any mention of that from any member on that side of the House. Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? Do you know why you will never hear those people stand up — even after 15 years of study in the Tsitika Valley and 15 years of planning for harvesting, for ecological reserves, for wildlife corridors, for everything — and say we should be in there harvesting? Do you know why? Because they're so afraid of

[ Page 13233 ]

offending someone on the other side of the fence. They're so afraid of offending some of the greenies out there who want to chain themselves to a van or pour gasoline on themselves. They don't want to offend the IWA either. So what do they do? They stay home.

They can stand up and say there isn't enough wood in this province.... There isn't enough wood in a lot of areas on this continent. Just go down to Washington and Oregon and see what some of the actions there have done to the lumber industry: up to 100,000 jobs may be lost on the west coast of the United States. I never hear those people standing up talking about those problems.

They talk about sustainability, yet that member got up in the House yesterday and criticized the chief forester for reducing the annual allowable cut in two TSAs in this province because he realized that the cut was too high. We're on top of those situations. We know there are going to be problems with wood in some communities, and I have pledged to the people of this province that wherever possible we will tie the wood supply to the community involved. That's a pledge from this minister and this government.

He mentions that perhaps two major companies want to divest themselves of some of their investments on the solid-wood side — and that's true. That is not necessarily all bad. They'd be launching more bitter complaints if there were a consolidation of the industry under the large companies instead of a divestment of some of their sawmills. It does give the opportunity for some smaller community-oriented operators to buy out some of these facilities being put on the block by major corporations.

It also allows some rationalization of the industry, which is bound to take place. As wood supplies shrink on this planet, on this continent and especially on the west coast of North America, there is bound to be some rationalization. He doesn't give us any revelation when he says that we have a 30 percent overcapacity in sawmilling in this province; everyone knows that. It's worse in some areas than in others, and there's going to be some rationalization in some communities. We know that, and the marketplace will have to do its work. It's no big secret that we are oversawmilled in some areas of this province. There's no revelation; there's no admission to be made. Everyone knows it. If you've been paying attention to the forest industry, you can't help but know it.

That's why this government put in place a job protection commissioner to protect the small communities, and why it made a commitment of $1.4 billion to silviculture in this province over the next five years. So some of the people not working in sawmills may be planting trees, pruning, thinning, fertilizing and practicing "intensive silviculture" in this province.

So I submit to you that rather than get into a line-by-line debate of my estimates, if we want to keep it on a philosophical plane.... If the member wants to eat up the clock talking about forestry, I'll be happy to get up here and debate with him all day on forestry matters in this province. I can tell you that the working people, the forest companies and the public of the province have confidence in the decisions being made by this government.

MR. KEMPF: I hesitated at first to get up in this debate and talk about forest resource issues. I don't wish to take exception to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I must reiterate in this chamber that Bill 16 — as the minister has said — has absolutely nothing to do with the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

MR. CASHORE: Remember when you used to sit over here? Remember what you said then?

MR. KEMPF: And I'll say it again, because I'm not hypocritical, Mr. Member. You want to hear it? I'll say it. I've said it in caucus; I've said it to that minister; I've written letters to the minister; I've published them in my papers. I have alternatives. I don't hear any alternatives from that side of the House. Mr. Chairman, I travelled with that member in the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. I heard what he said; he's in the camp of the multinational corporations. I listened to his debate as we travelled around this province. You accuse me, Mr. Member, but listen to what your colleague from Prince Rupert has said.

Mr. Chairman, we'll talk, if that's what you wish in Bill 16, about forestry issues. You bet we will. I have the guts, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, to write letters to the minister and send them direct to Hazelton. You want to hear about Hazelton? Let's talk about Hazelton. Let's talk about Westar. Let's talk about TFL 51. I have no problem with that. I've made quite public what I feel, and I've put forward my alternatives and recommendations. They're no different than the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission.

I'm soon going to adjourn the House, and I'm going to speak some more this afternoon. I want to hear what that member has to say about the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission put in place by that minister. In the meantime, given the time and the fact that we all must be hungry, because I see them really gnashing their teeth over there, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Page 13234 ]

Appendix

MOTIONS ON NOTICE

34 The Hon. W. B. Strachan to move-

Be it resolved that the Select Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters and Intergovernmental Relations be authorized to consider the state of the Canadian federation and to consult broadly with British Columbians to determine their views on:

1. The social and economic interests and aspirations of British Columbians and other Canadians within the federation; and

2. The form of federation that can most effectively meet the social and economic aspirations of British Columbians and all Canadians.

That the Committee may review and report on proposals for constitutional change brought forward within British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada.

That the Committee provide a preliminary report and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly by August 15, 1991.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee shall have the following additional powers, namely:

(a) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(b) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(c) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and refer to such subcommittee any of the matters referred to the Committee; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee.

That the Committee may release its report during a period when the Legislative Assembly is adjourned or prorogued by depositing a copy with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and, upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairman shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

35 The Hon. C.H. Richmond to move —

Be it resolved that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to matters found in Motions on Notice 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 24, 25, 26 and 27 and undertake a full review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider:

1. The matter of the Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's alleged use of Legislative Assembly letterhead for communication with Northwest Carpet Distributors Canada Ltd. and related matters;

2. The matter of the Member for Vancouver East's alleged use in the Legislative Assembly of information provided to him from "reliable Government sources" which information was subject to section 11 of the Social Service Tax Act and related matters;

3. The matter of the Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's alleged use in the Legislative Assembly of information acquired by an alleged contravention of section 193, Criminal Code (Canada), together with prosecutorial decisions taken subsequent thereto and related matters;

4. The matter of the Second Member for Cariboo's alleged use of Government funded services to solicit funds and memberships for a private organization and related matters;

5. The matter of the Second Member for Point Grey's advocacy about compensation for physicians in the Legislative Assembly and related matters;

[ Page 13235 ]

6. The matter of the Member for Burnaby North's advocacy about compensation for members of the British Columbia Teacher's Federation in the Legislative Assembly and related matters;

7. The matter of the Member for Delta's purported claim of an obligation for post-election employment owed to him by the Government;

8. The matter of ministerial post-employment conflict of interest and the potential abuse by former ministers, for personal and private gain, of information and relationships gained in the public service;

9. The alleged use of government resources by candidates for the leadership of the Social Credit Party; and

10. The propriety of both the actions of the former Minister of Finance (Saanich and the Islands) with respect to the disclosure of information gathered under the provisions of the Financial Institutions Act, and the subsequent investigation of the matter by the Premier and the Attorney General.

And that the said Committee be granted traditional powers to receive evidence, both during the present Legislative Sitting and/or during adjournment, to adjourn from place to place, to summon witnesses and to call for papers.