[ Page 9465 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we're going to depart somewhat from our standard procedures this afternoon in order to allow the House to pay respects to a former Speaker and New Democrat MLA, Emery Barnes, who died on July 1 in Vancouver. I recognize the member for North Coast, the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I think I speak for all members of this House but particularly for my caucus when I note that Wednesday, July 1 -- Canada Day -- was indeed a very sad day as much as it was a day of celebration for Canadians, in that a distinguished member of this House, Emery Barnes, who was a friend to many of us, passed away. Emery leaves his spouse Janet and four children.

Words are difficult at these times, hon. Speaker. I did look at some historical documentation on Emery Barnes. Looking at some of the issues that he championed, we were delighted in 1974 when as a backbencher Emery Barnes successfully spearheaded the drive to remove South African wines from B.C. liquor stores. He was delighted, as the Speaker in 1994, to toast the reintroduction of South African wines back into B.C. liquor stores at the end of apartheid.

He was in some ways ahead of his time. I chided my colleague from Saanich South that he was far more progressive. . . . I noted that in the seventies he was lobbying the Speaker for showers to be installed in the legislative precincts for MLAs who rode their bikes to work, a cause which has been taken up by my colleague from Saanich South.

He had an interest in many things -- a very rounded individual. He was a director of the Vancouver Symphony -- he was an elected director in 1978 -- and, according to one of my colleagues, was a passable piano player. He was not afraid to undertake difficult and sometimes controversial things. He lived for a month on welfare in 1986, and he was criticized for doing that. But he did it, I think, because he believed very strongly in the people he was elected to represent and in the plight of the people in the downtown east side, who were being impacted by developments at that time. He's a member of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. The list goes on, really, of the small ways in which Emery Barnes did his job as an MLA in British Columbia. He really was a gentle man. I remember sitting and talking to him many times about his early career in football and how he came later to decry the violence associated with that sport. He was truly a very gentle man. To use a phrase that's not used very often today, he was a true gentleman. Hon. Speaker, these are a few words to mark the passing of someone who was truly a magnificent man and a magnificent British Columbian and Canadian.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, I feel a great deal of emotion as I speak about my predecessor today, a man whom I greatly admired and came to understand as a friend. Indeed, he was a gentleman and a gentle man. Yet he was an enormous man. All of us, I'm sure, will remember him coming up behind you, giving a good slap on the back and practically sending you right through the room. That was just kind of a friendly tap for him. He also had enormous hands. In fact, he's the only man that had the same size of hands that I do; I happen to have large hands. We used to measure hands. But when he gripped your hand, you knew you were shaking someone's hand very firmly.

He was an individual who was loved in my riding, Vancouver-Burrard. We've had a tremendous outpouring of emotion and calls to my office following his death -- and before, of course, when people knew he was ill. He was someone who was concerned with the ordinary person, concerned with the marginalized and concerned with the poor, and people responded to him that way. He made people laugh. He was a person who made you at ease in his company and an equal in his company.

He was also a great friend of the gay and lesbian community, and the community remembers him very well. In that, he went through his own evolutionary process. When he and I talked about this on a number of occasions, he said that he started off in a position of little understanding. After some time, thinking and meeting the community, he began to change. He did not remain fossilized in his old position. He came to see homophobia as the same as racism and fought homophobia as he fought racism in our society.

He had a great love for this House and, of course, was in your position for a time, hon. Speaker, which he really, really enjoyed. In fact, the funeral on Friday afternoon was his request. He didn't want to interrupt our House; he didn't want to have the House adjourned. He felt that our business was too important, so he requested that it be on Friday afternoon.

He's going to be deeply missed by the constituents in Vancouver-Burrard and deeply missed here. It's a great loss for us, but he served us well.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize now the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I rise to join with the previous speakers in recognizing Emery. I should say that my first memory of Emery is not of him sitting in the Speaker's chair or of his being an elected representative or even a social worker. My first real, tangible memory of Emery is him rushing across the scrimmage line with his arms waving around, as he sacked Jackie Parker and 30,000 people rose and cheered him.

He was truly an exceptional person. As a social worker, he was very closely and deeply involved with the community. When I served as mayor of Vancouver, Emery was the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard and was always willing to work with the city to serve his constituents, to speak on their behalf and to look for solutions that would work for everyone. He wasn't someone who hived people off by labels. He didn't say: "You're this and you're that, so I'll deal with one group and not another." He reached out, and he used those big arms to embrace the entire community. I think the example he set is something that was reflected in this Legislature. It was something we all felt when, as Speaker of the House, Emery would remind us all of standing order 47, I think it was, which he used to refer to on a regular basis.

Emery was someone who set an example for all of us, and his example and his legacy is of public caring and public service. Certainly everyone on this side of the House will miss him. I know that all British Columbians will miss the example that he set. We're pleased to join in sending our condolences to his family and in celebrating his record of public service and his exemplary reaching out to everyone, to make the community a better place for all of us to live in.

[ Page 9466 ]

J. Weisgerber: For all of us who had the privilege of serving in this assembly with Emery Barnes, I think it is important to recognize the great character that he brought to this House. To me, it was his dignity and humour and the understanding that you could be on different sides of an issue and still be friends. I think that's an important lesson for all of us to learn. The great dignity that he brought to this House and to the debates of this House was truly worthy of consideration and examination; he set an example that all of us should follow.

He was an inspiration to me because he had the ability to deal with an issue with passion, commitment and dedication -- but without anger. Those of us who serve in this House could learn, will learn and have learned a good deal from him.

[2:15]

He'll be greatly missed: a man of enormous dignity, a man of enormous heart, someone who has done great service to this province and to the people that he represented.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, members. Truly heartfelt words, and well said, every one of you.

You may be aware that the memorial service is indeed Friday afternoon at 3 p.m. at the Baptist church on the corner of Burrard and Nelson in Vancouver. Of course, you're all welcome.

He was indeed a man with a big heart; he filled this big chair -- big shoes to fill for the current Speaker and others who have followed him. We take much to heart his words and his doings in the community, in this chamber and in the province, and how he reached and touched everyone. I thank you for all your good remarks.

I think now we'll catch our breath and move on to the next item that usually follows: introductions by members.

Hon. D. Miller: A couple of special guests are seated on the floor of the Legislature today. They are here participating in the northwest transportation and trade corridor stakeholders' session. The group is looking at ways in which the governments of Alberta and British Columbia and now Saskatchewan can enhance trade and the interests of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, particularly through our ports. They are the Hon. Judy Bradley, Minister of Highways and Transportation from Saskatchewan, and the Rt. Hon. Don Mazankowski, who has very kindly agreed to chair our working sessions. Mr. Mazankowski obviously needs no introduction, as a member of the Privy Council with seven consecutive terms as a federal MP and having had, I think, virtually every portfolio at the federal level. We are delighted to have Mr. Mazankowski assisting us in this process. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure today to introduce one of the participants in the rally out front, one of the folks that are coming to Victoria from all up and down the coast of British Columbia, to bring focus and light to their plight. I'd like to introduce Bev Young from Parksville-Qualicum. Please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd be remiss if I didn't add my welcome to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, "Maz." I've asked him many, many questions in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Every one but that one. [Laughter.]

I would like the House to welcome the new chair of the Arts Council of British Columbia. She is now a resident of Cortes Island but is known to all British Columbians as a distinguished singer, songwriter and performer. Would the House please welcome Ann Mortifee.

G. Campbell: I'd like to join in welcoming Ms. Mortifee to her new responsibilities. She has enlightened British Columbians and has been a strong advocate for cultural activities in the past. I wish her well in her new endeavours.

H. Giesbrecht: This is one of those rare occasions when I have somebody from my constituency visiting here. Living up in Terrace, I'm not familiar with the expression "when it rains, it pours," but we have 11 people here from the village of Gitanyow, known to many of you as Kitwancool. We have with us today Glen Williams, Lloyd Milton, Abel Campbell, Edgar Good, Greg Rush, Herb Russell, Debbie Good, Sally Gibson, Barb Petzelt, Rose Milton and Ken Russell. They are all here because they have some concerns about how a Nisga'a treaty might affect some of their lands. The members will be familiar with the overlap issue in that area and how it affects the Gitanyow. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Smallwood: I'm very pleased to introduce two guests who are very special to me. Given the fact that our friends opposite make a great deal of noise about people moving to Alberta, I thought it was important to make the point that my guests have come from Alberta. They are my sister Norma Beech and, as of Saturday, her new husband, Doug Biers. I would like the House to make these two people welcome to B.C.

E. Gillespie: I have two visitors from my constituency today. Joan Nygren and her daughter Julie are here supporting B.C. fishermen and their families. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Robertson: Here with us today from Sointula we have Ron Minshall, Theresa Randsom and Bruce Burrows. These are the people we speak of when we speak of people involved in fishing communities. I ask the members of the House to please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Mike Rosten. He is a business representative and organizer for District Council 38 of the Painters, Glaziers, Drywall Tapers and Finishers and Affiliated Trades of Vancouver Island. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have two other introductions. I remind the hon. members opposite that there is no heckling in introductions.

[ Page 9467 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: See, I shouldn't have said that.

I'd like to introduce two guests from Vancouver. Helene and Orest Minishka are very active in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. Helene is president of my riding association -- that's very important -- president of the Community Educators of British Columbia and is active in the Sunset Community Centre. Orest is a good friend and worker. It is always an honour to introduce people who fully participate in their communities like these two people do. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: My partner in the cattle business is in the House today. He is also a member of the Canadian Automobile Workers Union. He is here for the rally. Would the House please make Murray Gore welcome.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

I've been talking to a lot of fishermen since the federal government started work on this year's fishing plan and the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. What I'm hearing is that they don't see much that's fair in the deals that have been announced so far. Everyone agrees that conservation must come first. The provincial government budgeted $150 million for fish protection and habitat restoration last year, but we also want fairness and equity. We want to harvest the Canadian fish that originate in B.C. rivers, and we want the United States to share the burden of conserving and preserving vulnerable chinook and coho stocks. Conservation is and will always be the top priority for fishermen. They depend on fish like no one else in the province, and they're prepared to do what they have to in do order to protect vulnerable coho and chinook stocks.

Madam Speaker, these fishing people are on the lawn of the Legislature today, trying to make their voices heard. I urge all my colleagues to take a few minutes to meet with and listen to them.

J. van Dongen: Over the past few months, the federal government has announced a series of conservation initiatives and international agreements. The provincial government has protested all of these initiatives vigorously, claiming that they are insufficient, treasonous and a sellout. Actions that the provincial government has taken include recalling B.C. representatives from the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks in Oregon, only to immediately send them back after an inconsequential briefing. The provincial Fisheries minister failed to alleviate possible illegal activities by fishermen, stating: "Anything could happen." We had a leaked memo from the provincial Deputy Minister of Fisheries, falsely claiming that Canada's lead negotiator, Don McRae, was being left out of the negotiations by Anderson. We had the Premier make a headline-grabbing proposal for a $700 million provincial takeover of west coast salmon management -- $700 million of taxpayers' money that the Premier didn't have. We have heard condemnation of all the initiatives and agreements announced by the federal government.

The federal initiatives and allocation agreements with Washington State are not perfect. We would have liked to have seen British Columbia get a larger percentage of the harvest, as would everybody. However, these deals do reduce the risks of overfishing and have important provisions for conservation. It is time to end the jurisdictional squabbling. The government must stop playing politics with fish.

The recent job protection commissioner's report on the salmon industry points out that the only way for the industry to reach its potential is to have leadership that sets aside the adversarial stances and institutions. We must begin to think about the future economic development of our coastal communities. Additional opportunities do exist in fish and shellfish farming, tourism and the revitalization of our primary industries, such as forestry. It is time that the provincial government took action to make these opportunities a reality.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF URBAN TRANSIT PROJECTS

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about SkyTrain, because in fact it has great environmental benefits that will accrue to the lower mainland in particular. The members opposite are quite aware, I'm sure, of the federal agreement in Kyoto related to greenhouse gas reduction and the huge impact that transportation has on the generation of greenhouse gases, particularly in the lower mainland -- 75 percent overall. The decision to move forward with SkyTrain is very environmentally sound.

On the question of whether or not there has been an application for an exemption, I have received no such application.

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

G. Campbell: The issue before us with regard to any major project in the province of British Columbia is that under this minister's own act, she requires that those projects go through an environmental assessment -- an environmental review. I understand that many people have said that this act is too unwieldy and too bureaucratic, but the fact is that everyone who is engaged in a major project in the province must go forward with that environmental review.

My question to the minister is: does she intend to ensure that the SkyTrain project, or any other major urban transportation project, goes through an environmental review process?

[ Page 9468 ]

[2:30]

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS DAY CARE IN SURREY

Hon. L. Boone: It looks like the member opposite didn't get any time off at all.

Hon. Speaker, the funding for special needs day care is not being reduced. What the member is talking about is a particular organization, and that organization was told in February that they would be having their funding cut because those spaces were being taken up by the school district. Those services had been provided earlier, cost-shared between the school district and the ministry, with the space provided by the school district. The school district is now taking up and providing the funding and services for ten children. That leave us, as a ministry, with an extra $100,000 to provide services elsewhere, and we anticipate that we will be providing services to between 30 and 50 additional children in the Surrey area.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The minister is quite right: I need a break. I need a break from a government that can't stand up and tell people the truth about what's going to happen. When they stand in this gallery and this minister says there will be no cuts, she should make sure that what she's saying is the truth. She stood in this House six times and said that there would be no cuts to this day care. She wrote a letter to these parents and said that there would be no cuts to this day care. She stood here and promised them directly that there would be no cuts to this day care. How can she justify sending out a letter to these parents telling them that there would be no cuts to this day care and then only two days later sending in an official to tell them that her promise isn't even worth the paper it's written on?

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: One of my colleagues says that we need a break from her, and I think that's probably truer.

I indicated that there would be no cuts to special needs day care. That was something I said, and that is something that I've stood by. What I did say to those individuals from that particular group was that there would not be further cuts. Now you are wanting to go back to tell us that we are not going to carry on with the cuts that we actually had in place prior to my commitment. That is not happening. We actually have the ability now to provide more services to more children in the Surrey area, and that, I think, is a good use of taxpayers' dollars.

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Minister for Children and Families as well. She stood up in this House -- not once, not twice, but six times -- and promised that there would be no funding cuts for special needs kids in the Surrey area. She has received letters. I've got a quote from one, written to the minister by a very concerned parent: "You and the government of B.C. promised on several occasions that funding would remain the same. I must admit that I was naïve enough to believe you. How silly of me to believe that a promise is something that you keep." My question, again, is to the Minister for Children and Families: will the minister do the right thing today and reinstate the funding for those special needs kids?

Hon. L. Boone: Let's make this clear: there is no cut in funding for special needs kids. In fact, we now have the ability to provide more services. We have ten spaces that are now being provided through the school district and which were previously cost-shared by the ministry and the school district. That leaves $100,000 extra. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . .for this ministry to provide services in the Surrey area.

We as a ministry and I as the minister made a promise to those individuals when they came to meet me that we would maintain their funding. That means maintaining their funding at the level of when I spoke to them. I had no intention of going back two months to give them money that they already knew was not going to be there, because they knew that those programs were going to be provided by the Surrey school district.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan West on a first supplementary.

S. Hawkins: I have a letter in my hand written by a manager at Children and Families. It's dated July 2; that's only four days ago. Perhaps the minister doesn't check her mail and see what's going out, but this letter clearly says: "The ministry's contract with the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education will be" -- now listen carefully -- "decreased by ten spaces and the applicable funding."

You know what? This minister has been receiving a lot of letters from parents. Here's another one; let me quote from another concerned parent: "I may be naïve, but. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Come to order.

[ Page 9469 ]

The Speaker: The hon. member will. . . .

S. Hawkins: . . .once you saw what was happening, you would understand. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

S. Hawkins: . . .the impact of this decision on children in Surrey."

I ask the minister again, because I think, after listening to the letter, that it is a cut. A cut is a cut. This is about protecting kids and funding for kids. Will she do the right thing, stand up today and reinstate that funding for those special needs kids?

Hon. L. Boone: I want to make sure that you understand: there is no cut in funding to special needs children. There may be a reduction in services at that particular agency you're talking about, but there are 64 spaces being provided by SAECE. Ten of those have been taken over by the school district. They were in fact cost-shared by the school district and the Ministry for Children and Families. That still leaves 64 spaces. It leaves us with $100,000 that we can put into additional spaces in the Surrey area -- up to 30 to 50 children. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. L. Boone: To my way of thinking and in any way of looking at it, that looks like additional spaces for children in the Surrey area, not a reduction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

JOB LOSS IN FOOD-PROCESSING SECTOR

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. A question has been asked.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Most people get to start talking before the heckling starts.

It's true that 1,200 processing jobs have gone to Alberta in the last five years. It's also true that 3,000 new processing jobs have started in different industries in B.C. over the same time period.

Hon. member, the ending of feed grain assistance has, as you know, changed the operating environment for agriculture. Our job is to work with those industries that have growth potential here in B.C. and make them grow.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: That really has nothing to do with the agrifood industry and processing. The same report documents higher labour rates, labour militancy, environmental regulations and bureaucracy as some of the reasons that food processing is leaving B.C. Does the minister understand that if farmers have no place to process their goods and their produce, it won't be long before thousands of them join the exodus of British Columbians, who are leaving British Columbia and the NDP-created recession?

Hon. C. Evans: It seems to me that my first answer was quite cordial. The return question. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members!

Hon. C. Evans: . . .suggests, however, that the hon. member didn't listen to my answer. If the opposition Agriculture critic actually cared about the supply-managed industry, perhaps when they invited him to the opening of their new building -- and every commodity group was there, even from across Canada -- he would have showed up. Not only. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. C. Evans: . . .did the good gentleman fail to go, but even the MLA for Abbotsford, sitting right next to him, failed to show up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

Hon. C. Evans: When this government went into Cloverdale and saved the processing jobs in the lettuce cooperative, and then invited the MLA from Cloverdale to make the announcement, she didn't even show up.

Hon. Speaker, I can go on down the line, except that you're going to get on my case.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, hon. members.

C. Hansen: It's too bad that the minister didn't listen to the question; he may have been a bit more relevant in his response. What we're rapidly approaching is a day when every ham sandwich made in this province is going to be made with ham that comes from Alberta or from the Prairies. This report says that. . .

[ Page 9470 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

C. Hansen: . . .agriculture processors are abandoning British Columbia at an alarming rate. If I can just quote from this report for a second, hon. Speaker, it says: "Agriculture and agrifood sectors are providing good, stable employment to thousands of persons in neighbouring provinces, jobs that in many cases were formerly in this province, here in British Columbia." I would like to ask the minister: why is he sitting by, when the policies of his government, the cabinet table that he sits around, are driving jobs out of this province, driving food producers into neighbouring province and jeopardizing the future long-term stability of the agriculture industry in this province?

Hon. C. Evans: You know, one of the best days we had this year was when, for the first time in ten years, this government filled these galleries with agriculture producers for Agriculture Day. The Minister of Finance sat with their delegation, and they. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

[2:45]

The Speaker: Minister, wind up.

Hon. C. Evans: This would be the first government in this decade to actually pay attention to the industry -- and good on ya, folks.

Petitions

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the Speaker's gallery is the Minister of State, Industries and Elections from the state of Punjab, India, Mr. Sucha Singh Lengah, with several friends from the lower mainland of British Columbia. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL COMPENSATION REPORT

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to section 13 (13) of the Provincial Court Act, the Legislative Assembly respond to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Report in the form tabled by the Attorney General on June 29th, 1998, and entitled "Response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee Report."]

I will speak very briefly on this.

We are, of course, voting on this motion to adopt a response to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee report. As members are aware, we are reconsidering the 1995 report pursuant to a recent Court of Appeal decision. It is our belief that the decision in 1995 to reject the salary and benefit recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee was appropriate. The decision was based in part on the recognition that judges had received a substantial salary and benefits increase in 1993 and that their salaries and benefits were appropriate for the ensuing years. Since 1995 there has been a Supreme Court of Canada ruling which underscored that. Although the provincial governments must have ultimate control of the public purse, the independence of the judiciary must be affirmed and maintained in the determination of judicial compensation.

I submit that in the Legislature accepting the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee's 1998 report, the provincial judiciary's independence has been reaffirmed. It was never in doubt, but it has been reaffirmed, and I believe that the judiciary is now appropriately compensated. I would ask the members of this House to bear this in mind as I call on them to support the motion before them. As the hon. members are aware, they may have received the document that was tabled with the motion, which is a detailed response that would form part of the record.

G. Plant: The opposition will be supporting this motion. Let me just spend a minute or two putting it into context, although the Attorney General has done that.

We have before us a resolution with respect to the 1995 committee report on judicial compensation for Provincial Court judges. That resolution is made necessary because the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, in a recent decision, essentially told us, as the Legislative Assembly, that we had to revisit and rethink the resolution that this assembly passed -- I believe unanimously -- in 1995, in which the assembly had rejected the report that was made by the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee. So we now have before us the task of doing that which the Court of Appeal has asked us to do. That gets put into this context, though: there has now been a new committee, the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee, which has made certain recommendations with respect to the salary to be paid to Provincial Court judges and some other aspects of what you might call their compensation package.

The way the Provincial Court Act works is that the recommendations of that committee become law automatically

[ Page 9471 ]

Some time ago, the government introduced the report of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee, which made recommendations for salary increases to judges and for other aspects of the compensation package -- salary increases that will roughly amount to a 21 percent increase in the salary of Provincial Court judges over the course of the next year and a half. The government did not introduce a resolution calling into question or setting aside, either in whole or in part, any part of the report of the 1998 committee, with the result that the recommendations of that committee automatically became law some days ago.

I would not want this moment to pass without drawing the attention of the House to the fact that I placed on the order paper a notice of motion which would have rejected in part the salary recommendations of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee. That resolution, of course, could not be debated unless the government brought it forward for debate. The government did not bring it forward for debate, so my resolution in effect died by operation of the Provincial Court Act.

The other point that I want to make is that in attempting to support his resolution -- the one that's before us now -- which calls upon us as a House to reject the 1995 committee report, the Attorney General has tabled a document which is a draft response of the Legislative Assembly to that 1995 report. It's about nine pages long. Obviously it is intended that we as members of the assembly look at that as a statement of the reasons why the 1995 committee report should once again be rejected -- this time, hopefully, on a rational basis that will sustain any judicial review that might be brought.

I must say, having read this document, "Response of the Legislative Assembly to the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee Report," that it is a powerful argument for the rejection of the 1998 Judicial Compensation Committee report. That is to say, the arguments made in it about why the 1995 recommendations should be rejected as being unfair and unreasonable are arguments that I am attracted to in terms of thinking about what we should have done here with the 1998 report.

I have to refer hon. members to the summary on page 6 of the response to the salary-related recommendations. Some of those points made are, I think, worthy of putting on the record here. The author of this document points out that the 1993 salary increase that the judges got -- of 10.7 percent -- if averaged to the end of 1997, provides for an annual increase of 1.8 percent, which is more than the increase over that same time period for others paid from the public purse. That's a situation which hasn't changed much since the end of 1997, just a few months ago. The author of this report also points out that British Columbia's economic outlook in 1995 was poor, and the provincial government was in a period of fiscal restraint -- an observation that I think applies with equal vigour to 1998.

The author of the document points out that B.C.'s Provincial Court judges were receiving the third-highest salary in the country. That observation, from the information in the rest of the report, looks to me to be as true today as it was a while ago. Then the author of the report goes on to point out: "It is government's responsibility. . .to make decisions that represent responsible and fair management of the public purse. For no matter how important the job, government must still be cognizant of the costs."

I respect entirely the independence of both the 1995 committee, whose recommendations are now before us, and the 1998 committee, whose recommendations have become law by reason of the process I discussed earlier. I also respect entirely the arguments made by both committees in support of the recommendations for salary increases that they put forward first in 1995 and then in 1998. But it remains my view that the recommendations that were made by the 1998 committee, taking into account all of the factors which we are required to take into account by section 13 of the Provincial Court Act, were both unfair and unreasonable. I would not want, as I say, the moment to pass without recording that observation.

Having said that, though, and having observed that the 1998 report has become law, it seems to me to be self-evident that the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee report must now be rejected, quite properly, for the reasons set out in the response document which the Attorney General has tabled. For that reason, as I say, we will be supporting, and we do support, this motion.

The Speaker: I see no further speakers. I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My hon. friend the critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, has made a number of points. My position with respect to the 1995 report is obviously before the House in the form of the response that I referred to earlier. With respect to the 1998 report, which is already law -- as the hon. member referred to earlier -- my comments in the public domain are already well known.

[3:00]

Having considered all of that and having come to the conclusion that it is a very difficult and complex issue, the government determined not to interfere with the findings and recommendations of the commission, regardless of the fact that obviously there is fiscal constraint and that we are conscious of all of the factors the hon. member referred to, which are found in the response as well. I just want to say in conclusion that this was a very, very difficult decision. It's a complex issue. There is a very fine line between dealing with these issues in a fiscally responsible fashion and maintaining and enhancing the integrity and independence of the judiciary. I want to submit to you that the government made the right decision, both in rejecting the 1995 report and in accepting the 1998 report.

Motion 52 approved.

[ Page 9472 ]

REINSTATEMENT OF BILL 26 ON ORDER PAPER
(continued)

I want to respond, though, to one of the arguments. In fact it really is virtually the only argument made in support of the resolution by the Government House Leader. She said that the matter of the circumstances by which Bill 26 was dropped from the order paper was a technical which could be -- and ought to be -- resolved by the process which we're now using. I should observe first that it's not much of a defence, and it's not much of an argument in support of a motion. I meant what I said when, at the beginning of my remarks, I said that this was a point where I thought I was ready to be persuaded by the arguments made in support of the motion by government. I'm still ready to be persuaded, although -- for present purposes, at least -- I have pretty much made up my mind that I will not be supporting the resolution.

When we say that something is a technical matter, we don't always do justice to the way that we're governed, the way that our legal system works -- and the way that politics works, for that matter. There are some important things in our legal political system and our government system that are technical in nature. In our democracy we make a lot about rules of process. How things are done is often as important as what it is we're doing. Rules -- the technique of how we choose to allow bills to be debated, how we sequence bills, how we call them forward, how we drop them off the order paper -- are sometimes the main bulwark that protects minorities from the abuse of power by majorities; they protect our democracy.

It's not a complete explanation of the problem before us to say -- as the House nearly did in support of this motion -- that this was simply a technical matter. Sometimes, as I say, technical matters are actually the vehicle through which we can express issues that are profoundly important to us. I'm trying to think through the point by reasoning by analogy. The writ of habeas corpus, which is perhaps one of the most important foundations of our system of civil liberties, is in fact a very technical rule of process about bringing someone before a superior tribunal. It's a rule and a process that is overladen with hundreds of years of tradition, and it is, singly and both at the same time, highly technical and highly important to our democracy. Almost all of the causes of action in civil law are descended from particular writs that were themselves very technical. That is really the foundation of our civil law system in common-law jurisdictions. There are a bunch of things that are very technical. When I look at those two examples of our legal, judicial and political history, I find things which, at first blush to students and scholars, are very technical. They are overladen with rules, but they are nonetheless very important in the functioning of our democracy.

When the House Leader says that this is a technical matter, that what happened when the adjournment motion was put was that there was simply a technical slip and that it should be cured this way, I say that there may be more going on here than that. I want to respond to the government's motion in a way that is mindful of those other larger issues. I think that implicit in what the Government House Leader said in saying that the matter was purely technical was some sort of comment about the legitimacy of the process. Sometimes when we say that someone is making a technical point, we mean to demean them for that. We mean to say that it is only a technical point; it's not a substantive or important point. It doesn't go to the heart of the matter; it's purely a matter of form. "Let's dispense with form and allow our sense of substance to be our guide -- and how petty it is of you to be so concerned with the technical aspects of things."

I've thought about that. I heard the House Leader say that, and I wondered if that was kind of the subtext of her remarks. I acknowledge that she acknowledged that there had been an error made, but it seems to me that at that moment it becomes entirely appropriate that we as the opposition do our job and do it in the fullest sense of taking advantage of the opportunities that circumstances present to deal with a lapse that at first glance appears to be technical but that I think is more than that.

My colleague the member for Matsqui, in his remarks last week on this motion, made reference to his desire to know what it was that parliamentarians in the past had said about some of the issues before us. I have done a little bit of research in that regard, because I'm trying to get a sense of what would be appropriate for us to do as opposition in responding to the motion that is before us and, frankly, of the larger question of how we have responded to the whole problem presented when the Government House Leader and the members of the government present in the assembly ten days ago acceded to the adjournment motion.

I don't want to be in a situation where we are accused, as opposition, of not doing our job as it should be done. I also don't want to be in a situation where it can be said of us that we have been acting in a way that is unreasonable or unfounded or that in some way questions the legitimacy of what we have done in responding to this problem. I found a couple of passages from early parliamentarians and students of parliament in the past about what it is that opposition should do, what the function of the opposition is. I certainly don't intend to read all of them or indeed very many of them.

One scholar, Robert MacGregor Dawson, is the author of what I suppose is still one of the leading textbooks on the government of Canada, although it's been much revised in the years since he first wrote it. I have the 1947 edition, which I think may be the first edition. It's certainly the first edition I could find in the library here. Professor Dawson says of the opposition that it "wages perpetual war on the government, finding out its faults, picking its policies and proposals apart, offering substitutes and amendments and lying in wait for any sign of weakness or dissension."

Well, hon. Speaker, I don't know. That's not a bad statement of what the opposition should be doing.

Interjection.

[ Page 9473 ]

It does seem to me that the views of Professor Dawson, as expressed in this textbook, argue for us in opposition now to take a strong position in opposition to the motion brought before us by the Government House Leader.

I've got another extract from another textbook, by Alpheus Todd, On Parliamentary Government in England, where he sets out the functions of opposition at some length. I'll read just one sentence: "It is the function of an Opposition to state the case against the administration; to say everything which may plausibly be said against every measure, act, or word of every member of the ministry; in short to constitute a standing censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny." Hon. Speaker, that also, I suggest, is a good road map for our task here.

[3:15]

When the Government House Leader stands up and says that the matter is a technical one, she also, I think, implies that what happened was some kind of accident, and so we're here just to repair the consequences of that small accident -- that slip, as I think I called it last week. Well, I don't know about that. The government has control of the agenda of the House: it's the government that decides what business it's going to call, when we debate certain bills and when we don't debate them and how we move through the estimates and that sort of thing.

I've read the transcript of the proceedings of the morning, which is about ten days ago now, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved the motion that adjourned the House before adjourning debate. There is a kind of presumption that operates in other contexts where. . . . I think it's a rule of statutory interpretation that says that parliament is presumed always to be speaking, or something like that, and I suppose that by analogy you could contend that the government is presumed to have acted deliberately. I mean, they have the resources available to them to ensure that accidents don't happen. They have a whole two rows filled with people who are cabinet ministers, all of whom serve as House Leader from time to time, and of course, they have the House Leader. They have experience; they know the rules of the House.

I'm not sure that what happened that day was an accident, a mere slip. I must confess I'm confused about the agenda which may have lain behind any intentional decision on the part of the government to allow the matter to simply drop off the order paper. But I'm. . . . It may well be that the government in fact wanted this delay in order to allow more time for the public to consider the bill and to consider the issue presented by the bill. . . .

An Hon. Member: Don't take up detective work.

G. Plant: The minister encourages me not to take up detective work. Let me say this: while I have attempted to construct a theory that presumes the possibility or leads to the conclusion that what happened during the course of that motion was in fact part of an intended plan by government, I think that would presume too much on the part of government -- too much in the way of intelligence and planning, too much in the way of organization. So I'm inclined to reject that theory. I thought it was worthy of mention and worth putting before the House so that we could examine it, because the ways of a government -- and the ways of this government -- are mysterious, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

G. Plant: One never knows. But I think that theory is not right. I think that probably what happened was an accident. So now we're here looking at the reasons why we might, as a House, pass a motion that would undo the accident.

Some of the principles which I enumerated last Tuesday when I began my remarks are the principles that should guide us -- at least, speaking for myself. They're the principles that should guide us in deciding whether or not to support the motion.

The first is to ask ourselves about the importance of the matter which is sought to be brought back to life. Is it essential? How urgent is it? Here I have only the government's word for it. The government says Bill 26 is a very modest initiative. I would have thought that if indeed that statement or characterization were true, the government would not be so concerned about having the motion brought back for debate.

The other aspect of that is: how urgent is it in the context of the other business that we have? There is lots of other business that we can debate, and I look forward to that debate. There are a number of bills and there are estimates that remain to be debated. So it's certainly not. . . . It doesn't seem to me to be all that urgent. Members who spoke in favour of the bill have talked about how it's a matter that's been out there for a long time, that this reform of the labour relations legal regime is something that's been out there for a long time. Well, I don't know that I've heard any of them say or offer any reason why that reform has to be made this week, next week, this month -- or next year, for that matter. Certainly the bill wasn't all that urgent a week ago Thursday when the government allowed it to drop from the order paper.

Well, is it controversial? Although the government would like us to believe that Bill 26 is a fairly modest initiative, I'm not persuaded that it is. It certainly is controversial. Maybe it's sufficiently controversial that what it should do is hang around out there in the public for a while. Thinking about all of these reasons, hon. Speaker -- and there are more -- I regret very much that time does not permit me to continue. I must yield the floor to others, and I look forward to their contribution to this debate.

C. Clark: Before I start my remarks, I'd like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9474 ]

The Speaker: Now, on Motion 50, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that in my remarks today I need to heed your instruction that I should speak directly to Motion 50. Should we allow the government to reinstate their bill, Bill 26, to the order paper? I'm conscious of the fact that I should not be speaking to the substance of Bill 26 when I do this, but there are a number of issues with respect to Motion 50 that I think need to be canvassed. We need to ask ourselves as a chamber: should the government be given the opportunity to reinstate their bill on the order paper? That's what this debate is about. Should the government be allowed to reinstate that bill with Motion 50?

On this side of the House, quite a number of speakers have gotten up and talked to that motion. On that side of the House, no one has gotten up to speak to that motion, to explain to us and to British Columbians why we should let the government's motion go through. No one has stood up to offer their comments with respect to that motion, stood up to try and persuade us about why Motion 50 should be passed in this Legislature -- no one, with the exception of the Government House Leader, who is the only person who is obliged to speak to the motion.

So I want to start my remarks with a question: if Motion 50 is such a good idea, if it's something that this House should pass, then why isn't any member of the government speaking to it? It's the government that introduced the motion to the House. It's the government's idea to reintroduce Bill 26. It's the government's intention to try and find a way around the rules of this House so that they can get their Bill 26 back on the order paper; it's their idea.

It's not the opposition's idea. You wouldn't have heard a peep from the opposition about putting Bill 26 back on the order paper if the government hadn't raised the motion in the first place. You wouldn't have heard a peep, because we have stood in this House -- person after person, member after member -- opposing the bill. We have spoken clearly and loudly in opposition to the bill. If it fell off the order paper today, there isn't a single opposition member on this side of the House would be unhappy about that. If it fell off the order paper today and was never reintroduced into this House, there wouldn't be a single member of this opposition who would be opposed -- not a single one.

It's the government that wants this motion to go through, that wants to put that bill back on the order paper. So if the arguments are so great, persuade me. Get up, give me some good arguments in favour of it, and I might be persuaded that it's a good idea. But so far, not a single one of them has been able to come up with any argument in favour of reinstating it, other than the hon. House Leader, who was obliged to speak in favour of the motion when she introduced it, who was obliged to say something. She had to say something; she couldn't just introduce it and sit down. She can rarely resist standing up without speaking, and she took the opportunity. But she's the only one. Where are the other members in this debate? Why aren't they standing up and trying to persuade the opposition that we should pass Motion 50 -- that it's worthwhile? Where are they in this debate?

On this side of the House, some of the arguments that have been made have been very persuasive. They are arguments like these: there are other alternatives for the government if they want to introduce this bill; maybe the government shouldn't introduce the bill at all; and the fact that the opposition has a duty to stand up and oppose the directions of this government when they're not good for British Columbia. These are arguments that say the opposition has a duty to scrutinize government legislation and to oppose government legislation that's bad for British Columbia -- arguments like that. Those are good arguments.

When the opposition stands and opposes legislation, we don't just talk. We sometimes use the procedural rules that are at our disposal. The opposition has a little toolbox that we can use to try and oppose the government, and it is not very big. Particularly in the B.C. Legislature, the rules are not expansive. They don't allow us a lot of opportunity to try and oppose the government. But we found one.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson found one. He stood up and adjourned debate on Bill 26. Guess what: the government was asleep at the switch; they allowed the motion to pass. He stood up and deliberately made a motion that he knew would kill the bill. He planned it. The way we know he planned it is not just because he tells us he planned it. If the government needs more proof of that, all they need to do is look to the fact that it was the second time he'd tried it. The first time he tried it, the government was awake enough and paying attention enough to not allow the motion to pass. The second time he tried it, it went through.

So the government says today: "Well, it was an accident; it was just a technical error. We should put the bill back on the order paper, because it was just an. . . ." It wasn't an accident; it was thought out. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson tried it once, and he tried it twice, and it worked the second time. It's a procedural rule that the opposition used.

I'm sorry to tell the government this, but there isn't a part in the rule book that says: "Gee, if the government is really sorry about making a mistake, you should just let them get ahead with their legislative agenda." There isn't a part in the rule book that says that. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that if the opposition uses one of the tools that are legitimately available to it in the rule book to defeat a piece of government legislation that it believes would be damaging to the economy of British Columbia. . . . There isn't a part in the rule book that says that the government can just mow everybody away, put the legislation back on without debate and just go ahead as it was before.

[3:30]

One of the government members suggested that the opposition was conniving -- conniving by using the rules in the rule book. Is it conniving when the government makes the Legislature sit until midnight and into the summer, so that they can try to exhaust the opposition and get their bills through? Is that conniving?

[ Page 9475 ]

C. Clark: The minister says it's not conniving. Is it conniving when the government refuses to call its committees together to go out to listen to British Columbians, because they might not like what they hear? Is that conniving?

Interjection.

C. Clark: The government doesn't think that they do that. They don't even think that's conniving. Is it conniving when the government uses every procedural rule, uses its control of this House and uses its majority to whip its members into line, to force them to vote on bills that they may or may not agree with, to force them to sit down and not express their opinions on bills that they may not agree with, to never allow them to get up and ask a question in the House, to never allow them to get up and oppose the government executive council? Is that conniving on the government's part? Is it conniving for the government to use their majority in that respect? Is that conniving? I wouldn't characterize that as conniving, but I'd certainly characterize it as the wrong way to govern British Columbia. Committees should meet in British Columbia. The Legislature should meet more frequently in this province. Government members should feel free to sometimes vote against their government when there are issues important to their constituents. That would be the right way to run the Legislature. That would be the right way to make sure that British Columbians are represented.

The government has all those tools at its disposal. The Premier likes to present this Legislature as totally irrelevant -- we know that. He calls the work of this chamber irrelevant. You get the Minister for Children and Families regularly expressing her feeling that she wishes she didn't have to come to this House at all. She wishes she didn't have to engage in debate. She wishes she didn't have to go through the estimates process or question period or any of these troublesome, nasty, awful things that we have to do here.

Well, I've got news for the minister, and I've got news for all the ministers: those are the rules of this House, and those rules exist for a reason. We have question period for a reason. We have estimates for a reason. We have debates on bills for a reason. That reason is that the public needs the opportunity to scrutinize what the government is doing on a daily basis. That's why we have those rules. So when the government calls us together and says that it is going to operate according to the rules, we expect that they'll do that. We expect that they will meet their basic obligations to follow the rules in this chamber. It's the government that's in the position to make sure that that happens. It is the government, by virtue of its majority, that is in the position to make sure that we follow the rules.

Where were they during that debate? They weren't here. Two members of cabinet were here, one of them being the House Leader. Where were they that day, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved his motion? The government didn't vote against it, but that's the rule. He moved a motion. He was well within his rights to do that. He caused a bill to fall off the order paper, and now the government has to come crawling back to this chamber to ask that it be reinstated -- to ask the opposition that it be reinstated.

We in the opposition will take every opportunity to make sure that this government learns its lesson: that it has to live by the rules. Those rules are there for a reason, and they're built, let's remember, on hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition. I won't go back to quote the precedents that my colleagues have quoted, but it's hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition for this chamber. It's going back to the mother parliament in Great Britain. We rely on those rules to make this House operate. The government says: "We don't necessarily want to pay attention to those rules." Well, I've got news for the government: we're going to make sure you pay attention to those rules; we're going to make sure that the government learns its lesson from this debate, because it is an important debate. It is an important principle -- that the opposition has a role to play in this parliament.

There are those who believe -- and sometimes even I have said it -- that there isn't much that the opposition can do all the time. Sometimes even I get frustrated, and I think maybe the role of the opposition is just to get into government. But this debate over Motion 50 should tell all of us that that isn't the case, that the opposition can do things to stop the government. The opposition can stand in the way of the government even on legislation that the government now says is absolutely urgent. "It is so important for the future of the province, it must get through. We must have Motion 50 come before this House, and we must have it approved," the government says, "because that legislation is so critical to the future of the province."

The government has options. I have to assume that the government thinks this legislation is urgent; otherwise, why would they bring in this motion to force this bill back onto the order paper after it has been deliberately and legitimately put off the order paper? The government must think this is urgent. What other options does the government have? Why doesn't the government hold the bill over? Why don't they wait for the public to have some input on the bill? That would be a good idea; there's an obvious option for the government. Why not. . . ?

The opposition has raised its concerns about this again and again and will continue to do so in second reading -- no question. We will use every procedural rule at our disposal to try and stop this bill. That's how concerned we are about its impact on British Columbia's economy, on the working families of British Columbia. We will use every opportunity that we have to do that. But, you know, the government can avoid all that if they just hold the bill over. Why not take this bill, withdraw this motion. . . ? Why not withdraw Motion 50? Give it up and say: "Okay, the opposition got us this time. Yeah, we're embarrassed." The Government House Leader was asleep at the switch. The member for Coquitlam-Ottawa was asleep at the switch. The Minister of Agriculture was very, very hungry. The other government members weren't necessarily paying as much attention as they normally do. So the bill fell off the order paper. The opposition did that deliberately.

If the government really cared about public input and about the quality of this bill and improving it or changing it or maybe listening to people and withdrawing it, what they would do is hold it over. They don't have to reintroduce it after Motion 50 is finally debated, assuming Motion 50 passes. They can wait; they can hold it over. Why not hold it over? Why not give small business people an opportunity to have input on the bill? Why not put together a committee that could travel and talk to people? Why not do that? Why not give MLAs the opportunity to hold town meetings in every single constituency, specifically to hear about this bill? Why not go out and have a formal process of consultation with business people -- small business people, medium-sized business people -- working people, unionized people and non-unionized people? Why not go out and give those people the

[ Page 9476 ]

I would like, in the course of this debate today, to see some government members get up and explain why that isn't a good idea. The Minister of Advanced Education doesn't think it's a good idea. He's shaking his head. He thinks public input on this bill would be a bad idea apparently.

Hon. A. Petter: We already have it.

C. Clark: He thinks there's been enough public consultation. Well, I don't know. Not in my community. The small business people, the chambers of commerce, the working people that fax me and write me and phone me every day don't think there has been enough input on this bill.

The government should know that. There has been enough protest and enough controversy attached to these massive changes to the Labour Code that this government can't deny that there's a problem with it. They cannot deny that British Columbia's economy is going to be hurt by it. When they hear from the job creators in British Columbia that there is a problem, they can't deny. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, you're getting close to the wire in terms of relevance to the reinstatement motion.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm speaking to the options that are available to the government. One of those options is to hold the bill over. One of the opportunities, by holding the bill over, is to go and seek input from the public. What I'm hoping, in pointing this out to the government, is that I might be able to persuade them that we should abandon Motion 50, that we should vote against it, because then the labour bill will not be reintroduced to the House this session. Then the government can take the opportunity to go out and listen to people and talk to people and find out what this bill will mean for British Columbia. That's the opportunity that they are presented with here.

I know there is a downside to that for the government. The upside is that they could perhaps walk away a little bit shamefaced, a little bit embarrassed about what they did, about the mistake they made, about getting caught by the opposition. They could perhaps be a little bit embarrassed, but they could walk away. The downside for the government, and the reason the government wants to pass Motion 50 today, is that they believe there is a political price to be paid for listening to people. They are absolutely convinced that if they go out and talk to British Columbians about what this bill will mean for them, they won't like what they hear. That's why they didn't consult on the bill in the first place. That's why they don't intend to consult now. It's a political price that the government's frightened of paying.

It's not just the political price that the Minister of Finance, the House Leader, has to bear for falling asleep at the switch and forgetting what was going on in the House. It's not just the political price that the Minister of Agriculture has to pay. . . . I made this point when the Minister of Finance moved a motion to recess -- that really the Minister of Agriculture has given a whole new meaning to the motion for recess, hasn't he? We can all think back to elementary school where we had recess. What did recess mean? I thought back to what recess meant to me when I was in school, and you know what? My mother would frequently pack a little piece of cheese or a little cheese sandwich for me at recess -- just a little bite to eat for recess. I think it's appropriate, you know, that this whole debate might have redefined that word. The motion for recess will mean something different for us when we debate it in this Legislature. We'll all hark back to the days we were in school, when sometimes you got a packed lunch, when sometimes there would be a cheese sandwich in it. . . .

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture wasn't thinking about that. We know he certainly wasn't thinking about the motion to adjourn. He wasn't thinking about the business before this House. By his own admission he was thinking about going down and getting a bite to eat. I think he's been called the minister for drive-through, the minister for the vote-and-dash special down in the dining room -- $6.99 this week. In and out really quick, we promise.

Now I'm straying from the point a little bit here, but the Minister of Agriculture was in the House when this motion to adjourn was raised, and he didn't vote against it. The Minister of Agriculture sat there, listened to the motion and voted in favour of it. I don't need to remind members of the government that this minister is the man who ran second in the leadership to become the Premier of British Columbia. Only a quirk of fate stopped him from succeeding in becoming our Premier, sitting across there, leading the government, managing the day-to-day affairs of British Columbians, managing the agenda of the House and making sure that things moved along in a speedy manner. Only a quirk of fate saved him from that fate -- or saved the current Premier from perhaps being defeated. Who knows? I wasn't at the NDP convention. But this man -- the person who allowed this motion to go through -- is the man who could have been Premier; the man who could have sat in the big chair, making the big decisions every day; the man who could have been running the province of British Columbia, making the day-to-day decisions of government and deciding the business of this House.

[3:45]

So we are here today. . . . When we debate Motion 50, we are confronted with the fact that important and knowledgable members of this government put us in the position we're in today. They are the ones who allowed this to drop off the order paper. Now, suddenly, the government has changed its mind, and they want us to put it back on the order paper. I suppose it's no secret, but I need some convincing to vote in favour of Motion 50. I don't understand why the government would allow this bill to fall off the order paper if it was so important to them and so urgent for British Columbians. Why would they let it fall off the order paper?

We all know that the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture is well schooled in the rules of this House. I know that federally they use a slightly different set of rules in their chamber than in this chamber, but the Minister of Small Business has never led us to believe that that's been a problem for

[ Page 9477 ]

You've got the Minister of Agriculture on that side, a man who sought the NDP leadership and came second -- the man who could have been Premier -- voting in favour of it. You've got the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- a man who is a minister, no less -- voting in favour of it. He's a man who claims to know the rules so thoroughly that he can quote them off the top of his head, a man who probably believes he never even has to refer to his Standing Orders, a man who would lead us to believe that he is so well schooled in the rules of this House that he can't be challenged.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Well, I mean, if he'll stand up. . . . If allowing this bill to fall off the order paper is okay with him, if it's okay with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour. . . . Isn't it the job of the Minister of Labour to shepherd his legislation through the House? That's his job. He would lead us to believe that this is an important piece of legislation today, that it is in fact urgent that we approve Motion 50 in this House so we can get back to the business of doing Bill 26. He would lead us to believe that.

He would also lead British Columbians to believe that this is a key part of his legislative package as the Minister of Labour. Well, if that's true, where was he to vote against the motion to adjourn? Where was he when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved a motion which clearly would have led to this bill being dropped off the order paper? Where was he? He didn't vote against it. And that's all it would have taken: the Minister of Labour voting against it, calling a division, getting the government members in. They could have brought their legislative majority to bear and made sure that the opposition motion didn't pass. That's what they normally do, for goodness' sake! When there have been bills before this House that the government has deemed to be less important, they bring in their majority, they trot in all the back bench, and they keep them here sometimes until midnight so they can have enough numbers in this House to make sure that legislation passes. Where were they that day? Where were they on Thursday before lunch?

I strongly suspect that the government members were all here in this building somewhere. They were all prepared and ready to come in for a vote. All they needed was to be notified that a vote was required. But what happened instead was that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Small Business and the Minister of Labour -- the man whose very responsibility it was to make sure that this bill went through the House. . . . None of them stood to vote against this motion. Even though they claim that it's probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that they're bringing before this House, even though it's something that they are so prepared to hang their credibility on that they withdraw it once and then have the gall to reintroduce it. . . . It's so important to them that even though they got burnt once, they're prepared to get burnt on it again. That's how important it is.

You have to speculate about the government's motives with respect to the bill. Why is it that this is suddenly so urgent for them? Why is it that the government has to get this through in this session of the Legislature? As I've said before, I can't tell what's going on in their heads, and I can't divine their motives. I don't know why what wasn't urgent a week ago Thursday is suddenly urgent today.

But I will say this: this government has an opportunity, which has been provided to it by the opposition, to take a break, to step back, to allow for some input on this bill and to go out and speak to British Columbians about what this will mean to them, to their local economies, to their jobs, to their families. They have an opportunity to hold this bill over. The opposition has presented them with that opportunity. I would urge the government members to take the opportunity that we have presented them with, because it is important that British Columbians get their say on this bill. It is important that this bill be scrutinized, be talked about, that this bill be something that the public gets an opportunity to have input into, and it's important that the government have an opportunity to listen.

R. Coleman: I too am pleased to stand today to speak to Motion 50. First of all, I think what we have to understand is that we're not here by accident today; we are here because we want to be here today. We're here because we have an opposition that was opposed to a particular piece of legislation. They were so opposed to that piece of legislation that they would go to any extreme whatsoever that was within the rules of this chamber to get that piece of legislation removed from this House -- in this session or in any other session in the history of this province. The reason we felt that was because we saw it as something that was important to our constituents, and it was important for us as legislators to stand up for those constituents.

Ten days ago, on a Thursday before noon, proudly -- from my standpoint -- a member of my caucus stood up and made a motion to adjourn this House. He made that motion to adjourn this House not because he wanted to go for lunch, as the Minister of Agriculture wanted to do, and not because he wasn't paying attention, like the Minister of Small Business and Tourism was doing, but because he wanted to kill a bill. At that point in time we thought the bill was killed. Now, why would we have thought that? Over the period of time that we were waiting for the opportunity -- we had tried to use it the night before and during that day -- we had actually canvassed this issue with people that were supposedly experts in parliamentary procedure and with the Clerks of this House, and we took their advice. We spoke to them, and we were told. . . .

The Speaker: Sorry, hon. member. It's not appropriate to make reference to the Clerks or to any contribution they may have made. So it's just information received.

R. Coleman: Sorry, hon. Speaker. We felt that we could rely upon the information received. From the information, we were of the opinion that by making such a motion, it would remove the bill from this particular session of the Legislature, and it would have to come back during another session. That was how we were informed. We made that decision because we wanted to remove the bill. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson had the temerity and the planning and the thought about making the move at the right time so that we could kill the bill. I'm disappointed that some of those people who may have informed us have misinformed us or that other precedents have taken place.

[ Page 9478 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I beg to interrupt. I'm wondering whether there is some imputation in the remarks you have just recently made in reference to the Clerks. I would suggest that you ought to withdraw those remarks.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I didn't refer to the Clerks after you warned me the last time. I just said that I thought we'd been misinformed about some information. I didn't say by whom or from where. It could have been a parliamentarian from outside the House.

The Speaker: Well, I appreciate that clarification. There was concern that the implication was different than you have now clarified it to be.

R. Coleman: Under no circumstances do I mean to impugn the Clerks.

The Speaker: I appreciate that remark very much. Thank you.

R. Coleman: Basically, we have sought advice from a variety of people with regards to this, prior to the motion that was made by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. That advice, which we thought we were working with, didn't prove to be entirely true or entirely what we thought would be the result of the motion we brought forward to adjourn the House.

To move on, I want to quote my House Leader, who spoke relative to this particular issue last week:

"In looking at this issue as it developed over Thursday and Friday and throughout the weekend, it became clear that in fact the precedents in a case like this, for a general dropped order, are numerous. At one point in the late 1800s and into the early part of this century, it was quite common for items to lapse as dropped motions in Great Britain almost every Friday afternoon. As a matter of course, the items were reinstated on the order paper on the Monday -- in many cases without the House even talking about it or a real motion being passed. In fact, the Clerks just took it upon themselves to put the item in the order paper, and so it went. . . . When one looks back at the precedents, one can't find enough precedents to fill one hand. There aren't even a handful of precedents for a situation like this. In fact, there is probably only one instance that matches directly what occurred on Thursday."

When we adjourned the debate, we were after the ability to remove a bill. As many people have said, it's one of the tools in our toolbox and one of the very few left to parliamentarians in this province. I think it's dangerous that we bring this back during this session of the Legislature and remove one last tool for opposition and also remove one last opportunity for us to set a precedent on an issue like this.

I've spent hundred of hours over the years doing seminars, training organizations in how to run effective meetings and on procedures. All of those procedures have been based on parliament. The way we run meetings and pass motions and most of the ways that discussion takes place out in the general public with our constituents -- whether it be in a service organization or a hospital board or whatever -- rely on a set of procedures that allow us to go forward and operate and manage our organizations. They do that through proper management and training, and they do that in a manner that effectively reflects the people who are in their organization, as to what their wishes are from their community.

[4:00]

At the time of the motion to adjourn, which caused Motion 50 to be made, was it urgent? There were only two members of the government in the House. Neither one was interested enough to be aware of the motion to adjourn, and they basically got caught, and the bill died. In the House at the time we had two members of cabinet -- members of the executive council -- and they made an executive decision to support adjournment, which killed the bill. So why should we be debating the fact that they be allowed to bring it back at all? Why should it come forward at all? Representatives of the cabinet of the province of British Columbia were in the Legislative Assembly when the debate was adjourned, and that's when the bill should have died. They should have to bring it back to another session of the Legislature.

Is it urgent? Well, it's urgent from our perspective to not see it come forward. It's urgent because of the loss of private sector investment. It's urgent because our constituents tell us it's urgent. Our constituents are telling us to debate Motion 50 and to not allow that bill to come back to the floor of the Legislature: "Debate it as long and as hard as you can, because it's important to us. It's important to the economy. It's important, in that we don't want to lose any more jobs in this province, and you as a legislator have to stand up and say that you don't support bringing back Bill 26 through Motion 50, because frankly we don't want that." So we have a job to do for our constituents.

In addition, the minister himself has said that the bill was never that important at the beginning. He's never stood in the House since then and debated it in such a vociferous manner. In recent memory, not one member of the government has stood up in this House and said why Motion 50 should come forward, what the importance is of this motion, what the importance is of placing this bill back on the order paper. Not one statement whatsoever as to what the importance is, so why not wait. . . ? Why not do the intelligent thing and say:

[ Page 9479 ]

The other interesting thing about standing order 34, which is the standing order that actually deals with this particular issue. . . . I want to read standing order 34. It says: "A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be always in order; but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have taken place."

I can't find the real definition of intermediate proceedings. The interesting thing to me is that it was so urgent, but very few intermediate proceedings took place other than during the period of time that the scramble took place to decide whether this motion should come forward at all. There were some proceedings that took place in this House then.

But the fact of the matter is that the definition of intermediate proceedings could be something as simple as to refer it to a committee. It could be something as simple as: "We'll bring it back in the next session of the Legislature, during the next sitting." It could be something as simple as: "You know, we'd better take a look at this. If the opposition is that determined to hoist a bill or kill a bill by making such a motion, maybe we should look at it, look at public consultation and look at how we're dealing with this particular piece of legislation." Maybe intermediate proceedings should have gone on a lot longer than they did so that we weren't here speaking today.

I think the bottom line is that we're sitting here with a piece of legislation that someone wants to bring back to the order paper in this session, and we as opposition are opposed to that. We are opposed to it to the point that we actually made the motion to adjourn debate to get rid of it, and the government dropped the ball, wasn't paying attention and allowed us to do so. That was our self-discipline and not theirs. But I don't think the people in British Columbia should suffer as a result of the lack of discipline on the part of the government. The government did not see it to be important enough to have the proper members in the House; did not see it to be important enough to be paying attention to when we decided to adjourn. Obviously, if it's not that important, it shouldn't be brought forward through a motion like Motion 50.

The motion that's before the Legislature in this particular circumstance is one to bring back an adjourned debate. We adjourned it; we don't want it back. So why would we ever agree to bring it back?

The government has to be on top of their game. The government has to be committed to its legislation, and the government has to be ready to deal with the business at hand. But they dropped the ball on this one. Since that time, I've seen no rush to the mikes by the members of the government to stand up and say why -- tell us why -- Bill 26 should come forward again. Tell us why this motion to adjourn should be accepted by this House. Tell us why you don't believe that it's a damaging piece of legislation for the economy of British Columbia. Tell us why you don't think it's a job-killer. Tell us why you think it's important when I'm talking to constituents of mine to say that this is the last major job they're going to do in this province because of this legislation. You tell me why you should be allowed to bring this legislation back through this motion. But not one member of the government will do that. Not one will stand up and tell us why, or tell us what they think is so good about this bill that they weren't paying attention to, that they allowed us to adjourn because we wanted to kill the bill. Why all of a sudden is it worth the effort to bring forward a separate motion to debate so that you can bring it forward again and we can debate it all over again? Tell us why you won't go out and do the consultation before you bring it back. Tell us why you won't refer it to a parliamentary committee. Tell us why you won't put it into another session of the Legislature.

What we did last Thursday was what we are here for. We did the vigilance of opposition. The vigilance of opposition is to be focused and disciplined and to stand up for its constituents, just like members of the government are supposed to do for their constituents. We wanted consultation. We wanted you to check with the public, and we wanted you to get the input. We wanted you to do a cost-benefit analysis when the legislation was before the House. That wasn't done. We wanted you to do that, and because you didn't do that we took that little tool out of our toolbox and made the motion to adjourn, to kill your legislation so that you would have to take a sober second thought.

This motion before us today. . . . It has not been long enough for you to take that second thought. It has not been long enough for you to go and look and find out how come people in this province are opposed to your bringing back this piece of legislation. I know why they're opposed to it: because they're out of work. I know that they can't pay their mortgages. I know that you're killing the economy. But you're the people -- as government -- that should be going out and telling people, or trying to convince me, why Motion 50 should bring back the piece of legislation that you weren't even interested enough in to have enough people in the House to have a quorum or to pay any attention to what was going on -- so that we could adjourn debate and kill the bill.

It's important that we realize that we're sitting on the edge of a precedent -- a precedent that is very important to the future of parliamentarians. Members of the government have not articulated any good reasons why Motion 50 should pass. Members of this government were not paying attention when the bill they want to bring back was before the House. The opposition used a tool of parliamentary democracy that they wanted to use to remove a piece of legislation from the floor of this House. Not one of them will give me one reason -- by standing at the mike and telling me -- why Bill 26 should come back to the floor of this House, why they couldn't take some time to have some consultation, why it couldn't come to another session of the Legislature -- like we see that it should do -- and why they can't pay attention to that.

Precedents are the lifeblood of parliament. The right of free speech is the right of members of this Legislature. I would welcome the members on the government side to exercise their right of free speech, to stand up, to tell us why Motion 50 should be considered by this House, to tell us why they want to bring back this piece of legislation, to tell us why they think there has been enough background put into this legislation and to tell us why, frankly, there is any reason whatsoever that we should support them being allowed to bring Bill 26 back before us.

[ Page 9480 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I think it's important to realize that before us today stands an opportunity to set a new precedent for parliament. We have the opportunity to set the precedent that governments should be paying attention to the proceedings; that governments should be doing their job; that members of government, when they're sitting in the Legislature, should be doing their job and paying attention to the proceedings; and that when the opposition uses the minimal tools they have in order to hoist, lift, adjourn or kill a bill, those precedents are allowed to stand. Without them, we have no conscience of government. We have no conscience that will stand with us to hold the government's feet to the fire.

The reason a parliamentary democracy works is because these tools are available to members of this Legislature in order to do their jobs. It's important that we realize that we used one of those tools, and not one member of this government -- as I said earlier -- has, for one second, explained why they should be allowed to bring Bill 26 back to the floor of this Legislature through Motion 50. They haven't explained what it does to the economy; they haven't explained the reason they think the bill is so good; they haven't explained why they weren't paying attention, why they didn't think it was important enough to pay attention, and why they didn't care at the time of adjournment, and why all of a sudden, today, they do. We know why: they don't know. They don't know, because they never did the work in the first place.

The bottom line here is that we as the opposition will use this motion or any other motion to stop a bill like Bill 26 from destroying the economy of British Columbia. We will not allow this government to easily bring damaging legislation to the floor of this Legislature. That's what we used ten days ago, on Thursday. We will use every vehicle at our disposal, because there is going to come a time when this government has to justify what it's doing. Justification doesn't just come in the form of a piece of legislation; it comes in the form of the quality of the legislation, the background to it, the consultation, how it will affect the economy, a means test to see how many jobs it will destroy or create. Those are the types of things we're looking for from this government, and we're not receiving them.

[4:15]

What do we end up with? We end up with a motion before us that simply says they want to bring back a bill. I oppose that. I oppose that, as is my right as a member of this Legislature; I oppose that as a British Columbian; and I oppose that on behalf of my constituents. They don't want this bill brought back to the floor of this Legislature.

When I was a member of different service organizations, we knew the rules. We played by those rules, and we didn't break those rules. As I said earlier, those rules came largely from histories of parliaments as they were laid down through rules of order. In this House, we should play by those rules too. Those rules include the opportunity for the opposition to make a motion, like we did, which would kill a bill. Even though the precedents are not totally clear, the precedent-setting opportunity for this House -- and I stand by it again -- is this: we as a Legislature solidify the ability of oppositions to hold government's feet to the fire, which is the job they are elected to do in a parliamentary democracy, and it's the reason that democracy works.

We in opposition believe that this motion to bring Bill 26 back before this House should not be on the order paper, let alone be debated, and certainly it should not be passed by this House. This government should accept the fact that they didn't care, they hadn't done the work, they weren't paying attention, and they didn't really want this legislation in the first place. They might as well accept the fact that they blew it. Take it away, spend some time on it, have some consultation, take a look at what it will do to the economy of this province, and then bring it back, either before a committee of this House or to another session of the Legislature. But don't bring it back in this session, because British Columbians are telling you that they don't want Motion 50 to come forward, to bring Bill 26 back to the floor of this House. British Columbians are very clear on the fact that they don't want a bad piece of legislation -- a damaging, job-killing piece of legislation -- brought back to the floor of this Legislature by Motion 50 or by any other motion.

The fact is that we did something; we did it intentionally, and we did it because we thought it was important for British Columbians. The fact is that they weren't paying attention, and they didn't care. The fact is that they hadn't done their research to begin with, and they weren't prepared to debate the legislation on the level that it should have been debated in the first place. The fact is that not one member of the government will debate with us the motion we have before us today, because they are afraid to stand up and try to explain why a motion to bring in a damaging piece of legislation, which was hoisted by us through a motion to adjourn should even come before this House again.

The fact is that we sit here today knowing that we sit in a legislature that has a great opportunity for setting a precedent. I call upon the members of the government, along with the opposition, to set that precedent and defeat Motion 50, so that Bill 26 has to go out for consultation, has to go out for thought process, has to go out for some litmus test as to its value to the province's economy and be brought back to this Legislature at an appropriate time for an appropriate debate.

This legislation is bad for British Columbia. That's why this motion is here today, and that's why members of this government should stand up and explain their position. They haven't done it. There is a time when you have to do it, and

[ Page 9481 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order, Hon. Speaker. I've deliberately waited until between speakers. I would just like to raise the point, under standing order 40, that throughout his speech, the member continually imputed false motives to members of this side of the House in terms of why we do or don't do what we do. I would simply ask the advice of the Chair that the members opposite. . . . I know they think they're omniscient and know what everybody over here is thinking, but what they're saying is clearly against the rules of this House and also completely and patently false. So I'd ask the Speaker to advise members to stick to the truth.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui rises on the point of order?

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I think it would be much easier to respond to the hon. member's submission to the Chair if she would particularize her claim and submission. In addition, she suggests at the end of her submission to you that the member -- I presume she's referring to the member who just spoke -- made false statements.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, then she has suggested that more than one speaker has made false statements. I would ask her to withdraw those remarks unless she's prepared to back them up by being particular about them.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair would just advise members to be mindful of what is said in the House. I think both sides can continue the debate with that in mind -- that we're not here to impugn any members of the House.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise this afternoon and offer my comments on Motion 50, a motion to reinstate to the orders of the day the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. Firstly, I would emphasize that we did not adjourn debate on second reading of Bill 26. In fact, what occurred was that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House on Thursday morning, June 25, 1998. That gave rise to having the effect of closing debate and thereby stopping Bill 26 from proceeding. I believe it is important that this distinction and this clarification be made, so that we understand the purpose and relevancy of Motion 50. Only then can we begin to proceed with discussion on the merits of this motion and why it is not supportable.

Having recognized that what occurred was not a technical error but in fact was a deliberate strategy, that should indicate our intent to the government members opposite. From the beginning, our intent has been quite clear. What we chose to do was to apply a seldom used and often unavailable tool to stop a contentious piece of legislation. Having succeeded in that attempt, it would be contrary for the members on this side of the House to support Motion 50, a motion that would reverse the opposition's result and that would remove one of those few, small tools an official opposition has access to.

It would be a bad idea to support Motion 50 and ultimately reinstate Bill 26. Placing Bill 26 back on the order paper is clearly inappropriate, given the circumstances that gave rise to its temporary demise, as I outlined earlier. Why would government members expect that we would allow Motion 50 to pass unchallenged, particularly since it was one of our members, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who caused the result that this motion is attempting to undo?

So what is the purpose of this motion? It is not just about reinstating second reading of a bill that the opposition members oppose. It is about democracy, and it is about upholding the rules of the Legislature which are a fundamental right of the official opposition. The members opposite have called the actions of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson a prank or a trick, because they are in denial. They cannot accept the fact that they were ill-prepared for the procedural rules regarding debates. But as I indicated earlier, what happened on Thursday morning -- 11:31 a.m. on June 25, 1998 -- was not a trick but rather a strategy that the official opposition intended to exercise at the most opportune time. Now that we on this side of the House have moved a procedurally correct motion, this dictatorial and bullying government is attempting to stop it and step in and counter our strategy with a motion to stifle our actions. That is deplorable, it is contemptible, and it is arrogant. If those members opposite were here -- if those government members were on this side of the House as opposition -- and were able to achieve what we've just done, they would be relishing that, and they would be outraged if the then-ruling government were to attempt the action in Motion 50.

Why is it that Motion 50 is supportable? Members on this side of the House certainly don't feel so. If we were to allow Motion 50 to pass, it would mean that all of us here, all of us in this chamber, believe that the quote from the Minister of Forests -- and we've heard it several times before -- that "government can do whatever it wants" is a valid statement. I for one do not accept that. Certainly a government can try to do whatever it wants, but it is incumbent upon the official opposition to hold the government to account when it becomes that arrogant.

The constituents that I represent have expressed their concerns to me regarding that landmark statement made by the Minister of Forests. Those constituents that I represent expect me to stand up to a government that imposes its will without allowing for a democratic process. Contained within that democratic process are certain rules and procedures that must be allowed. Clearly the motion on that Thursday morning was a procedure that was appropriate, and it was a procedure that was allowed. It was a part of the democratic

[ Page 9482 ]

[4:30]

What has happened is that it has allowed many constituents to take note of what the opposition has been doing on their behalf. During these past two weekends, I was continually questioned about whether Bill 26 was in fact gone. When I attempted to explain to constituents the mechanics of what occurred on that Thursday morning and what I expected the government would do to revive Bill 26, many of those constituents were appalled. They found it odd that a procedurally correct action should be reversed. It wasn't a question of whether they agreed or disagreed with Bill 26; rather, it was a question of whether the government had the right to exercise such an outright travesty of democracy. Yes, hon. Speaker, to support Motion 50 would be outright treachery, and I do not intend to condone any kind of treachery in this House.

As I indicated earlier, several constituents have queried me on the proceedings of Thursday morning, June 25. They were subsequently thrilled that the official opposition was able to use what small tools we had to stand up to the arrogant, top-down, do-whatever-it-wants government. The people in the constituency I represent and the people of this province expect the official opposition to stand up and protect our province from all the harm and damage that this government is inflicting on families and on communities. The people of this province expect us, the official opposition, to do our job. They expect us to use whatever means we have available to do our job. Well, we did do our job. In fact, one member, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, did an outstanding job.

Why would members on this side of the House support Motion 50? It violates the good work done by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and it violates a principle of democracy. I think it is appropriate to quote from an article in last weekend's Vancouver Sun. I rarely quote from any news article, but this particular comment caught my attention. It was in Mr. Vaughn Palmer's column, and as we all know, Mr. Palmer is a highly regarded newspaper journalist. Mr. Palmer writes: ". . .the Legislature and its procedures represent one of the few limitations on the power of government in our political system." That statement is very telling and very important. What he is saying is that government has power, and seldom can anyone stand up to that.

I would like to offer an analogy for what has occurred and what is about to occur. It's like tale of David and Goliath. Government is Goliath, the giant, and the official opposition represents David. David, in assessing his adversary, looks into his small pouch to find whatever tool he has to bring down this huge Goliath. David finds it in the form of a motion to adjourn. David brings out this tool, and just at the right time he introduces it and flings it across to Goliath. Lo and behold, success.

Interjection.

I. Chong: The member for Skeena wants to call it sneaky, but he still doesn't understand that it is strategy. I believe we all know the results of that biblical fable. The giant Goliath, being government, was toppled. The opposition, being David, was able to walk away with success. Because the opposition has very few tools to hold government accountable, we cannot remove those tools. We must not allow Motion 50 to pass.

Hon. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we cannot allow Motion 50 to pass. We cannot allow that to happen, because Motion 50 is about removing a tool. It is about reinstating Bill 26 to the order paper, and that is tantamount to changing the rules to favour government -- when government already has so many resources to push through its agenda. Because of the official opposition's very limited tools, I believe an opposition must make the best use of those tools, using them whenever and wherever it can. To take away such a tool would render an opposition ineffective, and it would represent a lack of respect for the parliamentary rules of this House.

On occasion, hon. Speaker, you request that members withdraw comments that offend other members. Motion 50, quite frankly, offends this opposition, so it should be withdrawn as far as I'm concerned. I know that won't happen, so all we can do is debate it. The members opposite should think seriously about how they intend to vote on this motion. It is not so much a vote about a particular bill; rather, it is about a parliamentary procedure which they are essentially removing for all future opposition parties -- and after the next election, that will likely be the NDP. If Motion 50 is allowed to pass by the members opposite, by the government, they are saying to all British Columbians that government has the right to override democracy and dictate their will upon all of us. I say shame on them for such a callous approach!

I suppose that is to be expected, because we have already seen government break the law, the Criminal Code of Canada, with respect to gaming. They're attempting to change laws to suit themselves. Here we have this government introducing a motion to change what suits them. Members on this side of the House will not tolerate that kind of activity, and consequently, we will oppose Motion 50. We will stand up for democracy.

Throughout the debate on Bill 26, members on this side of the House made it quite clear that we intended to do everything possible to stop this damaging piece of legislation. We will get to discuss that once again, I'm sure. There was never any secret about this, so you would think that with all the expertise, with all the resources, with all the knowledge on the government's side of the House, that they would surely know what could possibly happen in order to stop their piece of legislation. Weren't they aware of all the possibilities? Weren't they aware of all the tools that were available to us, as opposition? After all, they were once sitting in opposition. Just because they failed to do their job, why should they be allowed to change the outcome of a fundamental right owed to an opposition party?

All of us were elected to serve in this province. I've stated that many times before. Whether it's in government or in

[ Page 9483 ]

We may not understand or even agree with certain rules of the Legislature, but I have to believe that they are there for a reason, and I have to believe that they are used on those rare occasions when they are essential. If a rule or a procedure is no longer relevant, then perhaps we do need to change it, but not in midstream and not without debate. If rules need to be changed because they are outdated or because they are not relevant, then that should take place, and we should all be made aware of that well before the session begins.

In addition, the rules of the Legislature should not be altered or changed by government unilaterally. If needed, we should have to consult with the Clerk of the House. We may also sometimes even have to go beyond that and look at other parliaments to see whether or not those changes are warranted in this province. After all, as I stated earlier, we were all elected to serve the people of this province, using the rules and procedures available to us. We were not elected to change the rules and procedures to serve ourselves, which is what Motion 50 is attempting to do.

This NDP party was elected as government in 1991, so they have had seven years to look at this particular rule and deal with it, if it was a problem. I cannot believe that in seven years -- or even longer, because some members in government were once in opposition and have served since 1986. . . . Why did some members not look at this tool as a problem and bring it forward for debate in one of those many select standing committees -- which apparently aren't meeting that often -- and consult with the people who know more about procedures than we as legislators do?

If this particular procedure was such a problem, it should have been dealt with. But it was left there; it was left alone. It was left for an opposition to use when and if it was needed. It was needed this year, and we chose to use it this year. We chose it for a particular piece of legislation that we said, from the outset, we would stop. We could have used it on any number of pieces of legislation last year or the year before -- or even earlier this year. Why did we not use it until now? We kept it in our toolbox, as many members have said. We kept it so that we could use it at the most opportune time, to stop this bill. If the government members opposite don't like that, then I'm sorry, but that is the rule. To attempt to change the rule right now is an offence.

H. Giesbrecht: Who's complaining?

I. Chong: The member for Skeena asks: "Who's complaining?" -- even though he's not in his seat, hon. Speaker. That's all right, though; I heard him.

They are complaining by bringing forward Motion 50. If they weren't concerned about it, if they had to accept the consequences of the motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, they wouldn't have brought forward Motion 50. That is the reason why members opposite are attempting to change the rules midstream. That is not what the people of this province expect out of us as legislators.

[4:45]

Rather than accepting responsibility and accepting that two cabinet ministers blundered, this government would prefer to change the rules of the Legislature to say that what happened on that Thursday morning didn't happen. By introducing Motion 50 to reinstate Bill 26, they're nullifying what actually occurred. That's a sham. I ask: when will that kind of bullying tactic stop?

The government Whip, the member for Alberni, was quoted recently -- and quite boastfully, I might add. He said: "In our system the majority rules." And yes, hon. Speaker, he is right: in our system the majority rules. On Thursday morning, two weeks ago, the majority did rule, and it happened to be on this side of the House, not on that side of the House. So why is it that when the majority rules on this side of the House, it can't stay ruled?

An Hon. Member: It can't be accepted.

I. Chong: It can't be accepted, as my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour states.

The opposition won that particular vote on that particular morning, yet this government is trying to overturn it. Instead, this government should accept the consequence of that morning, should learn its lesson and should be more attentive in the future.

I note that the opposite side is not as full as perhaps it should be, but there are certainly more than two members. That's a good idea, because maybe they are going to be more attentive this time around.

But I go back to my point: on that particular morning we won the vote. And on many occasions we have had to accept it when the government won its vote, so why is it that they can't accept it when we win ours? Fair is fair -- that's what this tool is about. It's about levelling the playing field; it's about bringing back a bit of balance and equity. For this government to bring in Motion 50 to try to remove that kind of balance and that kind of equity is an outrage to all British Columbians.

The other question we need to raise when debating Motion 50 is: why now? What is the urgency for reinstating a dropped bill? Perhaps this government should take the time

[ Page 9484 ]

Instead of Motion 50, why isn't this government taking the time to re-evaluate that? Given the remarks being made out in the public, it is clear that there is no urgency to reinstate Bill 26. There is no necessity to reinstate Bill 26 at this particular time. Maybe if the government took the time to hear some of the comments that are being made, it might even consider referring this to a select standing committee to hear about possible amendments to this particular piece of legislation. Or perhaps, even better yet, they could consider deferring this for another year. But I guess that wouldn't bode well with some of their friends in the union movement, and that's unfortunate, because we were elected to serve all the people in this province.

I am not persuaded that Motion 50 should pass. Perhaps it's because no one on the government side, except the Government House Leader, has stood up to make the argument to support Motion 50. Generally what occurs when a motion or a bill is introduced in this House is that we hear from both sides of the House. We hear debates. I would be happy, ecstatic, to hear from members opposite, from government members, what their views on Motion 50 are. After all, we are debating Motion 50. This is a debate. They have every right to get up, to speak and to tell us what their views are on Motion 50 -- that is, if they understand what the intent of Motion 50 is. I have heard several members on this side of the House who have spoken against Motion 50, so where are the arguments for Motion 50? I've not heard them, and I would await those members to supply those arguments well before this debate ends.

I dearly want to hear from those government members as to why such a devastating, precedent-setting motion, which would weaken an opposition, should pass. We're not just talking about members on this side of the House as opposition members; we are talking about all future opposition parties. That could be them again one day, as I stated earlier.

I believe I have offered some valid points in my comments opposing Motion 50, and I would hope that some members opposite have listened and will think seriously about what they are about to do to our parliamentary rules should they choose to support Motion 50. Again, this is not entirely about Bill 26, because the adjournment motion could have been invoked for any contentious bill. It can still be invoked for any contentious bill that comes forward later on in this session or in future sessions. If the government members sitting there on that side of the House believe in democracy, if they believe in upholding the rules of the Legislature, then they should be voting to defeat Motion 50.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in the debate on Motion 50, which is a motion to restore Bill 26 to the order paper. Bill 26, as everyone now knows, was rendered a dropped order for reasons which we'll discuss briefly in a little while. I guess if someone had asked me two weeks ago what a dropped order was, I wouldn't have had the slightest idea. One of the consequences of the recent political history of this chamber is that now we all know what a dropped order is. Two weeks ago if someone had asked me what a dropped order is, I probably would have had a vision of a burger and fries scattered across a restaurant floor. . .

S. Hawkins: A ham sandwich.

G. Abbott: . . .but that, of course, is not the situation today -- although, as others have noted, there is a food connection in this particular debate. Perhaps a dropped order in this case is a ham sandwich.

What happened which rendered Bill 26 a dropped order? This all happened, as we know, about ten days ago in the middle of second reading debate on Bill 26. As the debate drew to a close on the Thursday morning shortly before lunch, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved that the House adjourn. In doing so, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson knew that his motion, if successful, would knock Bill 26 off the order paper. As we know, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson didn't view that prospect of knocking Bill 26 off the order paper with concern or fear or trepidation. In fact, he welcomed the prospect of Bill 26 being knocked from the order paper. The member had adopted a deliberate strategy of making that particular motion with that precise purpose. That's an important point, I think, in our consideration here. In fact, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson had tried the same manoeuvre without success the evening before.

When the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved that the House adjourn, there was sparse attendance in the House, particularly on the government side. In fact, there were only two government members in the House at that time. Both are members of the executive council, of the cabinet. For reasons which I'm not aware of, there were no backbenchers present in the House at that time -- 36 were absent. There were only two government members in the House at that time. Obviously both members were deep in thought on other matters at the time and didn't attach any particular significance to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moving that the House do now adjourn. Two members on the government side were there at the time: the Minister of Agriculture, who was looking forward to lunch in a very substantial way, as he subsequently noted, and the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who certainly has some expertise in this area. But apparently neither was quick in noting the significance of the motion to adjourn the House.

What was the consequence of that motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson? The motion was carried, and as a consequence, the House adjourned and Bill 26 became a dropped order. Later the same day, I think it was, the government served notice in the proper fashion of its intent to reinstate Bill 26 on the order paper through the motion we're now debating, Motion 50. That, of course, doesn't bring the matter to an end. As we have found by looking at former precedents, particularly from the House of Commons in Great Britain, the matter doesn't simply end with the government setting out its motion to reinstate the bill. The motion is accompanied by debate, which we are having now. Of course, at some point the House will make a decision by a vote as to whether Bill 26 will be reinstated.

It is significant, as others have noted, that this is not something which the Chair simply makes a ruling on. By long-established precedents, there is a debate around the restoration or reinstatement of a dropped bill. I guess it's really a kind of historic circumstance we're involved in here -- our debate around the restoration of this bill and at some point in the future the vote of the House on whether to restore the bill.

[5:00]

[ Page 9485 ]

A dropped order is not a common occurrence in our chamber. I'm not aware of anyone who currently serves in this chamber who can recall a dropped order. I don't believe there has been one for a long, long time -- if there has ever been. Certainly there have been instances of dropped orders in the House of Commons in Great Britain. I'll shortly be reviewing some of the Hansard accounts from the past of quite extensive debates in the British House of Commons around dropped orders, which I think are illustrative of some of the issues we need to discuss in this chamber as well.

It's clear from the debates that prior to 1882, dropped orders were in fact a fairly common occurrence in the British House of Commons. In particular, I gather that dropped orders were a relatively common occurrence because of the frequent absence of quorums on Friday evenings. I think any of us serving in the House could probably appreciate why that would be a difficulty. It's obvious again, from the text of Hansard in 1884, that as Friday night came along, many of the members were looking forward to going home or in fact were on their way home. As a consequence, because of the absence of quorums, orders would frequently become dropped orders and would have to be restored the following week. This was prior to 1882.

In 1882 the British House of Commons brought about some procedural revisions, some substantial changes to their standing orders which changed the practices. As a consequence, the treatment of dropped orders also changed after 1882. The consequence of that is particularly evident when we get to 1884, when there was a very extensive debate around the restoration or the reinstatement of a dropped order.

At any rate, what I want to do is quote briefly from some of the debates. The three cases which I think have particular application to the present circumstance we find ourselves in are in the debates of 1884, 1923 and 1952. I just want to quote briefly to illustrate some of the character and intent of the discussion and the rules respecting dropped orders as reflected in the debates of the British House of Commons. It is very interesting reading the discussions that went on in those years, and I can't help but pause to think what a fascinating job it must be to be a Law Clerk, particularly in an instance like this where we have an interesting and quite complex issue to sort out. I know that sometimes people remark on the apparent lack of animation on the part of the Clerks. I think that's probably a reflection of the rapt fascination which holds them when they are investigating some of these fascinating issues, such as dropped orders.

I'd like to just quote briefly from the debates of 1884. One of the reasons why we have had a quite thorough debate around the issue of reinstatement is in fact because of the very extensive debate which they had in 1884 on this issue as well. Let me just quote briefly from a couple, because these illustrate some of the character and intent of the issues of dropped orders. Again, this is from the British debates of 1884, and the first quote is from a Mr. Healy:

"A question of very great importance and of considerable interest to the House was raised a short time ago by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). We all know that Supply became a dropped Order on Friday, owing to the fact that the House was counted out. That, however, was the fault of the Government, who might have kept a House, if they had chosen to do so."

There is also an illustrative quote here, again from 1884, by a Mr. Gorst -- again, obviously a member of the House of Commons:

"I should like to make one or two observations on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to point out to the Government the extreme inconvenience of allowing the Order for Supply on Friday to become, as it too frequently does, a dropped Order. I am certain that considerable progress might have been made with Supply on Friday evening if the Members of the Government had made any exertion whatever to keep a House."

The government, in the case of the dropped order in 1884, wasn't entirely silent on the issue of its responsibility. In fact, one finds the government actually being quite candid with respect to the dropped order and the reasons for it. I'll just quote briefly from Lord Richard Grosvenor, who was obviously the chief Whip of the government of the day. His comments here are, I think, illustrative of the problems facing the government in maintaining a quorum and avoiding the problem of a dropped order. I quote from Lord Grosvenor:

"With reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that no steps were taken by the Government to prevent the House from being counted out on Friday night, I must say that every possible step was taken by those who usually serve under my command. But on Friday night, when the House has been sitting until very late hours during the rest of the week, it is found almost impossible, sometimes short of using physical force, to keep Members in the House. Every possible effort was made by us on Friday night to keep a House; but I regret to say that the stream was so strong against us that we were obliged to give way. Indeed, we were almost carried away with it."

Perhaps the situation is slightly analogous to the one that we face. Obviously, shortly before noon on Thursday, there was a kind of tide in this House that was pulling members towards the Legislature's dining room or the possibility of accessing some of the goods and services provided by that fine institution. Again, just as in this case, because there was not sufficient attention being paid to the conduct of the House, the government suffered the unfortunate embarrassment of a dropped order.

I also want to add. . . . This is a quote from a Mr. J. Lowther, again on the issue surrounding a dropped bill:

[ Page 9486 ]

". . .I wish to draw attention to the fact that prior to 1882 it was the immemorial practice for a debate to take place on the Motion that 'this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply; and that practice was in no way affected by the passing of the new Standing Order."

"Now, I think it most important that, as this discussion has taken place, the reasons for it should be placed on record -- namely, that a 'Count-out' having taken place on Friday night, and the Order of the Day for Committee of Supply having become a dropped Order, the usual rule does not now apply. It is perfectly clear that this is so, because you, Sir, have now allowed a prolonged debate to take place on the Motion 'that this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply,' so that it is evidently a Motion that can be debated. And if a Motion can be debated, then, by the immemorial practice of the House, an Amendment can be moved to it, and therefore I apprehend that, unless the Motion be at once assented to, it can be debated even on a Monday, and an Amendment moved to it. In consequence of what has taken place this evening, whenever, in future, 'Count-out' occurs on a Friday, and it becomes necessary to set up Supply on a Monday, it will be competent, I presume, not only for a debate to arise, but for an Amendment to the Motion to be moved."

Finally, in terms of the very extensive and, I think, informative debate around the 1884 British House of Commons debate on dropped orders, I want to quote a Mr. Bryce, who says:

"With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grovenor) as to the 'Count-out' on Friday, I believe there were only 27 Members in the House at the time it happened, and that there were only two or three Members on the Treasury Bench. I myself was in the Lobby before the 'Count-out' happened, endeavouring to induce a number of Gentlemen to stay, but they told me they had not been asked to stay. I think that, considering the importance of the question proposed to be brought under the notice of the House, Her Majesty's government might have been fairly expected to keep a House."

[5:15]

As well, I just want to quote briefly from the British House of Commons debate in 1923. Again, I think it's because it's illustrative of the issues that we have before us. Indeed, the debate in 1923 involved some very eminent figures in British political history: David Lloyd George, Ramsay MacDonald and so on. Again, the debate is both fascinating and illustrative of some of the issues around dropped orders. I'll just quote briefly from an exchange between Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin.

This is Ramsay MacDonald:

"With reference to the announcement that the Government will make a statement upon this Motion to set up a Committee of Supply, is it proposed that the Debate upon that question shall be so wide that the whole question of what took place yesterday and its consequences can be raised?"

"I think we must leave that point in the discretion of the Chair."

"Then I put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, if it is your intention to rule in such a way that on the discussion of this Motion as great liberty will be given for Debate as would be given if the Government were to move 'That the House do now adjourn?' "

"On the motion that the House do now adjourn, we may discuss things all around the world."

"May I, with your leave, Sir, correct my question? Will the Debate be as wide as a Debate upon the Adjournment Motion, as far as the events of yesterday are concerned -- in that respect only?"

"The Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister is to restore the dropped Order of Supply. The Order was dropped by reason of the incident of yesterday. Therefore, discussion can take place on any matter relevant to the incident which calls for this Motion. That, I think, is quite clear. . . ."

In 1923 -- and this will be my final contribution from the 1923 debate -- we again see a candour on the part of the government with respect to the dropped order that has, to date, been lacking in the current debate. This is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baldwin:

"After the somewhat difficult points of order which have been put and elucidated, I propose to take a very short time to consider what it is that has really happened. What actually happened is that the Government were caught napping. Some valuable time has been lost, and I am consumed myself by a certain number of chastened reflections. I have myself sat in this House so many years as a Member of a small Opposition -- a much smaller Opposition than the present, an opposition often trampled on by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Borroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) -- that I can appreciate to the full, and sympathize with, the triumph and the exhibitions of triumphant joy of the hon. Members opposite."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, I want to quote from the 1952 debates, which again, I think, illustrate some of the issues which we've been discussing here. First is a quote from Mr. Morrison of the British House of Commons:

[ Page 9487 ]

"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking, with great respect, is for the purpose of the good record of the House and the future conduct of the House in matters of this kind. We are not clear as to the Ruling which you have given, Sir, and I am respectfully submitting that it would be for the convenience of everyone, and for the convenience of students of Parliamentary procedure concerning future points of order, if you would be so good as to rule on the point which both my right hon. Friend and myself have raised."

"If I understand the right hon. gentleman's point aright, it is if the question whether the business is essential or not is to be decided by the Chair or by the House. Is that the point?"

"As to the point of the essential character of the Bill, I think that is a matter for the House and must remain so. The Speaker or the Chair cannot assess whether a Bill is essential or not. I have frequently heard one side of the House say, 'This Measure must be passed,' and the other side say, 'There is no hurry about it.' That is entirely a question for the House."

I think there's a strong case against reinstatement of Bill 26 to the order paper. Certainly it's not essential business. The government has proclaimed on many occasions that the existing Labour Code works very well and, as the old dictum goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think what we have here is, by the government's own expression, a modest proposal in terms of Bill 26. It is not essential to see it proceed. Further, Bill 26 clearly is contentious. There has been opposition in this House and across this province to Bill 26, and the government must listen to that and deal with this bill in an appropriate manner. I think it would be entirely appropriate for this government either to put this bill on hold or simply allow it to remain a dropped order. . .

The Speaker: The hon. member will notice that his time is up.

G. Abbott: . . .and to have the bill die on the order paper at the end of the session.

L. Reid: I am pleased to rise in debate on Motion 50. The question is whether to reinstate or not. Should we see Bill 26 returned to the order paper? I will argue vehemently this afternoon that it is not in the best interests of British Columbians and that it is not an appropriate procedure for these members opposite to attempt to return legislation to the order paper. That is the content of the remarks I will make this afternoon as I speak to the motion to reinstate.

I do not support the motion to reinstate. I don't believe it makes good sense or is logical. I don't believe there's a desire or an urgency on behalf of the members opposite to see that motion passed. And I don't believe, frankly, that it's in the best interests of British Columbians, who have every right to expect that their best interests will be uppermost in the minds of their parliamentarians. We haven't seen that on behalf of this government in their introduction of Bill 26, and we haven't seen it in this reinstatement motion, which references Bill 26.

There is much to talk about this afternoon. I believe there are options available to this chamber, options that have not been explored and that are not worthy of consideration, if indeed you look at the actions of the members opposite -- because they have chosen not to consider them. I think they're being shortsighted in the extreme and are not behaving as one would expect of parliamentarians. I think that a procedural ruse, if you will, that brings this debate back into consideration is not worthy of decent parliamentarians. In fact, the bill did die on the order paper, and this is a wrangle and a debate that allow it to be returned, to be reconsidered, to be recommitted to the debate. My colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson fully understands. . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: The hon. member for Skeena may indeed wish to join the debate.

. . .the procedure and used a very effective tool, a tool that's at the disposal of every member when they see legislation that is not in the best interests of British Columbia. That is indeed the decision that my hon. colleague took, and I applaud the decision he took. I congratulated him on the decision he took.

The Finance minister has often taken to her feet and suggested that this is not the time to tamper with the economic climate in the province. Somehow that sentiment is set aside for consideration of Bill 26. Again, my hon. colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson effectively sidelined that bill because he knows that it's not in the best interests of British Columbians. The government, knowing full well that the economic climate in this province is fragile -- and, frankly, having contributed to the fragility of the economic climate in this province -- has chosen to recommit this bill. What they should do is thank their lucky stars that they have an option at their disposal. They have an option to reconsider whether or not this bill comes back on the order paper, as does each member of this chamber. The 74 members of this chamber have an opportunity to debate whether or not Motion 50 should pass.

I would encourage the members opposite to listen to their constituents, who we know full well are indicating that this bill should not be reconsidered. We receive similar correspondence, and we know that that is the sentiment being expressed to the members opposite. What would happen if there were a free vote in this chamber? Would anyone opposite have truly listened to their constituents over the last number of weeks? Those constituents are not favouring a disruption to the Labour Code in this province. They're not favouring a recommittal. They're not looking to see Motion 50 pass in this chamber. So to the question I posed at the outset of my remarks -- to reinstate or not -- I believe "not" is the correct answer. I believe it is fundamentally vital to the future of this province that we do not further disrupt the economic climate. Motion 50 will further disrupt the economic climate, because it will land us squarely in the ballpark of consideration of Bill 26, which is only about tampering with a very fragile economic climate. It isn't about anything else. The Minister of Finance had some wisdom and knew that to be the case. Obviously, others opposite wished that bill to go forward.

I would ask government members to look at this as an opportunity to make a better decision -- an option at their disposal. It's an opportunity for a sober second look, an opportunity to take a look at the economic climate in the province and take a look at Motion 50, which references Bill 26

[ Page 9488 ]

[5:30]

We all know, frankly, that in other circumstances the motion to adjourn would have resulted in that particular piece of legislation dying on the order paper. We also know that that bill, or a bill of similar intent, would not be debated during the same session. We know those precedents are valid; we know they're clear; we know they're out there for consideration. I'm only asking that people continue to consider that. If this decision is taken in the province of British Columbia, it will be contrary, in my view, to decisions that have been taken in parliaments in different parts of the world. We will not be a leader on this question, in my view. The government will have taken the opportunity to finagle the bill back onto the order paper. That's not a worthy activity, hon. Speaker, and it's unparliamentary -- in my view, unparliamentary in the extreme.

The intent of this bill could easily be debated at the next session of this thirty-sixth parliament, which would allow these government members to maintain their credibility, to maintain their sense of what it is to be parliamentarians. They don't need to use procedural wrangles. They do need to stand up and be counted on what's important for the future of this province, what's important about the fragility of today's economy here in British Columbia.

That is the nucleus of my remarks this afternoon. There are other options yet to be explored. This is not the elegant option. This is like: "We made a mistake. We're scurrying around, and we're going to select this one." Again, I'm asking that this chamber take a second look at the option they have selected: Motion 50, to reinstate Bill 26 on the order paper. There has to be something bigger done better in how this government operates. I would be disappointed if they settled for a procedural wrangle when indeed there are some options that are truly worthy of consideration and worthy of the support of the members of this chamber.

Where I started my remarks -- to reinstate or not. . . . I'm absolutely not favouring Motion 50, because I'm not favouring reintroduction of Bill 26. In my opinion it is not in the best interests of this province.

My colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson very deliberately set out to delay a piece of legislation that was not in the best interests of British Columbians. That is the view shared by the members of the official opposition, and frankly, that's a view shared by a growing number of British Columbians, as the days continue to mount. They know full well that any disruption to the Labour Code will impact negatively on how they do business in the province; they know that for a fact. They're intrigued by this government's opportunity to have this bill reinstated. They don't desire its reinstatement; they don't see the logic in its reinstatement.

I would suggest that there was chaos on the government benches when that event, ably orchestrated by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson, took place. I think there was chaos. I think from chaos flows opportunity and that indeed this is an opportunity for the members opposite to seek some wisdom on this question -- to know full well that there are other options that could be brought to bear, that could be considered with some sincerity, with some depth, with some wisdom, with some eloquence.

Again, I'll make the point very clearly that this is not an elegant solution to a problem created by this government. If we are looking to be parliamentarians, to be considered as leaders in this country and this province, this government needs to step up to the plate and come back to the table with something that's a little more sophisticated than a procedural wrangle. That's what I look for as a parliamentarian. That's what I believe in. The precedents and the traditions of this building speak to me very, very strongly. I don't wish to see them diminished or tarnished in any way by the activities of this government. I don't wish to see my province diminished or tarnished in any way by the lack of leadership demonstrated by the members opposite.

I do have significant fears for this province -- my province -- today, hon. Speaker. I worry about the economic climate, about the life and livelihood of my constituents, about the opportunities we're not putting in place for young people today. There are a significant number of individuals who fall through the cracks, who are not recognized, who are not applauded for their efforts, whose contributions are not noticed. Those are the issues that each of us must stand and respond to.

This issue is a mistake that the government made. Rather than acknowledging that they made the mistake and moving forward, they are prepared to bog us down and somehow have the province continue to be on tenterhooks over its economic future -- not fair, not decent, not just and, frankly, fundamentally unfair.

I will commit to the record, hon. Speaker, that I believe that Motion 50 is unfair. I think that a government with some guts, some wisdom and some courage would have acknowledged their mistake, would not have suggested it was a technical issue and would have said: "Yes, that's a tool in the toolbox that the official opposition has at its disposal. They used it well. We're moving forward."

There are other items on the order paper, probably 25 or 29 additional pieces of legislation that have not received reasonable consideration by the members of this chamber. Definitely the priority for the official opposition is the economic climate. We firmly, vehemently believe that it is the role of the small business sector to craft and to create employment opportunities. Government is not the economic driver. What this government wishes to be is almost the economic dismantler. They're going to take apart and further damage a fragile economy, when they've been presented with an option.

They're definitely at the crossroad, hon. Speaker. They have come to the crossroad. They could make the right choice, in my view, which is to not consider Motion 50, which is to not recommit Bill 26. Basically, finish the business that's outstanding on the order paper and come back to this Legislature with an improved product. Spend some time on Bill 26, which is referenced in Motion 50. Commit it to a select standing committee. Return it to communities for debate. Listen to the people who elected you. To listen is vitally important to who I am as a parliamentarian.

This government knows full well they have much commentary in the negative on Bill 26 and, frankly, an equal

[ Page 9489 ]

I hope this government is truly taking a second look at the intent of Bill 26. That would be the wise and prudent way to proceed. That would make decent sense for British Columbians, for small business people, for the entrepreneurs, for the risk-takers who truly give a tremendous amount to this province. Today's Vancouver Sun says: ". . .Entrepreneurs Walk an Economic Tightrope." That tightrope is getting longer and longer as Motion 50 is up for consideration, because they are hoping that this government reaches the right conclusion, comes to the right decision. They are indeed looking at Motion 50 as an opportunity for this government to stop and take a second look; that's what this debate is about.

Stop, take a second look and listen to the people who live in your ridings. Each and every person in this chamber will be asked to vote on Motion 50. Motion 50 is a glorious opportunity for this House to reconsider and, hopefully, pull Bill 26. I see it as an opportunity. I want this chamber to do the right thing.

I can tell you that my riding of Richmond East has many, many brand-new entrepreneur scientists who work in the high-tech field. They cannot be competitive in this country and in global markets with uncertainty in the labour climate, with uncertainty in today's economy. They are trusting that this government will take a very careful look at this reconsideration motion. They see it as an opportunity. This is the pause that makes sense for today and, hopefully, makes sense for tomorrow. When this House sits tomorrow, I want us to be on a path that is only about economic renewal, that is not about hammering people who are already having a tough enough time staying afloat in today's economy.

As we continue to consider Motion 50, which references Bill 26, this is an opportunity to look at the bigger picture, to go more broadly and see the impact that both of these items will have on the average business owner, the average employer, in British Columbia. Business people in my riding can't afford any further fettering of their enterprise, and I'm sure that's the case with the businesses of every single MLA. Every member of this Legislature has businesses in their ridings that are foundering today. There's an enormous level of bankruptcy and personal anguish. This government should be standing up and saying, "We can do some things to improve that scenario," as opposed to doing things that worsen that scenario.

I reference today's Vancouver Sun, Monday, July 6: "Workers and Entrepreneurs Walk an Economic Tightrope. As the owner of a small business in B.C. and creator of 30 jobs, I am appalled by the B.C. government's proposed Labour Code changes, Bill 26." These folks would love to see. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, as you are well aware, that is not appropriate for this discussion.

L. Reid: I'm happy to tie it back to the reinstatement motion. These people too are looking for this government to take a pause, which is what they see Motion 50 offering them. We all know that Motion 50 is about Bill 26. Motion 50 references Bill 26. It is the reconsideration motion to return Bill 26 to the order paper. We all know that. The taxpayers know that; the business owners know that; the individuals following this debate know that. It isn't about anything else. It's about the future of this province.

The future of the province is absolutely vital to all of us. Indeed, I'm more than prepared to have the discussion around the technicalities of this reinstatement motion, as long as everyone is absolutely aware, in their own minds that this is a bigger issue than a procedural technicality. I think it's fundamental to where we go next. There are some interesting precedents. I think that some of them have probably not always been followed. I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier, when they said that there is no automatic right for government to reinstate Bill 26. That is the purpose of voting on this motion. That will decide whether or not the bill returns to the order paper. The scurrying is done. The option this government has chosen is Motion 50.

[5:45]

This reinstatement motion will directly impact 3.5-4 million people in British Columbia. It will give life, or not, to Bill 26. We know that's a fact. It will breathe life into Bill 26 or it won't. That is what people will be asked to vote on when this motion comes to a vote. I think that's an enormous responsibility and an enormous question that has been posed. People have been blessed by getting a second opportunity to answer the question: how important is the future of this province? How vital do they see the reinstatement of Bill 26 to the future success of this province? I see the death of Bill 26 as being in the best interests of British Columbia. That's a fact, hon. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance refers to the lapse of parliamentary procedure as an interruption. That's interesting. It's bigger than that to me. Frankly, it's bigger than that to the Minister of Finance. We are talking about the future of this province, and we are now linking it to this opportunity for a second look. That is what has transpired over the last number of days. Would it be appropriate at this juncture to let the government off the hook? I think the government need to step up to the plate and fully understand that they have been given an enormous gift. The gift is the opportunity of sober second thought. They have another opportunity to look at legislation that will impact every single British Columbian. There's no question about that.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Perhaps the member for Skeena would heckle from his seat. He's an elusive individual this afternoon.

If we believed that this legislation was important to the future prosperity of British Columbians, perhaps we would be less intrigued by the procedural wrangling that has gone on. But it clearly is not. So if Bill 26 is not in the best interests of British Columbians, Motion 50 is not in their best interests. Those items are inextricably linked and have been since the outset of this debate. There's no question about that in my mind.

The members opposite have suggested that somehow there is some urgency to this debate, and the government

[ Page 9490 ]

Who possesses procedural wisdom in the largest quantity on the benches opposite? We haven't seen a great deal of procedural wisdom, and again, I don't believe we've seen any elegance of thought. The option that was chosen by those individuals -- to reinstate Bill 26 -- is weak at best, and it's not a hugely sophisticated manoeuvre or one worthy of a government that is truly committed to behaving as parliamentarians would behave. I think some reflection is in order. There is sober second thought required on this question.

Earlier I referenced select standing committee referrals. Perhaps there are some opportunities at this juncture for the House Leaders to seek some accommodations, to have some discussion that would indeed see this issue placed in a debate that is in the best interests of British Columbians. We haven't been privy to that in the past. We haven't been privileged to be part of a debate with this government that is in the best interests of British Columbians. Perhaps the opportunity presented to us today can make that happen. It would be a remarkable event in the life of this chamber for us to come together and make sense of what is a very illogical action on the part of this government. We would like to see that happen.

My hon. colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson talked about the tool in the toolbox. It is a legitimate tool, so the earlier assertions that suggested it was a technical error are wrong. It is a legitimate tool in the toolbox, and it was well used by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. The bottom line is that the members opposite dropped the ball. They have now been granted an opportunity to do some different things, and frankly, I welcome that. I think it's time that we did the business of this province differently, and that could probably be accommodated only by an election.

I will take my place. Noting the hour, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.

Motion approved.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

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

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I'd like to enter the debate at this point to discuss several matters of concern for me in my constituency. The first one I'd like to talk about concerns constituents, although in fact the event is far from home. I'd like to talk a bit about the August 1997 bear attack at Liard River Hotsprings Park, as this did concern a family in my jurisdiction. The minister and I have corresponded about Harvey and Linda Schmerchinski, the constituents of whom I speak.

Just for the record, and to put some scope and perspective on the issue, at the time, the McConnell family -- a mother and a son -- were moving from the upper to the lower pools in the Liard Hotsprings; there's a boardwalk that separates them. They had just arrived at what is known in the lower area as the hanging gardens pavilion. At that point, the young man was attacked by the bear. His mother came to his rescue and, in fact, the bear killed the mother while she was attempting to rescue her son. A gentleman tried to rescue her and was then dragged off and killed as well.

Harvey and Linda Schmerchinski were among the tourists at Liard who were destined to sit and watch the bear begin to feed on the gentleman who had attempted to save Mrs. McConnell and her son from the bear attack. Other visitors at the park immediately began to administer first aid to the mother and the boy, while the bear was in the process of killing the gentleman who had tried to rescue them. These individuals, who had gathered because of the screaming and yelling, tried to drive off the bear with small dead trees; they tried to flick towels at the bear. There were no weapons available. People from the upper pool came to the junction where the bear attack was, but they were unable to go any other route down without crossing the path of the bear and therefore became trapped there -- weaponless and very, very afraid.

At that time, a fourth gentleman became involved, and this gentleman was also attacked before an American tourist, having heard the noise from the lower path, arrived with a gun and shot the bear. The civilians on the site tried to save the life of Mrs. McConnell, but they did not have any medical supplies. The boy was evacuated on a spine board from the site. The mother. . . . There were no other spine boards available, and she was in fact evacuated on a bicycle rack. The fourth victim was evacuated on a piece of plywood. The wounded were transported from the site in a civilian vehicle, there being no emergency vehicle for the fourth person to be taken away.

This was an extremely traumatic experience for all of those involved. Having talked to a number of them, I'm not quite sure that they will ever recover from the experience. It certainly has created a very large fear for them.

The first park attendant did not arrive until after the bear was dead, and the evacuation of the young man was already half underway. A park employee with a rifle did not arrive until after the evacuation of all of the individuals was complete. Almost an hour after the initial attack, park staff arrived with medical supplies. Other than a piece of a cardboard box for a neck brace and a spine board. . . . The first employee to arrive at the scene did not carry bear spray, even though after the attack everyone arrived with bear spray.

So what we had was a number of civilians who quickly responded at the scene with very little material. A very high level of expertise was available within the people who actually were standing around in their bathing suits at the hot springs. They really had no particular help in terms of medical supplies, despite the fact that had those supplies been avail-

[ Page 9491 ]

The concerning thing that I'd like to bring up is that in the letter from the minister on December 10, 1997. . . . At that point the information from the ministry, in defence of the circumstance, was that predatory bear attacks were a very rare occurrence and that B.C. Parks staff had no advance indication that this bear would enter the hot springs park. Bears do not book ahead at Liard. Neither do people, actually -- and that is not meant to be in a sarcastic tone. I think the circumstance of people being able to look after themselves, fending for themselves in an area such as Liard Hot Springs, is the issue that comes into question. There are many different kinds of attack than just bear attack, and I am more concerned in many cases about people than otherwise.

Some of the things that individuals who have been there have told me relate to the construction or layout of Liard Hot Springs in terms of conduits out of the area -- alternate escape routes, as it may be, from the upper pools and lower pools -- and a number of other risk-associated factors. On that point I will sit and let the minister respond, and then I'd like to specifically go over some of the potential mechanisms that could be put into place right now, from the individuals who were there -- things that could have been put in at this point for this summer -- and whether or not any of those have been considered by the Ministry of Environment.

[3:00]

I don't want to ignore the member's question, though, because it is a very important situation and one that needs to be acknowledged as one that we have to work on amongst our staff -- to ensure that we have the best level of preparedness possible in the eventuality of a bear attack. One of the reasons why we post bear information in provincial parks is so that anyone who uses the parks will be aware of some of the strategies and tips we give to individuals dealing with behaviour around bears. There is no doubt that bears are very, very dangerous creatures, and those of us who are out in the woods and provincial parks where bears can be found need to be very aware of strategies to manage ourselves in order to avoid an attack. In this situation, that clearly wasn't the case. It was the case of a bear which was very ill; it was not what one would consider to be a typical situation. Nonetheless, it's one we're learning from.

The member made reference to my letter of December 10, '97. I must tell you that we still have not yet received the coroner's report from the Peace-Liard incident. As soon as it's available, I give the member my assurance that we will forward it to her.

We could talk at some length about some of the other strategies we're using within government related to bear management: the Be Bear Aware program, the fencing of garbage sites to avoid bear infestation in garbage, because garbage bears are a real problem. I could talk in general terms about those issues, if the member would like; otherwise, I think we'll have to wait until my Parks staff is here to give her the specific strategies that staff have already begun to use as a result of this and other bear attacks that have gone on in the province.

A. Sanders: I would welcome input from the staff -- and their expertise. I'm also happy at this point to ask the questions and have the minister write me back in terms of responses, with the guarantee that if I don't understand the responses, I am more than welcome to follow up with the staff, and they will make further clarifications.

I spend a lot of time in the wilderness in Victoria, but I spend a lot of time in the wilderness out of Victoria and am very, very aware of the concern about bears. Most of the time that our family goes on holidays -- when we in fact do get them -- it is to areas of high bear concentration. One of the things that I would recommend to the minister, from spending a lot of time canoeing or kayaking in Clayoquot, in addition to Bowron Lakes, the Yukon, northern B.C. and the Stikine, would be the use of a graded or graduated -- whatever the proper word is -- bear alert in the same way that when I go into an area that is a forest fire hazard, there is a circumstance where the degree of danger is outlined very, very carefully to the individual using the area. What we do in B.C. right now is put up a yellow sign with a bear and a cross through it, which means that people may anticipate that this is a bear traffic area. On some occasions we do post that there is bear in the area on the publicly looked-after campsites. But it may be very helpful in areas where people are canoeing or kayaking or, in fact, just backpacking to have some kind of graded response to the bear conditions so that people have the opportunity to judge, in the same way that they do when they go into a forested area that has a warning for forest fires, whether they would choose to do that in a high-warning state, as opposed to a low-warning state. I would appreciate the minister's comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member will know how difficult it would be to track bears immediately in the vicinity of a provincial park. Nonetheless, I think her idea has merit, and it's something that I'd be quite prepared to investigate further to see if some mechanism like that could at least be put in places where there have been recent bear sightings, for instance. It might be something that we could look at implementing, particularly in areas where there are high concentrations of bears in the vicinity of a provincial park. It could be managed in that way perhaps. But I'd certainly be happy to look into it as an approach and consider if that would be possible to implement.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton -- sorry, Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's been a while since I've been in the little House, but it hasn't been that long.

Just a question, hon. minister. It's from Malcolm McKay from the South Okanagan Sportsmen's Association. He's the region 8 wildlife chair. Since 1995 he's had correspondence

[ Page 9492 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Is the member making reference to compulsory inspection provisions?

B. Barisoff: No, it's the compulsory reporting the Ministry of Environment has about when game is hunted and bagged and whatever else. I think his concern is that they find. . . . I guess it must be in region 8, in that particular region; that happens to be the Okanagan-Boundary area. Is that actually being enforced? Are those regulations. . . ? Are they actually being reported? Are the aboriginal people reporting what game has been caught and whatever else?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't actually have the details of that particular region. But I could speak broadly to the question, and maybe that will give the member the answer he is seeking. We can do a follow-up on the specifics in the region if he would like.

First, aboriginal hunting is a constitutional right under section 35 of the Canadian constitution, and therefore aboriginal people are not subject to having to follow those regulations. In fact, they're voluntary in the case of aboriginal people. Nonetheless, we do have very good working relationships with many aboriginal bands, who have the same interests we do in the compulsory reporting and inspecting provisions. They give all of us better data on what kinds of animals are being taken, disease issues, predation issues, size -- all sorts of information that we can then use to help make better management decisions for hunting. So with some aboriginal bands we do have agreements to exchange information.

I'd also draw the member's attention to the Nisga'a agreement. That is going to provide us with a tool through which we can share; the treaty process has given us an ability to share that information.

So I think we're making progress on how to reconcile non-aboriginal and aboriginal peoples' hunting rights in regards to provincial regulation, as well as aboriginal rights that are awarded under the constitution.

B. Barisoff: So is the minister telling me that it's not mandatory for aboriginal people in the province of British Columbia to make reports on what game they've caught, that it's not a mandatory requirement of the regulations?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, it is not. It is voluntary.

B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering: are these agreements that you mentioned agreements that the Ministry of Environment enters into with individual bands on an individual basis, or is that a voluntary thing that happens sporadically throughout the province? And could the minister possibly send a letter to the South Okanagan Sportsmen's Association, to Malcolm McKay in region 8, and explain to him and to his club exactly what takes place in the regulations and how it affects that particular region?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd be happy to follow up and provide a letter to the chair of region 8.

G. Abbott: I'd like to change the subject now to Eurasian milfoil and its control. I have a few questions, but I want to preface my questions with a brief commentary on the background of this problem. We've been struggling with Eurasian milfoil in this province since about 1970, when it was first discovered in Okanagan Lake. The problem was one which initially the province attempted to grapple with through the Ministry of Environment. They had, as some may recall, a 2,4-D program attempting to use a waterborne chemical to deal with the problem. The province -- initially, at least -- carried the entire cost of that function. The chemical program, of course, really didn't work out, in large measure because of public objections to it in the province. But the original funding for that work was 100 percent provincial, zero percent local. In the years that followed, the province induced the local governments, through the Okanagan Basin water board, to become participants in the control of Eurasian milfoil. The first cost-sharing program, as I recall, was 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local government. That funding formula remained in place for quite a long time. We certainly had a 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local funding formula right through until the mid-1990s. Of course, through that time as well, the problem of Eurasian milfoil has spread quite dramatically through the province. It has now infested most of the lakes in the Okanagan, as well as Shuswap Lake. It's now into the Thompson River and other areas in the Thompson and Kootenay regions of the province.

Back in 1994 -- I recall this very clearly as the chair or the Columbia-Shuswap regional district at the time, as well as the chair of the regional district's milfoil control program -- there were extensive discussions which produced a five-year, cost-share agreement between the province and local governments: the Okanagan Basin water board, CSRD, the Cultus Lake water board, and so on. It was a cost-share agreement based on a five-year commitment by the province to provide $450,000 per year over the term. The local governments, I can assure you, were reluctant to embrace the 50-50 formula, given that for well over 20 years they had had a 75-25 cost-share agreement. There was some understandable reluctance on the part of local governments to embrace the 50-50. However, they did so based on the premise that a written, signed, legal agreement with the province of British Columbia through the Ministry of Environment would ensure that, at least through 1999, there would be assured provincial funding.

[3:15]

[ Page 9493 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: In '97-98 the amount was $200,000. The amount for '98-99 is $200,000.

G. Abbott: I guess it's fair to say that the issue, particularly from a local government perspective, is the honouring of existing commitments. We have previously talked in the House about the disappointment we feel when government doesn't recognize its existing commitments as it sets up it's fiscal program for the coming year, whether it's 1,400 Ministry of Forests campsites or anything else. To me, this five-year agreement between, in this case, the Ministry of Environment and the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, is an extensive agreement of about 24 pages, signed by the Minister of Environment of the day as well as the regional district chair of the day. As it sets out its plans for the coming fiscal year, why would the government not recognize its existing obligations through this contract to local governments?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's called fiscal management, and it's called developing priorities about where your spending is going to go. And while I would like to be able to say to every member opposite who asks me for more spending: "Sure, we'll just increase our budget and we'll be spending more to fund the milfoil program, to put in place more parks attendants, or to make sure we don't have to reduce parks contracts. . . ." It would be great if I had the ability to do that. But we do have spending priorities within government, and they reflect the spending priorities of British Columbians. By and large, these include health care and education, which have been funded to a greater degree by this government than by any other government across Canada. That's meant that ministries like mine have had to take some degree of fiscal reduction. So we've done our very best to go through and prioritize spending. In fact, after I met with members of your own regional district, I didn't think I was going to have any ability to fund milfoil programs at all this year. But after a very productive meeting and some hard work on the part of staff, we managed to put together $200,000 in 50-50 funding for this year. Maybe it's not enough; nonetheless, it shows a commitment to an ongoing program, which we did meet with local governments to discuss.

We always have to manage our fiscal situation on a year-to-year basis. We can't always know from one year to the next. . . . For instance, as the member well knows, we're having a fairly significant economic downturn in the forestry sector that impacts on government revenues. So government -- this ministry included -- has to take measures to reduce spending.

We have in fact tried to come up with alternatives to increase the level of funding for this program, because it is particularly important for the tourism sector in the Okanagan. One of the proposals we've approached ICBC on -- and if the member is concerned with this issue and would join with me in making contact with ICBC on this, I'd certainly appreciate his support -- is that we would like to impose some sort of boat-trailer tax that could be applied on boat trailers throughout the province. Those funds could then be directed into milfoil programs. And in my view, the more support there is for a proposal like that, the more likely there may be some support from ICBC, which is currently the agency that manages this question, to be able to take that on as a way of creating funds that would be directed to a particular problem.

G. Abbott: I don't take exception to the minister's suggestion that we need to manage our fiscal situation. What I do take exception to in her comments is that we are calling for more spending.

The fact of the matter is that there was and is -- until March 31, 1999 -- a signed, legal agreement between the province and local government. It seems to me that if we are going to talk about good fiscal planning, what we do as we go into new fiscal planning stages is that we recognize our existing commitments. I presume that the Minister of Environment of the day likely did not lightly enter into this five-year commitment to fund Eurasian milfoil control to a specific level across British Columbia. I presume that he entered into it seriously and with every intention of fulfilling his obligations. So we're not calling for more spending here. What we are asking the government to do is to acknowledge its existing commitments before they take on any new commitments. I think it is just fair and reasonable to do that.

The other question I have in terms of the future. . . . I'm not going to comment on the suggestion about a boat-trailer tax; I haven't seen a proposal to that effect. Obviously it would be up to our Environment critic to look at that first, in any event. What does the province have in mind in terms of its future role in Eurasian milfoil control? In what ways does the province propose to assist regional districts and local government authorities in the control of Eurasian milfoil in the years ahead?

Hon. C. McGregor: That's future policy, and it not a topic that we're going to canvass in estimates.

G. Abbott: Well, it seems in some respects that it's not past policy either, because we have the written legal contract between the province and the regional district. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given that all of the local governments in British Columbia are coming to the end of the five-year legal agreement, for what it's worth, and given that they are going to have some question about what the future holds in terms of their assumption of some or all of the responsibility for Eurasian milfoil control. I'd like to get some indication from the minister of what the provincial view is with respect to that matter.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to draw to the member's attention the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, because I'm sure he's aware that contractual agreements that we engage in with regional governments or any other party, if they are multi-year agreements, make reference to the fact that they are always subject to review in a budgetary cycle. In fact, as a result of budgetary review, we've had to review the amounts and reduce them to $200,000. That is our commitment for the '98-99 fiscal year. If the member would like to discuss that in more detail, I'd be happy to, but as I said, we're not going to be debating future policy in these estimates.

A. Sanders: Just while we're on the topic of weeds, I'd like to talk about knapweed for one second before I go back to the Liard Hot Springs.

In 1996 the areas along the roadsides on Crown land -- the rights-of-way -- were funded for control of knapweed. That was cut in the 1997 budget. I would ask the minister what the policy is for the '98-99 year?

[ Page 9494 ]

A. Sanders: This is on Crown land.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, if the member is talking about anything that's a highway right-of-way, it is managed by Transportation and Highways, not by this ministry. The amount that we have for knapweed control is a total of about $15,000. It would apply to plots of Crown land that might be adjacent to an area where maybe a regional district or a local government has concerns about the growth of knapweed and the impact it's having on adjacent properties. So they would make application to that $15,000 fund, and it's adjudicated on an annual basis.

A. Sanders: I was sure that in the past, knapweed control on Crown land was with the Ministry of Environment. But it sounds like the budget is very small now on Crown rights-of-way, so I will direct that question to the Minister of Highways and hope that there is an answer in terms of someone doing something.

Going back to Liard Hot Springs, I was discussing the deaths of tourists at Liard. What I'd like to do -- and I want to do this in a constructive way -- is suggest some improvements as opposed to just discussing the issue. The first improvement is some kind of graduated signage for bear warnings in provincial parks, which is similar to forest fire warnings, so that individuals can make their own judgment as to whether or not that's where they want to take their children or themselves.

[3:30]

The third suggestion I'd like to make -- again, in the provincial parks -- is some kind of defence system. In Liard, for example, if there had been something similar to perhaps fire protection equipment: hoses, axes and such. . . . Surely there would probably be some misuse, but it might in fact have saved the individuals at that point. I'm thinking of some kind of glass-encased bear spray and an axe or some other kind of cattle prod -- whatever you choose -- but at least bear spray so that people who are locked into those areas could in fact do something.

The fourth suggestion I would certainly bring forward is adequate first-aid equipment. One of the very painful things that came from the Liard Hot Springs incident was that although the expertise was there to help the people who were still alive, there was no first-aid equipment. That should be available, because we're often finding seniors and people with young families at Liard, and neither of those groups is particularly able to help themselves. Something along the lines of stretchers, blankets, perhaps an airway and some kind of dressing system should be available at the pool sides, so that those people could have been helped when the attack occurred.

The fifth thing I'd like to recommend to the ministry staff and to the minister is some kind of local telephone system from the pool areas to the park gate. There was no communication, and that in fact was one of the most. . . . Besides the gridlock from not having a route down other than right past the animal in question, the lack of communication -- be it emergency alarm or telephone or radio telephone -- meant that there was absolutely nothing those people could rely on. In those areas having a higher bear count on a regular basis, you should be looking with critical analysis at those kinds of circumstances that could have perhaps saved some of those people. They might not necessarily have had to die on their holidays the way they did.

I would appreciate the minister having her Parks staff respond to me on those issues, and I look forward to having the report on Liard Hot Springs done once the coroner's report is in to the minister.

The last topic I'd like to canvass is the Ministry of Environment's services in my area. They are operated out of two service centres. One is in Penticton, and the other is in Kamloops. There is apparently a move to regionalize the authority and centralize that in Kamloops for environmental issues. What this means in the Penticton office is that up to 60 jobs are being eliminated over three years. These are people who do the air, land and water pollution; management of wildlife and lake water levels; and the enforcement, regulation and orders of these areas in Okanagan-Vernon. They also inspect works in sensitive areas, to ensure they do not damage the environment. I would think that a typical thing they may be doing at this point is looking into the environmental impacts of the new golf course going in up on the top of Silver Star.

The responses to this decrease in staff, from the people who work in the Ministry of Environment and those who I personally know and have spoken to, have been very, very discouraging. The announcement was described as being felt like a knife by the staff members -- a sense of betrayal, a sense of compromise to the environment in an area where the environment, for us, is one of the most important things we have with respect to why we live in the Okanagan and why people come there, especially in the summer.

The mayor of my own municipality said: "It always amazes me how, every time there is a hiccup in the economy, the first thing to be cut is the environment." Mayor Kiss wonders how laws will be enforced and worries that municipalities and industry will become essentially self-regulating. He also predicts slower processing of environmental permits. Certainly that rings a very loud warning bell with respect to some of the internal documents in the ministry itself, which show the very slow pace of environmental permits and their acceptance or rejection.

If the minister could comment on this. . . . It certainly has been in the news in my area, and I've been asked by many members of my community to bring this forward to the estimates.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is no doubt that when a ministry like ours, Environment, Lands and Parks. . . . We are challenged in the same way as others ministries across government to reduce our spending. One of the things we look for is to find efficiencies across our ministry so that we can continue

[ Page 9495 ]

Sometimes that can mean that there are staff impacts. I would say that last year, one could argue that there had been some fairly significant staff movement, and so on, as a result of a major reorganization of the ministry into different. . . . Downsizing, particularly at the administration level. . . . Again, we continue to look at that level to try and find as many efficiencies as we can, so we can continue to be able to offer the level of service that both the member and I know are important to offer in regions.

We have been looking in the areas of administration and fish and wildlife management, but I want to assure the member that we take the concerns of employees in regions very seriously. We have not moved anyone yet from Penticton to Kamloops, and in the event that that were to happen, it would be voluntary for them to do so. They could take other assignments if the position was moved. We haven't taken those steps yet. We are continuing to look for efficiencies, as I say, particularly in the areas of administration and fish and wildlife.

I am always happy to talk with individual staff members. Jon O'Riordan, who is ADM for regions, is very sensitive to the issues that are raised by regional offices, so we can make sure we don't have impacts on things like the delivery of permits. We are taking other measures within the ministry to really do what some people might call de-permitting. I think it's better to say that we're becoming smarter about the way we do permitting for things like back-country recreation -- for instance, having some levels of permitting that, in fact, require no permit at all and another level that is called a quick permit -- or things like the municipal sewage regulation that will enable us to have a regulation that everyone works toward meeting. Then we don't have to have staff spend hours and hours on each individual permit for each individual municipal government. They then have time to spend on pollution prevention activities and enforcement.

That is the kind of shifting of thinking that is going on in the ministry. We are doing some very productive work in that regard, and I'd certainly be happy to offer a meeting with the member to talk about some of those initiatives, so she could understand better some of the steps we're taking so that we don't decrease service levels in the regions.

S. Hawkins: I've got several issues that I'm hoping the minister can respond to. If she doesn't have the staff here, perhaps we can get an answer later. The first is one that I brought up with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It's kind of a gross -- as in yucky -- issue. Apparently the Ministry of Transportation and Highways buried 16 deer carcasses near Trépanier Creek watershed, and it flooded out. These carcasses were released into the water -- obviously drinking water for many of the residents. The Trépanier Ditch water users community apparently pumps water directly from the creek, and they want to know why they weren't notified of the flash flood. Obviously the Ministry of Transportation knew and the Ministry of Environment knew, but the people that actually use the water didn't know. This is just to bring it to the minister's attention, as well, that when the Ministry of Highways is doing something, perhaps they should be consulting with the Ministry of Environment. I'm hoping the Ministry of Environment has a policy on how close the carcasses should be buried to watersheds, etc.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the minister and would like a response from the minister if she heard from the Minister of Highways on this issue and if she has indeed contacted the Trépanier Ditch water users community to assure them that something like this won't happen again to the source of their drinking water.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, obviously any contamination of a drinking-water source is a serious issue and is of great concern to us. We're always working hard to make sure that we're aware of when those incidents occur. In fact, we don't have the specifics of the case that the member is referring to here, but I want to let her know that we do have an MOU with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They are to contact us on matters which have environmental impact. I can only assume that that happened in this case, although I don't know it for certain, because we don't have a note here on the particulars of the case that the member is making reference to. But we'd certainly be happy to get back to her with details.

S. Hawkins: I found my scribbled notes. Just so the minister knows which incident I'm talking about, it occurred around May 2 or 3. MacDonald Creek rerouted itself, apparently creating a gully about 20 to 30 feet deep. I was incorrect in the number of carcasses. I understand that between 30 to 60 carcasses were let into the creek -- pretty disgusting for the folks who use it for drinking water. I do have some articles about it, and I'm willing to share them with the minister.

The second issue, if I may, is with respect to molybdenum levels. I'm sure the minister knows which mine I'm going to bring up; it's the Brenda Mines site. I know there was a lot of controversy over whether the mine should be allowed to release the holding water that it had into the creeks around it. I'm wondering if the Ministry of Environment is involved in this issue. I know the Ministry of Mines was, and they did a review. I'm wondering when we can expect the results of that review and what the Minister of Environment is advising on this issue.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand from staff that we are the ones that issued a permit for reclamation of the minesite, but it is under appeal by the Environmental Appeal Board. Until such time as the Environmental Appeal Board has dealt with the matter, there's no other information that I can give to the member.

S. Hawkins: I will keep apprised of that one, because I know there's some concern about it in the area that I represent.

The third is a sad story. This is an elderly couple, who are actually neighbours of mine, and they've been dealing with the Ministry of Environment, Lands division, for quite a while. They're getting to the age where they want to settle their estate. I'm talking about John and Mary Olinger. I won't go through all the details, but I know that in 1958 they purchased a quarter interest in a property consisting of, I believe, about 189 acres, and they would like to trade a piece of their interest for another piece of Crown land. I see staff nodding over there; they're probably familiar with this issue.

[3:45]

[ Page 9496 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member bringing this issue forward, because it is important that we do our very best, through the Crown lands branch, to acknowledge the many applicants there are who have outstanding applications. I'm sure the member is aware that the Crown lands staff has been reduced, although we've taken some new workload measures. In fact, it's likely, as a result of those workload instructions, that this matter has been postponed. The instructions have been -- and they came from my office after we spent some considerable time dealing with these questions of Crown land backlog -- to put as first priority those measures that have economic benefits for the province and will engage in job creation in the communities. Those take a higher priority than other Crown land applications, including this one. If I recall the specifics of this case, it has been outstanding for some considerable time, and I will give the member my assurance that I will look into it and see if we can't expedite it.

S. Hawkins: I would certainly appreciate that. I'm looking at the notes. They've kept very detailed records, and it appears that they've been dealing with the ministry since as far back as 1991. Seven years is a long time for older folks to be worried about getting their affairs settled.

The next issue has to do with -- if we can talk about it generally, for a minute -- dock taxes. I hope this is within the purview of the Ministry of Environment. Owners around Okanagan Lake are subject to dock taxes. I'm wondering if this is something that blankets the province as a policy or if this has just been implemented in certain parts of the province. If the minister can speak about dock taxes generally for a minute, I'd like some information on the background.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is a foreshore lease or fee or tax, however you want to describe it. Because the foreshore belongs to the Crown, it is a fee for service, and it is a provincewide policy and should be being applied equally across the province.

S. Hawkins: This is fairly new to me, so I hope you'll be patient as I try and struggle through this. We get ongoing complaints, you know, about any kind of taxes.

This is an issue that's specific to Mr. Nixon of the Eldorado Hotel in Kelowna. I'm led to understand that he's been dealing with the ministry for a while as well, apparently with respect to Crown lands and a lease arrangement that was worked out with the ministry. I know he's been sending letters back and forth. Again, I hope I can share some of this information with the minister. It's pretty complicated, and your office probably has a lot of this already.

I understand that this gentleman applied to the ministry to replace riprap and to do some improvements around the property and was given approval to do that. The property is situated on the lake, obviously. The ministry sent some documents for him to enter into a lease, and apparently it was his understanding that the ministry did not talk about leasing the property when initial approval was asked for -- nothing like that was mentioned. Yet when the time came to renew an application. . . . He was asked after the fact, I believe, for lease money, and he paid the one-time fee. But now it seems, from his complaint, that more money is being asked for in back taxes or back lease payments. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of this situation. I can certainly provide the minister with the documentation I have to bring her up to speed -- more so than what I'm getting at in this very complicated letter.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid we don't have the details of that particular lease arrangement. But I'd certainly be happy to set up a meeting between the member and my ADM for Crown lands to discuss the particulars of that issue.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate that. Actually, that's probably a better way of dealing with it, because it's fairly complex. Maybe we can see if we can work something out for this gentleman.

The last thing I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is a letter I received. It's a letter to the minister with a copy to me, and it's from the Friends of the South Slopes in Kelowna. Their concern is that land is being sold in the south slopes that they would like to preserve for recreation users. They're just concerned that Crown lands are being sold without consultation with municipal and regional governments and without any consultation with local community groups that may want to have access to a hearing so that they can put their two cents' worth in about why land should remain as it is or be sold. They're particularly disturbed, I guess, because two years ago a local business applied to lease the land to begin a gravel-extraction operation in the area. There was strong opposition, and, as a result, the local residents did force the business to abandon the idea of gravel extraction in the area.

What I'm wondering is: does the ministry have a policy for consultation with municipal and local groups -- community groups -- before engaging in selling off land or in applications of this kind?

Hon. C. McGregor: The ministry engages in a very full review of a variety of considerations before it lists a piece of property for sale. Some of the issues that are dealt with include environmental concerns or values that the property might have. That's also related to the local LRMP -- or in some cases it was the CORE process. It depends on what part of the province it's in. In the Okanagan, for instance, there is an active LRMP table. There would be consultation to make sure that that property hadn't been identified as an area for protection for special management and that kind of thing. There would be that kind of dialogue, dialogue with first nations -- whether there are any first nations interests -- and sometimes dialogue with local government, although not always. It does depend, of course, on where the property is, but if there is any known interest by a local government, then there's an opportunity to discuss that with them, as well, prior to listing the land for sale.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate those comments.

I do recall the uproar that was caused when this group and the community in the southeast part of Kelowna found out that an application for gravel extraction was being considered by the Ministry of Environment. I seem to recall that happened a year or two ago, and they found out by accident. There were no hearings; there were no meetings set up. There was no community consultation on whether this should indeed go ahead in the area that it was going. If I can describe the southeast part of Kelowna, it's a recreation area, it's beautiful country, it's very quiet country living and it has access to

[ Page 9497 ]

Really, the community should have a say in whether it should go ahead or not. I guess the concern was that there was an application being considered, and the community and the groups had absolutely no idea whatsoever that it was there. Somehow by accident -- a news report or something -- it came to light, and it was quashed. Anyway, that was the uproar around that. If there is a more transparent process, if there is room for consultation and hearings, I'm glad to hear that. I don't know if the minister wants to further comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: It would depend, hon. member, on whether or not it was privately held or Crown-held land. If it's Crown-held land, then yes, there would be an opportunity for consultation. But if it was privately held, that wouldn't necessarily be the same process.

S. Hawkins: Okay, if it's privately held, what's the process? It's just so I can go back and advise the groups, because I didn't know there was a difference.

Hon. C. McGregor: Then it would be subject to review by the regional district.

S. Hawkins: Okay, I take that as advice if they contact me again for those kinds of issues.

I said I was finished, but never say never. I'm sure the minister is as concerned as I am about the fish kills that have been happening recently and about fish showing up dead in Okanagan Lake. The most recent one was a week ago in Mission Creek: kokanee turning up dead by the hundreds. I'm wondering what exactly the ministry is doing to investigate and what they're finding with respect to these fish kills.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I don't have an answer for the member at this time. We're still investigating.

[4:00]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll be happy to provide the member with the information once it becomes available.

M. Coell: I wonder if I can move to the tires and battery initiative the ministry has. I have a few questions on that. I guess that the fees on tires and batteries are in their fifth year this year, so there has been a large amount of money raised. One area that still hasn't been dealt with, to my knowledge, is the off-road tires -- the large tires that are used by the forestry industry as well as trucking tires. I wonder whether, in this year's budget, there are any programs or pilots to deal with that particular recycling problem.

Hon. C. McGregor: We haven't yet made any new stewardship opportunities or new tire levies on those tires at this time, so no budget currently exists. We are in fact exploring with the industrial tire sector the question of how we might go to a stewardship model similar to ones we have with pesticide management and with the pharmaceutical industry and so on, where industry would become involved with us in a stewardship program enabling us to deal with those off-road and industrial tires. We are looking and talking with industry about how we might deal with that question, but we don't formally have a program as yet, so there is no budget.

M. Coell: Are those tires also subject to the environmental tax that is on road vehicles?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, they are.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have an account of how much money has been raised from those particular tires over the past five years? How much would be raised this year by the tax levy on those tires?

Hon. C. McGregor: We estimate that there are 55,500 such tires with a fee levied on them each year, having an annual impact on revenue collection of $166,500.

M. Coell: Over the past five years, that amounts to a fairly large amount of money. I would encourage the ministry to spend some of that money on solving the problem. At this point, you're seeing tires still buried, for the most part, or burned or trucked out of the province. I would have liked to have seen something in the budget -- even a pilot project -- dealing with the disposal of those tires in a more environmentally sensitive manner.

With regard to batteries, there are a number of programs -- and I think industry has initiated some of those as well -- to deal with the recycling of batteries. Are there any pilot projects, any new projects, this year in the budget that were not there last year?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, there are no new projects for batteries.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister could comment -- and I'd be interested in her thoughts -- on the success of that particular program. Has there been one area of that program that has been more successful in encouraging reuse and recycling rather than disposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's actually a fairly successful program. For the lead-acid batteries, as a result of the work over the last five years, we now have an 84 percent return rate. That's very good, and it keeps a product out of the landfill which otherwise would be very dangerous in a landfill situation. It is a good model that we can actually promote across Canada.

M. Coell: Just one final question with regard to tires and batteries is that. . . . I have noticed, and I'm sure others have, the number of staff, the "bureaucracy," that has happened since the initial levying of those fees. It's quite dramatic. I hope that it doesn't continue to grow as the years go by. I guess what I'm looking at is: how does the ministry plan or manage the program with regard to the bureaucracy? It seems to me that at one point there was more money being spent on staff than there was on recycling projects. I think that was probably the opposite of what the ministry intended. I'd be interested to know what management program there is to address that problem, because I don't see it going away. I see it having slowly increased over the five years.

Hon. C. McGregor: We keep a very close watch on the administration of this program. In fact, the office of the comp-

[ Page 9498 ]

M. Coell: The point I was trying to make is that although the administration of the programs is important, the recycling projects and the recycling of the tires are much more important. What I'm looking for is: is there a management plan and kind of a principle as to how much you'll spend on administering the program and how much you'll actually spend on recycling the tires and reusing them? But I am pleased to see it's 11 cents and not 30 cents.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to assure the member that we actually are engaging in a lot of effort and putting our dollars into the recycling end of the program, in the '97-98 full year, $5.14 million was spent on the recycling and reuse of the product, and only $230,000 of it was then on administration of the program. So clearly it's a very small part of the total amount that's spent on actually engaging in the recycling and handling part of the program as opposed to the administration.

J. Wilson: Earlier this spring there was a ten-point action plan signed off between the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Environment. I'm wondering if the minister could give me an update on what's happened since that time with regard to the ten points -- where they identified certain things that needed to be done.

Hon. C. McGregor: The ten-point action plan on agriculture and the environment was a joint initiative that the Minister of Agriculture and I worked on as a result of some fairly significant concerns the agricultural community had on the impact of environmental regulations on agricultural operations and on the multiple level, quite frankly, of stakeholder consultation that was really being required. The biggest issue in the joint meeting we had together prior to the drafting of this action plan -- the greatest issue -- was the number of times that the agricultural community was required to meet with, say, DFO, Municipal Affairs, Energy and Mines, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and so on. So there was this multiple-level consultation that was going on and on.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

We agreed that one of the key things that had to be done was a single-window process. As a result of that, we've set up a committee. We've already held two meetings, and we have a third meeting scheduled for the end of July. We've agreed on some priorities, the first being the Fish Protection Act and issues related to agriculture around that question, as well as manure management in the Fraser Valley, which is a key environmental concern in the area. We've also developed agricultural ditch guidelines, and those are currently being considered by DFO, which also has regulatory authority on the matter. We intend to continue to work with the committee, so we can meet our goal of October 1998 as having a report to ministers on the kind of progress we've made on these ten points of action.

J. Wilson: Point No. 3 says: "B.C. government staff will prepare a summary of existing environmental regulations and guidelines which affect farmers, for review by the working committee." Has this been done?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

J. Wilson: Now, I assume that some of the things on it were what you mentioned -- the ditches and the fish habitat, this type of thing. Can the minister elaborate on this list of problems perhaps, and tell us what is on that list?

[4:15]

Manure management in the Fraser Valley concerns not only the agricultural community itself but others who live in areas where the water systems can be affected by manure ending up in the water supply. Manure management is a very important issue, particularly as it relates to groundwater management in the Fraser Valley. There are a number of aquifers that have been affected as a result of agricultural runoff, so these are important questions that the community itself wants to address with us -- some of our policies around the covering of manure, when manure can be spread at certain times of year and so on. The agricultural community felt that some of the guidelines were not necessarily receptive to the same cycle that they had in terms of agricultural production, so we agreed that that would be another area to discuss.

I also mentioned the agricultural ditch guidelines. That is largely a case of what the DFO will permit during a fish window. We have guidelines that we've developed, in the Surrey office in particular, that we find work very well from our ministry's perspective. We're trying to convince the DFO that we should apply these guidelines widely and that they should agree that this is the best approach to manage the cleaning and ongoing management of agricultural ditches.

Another issue that was addressed by the agricultural community was problem wildlife -- its effect on agriculture and our policy and practice around that. That's another area for us to address, as well as smoke and open burning -- the questions related to open burning and the impacts that has on the broader community and on agricultural operations. With municipal waste guidelines, there are some impacts on the agricultural community, and they want to be included in consultations ongoing at this time with municipal governments around the new municipal sewage regulation and other waste management questions.

Finally, there's the question of water licensing and how best to manage it. We're looking at some efficiencies on how we can handle water licensing more quickly. Of course, those in the agricultural community are big water users, for irrigation in particular, and they want to make sure they're consulted on any processes we might be considering on how to

[ Page 9499 ]

J. Wilson: Most of the issues that the minister has addressed will affect agriculture in the Fraser Valley. They won't really have a lot of impact, except perhaps under the Water Act. . . . That could certainly apply across the province. But in a lot of cases, these things don't really affect the operations in the interior, in many areas.

When I think about the current situation that beef producers in this province have with the Forest Practices Code and some of the implications that has brought on, I wonder if the minister could tell me if the Forest Practices Code is being considered by this board. If it is, what changes may be contemplated?

Hon. C. McGregor: There already have been fairly widespread consultations as a result of the latest round of changes to the Forest Practices Code. That consultation process is largely complete, although we are still working on what's called the identified wildlife strategy. So that's another opportunity for continuing consultation with the agricultural community. That would be more broadly than just in the Fraser Valley, obviously. In that case, we're dealing with issues with organizations like the fruit growers, the Cattlemen's Association and so on. That's a more broadly based, provincial-level consultation process that is involving the agricultural community.

J. Wilson: Any changes to the code I have been able to follow basically have affected timber harvest and wildlife values. What changes are being worked on that will affect grazing units in the code?

Hon. C. McGregor: I would advise the member to ask the Minister of Forests, who has authority for that question.

J. Wilson: This is a major problem that's been identified by one of the major players in the agriculture industry. We have a committee set up that should be addressing it, and I want to know if the minister is addressing the issue through the committee.

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously, through this process. . . . If MOF has issues related to grazing consultation, they should use this process. We're trying to create a single window through which multiple ministries would bring their issues forward. It's not that I don't believe it's an important question; I think it is a very important question. But, as I said, the Ministry of Forests has the lead on it.

J. Wilson: Has MOF asked to be included? Are they participating in this process at this time?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I pointed out to the member earlier, the priorities that have been identified by this group include the Fish Protection Act, manure management and agricultural ditches, which are not matters which involve the Ministry of Forests. So they aren't currently at the table; but when those issues become priorities for that table, then, obviously, we expect them to be there.

J. Wilson: I would expect the minister to send them an invitation, because it is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and they should be at the table.

Problem wildlife. Where does this stand at present? What is the current policy of the ministry with regard to problem wildlife?

Hon. C. McGregor: One of the issues that we've canvassed at the committee level is the need to really reinstate what was a public wildlife committee that reviewed ministry policy as it related to the agricultural community around the ongoing management of wildlife and policy considerations. That's one of the recommendations that has already come out as a result of initial discussions on this question, and it will include members of the agricultural community on an ongoing basis to meet and discuss those questions.

In terms of what our current policy is around problem or nuisance wildlife, we do, when it's necessary, relocate animals. We can also adjust hunting quotas in order to deal with population growth in particular parts of the province around animals that are managed for hunting and conservation.

J. Wilson: I'd like to look at this relocation problem for a moment. I take it that the minister is referring to bears and cougars in this case. When the ministry has a problem bear, how do they relocate that bear so it will not be a problem to someone somewhere?

Hon. C. McGregor: In terms of bears in particular, generally we do attempt to relocate grizzly bears, because they are a more vulnerable species, and there are fewer in number. We generally don't relocate black bears, because once they become a problem bear -- they are either attached to garbage in some way, or they have an easy agricultural crop -- they'll always come back to it. It's very difficult to move these animals. We've found over the years that we've expended a lot of energy in relocation and the bears have ended up coming back. By and large, we don't relocate black bears any longer; we have to destroy them.

J. Wilson: The minister answered part of the question. But with reference to grizzly bears, how does the ministry relocate a problem bear without it being a problem where they relocate it? Where do they relocate them to?

[4:30]

J. Wilson: I'd like to touch on another problem that we have, and that is dealing with wolves in this province. They not only consume a great quantity of wildlife but they also eat the odd beef, horse and whatever domestic animal that's out there. Since they're the property of the Crown, it's nice to know that they're being taken care of when necessary. So could the minister tell me what their policy is towards wolf control where a problem exists?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are a couple of different strategies that can be used, and it does depend on whether or not a

[ Page 9500 ]

But largely the way we control predation questions related to wolves is to use our hunting regulations and to increase the number of predators that can be taken in a given area -- either wolves, cougars or whatever the animal in question is. If the numbers are rising, and we think there is an opportunity then to deal with the question of predation by increasing the number that can be taken during the hunting season, then we take that approach.

J. Wilson: I don't know if the minister realizes how ridiculous that statement is, but obviously not. I've spent a lifetime in the bush, and the number of wolves I could have shot I could count on probably two fingers. By increasing the quota, you're not doing a thing. We've had some really bad experiences over the last year in my area with problems arising out of wolf kills. The response time is totally inadequate. The ministry staff have a rather lackadaisical attitude as to whether they come out this week or next week to look at a kill and do something about it.

I would like to know if the minister could tell me how many baits have been approved for use in the province for this upcoming year.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not certain what kind of statistics the ministry keeps on those questions, but we will do some research and pass the information on to the member.

J. Wilson: The chief predator control officer of the province, I believe -- there used to be one, and I think there still is -- sets the number of baits each year that can be put out. That's what I would like to find out: how many are approved for the province for the 1998 year?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've indicated to the member already, I will give him that information as soon as it's available.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that. I take it that the information is available, and there won't be a problem in obtaining it.

The other thing I would like to ask the minister is: would she be able to get me the level of 1080 that is now being used for bait in their bait program?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll send you that information as well.

J. Wilson: Thank you. There are other areas of problem wildlife that are having quite an impact on some operations. One of them is. . . . Actually it's not so much the wildlife that has the impact; it's some of the policies of the ministry that have to do with mule deer winter range, woodlots, agricultural land applications and all of these types of things. In the valley corridors there is a very good deer population. They are stable, and actually the numbers are increasing every year. There is a very healthy population. Most of these animals live on the agricultural land that is in production. They graze there all summer, and in the wintertime they come in and eat out of your stockyard.

The ministry, through its wisdom, has basically curtailed a lot of woodlot operations. They've asked the woodlots to expand but to maintain the same cut in order to maintain the mule deer winter range, which is all located in the valley corridors as well. This has affected a number of woodlot operators, and it has affected a lot of people who have actually been trying to apply for agricultural leases and that type of thing. When the application goes in, the Minister of Environment will reference it back and say: "Well, this is in a mule deer winter range so we can't let this land out."

I would like to know whether or not the minister is considering some type of compensation or credit for people who actually feed wildlife and encourage wildlife on their private land. In effect, they're doing a really good job to increase population -- especially mule deer -- on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. There should be something put in place that compensates these people. They don't want money; they want recognition that they're doing something for the wildlife. They like deer. They like to see the numbers increase, and they're not complaining that the deer eat a little bit of hay or grass or whatever. But when it comes to an operation that has to keep operating, they're not given any credit for what happens there. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the problem, and if so whether there's anything being considered along this line.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, there was a meeting with cattlemen in the Williams Lake area where this very question was discussed. While we couldn't agree that there would be any compensation payable, we did agree that there should be a way of dealing with the issue of getting some sort of credit. The public wildlife committee, which I made mention of earlier, is going to deal with this question.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister, through the Chair, for that information, and I'm happy to see that it's being addressed. It's been an ongoing problem for a long time.

Under No. 4 on the ten points here, it says: "B.C. government staff will also prepare a complete list of current environmental issues that impact on agriculture and a clear statement of government's objectives. . . ." I wonder if the minister would be able to supply me with that list when it's completed.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is a draft list that has been prepared, although it's not finalized yet. It includes reference to ministry policies related to clean water and non-point source pollution -- being two examples. It's likely that this list will be ready for the next meeting. We'd certainly be prepared to share that with the member.

J. Wilson: There's another thing here I want to discuss with the minister, and that is the burning of woody debris for agricultural clearing. I'm wondering what the current policy with regards to land-clearing and burning is with the ministry -- for wood, stumps and stuff on land-clearing.

Hon. C. McGregor: They're currently being consulted around potential policy changes that might be considered in the upcoming months.

J. Wilson: So, then, do we have a policy that exists at present? Or is it being changed?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have a currently existing policy on which we're consulting with the agricultural community on potential changes.

J. Wilson: Is the work that was done by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association part of the information that is now being considered for the policy change?

[ Page 9501 ]

[4:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we're happy to make sure that any input on this question by B.C. cattlemen that's been received goes into consideration in the new policy. I'm not familiar with it personally, but I'm sure that staff has been working with the Cattlemen's Association on that question.

J. Wilson: It's some time ago now -- probably six or eight years ago, I guess -- that I worked with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment on developing a set of burning guidelines for agriculture through the. . . . It was for the ministry, like this one is. They spent a whole 18 months developing something that producers could live with or be comfortable with and that would work for them. It was accepted, and within a very short time the initial information was sent out to other ministries. The Ministry of Forests picked it up and then they end-ran it. When you would go for a burning permit, the recommendations that were put into place just didn't show up.

The Ministry of Forests has no obligation to honour any of these, and in the end they're the ones who issue the burning permit, not the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has nothing to do with burning, really, unless there's a problem with air pollution -- this kind of thing. It's the Ministry of Forests that everyone in the industry has to deal with when they go to get a burning permit. I'm wondering if anything has changed since that time with regard to policies that come out. If this ministry puts out a policy on burning that they are satisfied with, is there anything that says the Ministry of Forests will honour that agreement? Or will they simply decide: "Well, this isn't good enough. We don't like it, and we're going to design our own"?

Hon. C. McGregor: The short answer is that the Ministry of Forests has to comply with the regulation in the same way everyone else does. If the member would like a copy of the material that I'm looking at, which has a guide to the open-burning regulation that describes the different categories in the rural, urban and so on, we'd be happy to provide it to him.

J. Wilson: I would love to get a copy of that. So what I hear the minister saying is that if I walk into a Forestry office and I get a burning permit, and if it isn't written out in the way that is described in this brochure, then I have a legitimate beef. If I say to them, "This is not right," they're going to change it. Is that what I hear?

Hon. C. McGregor: If the permit that has been issued does not meet the regulation, then yes, the member would have something to take issue with.

J. Wilson: Just another point of clarification. If, by meeting the regulations. . . ? What happens if it exceeds the regulations? Has that been considered? You have certain standards that must be met, but you can also go much beyond that. Are we looking at minimums or can we exceed minimums?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it might be that there are different conditions during fire season, for instance, so there might be more stringent controls as a result of fire hazards in an area, or there might be some other safety concern. If that's the case, then they would raise the level of requirement prior to a burn being completed.

J. Wilson: Thank you for that information. I think I'm about as clear on it as I'm ever going to be.

I have another issue that I've been dealing with for about two years now, and it's with regard to a land transfer from the Ministry of Lands to the community of Kersley. We've been getting a lot of promises here that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks would purchase a property from B.C. Rail in Kersley and give it to the community for green space. I'm wondering what has derailed this thing at the moment. It's been months now since I've heard anything on it, and the minister promised something would happen way back, early last winter.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to assure the member that we're still working on it. It has not been finalized yet.

J. Wilson: Well, it's nice to know they're still working on it, but could the minister tell me what the status is as of now? Where are we in this transfer?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is a fairly complex matter, and it's probably one best dealt with in a briefing situation. I'd like to offer, if it would suit the member, the opportunity to meet with staff to be updated on the specifics of that negotiation.

J. Wilson: I'd welcome that opportunity. I don't see what the complexity of the issue is in buying a piece of property. It happens every day. People go out and buy property, and the Crown has the same opportunity. But it has dragged on for two years now, and it seems like nothing happened. Perhaps the minister could get me a date, too, on when I could get a briefing with her people.

I have one other small issue I want to canvass. We had a little bit of a land exchange in the Cariboo not too long ago with regard to the Empire Valley Ranch. It's my understanding that the Minister of Environment was pretty well responsible for everything that took place in that land transaction, even as far as putting value on the land and the timber. Could the minister explain how they came up with a value on the ranch property? When it was done? How was it arrived at, and then how did they go about arriving at the exchange on the land that was involved?

Hon. C. McGregor: We engaged independent appraisals from Simons Reid Collins, forest resource consultants, and they gave us timber appraisals of the Fort St. John properties as well as of the Empire Valley Ranch properties.

J. Wilson: When was this conducted?

[ Page 9502 ]

J. Wilson: How did the ministry arrive at a value for the land?

[5:00]

J. Wilson: Could the minister tell me who the appraisers were? What value was placed on the land, not in '96 but in the updated appraisal of '97?

Hon. C. McGregor: We know that one of the appraisers was Wes Umphrey, and there were likely others. We don't have their names with us, but if it's important, we can find out.

J. Wilson: I presume that these were local people from the area who did this -- or where did they work from?

Hon. C. McGregor: The firm is Umphrey Appraisals and Land Management, and apparently they are a provincewide consulting firm. They do appraisals all over the province, not just in particular regions.

J. Wilson: Are they employed mainly by government, or are they independent appraisals?

Hon. C. McGregor: These are independent companies. We can't quantify how much of their work they might get from government.

J. Wilson: What value did they put on the land and buildings on the ranch?

Hon. C. McGregor: The land and buildings were valued at $2.8 million.

J. Wilson: My next question is: what was the volume of timber remaining on the ranch, and what was the value placed on it? And on what date was this done?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were 140,500 cubic metres of merchantable timber over 5,600 hectares of forested land.

J. Wilson: That's the volume. What value per metre did the ministry arrive at, and what was the date of that assessment?

Hon. C. McGregor: The total value is $3.7 million. As I indicated earlier, that assessment was given in January '98.

J. Wilson: The assessment was given in January '98, but I understood the minister to tell me that on the ranch part it was done in March of '97.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct; I'm sorry. The January '98 would have been the Fort St. John lands; you're correct.

J. Wilson: I don't have a calculator with me, but it looks to me like $900,000 was the value placed on the timber on the Empire Valley Ranch in '97. How does that work out -- the cost per cubic metre? Does the minister have that figure?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member repeat the question, please?

J. Wilson: I would like to know what value per cubic metre they've placed on this wood to do this deal.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member can do the math. It's 140,500 cubic metres of coniferous wood, and it was an estimated value of $3.7 million. If the member wants more technical information about how the value was calculated, we'll have to get a staff person who worked on it in to answer those questions.

J. Wilson: I have a few questions, all right. The Minister of Forests. . . . We went through this once already, and the Minister of Forests assured us most explicitly that all of these questions were to be directed to the Minister of Environment -- because the Minister of Forests really didn't know anything about it -- and that they would be more than happy to answer all these questions. I'm sorry if I caught the minister short of staff, but I assumed they would have all of the staff they needed present to deal with this.

Is the value of $3.7 million the value of the timber or the land and timber combined?

Hon. C. McGregor: The $3.7 million is only the timber values that were assessed for this sale and transfer.

While the member might think it's easy for anyone sitting here to be able to answer the technical questions about this deal, I want to advise him otherwise. All we require is a little notice that you want to go into that kind of technical detail, and we can get the staff involved in the details of this exchange here to answer them. We are all prepared to answer in a broad way the questions around Empire Valley: the total values of the timber, the total value of the lands, the dates of the negotiations, and who did the appraisals. We can answer those questions. But if you want to go through the technicalities of how the assessment was done, we have to get the person here who did that. All it requires is notice from the opposition side, and we'll be happy to get whoever needs to be here to answer those questions. It's not a matter of not being able to answer the questions; it's simply a matter of knowing who best to involve in those answers. It's not until we hear the questions from the members opposite that we're aware that there's a need to have someone give a more technical answer to a question that isn't instantly available.

We are not land appraisers here on this side. We are senior people in the ministry who engage professionals who are skilled at doing this work, and we ask them to do the work on our behalf. We put through the checks and balances so that we can answer you -- as we should have to be able to -- about how taxpayers money was spent on those questions and how those appraisals were generally done. But we do not know the technicalities of the calculation. If the member wants those kinds of answers, we'll just have to wait until we can get the person who can answer them here.

M. Coell: Possibly it would be easier. . . . There are two members of the Liberal caucus here who have questions on

[ Page 9503 ]

R. Neufeld: I've come in a little bit late. I think I would probably be a bit more comfortable if, as the minister said, she could bring in the people that would answer the questions later on today. I'll try a couple of questions, and we'll go from there.

Can the minister. . . ? She may have answered some of these questions, so I ask for your forgiveness for not being here. Can the minister tell me the date when her ministry first started dealing with the past owners of the Empire Valley Ranch, and under what circumstances?

Hon. C. McGregor: Vesco Contracting acquired the Empire Valley Ranch in May of '97. The note we have indicates that the province contacted them in June of '97 to enter into negotiations to sell the Empire Valley Ranch. So it was shortly after Vesco took ownership.

[5:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: As far back as February '96, we had verbally indicated an interest in the property.

R. Neufeld: Had the ministry at that time engaged a firm to do any work on evaluating the Empire Valley Ranch for purchase?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me who that firm was?

Hon. C. McGregor: It was completed by Umphrey Appraisals and Land Management.

R. Neufeld: Would that have been done in February 1996 for the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to correct my earlier statement. Apparently the earlier appraisal was done by Arc Appraisals.

R. Neufeld: My records indicate Arc Appraisals from Chilliwack. That was done in February or March of 1996. Is that correct? What was the value that Arc Appraisals placed on the Empire Valley Ranch?

Hon. C. McGregor: Arc Appraisals had provided a value of $1.92 million for the lands and improvements. It didn't include timber values.

R. Neufeld: What was the value of the timber at that time?

Hon. C. McGregor: The timber values were appraised in March of '97 at $3.7 million. This is a question that was canvassed earlier.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me under what premise the ministry tried to purchase the Empire Valley Ranch in 1996? In other words, what dollar figure were you offering the owners -- Otto Heuszner from Germany -- for the Empire Valley Ranch at that time?

Hon. C. McGregor: We never gave a written offer. There were only some verbal discussions. But we were aware that there was an outstanding bid -- I guess that's the best way of putting it -- on the property for $5 million.

R. Neufeld: That $5 million would have been the Vesco offer? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were a lot of different offers going back and forth from different potential purchasers, so we don't know for certain if that was the offer that was actually made by Vesco or by someone else. But we do know that Vesco paid $4.8 million for the property.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me. . . ? I guess I'm a little confused. The Cariboo land use plan recommended the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch in 1995, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. The ministry had the wherewithal to get an estimate on the ranch -- of $1.9 million, and that was in 1996. Not until a full year later did they get a value of the timber on that land, all that time knowing full well that at some point in time the government was going to be pressured into acquiring this ranch. In the minister's own words. . . . I've read her words about the Churn Creek protected area and how important it is, and how important the Empire Valley Ranch is.

I'm really having trouble with why your ministry -- or you, or someone -- dropped the ball. Obviously there was some bad communication, or something went desperately wrong, in 1996 when you took the initiative to value the lands and improvements for $1.9 million. You paid Arc Appraisals from Chilliwack to do that, then left it for a full year before you went out and got any numbers on the value of the timber of the ranch. But by then, it was obviously too late, because in 1997 -- I believe Vesco bought it in May of 1997. . . . Is that when the ministry found out what the timber value was? Is that when they actually did the timber cruise -- after Vesco bought it, or prior to that?

[5:30]

To begin with, the property was marketed as a ranch, and what everyone assumed was being purchased was a ranch. The initial assessment of the land and the improvements on the property didn't include any appraisal of timber values, because it was being marketed as a ranching opportunity, not to be sold to sell off the marketable timber on the land. The original appraisal that was done by the ministry at $1.9 million didn't take into account the timber values, because it wasn't going to be used as a forestry operation. In fact, it was

[ Page 9504 ]

R. Neufeld: I want to go back to the previous owner, then, the fellow from Germany who owned the ranch and who purchased it in 1994 for $2.8 million. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the government of the day, comes along at the end of March 1996, has an appraisal done by Arc Appraisals from Chilliwack and says the place is only worth $1.9 million. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're out a million dollars some place. What in the world went on within the ministry? I'm really dismayed. If this is an example of how the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks purchases property on behalf of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, it's pretty clumsy. In fact. it's a bad job. Would the minister agree with me that this was a botched job from day one? I just can't imagine how an appraiser that you hired would go in a year after it was purchased for just under $3 million and come to you and say it's only worth $1.9 million. I assume that's the bid that the ministry went to the Heuszner estate with. Would it be correct that the ministry's bid was $1.9 million for a ranch that had been purchased two years earlier for $2.8 million?

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member points out, it was sold in '94 for $2.8 million, it was appraised by Arc Appraisals at $1.9 million, and it sold for $5 million. So quite often appraisals do not bear out what the market will pay for properties.

R. Neufeld: I beg to differ a bit with what the minister just said. I think she just confirmed with me that really it was a terrible job done by the ministry -- an absolutely dismal performance by a ministry. We're talking about millions of dollars to acquire a ranch. Your own ministry's communications branch put out how important this ranch was going to be to protect grasslands. For a ministry to miss $4 million worth of standing timber is just unbelievable. How in the world. . . ? Who is Arc Appraisals? What kind of a company is Arc Appraisals? Maybe I'd better ask that. What kind of record did they come to the ministry with? Are they presently doing work for government, or was that their only chance to work for government?

Hon. C. McGregor: As far as we're aware, they're a qualified and quality appraisal firm that is hired by a variety of individuals and government, as well as by private companies in the province. If you would like to allege misperformance of this company, then I think you should suggest that to them, not to us.

R. Neufeld: I'm not alleging misperformance by the company, but I sure am alleging misperformance by your ministry. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's gone on here. It's been a botched-up deal from day one -- an absolutely botched-up deal. What really drives fear in my heart is the rest of the deal that your government has negotiated to buy this ranch with all the timber that you've given away in the Fort St. John area to accommodate the purchase of this ranch, which will run into millions of dollars, and what kind of job your ministry has done on the rest of the deal.

Would it be fair to say, then, that the ministry's first offer to buy the ranch was for the $1.92 million appraisal?

The Chair: Might I just remind both participants to speak through the Chair.

Hon. C. McGregor: There was no formal offer made on the property, as I indicated to the member earlier.

R. Neufeld: Why not?

Hon. C. McGregor: We were in discussion, but we were obviously very far apart. They were interested in a cash sale, and they had an offer of $5 million.

R. Neufeld: They had an offer for the ranch -- I don't recall that -- in February of 1996 for $5 million? I don't think Vesco offered $5 million for the ranch in 1996. They purchased it in 1997.

Hon. C. McGregor: The information we have is that there was an Edmonton buyer at that time who had offered $5 million for the property.

R. Neufeld: Had this firm from Edmonton actually made an offer, that you're aware of, or are you assuming they had made that offer?

Hon. C. McGregor: The vendor identified the purchaser; it was not us that identified the purchaser. It was the vendor who indicated to us that he had an offer of $5 million.

R. Neufeld: At this present time we've gone on past Arc Appraisals and on to when you were dealing on the ranch. Can you tell me what firm the government was using to actually make the deal with the owner of the Empire Valley Ranch? Was there a company involved or an individual or a broker or something that would be doing that work for the government?

Hon. C. McGregor: If we're talking about the time period of February and March of '96, it would have been Frank Edgell, who was the ADM of Crown Lands at that time.

R. Neufeld: That would have been in 1996. Is that person still an employee with the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, he is not.

R. Neufeld: Then, at that time, Frank -- I can't remember his last name -- was dealing with the Heuszner Estate, trying to buy it for $1.92 million. Would that be correct? Someone's shaking their head. What kind of offer was on the table at that time?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I've indicated to the member on several occasions, we did not have an offer. There was a verbal discussion. We knew that there were other bidders involved in

[ Page 9505 ]

R. Neufeld: If there was no formal offer, then obviously I can only assume that the ministry backed away from even discussing purchasing the ranch because of the $5 million figure. Yet the ministry's own documents say that the government should be acquiring the Empire Valley Ranch. What rationale was used at that point in time, if you were ever going to buy the Empire Valley Ranch? What rationale was going on within the ministry to try and figure out what you were going to do to put these grasslands into a protected area?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think generally one has to say that within the ministry we don't say "acquisition at any price." That's part of how we're dealing with goal 2s in other locations around the province. If the member will recall, in the Cariboo land use plan and other land use plans, when we identify goal 2 properties, we don't say that the province will acquire it by tomorrow or that the province will acquire it by the end of next year, because there are many different reasons. Financial capability enters into it, availability of the land for sale and so on, and all of those are factors that have to be considered in an acquisition discussion and in a decision. So in each case, different criteria can and do apply.

R. Neufeld: I take from the minister's comments, then: no acquisition at any price. Yet the price that the government -- or actually the taxpayer -- is paying today much supersedes the $5 million that the successful bidder paid for the ranch in the first place. We know that by your own documentation, by the ministry's own documentation. The costs far exceed $5 million. Can I take it from that, then, that that is the way the Ministry of Environment buys land across the province on a constant basis? They won't go in and bid at what the bids are going at on the day; they'll wait for another year or maybe six months and pay twice, three times, four times as much for the property. Is that the normal course of events for the Ministry of Environment?

[5:45]

But in fact it does vary from situation to situation. If the member wants, we can talk about some of the goal 2 acquisitions and negotiations we're doing in the Vancouver Island area as well. Again, these are questions related to when lands become available and how much cash is involved and whether there are other Crown lands that can be exchanged and so on.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister's saying. I did get a bit off track about other purchases of land by the Ministry of Environment around the province to satisfy a protected area. All I'm saying is that if that's how we're going about the province buying protected areas, it's a darn poor job. The ministry is not doing a very good job, because it had the opportunity to purchase a ranch for $5 million. If the ministry was aware that that's what the bid was, you'd think that at least they would be trying to buy the ranch for that amount of money. Right now, if my memory serves me correctly, you've paid $3.25 million in cash. And timber in the Fort St. John area, discounted. . . . The amounts that were given to me by the ministry of $50 per cubic metre. . . . I'd estimated $60. The Ministry of Forests office in Fort St. John gave me that number; the ministry office here in Victoria gave me $50. So that's another $7.3 million; so you've paid $10.5 million for this land.

Can the minister tell me whether, after seeing those numbers and realizing what's happened just in those two issues -- because there's some other issues that we'll come to after the supper break that are involved in this deal. . . . But for the cash component and the timber component you're already at $10.5 million. Is that a good deal for the province of British Columbia and for the taxpayer?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is incorrect in his numbers. We paid $2.78 million in cash and exchanged $3.7 million in timber values for a total of $6.48 million.

Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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