1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 23
[ Page 16695 ]
The House resumed at 6:40 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 53.
PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading continued)
G. Wilson: A few moments before adjournment I indicated that there is much to be said on this bill, and indeed, there really is a lot that one could say about the historical significance of what has been done here today. Much has been contributed to the debate by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and the Minister of Environment. I don't takeissue, really, with what was said by those individuals, and I'm not going to repeat what they have contributed, but I think that it's important for us to look at Bill 53 and recognize that there are some very significant issues that we need to address on principle.
It's interesting to note that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain talked about the Brundtland commission, the 12 percent figure and how arbitrary that figure may seem to the public. There was some discussion with respect to the Brundtland commission's attempt to create a standard by which governments worldwide could start regulating land use by deciding that 12 percent should be set aside as protected areas and 12 percent should be aside as parkland. The notion that this 12 percent is an arbitrary figure is an issue that I think has received considerable debate. It has received considerable discussion from proponents and from those who are not advocating it, who are opponents of the proposition that we should be setting aside protected areas.
I don't want to get into a long debate over whether 12 percent is adequate or inadequate. If I dig into my own academic background and profession with respect to resource management, 12 percent provincewide doesn't tell you very much if it is not looked at in terms of the protection of ecosystems, adequate resource inventories, the amount of livable space, the amount of watershed protection that would accommodate us, or a lot of other issues that are critical to the overall well-being of not only the economy but more importantly the society of British Columbia.
The question from young David to his mother, the Minister of Environment -- "12 percent of what?" -- is a most enlightened question, and we need to know the answer. David was right to ask that question. What we have to recognize is that in some areas of British Columbia, ecosystems are so fragile, watershed management is so in need of protection and the interrelationships between particular species are so dependent on those regions that 12 percent may indeed be inadequate. In fact, we may look at the size of those areas in terms of the arbitrariness of the set-aside provision of this act, and we might say that there are some areas where 12 percent doesn't cut the mustard, where we can't do it and can't adequately protect those regions. But we have to recognize that there are other areas in which we could well accommodate the provision of protected areas where less than that proportion is measured.
We have to understand that the arbitrary figure of 12 percent is a goal that this government set during the last election. They are now delivering on it, and for that we have to congratulate them. At least they have lived up to what they said they would do, and whether you like it or not, you can't criticize the government for at least accomplishing what they said they would accomplish. But whether or not this will actually ensure that we're going to have value within that protected land for the most necessary protected values that are actually there is another matter entirely.
[6:45]
Let me use a couple of examples of what I'm referring to. One of the areas -- an area that is indeed most beautiful, an area where protection is necessary -- is the Tetrahedron. When the government made the announcement of the Tetrahedron, on the Sunshine Coast, they were careful -- largely, I think and I hope, listening to commentary that I was providing them from within the community -- not to announce a class A park. Because the highest value within the Tetrahedron is the water. It is the protection of a watershed that not only provides for the enhancement of that region and all of the areas within its drainage basin, but is going to be -- at least in the long term -- the only economic source of domestic potable water for the people of the Sunshine Coast.
When we start to see what we can do in a class A park, and we look at the definitions in the existing act, we see that we have now created this jurisdiction that is going to be dedicated to the preservation of its natural environments for the "inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public." Who can argue that, on the surface? Not many would argue that that is poor, if the public have that opportunity to enjoy it.
But we also have to recognize that there are other values in that Tetrahedron area -- namely, water -- that may be required to be acted upon. It may not be too popular with those who have a recreational interest in that region, who use this as their weekend backpacking, camping and, in the wintertime, telemark skiing area -- which they do. It may not be too popular to say that there may come a point where we have to construct waterworks in that area to continue to provide for an expanding population on the Sunshine Coast.
When I raised that in the estimates debate, it is interesting to note that the passionate voice that came from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said: "I for one would hope that we never construct waterworks in that area, that that area will be forever protected in its pristine beauty and that, with the designation of this class now, we close the Tetrahedron area to opportunities for domestic water supply."
When the regional district first moved to put in place the LRMP in that area, and when we made the very original deal with Interfor with respect to this region -- having Interfor build the roads, put in the cabins to open it up for its recreational value -- what was interesting to note was that we had an opportunity to work out together a comprehensive land use plan that would be inclusive, with water as the primary use. When the minister announced this -- Tetrahedron Park is one of the parks on the Sunshine Coast that is included in this act -- it was made clear that domestic water had its highest value.
The question is an important question to be answered. As the minister is monitoring this debate, I hope the minister may answer this question in her closing remarks on second reading. Is it not possible to have protected areas that are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the
[ Page 16696 ]
inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public that are not classified class A parks and therefore do not have the same status within the provisions of the Park Act with respect to what may be done within those park systems? What's likely to be the response -- because we've pursued this in some detail in trying to get some understanding of this issue -- is that we are now going to establish these community-based committees to decide in what way we're going to make these parks accessible and usable for the public.
Those community committees are critical because, of those parks that are announced, a number of them are clearly within my riding. Garden Bay Marine Park is one; Porpoise Bay Park is another one; Smuggler Cove Marine Park is another one. We talk about Desolation Sound and the Hawkins Sound region, Princess Louisa Marine Park and Desolation Sound Marine Park. They're all put in place now. These are all parks within the area that I have the honour to represent in this Legislative Assembly. A community committee is going to be established to determine how these parks are going to be used.
Now, in that region I've just discussed, there is one employee in the Ministry of Parks -- one. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, some of which -- the Tetrahedron -- are extremely accessible to the couple of million people who live in Vancouver. They will come up to recreate and use it for telemark skiing in the wintertime, and for camping, hiking and other kinds of recreational activities in the summertime. That is the single and only main source of water for the entire Sunshine Coast. How is it possible that one parks officer is going to have any opportunity to look after just the Tetrahedron, never mind all the other marine park areas that I've just talked about?
While I think that this is a historic day, and I certainly don't take issue with the fact that we needed to take action to make sure that we have protected, on the basis of ecosystem management and ecosystem protection, those areas that needed to be protected, we have to recognize that there is a consequence to this action. In large measure that consequence requires adequate staffing and adequate operational management dollars going into the maintenance, preservation and long-term use of these facilities. That's a budgetary question that we haven't heard much on from this government.
I know that there was discussion earlier in this debate with respect to the Creston area and the Creston Valley wildlife management area. I've had the singular pleasure of spending time there, having toured there and met with the people who operate and work in that region, and they clearly have legitimate questions about long-term funding. What they have accomplished is outstanding; it's phenomenal, not only from an educational point of view. What they have accomplished in terms of an overall strategy for management of that wetland resource is quite phenomenal. My hat is taken off to them, and my congratulations go out to them, but it can't be done alone, and it can't be done from a locally based financing authority. It can't happen that way.
Where we run the danger here is that throughout this legislation, we proclaim through the enactment of this legislation and the signing of it by the Lieutenant-Governor that all these parks are now in place, and we now have the obligation and duty to sit down and decide how we're going to manage the joint stewardship of these resources. These resources are quite phenomenal. The problem with parks is that when they appear on a map and are marketed all over the world in Beautiful British Columbia, people from all over the world will want to access them. Tourism is a huge resource and a valuable one, but some of those wilderness areas should be protected areas without a great deal of public access.
Some of those areas will have more damage through destination recreational use than if you permitted limited logging. Some of those areas.... And believe me, I've been to many so-called wilderness parks where road access has been put in. They've been marketed by destination resort owners who have brought in touring groups from Germany, Japan and the United States. They have gone in there and developed their little piece of the economy by accessing public parks for destination resort users. What happens is that the very park you're trying to protect in its natural state becomes completely destroyed by recreational users. It's ironic that when you look at what is permitted -- or not permitted -- under the Park Act, all activities currently permitted in those areas are going to continue, except for logging, mining and hydroelectric power production.
I have to say that while it is wonderful that we have these areas set aside, don't think for one second that you've maintained and protected those ecosystems. If this becomes a part of the tourism commercialization of the province of British Columbia, you haven't. Don't think that those areas are going to be protected or managed in the long term simply because you have assigned them that duty. They won't be if you don't put in place an adequate infrastructure to make sure that there's a proper financing base to look after the long-term maintenance and management of those resources. There's a lot more that goes into this than simply saying: "Aren't we good? We've set aside all these parks."
There are two other points that I want to make with respect to this. Having already drawn attention to the fact that we really have to sit down and understand what the inherent ecosystem value is with some of those areas and where we have to protect watershed, let me tell you that of all the things we may do in this Legislature, the protection of British Columbia's water resource is the most important. And it isn't just from logging activity; it's from all kinds of activity -- recreational users can be among the most abusive of our water resources. If we don't protect our watersheds, then all of what we've heard about future generations -- seven generations and beyond -- enjoying these parks is going to amount to nothing. We will have destroyed what we take for granted in this province. We think that somehow we have a limitless amount of water; we do not. It is a limited resource, and one that is extremely susceptible to damage.
Let me go on to the second part, which has to do with the aboriginal issue. The one thing this bill does is take every single park designated in this bill off the table for any negotiations. What the government has done by enacting this.... And you'll note this piece of legislation has one clause that is missing which is found in virtually every other piece of legislation from environmental protection through to forest renewal. Nowhere in this little piece of legislation will you see that this is subject to or without prejudice to a land claim; it isn't there. There is nothing in this legislation that says this land is not subject to, or is without prejudice to, the land claim. Look at what you can't do with a park. One of the things is in section 8 of the Park Act, where it says that no interest in land in a class A or a class C park will be granted, sold, leased, pre-empted or otherwise alienated from this public trust.
[ Page 16697 ]
As the Treaty Commission process proceeds, the government today has taken all of the lands that are included in this bill off the table. They are no longer subject to negotiations unless -- and here's the unless -- there is an opportunity whereby a joint stewardship agreement can be forged, because the one thing that the Park Act says you can do with this land is assign jurisdiction. That assignment, in fact, can allow for administrative use of that land if it is maintained in its classic state. What does that mean? Well, if we come back and see if it's dedicated to the preservation of the natural environment for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public, then clearly, we have to understand whether or not the government will entertain such assignment. That could ultimately affect the jurisdiction over and the value of this resource.
[7:00]
It's interesting that through this process the government has now served notice to first nations people, quite without consultation in most cases -- not in all cases, but in most cases -- that all of this land is no longer on the table. Now, some people would say: "Well, that's great. It's a good move." Other people might say: "Well, that's just a little bit of a double standard, because there are other Crown lands in which there are grazing interests, logging interests and mining interests that aren't exempted." What you've said here is: "We're going to exempt from the aboriginal land claims all of this land that we want to protect for the people of British Columbia. And on this land, you can't log, you can't mine and you can't build hydroelectric power developments." I hope that doesn't include waterworks construction -- dams for the purposes of water supply -- because if it does, we've got a problem right away. But anyway, let's assume that it doesn't. They say here that they are going to set aside all of this, and you can't do any of this activity within these regions. It's exempted from a land claim. We're now going to have the base upon which a land claim can be settled limited by 12 percent. Of course, we can pay cash compensation; cash compensation for this land could be quite easily paid out. It would be interesting to know whether or not that, in fact, is the proposition that is going to be used.
These are areas we have to look at when we pass this bill. In principle, while we say, "Yes, this is a great idea...." I, certainly, for one -- in fact, it's interesting -- fought hard for three of these parks that have now been made parks. Since 1985 I have been actively working to try and get the marine parks.... The Broughton Archipelago, for example -- both myself and my colleague have visited there -- is in my riding. It is an area that has an absolutely unparalleled marine value, and it is being assigned. I think that is a wonderful thing to do for future generations of British Columbians.
But there are overlapping claims in that region. That is a very complex problem with respect to the aboriginal question. We want to know whether or not, in the assignment of these lands and the removal from the table of these lands, the government is telling us something about how it intends to proceed on a cash compensation basis. Or are they telling us that they are going to somehow use the remaining Crown land portions only in terms of the land settlement that may be forthcoming?
I want to finish up my remarks by saying that I think the former Minister of Environment, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, spoke very well and very passionately. I would say, without digressing too far, that I was somewhat angry -- I wouldn't say offended; that's not the word.... Having known the commitment and conviction that the former Minister of Environment, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, made to the process of getting these parks in place.... Whether you happen to agree politically with him or not, he dedicated enormous amounts of time. To suggest that the bitterness that was expressed in the voice of the minister -- as was expressed by the member for Matsqui in a usual rather cheap political attack -- was because he now sees his star falling was, I think, in the spirit of this debate, an unwarranted and very cheap and cowardly attack.
Let me say that I do not agree with the actual dedication size that the area of all these parks.... I think it's wonderful that we've done it; I think there are some areas where there are going to be conflicts. In committee stage, maybe we can pick a few and go through them and talk about them. But I think that the general process of assignment of these parks is something that will be a legacy for British Columbians. For that we have to be quite proud, as legislators, but more particularly give some credit to this government for doing some things right. Clearly, you can't be taken seriously for criticizing the government if you don't acknowledge when they do something right. Otherwise, you just become a blend of naysaying that really has no meaning.
The third leg of the stool, as was mentioned by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the former Minister of Environment, was this notion of forestry. The war of the woods, if we can talk about that -- and this is partly what this bill is assisting in trying to get around -- was largely a valley-by-valley conflict. That's almost become a cliche, necessitated by those who had a passionate belief that we should be setting aside land and establishing parks, and by those whose livelihood depends upon the ability to actively log.
The difficulty is that when you try to take a blanket approach to those solutions -- notwithstanding CORE and its limited success in some areas, its greater success in others and its complete failure in some regions -- and suggest that by arbitrarily setting down figures, be they 12 percent or greater or less, in fact in most cases 13 percent, we're going to alienate lands without recognizing that in that process what we are doing is creating an economic effect on people whose livelihoods may be taken up with the practice of logging or mining. If we do that, then I think we have to recognize that there is an absolute need, and an urgent need, to define a working forest in the province of British Columbia. We can't be setting aside with this act without recognizing that we must at the same time be establishing a working forest within which there will be guaranteed access, guaranteed fibre supply, and an opportunity for those whose livelihoods are dependent on the industry to have some kind of long-term guarantees that they will be able to access that resource without harassment.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
Yes, I think this is a great act. But Forest Renewal B.C., and the dollars that have gone into that for the most part to date, have only gone into watershed management and restoration. That's great; I don't say that's wrong. I think it's wonderful. In fact, I'm proud that Powell River-Sunshine Coast tops the list provincially in the numbers of dollars that have gone into that process, and I'm very proud that that has occurred.
[ Page 16698 ]
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member says that's proof that it's non-partisan. I would say that's true and that's good. But we need to know whether or not the next round is actually going to do something to establish this working forest in a meaningful way, to keep long-term employment. Yes, it's critically important to go to watershed management and restoration first, but when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin stood up and talked about this third leg, to date we haven't really seen the heart and soul of the forest industry rejuvenated, given a good shock to get it back pumping -- and pumping strongly. We have to recognize that the Forest Practices Code, which was in combination with that, once again puts in place the kind of restrictive elements that may make that revitalization and regeneration of the heart and soul of our economy, the forest industry, take that much longer.
Let me conclude by saying that we supported this proposition in the beginning, and we continue to support it. I've been extremely critical of the Brundtland commission report and the arbitrary 12 percent. The member for Okanagan West is quite correct when he says that it is not contained in the report -- it is not. We heard, despite the information here, that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain was headed north to go and look at yet more protected areas, which he intends to do. We certainly adopt, accept or otherwise support the notion that we must have a protected-areas strategy that is workable, but it has to be done hand-in-glove with a designated working forest that is going to maintain the economic viability of the small communities in the province that depend on it. We haven't seen that yet. We have not seen that commitment to make that come about. Notwithstanding the Forest Renewal dollars, we simply haven't seen those dollars actually having an effect.
In my closing comment, I'll say I was a little bit shocked to hear the comments from the member for Matsqui, and I really think we've got to cut this out. It is absolutely incredible to hear from the member for Matsqui what the Liberal policy is on this bill today, having heard what it was in 1993 and 1994. You can't be all things to all people. It's time that all of us as politicians stand on what we believe to be true -- and make it one thing.
It's kind of like the set of principles the Liberals' policy has. They stand, and I hear their leader say: "These are my principles -- and if you don't like these, well, then I've got this set of principles we can talk about. Let's negotiate." I think it's time that we stand only on the set of principles that we intend to take to the people of British Columbia, and not come forward and try to be all things to all people when the wind's blowing that way.
J. Weisgerber: The introduction of a bill that creates a huge new park area and a whole host of new parks is a rare opportunity. Not many times in the life of a legislator do you have an opportunity to participate in the discussion of legislation that creates an incredible number of parks. All of us have to feel good about creating parks. It's one of those things that would be very difficult somehow to feel is something wrong or inappropriate. It's a naturally pleasant thing to be involved in.
Having made the decision to establish parks, the question then is how one decides on the specifics. What values do you use to create, to identify and to protect them? What measure do you use to consider the competing values in each of those areas? I don't think there is an area outlined in this bill where there aren't competing interests of one kind or another for the resources, be they mineral resources, forest resources, tourism resources, water resources, agriculture opportunities or wildlife values. There is a host of interests, some of them competing interests and some of them complementary, but it is a challenge to go out and establish the right decision in the right geographic area.
One has to wonder: when it took British Columbians decades to identify the first approximately three million hectares in parklands, with the thought, deliberation, discussion and community involvement that went into those decisions, were the same care and discussion and the kinds of tests taken in the establishment of the next 4.3 million hectares of parkland we have in front of us today by way of legislation? I'm not sure that it wasn't but nor when I start to look at the specifics am I convinced that indeed it was.
We see a commitment here, a commitment to maintain 7.3 million hectares in parks and a commitment to move on to ten million. One has to ask: why ten million? I was advised that it's because that's 12 percent. That 12 percent has taken a rather magic aura about it. Somehow if you take 12 percent, you're right, but if you take 9 percent, you're wrong? I don't know. In this province, with the resources, the quality of life and the values we have, it's incredible that we had to go to Europe, not even across Canada, to choose the magic number, 12 percent. We allowed ourselves to be influenced from outside British Columbia.
I see the members on the opposition benches shaking their heads. When they speak, I expect that they will enlighten us on how the 12 percent was arrived at, on what process was developed in establishing the 12 percent. I suggest to you that there was no process. On the mistaken belief that the Brundtland report called for a 12 percent commitment to parklands, this government simply and blindly decided that 12 percent was what certain elements within the community were demanding and that it would be foolhardy to resist them -- to say instead: "Look, what we're going to do is evaluate in a very clinical and analytical way each and every bit of British Columbia, particularly the wild areas, the open areas near urban centres, and it is on that basis that we're going to make the decision to allocate parklands." It may turn out to be 8 percent; it may turn out to be 12 percent; it may be much more than that in some areas, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggested.
[7:15]
I would be more comfortable had that kind of process been used in the identification and the decision to allocate parks. Instead, I fear that it's pressure groups, groups that have recognized that there's a magic in the 12 percent, if you use it right. First of all, you say to politicians, particularly politicians who cater to certain special interest groups: "You've got to have 12 percent across the province." Then you say: "That's not good enough. You've got to have 12 percent of representative ecological areas." And then you go and say: "No, but you haven't got the message. You need to have 12 percent of each representative micro-environmental area: the Kiskatinaw plateau needs to have 12 percent protected, and the Murray River valley needs to have 12 percent protected."
If they're talking about an area in my own constituency, I think a much larger area or percentage in the Murray valley
[ Page 16699 ]
should be protected. With all due respect to the Kiskatinaw plateau, which is in my constituency as well -- whatever it is -- I suspect that a few hectares would be a very nice representative area for the Kiskatinaw plateau. For the odd tourist who might have travelled far to see what the Kiskatinaw plateau looks like, you could show it to them and say: "There it is." I don't think you would want to drop them off. You would want to wait for them, because they'd be back at your vehicle very quickly saying: "Let's get on and have a look at something else."
So in some cases, we're being made mugs by people who simply manipulate those figures. I have the uncomfortable feeling when I see in this bill even the magic ten million hectares that somehow the right number for the year 2000 is ten million hectares or 12 percent. I believe it's driven by special interest groups, and I believe it's an arbitrary figure developed outside British Columbia. So I'm concerned about some of these decisions.
I wonder how accessible these seven million hectares of parklands will be to British Columbians. What opportunity will we and our children and grandchildren and future generations of British Columbians have to enjoy and admire these park areas? When we've looked at these hundreds of parks, have we considered the needs of the people in the various regions of British Columbia? Have we considered the needs for recreational and parkland areas? Have we considered the weekend recreational needs of the people who live in the communities in the regions where these parks are established? I'm not sure that we always do.
The former Minister of Environment and Parks, who spoke so passionately before the break about his commitment to parks, the need to preserve the lands and how proud he was of this process, only two years ago closed a little half-acre park a few miles from Dawson Creek that people stopped and camped at. He said: "We don't have the money. We can't afford to have someone come and clean up the picnic tables and take away the trash. We're going to close that park down." That little park is called Sudeten Park and was created by the efforts of the German Sudeten community who immigrated before World War II while their country was being overrun. They came and helped build the park. They helped build the tables and campsites that were there. This government, which can commit ten million hectares of land, couldn't keep open a half-acre park for the benefit of the people who had developed it and who used it regularly. It was only because those folks didn't take no for an answer and protested -- I went out and met with them twice at the park -- that there was a grudging extension, a deferment of the closure.
That's not unique. In the northeast part of the province, up the Alaska Highway, the government is closing parks and decommissioning them -- parks that are used by tourists who travel to Alaska. Those parks keep tourist dollars in a region of the province that needs economic activity. But we're told: "No, we can't afford it. We don't have enough money to keep these one-acre, ten-acre and hundred-acre parks open." We've got millions of dollars to buy land at Craig Bay. We've got millions of dollars to buy parklands around the province. We apparently are willing to alienate large areas of the province without much consideration for the economic impact of that decision. I am concerned with some of the decisions. As warm as I feel and, I think, most of us feel about the fact that we've established new parks that will be there in perpetuity and that -- gosh! -- we will have made our mark because we were members of this Legislature and part of the government that made these decisions to set these parks aside....
Among other things over the last little while, I picked up a document that came from the Finance ministry, the same ministry that is overseen by the current Minister of Environment. It's entitled "Capitalizing Physical Assets: Better Accounting for Taxpayers' Money -- A Discussion Paper" and it's from the office of the comptroller general in the Ministry of Finance. It talks about evaluating various proposals -- among them, parks. I'd like to quote just three or four sentences. Under the heading "Parks," it says: "When the province creates a park, it incurs costs by discarding alternative courses of action such as logging or mining." That's pretty obvious. It goes on to say: "These costs are known as opportunity costs -- the costs of not using the resource. The cost measurement is made by determining the benefits or revenues which are given up by not using the resource." Again, pretty straightforward. It goes on to say: "For example, many of the province's parks contain valuable timber and mineral resources, and if the government were to allow logging or mining in these parks, the opportunity costs from lost tourism might be very high." Indeed, there's a balance in each of these decisions. There are lost opportunity costs from tourism and recreation on one hand -- simply the value of protecting wildlife habitat -- and, on the other hand, it is balanced by the loss of opportunity in areas such as mining, forestry or hydro development.
Thinking about this almost inevitably leads one to the considerations around the Tatshenshini. One has to consider, if one gives any credence at all to the claims of the mining industry and the Mining Association, that there is some $2 billion worth of lost opportunity in the Tatshenshini in a very concentrated area in mining alone. One has to wonder: did the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment apply these tests to that particular park? Did they value the mineral resources? What incredible wildlife values and tourism values there must have been if the kind of test that the comptroller general has spelled out was applied and, in the face of that test, the government decided to go ahead in any event.
I, like the former Minister of Environment, had an opportunity to visit the Tatshenshini. I had an opportunity to go to Windy Craggy; I had an opportunity to tour the area that is now identified as park area; I had an opportunity to see the grizzly habitat. Some of it was stunning. Some of the country was truly marvellous. The Tatshenshini River is, in itself, something that it's a privilege to behold. I know that there are some real values there. Indeed, I think there are probably some compelling arguments to be made for preservation in that area.
But one wonders what kind of test was made to decide that. This was such a one-sided decision: that the entire region would simply be taken off the shelf as far as the mining industry goes, as far as the economy of British Columbia goes, and voided as a potential area. We all know that the mining industry was furious with the decision, because it saw it as an arbitrary one. They didn't see any analysis; they didn't see any balance. Indeed, one of their members was in the midst of a mine review process that had been going on for six or seven years, and boom! -- there was an arbitrary decision made.
[ Page 16700 ]
I don't think the kind of analysis that was spelled out by the comptroller general was followed, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to talk about that particular situation and examine in more detail the decisions made there.
I am equally convinced that many, many of the parks outlined in this bill are appropriate to be protected -- should be protected -- and that probably the right decision was made. But I think we are faced with a rather overwhelming number of decisions in front of us, with very little rationale. The preamble -- the area other than the description in this bill -- is only about three pages long. The area that outlines what the bill is all about is minuscule, but we have pages and pages and pages of legal description that spells out the boundaries for parks.
Finally, I've got to wonder about the effect of these decisions on land claims negotiations. The bill, although it has been analyzed by members who have spoken before.... Some believe, in fact, that it takes these lands out of the discussion areas as far as the settlement of claims is concerned. The bill is silent; the bill doesn't say anything. The bill says we are going to take four million-plus hectares of land and put them under park designation. It doesn't even acknowledge the fact that these areas may well be, and most likely are, the subject of claims under the Treaty Commission process. There is no indication in this bill on how land claims settlements will affect these decisions, or, conversely, how these decisions will affect land claims negotiations.
We are led to believe by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who I'm happy to see in the House, that he is going to commit something in the neighbourhood of 5 percent of British Columbia's land mass -- I think he said no more that 5 percent -- to the resolution of claims. If we've just taken up to ten million hectares out of the area available, then we have to ask ourselves where indeed the land for settlement will come from.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The member for Nelson-Creston says: "Vancouver." I suppose he envisions a highrise deal, where you just pile slab of cement onto slab of cement, multiply the square yardage and decide then that you have hit the 5 percent. A unique solution indeed.
[7:30]
More realistically, if the effect of these park creations is to take these ten million hectares of land away from the land claims process, think, then, about the pressure that this puts not only on the working forest but also on the working resource base of British Columbia. Some 5 percent of British Columbia is inhabited, titled land; another 12 percent is going to be parkland. When I was last involved, somewhere around 23 percent of British Columbia had been identified as the working forest. If, as I suspect, most of these new parklands are in areas that have also previously been identified as working forests, and if the lands that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs intends to use as part of his settlement coinage, as his credits in resolving land claims.... One has to wonder where the resource communities, where the working men and women in rural British Columbia, are going to look for a continuing resource base, a continuing economic base.
Again, let me say that it's very, very nice to be here talking about the creation of these parks, but one wonders what kind of analysis went into the decision. It might be nice.... We would probably feel twice as nice if we had twice as many acres. If we came forward.... Maybe the next government, with a desire to outdo the current government, would bring in twice as many parks. Would anyone stand and criticize? Would anyone question the decision?
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The member for Nelson-Creston indicates he would. But we haven't heard anything from him this round. So one wonders where he draws the line, where he makes his decisions, where he sets his values.
I'm content that this bill outlines a number of parks, a lot of parks, that represent the right decision. I'm equally convinced that there are parklands designated here for which very little consideration has been given to the values and the need to balance the values. I want to come back again to the Tatshenshini, because I know that that decision was made so quickly, and I know it was made as a result of a number of external forces that motivated the government to move quickly. Indeed, it may well have been motivated by the need of the Premier to go to Washington, D.C., and have a laying on of hands by the Vice-President, and get an award. One wonders what kinds of motivations moved the government to act so quickly and with so little study in alienating almost a million hectares of land. That's a very, very important decision, a critical decision. You can't afford to make very many million-hectare decisions, even in a province as vast and as rich as British Columbia. You get to make only a few of those, and I believe that there was, for want of a better word, indecent haste in that particular decision.
Having said that, we're going to look forward not to going through this bill exhaustively, examining it border by border, because if there ever was a lifelong project for someone, that would be it. There are certainly a couple of key areas where I hope that we will have an opportunity to ask some very specific questions in committee state and, more importantly, to receive some specific answers about the decisions that were taken.
With that, I know there are others who would like to speak. I see some looking particularly eager, and so I thank you for this opportunity.
C. Evans: It's with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill 53, the Park Amendment Act, 1995, since Bill 53 amends the Park Act to create 106 new parks and raises the amount of land in protected areas in British Columbia from somewhere around 3.5 million hectares to approximately seven million hectares.
I don't get up here very often anymore. Members present will notice that I probably haven't stood in this House and spoken for six weeks or more. It seems to me that on the legislation we've had before us, there have been able speakers, and it hasn't been necessary for me to lend my voice to the debate. I rise on this bill, because as everybody here knows, the issues that generated this legislation are alive and well in my constituency on a day-to-day basis, and it has ever been so. Consequently, I want to talk a bit in a subjective way about my observation of the history of how this truly monumental act came to pass.
I was in Creston at a regional convention of my political party in about 1988. As previous speakers have pointed out,
[ Page 16701 ]
the 12 percent number had been talked about in my experience only in international circles and in the literature following Gro Brundtland's United Nations commission, in which she and her co-workers on that project recommended that 12 percent of land around the world ought to be protected from industrial growth. At the convention in Creston, my political party had members of the IWA there, independent loggers such as I was at the time, and quite fervent spokespeople for preservation, such as Colleen McCrory. The preservation-minded delegates to the convention proposed a motion, which I had never heard of before elsewhere in British Columbia, that we protect 12 percent of the land against industrial use. It caused quite a stir at the convention and resulted in several hours of negotiations. Finally, it was voted for -- not unanimously, but at least the great majority of people were in favour of it after the motion was amended to ensure that communities and local people working in the woods would be part of the decision-making process that came up with the 12 percent.
After that, the motion went to regional New Democratic conventions that year and the following year all around the province. Having started in Nelson-Creston and proceeded to the lower mainland and up to the north, it went to the general convention of our party the following year. The rest, as they say, is pretty much history. At the general convention of the NDP before the election, the party agreed to a 12 percent target.
The way that politics works is that the political party that desires to become the government passes a motion and that becomes policy. I'm aware that there is one political party here that doesn't have policy. But for the rest of us, we first pass motions and establish policy, and then that leads to a platform, the next step in the evolution of a political movement. You take the platform to the electorate and if you win, you get a mandate. So we went from Creston to Vancouver, from an idea to a policy, and then to an election. We won the election and achieved the mandate, and then we came to work in this room.
I didn't know if there was the slightest possibility of making this thing work. Sometimes political parties go out and run for office, and we say things that we dream about. We may have passed motions and they may exist in policy, but I bet you that every single person working here has gone out and said to people that they aim for targets which, in their hearts, they didn't know if they could achieve. Such was the case, I think, for this particular bit of the New Democratic Party platform in the election of 1991. How in the world would you on the ground actually achieve 12 percent of the land being removed from industrial use?
The second time we had a throne speech in this room was a day I'll never forget. I now work about halfway down this row, but on that day I worked right next to the door. My seat was right there next to the stained-glass windows. It was a remarkable experience. Members will remember that that was originally thought to be the last throne speech of the Lieutenant-Governor of the time. They will remember that instead of coming in military dress, he came for the first time in civilian clothes as an expression of the need for peace. He came and attempted to read a throne speech that actually talked about peace on the ground and peace in the world, and about resolving land use conflicts. While the Lieutenant Governor was delivering that throne speech, there was a noise in this building which I at first didn't understand: a loud thud as if something was caving in down in the basement. It got louder and louder and louder and louder, until it became impossible to work in this room and to listen to the Lieutenant-Governor -- you couldn't hear him.
Interjections.
C. Evans: There are people now making light of the occasion. But at the time, I don't mind admitting that I was afraid. I didn't understand what was going on. It became clear that whatever was happening here was not only out of the ordinary but was to some extent dangerous. The noise in the hall went from the booming of drums to the yelling of people; then the glass on the door began to break, and I saw fists coming through the door and literally landing on my desk and shirt. The gentlemen who work here as commissionaires were holding the door shut, and there was a mob on the other side of the door.
I want to back up a bit and talk about what they were doing here. I am an elected person, and like all of you I've held elected office before. I'm used to situations where people come in anger to say that they object to a decision the government has made. One of the strange things about the invasion of this building on that day was that the government had made no decision. That demonstration was not against a decision of cabinet in regard to the Clayoquot Sound area; it was a demonstration against the right of government to govern. The press was telling the province that cabinet was about to make a decision. The people who came into this building came here to say: "Getting elected in this province no longer gives you the power to govern." They were saying that they should be allowed to govern without going through the process of policy to platform to mandate to government.
It took many hours of peaceful action by the Victoria police and the commissionaires to clear this building, and then we returned to work. Many of us, I think, were shaken by that experience. Among the people who were shaken were some of the people in the mob. A little while later, you will remember, we all received letters from a handful of those young people. They said that they were somewhat ashamed of having been part of that group. They invited every one of us to go out on the lawn and meet with a group of young people who had participated in that event; they had decided to initiate a non-violent movement to put forward their point of view. That member went, the Minister of Women's Equality went, the member from the Alliance went, and I went. I think there were four of us.
[7:45]
That day I met a young woman, an organizer of that event, who said to me and some other MLAs: "We young people want back into the decision-making process, and we don't want to do it by storming the doors." I invited them to come and sit in the gallery, leaving their packs, knapsacks and camera bags outside. The member who is now the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was then the Minister of Environment, and he was doing his estimates. They went, they sat and they watched democracy function.
Following that event, the young woman who had organized the demonstration started to think that perhaps democracy was a way in which government provided an opportunity for her to participate. She went to Stephen Owen, acknowledged her role in the initial demonstration and asked
[ Page 16702 ]
him if she and her friends could participate in Vancouver Island CORE. Stephen Owen turned her down and said: "Nobody who doesn't represent a constituency gets to sit at this table. You can't sit here simply because you're interested. If you want to sit here and participate, you have to go to the rest of Vancouver Island, out of Victoria, up to Port Alberni and Nanaimo and Woss, and find a constituency of young people. If they invite you to be their spokesperson, you can sit at this table." Over the next few weeks precisely that happened, and an organization of young people was developed on Vancouver Island, including those communities that are resource-dependent.
The young woman began to sit at the CORE table, and about two months later I asked Stephen Owen: "So how is it going for those kids who started out demonstrating and are now part of the conversation?" Mr. Owen said: "You know, it's the most marvellous thing. Once those young people came to the table, the grownups had to stop being rude, because they were embarrassed to behave that way in front of a group of people half their age. The entire process has been improved by their presence."
The next thing that happened was that the Vancouver Island land use plan was passed, and it protected the 12 percent of this island that had been originally proposed in Creston, B.C., five years earlier. The next thing that happened was that 10,000 people came to visit, to stand on the lawn and to say that their jobs were threatened by the decision that Stephen Owen and the CORE group had made on Vancouver Island. They came and expressed their point of view peacefully, articulately, and heaven knows with a great show of force.
The next event was the New Democratic Party convention in Vancouver; once again, I, at least, attended with some trepidation. We had to go to that convention. Every political party tends to be a bit of a coalition of points of view, and I'm quite proud to say that a couple of the broad points of view that fit inside the coalition I like to represent are those of the industrial woodworking community and members of the environmental community.
I expected that convention to be a defining moment not only in this government but also in my experience as a New Democrat. I expected that convention to once and for all answer the 12 percent question, not in the theoretical sense, where you're years and years ahead of time and you're just making up what you dream about, but in the very practical question on the ground, where you're looking people in the eye and you know you have to answer the questions on their minds right now. I left Victoria to go to that convention -- as did everybody here -- without the slightest idea whether or not the government and the party would be able to get through the convention, because, of course, we left without an agreed-upon solution among the various groups inside the coalition.
On the second day of that convention, after a day and a half of talk and negotiation, a resolution was brought onto the floor that reaffirmed the 12 percent target. It spoke for the first time of a change in taxation that would increase the price of timber to the industry, 100 percent of which would be delivered to the workers for job creation. That motion came onto the floor; I think it was the now Minister of Forests who moved the motion. Some of us in the room applauded with tremendous relief. Then a Member of Parliament from my party went to the No mike, stood up and opposed the motion, and attempted to amend it in a way that would have destroyed the coalition and the motion. I despaired of a solution.
The next speaker to the Pro mike -- bringing this story back to its conclusion -- was not a Member of Parliament and was not an MLA. It was that very young lady who I first saw as a face outside this door, and next as a part of the non-violent demonstration outside, and third up here watching the minister in the estimates, and fourth at the CORE table. She stood up at the Pro mike and she said: "I am an environmentalist, a young person and a new member of this party. I came to the party through the CORE process, and to the CORE process through the demonstration; and through the CORE process, I met people my age from Woss, Port Alberni, Nanaimo and Campbell River, and I have learned that we can't have it all. I believe that this motion before us to protect 12 percent of the land and to rebuild the industry, devastated over the last 20 years with tech change, by doubling the stumpage on the industry and putting that money back into the land, is a miracle and a great solution." After that young woman spoke, there were no more speakers, and people two, three and literally four times her age voted for the motion. The next part of the story is that we come into this building and members of the industry -- the elite, the presidents of the industry -- the first nations community, the unions and the Premier of this province put into practice the very fact that that 20-year-old young woman made happen two weeks earlier.
Hon. Speaker, I told you and all the members that story because I don't really think.... You know, there's a whole lot of cynicism in the province. It is mostly driven by the people who work here -- are we allowed to name them? -- who work for the press and who teach citizens, and some hon. members too, to believe that everything is driven by some kind of a deal. I believe that what we saw in British Columbia over the last four years was a little bit more of a miracle than a deal. For better or for worse, I don't think anything has happened in the political life of this province in decades that is as organic or natural as the land use resolutions brought about -- I'm not going to say by this government; I'm going to say by the people of British Columbian, from all walks of life -- over the last four years.
I want to wrap up by talking a little bit about my constituency, which was the place that thought up the idea in the first place. I am the only MLA who works in this building, the only MLA in British Columbia, whom the Green Party says today that they can target and get rid of. The Green Party president came to my constituency and said: "Quite frankly, folks, I couldn't get 11 people to a meeting in Burnaby, New Westminster or Vancouver, and this is the only constituency -- Nelson-Creston -- where we can actually determine the outcome of the election. We will therefore put full-time organizers in here, and we will show the government that we can change the representation, the MLA, from this constituency." I have another example of the type of constituency I come from. During the wrap-up of CORE, cabinet asked Murray Rankin to go to my constituency and come up with the final negotiations. He came back and said to me: "Corky, you know what? Your constituency is ungovernable."
I am very proud to go from logging to standing here and talking; I am very proud to have moved from being a logger to being an MLA. I am prouder still to defend the land use plan
[ Page 16703 ]
from the constituency that's ungovernable and is now entrenched in law. Everybody here and everybody there know we are going to vote for parks that I have, for decades, opposed. I'm going to vote for them, because I believe that the process that led to the creation of this law created a buy-in from all segments of society, which is beyond me, beyond any of us who work here, beyond any single interest group and beyond the interests of the government. I believe that the process is way more a miracle than politics, and I would ask all of you to vote for it when you get the chance tomorrow or later on tonight.
D. Mitchell: In the unlikely event that the member for Nelson-Creston didn't realize it, that speech was a mailer. That was a mailer, and I only ask him if he can include my introductory comments in his mailer as well, because I'd like to compliment him. He doesn't speak nearly often enough in this House, and when he does speak, it's always worthwhile hearing from him. I only encourage him to speak more often, if the House sits very much longer between now and when his mailer goes out. It's a good one. He should send it to all of his constituents. I'm sure that's probably why he spoke in the House. It will make a good householder.
The member attempted to give us a civics lesson about how a policy can come from a constituency association to a political party's convention and then end up one day as government policy through this Legislature. I think that's an interesting lesson in civics that the member tried to outline. It probably doesn't happen nearly often enough in the province of British Columbia. That's one way that a member of a political party or an individual citizen can affect public policy.
That linear process doesn't always work. The member started off his remarks by saying that he was going to be subjective. Indeed he was. There might be different ways of interpreting how that policy came to the floor of the Legislature or there might be different forces that the member didn't refer to. I want to comment on one of those, in particular, before I sit down.
I'd like to say that this bill is the kind of bill any government would be proud to bring forward. I applaud the government for bringing forward legislation outlining and designating 106 class A provincial parks in the province of British Columbia. It's an extraordinary achievement. Who opposes parks, after all? Who could possibly oppose the creation of new parks? I would hope that no member of this Legislature would ever oppose the creation of a new protected-areas strategy as enshrined within provincial parks. But there are a couple of questions that deserve to be asked.
[8:00]
I'm going to speak only briefly, but I'd like to put on the record that when we look at Bill 53, the Park Amendment Act, 1995, we see that it says these 106 provincial parks -- not all of them are new parks, but there are 106 designated -- "are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public." That's what the bill says. Now, is designating a class A provincial park the only way to achieve that objective? That's one question worth asking. Is that the only way to achieve that objective? And if it is, then we have to ask: is the government doing what is necessary, through the Ministry of Lands and Parks, to ensure that officials who are enshrined with the stewardship of class A provincial parks are in place?
We've seen a number of announcements, and I can tell you I support announcements in and adjacent to my constituency, such as Pinecone Burke Park and Indian Arm Park, which were recently announced by the government. Those are tremendous achievements. The question we have to ask, which will be asked time and again, is: is the government devoting enough of the resources of the Ministry of Parks to ensure that all of these increased parklands are going to be properly administered and that the stewardship is going to be there? That's one question that has to be asked.
Another question that begs to be asked has been discussed time and again with different ministers -- the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment. Where does this increased parkland under the protected-areas strategy fit in with the other land use policies of this government? The CORE and the land use plans that have come forward on a regional basis; the forest reserves that this government has established, which are among some of the most innovative accomplishments of this government; the working forest that so far is not really designated clearly in terms of statute in the province of British Columbia; and aboriginal lands, which have yet to be designated through the B.C. Treaty Commission process -- where do all of these pieces of the puzzle fit together? Is this part of a coherent, perhaps even seamless, strategy or is this part of a kind of ad hoc approach that we hope and pray will one day fit together so that we'll be able to make some sense of it? That's a question that I think deserves to be answered, and it's a legitimate question that should be asked. The reason I ask it goes back to the comments of the member for Nelson-Creston, who gave us, in his interesting lesson on civics, one interpretation of how this bill came to the floor of the House. But there are some other questions that probably could be asked, and I think they've been alluded to by some others who spoke.
I just want to raise one concern with respect to the B.C. Treaty Commission process, because the issue has been raised as to whether this bill is with or without prejudice to the B.C. Treaty Commission process. Nowhere in the bill is there any reference to that, but outside the House some comments have been made by members of the executive council of British Columbia, including the Minister of Environment, in whose name this bill stands in the House.
The Minister of Environment has said, not in this House or in debate on this bill, but to a reporter who quoted her in the Vancouver Sun on July 5, in the report under the byline of Larry Pynn, that this bill, the creation of this parkland and the protection of these parks under this bill are "without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations." That's what the Minister of Environment said outside the House. She didn't say it in terms of this bill. Maybe that was a mistake. If it was a mistake.... I don't know; maybe the minister will close today.
The Minister of Forests made some different comments in the same media report. He might want to clarify this, but in response to this specific concern, the Minister of Forests stated: "I understand the anxiety of first nations. They wish to get on with treaty negotiations and are concerned that any government decision ahead of that process will have an adverse impact. But at the end of the day, the government has a responsibility to resolve these issues. That way we can come to the table with clear positions."
I wonder if there's any contradiction between what he's saying and what the Minister of Environment is saying, and
[ Page 16704 ]
what this bill is saying, because the bill doesn't say anything about whether this is with or without prejudice to the B.C. Treaty Commission process. Most of the legislation that this government brings forward specifically details what the relationship of any land use policies is going to be with respect to the B.C. Treaty Commission process. But this bill does not. Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to that.
The reason that I raise this, and the minister will know, is that some first nations have expressed concerns, whether it be the Squamish nation in the area that I represent -- and Chief Joe Mathias has expressed some real concern about the Indian Arm Park that's been going ahead -- or the Musqueam band in the city of Vancouver. I'm certainly not going to spend all my comments advocating on their behalf, but there's a question of process. While I support the creation of new parks, in particular the parks listed in the schedule to this act, there is a question about due process, and I think the government has to be satisfied that those concerns are addressed.
In the last parliament -- in the last Legislature, prior to the last election -- when the previous government, the Social Credit government, brought forward a bill that was passed into law, dealing with the University Endowment Lands in the city of Vancouver, the opposition of the day raised some concerns. Now, I want to know if those concerns are still valid and whether or not those principles still make sense, because the Leader of the Opposition at that time is now the Premier.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
When he was Leader of the Opposition, he made some statements about whether or not the process on the University Endowment Lands would affect the land claim of the Musqueam band. He made some comments, in fact, on April 19, 1989, in this House. The Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier, when talking to the Social Credit administration of the day, said: "We gave you an opportunity to ensure that the rights of the Musqueam people were not alienated before you transferred the University Endowment Lands, and you blew it." The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that he wanted to insert an amendment into the bill at the time, which would basically say: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to prejudice the claim of aboriginal title of the Musqueam Indian band to the University Endowment Lands." And he went on further to read into the record a letter that he had written to the Prime Minister of the day -- someone by the name of Mr. Mulroney -- and in his letter....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: I'm not sure where he is now. But the former Prime Minister was written to by the Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia at the time, and he stated: "The purpose of this letter is to advise you that should the members of my party form a government in British Columbia, we will work to ensure that the Musqueam people have the right to pursue a negotiated settlement." He said: "Whether the Musqueam are successful in settling this claim or not, it is our belief that it is essential that their right to pursue a negotiated settlement not be frustrated." That is what the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier, said in a letter to the former Prime Minister. He wasn't advocating on behalf of the Musqueam people; he was saying that they should have a fair right to negotiate a settlement.
An Hon. Member: That was then, and this is now.
D. Mitchell: Well, now the Musqueam people are wondering about the then Leader of the Opposition's commitment and whether his principles have changed just by virtue of the fact that he is now on the government side. We see that from time to time: when members of this House sit on one side, they say one thing, but when they get elected to serve on the other side, they seem to be flexible in their principles. That is the concern.
Hon. A. Petter: Different situation.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Forests says it was a different situation, and I'll give him a chance to clarify this when he speaks in this debate. When he has an opportunity to speak in this debate, I'll give him a chance to say why this is a different situation.
But let me tell him what the member for North Island, who is now the Attorney General, said at the time. The member for North Island, when he was on the opposition side, said on this specific issue -- and I think this is a principle that should apply to both situations -- on April 20, 1989, in this chamber: "It seems to me that people who have a legitimate claim should not have their right to pursue that claim extinguished by an act of the Legislature...." Surely that principle would apply to just about every situation.
Hon. J. MacPhail: So is that what you support?
D. Mitchell: I'm wanting to know....
Hon. J. MacPhail: Tell me what you do support.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Social Services is asking a question, and I'll answer it. I'm wanting to know from this government whether this bill is without prejudice to the B.C. Treaty Commission process.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What do you think?
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Social Services is asking me for my interpretation of the bill.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
D. Mitchell: I can only tell you that when I look at the bill, I see no reference whatsoever to whether this bill will have an impact or won't have an impact on the B.C. Treaty Commission process. So why not tell us? Why not come clean?
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: Over a century ago, the founding councillors of the city of Vancouver set aside a park, which we now revere as Stanley Park. No major city on the North American continent has 1,000 acres of old-growth forest adjacent to its downtown centre. In my opinion, there's nothing comparable on the continent of North America to Stanley Park. At the time it was created more than a century ago, the early settlers in the city of Vancouver thought that the founding councillors were
[ Page 16705 ]
out of their minds. Why would you set aside a park the size of the city itself? But today we look back on that and have great respect for the foresight and vision of those founding councillors of the city of Vancouver. In Bill 53, we are doing the equivalent of a hundred or a thousand Stanley Parks in the province, and that is a great thing. I think the government should be proud of this accomplishment.
We need to have one question answered, though. I don't think the Minister of Environment, who has sponsored this bill, has satisfactorily addressed this, and it would be useful to do that before we move on. Are we really saying very clearly and explicitly to the Musqueam band, to the Burrard band, to the Squamish band and all the other first nations who have expressed a concern: "Listen, these parks are part of the protected-areas strategy, and this is with prejudice to your claims under the B.C. Treaty Commission process. These lands are not on the table. Stanley Park is not going to be part of Musqueam lands. Indian Arm is not going to be positioned...."? If the government is doing that, I would applaud them, but I would ask the government to come forward and just be explicit. Be straightforward; address the situation in an upfront manner. Let's not play with words or be evasive on this issue. The Minister of Social Services might want to address this issue, but I would hope that the Minister of Environment at the very least....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Social Services says that I can't ask questions without answers. This isn't question period; we are debating a bill. This is not question period. The Minister of Social Services is in one gear only. She's in question period mode, and she can't get out of that mode. The Minster of Social Services has not had the benefit or the advantage, or maybe the disadvantage, of serving on the opposition side of this House. That's a real disadvantage, and it's a handicap, but she will one day, maybe. Perhaps after the next election, she will have that opportunity. And you know, what better rat-pack member could this House have? What better rat-packer could this House have? That is the ultimate compliment that I would pay her. She will be a fine opposition member, and then she'll have a chance to ask questions and maybe give answers to her own questions, as well. But I don't have the answer to this question. If the government is really saying....
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: I don't have the answer, I fess up.
Maybe the Minister of Environment can tell us and the first nations who have expressed concern, as well: are these protected areas under the parks that are identified in the schedule to Bill 53 off the table completely? If they are off the table, come out and say it. I will applaud the government, the minister and her colleagues for having the courage to say it. Let's not play with emotions. Let's not continue to raise expectations or beat around the bush. Let's come clean and talk about whether these parks are on or off the table in terms of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. I think that's worth knowing.
I support the creation and preservation of parks, and I also support due process. I also support the notion that politicians should be consistent in the principles they advocate, whether they're on one side of the House or the other side of the House. I deplore politicians who are too convenient and too flexible in their principles.
Hon. A. Petter: I assume the previous member also supports politicians who make platitudinous statements, one after the other.
It's with great pleasure that I enter this debate and rise in support of this forward-thinking and indeed historic piece of legislation. I must say that it's also with some sadness that I enter this debate, having heard some of the previous speakers and having had the opportunity to review some of their remarks earlier in the day. While people seem to be wanting to applaud the bill out of one side of their mouth, it strikes me that there is some misinterpretation or misunderstanding coming out of the other.
[8:15]
I was sad, for example, that the last speaker tried to invent an inconsistency when there wasn't one, and I'll be happy to address that shortly. I was sad when the leader of the Reform Party demonstrated how out of touch he is with reality in pretending not to have any understanding of the overall process that led to this bill, and of the relationship between this bill, these parks and a larger vision of land use. While the leader of the Reform Party may be out of touch with reality, I was really sad to realize that the Liberal Party is desperately trying to re-create reality and pretend, for the last three years they have been standing up in front of communities around this province opposing parks, that now somehow they take some joy in their creation.
I want to touch on a few points, and they relate to some of the points the previous speaker made. One of those points has to do with the relationship between this initiative and the larger issues of land use that have confronted this province in recent years. I think this bill is one small part of a larger story, a story that people in generations to come will tell, about a fundamental change that has taken place in this province in the last three years in respect of land use. What occurred in this province in the past and what confronted this province prior to the last election was a situation that was not sustainable environmentally or economically or socially. Conflicts on the land were starting to overwhelm us, and the unfortunate part is that certain politicians in certain parties, rather than trying to resolve those conflicts, sought to exploit them and to play off workers against environmentalists against communities, usually to the detriment of all three -- divide and conquer. The overall losers were the people of British Columbia and the communities that depended upon that resource and the environment.
We did not move forward, as we should have in this province, to respond to the fact that our land base was being looked at by citizens of this province in a fundamentally different way in the last 20 or 30 years. People came to realize that the land base was not endless and that we did not simply have another valley to deal with every situation that came along. Rather than take the view that the resource would go on forever geographically, we had to come to some kind of consensus, some kind of plan and some kind of understanding, partnership and vision for the future around land use. It wasn't enough to continue to play the old games of divide and conquer, and to hope the future would take care of itself, because the future was starting to run out in this province.
[ Page 16706 ]
Prior to the last election, the Premier of this province, then the Leader of the Opposition, stood up and received much derision from the politicians opposite and the press for saying that he had a different vision and a different way, that he would bring groups together to resolve conflicts based upon agreement, consensus and partnership and that the days of conflict would be placed behind us. Those on the other side said that was not attainable. They said it couldn't be done, and they wished to continue in the way that they had before. When he became Premier, he was not dissuaded by the naysayers, the doomsdayers, the nabobs of negativism and all the rest. He and this government came together, based on the commitments we made to pursue land use planning and achieve a protected-areas strategy that would double our parks and wilderness in order to achieve the goal of 12 percent protection, which had been set by an international commission as a minimal goal for governments to achieve. We said that we could do both.
For the last three years this province has gone through a fundamental change -- not in the easy areas. We could have done it in the easy areas. Did we go up to the easy areas where there hasn't been conflict? No. We went into the areas of the highest degree of contention and conflict, because they were the ones that had to be addressed. We had to demonstrate that we could do it there, because if we could do it there, it could be done everywhere in this province. So we went to Vancouver Island and set up the Commission on Resources and Environment. We set the protected-areas strategy goal for that commission and said: "Go out and consult with the communities." We did the same thing in the Cariboo and the Kootenays.
People said: "These guys are crazy, going out into these areas where conflict has been built up for generations and saying they could bring people together and resolve these issues and have some stability."
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: The members opposite are still saying it, because they still lack the vision. They still lack any kind of determination to bring people together like this government has done.
We went out with the Commission on Resources and Environment, we brought groups together and they sat down. Shame on the leader of the Reform Party for saying that he doesn't know where these parks came from. In the Cariboo, on Vancouver Island and in the Kootenay-Boundary region, processes were brought together where groups who would never talk to each other in the past sat down and worked. Not every process resulted in absolute agreement, but then the government didn't walk away; it rolled up its sleeves, went out and talked some more.
Twenty thousand people visited us, and some of the members opposite chortled with glee and hoped the process wasn't going to work, but they were wrong. They were wrong, and they can't live with the fact that they were wrong. We didn't walk away; we walked into those communities and talked to those people. We sat down, rolled up our sleeves, then came back and announced land use plans for Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays, based on the aspirations and vision of those communities. They were based on what those communities saw in their future. They were tired of the old politics of divide and conquer. They wanted a chance to come together. They wanted a chance to build their own vision for the future based on partnership.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I know that some members over there still can't stand the notion that communities might come together. They are still afraid that when environmentalists, workers and communities get together, they're going to be out in the cold. People in British Columbia should worry about that, because the opposition is going to be out there dividing and conquering, as they most assuredly have been trying to do in the past three years. But even that didn't stop this government, and we achieved our land use plans.
What are these parks about? These parks are one component of that larger vision. The other day, when the Premier, the Minister of Environment and I announced the initiatives that have led to this, we didn't just announce the creation of 2.4 million hectares of new parks. We also announced 15 million hectares of forest land reserve. We have as measure of confidence, stability and security now emerging on Vancouver Island, in the Cariboo and in the Kootenays, which would not have been possible or indeed imaginable two or three years ago. Yes, areas are being preserved, and that's wonderful. But other areas that were contentious are now available for harvesting. That too is wonderful. Other areas are subject....
Some Hon. Members: Where? Where?
An Hon. Member: Name them.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll name them for the member. There's road construction in the Penfold valley in the Cariboo right now. That wouldn't have been possible two years ago. But there's also an area in the Cariboo called the Niagara that's protected, and those two things are related because we have a land use plan that allows both those things to happen. They don't understand that over there. It's sad to see that they still continue to say it can't be done when it's already been done in these areas of the province.
That's the relationship. These are not conflicting initiatives; these are complementary initiatives. British Columbians are saying: "Yes, we want to set aside our 12 percent, but as a quid pro quo, as part of a package, as part of the partnership, we're also going to designate the forest land reserve and have that land for long-term resource development." The two cannot happen independently of each other. If we allow this province to slip back into the hands of those whose self-serving political interests are to divide groups from each other, then the future that can be built on the basis of these plans will not happen. That's something British Columbians should think about as well.
Now I want to address briefly the point that was made by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi about the aboriginal issues, because I think he made two fundamental assertions about there being some conflicting statements by myself and another minister, and it's simply not true. Then he made another assertion about the University Endowment Lands, which, again, I think simply misconstrues the facts. Perhaps if he had been in question period today.... I understand the Premier answered that second point very clearly.
[ Page 16707 ]
On the first point, as we approach aboriginal negotiations, it is absolutely essential that as a government and as a society we have a clear understanding -- those amongst the non-aboriginal community who are negotiating at the table -- of what we want out of the process, what we bring to that process and what we seek. These land use plans give us that clear position that we want to see achieved through those negotiations. Let's remember that these aren't about alienating land; these are about designating land for land use. At the end of the day, a negotiation -- as was the case with the Nisga'a.... We may end up with a joint management agreement, as we did on the Nisga'a tribal park. But we now have a clear position to take to those tables on land use in these areas -- a clear unqualified position. That isn't to prejudice anybody. What that does isn't a question of prejudice. It's a question of government coming to the table, saying: "This is our land use plan, and this is the plan that we want to see implemented." In fact, we have implemented and will be implementing that now and through the negotiating process.
An Hon. Member: Are parks on the table?
Hon. A. Petter: It's not a question of what's on the table and what's not on the table. The issue is that, collectively, we now know as a society what we bring to the table. If first nations, for example, have an interest in joint management of some of these protected areas, that may be an issue that's worthy of discussion.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Petter: The members opposite seem not to understand. This is a land use decision. The land use decision determines this government's position and commitment to the people of British Columbia that we will take to that table. That's the point.
The second issue that the member raises has to do with a very different situation. As a result of these designations, this land remains as Crown land. This land does not get alienated to any other party. Assertions of aboriginal title legally are not impacted adversely by these designations. In that sense, it is without prejudice. In the University Endowment Lands case, there was a transference of land from the provincial Crown to a third party. That transference raised the potential of a prejudice because there was a change in the underlying Crown title. As a result, it was appropriate to put in the clause. In this case there is no transference, and it is not necessary or appropriate. The two situations are simply not analogous, and they did not call for the same kind of response.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: It's not splitting hairs. Unlike the member opposite from the Reform Party, who suggests it's splitting hairs, neither is it -- as the Reform Party constantly tries to do -- pulling rabbits out of hats. It's simply the facts, and they don't want to hear it.
One final point. I can't sit down in this debate without speaking from the point of view of a local MLA. I want to just say that there is, on this very impressive list of new protected areas, one that I have a particular affection and affinity for: Gowlland Tod Park. This is an area where I invite members to spend a few pastoral moments. It's only about half an hour from the legislative buildings -- even less. It means that you can stroll from Butchart Gardens right through to Goldstream Park through a new provincial park. It's an incredible area around the Saanich Inlet, an amazing area that people in this area have dreamed of as parkland for generations. That dream is now coming true for those people. The significance of that is understood today, but it won't be understood today nearly as well as it will be understood generations from now. That area will truly provide a pastoral escape from urban development, for which our children and our children's children will look back on us collectively and say: "Thank goodness someone had the vision and determination to protect that area."
I want to say, as a member of this government, that as proud as I am of our overall vision, I am particularly proud of that decision, which has a very real effect on the community in which I live, on the future of that community and on ensuring that that community remains humane -- a community in which we do have open space to enjoy into the future.
[8:30]
That's what this bill is all about. It's as large as the land use future of this province and as small but important as Gowlland Tod Park is to the people of Saanich South and of the greater Victoria region.
R. Chisholm: I'm not too sure whether to say hallelujah, roll on the ground or wait for hands on after that tirade. I support the parks, too, and I have to agree with some of the things the minister says, but the problem is that he talks about aboriginal land claims. Show to me in the bill where it says that these are or are not on the table, in black and white. It's not there. That is a very serious question for the aboriginal nations, obviously, especially when they're in the delicate position of putting their deals on the table. It is not in that bill.
I enjoy standing up here and saying that I'd like to see more parks; I'd like to see the 12 percent attained. But I want to see, too, that forestry survives, that industry survives and that we end up utilizing our resources to the best possible use. There are a few questions that need to be answered.
You can't take four million hectares, put it into parks and not have anybody manage it. How is that going to be managed? That takes bureaucracy, but nobody has said what is going to happen. Nobody has said there is more money allotted to hire more foresters, more parks people or whatever it's going to take to administer four million hectares of land. I'd like to hear in committee stage how they're going to confront that issue. After all, they're trying to decrease the size of government. How are you going to do it and add four million hectares?
I'd like to know, if the aboriginal question isn't in the book.... After we go through all of these convulsions and make these into parks, are we going to be willing to trade some of these parks when we finally sit down and negotiate the treaty? These are going to be contentious issues. They should be discussed now; they should be stated now. It should be in this bill right now, so that the aboriginal nations know what they're confronted with and that we've been open and honest. It's like the member from the Reform Party talking about "A Better Way" and promise No. 2: open and honest. Let's put it into the bill. Then let's say, when it comes to the negotiations, that the 106 new parks will not be part of the negotiations and that we will not be trading them off.
As I said before, I'm generally in support of this bill. But there are some serious questions. This aboriginal question is
[ Page 16708 ]
probably the biggest question this province is going to have to face in the upcoming decade. We can't start off with a cloud over it. We have to start off with everybody knowing the facts. I want to see these parks happen; I agree with them. If they can find land for another 106 parks, I would be agreeable.
But how are we going to manage them? Tourism comes with the 106 parks. We've decided we're not going to have logging or hydro or these types of issues within those parks. But damage comes with tourism, too. We're going to need the resources to facilitate those parks, and that has not been addressed. When we get to the committee stage, I'd like to hear some of those answers from the minister. I've heard from the Minister of Forests, but he did not answer the question. I would like to hear that in committee stage. Right now I'm very supportive of the bill. But I do hope they come across with the answers. I've had enough of the grandstanding. Let's have some of the facts for a change.
J. van Dongen: I just want to register a couple of concerns with the bill. I think the characterization of the bill as forward-thinking is probably a valid characterization, but there are many examples where forward-thinking decisions by government have not necessarily always turned out that way. I cite the example of the Roberts Bank backup lands. It's a good example that's currently in front of the government again, and has been for most of the last 20 years or so. The government of the day went in and uprooted people who were farming that land, and they caused a great deal of dislocation to the farm community, not only to the individuals on that land but to the whole Delta community. We're still faced with difficulties today with people involved in that situation. I think that's an example of where a decision was made that was considered to be forward-thinking, and it didn't necessarily work out that way.
I guess my concern about this bill is the level of increase in acreage, the number of hectares being assigned to parks. Future governments are being compelled to do that before the year 2000. There's going to be a lot of pressure to make that happen. That will be in law, and I'm concerned about that.
The second concern I want to register is the concern about section 7, where there's a transitional provision that is intended to ensure existing grazing and hay-cutting permits. I simply want to raise the suggestion that there may be situations where it would be in the public interest to expand this provision in the bill so that the government could issue new licences for situations where it may be in the public interest to expand grazing permits within the park area under a multiple-use arrangement. That's the trend we're following in a lot of these resource situations, and there may be situations where it is in the best interest to do that. But the wording of this section will not allow that. It just talks about maintaining existing leases. There was also a question raised about what happens if someone lets a lease lapse, and whether there would be a provision to renew that somehow. Those are the issues I want to simply flag for further discussion during committee stage.
J. Tyabji: I thought there was another member who wanted to speak, but I'm happy to stand and speak in support of this bill. I should thank both the now Minister of Environment and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for recognizing some of the parks that have been placed in this act for the Okanagan. I don't know that we got our share, but we'll certainly be prepared to talk to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin about that later, because there has been some correspondence that I'm waiting for a reply on.
It has been an interesting debate this evening, and one that has taken longer than it was supposed to -- but I think it needed to take longer than it was supposed to. As one member said, it's a bill that in and of itself actually should have justified about a week. Of course, getting back to one of my favourite horses, if we were treating this Legislature with the respect it deserves, we would be having regular sittings, and if we had regular sittings, we would give this bill more than just a few hours in the dying days of the session in the evening when we're not supposed to be sitting anyway.
Having said that, what is it that drives the...?
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, there are some very excellent points being made in the back here. I'm sure we'll get a chance to hear all those comments in debate next week on a different bill.
On this bill, what we have to talk about is the philosophical basis. We're in second reading, and what does this Park Amendment Act mean? I want to bring my own perspective to this, because I've heard many other members, including the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, talking about what this bill represents. In 1987, I had been involved in politics in B.C. for only a couple of years. I had been kicking around as a student in political science at UVic and had dabbled around the edges. I heard a speech in 1987 that struck me as something that was very logical and sensible, and it had to do with land use in British Columbia.
It has never left my mind that the speech outlined for me a sensible plan on how we should allocate land use, and a recognition that B.C. still has primary extractive economics within the top five of its wealth generators and economic sectors. It has forestry, mining, energy and agriculture. All the land use economics we can name exist in British Columbia and should form the basis for a sound and healthy economy, and if adequately protected, should place us at the top of the list in the world in terms of our opportunities for domestic wealth and for people to live the kinds of lives they choose to live.
That speech was made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast the night he became the leader of the Liberal Party in 1987, and that was October 31. That was the first time I had heard him speak. I'm proud to say that this vision has been something he has never wavered from, and that as leader of the Alliance, he has taken it into our party. It was a vision that was held up in 1991 to the people, a vision I spoke in favour of as the candidate for Okanagan East. It is one I intend to fight for as the elected representative of Okanagan East for so long as my constituents continue to say it's an issue.
Based on that perspective, what do I feel this bill is offering within that context and ideological framework? Although the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin talked about the three legs to the stool and about this as one of those legs, I don't think we have a stool with three legs. What we have is a province which has many different aspects to it that are crying for a comprehensive land use strategy, one that puts in place not just a parks plan or a forestry plan, but one that recogn-
[ Page 16709 ]
izes, respects and protects the integrity of our mining industry -- which I don't even want to begin to get into tonight, because....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Designated speaker, right. We had a bill on the mining industry which passed third reading yesterday, and which I think goes to the heart of this government's commitment to that aspect of our economy.
So we have forestry, we have mining and we have energy. We had the leader of the Alliance stand up in response to the Premier's statement today and ask for a provincial energy strategy. We have our water resources directly tied to energy when we talk about hydro power. We have natural gas. We have a Treaty Commission process right now that is talking about rights above and below the ground.
Ironically, at the treaty negotiation table they're probably going to do a better job of mapping out a strategy for allocation and use of all those things than we've ever done on a provincial level. The reason is that they will be able to start from scratch. They're saying: "Well, what is it we're dealing with? Let's put everything on the table. How are we going to allocate it? How are we going to use that?" And waiting on the sidelines are the people who have the capital to move in and get into joint stewardship arrangements with those bands so that they can start to exploit and extract those resources accordingly.
The disadvantage that those bands will be facing at the point where they end up drafting some kind of agreement is that they won't have the benefit of decades, if not centuries, of statutory evolution on environment, water management, waste management and all the different procedures that we've developed as Canada has evolved. And that's unfortunate, because, as I said, they will have in their hands more inventories, more data and more detailed assessments and inventories of the resources -- and they will be broken down by resources -- than we have. They will have that at the table, but what they won't have is all the decades of experience of why you should develop it a certain way. Not that we have a monopoly on that, but certainly there are people in various ministries and consulting agencies who have a vested interest in ensuring that the Waste Management Act is carried through appropriately.
So when we look at the Park Amendment Act, 1995, how can we look at it in the solitary state that it's in right now? We can't. One of the first things that happened after the election in 1991 was that the Leader of the Opposition -- now the leader of the Alliance -- asked me to take on the position of Environment critic. That was something that was very interesting to me. I came out of an environmental group in Kelowna, had a lot of commitment to that, and was very concerned with growth management. One of the things put forward at that time was to work with the other land use ministries and critics to try to develop some sort of comprehensive strategy. And I think, to some extent, that's what CORE was an attempt to do by this government. But the thing that was so obvious, after CORE was struck -- and unfortunately, we had predicted that it would end up being mired in controversy and would have the kind of feedback that it had from various stakeholders -- was that this government continually undermined the independent land use process: by making announcements on Windy Craggy without letting it go through CORE, by making announcements on Clayoquot Sound without letting it go through CORE.... Every single controversial land use decision did not go through the CORE process.
[8:45]
Obviously the temptation in politics is to try to get those headlines, get the interest and be seduced by what you think is going to be an attractive issue to the voters. So, given that, there were some decisions that were made that I think were done without the benefit of all the information that they could have had if they'd gone through a proper process.
The Park Amendment Act that we see here is something that we all have to support in principle, obviously. Most of these areas are protected to some extent. The Alliance leader said very clearly that recreational use doesn't protect it. Funnily enough, when we were in the north and Prince George, which I don't consider the north -- it's in the middle, but people here tend to consider it the north -- there were some people talking about how they were really worried about park allocation to an area that was so environmentally sensitive that if people walked into the area, the very act of going there and seeing the site.... It was something that had built up over hundreds of years, and it had to do with hydrothermal activity. The formations that had been created over these years were so sensitive that if someone walked past them, they would fall part. They wanted it preserved as a special ecosystem with something to prevent people from going there -- so that they could see it from a distance, but they wouldn't be able to go directly up to it and destroy it. Once destroyed, there was absolutely no way of allowing it to happen again other than letting it go for hundreds of years.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member has asked for information on that, and I'd be happy to give it to him. I'll look at our notes and provide him with that.
In these examples, unless you are actually in the neighbourhood you don't even know it exists. That is the tragedy of this: quite often we don't realize what we have lost until long afterwards, and we can only lament the fact that it is gone and that we won't be able to replace it. That comes to mind when we talk about the fact that recreational use will be allowed. We might all be very excited and run out to make use of these wilderness areas, only to find that we have destroyed the very thing that we were seeking to protect by putting it in a park. That becomes part of a comprehensive land use strategy.
Although we can say to the government that this is a good thing and that it is one of the things they can take forward to the next election, we recognize that many of the nucleuses for these parks already existed and now they are entrenched in a statute. We are grateful for the fact that they have been enlarged. We wonder, however, how we can celebrate the park protection -- or what we are calling park protection -- without being able to say: "Here is our mining strategy for the province, and here is how that mining strategy will develop. Here is our comprehensive energy strategy and our comprehensive reservoir protection strategy." This is something that we brought up when they brought the Water Protection Act forward, and there was no protection for reservoirs.
I should put on the record that we know that Mr. Berry in Mackenzie is still fighting for Williston Lake and trying to
[ Page 16710 ]
ensure that those lake levels are preserved. How can we be happy that we have parks protection in place when we don't have water reservoir protection? We don't have protection in place for our water resources, which will be very valuable in the coming decades. Because the reservoirs are the major holding tanks, if you will, of our water, we should be protecting them, but they are not in the Water Protection Act.
We can't look at this in its solitary statute state and say: "This is something for which the government can now rest on its laurels and be excited about." It is good that they initiated the forest renewal project. As it evolves, I think it will result in many people bringing forward ideas on how it can be improved. The Minister of Forests has been fairly receptive to that so far, and I think that is something he should be congratulated for. But for too long in this province we have been without any kind of comprehensive strategy for our resources. We should have a land use secretariat and an integration of the ministries. We shouldn't have all the different ministers working in different directions on decisions which are benefiting each of their ministries. We should have an amalgamation of conservation officers, parks officers, people from the Ministry of Environment and waste management, the regional directors of environment -- all the different people who have single jurisdictional issues and isolated mandates and who are doing exactly the same thing as people in other ministries are doing. This could save us money, and they would do a better job if we expanded their mandates, integrated the ministries and had a proper environment and land use secretariat. That is what we need, and that is what we needed in 1987. In 1987 I was 21, I think. I don't know; I was young, anyway. At that time....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I was 22 in 1987. It takes me a while to do math at this time of night.
Even as a 22-year-old I recognized that this was a problem. If I, as a novice in politics, recognized it in the speech that the leader of the Alliance made that night, surely to goodness we must know that the people of British Columbia recognize that we need this. I wouldn't be standing here if they didn't. I wouldn't be standing here addressing this assembly if they didn't see the common sense in the integration of ministries, the expansion of the mandate of the people in the field and a proper strategy for the long-term use of our resources and the protection of those areas that need to be protected. As the Minister of Environment -- and Finance -- said quite eloquently, these areas are not mutually exclusive.
In British Columbia we have a unique opportunity to put in place a strategy so that we have the best possible economy and one that is better than the one we have now. Right now we don't have a good, high-wage, primary sector economy in some areas where we could develop it, other than some of the jobs that I would call Crown corporate jobs, which are not producing wealth and are relying on things like stumpage fees to service them. We could have that economy, and we could have the best protected-areas strategy that this province has ever seen. We should be protecting those reservoirs within those protected areas. As the leader of the Alliance said in his capacity as constituency representative, the Tetrahedron should have been a watershed. Why is it a park? Why don't we recognize that we need to have a strategy to say that this is put aside as a watershed, because we recognize that we're not always going to be static in terms of our population, and that we're going to have planned growth and a province that continues to expand...?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is taking exception to my comments about the Tetrahedron. I'm sure there's going to be a discussion taking place after this debate.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Oh, I don't think so.
What this government fails to recognize is.... The rhetoric around a parks strategy sounds great, and everybody's going to say: "Yay! More parks. I'm happy about parks." And they should, because this is a good effort. This is a huge bill. We've got a lot of descriptions here, and they're protected by statute. That's great, and maybe it'll end up being like the agricultural land reserve was for the last time the NDP was in government. But you know what? They didn't finish the job with the agricultural land reserve the last time they were in government, and what I would say about this parks act is that this job isn't done.
I don't mean to say that this government hasn't been working hard. They may have been, but this message is the same message I gave in 1992, 1993 and 1994 -- and it's not my message, either. I can't even take credit for it. Someone who has spent 17 years as a resource economist obviously has a better perspective on it, and of course, I'm talking about the leader of the Alliance. If it sounds like a broken record in bringing that forward, the only reason I keep bringing it forward is that I feel as if nobody has been listening. They keep going off in all these different directions. The government continues to come forward with forest renewal: "Look, congratulate us. We've got forest renewal." They come forward with the parks plan: "Congratulate us. We've got the parks plan." And you say that that's great.
No one's disagreeing that they haven't done the work. But when are we going to bring it together so that we stop spending money duplicating the same jobs in all these different ministries? It should have been done immediately after they took office. They should have set in place integrated processes for resolutions. They should have had a mandate and an inventory, which should have been done immediately. Every year since this government has been in office, they've had the corporate resource inventory initiative, and every year, with the exception of this year, I've asked for some of the data on that. I've never seen anything indicating that we have in place an adequate inventory of what we have.
The one thing this government has never sought to do is develop a 60-year or a 100-year plan for economic development that puts in place the growth management strategies that the Minister of Municipal Affairs alluded to in her response to the Speech from the Throne. Ironically, we have a series of amendments to the Municipal Act, and they were saying: "We know there's going to be growth, so we've got a Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act." It was toothless. It had very little weight, and it did nothing to prevent the kind of growth which will occur in Sechelt or Kelowna and impact our watersheds. They are not being protected as watersheds, and that will impact our reservoirs, which are not being protected as reservoirs.
[ Page 16711 ]
Every single thing that this government has done can be looked at, in its isolation, and we could say that that's a good effort: "We're not all the way there, but that's a good effort." But when we start to look at the big picture, how much further are we? How much further are we in terms of what the people of this province have needed for over a decade? We're not that much further ahead, and we need to go beyond this.
We need something that is a fundamental change to the system of government. It has to bring together the very best minds in this government's cabinet, working together in a cohesive way and bringing in members of the other parties. We'd be happy to work with you. I'm sure members of the other parties would be prepared to provide input in terms of a long-term strategy for economic development and population expansion. That's what we need.
I want to end my comments by saying that some people have talked about this 12 percent -- the magic number 12 percent. The member for Okanagan West pointed out that it wasn't from the Brundtland commission; it was something that came out at about the time everybody was talking about the Brundtland commission. Well, when we talk about the 12 percent, that was predicated on a philosophy called sustainable development. It was brought forward in Europe, but it was brought forward under the auspices of the United Nations in coming to terms with the environmental crisis we're going to be hitting like a brick wall very soon. Some would argue that we've already hit it, and some of us don't realize we've hit it. The sustainable development concept that came out in the late eighties became a rallying cry for governments that wanted to have a green plan, like the Canadian government. It was a green plan that was unceremoniously dumped with very little fanfare and very little commentary afterwards by the current government. But they wanted to have something that they could put out as a big placebo for the population and say: "You see. We have a term now, and it's called sustainable development. Within this term we have these sets of parameters, and these parameters are now going to dictate to us how we do things."
Now we're in 1995, and an NDP government has brought in something toward their commitment to the 12 percent. If I could speak as someone who doesn't believe sustainable development is a term that can actually exist without contradicting itself, who knows if 12 percent is the right number? The reason I say that is not because I'm saying that maybe it's 5 percent. Maybe it's 60 percent. Nobody knows. I find it funny that we're all running around talking about something that has never been adequately proven. We can say we're working toward 12 percent. Well, that's great. But does anybody know if it's a relevant number? Does anyone know what happens after we do that? Do we suddenly not have the problems with the ozone layer if we've put aside 12 percent? Do we have enough regeneration of oxygen on our land base with 12 percent? What about what's going on in South America? If they're not going to regulate those lands, do we have to overregulate in the north? Who knows?
What about the airshed question in the lower mainland that the Minister of Environment and the predecessor to the Minister of Environment were trying to deal with. Should we be saying that because of the airshed problem in the lower mainland, it has to be 50 percent? That isn't workable because there isn't that much left. Maybe that becomes the argument around the preservation of Burns Bog. I don't know. I do know that I'd like to ask those questions, and I'd like to know someone is going to find out.
We can get to that to some extent in committee stage, but I don't know that we can even ask philosophical questions in committee stage. These are questions that I brought up as the Environment critic every year in the estimates. I saved the minister the challenge of that -- or the nuisance of that, depending on your perspective this year -- because it's the last session, and really, if those questions were going to be answered they would have had to be answered two years ago, or they would have had to begin asking those questions two years ago.
Without understanding if that 12 percent is relevant, without saying, for example, that because of demographics, it has to be weighted to counter the airshed effects of high-density traffic in the lower mainland, without even doing that analysis, how comfortable should we be with this parks plan? How comfortable should be with this act? Even if we recognize it as a first step, what's the second step? Who is deciding that? Where are those discussions taking place?
The committees that were working, whether we argue they were working well or not.... In the Okanagan we had a very good committee working on environmental issues. It was a committee initiated under the Social Credit government, actually. Surprise, surprise! I wasn't a big fan of some of their environmental initiatives, but actually, I think.... I don't know if the member for Okanagan West brought that in, but the sustainable development committee in the Okanagan did very well. They brought forward some good initiatives, and there has been a vacuum since it was disbanded. There isn't anything in its place even asking the questions.
[9:00]
When I finish my comments on this note of sustainable development, I'd like to leave on the record that the fundamental premise of the Progressive Democratic Alliance is a belief in a limits-to-growth strategy. We recognize that sustainable development is an oxymoron, and if that is the basis on which we founded the 12 percent, then we're very nervous. Limits to growth is logical. It recognizes that somewhere out there we tend to hit the wall. We're in a global village, and certain things are fundamental necessities for life as we know it. If life as we know it matters, we should start to think about them. Some people like to think that maybe instead of abortion bubbles, ten years from now we'll be talking about bubbles over our cities -- and they won't be legislated bubbles. They will be the sort of bubbles that we only dreamt of in science fiction a decade or two decades ago.
This is a good first step. I wish I knew what the next steps were. As a first step in the parks strategy, it's lacking the associated steps needed for all the other areas to work together. When everyone acts in isolation, we don't get a good net effect. There's a phrase where they say that the cumulative effect of the multitude working together is so much greater than the added effect of each of us as individuals. That's what comes to mind when I see this. When you've been thinking for so long that we're in a crisis situation as far as management of the province's land base goes, it's hard to get too excited about 106 new parks, well-intentioned as they might be.
[ Page 16712 ]
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill 53, the Park Amendment Act. I think all members of the House have in the past supported a goal of reaching a 12 percent protected area for the province, and this bill accomplishes that. But in the context of my remarks, I want to go back to 1991-92 when the government commissioned a report by Peat Marwick Thorne. I think we have to revisit item 4 in the report in the context of the debate on this bill. The item talks about the alienation of resources that will affect government costs and revenues. It points out that:
"The alienation of resources through the withdrawal of land for parks, wilderness areas, urban development and the settlement of aboriginal land claims, will affect government costs and revenues in a number of ways, including the reductions of revenues received through royalties, the compensation to companies and individuals whose livelihoods are directly affected, and indirectly through the potential reductions in corporate and personal income tax. So far as we know, the provincial government has not calculated the potential cost and revenue implications of future resource alienation, and included these in its financial plans. The scope of these impacts can be inferred from past and current events."
The Peat Marwick Thorne report goes on to talk about:
"...The $37 million paid to Doman Forest Products as compensation for their timber rights on South Moresby Island; $27 million in compensation claimed by a resource company for mineral claims lost in Strathcona Park; and a statement that's been filed by Geddes Resources that they intend to claim compensation of up to one billion dollars if they are not allowed to proceed with the development of the Windy Craggy mine."
This was a report that was commissioned by the provincial government. They paid a million dollars for it. To our knowledge on this side of the House, the forgotten equation in the debate over land use designations in the province is this visionary concern that was expressed by the Peat Marwick Thorne financial review about the cost of the government's decisions. I think it is timely during this debate that we have the Minister of Finance in the province, who's also now responsible for Environment, Lands and Parks. I certainly welcome the opportunity in committee.... She may choose during her wrap-up of debate on this bill to speak candidly after this length of time about this issue raised by Peat Marwick Thorne and what steps the government has taken to catagorize these costs that do exist. We know they exist.
The Minister of Forests, who spoke earlier, talked about a compensation figure for the adoption of the Island land use plan of $500 million. We're not sure on this side of the House whether that's an accurate figure or not, because he issued a number of disclaimers about it. Nevertheless, it's a compensation figure that the minister inadvertently or otherwise put out onto the table as being the cost of implementation of the land use plan.
The real reason why I think the government has had so much trouble selling its land use plans in the province is that they haven't addressed these fundamental issues. We don't know, for example, how much it will cost, as the Peat Marwick Thorne report indicates: "It should be stressed again that we have not considered the value of these claims, and the province should be developing information on potential costs and revenue implications in advance of any decisions that are to be made which will result in the alienation of resources." That is a reasonable suggestion by a respected accounting firm that the government retained in the first year of its mandate, and it has not been done. We are debating a bill which, from a philosophical standpoint and a societal value standpoint, I think British Columbians can support. But they haven't been given the other side of the equation by this government, an equation that was called for by an accounting firm that they retained in the first year of their mandate. We don't know how much the compensation bill is going to be for the parks that we are debating here today in the House; we don't know what the costs are.
It occurs to me that there may be those on the government side of the House who are somewhat baffled by the fact that these grandiose announcements on the environment have not netted a greater political impact. They have not produced the desired political results in terms of support at the polls. I can tell the hon. members opposite that there's a reason for that. You can't go to the rural areas of British Columbia and tell people that we are going to protect a certain percentage of the land but we can't tell them how many jobs are going to be lost; we can't tell them what the costs are going to be in terms of loss of resource rents for the province of British Columbia; we can't tell them what the harvest levels will be. The Minister of Forests, during the estimates debate when I dealt with the issue, never came up with a sustainable figure for harvest levels for the province of British Columbia. You can't go to rural communities in British Columbia and tell people that we don't have answers to any of the questions they're asking about land use and the impacts, but trust us. Trust us, the Premier of the province said, people will not lose their jobs as a result of an environment and land use decision by this government.
If they haven't addressed the fundamental issues called for in the Peat Marwick Thorne report, what can possibly give the people of the province any confidence that they've addressed the other issues? I really hope, during the course of this debate on Bill 55, that we can address some of these fundamental, unanswered questions. What are we dealing with in terms of the cost of resource alienation? Will the government, during what may be the last year of its mandate, finally come clean on the costs of compensation?
The minister, as I alluded to earlier, let slip that it might be $500 million for the North Island. What would it be for the Cariboo and for the Kootenays? We don't have any idea. It seems to me that if we are to make proper environment and land use decisions in the province of British Columbia, all the issues have to be out on the table. People have to have the opportunity to weigh the costs and the benefits. They have to have that opportunity, and it hasn't happened in the province of British Columbia. We sit in the House today to debate a bill which increases the size of the park boundaries in British Columbia and increases the number of parks in the province. But more importantly, as suggested by this legislation, we are required in this province to come up with ten million hectares by the year 2000. This important part of the bill will certainly provide the opportunity to question the minister in committee. Before we can realize the impacts of those commitments, we have to have all the answers on the table.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Forests, who talked about the vaunted land use planning processes in the province of British Columbia and how they were driven by local communities. It's obvious to me that the minister has not talked to some of the people who were involved in these so-called visionary land use planning processes. He hasn't talked
[ Page 16713 ]
to them, because it's not the interpretation of events that I'm getting from those people who were at the table for two years of their lives. They spent two years of their lives involved in these planning processes, and they came out completely frustrated.
It's been forgotten, I suppose, by this government that the CORE tables in the Kootenays, the Cariboo and on Vancouver Island collapsed. They never achieved the consensus that they were designed to produce. What occurred was that the commissioner on resources and environment wrote his own reports, based on the information that he had been able to glean from the tables that he participated in or received reports from. We all know what happened when those reports were tabled. We had 25,000 British Columbians on the lawn of the Legislative Assembly, the largest single demonstration in the history of the province -- or the history of this assembly. We saw meetings in the Cariboo involving the commissioner where there was more anger and alienation than I've ever seen at any community meetings. The minister suggests that somehow the opposition had some role to play in these meetings. It's laughable. Those people were genuinely concerned about their futures.
Let me tell the members opposite what happened after that firestorm erupted in the province. What happened was that the government -- the cabinet -- appointed negotiators. They appointed people to go out to the regions of the province to try and bring the sides together. Was this an exercise in consensus? On Vancouver Island, the method of negotiation involving the deputy in the Premier's office with resource companies and communities was basically this: "You do this or we'll do that." That's exactly what happened. In the Kootenays these emissaries from cabinet weren't there to bring people together; they were there to tell people how it was going to be.
These members opposite only have to go out and....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm being heckled by the former Minister of Labour -- the former minister of everything -- but he hasn't been out there talking to these people. Why doesn't the former Minister of Labour pick up the phone this weekend, talk to somebody who was involved in a CORE table in British Columbia and come back and honestly tell the people of this assembly how they regarded the process -- this visionary land use process that the government talks about.
The government members do not understand why this visionary land use process they've alluded to has not resulted in better results at the polls. I can tell you that the people of British Columbia -- the people who were involved in these land use processes -- know exactly what kind of process they were involved in.
[9:15]
You know, the challenge to this government was provided by Peat Marwick Thorne in the very first year they formed government. The challenge was that the alienation of resources would affect government costs in revenue, and they urged the government, in 1992, to get a handle on those costs. That's what they asked. We ask: what do we pay a million dollars for?
Surely, if we're going to have a reasoned land use and environment debate in British Columbia, all of the costs have to be out on the table. It's the same reason that the government has run into trouble with its land claims, its treaty negotiation process: there's always the agenda that you see, the announcements that you see, and then there's the under-the-table one that you don't see. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Peat Marwick Thorne report have now gone under the table, because the government, I believe, knows what the cost will be.
I don't believe that any Minister of Finance who is also now the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks would not have taken that recommendation to heart and, somewhere within Treasury Board or the ministry, catalogued an expected list of compensation costs. Any prudent business person, government or any other organization would attempt to find out, if we're going to make a decision, what it is going to cost us in terms of the loss of revenues, the potential for reduction in corporate and personal income tax and the number of jobs. I believe that the government, to its credit, has these figures. I believe they know.
J. Weisgerber: I doubt it.
W. Hurd: Well, the member for Peace River North says I may ascribe too much knowledge to the government. It's a mistake that I don't make too often, but I may have done it in this case. Maybe they don't know. Maybe they decided that that portion of the Peat Marwick Thorne report was one they would ignore. I hope not, because some government sooner or later is going to have to come in and tabulate the bill for everything this government's done. I hope that somewhere there's a report that will allow a future government to put it out on the table and say: "Here's what we're going to have to pay." That's the problem with this kind of bill, which, you know, is eminently supportable.
I mean, the notion of 12 percent of the land base is a laudable objective, but the way we got there and the lack of information that's been presented is the real problem here. I would like to challenge the Minister of Finance during debate on this bill to share with the people of the province the information that was called for in the Peat Marwick Thorne report, which, as the Minister of Finance, she endorsed at the time. I hope that those figures can be shared with the province of British Columbia.
I also want to talk about the Parks budget in the province of British Columbia. We were dealing with that matter with the former minister before his unceremonious departure, and I never had the opportunity to question him more fully on this issue. You know, at a time when we are creating 106 new parks, the annual Parks budget actually went down last year in the province of British Columbia. They're spending less money than they were. Where...?
Hon. A. Petter: Efficiencies.
W. Hurd: Well, I've been assured by the hon. minister that it was efficiencies that drove the Parks budget down, but that would be new spots for the leopard, indeed, if that were to happen. But clearly, the Parks budget has gone down, and the fact of the matter is they don't have the planning funds to deal with the parks they've got now, much less the 106 we're creating.
The minister stood up and announced his trip to the Tatshenshini in the northwestern part of the province. He
[ Page 16714 ]
pointed out that it was a tremendous experience for him. I know the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was up there as well. But if you have a mortgage, you live in Surrey and you've got three kids, your chances of getting to the Tatshenshini are about the same as getting to the far side of the moon. It costs $4,000 to fly in there.
I'm sure that the members of the public are delighted that we have these new parks. But the closest they'll ever get to them is the National Geographic Magazine, because there are no roads. There's no way to get there but to fly.
An Hon. Member: Baloney.
W. Hurd: Oh, he say's baloney. Well, if you've got a Land Rover and ten guides, maybe you can get in there.
Interjections.
W. Hurd: I know the government is creating many of these areas for wealthy German and other European tourists, but for the average guy on the street, those parks may as well be on the far side of the moon, because I doubt.... But undoubtedly, they'll feel better for the fact they're there, and I know the minister will feel better about the fact they're there. He may not....
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm being unmercifully heckled here.
I challenge the minister to visit the Tatshenshini when the taxpayers are no longer paying for it and come back and give us an itemization of the costs. I don't imagine the travel agencies in British Columbia will be falling all over each other to provide the average British Columbian with the opportunity to visit these parks.
I just want to address a few other issues. I'm actually satisfied that the government hasn't seen fit to eliminate the grazing rights in these new parks. I think that's an important initiative we can certainly support. We've received many concerns on this side of the House about the potential alienation of grazing rights, which are critical to the survival of the ranching industry in the province, as the members opposite know. There will be grazing and hay-cutting allowed in some of these new park areas, and I think that's positive.
I guess remarks have also been made earlier about the concerns of the Musqueam band which have not been adequately addressed, contrary to the lengthy diatribe by the Minister of Forests. The official opposition received calls from the band chief as late as this afternoon. I understand that they're going to be holding an emergency meeting on the weekend to discuss the impacts of this parks bill on their land claims process. I'm happy to see that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is taking copious notes, and I urge him to pick up the phone and call the band chief, because that information has not been shared with the band. They feel that they haven't been consulted, and they have made that point known, I think, to the government as well as to the opposition.
In closing my remarks, I would say that the goal is supportable. But I would hope, before the debate on land use and the environment and parks is finished in this province, that the spirit and intent of the Peat Marwick Thorne recommendations will be honoured and that we will finally have from the Minister of Finance, as well as from the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, a thorough itemization of how much it's going to cost. Every decision government makes carries with it risks, benefits, costs and advantages, and I don't think those issues have been thoroughly canvassed with respect to this bill.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to stand up and debate Bill 53, the Park Amendment Act, 1995. It's rather interesting when I stand here and look at the two acts that we're debating at the present time: one is the Election Act; the other one is the Park Amendment Act, 1995. Both are equally thick, about one-half to three-quarters of an inch thick. One wonders if there's any connection between the Park Amendment Act, 1995 and the impending election. I suspect there might be. I suspect there might have been a phone call made to the United States in the past little while, and the voice of Karl Struble said: "Create good news for the people. That's your best chance of re-election." I think the attempt at good news for the people is this Park Amendment Act, 1995.
We live in the third-largest province in Canada, and I don't know how many members in this Legislature -- let alone the armchair environmentalists -- know what a wondrous province we actually live in. A lot of people look at Beautiful British Columbia and marvel at the pictures, but it's quite another thing to simply go over this land and marvel at the land. If you fly over it, it almost tears the heart out of your chest, you feel so good about being a citizen in British Columbia.
Actually, all of British Columbia is a park, and I mean that. It doesn't matter whether it's on the coast or at the interior lakes or in the high mountains or in the northern plateau regions or anywhere. All of British Columbia is a park. It's all very beautiful and very diverse.
You know, when God started to create this continent of North America, he must have started in the east coast. He wasn't very good at creating land, because there's a lot of rock there. As he came further west -- other than a few bad days, for example, in the Alberta Badlands -- it got better and better, until he created British Columbia. It's a marvellous province to live in. I think we should all be very, very proud of the province and the beauty in the province.
You know, we've lived in the province of British Columbia since Confederation, for 128 years. Over that period of time, I'm quite proud of the development and the awareness of the province that we live in and the parks that have been created in the province. The reality is that prior to the election of the current government in 1991, we had more in the area of parks than the area of some of the provinces in Canada. I think that's worth remembering. There have not been years and centuries and generations of neglect. There has been a great deal of commitment to parks in the province of British Columbia. I'm very, very proud of that particular record.
We've heard a great many words on a number of issues. One of the issues that keeps cropping up that I'd like to straighten out once and for all for the people in this assembly and for the public at large is that when Gro Harlem Brundtland tabled her commission's report to the United Nations on the environment and the economy, there was no mention of a 12 percent figure. I have never been able to identify where that 12 percent figure comes from. It's bantered around so often it has become a fact. It's not....
[ Page 16715 ]
Interjection.
C. Serwa: No, I've looked through the recommendations; I have not found it. It has become a fact.
You have to understand, too, that the wish for parks, for example, for the European population, which is dominant in that particular area, is based on the fact that many of those countries have no private or public land set aside for any sizeable parks. They're a development out of the feudal system, where title to land was alienated a long period of time ago. It doesn't matter whether it's in Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland or Austria, there is very little of the land, except for the very highest rugged mountain peaks, that is in parks. It's one thing to talk about park area in relation to huge, huge population pressures, and it's unrealistic to take a recommendation and apply it carte blanche to a province like British Columbia.
When I look at this park act, I think it might be entitled more aptly the white elephant act. I know right now that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks doesn't have enough financial resources to maintain or develop the existing parks. It doesn't matter whether they are the recreational parks in the Okanagan, which have lacked any complete development and have very, very high pressures.... There has been high pressure for acquiring further lands to develop for the recreational traveller, for the tourist industry -- a very high demand in the Okanagan. That has not been forthcoming. There has been no sustained financial commitment to fish and game and integrated resource management in the Ministry of Environment. Virtually all of these budgets have gone down. But Karl Struble says, "Make it appear as if you're really doing something and expand the parks," when you haven't got enough revenue to maintain what you have.
[9:30]
Why would you compromise the future of British Columbia? Why would you compromise the future economy of the province of British Columbia? Is it because of the armchair environmentalists that never get out of the greater Vancouver area, which is the largest single clearcut in the province of British Columbia? Nobody there moans and groans about it.
I had the opportunity, and probably no one else has done this in this Legislature, to speak to 16,000 people at one of the Stein Valley festivals. It was a very interesting opportunity for me. I met with Chief Ruby Dunstan and flew over the Stein Valley and back again. The interesting fact about it was that the majority of those 16,000 people were bound and determined that they would reach the ears of government and put a moratorium on logging in the entire province of British Columbia. A lot of those people were obviously professionals. Most of them, if not all of them, were from the lower mainland -- the largest clearcut in the province of British Columbia -- but enunciating something that they didn't feel would affect them.
Areas like Vancouver do not recognize the needs of resource-based communities in the interior of the province of British Columbia. They feel no sensitivity. We have a former mayor of Vancouver sitting as Premier, we have a former mayor of Vancouver sitting as Leader of the Opposition. All I ever hear in this Legislature is the domination of the concerns of the greater Victoria region, possibly the southern part of Vancouver Island and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That's all we ever hear about in this particular Legislature because of the dominance of the interests of the New Democratic and Liberal party leaders.
For the rest of the people of the province, the people who use the outdoors for recreation and for the sustenance of their communities, these decisions are very important indeed. It doesn't make any rational sense to have large areas set aside that you can't manage or maintain, that are under no significant pressure and under no demand at the present time, and to impose those types of restrictions.
The imposition of park status in the Tatshenshini is something that this government will live down eventually, but it was not made in a reasonable and objective fashion. The environmental assessment report was never concluded. The decision was made....
Interjections.
C. Serwa: In the debate over there, I wonder if my speaking is interfering with the words of the members. I apologize if it is.
The Tatshenshini was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the broken windows that occurred here, which was a reaction to the lack of support for the decision made in the Clayoquot. That's all the Tatshenshini was. There was no honest assessment of it. A government cannot govern a people on arbitrary decisions made on that particular basis. That is the problem with decisions like the Tatshenshini. We're all in favour of parks. As we see the need, as the population grows, as we can afford the parks and as we can afford the maintenance and development of those parks, then we should by all means proceed with those parks.
But in British Columbia, which contains huge wilderness areas, we have to be mindful that we're not far away at any time from wildness or wilderness. We had a group of delegates here not too long ago from the European community. I think they were from the European Parliament. I presume they were here to have a look at how well we've managed the environment in British Columbia, and it probably affects our forest industry here in the province.
Well, that's interesting. I don't know, hon. Speaker, if you've noticed this, but I've noticed that the reformed drinker, for example, is a real zealot and wants everyone to stop drinking. The reformed smoker becomes a zealot and endeavours to stop everyone from smoking. Well, the Europeans are coming here to British Columbia and telling us that we had better preserve British Columbia or they're not going to buy any of our products. That's fine and dandy. I look at Europe, and I wonder. I note that the rivers are very polluted and that no superb effort is being made to clean up the pollution. Many of their large lakes are so polluted that they can't eat the fish that are in the lakes. Lake Constance in Switzerland is like that.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. I wonder if we could have a little more quiet in here for the hon. member while he's trying to speak. There are several conversations going on here, and the main effort is to hear the member who has the floor, so I would appreciate your co-operation. The hon. member continues.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for that courtesy.
[ Page 16716 ]
Nevertheless, the Europeans, who have not managed their....
Interjections.
C. Serwa: I notice a lowering in the tone, hon. Speaker. I'll continue on.
I notice that the Europeans have not made any commitment or any superb effort to a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels, for example. There is no committed concern with respect to their own environment. Their soul food, the balm for their identity and self-esteem, is to go out like zealots to other jurisdictions in the world, and say: "You'd better do a good job. You know you're the last pristine wilderness area in the world and it's important for us, so that if we want to go on a trip as tourists, we can see your rugged land as it once was."
Well, I can't buy that. They could do a great deal with their own land and their own environment. A larger clearcut than the greater Vancouver area is Europe itself, which was once heavily forested. It's the same with Great Britain, which was heavily forested. All of it has been cleared, and yet they suffer no guilt from that and make no effort to rehabilitate their particular environment.
As a former Minister of Environment, I used to get a lot of letters -- especially from people in the European community and different jurisdictions in the United States -- expressing concern about wolves. Wolves relate to wilderness and wildness and certainly to the Park Act. Occasionally I would send letters and suggest that if they believed so strongly in the survival of a large population of wolves, as representatives of an indigenous species, we would be very pleased to trap and send them some wolves. As a matter of fact, they might enjoy roaming Great Britain, Germany or France, where they once roamed free. But there seemed to be a reluctance to accept that particular offer. It's always easier to try to force someone else, so our ranchers or our farmers have to deal with a problem that the Europeans don't. It's a cost to our people, to Canadians.
Memory is a very interesting thing in the debate with respect to the Park Act. There is a strong environmentalist movement in the Nelson area, as the member for Nelson-Creston enunciated -- and very proudly, and that's good. But it is interesting to note that in the early development of British Columbia, that was probably the most heavily populated and developed area in the province. Sandon was once a very large and thriving community, and places like New Denver and Nakusp had magic in their names. That was where a great deal of mining took place. The area around Nelson, for example, was deforested by the simple expediency of setting fires to the trees, which simplified prospecting. I've seen pictures at the turn of the century where, rather than the hills being covered green -- as people believe they have been since the beginning of history -- the hills were, in fact, burnt black.
Nature does regain. Certainly with reforestation work, second-growth forests are not substantially any different than the original forests here. Through forest fires and regrowth, which is an endless cycle in British Columbia, we haven't lost anything. There is a public will to somehow accept a forest fire as a natural phenomenon, yet there is a public reluctance to believe that slash burning is not significantly different from a forest fire. A lot of flak is given to government about the burning of slash.
A lot of the commitments.... The Minister of Forests spoke extensively about forestry in this picture, but there was a lot of doublespeak. I think there were specific questions asked of the Minister of Forests. Perhaps the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will answer the question more clearly, because the Minister of Forests waffled on it. The question was: "Will these parks be subject to native land claims?" The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs indicated through questioning and previous estimates that all Crown land would be part and parcel of the land claim discussions. So there is no clear answer to that particular question. I think that the native community and the non-native community in the province deserve a clear answer, and perhaps we'll get a clear answer here tonight.
When this government was fairly newly elected, they commissioned the State of the Environment Report for British Columbia. They felt that the environment was in a very sad state of affairs after the Social Credit government had won 13 of the previous 15 elections and had formed government for approximately 37 years in the province, which ended in the '91 election. Surprise of all surprises! That state-of-the-environment report said the environment in British Columbia was in very good condition and compared more than favourably with the environment in so many of the other Canadian provinces. There was no comparison with Europe or the Soviet Union. I'm very proud of that fact, and I'm mindful, too, that this state-of-the-environment report, which was supposed to have been repeated, has not been forthcoming from the current government. I might remind the current government that with 128 years as a province in Canada, four years of the current government hasn't turned the environment around so that it's now a pristine province. All in all, I think that the people in the province and the former governments have done a very good job with their concern for the environment, and it's a responsibility that I hope will continue with successive governments.
Concern is expressed, and certainly from people in the interior of the province, about the amount of alienation of land. I'm given to understand that in the private sector, 7 percent of the area of the province of British Columbia is alienated in private sector ownership. I think it's fairly safe to say that a very significant amount of that 7 percent takes place on the east coast of Vancouver Island, where large tracts of forest land are privately owned by large forest corporations and are part of the railway right-of-way. The 7 percent really doesn't amount to all that much when you take into consideration the rest of the province.
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is talking about not settling for more than 5 percent for aboriginal land claims in the province, although the aboriginal community is claiming somewhere between 111 percent to 120 percent of the area of British Columbia. This particular section, where you're taking a look at 12 percent of the area of the province and designating it specifically for parks, really adds to that and to the concern and uncertainty that exist in the interior of the province.
I regret to say that it seems that the target of a lot of the environmental protection industry is the forest industry. They would be happiest if they were able to completely destroy that industry -- to stop that industry in British Columbia -- not recognizing the importance of the revenue and all the secondary benefits to the citizens of this province.
[ Page 16717 ]
I'm concerned also about mining in the province. Where we had a great deal of mining in British Columbia, this has been reduced dramatically, not because of anything other than more and more severe environmental restrictions imposed on an industry that it has accepted, with its full mandate of responsibility to the environment. That particular industry is on the verge of destruction in this province.
The next industry that will be on the verge of destruction by the armchair environmentalists is the cattle industry. I think the cattle industry had better be aware that there's a great deal of concern with respect to cattle on Crown land. If the environmentalists had their druthers, they would see that cattle would be restricted to private land only. Probably that will be the next test of this type of legislation.
I don't think that I can support this particular bill. I support parks in the province. We have earned an international reputation for the quality and the diversity of parks that exist at the present time in British Columbia. As our population increases and as specific areas require additional protection, I think they should be brought on line commensurate with the ability to develop and to protect those particular parks. But to bring in a large-scale bill like this on the basis that Karl says it's good news for the people of the province and you can be elected on a bill like this, I don't believe is the responsible thing for a government to do.
[9:45]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. I suggest that the issue is significantly larger than it appears to be, because it causes a great deal of uncertainty in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: I disagree with much of what the previous speaker has just said, but I admire his honesty. He has said he's going to vote against the bill. He's willing to stand up and be counted and place his reputation on the basis of that honest position that he puts forward. I disagree with that position, but it's certainly very different than the Liberal opposition, from whom we are hearing a series of the most convoluted expressions I've ever heard in my life. They are seeking to get out of the cab on both sides at the same time, stating, on the one hand, in mild terms: "Yes, this is a good idea. We like parks; we're in favour of parks. But on the other hand...." Then they go on naysaying in the most inadequate way, and not with a great deal of sincerity or passion, simply recognizing that this government, coming forward with this bill at this time, is bringing forward one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to come through the Legislature in British Columbia.
We can listen to the opposition drone on with their naysaying and with the denial of the very proactive and responsible land use planning processes that have taken place in this province. We can listen to them doing that, but where's the vision? Where's the foresight? Where's the recognition that people in this day and age visit Yellowstone Park and say: "Thank God our forebears had the courage and thoughtfulness to set this land aside"? People who are able to travel down the Oregon coast, realizing that that coastland is set aside for the public -- it is not private land -- bless the foresight of their forebears who had the vision to make sure that that was available to all citizens without being encumbered by lack of access to that area. People visit Banff National Park and say: "Thank God our forebears had the presence of mind to protect this area."
Yes, there were naysayers at that time, as there are in this House at this time. I would think that those naysayers in that day and age at least had the courage -- the fortitude -- to come out and say that they were opposed. Not so with the Liberal opposition. They want to have it both ways; they want to get out of the cab on both sides. They want to curry favour with those who say, "Yes, we want parks," and with those who say: "No, we don't want parks." What they end up doing is coming through with a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed approach that indicates the kind of pap that this province -- God forbid -- would get from this Liberal opposition if they ever had any position of power.
The fact is, as I know my friend and colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has said, that we are the last generation with the opportunity to make the kinds of decisions that are being made in this legislation. We know that there are thousands and thousands of British Columbians who recognize the value of this approach and who have put countless hours into seeking to draw to the attention of government, opposition and decision-makers the tremendous, precious legacy we have in our natural resources.
Therefore I am very proud, as a former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, along with my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and my colleague the present Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, that we have had such a significant opportunity to set aside these pristine areas of British Columbia and ensure that at least these representative ecosystems will be there for our children and our children's children. We should never apologize for having been the last generation to make that kind of a decision, so that they would be able to share in that legacy.
I believe that a mark of a civilization is to be found in the way in which people treat their poor, protect their cultural heritage and protect their natural heritage. This is one of the marks of a civilization of which I think we can be truly proud.
I have listened carefully to the comments of those who would seek to denigrate the decision that is being made here today. One of the things that they do not assert in their comments is the fact that the land use planning that is taking place within this province is leading to a certainty that has never been achieved in the recent history of this province. It is leading to certainty. It is because this government has set up processes through the Commission on Resources and Environment, and because this government has had the courage to bring those areas that almost came to consensus into a final decision of government that we have been able to do this.
When we listen to some of the concerns being expressed about the legislation, one hon. member actually said that this might have something to do with an election coming up. I must say we expect that as we go out with our record, we will be able to put forward a package of processes that have helped to achieve a certainty in this province through the protection of these areas that should be protected and through the protection of the working forest and other areas for mining so that we can ensure the future of this province is secure.
The member for Surrey-White Rock talked about his concerns about the Musqueam. He talked about the fact that the Musqueam had been in to see him, and how he was standing up on their and other first nations' behalf. The utter hypocrisy of that position boggles the mind, when you consider that the Leader of the Official Opposition has driven a wedge between himself and his Aboriginal Affairs critic, and
[ Page 16718 ]
that what he has said is tantamount to trashing the Treaty Commission process. He's no friend of first nations within this province, no friend whatsoever, and it really boggles the mind that members of his caucus would come in here and pretend to be friends of first nations by talking about the Musqueam.
One cannot possibly imagine hypocrisy having any place in this House. But I'm afraid it does, given the comments that we have coming from the official opposition, where the Aboriginal Affairs critic has been isolated and insulated by his leader. That hon. member brought in the 11 points of the Liberal platform at the eleventh hour, only to have that tossed out and a new program brought in by his leader, who still won't come clean with regard to the fact that his refusal to even consider interim measures is a denial of the treaty process in the first place.
You know that it was only a few years ago in this province -- five or six years ago -- when all you had to do was mention Carmanah or Walbran and you could start an argument. You would have people yelling and screaming at each other, and valley-by-valley conflicts. The fact is that now those areas have been protected.
Or we think of areas like the Cowichan River, where the keeper of the river, Joe Saysell -- well known to the former Minister of Environment and the present Minister of Environment -- has in a very committed way stood up for the protection of that area, and now sees that the area is protected to the greatest extent possible. Or we have a person such as Mr. Al Grist in Port Coquitlam, the protector of the Coquitlam River. They are people who dedicate their lives to protecting areas they know are needed as a legacy for future generations. We think of such areas as the Tatshenshini. People here have said today that the Tatshenshini is too far away for anybody to be able to access, not recognizing that the values that are there will never be achieved again if we do not protect those values now.
But they have also talked about the role of first nations with regard to the future of these parks. I only have to remind them that the Tatshenshini park, Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park, Ts'yl?os Park, Von Donop Marine Park and Pinecone Burke Park are parks that will be developing joint stewardship plans through negotiations with the first nations by working together in developing a master plan. So don't tell me that there isn't a role for first nations in deciding on the way in which....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: The question is whether I would place these parks on the negotiations table. The answer is no. I would not place these parks on the negotiations table, but the hon. member, if he respects the process, knows that other parties may choose to come and place them on the table. We will go to that table with our position very clearly stated and thought out. If he doesn't understand that, then he doesn't understand the basics of negotiations.
One of the members of the Liberal opposition talked about wealthy Europeans coming to British Columbia. Would he oppose them coming to British Columbia and spending thousands and thousands of dollars while they're here? Is he opposed to that? Is he opposed to the fact that over one-third of the visitors to the West Coast Trail on Vancouver Island are from central Europe? Is he opposed to that and the wealth they bring to the province?
I am very pleased to know that Pinecone-Burke Mountain, in the area in which I live, is being protected. That is tremendously important to the people of the area, and that is accessible. You can be in the Pinecone-Burke Mountain area within three-quarters of an hour after leaving the populated area of the lower mainland. That's an area that is going to be visited by countless thousands, and it's going to be very valuable.
I know that when we hear the Liberal opposition speaking out of both sides of their mouth that we should also remember that their Mines critic has stated in this House on several occasions -- most recently during the Aboriginal Affairs estimates -- that the Liberal opposition favours mining in class A parks. We therefore know the lack of understanding that exists within that party and that caucus, and we don't dare see that happen again.
[10:00]
I have one note in conclusion, and that is that we made a commitment to double the parks and wilderness areas. We campaigned on that commitment, and we were elected on it. The voters of B.C. are very positive with regard to us having made it. We have made that commitment, and we are well on track toward achieving the kind of certainty for all British Columbians that this commitment affords. Let us remember that there was an NDP government in 1972-75, when Bob Williams was the Minister of Lands. He had the vision at that time to double the park and wilderness areas in this province from 3 to 6 percent, and we should not let this vote go by without recognizing that.
A. Warnke: I must admit it's been a funny day. I really thought that with the sort of unanimity of support that was beginning to develop this afternoon, we wouldn't go too far. Then as I listen to hon. members, a few of them actually stated a few things that I was about to say, and I said: "Hey, that makes it really easy for me. I don't have to say much." Everything was just clicking along really nicely. I thought that the member for Surrey-White Rock had pretty well put forward and articulated very well what the final position would be, and I was just prepared to hear the Minister of Environment close debate and that would be the end of the matter.
Then something stupid happened. After hearing the last speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I feel that I'm just going to have to get up and say a few words. I have to admit my disappointment, especially in the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, because in the questions that were put forward by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, which I thought were pretty clear and articulate, I didn't hear one word from the minister that clarified once and for all what the member's questions were -- not one word. The minister had a chance to clarify the record once and for all.
Oh, the minister says the Liberals are speaking from both sides of their mouths. Talk about speaking from both sides of their mouths! Listen to this. Back in 1989.... It's the same debate that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi referred to, and in fact, those were the same kinds of quotations. Obviously they did not hear that member, so it's really worth it to raise them again.
Listen to this. This is the Attorney General, the member for North Island, who thought this was just a terrible tragedy that somehow the Social Credit government of the day was going to establish a park on the University Endowment
[ Page 16719 ]
Lands. The justice minister then said: "It seems to me that people who have a legitimate claim should not have the right to pursue the claim extinguished by an act of the Legislature." Well, look at what we're faced with right here today.
But that's not the end of it. Then there is the Premier: "The shame is that this government" -- the Social Credit government -- "has intentionally decided to deny the Musqueam the right to negotiate their aboriginal claim, even though it poses no threat to the park" -- which implies, of course, that that goofy government over there was going to, if they would form government, be fair. They were going to consider the rights of the Musqueam people. But no, no, no. When they come into this Legislature and bring down a bill that puts forward a park, guess what. It is at the expense of the Musqueam people.
And then Gordon Hanson said in that debate:
"Musqueam people were not consulted when this park was proposed. In fact, there is some alarm that the ceding of lands could jeopardize their claim. The University Endowment Lands have been and still are an integral part of the Musqueam's culture and land use. The Musqueam has never sold or been compensated for its interest in the land and resources within Musqueam traditional territory."
Listening to Gordon Hanson, listening to the Attorney General, listening to the Aboriginal Affairs minister, listening to the Premier, you would think that when they come in here and bring forth a bill they would treat the Musqueam fairly and honestly.
Well, I'll tell you what: that's not the way the Musqueam people see it. This is what the Musqueam people think about this glorified NDP government. It's dated May 30, 1995, to Premier Harcourt, to the Premier of the province. It's very, very clear. Listen up, members, because you deserve to hear this:
"The Musqueam Indian band expresses our concern and disappointment regarding your government's recently announced intentions to create more parks within our traditional territory. Not only did your government make this decision without the consent of the Musqueam band, you never consulted us and, indeed, never gave us advance notice of your proposal."
This is the same bunch who claimed in 1989: "We would consult. We would talk with the Musqueam band." But it doesn't end there. The Musqueam people further say:
"We were especially distressed since one of the proposed parks, the one on Poplar Island, is the site of the Musqueam burial ground. Perhaps your government was unaware of this fact, but if you had consulted with us in advance, we would have told you. In addition to the lack of consultation, the government's decision to allocate more Crown-held land within our traditional territory to park purposes has a direct and adverse impact on our ability to negotiate a fair and honourable treaty through the B.C. treaty process."
After you see and hear that, for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to come in here and have the audacity to say that over here we're speaking from both sides of our mouth.... In fact, it is this government over here that speaks from both sides of its mouth -- one in 1989, one in 1995. I think it's darned shameful, and this government should just simply take off and resign. If they think they're so damned smart, that government should call an election and see whether they're going to have the support of the Musqueam people and the support of the people of British Columbia. But they're cute.
On top of that, as I listened to the debate, there was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who.... Talking about mealy words, look at this. He said: "Oh, we're going to establish a bunch of parks for a variety of purposes, one of which will be set aside for aboriginal matters." What does that mean? This is what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was saying, and this is what I'm saying: I think it's about time that this government, instead of playing around and trying to be fancy-dandy, simply answered the question. Maybe the Minister of Environment, in her wrap-up, can clarify, confirm and commit -- considering how they behaved and talked in 1989 -- what is being laid aside for parks which will remain parks. Or is it really an approach that establishes Crown lands that may go to a land claims settlement and/or other uses? I think it's about time. The question is a very simple one. The question posed by the member over there was a very simple one.
I think it's about time this government woke up, smelled the flowers, smelled the coffee and everything else -- just smelled anything. One of these days, they might get it right. But I tell you, the member for Surrey-White Rock was not only articulating a position but giving a warning. He was illustrating to the members over there why they are in trouble. They are in big trouble. They think they do one thing, and they get themselves into trouble. No wonder they keep low in the polls. Frankly, I want to see them come up in the polls a little bit, as soon as we have an election. But they are down in the polls. They wonder why they're down in the polls; they wonder why they can't get out of this mess. I'll tell you why: they speak from both sides of their mouths, because they can't make up their minds. Oh, they can accuse us of not making up our minds, but they don't make up their minds. They don't know what direction to go in. They don't have a vision. They have nothing. They're just absolutely nothing.
I would say, hon. Speaker, that it's about time we had a wrap-up.
Deputy Speaker: For the wrap-up on second reading, I call upon the hon. Minister of Environment.
Hon. E. Cull: That was quite a performance we just saw. Actually it's been quite a performance listening to the opposition, particularly towards the end of this debate.
In the early part of the debate, I really wondered whether we were going to get into any of the substantive issues of principle around this bill, but it became crystal-clear what's going on here with the last four or five speakers. It's been very interesting, particularly listening to the members of the Liberal opposition, because their real agenda and their real hypocrisy in what they're saying about this bill is now crystal-clear for anyone who has been listening tonight or who cares to read Hansard tomorrow.
The member for Surrey-White Rock, who the last speaker said had said it all on behalf of the Liberal opposition, stood up, said that he was pleased to rise to support this bill and then took 30 minutes trashing it. That is just the height of hypocrisy. That will allow him to say to those voters of his who support the creation of parks, "Oh yes, we voted for the park bill," but say to those who may have some concerns -- to his special interest constituents: "Oh no, we opposed the bill during debate in the House." Talk about hypocrisy -- to stand up and say that you support the bill, and then every last comment you make is in opposition to it.
That member also had the gall to talk about the Parks budget. These are the people over here who have been saying:
[ Page 16720 ]
"Cut spending." It is the Leader of the Official Opposition who said that one of the highest priorities, should the misfortune occur to this province that they form the government, would be to cut environmental standards and regulations. Don't stand here and ask where the money in the Parks budget is, when you go out there into the province and talk about cutting standards, cutting regulations, cutting government spending and laying off public servants.
Who is the Leader of the Opposition talking about? I'm sure he is not talking about protecting the Ministry of Environment and Parks wholly from his proposal to attack the civil service.
The other interesting thing is in the comments we've got now. We've got the real agenda -- not only the hypocrisy about what they say here and what they say there, but what the real agenda is. The member for Abbotsford -- and I listened to him very carefully, as a new member of this House, to see what he might have to say -- expressed his grave concern that this bill might compel future governments to protect 12 percent of representative ecosystems in parks and wilderness areas. He said that one of the things that he thought was wrong about the bill was that we might actually have to live up to that commitment. Well, there was nothing said in this debate tonight that made me more certain that we have done the right thing in protecting these lands in legislation, because it is very clear by the comments that have been made from the Liberal opposition that they don't support the 12 percent goal, no matter what they have said when it has been convenient for them to support it.
The other really interesting thing that we learned tonight is that if you can't get to a park and you can't see it, you don't have to protect it. If it is too far away, like the Tatshenshini, or if it's too remote, like Ts'yl?os or the Khutzeymateen, then it doesn't count. It only counts if it's in your back yard; it only counts if you can drive to it.
What a stupid concept in trying to protect representative ecosystems. We have to protect the parks in our own back yard -- the ones like Pinecone Burke and the Gowlland Tod -- the ones that we can drive to or, in some cases, take a bus to. But we also have to protect those essential areas that are now remote from human population not only for us but also for the grizzlies in the Khutzeymateen, for the biodiversity, for the other species that we are sharing this province with.
That is what this is all about, not just having recreational opportunities for those of us who live in the cities, but to protect for all times these very, very critical areas for future generations. We heard them say that if you can't see it, it doesn't count. That's what has been wrong with resource management in this province for the last.... I can't count how many decades. Everything that was done out of sight didn't count. The real agenda of the Liberal opposition has been made very clear.
[10:15]
I'm going to wrap up. Many questions were asked; many positions were put forward. I'm sure we will have a lot of opportunity in committee stage to get into that. I want to conclude by saying that this bill is about the future. It's about a vision of land use planning that is different from anything we have seen in the last two decades in this province. It's about a cooperative, positive vision that supports a sustainable environment and sustainable communities. Most of all, it is about the future. It's about the future of what we are going to leave behind for our children. I am very proud to be part of a government that is going to be leaving behind 106 new parks for our children, for future generations and for those people who will come along afterwards. As I said in my introductory remarks, they won't remember who we are, but they will be damned glad that we were there when we were to protect them.
Second reading of Bill 53 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 47 | ||
|
Petter |
Marzari |
Pement |
|
Edwards |
Cashore |
O'Neill |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Kasper |
|
Hammell |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Cull |
|
Gabelmann |
Clark |
Barlee |
|
Sihota |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Lord |
Jackson |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Hartley |
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Mitchell |
Weisgerber |
|
Stephens |
Gingell |
Hurd |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
Warnke |
|
Dalton |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
MacPhail | |
| NAYS -- 1 | ||
| Serwa | ||
Bill 53, Park Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 55.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1995
(second reading)
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I now move second reading of the bill. As the members know, and as the tradition has been in this House, there really being so many principles involved in a miscellaneous bill, it's impossible to have a second reading debate -- a principled debate. The tradition has been, I think appropriately over the years, that the committee stage debate enables members to talk in more general terms than might ordinarily be the case on each of the sections.
Just to expedite the business for committee, which will presumably come early next week, I would just very quickly give members a brief explanation of some of the sections in the bill so that members know what we're trying to accomplish.
The amendments to the Assessment Act, the Municipal Act, and the British Columbia Railway Act are intended to lower railway property taxes in British Columbia, to make the property tax system more fair, to encourage investment by railways in the province and to ensure the viability of the rail transportation system of the province.
[ Page 16721 ]
The British Columbia Transit Act is amended to accommodate the proposed commuter rail service to enable West Coast Express to be operated by a subsidiary of B.C. Transit, to allow for an alternative funding arrangement for West Coast Express and to allow for tax exemptions for land and improvements comparable to SkyTrain.
Amendments to the Court of Appeal Act and the Supreme Court Act increase the full-time complement of judges in the two superior courts of British Columbia.
A number of amendments related to freedom of information will guarantee the confidentiality of certain information related to health care bodies, the Human Rights Act, the Mines Act, the Statistics Act and the Securities Act.
The bill amends the Highway Act to enable the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to record an interest in a highway capital project without having to title each individual parcel or to obtain the approval of a lease by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
The Horse Racing Tax Act and the Pacific Racing Association Act are amended as part of a broader strategy to make the Pacific Racing Association financially viable and to improve the economic viability of the horse racing industry in British Columbia.
Amendments to the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act will reduce the administrative burden of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, avoid duplication of efforts and allow greater efficiency and flexibility for financing by B.C. Gas.
The Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act is being amended, as members know, to discontinue the pension plan for members of the Legislative Assembly as of the next general election and to ensure that the plan complies with the federal Income Tax Act rules in effect since January 1, 1992.
The bill amends the funding authority for the liquor control and licensing branch by providing that all fees and charges paid under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act be applied first to the administration of that act. Any balance will be remitted to the consolidated revenue fund.
Next, two housekeeping amendments are made to the Liquor Distribution Act to reflect current practice.
Other amendments are made to the Motor Vehicle Act and the Vancouver Charter to ensure that the provincial violation ticket scheme under the Offence Act is the sole means of enforcing speeding offences. Amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter enable local governments to use development cost charges for parkland improvements to best meet the needs of each community.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
An amendment to the Police Act permits a municipal police board disciplinary tribunal hearing to have a quorum of three persons rather than four.
Amendments to the Treaty Commission Act provide a definition of prior commissioners. Commissioners who have been appointed prior to the legislation coming into force continue as current commissioners, and it transfers the rights, property and interests of prior commissioners to the legal entity of the Treaty Commission.
The Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act is amended to facilitate the restructuring of the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline project to ensure that Pacific Coast Energy Corporation and Centra Gas B.C. become economically viable and to minimize the province's financial exposure.
[10:30]
The Waste Management Act is amended to clarify the regulation-making authority regarding motor vehicle and engine emissions. These changes are necessary to enable the regulations being developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Amendments to the Wildlife Act establish higher penalties for offences related to grizzly bears, in response to the growing concern that current penalties for poaching are too low.
Bill 55 also contains a section which temporarily extends the six-month limitation period and the two-month notice period for legal action against local governments in the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter to allow homeowners to take legal action in relation to certain radiant-heating ceiling panels.
Hon. Speaker.... No, I won't do this yet. I will move second reading again.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is nice to see you in the chair.
The Attorney General mentioned at the start of his remarks that there are no principles in this bill -- I think he said something to that effect -- and that perhaps we'll have an unprincipled debate. If indeed it's an unprincipled debate, it's only at his invitation that it is so.
We have several concerns about this bill, some of which we'll certainly comment on this evening and all of which we will address in committee stage. Given that we have 25 bills to deal with, of course, it's more appropriate to flag at that stage the particular concerns and get them on record through committee comments. I have several things that I want to put on record right now, however. Some of these will have a familiar ring to them, because it's the old message -- lack of consultation by this government when they bring things forward -- and we see it again. It sounds like an echo in the chambers, and maybe it is, but that's the truth.
We know there's a significant amendment to the British Columbia Railway Act. The Attorney General seemed to want to slough that one over quietly, but as I'm sure all members opposite are well aware, the fact is that the UBCM is anything but pleased about these amendments. I will just comment on some of the correspondence of recent date between the president of the UBCM, Councillor Joanne Monaghan, and the Premier.
On June 22 the Premier wrote to President Monaghan informing her in her capacity as the head of UBCM that British Columbia intended to introduce legislation to "improve the fairness and competitiveness of property taxation of railways in British Columbia." Well, it sounds nice. But when you see the subsequent correspondence, it isn't as nice as one might be led to believe. So let me go on. In an urgent letter of the following day, June 23, to the Premier, in response
[ Page 16722 ]
to his letter to President Monaghan, what does the UBCM head have to say about this taxation bill? "If your government is really committed to consultation and respect for local government, this initiative is proof that such consultation...."
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what matter?
D. Mitchell: A point of order, hon. Speaker. I know we'll have a chance to canvass this in much more detail in committee stage, but the correspondence that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano is incorrectly reading into the record right now was referring to a bill that did not yet exist. He's referring to correspondence that was directed towards the government, asking the government to bring in legislation that reflected their concerns. In fact, the government has brought in legislation that has accommodated those concerns. He's way out of date, but he's also referring to legislation that didn't exist on June 22. This is already canvassed.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. This is not a point of order.
D. Mitchell: I seek to make my point of order. I'll be very brief, and I'll get to the point.
The bill that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano is referring to is not this bill. He's incorrect; he's completely out of order. He's referring to a bill that was feared by the UBCM but that in fact the government didn't bring it in. It's brought in an alternative bill that has completely addressed their concerns. This was completely canvassed during the Premier's estimates, and actually the government has done a pretty good job on this one particular section of this bill. I can't say that for all sections of the bill.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to make two points of order. One is to agree with the point of order made by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. He's absolutely correct. The second point of order is that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano is not speaking to the principle of the miscellaneous bill, because there is technically no principle in a miscellaneous bill.
J. Dalton: Well, if you're saying we can't even talk about this bill, that's pure bloody nonsense.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The original point of order that was raised is not a point of order. The dispute about factual information between members is not a point of order. However, the Attorney General does make a very good point, and that is that you're not speaking to the bill. I would like to remind the member to speak to the bill. This is second reading.
J. Dalton: I'm very surprised that all members opposite, third party and whoever, would take this tack at this hour of the evening. I hadn't intended to be long, and I won't be long.
With respect to your ruling, hon. Speaker, and with respect to the Attorney General's comments and the independent member's remarks and point of order, this bill is not necessarily dissimilar to any other. In second reading, we are entitled to address principles of the bill. Surely there are 25 acts that we might want to address in one way or another...
Interjection.
J. Dalton: ...and therefore, as far as my colleague suggests, there could be 25 principles we want to address. However, let's not get into that gunfight.
Putting aside the draft legislation and the actual content of this bill, the important principle I'm making is that, as with any other bill before this House, when an important group such as the UBCM is directly impacted by an amendment, it raises a legitimate concern about lack of consultation. This isn't any secret to this government. I don't know how many times in this session we've had to remind them. Just earlier tonight on the park act, my colleague from Richmond-Steveston reminded them of the concerns of the Musqueam, who were not consulted on the park bill. We're back to the same thing, and that's the point I wish to address here.
I think we have to be very mindful when we deal with things impacting on municipalities. The next comment I'm going to make about the motor vehicle amendment certainly is relevant. We have to be very cautious and careful that we are not trespassing on local territory. There's a very real danger in something such as this BCR amendment that this government is, in fact, trampling on local jurisdiction. After the next election, happily when there is a change in government, our community charter will address many of these issues and put the decision-making authority where it belongs in this province, and not with these people over there. They don't deserve to govern, not when you see some of the nonsense that goes on around here.
Let me comment in particular about the Motor Vehicle Act amendment. Heaven forbid that I might become even more unprincipled in my remarks! As we know from the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and to the Vancouver Charter, the two acts are intending to take away the local authority's power to create bylaws dealing with motor vehicle infractions within the boundaries of the municipality. We've gone on record as of last December that it is Liberal policy that 75 percent of all fines will be returned to the municipalities so that local policing and safety initiatives -- which I'm sure this Attorney General agrees with -- can be financially and properly supported. The initiatives that this government is now killing at the local level I think certainly have to be flagged as a caution, and I am doing so in my comments in that regard.
In connection with the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and to the Vancouver Charter, I have here a letter from Lidstone Young Anderson, barristers and solicitors. This is dated June 29. All this correspondence I've made reference to is very current. We're not talking about something that's half a year old. This letter is addressed to Mr. Gerry Berry, who is the administrator of the city of Nanaimo. What the solicitor is flagging, and rightly so, is the concern of all municipalities who either have bylaws in place or were thinking of it -- for example, Vancouver, Trail and others are in the process of considering issuing speeding tickets within the municipal boundaries.
The author of this letter, who is Donald Lidstone, a solicitor, points out to the municipalities that the Ministry of
[ Page 16723 ]
Attorney General in January 1995 refused to process municipal ticket information bylaws dealing with speeding. Consequently, the chief provincial judge refused to consider municipal ticket information bylaws. As a result, many clients of this solicitor and many other lawyers had to proceed by way of long-form information for contested cases. This would be prohibited under the proposed legislation. He goes on to comment about the real threat of loss of revenue.
The point again that I would like to put on record is that when local municipalities who need proper funding to implement well-thought-out policing and safety initiatives.... I'm sure we all agree with things such as Block Watch or Block Parents, which are happening in our communities. Happily, many of them don't cost much money, and there are many other things, such as new policing centres. In my community of North Vancouver, I think, for example, of the Lynn Valley policing centre and the lower Lonsdale policing centre. Very happily, in my own neighbourhood of Edgemont, we now have a RCMP constable who's stationed in that neighbourhood, and he literally walks the beat and talks to the kids and anyone who's around. It's a very friendly and safety-conscious community as a result, and we have to support those initiatives. I'm submitting that these two amendments are going to kill some of that local initiative.
Let's move on to the infamous MLA pension plan that is allegedly eliminated in one of the other acts, the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act. The press release put out yesterday by the Minister of Finance tells us that the bill introduced will bring an end to the existing pension plan. That's not quite accurate. When we look at section 30(5), we discover that "a member of the Thirty-fifth Parliament" -- which is all of us -- "who, immediately before the date of the return of the writs, has not served for 7 years or for more than two Parliaments...." Of course, many people in the House over there, such as the Attorney General, are not impacted by this because they've already got their pension plans. The people who have not served for seven years or for more than two Parliaments are "entitled to recognition of the member's service before the date of the return of the writs...."
I heard the Attorney General say in his remarks during second reading that the amendment eliminates the pension plan as of the next election. That's not true, because there is this carryover. As all members know, we are on record on this. Our leader introduced his own bill yesterday, immediately after this miscellaneous bill, and our bill kills the pension plan. Now that's an honest plan. What is going out in this press release is not entirely accurate, and we should all be very concerned about that -- including, I hope, the Leader of the Third Party, who I understand may have a different viewpoint on this topic.
[10:45]
Let me make a couple of other observations on behalf of some of my colleagues. There are many things in this bill, and I won't pretend that we're going to hit all of them tonight. That's not the purpose of second reading on a bill of this nature, but I think some things are significant to point out, and we can canvass all the other things in committee stage.
There is an interesting reference in the Waste Management Act amendment, so let's just have a look at that one. Under a new section 24.31, we discover that motor vehicle and engine emission regulations can be created dealing with new motor vehicles, and then I go on to discover in item 1(f) in this same section that there may be a prohibition on the sale of new motor vehicles. I'm not a car dealer, so I guess I'm not directly impacted by something of this significance, but there may be members in the House tonight who wish to comment on that. I'm simply flagging that as having potential for some concern.
Finally, I'd like to go on record on behalf of my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour about the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. He points out that section 5 in this act, which is being amended, is the rate stabilization fund, and he has a concern that he will be raising at committee stage on what impact this will have on the taxpayer. I would like have a look at this in more detail, but knowing the track record of this government, I rather suspect that the impact, if any, will be negative.
There are many other things in here, but heaven forbid that I would have the audacity to stay on my feet and address a bill in second reading, because we know that's not the purpose of second reading. I am therefore going to conclude my remarks, and I'm looking forward to hearing others struggle through the points of order that they may face as they try to get their points of view on record.
J. Weisgerber: It has always been my belief that any Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act should be dealt with as a series of bills and debated in committee stage with latitude -- it's always been extended to deal with it in committee. Then there could be a focused debate between all members of the House on each section or each major element of the bill. As much as I'm tempted to move into this bill -- because it contains more contentious elements than most miscellaneous statutes amendments, one is really tempted to want to get into it -- I really think it would serve this House most effectively if we were to simply recognize that we're going to move forward into committee and debate the various elements of the bill in the forum that has been adopted.
Before taking my place, I want to say that I think a couple of these areas would have served the Legislature, and British Columbians generally, far better had they been brought in as stand-alone bills. I'm thinking of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, for example. It seems to me that this is an area that's contentious, that's there's a lot of debate around and that people have strong feelings about. There's also an enormous amount of misunderstanding around the benefits and pensions that members of this assembly enjoy or struggle with. With that in mind, I think it would have allowed for a more focused second reading debate, followed by committee, but that's not the situation we're in today. I'm going to look forward to next week, when we get to committee stage, and having some thoughtful debate on a number of these sections.
L. Stephens: I too would like to rise tonight in second reading on Bill 55 and make a few very brief comments. This is a miscellaneous bill and, as the Attorney General stated, has no principle. Frankly, in a number of these amendments, it certainly doesn't have any principle at all.
As previous speakers have mentioned, there are a number that are going to generate some fairly vigorous debate in committee stage, and section 47 is one of them. I'll just talk about it briefly. It is under the Waste Management Act, and it amends section 24.3(l), which "clarifies the regulation authority in relation to engine and motor vehicle emissions,
[ Page 16724 ]
specifically providing authority to make British Columbia regulations parallel those of another jurisdiction such as the State of California." As perhaps many of the members of the Legislature are aware, this and the former Environment minister's proposal around the clean vehicles and fuels program regulations, particularly the 34-page policy report that was released in April, have caused a great deal of consternation within the industry. There are a number of issues around this particular section, and around the pension and a couple of others, that we'll be speaking to more fully, but I would like to say a couple of words.
One of the things that I will be asking the minister in committee stage is: why focus on new cars and not on cars and trucks over eight years old? Research shows 40 percent of these vehicles cause 75 percent of air pollution. In the Fraser Valley, particularly the lower Fraser Valley in Langley, where I live, the air pollution is very severe. There are commercial trucks that aren't covered. The minister had all kinds of options available to him. In committee stage we will be wanting to know why these particular choices were made and a little bit about what kind of regulations will be coming from this. So 50 percent of air pollution is caused by the oldest 10 percent of vehicles -- not new vehicles, which this particular bill is targeting. With those few words, I will look forward to committee stage.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
D. Symons: I have some concerns about Bill 55 as well. I note that Bill 55 was introduced yesterday, July 5. We're now starting second reading of it on July 6 around 10:30 p.m., and I might note that we began sitting at 10 a.m. We are discussing second reading at this late hour. If I may, I'll just read into the record something that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said on June 17, 1991: "It's evident again, the kind of incompetence we've seen time and time again over four and a half long years" -- and this government has lasted only three and a half long years -- "with this administration. It's drifting along leaderless; after seven weeks" -- notice that it is more than that now -- "we're forced to go into night sittings." Well, that is exactly what we are doing tonight. I find out from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that on June 17, 1991: "Suddenly we have night sittings. The government's own problems appear to have dictated the agenda of the House, and I think that is an irresponsible way of doing government."
I can say "Hear, hear" to those statements. Indeed, we're sitting in night sittings discussing a piece of very contentious legislation that should be addressed at a more sober time of day. There should be a chance, from the first to the second and third reading, for the public to take a look at this and give feedback on it so that we can discuss it with the knowledge that those who are going to be impacted by it have had a chance to discuss it and give their impressions. We have not had that opportunity. I wouldn't put it past this government to get into third reading tomorrow -- although I guess the orders of the day will make that difficult to do for Friday. If they had the chance, probably they would.
If we take a look at the various sections of this, the first section that bothers me considerably....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. minister.
D. Symons: The minister does have trouble controlling himself; I realize that.
In section 3 we find the rule that deals with railway property. What I guess this is going to do is make portions of railway infrastructure non-taxable. This is certainly going to have some effect upon the taxation base of many communities that have railways passing through their jurisdiction. I would hope they consulted with the communities involved, but according to the correspondence from the UBCM, that doesn't seem to be the case.
What bothers me most of all is that we have legislation here that seems to say we are going to be excluding bridges, trestles, etc., from the definition of improvements. Then further on we find it says that: the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may only make a recommendation under this section after -- after, hon. Speaker -- the minister has consulted with the representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. But it seems that prior to section 3, they have already said what they are going to do. Consultation seems a little bit after the fact. You've decided what you are going to do, you're putting it in legislation and then saying: "After, we're going to do it." It's this government's way of doing consultation: "Here's what we are going to do. We're setting it down in law and we'll consult with you after." That is the problem that is going on a great deal here. We will speak a lot more to that particular section when we get into third reading.
The British Columbia Transit Act does something in the same way. In that section we're going to find a cost-sharing for commuter rail service. This particular government has pushed commuter rail very quickly into the northeast sector, has crowed about how wonderful it is going to be and how it is going to serve the people out there, and has had pretty well deaf ears to concerns about the costs. What we find in this particular section is how they are going to meet those costs: they are going to pass it on to the communities around the lower mainland. Indeed, they have instigated their particular program for that area, laid it on, done it without consultation and without the involvement of the Greater Vancouver Regional District transit authority -- which, by the way, put commuter rail down fairly low on their priorities. It has been brought in, and we see now that they are going to download the costs of that decision onto the people of Vancouver.
The other part of that particular one that I have great concern about is the fact that again they seem to be saying.... The minister said it when he introduced the bill just now in second reading. He made some comments about the fact that this is still part of B.C. Transit. Yet we find in the bill here that they are pretty well removing the ability for scheduling and fare-setting and everything else from the transit authority in Vancouver and placing it in the cabinet of this Legislature. Therefore, to call it a subsidiary, if you want, or an arm of B.C. Transit seems a bit far-fetched when the real control of that will now be situated in the cabinet offices of the government in charge.
Interjection.
D. Symons: The member says: "Does anybody really care?" I believe that people do care, and that's my concern in bringing these points up. I believe the people of British Columbia should have a chance to respond to this type of legislation before we get into third reading, so that we can take their concerns to the government when we're in third reading.
[ Page 16725 ]
Maybe it's stretching a point to speak right now about it, but I think these are points that must be brought out to the public so that they can realize that this is not just a housekeeping bill. This is a bill that was brought in in July. It should have been brought in a month ago. Let it sit there a while so that people can digest it and get back to us. But they left it to the very end of the session. Why, hon. Speaker? Because they want to push it through with as little opposition as possible, when it deserves some real scrutiny.
We find also, as was mentioned earlier, the business about the Motor Vehicle Act. We seem to have two things brought in here. One, it's going to remove the ability of municipalities to bring in bylaws so that they can set their own fines. There are some pros and cons to that, which we will certainly get into in discussing in third reading.
But we find that they're also going to bring in environmental rules that are going to bring the possibility at least of bringing other jurisdictions, such as California, to British Columbia, as it even says in the bill here. If this government is honest with the people of British Columbia, we are going to find that if they're going to bring in that type of vehicle-emission control, the cost of automobiles will go up at least $2,000.
In California they're now moving toward electric vehicles. I might tell the government -- in fact, the previous Minister of Environment, who went down and was quite enamoured with the California experience -- that we have somewhat different weather in a good part of British Columbia than what southern California has, and that the batteries that are in the zero-emission vehicle of choice for California right now, because it's the only one that's really on the drawing boards, basically don't work so well when it gets cold in the winter. And the winters are colder here than in California -- unless this government hasn't noticed. But they seem to be enamoured of what's going on in California and want to transport it to British Columbia, whether it will work or not. I don't think they've thought this one through well enough as to the actual costs to the taxpayers and the auto buyers of British Columbia and also the effect it's going to have -- whether the alternative vehicles we have now really will meet the situation they're trying to set up here. I think they're setting up something that's not been well enough thought through.
[11:00]
I'm sure I'll be speaking at length on these few comments and the concerns, rather than just this short introduction, when we get into third reading.
D. Mitchell: This is not a filibuster, I assure you, but we are going to have a detailed debate on this bill when we get to committee stage. I think the hon. Attorney General knows that; I think he's committed to that.
Bill 55, though, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, (No. 3), 1995 -- the third one of the session -- is a terrible bill. There's no other way to describe it. It's a horrible bill; it's a dog.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: With all due respect to dogs, man's and woman's best friend, it's a horrible bill. The only comment I'm going to make at this point is that I think it's unfortunate that members of the Liberal caucus, in particular the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and the member for Richmond Centre, my friend, are doing their research in the House. They're reading the bill and going through it in the House. They should do their research before they speak. Clearly, the bill was only introduced yesterday, and many members won't have had a chance to read it in detail yet. But the members are wrong in some of their assertions about the bill. This is a complex act. It's terrible that the government is lumping in all these provisions in one act.
To give you an example, the member for Richmond Centre wants to ridicule the provisions in the bill dealing with special rules for railway property taxation and assessments. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano is reading into the record dated material that doesn't reflect the reality of what this bill is. The member for Richmond Centre wants to talk about subsection (3) in section 3 of the bill, where the cabinet can only make a regulation under this section after the minister has consulted with representatives of the UBCM. The truth is that that section has been inserted into the bill, actually -- and to the government's credit in this case -- because the hon. Premier committed, during his estimates review, to one final round of consultation with the UBCM before we bring in a new taxation regime for railways in this province designed to make railways competitive. It's so important to try to balance the competitiveness of railways with the autonomy of municipalities to set their own assessment rates. It's not an easy thing to do.
The reason that that clause is in there.... I don't think it should be subject to ridicule. I think the government, in this particular case -- in this exceptional case in this bill -- actually deserves some real credit, because the Premier made that commitment. I think the UBCM should be pleased. The members of the Liberal opposition, whose leader claims to be in charge of the UBCM.... You should consult with your leader, because he actually claims to run the UBCM. I don't think that's the case, but he claims that. You'd be able to find out, if you consulted with your leader, that the UBCM is actually pleased that the government inserted that clause.
That's just one example of why this bill deserves the scrutiny that it is going to receive during committee stage. These provisions dealing with railway taxation should probably be the subject of a separate bill before this House -- they're that important to the province. The leader of the Reform Party correctly identified at least one other section dealing with the abolishment of MLAs' pensions. I think that deserves a separate piece of legislation as well. There are at least half a dozen other provisions in this bill....
It's a terrible bill. Omnibus bills really need to be reviewed. There is a role for non-controversial items of a truly housekeeping nature to be inserted into an omnibus bill and brought before the House. Maybe they should even be referred to a standing committee and dealt with outside of this assembly, so we don't have to take up valuable time in this chamber. Controversial provisions should not be lumped into an omnibus bill brought in at the end of a session. It's no intelligent way to legislate. It's an example of sloppy, shoddy and lazy legislative programs. This kind of legislative program has become characteristic of this government where they are disorganized.
They're not tricking anyone by trying to sneak these provisions into this bill, because, after all, we are going to
[ Page 16726 ]
debate them. It would be much better if we had a set parliamentary calendar with a fixed schedule and separate bills brought in for separate substantive issues, so that we could debate them intelligently, rather than wait until this time of night, where the lateness of the hour.... I think the member for North Coast -- the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour -- correctly said that there is a direct correlation between the quality of debate and the lateness of the hour. For that reason, I'll keep my comments short, and I'll have a lot more to say when we're fresher on another day -- perhaps next week.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I'm just rising under standing order 42(1). I think the previous speaker made a point that was totally incorrect. Either he is misleading the House or he himself is misinformed. Either way, I would inform the member that the leader of this party has not been a member of the UBCM since he left his position as mayor of Vancouver. Maybe he should be updated on this information.
G. Wilson: Most of the matters with respect to some of the controversial sections have indeed been said. I really want to keep my remarks extremely limited to the section that deals with the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, which the Leader of the Third Party -- I think correctly -- said should have been brought in by separate statute. That's the only section where, I think, there are a number of principles that can be and should be debated thoroughly.
There is a mood out there right now among a vocal minority -- I believe it's a very vocal minority -- who are totally misinformed about remuneration that elected officials receive and completely misinformed about what the pension benefits are. That vocal minority tends to be formulated by, or has come together under, various associations and committees that threaten that anybody who stands up and protects the right of an elected member to an adequate and proper pension isn't going to get re-elected. I think it's time that, as elected members, we challenge those people to come forward and explain to us why an elected member of the Legislative Assembly shouldn't have an adequate, properly funded pension, like any other working person in British Columbia.
I find it incredible that we heard from.... Of course, we're likely to hear a different story next time they're up, but the first time they were up, we heard from the Liberal opposition that this didn't go far enough; they wanted retroactivity in the provision. We heard an intelligent comment from the member of the Reform Party that, in fact, the committee that's being established should be struck immediately, so that we can have provisions immediately brought before us and not leave it to some future government after the next election.
Hon. Speaker, let me tell you this, and I think we also need to say it clearly to the people of British Columbia. If you're going to pay peanuts, you're going to hire monkeys. What we have to recognize is that those people who stand to serve the public deserve to have at least a comparable pension package with what they can find in the private sector. They deserve portability of pension so they can bring the pension from where they are working now, if they have one, and make it portable through their years of public service. We need to have a government that has the commitment to say that we are going to fight for adequate and fair pensions for elected officials and that we're going to review the remuneration package for elected officials so that we can pay an adequate and proper wage and attract the very best people in British Columbia to come forward and stand for elected office, and make sure that we have the very best people in place in this Legislative Assembly.
I think we have got to go -- united, hopefully, in a forum -- to explain to people and let people know that an adequate and proper remuneration package for elected members is in the interest of all British Columbians, not just those who are successful at the polls. I think it's shameful when we see politicians, for purely political gain, leaping on the bandwagon of a minority of people that seem to whip up the emotion that may be out there that suggests that somehow people who get elected into office are these fat cats who get huge salaries and have completely huge and unaccountable pensions. We need to have some leadership on this question, because if we don't start to put in place a proper remuneration package....
This government chose not to act on the Connaghan report. They have now put off this rather thorny issue until after the next election. If we don't have some proper leadership and if we don't start to say we're going to pay a reasonable wage and put in place a proper market-driven pension plan, then we're going to have fewer and fewer good people coming into public service. They're not going to put up with the nonsense they have to take in the media; they're not going to put up with the rubbish they have to take from small but very vocal minorities that like to whip up emotion against people who stand for political office.
I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if we don't have the best people in place, our democracy is going to be sorely threatened. We'll either have the very rich and retired, or we'll have those people who simply run for political office who already have some kind of pensionable benefits entrenched through some form of separate organization. Neither is the option that we want for British Columbians. It's too bad this didn't come in as a separate bill, so that we can stand up and speak out and educate the people in British Columbia as to the need for a proper package and so that we can have proper remuneration and proper pension benefits, and attract the very best people into public service, because that's in all of our interests.
J. Tyabji: I don't wish to add to the comments of other people. The only things that haven't been mentioned are the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act that are contained in this bill. I think I would be remiss if I didn't say that it's long overdue in British Columbia to decide what we want to do with the liquor control and licensing branch. I think there are a lot of people who have called for privatization, for change in the distribution system and for an overhaul of how that works. I'm encouraged to see in this bill that the licences and fees are going to be paid directly to administration first, before any excesses would be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Conversely, if there is a gap between those, it will come out of consolidated revenue. The only reason is that we can then see in a separate account exactly
[ Page 16727 ]
how much that administration is costing, and to what extent it's self-financing based on the fees and incredibly high taxes that face the domestic wine and beer and cider industry with in British Columbia.
In the Okanagan, of course, we have a very strong wine industry. There have been calls from the wine industry and from the neighbourhood pub associations as well to have a reform of the liquor control and licensing branch. I look forward to seeing how this change in the financing structure will affect the operation of these different groups and whether the administration actually is self-financing from those fees and licenses. I think it's top-heavy. I think it's long overdue that we streamline it, and I hope that this will make it easier for us to hold that administration accountable.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll be very brief. I actually want to say to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that I appreciated his comments tonight. Sometimes it's tough to say these kinds of things in the climate that exists, and I, for one, appreciate his comments. The Liberal opposition, of course, thinks that all members should be paid what they are worth, which is....
With that, given the lack of principle demonstrated by the official opposition, I would move second reading.
[11:15]
Second reading of Bill 55 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 30 | ||
|
Petter |
Lortie |
Randall |
|
Marzari |
Giesbrecht |
Farnworth |
|
Pement |
Miller |
Conroy |
|
Edwards |
Cull |
Doyle |
|
Cashore |
Gabelmann |
Lord |
|
O'Neill |
Clark |
Jackson |
|
Perry |
MacPhail |
Brewin |
|
Hagen |
Barlee |
Copping |
|
Kasper |
Sihota |
Schreck |
|
Hammell |
Evans |
Hartley |
|
NAYS -- 14 | ||
|
Dalton |
Mitchell |
Warnke |
|
Wilson |
Reid |
Tyabji |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Fox |
Hurd |
|
K. Jones |
Stephens |
Symons |
|
Serwa |
|
Jarvis |
Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]