[ Page 9507 ]

The House recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be considering the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this chamber, I call resumed debate on Motion 50.

Motions on Notice

REINSTATEMENT OF BILL 26 ON ORDER PAPER
(continued)

I'm very cognizant of the fact that this debate is precedent-setting. In fact, if I can use the words of the Premier, it's probably historic. We've heard many previous speakers point out that debate on a motion such as we're debating today is a rare occurrence, and there have been few debates in parliamentary history to discuss the reinstatement of a dropped order. It does appear on those occasions that where there are precedents for debate on dropped orders, they are focused around contentious issues or issues of great public interest and debate.

The government has chosen to characterize the death of Bill 26 as a technicality or a technical error. The government hopes to revive this bill by simply moving a motion -- that motion being Motion 50, which we're debating today. They hope to present the motion and, by a simple majority, bring Bill 26 back from its death throes. As I mentioned before, the government says that it was dropped on a technicality. But as the government is learning, it's not that easy to bring back Bill 26. I think the government has finally realized that the opposition means what it says: we will do everything in our power to stop Bill 26. That means fighting this motion, which the government brought forward to try and reinstate Bill 26. If you'll recall, Bill 26 was being very hotly debated in this chamber.

The official opposition feels that it's not in the best interests of British Columbians or of this province to bring back this bill. It's certainly not in the best interests of the economy and not in the best interests of job creators, and we've certainly heard that in the last week or two. We've seen all kinds of activity around the province in respect to Bill 26. Certainly I see it in my constituency too. You know, the opposition also feels that it's not in the best interests of workers to reinstate Bill 26 in the economic climate that we find B.C. in today. This bill simply should not be brought back.

The government chooses to characterize what happened to Bill 26 as some kind of a technicality or technical error, when we know that it was a strategy that the official opposition decided to use. Here's what really happened. On June 25, at around 11:31 in the morning, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson did something that was very calculated, very deliberate and very opportune for the opposition. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson carried out the strategy, which was well rehearsed, and he was successful in moving adjournment of the House before moving adjournment of the debate. In effect, he killed Bill 26. He picked a time that he thought would be the most opportune. He waited until the time was right; then he sprung the trap. You know what? The strategy worked. He used a procedural tool available to the official opposition, and he succeeded in killing Bill 26. He did it deliberately, he did it decidedly, and it succeeded.

This was not a prank, as some members on the government side like to characterize it. It wasn't a prank; it wasn't a trick; it wasn't a technicality; it wasn't a technical error. It was something that the opposition had discussed. It was something that was thought out very carefully. It was a strategy that it was thought would work, and obviously it has. It's thrown Bill 26 into some kind of limbo out there. This House will decide whether Bill 26 should come back by virtue of this motion we're debating today.

I recall that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, the night before he sprung the trap and succeeded, tried it in the chamber as well. This was just when the debate was coming to a close. He said the magic words, but at that time the government members in the House were more alert. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson was corrected, or moved the right motion in the minds of the government, and we didn't succeed in getting the result we wanted that evening. I was in the chamber that evening, and I recall speaking to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson after he tried the strategy that evening. It's recorded in Hansard. He got up and asked for the House to adjourn before the motion for adjournment of debate was made, but it didn't work. I remember speaking to the member and congratulating him for trying the strategy and lamenting, actually, that it didn't work that evening. Maybe another day, we decided; maybe another day it would work, but "good job." That was really clever. But for the fact that a couple of members on the other side were a little more alert that evening, it didn't work. But do you know what? That day came. Who would have thought that day would come the very next day, the very next morning? Who would have thought that? Who would have thought that but for a ham sandwich, Bill 26 would be alive and kicking today?

[6:45]

If any error was made, it was on the part of the government, not on the part of the opposition. It was on the part of the government, because they failed to do their job. That morning, at 11:31, when the member stood up and moved that the House adjourn before the debate adjourned, whoever was

[ Page 9508 ]

There were only two members sitting on that side of the House. It wasn't just any two members. It wasn't new members of the Legislature like myself, who have only been here a couple of years. It was members who have been here a while. It was members who pride themselves on having years of parliamentary experience with rules and procedures. One of those members. . . . Well, actually, both of those members are ministers of the Crown. One of those members was the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, and he is the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He prides himself, because for years he was in the federal Parliament. I remember when I first came to the House that this member prided himself on standing and rising and speaking to points of order and rules of the House. He knew his stuff; that's what he prided himself on. And he was one of the members sitting in the House that fateful morning.

The other member was the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is no stranger in this House, and in fact ran for the Premier's job. He was the acting Government House Leader at the time, on that fateful morning. The responsibility of this very experienced member of the Legislature -- who has been around a couple of terms and put himself on the line for the Premier's job, so obviously he felt he had the qualifications -- that fateful morning was to pay attention, know the rules, and keep watch over the debate and the House business. That was his responsibility. And you know what? Somehow that all slipped by him, because the member for Kamloops-North Thompson stood up and with those magic words, adjourned the House. Neither of those members over there opposed the motion. They let the motion pass. Seeing as they're two experienced members of the House, you would think that one or the other. . . . They had the chance. One or the other could have called a division; one or the other could have called a quorum; one or the other could have done something to stop that bill from dying. That bill was in its death throes. As soon as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved that motion, that bill was dying.

One of them was obviously paying attention to something else, and the other was looking at the clock and thinking it was lunchtime. He wanted his ham sandwich. At least that was the reason we heard afterwards. Why didn't they pay attention? Why did they agree to let the House adjourn at 11:31 that morning?

I thought it was kind of interesting, because the House usually goes until about ten minutes or five minutes to 12 every morning. That is usually the adjournment time. It was interesting -- I was watching it downstairs, monitoring the debate on my TV -- and the little House was still in session. The little House hadn't risen and reported progress, so all of this was kind of interesting. They weren't paying attention.

Why didn't they take the measures at that time, at that hour, on that day? That's the question. Now, after the fact, they're adamant about seeing passage of this bill. They didn't show interest then, but all of a sudden it's a big emergency. It's urgent, and it's essential that they ensure that their bill doesn't die now.

I've been watching the debate. There've been many speakers before me, but you know what? They've all been opposition members. The House Leader stood up on that side of the House a week or so ago and moved the motion to reinstate the bill. She made some very brief, cursory remarks. There was nothing persuasive in her remarks as to why this bill should come forward and why it was essential or urgent or necessary at this time to bring this bill back. There was nothing in those remarks. But ever since she stood up, not one of those members opposite has stood up to defend this motion and to defend this bill. We've been having a debate -- a very one-sided debate -- on this motion, and I would like to think that I could be persuaded to change my mind. Perhaps if any of those members stood up and gave us some really good arguments, persuaded us to change our minds and to vote for this motion and for this bill to come back, it might happen. It might happen; but then again it might not. You know what? We haven't heard the arguments. We haven't heard any of those members defend this motion, stand up and say why Bill 26 is so important that it should be reinstated. If it is so important, get up and tell us that.

Throughout the debate, I've heard a lot of members from the other side speak from their chairs. I challenge each and every one of them to get up and defend this motion, to get up and defend the bill. Get up and do it. If it's that important, if it's that necessary, if it's that essential, if it's that urgent, get up and do it. But I haven't seen one, and I'm not convinced that it's essential or urgent. In fact, as I mentioned before, I've heard a lot of opposition to Bill 26. Many people I've heard from don't want it back -- a lot of my constituents. The job creators in this province don't want it back. The investors in the province don't want it back. And you know what? I've heard from workers. If they've heard from workers in the province, they should get up and say they've heard from workers in the province and that they want the bill. But they haven't done that. I've heard from workers, and workers have told me that they don't want the bill back. They think their jobs will be threatened if they get the bill back. That's what they've told me.

Is it urgent? I would argue no. There are more urgent issues before this House. We have estimates that aren't complete. Our debates on the ministers' budgets aren't complete. We're into July now, and last week we saw an interim supply bill that came forward. Again you hear, "Not a dime without debate," and this government passed an interim supply bill without debating major, major spending in the Health ministry. That's one-third of the provincial budget, and we haven't had a word of debate on that ministry. I would say that with the state of health care in the province, with all the problems that we've seen raised over the last year, with the kinds of strategies that the government is employing in health care for mental health, for AIDS and for some of the other areas, there are more urgent matters for debate. They have not come forward. Those, I would submit, are more urgent, more essential than this bill, to be debated.

We started on Children and Families estimates, and they seem to have been curbed and put to a back burner because of this kind of debate. I would say that the Children and Families estimates. . . . With all the problems we've heard about for children around the province -- foster families, cuts we heard about today to special needs kids -- there are a lot of urgent matters in that ministry that need to be debated. I would

[ Page 9509 ]

We still haven't seen the Aboriginal Affairs estimates come up. I know that for my constituents, there are some very essential matters that they need to hear discussed with this minister to give them some kind of confidence that this province is going down a route of treaty negotiations that everyone in the province can have confidence in. We haven't seen those debates.

There are many issues other than Bill 26 that catch the interest of British Columbians. There are much more urgent, much more essential issues for debate. But we don't see those coming forward, because this government all of a sudden has decided that Bill 26 is urgent, is essential, that it needs to come forward -- after they let it die, after they didn't stand watch on the debate, after they didn't show great interest. After they failed to do their job, they are now trying to slip it by, slip it in, with a motion and bring it back from its death throes. I think that's wrong.

The bill, as I've said, is contentious. There's opposition in this House to this bill; there's opposition around the province to this bill. People are saying that the government isn't listening anymore. And if you drive to construction sites, hon. Speaker. . . . I'm sure you've seen them in the lower mainland and in other places. I happen to have one right on my building in Kelowna, in my constituency -- a big sign that says: "Save Our Jobs: Stop Bill 26." There is huge opposition to this bill.

But what we've learned over and over again in this province under this government is that government can do anything it wants. It can do anything it wants -- in the famous words of the Minister of Forests. We're seeing that with this motion coming forward in this House in this way. After a bill died on the order paper, we're seeing a government trying to slip a motion through with a simple majority and bring the bill back. That's wrong.

Last year we saw great opposition to another bill that was similar to this: Bill 44. It died on the order paper, and people were celebrating. People are celebrating today that this opposition did their job and got rid of Bill 26. But this government just won't let it go. They just have not learned anything.

Government has many, many options that it could have employed when the bill died on that fateful Tuesday morning. I remember the House Leader standing up on Thursday, when the motion was going to be debated, and saying that the government did have options. They could have talked to the House Leader. The House Leaders could have spoken -- both sides. The Whips on both sides could have spoken. They could have tried to negotiate something so that we could get on with other matters in this House -- some of the essential matters that I've mentioned, like health care, Children and Families, Aboriginal Affairs. But no, he waited. Three or four days over the weekend -- not a word from the government about how we could make this work or if we could reach some kind of agreement where we would send this bill back for consultation and bring it back next session, or work something out. But he said he never heard a word from this government about that.

[7:00]

This is the perfect opportunity. They could reconsider whether indeed it should go by the wayside or if it should go back for consultation or if they should talk to more workers, job creators, investors and business people to see if there is some way that they can make this bill work -- or if it needs to fall off the order paper and stay off forever.

They could send it to committee too. That's another option that they have. There are standing committees in the Legislature, and this bill certainly warrants attention. It's certainly getting attention from all sides of the House, so it could go to a parliamentary committee. Maybe that committee could do the economic impact study that was not done by the Minister of Labour for whatever reason. They could do that. Certainly that committee would have the opportunity, because it would be an all-party committee, to give this bill a really good look. Then you would hear from people all across the province. You'd hear from people from both sides of the House, and we could really decide in a non-partisan way whether this bill is in the best interests of this province.

The opposition has been arguing all along that it is not in the best interests of this province or of the economy or of the workers or of the job creators. Perhaps, if we did take it to committee -- because that's an option that the government does have -- that is something that could be given to the committee to work on. When we've seen committees work in the past, they have certainly done a very good job. They've done excellent jobs. We've seen good reports come out of committee -- not that the government looks at those reports or follows the recommendations of those reports all the time. We know that when committees do look at things, there is an opportunity for a lot of input from around the province, for people to be consulted, for people to give their opinion and for people to give their ideas on whether it's something that's good for B.C. or not good for B.C. Maybe it's not the right timing; maybe it should never come forward. That's what the opposition is saying, and that's why we did what we did. That's why we had a strategy to knock Bill 26 out of the House, out of the chamber, any which way we could. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson was doing his job, and he did a great job of getting rid of this bill. That was a strategy; it was not an error.

When Bill 44 died last year, we knew that the government might bring back in some form what people are now labelling "the son of Bill 44," which is Bill 26. We knew that we had to think of ways to get it off the order paper. We knew that it threatened workers; we knew that it threatened the economy; and we knew that it threatened business. We were absolutely adamant that we were going to fight this bill any which way we could. So that was a strategy that was thought of and successfully employed. It was a strategy that worked. Now the government finds itself in the embarrassing position of having to find some way to resuscitate or revive this bill, and they did it in the form of bringing forward this motion.

[ Page 9510 ]

An Hon. Member: All of the above.

S. Hawkins: Or is it all of the above? It could be all of the above. We know that the government thinks it can do anything it wants. But once in a while, it would be really nice to get their reasons for doing whatever they want. It would be really nice if they stood up -- even if one of them stood up tonight -- and told us why they think it is so essential, so necessary, to bring back this bill. We don't think it's necessary; we don't think it's essential. We think it's harmful. We think that bringing this bill back sends the wrong message to business, to investors, to workers and to people who want to come in and invest in B.C.

I've heard this government brag about how great their Labour Code is and how well it's working. If it's so good, why are they fiddling with it? Why are they messing with it? It doesn't make sense to me, and that's why I would really appreciate if one of them stood up and told us why it was so important to bring back the bill. But they can't do that.

It's dropped off the order paper. It should remain off the order paper. It shouldn't come back. If they want to bring it back next session, that is the choice they have and the choice they should employ.

Why is it so necessary when we're into. . . ? Next week will be the middle of July, and we haven't gotten to some of the more essential debates we should be having in this Legislature -- one of them being on health care, because we have seen incredible horror stories in the last year. It's a third of the government's spending, but not one debate has occurred in the Legislature on health yet. Yet it is absolutely essential and necessary to the government to get this one bill, which is an economy-killing bill, back on the order paper after the opposition killed it. It doesn't make sense to me. Bill 26 is dead and should remain dead. If the government revives it, it will kill our economy. The opposition will do everything in its power to stop it. I will not be supporting this motion, hon. Speaker.

G. Hogg: In my short tenure in this House, this motion has provoked more interest and comment in my riding and more calls to my office than any other matter we have dealt with during this period of time. I have been asked, I have been encouraged and I have been implored to speak to, to look at, to comment on and to discuss these matters with members of my riding and community. They deem it to be my responsibility and my obligation to represent the thoughts and ideas with which they come forward with respect to this.

Hon. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the discussion and debate to date, and I bear heavily upon my mind the concerns that you put forward to us with respect to the parameters of this discussion and the direction we need to go in with respect to relevance, repetition and focus. I recognize that this is a procedural debate; this is a discussion based on Motion 50, the motion to reintroduce Bill 26. It's not a motion nor a debate on the advantages or disadvantages or the merits of the bill which we had been discussing to this point in time -- Bill 26, the vaunted labour bill. The debate is on Motion 50, for Bill 26 to be reinstated in the orders of the day.

What is our role? What is my role? What should we be doing with that? I have looked at the role of the opposition, the role that we should play. I have looked at the context within which this debate is placed and how it came about. I've looked at some tests with respect to the validity -- tests we should be applying to Motion 50 in coming to some conclusions with respect to the direction and focus we should take. I'd like to respond to each of those three categories, if I may. Thank you for your concurrence and agreement and willingness to allow me to do that.

Hon. Speaker, firstly, in looking at the role of the opposition -- and we've heard much discussion of this over the course of this day and certainly over the course of previous discussions -- its role is to place government under a microscope, to look at the nuances, to look at every little intimate detail of the actions that are taking place and to ensure that in our role of opposition, we're holding it up to the test that we put forward, putting forward the best possible and greatest amount of scrutiny with respect to reasonable thought on the actions that are coming forward from the government. To put government to the test and hold their feet to the fire is another example we've heard.

I heard reference earlier today to a comment made by a professor who's written a book on the roles that we look at. He talked about putting it in the context of warfare and said that the role of opposition was to wage perpetual war on government, to search for procedural errors, to process errors and to look at those errors as they might exist in fact. I think those are the ways that we must carry out our job and responsibilities both from a theoretical perspective, as given through academics, and from the very pragmatic, practical perspective, as given to us by members of my riding and, as other members have commented, by members of their ridings as they've come forward to express their issues and concerns.

Within that kind of mental framework or mind-set, I think we have to use our rules, the rules of this House, and play by those rules in order to protect the procedures and traditions -- the tradition of democracy and traditions as they apply in this House -- and the precedents of parliament and the positions we take as a result of those that come forward to us. We're given rules of the House to live by. We're given a little three-ring green binder and a big brown book, which I've struggled to look at and to understand. Within the context of the rules that are given there and within the context of the rulings which you provide us on a daily basis and within the precedent and the history we have to look at that, and the role we play in opposition, I think we must put those together and drop those all into the context.

There's already been reference this evening to the context, to what happened to bring us to this point in time. Firstly, I think the context must go back to ten days ago, to June 25, when the loud, vociferous and exciting member for Kamloops-North Thompson observed that there were. . . .

Hon. Speaker, I see that you're concurring with my every word as I make reference to the most amiable member of the House.

[ Page 9511 ]

An Hon. Member: And toot he will.

G. Hogg: And toot he does, in a very aural sense of the word.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: Tooting his horn was the reference I was making.

Whilst not tooting, he noticed that there were but two members of the government side, so with. . . .

[7:15]

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson whom we've referred to so fondly, with prior forethought and consultation -- I was going to say foresight, but I guess it was forethought, as well -- put forward a motion which if successful, he believed -- based on his research and his understanding -- would result in Bill 26 disappearing into that purgatory that bills sometimes slide into, at least for this session of parliament. With that in mind, he put forward the motion, expecting that to occur. To his surprise and delight, the motion was successful, but not to his surprise and not to his delight, the matter didn't seem to go to that purgatory; it seemed to float away for but a little while and come back.

Hon. Speaker, you and others who have sat in that chair subsequently ruled that the matter could come back before this House, but that the matter was debatable. We certainly honour your thoughts with respect to that and the decision that you've made. I'm sure that as much thought and research went into that decision as it did with the hon. member, prior to bringing forward his portion of that motion. We trust your decision, and we move on from that decision, knowing that it is no longer debatable. But what is debatable is whether or not it should continue to be before us.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: The hon. member from somewhere over to the east and north of me was asking whether or not this was, in fact, what my constituents requested. In fact, I do have. . . .

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Richmond-Steveston. Thank you. I knew it was an important section of this province, as all 75 ridings are.

He interrupts me with joy and joviality and reminds me that these are the issues which the citizens of my riding came forward with. I am trying to accurately and appropriately portray their thoughts, issues and concerns. I know, hon. Speaker, that you're tied to my every word -- as I am the conduit of their information to you -- so that you will be better able to look at this and decide how you might choose to look at this.

That means that only this House can make a decision with respect to whether or not this matter should proceed. Only the appropriately elected members of the 75 ridings of this province can decide whether or not we should be bringing this back before this Legislature -- whether or not the debate on it should continue. That's what we're debating: whether or not the debate should continue. We're having a debate about the debate and whether or not the debate should come back before us and be part of what we're already going to talk about.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: As a matter of fact, who is on first? -- as a member from another part of the province so appropriately asks. She has her pictures of people in front of her, so she is able to talk about that.

Within that beautifully framed context, I turn, then, to the test of whether or not Bill 26 should be. . . .

I note my good friend the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi and Whistler is needing more room.

Some of the criteria that we must look at in determining. . . .

Hon. Speaker, I trust you're not leaving too, are you? I appreciate at least you hanging in here with me for this period of time.

An Hon. Member: We need some stability.

G. Hogg: Stability is what is offered to us by the Speaker's chair.

What is the test of whether or not we should have Bill 26 back before us? What are the criteria that we should be employing? What are the tests we should put to it? Clearly one of those should be the issue of urgency. Is it essential? Is it important that it be before us at this point in time? I think that's one of the criteria that we must look at in terms of making our decision -- casting our vote and representing the people of our ridings -- as to whether or not it should be back before us, and in looking at where we should go with it.

Another is the issue of potential good or potential harm. Is this good public policy? I think we have to look beyond just the motion of this debate in terms of whether it comes before us. We must look at what the impact of that may be. Surely the debate as to whether or not it should come back before us must be based on what in fact is coming back before us. Despite the parameters, the limits you place, we must glance slightly beyond that in order to see what it might bring forth. How else can we, in good conscience, good consciousness and good knowledge, make a judgment with respect to this motion? We must look at the potential good and the potential harm which might be carried within it.

I think we also have to look at the broader rubric, the broader framework of the work that exists before us. What do we have to deal with in this House? If we're going to vote in the affirmative with respect to Motion 50, surely we must say that bringing back Bill 26 is the most important thing for us to be dealing with at this point in time. Why else would the motion be put before us? Why else would we consider dealing with that motion at this point in time?

Fourthly, I think we have to look at the options that are available to us, to this House -- the options that exist within parliamentary practice and procedure. Are there options

[ Page 9512 ]

One of those options is that the matter could be referred to a committee. We could have a full, thorough discussion in committee that would allow us to not be bound by the more rigid structure and debate that is necessary in this House. We would have the opportunity to deal in a more informal way with the issues and concerns that the members of the committee would have about Bill 26. The members of the committee could bring forward the issues of their constituents in a more informal fashion and would be able to have some discussion and dialogue with respect to the impact. That option, I think, is a very positive option which would be well received by members of this House.

Another option would be just to let it remain in purgatory and let it float in purgatory, perhaps forever. There are other options of a banal sort which have been referenced, but I think purgatory is sufficient at this point in time.

We could get to the point of passing it or defeating it. An option. . . .

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I don't think he's paying attention. I'm sorry for interrupting, hon. Speaker.

Another option which I find very appealing is that of community consultations. I think that with respect to this bill, it would be wonderful to leave it in its purgatory while we have the opportunity to go out and make many community consultations -- an option to consult, to have active and appropriate dialogue with all the members of our great province in each of our ridings of this great province; an opportunity to discuss and to look at the impact, the meaning and the value and to look at the positives, the negatives, the pros and the cons of this bill. I think that would be a very appropriate way for us to look at it. Another option that would be available at this point in time would be for the government to select another bill from the order paper and to bring it forward for discussion.

Another option might well be to get an economic impact study while we have this matter in purgatory, a study that could in fact tell some of the information we need to know in order to make a well-informed decision. I don't believe that in our previous discussions with respect to the bill, we had all the information we could or should have had in order to make an appropriate decision. While the debate and comment to this date and point in time have been somewhat limited to this side of the House, the full impact and process of our democratic system has not been brought to bear on this matter, because we have lacked full participation in this debate.

Hon. Speaker, given your ruling that the matter is subject to debate, the government has obviously made a decision to put this before us at this time. They obviously want it back before us, and that's the reason for the decision they've made. However, they've deprived us of their insight and wisdom, their knowledge and their thoughts that will help us to make a determination as to how we should be proceeding with this.

I don't think it is of paramount concern at this point whether we are in this debate as a result of error, as some have suggested, or whether we are in it as a result of strategy. Whether or not we should support Motion 50 is a paramount concern, and the matter does not come before us automatically. It comes before us, hon. Speaker, as a result of a great deal of soul-searching, thought and concern and a great deal of researching of precedent to be brought forward in front of us. This government has not been allowed out of this simply as a procedural error. Because of your insightful ruling that said you could not be forgiven a procedural faux pas, it has become a subject that I'm sure will be debated for a great deal of time to decide whether or not the matter and the bill come totally before us again.

Many references have been made to toolboxes and to options available to persons in opposition. In talking about that very limited toolbox, I have in the past made reference to Maslow's comments on the toolbox and feel it's appropriate to bring those forward again at this time. That paragon of thought, Abraham Maslow, once said that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. I'm sure that while we have very limited tools -- and one might argue that the only tool we had was a hammer -- certainly when the nail was presented before us, it was only appropriate that we swing the one tool we had to see whether or not we could pound the nail into the heart of this piece of legislation. While it has been resuscitated procedurally, it has only been resuscitated to the point at which we can debate whether or not it can continue and proceed.

Because we haven't heard much from the government side with respect to where we should be going with this, we would truly need to have the government play a full role in defending and supporting its position to satisfy the tests of good debate. To allow for the debate to have its full meaning, we need to understand the pros and cons of the issue. We need to understand the reasons in principle. We need to understand the reasons in practice, and we need for the full impact and role of democracy to take place. We need that dialectic to be a part of what we're doing.

I have been taught over the years that there are at least three criteria that an argument must satisfy in order to be a good argument, to not be an argument which would be fallacious in nature. The first test is the test of relevance. That simply means that the premise must be relevant to the conclusion. We can't have premises that are not connected to the conclusion. They have to be relevant and somehow tied to it, so I've looked at relevance with respect to this matter. The second criterion is that of sufficiency. It states simply that the premises must provide sufficient support for the conclusions. On a balance of probabilities, we should look at sufficiency and whether or not they do, through that balance of probabilities, provide support for the conclusions that we arrive at.

The third criterion is that of acceptability. The premise must be acceptable based on rules of logic, on the process by which we come to the conclusion. So that triangle of relevance, sufficiency and acceptability provides at least three criteria, which many have argued should be applied to satisfy the primary tenets of a good argument. When an argument fails to satisfy one or more of those requirements, of those criteria, then it is declared a fallacious argument. We have not heard an argument from the government regarding this motion, save a cursory comment, an introductory comment by the Government House Leader. It was almost a perfunctory statement for the introduction of Motion 50.

[7:30]

[ Page 9513 ]

In order to put together or to construct what I might reasonably conceive as the government's argument for this, I had to go back to the rather cursory comments that I made reference to. They are the only comments with respect to this debate that I have heard, and I would like to just make reference to the ones that I felt were of some value as I struggled to pull some points of value out of this. In reading from those comments, it states that they would ask for us all to consider that in our jobs in this Legislature, the important work we have to do, we sometimes have to look at ways to accommodate various concerns. There has been accommodation and concerns around precedent set in bills in the past, and this has not in fact been sought in this matter. The motion seeks to reinstate the debate on the bill without proper notice to each and every member of the House. That's an admission from the Government House Leader. "It is time now, though, to proceed back to the debate. As you have noted, hon. Speaker, there is ample opportunity for debate on the piece of legislation concerned in this motion."

She also states: "I would also just ask the House to consider that there have been times when the government has sought to accommodate the opposition members' needs. In fact, we have made [concessions to the opposition]. . .when technical errors have placed them in difficulties. I believe that is the way we should be accommodating the business of this House." So the issue is whether or not it becomes simply a technical error or needs to be applied to a more rigorous test.

Finally, she paid heed to the advice. She states: ". . .I assume it was advice -- on how the House of Commons conducts its business in this area. I believe you read that one speaker from the government addresses the motion, one speaker from the opposition and then the question will be put. Certainly that advice is welcomed and heeded by us." That is pretty much the sum total of the information that we've had from the wisdom of the government. I know they have a great deal more information which they could be providing us and which would indeed assist us and support us in coming to our conclusions with respect to how we should be proceeding on this matter.

I feel somewhat deprived and therefore, in lieu of that, had to go off on my own and try and construct -- from standing in their shoes -- what I might see as an appropriate argument. While my review of Hansard, as I've read it to you, supports the fact that the government has not even -- at least, as yet -- had one member address the motion, other than the cursory comments previously made reference to, I will try to put forward some of those arguments in an effort to better understand or grasp where we might be going with this and to assist myself and, hopefully, to assist members of this House in coming to their conclusions.

What might be the arguments for Motion 50? Again, I don't want to apply a different set of criteria than the criteria I might apply to the previous discussions that have taken place. Applying the same criteria I would use in this matter, and certainly using only the information I have at my fingertips and in my hands from the library and anywhere else I might look, I would use those criteria to construct and to analyze the opposite point of view or the opposite position.

Looking back at the criteria we were looking at, if I were in the government's position, what might I say about this issue, this criterion, of urgency? Would I say that probably this is the most urgent debate that can come before us, that Bill 26 is the most important piece of legislation that sits on the order paper, that the Legislature is relevant and important and that this province needs to revive its economy and to support its supporters? Are those the types of arguments that I might employ with respect to urgency were I in favour from the beginning of bringing it forward?

In terms of the issue of the potential for harm or for good, would I say that it is good public policy? Would I say that the cost of construction would not be increased, would not be impacted, should this come forward and be allowed to pass? Would I say that construction jobs would not decrease, that there would be no impact? Would I say that some workers would be able to organize, that the bill is one which has very little impact, is largely technical in nature and has but small changes? I might make those arguments. I might argue that the amount of work before this House and the priority of Bill 26. . . .

I quickly looked at the number of bills that are before us and tried to triage those, to look at them within that framework and in the context of their importance. We have the education bill, which obviously is very crucial and important with respect to the impact it might have on the people of this province. We have the GVTA, the issue of transportation and transit in the GVRD, which is a very important one. We have the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, which is important for the people of this province and has a crucial impact on many people. We have tobacco-related bills. With respect to health, we have the Mental Health Amendment Act. The welfare of many people is clearly affected by that. We haven't even passed our budget. We haven't even completed the budget of the people of this province as yet. We have the Ministry for Children and Families, and there are great concerns with respect to children and children with special needs, which have been well-publicized around this province. We have not yet addressed those. There have been treaty negotiations going on -- important and crucial issues with respect to the long-term welfare of the people of this province. There's a great deal of work before this House, including the passage of the budget for this fiscal year.

The government must argue that Bill 26 is of the highest priority in order to put forward Motion 50 and, in fact, to vote for Motion 50. At this point in time, I don't think it meets that criterion of being at the top of the list.

I see that I'll have to hold back on the other options I talked about, the other options which are available to the government and the things that might come out of that, these other little bits of wisdom, insight and knowledge that would assist you in coming to conclusions, because my time is up. Hon. Speaker, would I be entitled to proceed on just. . . ?

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, hon. member; I think you've come to the end.

[ Page 9514 ]

A. Sanders: My apologies for expunging the member for Surrey-White Rock.

I'd like to start by taking the opportunity to say that I know the member for Delta South is watching tonight. He sits here next to me, and I miss him very much. So my best wishes to that particular member. Also to my children, if I may be allowed the opportunity -- they are probably the youngest people watching the Legislature, and this is the only way they get to see their parent -- goodnight to Jordan and Adrienne.

Interjections.

A. Sanders: You'd better be in bed!

I rise to speak to a very important issue. We're here to explore the scope, the technical merits and the reasons pro and con for Motion 50, the motion to revive Bill 26, to reinstate or to resuscitate a dead bill, a bad bill -- the labour bill. In Motion 50 we're here to make sense from nonsense.

Bill 26 is a highly contentious bill, and Motion 50, which follows in its stead, is a highly contentious motion. On a Thursday morning the member for Kamloops-North Thompson in fact killed Bill 26 on the floor of this House. There are few things that rise from the dead five days after. Nevertheless, on the following Monday, Motion 50 exhumed what should have been a dead bill and attempted to bring it back into this House. That Thursday morning the member for Kamloops-North Thompson deliberately attempted to derail a bad bill, using and working within the rules of parliamentary procedure. He was successful, very much to the joy of many British Columbians. Tonight, with Motion 50, the debate cannot be around procedural decorum -- whether government should be allowed to reinstate the bill or abandon it. In fact, unfortunately, that is where we are with Motion 50. The relevance of that is questionable to many people.

There were only two members of the government present in the chamber to listen to and monitor the debate when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson called for the House to adjourn, and it finished the bill in question. Two cabinet ministers agreed at that time. There were no quorum calls; there were no division calls. The razor-sharp Minister of Labour -- who sits over there -- who was supposed to be vigilant and monitor his precious bill was absent. There was no Premier present to speak vociferously in favour of keeping that bill on the table. At that time, the bill died.

The bill disappeared at that time, sanctioned by the Minister of Agriculture, who sits across from me, and by the Minister of Small Business, who we often call the minister of points of order. In my tenure here that particular minister has never lost the opportunity to rise to his feet and give us his professorial views of the rules and decorum of parliament. Nevertheless, at that time it did not occur. The Labour minister, the champion in charge of this particular bill, the modest minister who was here to purvey a modest labour bill, was not in the chamber. I asked on that Thursday morning where the government Whip was. None of these members -- two of whom fancy themselves as parliamentary pundits, members of exceptional skill and honed parliamentary knowledge -- were here to pick up on the fact that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- maybe he'll be a minister some day -- had in fact deliberately done away with the bill. That was something the opposition had set out to do as part of its legislative agenda in this House for this session.

None of the so-called whip-sharp members from the government side bothered to bring the bill back to this House until five days later. After five days, this government really does not have the automatic right, regardless of Motion 50, to bring back the bill. There is a paucity of precedents in the parliamentary procedures of past governments -- 200 years of parliamentary literature. Even Mr. Churchill, in his Parliament, did not try to do what this minister and this Premier have done with Motion 50. Even at that time, with his extensive and unquestionable knowledge of parliamentary procedure and decorum, he did not attempt to bring back a dropped bill such as this government has done with Motion 50.

You know, hon. Chair, in the twentieth century we've moved a long way towards the division of church and state. The importance of that is to recognize and remember at all times that we in this chamber are not omnipotent.

So we have to look, and the scope of the debate tonight is the pros and the cons of the reinstatement of Motion 50, which would bring Bill 26 back onto the order paper. I'd like to approach, in a very short period of time, what the pros are of reintroducing what is in fact a retreaded Bill 44 in the form of Bill 26. Motion 50 would have us do that.

[7:45]

Another pro, if we're looking at pros and cons for Motion 50, would be that the minister and the Premier had the opportunity to reinstate their pivotal centrepiece, their little universe for this legislative session, which was the labour amendment act. After several years in power in this particular term, it is time to pay back the big unions, time to call in all of the outstanding loans in terms of favours -- monetary favours, personal favours, etc. And there's no question, for anyone in British Columbia, that that is in fact what underlies Motion 50.

Let's spend some time looking at the cons, because the cons are way more important than the pros. In fact, to be fair, I had to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the pros were with respect to allowing Motion 50 to stand. The cons are very straightforward. This government and those members on that side of the House need to be aware that they are not omnipotent, they are not omnipresent, and they certainly are not omniscient. Our job on this side of the House, as opposition, is to oppose all attempts by government to abuse power. Our job is to foil attempts by government to ignore parliamentary precedents. Our job as opposition is to make the government live by the rules that have come from our traditions in parliament. An opposition that does not do this -- that does not hold government to account, that does not follow the historical precedents that are here for our parliamentary system -- has not done its job. This side of the House will make sure that when all is said and done, people know that this opposition has done its job, with a government that's out of control.

[ Page 9515 ]

When I look at Motion 50 and think about what it represents in terms of precedents, I think that this government has lost all of the authority and mandate to do what it is doing. When we look at democracy, it requires an opposition that can use the rules to protect people from government. That is exactly what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson attempted to do on that Thursday morning. He was aware of the rules, he was aware of the small number of instruments we have to hold the government to account, and he used those in the way they were supposed to be used. At that point he legitimately did away with Bill 26. To vote in support of Motion 50 would be to remove yet another historical tool that the opposition has been given to deal with a government of this kind.

Motion 50 will, to many parliaments around the world, signal a government that's close to being out of control. It's a government that's looking at parliamentary process, one that is already designed in favour of government. . . . The parliamentary rules that we follow are designed in favour of government. They are not there to make it impossible to govern. They are there to give a context, a framework, a mandate so that a government that is elected with a majority can in fact do the job that it's been elected to do. There is a very small number of instruments that the opposition has which will allow them to make sure that government does not go overboard. Motion 50 is coming dangerously close, if not a precedent, to doing away with a historical part of what we know is parliamentary procedure.

I think the important thing when we look at what happened on that Thursday, when Bill 26 was completely done in -- at least, we had hoped it was, only to find five days later that Motion 50 was on the table -- is that we used the small number of instruments we have on purpose, deliberately and strategically to stop a contentious, harmful bill from appearing as law in this province. And you know what, hon. Chair? We won. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson, on behalf of us, won. He knew the cards; he knew how to play the game. He had read the rules on the back of the Monopoly box, and he was playing with other people who had the same rules in front of them and were all supposed to know them. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson won, and these people on the other side are poor sports. That's what Motion 50 is about. What's going to happen to oppositions in the future if we allow Motion 50 to pass -- at least, if the opposition does not strenuously oppose it? And oppose it we will.

A third reason not to vote in favour of Motion 50 is that none of the members of government is willing to articulate why we should do otherwise. It is therefore difficult to believe that they could not bring this bill forward to a committee, to another session or drop it. That is in fact where it should be. We have not had one member on the other side of the House -- those who have so strenuously spoken out in favour of Bill 26 -- rise to their feet to give us a single reason why we should vote in favour of Motion 50 and resuscitate the Labour Code amendment act.

In that case, I ask the members on the other side, especially the backbenchers who are kind of left out in the cold in this government and who have to go back to their communities and answer for the actions of this government, even though they really don't have that much say. . . . I'm not even sure how much say this cabinet has. I think there are really only a few people running this province, and I think the cabinet members -- unfortunately for them and maybe unfortunately for us -- are only figureheads within the system. But I ask these members where their moral compass was when they came back from their constituencies after they talked to the people who know that Bill 26 and the revival of that in Motion 50 is bad for B.C. It's bad for our economy; it's bad for our high unemployment rates; it's bad for trying to attract investment to an investment-impoverished province at a time when, in my constituency, welfare is one of the biggest employers. Where are those members? Where is their moral compass when they come into this House and bring in Motion 50 and then don't rise to speak? Their muteness does scare me, and I wonder, really, what they think.

There are many other reasons to oppose Motion 50. I think the most important for me, in terms of my tenure as a member of this House, is to remind government that it can't always have what it wants. The tools in the meagre toolkit of the House, where. . . . Even Mr. Churchill backed down and refused to do what this government, this group of parliamentary pundits, wants to do now: revive a dropped bill, regardless of the fact that there are very few precedents historically in the several hundred years of legislatures that can say that this is in fact something you can do.

It concerns me that we're moving one step closer along the socialist agenda, the agenda that this side of the House would very much like to see for this province -- you know, the socialist way where, when you're government, you rule by fiat. You rule by doing whatever you like, whenever you like and however you like, regardless of what the rules are, regardless of what the history is. We've had a number of precedents in this House this year, and certainly within my tenure in this House, that suggest that's where this government is going. On behalf of my constituents, I will oppose this government that forces its agenda at every opportunity. They are wrong, this side of the House is right, and we will oppose Motion 50 based on that.

The members of the opposition, whether the government likes it or not, represent 61 percent of the population of British Columbia. That side of the House, despite the fact that they are government and have the majority of seats, represents 39 percent. They do not have the legislative mandate to bring Motion 50 to life and thereby bring back the Labour Code amendment act this session.

I think the biggest message is that British Columbia doesn't want their socialist agenda. They should keep it at home -- take it on a summer holiday. If you'd like to bring it back next time, then let's have the time for employees and employers to look at this revised labour act and get a head of steam up so they can oppose it along with the members of the opposition who are here.

Motion 50 is here to debate an urgent matter. As my colleagues before me have said, we are running again on interim supply. This is a government that has such a bad bank account that we are running on interim supply once more. Of all the things that we could be discussing, a dead bill -- a fumbled bill by the A-team -- is not what I think is the best agenda. It is too important to uphold the principles that govern this House. It is too important to uphold the parlia-

[ Page 9516 ]

I really like to be somewhat relevant in the House and to look at what we could do that would make things better for this government, because they do seem to have a very serious problem here. I was thinking that those of us on this side -- the members for Surrey-White Rock, Okanagan West, Saanich North and the Islands, and myself -- could offer a group counselling session for the government. Really, what we could do there is. . . . Instead of looking at the undemocratic ways and the questionable parliamentary procedures that this government has, we could perhaps form some kind of 12-step recovery plan for a group of people who seem to have a problem with an addiction to legislation -- good or bad. I think this side of the House has the expertise that we could offer a 12-step plan for what I call the other side of the House: the legislative anonymous group. What we could do is give you a 12-step plan. Just come over here some day, and we'll offer you the opportunity to really look at this problem seriously and get some help. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and I think that if we just took what's left over on that side of the House, if we just condensed the little crucible of intelligence and wherewithal and brought in a 12-step plan for this government, we could in fact really give them a lot of help. I would just offer them the wisdom of my 12-step plan for their legislative anonymous group.

[8:00]

2. The government has a 39 percent mandate to rule this province. It's not enough to bring in Motion 50.

3. If you don't recall history, you will be condemned to repeat it. Because the rules we follow in this House are the crucible of 200 years of parliamentary process, come on over here and we'll teach you the rules -- and then maybe next time you'll play by the rules.

4. Don't sacrifice the opposition and the few tools they have. When you are in opposition after the next election, it will be important for you to have that rule to use too. I would really like to offer you the opportunity to keep it, so that when you look at your toolkit, you're not one tool short.

5. Separate church and state. You are not divine, you don't have the mandate, and you don't have the right to bring in Motion 50.

6. When you're playing a game, admit you're wrong and admit when you lose. You lost and we won. That should be the end of it.

7. Maintain some integrity, above all else. Motion 50 derails the integrity and the process and the tradition of this House. Get back on board and get that motion off the floor.

8. Remember that death is a natural state. When a bill dies and is dead for five days, don't resuscitate it. It's something I always hold as a rule: if you have been dead for five days, you probably should stay dead.

9. Be honest. The opposition played by the rules, and if you're a good sport -- which is what we teach all of our children -- you'll play by the rules, be honest and admit you lost.

10. Control your urge for useless and dangerous legislation. Please, come and get help. You need it; you desperately need it. Only when you admit you have a problem are you on the first step to recovery.

11. Something this government does terribly: listen. Listen to what people say. Listen to what your constituents say. Listen to what the electorate says. Maybe even read the paper, heaven forbid. Find out what the communities say. Have some consultation. NDP consultation -- the oxymoron of the century. Have some consultation and see if, in fact, you could do it the right way.

No. 12 in the legislative-aholics anonymous club: do what is right and maintain the dignity of this House.

In these times, people question the moral fibre of people who sit in legislative assemblies. In fact, they question the moral fibre and integrity of politicians. It's very sad when you don't like to admit that you're a politician, because no one seems to trust politicians anymore. By getting rid of Motion 50, I think it would give this government the opportunity to demonstrate some integrity, to demonstrate some dignity, to demonstrate the kinds of principles on which they actually make decisions.

You know, ladies and gentlemen, that would be a government that I could believe in. If the people on that side of the House are in fact government, then they should start behaving like one; start doing something to make the image of a politician in British Columbia something that our kids can look up to, something that our families can say, "My mom or dad is a politician, and that's a good thing, because they're making a wonderful, necessary contribution to our province," and not something that people run and hide from. Motion 50 is going to be one of those things in the future that will make people recognize that this government thinks it can do whatever it feels is necessary. And I think that is not where we want to be. That's not where we want to be tonight, that's not where we want to be tomorrow, and it's certainly not where we want to be in the future, when we look back at what we did in this House.

I was interested when many members on both side of this House talked about Mr. Emery Barnes and about the tremendous dignity that Mr. Barnes brought to this Legislative Assembly and the dignity that he brought to politics. They looked back on his career and felt his relevance and wanted to be connected to where Mr. Barnes had come from. I remember reading about Mr. Barnes as Speaker, and I remember him being the Speaker when an NDP government was in power. At that time, the government wanted to thrust through a controversial bill without following the necessary rules of the House: the time allotments and all of the things that we have come to know as our tradition here. Mr. Barnes, being a gentleman and a parliamentarian, said no. He was heckled by the NDP government from which he had come, and at that time, I am sure it was a very, very hard decision for him.

But you know, hon. Chair, that's the kind of gentleman that I want sitting in the Speaker's chair: someone who is willing, no matter what side of government he or she comes from, to look at really controversial circumstances, where government is trying to fulfil its agenda whether it has the mandate or not, whether it follows the rule book or not, whether they have the right or not. This gentleman sat in that chair in this House and told this government: "No can do."

That is the kind of thing we need when we look at Motion 50. We need to do a rehabilitation of the people who inhabit this chamber, especially those on the other side who would

[ Page 9517 ]

This side of the House opposes Motion 50, because it is not good for government, it's not good for the opposition, it's not good for employers and employees, and it's not good for families. It's actually not good for anyone. By supporting Motion 50, we will in fact change the rules of this House to a degree -- perhaps take away some of the very small utensils, implements or devices that the opposition has to hold the government's feet to the fire. I worry about future oppositions and future governments -- that those future governments may perhaps not have the opportunity to be faced by the opposition and to be held to account. So I hope that the members of the government will look at Motion 50 and decide that this is not in the bests interests of all of us in this House. I hope that they will go out and listen to the people of British Columbia, that they will perhaps look at a 12-step plan to improve some of their decision-making, that they will give support to the fact that there are many British Columbians who do not believe that this is. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat for one moment. Member, in regard to your remarks around the former Speaker, if the member is casting aspersions on the present Speaker in comparison, she must withdraw those remarks without any hesitation.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Chair. In fact, if we look at the Hansard record, I don't believe I even mentioned the present Speaker at all. I was talking specifically about Mr. Barnes. I am very much a fan of Mr. Barnes and was looking specifically at his career in the same way that I would look at the career of other former members, either at the provincial or federal level. Any concern that the Speaker may have about comparisons. . . . Unfortunately or fortunately, I was not even considering making those. So if the Speaker in fact felt that this was the case, I do most certainly apologize to her, as I was basically looking with fond memories of Mr. Barnes and my ability to follow him when he sat in the chair years ago in this Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I accept your apologies. If you wish to continue, the red light's on, but I took up about a moment of your time.

An Hon. Member: What's a moment?

A. Sanders: What's a moment in such a short life? Thank you, hon. Chair, for the opportunity for closure.

Very specifically, I vote against Motion 50. It's wrong for it to be here. It's wrong for us to be debating it. I wish the government would withdraw it. But most certainly, on behalf of my constituents, I will strenuously vote against Motion 50 and all it represents in terms of the revival of Bill 26.

K. Whittred: We are here this evening to debate Motion 50. I think it's worthwhile to look at exactly what we are debating. This is in fact a very simple motion: that the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, be reinstated to the orders of the day. The first thing we have to ask is: why are we debating this? This motion would allow the government to reinstate a bill that was part of their agenda but which they allowed to die. I think it is absolutely essential that this House understand that this government allowed that bill to die. It was through their own doing, and I really cannot see any reason why we should allow them to reinstate this bill. I think it is also important for us from the very outset to agree that only the House can give permission to reinstate this bill. This is not something that should be done by any one party. This is something that the House gives permission for. This House will determine whether or not the government gets to go ahead with this legislation -- the legislation the government abandoned when they allowed it to disappear from the order paper last Thursday.

Now, the Speaker said -- I'm reading directly from the Speaker's remarks -- that on a business or procedural motion, the scope of this debate does not extend to permit an examination in detail of the subject matter of the motion, but rather directs itself to the reasons pro and con for reinstatement of the order for adjourned debate on second reading of the bill. An interesting thing, though, is that we have heard no argument for the reinstatement of this bill. The government, which apparently would like this bill to be reinstated and in fact have put this reinstatement motion on the order paper, have failed -- every single one of them, cabinet member and backbencher alike -- to get up and say why this bill should be reinstated. In doing so -- and once again I point out that we are dealing here not with a piece of legislation but with a procedure to put legislation on the table -- the government's unwillingness to debate this is undermining the very authority of this House. By the government's refusal to speak to this motion, they are trivializing the role that each of us was elected to play -- and that is to represent the people of this province.

In view of that, hon. Speaker, I think we have to ask ourselves: does this government, in fact, have the authority to govern? Does this government have the authority to ask that this motion they are unwilling to defend be put back on the order paper? I believe it is their responsibility to defend that motion. It is their responsibility to justify it. If they are unwilling to do so, then they are in fact showing the most extreme arrogance that I can imagine. The silence is deafening.

[8:15]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Why are we even debating this motion? Well, the narrative has been given, of course, several times, for the events of last Tuesday morning. And, of course, over here on this side of the House, we now know that within our little bag of tricks, which we hope to use to defeat the government's bill, is this procedural tool that we have. Much has been said about the toolbox. Much has been said about the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who made the motion that the House do adjourn rather than the motion for the debate to adjourn. Then, of course, there was much scurrying around as the government looked and asked: "What can we do?" They talked about it being just a slip, just a trivial little thing that kind of got in the way of their everyday plans. Of course, it has turned out to be much more than that.

But what is the need? Where is the urgency? If there was such urgency about this bill, I would think that all the members opposite would be rising up to defend the need to get this bill back on the order paper, back on the government's agenda. Yet they're silent. One of the members opposite asks why. They know they have a majority. It's like saying to the people of this province: "Hey! We can do anything we want. Government can do anything it wants. We can do anything

[ Page 9518 ]

This is a government that was asleep at the switch, and it got caught. What an embarrassment to be the government of a province, with all the responsibility that that entails, and to be caught totally asleep so that one of the major planks in your agenda is in danger of going down the tube. What an embarrassment! I mentioned the other night that I kind of call this. . . . The government is looking at this like it's sort of an: "Oops. This is just one of those things that happened." What if this happened in other jurisdictions? What if a surgeon was kind of asleep at the switch while he was taking out your appendix? I would not be very comfortable with that at all. What about, in my old job, if a student. . . . Oops, he slept in and missed the exam. The Minister of Education over there wouldn't say: "Ah, gee, we're going to bring in a motion. . . ." He'd say: "Not a chance. Sorry, kid. You have to do it next year."

There are consequences for behaviour, hon. Speaker, in every endeavour of our lives. When we are caught sleeping, we have to play by the rules. This government got caught. Now they want to break the rules; they want to pretend like those rules weren't there. I made mention the other day, in another address, of an instance where a golfer was disqualified and lost $90,000 -- same thing: he didn't obey the rules, and there were consequences.

But I'd like to get back for a moment and talk about the embarrassment, because I just cannot imagine being on that side of the House and being caught in this untimely lapse. This is a government that believes it has the authority to govern. We've learned, of course, that it can't. It falls asleep.

Some of my colleagues made reference the other evening to a number of precedents that I believe the hon. Speaker and other members looked for, in trying to find historical precedents for this particular situation. They had to go way back to 1884. I think they found another slightly similar ones in 1917 and 1923, the most recent being 1952. What an embarrassment to this government that in the entire Commonwealth of Nations we couldn't find any other instances like this, which means, of course, there were no other governments that were this lackadaisical. There were no other governments that were asleep at the switch. There have been no governments that have been so completely out of touch with the rules of the House and with what they considered their job to be. They were so comfortable, so arrogant in their position that government can do anything it wants, that they forgot the rules.

Going a little further with precedent, not being of legal mind, I'm not really sure about how precedents drive our legal system or our parliamentary procedure. But perhaps we can reflect here for a moment. What are the history books going to write about this incident? Is this now going to become another footnote to Erskine May on page 321, on their little bit about dropped orders? If I were members opposite, I would just be too embarrassed to think about setting that kind of a precedent. I would not want future historians to look and to see where this government was so lackadaisical, so wrapped up in itself that it neglected to pay attention to business -- particularly something as simple as a motion to adjourn, when all it would have taken would have been to call for a division.

I would further like to reflect a little bit on the exact nature of what it was that this government did last week. Now, I'm going to read just a sentence or two here from Erskine May. This is the section, hon. Speaker, that you quoted in your. . .

An Hon. Member: Ruling.

K. Whittred: . . .ruling -- thank you -- to the members. It is from page 321 of the twenty-second edition of Erskine May, and it's entitled "Unexpected Ending of Business and Dropped Orders." It says: "An order under consideration when the House is unexpectedly adjourned," for instance, "owing to a grave disorder becomes a 'dropped order.' " There are two words there that I think we would like to examine. The first is "unexpectedly." Last Thursday the House was unexpectedly adjourned -- I guess, if you listen to the government. It was not unexpectedly adjourned according to opposition benches; it was a well-planned adjournment. So the events of last Thursday do not fit. Again, the government is deafening in their silence. I have not heard one of them speak about this being an unexpected adjournment.

We then go on to the discussion about "grave disorder," and there is a footnote attached to that particular expression. It says: "Or, in earlier days, owing to the unexpected adjournment of the House when lacking a quorum. . . . A number of the instances which follow relate to orders which have been dropped in such circumstances." So what we see here is that there appear to be two reasons that a bill is dropped. One is unexpected adjournment owing to grave disorder. What is grave disorder? Well, I went to Sir Erskine May and tried to determine what grave disorder was. I gather that it is simply a time when the House erupts into chaos. There are all sorts of things going on; it becomes uncontrollable. It is a House out of control, and the Speaker would intervene and recess the House for a period of time. That is not what happened last Thursday. In fact, this House was not in grave disorder at all. So that doesn't fit.

The other reason that is given for dropped orders in Sir Erskine May is quorum. It mentions many, many circumstances. There are all sorts of them listed here: when the House has had a dropped order because a quorum was called. . . . That also was not the circumstance.

What can we surmise from this? Well, we can surmise that in fact, just maybe and very possibly, the events of last Thursday did in fact create a new precedent. What we have is a dropped order that does not appear to fit any of the previous descriptions. It did not come about because of grave disorder. It did not come about because of a lack of quorum or a quorum call. It came about because the government was asleep. Maybe this will be the historic legacy this government will leave: this was the first government in the history of the British Empire to have a dropped order because they fell asleep. I repeat: what an embarrassment! It is no wonder, perhaps, that they won't get up and defend their position.

There were other things that this government could have done rather than to try to reinstate this bill on the order paper. I think that by now we on this side of the House have demonstrated very clearly that, with all the circumstances surrounding it, it is a very arrogant thing to do. It is something that this government probably no longer has the moral authority to do. It would be something that once again demonstrates that this government thinks it can do anything it wants.

So what should this government have done? What could it have done? Obviously the honourable thing -- and what any honourable person would do -- would have been to say: "The bill is dead." They would have congratulated this side of the House. They would have said: "Good shot, you guys. You did your job well." They might have filed that little trick away

[ Page 9519 ]

There are some other things they could have done, I suppose, to save a little bit of face. They probably could have sent the bill to a committee. We have all kinds of committees in this House, which never meet. Perhaps one of them could have been delegated with the task of looking at this bill and coming up with some recommendations. It could have simply been shelved until the next session. There was no great urgency; people were not marching in the streets requesting that this bill be brought in. So there were all sorts of things that I think this government could have done. But first and foremost, they should have done the honourable thing and withdrawn the bill. That is what honourable people would do.

[8:30]

In this House we played the game by the rules, and on that particular field we won. On this occasion, I urge the government to be honourable. Withdraw this bill, and let's have heard the end of it.

D. Symons: I would also like to speak to Motion 50, which is basically the revival of Bill 26, the labour bill. In talking to this particular motion, which may bring the bill back onto the order paper if it succeeds, I suggest that it could be referred to as the phoenix bill. As you remember, the phoenix was something that rose from the ashes. That's indeed what the government, through Motion 50, is attempting to do.

Motion 50 says: "That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of (Bill No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day." I'm speaking against that motion. The first argument -- and I've heard some other people allude to it as well -- that I think is of primary concern is that this particular motion is not in the provincial interest. We have learned from this government that there are things they consider to be in the provincial interest. Indeed, they have mentioned that in regard to another project around the province. I would say that in comparison to the particular act which the government is trying to persuade us is in the provincial interest -- the motion that the government is after -- that project pales in comparison to the effect this particular bill would have on the economy of British Columbia.

Matters of provincial interest appear in this government as matters of precedence, and I think that if that's the case, this should take precedence over everything else at this current time, because this bill is not in the provincial interest. The economy of this province is what is uppermost in the interest of the province at this time, and this bill does not address that issue. The provincial debt is up in the province, which we on this side of the House and the population of British Columbia understand only too well. Also, the credit rating of the province is down, and again, we on this side of the House and the people generally in the province understand that.

Unemployment is up in British Columbia, and the forest industry is down. These are of primary importance to the people in the province, and this motion will not address those particular concerns. Businesses are leaving British Columbia. Businesses leaving are up, while investment is down. These are urgent issues in the province that must be dealt with, and this particular motion does not deal with them. This motion does not address any of those issues. Will reintroducing the bill help the economy? Will it help those issues I alluded to a moment ago? The answer to that is no, quite the opposite.

Investors in the province of British Columbia look for certainty. Investors look at taxes in the province. We have the highest marginal tax rate in Canada, and it is likely to stay that way for a while. We have the corporate capital tax. These are disincentives to investment in British Columbia. These are things that are slowing down the economy of the province, and this motion does not address those issues. Investors also look to the labour laws and the labour in the country in which they're considering investing. We've made major changes in the labour laws in British Columbia, particularly in 1992.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the motion in front of us is Motion 50, and it's about restitution of a bill. It's not about what the bill is involved with. We're talking about the restitution.

D. Symons: I will get on to restitution, indeed, hon. Speaker. I believe that this particular motion, when it comes forward, will indeed bring that bill back, and then we'll be dealing with the problems I've been alluding to. I'm sorry that I've got off onto something I shouldn't have.

I think we have to look at the intent of the government in bringing this motion forward. I think it shows a great determination on the part of the government to reinstate the bill. It will only reinforce in the minds of those investors I was referring to a moment ago that this government has an agenda to continue with changes in labour laws in British Columbia, and that's the wrong message to deliver today. That's one of the reasons I have such a strong objection to the reinstatement of Bill 26 and the passage of Motion 50.

If the economy and the interests of the province are not sufficient reason to defeat this motion, then we could possibly consider another reason why we should not reinstate Bill 26. In a second reading of Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, the Minister of Labour continually reminded us of the changes. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but references to Bill 26 are not part of this debate.

D. Symons: It's difficult, because I think. . . . I'm not challenging the Speaker at all, but you see, what I'm leading up to is the reason I believe we should not pass Motion 50. One of the reasons is that we were told something about that particular bill -- which I won't name by number -- which seems not to be the case if we consider the determination of this government, let alone. . . . I guess we have to look at the lack of speaking to this particular motion, which sort of amazes me. The determination they seem to be bringing to bringing back what they want to bring back. . . . You know, that's what this motion does. But we have a determination on the part of this government to see it through. And yet we don't hear from them.

Really, hon. Speaker, if we're looking at a motion before this House tonight and for a few days prior to this to reinstate

[ Page 9520 ]

Now, if we look at the situation that led up to why we are here tonight, going on to 9 o'clock, discussing whether or not a particular bill should come back on the order paper after it got dropped off the order paper, I think it's important -- and others have alluded to it -- as to why we're discussing at this particular time in the evening. . . . I guess we can go back and rehearse the situation of what occurred on that famous morning here about ten days ago, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson during debate of the bill -- that I'm not supposed to mention and -- that we're trying to reinstate mentioned that there didn't seem to be too many people in the House. He thought that maybe we should adjourn the House. The government from that point on has said: "Well, somehow, you know, it was just a. . . . He misspoke. . . ." or something to that effect.

But indeed that was not the case. As others have mentioned, the Liberal opposition has very few tools in their war chest for dealing with the government in power. This government in power has indicated on numerous occasions that winning the election gives them the power to do anything they want. But in this case, they flubbed it. In this case, when that particular motion to adjourn the House took place, that took off the order paper all the business of that particular day. This particular government did not pick up on that at the time. That is not the fault of the opposition; that's the fault of the government. Now, whether they were asleep at the switch or whether they did not understand the rules of the House is actually immaterial. The fact is that on that particular motion, the order we were dealing with on that day have disappeared off the order paper. In order to bring it back, the government now has brought in this particular motion that's trying to reinstate the bill that dropped off the order paper because of that particular situation that occurred in the House.

We find that the government brags that the existing Labour Code has worked very well. I would argue that this seems to be the case, so I'm not quite sure why they're so eager to bring back a bill that's going to end up changing that.

We found, when that particular order dropped from the order paper, that we looked around, as the Speaker well knows and the Clerks of the House know. . . . They looked around for precedents to find out what to do in a situation where there's a motion to have the House adjourn rather than to adjourn the debate -- what happens then. We find precious few situations in history, I believe, to look at that situation. Looking around for situations where we can find what the situation is, then, they found very few. In particular, I think, as we mentioned before, we have almost a unique situation here. The closest to it, I suspect, was 1952 in England. The Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Churchill, recognized the situation that happened, which was very similar to this -- and it was a contentious piece of legislation. They had been caught somehow in a similar situation of having a motion passed, as our motion had passed here, to adjourn the House. Basically, the next day Mr. Churchill, wise statesman that he was, recognized that they'd been had and admitted the fact and let it go at that -- for the time being, at least. He said: "Well, you know, that's sort of an interesting situation. We have missed it there." At that point, they let it go. I gather that at some later date it might have been brought back again. But this government hasn't done that. It's working in a different way to attempt to reinstate this particular bill. So we have that situation before us.

We have to look, then, carefully -- and I was leading up to this before -- at why the government is so insistent on bringing this particular motion before us to try and reinstate a particular bill. I can only surmise that there can be a couple of reasons why that's the case, one being that the government faces a situation where basically they feel they've been embarrassed. It has very little to do with anything other than attempting to save face.

[8:45]

They feel that because our member, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, managed to see a situation -- we had planned for it; we had looked for it -- where the government seemed to be asleep at the switch or was not caring or whatever the situation might have been. . . . That in itself speaks volumes about their concern about the bills that we're discussing in this Legislature. That we should be able to put that one over on them speaks volumes for their concern and, I think, their respect for the legislation that's being discussed in this chamber.

When that motion passed, even at the moment when it passed, I don't think they really realized what had happened. It wasn't till much later in the day that people began to realize that indeed the Liberals had done something that they hadn't considered and that they weren't ready for. Now they're simply looking for a way of saving face, and that way is to reinstate the bill, to bring it back: "Come hell or high water, we'll force it through, and that will be it."

So, in speaking against Motion 50, I would suggest that there are quite a few options the government could have had, rather than bringing Motion 50 before us. As has been said before, the obvious one is to simply say, "They passed the motion; it's gone," and let it go and do as they did last year with Bill 44. Last year they introduced a bill, a Labour Code amendment bill, and after a situation where they saw that there was quite a bit of public consternation about that particular bill, they didn't carry it forward to completion. Well, now is an excellent chance to follow that example they set last year. It's the same sort of bill; it brings the same public concern about it. So the situation that occurred last year, where we let it die -- why not do it now? They have an excellent opportunity to do that by voting against Motion 50.

The Speaker: Seeing no further members rising to speak, I'm prepared to put the motion.

Motion 50 approved on the following division:

[ Page 9521 ]

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is with regret that I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

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

R. Neufeld: We'll continue with some more questions around the Empire Valley Ranch. The minister indicated earlier, in response to the member from Cariboo, that she may have some other staff here for asking some specific questions.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Okay, that's great.

I want to go on a bit about the areas in Fort St. John. Are they still consistent? Mile 63, Mile 68, Mile 73 and Mile 101 -- are those still the areas that we're talking about in the exchange of timbered lands and Crown land?

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me begin by making sure that I introduce Ken Baker, who has joined us for the Empire Valley discussion. He is the executive director of the Environment and Lands headquarters office. He's here to help with answering questions.

And the answer to your question is yes.

R. Neufeld: There were questions asked of the Ministry of Forests, in regard to the cruises, that were answered and forwarded to me. But I got it afterwards, and some of the information is not here. One of the questions was about the timber on the Empire Valley Ranch. We know who did the cruise, how they did it and when they did it, but we're not sure to what level of accuracy that was done. Can the minister tell me? Just for her information, on the traded lands in the northeast, it says: "Cruise to a standard error of 15 percent." Would that be consistent for the Empire Valley Ranch also?

Hon. C. McGregor: We think that's correct, but we're just checking to confirm.

R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll carry on then. The land in the northeast. . . . Actually, I should stay with Empire Valley Ranch first. Is there information that can be given to me to show how the government determined the value of the timber on Empire Valley Ranch? I ask that question because I understand that what timber is left on the Empire Valley Ranch is of very poor quality. It is not really good timber on the Empire Valley Ranch. How were those numbers arrived at? The minister has stated that it is an exchange for timber from the northeast to the Empire Valley Ranch. Well, I know that the quality of the timber coming out of Fort St. John is very high. Some very large trees, old-growth trees, out of the Fort St. John area are of very high value. Can the minister tell me how they arrived at what the value of the timber was on the Empire Valley Ranch?

[6:45]

R. Neufeld: No, I haven't received any of the evaluation of the timber on either the Empire Valley Ranch or anything in the northeast. The ministry has not responded, to date, to any of my requests for any of the information, which I made back in December and in January. We are still waiting for that. In fact, I just signed off another sheet today to pay another $500 for freedom of information to acquire some more records that we've requested. The Ministry of Environment has not supplied this member with anything. That's why I'm here asking the questions. If the minister has a lot of information that she can give me so I can peruse it, I can then come back and ask some questions about it. But it seems strange to me that I have not received it as of this date. Maybe I'll just wait until the minister responds.

[ Page 9522 ]

R. Neufeld: I check my in basket regularly. I haven't received any information, and in fact, as I put on the record, I just signed another $400 or $500 bill from FOI to complete gathering the information. It's been a little difficult, at best, to get any information in regard to the Empire Valley Ranch deal. If the minister says that there is some information forthcoming, I'll carry on. I'm going to ask some questions on the traded lands in the northeast.

I want to deal with. . . . Can we confirm, first, the volumes and the areas that are in question? Mile 73 -- the King Ranch -- represents 56,000 cubic metres of the 146,000. That's the only piece of land, as I understand, that was not cruised. Can the minister tell me why that timber was not cruised?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're recollecting again the many permutations that went on as a result of this acquisition. There were some concerns raised by members of the community around the wildlife values of a particular piece. So we went through the trouble of identifying an alternate location, which was adjacent to the King Ranch. As a result of it not being part of the originally identified package, there wasn't the same kind of evaluation done on that piece. But we did use the information that was given to us by MOF.

R. Neufeld: So the King Ranch is actually the one that's in the deal -- the estimated 56,000 cubic metres -- and that is the piece of land that will be deeded to Vesco. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: The piece is adjacent to the King Ranch. Yes, that is the piece that Vesco will continue to retain.

R. Neufeld: That piece of land that's adjacent -- was it cruised? Obviously that piece of land should be in the neighbourhood of 460 hectares. What is the value of the land itself without the timber?

Hon. C. McGregor: The inventory for the timber values on the property adjacent to the King Ranch was based on an inventory done by MOF. It was not a timber cruise. Because it was a parcel that was added into the negotiations later, we relied on their inventory information. The value of the land without the timber would vary between $50 and $100 an acre.

R. Neufeld: Part of the agreement was that there would be no harvesting of deciduous wood. That has actually taken place. Where I come from, there's a value to that wood, especially that close to town. Can the minister tell me how the ministry is dealing with the approximately 5,000 cubic metres that has been logged so far?

Hon. C. McGregor: As far as we're aware, Vesco has lived up to their agreement regarding the taking of deciduous wood. The small amount that has been taken has been taken in order to create road access as well as landing sites for the timber.

R. Neufeld: Has that been valued into the deal, or is the 5,000 cubic metres of deciduous wood free, gratis to Vesco?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to check on that information.

R. Neufeld: The next question is in regard to the silviculture obligations and the deal made that -- from the information I received from the minister -- Vesco is going to put $200,000 into a reforestation fund and the province $100,000. Has that taken place? Has Vesco actually put their money into escrow? Where is it? How do you account for the $200,000?

Hon. C. McGregor: The money is in trust with our solicitor.

R. Neufeld: So it's in trust with a solicitor at the present time. Is it the intent that that is where it's going to stay, or is that going to go into a trust fund where it will actually gather some interest at some point in time?

Hon. C. McGregor: As soon as the agreement is finalized with Vesco, it will all go into the trust fund and then be paid out of that fund.

R. Neufeld: As soon as the agreement is finalized with Vesco? Is the deal not finalized with Vesco? That was six or eight months ago.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, as I understand it, the agreement for sale is completed. But this is a separate part of the agreement, and it's not totally finalized. It takes time -- talking to lawyers. That's the only answer I can give you.

R. Neufeld: Well, given the record of the whole deal from day one and back to a number of years ago, it's no wonder that the deal's not completed and they've been logging for the last six months. It shouldn't surprise me in any way, shape or form, I guess.

During discussions in the northeast, did the ministry have discussions with the Blueberry River band and with the Halfway River band on any exchange of timber or land or dollars in any way, shape or form with regards to the Empire Valley Ranch deal?

Hon. C. McGregor: I would ask the member to repeat his question.

R. Neufeld: Has the ministry made any deals for land or cash or future priorities with either the Halfway River band or the Blueberry River band in relationship to the Empire Valley Ranch deal in the exchange of lands and timber in the northeast? Is there anything tied to either of those bands or any of the bands in the Fort St. John area in regard to this issue? If so, what are they?

Hon. C. McGregor: The only agreements that were contingent on or built into the agreement with Vesco, as a result of consultation with those bands, was the agreement not to use herbicides. As well, the reforestation parts of the agreement were as a result of concerns that they had, as was the question of not harvesting deciduous trees.

R. Neufeld: Now that the Empire Valley Ranch land is exchanged to the Crown, and it's Crown land, how does Delgamuukw apply to that Crown land? Do the people of the province actually own the Empire Valley Ranch, or is there something that's going to take place now, by which the land may become available for treaty negotiations? Is that intended to be done?

Hon. C. McGregor: The province, on behalf of all British Columbians, owns all provincial parks. That is not to say,

[ Page 9523 ]

R. Neufeld: So what the minister is telling me is that the Empire Valley Ranch is totally under negotiation with the local Indian bands for treaty negotiations. Is that correct?

[7:00]

R. Neufeld: Fair enough. I will take those questions to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

On February 10, I wrote a letter to the minister requesting a fair amount of information in regard to the exchange of the lands in the northeast. One of the remarks the minister made on the radio during discussions about this issue was that there would be a strict set of rules and guidelines drawn up, which Vesco Contracting and its subsidiaries would have to abide by during logging of the traded lands. I asked for a copy of that agreement or directive. I asked who is actually going to enforce it. To date, I haven't received any of that information -- that being just one item in this letter, and we'll go through them all.

Was there ever a set of rules and guidelines made up, as the minister on CBC Radio promised the people of the northeast, that Vesco Contracting would have to live up to while they were cutting timber on what was going to be private land? That was a commitment made by the Minister of Environment. I remember it very clearly, and I'm sure she does. If there is an agreement, why is it so hard to get a copy of it? I've asked staff in the minister's office in Fort St. John; I've asked staff in the Ministry of Forests office in Fort St. John. Nobody seems to know of any kind of document such as this. So could the minister tell me where it's at and why it has taken so long for me to get a copy of it?

Hon. C. McGregor: I have a copy of the letter that the member wrote on February 10, and I actually have staff notes written on the side of it that indicate that the first seven items had been forwarded to the member as per his request, with an attached letter saying that for item 8 it had been determined that section 12 may apply to a number of the records and it would be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for review and sign-off. So I don't know why you haven't received material for all those other points. It's clear from the information I've been given that you were to have received that material. I can't explain why that hasn't happened, because the information I have is that it has been provided.

Nonetheless, I will try and attempt to answer some of those questions. In terms of the rules and guidelines on how to remove the timber from the land, I'm given to understand that it was not written -- that it was, in fact, verbal -- and that the district manager of MOF in the region has been supervising Vesco's operation and is satisfied that they are meeting all of the limitations that were discussed publicly and privately with Vesco.

R. Neufeld: Well, it's unfortunate, I guess, that the minister told the people in the northeast there would be written guidelines that Vesco would have to follow but that, actually, as it comes out at the end of the deal, there are no written guidelines -- it's verbal. I can't imagine a forest company in the northeast or anywhere in the province that wouldn't love a deal like that -- just have a little verbal one with the local manager of Forests to deal with logging 146,000 cubic metres of timber on a botched-up deal like this. It's absolutely amazing to me that we would have that kind of incompetence coming out of the ministry. It was commitments made by the minister. She knew how people in the northeast felt after there was absolutely no consultation with a soul in Fort St. John, other than two Indian bands, as to what was going to take place. Then she made the comments. . . . She knew how people in the northeast felt about seeing 146,000 cubic metres of the best timber within 15 miles of Fort St. John go to fuel the mills in Prince George -- not even get cut in Fort St. John. She made that commitment on the radio. Six months later, I have to wait until estimates to draw out of the minister that there were no written rules; it was verbal.

I just can't believe it, but for some reason someone in your ministry is withholding this information. I'll go back and check with my staff and make sure it is not in our office someplace. But I can tell the minister that the last discussions I had with the Ministry of Forests were that, yes, the Ministry of Environment was dealing with the first seven items and they weren't forthcoming yet, and for the eighth item, I had to just sign another FOI okay for another $400 or $500 to get that information. It's absolutely amazing that we have to go through this process as MLAs, as representatives of people in the northeast, to get this information back to them.

I've told the minister and I'll tell her again -- I'll put it on the record -- that I think the people in the northeast would have been a lot more forthcoming if the minister would just have come to the northeast and said: "This is what we plan on doing, and these are the reasons why we're going to do it." The minister knows full well that the people in the northeast of the province just okayed, with great controversy, the Northern Rockies, the largest protected area and park in British Columbia. That was controversial, yet people sat down and discussed and talked about the Northern Rockies at great length -- everyone from environmentalists to resource removers -- and they came to a conclusion that, yes, this would be good for the province of British Columbia.

But when we come to a lousy exchange of land in the Cariboo for timber in the northeast, everything's secret, everything's held back. The minister wouldn't even come to Fort St. John to explain to the people after they found out by an anonymous phone call to this member that this kind of thing was even taking place. The ministry didn't even have the wherewithal to contact the local governments who are responsible for that land and for a whole bunch of things in that area. It didn't have the ability to even talk to the cattlemen of the area who were going to be affected. The Blueberry forest reserve that was on a lot of that land -- we just glossed over it because we had to purchase the Empire Valley Ranch.

As I said to the minister to start with, I will go back and see whether these items have been given to me in this thick packet of information. To my knowledge, they haven't been. As I said in the last discussion I had over this issue, I have not received one iota of this information; but I think it cost well over a thousand dollars to get the first bunch of information through FOI from your ministry and another $400 or $500 from the Ministry of Forests. To date, I haven't received it. It's interesting that it coincides with estimates -- the Ministry of Forests estimates and your estimates, which are just about complete.

[ Page 9524 ]

The minister wrote a letter to the Fort St. John Alaska Highway Daily News, stating that over the last few years we've negotiated 28 exchanges, including eight region-to-region exchanges. I hope that those 28 exchanges were done on a more professional basis than what took place with this one. I hope that's what's happened. I know we can't go back and change the past, but I hope that in the future, if we're going to go around and start buying more parkland, the Ministry of Environment maybe shouldn't be involved. Maybe it should be someone else that's involved that can get the job done and be forthright with the people and tell them what they're trying to do.

Actually, the people in Fort St. John, I can tell you, would probably have gone along with what the minister did to acquire that ranchland. They probably would have done that. They're ordinary folks who just like to be told what's going on. They don't like to have government come in and all of a sudden take a whole bunch of timber out from underneath them that's very close to town -- especially when the people who had those forest blocks as woodlots couldn't make ends meet because of the high stumpage cost, because of the price that this minister's government requested for that timber. They couldn't make ends meet, and they returned it to the Crown. Then you give it away, in exchange, to Vesco, who comes in and logs it. It's no wonder there's a bit of animosity over this issue in the northeast.

I will, as I said, go back. I will check, and I will do it tonight. If I do not have the thick copy that you talk about, I'll be back in your estimates to ask you when I can actually have my copy that you say has been sent to me.

Hon. C. McGregor: There's a bit of revisionist history going on with the member opposite. I will remind him about how some of his statements simply aren't true. Yes, there were a variety of assurances given to the people of the northeast, and yes, we've lived up to the commitments that we made to the people of the northeast.

You know, hon. Chair, when we talk about the animosity that northerners have toward British Columbia because we engaged in a land exchange that would promote certain conservation values in the Cariboo area, it's interesting that we don't expect the same level of animosity from the rest of British Columbians, who have, to the tune of $2.4 million, invested in northern British Columbia and the Northern Rockies protected areas. It isn't simply a matter of putting a cash value on what we're doing in the way of protecting our biodiversity in this great, beautiful province of ours. It's a matter of ensuring representative ecosystems in your part of the woods -- through you, hon. Chair, to the member -- your region of the province, as much as it is ensured in any other region of the province.

I think that we need to be reminded of the reasons why we engaged in this important land acquisition. It wasn't simply a matter of being able to come up with a cash price for this land; it was a matter of the province being in the position -- as a result of a variety of financial downsizing across government -- that we simply did not have, in our hands, the amount of cash that the European owners were demanding in order to make a sale.

The member is imputing a lot of motives to the staff, and at this point in time I would like to put it on the record that the staff in the Crown lands branch who worked on this exchange did so with the public interest in mind. They ensured, in fact, that there were independent appraisals done prior to making commitments with Crown resources, including cash and timber exchanges. We have to take those steps, as an agency representing the public interest. To do otherwise would be to abrogate our responsibility as a ministry, and I wouldn't support staff were they to take those steps.

Yes, this was a long and complex deal, and it took some considerable time for us to be able to put the resources together. It had to be, in our case, an opportunity to engage in discussion with FRBC about how to accrue some cash for the acquisition and, as well, to work with the Ministry of Forests in looking for timberland to exchange. We worked very hard to address the concerns of northern British Columbians -- including first nations, who we had a legal obligation to consult with, as well as other folks in the region.

[7:15]

Clearly, private-land acquisition has to be done privately. But that is not to say that we didn't take into account all of the issues that the member raises, including the wildlife values, including the time of year in which the logging would take place, and finally, and not the least of this deal, including the economic benefits that accrued to the region -- in particular, for those individuals who were engaged in logging activity and were employed as a result of this agreement. That accrued to northern British Columbians.

Not only did we protect a valuable piece of rare ecosystem in the Cariboo, not only did we invest in northern British Columbia extensively through the Northern Rockies agreement with extensive cash and other resources to go into a management committee that is consistent with what northern British Columbians want, but we also ensured that the economic benefit from that logging activity would accrue to the community. So, hon. Chair, it's simply not the case to suggest that this was a bungled deal. It wasn't bungled at all. In fact, we as a province acquired a valuable ecological benefit. Northerners acquired economic benefit as well. There was a cost to the province, yes, through timber exchange and through cash with FRBC. But nonetheless, I think it's a value that British Columbians want to invest in, not just for now but for future generations.

J. Wilson: The minister has brought in some more staff. I had some questions before we rose earlier, and she was unable to answer them at that time. It looks to me as if the ministry

[ Page 9525 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, indeed. What we did was a value-for-value exchange between the two regions.

J. Wilson: Well, if they put a value of $3.7 million or whatever it was on the timber in Empire Valley, that works out to about $27 a cubic metre on that wood. It could be accurate; I have no way of knowing because I haven't received any information as to how the wood was assessed and whether it went through the regular channels that would happen with a piece of Crown timber -- where you add in logging costs, transportation costs and all the rest of it, then the type of terrain and all those factors -- or whether it was just the market value of the wood that they would have received for it, where it landed in town and in the mill yard. How did they come about putting a value of $27 a metre on the wood in the south Cariboo?

Hon. C. McGregor: The valuation is based on a discounted cash flow, assuming three years to harvest the timber, and an after-tax basis.

J. Wilson: Okay, there's the after-tax basis, I assume. They're assuming they've taken the cost of logging, and then they've. . . . This doesn't make sense, how you would come up with a figure on an after-tax basis, because it's a private deal. The minister would have absolutely no way of knowing what the net result would be on that.

But anyway, it works out to roughly $27 a cubic metre. The value of the timber out there is, we know. . . . Some of it is not that great. It's mostly fir, and the quality, in many cases, is not good -- it's not straight, it's not tall, and it's mostly on hillsides -- whereas the value of the wood it was exchanged for was much greater. Did the ministry do any cost analysis or put a value on the wood that was in the Fort St. John area, other than just to exchange it metre for metre for this wood on Empire Valley?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I believe I've answered the member's question several times on this point. The assessment was done by an independent appraisal. There are certain industry standards that are used to achieve that; the member likely knows what they are. I do not. If you want me to spell it out for you, then I will get staff to write it all down on a list, and I'll stand up and read it into the record. Quite frankly, it's a waste of time. We've canvassed this question. It was done with an independent appraisal.

J. Wilson: I would be more than appreciative if the minister would read into the record what windfall ended up in the. . . . Talk about economic development for the north. It's one company and a few individuals who ended up with a windfall here. The average stumpage on woodlots in that area is something like $60 a metre, which is a far cry from the $27 a metre that they traded the wood for. If you calculate it out at that, instead of that wood being worth $3.7 million -- or whatever the exact amount was -- you go to an area where the cost of logging is going to be way less than it would have been in Empire Valley and the value of the wood is much higher. If the minimum you're going to come up with is $60 -- that's just stumpage now -- it adds up to, roughly, an extra $4 million that this wood is worth, due to the nature of this trade. Whose loss is it? It's the province's and the taxpayers'.

We can talk all we want about protecting the grasslands and the biodiversity out there. Had it not been for the ranching industry, they wouldn't have been protected for nearly as long as they have been. It's been an area that has been maintained by agriculture for many, many years. Now that the province owns it, I have a little bit of reservation as to how it's going to be protected. I've watched this government protect our health care and our education, and I've watched them balance budgets, and now they're going to protect a piece of grassland. I don't think they have a clue what they're doing here, hon. Chair.

But now, since I own a piece of the Empire Valley Ranch, I would like to know whether people have now got access to this protected area or whether it is restricted to public access. What is the scenario that exists now with regard to going out there and enjoying this goal 2 protected area? Can we hunt in it? Can we drive around on the alfalfa fields and maybe look for a sheep? What is the situation as it exists now?

Hon. C. McGregor: The province appointed Dr. Michael Pitt to recommend options to us for range management of the area. Dr. Pitt has completed his draft report. It is being widely circulated within the Cariboo for input and feedback from first nations, local government and other stakeholders in the area. The member is certainly welcome to get a copy and respond to it as well. Both the Minister of Forests and I have not made an official response to it, because we want the opportunity to talk broadly with the community about how to go ahead with the management question. There are, of course, certain parameters under which all of the management will be managed, and it must be consistent with the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, the core process.

There were a variety of values and issues contained in that related to Empire Valley and the ranching values in the community, including the maintenance of cattle ranching on the site, grazing opportunities and hay production -- and not including the issues related to hunting opportunities that already exist and how they will be maintained and so on. Part of the process we go through when we create a protected area is that we work with the community and make sure that the decisions we're making related to management are consistent with the values that were represented at the land use planning table.

We're broadly guided by the Cariboo land use plan. We're also broadly guided by the views and values of the people in the community, which is why we engaged Dr. Pitt and asked him to make recommendations on how to manage that land over the long term. There are a variety of recommendations related to the number of cattle that should be in that area and how that can be improved and increased over time, as well as to the existing hay operations and new opportunities for ecotourism and so on. There may well be new restrictions placed on things like ATV use within the area, given some of the destruction of the sensitive grasslands that has gone on in the past. Nonetheless, this will be developed as a result of consensus in the community and working through the options that Dr. Pitt is recommending and that the community also may wish to put on the table, around the management of this area.

J. Wilson: My understanding from all of this is that we're sort of in limbo in this area, in an effort to protect all the values and allow access to certain ones. We have no plan in place at the moment other than that it's up for review and public input. Is this what I hear -- the public does not have access to that area at present? Come fall, when hunting season opens, is there going to be or not going to be access there?

[ Page 9526 ]

The management plan that's in place. . . . There's currently an interim agreement for managing the resource -- the ranch -- with a local aboriginal band, whose name escapes me at the moment. There are others: the Alkali and Canoe Creek bands are engaged in interim management of the haying operation in particular. There are grazing opportunities that currently exist with. . . . The J and J Ranch is engaged in ongoing grazing activity. So it's not still; the pre-existing activity that was in the area continues. There is an interim plan in place. There is a proposal for a longer-term plan, through Dr. Pitt's recommendations. There's pre-existing Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. So clearly there's been a lot of work done on this question. It is not without opportunities or goals that have been set by the community on how to best manage it.

J. Wilson: I take it that the management of the hayfields was put up for bid and then tendered out to the Alkali and the Canoe Creek bands.

Hon. C. McGregor: It was a competitive bid. There was a consortium of individuals and groups that came together and were the successful proponent.

[7:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: All of the existing accesses remain open. So the public who want to go in there can in fact go in there. The activity that currently is related to ranching and hay production is authorized by park use permits. That's how, once an area has been protected, those kinds of activities are to continue.

J. Wilson: What I understand the minister to say is that these two bands, which have taken on the job of managing the hay production there, now have absolutely no security as to what happens with the land in question because anyone could go and set up a tent in the middle of an irrigated hayfield and nothing would be done about it. This does not make sense to me; but if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. It sounds about right for some things that get done.

Anyway, I believe someone else is waiting.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just on the member's last questions, there are no facilities available for people to camp at Churn Creek. I guess it's like any other piece of Crown land. If somebody decides they're going to pitch a tent in the middle of Crown land, they can do that. We don't have a prohibition against that. Obviously, people take risks when they do that -- and there are no facilities, there's no maintenance and there's no supervision. This is not a park camping area at this point in time. My experience with the public, broadly, is that if they do -- and in fact, there are likely to be people with a lot of interest in grassland ecosystems and the opportunity to view wildlife, birds and so on -- they do that very carefully and cautiously and without destroying the landscape; nor do they set up tents in the middle of hayfields.

J. Weisgerber: Before I get into the topic I really want to get engaged in. . . . While listening to the member and the minister's responses, my curiosity was piqued by a comment from the minister with respect to the $2.4 million, I believe she said, being invested by British Columbians in the northern Rockies. I think the minister's words were "an extensive investment in northeastern British Columbia." Could the minister expand on that a little and tell us how that $2.4 million is going to be spent, over what period of time, and where the money is expected to be spent?

Hon. C. McGregor: No doubt there'll be an opportunity to canvass this more broadly during debate on the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, which was tabled in the House a couple of weeks ago. But broadly, to answer the member's question, the idea is that there will be up to $2.4 million annual spending allocated to the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board. Its membership was announced at the time we introduced the legislation. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been named as the chair of that, with the vice-chair being Ross Peck, a guide-outfitter from the northern British Columbia area who the member may be familiar with; as well, there are a number of other local and regional government representatives, conservationists, members from the oil and gas sector, and so on. The idea is to broadly represent the stakeholder interests in northeastern British Columbia at this management committee level.

The $2 million annual appropriation to that committee will be managed by that committee. They will engage in a lot of pre-tenure planning relating to oil and gas; planning around commercial recreation, access and activity; wildlife management planning; eco-tourism opportunities. . . . There's a whole list that I could probably provide to you, hon. member, around the management planning functions that this committee will have. They will use this $2 million to assist in planning and in inventory work in some cases, or whatever is necessary to be able to deliver on those commitments that are consistent with the northeastern British Columbia land use planning process -- the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson LRMP processes. The member may well be quite familiar with many of the issues raised as a result of that ongoing planning and the need to really manage a special management area for resource extraction as well as respecting the other wildlife and wilderness values that exist in that part of the province.

The additional $0.4 million is available on a matching basis with the private sector. This is one of the ways in which we are able to really engage in a broader opportunity for additional financial investment from the private sector. For instance, the oil and gas industry have indicated a willingness to invest in this opportunity as well. So the province has agreed that we will match up to the $400,000 in addition. This is a unique opportunity, reflective of the views of the northern British Columbians who sat at those land use planning tables, who developed this broadly based strategy, working with the many different industries and sectors in northern British Columbia and really creating a made-in-the-north management agreement for the northern Rockies area.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I don't want to engage in a debate around legislation that's in front of the House. But I think it's important for us to recognize that one of the things that troubles northerners is that when they have set aside a protected area the size of Nova Scotia and have seen the forgone opportunities and revenues that might have flowed from that area in terms of resource revenues. . . . To have that characterized as an extensive investment in the area seems to me to have put it somewhat backward.

[ Page 9527 ]

Finally, let me say that if $1 million of that $2.4 million ever gets across the Rocky Mountains, I will be amazed. I will be flabbergasted. I suspect that most of it will stay here with the chair of the committee and the extensive support organization, which may well be necessary. But to characterize this kind of money. . . . It trivializes the commitment and the undertaking that northerners entered into on this issue.

Quite honestly, I was surprised and taken aback to hear it referred to as an extensive investment by British Columbians in the northeast. I thought it was exactly the opposite. I thought it was a tremendous commitment by the people in the northeast not only to the people of British Columbia but also to the globe. To set aside an area of that magnitude, with all of the resources that are there. . . . Those kinds of things may be small things, but they rankle. Having gone through four or five years of extensive negotiations, I think that a historic and rather phenomenal agreement was reached. But the people of the area are characterized in some way as being the recipients of some great beneficence from government. I had to get that on the record, and I will follow that thought when we get into the debate in the Legislature, unless the minister wants to explain. Maybe I should allow the minister an opportunity.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you so much, member, for allowing me to engage in the discussion. I don't want my comments to be misconstrued as if this is the only investment we make in northern British Columbia. What I was talking about is the significance of a decision on how to manage a park and special management area. To attribute $2.4 million in provincial resources is without precedent in any other part of the province. In fact, if you ask the Cariboo land use planning tables how many dollars they have to implement the co-management and management agreements they wish to have in special resource development zone and parks, they will tell you quite frankly that they wish that the province would put this kind of financial input into their ability to manage for those alternate values.

I want to stress that the member is wrong when he says that people in northern British Columbia have forgone revenue for the vast majority. In fact, they have not, because in the special management areas, as the member well knows, resource extraction activity will continue. That's partly why northern British Columbians agreed with it. It wasn't simply a matter of protecting and never allowing any economic activity to continue in those parts of the province. Rather, there would be specific protected areas where there wouldn't be resource extraction activity. But clearly a great portion of it, the specially managed area, is where. . . . The resources are going to this northern committee to be able to put in place practices so that it can be managed in a special way, so that it will continue to allow resource extraction and the kind of economic development that can accrue to northern British Columbians as a result. That's obviously their goal.

That's the context in which I was saying that it was an investment, hon. member, and I want you to hold me to the fact that when I say now that this is something the dollars will go to, they will flow to the committee. . . . It won't just be dollars that we'll stick in Victoria. I want you to hold me to that commitment, because it's my intention to make sure that those dollars do flow to northern British Columbia and to the work that needs to go on there.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the debate on the bill is going to be more fun than I thought it was. But I think that's going to be the appropriate place to move forward from.

What I want to speak with the minister about today is the issue of motor fuel additives. About this time last year, I raised with the minister the issue of stockpiling of MMT by fuel refiners in British Columbia. At that time both the minister and the Premier, to their credit, indicated a willingness to investigate the legality of the stockpiling that was being done in the face of Bill C-29 being passed in the federal House. I wonder if the minister could advise me what investigations have been undertaken and what kinds of decisions or results might have been achieved on that front.

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member knows, the federal government did pass a trade law that would ban the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. But to our knowledge there was no attempt by any company to illegally import and stockpile MMT. It's our understanding they only had pre-existing reserve amounts that they continue to use. I am assuming they still continue to use it, because it's not totally used up yet.

Also, I'm given to understand that the Alberta government is leading a challenge to claim that that Agreement on Internal Trade is unlawful because it's counterproductive to interprovincial anti-trade barrier agreements that already exist. We don't know what the outcome of that will be, but I understand that they are challenging it.

[7:45]

Can the minister tell me whether she has any knowledge as to the supply that's currently on hand in British Columbia? I understand MMT is not produced here, and any that wasn't stockpiled at the time the legislation came into force couldn't be brought into the province.

Hon. C. McGregor: We've been advised that most companies will run out of MMT by mid-1998, and all by the end of 1998.

J. Weisgerber: Does the minister have knowledge of industry's plans to. . . ? Has industry identified an octane enhancer to replace MMT? What is that octane enhancer?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have details of what enhancer they are currently using to replace MMT. But we do have information that all the gas that's imported into B.C. -- from ARCO in the U.S. and from Imperial, Petro-Canada, Shell and Chevron -- is all MMT-free.

J. Weisgerber: The reason for my interest in MMT originally, and my continuing interest in MMT and other octane enhancers, is around the area of ethanol. It seems to me that it is in British Columbia's interests to promote ethanol as a logical substitute for octane enhancers, or as a supplement for fuel in terms of octane enhancers. As a result of the response by the minister and the Premier to the question that I asked

[ Page 9528 ]

Can the minister tell me what steps have been taken over the past 12 months with respect to identifying and encouraging the production of ethanol in the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: We recently held a workshop -- actually, in mid-May -- and I believe the member was on the invitee list. I was there, but I don't believe he was.

It was a very exciting opportunity, because it brought together people like the member opposite, who are very interested in the issue of ethanol. There was a good representation from northern British Columbia, as well as potential investors and representatives of government. There clearly is a lot of interest in this topic, and we would very much like to support it. As a result of the workshop, we formed a small working group with representatives of industry, as well as potential investors and representatives of government. We are interested, in fact, in following through by creating a demonstration unit -- a pilot plant of some sort.

We see this as an opportunity not only to invest in a form of technology and enhanced fuel production that's good for the environment but also to deal with the question of wood waste, which is a significant issue in this ministry related to beehive burner phase-out and the accumulation of wood waste from value-added plants, mills and so on. This is a solution that would promote the technologies that are really available in British Columbia and alternative fuels that are better for low-emission vehicles, as well as solve our wood-waste problems. So we're taking this approach very seriously, and we certainly hope to have a pilot project in British Columbia within a few years so that we can show our commitment to this issue.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I was pleased to learn that the ministry and others were in fact continuing to support this initiative by way of a workshop. I would have been there, except for the fact that for the first time in 12 years I was ill enough that I missed a sitting of the Legislature. In fact, I missed several of them during the month of May. But I am indeed feeling much better, and if you have another one, I will do my very best to attend.

In northern British Columbia particularly, there is very keen interest in this whole issue of wood waste and wood-waste conversions. I think that we've only scratched the surface. Many of the communities. . . . I was just looking at a letter that came out of the North Central Municipal Association, where 98 percent of the delegates at the recent NCMA convention supported the use of wood wastes in ethanol production. It's a problem in every community in the north. And that's only one opportunity. There's the whole issue of ethanol from grain, which is by far the more traditional means of manufacturing ethanol. Auto manufacturers in North America are coming on stream. Most manufacturers now have at least a limited number of vehicles that are capable of burning ethanol and are manufactured with that specific interest in mind.

The whole question, obviously, is one of support from government at a time when there is a market, when there is economic feasibility. This shouldn't be artificially stimulated. On the other hand, I have a sense that in North America, as has been the case in South America for some time, ethanol is going to become ever more important in the whole area of automotive fuels -- clean air obviously being one of the benefits for greater Vancouver; clean air for communities with beehive burners; and the need to get rid of wood waste. Our research has indicated that it's not only sawmill waste but limbs, branches, bark -- all of those things. The more useless they are today, the better fuel they are in terms of ethanol production. So I want to see us continue to take the steps that are appropriate to try and encourage the use of ethanol.

I wonder whether the minister is aware that just this past month, Ontario passed second reading of a private member's bill which would require, by the year 2005, a level of 2.7 percent oxygen by weight in fuels, which would, by today's technology, only be achievable by using about 8 percent ethanol in motor fuels. It was a private member's bill by a government member, passed by all parties of the Legislature. By every indication, Ontario, by the year 2005, will require about 8 percent ethanol in motor fuels.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba already have ethanol-producing facilities. My concern is that we are going to find ourselves so far behind in this province in terms of ethanol production that we're not going to catch up. I wonder whether or not the minister has looked at Bill 34, which I think is still before the Ontario Legislature in committee stage -- whether the minister has considered the introduction of such legislation. I would gladly enter a private member's bill, but having reflected on the history of private members' bills in this Legislature, it would probably be the kiss of death. So I wonder whether or not the minister has plans to introduce such legislation -- perhaps to have a government member introduce legislation -- and whether or not the minister sees a legislative role for the use of ethanol here in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, obviously it would be inappropriate for me to comment on future legislation that government may or may not introduce in the coming years. Nonetheless, the question the member raises around the use of enhancers to clean up gasoline to improve air quality is a topic of great interest to us here in British Columbia, as it is across Canada. In fact, I would dare to suggest that Bill 34 in Ontario is largely a result of the significant and serious air quality concerns they have in metro Toronto. There's likely much worse smog, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in that part of Canada than there is even in the urban parts of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

I think we can boast a little bit in British Columbia that we have taken some of the steps necessary to improve air quality through things like fuel standards and so on. But the member points out -- rightly, in my view -- that these are questions we need to work on on a national basis. It's not enough for one province or another to take steps that will improve air quality in a small area; we have to take these steps nationally. We are working, as environment and energy ministers across Canada, on the implementation and planning around how to approach air quality questions, particularly related to greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, other questions like smog creation and particulate matter from gasoline and diesel fuels, heavy-duty-vehicle emissions and so on, are all matters that have to be thrown into that equation and that pot.

I think there are some exciting opportunities, particularly through the greenhouse gas emissions reduction trading pilot that we've begun here in British Columbia. We have had several other provinces join in with us. I think it will give us, perhaps, an ability to create an investment pool that we can

[ Page 9529 ]

J. Weisgerber: Well, the fact of the matter is that the air quality in Toronto, I'm sure, played an enormous role in the support that this private member's bill received in the Ontario Legislature, but it was introduced by the member for Chatham-Kent, which is a big grain-producing area. So there are a whole range of interests at play. I think it's one of the really interesting things about ethanol as a renewable resource. The people who are the producers are interested; the people who suffer from bad air quality have a keen interest as well.

One company already provides, or makes available, fuel that contains ethanol. That's Mohawk. I think everybody knows that. I'm pleased to see that, and I wish them well in their endeavours. I think, though, that we want to capitalize on the economic opportunities that exist in the production of ethanol. What worries me as we come to recognize the benefits of ethanol and perhaps the expanded use of ethanol in this province, perhaps even the legislated use of ethanol at some point in the future, is that we won't be in a position to be competitive with the other provinces who have provided if not direct incentives to ethanol producers, certainly tax advantages. What I hear as a sort of subset from people who are interested in this issue is the need for there to be a tax regime that allows them to be competitive with other producers and other manufacturers across the country.

[8:00]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member raises some very good ideas about how we might, at a future time, consider a fuel tax exemption that goes with a percentage of ethanol blend. At this time we do have fuel tax exemptions for natural gas and propane. As well, there is a policy that 85 percent ethanol fuel would also have a fuel-tax-exempt status. Unfortunately, we don't have any of that fuel available at this time. But as I understand it, the policy question has been. . . . There is a provision to give fuel tax exemption at this time. But I think that there is an. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, that's what I'm just. . . . I said: "Are you sure?"

Anyway, I also think that there will be an opportunity to look at the question of ethanol-blended gasolines at a future time: increasing the percentage, using that as an incentive to cause greater production. That creates a market, and so on. I think the member has some good points, and I'm going to be happy to follow up on them.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps one thing: if the minister is aware of some particular tax advantages, I'd love to know about them. If in fact it's a reference to methanol, then. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Okay.

Just to conclude this, I think one of the real concerns that I had around the phasing-out or the reduction in the tax exemptions for propane was the fact that users of alternate fuels are obliged to make considerable long-term investments and normally have to be able to foresee a tax regime in place over a sustainable period of time. There has been some concern as a result of the reduction in the tax exemption on propane, and I think it only reflects, for me, how sensitive these markets are to taxes and road taxes. I will allow the minister the opportunity to clarify the position with respect to taxation. I think it's a great idea. Even the fact that the minister thought that there might be a tax exemption will probably be viewed in some quarters as very positive.

Hon. C. McGregor: I am pleased to correct myself on the question. It is methanol 85 that is exempted from the tax. But I do take the member's point that there is an opportunity for us to work on the question of ethanol, ethanol-blended fuels and potential future tax breaks and incentives to cause people to use those alternate fuels more frequently. I think that's a good direction for us to consider for the future.

M. Coell: I'd like to move on to the environmental youth teams. I know that there is an interesting relationship between the environmental youth teams, this ministry and the Premier's estimates as well. I just wonder whether the minister could clarify it for me. I gather that some of the youth team funding is in the Premier's budget.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just for clarification, the E-teams -- environmental youth teams -- are through our ministry and our budget. The Premier has other youth employment programs that come through his ministry, not E-teams.

M. Coell: Then I think the minister is being sort of shouldered out of some photo opportunities that I've seen with the Premier and environmental youth teams. It possibly should be the minister.

I wonder if the minister could tell me how many youth we'll have employed over the period. . . . Will they be employed just from May through September, or is this program going to last after university starts again?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our target is 1,580 positions. I don't have a current note in front of me -- oh yes, I have. So far, 1,456 positions have been created, as I understand this note. There were two application periods this year. We changed it

[ Page 9530 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me how many applications they had? You've got 1,400 hired. In total, how many applications for positions did the ministry get?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll keep looking. We don't seem to have a summarized number in terms of how many applications came in. But I don't think there will necessarily be a match in the number of applications and the number of jobs, because some of the applications cover multiple jobs. One can assume that there are probably several hundred applications that will lead to that number of positions.

M. Coell: I would assume, like any other job right now, that there are probably thousands of applications. I'd be interested in knowing that number, if the minister can get it for me.

I'd be interested to know the criteria upon which the positions were approved. What did the ministry use as criteria for approving the 1,400 positions and rejecting the other ones?

Hon. C. McGregor: Applications are graded against three proposal criteria, to a maximum of 100 points. They're based on sponsor contribution, youth benefit and the nature of the project. For sponsor contribution, points are awarded for every percentage contributed, relative to the provincial contribution, up to a maximum of 40 points. That's some degree of cost-sharing or cost-matching, related to training and payment of youth, and so on. Points are also awarded under the youth benefit, related to specific job skills and marketable skills. So the project is assessed against those criteria, and that's awarded up to 15 points. The ability to find future employment. . . . Something that will lead to a future employment opportunity can be awarded up to 15 points. Points are also awarded for the nature of the project, including whether it creates a community legacy. There's an assessment of up to 15 points for that. Linking it to the ministry and government's strategic objectives can acquire up to an additional 15 points.

There are mandatory requirements in addition to those sort of broad criteria which it's matched against. The sponsor must be registered and operating in British Columbia. There have to be written approvals from land administrators if that's required for a project that they want to go ahead. There have to be hiring, training and safety plans put in place as part of their application proposal. And they have to have secured a minimum of 25 percent sponsor contribution, either in kind, through training or in dollars toward the salary, matching the provincial contribution.

M. Coell: Who was the selection committee? What arm of your ministry was the selection committee?

Hon. C. McGregor: Initially it's done by the E-team coordinator, but then it's reviewed by a committee of staff to evaluate the selection and look carefully at the criteria that have been applied to the projects.

M. Coell: So the employment of these individuals through groups would have been done at the staff level and not the cabinet level.

Hon. C. McGregor: No. Actually, I have the list in my office, but I don't have a say over who does or doesn't. . . . That's simply a result of staff applying the criteria to the applications.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister has a copy of the jobs by riding -- whether the jobs given to each riding is available.

Hon. C. McGregor: We do have it available, and we'd be happy to share a breakdown of that. I do want to say, however, that while the criteria didn't seem to identify it, there is a regional screen as well put on the applications because we don't want them all to go to just one region of the province. We do want to make sure there is an opportunity for different regions of the province to be represented.

M. Coell: I appreciate that. What I'm looking at is to make sure those jobs were distributed throughout the province, that they didn't end in one type of riding or another. That's what I'm looking for. If the minister can share that information with me, I would appreciate that.

The other question I have regarding the environment youth teams is what the budget was for advertising the program -- which would include, I would think, your total budget for advertising -- including job application advertising as well.

[8:15]

M. Coell: One final question. With regard to wages that are paid, do they vary, or is there a set wage for all environment youth team members to receive?

Hon. C. McGregor: For work crews, which are those crews that work in parks, outdoors building trails. . . . Sometimes it is campground preparation, that kind of work. Those work crews are paid $8 an hour. The E-team intern program is funded a little differently. Those interns tend to be individuals who may be in a work experience program or are partway through some sort of a degree program related to biological issues or what have you. They are paid at a higher wage rate, although it does vary from job to job, and they can go as high as $24 an hour.

M. Coell: Actually, the minister is moving in the direction that I wish to go in, and that is dealing with campsites. How many members of the environment youth teams are directly employed with the campsite program that's underway this summer?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll get back to the member. We're hunting for the number.

[ Page 9531 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: We certainly knew that they were, like us, challenged to deal with some of their budgetary situation. We may have found out a little bit before it was publicly known that that was under active consideration by the ministry. They are separate programs. The recreation sites are totally run by MOF; they have nothing to do with our Parks campgrounds. It's not surprising that those decisions were taken separate and apart.

M. Coell: I guess what I find puzzling is that the Ministry of Environment wouldn't know. . .that a major tourist resource -- and a resource for British Columbians -- wouldn't have at least told the ministry that that was in the plan. If there was nothing that came from them by way of a memo or a letter of understanding or anything. . . . If the minister can assure me of that, that's fine.

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand from my deputy that those kinds of discussions were ongoing at the deputy level, probably sooner than I was aware of the decision. Nonetheless, there is no letter of understanding or any such matter between our two ministries. While the Minister of Forests and I do talk on many issues -- we do have overlapping jurisdiction on some questions -- this is not one where there is overlapping jurisdiction.

M. Coell: Maybe it's one where there will be something now. I think that was a major embarrassment to the government -- to have government produce 1,500 campsites and close 1,400. If I were running your PR program, it wouldn't happen, let me tell you. I hope that that won't happen again -- that the ministries will have better information sharing.

The campsites that are being created are being created over a number of years: I would be interested in knowing the level of funding per campsite.

Hon. C. McGregor: Could the member clarify whether he's asking about the cost of building the campgrounds or about the cost of operating them once they have been constructed?

M. Coell: The minister is jumping ahead of me, but those are two questions I intended to ask. What I'm interested in first is: how much does it cost to build an individual campsite, on average? I know each campsite will be different, but what's the estimated cost per campsite?

Hon. C. McGregor: Including all the infrastructure and road construction, it's about $10,000 per site.

M. Coell: Is the construction of the campsites just this summer being done by ministry staff or is it contracted out?

Hon. C. McGregor: They're contracted, but there's also a youth employment component through E-teams.

M. Coell: Was there a proposal call for each individual campsite area -- for the ones in this area? Was there a proposal call for development, the same as in other areas of the province? How were the contracts awarded?

Hon. C. McGregor: Each district manager puts out a published call for proposals.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister can refresh my memory as to the total number of campsites intended to be built in this fiscal year.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're intending to build 500 this fiscal year and 1,000 next year.

M. Coell: Is the government's fair-wage policy in effect for the development of campsites?

Hon. C. McGregor: Not to our knowledge.

M. Coell: Then this project would be seen as a number of smaller projects, not as one large project, and that would be the reason for the fair-wage policy not being followed. So each individual region did a proposal call -- and the minister can clarify for me -- but did each proposal have to have a number of the environmental youth teams employed as part of the proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is not distributed evenly across the proposals. In the cases where larger ones are going ahead, there is a larger number of youth employed on that site, and some of the smaller sites wouldn't necessarily have any youth employed.

M. Coell: One of the other issues that. . . . Even today my office dealt with a number of queries and complaints about park maintenance. I would be interested to know how these parks -- the campsites -- are going to be maintained and at what level the maintenance is going to be. Some of the areas in the province have had signs posted saying: "Take your garbage with you. There is no garbage pickup." Others are not supplying firewood and a number of things. We're going to build the campsites this year, and I just wondered what sort of maintenance program will be in place to maintain these new campsites.

Hon. C. McGregor: It does depend on the kind of campsite. The level of service is linked to the type of site -- wilderness versus well-populated, well-used sites. For instance, in a site like Golden Ears -- a heavily used, lower mainland area -- there's been no reduction in any level of service. But in some of our smaller wilderness campsites, we are looking to find ways where. . . . We might mow less frequently, pick up garbage once a week as opposed to twice a week, find efficiencies in the type of garbage pickup service and maybe partner with the regional district -- find ways of really making sure that we gain efficiencies around our park contract dollars. But by and large, the small reductions we've made in service have been just in those smaller sites that are less frequently used and clearly not in the larger sites.

[8:30]

[ Page 9532 ]

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing the types of campsites that are being created. You're doing 500. How many of them are overnight and how many are day use? I think that's the difference in. . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: They're all overnight, and they're all close to larger, urban centres -- campgrounds that are very popular and already well used.

M. Coell: If this is future policy, the minister can correct me. Have there been any changes in this year's budget for maintenance at overnight campsites in the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is generally the rule that we used, which is: if it was a high-demand area, then there would be no reduction in service; if it was more of a wilderness experience, where there already were limited services, then that would be an area where we would make some limited reductions. Some of those service reductions included: reduced lawn-mowing, which I mentioned earlier; reduced weeding of campsites and day use areas; reduced roadside and site-brushing; and reducing the number of times we would stain the table or check signs and so on, unless it was the result of needing to replace a sign because it had been vandalized in some way. We were really trying to make sure that that happened in day-use, by and large, but there may be some smaller, more remote wilderness sites which have overnight camping, where there was some minimal service reduction. It was minimal in terms of how we followed through on making those funding cuts to parks operators.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the total operating cost per campsite is in the province.

Hon. C. McGregor: On average, it would be about $650 per year in operating costs.

M. Coell: I'd be interested in knowing how many sites they actually operate as of today -- without any of the ones that are proposed.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 11,600.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me what the total operating costs are, minus the amount of revenue generated by those parks?

Hon. C. McGregor: The total cost to government over and above fee revenue is about $4.5 million annually.

M. Coell: One of the concerns I have. . . . I'll use an example in my riding. There's a park -- John Dean Park -- which is a very high-use day park. It's had a sign posted that garbage will no longer be collected, that you're supposed to take out whatever you bring in. I just wonder what criteria the province used for identifying parks like John Dean Park. I suspect it's one in a series of type parks. What criteria were used to decide not to keep the service levels at the height they were in previous years?

Hon. C. McGregor: In the case of John Dean Park, there continues to be garbage pickup, but it's been reduced to once a week.

M. Coell: What I'm interested is: what criteria did the ministry use to make those reductions in parks like John Dean Park? As I said, I suspect there are many parks like John Dean throughout the province that have had a reduction in service. I just wonder what criteria the ministry used to do that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, to start with, we use the criteria of protecting and conserving the natural, cultural and heritage resources in the currently designated protected area. We wanted to make sure that conservation and protection of those parks was our first priority. Then we wanted to also minimize risk to public safety, so that was another criterion that was applied. We wanted to give a higher priority to the reduction of, first, lower-use demand services -- areas where there was lower use -- and then to a reduction in those that have the highest subsidy per use in the area. In other words, that speaks to what it costs us not only to have firewood flown in or shipped in to a location, say. . . . That would speak to a high level of subsidy for that area, as opposed to another area where it is easily accessible and can be loaded in and trucked in. The area where you might have to fly the firewood in, for instance, might have a very low use, so that was another criterion that was used. Then, there are the items that would have the least impact on public support, so clearly the question of firewood, for instance, was one that became a very hot topic. People were very concerned that there would be any reduction in access to firewood. What we did was go back and say: "Okay, we'll take firewood out of any remaining corridor sites where there is no overnight camping, but in places where there is overnight camping, then firewood will remain available and accessible." So that's generally the criteria that we used. I think that might answer your question.

M. Coell: I guess the problem I see on the horizon is that the number of visits to parks in B.C. isn't skyrocketing; it's level, if not going down, in some areas. I know the ministry has those results.

There is a tendency when you start to cut back on any minimal maintenance. . . . I wouldn't say that we do great maintenance in the parks system; I think we probably do an adequate-to-minimal job of maintenance in most parks in B.C. I don't know whether the minister can comment on it. My experience tells me that when you start to let paint go and you start to pick up garbage twice a week, your visitors will not show up in high numbers. I'd be interested to know whether the ministry has any strategy for dealing with the negative effects of this decision and whether or not the ministry is going to evaluate this decision after the summer, and how that evaluation would take place.

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, I'm going to begin by talking about the number of park visitors. It isn't true that the number of park visitors is declining. In fact, the only year in which there actually was a decline in the overall number was a year of very bad weather, and that can be tracked in terms of looking at the weather pattern and what happened when park visits significantly dropped off.

Nonetheless, we take very seriously what people expect from B.C. parks, and that's one of the reasons why we engage in many surveys of consumers who use our B.C. parks system. It's part of the ongoing evaluation we do of ourselves and the service we provide for campers around the province.

[ Page 9533 ]

I think this also speaks to the opportunity that there is for us to engage in a new discussion about parks for the future. I know that the member opposite is interested in this topic as well. Because we've added so significantly to our parks and protected areas system in the province, we need to think about the long-term management and stewardship of that park resource. The Park Legacy panel, which I appointed last year, has really taken the time to engage in some of these discussions around revenue generation, around the maintenance of parks and around stewardship opportunities. The first draft of their report, in fact, has been submitted to me, and it will shortly be released publicly. I would strongly encourage the members opposite to take the time to read it and look through some of the proposals and really give some feedback to us in this ministry, because we are faced with some very significant challenges in managing our parks for the future. I think there is an opportunity for us to work together on how we might best set a future course so that we do protect this legacy that we have created.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that there is a draft copy being considered, and I hope that all members of the House will get an opportunity to make comments on that.

I think the minister probably shares the concern I have that in order to attract people to the parks system, it has to be an attractive parks system, it has to be one that people are proud of and one that we maintain. I sense that this is the first year that that's been under attack. And I don't say that in a blaming way. I realize that governments obviously have to look at their budgets, but I think this would be sort of cutting back a little bit of money and losing a heck of a lot more. I think we've all seen government programs before where that's happened when the maintenance hasn't been kept up.

I would be interested in knowing what the advertising budget for the overnight parks is and, if you haven't broken it out between overnight and day parks, what the province is going to spend this year on advertising B.C. parks.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have a budget for advertising. All of our advertising for B.C. parks is done through local contractors, who pull publications together on a regional basis and circulate that widely. One of the examples. . . . You may have seen the one that was in the Times Colonist recently, the supplement that talked about southern Vancouver Island parks. That was paid for by the parks contractors.

M. Coell: So what the minister is telling me is that there isn't a budget for promotion of B.C. parks within your budget. Is the minister aware that there is a budget somewhere -- in Tourism and Culture? I'm just a little surprised that there may be a budget elsewhere that is benefiting B.C. parks.

[8:45]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that, and noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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