[ Page 13237 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 13237

An Act to Lower the Voting Age to Eighteen Years (Bill M207). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Election Contributions Disclosure Act (Bill M208). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Conflict of Interest Act (Bill M209). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Presenting Reports –– 13239

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 13239

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13239

Sechelt Indian land claims. Mr. Long –– 13240

Referendum questions. Mr. D’Arcy –– 13240

Music '91 contracts. Ms. Pullinger –– 13240

Apportioning of legislative constituencies by gender. Mr. Smith –– 13241

Supply Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. J. Jansen) –– 13241

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Mercier

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Long

Mr. Vander Zalm

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 13269

Motions on Notice

Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest

(Motion 35). Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13269

Mr. Gabelmann

Royal assent to bills –– 13269

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to introduce to you Senor Antonio Bullon, the consul-general of Spain to Canada, who is accompanied by Mr. Joaquin Ayala, who is the consul of Spain at Vancouver.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to introduce to the House today a very special guest, someone whose name is familiar to all Canadians. He's a colleague from the riding of Rupertsland in northern Manitoba, a quiet and powerful voice for the first nations of Canada. His efforts have touched every Canadian, and I'm sure we're going to build a better Canada as a result of it. He's here in Victoria to assist the public service in acquainting themselves for the task of negotiating just and honourable settlements for the first nations of British Columbia. Would all members please join me in welcoming Elijah Harper.

MR. VANDER ZALM: We have visiting with us today Mr. Lowe, a teacher from Davidson College in Richmond, a number of adults and 29 ESL students aged 16 to 24. They're here for a tour of the parliament buildings and to familiarize themselves with the process of government in the province. I would like the House to extend a big welcome to the group from Richmond.

MR. MOWAT: In your gallery today we have Mr. Fred Pangan, who has just come to Canada from the Philippines and is having his first visit to our government — also Claire Vessey, who works with me in the caucus. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: In the gallery today are four legislative interns who have been working with our caucus for four months. There are four others, but I do not have their names here, and I assume that the government will introduce them and thank them for their work.

Working with us on this side have been Joanna Herrington, Tom Kaweski, Eric Kristianson and Neil Reimer. They've made a tremendous contribution as an integral part of our research team. Joanna and Eric, I'm told, are planning to attend law school next fall, and Tom is looking for work. Hear that over there? Tom is looking for work and hopes to find employment in government. As a matter of fact, I'm looking for work as well. Neil plans to go back to UVic to continue his master's degree in political theory. I'm sure that the events of this week will prove that new ground is being broken all the time. I understand that Neil has a mountain of fresh material, based on his short exposure, to assist us in our deliberations.

I think the intern program is a credit to everyone involved in it. The present group is one of the brightest and most talented that we've had in years. They've brought us a multiplicity of political viewpoints, but the program is without partisanship. We wish them all the best and thank them for the work they've done for us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It gives me great pleasure to join the opposition House Leader in saluting the interns who have worked for our caucus, and also the interns who've worked for the New Democratic caucus. Without question, in the last 12 years that I've been here, I've noticed the high quality of legislative interns who we've had in our caucus and other caucuses. Some of them have gone on to very good and rewarding careers.

From the Social Credit caucus, I'd like the House to extend congratulations and best wishes to Jessica Mathers, Bryar Smith, Jaqueline Versaevel and Julie Walchli. Could we give those interns a nice round of applause. [Applause.] I'm not finished; we have more interns. No, seriously.

Also visiting with me today from Prince George and Calgary, I'd like the House to welcome my wife Beverley, my daughter Jody, and my father-in-law Russell Bostock from Calgary. They are all visiting the precincts today.

Finally, on behalf of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff and all members of the Legislative Assembly, it gives me great pleasure to draw to the assembly's attention that John Crawford, one of our Sergeant-at-Arms' staff, is retiring today. John was born in Saskatchewan in 1926. He went overseas with the Canadian army from 1943 to 1945. He served with distinction with Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry from 1946 to 1976 at various bases in Canada and Europe. He came to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in 1976 and served there until 1978. In March 1979 he started with the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff and served with distinction until the present. Would the House please offer best wishes on his retirement to John Crawford.

MR. GABELMANN: just in case this is the last day — I understand there's a possibility of that — on behalf of members of the opposition caucus, I would like to extend thanks to all the people who work in the building for the Speaker and for the members of this House, the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff, the pages, the restaurant staff and the many others who contribute greatly to the "success" of our activities in this legislative chamber. I also would like to thank, on behalf of our caucus, the members of the opposition staff, who work long and hard on our behalf, and without whose efforts we could not be nearly as effective as we have been.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Earlier today I had the pleasure of meeting with members of the B.C. Federation of Dairymen's Association. Some of them are visiting here in the gallery today. I would like you to help me recognize the importance of their industry to the province of British Columbia and welcome Ben Brandsema, Johanna Mellor and John van Dongen.

Also visiting from the great constituency of Okanagan South is a very good friend of mine — and a fishing partner for the last number of years — Mr. Michael Kumle. With Michael is Julianna Parry, who is a businesswoman visiting from Brisbane, Australia. Please make them welcome.

[ Page 13238 ]

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today we have one of our hard-working community office volunteers, Doreen Burgess. She is accompanied by her friend Norma Tener. Would the House please make them both welcome.

MR. LOENEN: We want to join with members opposite — if indeed this is the last day of the sitting of this session — to thank the staff, without whose dedication and commitment to our work we would not have been nearly as effective as we have been. In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that our days are full and that our days could not possibly serve the people of this province as effectively without the support and help of our staff. On behalf of all of us on the government side, I want to join the members opposite in saying thank you to them.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 60 English-as-a-second-language students, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Tajiri, from the Vancouver Formosa Academy in my constituency I would ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of this side of the House, I also would like to welcome Elijah Harper to Victoria and into this Legislature. As the hon. first member for Victoria said, discussions are being held today and tomorrow relative to a better understanding between native and non-native peoples, as we work towards resolving a number of the native concerns and issues relative to land claims. I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome Elijah to this assembly on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I ask the assembly to welcome my executive assistant working from my Ladner office, Diane Wilson. Would this House please make her welcome.

[2:15]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Visiting us today are two journalists from western Germany, Petra Lung and Andreas Hoelsman. Accompanying them is Wolfgang Zimmerman from Port Alberni, a driving force behind the Disabled Forestry Workers of British Columbia, and also Lynn Zimmerman from Victoria. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, those of you who think this may be your last day may be correct in this session, while I am the Speaker. But as president of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I must say that you will be expected to attend in August when the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association members meet in this chamber in a much more relaxed and cordial atmosphere.

Hon. Mr. Dirks tabled the 1990-91 annual report of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE
TO EIGHTEEN YEARS

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled An Act to Lower the Voting Age to Eighteen Years.

MR. HARCOURT: This bill extends our most important political right to a greater number of young people by reducing the voting age in provincial elections from 19 years to 18 years. There are an estimated 42,000 18-year-olds in British Columbia today. They have the capacity and the right to decide who should represent them in the Legislative Assembly. This bill will bring B.C.'s voting age in line with federal and other provincial jurisdictions.

Bill M207 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.

ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Election Contributions Disclosure Act.

MR. HARCOURT: The most fundamental goal of any government is to earn and keep the trust of the electorate. For that to happen, a government must be both open and honest. Increasingly, however, the public is losing trust in politicians. Their experience with the current government has led them to believe that all politicians act in the interests of their special friends. To help restore open government and voter faith in their government, it is necessary that the public be told who the financial supporters of their elected representatives are. This bill requires that the source of contributions to election campaigns over the amount of $100 be disclosed. Almost all other North American jurisdictions have this type of legislation, and this bill would bring our province into line.

Bill M208 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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Conflict of Interest Act.

MR. HARCOURT: This bill is designed to establish 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.

Bill M209 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.

[ Page 13239 ]

Presenting Reports

MR. REE: This is some business that has been concluded, not started. I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. REE: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT: A question to the Minister of Health. Last night the board of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital passed a motion restricting women's access to therapeutic abortions. The former Premier violated a Supreme Court decision and tried to ban a legal medical procedure, and this minister and this cabinet have stood squarely behind him. Has the minister decided to inform the board of Vernon hospital that its action is an unacceptable violation of the rights of British Columbia women?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me say at the outset to the Leader of the Opposition that the first part of his question is a preamble that is totally incorrect, and the member knows it. I want the record to show that.

Secondly, with respect to the Vernon hospital or any other hospital, they are legal autonomous bodies that have elected boards of directors from their society. They are responsible for the processes, procedures and operations held at their hospital.

If the NDP wish to make a statement with regard to taking away autonomy from hospitals, that's fine. But in terms of what the Vernon hospital has done to date, that is within the law, and they are a legally autonomous body.

MR. HARCOURT: We don't say to police boards that you can interpret and enforce certain areas of the Criminal Code; it's the law of the land. The same should apply here, and it seems that this government is still taking its lead from the first member for Richmond, who of course is going to be endorsing the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, who has endorsed his support of her.

When it comes to the rights of British Columbia and its women, this government is all the same, and nothing has changed. The Minister of Health asked what a New Democrat government would do, and I'll tell you very simply; we would not let public hospital boards interfere with the rights of women. We would not deny women the right to choose on abortion, and we would bring in a law to that effect. Does the minister not accept that the present situation is unacceptable, and has he decided to give women legislative protection from this sort of action?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first part of the question was not a question; it was a non sequitur statement. Secondly, neither this cabinet, this member nor this Legislative Assembly attended the Vernon hospital board meeting last night. That decision was made by the society, and I'm sure you're aware of that. If you're not, have someone read it to you, because that's how it went. We don't attend society meetings, nor do we make decisions for them. They made that decision.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary. The hospital trustees banned abortion even in the case of rape or incest. This is not a health care matter. This is the sort of extremism that the people of British Columbia have come to expect from this government over the last five years. Is it the minister's position that he will stand by and do nothing while a vocal minority imposes its views on the women of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're not a vocal minority, Mr. Member, they're an elected majority. Are you opposed to democracy? That is the question.

Also, the Criminal Code of Canada, which is the law in Canada, governs the procedure that you're talking about and the one that you're concerned with. The Hospital (Auxiliary) Act in British Columbia governs actions of hospital societies. If you want to change that, suggest some amendments. If you want to get on your soapbox, go to Vernon and do it, because the decision was made in Vernon, not in this Assembly.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Dr. John Garry, Richmond medical health officer, has written your ministry saying that he does not accept your soil-testing process and that he is concerned that hazardous contaminants could be dumped in Richmond. In light of this new information from Dr. Garry, has the minister decided to order that no soil from the Expo site be dumped in Richmond until the province and the municipality agree on a soil-testing protocol?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member has been an opposition critic of this ministry for some time. It can be presumed that he knows the soil hierarchy and the history of the soil that's being transferred to the Richmond site.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Well, that's a term he should know. I don't think he does, but he should know what it is. When he started off by calling the soil toxic, he

[ Page 13240 ]

incorrectly described the soil in the first place, which led to the action the Richmond council took.

All that I ask of the Richmond council — for your information, Mr. Member — is that it accord this soil, which is mainly sand and gravel, the same treatment that it accords the soil moving to six other sites in the municipality of Richmond. All I ask of this member is to get his facts straight, to serve a useful purpose in this assembly.

MR. CASHORE: This minister knows that he's using a smokescreen when he keeps referring to the same effort to try to avoid his role in this issue. The question was about new information from a medical health officer, who is a professional and presumably has more ability to ascertain the nature of this issue than the minister has.

This minister refuses to admit that the plans for that site are to import and process the most toxic of wastes in the Pacific Northwest. This is in obvious conflict with your decision to begin dumping….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the question is: given the serious concerns of Richmond's chief medical officer, the citizens of Richmond and its council, as well as the belated concerns of the second member for Richmond, has the minister decided to order that no Expo soils be dumped in that community until Dr. Garry's questions have been answered?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I don't wish to impugn the reputation of the medical health officer of Richmond. In fact, before I make another comment.... I don't know why the member gets so excited. If he was right, he wouldn't have to get so excited about posing this question. But the medical health officer, to my knowledge, is not a soils analyst. The medical health officer is reacting to the council, none of whom, that I'm aware of, are soils analysts. The matter of testing the soil is being conducted by our staff, not by this minister. I'm not a soils analyst, but I have deep faith in the ability of my staff to do the right thing. So, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't serve the member well to challenge the staff of this ministry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the minister to take his seat. He was asked a question, and we're getting into a discussion well beyond the scope of the question.

SECHELT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Native Affairs. In view of the fact that the Sechelt Indian band is the first native self-government in Canada and would like their land claims duly dealt with, I would like to ask the minister what the government has done to facilitate the negotiations between this progressive band and the federal and provincial governments to deal with their unique land claims.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid that question is for the order paper. A question that takes 15 or 20 minutes just to begin to talk about is far too long; it must be briefer than that. Next question, please.

[2:30]

REFERENDUM QUESTIONS

MR. D'ARCY: To my jovial friend from Willingdon in his capacity as Provincial Secretary. Some months ago, in early May, the government gratuitously — without being asked — declared its intention to put before this chamber during this session those questions on which it would go to the people in referendums on the ballot in the next provincial election — other than those questions about the government's own re-election, of course. Before the minister contemplates getting up and giving an answer as to what those questions might be — such as, "in the fullness of time" — I would like to remind the chamber that as far as this session goes we have reached the fullness of time....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's the last day — I hope it's the last. It's probably the last question period, and it's getting near the end of it. Perhaps we could just have questions for this last little bit. Could the member for Rossland-Trail ask the question.

MR. D'ARCY: I was just getting to that point, so I'm glad you instructed me.

Has the minister decided on the content and the number of questions which he wishes to put before this chamber to fulfil the government's declaration? Has he seen those questions? And has he decided to table them today, since there's a strong possibility that the fullness of time of this session may be reached in a matter of hours?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to advise the hon. member that he's a little premature in looking to his position in London.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this is future action, and so I would not offend the rules of the House and answer that particular question.

MUSIC '91 CONTRACTS

MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Last year I asked the minister if there was a tendering process for the awarding of Music '91 contracts, and the minister said there would be a fair process, but he wouldn't tell the House what that process was. Two days ago the minister advised the House that the government is looking at all of the contracts and how they were awarded. Can the minister explain why all the contracts are under review at this time, and who is carrying out that review?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'll keep this very brief. We are doing that review at the present time. We're reviewing

[ Page 13241 ]

all the contracts, because I think it's only good business practice — and good practice, period — to review how all contracts are awarded.

MS. PULLINGER: A supplementary to the same minister. Given that the events side of Music '91 has only recently begun — it's only a month into its mandate — it would appear there must be some serious problems with the initiative if all the existing contracts are under review. Can the minister assure the House that there is no conflict of interest with respect to tendering? And can he assure the House that he has taken all the necessary steps to guarantee public accountability, and that no inside deals will be made in future contracts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to waste the time of this House in a frivolous question like that. Obviously we're reviewing it, and when we are reviewing it, certainly the reason to review it is to ensure that they are indeed awarded in the proper way.

APPORTIONING OF LEGISLATIVE
CONSTITUENCIES BY GENDER

MR. SMITH: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. At a recent meeting in Halifax, Mr. Speaker, the NDP endorsed setting aside ridings according to gender. In light of that proposal, my question for the Provincial Secretary is this: has he considered dividing the 75 British Columbia constituencies according to gender? Will the Provincial Secretary name the ridings that he has set aside for men and the ridings he has set aside for women? Will the Provincial Secretary tell us what he's going to do with the seventy-fifth riding, and will he as well advise the House if he has established a cadre of gender police to enforce this politically correct new program by a new generation of new socialists?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I really don't know how the NDP intends to operate at the federal level to ensure equality of gender for all the candidates. In British Columbia, especially in this party, people come forward because of their merits and ability, and I can assure you that there are two outstanding women running for the leadership of this particular political party, and several female candidates who will be elected in the next election and help form the next Social Credit government.

MR. LONG: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. During question period I asked a question that's very important to the Sechelt Indian people. It was at the discretion of the Chair that the advice was given that the answer may be too long, without getting any answer from the Minister of Native Affairs. I feel that it's only right and just that the native people in Sechelt have an answer on where this government's going and what they are doing for that Sechelt Indian band. Therefore I stand up on their behalf.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the difficulty that the Chair faces is not the substance of the question, but the manner in which questions are put. There are offenders on both sides of the House, and I'll try not to name them. Naming them might solve the afternoon's problems. The difficulty is that when a question is put in such a way that it can be used to spin out what little is left of our short question period, the Chair has to intervene, because there have been some abuses by government members and government ministers of question period. The subject of your question today was very valid, but it's scope was such that any minister could have taken at least half an hour to answer the question. There has been ample opportunity at other times in this session to ask similar questions.

MR. LONG: On the question I asked for the Sechelt people, I was expecting an answer, but I still have not got that answer. I want to be treated like any other member of this House. Everyone else gets an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of the treatment of the member, it's the treatment of the question. The question was put in such a way that it would be an abuse of the House, and the Chair has so ruled.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

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

MR. KEMPF: I'm happy, Mr. Chairman, about your ruling that we are able this afternoon to talk a bit about Forests estimates. I intend to discuss in depth the forest estimates of the member for Prince Rupert, who seemed very anxious to talk about forestry issues.

The member doesn't listen very often, because I toured the province with that member and the rest of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands of this Legislature. As I was saying before lunch, I heard over and over.... I can understand that member getting very exercised by me repeating those things that he spoke about and did during that tour of the province. But I just want to make sure, particularly to the viewing audience, that everyone understands where that member is coming from.

I have a few questions to ask of that member as to where he stands with respect to forest issues and policies in British Columbia. I was very concerned — and I would like to underline that word "concerned" — about the things that member for Prince Rupert was uttering during those hearings of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. I thought I was a little left of the member opposite when it came to forest policies, but lo and behold and to my surprise, I found the member opposite was far right of me when it came to forest issues and policies. He consistently stood in that committee, as he stands here in the House, and spoke in favour of the status quo — of that

[ Page 13242 ]

which the multinational corporations were doing in the forest industry of British Columbia.

That leads me to an awful lot of questions. I've got to ask because I haven't heard that member clearly state in this House what he thinks. It's the same as any issue coming from the opposition. For four and a half years they've ducked every issue in this province. None of them, including the member for Prince Rupert, who is the Forests critic, has stood in this House and enunciated their philosophy with respect to forests, health, human resources or any other issue. They expect to slither by and come to the threshold of an election and hope the people of British Columbia will elect them without knowing where they stand on issues and on policy.

I can't allow that. I don't think that's right. The people of Prince Rupert, particularly, ought to know where their candidate in the next election stands with respect to forest policy. That's only right, and I've got to ask that member some questions.

The first question that comes to mind.... I've heard that member time after time call for a royal commission into the forest industry of British Columbia. As all members in this assembly would know, we've had a Forest Resources Commission, which for the last two years has traveled around the province obtaining the concerns and thoughts of British Columbians when it comes to forest policy. The first question I have for that member is: does he agree with the report of the Forest Resources Commission? Does he agree with the recommendations made in this report by that Forest Resources Commission? If he does, I fail to see how he can call for a royal commission. We've had one — and a very good one.

The member talked about Hazelton. I want to talk a while about Hazelton and about the recommendations I've made to the minister about the situation in Hazelton. I want to get the member opposite on record regarding some of the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission as they pertain to the Hazelton situation.

The first question I want to ask that member about the Forest Resources Commission is whether he agrees with recommendation 24 of the Forest Resources Commission, when it says: "...consideration be given to absorbing the Agricultural Land Commission into the new land use commission." Does the member agree with that? I think it's only right that this House know, With reference to Hazelton, I think this recommendation 45 must be taken into consideration, and the question asked that member is: does he agree or disagree? If he doesn't agree — fine. Then it's valid for him to call for a royal commission.

[2:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless the Chair is not hearing you correctly, I gather you're posing questions to the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I heard your ruling distinctly, and I don't wish to take exception to the ruling of the Chair. I was a little astonished, at the time, that the Chair would thus rule. Nevertheless, I heard the Chairman rule that we would have some debate on Forests estimates, and the estimates of the Minister of Forests aren't on the floor. So I take it as valid that we would be discussing the estimates of the Forests critic, because what else could you discuss under Bill 16? This is logical, and far be it from me to want to break the rules of this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member left out one word the Chair mentioned, and that was "limited."

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've got so many questions, and I think the member for Prince Rupert must answer them in light of his going to the polls very soon in Prince Rupert.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member knows full well that he can't direct questions to the member for Prince Rupert. The Minister of Forests is....

MR. KEMPF: If that's the case, I'd be happy to sit down and find out who the Forests critic is going to ask questions of, given that there's no ability in Bill 16 to talk about forestry issues. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to relinquish my spot if the member for Prince Rupert is going to be allowed to ask someone.... I don't know who he's going to ask questions on forestry of, because I don't see it spelled out in Bill 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the hon. member doesn't want to lose his place in debate, then he must be relevant and must abide by the rules laid down. The member knows full well that in this House we don't question members that the.... When we're dealing with questions such as this, they're directed to the minister in charge.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, never would I abuse the rules of this House — certainly to the contrary. Never would I call into question a ruling of the Chairman or the Speaker of this House. You know that. But it was the member for Prince Rupert — the forestry critic — who raised all these questions and who spoke in his debate with respect to forestry issues. He talked about Houston and Hazelton. I want to talk about Hazelton and the situation that exists there, and ask him if he agrees with the recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission, in which they say: "…on the conversion of existing tenures, the amount of the allowable annual cut held under tenure by companies with manufacturing facilities be reduced to not more than 50 percent of the lesser of either their processing capacity or their present cut allocation, and that the wood freed up be used to create a greater diversity of tenures."

Does the member agree with that, or does he agree that Westar should be allowed to sell the timber — the tenure — with their sawmill in Hazelton? That's the question I ask. Let the member stand and answer the question.

[ Page 13243 ]

MR. MILLER: I had actually posed some serious questions to the minister before I was interrupted by this member for Omineca. The member for Omineca — the author of the memorandum of understanding and the man who undercut the B.C. government — went south of the border and tried to cut a deal. He undercut the government of British Columbia; he undercut the government of Canada. We ended up with a memorandum of understanding with that member's support right to the hilt, even though the Minister of Forests knows the difficulty we have with that memorandum. It was that member for Omineca's actions as the Minister of Forests which got us into the pickle we're in right now.

While that member was representing the constituency, Westar Timber was out there high-grading the sawlogs out of the Kispiox timber supply, and he never said one word. He's seen three mills shut down in his riding, and we haven't heard a peep from him — not one peep. When one mill started to get into difficulty in a community in his riding, do you know what his answer was — this person who authored the MOU and who said it was great for British Columbia? "Oh, there should be two separate stumpage rates. There should be a lower one, because it looks as though some jobs are threatened my community."

I have never heard so much hypocrisy in all my entire life. That member is being called to account for those issues. I happen to know; I've talked to people in your constituency, Mr. Member, and I think you're going to pay a price. You're going to pay a price for those rantings and ravings that you do on forestry with very little thought. I think that was recognized by some of your colleagues.

I have spoken about the serious issue facing forest communities and forest workers in this province, and I have advanced solutions to some of those problems. I have put forward ideas. What my questions are aimed at is trying to determine why this government has done nothing. This government, as we saw last year with the change in the licence documents — where they actually severed the responsibility of licensees to process timber and made it easier for licensees to walk away.... We saw that in Lillooet, and when various senior people from the ministry were quizzed, they actually said: "We're not sure why we made that change." I didn't hear the member for Omineca standing up for workers in Lillooet when they lost their jobs. When the current Minister of Forests was asked that, his answer was: "I don't know." Hard to believe — he's the minister.

The minister talked about the Robson Bight area, the Tsitika-Schoen valley. I'm proud of the work that my party did in government in terms of putting together probably one of the most superior planning processes we have anywhere in British Columbia. It was the first modern attempt by a government of British Columbia to say: "It's not good enough for a forest company to say what it's going to do; we're going to put members of the community and members of interest groups an a planning board, and those people are going to say what's good for this area." That Tsitika-Schoen watershed has something like 19 percent of the operable forest set aside in ecological reserves and parks. It's a model of how we should conduct our planning. I would go so far as to say that had we been allowed to continue in office and to continue that model, we wouldn't be faced with the kind of land use conflicts we're seeing today in this province. When we left office in 1976, the Social Credit government of the day scrapped that planning process. And that member for Omineca knows darn well what I'm talking about.

MR. KEMPF: Do you?

MR. MILLER: He knows what I'm talking about, but he doesn't want to admit it.

When I talked about the need to approach this question of community stability and worker protection in some kind of comprehensive way and claimed that the government had not come to grips with that problem, that was borne out last year, because the testimony given by ministry officials to the Forest Resources Commission was: "We don't have an industrial strategy." There's never been an industrial strategy from this government in terms of forestry and forestry operations.

Why have we got this massive gap in supply? Why have we allowed companies like Westar to high-grade sawlogs and not build processing plants that are capable of taking that lower-quality wood, extracting the best value from it and using the residuals? Why have we come to this state? It's because there never has been an industrial strategy, and there is no way that this government can address those serious concerns. They don't have the tools. They're not equipped to do it.

The minister used a word, and it's a nice word because it really avoids reality. The word is "rationalization." I have heard it now, and I'm continuing to hear it from major forest companies and from some smaller ones too. I'll interpret rationalization for the House. Rationalization means shutting down sawmills. That's what rationalization means. The minister said: "Yes, we're aware that there's a gap in supply and that there's going to have to be some rationalization."

My question to the minister was pretty specific: where is that going to take place? Which communities? Can you go to a community like Williams Lake or Quesnel — or the other communities that I mentioned earlier today when I was quoting that newspaper article — with any degree of confidence in your planning and in the work and numbers you have, and say that you don't have to be concerned? Can you go to the communities that I mentioned — such as Houston.... I've been in Houston, in that member's riding, and I've heard the complaints of the small loggers. Can you go to Houston? Can you go to Merritt? Can you go to Hazelton? Can you go to Williams Lake? Can you go to Prince George? Prince George is a classic case.

Actually that member for Omineca did do something when he was the Minister of Forests. He did do something that I thought was particularly useful. He commissioned a study about the whole situation of timber supply in the Prince George region. The mem-

[ Page 13244 ]

ber knows what I'm talking about. He's familiar with that study.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sad to say that at one time that member actually was a critic of his own government. He at one time ran the risk. He was known as a maverick. At one time he used to stand in this House and criticize his own government. He doesn't do it anymore. He left the caucus. He's back in the caucus. He paid a terrible price with his silence. Prince George, where things were so desperate that they had to take timber from the member for Skeena, who was the Minister of Forests.... They had to take timber from his region and give it to Prince George, and that's why everybody is unhappy with the member for Skeena, and why he won't be back here, either. Can you go to those communities I've talked about — Radium, Valemount, Cranbrook — with any degree of confidence, and tell them in fairly precise terms what their future is, what the timber supply position will be, what the milling capacity will be, what the employment position will be? Can you do that with any degree of confidence at all, Mr. Minister?

MR. KEMPF: All of that rhetoric, and still the member for Prince Rupert — the Forests critic — did not answer the question about tenure allocation in Hazelton. Where does he stand? He brought the question up this morning. Where does he stand on that allocation?

I was going to concur very closely with your ruling, but the member for Prince Rupert brought up the question of the memorandum of understanding. I want to talk a bit about the MOU. The member says that it's a bad thing for British Columbia. I can tell you and all of the members of this assembly, I heard the member for Prince George very recently castigate the MOU as well. I've got to tell the members of this assembly: had it not been for the memorandum of understanding, $650 million a year would be flowing into the coffers of the United States of America and not British Columbia. That's what the memorandum of understanding did. It returned $650 million a year from the forest industry to the coffers of British Columbia; since 1986, that's over $3.5 billion. Had I had it to do over, I would not have accepted 15 percent. The Americans were right: it should have been more.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: All you have to do — and I hope you've read it, Mr. Member — is pick up the report of the B.C. Forest Resources Commission where they say it, not me.... I was saying it when I was minister, and perhaps that's why I wasn't minister very long. I would caution the member for Prince Rupert to remember that, and I'll get into some of that later. Perhaps that's why I wasn't in that chair very long. In their report the Forest Resources Commission is suggesting.... I suggested from that side of the floor, in caucus, in public and in Washington, D.C., that we were being shortchanged in the province by a billion dollars a year that should be flowing from the industry into the coffers.

The Forest Resources Commission report says that it should be four times that amount. We're being short-changed by $4 billion a year, money that should be flowing into the coffers of the province from the forest industry. They give their reasons for that. It's all here, Mr. Member. Read it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Not me. I'm not suggesting four times a billion. I said a billion. They're saying four times a billion.

The crux of the matter is: had we not entered into a memorandum of understanding in Washington, D.C., in late 1986, $3.5 billion-plus would not have flowed into the coffers of British Columbia; rather, it would have flowed into the coffers of the United States of America. Is that member — an elected representative in British Columbia, the Forests critic — saying that's wrong? I hope his constituents, those who he is seeking to be elected by to this chamber, are watching this afternoon. The member said that that $3.5 billion-plus should not have flowed into the coffers of British Columbia; rather, it should have flowed into the coffers of the United States of America. Absolutely astonishing! I simply can't believe my ears. Is the member that naive? Does he not know? Does he really believe that that revenue should have gone to the United States rather than British Columbia? If that's the case, I hope that member never becomes the Minister of Forests in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't.

MR. KEMPF: I know he won't, Mr. Member. But just think if he did. He would probably retroactively write a cheque to the Americans for the money collected, rather than have it used in British Columbia. I'm at a loss for words.

I wanted to talk a little more about the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands and the stand that member took on that committee. I want to tell....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Committee business other than for the committee that we are in at the moment is not in order.

MR. KEMPF: I won't get into the business of the committee. I just want to tell this chamber a little story about what happened after a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. On entering a restaurant in Vancouver the next morning, lo and behold, there was the member for Prince Rupert meeting over breakfast with some of the lackeys from the multinational corporations — the guys from the ivory towers of the forest industry; the people who own 86 percent of the tenure in this province. That was a year ago. When I asked if I could sit on one of the two vacant chairs at the table and join them, that member

[ Page 13245 ]

said: "No, this is a working breakfast." A year ago, and his nose was already brown, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: And his leader says that's great! I hope everybody in this province is watching this afternoon.

Already they were meeting with the likes of Bob Porter. Already they were dividing up the forest industry in British Columbia, should they become government. Already they were setting policies in conjunction with the multinational corporations with respect to the forest industry of British Columbia.

What answer does the member for Prince Rupert have to that?

MR. MILLER: I'm actually a bit flattered. I'm almost starting to feel ministerial having these.... I'm sure it is good practice, and it feels very good. I'd be happy to answer the member's questions, doubly so because I would point out that any questions that we have asked the Minister of Forests today have not been answered.

I want the member for Omineca to know that I will be faxing a copy of the Blues to his opponent, specifically that section where he defends the memorandum of understanding as being necessary and then goes one better and says it should have been higher. In the absence of any other member on the Socred side standing up, I'm going to make an assumption that that indeed is really their policy. Yet it seems to me that I read recently where the first member for Cariboo, a Socred, said we should get rid of the memorandum of understanding; it's hurting people in his constituency. Mr. Chairman, I am baffled by this inconsistency, but I really shouldn't be, because as we have pointed out on numerous occasions, this is the most erratic and unstable government this province has ever seen.

Finally, I will put paid to those vicious attacks and indeed confess that I had breakfast with Mr. Porter. I can't recall what I had, but I did have breakfast with Mr. Porter, as I have had lunch and as I have had dinner with every segment of the forest industry in this province — because it's my job to do it. Any chance I get to meet with people from the forest industry to talk about protecting jobs and promoting this industry, I'll take it. I'm even prepared to have lunch or breakfast with the member for Omineca, in the probably futile hope that I can straighten him out and put him on the right road. I don't think I can.

I want to deal with the Forest Resources Commission report. I think we should be careful in how we deal with that report. I'm mindful of the people who are on the commission, I'm mindful of the report and the recommendations contained therein, and I'm also aware that in some of those recommendations there is a degree of unanimity — for example, on the need to come to grips with what's termed a land use plan and a mechanism for land use planning in this province. If we take that section and look at proposals made by other sectors in the forest industry and people with environmental concerns, we can probably come up with some mechanism whereby we can do that.

1 was careful, and I think all of us should be careful, in not taking the report on valuation as gospel. I think there are implications in that. What the Forest Resources Commission has said is very significant and very important, but I do not accept the numbers in that report as gospel. There are many reasons, and I think the Minister of Forests understands what those reasons are. But I want to ask some questions regarding that and what I think is an opportunity to deal with these communities that I've mentioned.

First of all, we have to ascertain the veracity of those numbers. Just to briefly recap, the commission has said that when they do valuation of the forest assets using a stumpage-based approach they come up with a certain number. It's slightly in excess of $1 billion, the value of our forest assets. Using a consulting company and an entirely different approach — using transactions between companies, purchases of assets, etc. — they make a statement in that report that the commission believes the value is $8 billion or thereabouts. They also make a statement with regard to uncaptured value. They say, in essence, that when forest companies sell their assets, with a forest quota or forest licence attached to it, the uncaptured value — the value of the trees not captured by stumpage — passes to private hands.

Mr. Chairman, we must determine whether those numbers are correct. If they're not, then we nust determine what the appropriate numbers are, because if that is true, if a private company can sell its assets and have a forest licence or a quota position transferred to another company, and if they are receiving the value of that quota position and walking away with it, then that is wrong.

I mentioned Westar. I don't wish to slander any company, and I've tried to avoid that as a critic, but it's my position, quite frankly, that we've seen an abuse of the resource. I have some personal familiarity with that history, and it's not a very good one. We allocate our resources because we want to get the best for the people of this province and the best return for the Crown. When those resources are abused, we, as the owners of those resources, have an obligation to step in, to interfere, to intercede on behalf of the people. We didn't do that, and that's why we have seen that sad, sorry history that that member said nothing about. That's why, when we look back, we see this company that high-graded sawlogs. They high-graded 77 percent sawlogs out of a timber supply area, whereas, when you look at the profile, it was something like 50 percent sawlogs.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The member for Omineca says it was less. That's an abuse of the resource, and the end result, the net result, of that is that people will pay a price. They will suffer. We've seen that suffering in mill closures. My point is simply that with Westar now.... I would draw the Chair's attention to the news release, which says: "Westar Group to Reduce Debt." Great, they built up a fantastic debt through inappropriate management, and they were given tremendous re-

[ Page 13246 ]

sources by the Socred government. Do I have to go through that whole history of the B.C. Resources Investment Corp., the transfer of all these assets to what was called BCRIC and the issuance of these free shares? Do I have to mention the activities of that company in taking the money raised on the sale of those shares — between $500 million and $700 million — and not investing it back in this province? They didn't put it back in this province in investments; they took it and invested it in the North Sea oil and gas plays — and they lost it all.

[3:15]

That's why you see this headline now: "Westar Group to Reduce Debt." We transferred out assets to the company. They mishandled them. They took our money and didn't invest it properly, and now they're proposing to sell off their sawmills, and they're also proposing that the licences that go with those mills be transferred. They're going to make an application to transfer. Similarly, Fletcher Challenge is proposing essentially to sell off their solid-wood mills, and in certain instances to allow the quota to be transferred.

Coming back to the issue of value, if we don't know whether or not there's an uncaptured value in the transfer of those licences, how can we approve the transfer? That's number one.

Number two, if there is an uncaptured value, would it not make sense to direct that value to the needs of those communities? Would it not make sense, for example, in the case of Westar, if indeed there's an uncaptured value, to take that money as some kind of investment pool and look at how it could be useful in stabilizing those communities in a variety of ways? For example, we could say to workers who are old enough and may want to retire: "We're prepared to top up your pension plan to help you ease your way out of the industry." Or we could say to younger workers: "We're prepared to get some training programs here." We could say to the region in general: "We're prepared to set up some kind of silvicultural fund where you can do the kind of intensive silviculture that perhaps can make up some of the gap in supply."

These are serious, important questions, and I think the member for Omineca belittles the whole issue and tries to divert attention away from the real issue.

I have worked my entire life in the forest industry Apart from this job here, that's all I've done. I've worked on tugboats and pulp mills and out in the bush, and I know what it's like. I know what it's like to be laid off, and I know what it's like not to have certainty. I'm asking if this government has done anything, and I'm making the charge that it doesn't appear to me that they have done anything to meet those kinds of issues.

It's not some wild, raving charge about you being in bed with the multinationals or favouring this or that group. If we continue down that road in this province, we will never come to grips with the problems we have. I say that if you're not part of the solution in this province, you're part of the problem, whether you're a big company, a small company, a medium-sized company, an independent contractor, a unionized woodworker, an environmentalist or a politician. If we don't start to harness our energies and pull together on that issue, then we face some really serious challenges. One of those we're going to face first of all is the question of timber supply in those communities that I mentioned.

I haven't had an opportunity to raise these issues in this kind of debate this year. I should say that I believe the minister and I enjoyed a good debate last year. I haven't had an opportunity to raise them. They have not been raised, and this is the forum that I have to raise them.

I would like to get some answers to those questions, and I would defer to the minister if he wants to get into this debate.

MR. KEMPF: Well, isn't that typical! For going on 15 minutes the member for Prince Rupert, the forestry critic, skated around all of the questions he was asked. Hindsight is 20-20, Mr. Chairman, but I'm asking the question: where do we go from here?

I asked the member, with respect to Hazelton and TFL 51 — this is for the people of the Hazelton area — does he agree or disagree that the timber in TFL 51 that the Carnaby mill is now high-grading, that Westar Timber is high-grading, should be transferred with the sale of the Carnaby mill? Because you know, it's the only salvation of that community.

The member says he has breakfast with all of the Bob Porters of the industry. When has he last had breakfast with a small operator? When has he last had breakfast with a category 2 operator in the small business program? Those are the people that I'm talking about.

The multinational corporations can do very well, thank you very much, in Tasmania, South America or wherever they might choose to spend our money that they've made in the industry in British Columbia, but I'm talking about the little guy who lives in Houston, Burns Lake or Hazelton. Does the member opposite — the critic for forestry in British Columbia, the one who is salivating over the chair over here for the Minister of Forests — agree that the tenure in Hazelton should be taken from that mill and not transferred with it, given that the mill has been high-grading it?

I heard the member say himself, and it's the truth. It's in the report. It has been high-graded. I agree that for that reason the timber should not go with the mill, because if that mill continues to operate it will further high-grade TFL 51 and plunge those communities — the three Hazeltons — into a worse situation than they have now.

You know, it's typical. The member brought up the memorandum of understanding, but he didn't answer my question: if he was the minister, how would he make up the $650 million shortfall if, in fact, he could go to Washington, D.C., and talk the Americans into backtracking on the tariff? How was he going to make up to the taxpayer of British Columbia that $650 million a year — $3.5 billion-plus since I was in Washington, D.C., and was a signatory of that agreement. I'm proud of that on behalf of the little guy in British Columbia.

That's where it's all at. It's not with the multinational corporation; it's with the little guy. I saw that

[ Page 13247 ]

member — the critic for Forests in British Columbia — sidle up to those people during the whole tour made by the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. I'm really concerned about that, because the Leader of the Opposition is so very sure that he's going to be the next Premier and sit on this side of the House. The way that member has been talking, he thinks he's going to be the Minister of Forests. I'm really concerned about those early-morning breakfast meetings. Who is that member representing? You hear a lot from the other side of the floor that they represent the ordinary workingman. When was the last time that he sat and had breakfast with a small business operator? When you were in Burns Lake, did you meet with my small business operators?

I know it's a little off-track, Mr. Chairman, but the question I have to ask at this time is: when the Leader of the Opposition was in Houston, who did he meet with? I'll tell him — nobody. Nobody showed up. Not one person showed up to the meeting. Then this critic for Forests talks about Houston. If they want to know about Houston, I'll tell them all about it. I'll tell you how to get people to come to a meeting in Houston: join Social Credit. That's the way to get people to attend a meeting in Houston. I've got a membership book in my briefcase; I'll bring it over.

Mr. Chairman, that member over there piously talks about representing the little guy. He stands for the status quo. He's happy. He stands in this House and talks otherwise, but I've seen him in action. I saw the NDP in action from 1972 to 1975, and what did they change in the forest industry? The critic for Forests for the opposition likes the status quo. They aren't the answers to the problem. There are many problems, and they can't be solved overnight. That is in the report of the Forest Resources Commission. There are a lot of people depending on jobs in the forest industry. You can't make fast moves, Mr. Member, as much as you and I would like them. But don't stand in this House and say you represent that little guy out there when you're having breakfast with the Bob Porters of this world. That's hypocrisy.

MR. MILLER: That member says he's seen me in action, and now he's going to see me in action again.

This morning, Mr. Chairman, I had breakfast with a consultant to a small contractor who is trying to come to grips with the issues in the west Chilcotin that are of concern to the Indian people, small contractors and ranchers. He's trying to pull something together, and he's having a hard job, because he can't get much cooperation out of this government.

Today, even though I was trying to prepare for this debate, I had lunch with two young writers over here from Germany. I stressed to them that indeed we have some problems in British Columbia, that we're trying to come to grips with those problems and that we're mindful that we have to have a strong economy in order to do that. That's the message I wanted them to take back to Germany to counteract those people who would try to undermine our forest industry and the creation of wealth in this province.

The last time I talked to a small business operator in my riding — he doesn't live in my riding but he operates in my constituency from Terrace.... I know him to be a member of the Social Credit executive in Terrace, maybe lapsed now. I gave him the following advice: tear up that Social Credit card, because it's not going to be the thing that opens the door in forestry in this province anymore. It won't be that Socred membership card that is the reason for making decisions in forestry in this province anymore. It will be what makes sense and what's good for the people, not what's good for Social Credit members.

Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that this member continually asks me questions, and it appears he has some serious problems in his constituency. He is making serious charges that a major employer is high-grading. Those are indeed serious charges. I don't know if he has asked the Minister of Forests. Does the member realize that he is a member of the government side? Does he realize he sits in a caucus — and that you are, indeed, the government? Is the member saying that the members of the government — the cabinet — on his side won't listen to him; that they won't pay attention to his concerns?

Mr. Chairman, the disease is worse than I thought. This government is in worse shape than I thought. We have backbenchers now standing up asking questions. In fact, we had a backbencher complaining that he couldn't ask a question in question period, yet he probably sits beside the minister he wanted to ask it of in their own caucus meetings. I think that order and everything have broken down completely with this government. What more proof do we need than the rantings and ravings of the member for Omineca?

[3:30]

I see the Minister of Forests perhaps wanting to rise and answer some questions, or cover up some of the damage that's been done by the member for Omineca. I would prefer him to answer my questions, particularly the ones I asked with respect to valuation and the work that is being undertaken currently to verify those numbers.

I'd like to know if there were studies done in the past on that question — say, within the last five years — or attempts to evaluate the forest resources in the province. I'd like to know if currently there are independent commissions or firms that have been commissioned to take an independent look at that question. I'd like to know, if that is being done, whether that will be fully released to the public so they can indeed improve and make better suggestions.... The minister has called for input on the Forest Resources Commission report, I believe by mid-July. I think that's a central part of it; in fact, it seems to me the most pivotal part of that report.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

With those questions I'll take my place and ask the Minister of Forests to respond. I'm not sitting down yet. I see that the member for Omineca is eager to get on his feet again and make some foolish speech. If it's the intention of the government simply not to respond,

[ Page 13248 ]

then I think they do a disservice to the men and women in this province who have deep concerns about their future in the forest industry and about whether or not the mills in their communities are going to keep operating. We know that the member for Omineca has given us some examples. We do a great disservice if the Minister of Forests refuses to stand in his place and answer these questions. The questions are not provocative; the questions are indeed basic. They go to the heart of the matter with respect to economic planning.

MR. HARCOURT: People's jobs and paycheques.

MR. MILLER: As my leader says, people's jobs and paycheques, the stability of small communities around this province. If the Minister of Forests wants to sit in his place and not answer, then he does a disservice to his office. I'm sure it's an action that he will regret and that this government will regret, so I'll leave it to the minister to....

You've got to be faster, Mr. Minister, because if I sit down, the Chair is going to recognize the member for Omineca, I presume.

Carry on, I'd like to hear some answers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I do want to just jump in here lest we leave the impression that I don't want to discuss forestry matters. I said before lunch that I'd be very happy to discuss forestry matters and to debate questions and answers with the member all day if that's his desire.

Unlike that member, I don't pretend to have all the answers for all the problems in the forest industry; but I've got an awful lot of them, and we're working towards the others. We've put an awful lot of them into place and made some good changes in this ministry and in the industry in the last little while — changes that maybe not everyone in the industry would agree with, but at least they understand why they were made.

I do want to cover a couple of other points that the member made, though. For some reason the members on that side of the House think there's something wrong with a private member who happens to be in this party getting up and asking questions and speaking on a given topic. Certainly they can have a far greater latitude than a member of the government — and that's understandable; it's been that way in British parliaments for 800 years, and that's the way it should be.

He says that the member for Mackenzie has to get up in this House and ask a question of the Minister of Native Affairs that he could ask him sitting in caucus. It's not quite the same, Mr. Member. I'm sure you will appreciate that the member for Mackenzie has every bit as much right as every member on that side of the House to put his question on the record and have the minister answer on the record. Lest the people that are watching at home get confused about the proceedings in this House, the member for Omineca or any other private member has every right to stand in his or her place and ask questions and/or make statements.

The member shouldn't assume too much. The member shouldn't assume that because a private member makes a statement, it is government policy; and he shouldn't assume that it's not government policy. Depending on the statement, there's a possibility it could be government policy; there's a possibility it might not be.

I'm not going to stand and try to respond to every statement that was made. I respect the member's opinions. They may differ from mine, but as long as I wear this hat that says Minister of Forests, it's mine that count. I've listened to the member for Omineca many times, and he's got some good thoughts about forestry. I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with a lot that you say about forestry too, but I don't agree with everything you say But that's what makes the world go round, I think, and that's what makes our system work.

I want to respond a little about the Forest Resources Commission, because it's a most significant report. The commission was put in place by this government something like a couple of years ago.... [Applause.] It deserves applause, and I'll tell you why. It has been mentioned many times that it should have been a royal commission rather than a Forest Resources Commission. I can understand the thinking behind that, and in a lot of ways I would agree, but in one key way I disagree and so did many members in our government. The reason is that a royal commission tends to freeze things where they are.

Let me expand a little on that. A royal commission in education or health may be a good thing, because those services carry on, with the taxpayers' money, whether there's a royal commission in place or not. Health, education and social services — they will carry on and be funded by the taxpayer whether there is a royal commission or not. When you're dealing with the forest industry, it's quite a different scenario, because we're dealing with a public asset but we're dealing with a private industry — a private industry that's very sensitive to capital and to investment. I felt at the time, and still do, that if a royal commission had been put in place to look into forestry, you run the risk of drying up investment until people see where that royal commission is headed. At the time, we could have chased away in the neighbourhood of $6 billion in investment in this province that was out there, taking a look, waiting to see whether they should invest.

The forest industry is a very complex partnership. It's a partnership that exists between the people who own the assets — the people of British Columbia, who elect us to be stewards of it; the people who work and invest their money in the industry — people like the member for Prince Rupert, who has worked in it all his life, and people who have invested their life savings in it. But equally important — and people forget the third rung of that partnership, the third aspect — is the financial community. If the financial community loses confidence in the forest industry, the partnership will collapse, and you will have chaos in this province and in our number one industry. We must always be cognizant of the fact that we're dealing with a unique

[ Page 13249 ]

situation with a public asset and private industry, and we musk keep that partnership working.

The member is right — and so is the member for Omineca — when he says that you can't make wholesale changes overnight in an industry that's as delicately balanced as that, because you would see chaos in our number one industry like you wouldn't believe, and then you would see the loss of many jobs. We appreciate the work that the Forest Resources Commission did; 13 very dedicated people from very diverse backgrounds came together with a unanimous report, which has got to be an achievement in itself.

There are now some minority reports coming in by way of letter saying that they don't quite agree with everything, but that's fair game. People are taking a second look at some of the things they endorsed. One of them is the valuation. You probably know; you probably received copies of the letters that I received from one of the commissioners who said that he wanted to take another look at valuation. When we saw the valuation numbers that you spoke of, myself and senior staff had the same feelings: this really requires closer scrutiny, because the valuations range all the way from here to there; from $1 billion to $8 billion, and that's quite a discrepancy.

There are those who could agree with either number, but we said it's not good enough. We've got to put a mechanism in place to put a proper evaluation on it. How do you do that? We thought the best thing to do would be to find at least two people — maybe three, but at least two — who were well respected by everybody, so that their credentials would be beyond question. They would have no political axe to grind either on government side or industry side, and yet they'd be knowledgeable, know the industry and know how to do evaluation. It's not easy to find a couple of people who fit those criteria. A lot of people have the knowledge, but a lot of people have other axes to grind.

We have found the two people that we have been looking for, and within the next day or so, I'll be making the announcement that we are going to put them in place to do a critique of the valuation side of the Forest Resources Commission report. We'll be announcing that in the next day or so. I had hoped to be able to announce it by now, but it hasn't been that easy to find the two people that we were looking for.

Also the Forest Resources Commission report gave a lengthy dissertation and recommendation on tenure, which is one of the other important sides of their report, and they recommended themselves that we put out a discussion paper on that report. We're going to do that. But we even thought that if we, in the ministry, make up that discussion paper, it could be subject to criticism that we only put in what we wanted to talk about. Again, we're putting together a panel — I think it's four or five people; don't hold me to that — to scrutinize what we come up with as a discussion paper People who will look at it objectively — maybe someone from industry, the union side, the IWA, the pulp and paper workers; we haven't come up with all the names yet.... We're not dragging this out; this is not going to be a long process. We want to put the discussion paper together and then say to these people who come from divergent backgrounds who are well respected on all sides of the industry: "Look at it, and see if you think that's a fair discussion paper to put out for people to talk about tenure."

When you speak of tenure, anybody who has the forest industry impact on their constituency knows — and the members for Omineca and Cariboo know this — that the most valuable thing that any company or community can have is tenure. You're talking about the very heart or the very guts of the industry.

That discussion paper is extremely important. When we put it out, we want to make sure it's right. When we get the input back.... If we start to move on some of those recommendations without having really thought them through — and the 50 percent takeback of tenure — we start to dismantle the partnership that I spoke of, unless it's done very carefully and with a lot of thought. We intend to do that.

I'm trying to cover some of the ground that the member covered, to put the answers to some of his questions on the record. I'm rambling all over the place, as he did with his questions. So I guess that's fair game.

The member talks about abuses in the forest industry. There have been abuses over the years — there is no question about that. Some companies — I won't name them, because there are more than one. You only named one company, but more than one company has abused its tenure and abused the forest over the years. They've abused their contractors too. That's why we brought in the legislation: to protect the contractors and people who work for them.

[3:45]

In all fairness, there are other companies that treat their contractors extremely well. If they were all like those companies, we wouldn't have to bring in legislation like that. And there are companies that treat their tenure very well. If they were all like those companies, we wouldn't have to worry about abuses in the forests. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we have those in all walks of life who abuse privileges. It concerns us, and we're watching that very closely to try to prevent the abuses that have taken place in the past.

The MOU is a subject that we could debate here for a week and not come up with all the answers. Believe me, over the year and a half that I've been the Minister of Forests, I've spent more time on that MOU than I care to recall; the hours would number into the hundreds. It's a very complex document. We were faced with a very serious situation.

In hindsight we can all look back — hindsight is 20-20 — and say that if I was there at that time, I wouldn't have done this, or I wouldn't have done that. That's easy. Now the question is how do we solve the problem, if indeed there is a problem. In some people's minds, even within the industry, they are split on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I've had meetings with the industry — large operators, small operators, remanners, you name it — and they cannot all agree on the MOU.

[ Page 13250 ]

The various provinces in Canada can't agree on the MOU. So the first thing we had to do was try to get a consensus among the four key provinces of B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and have the federal government pull all that together. It is an agreement between two sovereign nations, as you know, and Ottawa has to go to Washington to try to renegotiate this agreement.

We are now at the point where we have the key provinces in agreement — all singing from the same song-sheet, if you like — and the federal minister agrees. The federal minister is figuratively on his way to Washington within the next month or so. The problem he's having now is trying to set up a meeting with Carla Hills, who is the American representative. With all the trade negotiations going on around the world, everybody is very busy with GATT negotiations, Mexican free trade, the C-7 meetings and all the rest that has been going on. So it's hard to get the schedules to mesh.

When I was at a meeting with Michael Wilson in Ottawa two weeks or so ago, he gave me his undertaking — and it's important — that he would get to Washington as quickly as possible and start to renegotiate the MOU. Where that ends up I wouldn't like to speculate on right now, even though I have some ideas. I don't want to talk further about how we're going to approach it, because we're going down to negotiate with tough negotiators. I don't feel like playing our hand out right now on that — as Canada.

Just a couple of more points that the member touched upon. The two German writers of whom you speak are supposed to meet with me this afternoon, if I get out of here for a few minutes. But I would like to talk with them to give the other side of the story, other than what they have been getting. I think they would like to hear it from the government of the day: "Here is our position on it. We have some material we can leave with you." There has been a lot of misinformation that has gotten to Europe, and it can do tremendous damage to this industry and to the jobs that we all depend on in this province. The problem is growing there with the movement to ban B.C. softwoods and pulp from the markets of Europe, many times for specious reasons that don't hold up when you examine the whole picture. We have had Swedish foresters out recently who agree with what we're doing. We're learning from them....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. Your time has expired.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, I was just getting wound up.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to belabour....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have had virtually no opportunity to debate forestry issues. This is a travesty. This government is bringing in closure, and we get this garbage from the member for Omineca. The minister stood up, spoke for 15 minutes and refuted everything he said, and now he's going to do it again — and take what little precious time we have. That is a travesty. Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet, and you should scan the room before you recognize members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Omineca, proceed.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I move that the member for Prince Rupert now be recognized.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there leave to move the motion?

Leave not granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, with all due respect, I think you have a responsibility to scan this....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: ... and to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that it's the role of the opposition to question this government. You should be mindful of the fact that they have invoked closure now — unprecedented. They have stifled our ability to raise questions and to debate these issues that are important in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it gets a bit vexatious when we have to put up with this kind of thing. We still have questions to ask and no time left to ask them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have recognized the member for Omineca. There will be further chance in the debates for the balance of the afternoon to make your points.

MR. KEMPF: You know, that member over there spoke earlier of being muzzled. Is that the kind of muzzling he's talking about? Is that what the opposition would do if they were in government — muzzle the backbenchers of their own government? Is that what they're talking about?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I have every bit as much right as a member of this assembly to rise in this debate as they do. Before the member provoked me, I was going to wind down. But I don't think I'm going to wind down.

[ Page 13251 ]

Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert brought up a very good point. He said he met over lunch with two of the German media, and I think that brings up a very crucial point in these discussions. I do hope that those two German media people don't meet with BCTV, because the last time foreign media met with BCTV, the most detrimental documentary that could ever be was put together as far as the forest industry of British Columbia is concerned — paid for by the Swedish tourism ministry. Is that what was happening in the meeting that the member for Prince Rupert had with the German media today?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The leader of that party gets very exercised. I wish he'd been exercised in the last four and a half years to tell this assembly what they would do should they ever — God forbid — become government. Because he hasn't. He can't even muster anybody to come out to meetings to listen to him say nothing.

I'm happy that the member for Prince Rupert was angry and said some of the things he did. He provoked me into speaking my mind, and I could go on for hours and days and weeks. He's not the only one who has a whole lot of time in the forest industry of this province. I spent 20 years in the forest industry of this province, starting by setting chokers and wallowing in the mud. I defy the member for Prince Rupert, the Forests critic, to say that — because he can't.

Yes, I have some experience in dealing with the forest industry of the state of Washington, and I'm proud of that. Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition went to some other jurisdiction to see how they do it, he would come back with some ideas.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wind down, because it would look that.... The official opposition is very frustrated this afternoon. You know, the member for Prince Rupert really wanted to debate forestry issues. Well, where is he? He's gone. He's not in the House. We're discussing forestry issues. He can get up next time. Where is he, Mr. Chairman?

I just want to say one more thing. The member for Prince Rupert said earlier in his debate that I'm in trouble in my constituency. If he thinks I'm in trouble in my constituency because I speak out against multinational corporations and that they aren't going to donate to my campaign, I like to be in that kind of trouble, because it's not the multinational corporations that I represent in this chamber. It's the little people in my constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to remind members, we're dealing with Bill 16, the Supply Act, section 1.

MR. CASHORE: It's been interesting to hear the comments of the Richard Nixon of the north. That member has changed his spots and changed his colours so many times. Why I had to endure his voice sitting in this desk, two to my left, year after year....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that sounds very unparliamentary to me, and I would ask you to withdraw, please.

I'm not talking about Mr. Nixon; I'm talking about changing spots.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw "changing spots."

Mr. Chairman, it begs the patience of this House to have to realize that because of the decree that the government House Leader has made with regard to closure, the clock is running down, and we are being denied the opportunity to ask pertinent and pressing questions with regard to forestry, with regard to the environment, with regard to parks, with regard to Crown lands. We are being denied that opportunity as this clock runs down because of the process that this member from Omineca has been involved in — of simply trying to use up the time of the House and subvert any opportunity that we have left to deal with these urgent and pressing matters.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that $10 billion is on the table. At the rate that this government is going, it's an awfully costly process for democracy to realize how democracy is being downgraded in this process.

I don't understand how this government can justify the efforts that it has taken to muzzle democracy by not using the opportunities that they have had to enable us to discuss these issues in a reasonable, timely manner. Going back to an earlier time in the year when we were here, we had the opportunity, but they decided to cut and run. Now we are not being allowed the opportunity to thoroughly canvass the urgent and pressing matters that we should be allowed to canvass.

[4:00]

When I was speaking in second reading yesterday, I gave the Minister of Environment ample warning that when we got to the committee stage of this bill, I would be asking him some questions. I also reminded the minister at that time — I guess I'd have to say, in order to be parliamentary — that it indicated the inexperience of this minister and that he was the only minister during the interim supply debate who did not bring in officials from his ministry to assist him in answering questions. On this occasion I would like to encourage the minister to send out for help, to send out for his deputy and for those who can help him to answer the questions, because he has obviously got himself into a situation where he doesn't know a lot of the answers.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I think he needs the help of the whole department.

When we were canvassing some of these questions at an earlier date, here's what the minister had to say. He said that we would get to a question that we were asking fairly soon. In response to a question concerning the bulk water issue, the minister answered: "I would have to check the terms of reference." In reference to another question concerning the soil reme-

[ Page 13252 ]

diation on the Expo site, he answered: "That question really is not applicable to the subject of the debate here tonight." In response to another question, he said that he would need an opportunity to provide that the estimates could be referenced and that he could answer it in that process. To another question with regard to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, he said: "As the member knows, my staff are not present with me tonight. I don't have that figure immediately at hand, but I can get it for you."

In response to another question that the minister had from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head concerning the costs of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, he said: "I'll check with my staff for those details and get the information." In response to another question with regard to the Georgia basin, he said: "I do not have the number available at the moment." In response to another question from the member for Oak Bay, he said, "I can't speak for the operations before I became minister, " and he went on to give a non-answer. Again he said in response to the member for Kootenay: "That's another question that's in the details, and I'll obtain that from the staff."

Clearly this minister has made a commitment to come back into this House with the people who can help him and give us the answers, with some kind of appropriateness, to the questions we have been asking, so that the people of British Columbia can see — or that this minister can take the opportunity to show that this province is not in the disarray that they believe it is, so that he can show that in his ministry there is not disarray.

I made the point yesterday that we have a serious problem with regard to the government itself. There have been six Ministers of Environment — four in the last two years — and three deputy ministers. We referenced the problem of morale within the ministry and also the problem with regard to the loss of confidence on the part of the public. Again we find that this minister is not responding to these questions when he has the opportunity.

I would like to give the minister an opportunity again to answer questions with regard to the soil remediation at the Expo site. I would like the minister specifically to respond to this: the minister knows that his ministry had agreed that there would be an accord with the officials and with the municipality of Richmond that would be an agreement on a soil-testing process which would be put in place prior to the Expo soils being moved to that site.

The concept of an accord is a good concept. It reflects much of what my colleague from Prince Rupert has been saying about us having to find ways to be consultative and appropriate in our dealings with people of other governments and other municipalities That commitment was made. I would like to ask the minister, especially in view of the scientific information that he has received from Dr. Garry, who has stated that he is not satisfied that the soil-testing protocol is adequate as presented by the provincial government since it fails to test for contaminants like cyanide, pesticides and DDT, if the minister will respond specifically to that point. How can the minister justify not agreeing to there being an accord before the soils are tested when this question has been raised by a medical practitioner — a professional — who points out very clearly that contaminants like cyanide, pesticides and DDT are not being dealt with adequately in the testing procedure the government has set up. How does the minister respond to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1? The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask this minister why he has refused to there being an accord with the municipality of Richmond prior to the dumping of soils, given this new information from the medical health officer.

HON. MR. MERCIER: This is an incredible abuse of the time of this House. The question put by the member explains his ignorance of the matters that he is supposed to be the critic on. If the member would only realize how a municipality's operation is supposed to work, he would know....

MR. CASHORE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was called to order a few moments ago for something that I believe was much less serious than the point the minister just made, and I would ask that he withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair considers that unparliamentary as well and would ask that it be withdrawn.

HON. MR. MERCIER: If I understand the custom, I will withdraw.

"Incredibly naive, uninformed, lack of research, lack of wish to deal with the facts as they stand." There are a number of words that come to mind.

The substance of the issue is that the council for the municipality of Richmond have, within their purview, the bylaw to regulate soil movement. The fact this member chooses to ignore is that all the soil that moves under the bylaw, as it has been redrawn, has to comply with certain provincial standards. The provincial standards are set forth, and the ministry has operated under those guidelines and under those regulations for as long as they have been part of the law of this province. Incredibly, the other day the member who asked the question claimed that he is going to use the dictionary to define these things rather than the regulations as they now stand. The member who has asked the question doesn't understand that, in the municipal process, there are a number of people in the municipality that are competent to deal with soil issues. I suspect that the health officer is in that group.

If you take the process and decide to call it a protocol, that's your choice. But there is a bylaw, and the health officer of Richmond may choose to deal with the bylaw as he sees fit, and that's not a matter for this House.

The ministry is dealing with regulations that are well known. If the member doesn't understand those regulations and the soil description categorizations,

[ Page 13253 ]

then the member should satisfy himself, because it's all available in the public domain. It's not necessary for me to repeat those detailed regulations and descriptions. That's where I got to the point of it being a waste of the House's time. It is in the public domain. Because he doesn't know that and hasn't read that, he's asking this minister. The question about how the municipality of Richmond chooses to enforce their bylaw is likewise not a matter for this House, so for the member to ask that question is really an abuse of the House. The municipality will do what they will do, but if the member had not described the soil in the first place as toxic, then the situation wouldn't have arisen.

All we're going to ask of Richmond is to treat the soil that is being transported from the Expo site which is in the category that meets their bylaw, exactly the same way as they would treat any other soil moving in the same fashion in the same categories, under the same rules, under the same soil description and same regulations as any other operator and any other mover of soil.

So no matter what the member wishes to happen, and no matter how long he continues to harp on the same issue, and no matter how wrong he intends to be, it is evident, if you look at the sand and gravel that is intended to be moved, that it does qualify to be residential fill under the Richmond bylaw. It is not our job here to discuss how Dr. Garry defines that soil; he works for the municipality of Richmond. The regulations, as they stand, would appear to say that the soil qualifies.

The haulers of the soil will have to ensure that people are satisfied. If Richmond, when the soil arrives, is not satisfied, then that's another matter, but I think it's really inappropriate for us to comment in this Legislature on the municipal procedures and the checking procedures involved. The specific testing program is carried out within the guidelines and with the common practice that has been established over the years. The member is really questioning practices that are in place and have been accepted by every other municipality up to this time. The methods of testing were also accepted. The testing is done in a practice that's been accepted. We are asking UBC to comment in the next day or so on those practices so that we have an outside endorsement. I think that comes under the category of future business of the ministry, so I would understand that the member would know that he shouldn't pursue that line until we get the report from UBC.

So the answer to your question is fairly complete. The only thing that might be left out is that you might not have gotten your way in making an issue out of something that is a municipal matter. The future use of the site where the soil has landed is a municipal matter. The standards that are applied happen to be those that are applied in law.

I would like to refer to a comment that the member made earlier. Other members have asked questions, like the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. A complete letter listing all the programs that you asked questions on should be in your hands by this afternoon. Many of those programs are in the public domain. It doesn't do a service to this House to talk about programs that aren't there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: The closing line of the letter is.... You know, you really can ask all the questions you like, but I was really surprised that on some of those programs — especially those that affect your own district, especially with the member's former involvement in the community — you asked questions where you really understood where they were, in effect, and how they had been developed. We have a partnership program, a partnership program among all the stakeholders in all the issues that deal with the environment. If you're telling me, members opposite, that these programs and these partners are not really operating effectively, you're not really talking to me; you're talking to all those people who have been involved in all those programs. Many of them are very happy with the programs and very happy with the progress they've made to date in dealing with things like recycling and reusing materials, and in dealing with the matter.

[4:15]

To move into another area, this morning we had meetings with people representing the Capital Regional District and liquid waste matters. Yesterday we had meetings with representatives of the GVRD regarding liquid waste management. We're very supportive of the efforts in those regions to deal with liquid waste matters.

On solid waste matters, the program to avoid taking solid wastes to landfill operations.... We have partners in those operations. Be careful when you criticize the minister and the ministry, because you're also criticizing the partners in those endeavours. If you really understood where those programs were, what they were meant to accomplish and how far we've come, you wouldn't be asking those dumb questions. I really think you've got a lot of work to do to be a viable critic and to understand that.... I don't mind criticism of things I've done myself, or even of things in the ministry that came before, but I can tell you that the way it is today, we have the most progressive programs on this continent, which makes them among the most progressive in the world. We have partners.

One of your members asked....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'm really sorry that the opposition members don't want to hear about our partners. They don't want to hear about these people. You should know that the partners in these programs come from all walks of life. They are seniors, children and school groups, They're all contributing their efforts to these programs that you're criticizing and saying are inadequate.

We had an awards ceremony the other night. We made presentations of awards to people working in all of these areas. They are working diligently with the ministry. Our 1,300 employees are working diligently.

[ Page 13254 ]

You in the opposition should know that our ministry operates very effectively, very efficiently. For the money spent we get a big bang for the buck, because we're involving all of the people in the community.

You may want to build a bigger bureaucracy there, but we're getting a lot of effort from volunteers. You may want to regiment things more, because that's your nature. You like to regiment things; you like to have big organizational structures. You want to have a czar in every community. We don't do it that way. We've built the energy in this ministry through the environmental interests of many citizens.

Mr. Member, I do hope that the answer to your question has been developed. I do hope that some of this has sunk in, because I don't want to be boring and repetitious like some of the comments from your side. I really wanted to raise some of the points that would have come had we been into estimates and had you had that opportunity.

I've got to tell you that I am so impressed with the people in my ministry I am so impressed with them in all the endeavours I've had. When you criticize the ministry, you're really criticizing a lot of good people. In fact, you had a question on the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. One of my effective staff, who heard you asking these questions, took this thing hot off the press. Before I sit down, I'm going to table the first annual report of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

That corporation is another story. That corporation deals with hazardous waste. The chairman is Mr. Bill Fomich, a very capable lower mainland long-term political service person. Mr. Fomich is doing a lot to bring this corporation along, and after a few little hiccups in its early months of operation, it's proceeding very well with its mandate. The interesting thing that I would put to the member who was asking questions earlier is that when you deal with hazardous waste and you talk about Richmond not taking any hazardous waste, you forgot to tell anybody where Richmond's hazardous waste should go. So by your definition, are you going to say to each municipality that you have hazardous waste? That's a fact. Each municipality does; each city has it. Are you going to say, Mr. Member opposite, that the hazardous waste can't go anywhere? Are you going to say that there cannot be a central facility?

It's really easy to criticize, but unless you're prepared to offer a location, which we need — a central location — then by your definition and by Richmond council's definition, every community will have to have a hazardous waste disposal facility.

The member opposite, Mr. Chairman, thinks that hazardous waste is going to vanish into thin air. It doesn't vanish. Right now it's going into landfills, and the Crown corporation is working on finding a location. If you're really clever, you will find a location for us, or you will have a solution for us. I really don't think you have thought about it, because hazardous waste is in every community in this province. Hazardous waste has to be picked up, stored and treated, and some of the technology to treat it is in development now. You should know that because you're a critic who has served for some years. You have been a critic for three and a half or four years, and I really don't think you have learned anything. I haven't heard you ask one constructive question on how to deal with the matter of hazardous waste.

Mr. Chairman, I have a report here to table, and the procedure....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has a report to be tabled. It can't be tabled in committee, unless we get leave of the House. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MERCIER: In wrapping up my comments then, I would like to take this opportunity to table the first annual report to the Legislature, for the period of 1990-91, of the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's time has expired.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Now can I comment on tabling the report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the minister's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that has to be the most incredible piece of bafflegab I have heard in this House. This minister has just qualified for the Harvard hasty pudding award, and he's in competition with the former Minister of Finance. This minister should come back, sit down in his seat and answer these questions. This minister is cutting and running the way this government has cut and run.

Mr. Chairman, I have questions to do with the environment of this province, and I am not being given an opportunity to ask these questions of this government. This government has to account for itself, and this minister is not in this House. He has not fulfilled my request presented yesterday to have people here with him who can assist him in answering questions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is reasonable to ask that this minister be brought back into the House to answer these questions. That is a reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman, we have had to endure the stonewalling of the member from Omineca talking about nothing that has anything to do with the urgent and pressing questions that need to be asked. We have had to endure a 15-minute speech from the Minister of Environment that did not touch the substance of the questions that I was asking. That is absolutely unconscionable behaviour on the part of a minister of the Crown who is paid to be in this House. He is paid to be here to answer the questions of the people of British Columbia. This minister has cut and run from this House because he is afraid.

I have questions that have to do with conservation officers in this province. I have questions that have to do with pulp pollution. I have questions that have to do with the public process in dealing with resource conflict. I have questions that have to do with the

[ Page 13255 ]

situation in the waters of this province. I have questions that have to do with our ability to deal with emergencies when there's an oil spill. I have questions that have to do with the need to deal with the prevention of disasters in this province.

The process of this government, when it comes to the environment, has been to try to manage the environment by bafflegabbing and confusing the public. This government has tried to manage the environment by issuing press releases.

I asked this minister yesterday to come into this House and answer questions about the Vision 2001 plan. This minister is not here to answer this question.

I have questions dealing with the Expo soils that this minister has not dealt with. Who is going to answer the question? Mr. Chairman, I will ask the question to that vacant chair over there, that vacant minister who has vacated this House, because he has cut and run.

If I reflect frustration in this House today, that is nothing compared to the frustration of the people of British Columbia in being denied due process. This minister has the moral responsibility to stand in this House and to face the music, because he represents this government and what it has done to the environment.

The way this minister has handled the issue of the Expo soils involves a basic mistake that he made early on in the process. It goes to the heart of the difference between our side of the House and their side. He has a responsibility to deal with the questions that we are presenting in this House, because the basic issue is this: our side of the House has been saying in a great many ways that we must find ways to consult and work cooperatively with municipal governments and with other participants in life in British Columbia. The minister had said that he would agree to an accord with the people of the municipality of Richmond in order to agree on the testing process on those soils. He has backed down on that agreement in a way that I would have to say is verging on dishonesty.

This minister has stood in this House and claimed that he has some higher life, higher being or higher ability than the medical health officer for Richmond, who has stated that he is hot satisfied that the government's test — this minister's test — is adequate, because it fails to test for contaminants like cyanide, pesticides and DDT going into Richmond. Is it too much to ask that the minister be true to his word and follow up and produce an accord with these people? Is he, afraid to sit down with them? Why is that too much to ask? This minister is a wimp.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! Will the member please take his seat. Order, please, hon. member. Order, please. The member will take his seat, please. Order, please. Order, please! The member will come to order or we will ask him to leave the chamber.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing order 19, the member will take his seat. Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will take his seat, please. Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order, or we will ask him to leave the chamber. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will take his seat, please.

[4:30]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I will not take my seat....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well then, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, according to standing order 19, will please leave the chamber.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman has no jurisdiction over whether ministers are in this room or not.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please take.... All right, that's all there is to it. If the hon. member would take his seat and we could discuss this quietly for just a moment....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Richmond rises on a point of order. Will the member take his seat.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order. The member for Moody-Coquitlam has lost his place, and I seek my place on the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Richmond is recognized as standing on a point of order.

MR. VANDER ZALM: The member has lost his place. I seek my place on the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Richmond....

Interjections.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, this is a disgraceful performance by the NDP, and I seek my place on the floor.

[ Page 13256 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would both members take their seats, please.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: All members will take their seats.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, standing orders indicate that when the Speaker stands in his place, all members will take their seats. If members are not able to comply with standing orders, there is no remedy left to the Chair. I ask the member for the last time to take his place.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, please assist the member from the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I instruct you to remove the member. He is unable to comply with the rules.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under what possible standing order would the first member for Richmond be standing?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Sorry, I was wanting to continue with debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are not in a position of debate.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2, 1991)

(continued)

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

On section 1.

MS. CULL: The behaviour of this government that we've seen here this afternoon is nothing short of arrogant and contemptuous.

MR. REID: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, I move that this House sustain the action of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Point of order. One cannot gain the floor by a point of order in order then to move a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is well aware of that — other than standing order 46, of course.

[4:45]

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this morning you said that we would have a limited debate on some of the minor estimates. You permitted that. It's incumbent, in an estimates debate, for the minister to be here to answer questions. If the minister doesn't know the answers he could 'fess up to that, and we'd all respect him for it. But to hide from legitimate questions is a contempt of this House. It drives my gentle and honourable colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam to distraction, and you probably share that distraction — or disruption. But whatever the case, Mr. Chairman, it's incumbent upon the government House Leader to get that minister in this place so we can proceed with the business as you outlined it earlier this day.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just in response to the opposition House Leader.... I understand that they've got to do a little huffing and puffing — there's no question about that. I just want to explain to you and to the member that when he said they wanted to debate and you said you would allow some debate on other ministries, there are many other ministers in this House, and they can question any one of them at their will. So please be our guest and do the questioning.

MS. CULL: I have to add "patronizing" to the list of adjectives that apply to this government now.

We were conducting a debate on the environment, and the Minister of Environment walked out in the middle of that debate. We've had 17 minutes on the environment. Is that the priority this government puts on the environment? When I was elected a year and a half ago by the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, they elected me to come to this chamber and talk about the environment. They are concerned about a number of issues, and I have not had my opportunity in this session to talk about them.

When we were dealing with the interim supply bill earlier, minister after minister — and especially the Minister of Environment — got up and said: "You will have your time later. I will not answer your questions now." In fact, that minister didn't even have his staff in the House. He couldn't answer my questions on the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, the Georgia basin initiative or any of the other things that I have been sent to this House to talk about on behalf of my constituents. He was unable to answer those questions, and he led us all to believe — as did the Minister of Finance — that we would have the opportunity to debate.

Now, when we have this opportunity, after 17 short minutes the minister gets up and walks out. He refuses to bring in any staff. He refuses to discuss and answer our questions. He stands up for 15 minutes filibustering the debate, eating up the time on the clock so that we cannot put our questions — after having listened to the member for Omineca do exactly the same while we were trying to deal with forestry issues. To top it all off, in what I consider to be one of the most cowardly

[ Page 13257 ]

acts, this afternoon he sent me a four-page memo, attempting to answer the questions that I raised during the second reading debate, saying this is going to be the debate. "Here are the answers, " he says to me. "You can come and talk to me later." He doesn't want to do it in this chamber and before the people of this province.

Mr. Chair, I was elected to represent the people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head on these issues, and I'm going to do that. I'm going to talk about some of these issues. I think that the Minister of Environment should get back here so that we can start to talk about things like the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. I want to know how much is in his budget for the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. He can't answer that question because he's not here. It doesn't show in the estimates. He couldn't answer it when we were dealing with interim supply. I demand to know how much is in there for the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation this year.

The minister talks about depots for hazardous waste collection. How much money has been allocated towards those depots? He talks about hazardous waste collection days, referring to what was done last year. I want to know what's going to happen this year. What is in the budget this year to collect stored hazardous waste? Right now there are 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste stored in this province. It's building up at the rate of 100,000 tonnes a year. I want to know from this minister — who is not in the House and who has not had the courtesy to show up and bring his staff to answer our questions — what he's doing to deal with that.

I'd like to know what's happening with the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and to talk about the plans. He tabled the report today, but there is lot that we have to discuss about this item. I'd like to talk to him about what is in his budget this year in terms of public input. Last year when we talked to the former Minister of Environment on this matter, he promised us a full public debate on hazardous waste in this province. A whole year has gone by, and all we've got is some office space and a report. Where's the debate? That's what this chamber is for, I thought. That's what I thought we were elected to do: to come here and to be able to ask the government to be accountable on these issues — on the issues that are of concern to all British Columbians.

Another area I want to talk about is contained in this letter: the whole question of solid waste. It's a very critical issue in my community. My community has been pushed to the wall — to drain a lake to fill it with garbage — because of the problems we have with solid waste in this province, and the minister has the gall to tell me in his letter that in the last five years they've increased recycling from 1 to 8 percent. Wow — 8 percent in four years! I figure it will take us another 21 years at that rate to even come to the goal that the province has set, which is 50 percent waste reduction. I'd like to question this minister on his plans to make sure that we're going to reach that goal. Less than 2 percent a year — that's supposed to be care for the environment?

There are some very important questions to be asked about this. Nowhere in this letter or in the estimates does he say how much has been allocated towards these programs. What is being allocated to recycling?

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the minister?

MS. CULL: Where is the minister? How can we possibly put these questions sensibly if the minister is not going to come into this chamber and talk to us about environment issues?

I want to know how much is being put into the recycling programs. I want to know how much money has been allocated to hazardous waste collection this year. I'd like to know what this government's plan is for public consultation on this matter and what they're going to do about it. What do I get? The minister stands up and walks out in the middle of the debate, so that we can't even question him on these matters.

Just going on with some of the things the minister talked about, he talked about cooperation with the municipalities and the regional districts in this province, when only a week and a half ago we had the member from West Vancouver standing up and slamming the city of Vancouver and the Capital Regional District for failing to go along with their plans.

He talked about consultation before decisions are made. Well, that would be something novel! I'd like to ask him what consultation happened before he decided to truck toxic soils from Expo to Richmond. Why didn't consultation happen before that decision was made? But the minister won't even show up here. How can we have this debate if the minister won't show up? It is absolutely frustrating to be trying to conduct a debate and to represent the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head on issues that they are concerned about if the minister will not show up and answer questions, will not have his staff here, will not appear. That minister, when we debated these issues earlier in the all too brief time we had during interim supply, said that he was going to come back to this House with answers.

Here we are, on the last day of this session.... We will be going away and those questions will all be unanswered, and this government will be able to continue to talk about the environment but do nothing. They will be able to continue to send out B.C. News, telling us about all of the wonderful things they're doing, while our environment here in Victoria and throughout British Columbia is continuing to deteriorate because this government has neglected to deal with it.

I wanted to talk about the Georgia basin. Yesterday when we were dealing with second reading of this bill, I put the minister on notice that I wanted to talk about the Georgia basin initiative. The government announced in the throne speech that they'd suddenly discovered there might actually be an environmental issue in the Strait of Georgia, and with a lot of fanfare they announced that they were going to be doing something about it.

But where is the minister so I can ask him what in fact is happening? Where is that minister so that I can

[ Page 13258 ]

ask him: "Are you the minister responsible?" We don't even know which minister is stick-handling this problem right now. Is it the Minister of Environment? Is the Minister of Municipal Affairs involved? Is the Minister of Transportation and Highways involved? Who is actually looking after this?

Interjection.

MS. CULL: Well, one of them is there: the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But I suspect that it's the Minister of Environment, because he alluded to having some kind of staff when we dealt with interim supply.

How much has been budgeted? How can I ask the minister how much has been budgeted? What are the plans? People in my community, particularly the municipalities in the regional district in my community, want to know when they're going to be consulted about this issue. They want to know how they can get into talking about an issue that they've identified as being very important and that this government has suddenly kind of discovered, after five years.

How can we have that kind of debate if this minister stands up and walks out after 17 minutes? That's the priority that this government puts on the environment. They leave it to the end, and they try to sneak out of here after doing three ministries, in the hope that somehow after doing three ministries the province is going to forget that there are other issues. I can tell you that the people in this community will not forget about the environment, and they believe that the environment is deserving of far more than 17 short minutes.

Mr. Chair, I am really frustrated, because I have sat patiently throughout this session. When I first came into this House last year, I expected to have serious debate on issues that I was concerned about and ran for elected office to deal with. At least last year we sat for four months. We debated every ministry of government, and I think we had some very good debates on some ministries. We got some information through that debate on this side of the House, and I think they got some ideas on that side of the House. Certainly they got some ideas when they took the Georgia basin initiative, which our leader and I have been talking about in the last year and a half.

But this year we're only in the seventh week that the Legislature has sat, and we have had just three ministries. We haven't dealt with Environment, Municipal Affairs or Transportation and Highways. How in the world can we deal with these issues when the ministers refuse to come into the House, refuse to bring their staff and refuse to answer our questions?

I see my time has expired, Mr. Chair, and certainly my patience has expired with this government on this matter.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to take my place in this debate. As a former Minister of Environment, there may be something I can add to this debate and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, the committee will be well aware that Sir Erskine May advises that any minister can respond on behalf of the administrative actions of the ministry in committee. The member poses some good questions.

It is regrettable that we had the circumstance earlier which caused the member to leave; however, I understand that passions can sometimes run pretty high during moments of like this.

With respect to hazardous waste, the committee will be advised that a couple of years ago the government took the initiative and, in following the government of Alberta, decided that a hazardous waste corporation would probably be the most prudent and successful way to deal with this very serious problem.

The committee will be aware that when I was Minister of Environment in 1987 we put together a very good committee headed by Dr. David Boyes, a renowned cancer specialist and one of the leading investigators with respect to the Pap test. He spent some considerable time, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, looking for a hazardous waste site where we could deal with these contentious and toxic materials. We did find a site. However, political pressures and concerns from the cattlemen in the area persuaded us that we should not accept it. Although we had picked Cache Creek as probably the most appropriate place to put in a special waste treatment facility, the political pressure was such that we had to abandon that site.

[5:00]

We then looked to the province of Alberta, which had a very good toxic waste facility in place at Swan Hills. As a matter of fact, I visited it along with Dr. Boyes. It was undergoing testing and permitting at that time, but it did the job very well. As I understand it, we have made some arrangements with the government of Alberta to have that facility handle more of British Columbia's special wastes.

As well, when looking at Alberta, it was our opinion that we should follow their model of putting in place a Crown corporation, because Alberta had been quite successful with that model — a Crown corporation that was remote from government to some degree and yet would still be responsible to the people for the treatment of special waste generated in the province. It was with that in mind that we put our Crown corporation in place.

It was reasonably successful. We're all aware of the governance problems and concerns that have arisen since then, but my understanding is that the ministry — especially the current minister — has looked after them very well and has ensured that the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation is operating in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I've had occasion, by coincidence, to meet some of the employees of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. I know they're doing excellent work. I met an engineer one morning on the helicopter who was interested in paint and that type of disposal — the handling and special treatment that paint requires. He was conducting seminars throughout the province. I can attest to the committee that the Hazardous Waste

[ Page 13259 ]

Management Corporation has done very well in terms of setting up an agenda for the treatment of these special wastes and in terms of ensuring that British Columbians are protected from them.

I notice in the budget — if members will note, Mr. Chairman — that the environmental management area, where special wastes would be handled, has seen a substantial increase for special wastes in that line vote, from $33 million to $40 million. I think it's clear to the people of British Columbia and especially to this committee that we recognize this as a priority.

Under the subvote "Environmental Protection" you'll see that we've increased the allotted funding from $14.9 million to $23.5 million, again pointing out to all and sundry, to all of British Columbia, that we do see environmental protection as a clear priority of this government.

With respect to the Georgia basin, there's no question that a lot of discussion has gone on there. It really is primitive in terms of the way we deal with that. The interesting thing is — and members opposite should note this — that the two biggest, most serious polluters in the province are the CRD and the GVRD, the GVRD topping the list. I'm often amused when I hear the New Democrats talk about what they're going to do for pollution, when we understand that their leader is the former mayor of Vancouver, who contributed to the biggest problem the Georgia basin has. While that member was mayor, he certainly could have done something to alleviate those concerns, but he didn't. That is the reason we have the GVRD being the biggest single polluter in our province. What does offend me, and I'm sure it offends other members, is that as a resident of Prince George I spend a lot of my tax money — and I have since 1971 — ensuring that there is tertiary treatment of the sewage that goes into the Fraser River at Prince George. The same applies to Quesnel. The same applies to cities in the north — and Kamloops, the Thompson. All of us in the interior spend a lot of our tax dollars ensuring that the tributaries and the water of the Fraser River entering the lower mainland are as clean as they possibly can be. Yet we have absolutely no regard by the GVRD for the Fraser River. They are dumping essentially untreated sewage into it, and that really does upset me.

Members opposite, particularly from the Capital Regional District and from the GVRD, say that government has to help them. Let me tell you, my friends, I've been paying out of my pocket since 1971 for protection of the Fraser River for sewage treatment at Prince George. I would suspect that if you want to see a cleaner river, those of you who live in the GVRD are going to have to get your chequebooks out and start paying your fair share for the clean up of that river. There's no question about that.

I think we've answered the questions that have been posed. The Minister of Environment may be returning to the House. I can't comment on that. But certainly all your comments are going to be recorded in Hansard. If there's any more information I could provide, as a former minister to the committee, with respect to issues regarding the environment and government policy, I'd be more than happy to do so.

MS. CULL: The former Minister of Environment may think that he can get up and answer questions on the Environment portfolio by giving a general philosophical speech about how they're in favour of treating hazardous wastes and dealing with sewage and talking about his property taxes, but we want the real Minister of Environment in this House to answer these questions.

Mr. Chair, in that whole reply on the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, in all of the nice generalities that this former Environment minister had to offer on that, he did not answer the question I posed yesterday when we were dealing with second reading debate and did not answer the question I posed again today. It is certainly not answered in the letter from the Minister of Environment right now.

How much money has been allocated in this budget to upgrade the eight toxic-waste depots in this province that I understand have been transferred now from the Ministry of Environment to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? A number of them are inadequate. Certainly the one here on Cloverdale Avenue in Victoria is totally inadequate. The last time I phoned their staff to find out what days they were going to be open — and they are now open more frequently and on a more predictable basis than they were a year ago — they told me that they didn't advertise it. They didn't really want me to advertise it. My point in asking was so I could let my constituents know when and where to take this stuff. They were afraid that if more people in Victoria knew where to take their hazardous materials, the depot would be overloaded. The depot here is totally inadequate for the needs of this community. I suspect that this is true throughout British Columbia — that many of the other seven outside Victoria are also inadequate. So I'd like to know from the real Minister of Environment how much money has been allocated, and when we can expect to see a proper depot here in Victoria.

I'd also like to know when there is going to be, or if there is going to be, another hazardous waste collection day. The Minister of Environment responds to me and says that last year they organized several hazardous waste collection days. He doesn't say anything about what's going to happen this year.

So here we have a former Minister of Environment who stands up and makes a general speech about this issue and answers none of my questions. He can't answer those questions; the only person who could answer those questions is the Minister of Environment, assisted by his staff, and the Minister of Environment chooses not to come into the Legislature. I don't know where he is — supposedly dealing with some important business, but I very much doubt it. I can't imagine what could be more important than dealing with the environment. I can't imagine what could be more important to that minister than to deal with the environment in the public forum here in this Legislature.

The minister talks about sewage treatment and how property taxes have been paying for sewage treatment. I would like to hear from the Minister of Environment — not the stand-in Minister of Environment — how

[ Page 13260 ]

much this government is going to assist the Capital Regional District to treat sewage. What assistance level are they going to come in with? Are they going to do 25 percent, as was said by one minister; 50 percent, as was said by another; or 75 percent, as Prince George got when they did their sewage treatment? I see the former Minister of Environment nodding and recognizing the fact that his community did get assistance to that level. The people in my community want to know that, but we can't get that answer.

I doubt that this former minister, pinch-hitting for the real Minister of Environment, can give those answers. He can't give those answers, because the only person who can give the answers is the Minister of Environment, who isn't here and has refused to come into the House.

The way this government has treated this debate — 17 minutes on the environment before the minister leaves the House — is totally contemptuous of what we were elected and sent here to do. They are slamming the door on the debate. They are trying to muzzle members on this side of the House so that we can't get the information our constituents require.

While I'm giving specific questions to this minister, just to see if he possibly can answer any of them, I'd like to know what's happening with the lead-acid battery situation here in Victoria. I've been told that the dealers are not registering for this program the minister has set up because no one enforces it. The reason they don't enforce is that there's simply not enough staff. That's a legitimate question we want to put to the real Minister of Environment. How much money has he allocated, how many staff does he have for this program and what is really happening?

I can stand here and list off these questions, and the former former minister can write them all down and pass them off to the real Minister of Environment, and maybe I'll get another four-page letter.

I've just been informed that the important and pressing business of the real Minister of Environment is to be watching this debate on television in his office. That government should be ashamed that their minister is hiding in his office watching this debate on television rather than coming in here and dealing with the people's business.

Maybe I should appeal directly to him: if you're out there watching, Mr. Minister, come in here and do your job.

But he's not going to come back, Mr. Chair. He's afraid to come back and answer our questions on the environment, because this government knows it has done nothing for the last five years but talk about the environment. They've had six Environment ministers in five years, and they can't get their act together on the environment. They have flip-flopped backwards and forwards on so many environmental issues that it's hard to keep track of it right now.

Their commitment to the environment — this 17 minutes — is absolutely in tune with their record. Let's remember what this government stands for on the environment.

This government thinks it's okay to mine in parks. This government thinks clear-cuts could be a tourist attraction. That is their commitment to the environment, members. This is what this government really thinks about the environment: 17 minutes, a lot of talk and no action. So that minister has fled from the House. He's hiding in his office where he can watch the debate, rather than answer the questions here and be accountable to the people in this province about the environment, which is one of the number one issues that people are concerned about. Rather than come into the Legislature and engage in debate, which is what the 800 years of tradition in this Legislature is all about, that minister, like the government, has cut and run out of the House and is hiding in his office.

Mr. Chairman, you can get any of those five former ministers in here and stand them up in a row, and they can take up their 15 minutes of time....

Ah! There's the minister.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of people, since television was brought into the Legislature, who have been skeptical about its impact and its effect. But I now see that if you watch the TV from your office, Mr. Minister, and someone in here appeals to you to show up, it actually works. So I'm glad you were tuned in, and maybe I can now serve notice to the other ministers, who aren't here and who may be doing the same thing in their office, to stay tuned because your estimates will be coming up soon.

Mr. Chairman, now that the minister is here, let's go back to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Could the minister tell me how much has been budgeted this year for the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? How much of that budget is to expand the eight depots that exist around the province in order to make them adequate? How much has been budgeted this year for hazardous waste collection days? How many days will that cover, and in what communities? When will we expect to see the next hazardous waste collection day, and what is happening with the plan?

I am giving you a number of questions, Mr. Minister. You have been away for a while, and I thought you might need some time to collect your thoughts. I'm actually afraid, Mr. Chairman, that if I give him only one question at a time, that maybe after answering one or two questions, he will split out of here again, and I won't get the chance to hear the rest of my answers.

So the final question I would like to add to this list at this point is: last year the Minister of Environment — that's two back now — at the time told us that before the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation got into implementing any plans to deal with hazardous waste, it would prepare a strategy.

I'm just waiting, Mr. Chairman, to make sure I have the minister's attention here. The former Minister of Environment promised us that we would have a strategy to deal with hazardous waste in this province that would be made public and would be fully discussed in public. So I would like to know how much has been budgeted to produce that plan, what the plans are for public consultation, and when we can expect that process to start.

[ Page 13261 ]

I will take my seat, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the minister will stick around for a while — more than another 17 minutes.

HON. MR. MERCIER: It was really unfortunate that a member on the opposite side got so excited just because I had to leave my place for a short minute. But I did spend my time of the moment, as noted by the Chair, answering in detail for ten or 15 minutes before I left. The weight of the questions required that I had to have some more information. My deputy minister is coming to help me with some of the details. It's a big ministry — 1,300 employees — and there are many details that he will be able to help me with.

In the meantime, I did open the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation's annual report. One of the questions dealt with the expenditure during the year. The revenues were $3,724, 886 for the eight months ended March 31, 1991; the expenses were $2,590,080. They had an excess of revenues over expenditures of $1,134,806. Someone asked that question from the opposite side, and that's the answer to the budget. The budget that was just approved is in the magnitude of $4 million available to the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, and to provide details of that, my deputy will be available shortly.

The answers I provided earlier to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, as she said, comprise some four pages, which were put together fairly quickly, because she only asked that question the day before, but it lead to the outline of the programs. I talked for 15 or so minutes on all those programs. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam chose to ignore that. I couldn't imagine why he got so excited earlier and found it necessary to leave the House.

In the ministry, we're working on some 80 or 90 programs that involve many volunteers. If the opposition has specific questions they'd like on any of those programs, I'd be happy to answer them.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. CULL: I asked a long list of questions. In fact, they were detailed and specific questions. This minister has said that if he got a specific question, then he'd be happy to answer it. In fact, he kept trying to leap up when I was giving my list of questions. I was trying to give him something to work on.

MR. HARCOURT: He saw them on TV.

MS. CULL: He saw them in person. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he saw them on TV, but he actually heard them in person because I asked them not less than a few minutes ago.

MR. HARCOURT: One at a time.

MS. CULL: I'm a little afraid to ask them one at a time.

HON. MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, the member missed the first part of what I said. I said I have arranged for my deputy to come to answer the very thing that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. That's not a point of order, Mr. Minister.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see that the Minister of Environment has now come back to the House after watching his pictures on bird-watching from his trip to South Africa.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You're pathetic.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you what's pathetic, Madam Minister: a minister walking out of this House after 17 minutes of debate. That's what's pathetic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on the Supply Act (No. 2), 1991. The Chair has permitted limited debate on the estimates of the ministries not stated in there. It would be appreciated if you would debate the estimates — in order.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about how pathetic it was for a minister, after spending 17 minutes on his own ministry, to walk out of this House.

Yesterday this administration passed a bill for $10 billion in five hours. I thought that was contemptuous and arrogant. I thought that was unbecoming conduct of a government. But now we've seen a minister wanting to get approval of $141 million in expenditures within his own ministry in 17 minutes. That's some kind of a record on the part of the Minister of Environment.

I'm glad that he's finally decided to come back to this House. Now he comes back in here and says he needs his staff.

Maybe that's the whole problem with this administration when it relates to environmental matters. We've seen six Ministers of Environment over the last four years. They've flipped and they've flopped back and forth on various strategies and various programs of environmental management in British Columbia. And I'm sure number seven is coming. They've flipped and they've flopped so often, one thing that's for sure is that their policies with respect to environmental matters have been a total, unmitigated flop.

Before we get any further, this minister has to make a commitment to this House that he's not prepared to cut and run anymore. Before he leaves this House again, before we put any further questions to him, he's got to first of all apologize to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam and to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for having the audacity to walk out of this House during debate on his ministerial estimates.

HON. MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, I question the line that's been taken here and some reference to my character. I'd like to have the comment withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Normal debate between the members of the House carries on in a responsible

[ Page 13262 ]

dialogue dealing with the ministry and the administrative actions of the minister. That sort of dialogue between the members of the House would be appreciated.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you what's responsible, Mr. Chairman. That minister should come before the House and face the music. For 17 minutes that minister tried, and then with all of the attributes of a coward....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order. I understand that that member is young; he is contemptuous of this House; but he cannot get away with using unparliamentary language. I distinctly heard him call the minister a coward. I ask him to either withdraw or leave the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member did make reference to any member of this House being a coward, the Chair would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SIHOTA: I think that if the Chair and the Provincial Secretary review my comments, they will find that I never made reference to a minister at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Did you refer to any member of the House as a coward?

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't refer to the Minister of Environment. I was in the midst....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the Chair will take that as the member's comment that he did not make such a comment. Would the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew please continue dialogue on minister's responsibilities.

MR. SIHOTA: It is inappropriate for the Minister of Environment to slither away into his office and not face the music in this House. We have a number of questions that we want to put to the Minister of Environment. But I want first of all to ask him this question: will he now apologize to the House for having walked out of here after 17 minutes? Will he now apologize for his action earlier today?

MR. SERWA: I have a few comments that I would like to make, and then I have a question for the Minister of Environment in the course of the estimates. There are a number of opportunities for any member of the House to consult with the Minister of Environment and to enunciate their concerns. It's an opportunity that's open to all members of the House at all times. Access to ministers and to ministry staff is available for all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long were you the minister?

MR. SERWA: Thank you very much for reminding me. I happened to have had that opportunity for four months. I'm fully aware of the display that we've seen in the Legislature today — and it is in fact a display.

Because in all seriousness, not once in the four months that I was Minister of Environment did the hon. member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head make the slightest effort to contact me by letter, by phone or personally. Not once, hon. minister, did that member express the slightest concern for the environment.

In the province of British Columbia there are over three million environmentalists — 3.2 million at the present time. It's an awesome number. Any number of members on that side of the House, including the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the member for North Island and the member for Prince Rupert.... A number of those members contacted me by letter, by phone or personally, expressing concerns about specific environmental issues.

Today we have seen an absolutely shallow display — an emotional display by an individual who, in the four months that I was minister, didn't ask me one single question. My question to the present Minister of Environment is: has that member asked him, in any way, shape or form, any question regarding the environment?

[5:30]

MS. PULLINGER: I've found this last week and this bill that we're debating more than just interesting; I've found them quite hypocritical. We've heard a number of members on the other side talk about open government; we've heard a number of members on the other side talk about the fact that we need to reform the legislative process in order that MLAs have the opportunity to bring the legitimate concerns of their ridings — or, in our case, our critic areas — to this Legislature and speak openly and freely on them. That's what we've been hearing from the other side of the House.

Now we have those same people, who are a party doing everything they can to obstruct debate, shutting down this House to cut and run again as they did in March. We have a government that slammed the door shut on how they plan to spend public tax dollars. They've tried to hide this side of their deficit, and now they're trying to block any kind of close examination of the budget. I would offer that it is hypocritical in the extreme, Mr. Chair. The members on the other side ought to be ashamed of themselves. Those same people who have argued on the one hand, when they're sitting on the back bench, about freedom and the ability to represent constituents and have open debate in here are now party to shutting down debate. The reason, of course, is so that they can attend to their own internal problems. They've admitted they want to shut down this Legislature, shut down debate and the estimates, so they can deal with their leadership crisis caused by the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or whatever-it-was scandal on the other side of this House.

We have a Minister of Environment who's sitting in here.... We're trying, in the very limited time we have, to have some genuine debate on this issue, and he walks out to watch television. I offer that it simply is not good enough. The actions of this government as usual speak much louder than their rather vacuous words. We see a government that does not want to be accountable or in any way open; wants instead to stifle

[ Page 13263 ]

debate and shut it down, and keep out of the public eye so they can do damage control and try to find a new leader for the party. I think that is reprehensible.

The environment is obviously a pressing issue in this province. These people have had five years to deal with the environment. The problems continue to mount, and the solutions aren't coming from the other side of the House. In my critic area of Tourism, it's compatible with — more than that; it depends on — a clean environment. Remember "the pristine environment of super, natural B.C.," the theme song of the government? That's what they're trying to sell tourism on — the pristine environment. Yet at the same time we have mountaintop to shoreline clearcuts and, as one of my colleagues pointed out, this government thinks clearcuts are a selling point for tourism.

We have the shellfish fisheries shut down, and we have problems in the interior with lakes and the areas around them. We have toxic waste problems and toxic waste dumps, landfill problems and sewage problems. As the critic for Tourism, I get letters all the time from people who are skin-divers and who write to say it is just not a nice thing to do anymore, because we have raw sewage being dumped into the oceans here. And this government refuses to do anything about it.

Now they want to cut and run and go hide under a rock. They want to get out there to their leadership convention and see if they can find a third Premier for this administration. Mr. Chair, I would offer that it simply will not work, and that this government is being irresponsible in the extreme. Seventeen minutes, and the minister walks out and watches TV. It's $141 million. We have an interim supply bill that the government is trying to deceive us about, saying it's a supply bill when what we have is interim supply to give the government some room to manipulate, so that it can get out there and deal with its own internal problems.

I have some questions about my constituency. We have a development on a place called Woodley Range, and that development was approved a long time ago. The rules changed and there's a problem now — a big question about whether that development is appropriate. The argument is whether there should be five-acre or 20-acre lots. I understand there's been a report by the local people, who say they should be 20-acre lots on Woodley Range, because that is the watershed for the Cedar area. If too much development happens in that area, it can severely affect the watershed and therefore the water supply in the whole Cedar area. Similarly, if we have too much concentrated development in that area, they will all be on septic tanks. Is that going to affect the Cedar area? Those are very important questions. There's very little water in the Cedar area, and if that development has not been checked thoroughly for environmental impact before it happens, then there could be some very serious consequences. I would like the minister to tell this Legislature and the people in my riding just exactly what steps he's taking to ensure that the water supply for the people in the Yellow Point–Cedar area is safe from overuse on that range and from overdevelopment with septic tanks. Will the minister give me some feedback on that, please?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'll take a few minutes to comment on the procedures that we're involved with here, leading to the answer to the question. We're under the Supply Act, so I don't know why anyone got excited. Under supply act debate anyone can come and go from this room as they see fit. At the time.... With regard to the request by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, he was really out of line talking about whether I should stay or not. I had just spent 15 minutes — my allowable time according to the Chairman who told me my time was up — in answering the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam in, I thought, considerable detail. Actually it was quite interesting that he got so excited, because....

The question you have.... If this was taken during estimates, as we have agreed to be in today, it's the kind of detail that I would ask the staff to advise you. I don't know the answer to that question in that area. The staff have advised me that they don't have the information readily at hand. We work as a team, as you well know. So we'll take the question and deliver the answer to you as soon as we can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that I have been sitting here for about 40 minutes, and I commend the member for Nanaimo for eventually asking a question. I commend the minister for his comments, but I hope very much he will bring an answer in due course. The proper method of debate in this situation is a question-answer dialogue. As I said, one question has been asked in 40 minutes. Many members have complained about not being able to ask questions. If they had asked questions, they might have had answers.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the minister that my colleague from Oak Bay has asked a whole string of questions and got no answers. I just asked a question and got no answer. I'm pleased the minister has brought his staff in here. But clearly, they haven't gone through the process on the other side to have their information together so that they can answer questions. The minister walks out, and when he comes back, he's not answering our questions. I'll throw a few more out. I'm sorry, but I just don't accept your argument that we should ask questions and get answers. I'm not getting answers; that's the problem.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: We've been asking questions on this side of the House, and we have not been getting answers. That's the problem: these people don't want to answer questions.

I'll ask another question. What involvement has this ministry had in two other developmental problems in my riding — namely, at Boat Harbour? There are serious concerns about the impact of dumping raw sewage in the ocean; those may have been mitigated by now.

[ Page 13264 ]

There are also water problems in an area that is very water-sensitive.

I'll give you another set of questions that you can perhaps respond to. There is a proposed development for a gravel pit in the Cassidy area. That gravel pit is immediately over the aquifer. I've written to the ministry on this. If that gravel pit goes ahead, if the zoning is changed and they are allowed to put a gravel pit in there, that opens it up for other kinds of development. There's nothing to stop it. That aquifer is the water for the entire Yellow Point–Cedar area. If it were to become contaminated, or if it were to be depleted or the level to drop by overuse — in this case it's contamination we're dealing with — obviously there would be some serious problems in that whole area. Would the minister like to advise the House what steps he has taken to ensure that both of those developments meet all environmental requirements before they happen?

MR. LOVICK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just a moment ago you advised this House that we on this side must ask questions, and that from the other side we would get answers. A direct specific question was just posed, and now you don't recognize the minister when he was, in fact, attempting to stand in his place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must recognize the first person who stands. Generally the Chair allows a cross-dialogue between a member and a minister. But if neither the member nor the minister has stood, and another member of this House is on their feet, the Chair has an obligation, under the rules that have been set down for the Chair, to recognize the member who stands.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have just a simple question to the Chair. This afternoon that minister walked out of this House and refused to answer questions. Is the Chair now assisting that minister in not answering questions put forward by the members of the opposition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the opposition thinks that they are the only ones in this House who can ask questions. I want to tell them that I'm an elected person for my riding too, and I have the right to stand up and speak to them as well.

I have a question for the minister. Recently in the House in debate I heard both the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talk about pollution, sewers and our environment. They talk about how other people aren't doing it, and it seems to me that they are the kind of people who see fault in other people or other ministries, fault that they're guilty of themselves.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: I would like to ask the minister, if I wouldn't be interrupted.... I didn't interrupt this lady from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I don't expect her to interrupt me.

I hear the second member for Nanaimo make a statement that Nanaimo is dumping raw sewage into the bay and expecting the government of British Columbia to clean up a municipal problem. And here we have Esquimalt and the whole of Victoria dumping raw sewage right into the ocean here — polluting the ocean. When is the ministry of this province going to demand that they stop the dumping here in Victoria and do what the members from this area ask? They should clean up their environment. They should pay the price like every little town right up and down the coast. Powell River, Sechelt and Gibsons look after their sewage, and it's time Victoria looked after theirs. If these members elected from this area want to do something constructive, let them get their socialist councils here in Victoria in action and clean up their own dang back yard.

[5:45]

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your having outlined for the opposition what the rules of the game were, and it was correct that they did ask only one question in 40 minutes. Unfortunately, the questions were asked in some detail, as is common in this Legislature, and the more detailed the question and the more local the issue, the more difficult it is to have the information available at one's fingertips. So if you ask those lines of questions and I consult with my staff that are available and we don't have the answer at the moment, we will certainly endeavour to get the answer for you.

With respect to the member for Mackenzie, I agree with his comment that there has to be a level playing field in the treatment of the water waste. To that end, this past week, as I mentioned earlier, before the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam stormed out of here without cause.... I remember explaining to him....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Well, I was doing other important business at the time, so I didn't see exactly how he got removed, but I assume that he was upset about something. I don't know what he was upset about, because I had spent 15 minutes giving him what you will see in Hansard were detailed answers to all his questions.

As to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, when you did ask those eight or nine questions most recently, I did ask you, as a courtesy, to follow the instructions of the Chair and ask them one at a time so that we would follow the normal procedure for estimates.

Dealing with the question from the member for Mackenzie, I've asked the GVRD and the CRD to move as progressively as they can towards a solution of their water waste programs. When you're involving urban areas the size they are, when you have the tax base that

[ Page 13265 ]

they have and when you know the size of the commitment that needs to be made by those taxpayers, then — the members of the opposition would appreciate, as would, I'm sure, the member for Mackenzie — it takes a lot of money It has to be done over a period of time, and it has to have the support of the local community.

The criteria that I would like to follow as minister, and the policy that I'm working towards with my staff.... For that purpose, I met with the chairman of the GVRD a few days ago, and with the chairman of the Capital Regional District this morning, along with my colleague from the Municipal Affairs ministry. We are actively pursuing a fair program to deal with the capital requirements they're going to have — the hundreds of millions of dollars — to put these programs in place. But as a safety check for the taxpayers in the rest of the province, and to be fair to those communities that have already bellied up to this situation and dealt with it — as the member rightly pointed out — we are going to have to ensure that the financing is done fairly, which probably means that the local taxpayers will be contributing up to a half, and the provincial government would be in the position to contribute up to a half. But I'm going to look for a signal from those communities, because we're talking taxpayers. They're all the same taxpayers. Whether they're paying at the provincial level or at the municipal level, it's the same pocket that those bucks have to come out of. So we have to handle this with care. We have to take the responsibility to improve the environment. We have to use time-lines that are sensible. We have to be careful that we have analyzed the nature of the affliction, if you like, and the distress that we find our environment in.

If something is life- threatening this instant, we will deal with it instantly. If it is in a broader time-line.... We have to realize that we have been polluting this earth for thousands of years — that is, all the people, including those of us in this chamber. When we decide that we have a program, and we want to correct the problems such as those raised by the member for Mackenzie, we have to do it in a reasonable fashion, taking into account the responsibility we have to take care of our earth. We have to take into account the ability of the taxpayers in those regions to pay. They can only tell us that through local plebiscites, where they can say whether they want to initiate these programs.

When they initiate these programs, we will be ready. This government will be ready, because we have the financial resources, through running an excellent economic operation to support those programs. But the key will be that the initiation at the local level and the funding programs are tied in together, and that the end result is not an undue burden on the taxpayers. But the taxpayers are the ones who are dealing with the issue. Through their local government, they have to show the support, and then we're there to support them.

With respect to managing the local aquifers, such as those mentioned in the area around Nanaimo, and the water resources in those areas, we have research to do. We have programs that we assist the local governments in. In the less organized areas of our province, we are assisting communities to deal with the matters of water supply and water quality. I would be happy to deliver to you the details in your particular area as soon as our staff have the information available.

MS. CULL: I am sick and tired of hearing members in this House, like the member for Mackenzie, getting up and trying to beat up the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District over sewage treatment.

There's one place where I agree with him and that is that we do need some provincial leadership. There's no question about it. That's what we've been asking for on this side. But I would like to point out to that member that it was a former Social Credit candidate — Susan Brice — who sat on sewage treatment in this community for 15 years and did nothing.

MR. LONG: Going back to what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said about her being tired of us coming from the part of the country where we look after our sewers — secondary treatment.... We look after our water quality. We look after our garbage, and we do a good job of it. To have them say that they're sick and tired of us coming to Victoria and telling them what to do, when they're contrary to every law under the environment there is.... Then our own government has come down with hundreds of millions of dollars for new expansion and pollution control for pulp mills to clean up their mess. We've legislated that. We've made them clean up their mess, and yet you think that the regional district of Victoria can get off the hook.

The pulp mills have shown initiative. They've done the job. They're out there cleaning up the environment. It's time that you did the same thing. I'd like to ask the minister to give us an idea of just how much money has gone into the pulp mill clean-up and what they're doing for the environment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. MERCIER: In this province we have 23 major pulp mills: 18 are in full compliance with our regulations, and five are getting there. I can assure you that I met with the members representing the owners. I visited pulp mills in Prince George, Port Alberni and Powell River, in your own riding, as you're well aware. I am really impressed with the commitment those private sector businesses made to our environment. If you compare where we are on standards worldwide, we are right at the head of the pack. If you compare where we are on the playing-field in Canada, we are right at the head of the pack.

We have plans for even more. As we reach towards those goals, I can assure you that on the question of money, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on bringing pulp mills up to the standard they are at today. We're not satisfied with some of them that we want more from, but we're going to have a report out in a few weeks that will deal with the status of all of those mills. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the progress we've made.

[ Page 13266 ]

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I too want to talk a little about the environment and about transportation as well. First of all, I know there's been a great deal of talk about the movement of soil from the Expo site to a location in Richmond. Those of us who live in Richmond are really not unfamiliar with soil coming in from other places, because we are, for the most part, below sea level. So if in fact we are to meet the requirements for building, we need to bring in soil. There's no mountain or hill we can take down in Richmond, so we must go to someplace reasonably close by.

I can recall many truckloads of fill coming in from Vancouver, particularly in prior years when there was a major city project. At the time, the now Leader of the Opposition was mayor; I know he's familiar with the project. We moved a great deal of soil from that particular project to Richmond, where it was disposed of and used to heighten the lay of the land in order to build various projects, including some municipal projects. So we're not unaccustomed to that.

But obviously I agree, too, as a member of the community of Richmond, that we do not want soils that are toxic or polluted. The soil that comes in must pass whatever tests have been established for such. I realize that in Richmond we now have a bylaw, passed by the municipal council, which establishes certain standards and requires soil from other locations — particularly soil from out of Richmond — to be inspected and to pass a particular test.

There may be some difficulties with the bylaw, because I spoke to one well-known farmer who said that in order for him to manure the land, he now has difficulties meeting the bylaw requirement. So there may need to be some changes made to the bylaw in order that local people carrying on various enterprises can conform. I'm sure that the municipal council in Richmond will resolve that.

I'm not asking the minister to get up and answer me just yet, because I've got another question for Transportation that might be answered at the same time. I'm now asking the minister if a process is being developed within the ministry to coordinate those things we might be involved in that concern a provincial ministry and the requirements of a municipality. So if in fact Richmond does finally have a bylaw that is workable, hopefully we can work with Richmond. I'm sure that's what we are all after, and that's what we want to see done.

[6:00]

I also understand that there's continuing controversy about the rapid transit line to Richmond. We want to get on with a rapid transit line to Richmond; it's extremely important. I know there's some controversy about whether it should go in one particular corridor or another. But regardless of the controversy about the corridors, Richmond has a large and busy airport and a tremendously rapidly growing community, and we need to have that rapid transit link. We can't continue to put all the traffic on the Oak Street Bridge, Arthur Laing Bridge or the Knight Street Bridge. We need that additional capacity that a rapid transit line can provide.

In order to facilitate the wishes of the people in Vancouver and yet accomplish the transit line to Richmond, could we not — I would ask the Minister of Transportation now or ask that an answer be provided later — bury the transit line through that portion of Vancouver where there is some controversy about its location? I realize that there may be additional cost. Obviously we are going to have to truck a great deal of soil to Richmond, but I think this would be a solution for Vancouver and Richmond and settle the concerns rightly held by some of the people in those particular corridors. We need that rapid transit line. We promised the people of Richmond this transit line. I know we can and should perform.... Perhaps the way to resolve the controversy about its location would be to consider putting a portion of it underground.

I leave these questions — one for the minister responsible for transit and the other for the Minister of Environment. Again, for the Minister of Environment, all I ask is that we work out an approach cooperatively with Richmond and that we meet reasonable standards, which is what they are seeking to have established. Frankly, I don't think the people of Richmond — at least those I'm in contact with regularly — are buying the hysterics we've heard expressed by some of the members of the opposition.

I realize what we've seen by the NDP for a good part of the afternoon is theatrics. It's unfortunate in that I also witnessed the Chair being challenged in a way that certainly is not good for democracy in this province — and I hope we'll never witness that again. I thought it was a shameful performance by the NDP. But again, Mr. Chairman, if I can get the answers to those questions, I'd appreciate it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because of the hour, I think it would be a good time for the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn, and at its rising do stand adjourned for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.The House returned at 6:09 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 16.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be now put.

[ Page 13267 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize anyone on this matter, I would just like to say one or two things. First of all, every hon. member would agree that we've had a rough, rocky and sometimes very unpleasant road that we've gone down this week, but we all know what the destination is. The culmination of the whole thing was the unpleasantness this afternoon, which seemed particularly difficult to the Chair, inasmuch as it resulted from the fact that permission was granted for limited debate on the section that gave rise to the problem.

However, that's neither here nor there. It certainly becomes very difficult and makes one somewhat inclined to exercise the prerogatives that are available under standing order 46, but unfortunately I'm not built that way. So in spite of that, I'm prepared to.... Because there might be something else that can be offered over and above those suggestions that have been offered under the standing order over the past week — there might be other points to be made — I'll listen to some points of order on standing order 46.

MR. GABELMANN: May I say, first of all, that I think members of the House appreciate the manner in which you conduct your responsibilities in that respect.

Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, you made what members on this side thought was a wise comment when you said that there would be an opportunity to canvass the 17 ministries that had not previously been canvassed. We spent a limited amount of time on Forests. We would have been finished Environment long ago had the Minister of Environment stayed around. He wasn't here. He was here first for 17 minutes and then came back for another 20 or so.

We are soon ready to move on to the remaining 15. Assurance was given by the Chairman — by yourself — that there would be an opportunity to canvass these estimates. We are not taking the traditional amount of time. We recognize that we're the minority here and don't have that opportunity. We are taking what we think, in the situation we're in, a reasonable amount of time. The remaining 15 estimates will not all take the same amount of time that we required for both Forests and Environment; many of them will take much less.

I think the Chairman, under standing order 46(1), has an opportunity to ensure that members on this side of the House — and members on that side of the House, too, if they wish to take advantage of it — have an opportunity to have a limited debate on each of the remaining estimates.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order. We all know that if the question is put — if, indeed, you accept the intention of standing order 46 and put the question — the answer is predetermined. We therefore rise on standing order 46 to ask the Chair to seriously consider what 46(1) makes possible — namely, for the Chair to adjudicate whether the rights of the minority in this chamber are indeed being acknowledged.

We submit, Mr. Chairman, that 15 estimates out of a total of some 20 is too great a price to pay for the sake of crass political purposes, which have been acknowledged by the government House Leader.

Further, Mr. Chairman, on standing order 46, let me draw your attention, if I might — with all due deference — to Sir Erskine May's treatise on the law of privileges, proceedings and usage of parliament, twenty-first edition, on page 405, where Erskine May says: "The discretionary power of the Chair to protect the rights of the minority by refusing the closure is frequently exercised." I submit to you that there is prima facie evidence that the rights of the minority will indeed be infringed upon if we allow this closure motion to go through. On behalf of parliament and the rights of parliament in this province, I implore you to please consider our request and reject this motion of closure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You won't be here, Mark, so don't worry about it. We want you to enjoy your pensions; we really do.

A point of order, and to assist the Chair and perhaps explain the government's position on this calling of this motion. I understand and respect your ruling earlier that you would allow limited debate because it was under abnormal circumstances. You have done that, and I appreciate it. The fact that the opposition chose to spend that time on two ministries was their choice.

I just point out again that supply acts are normally not debatable. Section 1(2) contains no new spending authority — no new funds have been added — and subsection (1) clearly contains a schedule of payment. While I do appreciate the debate that you have allowed — and I too regret the incident that happened earlier — I feel enough debate has taken place on a bill that's normally not debatable.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to reflect on your fairness — and even generosity — in allowing a limited debate on estimates. We've had too little opportunity to debate the estimates, in my view. I don't think we've been excessive. If we look over the past few years, I think we've been verbally parsimonious.

I'll just allow a second for that to sink in.

I'd like to refer you, Sir, to standing order 61(3), in which it says: "In deciding a point of order or practice, the Chairman shall state his reasons for the decision" — and he's getting advice right now that this whole thing is fraught with dangers — "and shall cite any standing order or other applicable authority. The Chairman may invite submissions...."

I don't know that the Chairman did that. We had to get up on points of order to pursue our submissions, but I think it's very important that we have the rights of the minority protected, and you, Sir, are the only one who can protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If this thing comes to a vote, it's game over. I don't think any of us are doing our duty here if we just end it tonight, cut and run, forget all about it and get down to the business of electing some other person to head the government. It's like turning in a used tire. I think it's unfair for us to be put into the position that

[ Page 13268 ]

we're put in, when about 17 ministries and the spending in those....

Let me just wax a little bit eloquent about estimates and the control of the spending of the Crown. This goes back a long way. People have been beheaded for this. Sometimes Speakers have been beheaded, because they exerted certain powers over the Crown or the king.

It's our job in the opposition to make certain that the government is accountable to the people. Mr. Chairman, $16.7 billion is $16.7 thousand million of the people's money. It's my money, your money and everybody's money. To let this thing go through without any debate is an affront to democracy.

MR. REE: My point of order, basically, is that the opposition House Leader was entering into debate and had long ceased being on a point of order. At the moment we have before us a question not on estimates, but on the Supply Act. Certain latitude was given to some debate that normally would have applied to estimates. A continuation of that is outside the parameter of the rules of this House at this time, because the question is on the Supply Act and not on estimates. It would require leave of the House, I would suggest, to enter into estimates debate on a Supply Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The opposition House Leader was waxing eloquent, I believe...

AN HON. MEMBER: Within the parameters of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...even though he was straying somewhat from points of order.

MR. ROSE: The last thing I would like to do, Mr. Chair, is to wax eloquent outside the perimeters of the House. I think you meant parameters, but I'll accept it.

I guess what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that I'm sure you're going to wax eloquent on the reasons that you're going to accept this gag rule tonight after a limited debate on 17 out of 20 or 23 estimates. You haven't yet invited submissions. That's why we have to approach this on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a certain amount of déjá vu here, I believe, because I recall having heard this before. Perhaps it was last night or the night before.

Anyway, the hon. member and my good friend failed to point out, when he was talking about submissions, that in Standing Orders it says: "Mr. Chairman may invite submissions from members, but no debate shall be permitted on any decision. No decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House." In order to, shall we say, circumvent this particular part of the standing order, I invited people to stand to speak on points of order with respect to standing order 46, which you have done very well. Just let me point out, though, that it's been suggested that there has been very little time spent.... On the previous supply bill there was considerable time spent — some 14 hours.

Now I'm ready to receive any other comments.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chair, I don't mean to harass you or hound you or be dogged or bloody-minded about this, but I'm not even certain what your decision is yet. Are you accepting this motion? If so, what are your reasons?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether I accept it or not will be known in due time. I'm now accepting comments with respect to standing order 46.

MR. CLARK: I just want to respond briefly, Mr. Chairman, to your remarks about having lengthy debate on the Supply Act. I want to make the point again that section 1(2) is really interim supply disguised as supply. The Chair is correct, of course: we had a lengthy debate on interim supply which was to take us to the end of July. But the practical effect of this section 1(2) is to give supply to the end of September. We have not debated the issue of funding for 17 ministries from July 31 to the end of September. That is the point we made, and I think that is the reason why, as I recall, Mr. Chairman, you ruled you would allow a limited debate.

I want to make the point that we have not had 14 hours of debate on 17 estimates for the period between the end of July and end of September. It's precisely the point we made this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anyone else like to stand and be recognized? That being the case, I'm going to accept the motion that was put forward and put it to the House. I believe I said.... Was it yesterday? I've lost track of time this week; it's been a very difficult week. But the last time we dealt with a motion such as this, I think I expressed quite plainly my reasons for accepting the motion, and they haven't changed. With the utmost sincerity, I can assure all hon. members that if I really believed the rights of the minority were being infringed upon, there's no way I would accept this motion. But in all good conscience and in my heart, I can't believe that is the case. So I'm going to accept the motion and call it now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 13269 ]

NAYS — 22

Section 1 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 22

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 2), 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Administrator is in the precinct, so I would ask all members to stay in their seats until such time as the Administrator enters the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 35, standing in my name on the order paper.

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ETHICAL CONDUCT AND
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MR. SPEAKER: At the time of this morning's adjournment on this particular motion, the government House Leader had the floor, in terms of explaining an amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: When we brought in Motion 35, it was our intention to have the committee examine all aspects of requests by members, and we listed them. Just as word of explanation, we left off 18 because we didn't want to have the committee deal with that particular motion while the special prosecutor was doing his work. That was the intention for leaving it off. The member for North Island moved an amendment that Motion 18 be added as the eleventh item in the motion. Having discussed it and thought it over, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to that amendment being put on the motion as the eleventh item. We feel that the committee will be able to deal with the question of whether it is sub judicial on this and any other matter. So we have no problem, under these circumstances, accepting the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I thank the government for accepting this. It demonstrates that the opposition can influence the thinking of the government. This is an important issue. The government, I think, misread our intention in Motion 18. Our intention in this motion is to deal with what cabinet knew, when they knew it, and — I can't use the words — that there were a number of courses of action taken by cabinet to make sure that facts did not reach the light of day. That now has an opportunity to happen. I would urge that this House demonstrate clearly to the committee that we would treat Motion 18 with the highest of priorities in this list of motions.

Amendment approved.

Motion 35 as amended approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to take the mace for the Administrator.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1991

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1991

Range Amendment Act, 1991

Pension Benefits Standards Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991

Crown Counsel Act

Adoption Amendment Act, 1991

Forest Amendment Act, 1991

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991

[ Page 13270 ]

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 2), 1991

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fifth session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I genuinely believe this will be the last time. It's been a lot of fun. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.