[ Page 9443 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. I. Waddell: As Tourism minister, I'd like to introduce today a special tourist from Ireland. Lee Kerrigan is sister-in-law to one of my staff members, Barbara Hogan, and sister to Paul Hogan, who are also here today. Lee is visiting from Dublin. Although she visited Canada 20 years ago, this is her first time in British Columbia. She joins many tourists coming to our fair province this summer. Would the House please join me in making her most welcome.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today are a number of students from the University of Victoria: Aaron Gairdner, Jonathan Angelski, Nikki Doggatt, Herman Chung, Daniel Chung, Duane Woytowich and George Pringle. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce to the House my very good friends Sarwan and Gurdev Randhawa. They have some relatives and friends with them: Mohan Ball, Gurmeet Kaur Ball, Gian Sarai, Jodh Sarai and Randhu Sarai. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Coell: Today in the House we have visitors from Luncarty, Scotland. Jack and Irma Brown are visiting Russ and Heidi Brown, their cousins, and are just about to take an extensive tour of British Columbia -- from Burns Lake to Prince Rupert to Port Hardy, and back. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Neil Hastie, who admitted to my deputy minister earlier today that he'd never had the privilege of sitting in on a session of the Legislature. I definitely want to welcome him here today. Neil is the new president of Encorp Pacific. He's a very big part of the recycling initiatives that exist around the province. He's a member of the beverage container management board and a key player in working with us to implement our expanded deposit refund system. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Seated here on my left is Jared Wells, a Page who has been with us for three years now. His parents are visiting: Laurie Smith and Peter Smith, of Victoria. And thank you for the loan of your son. Will the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: Today we have with us seven students from SFU -- the best young political organizers the Liberals have up there: Fabian Milat, Sophia Wong, Mike Easton, Rick Sousa, Andrew Haskel, Dean Pogas and John Panago. I hope the House will make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery today is a visitor from Alberta, Ruth Fownes. She is here to visit her cousin, my brother-in-law Ron Fownes, and my sister Anita Fownes. It's her very first time in Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm aware of the reports that the hon. member refers to, but as of this time neither the government of British Columbia nor B.C. Hydro and SNC-Lavalin -- B.C. Hydro's partners -- has received formal notification of any sort from the government of Pakistan regarding the termination of any contracts.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: B.C. Hydro owns 40 percent of BCHIL power company. In that statement -- their statement -- they projected a $21 million (U.S.) profit by the end of September 1998. Will the minister now confirm that there will in fact be zero net income coming off of that project? Will he also explain how he expects to protect the millions and millions of dollars which have been lost to B.C. taxpayers as a result of this incredible deal that was put together by this government and which obviously used corruption to generate some false kind of return for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said earlier, we have received reports from Pakistan through the media. What we have done since then is talk with the federal government and work with our partners, SNC-Lavalin. We will be pursuing most vigorously all legal means possible to ensure that the government of Pakistan honours a legal and lawfully binding contract between B.C. Hydro, SNC-Lavalin and their partners in the project.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: There are a number of projects which were entered into by international players in Pakistan. We know that eight have been terminated. We know that one that was terminated was the one B.C. Hydro was involved with. We know that that particular one was terminated because the government of Pakistan says that there was corruption involved in obtaining that contract. Will the minister confirm that if indeed the government of Pakistan has said that that contract is terminated, we will lose millions and millions of dollars -- that B.C. taxpayers will lose millions of dollars, because the contract has been terminated because it's been tainted by corruption?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Leader of the Opposition keeps referring to media reports from Pakistan, which I have already told this House we are dealing with in terms of pursuing legal action through all available channels, including working with the federal government. Within the same reports that the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned are quotes attributed, for example, to the World Bank, which will be issuing a statement later on categorically denying those statements attributed to them and their subsequent effect on the projects.

The point is that they are relying on reports out of a media in Pakistan which is controlled by a government that has suspended the constitution and has suspended civil liber-

[ Page 9444 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order. I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Gee, Madam Speaker, I wonder who would invest in such a place. What a difference a couple of weeks makes. It was just May 25 of this year when this minister stood in the House and said: ". . .over the next few months, [the opposition] will see that their allegations came to naught. The project will be completed, and British Columbia. . .will be in a good position at the end of it all." That was after the Deputy Premier said: "Hydro is going to make money. The shareholders are going to make money. We got into this project to make money for everyone." Today the only people making money are the lawyers this minister has to go crawling to, to try and extricate himself from a fiasco of his own making. My question to the minister responsible is: when, specifically, did he learn that millions of taxpayers' dollars were in the process of disappearing into the black hole of Raiwind? And when was he going to get around to telling the taxpayers, who are going to be left holding the bag here in B.C.?

[2:15]

The hon. member asked what type of companies invested in the power projects in Pakistan. Well, I'll tell the hon. member. They include Westinghouse, General Electric, Toyota, Deutsche Bank, AES and Mitsubishi -- a host of well-respected international corporations that took the government of Pakistan at their request that they wanted to open up their economy to investment and wanted to develop their economy. They asked the industrialized world to invest, and the government of Pakistan has clearly reneged on that. We ask the opposition, once again, to stand with this government, the federal government and the World Bank, and to call upon the government of Pakistan to honour law-abiding contracts legally entered into.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: If there is one thing that this government and this minister are good at, it is assigning blame elsewhere. This government decided to risk millions of taxpayers' dollars on the strength of advice it purportedly received from Ali Mahmood, international man of mystery. Now the project is gone, Mr. Mahmood is gone, B.C.'s reputation is gone and, most importantly, the taxpayers' money is gone. My question to the minister -- let him stand here and put his money where his mouth is -- is: will he stand in the House today and guarantee to the British Columbia taxpayers that all of the money his government recklessly risked over in Pakistan will be returned to British Columbia, where it is supposed to be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't know which is more entertaining -- the hon. member for Matsqui or the World Cup soccer game that's on right now.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: So do I. And it's not the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I told the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition, all there are right now are reports out of Pakistan. We have not received any notification in any way, shape or form from the Pakistani government; neither has SNC-Lavalin or any of the other projects. We expect the government of Pakistan to honour legally existing contracts. We expect the government of Pakistan to live up to its commitments. The rest of the world is calling on the government of Pakistan to do exactly the same thing.

Why is it that this opposition sides with a government that suspends the constitution, suspends civil liberties and suspends a government that removed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan because he tried to make an independent judiciary? Why don't they stand up with this government and demand that the government of Pakistan live up to a contract legally and lawfully entered into?

B.C. FERRIES STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know if anybody got fired. In fact, I met with the stakeholder group a couple of days ago. It was a very good meeting and a very good discussion. No complaints had reached my office as of just before the House resumed this afternoon, but I'd be happy to look into the issue for the member. I am surprised that there is this discord.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Well, take this as a complaint. A letter that came to these three people said that their services were no longer required and that the B.C. Ferry Corporation wishes to replace those three people with three members from the community who may be more amenable to the way B.C. Ferries wants to run its stakeholder process. Can the minister tell us why, in this so-called audit that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is undertaking, they are not looking at administrative overhead or overhead on administrative costs that may be wasteful, or examining tariffs? Does the minister think that this is considered to be an independent audit?

Hon. D. Miller: That's not quite accurate. Again, I want to reassure the House that the expanded stakeholder committee came about as a result of the Fryer report late last year. I had two meetings with both the ad hoc group that was formed and the full stakeholder group. We had a good question-and-answer period. The stakeholders understand that they've got some responsibilities. B.C. Ferries will spend up to $50,000 in terms of an audit to provide base information for the stakeholders. People appear to want to take on the responsibility willingly. They know there are tough issues

[ Page 9445 ]

TRANSFER OF CARDIAC PATIENT

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know if it's the same letter, but I received a letter from Dr. Hooper this morning, informing me that he was indeed the attending physician and had not agreed to that. The point taken, hon. Speaker, will not change the circumstances. The policy in this province is that you transport the patient to the nearest. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: The policy, nevertheless, is that the patient be transferred to the nearest B.C. health facility that can provide the treatment that the patient needs. While the attending physician did not agree, as Dr. Hooper informs me, the patient was nevertheless transported to St. Paul's, which is the nearest cardiac facility that could provide the fastest health care for him. That is what was done.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The last time this minister was caught making misstatements to the House was around the Mavis Flanders case, and at that time the minister was forced to apologize. Now, once again, the minister hides behind statements. . . . She knew the facts of the case, and she hides behind statements made by her officials. She said something that the doctor says was not true. I want to know from this Health minister: how many more times does this minister have to get caught hiding behind her officials before she'll finally start taking responsibility for the screwups in her ministry?

C. Clark: Again, contrary to what she told this House yesterday, the attending physician did not recommend that Mr. Fehr be transferred to St. Paul's. In fact, he says that he pleaded for that patient to be transferred to Edmonton. He spent over three hours on the phone begging the ministry to recognize, in his words, "the utter stupidity" of this government's decision to transfer him to St. Paul's instead of Edmonton. Now that we know the truth about what happened, will the minister tell us why she didn't see the need yesterday to tell us what really happened, when she was questioned about it in this House?

Hon. P. Priddy: Regardless of whether the attending physician agreed or did not agree. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .surely the issue here is: was the patient. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Hon. members, it is important that we hear the full answer. When too much noise intervenes, we can't hear anything.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.

Minister of Health.

Hon. D. Miller: Just whisper.

Hon. P. Priddy: All right, I'll try whispering, if that's better.

I have acknowledged. . . . Dr. Hooper has informed me that he was not in agreement, and I have taken his point, and I have taken that information. But it would not have changed the decision. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct. He did not agree, and I acknowledged that. The issue, however. . . . Does the opposition care that the patient is alive and was transported to the nearest facility that could provide health care for him, or are they more concerned about worrying about whether the attending physician agreed or not? The patient got the health care he needed in the nearest British Columbia facility. The patient is stable. Surely that is the point.

Tabling Documents

Petitions

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I too rise to present a petition on behalf. . .

[ Page 9446 ]

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . .of 182 constituents in the Kamloops area calling upon the government to introduce a system of mandatory assessment for those convicted of driving while impaired.

Orders of the Day

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1998
(second reading continued)

[2:30]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I call you to order on parliamentary language. It's inappropriate to use the word that you just used. I ask you to withdraw it.

K. Krueger: I do withdraw it, in order that I may continue speaking.

The point I wish to make is that this government told the opposition that it would not introduce any legislation for debate in this chamber. . . .

F. Randall: Point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please.

I recognize the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, the member said he would only withdraw it so that he could continue speaking. That's not a complete withdrawal of the word "fraud" that he used.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his contribution, and I caution the hon. member who is about to speak about his use of language.

K. Krueger: As I was saying, this government made a commitment to this opposition that it would not be introducing any legislation for debate until the end of June, in order that the opposition would allow the government to continue to focus on the estimates debate and have its budget completed by the end of June 1998, which was a very modest goal. In our minds the government could easily have had its budget in place by March 31, 1998, if it would only begin to behave in a competent manner and call this House early in the new year -- when it should -- and get its budget debate over with, its throne speech debate over with, its estimates completed, table its legislation, allow us to have a look at it and debate that which is non-controversial, allow us to rise for the summer recess and take the legislation which we deem controversial home for examination by our constituents and people around the province, return in the fall for a scheduled legislative sitting, debate that legislation, allow amendments where they're appropriate and deal with the business of this province in a businesslike manner.

But no. They'd never do that. This government is determined to try and run as long as possible between legislative sessions by order-in-council, effectively empowering the Premier to act as a pocket dictator, a person who can simply act on the wishes of Mr. Georgetti and do whatever he chooses.

The government flagrantly broke its agreement -- its commitment -- to the opposition and tried to table Bill 26 and ram it through the Legislature. Of course, everyone knows the history which followed those events. Why was that done, hon. Speaker? Was it because BCTV is on strike presently, and the government hoped to escape the scrutiny of the public? If so. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, it's Bill 42, second reading. It's interim supply, not canvassing other issues and other debates.

K. Krueger: My point, of course, is that Bill 42 shouldn't be necessary, nor should Bill 7 have been necessary. This government has the ability to convene the House much earlier in the new year, deal with the finances of the province in a businesslike way and lay its spending plans open to the scrutiny of the Legislature for a full and frank debate. But it simply refuses to do it. By this point in the year, of course, the government has already exhausted, as I believe the Finance minister said in her opening remarks on this bill, 25 percent of its budget for the entire year, and it's nowhere near concluding the budget or the necessary debate in this Legislature. I submit to you that that is specifically because this government continues to toy around with the Legislature and the legislation, breaking agreements, introducing bills willy-nilly -- introducing a bill one day and commencing second reading debate the very next, when it knows it's a highly controversial piece of legislation, rather than conducting the business of government in a businesslike way.

Now the minister has the brass to stand up in this House and tell us that it's urgent. Indeed, it has become urgent, because the government will run out of money at midnight tonight if we do not pass Bill 42. Isn't that a fine kettle of fish? The government wouldn't be able to write cheques to pay doctors, to pay educators, to pay those people who are dependent upon Human Resources, to pay for public safety, to pay policemen and to pay the employees of this government. What sort of stewardship is that? It's pathetic, it's negligent, it's reprehensible and it's ridiculous. Time after time this government proves, as W.A.C. Bennett once put it, that it cannot even run a peanut stand. It's a pathetic government, and it's wrong for it to come back time after time to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and ask for approval for

[ Page 9447 ]

Speakers on this side today have already referred to the wastefulness of this government, the incredible amounts of money that they've thrown away to friends and insiders. The matter discussed in question period, the Raiwind project and the abuse of trust in the whole B.C.Hydro-IPC-Raiwind-Pakistan scam, is a dramatic case in point for the negligence and financial recklessness of this government. Time and again this government squanders the people's money on advertising expenditures, for example, that have come up repeatedly, patronage, gifts to friends and insiders, fat contracts and hauling in personnel from right across the country and even from the Yukon -- people who were displaced as one NDP government after another toppled across Canada. The hacks, flacks and bagmen are dragged into British Columbia to suck off the public trough here.

Well, it's unacceptable; we don't accept it. We've had enough of these interim supply debates and this abuse of process by an illegitimate, reckless, irresponsible government. We've had enough of it. It's time that this government got serious about a legislative calendar. Every year I see the Premier rise in his estimates debate and gravely agree that it's time he looked at running the province in a more businesslike and professional way; it's time he looked at a legislative calendar where the public knows, the MLAs know and everyone in British Columbia knows how and when things are going to be debated, and a serious effort was made at getting a budget approved in time, by the deadline, instead of always jerking around the way we've been jerked around today.

It's time that the select standing committees of the Legislature were empowered to actually do their job: go out and consult the public and find out what the public's views are, what the public thinks is necessary by way of legislation, what the public would like to see us do, how the public sees us saving their money and not squandering it the way this government has been squandering it for the past seven years. We have a Health committee that has never met and an Education committee that has never met, even though this government perpetually tries to hold itself up as the defender, the protector, of health care and education. What a ridiculous claim that is! Health care and education have taken a beating, a brutal thumping, at the hands of this government as it has beggared the province and gone deeper and deeper in debt.

This is a classic illustration of how they do that. In one month they intend to spend $1.691 billion. I gave some illustrations in those brief remarks just before lunch, trying to get a grasp on just how much money that really is. I equated it to eight of the copper smelters that the government would dearly like to see Highland Valley Copper build near Kamloops or two of the aluminum smelters that the government would dearly like to see Alcan build in Kitimat. Don't get me wrong, hon. Speaker, and may nobody misunderstand. It's not that I am advocating that the government of British Columbia go into private enterprise, because we've seen dramatic examples of how badly that works, most recently in the Skeena Cellulose debacle.

This government could build two Coquihalla highways -- or at least the previous government could -- for less than what it's asking to spend in the next month. Where does the money go, year after year, month after month? How can money be squandered this way and the provincial debt continue to rise so dramatically? It's wrong, and it's going to have drastic and negative effects on our children and their children for generations to come when they try to service the debt, pay the interest on this debt, and they are not going to have the opportunities that our generation or the previous generation had, because the jobs have dried up and the economy has gone down the toilet in British Columbia. That is a dirty shame.

We should be having a fall sitting of this Legislature. We should be debating the legislation at length and thoroughly, until it's well dealt with. We should not be seeing legislation rammed through, as this government repeatedly tries to do. The lessons that have been learned by this government in the past couple of weeks will be repeated over and over and over again until it gets the message, until it starts listening.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: It would be good if those members opposite began to listen. Once again, five of them are not paying any attention. One of them, the perennial heckler for Skeena, is doing his silly best to try and keep up his ongoing diatribe. He's going to pay for that. Unfortunately, we all pay for it, year after year, month after month, in the deficits that accrue and the debt that piles up under this administration.

This is a government that had to be told by a judge that it was operating in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada with regard to its interventions in charitable gaming. That's one of the ways that it has tried to suck revenue from the people of British Columbia: through illegal intervention in charitable gaming, of all the abominable things. What happened when the government was told by a Supreme Court judge in British Columbia that it was violating the Criminal Code? Was anybody charged? Did anybody go to jail? No, hon. Speaker. There were no apparent consequences.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The hon. member who has the floor will take his seat. A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I recognize that this sort of bill enables wide-ranging debate on objects of government expenditure, but the member is straying quite far from anything even vaguely relating to this bill. I'd ask that you call him to order.

The Speaker: I would caution the hon. member that we are on Bill 42, interim supply, not current items and bills and the discussion that's currently happening.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I accept your direction, but certainly not that of the Minister of Education, who just rose. Where the government gets its money from has lots to do with the kind of revenue that the government needs and the spending appropriations that the government asks for. I was referring to the projected revenue from charitable gaming. I think that's perfectly in order. I don't think the minister knows what he's talking about, and he didn't when we were dealing with the issue of gambling expansion last year. The ministry still doesn't seem to accept, even though experts all around the world and certainly all around North America tell us, that when governments suck money out of the economy of their jurisdiction with expanded gambling, they take it away from small business. People can't buy things and pay social services tax. People can't pay income tax, because they don't have jobs. The money is taken out of local economies and drawn down to the centralized government -- Victoria, in our case --

[ Page 9448 ]

I'm saying that this government has got to stop flying. . . .

The Speaker: Member, take your seat.

The Minister of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I recognize that there is some latitude allowed in this debate, but the purpose of this bill we are debating is to allow the expenditure of significant funds for the next month to enable government operations to continue. The debate is on the advisability and the principle of committing that money for the next month while we conclude estimates debate in this House. The member, whatever he may have there as his potted speech, is straying quite far from the purposes of this bill.

The Speaker: I accept the points that have been made, and I say to the hon. member that caution has been recommended to him.

K. Krueger: I say to that minister, who continues to ignore the points of order that were made yesterday about cabinet ministers trying to harass opposition members, that we can extend this debate as long as we need to. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, we're on Bill 42, interim supply.

K. Krueger: I understand that very clearly.

The Speaker: Please stick to that.

K. Krueger: This bill is asking me and the official opposition of British Columbia to approve the spending of $1.691 billion without the line-by-line examination of that spending that we are entitled to. It's a very, very vague plan as to how this money is going to be spent.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member for Skeena says: "Out of a $21 billion budget." As if that's supposed to minimize this crass grab for $1.691 billion. And I'm saying, hon. Speaker -- and I know you understand, whether the minister does or not -- that this government has got to stop flying by the seat of its pants, making it up as it goes along, asking the opposition to come up with approval as if they're writing some silly IOU on the back of an envelope. Month by month they've failed to complete their legislative agenda.

[2:45]

This government has thousands of civil servants to help it prepare its spending plans and ensure that the spending is done in a manner that demonstrates good stewardship, rather than what we see year after year under this incompetent administration as it squanders billions of public dollars. And the people continue to cry out for less taxation, less regulation, more competence in administration and less interference in labour-management relations.

This government shut down the House in May for several days to come up to my hometown, Kamloops, and have an economic conference to show that they were listening to the people and were going to pay attention. The Premier allowed as to how he finally understood that this government's wrong-headed policies are. . . .

The Speaker: The hon. member will take his seat. Another member has risen.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that the economic summit in Kamloops may be of interest to this member. I know he's interested in further debate on Bill 26, and we'll get to that. But these are inappropriate matters for this debate on supply.

The Speaker: The member continues.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair -- hon. Speaker. I apologize for misnaming you. I notice that there's no apparent agreement from you, certainly not from me. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, you can take nothing from what the Chair has said or not said. Bill 42 is the topic of discussion -- Bill 42, interim supply.

K. Krueger: I understand that full well.

With Bill 42, we're looking at enough money. . . . Trying to again put it into perspective for the people of British Columbia, it's a pipedream for any of us to win the lottery. The likelihood, I've read, is less than the likelihood of being struck by lightning in this great country of ours. And yet this bill asks us to approve spending in one month equivalent to 1,691 people winning a $1 million lottery -- 1,691 people winning a $1 million lottery, and this government can blow that amount in a single month. And it waits, of course, until the day before Canada Day.

I'm tempted to speak with my colleagues and add to the speakers list, which I'm currently running, and make sure that this government starts to listen. If this minister wants to pop up and down and make points of order and waste time, well maybe he should have a few more speakers to listen to, because of course there are a great many people who'd like to speak to this on behalf of their constituents. And it's a grave concern.

The Social Credit administration of the past said: "Not a dime without debate." And that's the way it should be. This government shouldn't have any blanket authority, shouldn't even ask. It's ridiculous for them to ask for any spending authority without specific line-by-line scrutiny by the official opposition. And I want to serve notice to these incompetents that the next time they have to come looking for interim supply, I'm going to do my best to ensure that they have a very, very tough time getting it. They'd better not come back, cap in hand, asking for another $2 billion on the back of an envelope at the end of the coming month -- the month that starts tomorrow.

This government could get the job done; this government could have had a budget in time. The opposition has worked

[ Page 9449 ]

This is a government where we repeatedly have to call for a quorum just to get enough members from the government side to come into the House and listen to the debate. Where do they go? How do they spend their time? Why does it take them so long to try and get a budget through a process that they should well understand? They spent decades in opposition, and of course, soon they'll be spending decades more -- if they even achieve official opposition status after the next election. We repeatedly have problems with this government not listening to the people and obviously not listening to us. It galls us to be asked to give authority to a government that behaves in such a manner.

Wrapping up my remarks, this is a government, we have clearly seen time and again, whose every activity is overshadowed by an atmosphere of arrogance, incompetence and financial misdealings. It's not a government that I'm proud to work with or people with whom I'm proud to sit on the benches in the Legislature. I think they should be ashamed of their record; I think they should be resolved that this is the last time -- this session or any session -- that they're going to come back crying for interim supply.

I think this government should yield to the wishes of the auditor general, who has been pleading for a new Auditor General Act for years. It's the oldest unamended Auditor General Act in Canada -- 20 years without amendment. Why? Because this government doesn't want the auditor general to have modern forensic accounting techniques and to be able to scrutinize its spending the way we ought to be able to.

The Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 42, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As I was saying, we ought to be able to have a line-by-line accounting of how this $1.691 billion is going to be spent, and so should the auditor general.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is completed.

B. Penner: I'm here to debate Bill 42 and the government's request for spending authority in the amount of $1.6 billion-plus. As my esteemed colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson ably pointed out, that is an incredibly large sum of money -- so large, in fact, that few of us can imagine how much money that is. But a couple of months ago, this Legislature was called upon to approve even more spending in the same form. That was in Bill 7, where $5 billion was approved by this Legislature without line-by-line analysis and examination by MLAs from around the province on behalf of the taxpayers, who were asked to pay for that bill. I think that's completely unnecessary, and I'll elaborate a bit more as I progress into my speech as to how situations like that can be avoided in the future.

I want to talk about some of the things that have happened since Bill 7, the first supply bill, was placed before this Legislative Assembly. Since that time, we've had other pieces of legislation brought to this House by the government. We've debated the budget estimates contained in the government's overall budget for the upcoming year, and there have also been a few photo opportunities arranged for the Premier.

Again, my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson alluded to the economic conference which was held in Kamloops. I believe it was in late May of this year. The government saw fit to adjourn the Legislature for two and a half days so that the Premier and some other members could attend that conference. Well, it seems to me that there are 75 of us here in this Legislature. All of us weren't attending that conference. Certainly a significant portion of us, the majority, could have remained here to conduct the business of the people and to continue to make progress debating and approving the budget estimates of the government. Because we haven't done that and we haven't concluded the estimates process, this government has to come for a band-aid solution -- that is, interim supply. That's what we're debating: Bill 42, interim supply.

If the government had gone about its business in an orderly fashion, we wouldn't have to seek interim supply today, because the budget could have been completed. In fact, I'm told that there had been discussions between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader about a target of completing all budget estimates by the end of June -- that's today. What happened? Who reneged on that understanding? It wasn't the opposition; it was the government. They adjourned the House for two and a half days for a glitzy photo opportunity, and then they tabled Bill 26.

What happened when they tabled Bill 26? Did the government simply table it and then proceed with the ordinary course of business, as they do with other pieces of legislation, and call for a debate two days later? No. The government called debate on Bill 26 the day after it was tabled. That's virtually unprecedented. It's because of that priority that we didn't get around to approving the budget estimates for the rest of government. This government's priorities are very clear. Their priority is not approving health care spending, approving education spending or looking after our roads. Instead of approving those budgets as number one priorities, this government placed Bill 26 on the orders of the day for debate within 18 hours of it being tabled in the Legislature. That shows you where this government's priorities lie: not with the taxpayers, the students or the patients in British Columbia who need health care. They lie with their political bosses in the B.C. Federation of Labour who call the tune for this government and finance their election campaigns.

Tell me why else the government would have abandoned debate on the budget estimates for things like the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transportation or the Ministry of Education in preference for Bill 26? I suspect that if the government hadn't done that, and hadn't adjourned the House for two and a half days in May for a photo opportunity, we could have concluded the budget estimates for the entire government. We wouldn't be here today asking for interim approval of $1.6 billion in additional spending for just one month. That's all Bill 42 will do: it will authorize spending for one month, and yet that's $1.6 billion. Back in March when we had Bill 7, that was three months' worth of spending -- $5 billion in total. But this government has its priorities wrong, and I think Bill 42 demonstrates that.

I'm not the only one who thinks that the reason we're here debating Bill 42 and the need for interim supply is because this government is fixated on rewarding its friends in the trade union movement. I'm going to quote excerpts from

[ Page 9450 ]

"Retching can be heard in offices and restaurants from Rupert to Osoyoos. No need to slap us on the back. Naught will stop it. That unpleasant sound you hear is British Columbia gagging. It's a reflex. Bound to happen, any biologist will tell you, when something is rammed down your throat. That's what's up in Victoria today. I speak of changes introduced to the Labour Code.

"The NDP calls them 'minor,' but please don't be naïve. Naïvety of the electorate got this sorry lot elected, and we've seen B.C. sink into a cesspool of bad credit, lost jobs and fading opportunity since. The government of Premier Glen Clark introduced Second Reading of Labour Code changes yesterday, not 24 hours after tabling Bill 26."

"So next year, sectoral bargaining could swallow residential construction workers, then civic workers. . . . It's all part of the master plan, I figure, to have 60 percent of B.C.'s workforce unionized. That may be [the Premier's] dream, but I don't believe for a minute it's shared by a majority of his constituents. And I believe he knows it. That's why he's trying to shove it down our throats before we notice.

"Let's not let him. Bill 44 was bad a year ago. The NDP knew it, and worked to better it. If Bill 26 is a true fix, what's the rush to get it through?"

The government's fixation is on Bill 26 and rewarding their friends in the labour movement rather than debating the Health, Transportation and Education estimates -- all of the things that really matter to British Columbians.

Individuals feel the same way; not just newspaper editors. I received a letter sometime in June from an individual in my riding who operates a small business. This is what he wrote to me. He mentions a quote in the Province newspaper about the government's plans to introduce Bill 26. . . .

The Speaker: I know the hon. member is aware, as other members are aware, that Bill 26 has nothing to do with Bill 42. It's about interim supply, and we are not to canvass those other bills. I'm sure the member will appreciate the point.

[3:00]

This government's fixation on things other than approving the spending of government has led to the dilemma we are faced with today, and that's the need to approve Bill 42, interim supply. That's $1.6 billion because this government couldn't focus on what was important to British Columbians, and that's approving the overall budget for the province. Instead, they fixated on legislation such as Bill 26, to the detriment of the taxpayers of British Columbia. A gentleman in my riding commented on that. This is from Malcolm Mincher, and this is what he said: "How does this benefit us and our suffering economy? The economy of Newfoundland is more buoyant than that of B.C., for all the wrong reasons. Barry, would you please get the message out that at least one of your constituents has become irate enough to question what is going on. What can be done about this?"

Well, that's a good question, hon. Speaker. The official opposition is trying to do something about it. We're working diligently to hold this government to account -- a government that has grown lazy and arrogant by any measure, thinking they can do whatever they want.

I'm going to refer to a couple of quotes that may be of interest to the members opposite. I'm referring to quotes made by the Premier when he was the Finance critic and rose in this Legislature to oppose interim supply. I notice that the member for Skeena has finally fallen silent, as he's waiting to hear what his esteemed leader had to say a few years ago when he was in opposition. This is what he said -- and I think it could be aptly used to describe the current government; in fact, it rings very true: "This is a government in chaos. It's a government that has simply run out of steam. I think all members of the public would know that the government has lost the moral authority to govern. It has been corrupted by being in power too long. It has grown arrogant, tired and confused, and now it's desperate." That is what the current Premier said on May 30, 1991, when he was in opposition. He goes on to comment on the interim supply bill placed before the Legislature on that date: "This supply bill, frankly, proves that. The supply bill is a measure of that desperation. They've been distracted by scandals and corruption."

Hon. Speaker, you were here during question period. You heard what happened to millions of dollars of B.C. taxpayers' money lost on that fiasco in Pakistan, the Raiwind project, which this Premier promised would be a good deal for British Columbians. It wasn't.

The Speaker: The member who has the floor will take his seat.

Minister of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I've enjoyed watching the member try to tippy-toe down the tightrope of relevance, but by straying into Raiwind, I think he just fell off. I would ask you to bring him to order, to attend to the bill.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. As I recommended earlier to the member and to all members, Bill 42. . . . It is a tricky line to walk, but I know the member can do that and stay on the topic of interim supply and not on other issues.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll certainly abide by your direction, but I would suggest that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is relevant to the government's request for $1.6 billion in extra taxpayers' money.

The question the taxpayers have to ask when they, through us, are being asked to approve this request for extra funding is whether the government can be trusted to handle the money in a proper fashion. Can they be trusted with $1.6 billion in extra money? What did they do with the few million dollars in the Raiwind project? I think it was $10 million. They've blown it; they've lost it; it's gone. And the current Premier promised British Columbians it would be a good deal. I suspect that if he were here to speak to Bill 42 today, he would tell us: "Trust us. We'll manage this money properly." But we've heard that before. It is relevant to Bill 42, because it's the same government asking British Columbians to trust them again with more taxpayers' money. We have to examine the track record of this government in handling taxpayers' money when we consider their request for an extra $1.6 billion. I think it's incumbent upon us to do that on behalf of the taxpayers who pay our salaries and expect us to do their bidding here in Victoria. That's what the official opposition is here to do.

I'll refer to some more comments that the Premier made in 1991 when debating interim supply. Of course, at that stage he was the Finance critic for the NDP, as I've previously

[ Page 9451 ]

An Hon. Member: Who is this guy -- Warren Betanko?

B. Penner: I note that the member for Skeena is comparing the Premier to a fictitious person named Warren Betanko. I don't think the leader of his caucus would appreciate that; however, I'll let them sort that out behind closed doors.

I'll move on a bit further in the speech of the then Finance critic, now the current Premier: ". . .it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful." In that speech in May of 1991, he went on to talk about the late date for tabling the provincial budget. Well, does that have any analogy to the situation we're facing here today? Does that have anything to do with the reason we're here talking about Bill 42 and the request for $1.6 billion in additional spending authority? It absolutely does. This government couldn't get its act together in time to table a provincial budget earlier in the year.

I've done a little bit of research. I don't pretend to have done a lot, but I've done some. I'm going to hark back to the previous NDP government -- that is, the one that presided over this province for a, thankfully, short period of time in the 1970s. For all members present, I'm going to refer to the dates on which that government tabled budgets for the province of British Columbia. It's quite different than the current practice of tabling the budgets right at the end of the fiscal year, when there's no hope of having that spending authorized and thoroughly debated before the spending authority expires and they have to go to special warrants or interim supply.

Here's when the budgets were tabled during the previous NDP administration in the 1970s: February 1974, February 1973, February 1972. I'll go back a bit further, because I know we're all interested in the history: February 1971, February 1970, February 1969, February 1968, February 1967, February 1966, February 1965, February 1964, February 1963. Hon. Speaker, when do you think the provincial budget was tabled in 1962? February. You're right; I know that you guessed it. In 1961? February -- absolutely right; I knew that you had guessed it. And when was the provincial budget tabled in 1960? February, hon. Speaker. You're getting into this; I can tell. Then in 1959? February. In 1958? February.

Interjection.

B. Penner: I know the member for Matsqui is also getting into this interesting dialogue. And then February 1957, February 1956 and February 1955. . . .

An Hon. Member: Who won the Stanley Cup?

B. Penner: I don't know who won the Stanley Cup that year, but I suspect it might have been the Montreal Canadiens.

In 1954 it was in the month of February that the provincial government saw fit to table the provincial budget, so that it could be debated and approved by the Legislature before the end of the fiscal year. I'm looking at 1952. And guess what month it was that year? The month of February. I'll skip a couple of years, because I know that time is drawing all too short. I'm looking in the 1940s, and I see that in 1949 it was the month of February and the month of February in 1948. . . . And let's see in the war years: in 1945, it was tabled in March. Perhaps the government then could hide behind the excuse that they were caught up in the war effort. But in February of 1944 they tabled a provincial budget, and in February 1943 and February 1942 they tabled provincial budgets. I don't see a budget tabled for 1941. Perhaps the war years intervened there again, but in 1940 it was January. That's a bit of a retrospective to put things in context as we debate the government's request for $1.6 billion as contained in Bill 42.

You may have noticed, if you were paying very close attention, that there was a subtle theme in that history of the timing of budgets tabled in British Columbia. The theme was the month of February. That's the historical precedent for British Columbia. This official opposition, the B.C. Liberal Party, would return to what I think is a fine tradition. If we're elected as government, we will table provincial budgets in the month of February.

There is a reason that I think this is important. First of all, we will introduce legislation -- in fact, we've already tabled it as a private member's bill, but the NDP government has not seen fit to support it -- that would establish a fixed legislative calendar, something you could put on the wall. You could look from one year to the next to see when the elected representatives in this province, who are being paid by taxpayers, would be here doing the bidding of the electorate. We have tabled that legislation; the NDP has not supported it.

Contained within that legislation, which we've already drafted and put before the House for consideration, is a statement that the budget must be introduced no later than the end of February of any given year. That is in keeping with the history of budgets in British Columbia -- at least, with non-NDP governments' budgets. The B.C. Liberals support a return to sound fiscal management, and we're committed to doing it. We've made our commitment crystal-clear by putting it in draft legislation and putting it before the House for consideration. Unfortunately, the NDP doesn't want to support it.

We have to consider what has happened to the economy since this government tabled the provincial budget and then had to table Bill 7, which was another interim supply request. In that period of time the provincial economy has grown weaker, not stronger. In fact, I received a letter today from a land surveyor in my constituency. It's a letter to the Premier, and he also sent a copy to me. This very short and concise letter sums up the problem effectively. He says:

"My business practice is a small, hands-on professional practice. At the present time, and for some time now, business has been less than favourable, due in large part to the record and performance of your government." He's referring to the NDP government. "After 18 years of serving the local market, my business is slowly dying. Thank you very much.

"It's time to act. Withdraw Bill 26" -- which we all know is a detriment to the provincial economy.

"Yours truly. . . ."

The Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 42 is the topic for debate.

B. Penner: The reason it is important to grow the economy is that when the economy grows, so do government revenues. This government is seeking $1.6 billion in spending authorization in Bill 42. Where do they expect that money to

[ Page 9452 ]

Interjection.

B. Penner: It doesn't fall off the back of a truck, the member for Richmond-Steveston tells me.

We know that. Hard-working British Columbians know that. They know how wealth is generated. Wealth is generated by a combination, I think, of probably three things: risk, skill and hard work. I think that sums it up. This government's policies, however, make it more and more difficult for the government to raise revenue, because their policies are hurting the economy. They are discouraging people from taking a risk, from working hard -- because if they work hard, they have to pay more taxes. And they discourage people with skill, because of the highest marginal income tax rates in North America. People who are able to are leaving the province. Last week we saw a report from Statistics Canada that indicated that for the first time in, I think, 15 or 16 years, more people left British Columbia to go to the rest of Canada than came to B.C. from all of Canada. If I remember that report correctly, approximately 3,500 people voted with their feet, voted against the financial incompetence of the NDP, and left the province -- exit to the east. That's not acceptable.

We felt the impact in my own constituency of Chilliwack, in my community, the area I grew up in and where I'm proud to say I live.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. I recognize the Minister of Education.

[3:15]

The Speaker: I thank the minister. The member will take it under advisement.

B. Penner: I know the Minister of Education focuses on things to do with education. He might want to consider taking a course in economics to help him out along the way.

I'm trying to draw to the attention of this government that you can't simply bring in a bill called Bill 42, asking for $1.6 billion in spending authority, without thinking where that money's going to come from. How does the government generate that revenue? They tax individuals. How do individuals generate that money to hand over to the government? They have to work, and this government's policies are driving people out of work. They're driving people out of the province. They're leaving. They're going to Alberta.

For the first time in a decade and a half, B.C. is losing people because of the policies of this incompetent, reckless, arrogant and lazy government. I'm here to voice the opinion of people in my constituency, who say they've had enough. They don't trust this government to handle money. Whether it's the Raiwind project or the Skeena Cellulose bailout, they don't trust this government when it comes to them asking for more money. Why would they, given their track record? But I'll get to more of that in a moment -- and I know the member for Skeena is looking forward to that.

This government has demonstrated extreme arrogance, as I've said. It's not just the Minister of Forests who said the government can do anything it wants. Last week -- it was Thursday afternoon -- I was here during a debate when the Premier himself, in answer to a question on why he was doing this, said: "Because we're the government, and that's the decision we've made." I'm quoting from Hansard. What was that decision? That decision was to hire a northern development commissioner on their own without consulting MLAs from around the province. The NDP has apparently decided to hire a partisan political hack for that position. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, that has little or nothing to do with Bill 42.

B. Penner: . . .without consulting a non-partisan committee of the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, the arrogance of this government does have something to do with their request for $1.6 billion in interim supply, as contained in Bill 42. I'm just pointing to the track record of this government, which we have to weigh when we consider whether or not to grant them that $1.6 billion on behalf of taxpayers from around the province.

We're elected just like the government members are, by people in our constituencies, and we're paid by tax dollars. Rather than listen to what the opposition has to say in a constructive manner about setting up a non-partisan committee to review important appointments such as the northern development commissioner, the government decides to proceed on their own and appoint whoever they feel like. The Premier was asked why he was doing that and why he wouldn't consider a non-partisan approach to filling that position, and he said: "Because we're the government, and that's the decision we've made."

The Minister of Forests said last year that the government could do anything. Well, they think they can, but they can't. It just shows how arrogant and lazy they've become. . . .

Interjections.

B. Penner: But it's not true. They're going to be taught a lesson, and they're going to feel that lesson for many years to come.

I've talked a bit about the need for a fixed legislative calendar so we know when a budget would be introduced. I've indicated that the official opposition, the B.C. Liberal Party, has put forward a proposal to require budgets to be tabled in the month of February, which is consistent with the history of budgets in British Columbia, except for most of the NDP years in this province. I want now to focus on the actual budget that was tabled here earlier. I think it was in late March.

Interjection.

B. Penner: This is just the second half of my speech, as the member for Matsqui points out.

Budget '98, it was called. In the speech that accompanied the budget documents, the Minister of Finance made a number of interesting comments. She said: "We recognize the need to cut red tape in British Columbia. We want to make it easier to do business so that business can create jobs." What has happened in British Columbia in the past year? We've actually lost jobs. The government keeps saying it is creating more jobs, but the reality is the complete opposite.

Last year British Columbia was the only province in Canada to actually lose jobs. Prince Edward Island created

[ Page 9453 ]

In the budget that was tabled in this House but that we haven't yet approved, the Minister of Finance claimed that the deficit for this year would be $95 million, yet her own "Budget '98 Reports" says on page 33 that the government will have to borrow another $949 million to finance the operations of government. That's ten times more than what the minister was willing to admit to. Which one is it? Is it $95 million or $949 million? Well, I'll side with the auditor general on that one -- an independent officer of the Legislature. He says that the more accurate number is the one closer to $1 billion in extra debt for British Columbia.

Speaking of debt, the debt in British Columbia has increased from $17 billion when the NDP took office to $31 billion by next year, and it's rising. The interest alone on that is $2.4 billion. Think of what you could do with $2.4 billion.

An Hon. Member: Spending for a month.

B. Penner: That's more than one month's spending by this government.

In other jurisdictions governments have come to realize the magic of compound interest or, stated differently, what you can do with saved interest. The province of Alberta has embarked on a pretty aggressive campaign of retiring their debt. I was just surfing the Internet before I came into the Legislature, and I found this latest update, dated June 24, from the Alberta Treasury office. I'll quote: "A record payment of $2.6 million was made against Alberta's net debt." This is for the fiscal year of '97-98, so that's the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.

An Hon. Member: Alberta's debt is going down.

B. Penner: Alberta's debt goes down by $2.6 million. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

B. Penner: . . .and B.C.'s debt goes up by over $1 billion in just one year.

The Speaker: You'll see, hon. member, that your time is completed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the red light is on, and that means it's over.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, thank you.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, here we are again. It's interim supply time in the Legislature here in Victoria. I was thinking about this debate yesterday. Of course, we were caught up with other matters yesterday.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Yes, I can assure the Minister of Education that I do not come to these proceedings and these debates lightly. I was in fact thinking about what comments might be relevant or helpful at a time that this Legislature decides whether or not to provide the government with the additional spending authority that it needs to carry on, for better or for worse -- and I would say it's for worse -- with the business of governing the province. As I was doing that, I was actually going for a short jog along the outskirts of Victoria, along the sea wall here. It's very nice this time of year. The tourists are in town, and young couples are walking and gazing lovingly into each other's eyes. On a clear day you can look out over the ocean, and you can see. . . . Well, you can just about see clear to Pakistan.

It occurred to me that with the government returning to the Legislature, looking for the interim supply that is the subject of Bill 42, there are really two issues that members of the assembly need to consider. First of all, I think we need to consider the process by which we find ourselves engaged in this debate. That is largely a managerial exercise that relates to the management of House business and the timing and efficiency with which members are put to work and business is brought before the House. I want to spend a few minutes talking about that. Having come to some sort of a determination in our own mind as to how the government rates with respect to the management of the House process, then we have to decide the second issue, which is whether or not the government is deserving, for other reasons, of the spending authority that is the subject of the bill under consideration here today.

So what about that managerial function, that administrative function, that is within the sole purview of the government and particularly within the sole purview and authority that rests with the Government House Leader? And there are some other officials on the government benches -- obviously the cabinet as a whole, the government Whip -- all of whom play a role in determining how business will be conducted and the timing by which the spending estimates and bills will be brought before the House. But that is their job. That is an advantage that they enjoy for occupying the government side of this Legislature.

So you ask yourself: how have they done? How have they done in terms of bringing that business before the House? I think that my colleagues on this side of the Legislature and the vast, overwhelming number of British Columbians would say that once again they have failed miserably. I could undertake a review, similar to that by the member for Chilliwack, dating back at least to the 1940s. But I think the point has been made that in terms of the timeliness of bringing budgetary measures, bills, spending estimates before members of the assembly, this government has yet again demonstrated a singular inability to effectively manage the time for debate and the time for members who are sent here by constituents, as we all are. And that's unfortunate.

We had an excellent example of it over the last number of days with respect to Bill 26, and I will not engage here and now in a debate that deals with the merits of that bill, that deals with the devastating impact that bill is going to have if it is ever enacted. I won't get into the questions of investors being driven from the province and jobs being driven from the province. That is not the purpose of this debate. I will not

[ Page 9454 ]

An Hon. Member: I think you should at least try.

M. de Jong: That's not what we're here to talk about today, though members of this government know that if even one penny of the one-twelfth of their budget they are seeking approval for today is to be devoted towards the implementation of Bill 26, we are opposed, opposed, opposed. But the process by which that debate has been undertaken, I would suggest, demonstrates the fundamental problem that plagues this House at every turn, and that is a government that thinks this is its own little playpen and it can determine not just who's going to play in the sandbox but what they're going to play, when they're going to play it and what the outcomes of the games are going to be.

Hon. Speaker, we have this little green book called Standing Orders, the rules by which debates in this House are supposed to be conducted. In the last number of months, I have sensed a tremendous degree of frustration on the part of the government caucus, the government cabinet and the Government House Leader when they realize that in fact the Chair and members of the opposition are going to insist that those rules be followed. The government's unwillingness or inability to acknowledge that fact has landed this House in some serious difficulties over the last number of days. So I ask, insofar as that first point, that first issue, is concerned: does the Government House Leader, does the Premier -- by virtue of their conduct in this chamber -- deserve passing grades for the use of time of members and this chamber and the staff that go with it? I think the answer is a clear no.

The government fails miserably on that account. I know you're thinking to yourself: "Well, if the answer to the first question is no, then it might not be necessary for the member for Matsqui to move further and consider the second question. That might be a moot point." And you might be right. But for those members of the government side who disagree -- who for some strange, perverted reason think that debates that stretch on into the wee hours of the morning, that a Government House Leader who is incapable or unwilling to communicate with members of the opposition to come up with a schedule that makes sense in terms of doing business. . . . For those members of the government benches who disagree with me in terms of that assessment, let me move on to the second point, which deals essentially with the issue of trust.

[3:30]

An Hon. Member: But not Bill 26.

M. de Jong: But not Bill 26, which, hon. Speaker, I think you know we are opposed, opposed, opposed to.

I keep hearing, as I desperately try to deal with the essence of Bill 42, these murmurings from Skeena, these guttural sounds of opposition, of discontent -- and I don't blame him for his discontent. If I had to put up with a Government House Leader who was singularly incapable of managing the business of this House, I would be upset as well. I know they're frustrated over there. I know that the member for Skeena is angry in the extreme that the Agriculture minister and the Small Business minister were asleep at the switch, and he has paid a horrific price personally and professionally. I know that there is discontent. But the task at hand is Bill 42. It's interim spending authority for this government; that is what we are here to consider today.

As I was jogging yesterday I turned my mind to what might be relevant issues to consider in determining whether the government has the trust needed for me to cast a vote in favour of granting them spending authority. I looked back retrospectively over the life of this session -- the three or four months. Where did it all begin? It all began around the campground, didn't it? It all began around the campground, the question of trust. Rub two sticks together, and you get $21 billion; that's the attitude of this government. "We're going to build 1,500 campsites. We're going to put kids to work in relief camps, building campsites." I was disturbed enough by that: a budget and a throne speech built around the promise, built around that historic, unforgettable, exciting promise of 1,500 campsites. It certainly stuck with me.

As disturbing as that was for me, as puzzling as that was -- that the Premier and the Finance minister would tie an entire economic strategy, an entire budgetary strategy, to 1,500 campsites built by unemployed students that they put out of work -- imagine my surprise. . . . Imagine what an impact it would have on not just me but all of my colleagues from Fort Langley, Aldergrove, Richmond, Okanagan, Chilliwack -- everyone. Imagine how devastated we would be to learn that the promise for those 1,500 new campsites for British Columbians actually turned out to be a loss of 800 campsites.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Richmond-Steveston says it can't be so, and it is an issue of trust. It is an issue of trust, insofar as. . . . If they were going to create those 1,500 campsites, they would require funds -- presumably funds from the $1.691 billion, which is the subject of Bill 42. If they were going to build those campsites, they wouldn't be using money that is the subject of debate now. But can we trust them? With this government, with this cabinet, with this NDP and -- if the member for Peace River North were here, he would say it -- with this gang of socialists, even in campsites, more is less: 1,500 more is actually 800 less. On an issue that the government highlighted, that was on the marquee of its budgetary strategy, it's thumbs down. In fact, it's two thumbs down. No trust.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Skeena. . . . Is it unparliamentary to say that someone is a sucker for punishment? I mean, except for the fact that props aren't allowed, why doesn't he just stand up with a target on his chest? I'm trying to resist. . . . Look, it may not be a big deal for him, but if you're one of the kids who lives in the Okanagan who was promised a job working for the Ministry of Forests, and two days before you were supposed to start that job, they yanked the rug out from under you and said, "Tough luck," you'd say it was relevant, wouldn't you, hon. Speaker? You'd say it was relevant indeed.

I presume that for those students who have been hired as a result of the member for Okanagan-Penticton having raised

[ Page 9455 ]

Where do we go from there? As I was jogging down along the sea wall, looking out at the windsurfers and the whale-watching boats, it occurred to me that environment has always been a supposed hallmark of NDP policy in this province. I turned my mind back to a few short months to what the Environment minister had to say when confronted by the fact that over 20,000 jobs had been lost in this province because of her ministry's inability to effectively and efficiently process applications for Crown land grants.

She didn't want to talk about it, because it didn't reflect well on the government's economic strategy. She said she was going to fix it, and she said she was going to devote additional resources to it. I presume that some of the moneys we're dealing with today in Bill 42 will be earmarked by the Ministry of Environment to address a backlog of Crown land applications that is contributing to that flight of capital and investment and that flight of jobs from the province. It's 20,000 jobs. Her own ministry's memo to Treasury Board highlighted the fact that instead of putting people to work, they are actually putting people out of work.

I assume that a portion of these funds today -- if they are voted to the government -- are going to go to addressing that backlog and that deplorable situation. What the government -- and they say this by implication, because they don't say anything during these debates, but that is not that unusual. . . . I presume they would have us believe that that will happen and that those resources will be devoted to fulfilling the minister's promise to address that question of a backlog, but they ask us to trust them.

It comes back to the issue of trust. When you have sat in this chamber and realize that with respect to the Ministry of Environment and the Minister of Environment, the only time anything happens is when one of the members of the opposition stands up, addresses the minister and says: "There's a gentleman in the gallery here today to whom you have not fulfilled a legal obligation to transfer Crown land. . . ." The only reason that Crown land gets transferred, the only way that legal obligation gets fulfilled is, because the minister is embarrassed about reading her name in the newspaper the next day for having failed the people of British Columbia again. You start to ask yourself: on what basis do we achieve that trust? The answer you're forced to come up with is: "The government doesn't deserve it; the government hasn't earned it."

If you are even more generous than that, if you begin with the premise that governments come into office having achieved a mandate from the people and are therefore deserving of that trust on that basis alone -- the presumption in favour of having the trust of the people -- then I guess what you have to conclude is that over the past two years since the last election, this government has set a record for having lost the trust of British Columbians. They've lost any confidence that members of this House or British Columbians at large can have in a government that has proved quite the contrary.

Sadly, as I move towards the conclusion of my remarks. . . . I haven't had an opportunity to address that project, the program that was more exciting, more historic than any other in the life of the Premier. . . . I know that you're still thinking, because there have been about five or six of those projects in the last two months. . . . But I'm talking about the jobs and timber accord. That project, that initiative which was single-handedly going to create. . . . Was it ten? Was it 15? No, it was 35,000. . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: . . .or 40,000 jobs, as the Minister of Education says. And how many did we create? We must have created 20,000. Fifteen? Ten? We created 5,000. No -- no one's nodding yet. Did we create 1,000 jobs? Hundreds? A hundred jobs? Could it be that we lost jobs, hon. Speaker? Could it be that a portion of the moneys we are voting on today in Bill 42 will have to be devoted to social programs to support -- how many was it? -- 17,000 forestry workers that are out of work as a result of the policies of this government? Is that what we've come to? Is that what this gang of socialists. . . ? This gang of socialists brought this province economically to its knees.

Well, I haven't talked about that. I haven't talked about Pakistan. I haven't talked about B.C. Hydro. I haven't talked about health care. I haven't talked about Air Smithers or whatever they're calling that little private air limousine service that the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine uses. I haven't talked about any of that, but we'll have time. The government today asks for spending authority and does so on the basis, I presume, that they think they've earned the trust of this House to authorize one-twelfth of the budget for the coming month. I'm afraid that the answer from this member -- and, I daresay, from members up and down this side of the House -- is a resounding no. We are opposed to Bill 42.

[3:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

The Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 42.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 42, Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1998

On section 1.

I. Chong: Bill 42, Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, has no warrants attached, so there really isn't an opportunity to engage in a thorough review of sections, as is normally the case. All that is provided here is section 1 to grant interim supply representing one-twelfth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99. Although, we are presently continuing with the canvassing of spending estimates in the remaining ministries which are still unresolved at this time -- namely, Environment, Children and Families, Aboriginal Affairs, Health and the Premier's estimates -- members on this side of the House will still do so thoroughly and vigorously.

[ Page 9456 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

I. Chong: I don't want to belabour this amount, but it does seem odd, and perhaps the minister can look into that amount. As I say, the difference is lower than the forecast in the main estimates. I see $20.586 billion, and if we multiply the $1.691 billion, which represents one-twelfth, we would come up with a slightly lesser amount. Perhaps the minister can advise whether that would be forthcoming in something that the ministry has available?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The $1.69 billion is the total voted expenditures -- $20,284,523,000 divided by 12. It does not include the amortization changes in unfunded pension liability or the adjustment for capitalization of tangible assets, so that is the difference.

Section 1 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 42, Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, reported complete without amendment.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 42, Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon Speaker, I call report on Bill 27.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT

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

The Speaker: Hon. members, if I might have your attention for a moment, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and will be here in the chamber in a moment. I ask that you retain your seats.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk of the House:

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998

Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998

Park Amendment Act, 1998

Northern Development Act

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Supply Act (No. 2), 1998

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor thanks Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: The House will come to order. Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday next.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take this opportunity to wish everybody a safe and happy holiday tomorrow. It is a time when one has to be very careful about driving, so I just wish everybody a safe trip and then a wonderful celebration with our constituents and some time with our families.

With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:09 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

[ Page 9457 ]

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

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, if I could start by just passing on some information that we did talk about in our last session related to trapping and wildlife numbers, I have here a document that talks about the number of licensed trappers and the estimated number of aboriginal trappers -- the numbers for '97-98 being 1,500 licensed trappers and 1,859 non-licensed aboriginal trappers. There are figures from '93-94 up to '97-98. Of course, the '97-98 numbers are estimates based on an incomplete year.

We also have the reported wild fur harvest from '93-94 to '97-98 for species including black bear, beaver, bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, otter, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, weasel, wolf and wolverine.

Then finally we have a list of the Wildlife Act trapping offences and penalties, the ones which are ticketable offences and the ones which are dealt with by a court appearance, with a minimum and maximum fine set under the Wildlife Act. I'd be happy to provide a copy of this document to the member.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that. The first area that I would like to canvass today -- and I don't have a lot of questions on it, but I honestly don't have an up-to-date status -- is the Columbia Basin Trust. I'd be interested in just having a short update on where the trust is at this point and, I guess, the aspect of it that's their financial position as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Columbia Basin Trust was established to be an agency to monitor annual allocations that are spent in the community, as a result of trying to create some use out of the downstream benefits as a result of the hydro facilities that were built. The board members are appointed by cabinet -- OIC appointments. The minister responsible is Corky Evans; the Columbia Basin Trust actually reports to him.

However, we do have a list of the '97-98 trust spending on environmental projects, which may be what you're interested in. There is a partnership agreement between the Columbia Basin fish and wildlife compensation program -- we have some detail on that -- for a total of $500,000; there's a conservation lands program valued at $350,000; there's the trans-boundary fish forum at $12,500; the Creston Valley Wildlife Centre, $12,500; and the Living Landscapes program, $66,700 -- for a total of $941,700.

M. Coell: That's specifically what I was looking for. With those funds that are going to be spent on environmental projects, will the ministry have the ability to evaluate those projects? Is it the minister's belief that money will continue to be used on environmental projects at that level?

Hon. C. McGregor: We annually evaluate the Columbia basin fish and wildlife compensation program, as well as the Creston Valley Wildlife Centre. The other projects, we don't.

M. Coell: Just to add my voice to a number of voices, I think this is a very important aspect of that so-called treaty. I think that the more we can get out of it for environmental upgrading restoration, the better. There may be a tendency in the future to find other needs for that money, and I think it's important that the ministry continue to be a major player in how that money is spent. I don't think I'm alone in suggesting that; I think there are a great number of people who feel the same way. So I thank the minister for that update.

The next item that I wish to canvass at some greater length is the evaluation of B.C.'s environmental assessment process -- the Sadler report of November '97. If I can just make a couple of comments so that maybe the minister will understand where I'm coming from. There are major projects that obviously take years to evaluate and to assess, and they're reassessed and have ongoing assessments. I get a number of calls from people, as I'm sure the ministry and the minister do, on small projects that are held up for periods of time. In the report, one of the recommendations is for a fast track for small, less significant projects. I think that would assist municipal governments as well. I think that's where most of my comments have come from -- municipal governments. They'll have everything done except that assessment, and it's on a long waiting list. I just wonder what the ministry has done specific to the "fast track for small, less significant projects," as it's described by Mr. Sadler.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're currently engaged in a stakeholder consultation with the Sadler report and the environmental assessment process. As the member rightly notes, it has significant impacts on a variety of agencies, including local government. So we are working in fact with the B.C. Business Council, the B.C. Environmental Network, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the B.C. Mining Association, the First Nations working group and provincial, federal and municipal government agencies at this initial level of consultation.

Following that consultation, there will be an implementation of the plan, which is designed to improve the focus, consistency and effectiveness of the project reviews. The goal, of course, is to provide certainty for those proponents who wish to build or develop some proposal that falls within the thresholds under the Environmental Assessment Act. There have been minor adjustments to threshold levels in the past. Certainly that's something that this review will be continuing to look at.

M. Coell: Are there time frames or recommended time frames for those sorts of projects? I can think of two or three that have happened in this area, where there are very small buildings that wait the same length of time as a shopping centre adjacent to a stream would. I am just looking at the proposed time frames for that recommendation.

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, it's appropriate for me to emphasize -- because I didn't in my first response to your question about the environmental assessment office -- and to indicate that it is an independent office. It is not this ministry that makes decisions related to environmental assessment. We're one of the ministries that are reported to as a part of that process. So it is an independent agency. Nonetheless, we are aware of the activities that they are engaged in.

I will correct my earlier comments about consultation. As I understand it, we've been doing consultation with just the oil and gas sector through this spring period. We're going to begin the wider consultation in the fall, with a targeted completion date of the end of 1998 to be able to move forward with some recommendations.

M. Coell: I'm aware of that, but maybe the minister can clarify this for me. It would be my understanding that changes

[ Page 9458 ]

[2:45]

M. Coell: I appreciate that. The report was tabled in December last year, and I'm looking for how the government is moving on some of those recommendations. I know there were recommendations with gas and oil, which the minister has touched on. There were also highways, and then there was an area, I think, where municipal government is affected a great deal as well. I just want some clarification on whether the government is working on some of the recommendations or whether they have discarded them, and which areas are the ones government has started to work on first. I realize there are a great deal of recommendations there.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we did develop a corporate work plan, and that's what is going out for consultation with the different groups. I have here before me the priority deliverables that are listed as part of the work plan, which includes, first, a review of the Environmental Assessment Act to consider process and efficiencies. That's clearly what was recommended in the Sadler report. Second, it includes a review of EA-reviewable projects, regulation tier 1 -- and that affects energy, mining, transportation and special waste. Third, there is a policy statement on the distinction between EA and permitting issues, because that was another point that the Sadler report raised.

Fourth, there is a procedure and system for issue identification, significance rating and tracking. I've met with the deputy responsible, and I meet with that deputy fairly frequently. I think they're doing a very good job of improving their efficiency in terms of tracking projects along the time line. If the member is familiar with the act, he knows that it is very pointed in the fact that it has time limits along the way. The fifth priority is a policy statement on a lead agency approach to issue identification, rating and resolution. The sixth is the standard project committee operating guidelines -- operating guidelines for the project committees that are put in place as part of the environmental assessment process. The seventh is standard operating guidelines for chairing project reviews.

A lot of this work has been ongoing through the environmental assessment office. Nonetheless, the Sadler report provided some very helpful advice, and we're using that as a framework to improve the process so that it will go smoothly for all proponents.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have a time line as to when those working groups will report back and regulations will actually be changed? Is there a time frame set up for that?

Hon. C. McGregor: The reg review will be complete, with recommendations for changes for the energy, mining, transportation and special waste sectors, by the end of 1998. It may be that the process work will continue on into 1999, but we'll make sure that the regulatory issues are finished off by the end of 1998.

M. Coell: The other night, I believe, we started to talk about the marine legacy parks. Does the minister have staff here able to. . . ? Great. A lot of the marine legacy parks project is in the riding that I represent, so I have a keen interest in seeing that complete -- I guess for a somewhat selfish reason, in that I think it would be of benefit to my riding. But it also has a benefit to the province and indeed to many, many tourists from outside the province. The commitment was a jointly funded project, federally and provincially. It got off to a good start, although the provincial government, as I remember, didn't put cash up front. They had purchased land prior to the agreement, which was brought into the agreement as as-good-as-cash. To this point, the provincial government, to my knowledge, hasn't participated in any more of the purchases, although the federal government has continued to purchase property, and both governments have continued to identify property. I would be interested to know if the ministry has a budget set aside for this year for their purchase of properties in conjunction with the federal government.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy program is a wonderful way of preserving the unique ecosystems of, in particular, the southern Gulf Islands. That was acknowledged through the partnership that the federal and provincial government together drew up in order to preserve, for all time, representative samplings of those important ecosystems.

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. The Prince himself was here not long ago, as I'm sure the member is aware, to celebrate the acquisition of some new properties related to that program. It is one that has a high value not only to residents of the southern Vancouver Island area but also internationally -- to representatives of the conservation groups, including the Prince of Wales. So I think it speaks to the significance of the contribution that both the provincial and the federal government are making to the program.

To date, the federal government has contributed about $20 million towards the acquisition, as well as others. The province's contribution has been about $6 million. The terms of the agreement are such that over the five-year term, each party will contribute $30 million, for a total of $60 million. While we haven't budgeted annually, we've put forward our funding on a case-by-case basis as properties become available to us.

M. Coell: I understand that. What I have some concern about is that the five-year window -- it's now two years since the announcement -- will quickly go by without the commitment to those lands that have been identified. Is the ministry actively searching for sites with the federal government at this point? Or are all the sites identified? Are we just waiting for them to come up for sale or for one level of government to act as a buyer?

Hon. C. McGregor: We are indeed fairly familiar with what the priority sites are that would complete the program over the next several years, particularly those pieces that would go to a national marine park. However, they are private

[ Page 9459 ]

We do have to acknowledge, though, that we are working with Parks Canada on the funding arrangement. There is no doubt that this government has experienced a provincial economy that isn't as robust as it once was and that spending is becoming difficult to manage. We've worked hard on establishing priorities, including health care and education, and that has meant we haven't had quite the budget we had hoped for to be able to complete the program as originally envisioned. We are working with Parks Canada to try and find a way to acknowledge the very significant contributions that we continue to make, particularly in the support that staff provide. So we're looking to find an opportunity to recommit to the program and live up to our financial commitments.

M. Coell: The province owns a great deal of Crown land on the southern Gulf Islands and indeed on the northern Gulf Islands as well. Has there been a review of those lands with regard to what lands could be brought into the project, basically at the cost when we purchased those lands? In some cases it was probably $1 an acre.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member's question gives rise to one of the changes that we're hoping to seek in the agreement with the federal government -- to do the kinds of things that the member describes, which is for the province to gain credit for Crown lands that would be added to the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy program. That's one of the ways that we're hoping to amend the agreement, because there are opportunities for us to add Crown land to some already existing protected areas or to help us in identifying new sites that might meet the program criteria. In particular, my attention was drawn to some negotiations we're engaged in right now with Islands Trust around some Crown land that's close to Pebble Beach, which is already one of the approved PMHL properties.

M. Coell: I didn't realize that there would need to be a change to the agreement with the federal government. I realize that you're obviously in negotiations and don't want to comment on that, and I understand. Is there a time frame that we can look to for either a change or a rejection of a change? Again, I'm looking at the three years left in the agreement. A year can go by pretty quickly, and sometimes it's difficult to purchase lands in any event, although we would be dealing with Crown lands in this case.

[3:00]

M. Coell: Maybe we could move on to Pebble Beach and the project of the Galiano Conservancy. I know the minister is aware of it. The conservancy has a proposal in for management of the Pebble Beach area, and there are a number of lots involved in that which are Crown land, as the minister said. Also, the conservancy has raised money to purchase others. There was a commitment from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, when he was Minister of Environment, with regard to turning over the management of the Pebble Beach nature conservancy to the Galiano group to manage and run. I just wonder what the status of those negotiations is at this point.

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the negotiations are fairly advanced. They are currently negotiating a master agreement with the Islands Trust Fund board. The master agreement will really spell out the principles of management that make it consistent with the PMHL strategy and conservancy goals. That will then lead to a management agreement with the Galiano Conservancy, so the Islands Trust will make a management agreement to give the management to the Galiano Conservancy.

As was pointed out to me by the assistant deputy responsible, it's important that government engage in a contractual relationship with a body that is likely to be around for a significant period of time. The Islands Trust is in fact the local government for the Gulf Islands, really. That's why we have the master agreement with them, but they have an agreement to then create a management agreement with the Galiano Conservancy group.

M. Coell: That's a change to what the original intent was in the letter from Minister Sihota. I'm not quite sure why that change would take place. I think the minister may have touched on it in that you're looking for a level of government that is more permanent. Is that the reason for the change? The reason I bring it up is that it has been going on for over two years now. It's taking a lot of work on the volunteers' behalf, and they don't seem to be at a point where they can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is certainly no intention to not deliver on the intent of what Minister Sihota announced at the time. Clearly what we're trying to do is create a tool and a mechanism through which that can be delivered.

The concern is that a group like the Galiano Conservancy, while they may be very active in the community now, may not be active in the community even six months from now. We want to make sure that the land is protected in perpetuity. So that's why we deal with an agency like the Islands Trust. But then we make it clear, as a part of that negotiation, that it's meant to be managed by the local conservancy group.

As I understand it, as well, one of the reasons that it has taken some time to deal with is because there isn't unanimity on the questions of land use. This is a familiar story to those of us who work in this ministry, as land use decisions are never easy, and there are always conflicts, it seems, and different views on what is an appropriate use of an area. As I understand it, the ratepayers and some members of the conservancy group have not yet resolved their differences as to how the land is to be best used.

So we're continuing to work with those groups in developing a strategy. As a result of spending the additional time in negotiating this agreement, we believe that it will sort out those issues, so that at the end of the day, the conservancy will have the ability to be a good manager and represent the views of the people who live on Galiano.

[ Page 9460 ]

I think one thing that could be said for everyone on Galiano is that Pebble Beach is an extraordinary place that needs to be protected and to be dealt with as a conservancy, where you're trying to keep that very small ecosystem intact. I would encourage the ministry to move forward, and I think there is a solution there. I'd be interested in knowing whether the ministry is considering the whole parcel, once it's put together, as part of the marine legacy program -- whether that fits with the intent of it now. If the changes to the agreement are made, does it still fit?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it's a good fit between the criteria for PMHL and the Crown lands that are adjacent to Pebble Beach. Certainly it is our hope that as a result of the negotiations with the federal government, it can be considered a provincial contribution. While we don't want to hazard a guess as to its exact value, it is significant and would really show a significant contribution on the part of the province were it to be credited to the PMHL program.

M. Coell: There is one forestry access road that I believe there is some tenure on, as well, for logging. I wonder if the minister could update me on the status of that road. My recollection is that it had about five years left in the agreement. Whether that's more or less, I'm not sure.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there is a forestry access road that is licensed with MacMillan Bloedel. It is about five years, so we think you're right in terms of the overall time limit for that road permit.

We are looking at ideas on how, over the course of the agreement, to have it evolve into part of the property. Obviously that can't happen right now. It stays open as a forest road, because that permit exists. One of the ideas is to treat it with a licence of occupation. That's part of why the negotiations have taken as long as they have. This is one of those complicated issues that has to be clearly spelled out. There have to be jurisdictional questions between the Ministry of Forests and ourselves. We're continuing to negotiate that question.

M. Coell: Has there been any thought to trading a tree farm licence elsewhere and freeing up that one? It seems to me that you could keep the road open and use it for access to do some logging; some has been done. Or you could value the timber there and trade for timber elsewhere that's opening up. Even a bigger section could be part of it.

Hon. C. McGregor: In this case, the Crown land that lies adjacent to Pebble Beach has values, because it has some good stands of old growth. Apparently that is not the case in the forestry lands that are actually privately managed. At this time, we're not considering any trade. We're assuming that the forestry activity will continue on the privately managed land and that we will preserve the values in the adjacent parcels based on conservation -- in particular, of the old growth that exists on those sites.

M. Coell: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't thinking of trading for land on Galiano; I was thinking of trading for forestry land in another area not close to a potential marine park. So that was my thought; it wasn't for trading the lands that are owned right there.

Just in summing up, I would like to encourage the government to put closure on this. I think it's a tremendous asset, one of which I know there has been a lot of volunteer work done on the islands, and I know your staff have done a lot of work as well. The conservancy and the ratepayers on Galiano, I think to a person, would agree that this is a valuable potential park. I think the pedestrian, vehicle and handicapped accesses -- all that -- can be worked out at a level after something is completed. I would say to the government, as the MLA representing that area, that I am very supportive of the project and hope to see it completed.

The next area that I want to spend some time talking about is on the list that I gave the minister. It's Skeena Cellulose and the pollution problems associated with that. So I'll let you change staff.

I've just two questions. The level of pollution coming from that particular facility is, I guess, the same as many others. I'm interested to know, now that it's government owned or government controlled and owned, whether we're going to be requiring the site to be upgraded and whether the ministry is involved in that decision to do the upgrading.

[3:15]

However, just for the member's information, I do have copies of the non-compliance charges -- I guess it's the best way of putting it -- for the times which Skeena Cellulose has appeared on the non-compliance report. Clearly these improvements will go a long way to addressing all of the pollution issues that have resulted from a lack of investment in that facility over the last several years.

M. Coell: Is there a time frame for those renovations and upgrades to take place?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there is a time period of two years.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me whether there are any moneys owing from Skeena Cellulose to the provincial government for permit fees at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the auditor general's report indicated that there were outstanding waste management permit fees payable from Skeena Cellulose to the province. Under the court-ordered creditor agreement, the ministry received $10,000 plus 10 percent of the balance, which was another $96,000. Fees from March '97 to the end of '97 were deferred until the end of '98 and are to be repaid in 48 instalments. This means that some -- about $700,000 in fees -- from '97-98 will

[ Page 9461 ]

M. Coell: I guess for me the bottom line is that they had a large number of fees levied against them, and they've been able to pay some of them. Can the minister tell me what percentage or what number the total should have been and what we ended up with?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to do some arithmetic to figure out the numbers, and we'll get them to you.

M. Coell: The retrofits and upgrading that we're doing now will meet today's standards. Will they meet the ministry's standards in the year 2000-2001 -- the new standard for effluent from. . . ?

Hon. C. McGregor: Skeena is already in compliance with the AOX regulation. The upgrades are not for that purpose; they're for other types of effluent treatment.

M. Coell: Are they in compliance with today's regulations or the regulations that will be in place in the year 2000?

Hon. C. McGregor: Today's regulations.

M. Coell: The minister may refer me to another ministry, but I'll try anyways on the AOX regulations that are due to be in place in the year 2000, is there an estimate of what it would cost to upgrade that facility after these upgrades are done to meet the AOX upgrade on the facility for the new regulations?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid that's future policy direction. We simply don't have those kinds of numbers.

M. Coell: I understand that. What I was asking is: is there a study done today on the costs to upgrade to the AOX regulations? And if there hasn't been a study done, that's fine too.

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly we've had some statistics provided to us by other pulp mills on the cost of upgrading to the year 2002 standard, but we have not had those figures provided for Skeena Cellulose.

M. Coell: Leaving Skeena, I have just a couple of questions on AOX and the regulations for the year 2000. Is there any change in the policy on these regulations at this time by the ministry? Is it still on track with the year 2000 regulations?

Hon. C. McGregor: The province has no plans to relax the regulation that's currently in place which will eliminate AOX by the year 2002.

M. Coell: That's 2002?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, 2002. We have some of the lowest AOX levels in North America, and we are clearly a world leader on the question. In anticipation of questions related to this during estimates, I went back to remind myself about what AOX is and what's the concern, because I think that's an important issue for us to be thinking about. I think often we frame responses to environmental questions by having those people who are in the business of producing the effluent talk about the economic side from a producer's point of view as to the cost of reducing that effluent. I think we also have to consider the other side of the equation.

The reason why the regulation came into effect some considerable time ago is because of the health and environmental risks. There are more than 300 AOXs produced when you bleach pulp mill effluent. AOX is actually short for absorbable organic halogens. A number of them are highly toxic. They remain in the environment for many years, and they accumulate in the food chain.

AOX belongs to the dioxin family, and it's believed to be the most toxic synthetic chemical known to man. AOX has a very, very deadly impact on the environment. There has been a lot of research that demonstrates that they are extremely harmful. Even outside of that evidence, we would want to use what we call the precautionary principle in how we plan for environmental management. That is, we apply a standard to say that because we know that it has impacts on certain types of food sources and that it accumulates in animal food chains, we're not going to take the risk of waiting until there's lots of evidence on the effects on humans before we take the steps necessary to reduce the amount of AOX and dioxins that are released into the environment.

Those are the reasons why we've taken these steps to remove AOX. In fact, when AOX was first brought in, there were actual fishing closures because of the amounts of toxins in fish in the vicinity of pulp mills. There was a real environmental and social need to address the question of AOX. The regulation has been designed over time to give industry the opportunities to create the kind of technology and change in practice to lessen their emittance of AOX and other effluents.

These are opportunities for us to work with the pulp sector on new ways of making progress. Some people talk about closed-loop systems, for instance, as a means of talking about all effluent being captured and then reused or made benign in some way. We can actually design mills now that have those kinds of parameters around them. Obviously we can't do that with an existing mill. But we are prepared to work with the pulp mill companies. Our staff has a lot of expertise in this area. In fact, British Columbia, in the entrepreneurial sense, leads in the development of environmental technologies. There are new technologies available that companies will be able to use to improve their practice around AOX. But we do have world leaders on this question. The pulp and paper industry has to be commended for the work they've done in terms of developing new technologies to bring their AOX levels down to even below the standards that are currently required.

M. Coell: The standards that we have now. . . . The vast majority of pulp mills have upgraded, as the minister said, over a period of time. It's the year 2002 regulations. . . . I'm probably getting copies of letters that the minister is receiving from environmental groups and pulp producers -- two sides of the same coin: the desire for a clean environment and the desire to be able to afford to carry on in business. I realize that the government is in a difficult position at this point. I want to be of some assistance; I don't want to be taking one side or the other. I think, as the minister said we can accommodate both of those desires in the future. With that said, I would be interested in hearing the ministry's position on the 2002 regulations as compared to where we are today, taking into consideration the need to protect the environment and the pulp industry at the same time. I realize it's a difficult position to be in, but I'd be interested in hearing the minister's thoughts on that.

[ Page 9462 ]

M. Coell: Just a comment. It may be that a solution is to put a diverse group together to come up with some solutions to something that is two sides of the same coin. There needs to be a further look at the potential of those regulations and the potential for harm to the environment, so I'm encouraged by what the minister says.

[3:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Coming from a profession where there is a professional standard through the College of Teachers, I know why the biologists are interested in creating an opportunity for a similar agency that would oversee their profession and professional behaviour.

I know there are many members. . . . In fact, I've recently started receiving some correspondence. I think the biologists in our communities must be out there actively campaigning on this question, because I've had local governments write to us and say: "We think it would be great to have a biologist act because it would professionally certify biologists and it would give comfort to those who engage biologists to provide consulting services to them and provide a way in which a professional standard can be upheld." We are very interested in that. We have met with representatives of biologists from our own ministry and of those outside of government who have similar interests. We're certainly prepared to work with them on bringing forward such a piece of legislation. Obviously I can't make commitments as to when that might happen, but we'll continue to work with them on that question.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. I also belong to a professional association that has an oversight capability, and I think that the biologists' association would be very well served by a biologists act. If you are looking for encouragement and a positive response from the opposition, you're getting that. So if that's any reason to hold it up -- I suspect it wouldn't be -- you would find us very supportive of that.

Two areas regarding water. One is groundwater: we've been looking forward to some sort of groundwater legislation, and the minister is aware that we are one of very few provinces and states in North America that don't have a form of groundwater legislation. We had talked about some pilot projects. I wonder if the minister could update me as to those pilot projects and the budget for them.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have been working to engage with the Islands Trust in a voluntary pilot for groundwater protection. I thought I might take a moment or two to talk about some of the goals of the program. The goals are to achieve an effective, community-based groundwater protection plan, customized to the areas selected. In this case, we've really talked to the Islands Trust about an expression of interest -- which island would like to begin the pilot. We've had expressions of interest from Hornby, Pender and Saltspring. The Islands Trust is going to get back to us after talking with representatives of their islands, as to which would be the one to begin this process.

We want to develop a partnership approach to groundwater resource protection. This will really serve as a model through which we can build on groundwater protection initiatives and then use that as a means of springboarding into some other communities -- maybe helping to work out what I would call some of the bugs around the question of groundwater protection. For all that, there are proponents who favour groundwater protection, and there are others who are very concerned about that new kind of regulatory regime. So it's an opportunity to build that and to evaluate the effectiveness of a non-regulatory approach to groundwater protection versus a regulatory approach -- and then, as I said, to see what future measures we might be able to take as a result of that work.

So we have a work plan in place, and we have just recently met with the Islands Trust. They are currently reviewing submissions and will be providing a response to us within the next few weeks, I expect.

M. Coell: I've reviewed a number of groundwater acts, and it seems to me that the best possible way, in British Columbia's case, is to go slowly. But I would still encourage the ministry to bring in something slowly and try it, rather than bringing in a large act that, as the minister said, would probably cause as much controversy as it would do good. I'm encouraged by those pilot projects and look forward to seeing the results in the next year or so.

One more issue with regard to water. . . . We had a "Water Quality Status Report" in late '96 that made a number of recommendations to government and, at the same time, outlined problem areas. One of the areas I'd like to touch on today is the Burrard Inlet and B.C. Hydro's thermal plant, and the quality of the water and the changes that occur because of that plant. It's sort of a joint. . . . The ministry does the monitoring, and B.C. Hydro has to fix the problems or make excuses for not fixing the problems. I'd be interested to know if there have been any changes in the monitoring of the water around the B.C. Hydro plant over the last 18 months.

Hon. C. McGregor: As a part of the permit that was amended in December 1995, there was a requirement to conduct an environmental impact study to address the thermal concerns. It is the water temperature that's the largest concern. Our latest note says that phase 1 of those studies has been completed. It's given a considerable amount of information, but it's not conclusive as to whether it has had a significant impact. Now, I know that Hydro is trying to work with the city of Port Moody to set up an ongoing committee where they can engage in discussions and monitoring and assess impacts and really try to lead that next phase of the environmental studies. It is a matter of considerable concern to city council there, as it is to many of the residents and people who care about the importance of that area as a fish-spawning and fish-rearing area. Temperature is a big concern with fish, as the member likely knows, so we need to make sure that we're effectively assessing those impacts so we can make decisions that will benefit fish.

[ Page 9463 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: It's actually tripartite, and we're one of the partners in that.

M. Coell: Who's the other partner?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's the city of Port Moody, as well as ourselves and Hydro.

M. Coell: I won't get into it today, but I would like to spend some time regarding air quality the next time we meet, and on that particular plant and the studies that the ministry is doing on an ongoing basis -- some of the things the minister mentioned the other day with regard to air quality monitoring and greenhouse gases, which we spoke of.

I'm not sure whether the minister wishes to continue at this point. The L-G was supposed to be in the Legislature at quarter to. . . .

Interjections.

M. Coell: I move that we rise, report progress and plead to sit again. [Laughter.]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:43 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada