1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 16

[ Page 16229 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

A. Warnke: It's a pleasure today to introduce two people to the chamber: Mr. Bob Simpson, who is a business consultant in Quesnel, and Patricia Schmit, who is a lawyer from Quesnel and happens to be seeking the Liberal nomination for Cariboo North. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two introductions today. First, I have the pleasure to introduce Gabriel Rosales Vega, the newly appointed consul general of Mexico at Vancouver. He is visiting Victoria to make his official calls on the government. Please join me in welcoming him.

I have the very pleasant task of introducing 37 grades 6 and 7 students from Sir Sandford Fleming Elementary School in Vancouver-Kensington, my constituency. I'm delighted to see them here. Would the House please join me in welcoming them. With them are Elizabeth Miller, Monica Treanor, Maureen Gratton, Karen Cheung, Dana Soga and Jim Chamberlin.

F. Gingell: In the House is a group of people from the U.K. who are interested in historical gardens. They have been touring the Pacific Northwest, and they have now reached this fair city. I'd ask you to welcome Richard and Elizabeth Bristow, Celia Lane and Daphne Watson, and my brother-in-law Wilfred Howard, who is here with my sister Valerie. I'm sure all members will appreciate that old habits die hard, and my sister is probably up there making sure that her baby brother behaves himself today. Please make them welcome.

F. Garden: I would also like to add a word of welcome to constituents of mine, Bob Simpson and Pat Schmit, who I am sure will continue to be active after the next election. I am looking forward to meeting all the Liberal nominees as they are introduced in the House.

J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce a delightful young woman who is a grade 11 student at Lake Cowichan Secondary School. She's on her way to being an elementary school teacher, but today she's mayor of Lake Cowichan for the day. Her name is Celina White, and she's accompanied by the mayor for the other 364 days, Earle Darling, and the owner and editor of the Lake Cowichan Lake News, Sheila Kenyon. I'd ask the House to help me make these people very welcome.

G. Brewin: It gives me pleasure to welcome in the gallery today Ms. Josephine Lawley, who was a constituent of mine and a very hard worker on many causes, including PFLAG, which is the organization Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Would the House please make her welcome.

L. Fox: It is my privilege this afternoon to introduce a previous member of this Legislature, Mr. Howard Lloyd, who served the constituency of Fort George from '75 to '79. Would the House join me in welcoming him back into this Legislature.

L. Boone: It is a pleasure for me to introduce today two young women who do a lot to make my life very bearable around this place and at home in Prince George: my legislative assistant, Gail Gotto, and my new constituency assistant, Irma Van Helvoirt, who is here today from Prince George to find out how this chamber works. Would you please greet them.

Oral Questions

PROSECUTION OF DRUNK DRIVERS

J. Dalton: For the Attorney General. As a public service each holiday season, the broadcasters of British Columbia promote CounterAttack and the fight against impaired driving. The public is made well aware that the police are out there looking for drunk drivers. We know the police are doing their job, but the Attorney General is literally letting drunks get away with homicide by reducing charges and allowing plea bargains. Just today in the mail, I got a letter from the B.C. Safety Council. They have raised concerns about the fact that we have gone backwards in recent years in our fight against impaired driving. How many more deaths are required before this Attorney General and this government will take action against impaired driving?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every single member of this House would agree that impaired driving is a very, very serious matter. The criminal justice branch of my ministry will always prosecute under the Criminal Code when there is a substantial likelihood of conviction. If charges are reduced, it is only because they would be unable to get a conviction under a Criminal Code offence.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: Just yesterday it was reported by the Vancouver city police that the conviction rate for impaired charges in the city is down 40 percent. The Attorney General's ministry would not back up these statistics for the rest of the province. Will the Attorney General today instruct his ministry to crunch some numbers and tell British Columbians how many drunk drivers there are causing death and what the cost is to ICBC?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The question in respect to ICBC should go to that minister, but that does not detract at all from the seriousness of this issue. An officer with the Vancouver city police has been quoted as making some comments, but I am assured by the chief of the Vancouver city police that he is completely happy with the system we have of Crown counsel and the police reviewing files and making sure that the appropriate charges are laid. If the member does not believe me, he should call the chief of the Vancouver city police to verify it.

SENTENCE FOR DRUNK DRIVER

M. de Jong: On February 4 of this year Sherri Bell was killed by a drunk driver. She was 24 years old. She had survived a heart transplant four years earlier, but she did not survive the injuries sustained when a drunk driver ran into her on the road. In April the Attorney General received in excess of 3,000 letters from people calling for aggressive enforcement and prosecution of drunk drivers in this province. On Friday the man responsible for Sherri Bell's death was sen-

[ Page 16230 ]

tenced to pay a fine of $800. My question to the Attorney General is: is he satisfied that the sentence imposed on this accused adequately reflects the abhorrence we all feel for crimes of this sort that lead to such tragic results? If he is not satisfied, what action does he intend to take to ensure that it doesn't happen again?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unlike the member, I don't comment on cases that are before the courts. This matter still has an appeal period in existence, and until that period is complete, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make comments which may impact on decisions that the independent judiciary make.

The Speaker: Supplemental....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Please take your seat, hon. member, until we can get some order.

The Speaker: Supplemental.

M. de Jong: Sherri Bell's family have seen that a court values their daughter's life at the sum of $800. If the present sentencing provisions are inadequate, in a general sense, has the Attorney General made recommendations to his federal counterpart to amend those sentencing provisions? If there is a need for more aggressive prosecution of drunk driving offences, has the Attorney General sent those policy directives to his prosecutors in the field? In short, what action is he taking to ensure that more realistic sentences are imposed in very tragic circumstances like the one I've just described?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is making reference to a matter that is before the courts, and I will not comment publicly on that.

PROSECUTION OF DRUNK DRIVERS

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Attorney General on the same subject. The Attorney is reported as saying that the Crown is cutting these little backroom deals because there isn't a substantial likelihood of conviction. If that's the problem, why don't the ministry and the minister focus their attention on improving the opportunities for conviction and enhancing the laws as they relate to the need to get convictions? Surely to goodness we all agree that drunk drivers should be kept off the roads. The Crown shouldn't be cutting these little backroom deals. What is the minister doing to improve the likelihood of conviction on impaired charges?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: These are not backroom deals. The Crown is not cutting deals, and that point needs to be made clearly and emphatically. The Crown makes decisions under the charge approval policy of the criminal justice branch. It includes the need that substantial likelihood of conviction be obtained. Police are in charge of gathering evidence. There are occasions when there is insufficient evidence. There are occasions when it is simply impossible, because of a lack of witnesses, to prove particular charges. There are a whole variety of reasons why it may occur that substantial likelihood of conviction cannot be obtained. When that happens, the Crown looks to some other charge for which, in fact, it can get a conviction.

The way the Leader of the Third Party would have it is that there would be no conviction, but there would be an acquittal on the first charge. That would be irresponsible.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

J. Weisgerber: Quite the opposite is the case. If I had my way, the Crown would proceed with charges; the Crown would be getting the 70, 75 or 80 percent conviction rate that it has traditionally enjoyed -- not seeing that drop, by way of plea bargains, to 40 percent. That's the problem.

Indeed, British Columbians are angry about it, and so they should be. What we want to know is what steps the minister is taking to improve this situation. I don't want to hear the excuses, and British Columbians don't want to hear the excuses. They want to know what steps the Attorney General and his ministry are taking in order to get convictions of criminals charged with impaired driving.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In January of this year, a special group was established in the criminal justice branch who are looking at all the charges that are outstanding. We are concerned about the backlog in the courts, and we are concerned about getting justice delivered in this province. That particular group of prosecutors has been working.... They have been meeting with the police -- both the Vancouver police and other police forces in British Columbia. They have been working in a cooperative, productive way, which the police are happy about.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General. It seems to me that the Attorney General is more concerned about the backlog than he is about the people who are being killed on the highways of British Columbia. Can the Attorney General tell us what has happened in the last two years that has driven the conviction rate down for drunk drivers in British Columbia? What is he finally going to do to earn his paycheque, to solve that problem?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The most up-to-date statistics I have indicate a 72 percent conviction or pleading guilty rate in British Columbia, not the 40 percent that I think members have picked up from an anecdotal experience by a new police officer on this particular beat. The members should go to the court services branch if they want information about conviction rates. They will learn that the last available statistics indicate a conviction rate of some 72 percent in British Columbia.

B.C. TRANSIT PAYMENTS TO BRIAN CAWOOD

D. Symons: The wrongful dismissal case of Frank Dixon is bringing out some startling revelations of a Crown corporation out of control. The testimony of Brian Cawood describes the actions of the NDP's Transit board as totally out of touch with financial reality. Cawood says he was paid $60,000 to prepare a one-page mission statement for B.C. Transit, which 

[ Page 16231 ]

actually wasn't even adopted. Can the Premier tell the taxpayers of British Columbia if he thinks that spending $60,000 on a mission statement for B.C. Transit is an effective use of tax dollars?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's an astonishing performance by the opposition. We have a member of the Liberal opposition, a lawyer who is in a privileged position, questioning a judge's decision. He doesn't have the guts to say that out there in the open corridor. He doesn't have the courage to do it through the Canadian Bar Association and take up this matter as he knows he should be doing.

The other members of the opposition know darned well that this government is committed to making sure drunk drivers are off the road; they know that. They don't want to talk about the best economy in Canada -- they can't, because it is. They want to dismantle medicare, and the public knows it.

And because they've...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...run out of research material, they're relying on the daily press. They've run out of steam, hon. Speaker. That's what we're seeing here today.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

D. Symons: Well, if that member was concerned about deaths on the highways and about drunk drivers, he'd be ordering the Attorney General to do something about it rather than going off base like that. He can't even answer a simple question.

Mr. Speaker, $60,000 would buy a whole lot of fare cards. Cawood continued his testimony by saying he was paid $156,000 for 13 months of work at B.C. Transit. Apparently, much of his time was spent in interviewing B.C. Transit management. Can the Premier tell the House if he believes that taxpayers have received their money's worth by Cawood's $156,000 contract with B.C. Transit? And can he please answer the question...

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Symons: ...instead of rambling all over the place, like he did before?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought the member for Richmond Centre would have realized that this matter is before the courts; this is testimony that is being taken before the courts. He is asking me to comment on testimony that is taking place as we speak. He knows better, hon. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL GAMING POLICY

D. Mitchell: We've been waiting for the Minister of Government Services to come forward with his long-awaited review of the gaming policy of the province. In the meantime, while we wait for this, his colleague the Minister of Tourism openly speculated and in fact advocated today that big-time, Las Vegas-style casinos on Vancouver's waterfront is a way to attract foreign tourists only. Apparently you would need your passports to get in and gamble. I'm surprised at the Minister of Tourism...

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: ...who should know that we don't need that in British Columbia.

My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier tell us who the Minister of Tourism should be taking his direction from: should it be from the Premier, who has tried to assure British Columbians that big-time, Las Vegas-style gambling casinos are not going to take place in British Columbia; or should it be from the leader of the Liberal opposition, who says that big-time, Las Vegas-style gambling is inevitable in British Columbia? Who should he take his direction from?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The leader of the Liberal Party is never going to be able to give that direction to the people of British Columbia.

I take direction from the people of British Columbia, who have said no to Las Vegas-style gambling in British Columbia. I have listened in a totally non-partisan way to the Liberal candidate who is the mayor in Whistler and to local governments in British Columbia. They have said no to video lottery terminals, and we have said no to that. What we have said is that we're going to carry on in the B.C. way with a modest increase in B.C.-style charitable gaming casinos.

Just because our ebullient Minister of Tourism, who is so upbeat about tourism that.... We sat down with the Council of Tourism Associations and with Michael Lambert, who is the retired, very respected manager of the Hotel Vancouver. They asked: "Would you consider genteel, European-style casinos that only people with passports could get into?" Of course the minister is going to say, "I will take that under advisement," which is what he has done.

Presenting Petitions

J. van Dongen: I rise to present a petition to the House. I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of 411 constituents. The petition expresses opposition to the changes in the Adoption Act that allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

F. Gingell: I also wish to table a petition from constituents who are concerned about monopoly in cablevision services.

M. Farnworth: The following petition is signed by 1,851 signatories from across the province:

"We, the undersigned, wish to register our strong support to changes in the adoption application policy which provides birth parents full choice in selecting adoptive parents. We believe a home atmosphere that genuinely undertakes to provide love, security and caring for children is the key criterion by which choice of adoptive parents be made.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the government be commended for not excluding any applicant because of sexual orientation, and further request that a new Adoption Act be expediently introduced, passed and proclaimed, which clearly supports choice and respects and reflects human rights law."

[2:30]

[ Page 16232 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call third reading of Bill 48.

ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, maybe we could have leave of the House for an extension of time. Some members have not quite made it back into the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member was seeking leave to proceed with the division? I hear some nays.

Bill 48 read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call third reading of Bill 26.

CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW ACT

Bill 26 read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 32.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.

[2:45]

On section 4, section 31 (continued).

L. Fox: I want to ask the minister to expand on something. Just prior to lunch the minister made reference to the proponent not having to go through a means test to achieve legal aid. But as I understood his statement, one side didn't have to have a means test and the other did, in order to accept legal aid. Could the minister expand on the rationale behind that statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is the current practice and it's been in place since 1983-84, shortly after the new legislation was put in place. I said that I would certainly take a look at that. I believe one of the reasons for the way it's framed is that it's in the larger public interest to encourage complainants to come forward, so that in the end society is able to eliminate or to reduce discrimination. If you did not provide legal services to complainants because they could not afford to carry the complaint themselves, they may not want to lodge complaints. Therefore we will not make a dent in the issue of discrimination. On the other hand, if there is a needy respondent, the needy respondent will receive legal aid.

Section 4, sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 4, section 33.

R. Neufeld: The Chair has an amendment from the member for Peace River South that I'll speak briefly to. I don't think it is any hidden secret that the B.C. Reform caucus takes exception to what happens in the tribunal, znd that's that they can "adopt and implement an employment equity program...if the evidence at the hearing has disclosed that the person engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code...." I take exception -- and many people do -- to having it written into the legislation that an employment equity program may be forced on someone. I know that this part of the legislation is brought forward from the previous legislation. It has been changed somewhat, but regardless of that fact, we would propose an amendment to section 33 by deleting subsection 33(2)(c)(ii) in its entirety, and I would so move that amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we debated last night, one of the purposes of this bill is to deal with identifying patterns of inequality and then attempting to eliminate the same. If this amendment is made it would definitely defeat that purpose and one of those thrusts in the legislation. Let me say, with all due respect to the hon. member, that this amendment was initially made in 1992. We are transporting that section into the new legislation.

The current leader of that hon. member's party, who was the then leader of the Social Credit Party, made no reference in second reading debate to the issue of employment equity, because this is not employment equity legislation. As I said before, this is essentially a provision of remedies subsequent to an investigation by the tribunal. If the tribunal finds that a pattern of systemic discrimination and inequalities has existed over time and nothing substantive or significant has been done to deal with that situation by the respondent, this is one of the options. That is not the only option; that is one of the options the tribunal has. I believe that this amendment goes totally contrary to the thrust of that purpose of the bill and, in fact, defeats the main thrust of this provision for this remedy.

[ Page 16233 ]

V. Anderson: In section 33(2)(a), if the complaint is justified, one "must order the person who contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention," so that corrects the situation. Since the situation is corrected -- and there is no choice about that -- and the situation that caused the circumstances has already been removed by that code, why is it necessary to include subsection (c)(ii)? That's overkill; the situation has already been corrected. The only reason for including subsection (c)(ii) is to put forth another motive regarding employment equity, which has nothing to do necessarily with the particular complaint at all. The complaint is not necessarily about employment equity; it could be about a thousand other things. So this is an insert which is in contradiction to (2)(a) and totally unnecessary.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member raises an interesting point, because it really makes it clear to me that sometimes it's difficult for people to understand legislation. Section 33(2)(a) deals with the contravention. However, it does not deal with any long-term redress of a longstanding pattern of inequalities that may exist. It's my understanding, hon. member, from the judicial decisions, that without the specific mention of the terms "employment equity" and "special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups," a court will not allow this kind of program to be in place -- if the tribunal felt this kind of program was desirable.

V. Anderson: The minister has just proven my point. The point is that under (2)(a), "...and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention," the situation in the future has been cured by that statement. The minister is saying that the court would take that as dealing with the situation. But this is trying to put in another complete circumstance that was not dealt with under the particular complaint. It's using the complaint simply as an excuse to open the door to put in programs of employment equity, which have not anything to do with the complaint itself. It's an open contradiction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, section 33(2)(c)(ii) targets the issues or complaints where there is an issue of systemic inequality or discrimination, not individual complaints -- one or two isolated complaints with a particular respondent. This targets a situation where there is a systemic pattern of inequality, a history of continuing inequality without any efforts to remedy the situation.

Hon. member, with due respect, I believe that if you look at section 33(2)(c)(i), that is a very important power that's been given to the tribunal. And (2)(c) says: "...may order the person who contravened this Code to do one or both of the following: (i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice...." You would agree that in all complaints, whether they are individual complaints or complaints relating to systemic inequalities, we want to have that power in the tribunal so that the tribunal can order the respondent or respondents to take appropriate steps. Section 33(2)(c)(ii) simply goes on to add another specific provision that can be ordered in the circumstances.

Now, it doesn't say that in every case of systemic inequality the tribunal must order that program to be in place. We have had that provision in British Columbia for three years. We have not had a case where that has been done or even sought to be done, and we hope that that provision will never be used -- that we in British Columbia have gone past the need to use that kind of a tool. But I think it's important for us to remember that that is one remedy in addition to other possible remedies that are now being given and have been given to the council in the past, since 1992, and are now being carried over to the proposed structure.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to the amendment standing in my name. I'm concerned, and I oppose the use of employment equity as a remedy for discrimination. I think my record in public life demonstrates pretty clearly that I don't have any patience for discrimination, nor do I tend to apologize for or support anyone who is involved in those practices, but I don't like the notion of employment equity. I want to be on record as being fundamentally opposed to employment equity as a remedy.

But perhaps of greater concern to me is the next phrase: "or other special program." That causes me at least as much concern, perhaps more, because of the fact that it is, indeed, not specified; it is an open book of remedies that are undefined. One might think of things like affirmative action or hiring quotas. I don't see anything at all in that phrase that would disallow any remedy. The minister, I am confident, will stand up and say that he doesn't support affirmative action and that he wouldn't bring in hiring quotas, but this act will be administered not only by this minister and not only by this government.

It is with that concern in mind that I object to this subsection in its entirety, not only the reference to employment equity but also the reference to other special programs. Perhaps the minister could address that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me first say again on record that I have made my position on quotas very clear: there will be no quotas under this legislation or any other legislation. We want to move our society, encourage our society, to be more receptive to each other.

With respect to the phrase, "other special programs," let me say this. One of the examples that comes to mind, hon. member, is when a transition house that has been set up to look after battered women -- women in need of shelter and support -- makes the need for workers known to the public and seeks applications. If there is no special provision allowed for the commission to approve special programs or for the tribunal to exempt those special programs, that kind of special request -- to hire only women to deal with the transition homes for women -- would be deemed illegal. That's why that phrase is in the legislation. It was put in the legislation after due deliberation. There is no hidden motive in the addition of that particular phrase.

[3:00]

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

V. Anderson: If that is what the minister is saying, it's in the wrong place. If it has to do with the work of the commission or the tribunal.... This is dealing with the remedy of a complaint that has come forward. Sub-subsection (c) states, "...may order the person who contravened this Code to do one or both of the following: (i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory prac-

[ Page 16234 ]

tice..." which is commanding that group or person to take steps specified in the order. The tribunal makes the decision and an order, and it says: "Carry it out."

But this second section mandates the tribunal to suggest things that are not in the order. They are in addition to the order that has been made; they are not part of the order. Who is going to make the decision? Who is setting out the program? Who's mandating it and for what purpose? It's not part of the order. The order is covered by subsection (1). This is over and above the order; it does not belong in this section. Even if you wanted to put it forth for the purpose that you're talking about, this is not the place. It's in the wrong place. We could argue about it otherwise, but in this location, it's not.... If you want to put it in the commission or under the advisory commissioner, fine. But it's not in the proper place as far as the tribunal is concerned.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member looks more closely at section 33(2), he will realize that subsections 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) all go toward the formulation of a possible order under the circumstances. It is not that once you have arrived at sub-subsection (a) you may go no further, but rather that subsections 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) provide the permutations and combinations at the discretion of the tribunal. It is not mandatory for the tribunal to order special programs. It is a discretion vested in the tribunal, as it has been since 1992, to consider that as one of the remedies to be ordered, perhaps, in addition to others.

With respect to the member's comment about this particular section being in the wrong place, it is in several places. It is also in section 38 of this legislation, where we're dealing with the approval of programs in advance. This kind of provision in section 33 would enable the tribunal, for instance, to ask an employer with a history of discriminating against aboriginal people and not employing any, or very few.... It may say: "You set up a scholarship fund for aboriginal students, one, two or three" -- that's just an example -- "so that they can get the skills to compete fairly and join the workforce."

In the last analysis, hon. member, the purpose in doing what we do in this Legislature is to ensure that we have a fair, just, compassionate and egalitarian society. This is not to impose my will or somebody else's will on the respondents. This is to provide a quasi-judicial body with various discretionary remedies so that in their wisdom.... And remember, these members would be chosen pursuant to an open and transparent process. This provides tools and mechanisms for those members to make the best decision possible using their discretion, which you must remember is open to judicial review. If they have made a mistake, those decisions are subject to judicial review.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 4, section 33 approved.

On section 4, section 34.

V. Anderson: Could the minister explain this process of modification of orders that have been made, and how and on what conditions modifications would be considered after the order has been completed?

[3:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the question from the hon. member, there are events that occur which may force reconsideration of the issues, such as the bankruptcy of the employer or respondent, who may have been ordered to do certain things and take certain steps, or the shutting down of a particular department within that employer's organization where the complainant may have been reinstated. This section is meant for contingencies such as those, so that an order, once made, can be reconsidered and varied under the circumstances if the need arises.

Section 4, section 34 approved.

On section 4, section 35.

V. Anderson: This is "enforcement of remedies." What is the advantage or disadvantage? The order has been made. Then section 35(1) indicates that one may file a copy of the order with the Supreme Court. What is the advantage of filing that after the order has been made? Presumably it's in force. What's the need or advantage of then filing that afterwards?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Having the orders filed in court is the only method of enforcement of the orders. Unless the order is complied with voluntarily, the Human Rights Tribunal cannot order the respondent to comply with the order.

V. Anderson: My understanding is that once it's sent to the court there are no hearings or anything, and the Supreme Court will automatically enforce it without questioning it or having any.... Or does the Supreme Court reconsider it or have to review whether they consider the order valid or not to be enforced?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Once an order made by the tribunal has been entered in the court, it has the same force and effect as if it had been made by the court itself. As the hon. member 

[ Page 16235 ]

would remember from a previous discussion on these issues, there is of course the remedy of judicial review available to the respondent or the complainant in the first instance, once the decision is made by the tribunal.

Section 4, section 35 approved.

On section 4, section 36.

V. Anderson: Under "Disclosure," 36(3), (4) and (5) are new, but (1) and (2) are carried over from the other act. These are primarily to do with freedom-of-information concerns. Could the minister comment on why (3), (4) and (5) are necessary at this particular point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are obviously required to exempt certain information from disclosure with respect to investigation and mediation and to generally comply with the provisions of the freedom-of-information legislation. I have gone over all these sections with the drafters. They are to ensure the integrity of the investigation process and the settlement process. We encourage respondents and complainants to enter into mediation and settlement discussions without the threat of disclosure of those communications or material produced at such meetings.

Section 4, sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 4, section 39.

V. Anderson: This is just a minor detail. I still can't read it right, and I did bring it up with your people. I want to double-check section 39: "A person must not evict, discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, impose any pecuniary or other penalty on, deny a right or benefit to or otherwise discriminate against a person...." It's just a difficult one to read, and I know that if you read it slowly enough, you'll get it, but if you read it fast enough, you won't. I just had to highlight that. It depends on how you read it and at what speed. If you're a slow reader, you're fine. If you're a fast reader, you're in trouble.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: After you mentioned this during the second reading debate, I took a second look at it. You are right. It is somewhat difficult to read. If one reads it slowly and carefully, however, one can get it, as I did.

Section 4, sections 39 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 4, section 44.

V. Anderson: Could you explain what the implication is that the Offence Act does not apply to this code or regulation? What is the implication of that at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section simply deals with an eventuality that arises if we don't have this section in place. That is, if we didn't have section 44, any breach of this act would result in a summary offence being created. It would therefore become a criminal matter, and this is simply to keep matters within the confines of this legislation within the civil realm.

Section 4, sections 44 and 45 approved.

The Chair: All the preceding was under section 4 of the bill. Shall section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

The Chair: I understand that there's an amendment to section 6.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, hon. Chair, there is an amendment, which I believe is in the possession of the Clerk. It's the one that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out, which is simply to change the title of the ministry that I currently have.

[SECTION 6, in the proposed paragraph (d), by deleting "Minister of Government Services and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Sports" and substituting "Minister of Government Services and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights, Sports and Immigration."]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time as reported?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[3:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Committee on Bill 50.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995

The House in committee on Bill 50; J. Pullinger in the chair.

On section 1.

D. Symons: I have just a brief question; it comes in later on, as well. I notice that section 1 is changing the definition of "emergency vehicle." It seems to imply, I suspect, that cycles of some sort can be emergency vehicles. Is that the case? I just haven't yet seen an emergency cycle. I'm just curious.

Hon. J. Pement: It is to be inclusive of cycles. As the member is aware, there are now cycling police patrols, so that is one of the reasons. In other jurisdictions, we're seeing paramedics on cycles as well. So it is to allow for that.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Mitchell: I just have a question to the minister on section 2. I see that the bill allows the superintendent of motor vehicles to -- I might put it politely -- negotiate with people who owe fines. At least, that is the sense I'm getting from reading this. I'd like to get the minister to clarify this. If you have unpaid fines, it seems that you can negotiate or wheel-and-deal, so to speak, for a payment, or the superintendent can issue a short-term licence and then cancel it if you don't pay up. I'd like the minister to clarify what is really intended, what is really contemplated with this amendment, which gives the superintendent these powers. Is it really necessary to give him or her that kind of broad discretion?

Hon. J. Pement: At this time the superintendent can arrange for a schedule of payment to pay off fines. This section allows that to happen within a given time.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister just explain why that is necessary?

Hon. J. Pement: First of all, with regard to the scheduling of payment of fines, it concerns hardship issues, allowing people to have the opportunity to pay their fines off and still go to work and access health or education services, etc. The scheduling of payment of fines allows people to work within the amount of money that they earn.

With regard to the short term of the licence, by having that schedule they have a length of time to pay that schedule, and the licence will reflect that length of time.

D. Mitchell: Thank you. I think I understand the purpose of the short-term driver's licence, then. Could the minister, for my edification, tell me what would happen today without this amendment going through? What is the current practice, where there aren't the possibilities of issuing such short-term drivers' licences? Does the superintendent currently have any discretion regarding individuals who have unpaid fines?

Hon. J. Pement: For a short-term licence, no.

L. Hanson: The question I have for the minister is: has it normally been the superintendent's responsibility to negotiate the payment of fines that are overdue? Or has the superintendent always had the ability to enter into a payment schedule? I guess that's.... I see the minister nodding her head, so maybe that means yes.

Hon. J. Pement: This has been allowed since the superintendent has been collecting the fines through the motor vehicle branch, and that goes back to about 1989.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

D. Symons: A question first. In subsection 115(a) they're talking about definitions of "cycle" by adding.... I gather, by looking back in the act and so forth, that cycle would include tricycles, pedicabs and that sort of thing as well, because the definition here basically seems to imply anything that's on wheels but not motor-powered, and then the few exceptions you're now making. Pedicabs in Victoria would be included by that definition, so all that follows, then, will affect them. And tricycles -- little children riding on tricycles on the sidewalk -- then would be affected by all that follows. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pement: This section refers to the pedicabs and not the other.

D. Symons: I'm sorry, but I didn't hear whether tricycles -- young children riding tricycles -- would be included. I don't see them excluded, and the definition would seem to include them.

Hon. J. Pement: This has not been an issue with regard to highway systems. It has not been defined as a vehicle.

D. Mitchell: Just following up on the question by the member for Richmond Centre, this section of the bill that defines cycle is quite important to one of the main purposes of this bill, which makes cycle safety helmets mandatory. Of course, that was debated during the second reading stage of the bill. That's an important feature of this legislation, and we talked about that.

[ Page 16237 ]

While I'm on my feet, I wouldn't mind paying credit to my seatmate and colleague the member for Okanagan West, who brought in a private member's bill on just this issue a few years back. It's nice to see a private member's bill being translated into government legislation. He deserves some credit for that.

When we define cycle under this section, it's important for the minister to explain why this specific definition is being used, as the member for Richmond Centre was getting at. Certain things are excluded; certain things aren't excluded. For instance, in this definition we're saying a cycle "does not include a skate board, roller skates or in-line roller skates." This is important to what happens subsequently in this legislation as we go through it section by section.

So why is it that the minister is using this particular definition? What has guided and motivated this particular definition? Why, for instance, is in-line skating excluded, whereas bicycles are included? Who is going to be required to wear a safety helmet?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Pement: In defining cycle, we're defining what is allowed on the road and recognizing the fact that cycles do share the road. In the case of these exemptions or other devices that are not defined as cycles, there are issues of safety with regard to use of these particular devices on the road. It's a case of existing use that has also been defined by police enforcement officers.

D. Mitchell: I won't belabour this point, but the definition of cycle is important for this bill for another reason -- that is, under this definition, we're making it mandatory for people who ride cycles.... Could the minister just tell us whether she and her officials and the government considered making it mandatory under legislation for individuals who are commonly on the streets in urban areas of the province using in-line skates, skateboards and other vehicles -- if we can call them that -- and transporting themselves on wheels in manners that are dangerous...? If you talk to doctors who work in emergency wards of our hospitals in our urban centres or medical clinics, the most common and frequent accidents today come from in-line roller skaters, people who are learning how to transport themselves on these vehicles as well. This is pretty serious, and I just wonder if the government also considered that. Why specifically are we excluding them from the definition in this act?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, we are defining what a cycle is on the highways and road systems within the province. These other types of devices are not specific to the use of highways. They can be used anywhere. We see that as a safety issue all the way around and therefore we are defining what a cycle is.

D. Symons: When talking about highways, the minister is saying that these definitions do not apply to section 120 of the Highway Act, which is going to be discussed later on when you bring in the cycle regulations regarding municipalities. So I'm assuming these definitions don't apply, then, to the municipal section, section 120, which is coming up later in the act. You're bending section 120, and I was under the assumption that these definitions applied there. I will go back, then, to my first question. If that's the case, you're saying that tricycles fall under this, and a child riding his tricycle on a sidewalk is forbidden from doing that. They should be on the roadway and must wear a helmet. That's what this legislation will end up doing if these definitions are going to apply further on in the act.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, I think the member needs to go back to section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the definition of a highway with regard to the fact that we look at highway road systems as public access where motor vehicles are. It does not apply to sidewalks.

D. Symons: As long as I have the minister's assurance on that.... We'll see later on.

I want to move an amendment now, which I have passed to the minister and to the Chair. The amendment simply says that it will add to this section another definition of cycle path -- I don't want to say that quickly, because it might come out differently -- meaning "a path specifically designated for the use of cycles."

On the amendment.

D. Symons: In speaking to the amendment, I suggest that in Richmond we have a portion of the roadway that's marked for cycles. Around Stanley Park they have a path that's marked for cycles. Indeed, in various parts of the province now, they're putting in.... Toward UBC they have a path that's for cycles. These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act should apply also to those particular ones, so when we're going to bring in some regulations regarding the way people behave on the highways and roadways, that same behaviour should apply to paths that now are set aside for cycles.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

D. Symons: This part applies to section 120 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which is "Municipal powers." It seems to imply that this is a permissive bit of legislation, because subsection 120(1) says: "The council of a municipality may, by bylaw not inconsistent with or derogatory to this Part, provide...." Then this is adding some amendments to that. When we pass this act, then, the regulations about bicycle helmets and so forth do not apply within municipalities. Is that what the minister is saying -- that it will have to be up to each municipality in the province to pass a separate bylaw within that municipality to require helmets?

Hon. J. Pement: There seems to be some misunderstanding. Again, you need to go back to the definition of "highway" in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which defines road systems within municipalities as well. This pertains to bylaws with regard to off-road systems -- in other words, those bike paths and bike lanes.

D. Symons: I'm now going back to the points I was making earlier. Basically, you're saying roadways within municipalities are part of what we can call a highway system when you use the word "highways." Therefore the act will apply to all of those, unless it's a separate cycle path or some similar notion.

[ Page 16238 ]

I'm going to get back, then, to what I referred to before on the definition, because we're going to be bringing in some problems here for young people. I watch where my grandson rides. It's a cul-de-sac. The children play and ride their tricycles and little bicycles on the street around there. As a matter of fact, one of the parents in this particular neighbourhood sits there on a chair and makes sure nobody is misbehaving -- he's breaking the law, I suppose. But this is saying now that the children on these tricycles, if they're on the roadway, must have a helmet on. That's what I'm reading this as, because you're act says it.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of.... If you're riding a cycle on the road system, you will need a helmet.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

T. Perry: I want to perform an extra-special service to a constituent. I think I know the answer, but since his letter arrived in yesterday's mail, I'll try to get it on the record for him. The constituent, Colin Brander, is concerned about the amendment proposed in section 14 to the current Motor Vehicle Act, section 185(2)(b). The constituent is worried that the proposed amendment will force him to ride on a shoulder, even when the shoulder is not safe. I believe he has misinterpreted the act. I just want to get this on the record with the minister. Reading the amendments, the explanatory note in the bill points out that section 14 clarifies that a cyclist is required to ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway, not the roadway. The intent of that is to allow the cyclist to ride on the shoulder where suitable, not to force him to. In fact, the only word that's going to change in section 185(2)(b) of the current act is that "roadway" will become "highway."

I'll just clarify very simply: this is actually going to allow people to ride on a shoulder where that's safe; and where it's not safe they're to ride as close as practicable to the right. The reason that all the examples of obstacles they might have to avoid were not listed was simply legislative drafting.

Hon. J. Pement: The issue being "practicable," as the member was pointing out.... If there is an obstacle and it's unsafe to be on the shoulder, then definitely the right part of the lane is more desirable.

J. van Dongen: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce up to 120 students from William A. Fraser Elementary who are here today from Abbotsford. They're here with a number of their parents and their teacher, Mr. J. Hardington. I ask this House to make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave for an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just received a fax from my constituency assistant to advise me that amongst the group who's here is Marion Pawlovich, a good friend of hers, who was born and raised in Saskatchewan, my home province. I just want to welcome her here today and ask other members to do the same.

[4:00]

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

C. Serwa: While I agree with the legislation, it begs a few questions -- first of all, with respect to enforcement. What we're finding, whether it's in my community, here in Victoria or probably any community throughout the province, is the lack of lighting on bicycles at night -- either a rear reflector or a flashing light and a headlight on the front of the bicycle. How will the enforcement of this be carried out? I know that councillors from various municipalities have approached the RCMP, and they're unwilling to attend to this matter. What does the minister propose in this case?

Hon. J. Pement: I would just point out to the member that police departments were on the committee when we put this legislation together and dealt with the enforcement issue. We would like to ensure that when the legislation goes in, we have their support, and we do have that support. We have some ongoing meetings with different police departments with regard to enforcement and the importance of safety issues in this particular section.

D. Symons: Section 185(5)(b) says: "...a red reflector of a make or design approved by the superintendent for the purposes of the section." So we must have the following equipment, as per (5)(c): "...a lighted lamp, mounted and visible to the rear, displaying a red light." So we have two: we must have the reflector; we must have the red light. Then we have a subsection of (5.1): "Despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, a cycle may be equipped with a flashing red light." By the way I read this, you have the flashing red light, a steady red light and a reflector. Is that right?

Hon. J. Pement: The reflector has to be on the bike as well. If you look at (5.1), it may be an either-or situation: a flashing light or a solid red light. In some cycle designs, there is a flashing light at the back.

D. Symons: Excuse me, but I think I misunderstood what was said. You used the word "or," and as I read this act, I don't see an "or" in there. You have to do all of subsections (5)(a), (5)(b) and (5)(c), and you may do (5.1). This means that if you have only a red flashing light on the back of your bicycle -- as I happen to have -- you must also have a steady red light, according to (5)(b). I think that's a bit of overkill. The red flashing light is actually more visible, in a sense, and that's probably why this is being put in here, I suspect. I think it should be either-or, but that's not the way it reads in the act.

Hon. J. Pement: Section (5)(c) outlines that there has to be a red light; in (5.1) it may be a flashing red light.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

[ Page 16239 ]

D. Symons: There is just one concern with this particular section. As you may gather, I do cycle a bit, though not nearly as much as my son. There are some problems in here. You talk about the traditional hand signals. I come from an era when you had to know the hand signals when you took your driver's test, because cars didn't have flashing signals back then. Bicycles nowadays don't have a coaster brake -- most of them don't; they have hand brakes. If you're going to insist that a person going downhill has to give a hand signal that they're either slowing down or turning, that could be a dangerous situation.

I suggest that what we should do here is bring in some sort of amendment, which I would offer, that we add subsection (9)(d) to this. It will be just one more sub-subsection under subsection (9), saying -- section 185(9)(d): "The safe operation of a cycle in braking or steering takes precedence over the provisions of sections (a), (b) and (c)." It basically says, concerning making those hand signals, that if in braking or something else you cannot have your hands free.... You need both for operating a bike. If you put one brake on -- either the front wheel or the back wheel -- you're in trouble; you have to brake both.

Hon. J. Pement: Speaking against the amendment as the member outlined it.... Understanding the concern with regard to safety, the cyclist is supposed to slow down and proceed with caution while signalling. In other words, the concept is that one slows down, has one's bike under control and then does one's hand signal.

C. Serwa: As a cyclist, I am well aware that hand signals only require one hand. Regardless of the application of the front or rear brake, you can still signal effectively without losing control of either the steering or braking of the bicycle. So I suggest the amendment is unnecessary.

The Chair: Did the member wish to move an amendment? He hasn't done so yet.

R. Chisholm: Section 21 covers the turn signals, but I don't see anything that reinforces penalties in case you don't use these signals or if you run a red light. I don't see any effort to put penalties in so you can reinforce these rules of the road. How is this governed? Maybe the minister would like to make a comment on that.

Hon. J. Pement: The rules and regulations of the road will apply to cyclists as well.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

T. Perry: I was absent in the House during second reading. I just want to say that I think this is an excellent section. I've read all of the second reading debate and I agree with everything that was said there. So I'll be voting for this one, too.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

R. Neufeld: I want to read into the record what this says: "A peace officer may, at any time or place on a highway or industrial road if the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol, (a) request the driver to drive the motor vehicle...." I would think that if the police officer stops the person and determines that they are under the effect of alcohol, it would seem to be rather ridiculous for the police officer to request that driver who is under the influence of alcohol to drive the motor vehicle. The same applies to drugs. I don't know if it is just wording, or maybe I just don't understand.

Hon. J. Pement: It's the standard practice of pulling a driver over to the side of the road -- when you first see the flashing lights and are indicated to move over to the side of the road. It's a safety issue to get the vehicle off the road.

J. van Dongen: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to introduce another group of grade 5 students from William A. Fraser Elementary School. There are about 60 of them in this group. They are with their teacher Mr. J. Hardington and a number of parents. They are here from the constituency of Abbotsford to learn about how government works. I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister is saying. I assume she is telling me that a police officer standing on the side of the road would be waving someone to drive off the travelled portion. That's not exactly the way the legislation is written, because unless the police officer knows long before the person gets there that they're under the effects of alcohol or drugs.... Section 214(2) says: "...if the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol" -- and I would think that's after the vehicle has stopped, unless it's a very erratic driver -- they may "request the driver to drive the motor vehicle, under the direction of the peace officer, to the nearest place off the travelled portion of the highway or industrial road...."

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think that something is missing here. I don't think this is worded quite right, and there may need to be an amendment. I appreciate what the minister said, but obviously the police officer would have to stop the average person, as you see in many roadblocks, and make the determination then. So what it's saying is that the police officer, after making that determination, would then ask the person to drive the car to another area, and I don't think that's right.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, this is a case of just getting the vehicle off the road and onto an untravelled portion. It is an issue of safety of other vehicles.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

D. Symons: I might need a little direction from the minister or the Chair on this, but I would like to put another item in. What I have asked in this amendment is that we renumber the 

[ Page 16240 ]

current section 27 as section 28, and then insert a new section 27 that would read.... The intent of this, really, is to provide some protection for cyclists. I'll read the amendment and then speak to it. It's that we add a section 27 to read as:

"Section 159 is amended

(a) in section 159 (1) adding the words 'or cycle' after the word 'vehicle'

(b) adding a subsection (3) 'when overtaking a cycle proceeding in the same direction shall exercise due care, leaving a safe distance, but in no case less than one metre clearance when passing the cycle, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken cycle'."

On the amendment.

D. Symons: Section 159 of the current act deals with cars overtaking another car, but nowhere in it, I do believe, are there any regulations regarding a car overtaking a bicycle. So what I am suggesting in this amendment is that we guarantee the cyclist a certain amount of clearance between them and a passing car. I have seen cyclists who have a red flag up; I have also seen cyclists who have a red flag going out to the side that is basically telling the automobile driver: "Give me a couple of feet, please, when you're passing me." I think this amendment, then, would put into law the fact that a car cannot crowd a cyclist off the roadway, and that a large truck cannot pass a cyclist within a certain distance where the motion in the air moving with that truck could unbalance the cyclist.

I believe this is a valid amendment to that particular portion of the act. We're giving the cyclist a bit of leeway when a car is overtaking them. That is the purpose of this suggestion, and I would be interested in hearing the minister's response to that.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Pement: Again, in terms of the rules of the road, the cycle is still a vehicle on the road, and one passes in a safe manner, as in any other situation.

D. Symons: On numerous occasions personally -- and I don't cycle that often, but I do -- I have been passed by cars that come within a foot of me. Particularly if they're driving at a great speed, it can psych you out. It's a dangerous situation, and this is, I think, one way of at least saying that a police officer, if he sees cars behaving in an irresponsible manner in relation to cyclists, would have some law which they can go to, rather than saying, "You're driving in a dangerous manner," and that sort of thing. I think this specifies giving that cyclist three feet. I don't think three feet is too much to ask.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, with the section being referred to, you're actually going to reduce the cyclist's capability as a vehicle on the road if you reduce it to three feet. The cyclist does have the width of the lane. The thing is that it's the rule of the road, and motorists and cyclists have to follow the rules of the road. Therefore I won't support the amendment.

D. Symons: I don't know.... I will still move the amendment, because I still think I have a point there that's worth making. I don't mind adding another word in there to say at least one metre, then, if that's what the minister is suggesting is needed here, because in one way I think it's important that we have that in there. I would move the amendment as has been passed around.

The Chair: Member, you have already moved the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Pement: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 50, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of a modest little bill, Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT
(second reading)

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would concede in beginning this that this is slightly more than housekeeping.

The bill we're talking about today really concerns the foundation of our democratic system. I think it's fair to say that no important subject would ever come before this Legislature, nor, in fact, before any parliament.... A healthy democracy requires that there be a continuous commitment on the part of its citizens, and above all on the part of its legislators. The government has made its commitment to maintaining a fair, open and accessible electoral process that inspires the confidence of all British Columbians. We owe this to the people we serve, and we owe it to future generations.

It's difficult to believe, but the Election Act has not been amended or revised in a comprehensive way since 1920. Electoral reform has suffered decades of neglect -- neglect that now ends with Bill 28. In Bill 28 we are fulfilling our commitment to modernizing the electoral process. Bill 28 proposes to repeal and replace antiquated legislation with a new act that will meet the needs and expectations of British Columbians today. Bill 28 will ensure that democratic power in British Columbia resides in all citizens.

The cornerstones of the legislation are fairness, openness, and accessibility of the electoral process. The process is not open if ordinary citizens cannot clearly see what forces influence those who sit in this House representing them. The process is not accessible if it is skewed to favour only some people and to exclude others, either directly or indirectly.

Right at the outset, our new act demonstrates the theme of accessibility. It is written in clear, plain language, so that citizens can understand the principles and machinery of this most fundamental of all responsibilities and privileges of our citizenship.

The act modernizes the administration of elections, such as allowing the use of modern technology to ensure that the voters list is up to date. Elections B.C. and the motor vehicle 

[ Page 16241 ]

branch are cooperating to provide a modern and efficient new way of helping keep voter registration information current. The motor vehicle branch maintains a computer record of drivers' addresses. While taking care that personal privacy is respected, the branch will provide current addresses of registered voters to Elections B.C. No driving records or offences will be shared, and if drivers don't want their addresses shared they can opt out of this exchange.

In another innovation, alternative absentee voting methods will be more available. Voters will be able to vote in the office of the district electoral officer or by mail. Also, voting places must now be accessible to persons with physical disabilities. If a disability prevents someone from getting into the voting place, the ballot will be brought outside to the voter -- to the curb, so to speak.

The rules regarding residency and voting are now much clearer and expanded. For example, students can choose their residence for voting purposes: their school address or their family home. The unique needs of communities will now be taken into account. Voting accessibility will be customized to meet those needs. Voting in hospitals and remote sites are two examples where special arrangements could be made. The bill also provides for translators and other assistance where voters have difficulty reading or writing. All these provisions have been added without any compromise of the integrity of the voting process.

But accessibility is more than plain language and modernization of the administration of elections. An accessible and open electoral process ensures that the system is more accountable. Bill 28 truly opens up the electoral process to British Columbians for the first time in our history. In the past, citizens have been kept in the dark about the sources of funding of candidates and political parties. Not knowing these vital facts handicaps voters. Bill 28 comes to their aid and will ensure that the electoral process is open and accountable. Candidates, registered political parties and constituency associations will now have to disclose all campaign contributions over $250, as well as the source of the contributions. Full disclosure of election expenses will be required of candidates and registered parties. All election advertising will disclose the sponsor, and must indicate a phone number or address where questions can be directed. Also in the new act, political parties and constituency associations will have to register with Elections B.C. to issue tax receipts for donations and to incur election expenses.

To ensure that our electoral process is not only open and accessible but also fair, the new act proposes campaign spending limits. Candidates will be limited to spending $50,000 on their campaign. That limit can be varied, to a certain extent, to accommodate electoral districts with large populations or geographically large districts with small populations. This fair-spending limitation creates a level playing field for all candidates.

It is obvious that a limit on candidates wouldn't work very well and wouldn't be fair if third parties were not limited in their advertising spending as well. Third parties could step in and conduct parallel advertising campaigns that would foster the kind of unfair dominance of the electoral process that we're trying to correct. Limits on candidate spending in that scenario would be meaningless. Therefore, under Bill 28 third parties will be limited to $2,000 advertising expenses. It seems to me that this is a fair compromise between the right of third parties to free speech and maintaining the integrity of candidates' spending limits. This is an issue which has received considerable attention recently, on which I intend to listen carefully to comments of all members of the House. I firmly believe -- and I say this parenthetically in my comments now -- that we have to find some way of ensuring that loopholes of this magnitude are not available. If members have innovative suggestions about how we can preserve the integrity of the limits while at the same time addressing concerns that have been raised, I am going to be all ears during committee stage.

Creating an open and fair electoral process must take into account one of our era's powerful tools of influence: political polling. Polls have a place in modern elections. They are valuable gauges of public opinion in an electronic age. They represent an important source of information for voters. I might say that that's one of the reasons cabinet has not chosen to go back to the policies of the old W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit when polling was banned completely during election campaign periods. We believe that polling information provides an important source of information and therefore should not be banned as W.A.C. Bennett had it.

It would be naive for any of us to think that polling does not contain the potential for abuse. Voters deserve to have some assurance that the polling information they are receiving from political parties, the media and other sources, is based in fact. Bill 28 lays down a few commonsense ground rules for publishing and reporting on polls. Sponsors of polls will have to publish the methodology they use to gather their information. This includes the dates when their survey was conducted, the margin of error and the number of people contacted. Voters will then have a much better chance to decide for themselves how valid and how accurate the poll is. On behalf of their audience, media outlets will have to explain who sponsored the poll and how it was conducted. I think their readers, voters and listeners deserve that kind of information so they can make up their own minds about a poll. This is not to impugn media outlets, who serve an indispensable function in a free society, but to acknowledge the reality of the news business.

Under Bill 28, media outlets will also be required to ask permission of a poll sponsor to report on the poll. This is only fair treatment of the sponsor who owns the poll and who is required to provide more detailed information about the poll at the time of publication. Of course, media outlets can always report the fact that the sponsor refused to release the polling results. That is a powerful motivator for any sponsor to grant permission. This legislation is not banning the issuance of polling results. The federal government has banned publishing polling results during the last days of an election. Also, members may recall that a former government -- and I mentioned this before: the W.A.C. Bennett government -- banned opinion polls for the entire campaign period.

Some people have suggested that we are requiring the disclosure of additional information because we think the public is ignorant. I need to emphasize that nothing could be further from the truth or more illogical. We are requiring statistical and methodological information precisely because the public is sophisticated enough to use that information to draw their own conclusions about reports of poll results. 

[ Page 16242 ]

British Columbians will get more information about polls, not less. For the first time in our history, the people of British Columbia will have enough information about polls to make well-founded choices when they come to cast their ballots -- their most important act of citizenship. They will have the assurance that the electoral process is open and accountable. Media outlets, too, will benefit. Much of their research about what is a reliable poll and what isn't will be done for them, and they can pass that research along to their audience.

As I indicated on the other issue, the government will listen very carefully in the debate to comments from all sides of the House on this issue. As I indicated before on the third-party-limitation issue, on behalf of the government I am quite prepared to listen to any compelling arguments that can be put forward. Should those arguments have merit.... The House Leader of the opposition is smiling. I'm serious about this. I am quite prepared to entertain....

[4:30]

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says he's quite sure they're already drafted. In fact, I have reached no conclusions as to whether or not there should be amendments, and if so, what the nature of those amendments should be. I prefer to wait for the discussion, and at that point I will have a clear indication of what the arguments are.

The Election Act belongs to all the people; it doesn't belong to one party or another. Obviously, one party has to bring it in; that's the nature of parliamentary democracy. But this belongs to all of us, and I intend to listen very, very carefully to what members have to say in what I hope will be a focused debate during second reading.

In conclusion, may I say that after decades of neglect, decades during which our society has seen many changes, this provincial government has had the courage to take on the job of reforming the electoral process. I say, in parentheses here, that I was a backbencher in the Barrett government when Ernie Hall was going through the same process as I'm going through now. I knew then how difficult the process was to get an elections act ready to bring before the House, because I was very involved in assisting Ernie in preparing that particular act. Unfortunately, in 1974 or '75, he was unable to reach the point that we've reached today. I'm delighted to be able, after what I think is more than 20 years of delay, to finally bring in the kind of legislation that we're bringing in.

Everybody has known about the fact that our act has just been abysmally out of date; everybody has known that we had to do something about it. There aren't a lot of political points in doing this kind of work, but I'm determined and cabinet is determined to, in fact, proceed with this modernization. I think it's fair to say, and members would all agree, that democracies are not kept healthy by magic. It takes work, and occasionally it takes a little courage. I believe that Bill 28 is balanced legislation that modernizes our electoral process and creates an open, accessible and fair process for all British Columbians. With that, I move second reading.

J. Dalton: I certainly listened with interest to the Attorney's remarks. We may very well take him up on his offer for committee amendments, particularly on the provision about third-party spending. As the Attorney well knows, that has been the subject matter of court cases, and we must not ignore that fact as we deal with a very important piece of legislation. I certainly want to endorse the remarks of the Attorney about this bill being long overdue and very important -- in fact, perhaps we could say, the last important piece of legislation of the mandate of this government. Who knows? It would be interesting if that's the case, because that means we'll go into a new general election with a new game plan and new rules.

We in the opposition agree that this is a long overdue bill. The Attorney mentioned that the last significant or major amendments to the Election Act were conducted in 1920. I would also point out to the House that this will give us an opportunity to re-examine the Recall and Initiative Act, which, of course, is also a major part of this bill. We will all remember -- fondly, I'm sure -- the last small hours of the morning when we debated the Recall and Initiative Act in the dying days of the last session. That's a factor that we'll also have to take into account as we go through this bill. The Election Act itself was obviously in need of revision, and we accept that. I think the Attorney will find as we proceed through committee that we can understand most -- but certainly not all -- provisions of this act, and I think he will find that we will be endorsing them in one measure or another.

Before I get into some of the remarks that I want to put on the record, just let me comment on one or two things that the Attorney has just put on the record himself in second reading. We are pleased that he has invited us to consider amendments. The Attorney suggested that "this bill belongs to all the people." Well, I think the Attorney may find that there are one or two parts of this bill that we don't find belong to all of the people but, perhaps, belong to only a special segment of people. We'll come to that later.

The Attorney commented on polling. This, of course, has been the one item that caused a great deal of controversy when the bill was introduced for the first time on June 1. The Attorney, I'm sure, will remember fondly being scrummed down the hallway at some length on that topic. Without question, that is a very controversial and a very intriguing aspect of this bill. Certainly we don't want to revert to the old W.A.C. Bennett days when they outlawed polling. And I don't know that we want to go the route of the federal government, which is prohibiting polling in the latter days of an election; I don't know that that's warranted. But that is not the issue before the House in this bill. It's a separate election act and, of course, a separate jurisdiction.

Many of these things, we have to keep in mind, have been the subject of Charter challenges. As we debate this bill, we have to consider whether the act or any particular provision of it would stand the test of a Charter challenge. I have constantly maintained, particularly in this session of parliament, that I feel very uncomfortable getting up and giving an endorsement to a bill or any part thereof that I personally and as a legislator feel would not survive that test. I think we have to address that issue, both in second reading and in committee stage.

If the Attorney is, in fact, prepared to extend that offer and act upon it, we will certainly be putting amendments forward, which we would argue are well reasoned and would improve this bill. We've attempted that many times in this session, but I can only remember one very small amendment that was accepted -- in a bill the other evening -- so I don't 

[ Page 16243 ]

know that we have any track record to point to that amendments will survive the test of a government vote. We will have to see.

The Attorney has made other remarks, and I'm sure other members will take advantage of the fact that Hansard will be out, I presume, before we finish second reading, and they'll be able to pore over those remarks in some detail.

Let me go on, then, to put some other observations and comments on the record. The House will recall that in 1993 I put a private member's bill forward. The title was the Election Finances Reform Act. Needless to say, that, like any other private bill, didn't see the light of day; it sat on the order paper. I think that is unfortunate -- not that I'm claiming any personal credit; there was a lot of hard work done by both our research staff and people on the outside to put that bill together. It just happened that I had my name on it.

In the first reading of that bill, which was on Friday, March 26, 1993, I made some observations in my introduction. I pointed out that the bill dealt with who can contribute to parties, who can disclose, who has to disclose contributions -- many of the things that the Attorney and the government side will recognize are part of Bill 28, the bill that we are dealing with in second reading today.

My bill, of course, only dealt with the financial component of an election. The Attorney's bill sweeps right across the board and deals with everything from registration to polling day to registration of parties, official agents, auditors and many other aspects. As I said earlier, we'll also be revisiting the Recall and Initiative Act, a bill we passed last year.

I also pointed out in first reading of my bill that all political parties, by definition, would be registered with an independent commission, which would oversee the election process. The bill before us has a similar component in it. My bill set out contribution limits and limits on advertising spending -- again, quite similar to what we have today. Another provision of my bill was that audited statements of contributions had to be submitted annually.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that the Attorney borrowed things from my bill, and two years later -- we might wonder why it took so long -- came forward with the bill that we are arguing today. I just want that point to go on record: that we must be reminded that the official opposition has, in essence, taken the lead on this bill, or part of it -- a very important part of it. We didn't have the opportunity to comment at length on that bill, because, as with any private bill, it didn't get to the floor of the House.

Let me point out to the government and to the Attorney in particular, as the sponsor of this bill, that in the bill that I referred to in 1993, I didn't trespass on free speech. When I say "trespass," perhaps that is an overstatement, but I want to make the point, as the Attorney remarked, that third-party spending limits, the very thing that he has drawn our attention to and that he may consider amendments on, is an invasion of free speech in a way. That was also the subject matter of court cases, which I'll discuss later.

My bill did not try to muzzle public information. By that I'm referring to part 11 of Bill 28, the election communications part. This is a controversial item about the disclosure of polling results. They have to be authorized by the sponsor of the poll. Quite frankly, I was a bit troubled when I heard the Attorney say just a few minutes ago that polling must be based in fact. I hope the Attorney is not suggesting to the House that polling is not based in fact. Polling is not a science, but it's getting close to it. Polling people, like the Angus Reid Group, are true professionals in their field, and I don't think anyone questions the authenticity of the polling methodology. So I just want it to be clear that we must be sure, when we entertain the polling provisions in part 11 of this act, that we are not trespassing on territory where we have no business being or that may be challenged through the Charter. I made that point earlier.

We must all take note of the timing implications of this bill. It's important to get that on the record. The Liberal Party particularly is very active now in nominating candidates and getting ready for the next election. As candidates from whatever political stripe -- or lack thereof -- come into place, they and all registered parties have to be aware that expenditures and contributions as of June 1, the day that this bill was introduced for the first time.... All of these things are captured by the bill. All contributions that are subject to disclosure by this act.... The Attorney pointed out, quite rightly, that contributions must be disclosed if they're over $250, and you must identify the source of the contribution. All of these things are caught by this bill, even though it is not yet law.

I would also thank the Attorney for the letter he sent to our leader dated June 1, the date of introduction. It's a three-page letter in which he outlined the essence of the Election Act as far as registration and contributions are concerned. On page 2 of that letter, which I hope all members have had a chance to look at -- we distributed it to all of our caucus members -- stage 1 occurs on royal assent. On royal assent the preparations will begin for the implementation of the new act, and a new voters list will be developed.

The Attorney mentioned that the motor vehicle branch provisions will be kicked into place for drivers who choose to be involved in that. Keep in mind, though, that drivers can opt out of that if they so wish. That may be a useful way to keep the list up to date. Last year we amended the election process whereby there's no longer a prewrit enumeration of voters. That saves $8 million -- I think that was the figure. Maybe that was money well spent, but we have to have a way to keep the list constant. Not that it's a good parallel example, but we saw chaos in Haiti the other day when they tried to go to the polls. Of course, they don't have the experience of voting that we're fortunate enough to have in this province and in this country, but without a well-maintained and well-documented voters list, the voting process can turn, in some measure, into chaos.

[4:45]

Stage 2 of the act will come into force 21 days after royal assent. That deals with the establishment of the Election Advisory Committee, development of regulations and registration of parties and constituency associations. That's the flag, the caution, for political parties and constituency associations down the road after royal assent comes in. I've already mentioned, of course, that as of June 1, which has come and gone, we have to be conversant with the fact that contributions must be kept track of.

I point out, by the way -- this is probably a little-known fact -- that I passed a memo around to all my colleagues and all the riding associations of the Liberal Party, pointing out that any nominee for a riding's nomination who is successful -- that in the act is called a nomination contestant, and it's 

[ Page 16244 ]

only the successful nomination contestant -- then must disclose certain contributions and information. I don't imagine many people know that. The reason I distributed that memo is obvious, because we have, I think, 25 candidates in place now and more coming on stream.

Of course, we're doing that because we're inviting this government to do the obvious thing: drop the writ and let's put this act to work. I guess we'll have to pass it first. It is close to that time, hon. Speaker. It is close. We just wish it was closer.

It is interesting that the nomination contestant need not have a financial agent, whereas political parties and constituencies, leadership contestants and candidates must all have agents. They must also have auditors. I'm just wondering.... Perhaps this is something we can flag for the Attorney General right now and raise at committee stage. Why is it that a nomination contestant -- who, as I've just described, if he or she is successful in the nomination, is then caught by the act -- need not have a financial agent and audited statements? Obviously, once they are identified as a candidate, then of course.... But I'm thinking of all the expenses and contributions that lead up to the nomination itself. Between a leadership contestant, who is required to have both an agent and an auditor, and a nomination contestant, there's a parallel argument that can be drawn. Perhaps we should be saying that either both must have agents and auditors, or neither have agents and auditors. We should be consistent.

Let's examine what's new in Bill 28, because there obviously are some new things other than the new methodology and technology that the Attorney drew our attention to. The things that should go on the record as being new are the disclosure provisions -- my bill of 1993 dealt with a large part of that -- the registrations of parties and constituency associations, which are important provisions, and the gag on polling as some people would call it. "Gag" may be too heavy a term, but certainly some people consider the polling results restrictions a form of gagging. Of course, that is the Charter challenge that has been raised on that issue.

Restrictions on third-party involvement is a very contentious issue. The Alberta Queen's Bench has dealt with that in two separate cases, one of which is pending the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal almost any day. In fact, they may have rendered the decision this afternoon, for all I know, because it is that close to a decision.

A very controversial part which is not caught by this bill -- it should be new, but unfortunately the Attorney saw fit for whatever reason not to include it -- is that a union member, or anyone who is on paid leave and still on salary, does not have to disclose a contribution for the time he or she may spend during an election knocking on doors, telephoning or whatever it may be. My bill caught that provision. We consider that to be an identifiable contribution, and it should be disclosed accordingly. This government, shamefully, has chosen not to do that. So I'm pointing out that it should have been on the new list and is not; it's missing. Perhaps the Attorney would like to rethink that. Perhaps it should go on that list.

Let's just take a quick run through some other provisions of the act itself. I'm mindful of the clock, hon. Speaker. If I happen to hit that half-hour, I am the designated speaker for the opposition.

The act, of course, covers a great deal of material, and once we get through it, we'll be taking another run at the Recall and Initiative Act. I'm not going to comment on that now; we had lots of time last year to point out the shortcomings of that act. That reminds me that I got a call from a constituent the other day on another matter, and he asked me whether it would be possible to put the subject matter to a referendum. I said: "Well, it is, because we have the law." So I copied the Recall and Initiative Act for him and attached a note to it, saying: "Good luck. If you can get a referendum before the people of British Columbia with all these hoops and hurdles to jump, I'll be the first to applaud you." I haven't heard back from him. I think he has probably been scared out of his wits, and he has reconsidered that impossible task.

Now we come to Bill 28, the new, improved Election Act of 1995. As we know, there's registration of political parties, and we have no trouble with that; I think that's fully justified. Just for the edification of members who may not have had the chance to weed through this housekeeping document, they can refer to sections 154 and following about registration of parties. Constituency associations must be registered. I think that's also an excellent idea. Section 157 deals with that. I see no reason why -- of course, we're not arguing against this; we're just supporting it -- every one of 75 constituency associations of an identifiable registered party should not be caught by this act. And that's good.

Section 175 deals with a financial agent. I referred earlier to the fact that many people and many associations must have a financial agent. It could be the same person. People shouldn't be left with the impression that they're going to have to go out and find one for the party, one for the constituency association, another for a leadership contestant and still another for a candidate. That isn't the case; the agent, the same person, could in fact serve those roles. You must also have an auditor, as I've touched upon.

Political contributions are really a central part, an integral part, of this act. Part 10 deals with political contributions. The Attorney, of course, has touched upon the part whereby the source and the amount -- that is the $250 -- must be identified. As I commented earlier, there is the problem of a rather large loophole, as we would describe it, in this act: services provided during an election campaign are not considered as political contributions unless they are directly paid for by the candidate or organization. Again I draw the House's attention to the fact that if someone is on paid leave, they don't have to identify that as a contribution unless they are being paid by the party or the candidate. As we know, the record of the NDP is well documented, if I may say. Union people get paid leave during an election campaign, and they go to work for their NDP candidate of choice.

I have no quarrel with people campaigning. If everybody in the province wants to campaign for the Attorney, I'll be the first to applaud it. I wouldn't understand it, but I certainly would endorse it. But I and the opposition will never endorse the fact that people on paid leave are getting money in their pockets and are not doing their day-to-day jobs, yet they're working for whatever political party it may be -- and, of course, it is almost invariably the NDP. Given that this is an NDP bill, I think this government should be ashamed by the very fact that they've allowed this. That's a huge loophole.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Really.

An Hon. Member: What about real estate agents?

[ Page 16245 ]

J. Dalton: Now, of course I don't want to get into cross debates, heaven forbid.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Let me point out for those opposite who don't have an understanding of agents and others, who have to bill and account for their time, that anyone out there who is not on salary, such as an agent who only gets a commission and who may be working for the NDP, for the same Attorney that I commented upon.... That person is not a salaried employee, is not being paid by the party or the candidate of choice, and therefore doesn't have to disclose. That's a voluntary contribution of time. Somebody in a union or other environment who's still drawing his or her daily salary and is out working for whatever political party or candidate, in my estimation -- and I don't stand alone on this; all of my colleagues agree with this, and I'm sure the third, fourth and sixth parties agree -- has to be identified as political contributions. If they aren't, this bill has a huge shortcoming in it. I can tell you that the people of this province, other than the few who are of the same political ilk as this party, are not impressed by this government's lack of courage to step forward and say that union people -- or whoever they may be -- on salary, not paid by the candidate or the party, must disclose that as a contribution. I will stand by that. When we get to that section, obviously I'm going to have to vote against it unless an amendment is entertained and accepted.

Let's return to the content of the bill. Political contributions at fundraising events is section 182. I'm just taking a run through the bill, because I suspect that some members opposite haven't read this. I would challenge them to get up and tell me. We'll hear from them. Have they read this? Have they understood it if they read it, or is it just a gloss-over?

Election expenses are covered in divisions 4 and 5 of part 10, I think. General valuation rules, section 185, kicks in there, if people are wondering about how these things are valuated. Political contributions is section 186, and as members will find once they read the bill, there are restrictions on making contributions. That's fair enough. There are contribution limits. The Attorney General has drawn our attention to that. There are provisions for anonymous contributions. Anything less than $50 will be permitted.

However -- and I'm not quite sure how this is going to work, so we'll have to ask at committee -- it says that anonymous contributions are limited to $10,000 per year to parties and constituency associations, and candidates are allowed to receive up to $3,000 anonymously. Given that there are no records, how are we to know -- of course, on this side we will obviously disclose anyway -- that these contributions have hit that ceiling of $10,000 or $3,000? That's just a point of discussion for later. There's no limit on contributions.

My act, by the way -- and maybe I'll draw some other parallels later in my comments -- did put limits on contributions, and I think that should be considered. Election expenses are set out in sections 197 and 203. Again, candidates and people coming on stream.... I don't know when the NDP is going to get around to nominating a candidate. I have heard rumours that they are not really close to that yet.

Maybe that means the election will be -- when? -- next May. My personal prediction is -- and I'll go on record -- that the election will be the Thursday after the holiday weekend in May next year. I've said that for the last month, so take note. I'll entertain quiet bets, if I'm allowed to, out in the hallway. But I'm afraid that my estimation of next May is probably going out the window, because it seems to me that these people want to hang on to the bitter end so they can take care of their friends who are flooding out here from Ontario -- for obvious reasons -- and put them into the few position that are still left that haven't been filled; maybe go to the bitter end before they call the writ. They should face the inevitable.

Returning to the bill, I have a feeling that some of the colleagues opposite are losing track of what we're here for, given that they probably haven't read this. Reporting of political contributions is set out in division 6 of part 10. Election financing reports is in section 208 and following. There are compliance provisions, of course. Offences and penalties are set out in part 12 of the act. I'm sure no one here will have to worry about the penalty provisions, but just be aware they are in that part.

[5:00]

Election communications. Let's get to the good stuff near the end of the contents of the bill. Part 11 is the controversial part: for example, the $2,000 third-party limit on spending on advertising, promoting. Somebody raised a very interesting point; in fact, it was Betty Green. People will know that name. She's a pro-life advocate. She was on the CBC the other morning expressing concerns about the bubble bill. She asked what the case would be if somebody was out campaigning who had produced brochures within the $2,000 limit, out of his or her own pocket, and was distributing them door to door. Would that person be allowed to go into the bubble zone during a campaign? Or would they be excluded even though they had complied with the Election Act? The question Betty Green flagged was whether she or anyone else would be allowed to promote a cause of that nature during a campaign. An interesting thought, hon. Speaker.

While I'm on the topic of third-party spending, let me draw the Attorney General's attention -- I'm sure he's well aware -- to the case that is now awaiting the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. It's the case of Somerville v. the Attorney General of Canada. It went before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in 1993, and the Alberta Queen's Bench followed a previous decision of the same court from 1984 and shot down the equivalent in the federal act to this third-party spending provision that we're dealing with. There was an advertising expense limit of $1,000 in the federal act -- ours, of course, is $2,000 -- that was successfully challenged both in the 1984 case and in the subsequent case of Somerville. Somerville, I can tell you, got a rough ride in the Alberta Court of Appeal.

We don't know the decision yet, but the Globe and Mail account of Tuesday, May 9 was anything but complimentary on the way the justices in the Court of Appeal treated the lawyers arguing on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. They were very critical. If anyone would like a copy of this, I'd be more than happy to provide it. The headline is: "Election-Ad Gag Law Has Difficulty in Court." I can tell all hon. members that the justices spent most of the time -- I think it was about a two-hour hearing; I'd have to read through it to refresh -- firing questions at the lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada: "Why have you done this? How can you justify that? What is the rationale for this gag provision?" That is the way it's described, and I think that's a fair comment.

[ Page 16246 ]

I would draw the House's attention to the pending Alberta Court of Appeal decision, which I personally predict will uphold the Somerville decision, will uphold the previous 1984 decision of the same court and will strike down the equivalent in the federal act to this $2,000 third-party spending limit that the Attorney General is trying to put through in this bill. We'll have to see. We expect that decision any day now. If members wish, as well, there is lots of other case law on this and related subjects. The Charter of Rights, of course, has been cited long and often on the topic of gag and other third-party provisions of that nature. I'll have to see how that comes out.

It's an interesting point; it's also very interesting timing. I don't think this government wants to face the fact that the Alberta Court of Appeal decision may very well come down any day now -- even while we're arguing this thing -- that that provision and the comparable provision federally have not been upheld. Then I think we'll have to, rightly, ask the Attorney General: what do you have to say about that? Are you prepared to still stand in this House and defend something that in a very comparable situation federally has been ruled unconstitutional? That's the point we will keep in mind as we proceed through this bill.

Let me make a few observations about the bill that I introduced two years ago and the current act that is before the House. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. Members are more than welcome to get a copy of my bill. It was tabled two years ago. I guess our photocopy machine may be busy down the hall, if people so wish.

Anonymous contributions: in the NDP bill of today, it is less than $50. We prohibited anonymous contributions. Contribution limits: there are no limits in the NDP bill. We imposed a limit of $10,000 per year and $10,000 per campaign. Contributions from societies -- I won't talk about Nanaimo, of course, as we proceed through this -- are allowed in the NDP bill and prohibited in my bill.

Donations from outside British Columbia: it is well known that this NDP has friends, neighbours and cousins right across this country. I know, and I have already said, that the people from Ontario are making their way west, and they're not going to stop in Saskatchewan; they know where the gravy train is. It runs across the Rockies and stops in British Columbia. They'll be here. And they'll also be here because they'll be allowed to donate from outside the province. That's allowed in the NDP bill, and it's prohibited in my bill.

An Hon. Member: Bingo players from across North America....

J. Dalton: Exactly. This could be called the bingo bill -- donations in kind.

Unaccounted expenses under the NDP bill.... Under my bill all donations in kind are counted and reported as expenses; that's open and up front. What did the Attorney General tell us earlier? I can't find my notes, but he said something about this being an open.... It sort of reminded me of the first promise of this government when they went to the people about being open and honest. Well, we hope this is an open and honest bill, but certainly I think that the absence of donations in kind might be questioned.

Transfers from federal parties: isn't this interesting? Transfers from their federal friends -- although they have few of them left -- are allowed in the NDP bill. It's prohibited in our bill.

So there you are; there's an interesting little snapshot of comparisons of the contribution and expense aspects of the two bills. I admit that it's not the only thing that's in this bill; and I'm not arguing that point. But it's an integral part of the bill, a very important part, and that's what the people of British Columbia want: some accountability and some upfront accounting of the money that is contributed and spent in an election campaign. So there we are.

Let me just carry on with some other observations. As I'm sure all members will know, when the Attorney General introduced this bill on June 1, he got a rough ride out in the hall that afternoon. I stood there and watched it all, and he didn't look very comfortable. Secondly, a whole flood of editorials followed in the days after June 1. The editorial headline in the Saturday, June 3, Vancouver Sun is: "Self-Interest Evident in Election Act Reform." The editorial talks about self-interest being written all over this act, about an abuse of power and about a violation of democratic rights. I'm not necessarily endorsing these. I know what the Attorney's thinking, because the other night he got up and blasted me for having the audacity to speak on behalf of other people in this province. Well, it's shameful that I and the opposition would speak for the people of British Columbia. Well!

In fairness, the editorial has some brief praise in it....

G. Farrell-Collins: About half a sentence.

J. Dalton: There's some rather shallow praise -- half a sentence. I have noted that. But as you read down, you get to the latter part of it and they point out that campaign spending limits should be questioned, and third-party advertising -- there's that one coming back to haunt us again -- and reporting of polls. You know the media is not impressed by whatever the Attorney says to defend that. The fact is that polls, for what they may be worth.... Some people think they are worthless. Personally, I think they are good. I think we overdo them, but I don't care whether a poll is good, bad or indifferent. I think a poll is an important part of the information process and that the public should have access to it without this filtering.

I would submit that given the track record of this government, we won't see any polls that they sponsored being released, because they'll all be bad. They won't release one poll. What was the latest poll? It was 47 percent, 28 percent and 21 percent, if I recall the figures -- and that was before the Parks report fiasco. I submit that after the Parks report and the way that was mishandled, the figures will be 50-plus percent for us, the Reform Party will move ahead of the government, and they will find themselves like every other NDP in this country, with one exception: either obliterated or at a distant third. There you are.

The Sunday, June 4, Times Colonist editorial...

Interjections.

J. Dalton: I detect a groundswell of -- what? Is that support I hear out there?

[ Page 16247 ]

...said: "Election Rules Simply Excessive." It's not a very complimentary title. If you go on to read the editorial -- I'm not going to; again, copies will be available after -- then you can read what that has to say.

Now let me make some concluding observations. They're actually not my observations; these are observations of the Attorney, who has sponsored this bill.

Number one. The Attorney said on June 1.... You'll remember that infamous day when this bill was introduced for a first time. I am quoting -- I presume this is accurate, and I hope the Attorney will agree -- from the June 2 article in the Vancouver Sun, page 83. The heading of the article is: "Election Reform Legislation Branded 'Gag Law'...." The Attorney comments as follows: "We are talking here about the fundamental basis of our society, which is the right to vote, and the right to vote without being fed lies and information that is not based on facts."

I hope the Attorney would have second thoughts about that statement, about being fed lies. Really, that's a disgraceful comment to come from the chief law enforcement officer. I am not taking that out of context. I witnessed the scrum in which the Attorney made this and other remarks. Do you know what he did at the end of the scrum? He turned on his heels and said, "You just don't get it," and he walked off.

One other observation from this Attorney. We have to cast back to February 25, 1988, when the Attorney, who of course at that time was in opposition -- and soon will be returning there...

Interjection.

J. Dalton: ...or in fact, may be returning to who knows what.... On the Election Amendment Act, 1987, the now Attorney General of British Columbia said: "Governments are not elected to set the rules by which they will be elected."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

J. Dalton: The Attorney General of today said that on February 25, 1988. It's in Hansard, page 3122 of the 1988 Hansard.

I will go on with just a couple of other remarks that the Attorney of today put on the record then. I presume he was still then the member for North Island. Is that correct? I know that at one time, of course, he was the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. But that was 1972; we have to go back a few years prior to that.

Again to quote the Attorney: "The reason why we on this side of the House are arguing for a hoist -- a six-month delay -- is so that the government can consider not necessarily amendments to this bill or withdrawing the bill altogether, but can consider the principles upon which legislation of this kind should be introduced." Now, I'm suggesting to the Attorney, if these words want to have some truth and authenticity to them, that he might want to reconsider the gag laws, the spending limits on third parties and the polling provisions that are in this act. He might also want to reconsider revisiting the Recall and Initiative Act -- which won't work. I've already said that in my earlier remarks.

Now one more observation of, well, still the member for North Island, but then of course in opposition: "It is inappropriate for elected politicians of whatever stripe to write the rules that govern their election, in the same way as it is inappropriate for elected officials to draw constituency boundaries on their own." I want those remarks -- they are now -- in the record. The sponsor of this bill today was, in 1988 on a not dissimilar act, prepared to hoist it and argued accordingly.

[5:15]

I have to wonder whether this Attorney sponsoring the bill today is of the same opinion. He's hinted at it by strongly saying to us.... He was looking at our House Leader as he made the comments, and he remarked on the fact that our House Leader was smiling. I would say that our House Leader was happy to hear the Attorney invite us to put in meaningful amendments, which we will do. I hope all the third and fourth parties will do likewise, as I'm sure they will.

It's an interesting exercise that we're going through. It is interesting to hear the comments of the Attorney on the day he presented this act and his comments of seven-plus years ago when he was prepared to hoist an election amendment act. So I suppose when you're on this side, in that day at least, a hoist is great. When you wander across the floor to the other side, things seem to change; the colour changes.

As I conclude, I would like it to be made clear that the views that I have expressed -- and again this is for the Attorney, although I see he's not here physically to hear, but I'm sure he'll be reading my remarks.... As many members will know, my views are on record in my bill of 1993 on where I stand on election spending and related subjects. So I don't want to hear the Attorney coming back later, as he did a few days ago, and criticizing me for expressing concerns that third parties had passed on to us. We have many concerns of third parties, and I'm sure other members opposite will be making similar observations. But many of the things that I've commented on in the last three-quarters of an hour are things that I strongly believe in, and I have a bill in my name in 1993 that would support that. I can assure you that my colleagues have the same concerns and will be voicing those as we proceed through second reading and on to committee stage. The Attorney can certainly look forward to some meaningful, well-thought-out amendments that will hopefully address these concerns and improve what is probably a good bill overall, but which certainly needs some work.

D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: On behalf of Brent Mueller, one of our legislative interns, would the House please welcome Audrey Panter, a new resident to Victoria who is currently working on a master of social work through UBC and is doing a practicum with the women's health bureau in the Ministry of Health; Trevor Lord, a history student at Simon Fraser University and a student representative on senate; and Carmen Ortega, a graduate of Simon Fraser University and one of the youngest candidates to run in the civic election in Maple Ridge in 1993 -- she is currently enrolled at Barcelona University in Spain. Carmen, from the member for Mission-Kent to you, all I can say is: "MRCE!" Would the House please make these folks welcome.

J. Tyabji: I ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 16248 ]

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if they have stayed in the gallery for the scintillating debate today, but certainly if the House would welcome.... I believe they are still there. Mr. Aziz Khaki is here with three of his employees. They had come to see the Genghis Khan exhibit and were a little disappointed; it's so popular that they'll have to come back tomorrow. Mr. Khaki's son El-Farouk Khaki and I had the privilege of occupying these seats prior to me being elected as an MLA, because we were both in model parliament together at university. Aziz Khaki is well known in Vancouver for much of the work he has done as an advocate for peace. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today to the new Election Act. I have read the new Election Act with great interest, as I expect has every member of this House. It influences and affects each and every one of us here very directly and, perhaps more importantly, those people in constituencies around the province and in the party organizations who volunteer and work on our behalf because they believe in the things that we stand for and because they work so hard to help get us elected. Regardless of which of the parties they belong to, it is those people who have as much at stake in this Election Act as the 75 of us who sit in this House.

Let me say up front that I believe the changes to the act that call for the disclosure of contributions and the release of information around expenditures are long overdue. It is time that we as elected people were prepared to be upfront about who it is that supports us and how they support us. It is equally important for us to be prepared to release to taxpayers information about how that money was spent.

I think it's also fair to say that almost every dollar that we raise for our various political campaigns is raised under the Income Tax Act. It's not only the contributor who has a stake in that money; it's all taxpayers. Taxpayers help support our political system through what has been described by many as a very generous regime as it relates to political donations. That is important. It's not just a commitment that a volunteer or a contributor makes to us or our parties; every British Columbian and Canadian is involved in that process.

Having said that -- and I don't have qualms at all about saying that contributions, particularly those over $250, should be recorded, and the names of the people making those contributions should be public knowledge, as information around expenditures should be -- an area that I'm glad to see addressed in this act is the disclosure of spending by leadership candidates. It's an area that arguably falls outside the tax system, but it is the contributions made to leaders that often have the greatest potential to impact decisions. Many people, I suspect, would look at contributions made to a leader's campaign as those that might have the greatest influence, giving the greatest bang for the buck.

It was with that intent in mind that, when I sought the leadership of the Reform Party, I was committed up front to releasing information on each and every contribution that was made to my campaign. People making their contributions understood that and, I believe, accepted it in the spirit in which it was intended. Quite candidly, had this Election Act not come forward, I was committed to working toward achieving changes to the Election Act that would require the kind of disclosure that's outlined here.

I think the appointment of a chief electoral officer by a select standing committee of the Legislature is a positive step forward. I believe we have been very well served by our chief electoral officers, and I believe they have been non-partisan. Certainly I have the greatest respect for the job that has been done by the chief electoral officers, and I would not want my support for the appointment of the chief electoral officer by a new process to in any way reflect anything other than the recognition of the need to change, to move forward and to be more open in our processes. I read with some considerable interest the sections dealing with the appointment of an elections advisory committee, whereby the recognized parties have an opportunity to make appointments to a committee that will serve in an advisory capacity to the chief electoral officer.

Those, I think, have been very positive elements in the bill, and they are perhaps the areas in the legislation that I am most comfortable with. I am going to want to look -- we are going to want to look -- more closely and more critically at the issues around enumeration and registration of voters. There is an opportunity for the playing field to be tilted, and I want to make sure, as we examine this bill section by section, that people are going to be dealt with fairly with respect to opportunities to register and qualifications to register. I think we have to look at issues around residency, and to do that in a critical way. We want to look at voting processes, absentee votes and those kinds of issues which, quite candidly, are best dealt with in committee. Given, again, the importance of this bill to members, I know that we will be going through these 270-some pages line by line and page by page.

The registration of political parties seems to me to be a step forward and, again, another positive element of the bill. I'm not so sure about the registration of individual constituency associations. It's not that I have any reason to resist, other than to say that for the most part -- almost exclusively -- they are volunteer groups and agencies, and I am most concerned with the bureaucratic level of involvement for registration that exists in the bill. I don't have any trouble with people registering.

I look, for example, at the requirement for the constituency association to have their books audited on an annual basis. It's something I hadn't thought about very much in terms of a constituency association. I know from other volunteer groups that I have been a member of that the need to get an audited report presses a financial hardship on smaller organizations. Let's be candid about it: some of our constituency associations are young; they're emerging and developing. Unless you happen to be fortunate enough to find someone who will do an audit at no charge, that's going to be a cost that I'm not sure is going to serve the taxpayers -- the voters of this province -- particularly well at the end of the day.

I'm concerned with three areas that I'm sure have already been identified. Some of them appear very partisan in nature. One deals with workers on paid leave. To anyone who knows the history of this province, the history of the party in government, their relationship with organized labour and the role that organized labour has played in elections, it's pretty obvious that the government has been rather crass in crafting a loophole in spending limits to accommodate a rather large element of their campaigns. That's unfortunate.

That probably speaks quite clearly to the reservations expressed by the Attorney General himself when speaking to 

[ Page 16249 ]

the last amendments to the Election Act. It is that kind of skewing to benefit the government that voters find most objectionable. Voters really want to see fair play and a fair and level playing field. I know that those words are overused, and I hesitate to use them. It's disappointing that the government feels that it can structure spending limits in such a way as to accommodate a rather substantial part of their campaigns. I'm not sure whether it's because the government anticipates such large cash contributions this time around that it has to account for -- or excuse from accounting -- those contributions by way of something that I don't think can be classified as volunteer help. It's clearly an anomaly that benefits the government. I suspect that when the party gets around to knocking on doors and looking for contributions, it may not feel nearly as concerned about allowing for this excess expenditure by way of contributions in kind from organized labour. But time will tell, and disclosures will tell.

I do think that it's unfortunate, because this one particular section -- it was predictable; everybody expected it would come -- is disappointing. It's disappointing that the government couldn't simply have taken the high road and brought in legislation that was balanced, that didn't set out to advantage the party in government, albeit for this brief time.

[5:30]

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, as my colleague reminds me, a short while ago the government, in bringing in changes to the Municipal Act, found no hesitation in bringing in elements that have the exact opposite effect of those they have here in the Election Act. So what's good for municipal government and good for people who want to work on municipal campaigns doesn't apply on the provincial side. That has not been lost on anyone, most of all voters. I suspect that on ballots it will wind up being a far bigger handicap than it is an advantage. It's because people will be offended that it will become an issue, if it isn't one already.

I'm surprised -- given the furore in other jurisdictions over third-party spending limits -- that this government would bring that into this bill. To limit third parties -- legitimate third parties -- to $2,000 in advertising is outrageous to me. I believe that there are a significant number of groups around this province who are opposed to policies and specific actions of this government who don't want to politicize their activities, who don't want to be seen or pushed into one or the other of the camps of the political parties, who have a specific agenda. I'm thinking of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. They're pretty clear in saying they won't allow people involved in their executives to belong to political parties; they don't want to be seen as being politically motivated. They believe that they speak for taxpayers. They should have the opportunity to be critical of spending in government. That doesn't necessarily have to reflect on this NDP government, although obviously the focus in any election would be on the actions taken by government.

But why try to stifle that kind of expression? Why try to stifle that kind of criticism? Because, indeed, it will come, either by way of partisan political activity or as non-partisan criticism of government, perhaps in a bit different vein. But it's not going to be the Taxpayers' Federation alone. Responsible gun owners, environmental groups and groups concerned about the use of our resources could be, I suppose -- as the list starts to emerge -- a reflection on the record of government over its last three years in office.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says something about the B.C. Federation of Labour. Well, we know how they operate, and we know where their influence is felt. We know, indeed, that it's felt at the highest levels, and their contributions have always been very political. They've never been shy about making a contribution to the party that is in power today. Everybody knows that; that's no secret. I suspect Ken Georgetti would be the last one to deny it. But if, after the next election and after the demise of the NDP as an organization, Ken Georgetti wanted to criticize the new government, he and the federation may want to avail themselves of the right to....

So I apologize to the member for Skeena for leaving out what will probably be an obvious group in future times. Having thought about that a bit, and having been to Kitimat a number of times, I recognize that in that member's own constituency, there may well be groups of organized labour who would want to stand up and criticize the support by the member from Kitimat and Terrace for the Kemano decision. They may want to have the opportunity to take out ads in the paper and buy television time in Terrace and say: "Throw that fellow out. He didn't serve us well; he didn't represent us." Indeed, to the member for Skeena: thank you for bringing to my attention an obvious oversight on my part. But it only....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, $2,000 on Kitimat television would only be one day's expenditure, if the members up there are as committed to their cause as some of them would have me believe. But, Mr. Speaker, I've been distracted.

The third area that needs to be examined is the area of constraints, limits, placed on the publication of polling material. That has been the topic of some fairly broad public debate. The media have obviously engaged themselves in debate around polling. I don't think there are many people during the course of an election who have not wondered about the effect of polling and of rogue polls on voting decisions and patterns.

I'm not prepared to simply dismiss the need to deal with polling in its entirety. There is some rationale to say that there should be some election legislation around polling and the use of polling results during an election, but this thing goes so far overboard that it will discourage the reporting of legitimate polls. The constraints placed on broadcasters and publishers are so onerous, so overreaching that legitimate poll results won't be reported, and that's a disservice; that doesn't serve voters well. So it is in that vein that I am critical of that element of the legislation.

This is a comprehensive piece of legislation. It's very detailed and, one might suggest, bureaucratic when you read through the bill section by section. As we get into committee, I expect that it's going to take us a considerable amount of time regardless of how well-intentioned and well-motivated all of us are.

In summary, let me say again that the disclosure of contributions and expenditures is important. It's unfortunate that 

[ Page 16250 ]

these regulations weren't in place when the Leader of the Official Opposition was in his leadership race, because I believe it would have served British Columbians well to have had access to the information on those contributions. It continues to be somewhat of a puzzle -- although not a hugely complex puzzle -- to know why he's reluctant to release that information.

I do wonder about the requirement that calls on parties and constituencies to release statements of assets and liabilities for public consumption on an annual basis. That seems to me to be quite a switch from the need to release information on income and expenditures and on contributions and expenditures. One might suggest that parties could base decisions on information about other parties as it becomes public. I don't know if that's the motivation. I'd be curious to know that from the Attorney, and I know we will get around to asking him why he felt that was important.

On balance, there are some very good sections in this bill. Some reforms needed to be made. Some reforms will have an interesting influence on elections in the next little while and into the future. It's a bill that's blemished by this use of loopholes to allow for workers on paid leave, and to inhibit third-party advertising and the third party's legitimate right to participate in the electoral process. Again, the limits on polling will tend to discourage not only the use of rogue polls, but also, unfortunately, the publication and broadcast of legitimate polls, and I think that's to the detriment of voters. We'll look forward to this in third reading with great interest.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I thank my colleagues. In the galleries today is Margo Furk, who is attending the framework negotiations with the Sechelt Indian band, and I understand there is good news coming out of them with respect to the federal mandate. Would the House please make Margo welcome.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak on the Election Act. I am not going to speak to the entire act, because I think that would take too long. But I do want to touch on a concern that has been raised by members of the opposition, and that is the issue of third-party advertising. The comments that have been made by the opposition up to this point have focused on the positive aspects of the bill as they relate to campaign contributions and spending limits on campaigns. Everyone has said that is a good and positive thing and that it is one of the best aspects of the bill. The flip side of that is the ability of third-party organizations to wage a parallel campaign. The result is that you totally skirt around and render regulations on campaign spending unworkable and irrelevant. So you get back to the situation that currently exists, where basically you can spend whatever you want and there's no accountability.

When I first looked at the bill, and when I first discussed this and thought about the issue -- I've heard the comments on free speech, and I fervently believe in that -- I had some problems with it. I wondered whether a $2,000 limit on third-party advertising was fair. Then I started to think: what does the section say? Does the section, for example, limit advertising by a third-party organization in the period leading up to an election? No, it does not. Does it limit third-party advertising during a campaign if that organization's spending is included in the overall budget spending, if you like, of a political party that that third party is attempting to support?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, it doesn't. What it says is that, as an individual, you can spend $2,000. That is a lot of money. It is far more than the average individual contributes to a political party during an election campaign or during the course of a year.

Election campaigns are, in the democratic process, the most important expression of our democracy. It's during that campaign that political parties and the candidates that represent those parties put their policies, their platforms and their views on the record for the public to make a decision.

[5:45]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: As the hon. member says, that is the theory; but, in fact, it's also the practice.

The issue becomes: should the public hear from those candidates on a reasonably level playing field where everybody is playing by the same rules, where the money that is funding those campaigns is accountable, where the people who are funding those campaigns are known and the dollars are identified?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "What about the unions?" Financial contributions from unions are accounted, just as they are from real estate agents, from law firms...

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: ...and from used car salesmen, as my colleague from Mission-Kent says. They're accounted; they're on the public record.

What becomes the issue, what becomes a problem, is when organizations decide to subvert the democratic process because they want to divert resources or they feel that somehow financial resources can be funnelled outside that process of accountability to run a parallel campaign and give unfair advantage to one political party or another.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member says that's gobbledegook. It isn't, hon. member. It is so easy, if you don't have a limit, to just take an organization's money that can run a campaign for you under a different name or a different umbrella organization. We have seen it happen time and time again.

The question is whether that should be allowed in a democratic election period. I don't believe that it should. People should have the right to express, and they do, but we have organizations that do not wish to participate in the system that everybody else does. They want to be outside. What we have is the spectre of organizations who are account-

[ Page 16251 ]

able neither to the taxpayers nor to the electorate; they are shadowy organizations who don't disclose where their funds come from. They don't disclose whether their funds come from the United States, from outside provinces or from outside commercial interests. The National Citizens' Coalition, for example, is one that comes to mind. It's an organization with a sort of pseudo-shadowy, sub-political purpose. It's not individuals who are complaining about the spending limits....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: They are not complaining about the spending limit, hon. member; it's large special interest groups. That is where the problem is. If you don't want your election dominated by special interest groups running parallel campaigns, then you have to have a spending limit on them during the election period. That is the problem.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: If the hon. member can put forward a system that can allow spending limits in place for political parties and political candidates, and so that you can't run a parallel campaign funded by another organization, I'd like to hear the member put that on the record, because that is what we are trying to prevent. And if the member truly believes...

An Hon. Member: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

M. Farnworth: ...in campaign spending limits, then he will have to recognize that.

There are those who say that the section is unfair. It's not. It's practical, and it can work. To deny it and not allow it to work is to totally negate the argument for spending limits in the first place.

I rose to address that section of the bill. The bill itself is worthwhile supporting, and I hope it gets the support of the opposition -- this section in particular. Then we will really know where they stand on the issue of campaign financing.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the member for Port Coquitlam's contribution to this debate. He rose to address one issue at the second reading stage of the bill, perhaps the most controversial issue in Bill 28. In fact, I would call it the ugliest provision of the bill, and during the course of my comments I will take issue with what the member has said. But that's not to say that the whole bill is ugly, that it's bad or that it's even questionable. I think there are some provisions in this legislation that are quite good.

What I do question is the manner by which this bill has come to this assembly. Here we are in the fourth session of this parliament -- what may well be the last full session in the life of this parliament -- and the hon. Attorney General comes to the Legislature towards the end of that fourth session and brings in Bill 28, a massive piece of legislation, a new Election Act. Nothing could be more fundamental to the practice of democracy in our province than the laws by which elections are governed. We in British Columbia live in what has been one of the least regulated jurisdictions in all of Canada when it comes to election law -- election-financing law in particular. The hon. Attorney General comes to the Legislature at this late date, bringing forward a massive piece of legislation with virtually no consultation. And I don't say that with any hyperbole: virtually no consultation.

Hon. Speaker, I ask you this question: when in Canada, in any province, has a major and important rewrite of the most fundamental of all democratic laws, the election laws of the province, come forward without either a royal commission, a parliamentary committee or a major public review and consultation process? I'll tell you: never. It's absolutely unprecedented. Not in this province's history -- not in any jurisdiction in the land -- has a government come forward with a major rewrite of the election laws of a jurisdiction without any consultation with the other parties or members of the Legislature, and without the public having some process of consultation.

So I have to ask this question: is the hon. Attorney General really serious about Bill 28? Is the Attorney General really serious in believing that the House at this late date should be adopting Bill 28, even though it contains many good provisions? I agree that there are some major advances here, because British Columbia's election laws are in need of a rewrite. There is room for regulation and for disclosure, and a number of other provisions in this act are quite good.

But the bill is badly blemished, as the leader of the Reform Party indicated. In fact, there are some purposely provocative sections in this bill. I can only speculate that the Attorney General and the government have put them in there. They're not trying to sneak these through as some form of Trojan horse, because they know they would be caught out. They know that the gag law will be scrutinized and, indeed, challenged in the courts -- as it inevitably will if this bill is passed by this House -- and that other provisions in this act as well would be challenged. But could it be that the Attorney General believes there will be the inevitable calls now for the consultation that was missing in the process? Perhaps he might give in to those calls. Perhaps there's some political strategy here, and the Attorney General and the government will give in to the inevitable calls that will take place during this debate in the House -- and certainly they've taken place outside this Legislature.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Well, the member for Richmond-Steveston raises another point that's even more difficult to contemplate, a different kind of strategy altogether, and one that's quite frightening. Maybe he's serious; maybe he actually believes that this bill will be passed into law; maybe he feels that a compliant Legislature will simply agree in the dying days of the fourth session of this parliament to pass Bill 28.

We have to ask the fundamental question: in whose interest is Bill 28? In whose interest is this new Election Act, should it be passed by the Legislature unamended? Indeed, there are many sections of this bill that cry out for amendment. In which party's interest would that be? Would it be in the governing party's? Or would it be in the opposition parties' favour? That's one of the issues we're going to be debating in some detail when we get to the committee stage in this debate, where we go through this important new legislation clause by clause.

But I raise the question and I want to put it on the record, that I think it's unprecedented for a government to bring in a 

[ Page 16252 ]

major rewrite of the most fundamental act dealing with our franchise in this democracy in this manner without any consultation. It's unprecedented, and I think purposely provocative on the part of this government. It's amazing that the hon. Attorney General would do this, because I know that if he were sitting on the opposition side when another government -- perhaps the previous administration -- had sought to bring in a major piece of legislation like this, he would have cried, and there would have been howls of indignation and howls of protest from the opposition benches. But he brings this bill forward without even blanching. I find that surprising, hon. Speaker.

I've said that there are some sections of this bill that are worth supporting. When I dissect this legislation, I can find, in fact, four different categories: there is the good -- and I'm going to address what I think is good in the bill; there is the bad; there is the questionable; and then there is the truly ugly. Those are the four categories that I've been able to indentify in this legislation.

I understand that we're getting close to the hour of adjournment. Are we waiting for the committee to report? May I continue?

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: That's great.

While I continue, I'm going to try to address briefly what I think is good about this bill, because that's the first category: what's good. I think that there are some very good elements. Even without consultation the Attorney General brought in some good elements, and I can try to address them briefly. Although I'm sure that the Attorney General would like me to go on for hours, my time is limited.

The bill does a number of things, including, for the first time, bringing in disclosure requirements in the province of British Columbia. That is something that we -- almost alone among Canadian provinces -- have not had up until now: disclosure of contributions for political purposes. I think that is positive. I think we need this kind of disclosure. In our modern age of openness, with an inquiring citizenry that wants to hold politicians and political parties accountable, there should be full disclosure. Indeed, this disclosure goes further than some other jurisdictions require, in the sense that we're disclosing not only contributions to parties during election campaigns but also contributions for contests within political parties during leadership races.

That's a progressive move, if only it could be retroactive. If only it could apply.... I know that the leader of the Liberal opposition wouldn't like this in particular, but if only it could be retroactive to the last couple of leadership races that have been held in this province. Wouldn't that be enlightening? Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of legislation can be retroactive, although when we get to committee stage I might ask the hon. Attorney General for a legal opinion on that. Wouldn't it be interesting?

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: He might get it from his officials.

While the disclosure requirements are good, I don't think they go nearly far enough. Let me give you an example. Disclosure is different in many jurisdictions. At the federal level, any contribution of $100 or more in any one year must be disclosed. With this legislation, we're talking about disclosure of $250 or more. But it's not just $250, because if you take a look at this bill, there are official agents that are required for four purposes. Official agents are required for parties, for constituency associations and candidates, and in the case of a leadership race in a party, for contestants as well. Hypothetically -- during a year when there's a leadership race within a party -- it's conceivable that an individual could make four different contributions of $249 and not have to disclose their identity. In other words, you could contribute almost a thousand dollars to a political party by contributing to the party, the candidate and a constituency association, and if it was a year when there was a leadership race, to the contestant for the leadership race; you could contribute $996 and have no disclosure required at all. So I ask: does this disclosure law really go far enough? At the federal level, $100 or more has to be disclosed. Here we're saying that perhaps $250 times four doesn't have to be disclosed. That's pretty broad. You can contribute almost $1,000 to a party of your choice through the four different official agents that are required under the new Election Act and have no disclosure whatsoever. That's kind of interesting. Is it really the kind of disclosure that British Columbians want to see applied in our province? That's one of the aspects that's good -- and I have objections to that one.

[6:00]

But there are other aspects. The leader of the Reform Party referred to the appointment of an independent chief electoral officer. That's a positive move. We all want to see a chief electoral officer who is an independent officer of this House, and I think the principle is that that individual should not be appointed -- simply be a government employee and have suspicions about possible partisanship -- but that that key officer who will be administering this act be an officer of this House.

There's a problem with this section as well, and that's the Election Advisory Committee. Who makes up the Election Advisory Committee that the CEO does not report to per se, but gets direction from, gains some guidance from and gains some consultation from? The Attorney General doesn't like the word "direction," but I wonder about the influence and the relationship between the Election Advisory Committee and the CEO. That's something I want to pursue with the hon. Attorney General when we get to the committee stage. There isn't even a provision in this legislation where the Election Advisory Committee must submit the minutes of its meetings and table them in its annual report that's required under the act. So the Attorney General should know that I have today given notice of an amendment dealing with that particular section that I hope he will agree is non-controversial. It will require the minutes of the Election Advisory Committee, which is there to give guidance to the CEO, to be disclosed on an annual basis when the chief electoral officer submits his annual report to this assembly as an officer of this House. I think that's only reasonable. We go through similar proceedings in the Legislative Assembly Management Committee that governs this assembly, where the minutes must be made public at some point. I think it's only reasonable that on an annual basis, through the annual report that's tabled in this House, we should have a similar process for the Election Advisory Committee, which, after all, is made up of represen-

[ Page 16253 ]

tatives of the parties that are represented in this assembly. If we don't have such public disclosure, I think there will always be suspicion about the kind of influence that that committee can exert on our so-called independent CEO. I think we have to enshrine that and ensure that there is openness there. That's, again, another one of the provisions of the act that I think is good but not perfect. I hope the Attorney General will consider that amendment when we get to that stage.

Thankfully, the new law does not replicate the system of election financing that we have in Ottawa at our federal level today, where we have a system of direct subsidies to political parties. I don't know if the hon. Attorney General considered that or not when he brought forward this act. We have no idea what he considered or who made representation to him. We know that there was no public consultation, so we don't know. But we do know that the Attorney General's federal counterparts benefit tremendously, as do all federal parties, from a system of direct subsidies. Based upon the percentage of the vote they receive during an election, they actually get their expenses repaid.

We have a situation in British Columbia where, in the last federal election.... It's quite interesting. If you look at the statistics, the parties that did extremely poorly, such as the Progressive Conservative Party and, indeed, the New Democratic Party, received millions of dollars back from the taxpayers to cover their costs. I'll give you one example, in the riding of Vancouver Centre in Vancouver, which was represented by the former Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, who was previously a member of this assembly. Even though she lost -- and she lost big, and her party was humiliated -- her riding association turned a profit.

I compliment the hon. Attorney General for not replicating that corrupt system of federal financing-of-elections laws that allows for direct subsidies. We still have the indirect subsidies through the tax system -- and I think that that can be questioned as well, but I won't get into that right now -- but at least we've avoided the direct subsidies, and I think that's good.

There's one other aspect that I might mention that I think is positive and good, which is the recognition of constituency associations. I know that the leader of the Reform Party raised a question about the practicality of that and whether or not it's going to be cumbersome. Indeed, we're now going to have hundreds of constituency associations for the various parties throughout the province who are going to be required, under the regulations of this act, to file annual reports, to submit to audits annually and to have those records made public and to have them open. That is going to be a burden on many small constituency associations throughout the province.

But I think there's a recognition here of the future of British Columbia politics, which is that in the future, politics in our province are going to be constituency-based. All parties are starting to slowly recognize that that is the essential basis of all politics -- that it's back in the constituency. The constituency basis is recognized in this law, and in this bill there's a recognition of constituency associations. I think that's positive, and that it's another element that is good in this bill.

These are some of the provisions that I think are good. I have more to say on the bill. I want to talk after adjournment -- after our supper hour -- about some of the flaws in the bill, and about what I see as bad, questionable or, indeed, ugly. But with those few words, hon. Speaker, I take my seat.

D. Mitchell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:50 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:06 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).

R. Chisholm: My last question to the minister is about Arrow Lakes, which is not in my constituency; it's in the member for Nelson-Creston's. We've been working on a problem that came to light and trying to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to read a portion of a letter that I sent to one of the ministers about B.C. Hydro and the deal that was made back in the fifties and sixties. Then the minister will understand partially what it's all about. I received some more information this morning from the people in Arrow Lakes, which has just come to light and entails her ministry, and maybe she can confirm or deny what has happened with this situation.

"I have recently been made aware of a horrific situation that has been allowed to occur in the West Arrow Lake community. The issue at hand is the obvious mistreatment of the residents of West Arrow Lake by the officials of the B.C. Hydro corporation, who confiscated a substantial amount of land in this area, and elected ministers who were notified of the situation and refused to acknowledge the residents' concern.

"As can be seen and understood from the enclosed documents, the land was expropriated by B.C. Hydro in the 1960s. Family lives and way of life were destroyed because of this action, and 30 years later, with most of the former residents waiting in the area for a decision, it was sold to a wealthy developer at a fraction of the value of the land. Is this the kind of treatment we afford to people who have contributed greatly to the agricultural success of British Columbia? Can these people be compensated for the anguish they have endured over the past 30 years?" During estimates, the question was posed to the minister.

"We are dealing with the sale of some 700 acres of land in 1990 to an individual who not only seemed to acquire the land without public tender or notice but who also was able to persuade B.C. Hydro to provide the bulk of the financing for the deal. This arrangement was never made available to some 70 

[ Page 16254 ]

local residents who had expressed interest in buying the land. For some five years the stink around this arrangement has gotten worse. Now local residents have decided to push for an investigation from your office."

The reason they have chosen me is that I found out about it, and they sent me the information, plus I've talked to the member for Nelson-Creston. This morning I received a fax from this group from Arrow Lakes, the Friends of the West Arrow Park. I'll quote from this letter, and then I will get a copy to the minister if she should so wish:

"We just received your fax describing the debate between you and Glen Clark on June 21, concerning West Arrow Park. First, we would like to express our extreme gratitude for bringing up this issue and covering so many key points while doing so. We are also pleased that neither you nor Corky Evans accepted the response from Hydro, and we sincerely hope that after meeting with the Hydro personnel, you agree with the necessity for a further investigation.

"We have some further information that we would like to pass on to you. In a recent conversation with the regional wildlife biologist for the Nelson area, we were informed that on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, he and other MOE representatives tried to purchase the West Arrow Lake parkland in question. Hydro informed them that the asking price was set at approximately $1.5 million, which was much more than MOE could afford. After the original sale resulted in the turnover of only one of the ten farm units to Janet Spicer, Hydro did not give MOE the opportunity to put a bid in on the remaining land, in spite of what members of Hydro's property services divisions have reported."

Does the minister know of these bids for the Arrow Lake lands, and can she enlighten us as to what exactly happened in that particular scenario so that we can carry on this discussion with B.C. Hydro and Corky Evans?

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, I can't offer any information to assist the member. The matter is between the former landowners and B.C. Hydro. It does not involve the lands branch of my ministry or my ministry. So I suggest that you take up the issue with the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro.

R. Chisholm: It has been taken up with the minister in charge of B.C. Hydro, but I'd like verification as to whether or not MOE bid on this property, as stated in this fax that we just received from the people in Arrow Lake. Or is this fictional paperwork that I'm holding in my hand?

Hon. E. Cull: I can't confirm that; I will have staff look into it and get back to the member.

A. Warnke: I don't have too many questions. This is really to follow up on something that I discussed in the House last year about this time. It regards the elk research project in the Kootenays and the questions I posed to the Minister of Environment at that time. I won't go into that in detail, even though we have a new Minister of Environment, other than just to highlight what I examined last year. It dealt with the capturing and collaring of elk. There was a research project near Windermere and the Canal Flats area that involved capturing and collaring elk. In this process-- and it's been called a study -- there was an attempt to collar eight elk. But two of the bulls broke their necks as a result of the procedure. Since I raised this in the House last year, it has been pointed out by the wildlife branch that wildlife research projects are of sufficient importance to the government that the chance of mortalities must be factored into monitoring these animals, even if -- and these are my words now -- the mortality rate in this case is two out of eight, or 25 percent.

[3:00]

I want to follow up on this. Has the minister really accepted this as a tolerable threshold of mortality for the purpose of studying elk? I would also like to know if the study of elk.... Supposedly the rationale for the study was conservation purposes. What has the ministry learned? What sorts of research results has the ministry received that warrant such a high threshold of mortality?

Hon. E. Cull: Let me start with the second part of the question first: what have we learned from the research we're doing? We have gained much valuable information with respect to our management of elk. We learn about their migration patterns, the population balance and the general health of the herd. This information is critical to the establishment of realistic and sustainable harvesting levels for local and commercial use. With respect to the monitoring project, I am advised that there was an accident about one year ago; accidents occur from time to time. As a result of the events that occurred in the last year, we have tightened up our procedures to reduce the risk of causing any harm to the animals.

A. Warnke: When the minister said that we've gained much valuable information and all the rest of it, would it be fair to say that was she speaking generally or was it the case that she was applying this to the specific situation of the remaining elk that were collared? I mentioned eight elk; two of them were killed as a result of the procedure of putting on radio collars. Was what the minister said gained from the information on the six remaining elk that were collared? What do we know about those remaining elk?

Hon. E. Cull: It's not just a question of the remaining six. Actually, I can't confirm that number, but let's use it, since the member has introduced it into the debate. There are some animals who are collared. We obviously have specific information with respect to those animals. We can make inferences about the rest of the herd that provide useful information, but there has been a history of putting radio collars on elk so that we can obtain this information. The information that we obtain from the six, or whatever the number is, is then added to the database that has been amassed in the past. It will be added to in the future by information about other elk that are radio-collared.

A. Warnke: I would really like to cut to the central point. It so happens that the six remaining elk that were collared for this particular project that I'm talking about.... The reason I asked the minister whether she's gleaned any information is that the information I've received in fact proves the fear that I expressed a year ago. If elk are radio-collared and if certain individuals have the frequency, they can track down those elk very, very easily.

Is the minister aware that a guide -- and residents of the area know who the guide is -- has shot one of these elk and that three others were shot by residents in the area? There's a tremendous suspicion here that some of the fears that were raised a year ago have borne fruit. Further, there's another quite credible account -- although I must admit I'd want to have some concrete confirmation of this -- that of all the remaining elk that were collared in this particular research project, there's not one of them living today. Can the minister comment on that?

[ Page 16255 ]

Hon. E. Cull: My staff can't confirm what the member just said about all the remaining collared elk having been shot. If that's the case, though, it would certainly warrant investigation. In fact, your allegations warrant some investigation. I will ask my staff to follow up with you on whatever details you can give us so that we can investigate this matter more thoroughly.

The Chair: Hon. members, that is a division. We will recess for sufficient time to vote and then return to the chamber.

The committee recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

A. Warnke: We've fortunately had the luxury for the last few minutes to contemplate the answers and the questions. At any rate, I want to assure the minister that I don't want to follow this line of questioning for too long. I think what could be demanded here is that, since the elk in this research project were collared and obviously are monitored -- that was the whole purpose of the program.... The fact is that in the area it's quite obvious that there have been elk shot that were radio-collared. To clear the air on this subject, therefore, I think the minister could easily confirm whether in fact the elk are alive. That would certainly satisfy me, and it would satisfy the residents of the Kootenay area. The people of the Kootenays know that radio-collared elk were shot. Whether they were part of this group is extremely important. Since we, and the residents, know that, I think one way to clarify this situation would be to confirm whether those elk are still alive.

Just to follow up on this a little more, there was, among those involved in the collaring program last year and in this particular exercise where two bulls were killed.... I won't go into this in detail, because I did so last year. One of those individuals, as it turned out, actually received a warning ticket in August 1994 for an offence under the Wildlife Act; it was for the illegal possession of bear genitalia for one of his clients. I'm getting this information from a hearing that was held in Cranbrook concerning one of the people who was involved in the unfortunate killing of two elk last year. They met before the regional manager in charge of the Wildlife Act, and there was this warning ticket, as I mentioned. There was a concern expressed at the conclusion of that meeting. "I am also concerned regarding the person's lack of awareness of the B.C. wildlife regulations. Guide-outfitter clients are not generally familiar with laws in British Columbia, and therefore the guide-outfitter is responsible for the clients having an intimate knowledge of the law," and so on.

Now, the fact that the person in question appeared to be unknowledgable about B.C. regulations governing the possession of bear parts was of concern to the regional manager who wrote up the report. It does beg the question as to what criteria we expect from a guide-outfitter. That's one question.

I have a side question which is entirely up to the minister to follow up on if she so wishes. In the hearing regarding this individual in Cranbrook on January 3 of this year, I noted that the guide-outfitter in question had two legal counsels before him, and yet there was not one legal counsel to represent the ministry's point of view. Perhaps it's something for the minister to follow up on. In such hearings, is it not appropriate for the ministry to put forward legal counsel? If there is some movement toward a quasi-prosecution, the ministry would then have the full weight of legal opinion behind it, rather than just a conservation officer, who in this case had to exclude himself from the meeting, apparently. Acting on behalf of the ministry was a senior conservation officer. There is quite an imbalance when there is a senior conservation officer trying to argue the case for the ministry and two legal counsels defending the guide-outfitter in this kind of hearing.

For anyone who examines this -- and there are people who actually read these documents -- it raises the question of whether the ministry really wanted to follow up on this case and really prosecute. Do they want to take the appropriate steps to do whatever they can to make sure that guide-outfitters do conform to the laws of British Columbia?

But more important in this case is that the ministry has certain criteria upon which licences are extended to guide-outfitters. I'm still quite concerned about the guide-outfitters who have a responsibility to deal on behalf of their clients, who have been warned -- a year ago I raised this -- and yet continue to conduct themselves in a manner that really questions whether they are fit to be guide-outfitters.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:36 p.m.

Hon. E. Cull: As I said just before we went for the division, I don't have all the information here on this matter. I know the member appreciates that, and I will investigate it thoroughly. If he has information that would be useful to my staff during the course of that investigation, I hope he will provide it to us.

A. Warnke: I'll move on to a couple of other topics very, very quickly. The first is wildlife.

It was reported in one newspaper very recently that wildlife kills on British Columbia highways and roads have been expressed as a $30 million problem. What is at stake, I suppose, is the fact that over 30,000 deer are killed every year. I believe this estimate was put forward by the Ministry of Environment wildlife section. In addition to that, 300 to 500 moose and elk are killed annually by motor vehicles. Very quickly, I wonder if the ministry has any response to that. I'll leave it at that one question, and then I'll follow up.

Hon. E. Cull: I've had a number of interesting suggestions, none of which will actually assist in this matter.

Interjection.

Hon. E. Cull: As one of the members just said -- I'm sure this isn't on the record: "Let's go back to the horse and wagon, because horses and wagons didn't kill as many deer, elk and other wildlife."

Obviously it is a problem, and it's not only from automobiles but also from trains. All I can say is that we do try, with the cooperation of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, to mark those areas where animals are frequently on the road, or crossing the road and in some cases where it's possible, feasible and practical, we create some barriers to divert animals away from dangerous areas.

It's really a question of people having to realize that we share this province with a lot of wildlife. As they're careening along the highway, they should be conscious of the fact that there may be animals on the road. They should be paying some attention to that fact and be prepared to stop if it is safe to do so when there are animals on the highway.

[ Page 16256 ]

A. Warnke: I have one last question regarding something that's come up in the last couple of months. I did explore this briefly with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but both of us agreed that it's appropriate to explore this in another venue as well.

One aboriginal band in Washington State announced that they wanted to embark on whaling. Following that announcement, we've also had some interest expressed by other aboriginal groups on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Nuu-chah-nulth, I believe, is but one of a few who have expressed that they would like to renew whaling of some sort on the west coast, especially if the band in Washington State is allowed to capture six whales a year or something like that, or they announce that they will go ahead with that.

As for what takes place in Washington State, whether the state government or the federal government will allow that or not, I simply don't know. But in the case of the west coast, I wonder whether the minister has reflected on the question of whaling on the west coast of Vancouver Island and whether there is any commitment by the minister to make it vividly clear to aboriginal groups that whaling on the west coast is just not on.

Hon. E. Cull: With respect to this particular issue, I made it clear immediately upon hearing that a U.S. band had indicated that it wanted to resume harvesting grey whales, which have just recently been removed from the endangered species list. My reaction was very swift. I said that conservation issues have to be paramount, and that this particular species had just come off the endangered list. We could not support harvesting by anyone. There are no special rights when it comes to conservation.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to get into the debate at last on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. First, I'd like to comment on a couple of things I've heard in the last little while. I feel a bit privileged in that I have some understanding of the issue of collaring and tracking elk. My father-in-law was the senior conservation officer in Invermere for 15 years, so I'm well aware of the issue in the valley. I was a bit disturbed by the member putting accusations, I suppose, in Hansard about a specific guide-outfitter. He may have background information that in fact provides some proof, but I think one should always be cautious about that.

The main issue here is a good one to look at, given the electronics available to average British Columbians today. If these methods provide those who don't respect the resource in the way most British Columbians do with an easier avenue of tracking and illegally poaching animals, then perhaps we should review them.

The other issue I found rather interesting is the one around the killing of animals by vehicles and other wheeled traffic. As the minister is well aware, I live in a rural riding. Every Monday morning when I leave my home at 4:45 a.m. to catch the plane to come here, I have the privilege of viewing wild animals as I drive down the road. The problem is not so much in terms of the highways; the problem is quite often weather-related, particularly in reference to the train issue. In years of heavy snowfall, literally thousands of animals are killed on the rail track between McBride and Prince George. They can't get off the track because of the high snowbanks. Along the highways it's the same problem. I don't know if we're always going to be able to deal with those kinds of elements, although drivers in the rural areas recognize the challenges they face in driving under those conditions. I just wanted to pass on that observation.

[3:45]

There are a couple of key issues that I'd like to talk about. I would like to ask the minister how far along the approval process is for the two initiatives taken by Canfor in the Prince George region. One was a cogeneration facility in Prince George; the other is a medium-density fibreboard plant. The latter is a partnership arrangement between Canfor and Sinclar sawmills. They are looking for ministry permission concerning these initiatives before they can go forward. To qualify that, I'd like to ask the minister if she's aware of where in the process those two initiatives are.

Hon. E. Cull: The ink is probably just drying on the co-gen permit. The other one, for the medium-density fibreboard plant, has just been approved or is very close to the final stages.

L. Fox: I appreciate the expediency with which those projects have been dealt with. They are good-news projects for Prince George not only in their environmental aspects but also in terms of job creation. They are quite far-reaching, because the utilization of fibre will help neighbouring communities as well as Prince George to do away with the beehive burners and so on.

The next question I have is with respect to the disposal of used asbestos. I'm hoping the minister's staff will be able to help here. What process is presently used to dispose of the used asbestos, when tearing down industrial businesses, that is contained within those businesses? What permitting process is needed in order to meet those disposal plans?

Hon. E. Cull: Used asbestos is a special waste and is covered under the special waste regulations of the Waste Management Act. It is a highly controlled substance in many respects. There has to be a manifest for transporting asbestos from one site to another. It can only be taken to a disposal site that is certified and licensed to handle asbestos. There are rules and regulations with respect to virtually all aspects of retrieval, transportation and disposal.

The member may be aware that there was recently an issue raised here in the greater Victoria area, where it appeared that asbestos had been improperly disposed of -- buried on a site. This was under immediate investigation by my staff. I have not yet seen the results of that investigation, but as I said, it's a very controlled situation because of the health hazards related to asbestos.

L. Fox: If a complaint had been given to me recently about the burial of such a product, would the minister and the ministry investigate?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely, and I would be very pleased to do that if the member wants to give us the details. Those types of situations, where asbestos is being buried and there is no control around it, are very dangerous, and we want to investigate. If there have been any violations of the regulations or the law, then we will take action.

L. Fox: Immediately following, I will give the minister the details of this particular circumstance and allow them to do due diligence.

[ Page 16257 ]

Another issue that I've approached almost annually -- I may have missed last year -- hasn't died. It's somewhat ironic, as I listen to the member for Chilliwack talk about floods, that I bring up again the ongoing review of floodplains. Given that the present criterion being utilized is a 200-year level, is there an ongoing assessment of floodplains in the province of British Columbia to see whether or not those standards could be lowered?

Hon. E. Cull: There is a federal-provincial agreement with respect to the mapping of floodplains. I think we just renewed that again for another two or three years -- I'm not certain whether it's two or three -- and we continue to use the 200-year floodplain level for mapping and regulation purposes.

The Ministry of Environment has an active role with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in assisting local governments to develop zoning bylaws and building regulations to ensure that buildings are not built unsafely in floodplains and preferably not built in floodplains at all, but where they have to be built in an area that is subject to flood, that they are built in such a fashion that they minimize the loss of property and life.

L. Fox: I'm well aware of how floodplaining is used. I guess my concern is that there are incidences -- and I give you the Nechako River, for instance -- where the 200-year floodplain doesn't make a lot of sense, given that it's now a controlled river. As the mayor of Vanderhoof for eight years, I argued that it was a constraint to development for the community and that it didn't make a lot of sense, because now it's a controlled river and has been since '52. Notwithstanding that, however, I should point out that in 1976 there was a minor flood in some parts of the community, but it was because of poor judgment in terms of how much water should be released out of the reservoir in the early spring during runoff. That's one area.

The other area I've had some correspondence on -- and the minister or at least your assistants might be aware of this -- was the Black Creek area on the North Island, where individuals are being limited in building on their lots because of the floodplain. So I guess my question is whether there is some consideration given to looking at some specific cases and re-evaluating whether the 200-year level is something which should be continued.

Hon. E. Cull: I have to tell this member that he's probably speaking to the wrong person on this issue, not because I'm not the minister responsible but because I spent 13 years of my professional life dealing with zoning bylaws and floodplain management, and time after time I had arguments with mayors and local government planners about why we had floodplain regulations and why we enforce them.

We just lost $20 million of property -- that was the conservative estimate -- in the Fernie flood. People persist in building in areas that are subject to flood. I have walked some streambeds and some areas next to streambeds with local councils and people who were trying to insist that the areas were safe to build on, and you could see the pattern of where the river, over the years, had swept backwards and forwards across a valley floor.

We have to exercise some caution with respect to floodplain management. There's not only the property damage, which can be severe -- and in many cases the costs of flooding are then borne by the province when people turn to the province for emergency relief if they are wiped out or their home is severely damaged -- but there is also very grave potential for loss of life.

I realize that many individuals who happen to own property that is subject to flooding or some other kind of environmental hazard find it very inconvenient to have to deal with these regulations. I suggest that they would find it much more inconvenient to deal with a major flood or, worse yet, a death of one of their family members because government decided that it was worth the risk and didn't impose those regulations.

So I think you can take from my remarks that I have some very strong feelings with regard to this. Having said all of that, it has always been my experience that local government and the Ministry of Environment attempt to listen and be as flexible as is reasonable. That may not be flexible enough to suit the landowner in all cases.

L. Fox: I don't believe I was specifically dealing with any landowners. I was dealing more from a municipality development constraint. Specifically with the Nechako, there's a good argument that the 200-year floodplain, given that it's now virtually a totally controlled river, doesn't make a lot of sense. The flows are controlled by the openings of the spillway. So I would suggest that that's something which should be given some consideration.

The system isn't flexible enough to deal with one river differently than the others, as I understand it. It's a pretty firm policy that the 200-year floodplain is the level that's going to be enforced, irrespective of which watershed. That's how I understand it. If I'm wrong in that, I would appreciate the minister clarifying it.

Hon. E. Cull: It is the 200-year floodplain, but we should remember that the Nechako isn't isolated. There are other streams that flow into it. The flood I referred to in Fernie, which caused all that damage, was only a 100-year flood.

L. Fox: I'm not going to argue this a long time, but I would invite the minister to come up and look at the tributaries above Vanderhoof in the Nechako, then I'm sure she'd have some comfort. There aren't any major watersheds other than the Nautley, which flows into it. It comes out of Francis Lake but is very constricted in terms of its flows.

Hon. E. Cull: Just to conclude this, I'll advise the member that I cut my teeth on this issue in his area when I was working in the area around Prince George and west as far as Hazelton.

L. Fox: I'll leave it at that. Obviously the minister should be aware of the minor inflow into the Nechako above Vanderhoof.

One other issue comes from Elkford, where this year the ministry, by written order, removed some tires that an individual was using to protect his property from erosion by the Elk River. It's a channel of the river, not the direct flow of the Elk River. Order M237 -- I think that's the order number -- was given to the ministry on May 18 to remove these tires.

The question is what this person can do. He was utilizing tires along the riverbank, which appeared, from my point of 

[ Page 16258 ]

view, to be a reasonable use for them, given that we were talking about recycling tires here earlier. If the minister looked at the banks contained in this clipping, she would be able to see where the erosion factor is quite substantial in terms of this man protecting his property.

First, my question is: why would that order have been given out and on what basis? Secondly, was it the fact that proper permitting was not achieved? What's the background to it?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm just checking my information on this item. It's probably a very good thing that we did force those tires to be removed. Otherwise, given the flooding situation, they would have been all over the place as a result of the conditions that have been in this area in the last little while.

My staff advised me that considerable environmental damage has been done to a spawning and rearing stream, the Elk River, by the work this property owner did in attempting to divert or control the river to protect his property from erosion. He started the work without any permit or approval, and it was discovered while it was in the construction stage. He had been advised on previous occasions that works such as those that he undertook would not be a satisfactory solution and therefore could not be approved. A conservation officer eventually stopped the activity, and various actions have been taken since.

[4:00]

The short answer is that he didn't have a permit, he has caused damage to the stream and we have acted appropriately under the Water Act to ensure that this damage does not recur. Property owners are free to seek permits for construction that will be approved or to seek the advice of the ministry or any other independent advice they want with respect to protection of their property from erosion. They are not free to simply go out and construct whatever they like, regardless of the damage that it might do to a fish-bearing stream.

L. Fox: I'm sure the minister isn't suggesting that the placement of tires along the bank would cause difficulties with the fish habitat. I think there must have been more work being done than that. I was just passed this as I came in here to ask questions on it. If you look at these pictures at least, the first thing I would say is that the siltation that flowed from the washing away of these banks would indeed be every bit as harmful, if not more harmful, to the fish-spawning areas. If the minister has some clarification on that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. E. Cull: When the member first started to talk about this issue, what came up in my mind was sort of a row of tires along the riverbank that might somehow divert water a little bit. Unfortunately, it's considerably more than that.

The landowner put an excavator into the river, partially constructed several berms using the river substrata, and then had large, ten-foot-diameter mining-vehicle tires placed into these berms in order to deflect the water. There's concern not only that damage has been done by the construction, but also that if the tires aren't removed, with the seasonal rise of the river due to runoff and the spring freshet, there will continue to be more damage done. Other debris -- trees, stumps -- which make up the berms could move downstream during periods of high runoff and lodge against the pilings of the Fording River Bridge, which could cause a backing up of the river, which would threaten the bridge. There's a threat to the sewage lagoons and to some of the residential subdivisions in Elkford.

So let me assure you, just from this very short briefing note I have on the subject, that the concerns that were raised about what this property owner had done are significant and required immediate action on the part of Environment staff. It's not simply a matter of stringing a couple of automobile tires along the bank and hoping to save your property. He had done considerable other work.

L. Fox: I appreciate that. The two news clippings I had mention nothing other than the tires.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm shocked.

L. Fox: Not surprised but shocked. I guess the question I would ask the minister is: would it be possible for this individual, through the process, to achieve a permit that would allow him to stabilize his bank? Is that option open to the landowner?

Hon. E. Cull: I can't say exactly what could be approved or whether it would be entirely satisfactory. But yes, there is a process; yes, he can apply for a permit; and yes, my staff would be willing to work with him to see if there is a solution that does not harm the river and that also deals with his erosion issues.

L. Fox: Those were the specific issues I had in Environment. I now turn to the major issue that I've been trying to deal with in Lands, and that is the issue of individuals who have recreational leases wanting to purchase those and being denied that opportunity through what was perceived to be a veto authority by the native community. I had, as the minister is aware, long discussions during the Aboriginal Affairs estimates around this issue. At the end of it, the minister assured me that some resolution would be put forward that would, at the very least, put a realistic time frame to the consultation process.

My first question would be: has there been any discussion between the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and this ministry with respect to those time frames? The minister assured me that he would see that resolved within a 30-day period, and I think it was back in the very latter days of May that we were dealing with him, so we're fast approaching the end of that time period. Perhaps the minister could tell me where those discussions have taken us today.

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I want to say to the member that I was aware of this issue when I was first appointed Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. I was also aware of the concern that had been brought to my attention by a number of different individuals about the time delays. One of the first things that I asked my deputy to do was assure me that regional offices had now put in place targets for referrals. It's a fairly normal process -- one which, as a former mayor, the member would probably be familiar with. There are referrals made by the lands branch to various bodies that might have an interest in disposition of land, and that is generally done within a 30-day time frame. The member may also be aware, again in his capacity as a former mayor, that it is not unusual 

[ Page 16259 ]

that if one of those parties asks for an extension of the time frame because they are unable to do the work they need to do within the 30-day time period, it would be considered an extension given.

My understanding is that the problem arose because there was no end to the process. Consultation with first nations appeared to be an open-ended situation. No one was saying that if we haven't got a response or if there isn't an indication of a response being diligently put together, then you have to call an end to it at some point. Then you have to say that you have tried your best to get the information to consult, but you are now moving on. Ministry staff are now ensuring that they do this, so there are time frames put in place with respect to this.

It all comes back to our responsibilities as a result of the Delgamuukw decision. We do have to consult. We would find ourselves at legal risk, in fact, if we simply chose not to refer these matters to the first nations. The potential outcome of that certainly wouldn't satisfy any property owners or anybody who might have the opportunity to buy their leases, and the uncertainty would be far more frustrating than the situation that occurs right now. We are working through our regional offices, ensuring that there is timely consultation.

We have set a target of 30 days. I can't guarantee that it will always be 30 days, but I can say that I've instructed my staff to make sure there is closure to the process and that it's not simply open-ended. I know that the problems that you and others have brought to my attention have occurred, because during the course of making those lease lots available for purchase by the people who were leasing them, the system started to change. Staff became aware of the consequences of the Delgamuukw decision and of the issues, and in some cases, maybe there was some overreaction as opposed to dealing with this in a straightforward way. My understanding is that we are now making sure that our process is meeting our obligations under Delgamuukw, but it is also a process that has closure and is practical and sensible.

L. Fox: I don't wish to debate the Delgamuukw case or the rationale or the precedent that this government puts on the emphasis on there. I did that in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry estimates, and the minister openly agreed that the legal opinion obtained in that case came out of the Attorney General's office. There was no question in my mind, and I'll say for the record in these estimates, that it was this government's choice to translate what it wanted out of the Delgamuukw case. If it had looked at the McEachern decision, there were some other directions it could have decided upon. How we choose to use these cases is entirely up to the government, and I'm not taking issue with that.

What I am concerned about is that only yesterday I spoke about 150 files I have just out of the Prince George regional office, where individuals are still being told that there's no change in government policy at this time. There is still no definitive time frame known in that region as to how long this consultative process will take. We see in the forest industry that in the granting of tenure to the forest companies, the native bands have 30 days in which to consult, for instance, and then the process moves forward.

I have reviewed only recently a draft policy that came to my desk from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It states very clearly that the native bands don't have veto power, but it did not state any time frame that was desirable, nor did it give any definitive guidance to the land, officers in terms of time frames. We're still waiting for action and for the commitment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to be acted on by the government.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm distressed to hear that, because I've been under the impression, particularly given the questions that I raised a couple of weeks ago, that all of our branch staff had a clear understanding of the government's policy on this. I can tell you that the policy from the ministerial level is very much in keeping with what you're asking for: some understanding of the process, some time limits that are reasonable and some exceptions where they are reasonable, but again, closer to the process. If what you tell me is the case -- and I have no reason to doubt you on this one -- I will undertake to talk to people in the Prince George branch office to make sure they understand that.

L. Fox: If a directive has gone out -- and I would assume that it's gone out in print -- could the minister make a copy of that available to the committee so that we could understand what the instructions and the policies are that these folks are expected to follow? I receive phone calls daily as to what's happening with respect to these issues, and I would appreciate the opportunity to have a look at the policy directive that went out to the regional offices.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not absolutely certain how this directive was conveyed, but again there will have to be a policy directive as part of the lands branch policy which will have to be written down, and I'll make sure the member gets a copy of that.

L. Fox: So I guess it's fair to assume that if it's not the case today, it will be the case tomorrow that there will be some time frame articulated, recognizing that not every application is going to meet that requirement. I suppose if there is a burial ground or something identified that's of interest and they may want to explore it further, that may take longer than 30 days. But the general thrust, as I understand it, will be to have the consultation time frame with the native bands be a 30-day turnaround. That's fine.

[4:15]

I guess I have one question. What I'm hearing from the native bands is that because of the magnitude of consultation that has been placed on them, they are having great difficulty meeting the demand for paper that is being thrust upon them by different agencies in the province. Is the fact that they don't have the ability to physically handle all the consultation a legitimate reason for not meeting a prescribed time frame of 30 days?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, in some cases.

L. Fox: If I'm to expand that thought, I would then suggest that even if there's a time limit in place, if all it takes is a band to say, "Look, I need more time because I have too much paper coming into me," then there really isn't a time frame. Maybe I should ask what the minister would see as a reasonable extension, given that circumstance.

Hon. E. Cull: I haven't got the policy here in front of me, so I don't know what the extension days might be. Let me just 

[ Page 16260 ]

go back to the principles. Generally we would expect applications to be dealt with in 30 days. That would be the norm and not the exception. We expect exceptions for extensions to be granted in the same way we grant them to municipalities when they are asked to review applications. Sometimes they have legitimate concerns and sometimes they're around issues that might take longer to study -- as you say, a burial site. It would be a similar situation with the municipal issue, where there's a matter of importance to them that might take longer. Sometimes there are also workload-related issues, and that would come into place.

While there may be an extension for legitimate reasons, there still has to be closure. You can't have extension, extension, extension going on and on. It's the unknown point, where you don't know when it's going to end, that is particularly frustrating. I will verify that that has in fact been conveyed to staff. Once I have a written copy of the policy in my hands, I'll share it with you.

L. Fox: I'm well aware of how extensions are granted. Given my municipal experience, I would understand that. Usually it's because, in the first quick exploratory look at the issue, they have identified something which may indeed need in-depth study. The request for an extension to do that in-depth study is usually the rationale for it.

What we're talking about here, by the minister's own words, is that an extension would be granted purely on the fact that I could argue overload. I don't even have to look at the request to have an extension granted. That's the concern I have. I have no problems with an extension if there's an identified rationale for it, but I have problems with the fact that they haven't been able to deal with it merely because of the workload. I think that provides opportunity for individuals to misuse what may be a well-intended issue, but it comes right back to the fact that we have still put in place a process that allows veto power. That was my argument initially.

If the minister is saying that it's the intent -- and obviously she and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs must have had some discussion around this -- to bring closure, I guess the question is: within what time frame? In the meantime, what happens to those who are applying to purchase their property? I'll get into some of the impacts in a few moments.

I need a little assurance today that the time frame is going to be reasonable. If we're going to try to do this within a 30-day period, unless it's an extreme exception, it is going to be closure in a 60-day period. If that kind of principle is what we're intending, I can accept that. My constituents want to know what closure means and in what time frame they can expect to achieve that.

Hon. E. Cull: I can recall small villages with limited staff asking for time extensions on applications because they didn't have the staff to review them. I don't think it's simply a case of no one else having those kinds of problems. However, you've alluded to the case where someone might use that to abuse the situation and tie it up indefinitely. I have no tolerance for that kind of behaviour from someone reviewing an application.

There is a responsibility, as part of the responsibilities you get when you're invited into a process of consultation, to treat a matter seriously and to try to respond as quickly as you are able. Obviously we will take legitimate problems into consideration when people ask for extensions, but if there is any indication that someone is simply abusing that as a stalling tactic and they have no intention of ever completing the process, then we will move on and make the decision.

There is no veto here, but there is a responsibility on the government to consult before making a decision. If consultation does not take place in a reasonable time frame, then the government is entirely within its responsibilities, rights and authority to then move on, make a decision and get on with life, and that's what we'll do.

L. Fox: Just prior to leaving this subject, could I ask the minister when I could expect to see a written copy of this policy, which is being issued to all the regional offices? How are they implementing this referral process?

Hon. E. Cull: I believe it's available now. I'll check with staff to see if I can get it to you as soon as possible.

L. Fox: I'll leave that aspect of the issue at this time. I want to address a few others that are front and centre because of the slowdown in the approval process. I'm sure the minister will be happy to know that I'm not going to go through every letter on every transaction, but I want to generalize about some of the major impacts that are happening. The minister is well aware that the current policy is to sell property at the market value at the time of sale, not at the time of the application. In many of these files there's a constant theme. The individuals applied and were given a price for their lots based on a year-old value; then they were told that they would have to pay today's value. It wasn't their fault that they were unable to purchase the land. They were prepared to do it, but couldn't because of this apparent veto power, which came about previously due to a lack of consistent policy.

I won't mention the name of this case, but recently one application was processed that almost went to court. It was processed on the values identified at the time the application was made. I'm hoping this will be a precedent for these other applications and sales of land. Could the minister tell me whether these individuals, who applied and were denied the opportunity to purchase their land because of the interim measures that were brought in by this government, will have the opportunity to purchase it at the price that was agreed to at the time of application?

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the concerns the member has raised. I've been discussing them here with my deputy. The current policy is that the land is sold at the date of sale, not at the date of application. I can understand the concerns the member is raising with respect to increasing prices, particularly for recreational property in his part of the world. I know the prices have been increasing dramatically in the last little while. There are also some concerns, however, on the part of the ministry with respect to making sure that land is sold at fair market value. At this point, what I would be willing to do is review the policy to assure myself that it is fair; I will not make any commitment to change it. The current policy is value at the time of sale, but I'm willing to take a second look at it and confirm whether it should remain the policy.

L. Fox: I will have to go into each file, then, and build a case. To do that would extend these estimates for some time. I 

[ Page 16261 ]

don't think that is good enough. There are 565 recreational properties in the Prince George region. A good share of them are being told that they are going have to pay a 30 percent increase, because the ministry is not able to move their applications forward. That's not the fault of the applicant; that's the fault of government policy.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

Recently you were on the verge of a court case with one of those individuals. The ministry in its wisdom, I think, decided that they didn't have a chance of winning, because this particular individual had a good case. So you dropped the action, and you're moving forward. You talked about Delgamuukw, and that precedent should make good public policy. I have no problem if these individuals failed to act and to take advantage of an opportunity and now want to. They should pay the new price. But many of these folks have been denied by this government's policy, or lack thereof, the right to acquire at a price.... I recall that in one case up to $12,000 more was paid in one year, because this government failed to act. I hope I hear more of a commitment from this minister, or I'm going to have to go through some of those files and point out the particulars.

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I want to point out that the policy is a longstanding one. You say it's our government's policy, and I guess all policies of government become ours by the fact of being government. In fact, we did not bring in the policy of pricing land at the date of sale. The member is saying that the interim measures policy is ours, which I have to agree with, of course. But there are other cases where there are no native issues involved, and where applications have taken a considerable length of time -- years in some cases -- to be resolved one way or another, and that policy has still applied.

However, when the member says that this is not good enough, I'm certain he's not suggesting that I would reverse or change this policy here and now without having an opportunity to review this matter. To do so would be irresponsible. I have said to the member that I am somewhat sympathetic to the issues he's raising. I can imagine being in the situation of the leaseholders and having that sense of frustration as I watch the value of property go up, and feeling that the time delay is not my responsibility, but the responsibility of others.

So I would ask the member to accept what I have offered -- that is, to review the policy and to determine then whether a change is warranted. I simply cannot make a commitment here in estimates to change the policy without having time to go away and do the work. I can commit that I will review it, and the member will be the first to know the results of that review.

[4:30]

L. Fox: I have to ask the minister what time frame she would expect for that review to take place, because immediately upon some kind of resolution of the consultation process and time frame, there are going to be applicants wanting to see their applications move forward. So I don't think there's a lot of time in this. What kind of time frame are we looking at for a review of that policy?

Hon. E. Cull: It would certainly take several weeks for staff to complete the review. Not having given anyone the assignment yet, I'll have to leave it at that. It would probably take three to four weeks. We may even want to have Treasury Board look at it, because it would have a revenue consequence for the province, and they would certainly have an interest in it.

L. Fox: I was prepared to leave it at that until the minister said there is a revenue consequence. Does that suggest that the land inventory and assessed value of that is indeed considered in the revenue projections?

Hon. E. Cull: No, but I can assure the member that Treasury Board takes great interest in the market pricing of Crown land. Speaking as a member of Treasury Board, from time to time we have many creative ideas come before Treasury Board for alternatives to market pricing. I would just want to assure myself that we were not violating any principles that had been established with respect to market pricing for land. Again, I think that is due diligence for the taxpayers' assets in this case.

L. Fox: I'm not quite as confident now as I was prior to the minister mentioning that, because I don't have a lot of faith in this government letting go of a revenue opportunity. However, I'll leave it, and I have faith that the minister and the government in their wisdom will see the logic of my argument. I know hundreds of copies of letters have gone into the ministry through the regional office. I'll hope they see the good common sense that is being asked for.

I just have one further thing I'd like to address. Actually, this whole thing flushed out a number of issues in the approval process, many of which I won't take up the time of the committee for. The other issue that I visited the first year after I was elected was the policy of not selling recreational leases that didn't have a maintained road to them. In many cases individuals get to their leased property by boat, so they do have access. It could be argued that that is quite legitimate. When we see roadblocks in Chase, it means that people had to access their houses by boat instead of car.

However, I'll stay away from there and ask whether there will be any revisiting of that policy as to whether or not it's something that should be maintained, recognizing that it's also been a long standing policy. I believe it changed in about 1986 or 1987. Would it be timely to ask for a review of that policy, given that all these other reviews are taking place as well?

Hon. E. Cull: I think it's fair to say that from time to time we review all of our policies. I guess this particular policy is not actively under review as I'm aware right now.

The Chair: The minister for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: Member, thank you. Thank you for indulging my dreams and fantasies, hon. Chair.

I don't know whether the current Minister of Environment is in her portfolio that we're questioning here today in committee for a good time or a long time; I suspect it's the former, not the latter. I appreciate the chance to ask her a couple of questions, perhaps, just before we get close to wrapping up this estimates review.

I'd like to ask a question about the Cypress Bowl provincial park and the fact that a recent commission has been appointed. In fact, a special commissioner has been appointed: Mr. Bryan Williams, who is a constituent of mine.

[ Page 16262 ]

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I'll direct my questions to the minister, not to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

L. Fox: A minister wannabe.

D. Mitchell: Another minister wannabe.

I'd like to ask the minister why we're at this stage with this process, because it's been a long-running saga. We've had the private operator in this provincial park trying to get a new master plan approved for a period of time. It's been a long-running saga, frustrating to a lot of individuals and an issue that's of concern to many of my constituents. Here we are, a few years after reviews, public meetings and hearings, and we now have a special commissioner appointed. Could the minister just tell us why this action has been taken and how long this process is contemplated? How long will it be before we receive a report from the special commissioner and how long will it be before the government takes a definitive stance on the future status of Cypress Bowl provincial park and the status of the private operator who has been active in that park for a number of years?

Hon. E. Cull: The member is at an advantage in that he probably knows more about the debate around Cypress Bowl provincial park than I do. It's my understanding that it has been a longstanding issue; there has not been agreement between various stakeholders. Despite the fact that there have been studies, committees and, I understand, an ombudsman's report, agreement has not been reached on how to resolve these issues. So we have appointed Bryan Williams to undertake this work with the stakeholders. There's now agreement from the stakeholders on the process, so that's a significant step forward. We will conduct the process with respect to the plan for the park, and his report is due in to me by the end of September of this year.

D. Mitchell: I don't know if the current occupant of this minister's office will still be there in September when Commissioner Williams reports, but whether she is or not, I suppose I'd like to ask the minister a larger question of public policy relating to this, which is the question of private operators operating within provincial parks in British Columbia. I know that's not specifically related to the mandate of Mr. Williams -- at least I don't believe it is -- but can the minister tell us whether the government is reviewing the matter of private operators operating some facilities within provincial parks?

I know Cypress Bowl provincial park is not the only one. We have Manning Park, Mount Seymour Park and a number of other parks throughout the province of British Columbia where private operators have been operating with varying degrees of success, some very successfully. Cypress Bowl provincial park is an area where there's so much use -- it's so close to the lower mainland and the major area of population -- that perhaps the minister might feel that it hasn't been as successful as others; I don't know. But is the government currently reviewing that policy?

Hon. E. Cull: While we, from time to time, review our relationship with individual private operators in parks, we do not currently have a policy review underway on the issue of private operators in provincial parks. The general policy issue is not under review.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, that's useful to know. I think I'll just move on to another constituency-related concern, in Squamish this time.

The ministry has been involved, directly and indirectly, over the last number of years with the Squamish estuary management plan, which the minister may not be familiar with. I simply seek a status report on this; there hasn't been any current information about it in the last number of months. There have been public hearings in Squamish. This relates to some public Crown lands and some B.C. Rail lands. It's a real concern to the community of Squamish, because the whole estuary and the waterfront of the community is affected in terms of its future development.

If the minister can't give me much information on it now, I'd be more than happy if she would commit to get me a status report on the Squamish estuary management plan and where it's going.

Hon. E. Cull: I will do that, because I don't have the exact information right now.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, I appreciate that commitment.

I have just one other area I'd like to canvass with the minister, and it relates to an issue of waste management in the province. Very early in this administration's term of office, the Waste Management Amendment Act, Bill 29 in the 1992 legislative session, was passed. In the debates on that bill, we talked about -- and in fact the statute speaks to the issue -- not only recycling materials more intelligently but expanding our deposit system so that we go beyond recycling beer bottles and beer cans through the liquor store outlets. We spoke to the principle of expanding that to deal with other forms of recyclable products that are clogging our landfills throughout the province and in particular the lower mainland.

Could the minister tell us where we're at on that? It doesn't seem like a lot of progress has been made since the legislation was passed. It doesn't seem like we've really done very much. We passed the statute, and we spoke to these high-and-mighty principles, but if we look at the reviews that have taken place over the last number of years, which have spoken to initiatives for beverage containers and a deposit system for soft drinks and other kinds of recyclable products or containers.... Government has spoken to this, and we've talked about platitudes, but what's preventing us from making progress? That's my question to the minister.

Hon. E. Cull: I have a considerable amount of sympathy for the member's comments on this. There have been a lot of studies done. There have been many debates over the appropriate way to go, and I have to advise the member that more studies need to be done. In fact, I hope that there will be one more study, which I have recently committed to undertaking. It will look at a cost-benefit analysis of some of the proposals that are in front of us.

I spoke to the Recycling Council of B.C. a number of weeks ago. We share some frustration over the amount of work that went into looking at this issue. It's not as simple as we would all like it to be. There are many different kinds of 

[ Page 16263 ]

beverage containers. You have to sort out where to actually stop on the issue. You can logically say: "There's pop and then there are new-age pops like Koala Springs, which are not on the deposit system; then there are non-carbonated beverages, like fruit juice, wine, spirits, milk and Tetra-Packs." You can go on and on and get into a very large array of products. There is a list of various containers to consider in terms of what should be dealt with and what shouldn't be dealt with.

There are two basic proposals and then many variations on those proposals. One is the expansion of the deposit system, and the other is the expansion of the blue box system. Then there's a variation on the blue box system, which involves other materials. There is a larger list of containers known as the CIPSI model. There are a number of different approaches. There's the whole question of how big the coverage should be, which has given us some pause as we worked with the various interest groups from the industry side and the recycling side. The municipalities have a very strong opinion on what they think should be done, and I've read over 100 letters from various mayors and councils on this matter. I'm trying to bring the matter to some kind of closure, and we are embarking on a cost-benefit study.

D. Mitchell: I have some sympathy for the minister's frustration; it is widely felt in this province. It strikes me as somewhat odd, however, that we can't get on with this and move forward. I would like to ask the minister for a time frame. Is she prepared to commit in this committee today to a time frame as to when we are going to make progress? I note that the Waste Management Act was passed by this House three years ago. As the minister says, the municipalities in the province might have some different ideas, but they do want to get on with this, and I refer to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which has taken strong stands on a deposit-refund policy for beverage containers throughout the province.

[4:45]

I have taken a look at other initiatives, including that of the Canadian Soft Drink Association, which in its annual report for 1994 talked about packaging stewardship. This is an industry group that has come forward with some fairly creative and generous proposals. In their report, they talk about the fact that British Columbia isn't exactly in the lead in this regard. The association points out in their annual report that wine and liquor containers are recovered under deposit systems in at least four or five other provinces, not including British Columbia. What's holding us back in British Columbia? Is there someone, some body or some lobby, that is opposing this and preventing us from going forward? I would be very interested in knowing who is putting roadblocks in the way. It seems that there is a willingness among industry groups, municipalities, senior levels of government, environmental groups and others in local communities to move forward with this in order to stop clogging our landfills with waste, but we seem to be held back. The minister says she wants to do a cost-benefit analysis. How long is it going to take, and when are we going to get on with it?

Hon. E. Cull: It's very difficult for me to put a precise time frame on the study, although I have given instructions that it be short and to the point. I might as well say here -- because I've already said it to U.TV a week ago -- that it is my hope that I can bring resolution to this issue during my term as Environment minister. That doesn't give you a particular time frame, because no one but the Premier knows how long I will be the Minister of Environment, but I think what you can take from that is that there is some priority in trying to bring closure to the issue. There appears to be consensus in some areas, but I would suggest to the member that it is not universal. If all parties -- industry, consumers, retailers and municipalities -- were in total agreement on how we should proceed, the government would have a very easy job of it. Unfortunately, it's not that clear cut. There isn't any one group that I can point to and say: "There's the individual that's holding it all up."

There are a number of things, because of the complexity of the subject. For example, we may have agreement to deal with pop-like beverages, but not agreement on how to do it. Or we might have agreement that an expanded deposit system may be advisable in some areas, but not what would be included in that. It is more complicated than just saying: "Well, gee, we've got the soft drink industry, and the municipalities are saying go for it." They probably wouldn't agree on exactly what "it" was if we asked them to sit down and write it out.

D. Mitchell: I have perhaps one further question on this. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not, in her opinion or in the opinion of her ministry, one of the obstacles to making progress on this issue has been the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Is their use of the Burns Bog as a landfill site, from which I'm told the GVRD might earn significant fees on an annual basis -- up to $25 million in revenue -- an obstacle? I've heard that said. I value the minister's comments on this, because if the city of Vancouver is making significant fees from Burns Bog -- and I'm not sure what the life of that landfill site is -- from simply dumping these containers, rather than going through a deposit system or a recycling option to reduce the amount, then that would be an impediment. I'm not sure.

I've heard from other groups that perhaps some business or corporate interests are also opposed to making the progress we need to make on this kind of packaging stewardship. The minister says that no single party or group is an obstacle, but I worry that we're not operating in sync here. There is a role for the provincial government to take some leadership in this if the GVRD is an obstacle or if some municipalities are not in concurrence with each other or if some industry groups or other groups and interested lobbies don't have exactly the same vision. Then I think the role is for the provincial government to move forward.

That's what Bill 29 was all about. We debated it in the House when her predecessor -- two predecessors ago, I guess, as Minister of Environment -- brought forward that legislation. We debated this in detail in the House. The rationale for bringing in the legislative powers in the new Waste Management Act in the province of British Columbia was just that: so that the province could take the initiative and the leadership and get on with this.

The minister doesn't know how long she's going to be minister, but where are the obstacles? Where are the ghosts that are preventing us from making progress?

Hon. E. Cull: I can assure the member that the GVRD is not an obstacle in this matter. I've had conversations with the chair of the regional district in the last couple of weeks, and he 

[ Page 16264 ]

is very committed to seeing us take action on it. On behalf of the regional district, he has expressed his opinion with respect to the route we should go. I'm sure that the member probably has copies of the same letters that I do, indicating broad municipal support for a process to deal with beverage containers.

As I said, we are committed to dealing with this. I share some of the frustrations with respect to how long it's taken, but my hope is that when we have finished this final analysis on the financial implications of the various models, we will then be able to show the leadership that the member is calling on us to show in this matter.

D. Jarvis: I have several items I want to bring up. I assume that a lot of them will be completely foreign to you, since you are new on the job, but your deputy will be quite familiar with all the items.

The first item will be one in my own riding -- and the deputy's riding, and I hope he's still going to be there to vote for me.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sure that he's now a member of my riding.

D. Jarvis: Okay, well I lost a vote there. Damn.

Anyway, I was worried -- well, not worried but I want to inquire -- about Indian Arm, which has been made into a provincial park by the government....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The lesser beings down there applaud that.

There's been considerable problem over the years in the federal government. They did a study of the area and came out with a report on bottom fish that had cancers, lesions and all the rest of it. I wonder if the Environment ministry had given any consideration to doing a further study. Are they considering rectifying that potential problem or the problem that is actually there?

Hon. E. Cull: The study the member is referring to was in Burrard Inlet, not Indian Arm, although obviously they're in close proximity to one another. We are currently engaged with studies with Environment Canada, the federal Department of Fisheries and the Harbour Commission in looking at the status of fish in the harbour, and we'll continue to do those studies.

D. Jarvis: Then I would assume that there's an aim somewhere down the road to clean up that area of Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm, because they flow into each other. I believe the actual study was part of Indian Arm itself.

I have another question with regard to Britannia Beach. They've had a leaching problem from the old mine from years and years ago. There have been quite a few situations arising where they've been trying to sell the property. You wouldn't be familiar with those, and I won't go into detail; the deputy is aware of it. I was wondering if you can tell us.... We understand that there has now been a sale of the property in Britannia Beach. Was the Environment ministry involved in that sale, and has there been any solution to the leaching problem in Britannia Beach?

Hon. E. Cull: I can confirm that there has not been a sale, although I believe there is a party interested in acquiring the site. We are still discussing that matter with the party. If there was a sale, there would be conditions attached to the sale with respect to site remediation.

D. Jarvis: I assume that any sale will be subject to the cleanup of the mess one way or the other, either by the government or by the potential purchaser.

The other item is the Island Copper Mine -- I'm jumping around to the top of Vancouver Island now. That mine is on the verge of closing down, and there have been several groups and/or studies out there in regard to moving the waste from Vancouver and barging it up and dumping it into the mine. I was wondering if the Environment ministry has given any thought to that. Has it come out with any pro or con statements towards using that site as a dump for the next 150 years?

Hon. E. Cull: First, I should say that the policy of the Ministry of Environment is to encourage recycling and the reduction of waste, as opposed to encouraging new landfills to be created around the province. Our priority would be for strategies that reduce waste, not just simply shift them to another site. I've heard a bit about this particular proposal, but I understand that the economics just aren't there to make it work. I suspect that there may be some discussions about it, but I don't believe it's economically viable.

D. Jarvis: As we move down the Island to Mount Washington, there's a great acid seepage problem there. It has been going on for many, many years since that mine was closed. I understand that the Environment ministry is involved to some degree. Have you skied on Mount Washington? If you have, you can see it when you come down that back slope. The previous minister used to sidestep that slope, because it was quite a steep one.

Hon. E. Cull: He didn't want to be on a slippery slope.

D. Jarvis: Yes.

I just wonder if anything further has been done by the Environment ministry in regard to correcting the situation. I also understand that two more creeks seem to be giving off more acid seepage.

Hon. E. Cull: Actually, hon. Chair, I thought the only mining that went on at Mount Washington was of skiers' pockets. I wasn't aware that there was actually an active mine up there at some point.

D. Jarvis: There is no active mine.

Hon. E. Cull: No, that there had been at one point.

We are aware of the problem. We are in the process of developing an action plan for continued remediation of the mine. We're working with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. There are a number of studies underway right now, particularly with respect to collecting water samples on site and at downstream tributaries. All I can say is that the work to put together a plan for dealing with this particular issue is ongoing.

[ Page 16265 ]

D. Jarvis: We're at the Fraser River now. I want to ask the minister about a situation arising in the Mission area near Stave Lake. It's a rock quarry that was given approval by Energy and Mines to go ahead.

I also understand -- I've been informed -- that there was a geotechnical report by Golder Associates. The factors in it were supposedly given to the Ministry of Environment. I assume that before they can get a mine approval, they have to go through Environment with regard to the exploitation of this rock quarry and the fact that there were great effects on the water supply in the area. This quarry is ostensibly now situated in the centre of a residential area, and they're quite concerned as to what is happening to their water. Reports have gone in, studies have gone in and nothing seems to happen, but they're still chipping away at the quarry.

[5:00]

Is the minister aware of this geotechnical report that was put in by Golder Associates? Have they had any inquiries themselves about the environmental problem? Do they wish to do something about it?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of this particular problem. Perhaps I can take note of it and get back to the member.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can refer the minister to a situation that has arisen in New Westminster involving the McPhees. I know that the deputy is aware of this and has been involved. I will relate to the minister a bit of the history of the particular piece of property involved, and there is quite a history.

Back in the latter part of the last century, the New Westminster Gas Co. acquired title to this property and put a coal gasification plant on the property. It was ultimately sold to B.C. Electric in the late 1920s, I think. In 1943, Mrs. McPhee -- the mother of the present property owner -- acquired her first interest, which was at the time a leasehold interest in the property. By the beginning of the 1950s, the McPhees had purchased the property from B.C. Hydro, which had assumed title from B.C. Electric. That's the chronology.

The family operated a door-manufacturing business on the property, and it is now in a part of New Westminster where it could logically be developed for residential purposes. As the saying goes, Mr. McPhee should be very happy and content, because the assessed value of the property would be in excess of $2 million. When it was time to develop and submit all the proposals, however -- and the minister is aware that there would be requirements for environmental assessment and reviews -- it was revealed that the property was contaminated. That has led to all manner of difficulties for the McPhees.

Mr. McPhee, who is 70 years of age, should now be retiring and reaping the benefits of his lifetime of hard work. He wants to allow this land to be sold, subdivided and developed in a way that I am advised is entirely consistent with the area. There's nothing special about the manner in which it would be developed. He is prevented from doing this on the basis that the land has been contaminated, and he is being told he has to clean it up.

Well, someone has to clean it up. There are all sorts of disputes about the level of contamination, and whether it's a minor amount of contamination from the coal gasification plant, suffice it to say that the development can't proceed for residential purposes with the property in its present state. Mr. McPhee's position is that liability for this should attach to the polluter. The polluter would originally have been B.C. Electric, which was bought by B.C. Hydro.

The reason I raise this issue is twofold. First of all, at a very human level -- and I think the deputy will confirm this -- this has been absolutely devastating for this family. Whenever we think of a family holding a $2 million asset, we think: "Well, how devastating can it be? They appear to be well off." Well, that is $2 million that they can't get at. They can't pay the taxes, their home is for sale and they are in a very bad way.

It speaks to another issue which I think it is significant to hear the minister's thoughts on, and that is this concept the minister's predecessor used to tout with great regularity: polluter pay. I think the frustrating part for the McPhees and their daughter, Patsy Hardigan, who is involved, is that they are confronted by a government which on the one hand is saying, "Polluter pay," but on the other hand isn't taking the steps that would be necessary to see that happen.

B.C. Hydro is saying that on the strength of the law as it presently exists, the advice they are receiving from their solicitors is that they are not liable. One cannot quarrel with a corporation pursuing what's in its best interests. Indeed, the present state of the law may well support that position. That would change, of course, if certain provisions of Bill 26 from 1993 were enacted.

So to add to the frustration for the McPhees, not only do they hear the government saying, "Polluter pay," which points to B.C. Hydro assuming responsibility for this, but there's a piece of legislation -- not even proposed legislation but legislation that has been passed by the Legislature but not proclaimed -- which would confirm that and saddle B.C. Hydro, apparently, with responsibility for this.

So my initial question to the minister is: what can she say to Mr. McPhee and Patsy Hardigan in response to their contention that responsibility for the cleanup of this property lies with the polluter and that the polluter should pay. In this case, that's B.C. Hydro. I recognize that the minister comes to this ministry recently, but how does the minister defend the seeming unwillingness of the government to be more proactive in terms of promoting the polluter-pay principle in this case?

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, in this case the polluter no longer exists. It wasn't B.C. Electric that polluted the site; it was the former owner, New Westminster Gas Co., which is now defunct. Therein lies the problem, and therein lies the information that resulted in our legislation. This was probably a legitimate case of a company going out of business, but in some cases it's all too convenient for a polluter to go out of business and then resurface as another company.

However, setting that aside, let's deal with the McPhees. You're correct: this is a very difficult situation for the McPhees, who probably just want to get on with resolving this matter and getting some security in their life. We have been in active negotiations with the McPhees, and I understand that those negotiations are progressing. I can't give you any update; it wouldn't be proper for me, I suppose, to be talking about the details of the negotiations. But we are trying to negotiate a solution with them that will satisfy their concerns as well as the environmental concerns about dealing with the con-

[ Page 16266 ]

tamination on site. I have some information that some decisions have to be made on, but I understand that the negotiations are going reasonably well. Hopefully, they'll be concluded soon, and we can resolve the issue.

M. de Jong: It sounds encouraging. I am loath to probe and perhaps do harm where there is some good emerging. The dilemma that the McPhees were confronted with -- and I will emphasize this for the minister -- is that during the negotiations that took place initially, they were presented, in effect, with an ultimatum from B.C. Hydro. This offered something, but, in the minds of the McPhees, very little in the way of assurance. B.C. Hydro basically said that they would lend them some money. I think $100,000 of it was to be forgiven, so in effect B.C. Hydro was offering $100,000 to assist with the cleanup. The problem for the McPhees, of course, is that they're looking over their shoulders at other sites located in the province where cleanup costs far outweighed the estimates that the property owners were presented with. Of course, B.C. Hydro -- and I'd have to say that if I were advising B.C. Hydro, my advice to them would be consistent with what they're doing -- is saying that we want an absolute release from any additional liability. Why wouldn't they say that? Yet from the perspective of the McPhees, a situation exists that is not of their making.

I think the demands now reflect legitimate and positive changes in societal concerns, and yet B.C. Hydro is saying: "We will offer you something, but we want to be absolutely released from any further liability. You're on your own beyond that." That strikes me, looking at it from the McPhees' point of view, as being eminently unfair. I wonder if the minister is able.... I recognize that she doesn't want to disclose too much about what she says are ongoing negotiations, but without doing that, can she indicate to the committee whether she thinks that is a reasonable approach for B.C. Hydro to be taking?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member just said, I am reluctant to get into the details of what we might be negotiating. All I will say is that I am familiar with the earlier offers. I am familiar with the concerns the McPhees have raised, and we are trying to resolve this in a manner that will address their concerns.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate whether the government is considering underwriting any liability that may extend to the McPhees beyond what B.C. Hydro is willing to cover?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't confirm that, and I can't confirm any details from the negotiations.

M. de Jong: My sense in discussions I've had, meeting with the McPhees and members of their family, was that their frustration was compounded by what they saw as an unwillingness on the part of the minister's predecessor to intervene actively to facilitate negotiations and ensure that they were at least receiving the ear of B.C. Hydro.

Can the minister indicate, in the event that negotiations reach some manner of impasse, that she and her office are available, and would intervene to make known their position and to facilitate the settlement of this matter?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. E. Cull: I assume that for this matter to be concluded, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and I -- or at least our senior staff -- will have had some conversations on this. I think it's fair to say that if there is an impasse, the ear of the ministers can be sought.

M. de Jong: I have one final question on this point. I can only imagine the demands that are placed on the time of a minister of the Crown, yet the McPhees have provided me with evidence of assurances they have received in the past that they would, if all else failed, be afforded an opportunity to present their concerns directly to a representative of the executive council. The minister finds herself in that position, and I'm wondering if she would be prepared to undertake to receive that information from them directly.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm confident that we'll resolve this through negotiation without that having to take place, but certainly if negotiations broke down, I would reserve the right as a minister to hear them out.

M. de Jong: I thank the minister for her willingness to address and involve herself in that. I'll just say in closing that I think the minister appreciates the absolutely devastating impact this has had on these people's lives, and I think the deputy is aware of that as well. If this matter can be settled, so much the better.

[5:15]

I have a couple of questions on more or less a hodge-podge of matters. The minister dealt with the Creston Valley wildlife issue with the member from that area earlier today. As I understand it, there was a withdrawal of federal funding for that program, which has caused the people responsible a great deal of hardship. I understand that the Creston Valley wildlife association received some provincial funding as well. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate what that funding was for the year past and what it is for the year present.

Hon. E. Cull: It was $90,000 last year and $55,000 this year.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate the reasoning behind the provincial cutback? That is certainly an area that falls within the minister's jurisdiction.

Hon. E. Cull: There are some other issues we are exploring right now. Just to go back to what we talked about earlier today, I have committed in the estimates today to ensuring that we do establish financing to take us through to the end of this year. A number of sources are being actively pursued right now, and we will then work with the community to ensure that we have a stable long-term funding source for this very significant wildlife area.

M. de Jong: I think the minister said that the original funding was $90,000. Can the minister indicate the purpose behind that funding? What was it earmarked for? What were the objectives in contributing that amount of money?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the breakdown, but some of it was used for diking and other infrastructure work to manage the marshlands, and another part of it was for an interpretive centre.

[ Page 16267 ]

M. de Jong: The limited information I have suggests that the minister is correct. This is a management area, and that's consistent with the type of work the minister has described. As I listened to the exchange between the minister and the member from the area, it occurred to me that perhaps the minister might be presenting an overly sanctimonious view. The fact is that provincial funding has decreased as well. In both cases, I suspect there is a legitimate argument to be made for why that funding should not have been reduced. No one gets served well by one level of government simply attacking the other, particularly when apparently the province is engaged in a similar reduction. The minister has indicated that she's looking at the possibility of some manner of bridge financing. Can I ask her what we are bridging. Are we bridging the $40,000 that the province has cut? Are we bridging the $200,000 that the federal government has cut? Just what is it we're trying to accomplish here?

Hon. E. Cull: The federal government withdrew all of their money from this area. What we're doing is attempting to put together sufficient funds to maintain the services and the work that's needed in the Creston Valley wildlife area for the rest of this fiscal year.

M. de Jong: Well, I can't ask the federal minister why that funding was eliminated, but I can ask the provincial minister why the budget for this project was cut in half. What were the criteria? What was the operative consideration?

Hon. E. Cull: There are some negotiations going on with B.C. Hydro with respect to their responsibilities and potential contribution to this area. We expect those to be concluded before the end of the fiscal year.

M. de Jong: Is it the ministry's position that B.C. Hydro has responsibility for contributing to the cost of maintaining this area?

Hon. E. Cull: It's possible that there may be a contribution made from Hydro toward maintaining this area.

M. de Jong: Is it the ministry's position that that is a legal obligation, or is the ministry simply seeking a contribution from B.C. Hydro for a worthy cause?

Hon. E. Cull: It's neither. It has to do, generally, with B.C. Hydro's responsibilities in that part of the province.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister whether the Creston Valley wildlife association is a party to those negotiations? Were they made aware that the government's position was that Hydro would be assuming a portion of what was formerly the provincial government's allocation?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, the steering committee is aware that these negotiations are taking place.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can ask the minister when the decision to withhold the funding was made.

Hon. E. Cull: As part of the budget process.

M. de Jong: Was it related in any way to the downstream benefits negotiations that were taking place?

Hon. E. Cull: I haven't got the information on that, unfortunately. I'd have to get back to the member.

M. de Jong: I think the minister might have answered this, but what would be the amount of the bridge financing that the minister is contemplating? If it's $40,000, that represents simply a return to the status quo. Or is the minister contemplating something that would take into account what she said about not simply stepping in to assume the federal responsibility? I'm trying to get a sense of what these people can expect in the way of provincial involvement.

Hon. E. Cull: I think it's fairly clear that the federal government has walked away entirely from funding this area. We have said that we will work with them to negotiate and secure other sources of funding, both in the short term and in the long term. We're continuing to do that. There are a number of options that we're pursuing. I have committed to bridge financing this year to get them through to the end of the fiscal year. We will find a longer-term solution by working beyond that.

M. de Jong: How much will that be?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't know what the budget requirements are, I'm sorry. I'd have to provide that information later.

M. de Jong: Last week, the minister will know, there was a purchase of land in Craig Bay that was the subject of discussion in the House and elsewhere. I'm just wondering whether there was involvement through the lands part of the ministry. I'll tell the minister, just so she knows where I'm coming from, that my understanding is that these negotiations with respect to the purchase of this property took place over a very short period of time. I'd be interested to know what appraisal information was available to the government through the ministry insofar as settling on a purchase price for that land.

Hon. E. Cull: There was an appraisal done in May of this year, and the appraised price was very close to the price that we actually settled on.

M. de Jong: Were any other appraisals done?

Hon. E. Cull: Not that I'm aware of. Certainly the company felt that the land was worth somewhere between $15 million and $30 million. I don't believe that was based on a proper appraisal. There was also a Treasury Board estimate, again not based on a proper appraisal, that had been done when discussions started. To my knowledge, the only appraisal that was done by the lands branch was done in May of this year.

M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister if that was an appraisal conducted by the lands branch or by a contracted firm? Was it conducted specifically with a mind to the purchase that ultimately took place?

Hon. E. Cull: It was done by an independent appraiser, and it was simply asking for the appraised market value of the land. It was done through our normal processes, not in-house but by an independent appraiser.

[ Page 16268 ]

M. de Jong: Is that appraisal available to members of the committee?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't know the answer to that, so I'll take the question on notice and get back to the member.

M. de Jong: As a general question, maybe I can ask the minister whether appraisals of this sort are available to the public?

Hon. E. Cull: I guess that was the question I just answered. I don't know what the policy is with respect to that. As the member has already noted, my tenure in this ministry is short enough for me not to be up on all the administrative details.

M. de Jong: Then the minister is unburdened by previous biases, and she can tell me whether she thinks that they should be available to members of the committee and the public.

Hon. E. Cull: Sorry, I never do that kind of thing without reviewing the matter first.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can turn now to a water quality issue that has recently arisen in the Fraser Valley. It encompasses a number of areas in the regional district -- in Mission, Abbotsford and Chilliwack -- and it relates to the use by certain municipalities of chloramine in the water.

I want to preface my remarks by referring back to a discussion the minister and I had earlier in these debates, when we talked about the GVRD and the decision that the special prosecutor made not to proceed with the prosecution. I think the minister and I agreed that it was not an entirely useful exercise for one level of government to be pursuing another level of government through the courts, and that the only people who benefited by it were the lawyers.

The situation that has developed with respect to the drinking water supply in the central and eastern part of the valley involves the decision that several of those communities made about using chloramine as an additive to their drinking water for purification purposes. It is true to say that they had a choice and that they opted for chloramine. I say that they had a choice and acted, in my view, in good faith insofar as the information they received from the Health ministry suggested that purely from a health point of view, for human consumption that was the best route to go. I think they were probably also swayed by cost issues. I think chlorine and filtration systems in Abbotsford were going to cost in the neighbourhood of $60 million.

The federal government -- the same Minister of Fisheries we were discussing earlier in this debate -- has now indicated to the city of Abbotsford and some of these communities that he is unhappy from an environmental and fisheries-related point of view about the potential deleterious effects that discharges into the Fraser River might have. I think he's going beyond accidental spills. The position, as I understand it from earlier this week, is that the federal ministry is saying that the discharges from the newly constructed sewage treatment plant may contain what he terms unsatisfactory levels of residual chloramine, and he's not content with that situation.

As I understand it, the federal minister is threatening some fairly harsh action in terms of his desire to enforce what he sees as his mandate. This has put these communities in a terrible position. The minister knows that. Who knows who will be next? Maybe Victoria will be next on the federal hit parade.

[5:30]

Does the Ministry of Environment have a policy with respect to the use of chloramine? In answering that question, perhaps the minister would acknowledge -- or refer; she may not want to acknowledge -- the fact that these towns and cities are getting conflicting advice on environmental concerns versus human health concerns.

Hon. E. Cull: First, I have a little to add to the history of this. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did request that the GVRD conduct an environmental impact assessment with respect to the use of chloramine. Unfortunately, in 1992 Dewdney-Alouette Regional District started using it, despite requests from B.C. Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada not to do so until they had the results of the GVRD environmental impact assessment. So they were asked not to proceed, but decided for whatever reason to do so.

I'm not going to comment on what the federal action is. We've already talked about that with respect to the wisdom of fines versus working with communities. What we're doing here with the B.C. Ministry of Environment is reviewing our policy with the Ministry of Health and with other agencies, such as local government and with the federal Departments of Environment and Fisheries. We're going to make sure that we come up with a policy that recommends the appropriate disinfection, given the local situation. We're going to work cooperatively; unfortunately, the federal government seems more interested in fining than in cooperation.

M. de Jong: I should clarify that Dewdney-Alouette Regional District proceeded in 1992 because they were told by Health officials that they had to do something right then -- not next year or the year after. They had to act immediately. The option that was available to them was chloramine. I'm still unclear though.... I say they acted in good faith based on the information that was available to them. They didn't have an option to wait.

Hon. E. Cull: The option they had was to use chlorine or another disinfection; they didn't have to use chloramine.

M. de Jong: I think the minister perhaps inadvertently or conveniently ignores the fact it wasn't simply a case of injecting a little more chlorine into the system. It was a chlorine-based system; it wasn't working.

Hon. E. Cull: My staff does tell me there were other alternatives. They were asked specifically not to use the chloramine because of the environmental impact assessment that was underway. Unfortunately, they chose to proceed in any event. However, as I've said, we are working to try to resolve the issue by reviewing our policies on the matter.

Hon. Chair, while I'm on my feet, I sense that we are getting very close to the end of these estimates; however, I know there are people who want to eat. I think if there's a question of being able to spend a few more minutes now and wrapping this up, then we should do so. But I need to seek some direction from my colleagues on the other side.

[ Page 16269 ]

M. de Jong: My colleague has a question. My sense is that if the minister is prepared to stay until 6 o'clock or thereabouts, we are indeed very close to wrapping up.

The Chair: If I may just interject with some procedural matters here, we do have to break before the main House breaks, because we have to report out. I would suggest 5:50 or 5:55; and hopefully they'll keep going.

J. Tyabji: As the minister and her staff are probably aware, it's been my habit in previous years to spend about 30 hours or so on the Environment estimates. This year, I decided to reserve myself for one question. Actually, I was tempted to come into this House and say: "All those things I've raised in previous years -- well, that."

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear. Well done, Judi.

J. Tyabji: Thank you.

Hon. E. Cull: All the answers that were given -- well, that.

J. Tyabji: Fair enough. I should put on the record that my interest in those issues has not abated at all.

I shall also put on the record that I've been quite pleased with the performance of the Minister of Environment, who right now is sitting on the back bench, but was the predecessor to this minister. If she continues in that vein, I'm sure we will quite happy. With the exception of Clayoquot Sound, I was quite pleased with his record.

Having said that, the one question that I have relates to a property in New Westminster. That property in New Westminster has been contaminated, and B.C. Hydro has had a role to play in it. This would fall under the Waste Management Act.

I have to make my apologies to the minister. I don't have documentation in front of me because of time constraints. This case was only brought to my attention recently. I'm sure the staff are well aware of it. The person who brought it forward to me is Patsy Hardigan and I'm sure her name is quite familiar to those people. I'd like to know the status of that case.

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, we just finished talking about that case before you joined us. First of all, I would encourage you to look at the Blues for the discussion.

To go right to the point of what's happening, we're aware of the concerns around the situation with the McPhees. There are some problems in that the company that was the original polluter no longer exists; it wasn't B.C. Electric. Some think it was actually the New Westminster Gas Co., which is now defunct. However, to make a long story short, we are negotiating with the McPhees, and I'm optimistic we'll find a resolution to the issue that will satisfy all parties.

J. Tyabji: My apologies. Obviously, I couldn't be here for that debate, so I'll look in Hansard for that.

Maybe that gives me the opportunity to ask one question, which I did actually ask in previous years, that is fairly close to me. I don't think it has been raised. It has to do with the depletion of the ozone layer and the effect it has on small children's eyes if they don't have proper eye gear. In previous years -- there have been two previous ministers whom I've raised this with -- I've asked for a movement toward the Ministry of Education, who has the Ecosaurus.... We should introduce a program to educate children through the school system about proper eye protection so that they don't end up having deterioration of the cornea. There is increased evidence that people are not paying adequate attention to this. Everybody knows about putting on sunblock, but a lot of children don't realize that they should have eye protection. Hats, of course, are usually worn because of skin reasons, but eye protection is extremely important. I've raised this every year. I'll bring it up with this minister, and I promise that this will be my last question.

Hon. E. Cull: I was just thinking about how difficult it is to keep sunglasses on small children. If you buy them for them, it is also difficult to make sure that the glasses are not lost within a week. But as a parent, I agree with the member. Actually, when I was Minister of Health I was very interested in this, and I tried at that point to promote educational programs in the schools and on the beaches in the summer in order to raise public awareness about the need to protect yourself from all forms of ultraviolet radiation.

The progress on the publicity over this has not been as quick as I, as Minister of Health or Minister of Environment, would have liked. But now that you've brought it to my attention again, it's an issue that I would really like to put a little pressure on. It's not too late; we still have two months of hot sunshine ahead of us.

J. Tyabji: My last comment is that the government may want to consider a small amendment to the Consumer Protection Act that would prevent easy access to and sale of glasses that actually do the reverse and damage children's eyes. They're the ones that a lot of people will pick up because they're just a couple of bucks, and they're really bad for kids. I see them everywhere.

Fisher-Price makes glasses that kids love because they think they're really cool. They look sort of like Power Rangers, and it's hard to get them off the kids' heads. They are bright orange, so they're hard to lose. I'm just saying that because in terms of what's available, this makes a huge difference in whether the children are protected or actually worse off, as they are with some products on the market.

M. de Jong: On a previous occasion in these debates, a Reform Party member, I believe, briefly mentioned the MMT issue. In a nutshell, I'd like to ask the minister about her ministry's intentions now that Bill C-94 has been withdrawn or is in limbo. I don't think it has been withdrawn, but it certainly remains on the table and wasn't voted on in the last federal session.

The minister responded earlier to that member that there is federal legislation. There is, but it hasn't been voted on. I understand -- and we'll perhaps explore this a little more -- that the federal government is having some second thoughts on the basis of scientific data that has been presented to them. I'd like to know what the minister's position is vis-a-vis that apparent decision to eliminate MMT.

Hon. E. Cull: I have no information that indicates that it will not ultimately be passed by the federal government. 

[ Page 16270 ]

However, they may in fact be reviewing it. We will continue to review the matter at the Ministry of Environment level here in B.C., but the federal legislation will go one way or the other and we will abide by it.

M. de Jong: I think there is an issue in that my recollection is that that draft regulations were prepared. I don't believe that they've been enacted. The question now is if the federal government isn't proceeding, does the province have its own policy on the question of MMT?

I want to point out that I rely on the information; I'm not a scientist. I think nitrous oxide emissions is one of the issues here, and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong. The information that I am provided with indicates that MMT reduces, in a very significant way, nitrous oxide emissions. The elimination of MMT as a fuel additive is going to impact our air quality here. Aside from what the federal government is doing, is the ministry's position in this province today to remove MMTs as a fuel additive, to proceed with the draft regulations?

Hon. E. Cull: If the federal government passes the law, then I suppose that will be the issue. My understanding is that while is reduces knocks, it actually fouls up the catalytic converters and raises the emissions of other pollutants. It's not a straight-cut issue that it is generally better for the environment; it's complicated. If the federal government does not pass the legislation, we'll continue to review it. The regulations you're referring to were brought out before the federal legislation was introduced, and there's no intention to do anything until the federal issue is resolved.

M. de Jong: It's that last comment by the minister, I suppose, that I'm most interested in. The proponents of this fuel additive need to know where to focus their attention. If the minister is saying we are content to await the decision of the federal government, then I think those who believe MMT represents a positive fuel additive can focus their attention to the argument on the federal level.

What will be very disturbing to them is if they are in Ottawa presenting their case, and the provincial government enacts its own regulatory legislation. I think that would be unfair, and I make that submission to the minister.

The other information that I would pass on, which I received recently from people involved in the industry -- and I will confess to the minister that I rely on those industry sources in respect of this matter -- is that the United States is apparently revisiting its earlier decision to ban MMTs on the basis that the data provided by, I believe, the automotive manufacturers' association that MMTs wreak havoc on the onboard warning systems, data systems, was based on faulty methodology, and the results are not conclusive.

The stakes are pretty high. The manufacturers are saying this additive is a problem for them in terms of their onboard computer equipment and onboard diagnostic equipment. From an environmental point of view, on the other hand, the evidence is very conclusive that it reduces nitrous oxide emissions. If the minister is saying that we're going to let this play out at the federal level, so be it. That's good. What I would like is some assurance that the province isn't going to forge ahead in the interim.

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, the scientific evidence is not conclusive with respect to impact on the environment. Secondly, some parts of the industry are encouraging us to deal with this matter because of the impact of fouling up their catalytic converters, their warranty and all the rest of that.

[5:45]

Finally, I can say that for the time being, I'm quite satisfied to leave it in the federal court until they have resolved that they are going to do it at the federal level. I expect that they will review this matter quickly and make a decision. I'm not going to leave it there indefinitely, but for the time being, you can tell the people who want to know where to direct their attention that it's to the federal government right now.

M. de Jong: My last question on this point is that the dilemma we all have, those of us who don't posses a scientific background, is relying on information from conflicting sides of the debate. I am, however, told that the department at UBC is offering to involve the parties -- the manufacturers' association, the petroleum producers' association and government -- in conducting what I presume would be a totally unbiased review. If it comes to that -- and I suppose the question is hypothetical to that extent -- is the minister prepared to consider involvement in that sort of process?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm always willing to consider the involvement of institutions like UBC, but I guess we'd have to wait to see whether such involvement was necessary.

M. de Jong: From fuel to fish, I'd like to address the topic of aquaculture and fish farming. Again, there are two sides to the argument. As I understand it, we're dealing with an industry that employs thousands of British Columbians and has the potential for employing many, many more. It's an industry that, I think, had sales in excess of $160 million last year. Those people who are proponents of fish farming find themselves at loggerheads with the ministry insofar as their attempts to expand and to take advantage of an expanding marketplace. They are told, and have been told for some time now, that the ministry is considering these issues and developing a comprehensive policy. Is that policy ready? Is that policy available? When can these people get a signal from this government as to what its intentions are?

Hon. E. Cull: In April of this year the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Agriculture announced a provincial salmon aquaculture strategy. That strategy included an action plan for salmon aquaculture, a suspension until spring of 1996 on approving applications for new finfish aquaculture and interim decisions on 26 applications for new tenure sites. There were nine approvals at that point.

An important part of the overall project that's underway right now is a review under the Environmental Assessment Act, and that is proceeding.

M. de Jong: The suspension of new licences, which the minister correctly identified as being part of that announcement, causes the proponents of this industry concern insofar as their inability to capitalize on a burgeoning industry. They see the money that's being spent in places like Chile, and they see Canada and British Columbia slipping further down the ladder insofar as production capacity and net sales figures are concerned. All of that would be excusable, I think, if they were presented with sound reasoning as to the government's cautious approach.

[ Page 16271 ]

As I understand it, the issue here relates to their desire to use what are termed "foreign species." Perhaps the minister can explain or give us some indication as to where the ministry sits insofar as the importation of foreign species -- North Atlantic salmon versus our indigenous species. The argument from the fish farmers is: "We're only going to use males, therefore the prospect for interbreeding...." They're going to use only one sex, but I'm not sure which one they are going to use.

Hon. E. Cull: The decision has been made to put this into an environmental assessment process. We can debate the question of whether there are environmental issues, but it's not particularly useful at this point because the process has been announced and is underway, and the environmental assessment review will take place in due course.

The existing licence holders will be able to take advantage of the market. As I said, there were 26 applications in stream, which we dealt with, and now it is new applications that are going to have to go through the environmental review. This industry has had a history of ups and downs, and I think it's appropriate that we finally resolve the environmental concerns through an environmental assessment.

M. de Jong: I think the concern within the industry is that there be some degree of certainty established so that they are able to plan for the future. That is really the sense of the frustration I get when I speak with those who are most intimately acquainted with the industry: "We can't plan. We can't go to our banks. We don't know. With the stroke of a pen we may be out of business." That fear is out there, and I hope the minister will take account of it insofar as her dealings are concerned. These are businessmen; they are farmers in the truest sense. They need to know that they have a secure market, a secure future and a secure ability to acquire capital.

There are a couple of matters that I'd like to canvass quickly with the minister. We spoke earlier in these debates about groundwater. It's trite for me to say this, but the legislation introduced earlier this session.... The Water Protection Act, of course, specifically excluded groundwater for export. In the part of the province I call home, there is a litany of rural dwellings which have been adversely affected. Their occupants don't know that they have a secure groundwater supply, and they don't know about the quality of that supply. I'm going to ask the minister whether she can tell this committee to what extent her ministry is working with the Agriculture minister to ensure that guidelines and farm practices are in place that will preclude further deterioration in the groundwater supply and further leachate that's caused by fertilizers and the like.

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate that the critic can't be in the room at all times during the debate. We did canvass this issue at some length yesterday. The member for Langley came in and asked a number of questions about it. We got into the question of an agricultural code of practices. All of that was answered yesterday in our debate.

M. de Jong: As I sashayed into this subject, I think I was present, hon. Chair. I was intending to press the minister just a bit further. I'll mention one case, a Mrs. Friesen in my riding who feels she's banging her head up against the wall. When she identifies what she perceives to be improper agricultural practices which are having a direct impact on her groundwater supply, she's not overly confident in the ability of the agricultural community to assess and take corrective measures. I think that British Columbians like her are looking for a more proactive approach to be taken by the Environment ministry. I don't know if resources are being devoted within the ministry for the coming year towards the development of a policy. If that is the case, I would like to hear it. I think that's a legitimate question in these debates.

Hon. E. Cull: Again, we did discuss this yesterday. Under the Water Act, there are regulations which apply to agricultural practices. There is an agricultural code of practices and peer review by farmers that allows complaints to be heard and to be resolved.

M. de Jong: I'll just take a moment to organize my thoughts. The question will come out in half the time I'm sure.

With respect to regional operations within the ministry, one of the discussions I've had with Mr. O'Riordan is the added demands that are being placed on those regional offices with respect to the advent of the Forest Practices Code and the Environmental Assessment Act.

One of the concerns I expressed to him.... Here we go with the classic opposition member seemingly wanting it both ways. The minister hears opposition cry for leaner, meaner government. On the other hand, I think one also has to confront the reality of what staff are faced with. Whether I agree with all the legislation or not, the reality is that the ministry is being asked to implement and enforce a whole new legislative framework. I've mentioned two of the most important.

I'd like some assurance or some degree of comfort to be given to the committee by the minister that her staff aren't simply having these obligations thrust upon them -- that there is some legitimate expectation of their ability to carry out the duties. We're going to have a real mess if that isn't the case.

Hon. E. Cull: I can't recall whether the member was here when we were talking about the Forest Practices Code FTEs yesterday, but I did confirm that we have provided 55 additional FTEs on top of a number of new FTEs last year. There's no doubt there are additional responsibilities. We've asked staff to prioritize and redirect their energies. I won't belabour the point the member has said about the opposition trying to have it both ways. I will point out, though, that your leader has called for significant reductions in the provincial public service, and that won't make this task any easier.

M. de Jong: With respect to the regional offices, some of the information I have received from various sources suggests to me that in the formative months we have seen some reductions in the levels of service -- delays in permit processing. I suppose it is a natural result of the same number of people being asked to do other or more tasks. But the theme I started these debates out on was: are we measuring? Are we trying to review whether we're enjoying some success and meeting our objectives? My question to the minister is: in imposing this legislative framework on the regional offices, are we also saying to them that this is what our expectation is, and this is the time line we expect them to follow? Are we saying that this is how long we expect an application to take to make its way through the ministry? Are those indicators and criteria set now, so that a year from now we can go back and determine whether we have met those objectives?

[ Page 16272 ]

Hon. E. Cull: Yes. I'm advised by Mr. O'Riordan that we have in fact got that in place.

L. Stephens: I have just a couple of very quick questions, and perhaps the minister could tell me whether they've been canvassed already. Perhaps they have. Have we canvassed the proposed regulations for clean vehicles and fuels program that the previous minister has talked about? The minister indicates that yes, they have been.

Has the California model of zero emissions and the costs added to new vehicles, and so on, been talked about? Thank you. I will read Hansard to make sure I see those answers.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether she's familiar with the Money's Mushrooms No. 1 composting plant in the area south of Cloverdale toward the Langley border? There is a large odour, and there have been many complaints over many years, but it has been getting very strongly organized opposition in the last few years. It has been becoming quite a problem lately to the lifestyle of most people in that area. It is not a farm operation but a composting chemical process that is used in the growing of mushrooms.

[6:00]

There is some real concern about the air and water quality because of emissions coming off this, and I understand that the GVRD has been doing some work in this area. I am wondering if your ministry is also doing any work to try to meet the concerns of the citizens surrounding this area, as far away as two and three -- maybe even four or five -- miles from the site, who have to live with a very putrid smell throughout most of their days and nights. It permeates their houses and prevents them from using the outdoors. It's a very, very serious problem to our constituents, both in Langley and in Surrey.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm somewhat familiar with this particular issue. I know there have been complaints with respect to the air permit. I believe the permitting matter is with the GVRD. They are responsible for reviewing the permit, issuing the permit or making any other changes.

K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister can't get off that quite that easily. I don't believe the GVRD actually has a permit situation there. They're trying to get them to meet quality standards and make changes in their plant operations.

It would be very useful if your ministry were to also bring its much heavier weight into play to move that along. The people want a change this year. They want their air quality back to something that's livable, the ordinary expectation of any citizen. It also has water quality problems, which I think comes under your ministry as well.

Hon. E. Cull: We are working with the GVRD, so we're doing exactly what the member has requested.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us and tell me on behalf of my citizens and the citizens from Langley, my colleague's riding, just what the ministry is doing in that area? That is what people want to know because they feel that there is no action. They've sent letters to the ministry, to the previous minister, and they've had no action, no response. If there is a response, it's just an acknowledgement that there is no physical change in the situation.

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the member's frustration. Unfortunately, I don't have the information here with me at hand to be able to give the kind of answer I know he needs. What I'll do is commit to get that information back to him as soon as possible.

K. Jones: Thank you very much.

Vote 30 approved.

Vote 31: ministry operations, $211,373,276 -- approved.

Vote 64: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,491,000 -- approved.

D. Schreck: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:04 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada