Hansard -- Wednesday, November 19, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 18, No. 10 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		8017

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8017
	Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act (Bill 94)
	Hon. G. Bruce

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8018
	National Child Day
	W. McMahon
	Addiction services
	L. Mayencourt
	Addiction treatment centres for youth
	H. Bloy

Oral Questions		8019
	B.C. Rail privatization bid process
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. Reid
	Export of B.C. wood products to China
	B. Penner
	Hon. G. Campbell
	B.C. Rail privatization bid process
	J. Kwan
	Hon. J. Reid
	Influenza vaccination
	V. Anderson
	Hon. S. Hawkins

Petitions		8022
	J. Kwan

Reports from Committees		8022
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills
	B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House		8022
	Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79) (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Reporting of Bills		8030
	Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79)

Third Reading of Bills		8030
	Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79)

Committee of the Whole House		8031
	BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	P. Nettleton

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8041
	BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act (Bill 85)

Committee of the Whole House		8041
	Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71)
	Hon. S. Santori

Reporting of Bills		8042
	Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71)

Third Reading of Bills		8042
	Public Service Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 71)

Second Reading of Bills		8042
	Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 84)
	Hon. J. Murray
	J. MacPhail
	K. Stewart
	M. Hunter
	W. Cobb
	T. Christensen
	B. Penner
	R. Hawes
	D. Jarvis
	B. Bennett
	Hon. J. Murray

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like to welcome Dick and Barbara Smith from Paul Lake, British Columbia, to the Legislature today. Barbara and Dick are the parents of the communications manager in my ministry, Gayle Downey. I understand that Gayle's father has got all of the fix-it jobs done, and now it's time for them to return home. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I have the pleasure today of introducing Samira Thomas, who has joined us. She is a graduate of University Hill Secondary School. She is a recipient of the two-year United World Colleges Scholarship worth more than $48,000. At the moment she is at Lester B. Pearson United World College of the Pacific and is pursuing her career goals in journalism and international relations. I hope the House will make her welcome.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from Senegal. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Amadou Diallo, Ambassador of the Republic of Senegal to Canada. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I am pleased he has travelled here to discover the many opportunities of our beautiful province. He's accompanied by Mr. David Varty, the honorary consul general of Senegal in Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: As you know, Vancouver Island is the second-largest technology sector in this province, and today Victoria is taking part in showcasing the technology companies of Vancouver Island.

Joining us today in the House are John Flemming, vice-president of Silicon Valley Bank; Colin How, CEO of How2Share, a digital imaging company; Robert Bennett, CEO of Municipal Software, last night's winner of the CSCBC export award; Denzell Doyle, partner of Fullerton Capital Corporation; Dale Gann of the Vancouver Island Technology Park; Timothy Staub, president of Selfor seed technology company; Wolfgang Scutch, vice-president of Selfor; and Bill Cooke. All of these gentlemen are driving a new sector of the economy forward. They're creating jobs, and they're creating investment opportunities. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce the chairs of the regional transportation advisory committees. These committees identify regional transportation needs and will be advising me on the transportation priorities in their regions.

Joining us today is the chair from the Cariboo, Jim Rustad; from the Fraser Valley, Dave Kandal; from the Kootenays, Jim Ogilvie; from North Coast, Bill Zemenchik; from North East, Victor Brandl; from South Coast/Mountain, Ron Nelson and his wife, Renee; from Thompson Okanagan, Chief Bonnie Leonard; and from Vancouver Island, Bill Luchtmeijer. I ask the House please join me in welcoming them.

J. Les: It's my great pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the House, on behalf of all members of the B.C. government caucus, 85 constituency assistants who are here to observe the Legislature for a couple of days and to meet the staff at the Legislature. They are here from all over the province, and I would ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like the House to welcome a cousin of mine, who happens to be my godmother, Marg Hansen and her husband, Cliff. They are here from Exshaw, Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orr: Today we have the best bunch of UVic B.C. Young Liberals with us. This is a group of students who…. Just a couple of years ago there was a handful of them, and now their club has grown by hundreds. That's an exaggeration — tens, in the fifties, in the sixties. These students are the best kids. They are Dallas Hanol — he's the president and the driving force of this group; Tricia Gerrard; Tom Grainger; Alexis Norton; Pardeep Sahota; Lissa Marcell; Neil Evans; Kennan Racelli; Agata Lees; Jessie Basay; Bupubinder Vinning; Robert Boyd; Mycroft Shorts. And that's just a few of them. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us today in the Legislature is Jordan Dawes, a grade 8 student from George Bonner Middle School in Mill Bay. Jordan is job-shadowing today with Jacquie Kendall, the director of corporate services in my ministry. I ask the House to make them both welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it's my pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, Linda Friesen, who is visiting today all the way from Kamloops with her husband, Harvey. Would you please make them both very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act.

Hon. G. Bruce: This government has committed to putting patients first in our health care system, and among the first to benefit from this bill will be the residents of the Fraser Valley. This legislation, Bill 94, will apply to the long-awaited Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre, currently in the request-for-proposal stage.

Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, will encourage the development of new and upgraded health care facilities throughout British Columbia. It will open up opportunities for government and health authorities to partner with the private sector to provide British Columbians with the quality health care they both demand and deserve.

This bill ensures that the private-public sector partners will be able to operate on a level playing field with other health employers, because we are clarifying the rules for P3s in the health sector. This legislation will enable private partners to finance, design and build or renovate health facilities and to deliver non-clinical services according to set standards monitored by government. It opens the way to partnerships that will add capacity to our health care system, creating better facilities for patients while upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act. Private-public partnerships are a win-win situation for our patients, health care providers and the public in British Columbia.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 94 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

W. McMahon: Tomorrow is National Child Day, a day commemorating the adoption of the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 and the adoption by Canada of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.

This year's theme is A Community Fit for Children, and what an appropriate theme it is. It is a day to promote awareness of the rights of children and youth as citizens and to reaffirm the responsibilities of our leaders and communities as advocates for children. It is a day to acknowledge the important contributions that children and youth, their parents, caregivers and families, and all those working for and with children and youth make in our communities. It is a day to celebrate children and youth as they are today and as we hope they will be for the betterment of future generations.

Most importantly, it is a day to pledge our dedication to making our communities fit for children, to advance the global network for the leaders of our communities in promoting children- and youth-friendly communities, because communities fit for children are communities fit for all.

There are 142 countries that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. It provides for the protection of children from exploitation and abuse; for the provision of essential health, welfare and education services; and for the participation of children and youth in decisions affecting them.

We are indeed fortunate to live in a province and in a country that recognize the rights of children and youth. We are fortunate to live in a province and in a country that promote the awareness of our children.

I ask that my colleagues, our community leaders and our citizens recognize tomorrow for the special day that it is. But even more importantly, take some time to read a book to a child, throw a ball or help them with their homework. Make an effort to become a positive role model for our children. Life is too short not to.

L. Mayencourt: It's Addictions Awareness Week here in British Columbia. Addiction is a health and social issue that impacts all aspects of one's life — physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual.

One of the battles we have to face as a society is the public perception that addiction is about weakness. This is dangerous because it inhibits people from openly addressing problems for fear of being judged. Because of this fear, people isolate themselves and seldom break free from addictions on their own. Family, friends, loved ones and the wider community must all help. Time, empathy and understanding all contribute to the ability of an individual to recover from addiction. The success stories of people who broke free from addiction all mention the support of others.

In support of people dealing with addiction, this government has made some dramatic changes in how we deal with these problems. Many people have a dual diagnosis: addiction and mental illness. We've integrated addictions with the health care system as we work with people in a cohesive network of care. The restructuring of the health care system has given people the ability to have a single point of contact where they can receive holistic care to meet all of their needs and not be forced to navigate through a maze of different services. Someone with an addiction can make one phone call now and have access to the continuum of services the government is providing. Those services include mental health services, prevention and education, sobering centres, shelters, treatment programs and harm reduction strategies.

Our government is fostering strong communities by giving people with addictions the support, time and empathy they need to work their way back to health. I believe we're on the right track. I think we must now allow the wonderful people that carry out these initiatives to succeed.

H. Bloy: Recently I spoke at a fundraising dinner hosted by Mr. Peter Legge to help establish the Vancouver adolescent recovery centre. I believe the excellent work that has been taking place behind the scenes at this organization should be commended. Their efforts to bring safe recoveries for young people with substance abuse challenges are truly worthy of the public's support, and this group certainly has mine.

I think we can all agree that drug and alcohol addiction is one of the biggest problems facing our young people today. As parents we can do only so much to prepare our children before they are exposed to these dangers. Far too often these dangers start right in our very own homes. It's hard enough for adults to escape self-destructive lifestyles, and we can only surmise that it's even more difficult for young people. That's why, when I hear some of the success stories coming out of a similar recovery centre in Alberta, I'm really hopeful that we can have some of that great success right here in British Columbia.

I am told that the average North American rate for recovery is around 25 percent, but when I hear what's happened in Alberta, they're putting up numbers closer to 80 percent. I know this team of committed individuals in British Columbia will aim even higher. I told this group that I was willing to bring their voice to Victoria to make all of my colleagues aware that we have another success story in the making in British Columbia.

Addiction knows no borders. Fortunately, it is possible to break that deadly cycle. Recovery can be a reality, especially when you have organizations like the Vancouver adolescent recovery centre hard at work in our communities.

J. MacPhail: Today we learn that the Canadian Pacific Railway has pulled its bid for B.C. Rail, casting a cloud over the whole process. We've also learned that the only other non–CN bidder, Omnitrax, has expressed concerns about the fairness of the process to the Premier. A report into that process released earlier this week identifies two leaks from B.C. Rail. In one case, data were sent to a party that should not have had access to it.

Hon. J. Reid: Indeed, we've worked very hard on a process that is fair and equitable and have worked very diligently with the proponents. The fairness adviser's report…. The fairness adviser is Charles Rivers Associates, which is a very reputable firm, and that firm has stated that the process established and implemented by the province, the evaluation committee and its advisers was fair and impartial. The information they investigated within this — because they were concerned about being absolutely concise and drilling down and making sure that they could bring forward those conclusions — was not substantive and was not harmful to the process.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister didn't answer my question, and certainly the Premier didn't rise to answer my question.

Let me tell what the report says. The report on the process, an interim report where the minister admits the person still has to talk to the proponents, says only that the lawyers verified that the leak was retrieved and destroyed by those who had access to it. It doesn't say what was leaked and to whom it was leaked. From the start this process has been called into question by bidders, by B.C. Rail customers and by British Columbians who depend on the line.

Now, can the Premier provide assurances that the process was fair when his own minister won't come clean on the details of this leak? If the leak was to one proponent, were the other proponents advised immediately, or did the government simply think this matter could be swept under the carpet? To the Premier: were the other proponents told what was leaked, and who received the information?

Hon. J. Reid: The whole purpose of the fairness adviser's report is to investigate the concerns the member has said, not to perpetuate those concerns. The fairness adviser's report investigated those concerns, and the conclusion that was arrived at was that the process was not compromised and that everyone involved was treated fairly and equitably.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

J. MacPhail: In fact, that's not what the report says. It's not what the report says on the second leak at all. In fact, what it says is…. I'll read it: "In the second case, we have been informed that the error was quickly identified. We have documented statements from the attorneys involved verifying that the data were retrieved or destroyed by those who had access to it."

It doesn't say who had access to it or whether they then distributed all that leaked information to all the proponents. So unless the Premier has a giant magnet, some kind of secret memory-erasing device, asking for the information back and destroying it does not fix the problem. Two of the major bidders for B.C. Rail are now saying the whole process was unfair. They say that CN has already been given the go-ahead, despite

the minister's repeated denials. The Premier needs to face reality. The deal stinks….

J. MacPhail: The little support it had is vanishing by the hour. Will he at least stand up and give the House assurance that the second leak wasn't to CN Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: The whole purpose of the fairness adviser's report is to make sure that all three proponents were treated fairly, were treated equitably and received the same information at the same time. It was verified by the fairness adviser that, indeed, that was the case. There is no need to be able to repeat problems or concerns. What's important is the conclusion. It was investigated, and the conclusion was that it was fair to all the proponents.

B. Penner: Twelve days ago a number of unelected and unaccountable environmental groups launched a boycott campaign in China in a deliberate attempt to undermine this government's efforts to open up new markets for B.C. wood products and find new job opportunities for B.C. workers. I'm appalled that all of the people vying for this weekend's NDP leadership vote came cap in hand, looking for support, when a number of these same extreme environmental groups sponsored an NDP leadership debate in October.

Despite these attempts to kill jobs, the Premier has been working hard to expand economic opportunities for our province in China. Can the Premier tell us the result of his efforts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell you the results of a number of people's efforts, including our Forest Innovation Investment staff's work. The Chinese Ministry of Construction has just released a brand-new national building code, and the critical thing about this building code is that for the first time ever China's building code now provides for construction of wood-frame houses.

If I can just put that in context. The Forest Innovation Investment staff has worked very hard with the technicians in China. The establishment of this new national building code allows them to build local building codes, which will allow us to build wood-frame homes. As you may know, the Shanghai Jin Qiao Group has agreed to build 200 new wood-frame homes, five new wood-frame retail outlets over the next year. That's a 40 percent increase in what was used in the past.

Just to put this in context for the House, in China there are ten million new homes built each year. We now can access those and use wood products to create those homes in a flexible and environmentally sound way that meets the needs of China's homeowners as well as….

J. Kwan: I don't know what planet this Minister of Transportation is living on. Mayors from Fort St. James to Mackenzie to 100 Mile House say that the plan to privatize…

J. Kwan: …B.C. Rail is bad news for their communities. Those who supported the deal are now saying that they've been kept in the dark about the details and the impact on their economies. Let me quote Mayor Donna Barnett of 100 Mile House: "I was probably a supporter of this as long as it was transparent. Now I don't feel so comfortable."

Face it, minister. The Premier asked you to break one of his central election commitments, and you botched it. Now the Premier and every Liberal MLA from the north are feeling the heat. Can the minister explain why CN gets preferential treatment, but the communities affected are left in the dark?

Hon. J. Reid: In fact, the mayor from Prince George was on a radio show this morning saying that he agrees with the process and believes that what we're doing is seeking the good of the people of the north. Further to the release of…

Hon. J. Reid: …information, the sharing of information and the need to balance off that information, I'd just like to quote from the fairness adviser's report, who also addresses this: "While the desire to share more detailed information with key constituents throughout the process is understandable, the confidentiality agreement served a necessary purpose by ensuring that all of the proponents had the same information and that none of the proponents had the opportunity to influence the evaluation committee through the media or by negotiating in public."

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The Prince George council passed a resolution asking for a two-year moratorium to hold up the sale and privatization of B.C. Rail. UBCM passed a unanimous resolution asking the government not to break its commitment by selling B.C. Rail. This minister is not facing reality.

Let's be clear. The process that has led to the sale of B.C. Rail is under a serious cloud. Supporters are now saying the government should reconsider. Over 32,000 northerners signed a petition saying stop the sale. There's no benefit to the shippers; there's no benefit to the communities. The minister's time in cabinet is short, I know. But why doesn't she go out…?

J. Kwan: Why doesn't the minister go out with a bang, Mr. Speaker? She can do that. She can do that to make up for her shortcomings, for all of the files she has botched — admit that it is a broken promise and that she is prepared to kill the B.C. Rail privatization deal.

Hon. J. Reid: I'm interpreting that the question was about a concern with regard to sharing of information with communities, which I agree has been a process with which we have tried to find a balance. Once again I'd like to read a quote from the fairness adviser's report: "While the absence of detailed information may have increased rumourmongering and speculation by the public and the media…"

Hon. J. Reid: "…we found that the evaluation committee struck an appropriate balance between sharing information with those who needed to know and protecting the confidentiality of the participants…"

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. A large number of cases of flu have already hit the people in our province, and health officials are warning that the flu of this season will be particularly serious. Research shows that the flu shot is one of the best ways to prevent illness during this season. However, last year statistics showed that 56 percent of health care workers did not get the flu vaccine. Can the Minister of Health Planning explain to all British Columbians why getting the influenza vaccine is so important for each of them?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The flu season has arrived early this year, and it appears that it's arrived with a vengeance. It usually runs from about December to March or April every year, but you can see already that we're seeing the impact of the flu on kids in school and certainly on the elderly. It's estimated that about 1.5 billion workdays are lost every year across Canada because of the flu, and that loss of productivity is estimated to be around $1 billion.

Flu is serious stuff. It can be deadly. One in six of us will get sick every year from the flu. About 1,400 people die in our province every year because of the flu and pneumonia, and most of them are over the age of 65 years. Evidence tells us that the most effective way of reducing the number of outbreaks is to get immunized. It's important to note that it's particularly important for health care workers to get immunized, because not only.…

Hon. S. Hawkins: We think it's really important for health care workers to not only protect themselves and their families but also to….

Hon. S. Hawkins: We think it's particularly important for health care workers…

Hon. S. Hawkins: …because it protects not only themselves and their families, but it also protects the vulnerable patients and the elderly that they work with. I do encourage everyone to get the flu. I know lots of members….

Hon. S. Hawkins: Flu shot. Flu shot. Somebody might want to get the flu, but it's particularly important to get the flu shot. Get your vaccination, because an ounce of prevention in this case is as simple as a shot in the arm. Thanks.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. This petition is from Trail, Fruitvale, Montrose and Rossland. It's asking the government to keep its hands off the Columbia Basin Trust. It's signed by 137 individuals who do not support Bill 79.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: one, that the preamble to Bill Pr410, intituled Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, has been proved and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; two, that the preamble to Bill Pr411, intituled Richrock Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

B. Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Bills Pr410 and Pr411 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 79.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 79; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Section 3 sets remuneration for the board members of the Columbia Basin Trust. I'm wondering what problem the minister is trying to fix here.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a set standard of remuneration for different boards in the province. It comes through board resourcing. As I said yesterday in the discussions, the folks that remain on the Columbia Basin Trust board will remain with the same remuneration they have today, even if there happens to be a change, so we're not going to affect the folks that will carry on. What will happen is that with people who are appointed from here forward, the decision will be made on what level they will be paid. It has not been made yet, but it will be made later on.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether there will be any differential treatment between those that are appointed by the government and those that aren't appointed by the government.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask that question, Mr. Chair, is because I am very concerned about differential treatment of board members. We're hearing more and more from the communities affected by this legislation about their concerns, and many of them are ex-

pressing concern about the nature of the appointments this government is going to make. Here's the reason why. It just came to our attention last night.

Yesterday the minister took great umbrage that we on this side would suggest that some of the government appointees to the Columbia Basin Trust also have an allegiance to the Liberal Party, for instance, and in particular to the member for Nelson-Creston. The minister railed on about how the previous government appointed persons with a political past, and he conveniently forgot the promise he made during the election to appoint only on merit.

That's why I'm curious about this under this section of remuneration, because during the election the Liberal government promised to depoliticize the appointment process. The minister also claimed that the process that the board resourcing and development office goes through ensures that only high-quality persons are appointed. Then his staff was helpful enough to direct us to the board resourcing and development office website, where all those qualifications are laid out for all to see how impartial this whole process is.

Let's look at that in the context of an appointment this minister made — Ben Arcuri. Mr. Arcuri was appointed by the government to the board of the Columbia Basin Trust on July 24 of this year, and I have the order-in-council. It's signed by the Minister of Energy and Mines. I also have a copy of the Crown corporation declaration and profile. It's also here, and it says that all appointees to the Crown corporations are to fill out this form in order that their candidacy is properly assessed.

I think this Legislature and the good folks of the Columbia basin would be most interested to know how Mr. Arcuri answered question 21. Let me read question 21 into the record: "Generally, are you aware of any fact or matters which, if publicly disclosed, could cause the government embarrassment or hinder your performance of your duties as a board member?" Remember, Mr. Arcuri was appointed by this minister in July of this year.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to reassure her again that there will be no difference in the pay schedule for the people of the Columbia Basin Trust. The determination will be made in the near future of what that pay schedule will be. Board resourcing has a huge list of people that have been recommended from across the province. In fact, people who would like to sit on boards and commissions even put their own names forward, all on their own. Boards and commissions goes through those recommendations and through those names and picks out people they feel should be qualified to sit on boards. As far as making public the declarations each one of them makes, I believe that is confidential.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister yesterday assured us that people would be appointed on merit. Today we're talking about how we're going to appoint these people. I'm asking specific questions about how Mr. Ben Arcuri meets those qualifications. I asked a very specific question. Let me ask another specific question about the questionnaire that has to be filled out. I don't know why this has to be confidential. I have no idea why this is confidential. It's the first time we've heard that these profiles are confidential. Let me ask how Mr. Arcuri answered question 18. "In your employment, business or personal affairs, have you…(f) been involved in any issue or controversy that has gone or is likely to go to litigation or public review?" How did that question get answered by Mr. Arcuri before July of last year?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If I omitted the word "merit," I want to put it in the discussion now. They are appointed on merit. They are folks whose names are put forward, and in some cases people put their own names forward. It is on merit. I have no idea how this gentleman signed the conflict-of-interest papers. I don't have that in front of me. I haven't for any of them. That's what the boards and commissions secretariat is to do when they recommend folks to us to put on the boards.

The Chair: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are dealing with section 3. Some of the line of questioning you're proceeding down has been well canvassed in section 2 — believe me, well canvassed. Just a reminder that we're dealing with section 3, the directors' remuneration. I ask her to confine her remarks to the remuneration.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the guidance. We are getting questions from the community, I must tell you, about how this particular person can receive any money from the government, so it is under section 3. I'll make my point in a minute, Mr. Chair. You'll see where I'm going on this.

The reason why I ask these questions is because I'm sure the minister is well aware — and if he isn't, he shouldn't be in his job — that Mr. Arcuri was, at the time of his appointment, being investigated for theft. It seems that Mr. Arcuri and his friend Mr. Rushton, also a close ally of the member for Nelson-Creston, decided to remove a recall petition from a private business without the knowledge or permission of the recall canvasser. They took the petition and hustled themselves down to the member for Nelson-Creston's office to photocopy it. In reaction to this appalling lack of judgment and blatant partisanship on behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston by Mr. Arcuri, the Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor. I'm surprised the member for Nelson-Creston hasn't raised these matters in the Legislature.

That special prosecutor reported back to the Attorney General on October 3. Here's the report. This is what he wrote:

In other words, the evidence points to them fraudulently removing the documents.

The special prosecutor next addresses the issue of "colour of right," and concludes — and I quote again from the special prosecutor's report that was not issued until October of this year, several months after this minister appointed Mr. Arcuri:

There we have the quality of candidate that the board resourcing and development office and this minister think is appropriate to oversee millions of dollars of public funds — willing to commit fraud and too stupid to know when they are.

A question about Mr. Arcuri. The minister appointed Mr. Arcuri while he was under investigation for taking the recall petition from the recall proponent, taking it down to the office of the member for Nelson-Creston. Under investigation, this minister appointed him to the board of the Columbia Basin Trust. Which of the two demonstrated skills does the minister think Mr. Arcuri has that fit the skills matrix for board members?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The section we're dealing with deals with remuneration for directors, not to bring forward what some people may think are some kind of charges. I would recommend to the member, if she is serious about this — and we should take it seriously — that she should put it in writing and send it to me or to board resourcing, and we'll deal with it. I'm not about to stand here and talk about issues that probably have already been dealt with or that I'm not knowledgable about. If you want to put it in writing, put it in writing and send it to the appropriate authority.

J. MacPhail: It went to the appropriate authority — a special prosecutor. It went to the special prosecutor, and while this appointee made by this minister was under a special prosecutor's investigation, the minister appointed him to the board of the Columbia Basin Trust. Is that what the Columbia basin communities have to look forward to — Victoria now in charge, appointing their friends, people who take recall petitions and are under special prosecutor's review? This minister thinks that's meritorious?

Well, let me ask a question. When a person is under investigation by a special prosecutor, does that qualify him or her to be meritorious for appointment to the board? The minister sitting right behind the Minister of Energy and Mines got removed from his office because he was under investigation. Why is it that this minister can appoint to a board people who are under investigation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If she has a serious issue that she wants to bring forward, then put it in writing and bring it forward. We're talking about remuneration to board directors.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's not what I'd like to be. It's actually what's in the act. The member has been in this House long enough to know that we should be talking about the section that's here. In fact, I would hope that we start dealing with this section.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It may seem funny to you. You may want to laugh, and you may want to do all the little antics that you want to do and your dancey, dancey dance. That's fine.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've answered the question fully. I've told you that if you have a serious concern, put it in writing and send it, and let's get on with dealing with what's in the bill.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I want to remind you again that we are dealing with section 3 under remuneration. I'd like you to get back to that, please.

I'm, frankly, asking questions that have come from Nelson-Creston, which the member for Nelson-Creston won't get up and ask. They sent this information to us last night saying: "Is Ben Arcuri going to get money from this government?" That was the question, Mr. Chair.

The minister will not answer the questions. How humiliating for him. His whole argument about the Columbia Basin Trust appointees made by his government being on the basis of merit has been blown out of the water, and he wants me to send a letter. Well, that will serve the member for Nelson-Creston and his constituents extremely well — the minister's whole

argument about appointments of merit blown out of the water. He appoints someone who's under investigation, and he won't stand up and justify it. He won't stand up and defend it. He cowers. He cowers away from it and says that I should write a letter. Frankly, the letter's been written. The special prosecutor's report is in, and the member for Nelson-Creston refuses to stand up and ask these questions.

J. MacPhail: Now, here's an interesting section. Here's a very interesting section. Section 4 repeals the requirement of the board to appoint advisory committees. Why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, this repeals that, but what the board can do is appoint advisory committees as they deem necessary from time to time for whatever issues they want to appoint an advisory committee for.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, we are. We don't think we have to tell the board to appoint an advisory committee. Actually, the board will be wise enough — the people that you appoint from the basin — that if they want to have an advisory committee, they can go out and appoint an advisory committee to get all the information they want. They actually have the knowledge, the ability. There are people there….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe you should go out in the hallway and do that. I would bet you wouldn't.

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Through the Chair, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the folks on the board know when they need an advisory committee and will be able to actually appoint, at any given time, any type of advisory committee that they deem necessary to have appointed — not that Victoria deems necessary.

J. MacPhail: Who would believe the minister on that? There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there will be any advisory committees at all. He's just repealed the legislation that appoints advisory committees. In fact, I could see people — given the kind of appointees he's making — like Ben Arcuri, who steals stuff and runs down to the Nelson-Creston office to photocopy stuff he's just stolen…. I could see him saying: "You can't have an advisory committee."

Hon. R. Neufeld: Point of order. Mr. Chair, we went through this yesterday when the other member of the opposition was actually referring to members of the board from day one as stooges. Really, that's not correct. Talking about stealing in here and those kind of things and trying to impugn someone's reputation, I think, is a bit unfair. We should be actually, I think, thankful for those board members that want to spend their time on these boards for the benefit of people in the region.

I'd rather not see that kind of language. I don't think that does anything for anyone here.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, clearly that was not a point of order. I hear catcalls from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management that are just as bad. No one calls him to order. No one does.

It is unbelievable how…. I'd hate to see this government actually face an opposition that's larger than two. They're quivering; they're fearful. They can't stand to actually face up to their responsibilities with just two of us. They have to stand up and change the agenda. It is embarrassing. Gosh forbid that they actually have more than two. This poor minister just quivering….

J. MacPhail: I was asking him a question about section 4. I asked him about advisory committees. In fact, I said that people like Mr. Arcuri, who wouldn't want any advisory committees, could actually hold up the legislation and say they're not allowed. They used to be allowed, but they're removed now. They're not allowed. Sure, he could make that argument. So let me ask the minister: what advisory committees did exist, and what did they do that he's now outlawing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, one member of a board of 12 cannot actually dominate the board and tell them exactly what they should do and shouldn't do. What we're saying is that the Columbia Basin Trust board is wise enough, and I do have some faith…. I have lots of faith in those people that sit on all those boards and commissions, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who didn't have any faith, I guess, in any of the boards and commissions that she was party to appointing. I guess she didn't have any faith in anyone because what she wanted to do was write in absolute prescriptive language exactly what they should do, what they shouldn't do, when they can come and when they can go.

Actually, what we're trying to do here is allow the board to do the things that they should be doing for the region. Unfortunately, if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have trust in people, I'm sorry. I have trust in those 12 individuals that will be appointed at the end of the day, and I want to thank them very much publicly. The Leader of the Opposition — all she wants to do is berate all of them. All 12, I guess, she would say wouldn't be able to do a job, wouldn't be able to figure out when they should have a committee and when they shouldn't have a committee. What we're saying is that the board will make that decision on their own, and I think that's giving some freedom to the board to decide what destiny they want for their board that's in the Columbia basin.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you have rightly asked me to ask relevant questions. Could the minister answer my question, please.

J. MacPhail: No, he didn't. I asked: what are the advisory committees that the minister is now outlawing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're not outlawing. The language that's used is absolutely unbelievable. We're not outlawing. What we're saying to the board is: "You can actually use your own knowledge, your own thought processes, your own abilities. You 12 individuals, use your own ability to run this board as best you can for the benefit of the people of Columbia basin." We're not telling them exactly how they should appoint those committees or whether they should have committees or not have committees. I think they're capable on their own of having committees.

The member can read section 13 that's being repealed as well as I can. If she wants to read it, that's what she should do. What we're doing is trusting in the people that are appointed from the basin, all 12 individuals from the basin, to represent the interests of the people from the basin.

J. MacPhail: What are the advisory committees that are established now, and what are they doing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I don't know exactly what committees the board has working.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I guess I could understand why the Leader of the Opposition would sit over there and make those kinds of faces and those kinds of antics about this. When she was in government, it was prescriptive. They wanted to know what everybody was doing at every part of the day — to actually tell them what to do. That's the old socialist way of moving forward.

We're not doing that. Actually, we're not telling the board they have to dissolve any committees. If they want to have ten committees, or two or one, they can have those. We're not telling them not to have them. We're giving them the freedom of having exactly what they think they need in their best interest. If that isn't a good enough response for the member…. I'm not sure, Mr. Chair. We should move on to the next section.

J. MacPhail: How embarrassing for the minister. No wonder he didn't want to answer my question. He couldn't. Here he is repealing, outlawing advisory committees that come from the community, are representing the community's interests, are appointed by the community, and he doesn't even know what he's repealing. Shame on him.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I mean, what she just said is ridiculous. I think everybody knows that, except people that would be of the same political persuasion as her, but maybe even some of those wouldn't.

I don't know what part of this the member doesn't get; I can't figure it out. We're not saying that they have to get rid of the committees they have, but what we're not telling them is that they have to form committees.

It's actually quite innovative, quite new. It's a different process. We actually trust people. You actually put people on boards, and you expect them to use their ability and their knowledge. And we trust them. I know that's difficult for you to understand, but that's the way we look at it.

I trust that the Columbia Basin Trust board — the 12 members, when this bill finally goes through — will actually make good decisions on behalf of the people from the Columbia Basin Trust without some person from Victoria telling them, like the last government: "Thou shalt have this committee. Thou shalt have that committee. Thou shalt do this. Thou shalt do that." No, we're not doing that. We're actually depending on those people to look after the best interests of people in the Columbia basin.

J. MacPhail: I notice that the member for Nelson-Creston isn't applauding, because he knows the minister doesn't even know what he's talking about.

The advisory committees were established by community consultation and were asked for by the community. Now the minister is outlawing them.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

J. MacPhail: The ministry explanation is that the trust has always been a government corporation and that the act, in its current form, leaves the impression that it was not at some time. Will the minister confirm that the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act will continue to apply to the Columbia Basin Trust?

J. MacPhail: Here's another very troubling section. This section repeals the conflict-of-interest provisions of the act. Isn't it interesting, in context of what the quality of their appointees has been already, that they're repealing the conflict-of-interest provisions in the act? I guess the minister may stand up and say: "Well, we've got the board resourcing and development office." Well, we've seen the quality of the job that office does. We've seen that in the context of Ben Arcuri. We've seen how effective they've been in that area.

Will the minister actually table the board resourcing and development office guidelines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They're on the website, and I believe the website address was given to your office yesterday or today.

J. MacPhail: Good. Then how do the board resourcing and development office guidelines differ from those in the act that he's repealing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are extensive conflict-of-interest guidelines that have to be signed at board resourcing. Along with that, the board has extensive declarations as to conflict of interest on their own, which people have to sign.

J. MacPhail: I have heard from people, given the Ben Arcuri appointment — the fact that he's a very close Liberal Party organizer for the member for Nelson-Creston and his activities on behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston against the proponents of recall — that they're very concerned about the removal of the statutory requirement for declarations of conflict of interest. The reason why they're very worried about this — this was expressed to me this morning — is that one of the values of having conflict-of-interest guidelines in public documents like the Columbia Basin Trust Act is that they're readily available for anyone to see. In fact, they couldn't be changed unless there was debate in the Legislature. Now they're gone.

Why is it, when I ask the minister for the guidelines…? Of course, he referred me to the website, and that's great. That's nice. I'm sure the people of Nelson-Creston and Cranbrook will appreciate that. But why not make the conflict-of-interest provisions open and readily available?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the conflict-of-interest guidelines are on the board resourcing and development office's government public website, so they're there. The website address has been given to the member's office.

J. MacPhail: Well, it was people who telephoned me who said that they're absolutely dismayed, given the context of the appointment of Ben Arcuri and the fact that the minister refuses to disclose the information provided under the board resourcing and development office profile. He refused to disclose it — that the information is secret. There will be absolutely no public declaration of conflict of interest, and that's a step backward.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, through board resourcing the conflict-of-interest guidelines are not made public. They are filled out. Now, the trust still has in its policy

manual and will continue to have in its policy manual, as I understand, conflict-of-interest guidelines that must be signed. I'd be surprised if the trust would release all of that information to the public, and in fact we will find that out for you. My staff doesn't know whether they would make that public if people actually filled out conflict-of-interest forms, but I wouldn't think they would. But I could stand corrected on that.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister has no idea whether they do or not. My information is that they do release them, and that's why they're in the act, and that's why people are so upset about this. Why is it that the board resourcing and development office keeps this information secret?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They don't keep it secret. They keep it confidential, and probably for good reason. In any event, obviously the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know either, because she's not definite about it, so she's just fishing for something. Our staff is listening, and we'll find out from the Columbia Basin Trust whether they put on the website the conflict-of-interest papers that are filled out by people that sit on the board.

It would be interesting, maybe, to read some of that information if it is public, going back to when that member was part of a government that appointed members to the board, to find out just exactly where the conflicts were at that time — or perceived conflicts, or somebody wants to actually make up a story about perceived conflicts. We'll find that answer for the member.

J. MacPhail: I'm surprised the minister doesn't…. He's repealing a section of the legislation, and he doesn't even know why he's repealing a section of the legislation. He is completely and poorly informed about why he's even doing this. Now, that would be — what? — the third, fourth, maybe fifth section that he has no idea why he's doing what he's doing.

Tell me: where is it in the board resourcing and development office guidelines that the minister has said that he's read? Where does it say that this information is confidential? I can't find it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I want to say to the member that, yes, we know why we're repealing sections. The difficulty is that the member opposite doesn't want to accept, in some cases, the reasons for repealing some of the sections and actually eliminating some of the needless requirements on different boards so that they can operate in today's world.

What I'm saying today is that part 3 is repealed because we already go through a process at board resourcing on conflict of interest. I know that. I want to put that on the record so you understand that. I want to say that to you again. I think I've said it six or seven times now. I also want to say that the board has a policy of conflict-of-interest guidelines internally that they ask their board members to fill out.

What I didn't qualify, and what I can't until I get that information, is one small part of that. I understand fully what I'm doing; we understand fully what we're putting forward. I don't know whether the Columbia Basin Trust puts on the website publicly the conflict-of-interest papers that are signed by people that are on the board. I don't know that. I can't say yes or no. That's the part I don't know. The rest of it I know quite well. You may not think so, but I do.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, Mr. Chair, he's got one thing wrong: that the board resourcing and development office forms are filled out on a confidentiality basis. That's not true. Let me read into the record what it says:

J. MacPhail: Well, then it's not by authority that it's confidential, because the form to which the minister referred me on the website I just read into the record.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, in fact, I'm going to read into the record No. 22 that's in the profile.

I'll read part of 22. It says: "I also consent to the disclosure of my personal information to such persons or organizations when such disclosure is necessary to evaluate my suitability for appointment to a British Columbia public agency." That's what it says.

J. MacPhail: Right. It's a disclosure, not a confidentiality statement. It's a disclosure statement, and then the whole form is summarized. That's not a statement to agree to confidentiality. That's a statement to agree to disclosure, and then the entire form is subject to this:

Boy, isn't it interesting? The most open and accountable government interprets that as a confidentiality agreement and shuts down information. That's the form he referred me to, and he's repealing legislation that guarantees conflict-of-interest reporting.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, she's wrong. What we're saying and what I've said here is that that information is kept confidential. If….

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. If you want to request it and put in writing some of the things that you said earlier, put it in writing and make that request.

Secondly, the Columbia Basin Trust has its own guidelines in regard to conflict of interest further to what's there with board resourcing. That stays in place. They have that in their guidelines, and they will continue to get that information. The board itself will have that information on each individual so that they can actually have a read of it.

J. MacPhail: I'm requesting right now, as is my right in this chamber, for the minister to release the profile of Mr. Ben Arcuri.

J. MacPhail: Section 8 repeals the provision requiring the submitting of an annual report, including audited financial statements, to the minister. My question is: what assurance is there that an annual report will continue to be made publicly available?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The requirement to provide this information actually is under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the Financial Information Act, so they will be required.

J. MacPhail: This section amends section 31(3) of the act, and it takes out the reference to the Columbia Power Corporation with respect to taxes. Why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a permissive section to exempt Crown corporations from tax. If the Columbia Basin Trust owns part of it, they would be exempt from taxes and pay something similar to what B.C. Hydro pays.

J. MacPhail: It's the reference to Columbia Power Corporation. I'm sorry; I didn't understand the reference to the Columbia Basin Trust.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we're dealing with this piece of legislation…. We have been in discussions with the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation in amalgamating those two units to actually still provide the same benefits to the Columbia basin but to actually come out, at the end of the day, with one entity. That's the reason for this section.

J. MacPhail: Sorry — amalgamating the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation? They're two very different entities. I'm sorry. Let me ask this question, Mr. Chair, which was my question before the minister spoke: how will the Columbia Power Corporation pay their levy now? Will they pay taxes as opposed to providing the grant-in-lieu? That's the case with other Crown corporations. That's a question that may be redundant now that the minister has just revealed something, but perhaps he could answer that question.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I'm not trying to confuse here. This is a complex set of discussions that's going on between the trust and Columbia Power Corporation. The power projects that would be developed would still be paying taxes to the same level as B.C. Hydro, as long as the trust has an ownership in those projects.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I might add the Columbia Power Corporation has built a substantial amount of generation that this government never, ever refers to when it says the previous government didn't generate any new hydro. It's shocking that they think they can get away with that, saying that in the 1990s there was no new generation created when Columbia Power Corporation has done that to the tune of megawatts after megawatts.

Just tell me this, then. What's the nature of these discussions? How are they occurring? Are they in se-

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Columbia Basin Trust, Columbia Power Corporation and the Crown agencies secretariat are having those discussions in regard to these issues. At the end of the day, hopefully, it will come out with something where we can actually deliver more revenue to the Columbia basin than what is being delivered now.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm not trying to be difficult with this, because there are discussions going on, and so there's nothing untoward here. Actually, as I said before, what it does is leave the ability to tax whatever happens at the end of the day between the discussions between Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation in a way that it should be properly taxed or not taxed. That's one part of it.

I neglected to talk about the definition of the boundaries of the region, and that is also part of this section. I'm sure the member is aware that when they were in government, they were probably asked as many times as we have been to change the boundaries of the region in regard to the Columbia Basin Trust. What we're doing is actually…. It used to be that the government only made that decision. What we're saying is that we're putting that authority with the Columbia Basin Trust also. It has to be a request from the Columbia Basin Trust to the government before there would be any changes.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister tell us whether the discussions to amalgamate…? Well, in fact, are the discussions to amalgamate the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation to take over, to merge? What is the nature of the discussions? Who is involved in those discussions, and how long have they been going on?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again I'll say that the folks who are discussing this are people from the Columbia Basin Trust, Columbia Power Corporation and Crown agencies secretariat, which is responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation. Those people have been discussing it, and they've been discussing it for a while.

J. MacPhail: Is it the board of the Columbia Basin Trust that's discussing this?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I've met with the board chair and the CEO in regard to this on a number of occasions, and so has Crown agencies secretariat. I've met with both from both CPC and CBT.

J. MacPhail: Thank God I asked that question, because the minister originally forgot to name himself as part of these discussions. He forgot that little detail. So the politician in charge involved in these discussions…. Tell me: could I go to the Columbia Basin Trust minutes and see the nature of these discussions? Have the chair and the treasurer reported back to the board on these discussions?

The other question I had for the minister is: the nature of the discussions — is it a merger, an amalgamation or a takeover?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I've only had a few meetings with those people in regard to this. The board, I would assume — and in fact I'm told by staff — had been informed of these discussions that are going on. It's really an issue about streamlining the whole operation, and the final part of it has not been decided yet.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that we rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 79, Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 79, Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 85.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 85; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I just need to clear up some confusion arising out of the second reading debate, Mr. Chair. Member after member from the government side got up in this House and said that B.C. Hydro is not for sale. Both the member for North Coast and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson got up and alluded to the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act as somehow facilitating the sale of B.C. Hydro. They very clearly made the charge that because that act stayed on the statutes in British Columbia, the previous government had some secret desire to sell off B.C. Hydro. I actually just reviewed Hansard on that earlier this morning.

Perhaps the minister can stand up and clear up once and for all whether or not the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act facilitated or in any way permitted or encouraged or set in motion the sale of B.C. Hydro.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Before I start, I'd like to introduce, on my right, Paul Wieringa, director of electricity policy, and that's in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. On my left is Stirling Bates, senior regulatory adviser with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

I want to clearly state for the record, again, that B.C. Hydro and its core assets are not for sale. They are a protected asset, and what we're doing with Bill 85 is laying it out fairly strongly and, in fact, listing the assets — specifically the dams — and that these assets are not for sale. If some government in the future wanted to sell any one of those assets, it would actually have to come before this Legislature to get approval to do that. That's why we wanted to actually strengthen in this act — to make sure, just as we did in the BCTC act — that the assets are not for sale.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether the minister was deliberately avoiding answering my question. I'm referring to the debate brought forward by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for North Coast, who said that the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act permitted the sale of B.C. Hydro. It didn't, according to my reading, so I wondered if the minister could clarify where his government caucus members got that interpretation.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate what she's saying in her question. Actually, in the Hydro Power and Authority Privatization Act, there's one short sentence that says: "Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale of the authority's electrical division, nor any part of the authority's electrical division." It's something that was put in, I believe, in the late eighties and didn't describe accurately or strongly enough that those assets could be for sale. Actually, under that act, they could be sold more easily. Under this act, they can't be.

We should remember it was the last administration that had, at one of their caucus meetings, a meeting about selling a large Crown corporation and listed all the Crown corporations, of which B.C. Hydro happened to be one. I assume they sat behind closed doors and talked about that. We also know they talked about that and had B.C. Hydro do polling with the public across the province to find out whether they wanted the assets sold or not.

They found out very quickly that no, British Columbians didn't want it sold. To their credit, they didn't sell it, but they certainly contemplated it. What we wanted to do was bring this bill in so that it's stronger language, more understandable language about the fact that you can't sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro without coming before the House.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I feel so bad about a government that actually consulted with the public and listened to them. It was terrible that in the 1990s that took place. It

was terrible in the 1990s when you had an open caucus discussion about whether to privatize public assets, and the government came to the conclusion to not do so — unlike this government, which has to be forced by the court of public opinion and protest and dismay to stop privatization such as with the liquor stores and the Coquihalla.

But this minister actually was a Social Credit. I think that was his rookie induction into politics. He then went on to be a Reform, then he went to be an independent, and then he's a Liberal. There's commitment to a philosophy. But this minister was a Social Credit, so he must have known about this legislation. What part of electrical division would be excluded from the transmission, generation and distribution of the electricity then?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm glad she reminded me of my history. Let's see. I think that in all three elections, I was elected with a majority. I think the public in Peace River North actually have some faith and trust in me, and I thank them for that. In fact, I believe that last time, I was elected with a high 60 percent majority of the people in the constituency of Peace River North. I make no apologies for that. I have served the constituency well and continue to serve the constituency well, as the member opposite does. I certainly don't take umbrage with what she has done in her past political life.

But what we are saying — and we're talking about section 1, I believe, Mr. Chair — in the definitions is that we have listed the generation and storage assets identified in a schedule to the act that can't be sold. We've also said the equipment and facilities for the transmission or distribution of electricity can't be sold. That's a fairly strong definition as compared to the old act. As I said, all we're trying to do is strengthen it to make sure that British Columbians understand that we're not selling it and that we never intended to sell it. In fact, it was manufactured by some other people that we were going to sell B.C. Hydro or any part of it.

J. MacPhail: I can understand why the minister would take umbrage at someone saying they may not be actually revealing all of their plans — like B.C. Rail. I can't imagine why anyone would be suspicious about the government flip-flopping on a promise not to privatize something.

Secondly, if the lengthy and many denials of government members that B.C. Hydro was for sale or being privatized…. In those lengthy denials, despite how long it took us to get the minister to admit that the sale of the Hydro administrative services to Accenture was in fact privatization…. That is on the record.

There has been a vociferous attack by the government caucus members on the B.C. Citizens for Public Power. In fact, the member for Chilliwack-Kent went to great lengths to show that because someone worked for the previous government in 1996 and is now an employee of the Citizens for Public Power, the NDP is somehow responsible for the views of that organization.

Let's carry that forward. It seems to be logic that the executive council supports. Let me ask this then. Mark Reder. He's a lobbyist for the energy industry. He's a former Liberal caucus worker and a former Liberal Party constituency activist, and now he works for the energy lobby. Well, does the minister then dismiss him as a partisan without any credibility too?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Nowhere did I say that we sold any part of B.C. Hydro. The member's wrong. We outsourced services from B.C. Hydro to Accenture so that the ratepayers could save over the next ten years approximately $250 million. I think that was actually a pretty good deal. In fact, we have another new business and a head office in Vancouver which actually has been able to garner some more business across Canada. It's headquartered in Vancouver, providing jobs to British Columbians — people working for that company. I don't think that's a bad deal. I never once said we sold anything out of B.C. Hydro, because we didn't. We outsourced those services to Accenture.

Again, I'm not here to discuss, I don't think, second reading debate. That's already transpired. It's gone by. We finished that. Section 1 clearly states the assets that are not for sale with B.C. Hydro.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I know the minister never likes to discuss things that his government caucus members have said. He can never defend his government caucus members. There are two reasons. There are two potential reasons for that. The words that come out of the mouths of the government caucus members are completely indefensible, or else he doesn't want to get up and admit that perhaps Mark Reder, an energy lobbyist and former staffer of the Liberal caucus, is now actually directing him on his energy policy — doesn't want to admit to that. Just the same way that when Marcia Smith was revealed as wearing two hats, working for the energy industry and also working for the minister directly, somehow that wasn't an issue as well.

I can understand this minister being embarrassed or not wanting to defend his government caucus at all. It's like the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. He couldn't defend his government caucus members either, because the statements were completely indefensible.

Are there any generation or storage assets not identified in the schedule that are currently owned or operated by B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The assets are listed in the schedule as they relate to generation and storage assets.

Maybe I should put something on the record, Mr. Chair. Marcia Smith. The reference was made that Marcia Smith was somehow an adviser to me or my ministry on the development of the energy policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that was cleared up very well the same day that it was brought forward in question period. I know the member doesn't

like the answers sometimes, and she doesn't like the truth sometimes. Marcia Smith and her company were hired to help us roll out the energy plan, well after it was developed. That's what took place — not in directing how the energy policy was put together.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I would like to counsel that we will return to section 1, definitions. Both sides should try and stick to that, please.

J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question, because the minister didn't answer it. Frankly, his word about Marcia Smith is as good as their saying they're not going to privatize B.C. Rail. Who the heck knows…

J. MacPhail: …my question that the minister didn't answer. Are there any generation or storage assets not identified in the schedule?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm going to answer the question first. They're listed in the schedule. All the assets are listed there.

You know, she can continue to talk about Marcia Smith all she wants. It's interesting that she wants to go there.

The Chair: Minister, on both issues, I think we should stick to section 1 — both the Leader of the Opposition and the minister.

J. MacPhail: The minister has been quoted in the media as suggesting that without the provisions of this bill as they relate to protected assets, which is in section 1, B.C. Hydro would not be able to dispose of old vehicles. How did he get to that conclusion?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's one example. There are probably hundreds of examples that I could use in B.C. Hydro's operation. There could be lines someplace that went, let's say, into a remote area or a remoter area — to a farm — and the farm was no longer operational, and the hydro lines were no longer needed. They could be taken down. That's just another example. There are all kinds of examples. Or transformers or anything like that…. That's what we're referring to there — those kinds of operational things.

The world is a bit different today than it was in 1988, and the legal folks have asked us to identify it and be a little bit more clear on some of these issues.

J. MacPhail: So the minister has a legal opinion that supports him saying that he would not have been able to dispose of old vehicles. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have been informed that old vehicles, along with a lot of other things that B.C. Hydro have that they would want to dispose of because they were no longer needed…. Legally, they couldn't. What they wanted to do was reflect in the legislation the fact that they could.

J. MacPhail: Was there a bunch of illegal activities going on, like selling a tractor?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know about old tractors. I couldn't tell you. But under the old legislation, it didn't cover it properly. We're trying to cover it properly so that it is a lot more clear to the public and everyone concerned about what assets are protected and what assets actually can be disposed of, if that is necessary.

J. MacPhail: How much did the minister pay for legal advice that he just got about the inability to sell a truck? How much did that cost the taxpayers?

J. MacPhail: I think that's a legitimate question. Is that not a legitimate question? Is the minister getting tired? I mean, I am the only one amongst the government caucus members asking any questions, so it is interesting that the minister has to sit in his chair and refuse to answer questions. How much did the legal advice cost to reach such a questionable conclusion?

The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition on section 1. A new question on section 1?

Did the minister pay for any legal advice in reaching any of these conclusions? Just answer yes or no. On what basis did the minister make that statement about how they couldn't sell a vehicle? The only reason I question this is because it really goes to the credibility of what the minister says about anything.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I want to make sure I do my job properly is because the Premier in his secret scrum just said he'd be more than happy if I would step down out of my seat and give it to the new leader of the NDP. I said to him, "In your dreams, Mr. Premier," that I would leave. I'm just trying to do my job here. In fact, the minister doesn't want me to do my job. It's embarrassing how he sits in his seat. What are the criteria that Hydro will use to determine when an asset

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro is a well-run corporation. Actually, Hydro is one of the largest corporations in the province of British Columbia — the third-largest utility in Canada. They have been running a large hydro operation for many years. They're quite capable of running a large hydro corporation, and they will make decisions about what they have to dispose of and what they don't have to dispose of.

What we're saying here and what we've listed in the schedule — and you may not like it, but we've listed it — is that any of those assets or transmission and distribution are not for sale, unless you want to come back to this House and explain to people in this Legislature why you're doing it.

That's simply what this bill is about: to reassure that it's not for sale. Here it is, and if you want to sell it…. If this bill actually will give a lot of protection into the future in relationship to B.C. Hydro…. Although the member says she might get calls about it, I get lots of calls about it, saying: "Right on. That's a good bill. We like what you have in that bill. We like what you're doing with B.C. Hydro, and we're really happy that you're strengthening the fact that assets are not for sale."

J. MacPhail: That was what my question was about. The minister stands up every time he gets a chance and says how he's strengthening the criteria about what assets can be sold, etc. I'm just asking him how he makes that determination. It's just the question that arises out of the minister's own comments: what are the criteria upon which the minister just based his assertion?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The bill lays it out. As I said, B.C. Hydro will be able to make most of those decisions. What we're saying is that here are the things that can't be sold: the dams and the reservoirs, the transmission and the distribution. It's listed; it's stated. It actually is in the bill. They can dispose of things they have to dispose of in the regular course of business. This bill also allows them to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, there were people who operate the dams who were sent over to Accenture. The dams couldn't operate without these people. Yes, minister — through you, Mr. Chair — that's true.

What about intellectual property? Is intellectual property able to be sold? What happens in that area, for instance? The minister made a very clear statement over and over again that he wouldn't have been able to sell a truck. I can't figure out where the truck stops — the assets of the intellectual property. As everyone knows, the generating station doesn't operate without a person, and yet the minister sent those people operating those generating stations over to Accenture, a private operator. What are the rules? Just tell me what the rules are. The minister makes this big assertion and claims a lot of credit for it. I'm just trying to figure out how he worked it through.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I go back to this discussion we had a while ago about the control of the dams and the transmission. That remains firmly with those corporations. What was outsourced to Accenture were some of the back-office services. The control still stays with the corporations that are owned by the province.

J. MacPhail: I have to debate a lot of legislation in this House, far more than the minister does, and I remember very clearly that the people who are responsible for operating the dams — I listed the dams — have gone over to Accenture. The dams would not be able to operate without those people. Maybe the minister doesn't remember that, but I do. Will the bits and pieces…?

J. MacPhail: I am not wrong, and I'd be happy to have him stand up and prove me wrong. Will the bits and pieces of existing generation facilities be allowed to be sold off when they're not in use?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the operation does stay with B.C. Hydro and BCTC, in response to the earlier question. I remember debating those issues in this House. It stays with the control of B.C. Hydro and BCTC — is now and will be in the future. Maybe the member could tell me what bits and pieces she's talking about.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'd be happy to. It's interesting that the questions are now coming toward me.

Well, let's look at Burrard Thermal. What happens to Burrard Thermal, where they're only running three of its six generating units?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you look closely on page 3 of the bill, No. 6 is Burrard Thermal. It's a protected asset. At least that's what I read. If there is a move to change Burrard Thermal, whether it's running on one turbine or two or three or four or five or six, it doesn't make any difference. If there's a move to sell Burrard Thermal, that would have to come back to this Legislature for discussion because it's listed as a protected asset.

J. MacPhail: Every single generating unit at Burrard Thermal is protected, whether it's operating or not. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's remember that that is a system — Burrard Thermal. It's large. It can generate up to

900 megawatts. If they want to change out a turbine, they ought to be allowed to do that to generate electricity. It says this in the act. The old ones — no, we're not going to protect the ones that are really old. If B.C. Hydro can actually put in new generation, they ought to be able to do that to improve efficiency. I'm sure the member would like us to move forward with that, improve the efficiency and the air quality in the lower mainland. I think that would make good sense. If you want to change out an old turbine, this allows B.C. Hydro to do that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's section 2(2)(c): "…the assets disposed of are to be replaced with one or more assets that will perform similar functions…."

J. MacPhail: Why, then, was (c) put in there? What's the necessity for that? Burrard Thermal is an example of that. Where else?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That could take place in any one of the other facilities across the province. We do own more than one thermal facility. There's another one in Fort Nelson. At some point in time that one may have to be upgraded. There could be one of the dams that may need a turbine upgraded to where you can put in a newer turbine that will actually generate more electricity at a more reasonable rate. There should be nothing wrong with being able to do that.

J. MacPhail: Does (c) mean that power now produced by B.C. Hydro could be replaced by independent power and the act would still be considered fulfilled?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, this bill has to deal with the assets that are listed here. They're listed by name as far as generation facilities go, so I think the schedule is fairly straightforward in what is a protected asset.

J. MacPhail: Well, I asked the minister whether it was systemwide, whether the replacement could be added systemwide, and the minister has a plan that all future power production will be by independent power sources. Maybe let me just clarify, then. If Burrard Thermal shuts down, then that amount of power has to be replaced by B.C. Hydro and owned by B.C. Hydro as an asset?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, use Burrard Thermal for instance. You would have to come back to this Legislature and actually explain in this House to the people of the province why you would be closing Burrard Thermal and how you would be replacing that energy. That whole process is open. It actually allows the Crown corporation to operate in the world today. If, for instance, you did close Burrard Thermal and you have to build new generation to take its place, you may do that by putting in two generators in Mica or Revelstoke. That's a possibility.

At the end of the day, the B.C. Utilities Commission now has authority over B.C. Hydro, unlike the ten years under that member's administration. Actually, B.C. Hydro has to prove to the B.C. Utilities Commission how they are going to generate electricity and why it's the cheapest way to go about generating that electricity. Vancouver Island today is a good example of that. The BCUC asked B.C. Hydro to go back and make another call for generation on Vancouver Island, for the benefit of the people of the province, to keep the rates as low as we possibly can.

J. MacPhail: I can't find here…. Perhaps the minister could walk us through. Let's just use an example — Burrard Thermal. The minister wants to sell off parts of Burrard Thermal, or Burrard Thermal, and replace it with generation somewhere else, somehow else. Where under the act will that be brought to the Legislature?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The assets that are listed — the generation and storage assets that are listed in the schedule — clearly list Burrard Thermal. If some government in the future wanted to close Burrard Thermal, they would have to come back to this Legislature and say: "Burrard Thermal is off the list, and here are the reasons why." I can't hypothetically think, ten years from now, what that conversation may be about at that time. I'm not exactly sure. The member may know, but I don't know.

At that point in time the Crown corporation will come forward. B.C. Hydro, I would assume, would come forward with reasons why they think they should close Burrard Thermal and for what reason. People in this Legislature like yourself, if you're still here, will be able to ask those questions of why they are or why they would be.

I don't think they are contemplating closing it. Right now it's an integral part of the Hydro system. I mean, it's the only large plant that's right close to the largest load we have in the province. If you did have some major impacts in some other part of the province, you could actually still keep the lights on down here. There may be some reason in the future to remove it off the protected asset list, but there will have to be a reason for it, and it will have to come here. Right now I'm not asking that. I'm saying it's on the list as a protected asset.

J. MacPhail: Uh-oh. That's kind of dismaying news, because the Minister of Education repeatedly states that Burrard Thermal is going to be shut down — repeatedly. I mean, the Minister of Education…. Actually, she's the Deputy Premier. Not only did she do it

during the last election, but she keeps repeating it. I'm shocked to hear now that this government is not going to do that. I'm sure her constituents will be shocked as well. In fact, when there was a debate about whether Burrard Thermal should be kept open or not, the Minister of Education said her government will shut it down.

It's not a hypothetical question, unless the minister…. Well, I guess the government could be abandoning the Minister of Education. She's probably on that list of a no-win seat again. There are about 30 on the list now. That's a possibility. That actually is a possibility.

It is dismaying that the government hasn't actually come clean. Actually, that's not true. The minister has now come clean. They're not going to shut down Burrard Thermal. I can hardly wait for the Minister of Education to have to justify that to her constituents. Maybe she'll bring the Minister of Energy to a town hall meeting, like she did when she made the commitment that her government would shut down Burrard Thermal. I can hardly wait.

It's not a hypothetical question. If the government shuts down Burrard Thermal, can the minister guarantee that 2(c) will not be invoked and that that issue will be brought to the Legislature?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, that's the difference between this government and the last one. We listed Burrard Thermal knowing there's lots of controversy about Burrard Thermal and ways that maybe you could generate that electricity in a different way. We have said by this bill that we're listing it as an asset today. It is an asset today, and it will stay an asset until there's a decision made that maybe it should be phased out.

I'm not sure that it will be totally phased out. It may be repowered for all I know — one or the other — but at the end of the day, what we're saying is now…. I mean, if I left it off, you'd be asking all the questions: "Why did you leave it off, and what are you doing?" Understand that. We left it on there so that when, hypothetically, we have to do that — it is hypothetical now; we want to look at how we improve the air quality in the lower mainland — we will bring that to this Legislature, and people like yourself can ask the questions.

I was remiss just a while ago when the member asked me the question: were all the assets listed? There's one dam and one diesel-fired plant that aren't listed. The Coursier Dam is decommissioned and has been decommissioned for safety reasons, I believe. The Keogh plant on Vancouver Island burns diesel fuel. That was decommissioned.

The member should remember that plant. I remember that when they were in opposition, when hydro was being sold for a pretty high rate south of the border into California for some pretty phenomenal funds, the government of the day — who talked about wanting clean air in British Columbia — decided that they were going to fire up the Keogh plant and burn diesel fuel to generate electricity, to send it south of the border to the U.S., because they were money-hungry and needed money. We've said that plant isn't on here. I just thought I'd remind the member of that and what they accomplished while they were in office.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, it is a constant source of amazement how this minister justifies his actions by saying: "We're no worse than you were." The voters voted for something pretty much different. I love it every time he stands up and says that. I think it's hilarious. He has no idea how much damage he does to himself when he says: "You were bad, and we're just as bad." Wow. That's championing the interests of British Columbians — isn't it? There's a real champion of the cause. He just did it again.

Under what circumstances, if any, will section 2 be used to avoid bringing a change in assets to the Legislature?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Subsection (2)(b): "the assets disposed of are no longer used or useful."

J. MacPhail: The minister listed two assets that are no longer used, that have been…. I assume that's a word for "decommissioned" — no longer used.

I'm talking about the assets that are in the schedule. The ones that are decommissioned are not listed here. In the schedule here, in terms of the change in ownership or the determination that they're no longer…. Well, let me just ask this. Will section 2 ever be used — any aspect of section 2 — in relationship to the schedule to not have a debate on a change in the schedule here in the legislation?

Hydro recently completed a study on the viability of continuing to operate some of its smaller generating plants. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Under the last administration, I believe, a study was commissioned to look at some of the smaller plants and see if there was a way to better utilize those plants to generate electricity.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm told there was a recent study by B.C. Hydro under this administration. Then when this study was made public recently, the minister said that none of these plants would be disposed of. Does that remain the position of the minister?

J. MacPhail: When protected assets are disposed of and replaced with similar assets, will there ever be a mixture? I've already approached this question from a different angle, Mr. Chair, but I'm not…. Let me explore it just a tiny bit more, because I didn't get an an-

swer, and I want to make sure I present the question clearly. Can B.C. Hydro assets be disposed of and be replaced by independent power sources? Is that contemplated under this legislation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If B.C. Hydro were to dispose of any of the listed assets that are here or are spoken about, you would have to come to this Legislature to get the approval to do that.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have in his energy plan…? I'm going to get to the energy plan as it relates to this legislation. Is it contemplated in the energy plan that independent power sources, which are all the new power sources from now on, will replace assets of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. B.C. Hydro is allowed to do upgrades to its present facilities, the ones they operate, to make them more efficient to generate electricity. We've also said we want to open up the process and allow for independent power producers to generate the new incremental power needed for the province of British Columbia going forward. That's clearly what the energy plan says in both cases.

J. MacPhail: Will it be possible for Hydro to replace currently owned assets with leased assets?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'll go back to the fact that that's why the assets of B.C. Hydro are listed. If they wanted to change any of these assets from what they are today, that would mean disposal of them. They would have to come to this Legislature with a recommendation. I'm sure there would be some ruling by the B.C. Utilities Commission to get approval to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, the government says the Accenture contract isn't a privatization contract. Given that only-made-in-Liberal-heaven definition of that, what if they contemplated saying to Accenture: "You're going to run the dams now"? The government says that's not privatization. Would that be allowed under this legislation?

P. Nettleton: I think the question, which appears to be answered in part at least, is: can the protected assets be replaced by an independent power or outsourced if they are declared obsolete or not fit for purpose? The answer appears to be yes. I know the minister makes reference to the fact that the Legislature will somehow be involved with respect to that determination, but — correct me if I'm wrong — the answer is indeed yes to that question.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've already answered this question. What I've said is that for the assets that are listed here, if they are to be decommissioned or put out of service, you have to come to this Legislature and actually prove why you would be doing that, explain to the people of British Columbia why you would be doing that.

We have in our energy plan the fact that B.C. Hydro can upgrade its facilities — that includes this group of facilities here — to new types of generation so they can meet the load going forward and that we're going to encourage independent power producers in the future to generate the incremental supply moving forward in the province. That's what we're doing.

Actually, it's been pretty successful — signed $800 million worth of contracts. Mr. Chair, that's for clean energy. That's for wind power and biomass and run-of-the-river — all those good things for the environment of the province — and meeting, at the same time, British Columbia's energy requirements.

P. Nettleton: This is the section that's particularly problematic for me, from my perspective, and the Leader of the Opposition has certainly identified some of the important issues with respect to this clause and the practical implications for all British Columbians in terms of where this government's going. Bill 85 will indeed allow — it appears to me — B.C.'s core assets of generation, storage, transmission and distribution to be sold or disposed of, if B.C. Hydro deems them to be no longer fit for purpose or no longer useful, or to be replaced, relocated or outsourced. Indeed, this is a huge loophole in the legislation — a loophole big enough, I would argue, to drive a Mack truck through. I know there's been reference made to trucks by the minister. The Mack trucks, I expect, are lined up just waiting to drive through that loophole.

With this one clause alone, it appears that government is now poised to declare any of B.C. Hydro's core assets obsolete. They can be replaced, relocated or treated as an outsource asset. It's entirely consistent with this government's approach to the whole question of B.C. Hydro, and I expect that core asset by core asset, they plan to divest themselves of the remaining assets and the responsibility that flows from those assets to produce, transmit and store power.

I know the minister is shaking his head. The minister is a true believer in the sense that he accepts, at face value, the claims of the executive with respect to B.C. Hydro. I don't, and I expect that most of the voting public do not accept, at face value, the claims of this government with respect to B.C. Hydro and a number of their other privatization initiatives. I know the minister is a true believer, and there are about 75 true believers here that will some day wake up, face reality and accept that in fact what's being done to B.C. Hydro and across government with respect to this government's privatization agenda is destructive and wrong. It's our hope that this can be stopped at some point.

Really, this government is all about reducing the scope of government. Bill 85, with respect to section 2, is not about protecting B.C. Hydro, which is truly a public power legacy. It's about dismantling and deregulation, and that's unfortunate. That's something we

will certainly attempt to fight at every opportunity not only here in the Legislature but more importantly, I believe, outside of the Legislature. We will continue to carry the message forward that this is a government that can be and should be forced to back down with respect to where they're going in and around B.C. Hydro.

I guess those are comments as much as questions, but the minister may want to respond.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I find it rather unbelievable that B.C. Hydro…. The energy plan says clearly: "Public ownership and low-cost electricity." I don't know what part of "public ownership" some folks don't understand. Let me tell you, I think most people across the province understand public ownership, and that's what this energy policy is all about — public ownership of B.C. Hydro and lowest possible rates moving forward.

You know, it would be unbelievable — and when you think about the question or the statements that were just proposed about privatization…. What's public ownership and privatization? That member ought to know the difference. Privatization is not where we're going with B.C. Hydro. Public ownership is going with B.C. Hydro. We're talking about protecting all of B.C. Hydro. We're talking in this act about actually expanding the protection for B.C. Hydro for the people of British Columbia and have been consistent in saying that. We've have been consistent in saying that.

Deregulation. That was a movement by the last government. It was the last government that deregulated B.C. Hydro. We re-regulated B.C. Hydro. In fact, the energy plan shows it is re-regulated.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know. Maybe both opposition members, maybe both NDP members don't understand that.

But you know, the B.C. Utilities Commission has just made some rulings around B.C. Hydro. That's regulation. Let's think about regulation. Let's think about…

Hon. R. Neufeld: …regulation. Re-regulate it. You know, we actually instructed B.C. Hydro to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission to get a certificate of public convenience to build a plant on Vancouver Island that they wished to build. I'll tell you what deregulation is. It was when Dan Miller, one of the Premiers under the last administration — one of four or five, I think…. He actually wrote a letter to the B.C. Utilities Commission saying they didn't need to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission. That's deregulation.

The member in the corner ought to know that's deregulation. We re-regulated B.C. Hydro. It's regulated. It's cost-based. It's regulated. Mr. Chair, further to that statement, tell me: is B.C. Hydro going to come forward and say they're going to decommission G.M. Shrum? It's only 2,780 megawatts, the largest plant in British Columbia. Are they going to come forward and say: "You know what? We're going to mothball that monster"?

You know, we're short of electricity in British Columbia now because the last administration built in Pakistan instead of in British Columbia. We're short of electricity. In fact, one member from here went to Pakistan and had a little view of that good plant. It's a tough thing to get that energy from over there to here.

I can't imagine anything as ridiculous as saying B.C. Hydro would decommission G.M. Shrum or…. I don't care — any one of them. John Hart. Would they decommission Fort Nelson and shut down Fort Nelson? Hardly. Why would they shut down a plant? I mean, what rationale is there, other than bogeymen stuff, to shut down any plant and say, "You know what? We're going to mothball 2,780 megawatts, and we're going to go to the private sector to build a new one"?

There might be a government sometime in the future that would be that stupid, but that's not going to happen. That kind of bogeymen tactic, that kind of ridiculous statement, is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, I find it unbelievable that I'm taking the time to respond to it, but I am taking the time to respond to it so that people understand how ridiculous those kinds of statements are.

J. MacPhail: Let's just carry on about how this government determines stuff that has to do with Hydro. The minister just says: "Oh, they're doing everything through the BCUC." Well, let's just look at that, at the promise to "re-regulate." Let's just see.

We now know there won't be any review of any construction done — independent power construction or anything — because Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, outlaws any review, allows the government…. Yes, it outlaws any review. It absolutely does. All you've got to do is go to the Premier behind closed doors and say: "Oh, I'm so stressed out by all those regulations. Let me ram my project through." And the Premier will go: "Oh, okay."

So that's the new future under this government, but let's see about re-regulation. Section 3 talks about the heritage contract. Just as the minister suggested, after years of complaining that the previous government was interfering in the setting of hydro rates and his promise to re-regulate B.C. Hydro, we have in this section an explicit legislated direction that the cabinet — the cabinet — tell the BCUC what the heritage rate will be.

Oh, would that be cabinet making a decision about hydro rates? Yes, it would. What made the minister flip-flop on his promise to re-regulate B.C. Hydro and

put in, by legislation, this level of interference in the rate-setting role of the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, actually, we are re-regulating B.C. Hydro, and we asked the B.C. Utilities Commission to go out and hold hearings around the province. They did that publicly — I'm sure you attended some of those public meetings — to review a number of things specifically around the heritage contract and stepped rates and time-of-use rates to actually get input from people, to get the public's input from around the province.

I know that's strange. That may not sit well with the member, but that's exactly what the B.C. Utilities Commission did. They went out and solicited that information from a lot of people, not behind closed doors but actually in public meetings where people could come forward and make presentations. There were quite a few. In fact, I'm not too sure that Citizens for Public Power weren't there at some point in time. They might have been. I'm not sure. They presented, I believe, to the formation of the energy policy.

We did hold that. When that report was given to us, we posted it on the website. I believe it's on the website for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It's been there since about October 18 — somewhere in there towards the end of October. It's been there for everyone to read exactly what they recommended to do. That's public consultation and using the B.C. Utilities Commission for what we should use it for.

J. MacPhail: We're going to get to that in a moment, Mr. Chair, but let's be clear. No matter how much this minister obfuscates, here's what the legislation says about the commission: "Without limiting any other obligation of the commission or the authority" — and the "commission" means the B.C. Utilities Commission — "(a) the commission must, when setting rates of the authority, comply with any regulations, including, without limitation, any general or special directions, made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council…."

Do you know who the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is? It's the cabinet. It just confirms what I said earlier. This minister justifies his actions by saying he's just as bad as the previous administration, only now he's confirmed it in legislation. Now he's actually had the gall to say: "Everything we complained about in the previous administration we're now legislating as fact." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the cabinet, and the cabinet will set the heritage contract rate by fiat, by legislation. The commission has to take it holus-bolus, no questions asked, no protest. Maybe the minister could stand up and explain where I'm wrong.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct in a bit of her statement. We actually asked the commission to go out and get input from the public across the province as to how the heritage rate should be set up. I believe, if I remember correctly, they said it should be a blended rate. That means that new generation, although it's more expensive, and the heritage energy should be blended together for the benefit of people to keep rates as low as possible. They made those recommendations, and at the end of the day they do make those recommendations to a cabinet. That cabinet happens to be a B.C. Liberal cabinet today. The B.C. Liberal cabinet will write some special directives exactly as….

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's not "oh." I mean, special directions have been given for many years.

What we have done is get the public's input so that we can move forward with it. That is the normal course. That's regulating B.C. Hydro; that's re-regulating B.C. Hydro. It will be cost-based. As we move forward, B.C. Hydro — and it's no secret — is going to go before the B.C. Utilities Commission for a rate review. Interesting. They haven't been before the B.C. Utilities Commission, I believe, since 1991.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They haven't had to go before an independent body to set their cost-based rates since 1991, and they still will. In fact, I think sometime early in December they will be going before the B.C. Utilities Commission — at least, that's what they've indicated — to ask for a rate review and a rate increase. Whether the B.C. Utilities Commission gives that to them or not is a decision the B.C. Utilities Commission will make on their own. They'll make that decision on their own.

Just further to B.C. Hydro making all that money, I wish the last administration, which keeps talking about making all that money, would have collected all that money so we don't have to spend the millions of dollars we are today to try and collect the balance of the $300 million that's owed to the province.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I am on section 3. How incompetent this minister is that he can't get his money from California. They've been in government for over two and a half years, and they're blaming us for that. You

know, earlier on, yesterday, I heard a Liberal member take credit for snow, give the Premier credit for snow. If they're that God almighty powerful, how is it they are so incompetent that they can't get what's due them from California? They've got a whole new opportunity there.

Let me ask the minister this. The rate is going to be determined behind closed doors by the cabinet. What portion of the overall rate will the heritage contract comprise?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The heritage assets will generate for the province approximately 95 percent of the generation needed.

J. MacPhail: So 95 percent of the generation will have a rate established behind closed doors, just exactly the way….

J. MacPhail: Oh, I wish the member for North Vancouver–Seymour would join in the debate, because he somehow claims I'm wrong.

Here's what the legislation says. The heritage contract, which will form 95 percent of the generation…. The rate for the heritage contract will be determined behind closed doors by cabinet fiat — exactly the complaint this minister made over and over again against the previous government. For 95 percent of the generation, they're doing exactly the same thing. It confirms the point I made earlier. Actually, no, they're going one step further on this one. Not only are they not delivering on their promise to re-regulate hydro rates, but they're actually legislating the inability to re-regulate hydro rates on 95 percent of the generation. They're actually legislating that.

Well, isn't that wonderful? Doesn't that just make a mockery of their commitment to re-regulate through the B.C. Utilities Commission? The B.C. Utilities Commission now will have a heritage contract imposed upon them by this cabinet for 95 percent of the input of determining hydro rates in this province.

Well, I actually read the report. It was October 17. The minister has a very good memory. He said October 18. October 17 — I read the report. Here's what the B.C. Utilities Commission said about the heritage contract. I'll just go through some of these. It said that the commission allocate the benefits of the heritage resources among customer classes as part of its rate-making jurisdiction, pursuant to the Utilities Commission Act. What does the minister say about that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the 95 percent of the generation will come from heritage assets. That's correct. We know what the price is today. That's a price that's been set. It's been there for quite a long time — since 1991. B.C. Hydro will appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission to ask for a rate increase from that rate. The B.C. Utilities Commission will review that request and actually have a review of all of B.C. Hydro's operations — a thorough review — to make sure that the rate request they're asking for is cost-based. We're having cost-based electricity in the province of British Columbia to keep the rates as low as possible.

That's how the B.C. Utilities Commission will make a decision on what the rate increase or…. I don't know what they'll do at the end of the day. Maybe they won't give them a rate increase. Maybe they'll say: "I'm sorry, guys. Go away. You're making enough." I'm not sure. We're not going to presuppose that. That's why we have a B.C. Utilities Commission. But that's how those rates will be set.

J. MacPhail: I asked a question about…. The minister's bragging about the B.C. Utilities Commission. I'm actually asking a question about the B.C. Utilities Commission recommendation. I'll read it again. It's the recommendations about the heritage contract — the very clause we're talking about right now. It's so relevant, I can't stand it. Here's the question. Here's the recommendation they made about the heritage contract — that the commission allocate the benefits of the heritage resources among customer classes as part of its rate-making jurisdiction, pursuant to the Utilities Commission Act.

J. MacPhail: The government has this recommendation before it. Is the minister accepting this recommendation? As he just touted this great public process that he says is so wonderful…. He's used it to justify his making a rate behind closed doors. It's a recommendation of the report that he just said is so wonderful, that he's championing. Is he accepting the recommendation or not?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah. It's actually quite refreshing in the province to see those kinds of decisions posted on the website. Cabinet will be making a decision around this issue in the very near future.

J. MacPhail: Oh. Clearly, the minister refuses to stand in the Legislature and say: "Oh yes, I accept that recommendation." He refuses to do so. Should people be suspicious? Yes. Does it make a mockery of his claiming that all of this is going to be fine — to be set behind closed doors — because the BCUC made some recommendation? Yes, it does. Now is the time that he could put on record that he accepts these recommendations.

Let me ask this. The BCUC report has a whole schedule in it about how the heritage contract should be determined. A schedule is included. It's detailed. It's appendix B. I'm sorry. It's not a schedule; it's an appendix. Recommendation No. 1 of the BCUC on the heritage contract is that the heritage contract attached as appendix B be legislated as contemplated in the en-

ergy plan. Will the minister accept that recommendation from the Utilities Commission?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Saying that I refuse to answer the question is absolutely erroneous. I have said that the cabinet will have to make a decision around this. I don't make that decision on my own. Maybe in the last administration, that's the way they did it on the floor of the House. I'm not sure. Actually, in our government there's a process that we'll go through. This recommendation will come to cabinet for their recommendation on how we move forward.

I appreciate the questioning in regard to BCUC's recommendation on the website. We should actually get back to section 3 of the bill.

J. MacPhail: Section 3 of the bill is about establishing the heritage contract. The minister himself invokes this very report as how he's not breaking a promise that he wouldn't set hydro rates behind closed doors.

I feel so badly that I'm being so relevant. It's discomfiting for the minister that I'm being so relevant — but tough, frankly, through you, Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect. Tough.

Let me just say that there are no more relevant questions than how he is going to treat the recommendations of the Utilities Commission with the determination of the rate of the heritage contract — no more relevant questions than those.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 85, BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I move the House recess until 6:35 p.m.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 71; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. S. Santori: I move the amendment to section 4 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

The Chair: This amendment has the effect of deleting the section. So the members should vote, possibly, against the section.

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This bill, intituled Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, will amend two statutes: the Park Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. First I'll discuss amendments to the Park Act, after which I'll discuss the amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in British Columbia to have a world-renowned park system. Through careful management of this asset, our parks have become the premier provider of outdoor recreation and adventure opportunities in British Columbia. Many people have taken advantage of the lodge and tourism opportunities available within our park system, such as those located in the E.C. Manning Provincial Park and Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park.

Building on this foundation, an amendment will be made to the Park Act to clarify that resorts and related tourism activities are welcome within our parks. This amendment will also make clear that any proposed resort or tourism development must be consistent with the values of the park or protected area in which the development is proposed and must be situated to respect the park's wilderness and conservation objectives.

Our goal is to attract more people to our parks, because the more people experience nature, the more they respect and appreciate it. To attract these new visitors, we must continue to offer a range of options that keep pace with our changing local and international demands and demographics.

Changes will also be made to amend the park category designation process. Park categories set out the purposes of a park. Currently, these categories must be assigned at the time a park is established. These amendments will provide increased flexibility as to when a park may be assigned to a category.

Another amendment in this bill will clarify the rules for directional drilling under the parks and protected areas system with respect to accessing oil and gas resources located deep beneath parks. As a result of these amendments, authorizations for directional and horizontal drilling to access oil and gas under the parks may be granted, consistent with current practice. Directional drilling under protected areas has been in place in British Columbia since 1997. It's currently permitted in 15 protected areas, all of which are located in northeast British Columbia. While continuing to protect the environment and the recreational values of our parks, this amendment permits access to a wealth of economic opportunities for British Columbians. This amendment will result in millions of dollars injected directly into the provincial treasury, funding priorities like education and health. This amendment puts clear safeguards in place and states that there will be no access, use or disturbance to the surface of the park. As in the case throughout the province, any proposed drilling activities must comply with all applicable environmental assessments, safeguards and consultation requirements. Further, strict penalties apply to any person who fails to comply with the requirements of the Park Act.

I would now like to address amendments being made to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will result in boundary adjustments to seven parks. These boundary adjustments will enable public safety concerns to be addressed, correct inadvertent errors in boundary descriptions and allow access to economic opportunities, while protecting environmental and recreational values.

I'd like to note that six of these amendments were previously introduced as part of Bill 55, the Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. In addition to these six amendments, this bill also introduces an amendment to adjust the boundary of Graham-Laurier Park.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments are part of this government's commitment to high-quality park management and ensure that parks are for the benefit of all British Columbians. Overall, these amendments recognize economic opportunities while preserving important environmental and recreational values. I move second reading.

J. MacPhail: This piece of legislation was introduced yesterday. Here's a government that claimed

they were going to be the most open and accountable, that they were going to use the fall sitting…. They claimed to be such wonderful guys and gals because they were going to have fixed sittings, and the fall sitting was really going to be about giving British Columbians the opportunity to examine legislation that they'd introduced in the spring. Then we would debate that legislation in the fall, after the public had had a chance to examine it over the summer.

Here we are debating a major piece of legislation, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act tonight — what? — 25, 26 or 27 hours after the government introduced it for the first time yesterday. We have a bland, rote second reading from the minister, which I'll address in a moment. Here I am. It will be interesting to see whether…. Maybe I won't be the only one to speak to this. I'll probably be the only one to speak to it on the basis of what's actually in the legislation as opposed to the government caucus members, who stand in this Legislature and talk about what they would wish and what they would hope rather than what is actually in the legislation.

I have to tell you, I have had extremely little time to prepare for this legislation. I'm sure it doesn't matter a whit to the minister — not a whit — that she is responsible for breaking a promise of her government that substantial legislation would be viewed by the public first and then debated in this Legislature. I'm sure she doesn't care a whit that no one has had time to examine this legislation.

How do I know that? Well, I called around to some of those organizations this government eschews and derides; those organizations that actually were responsible for working with the governments to double the number of parks in this province throughout the 1990s; those organizations that now allow this government to claim that after the national parks system in Canada and the national parks system in the United States, British Columbia has the highest protected area of any jurisdiction; those organizations that the minister now rides on the backs of, in terms of reputation. I called around to them. My staff called around to them. They are exhausted, they are surprised, and they can't keep up with the pace of legislation this government is introducing, this minister is introducing, that affects our protected areas and our parks.

My comments will be what I understand this legislation to be. Those organizations that have contributed greatly to British Columbia, those organizations that the member for Chilliwack-Kent stands up every chance he gets and insults and derides, are now the organizations that allow this minister to claim any sense of reputation at all. She has no other reputation except the reputation she has garnered from the work those organizations did throughout the 1990s, working with a cooperative government. Here we are today….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us have order in the House, and please address your remarks through the Chair.

Those same organizations that allow her to stand up and make the claims she does, other members of this government deride and berate and denigrate. How do they reconcile the two? How is it that they can go home to their constituencies and reconcile the disconnect? How is it that this government can ram this piece of legislation through tonight, as we speak?

I will offer my comments as best I can in terms of the analysis of this bill, because the public hasn't had a chance to see it. The public has no idea of the consequences of this legislation — none. I, frankly, don't know how members can sit in this House and even debate this legislation. They won't be representing their constituents. Not one of them will be representing their constituents, because their constituents have not seen this legislation. I guarantee it.

What is this legislation about, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003? Well, once again, it's another bill getting rid of environmental regulations in this province, brought in by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. She doesn't actually get to do anything for the environment. She just gets to bring in legislation against environmental protection. This is just another in an incredibly long line of deregulation efforts that put our environment at risk and jeopardize our natural heritage, and it's the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection who's doing this.

This time it's about deregulating parks and protected areas. There's no other way to describe it. I know that the government caucus members have become used to Liberalspeak, but there is absolutely no other way of describing this than it being about deregulating protected areas. God forbid that we have protected areas. They exist. Yes, British Columbians said prior to this government's election that they wanted protected areas to exist to preserve vital ecosystems that protect the natural heritage of B.C. for generations to come.

I guess that really upset the Liberal government. I guess that upset the minister responsible for the environment. I guess it upset her that the protected areas don't exist so a Liberal government can cut down trees or create dozens of roads because people don't like the rustic nature of the experience. I couldn't believe it when I heard that word out of the minister, how she was using — in the most pejorative, denigrating way — the term "rustic," but clearly that's what she brought in legislation to end.

This bill will allow drilling underneath our parks and allow massive resorts inside our parks. I had to laugh — it was a nervous laugh; it was a concerned laugh; it was an embarrassed laugh; it was a laugh that said, "Oh God, I hope I'm wrong" — when the minister described the drilling as being underneath the parks, as

if somehow that was not going to disturb what we as British Columbians use on the earth. But that's what she said. She's going to allow drilling underneath our parks.

I know I get into a substantial amount of trouble for holding this government to account for what they said they were going to do in the New Era document. I know it really upsets a lot of government caucus members when I say: "But you said something different in your New Era document that you waved around for the first two years after your election." I stand here saying that I'm pretty sure the Liberal New Era document committed to no mining and no logging in parks. That's what the New Era document committed to, but I guess the Premier meant to say "no mining unless it's under the park" or "no logging unless it's for a resort."

Who knew that British Columbians were supposed to interpret that very clear, very simple promise of no mining and logging to mean what this minister has now introduced? The commitment by this government to the voters in the last election was for no logging in parks. What are they going to do? What are they going to do now, as they allow resorts in the parks? Are there going to be tree houses in the forest canopy? Is that how the minister plans to allow resorts in the park and still live up to her government's commitment that there would be no logging? Will it be like we all have to climb from tree to tree to get to our rooms and our bathrooms? No. There will be logging to allow for private sector resorts in the parks as a result of this legislation. The government caucus members celebrate that.

I guess the government caucus members no longer use the New Era document as their bible. I haven't seen one of them wave it in the air for ages. It's probably because they're embarrassed about how many broken promises are in that document now, this being just one of many tonight.

No big ski hills — only trails through the woods? I doubt it. I can hardly wait for the minister to stand up and explain how they're going to allow ski hills in parks, but that there won't be any logging. Of course they're going to log in parks. This legislation says so. Or else they're going to make people ski amongst the trees. I'm not a skier, but some of my best family members are skiers, and I know you can't ski amongst the trees without killing yourself. So I guess they'll be logging in the parks.

Some years ago the member for North Vancouver–Seymour stated Liberal policy on parks. He stood up, and here's what he said. He's in the Legislature, and I can hardly wait for him to stand up and address this legislation, because he got his wish. Here's what he said: "Let's mine the hell out of them." That's what he said about our parks, and I'm quoting him directly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. members, other members will have their turn to take their place in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: I'm quoting the member for North Vancouver–Seymour verbatim. Let him enter the debate and somehow suggest I am not. He said that the stated Liberal policy on parks is: "Let's mine the hell out of them." He was, quite rightly, royally roasted by just about every sound-thinking person in British Columbia. Let him join in the debate. Let him rise to either suggest how I am not accurate or how he has changed, or perhaps confirm that he has actually won the day with this legislation. Absolutely. Maybe he should claim victory, because with today's legislation that we're debating, he has won.

Now, his comments sure didn't help them in the 1996 election. Any hope the Liberals had of gaining any credibility on the environment vanished with the comments of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Frankly, in hindsight — and this member often doesn't get the credit that perhaps he deserves — I have to say that I admire, if not the sentiment, at least the honesty of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. He, unlike so many of his colleagues, told a Liberal truth, and here it is today. Here it is. From the long, hard work from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to get mining in our parks, he's finally delivered.

He should be standing up and being celebrated by his Liberal colleagues that after all that hard work, he finally is victorious. I wonder how the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is going to celebrate his victory now that we can "mine the hell out of them" — to quote him. Here's what this legislation means, and the minister should take note of this as we approach…. Probably tomorrow we'll be debating this at committee stage.

Here's what I assert. I assert that because of this legislation, parks can now be surrounded by oil derricks, tailing ponds, sludge piles and contaminated water. That's what this legislation allows. Park boundaries can be built up and circled with pavement. Yes. Today that's not just a possibility; it's the probability. Roads can be pushed through parks now. They can be pushed through protected areas. Ski hills can be built in our parks.

Waterslides — will they be next? I'm sure, if the government caucus has its way, they'll try to define a waterslide as a wet ski hill, and the minister will say: "That's a very good point of the definition. In fact, a waterslide is just a ski hill subject to some warm weather. Let's let them in. What's the difference?" She'll be able to refer to this legislation and say: "Yes, yes." Yogi and Boo Boo frolicking with Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm on the shores of the Bowron lakes. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's entirely probable.

The reason why I used that analogy is because it's neanderthal enough for the Liberal caucus to understand, and clearly they do. They can actually envisage a Flintstones park, a Flintstones waterslide right within their parks, and they're celebrating. That's their view of our parks and protected areas. It is a risky business to give these Liberal government caucus members ideas,

because it takes them quite a while to think of their own, but now they've got the full force of legislation to do exactly that.

During several debates over the last two years with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the opposition has posed countless questions trying to get at the truth around what this government has in store for the protection of the environment and ecosystem integrity in this province — countless hours of putting questions to the minister. However, the answers coming from the minister have been evasive, and that's being kind.

In fact, her answers haven't provided any sense that she is taking or is capable of taking a strong stand to accomplish her mandate, which should be the protection of water, land and air in this province. Let me give just one example of that, just one exchange in estimates that epitomizes dozens of others. I asked her directly what happens when her mandate to protect clashes with the agenda of her colleagues to develop, and she tried to reassure me that any such conflicts would be resolved in a cabinet committee. Well, I didn't take comfort then. There was no comfort.

Let's just look and see who's on that committee to which the minister referred me for reassurance that her mandate to protect would not be annihilated by every single one of her colleagues to develop…. Here's the committee to which she referred. Here's the membership: the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise; the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management; the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Minister of Forests; and the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Every single one of those ministers has risen in the House to tell me that our economy demands that we log and mine and put aquaculture farms — fish farms — wherever needed, before we consider the environment. Every single one of them has stood in this Legislature and clearly demonstrated their priority was to develop, regardless of the environmental consequences. The legislation we have seen come out of this government proves that the minister has absolutely no say at that cabinet committee. This legislation today is but one shameful example of that.

Then there's another fact, and that is that her ministry's budget for compliance and enforcement is being slashed by almost half — almost half. The minister says not to worry, because she will find efficiencies. Well, what are those efficiencies? Nothing. Those efficiencies are that she will have to do nothing, because there will be nothing to enforce. All of her colleagues are eliminating anything that she might have had to enforce. They're gone.

A couple of minutes from now we're going to be debating Bill 75, the streamlining projects act. I can't even think of the title. It's so newspeak. That bill certainly allows this minister to now have efficiencies, because she won't have to do anything. Nobody is going to care about the environmental enforcement of regulations. Once again, she has met her task of enforcing efficiencies by getting her workload down to zero — down to zero. All due process is eliminated.

Well, let's just look at Bill 75, the most draconian piece of legislation this government has introduced in relationship to local governments that this province has ever seen. But it also eliminates the role of this minister doing anything that the public might have thought she was responsible for. Bill 75, the significant projects steamrolling act. Oh, I'm sorry. That's just what the UBCM calls it — steamrolling act.

J. MacPhail: And some government caucus members say: "Who are they? "Yeah, that's the way this government treats anybody who perhaps says: "Hey, wait a minute, government. This is not what we voted for." Here's what Bill 75 does. It eliminates any environmental protection. If it doesn't, I challenge the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to join me in the debate at committee stage of Bill 75 and get reassurances….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, could we come back to Bill 84, please. Bill 75 is not on the order paper yet. Please come back to the second reading stage of Bill 84.

J. MacPhail: The combination of Bill 75 and Bill 84 equals no public process or consultation for development in parks — no consultation. When you layer Bill 75 on top of this legislation, there is no process for consultation of the development in parks — contrary to the Strachan report, I might add.

I wonder who's going to bring up the Strachan report. Bruce Strachan is a former Social Credit minister — hardly what you'd call a communist or a socialist the way these government caucus members like to define me in some derogatory way. Bruce Strachan isn't, and he had a report. It was released less than a year ago. To his credit, Mr. Strachan came and briefed the opposition caucus, for which I was very grateful. Everything Mr. Strachan recommended in terms of the future of parks is opposed by this legislation — every single piece of his recommendations. I wonder how the minister justifies that.

Then, of course, there's the results-based code or, as lots of people now call it, the risk-based code. The minister and her colleagues have not been able to provide any clear direction on how that environmental management method is any better than the system we have now. In fact, they've not been able to provide any rationale for how it's not worse. Everyone but this government is predicting that the risk-based forest practices code that this government has introduced is going to be worse. All we now know for sure is that the risk-based forest practices code method is unproven and more administratively complex and expensive. And it's not just people who care about the environment saying that. It's the forest industry itself saying that.

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection said that development in parks under this act will be

subject to environmental impact assessments. Well, I can hardly wait. I can hardly wait to see what comfort people take in that. The government has already gutted the Environmental Assessment Act, and they have Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, that overrides the Environmental Assessment Act. They gutted the reviewable projects regulation. They gutted it completely. They got rid of the project committee stage which guaranteed public oversight, and they replaced it with nothing.

Here's what else they did. The government gave the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management steamrolling powers over that process too. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management can unilaterally set the scope of the review, not the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. She has no say anymore. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management made that perfectly clear in debate.

I wonder if the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection said anything at all when they gutted the environmental assessment process or when they gave the government the ability to override local governments on fish farms — Bill 48. I wonder if she said anything. I wonder if she said anything about her government wanting to rely more and more on coal, coalbed methane production, for energy. I wonder if she said anything.

Out there in the real world I talk to real people, and all sorts of people, including those who have concerns for our natural environment, are desperate to talk, are desperate to have a voice. It may come as a surprise to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, but a lot of them tell me that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection does care about the environment. In fact, most tell me that.

They tell me that she does care about protecting habitat, and they tell me that she cares passionately about the amount of poisons we dump daily into our natural surroundings. But they also tell me that she is completely helpless in cabinet. They tell me that she has no allies in cabinet and that she is powerless. Unfortunately, powerless in cabinet means that the environment takes, in this government, last place.

This legislation is here for all to see. All of the legislation compares as minuscule to this piece of legislation that puts environment last and in fact probably makes environmental….

J. MacPhail: This piece of legislation makes environmental protection disappear completely. Develop up to the edge of parks. Drive pavement through the parks. Build whatever makes a buck in the park. That's what this legislation does. Well, despite what this government is doing in this Legislature, the job we have to do here is still an honourable calling. I still believe that serving the public good is worthwhile and rewarding. I still believe and will always respect that when those of us who accept the responsibility of elected office can no longer serve in good conscience, if we cannot do the honourable thing…. We can no longer serve if we cannot say no to those who demand we bend to what is in their private interest. It makes no sense to stay in public service if that becomes the game.

I want to believe that this minister cares and that there are those here that I hear would leap to the minister's defence and say the minister is not alone. There is not one piece of legislation that has come to this chamber that in any way strengthens environmental protection or says the higher good should be a sustainable economy. Not one. What victories has the minister won at the cabinet table? None.

However, despite all of that, there are enough people who try to convince me the minister cares, and I want to believe she does care. I want more and more than ever to see her demonstrate the depth of her commitment to the environment and to the people of B.C. by just saying no to the wild-eyed developers who sit around that cabinet table. The combination of Bills 75 and 84 means that the most extreme of developers in this province have won, at the expense of everybody else.

They say you can only survive in politics if you are an optimist in your heart and a cynic in your head. I don't happen to believe that is always true. Sometimes I think we can reward the faith the electorate has put in us by doing what is right. Turning our parks into Disneyland north is the wrong thing to do. I just wish the minister had more faith in herself and in those out there in the real world who would rally to her support if she just said no to what is in this bill. Alas, sometimes the cynic wins over everything else.

K. Stewart: It's my privilege to get up and support Bill 84, Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This isn't the first job I had in my life. It's hard to believe it was a few years ago that I used to be a very young, active mountaineer braving the hills not only of my own domain of Golden Ears Park, which I'm extremely familiar with….

Also, I had the opportunity to enter into many federal parks in the Rockies and many of the provincial parks throughout the interior. Aside from being a mountaineer, I spent many years as a wilderness instructor in canoes, sailboats, kayaks, broken canoes, sunk sailboats. So I've had quite a range of outdoors experiences. I've also, I'm quite pleased to say, been actively involved in hunting with some of my friends over the years and enjoying the other wilderness areas of our province — usually unsuccessfully, but it's always a good time to get out with your friends into the woods.

What I'd like to bring to this is that in looking back at my life, I've seen a lot of British Columbia, and it's a

really big place. When we talk about somewhere between 12 and 13 percent of protected lands in British Columbia, I think most British Columbians would have a hard time understanding exactly how vast that area is. When we consider British Columbia, we see all the fields and the farmlands of the Peace and the orchards in the interior and think that less than 5 percent of British Columbia is farmable. Try and put that into context when you're seeing the Pitt Polders and the Deltas and the grain farms in the Peace. Think of that, and then think of that two and a half times. That's how much park we have in British Columbia.

Parks have changed over the years. The population of British Columbia has changed over the years. I fully support the amount of parkland we have in British Columbia, but that's also come at a bit of a cost. We have taken some of the prime parklands of British Columbia — which, again, I think is a valuable thing to do — but a lot of these lands were lands that may have gone in the past for commercial recreational opportunities. We've taken the lakeshores and protected them, which is great. We've taken a lot of the foreshore in the oceans and protected them in parks — again, which is great. But what we've done is limit the opportunities for types of recreation other than the wilderness-type adventures that I used to partake of as a youth.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that we should ever give up these massive wilderness parks that we have. They're a special attribute of British Columbia, and I think any British Columbian, including all of my colleagues in this room, would agree that's a resource we want to keep. But those are not the only activities that the people of British Columbia want to partake of.

We have to look at how the province has changed in the 150 or so years of active development, since European settlement. We have to look at how the first people that came here to British Columbia, in the European settlement, were fishermen, were farmers, were loggers. These people were hardy outdoors people. This just can't be said of a lot of the newer immigrants to British Columbia, who are just as valuable and important to the makeup of British Columbia. These people come from areas where population densities are much, much greater than even our most populated cities. They are not used to the type of upbringing that I was privileged to have when I was growing up. Every kid had a couple of acres in the neighbourhood to call his own. That's not the case today. We are having more and more people in less and less space, and we're putting more demands on our recreational properties from the private side, putting more demand on the utilization of our parks.

I myself and I'm sure my colleagues in this room and the members of cabinet understand a need for sensitive areas in our park system. The members in the House believe in areas of sensitivity for particular lands in British Columbia. Cabinet understands the needs for these sensitive lands. But it's not all 12½ percent of British Columbia that's been set aside for parklands that needs to be sterilized and pristine. There are opportunities to fulfil the recreational needs, requirements and desires of British Columbians in those areas. We have to take a holistic approach to looking at what we have as a benefit to a recreational resource to the people of British Columbia, what their changing needs and desires are for those parks, what a park should be.

A park like Tweedsmuir Provincial Park is different than a park in an urban area. They're just totally different, and we have to be able to look at these parks individually and holistically — how they fit in with the makeup of the community in which they're situated; what the makeup is of the wildlife that lives in those areas, of the watercourses that go through there, of the economy of the local area that provides the food, the shelter, the employment, the education and the health care for the people of British Columbia.

Earlier the Leader of the Opposition got into some cartoon characters and was talking about Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm. Well, the two that she forgot to talk about were that famous Yogi and Boo Boo. The NDP played that role in the economy of British Columbia. They stole the picnic baskets from the working people of British Columbia in the last ten years. They might not have done it all before noon, but they did it by pushing out of British Columbia the economy that made this country what it is.

In seriousness, though, we have to look at where we are going with the development of some of these protected areas in British Columbia. We have to look at the needs of British Columbians, and we also have to look at the sensitivities to the wildlife populations and the sensitivities of the watercourses and the pristine water that we need for British Columbia.

I believe that within the massive land mass of British Columbia, if we take a scientific approach and consult with the citizens of British Columbia, we will be able to map out a plan that works for us. That's what this bill does. It looks at what we have today by way of parks. It looks at the differences and diversity of the parks within British Columbia, and it says: let us not restrict our vision of parks to one type of park. We can't look at our parks as being the same.

This bill, I believe, helps us look at some of the protected areas in British Columbia and allow them to be utilized in the best way for the people of British Columbia, and that includes…. Again, I want to stress that there is need for sensitive areas, but it's not all of British Columbia. We can't go and say, for the sake of a few that go out and protest and stop things…. There are people in British Columbia whose sole purpose in life is to stop something. I know there are a couple of lawyers in here, so I'll have to be careful how I phrase this.

There are people in the environmental movement that don't care whether they really win or lose. They just want a fight, because that's how they generate the funds that allow them to have the lifestyle they want. Those are who I see a number of so-called environmental groups being headed by — not people that have purely virtuous thoughts of the environment. They're there to create an industry. Again, like a lawyer, they

Every week we hear about the last pristine valley in British Columbia. You know what? Every week it's a new one. I think there's more than one pristine valley left in British Columbia. I have been in areas that aren't even protected areas. They're not even parks. They're Crown lands, and they are pristine areas.

British Columbia is a big place. British Columbia is a wonderful place. British Columbia, as a result of the lands that have been put aside and protected, has an opportunity to have a recreational and tourism business second to none in North America and activities that can enhance the lifestyle of all British Columbians. It can also allow British Columbians to see some benefit derived from that and, in some cases, some economies being generated under recreation, under the development of some areas of parks for a lifestyle that the people of British Columbia and the tourism market outside of British Columbia want.

For too many years I have seen the parks in British Columbia go down, down, down. The trails have been deteriorating for the last 20 years. Somehow, if this is important to us, if these parks are important, if they are of value, we have to start looking and saying how we are going to show that these are important and how we are going to generate some revenues to show that these should be protected — and protect them.

The way we do it, I believe, is again with a holistic approach to parks and protected areas. There are some opportunities for British Columbians to generate some revenues; to improve the quality of their parks; to protect the natural resources in our parks; to preserve those pristine, sensitive areas for wildlife within the province; and to look forward to having a legacy that is going to be sustainable and last forever.

M. Hunter: It's my pleasure to rise this evening to support Bill 84, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

You know, I wish the Leader of the Opposition had read this bill, because it is important. B.C. parks are viewed by all our constituents, every resident of this province and indeed by many residents of Canada who have had the good fortune to visit here or live here at some point…. Our parks are viewed as a huge and important asset. I really regret that the Leader of the Opposition, from her remarks tonight — usually entertaining, although not always, but rarely factual…. I just wish she had read the bill, because what we are debating here is too important to be crass about, and she was crass. Personal attacks on ministers in debates of this nature are simply, in my view, not acceptable.

British Columbians view their parks as very important assets now and into the future. These assets are, in my opinion, rightly and very jealously guarded by my fellow citizens. I count myself amongst those who see the parks that have been created over the history of this province as hugely important to a number of values that we as British Columbians share. They're important for recreation. They're important for wildlife. They're important for fauna and flora.

In fact, most B.C. parks signify something that is special. It might be a geographical location. It might be a particular outcrop of rock or range of mountains, a smaller location even. Newcastle Island in my own community is a relatively small island, but it conveys something special to residents and visitors alike. It might be a place of special beauty. It might be a place of particular significance to the conservation of fauna and flora and other living things besides people. What they all have in common, our parks, is that they capture recreational values for those of us that are fortunate enough to live here.

Again, I find this nattering negativity that I hear tonight from the Leader of the Opposition is….

M. Hunter: I think the member suggests that "nattering nabobs of negativity" is the right phrase. I didn't want to copy from the Hon. John Crosbie word for word, but now he did and I have. But he's absolutely right, you know. Negativity does not belong in a debate about something as important as B.C. parks, and I am not going to focus on that.

If our parks are, as I would argue, a jewel in our crown in this province, this is a bill that provides the spit and polish that are going to allow us to make those jewels really shine. As the member from Maple Ridge just said, our parks — without question — have had some challenges over the last couple of decades and especially the last decade.

You know, the last government achieved something that in the longer term is quite important. They doubled the amount of parkland in this province. That is something that, in fact, we all think was an important event. What the Leader of the Opposition doesn't do, though, when she claims that achievement is…. She fails to tell the taxpayers of this province that there were no dollars to pay for these parks. In fact, at least one of them was created because a famous American came to Canada and didn't like industrial development that was about to take place there. So we had a park, and this wasn't particularly well planned. This was ad hoc. This was a response to the Brundtland commission and other international forces, but it wasn't thought through.

We doubled the amount of parks in B.C. About 12½ percent of our land base is either parks or protected area, but the last administration didn't fund the administration of these parks, didn't fund their maintenance. Now this Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, this government, has the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces in a tough fiscal environment, to pay for the administration, maintenance and development of these parks — the maintenance of them as a future asset, a developing asset.

The challenge we have today in maintaining and developing these parks is an enormous one, and a lot

of it has to do, frankly, with the ad hoc way the last government dealt with this issue. We saw it again tonight. The mistress of myths has been in here again telling the public of British Columbia all kinds of things about this bill that are, frankly, not true. In fact, while she was on her feet, I had to just read the bill. I had to make sure I had the right number in front of me. I did. I checked again that the sections of the act that deal with development — under drilling, directional drilling as it's called — don't apply to anything other than petroleum and natural gas.

Of course, that's what the bill says. That's not what the Leader of the Opposition led the public of B.C. to believe in her remarks tonight. She talked about paving around the perimeter of parks….

M. Hunter: Tailing ponds — thank you — around the perimeter of parks. I mean, there is nothing in this bill to even remotely suggest that it is in the faintest plans of any member of the government caucus — and certainly not this minister, who has worked very hard to protect our environment, our water, land and air resources. She deserves congratulations, not the kind of personal attacks she got here tonight.

If indeed our parks are an asset that we all wish to protect, it makes sense to try and maximize the return on these assets. If we let them sit there without paying any attention — without working hard to develop the mechanisms, the funding, the people to go there and pay attention to what's going on — they will lose their shine even more. This jewel in the crown that we all know is there, which has huge potential, is going to start to fracture. Pieces will fall off. Trees will die. Trees do die. We will not….

M. Hunter: A reminder from across the floor that all living things die. That's true, including the animals that inhabit our parks.

The point is: if we don't work to develop, to be contemporary about how we deal with these great assets we have, they will simply not produce the kind of values and the returns that we expect as citizens. I suspect that each of us as citizens looks at these places with different eyes. They represent different values to us, and we have different measures of how they return those values to us in various ways.

What's important to me about this piece of legislation is that it provides some clarity and some authority and the means to do what I want to see done, and that is to see our parks remain relevant to a generation and a population which is growing, a population which is changing. This is a bill that will enable us to make our parks the kinds of magnets for our tourism business that they can be.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about how we were going to have waterslides in parks. It's strange that she would say that because, actually, I had a conversation with a journalist this afternoon who used that same expression: are we going to see waterslides in parks? Obviously, the opposition have got their spin doctors out there. This is the latest spin. It's tailing ponds around parks; it's pavement around parks; it's waterslides in parks.

You know, it's all wrong. That's not what we're talking about. We are talking about using our parks and enabling them to be developed in a way that is consistent with and supportive of the values they represent. Frankly, there is nobody in this chamber on either side of the political divide who would say that waterslides belong in B.C. parks. It's simply not going to happen.

Parks are for people as well as for other living things, and we need to reaffirm that we are going to welcome people to our parks. How are we going to do that if they remain isolated, if you can't get to them and if, when you get there, you can't do anything? That's the danger I see in the current circumstances, and that problem is what this bill starts to fix. We need to get people to our parks.

We have, as I've said, a huge asset in this large amount of territory. We are trying to build tourism as a business in this province, and if we're going to do that and if we're going to build on our park assets, we need to make changes so we can keep pace with the changing demands that we have as consumers of parks. We need to keep pace with the changes in the demographics of our society as well as in facing the national and international competition for tourist dollars.

People have a choice in recreation and where they go in their spare time, as in everything else they do. We have to be conscious of that. If we want to attract people to British Columbia from Europe, for example, rather than having them go to South Africa where there are parks of some consequence, then we need to address how we're going to do that. How are we going to do it in a way that respects the values our parks represent to us in Canada?

Let's take camping, because I suspect that for many people in this province, young and old alike, B.C. parks and camping are so intertwined that you can't think about a park without thinking about an experience as a camper. We are all getting older, and I am now at an age where I have traded in my tent for a motorhome, as has Mr. Speaker. I actually prefer that kind of accommodation. I can make a cup of coffee in the morning without having to cut wood and light paper and all that kind of stuff. I am not alone.

Whether you think that driving a large motorhome is appropriate behaviour or not isn't the issue. The issue is that there are more and more people who are looking at different ways of enjoying the outdoors. We need to be able to be flexible in how we manage our parks, which are so connected with the outdoor experience for so many of us. We need to start to think about how we develop the different services, the contemporary level of service, that will enable more people to enjoy more parks more often. That's what this bill is about.

It is not about paving around the perimeter of parks. Actually, I have friends who are in the paving business. I'm sure they'd be delighted in one respect, if they would have a contract. Can you imagine? I don't know how many kilometres of highway it would take to surround our parks. But you know, on the one hand they might say, "Well, that sounds like a good idea," but they would turn around immediately and say: "No, it's not, because these parks are valuable."

Nobody wants to see what the Leader of the Opposition suggested. Nothing in this bill — I repeat — leads to any rational argument, any possible conclusion that paving around the parks or tailing ponds around the parks is going to be the result of accepting and passing this legislation. By the way, in my understanding of the natural gas and petroleum industries whose directional drilling would be permitted under this bill, I don't believe they use tailing ponds. So the Leader of the Opposition needs to get those facts straight too.

I think it's important to remind the public and to remind ourselves that the developments that this bill is going to permit are going to be subject to the same assessment and consultation processes as exist now under the parks act. That's one more fact that makes a mockery of some of the allegations presented in this chamber tonight by the Leader of the Opposition.

Our park system as it exists today, with all its possibilities, already hosts lodges. Anybody would think that the development of a lodge was going to be some kind of ecological disaster, and yet where I have seen lodge development, such as in Manning Park…. That has been an asset which has drawn people to Manning Park. It has allowed people from outside the province and inside to see what that park has to offer. I don't think there are very many people, frankly, who would argue that facilities such as that, operated by the private sector under the conditions established by the minister and the conditions under the parks act, who would not consider places like that to be an asset and something that in the right place, if they represent the values of that particular location and the activities that go on there…. They should be considered attractions. They should be considered magnets to get more people to see what we have to offer.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? A park without a visitor is actually sterile land. It doesn't convey anything. If it's just there to be the home to rocks and trees and wildlife, that's not unimportant. But unless we actually can show it off and we can observe what's going on and conduct activities, in my opinion, that's not what I see as a park.

I will admit I have some bias. You know, when I first came to Canada, I got on a train in Montreal, and I rode across this country on the infamous Canadian National Railways — a subject of other debates in this House. I tell you, as a youth and when I grew up, a park in my mind was a small piece of dirt on which you could play football. That's real football. That isn't the North American game; that's the real game. That was a park to me. It was a place that didn't have houses or didn't have streets. It was a small area of safety.

M. Hunter: I'm getting barracked across the floor here, Mr. Speaker, but I'll carry on anyway.

That was my perception of a park, so imagine how I felt when I came to Canada and saw the kind of park facilities and what parks mean in British Columbia. I am proud that I've been able to adopt those parks and those values and what they represent. I'm going to claim a special interest as a new person, somebody not born in this country, and I think that what we have here in British Columbia is invaluable.

We are going to, under this bill, permit the next generation of people that come to this country from places less fortunate to see something that is alive, well, developing and growing, that is contemporary — not something that was created and is going to stick there in the past and not serve the needs of society as we change.

You know, when we were elected, we said to the people ad nauseam, time and time again, that one of the major jobs we had to do — if not the major job — was to create new economic opportunities in British Columbia, to turn around the decade of decline, to stop doing things we couldn't afford. We are going to do that. This bill, with the permission it grants, the clarification it grants to our park system as to what can happen with our park system, is an important plank, in my view, in developing those economic opportunities.

The changes that will permit directional drilling for petroleum and natural gas are consistent with what we said in the New Era. It is not something new. It's important, again, to remind people that operations that might take place around parks that would see drilling for natural gas and petroleum, where that were a possibility, will be subject to rules and regulations — environmental rules and regulations, health and safety rules and regulations. This already happens — another untold story by the Leader of the Opposition, who likes to choose her facts with less than deliberation, I think.

The fact is that this directional drilling is already happening in protected areas, since 1997. I ask — and I don't need an answer — who the government was in this province in 1997. There will be no impact from this activity on recreational values that are our parks. Nor will there be a negative impact on recreational values from the kind of recreational developments this piece of legislation portends.

A clarification of what activities, what developments, can happen in parks will get around the current inhibitions that exist. If there is an outdoor entrepreneur who has an interest, who sees an opportunity in these huge pieces of land — these huge assets we have — right now that person can't get any certainty about

whether or not that opportunity can take place. This bill makes it clear that we are going to look at such opportunities. We're going to look at such opportunities within the confines of the regulatory structure that exists now. The assessment will not be automatic. It will have to go through a process, but at least we start to get the message to people that here are some opportunities to help British Columbia develop.

Activities will be permitted by the minister, under this piece of legislation, that are consistent with and complement the recreational values of that particular park. That's what we are going to permit, not the kind of nonsensical stuff the Leader of the Opposition talked about. She talked about the world of Disney, Bamm-Bamm and Pebbles and other things that have long slipped from my memory. You know, what she really should say is that she's bringing the world of Disney into this chamber. Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. She hasn't read the legislation. I have. I know what it says, and I am comfortable with supporting it, because it is going to lead to a controlled development that brings our parks into the contemporary era.

I'm looking forward to a positive reaction from recreational and tourism operators around this province and maybe from outside of British Columbia. I am absolutely confident that under this legislation, this sector of our economy will see these changes as an opportunity for positive improvement in our parks and in their businesses — their businesses that will attract business from all over the world, I hope, and will use our public assets in an intelligent, sensitive, controlled way. They will build their businesses. They will pay taxes. They will employ people. So the cycle continues.

Let's remember this government's commitment to double the size of our tourism economy by 2010. That was a bold commitment, no question. It was particularly bold given the events that have happened since it was made. This is another piece of the plank, another piece of the puzzle that will enable us to assist our industries' investors who have an interest in this province — to help us reach that very important target while at the same time protecting, preserving and bringing into the new era and the new century these great assets which are B.C. parks.

S. Brice: In the gallery we have some visitors from my riding of Saanich South. I have just been involved in a very interesting ceremony, an investiture ceremony for two young gentlemen, Tyler Rivard and Bradley Miller, who were invested into the fifth Tsartlip Venturers this evening. They are accompanied by other fifth Tsartlip Venturers Brian Pescot, Shane Derek, Scott Hill, Alex Vastone and Josh Stephenson and their venturer adviser, Dr. Brian Carr-Harris. With them are family members John and Sandra Bell; Marion Rivard; a grandmother, Chris Turner; Peter Derek; and Sgt. Greg Nelson of the Saanich police department. I would ask the House to help me in congratulating these newly invested Venturers and welcoming their supporters.

W. Cobb: It's a pleasure to stand up this evening in support of this bill. In my estimation, this bill is long overdue. We have for too long restricted access to our parks for compatible uses. Some of our most beautiful country has been set aside in parks or protected areas, and this particular amendment will allow some development so people can enjoy these areas and are made welcome.

Many, many people never get to see these areas because of access. Government cannot and should not be in the development business. What good is it to have all this beautiful countryside set aside when only those elite who happen to be able to afford $800, $900 or $1,000 an hour to hire a helicopter are able to see these areas? We need to open them up. We need access to them so the world can come to B.C. and enjoy our parks.

Businesses that are competing with other businesses. Many of them would be allowed, and it will also help those that are conflicting with tourism operators or back-country operators. It will stop that conflict on the land base. It will allow those kinds of operators to now have some areas where they know no one else will be able to be around. They won't have to be competing for that same land base.

When the Premier announced at UBCM that some changes would be coming down and that we were going to allow or look at some access to parks, I certainly got a good reception from the people that talked to me after it. Many of the people indicated their support — that it was way past time. I personally have no problem going home to many of my constituents who have talked to me in support of this legislation.

The opposition also mentioned some ecosystems. Well, ecosystems are protected not only here but also in many of the other bills, like the Forest Practices Code, the working forest initiative, etc. These were set aside for other special zones. We have also protected areas in the rest of the land base for mountain caribou and mule deer range and grizzly bear habitat. These are all available on the rest of the land base over and above what's in the parkland.

She talked about logging in parks and would have us believe that this is an open-ended document that will allow clearcuts in our parks. Well, that's totally irresponsible. I personally believe that if we would have had some logging in parks for sanitation purposes, we would not have had the humongous epidemic of beetle problems that we have today — which, by the way, started in Tweedsmuir Park. This does not allow wholesale logging in parks.

I have no doubt that there will be some opponents to this act. The Leader of the Opposition stood up here

If there had been some common sense used by some of the people at the land use tables years ago when I was involved, maybe we would not have been in this position. Those same people will be opposing this bill, I am sure. If we had allowed some flexibility in the boundaries of the parks, like the rest of the table had asked for, maybe we would not have been in the situation we're in today where many of our parks are full of beetle infestation.

Talk about Tweedsmuir. It's almost entirely eaten up by beetles, and it's full of dead trees. If they had allowed us to do what we wanted to do, we would have had flexible boundaries. We could have moved those boundaries around so that we could have gone in and got the beetle attack. Then when we got it replanted, reforested, we could have moved the boundary back so that we in fact had a healthy park.

T. Christensen: I'm of a generation that grew up with the words "Super, Natural British Columbia" from about as far back as I can remember, which isn't that long — not like some members of the House. That's what I thought of when I thought of British Columbia. When I was growing up, that was the term. We saw it on television, we saw it in magazines, and it was something that became ingrained as part of my generation. When we think of British Columbia, we think of the incredible natural bounty that we have. Part of that bounty, as all British Columbians will agree, is our incredible park system.

I was actually quite surprised, in some of the comments in the last couple of days, to learn that it's the third-largest park system in North America. That's quite an accomplishment. We are a large province, but that's still quite a large accomplishment. That recognizes to a great extent the wide variety of natural bounty and diversity that we have in this province, and it's right, quite frankly, that we do have such an extensive park system in a province that offers so much diversity.

What we need to do with that park system is recognize that it provides a whole host of potential for many British Columbians and visitors from around the world who want to have a wilderness-type experience or a recreational experience that is nature based. Our goal should be to attract more people to our parks. Some of our parks get very few visitors in a year; others, particularly if they are a little closer to urban areas, get a great deal of use. There's no reason why we can't manage our park system in a manner that ensures there is appropriate access to all of our parks, and that we provide a broad range of potential experiences in our parks. This certainly is a government that recognizes that, and this is a step forward in ensuring that we are able in this province to provide that range of experiences in our parks.

We need to recognize — and a number of other speakers have mentioned this — that not everybody is looking for the same thing when they visit a park. I think of the parks in my own constituency, or some of them. There's a number of them. Each of them is very different. You know, around Vernon we've got Silver Star Provincial Park. Silver Star Provincial Park is right adjacent to a major ski resort development, as you've heard me talk about before.

Within the park itself the Sovereign Lake Nordic Club operates a small lodge for day skiing and an extensive set of cross-country ski trails. In fact, they've got one of the best, if not the best, nordic ski trail system in North America, and they're recognized for that. You run into people there who are coming back year after year from all over North America, because they recognize what an asset we have in that park. What it means is that park actually attracts about 50,000 skier visits a year. It doesn't do any damage to the wilderness in that area. It's not an asset that we are losing. Rather, it's a recreational use of a valuable provincial park asset to the benefit of all who come to visit that park.

Another park in my area is Kalamalka Lake Park, right on Kalamalka Lake. I suspect we'd be hard pressed to find a more beautiful provincial park in this province. It's a park that isn't a fully developed park. There are some areas that have some picnic tables and things and certainly very nice beaches that people can go to for day use. They have other wilderness trail areas; they've got rock-climbing areas. There's a broad range of uses for that park. But within the park itself, from one corner to the other there is a dramatically different type of natural experience. It is incredible, and you won't find a single person in my constituency who won't agree that Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park is an incredible asset for the people of my community and for our region as a whole.

A little further out, in the eastern part of my constituency, we've got Monashee Park. Monashee Park is a true back-country-experience type of park. You can hike up to Spectrum Lake. I haven't been there for a few years. Once my kids get a little older and I don't have to carry them the whole way, I can start going again. What you get there, if you go far enough, is a true back-country experience where really there are not many signs of any support. If you go just to the first lake, Spectrum Lake, you've got gravel tent pads that Parks has put in there to ensure that the area is well maintained. There's a diversity, even within that park, of different tenting-type camping experiences. You're not going to get motorhomes and things like that in there, because you have to walk into this park.

What I'm trying to express is that we already have a broad range of potential experiences in parks even within one constituency in the province. I suspect I'm no different than most members of the House in that they can name a number of different provincial parks in their own ridings that provide a broad range of experiences. What we need to do as a government is rec-

ognize that perhaps there's some potential to further diversify the experience in parks. I, for one, certainly believe that's exactly what Bill 84 does.

Other speakers have mentioned that we already have, in fact, several lodges in a number of our provincial parks. Manning Park is certainly the one that most often comes to mind, given its proximity to the lower mainland and the fact that people can get there easily. The lodge in that park and the further development in that park have actually enhanced the use of that park. More than that, it has likely been the foundation of many British Columbians' major B.C. park experience, which in turn is the foundation of our population's support for the whole concept of provincial parks and a recognition that we need to value those parks and ensure that we have those very valuable park experiences for generations to come.

If we look back even a hundred years and think about how the parks system first started to develop in North America, what we quickly see is that some of our first parks — our major parks, national parks — in both Canada and the U.S. actually started with lodges in them. That was what actually drew people out to the park and, again, laid the foundation of the appreciation for the park and the public's call over time that we needed to have areas of wilderness in our province and our country set aside that certainly have development — at least to the extent that it allows people to access them — but that aren't subject to the broad range of industrial activity that other land might be subject to so that for generations to come, we preserve that nature experience.

Certainly, the history of British Columbia has shown that we're doing that, and this is a step forward in ensuring that we continue to do that in appropriate fashion, which recognizes the needs of all potential park users in our province. I think the fundamental thing to recognize here is that this government recognizes…. I believe, quite frankly, that if the members of the opposition actually got out and spoke to British Columbians and to the people on the street in this province, when it came to parks, and didn't just listen to the special interests that don't want you to lift a twig in a park, they'd recognize that the vast majority of British Columbians recognize that there's potential for a diverse range of experiences in our provincial parks and that the government has an obligation, in fact, to ensure that that is a very broad range and that the use of our parks isn't narrow in scope.

We may certainly — and I think it's appropriate — look at the park system as a whole, and we don't treat each park the same. We will have parks, we do have them, and we will continue to always have parks where there's very little activity in them. But there are others, particularly ones that are close to urban centres, where we need to ensure that there are some better opportunities for people of all ages, all physical abilities, to access what is an asset of all British Columbians. I think that what Bill 84 does, if people actually take time to look at it and read it, is simply move in that direction, and it is complementary to the existing park system. It's going to be of benefit to all British Columbians, and we're going to recognize that five years from now, ten years from now and a generation from now. I applaud the minister for bringing forward Bill 84, and I think we have very good things to look forward to in our B.C. park system.

B. Penner: I, too, rise to speak in support of Bill 84 and, frankly, to respond to some of the once again erroneous comments from the Leader of the Opposition, who has shown that she has not been capable of doing her homework. I noticed her lamenting the lack of time to prepare to read this bill. It's all of five pages and, in fact, consists of four substantive sections. It's not a whole lot of legalese to get around in — what did she say? — 27 hours or something like that.

In any event, once again I think the NDP has demonstrated its incompetence. It's true they doubled the size of the park system in British Columbia but then cut the budget at the same time. So without any plan of how to manage this increased land base — and it is huge by any measurement — they went ahead and did that. Now, that's poor planning, and in my view that's just typical NDP incompetence.

It's been said before that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'll be one of those who will, maybe reluctantly, sometimes admit that even the NDP once in a while has good intentions — sometimes. But even when they are well intentioned, they end up making a mistake through poor planning, lack of planning, bad judgment, incompetence and improper management. As a government, we are left with a challenge of how to appropriately manage vast areas of the province for the maximum benefit of the people who live here, and that's a theme I want to return to in a moment.

There's nothing wrong with generating revenue for the province, and there's nothing wrong with generating more revenue for the province if that will help support our park system, because it's going to take revenue to help fund a number of the things that need to happen to provide for services in the parks in British Columbia. It doesn't happen on thin air. I wish it did, but it does take revenue. It takes dollars, and sometimes you have to be creative in how you go about finding those extra dollars.

The NDP's idea of generating revenue is to increase everybody's taxes. That's about as far as they can think. Rather than thinking about how they can increase the size of the overall economy and increase the amount of economic activity, their remedy for everything is: "We're just going to boost your taxes. We're just going to squeeze you a little bit harder. We're going to dig a little deeper in your pocket. We're going to empty your wallet because, after all, government knows best, and we're just going to suck that money in."

Well, we've got a different idea. We'd like to see more economic activity. We think that even with lower tax rates, we can generate more revenue over time if the overall size of the economy grows. It's called expanding

the pie. We've been taking a number of initiatives in the last two and a half years to do that, and I think recent statistics indicate from Statistics Canada that those measures are starting to work, starting to pay off. B.C. led Canada in the number of jobs created last month — more than 30,000 jobs in one month; 130,000 new jobs in the province since January 2002 — at the very same time that B.C.'s largest export customer, the United States of America, lost about two million jobs.

That's a remarkable accomplishment — to be able to increase the number of people working in British Columbia by 130,000 — when our biggest trading partner sees a decrease of two million people in its workforce. Am I satisfied with having 130,000 extra people working? No. But it sure is a lot better than having 130,000 fewer people working, which could have been the case if the previous government had been allowed to maintain management or mismanagement of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition, in my view, engages in the height of hypocrisy when she paints all kinds of doom and gloom scenarios, completely unfounded by the facts in terms of what this bill might do in terms of B.C. parks and protected areas. I say it's hypocrisy because it was under her government, and she was a minister that played a significant role in that government. There's no escaping that fact for her. She sat on Treasury Board. She was on all the cabinet committees. She was the Minister of Finance for a time, so she can't hide from her record.

Her record is this. When she was an NDP cabinet minister and the NDP government unfortunately ruled British Columbia, directional drilling was allowed in protected areas in British Columbia. That wasn't a B.C. Liberal government that made the decision. That wasn't a Social Credit government that made the decision. That was the NDP government that made the decision. To hear the Leader of the Opposition tell it, that must mean the end of the world in terms of the environment. Well, I disagree.

If the member for Vancouver-Hastings had bothered to turn to page 2 of Bill 84, she would have found in section 3(3) that: "An authorization, drilling licence, permit, lease or other right referred to in subsection (1)" — which allows some directional drilling — "may be issued or granted only if the proposed authorization, drilling licence, permit, lease or other right (a) does not permit, authorize or allow entry on or occupation, use or disturbance of the surface of land within the park or recreation area…."

There's not going to be disturbance on the land within a park. You're not going to see it. You're not going to feel it. You're not going to taste it. It is what's been happening in the other protected areas that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection referred to earlier. I believe there are 12 protected areas now, with another three that have been identified for protection through various processes, where directional drilling has been permitted — permitted by the previous NDP government.

Would that member, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, stand up here today and acknowledge that somehow her government's decision resulted in destruction of those 15 protected areas — utter obliteration, desecration? I'm waiting for her to say that. I haven't heard a peep about that. She just conveniently sidesteps it, and that to me is hypocrisy.

Let's talk about something else. Other members have referred to Manning Provincial Park. Actually, the legal name is E.C. Manning Provincial Park, named after B.C.'s first chief forester, I think, for the province. The park was created in the 1940s, and there is a resort in Manning Park. There is a lodge. There are cabins. There are a number of outbuildings. There is an interpretive centre. To hear the Leader of the Opposition say it, that's an abomination.

Here's my question to the Leader of the Opposition. Come clean with British Columbians. Do you want to see that lodge torn down in Manning Park? If you're going to be logically consistent in terms of your criticism of Bill 84, then you should take the next step and say that the facilities at Manning Park should be eliminated. But do you know what? I didn't hear her say that. No surprise, because she's being inconsistent and she's being hypocritical.

The fact is that thousands upon thousands of British Columbians have enjoyed an outdoor experience in some measure because of the facilities at Manning Park — because of the lodge that accommodates their families and their children, because of the cabins that encourage people to come and spend time at Manning Park even if they don't have a camper or haven't had time to get a backpack and purchase a tent. It provides a range of options.

Oh yes, at Manning Park there are traditional campgrounds. You can go pitch a tent at Manning Park. You can bring your trailer, or if you're more ambitious, you can put a backpack on your back and head up a mountain trail somewhere. You can spend the night in a wilderness campsite at Mowitch Camp or out at Lightning Lake at the far end — pardon me, toward Thunder Lake — or up in the alpine meadows, as well, at Buckhorn Camp. You have a range of options.

We don't believe that one size fits all British Columbians and all people. To hear the Leader of the Opposition tell it, the only choice you should have if you want to enjoy a provincial park in British Columbia is that you should have four feet. To hear her tell it, parks are not for people; they're only for animals. In my view of the world it is important to set aside significant tracts of land for wilderness, for animals, for wildlife, for fauna and for flora but also for people. People are an important ingredient in our park system.

I have some familiarity with Manning Park. I was fortunate when I was younger that my father made sure I spent a considerable amount of time there checking out some of those back-country campsites and trudging up and down various mountains in the summer. Later I had an opportunity to work there as a

back-country ranger. Manning Park consists of 70,844 hectares of rugged, forest-clad mountains, deep valleys, alpine meadows, lakes and rivers. But even that description doesn't begin to convey a sense of the diversity in that area.

You're going to have a pretty hard time convincing me that somehow the wildlife attributes of Manning Park have been significantly impacted in a negative way by the existence of a lodge. In fact, it doesn't take you more than a few moments walking out the back door of the lodge to come into absolute wilderness. You can encounter bears — as I have done — deer, an assortment of other wildlife and occasionally, up in the alpine meadows, cougars. Manning Park is still a very wild place. It's true that there are some parts of the park where it's relatively easy for human beings to access the park, but the vast majority of the park is quite different. The vast majority of the park is wilderness. I posed one question to the Leader of the Opposition: is she in favour of destroying the lodge at Manning Park? She seemed to hint at that earlier.

My second question is this. She made some critical comments about me and things that I had to say when I was standing up for British Columbians who work in the forest sector and are worried about their jobs. She criticized me because I dared to take on some of the environmental groups in this province — who are often foreign-funded, by the way — who have launched a boycott campaign against all B.C. wood products in China.

I note that some of these groups explicitly look to raise money in the United States. The Forest Action Network — the organization that organized the press conference in Vancouver and then was assisted by the David Suzuki Foundation, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and others…. If you go to their website, go to how to contribute to that organization and pull down the page that calls for you to make a donation to them using your credit card. In brackets you'll see that they only accept contributions in U.S. dollars. Scroll further to the bottom of the page, and it describes a number of other services that are only available to residents of the United States of America.

This is the kind of organization that the NDP wants to take its marching orders from. Gee, that's a little ironic. I thought the NDP portrayed itself as a nationalistic party, a party that didn't really like the Americans, that would go its own way. Here they're beholden to a group that explicitly solicits funds and, presumably, their marching orders from people in the United States.

That's not how we're about to make public policy in British Columbia. We're not going to be dependent upon people in the United States telling us how we should manage our land base for British Columbians. We think there's plenty of opportunity to preserve the wilderness attributes of British Columbia and have a vital and vigorous forest industry that is renewable for British Columbians.

My second and last question for the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings is: where does she stand on the boycott? Does she agree with those environmental groups that want to put British Columbians out of work that people in China should not buy wood products, even if they're salvaged from forest fire–damaged areas or from pine beetle infestations? That's what those environmental groups say. They say that nobody should buy any stick of wood from British Columbia. Does the NDP agree with that statement?

You know what? We haven't heard the NDP denounce that boycott campaign at all. They have been utterly silent. In fact, it's worse than that. Last month all of the NDP leadership hopefuls attended a leadership debate sponsored by some of the very groups that are hoping to put British Columbians out of work and prevent us from opening up a new market in China.

I support this bill. I support parks. I support protected areas. I've worked as a park ranger. I fought forest fires on the front lines, trying to protect our forests for British Columbians, not for some foreign-funded group that has the designated or intended purpose of putting British Columbians out of work but so that British Columbians can make choices about what we do with our land base, our resources, and our parks and protected areas.

I want to paraphrase a line from Apocalypse Now. It basically goes: "I love the sound of a good rant in the evening." That's what we heard from the Leader of the Opposition here tonight — very little fact. We're going to somehow build lodges in the trees, and people will have to go to the bathroom by going tree to tree. Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm running on the beach in the Flintstone village. Tailing ponds and clearcuts. You know, the only thing she missed was that perhaps the directional drilling was somehow a means of doing some underground logging, and we could learn to pull the trees down through the holes we were going to create with the drilling — I mean, pretty ridiculous stuff.

In fact, I'm going to ask some of my colleagues to give me a hand. As I sat listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I tried to score her. I want to congratulate her, by the way, because I know she doesn't believe any of what she said, but she's just a fine, fine actress. Nobody that has a shred of intelligence could say the things she said and really mean them. I know she was just having us on here, just having a bit of fun, so I scored her. First I gave her a score for being able to deliver her speech with a straight face. I gave her an 8. I thought it was pretty good. For ignoring facts totally, I gave her an 8 again. Wild exaggeration — 7, 8. I don't know.

R. Hawes: Nine. That'll be it. I think she did a marvellous job here tonight. She is to be congratulated for stretching the truth beyond any imaginable bounds.

This piece of legislation is a great piece of legislation for several reasons. One, it allows us to put some development into parks in the form of lodges where people want that type of development and where people are. Our population has changed. We've heard quite a bit about Manning Park. Well, Manning Park exists and the lodge is very successful because people want to go there.

The Leader of the Opposition doesn't seem to get it. When people want to do something and they have a desire to do something, to a great degree it's the job of government to try to provide that. People want to have activities in parks. People enjoy, in some parks, being able to go and stay in a lodge. If that's the case, there would be an opportunity for some commercial enterprise that — gosh, horror of horrors — might create some economy and a few jobs. It might put some people on the ground in some of these parks who would be there to have their eyes on the parks. You know, in this province we do suffer some vandalism problems in parks.

As we have been over the last decade, with the Leader of the Opposition's group, shrinking in economy but yet trying to protect the environment, the facts are…. Shame, shame on them for trying to protect the environment on the backs of the unemployed people they created. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

We're not doing that. Directional drilling, as has been said, has been going on here since 1997. It's not a new thing; it's not a scary thing. It's not going to disturb the surface in any park, but it might create an economy, and it might allow us to earn revenue, as a province, from the resources that lie under the parks. Gosh, horror of horrors, maybe we would get some money that we could reinvest in the parks and make them even better places. This legislation allows us to do those things. This legislation allows us to actually protect our parks and to make them places that are maintained properly and that are people-friendly.

I'm reminded of running in the election and sitting in an all-candidates forum where every candidate was asked if they even knew where Tatshenshini Park was. The Green Party and the NDP party hopefuls both said no, but that they really hoped to go there someday. Gosh, what a great thing. What a great environmental statement. I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble with people who talk about protecting the environment but don't want to earn any money to do it and want to take jobs away from people on a consistent basis. In fact, if I'm not mistaken….

The Leader of the Opposition speaks like it's such a horrible crime, the thought of logging a small area for a ski hill in a park area or for a lodge in a park area, when that's what the people want. They're so deathly afraid of this that when the pine beetle infestation started in Tweedsmuir Park…. Horror of horrors. "You can't log them. We would rather everything in the park die, and we'll take half the province out." Now it's running out of control — right? No common sense, no thought of reality and, like her speech, completely devoid of any rational thought — so a little bit scary.

I know, though, having listened for so long to what the Leader of the Opposition has to say, she's not a person that lacks intelligence. Because I know that, I know this was a spoof tonight. We heard her putting us on, and we heard her — really, I think, in her heart of hearts — supporting this legislation and supporting the minister that brought this good piece of legislation to us.

I've said this before in the House, and I would say this personally. In fact, I have said it personally to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that secretly, she would like to hold a membership in our party. She would love to be a member of this government, because she knows we're bringing great legislation in place, the stuff that she didn't have the power…. When she was among that old bunch for the last decade, she didn't have the power to stop them from doing all of the draconian things they did to destroy our province. We're fixing them. She wishes she could be with us, but like she said, she's leaving for another place.

I'm pleased to have been able to add my voice to the support for what the minister has done to bring it forward. I know others want to speak, so thank you.

D. Jarvis: I thought I'd get up to say a few words, seeing that my name had been trashed quite a bit by the member of the opposition, but also to say that I support Bill 84, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

I love parks. I've been to just about every park there is — large park or small park — all across B.C., up in the northwest and the northeast, in central British Columbia and on the west coast. I do love parks, and I go to all the parks all the time. I think what the member of the opposition was referring to about me when she suggested I said that I'd mine the hell out of the Tatshenshini…. It was about a decade ago when the NDP were embarking on their effort to destroy the economy of British Columbia. We were heading down the skids very fast, and we went from number one down to tenth spot.

During that time there was a question that they would be putting approximately 12 percent of British Columbia into parks. As a party, we agreed to that. We thought that was a great idea, and we did not try to make them change their minds at all. We just wanted it to be done in a fair and scientific method of doing it and that there should be some social and economic value to all the land in British Columbia. When they declared the fact that they were going to make the Tatshenshini into a park, they failed to really explain that it was a copper find up there.

The Tatshenshini area and the Haines triangle are approximately a million hectares of land, and there was only about a four-square-mile area that had any mineralization in it at all. They discovered a copper mine in there that was probably the wealthiest mine in

value in Canada. In fact, some of the copper mines down in the United States have up to 2 to 3 percent copper in it per tonne, whereas of most of the mines in Canada…. Our most thriving one is Highland Valley, for example, and it's got about 0.08 percent copper in there out of every tonne. It costs a lot of money to get that out.

Anyway, this mine had 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent copper in it. It would have brought billions into this country, so when they decided…. I guess in the heat of the argument we were having on the floor, I did say that we would mine the hell out of the park. I also said: "But in a responsible manner." I went on to say about mineralization being the short area.

Of course, I'm now sort of infamous in every NDP brochure in this country, because they all always forget that last part of the sentence that I put forward. Nevertheless, parks are a wonderful thing in this province.

As I'm talking about mining anyway, I might as well say that we do have a park in B.C. that does have a mine in it. That's over at Strathcona Park, in which we have the Myra Falls copper mine. As a matter of fact, it has opened up that area. Years ago when it went in there and put roads in, it made it accessible for people to get in and see that park. The economic aspect of Myra Falls is that that one mine produces more revenue for this province than the entire cruise industry that we have coming into British Columbia.

Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that this bill does not say one thing about mining in parks. And I do not know of anyone — a miner, someone that works in the logging industry, a forester, a rancher, a farmer…. None of them ever wakes up in the morning and says: "Look, I'm going to go out and destroy the land around me or the park." They wake up in the morning, go to work…. They live in those areas, and they love those areas, and they treat them respectfully. Centuries ago, back in my early youth, there were sort of abuses to the land, but the rules and regulations have changed nowadays, and people are responsible.

I know there are some more people wanting to say something about this bill, so I'll pretty well back off that now and close by saying that I support this bill. I think it's a good bill, and it will be to the benefit of all the people of British Columbia.

B. Bennett: I rise to speak in support of Bill 84. My time is short this evening, I'm told, so I'll get right to the point. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about this bill, that she doesn't support this bill, but she claims that she supports parks. Now, I grew up in a little town with a river flowing through it. Myself and my parents and my brothers fished and swam in the summer, and we hunted in the fall. We snowshoed in the winter, and we hiked in the spring. I've lived my whole life — I'm 53 years old — and I've never been far away from wilderness, and I've never been far away from parks.

It makes me wonder, when I listen to the Leader of the Opposition talking about parks, what she really means and what she really thinks of when she talks about parks. I think what a park is to the Leader of the Opposition is an idea. It's something that's out there, and it's a long ways from downtown Vancouver. It's something like maybe the Garden of Eden, some idyllic state where animals and birds and plants all live happily together with the humans, with nothing negative happening. Everybody is just really happy.

I guess if you're raised on a diet of Walt Disney and Bambi and this sort of thing, that is the way you relate to nature. When you've grown up like many of my colleagues in this House and many people in B.C. and rural B.C. have grown up — closer to nature — you have a different view of nature, and you have a different view of parks. Now, when I think of parks, what I think of is a natural system of plants and animals and fish and birds that interact, but they don't interact as peacefully and as benignly as the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest. In fact, there are wolves out there that are killing deer as we speak. The black bears in the spring follow the female moose, and when the female moose drop their calves, the black bears move in, and they take the calves and eat them. This is part of nature. This happens in our parks.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to feel that none of that happens, but even if it does happen, maybe in some little, dark space in her mind she really kind of comes to grips with that, because that's animals. That's not people. So it's okay for the animals, but we don't want any people in our parks. I know for ten years that's the message I got from the former government: "We don't want any people out there in the wilderness, because people are bad." I hear this from the environmentalists all the time. You know, everything is going to be okay as long as you keep the people out.

Well, people are not bad. People are not evil. It's okay for people to enter into parks and enjoy parks. What would be the purpose of having a park and not allowing anybody to go in the park and enjoy it?

I don't understand the perspective that was articulated here by the Leader of the Opposition, which seems to suggest that humans have no role to play in parks. We are part of nature. Humans are part of nature. We have an obligation….

B. Bennett: We have an obligation to manage our parks as well as the rest of the wilderness in this province.

Now, you could just throw your hands up in the air, as some people have suggested, and just let it all go. Let's see what happens if we let nature take its course. That's been tried in a few places. There's a big island out in Lake Superior where they did that a number of years ago, and what happened was that the population of white-tail deer was allowed to expand to such an extent that they all became diseased, and they died. You know, intelligent management, intelligent

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 84. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection closes debate.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm just going to put this bill in a bit of a broader context. This bill has a section that is around siting lodges and tourism development in parks in areas that are appropriate. It has a section that clarifies that directional drilling is allowed under parks and also makes it clear that there will be no access to the surface and no disturbance of the surface of the parks. Both of those aspects to this bill are about maintaining protection for the environment and having a sound and healthy environment.

Now, I contend that everybody in this province wants a clean, healthy and safe environment, one in which wilderness and wildlife are protected. That's what we want. We want to have our children inherit that, and we want their children to inherit that quality of environment, that quality of Super, Natural British Columbia that we're so proud of in our province.

People are all interested in a thriving economy. We're looking for an economy that's based on sustainability, and that's financial, social and environmental sustainability. We want meaningful work. We want a way to contribute to society. We want a way to feed our families, and we want to be able to do it in our communities — whether that's on Vancouver Island, in the Peace, the northwest, the Kootenays or the lower mainland.

How do we achieve these two very important objectives of a healthy environment and a healthy economy? Not by pitting them one against the other, as the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, likes to do. Not by creating conflict and division. Not by pitting people against each other. Not by tying up resources and blocking resources through battles that create winners and losers. My contention is that our government's way is succeeding. It's through principles such as science, setting standards, creating partnerships, expecting results and having the compliance, enforcement and penalties that back up those standards and the expectation that we'll see results.

That's what you see in our legislation and our regulatory changes and our policy changes. You see this government working with people, setting standards, using the best available science and expecting results.

I know we're tight for time, but I'm going to just give one example of the kind of positives in terms of partnerships and environmental protection and economic benefits that this legislation will support. That ties into a trip I made to Bella Bella not very long ago to sign a management agreement with the Heiltsuk first nation. Now, this is a first nation that had been excluded from the management of the protected area that was in their claim territory, and for 15 years they were frustrated that they had not been included in the management and direction of this protected area.

Over the past couple of years my ministry staff and I have worked towards developing an agreement with the Heiltsuk first nation, and I had the privilege of going to Bella Bella to sign that agreement about six weeks ago. It was a very positive time for both the Heiltsuk first nation and our government, and we were all proud to have developed that agreement that brought the first nation into comanagement of that protected area.

But the point I want to make is…. I went in a boat with two chiefs of the Heiltsuk first nation, and they took me to one of the most spectacular spots right in the middle of the Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy Area — to a resort. That resort respected the character of the park, the protected area. That resort was being negotiated for new ownership. Those owners were discussing a partnership with the first nations. The first nations were looking forward to some economic opportunities in an area where there are limited economic opportunities and for a group that has a very high unemployment rate. That lodge was being looked for by the first nation to create some jobs and partnership. That lodge is in the middle of a park. The member opposite would claim that's a bad thing to do. I disagree.

This particular act will encourage that kind of lodge to be situated in our parks and protected areas, will respect the environment and the conservation objectives of our parks and protected areas, and will create opportunities for partnerships, for jobs, for economic improvement in the lives of people local to our parks. I think that's a very important thing to do. I'm proud that we're doing that. That's what this act is intended to do.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 84, Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Wilson
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Brenzinger
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Christensen
Krueger	Bray	Les
Locke	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan


	YEAS — 58

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Wilson
Lee	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Clark	Bond
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Hawkins	Hansen
Santori	Barisoff	Wilson
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Stephens	Neufeld	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Chutter	Bennett	R. Stewart
Christensen	Krueger	Bray
Les	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hawes
	Hunter

	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail